Double Slit Experiment [Archive]

View Full Version : Double Slit Experiment

Terry Giblin

09-03-10, 08:15 AM

Here is a diagram of the experiment.

http://a.imageshack.us/img340/1843/terrygiblindse.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img838/4332/terrygiblindoubleslitex.jpg

I always assumed that the above diagrams were self-explanatory. Please accept my apology.

But before you can begin to understand the diagrams, you must first watch and listen to the Richard Feynman lectures (http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/index.html) and Richard Feynman - Science Videos (http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8).

I also like Dr Quantum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc).

Now you should have a good understanding of the double slit experiment.

You also need to know about Quantum Tunneling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LKjJT7gh9s).

And finally Schrodinger's Cat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SjFJImg2Z8).

What happens if you add these three scientific facts together, in one experiment.

Schrodinger's Cat, Quantum Tunneling and the double slit experiment.

From Black Holes to Electrons, all Quantum Tunneling through to cause interference.

Now instead of one cat, put millions of cats in the box (the source).

Are all the "cats" still inside the box, or have some gone on a random "walk about"?

I always get the same interference pattern, from electrons to cats to black holes.

We can now, go even deeper than the original Richard Feynman double slit experiment and remove the "source" completely, without changing the experiment..

So what is, "The fundamental structure of space and time?"

"That's the way nature works, ... If you don't like it? Go somewhere else. To another universe...."

Any questions?

Alpha, Omega - Be light Made

Light in, Light out.

Terry Giblin

Terry Giblin

09-03-10, 01:08 PM

Pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience) (wiki).

In this forum, does that mean no one discusses, "the big bang theory", "inflationary theory", "p-brane theories", "time travel", "worm holes theory", "multi-universe theories", "mini quantum black hole theory", "the 'god' particle theory"?

( This is my once and only time I will ever mention or discuss these theories. - What's the point of advertising or talking about something you don't believe in.)

Are these left outside, to the science fiction writer's? - No science, just lots of free publicity and book sales.

There is so much science fiction, which is now called science it is difficult to know who or what to believe.

Why did I not come here sooner, peace at last. - No more BS.

In eight years, no one has called my experiment "pseudo", I suppose it depends on how deep you want to go. The dead cats, were perhaps a little to much.

Or was it the reference to "The fundamental structure of space and time", that is just one of the predictions of the experiment.

Welcome to my world.

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute.

"That's the way nature works, ... If you don't like it? Go somewhere else. To another universe...."

Any questions?

Alpha, Omega - Be light Made

Light in, Light out.

Terry Giblin

BenTheMan

09-03-10, 04:37 PM

In this forum, does that mean no one discusses, "the big bang theory", "inflationary theory", "p-brane theories", "time travel", "worm holes theory", "multi-universe theories", "mini quantum black hole theory", "the 'god' particle theory"?

The discussion in this forum is less moderated than in Physics and Math. Typically, I place threads in Pseudoscience if I feel that they're challenging the orthodoxy, so to speak. In other words, I find it highly doubtful that anyone is going to overturn 100 years of good work by smart people on a science discussion forum.

You may be right, but based on my judgement of the content, and the way that you've chosen your words (``be light made''?), I don't think your threads should be in Physics and Maths. You are, of course, free to take your case to Stryder, Plazma or JamesR.

Terry Giblin

09-04-10, 09:42 AM

Dear BenTheMan,

I am for ever apologizing, I ll never make a politician. - There goes my funding.

First of all there is no such thing as a negative result, in science, when ever someone studies something, by definition, our knowledge has increased.

But these are the symptoms of the problem, not the solution, and definitely not the cause or original source. These are problems looking outwards, where as I am looking for solutions inwardly.

The best recent example I can think of, is Ed Witten and M Theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1H--JLePu4).

If I "invented" a new and better definition or concept of "time", for example, would clocks stop ticking!

Terry Giblin

09-04-10, 11:43 AM

Unfinished revolution
C . ROVELLI
One hundred and forty-four years elapsed between the publication of Copernicus’s
De Revolutionibus, which opened the great scientific revolution of the seventeenth
century, and the publication of Newton’s Principia, the final synthesis that brought
that revolution to a spectacularly successful end. During those 144 years, the basic
grammar for understanding the physical world changed and the old picture of
reality was reshaped in depth.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, General Relativity (GR) and Quantum
Mechanics (QM) once again began reshaping our basic understanding of space and
time and, respectively, matter, energy and causality – arguably to a no lesser extent.
But we have not been able to combine these new insights into a novel coherent
synthesis, yet. The twentieth-century scientific revolution opened by GR and QM
is therefore still wide open. We are in the middle of an unfinished scientific revolution.
Quantum Gravity is the tentative name we give to the “synthesis to be
found”.
In fact, our present understanding of the physical world at the fundamental level
is in a state of great confusion. The present knowledge of the elementary dynamical
laws of physics is given by the application of QM to fields, namely Quantum
Field Theory (QFT), by the particle-physics Standard Model (SM), and by GR.
This set of fundamental theories has obtained an empirical success nearly unique
in the history of science: so far there isn’t any clear evidence of observed phenomena
that clearly escape or contradict this set of theories – or a minor modification of
the same, such as a neutrino mass or a cosmological constant.1 But, the theories in
this set are based on badly self-contradictory assumptions. In GR the gravitational
field is assumed to be a classical deterministic dynamical field, identified with the
(pseudo) Riemannian metric of spacetime: but with QM we have understood that
all dynamical fields have quantum properties. The other way around, conventional
1 Dark matter (not dark energy) might perhaps be contrary evidence.
Approaches to Quantum Gravity: Toward a New Understanding of Space, Time and Matter, ed. Daniele Oriti.
Published by Cambridge University Press. c Cambridge University Press 2009.
4 C. Rovelli
QFT relies heavily on global Poincaré invariance and on the existence of a
non-dynamical background spacetime metric: but with GR we have understood
that there is no such non-dynamical background spacetime metric in nature.
In spite of their empirical success, GR and QM offer a schizophrenic and confused
understanding of the physical world. The conceptual foundations of classical
GR are contradicted by QM and the conceptual foundation of conventional QFT
are contradicted by GR. Fundamental physics is today in a peculiar phase of deep
conceptual confusion.
Some deny that such a major internal contradiction in our picture of nature exists.
On the one hand, some refuse to take QM seriously. They insist that QM makes no
sense, after all, and therefore the fundamental world must be essentially classical.
This doesn’t put us in a better shape, as far as our understanding of the world is
concerned.
Others, on the other hand, and in particular some hard-core particle physicists, do
not accept the lesson of GR. They read GR as a field theory that can be consistently
formulated in full on a fixed metric background, and treated within conventional
QFT methods. They motivate this refusal by insisting than GR’s insight should not
be taken too seriously, because GR is just a low-energy limit of a more fundamental
theory. In doing so, they confuse the details of the Einstein’s equations (which
might well be modified at high energy), with the new understanding of space and
time brought by GR. This is coded in the background independence of the fundamental
theory and expresses Einstein’s discovery that spacetime is not a fixed background,
as was assumed in special relativistic physics, but rather a dynamical field.
Nowadays this fact is finally being recognized even by those who have long
refused to admit that GR forces a revolution in the way to think about space and
time, such as some of the leading voices in string theory. In a recent interview
[1], for instance, Nobel laureate David Gross says: “ [...] this revolution will likely
change the way we think about space and time, maybe even eliminate them completely
as a basis for our description of reality”. This is of course something that
has been known since the 1930s [2] by anybody who has taken seriously the problem
of the implications of GR and QM. The problem of the conceptual novelty of
GR, which the string approach has tried to throw out of the door, comes back by
the window.
These and others remind me of Tycho Brahe, who tried hard to conciliate Copernicus’s
advances with the “irrefutable evidence” that the Earth is immovable at the
center of the universe. To let the background spacetime go is perhaps as difficult
as letting go the unmovable background Earth. The world may not be the way it
appears in the tiny garden of our daily experience.
Today, many scientists do not hesitate to take seriously speculations such as
extra dimensions, new symmetries or multiple universes, for which there isn’t a
Unfinished revolution 5
wit of empirical evidence; but refuse to take seriously the conceptual implications
of the physics of the twentieth century with the enormous body of empirical evidence
supporting them. Extra dimensions, new symmetries, multiple universes and
the like, still make perfectly sense in a pre-GR, pre-QM, Newtonian world,
while to take GR and QM seriously together requires a genuine reshaping of our
world view.
After a century of empirical successes that have equals only in Newton’s and
Maxwell’s theories, it is time to take seriously GR and QM, with their full conceptual
implications; to find a way of thinking the world in which what we have
learned with QM and what we have learned with GR make sense together – finally
bringing the twentieth-century scientific revolution to its end. This is the problem
of Quantum Gravity.
1.1 Quantum spacetime
Roughly speaking, we learn from GR that spacetime is a dynamical field and we
learn from QM that all dynamical field are quantized. A quantum field has a granular
structure, and a probabilistic dynamics, that allows quantum superposition of
different states. Therefore at small scales we might expect a “quantum spacetime”
formed by “quanta of space” evolving probabilistically, and allowing “quantum
superposition of spaces”. The problem of Quantum Gravity is to give a precise
mathematical and physical meaning to this vague notion of “quantum spacetime”.
Some general indications about the nature of quantum spacetime, and on
the problems this notion raises, can be obtained from elementary considerations.
The size of quantum mechanical effects is determined by Planck’s constant . The
strength of the gravitational force is determined by Newton’s constant G, and the
relativistic domain is determined by the speed of light c. By combining these three
fundamental constants we obtain the Planck length lP =

G/c3 ∼ 10−33 cm.
Quantum-gravitational effects are likely to be negligible at distances much larger
than lP, because at these scales we can neglect quantities of the order of G, or 1/c.
Therefore we expect the classical GR description of spacetime as a pseudo-
Riemannian space to hold at scales larger than lP, but to break down approaching
this scale, where the full structure of quantum spacetime becomes relevant. Quantum
Gravity is therefore the study of the structure of spacetime at the Planck
scale.
1.1.1 Space
Many simple arguments indicate that lP may play the role of a minimal length, in
the same sense in which c is the maximal velocity and the minimal exchanged
action.
6 C. Rovelli
For instance, the Heisenberg principle requires that the position of an object of
mass m can be determined only with uncertainty x satisfying mvx > , where v
is the uncertainty in the velocity; special relativity requires v < c; and according
to GR there is a limit to the amount of mass we can concentrate in a region of size
x, given by x > Gm/c2, after which the region itself collapses into a black hole,
subtracting itself from our observation. Combining these inequalities we obtain
x > lP. That is, gravity, relativity and quantum theory, taken together, appear to
prevent position from being determined more precisely than the Planck scale.
A number of considerations of this kind have suggested that space might not be
infinitely divisible. It may have a quantum granularity at the Planck scale, analogous
to the granularity of the energy in a quantum oscillator. This granularity of
space is fully realized in certain Quantum Gravity theories, such as loop Quantum
Gravity, and there are hints of it also in string theory. Since this is a quantum
granularity, it escapes the traditional objections to the atomic nature of space.
1.1.2 Time
Time is affected even more radically by the quantization of gravity. In conventional
QM, time is treated as an external parameter and transition probabilities change
in time. In GR there is no external time parameter. Coordinate time is a gauge
variable which is not observable, and the physical variable measured by a clock is
a nontrivial function of the gravitational field. Fundamental equations of Quantum
Gravity might therefore not be written as evolution equations in an observable time
variable. And in fact, in the quantum-gravity equation par excellence, the Wheeler–
deWitt equation, there is no time variable t at all.
Much has been written on the fact that the equations of nonperturbative Quantum
Gravity do not contain the time variable t. This presentation of the “problem of
time in Quantum Gravity”, however, is a bit misleading, since it mixes a problem
of classical GR with a specific Quantum Gravity issue. Indeed, classical GR as
well can be entirely formulated in the Hamilton–Jacobi formalism, where no time
variable appears either.
In classical GR, indeed, the notion of time differs strongly from the one used in
the special-relativistic context. Before special relativity, one assumed that there is
a universal physical variable t, measured by clocks, such that all physical phenomena
can be described in terms of evolution equations in the independent variable t.
In special relativity, this notion of time is weakened. Clocks do not measure a universal
time variable, but only the proper time elapsed along inertial trajectories. If
we fix a Lorentz frame, nevertheless, we can still describe all physical phenomena
in terms of evolution equations in the independent variable x0, even though this
description hides the covariance of the system.
Unfinished revolution 7
In general relativity, when we describe the dynamics of the gravitational field
(not to be confused with the dynamics of matter in a given gravitational field),
there is no external time variable that can play the role of observable independent
evolution variable. The field equations are written in terms of an evolution parameter,
which is the time coordinate x0; but this coordinate does not correspond to
anything directly observable. The proper time τ along spacetime trajectories cannot
be used as an independent variable either, as τ is a complicated non-local
function of the gravitational field itself. Therefore, properly speaking, GR does
not admit a description as a system evolving in terms of an observable time variable.
This does not mean that GR lacks predictivity. Simply put, what GR predicts
are relations between (partial) observables, which in general cannot be represented
as the evolution of dependent variables on a preferred independent time
variable.
This weakening of the notion of time in classical GR is rarely emphasized: after
all, in classical GR we may disregard the full dynamical structure of the theory and
consider only individual solutions of its equations of motion. A single solution of
the GR equations of motion determines “a spacetime”, where a notion of proper
time is associated to each timelike worldline.
But in the quantum context a single solution of the dynamical equation is like a
single “trajectory” of a quantum particle: in quantum theory there are no physical
individual trajectories: there are only transition probabilities between observable
eigenvalues. Therefore in Quantum Gravity it is likely to be impossible to describe
the world in terms of a spacetime, in the same sense in which the motion of a
quantum electron cannot be described in terms of a single trajectory.
To make sense of the world at the Planck scale, and to find a consistent conceptual
framework for GR and QM, we might have to give up the notion of time
altogether, and learn ways to describe the world in atemporal terms. Time might be
a useful concept only within an approximate description of the physical reality.
1.1.3 Conceptual issues
The key difficulty of Quantum Gravity may therefore be to find a way to understand
the physical world in the absence of the familiar stage of space and time. What
might be needed is to free ourselves from the prejudices associated with the habit
of thinking of the world as “inhabiting space” and “evolving in time”.
Technically, this means that the quantum states of the gravitational field cannot
be interpreted like the n-particle states of conventional QFT as living on a given
spacetime. Rather, these quantum states must themselves determine and define a
spacetime – in the manner in which the classical solutions of GR do.
8 C. Rovelli
Conceptually, the key question is whether or not it is logically possible to understand
the world in the absence of fundamental notions of time and time evolution,
and whether or not this is consistent with our experience of the world.
The difficulties of Quantum Gravity are indeed largely conceptual. Progress in
Quantum Gravity cannot be just technical. The search for a quantum theory of gravity
raises once more old questions such as: What is space? What is time? What is
the meaning of “moving”? Is motion to be defined with respect to objects or with
respect to space? And also: What is causality? What is the role of the observer
in physics? Questions of this kind have played a central role in periods of major
advances in physics. For instance, they played a central role for Einstein, Heisenberg,
and Bohr; but also for Descartes, Galileo, Newton and their contemporaries,
as well as for Faraday and Maxwell.
Today some physicists view this manner of posing problems as “too philosophical”.
Many physicists of the second half of the twentieth century, indeed, have
viewed questions of this nature as irrelevant. This view was appropriate for the
problems they were facing. When the basics are clear and the issue is problemsolving
within a given conceptual scheme, there is no reason to worry about
foundations: a pragmatic approach is the most effective one. Today the kind of
difficulties that fundamental physics faces has changed. To understand quantum
spacetime, physics has to return, once more, to those foundational questions.

Terry Giblin

09-05-10, 08:36 AM

I would like to thank alephnull, for his link to Stanford University.

And in particular to Leonard Susskind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind).

Have you watched his first lecture on Special Relativity? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY&feature=PlayList&p=CCD6C043FEC59772&index=0)

Einstein said it best, "If anyone understood me (new the truth), they would not like me."

I know the feeling. I have been trying to say it for years.

If you don't believe me, listen to Prof. Susskind, you get the same diagrams and conclusions.

Eulers formula,

http://www.gogeometry.com/e_i_pi_full.jpg

Now apply special and general relativity and you get,

http://a.imageshack.us/img444/7485/structureofquasars.jpg

Light in, Light out.

Any more questions?

CptBork

09-05-10, 06:40 PM

A few stick figure scientists would most definitely add clarity to your illustrations. Please consider adding them.

Green Destiny

09-06-10, 12:58 AM

Terry, isn't your equation wrong, you know, the one stated as E^2=(M^2c^4)^2+(-M^2c^4). A negative energy plus a positive energy mathematically equals zero??

Mc^2 +(-Mc^2)=0

Not to mention none of you work above takes anyone through any literature which would shed light on what you are trying to propose.

AlphaNumeric

09-06-10, 02:19 PM

Terry, isn't your equation wrongAlong with pretty much everything else he says.

you knowNo, he doesn't.

Not to mention none of you work above takes anyone through any literature which would shed light on what you are trying to propose. Terry hasn't read 'the literature', he thinks watching a video on YouTube makes you knowledgeable in quantum field theory and relativity.

Green Destiny

09-06-10, 02:32 PM

Along with pretty much everything else he says.

No, he doesn't.

Terry hasn't read 'the literature', he thinks watching a video on YouTube makes you knowledgeable in quantum field theory and relativity.

You know, I could have swore one time he admitted to yourself of being a physicist.

What a joke.

AlphaNumeric

09-07-10, 01:35 AM

Terry claims to have done physics, including starting a PhD in fluid mechanics. He refers to the most senior scientist in the UK, the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, as his 'mentor' because Terry read a pop science book Sir Martin wrote years ago. Terry thinks '3' was the solution to the problem he supposedly had for his PhD project, as if that's enough to solve a PhD level problem. Terry believes that because he's been in the same room as famous knowledgeable competent physicists then his ability is somehow elevated. He refers to he's 'welcome' at any university in the UK but this is his way of saying he's not banned from any campus, just like 99.99999% of the general public, as if being able to walk into a university building somehow means he's able to do or understand the work done by the people in that building.

If Terry really did do physics at degree level he's forgotten what physics really is. He said in another thread that he doesn't need to learn the specifics of things like general relativity as computers can solve it all anyway. Anyone who understands what physics is knows its not just "Here is an equation, solve it" but "What equations describe this phenomenon?". Despite Terry's claims to be taking a 'real world' view of physics he wouldn't know real physics if it set fire to his trousers.

CptBork

09-07-10, 09:44 AM

Green Destiny

09-07-10, 12:42 PM

Yes, i agree Bork.

AlphaNumeric

09-07-10, 01:42 PM

Plus to truly learn physics and understand it, you have to practice it by applying the principles to solve thousands of problems. You'll never learn the true meaning behind physical concepts unless you play with the math, go through the deductions, explore the little details, and learn to describe and model realistic systems. Experience doing actual experiments in real labs with proper equipment also helps a great deal, otherwise your learning will be disconnected from reality.Yeah, its worrying how often I've seen a student be able to solve a problem when told the method to use yet when its up to them to realise "Oh this is just a particular case of that" or "This is that reworded" they fall flat on their face. Of course it happens to us all, experience is something you can't teach, but when a student is walked through something for the 4th time and still doesn't get how parts a, b and c connect to part d of a question its infuriating.

I've been guilty of it too, thinking to myself "I've read that, I therefore understand it". Trying to do the exercises at the end of a chapter in a book is a step too often skipped.

Terry's position is worse than that, because he thinks watching the Feynman lectures imparts knowledge that say not watching but reading the books would not impart. Watching a video takes no effort at all, I can literally do it asleep. Reading a book at least takes concentration.

CptBork

09-08-10, 07:34 AM

Yeah, its worrying how often I've seen a student be able to solve a problem when told the method to use yet when its up to them to realise "Oh this is just a particular case of that" or "This is that reworded" they fall flat on their face. Of course it happens to us all, experience is something you can't teach, but when a student is walked through something for the 4th time and still doesn't get how parts a, b and c connect to part d of a question its infuriating.

I've been guilty of it too, thinking to myself "I've read that, I therefore understand it". Trying to do the exercises at the end of a chapter in a book is a step too often skipped.

Terry's position is worse than that, because he thinks watching the Feynman lectures imparts knowledge that say not watching but reading the books would not impart. Watching a video takes no effort at all, I can literally do it asleep. Reading a book at least takes concentration.

Watching vids is nothing, they're only good for illustrating things you already learn about in the more traditional way. How is someone supposed to squash years of math training into a few hours of video, anyhow? Even with the actual Feynman Lectures books, which I believe cover a 2 year course, I found the material lacking, and answers to detailed questions had to be found in other, more focussed resources.

Yeah, it seems to me if Terry thinks he's communicating a brilliant new insight by taping some pages together and spamming the thread with (conceptually) disconnected diagrams, then his understanding of the building blocks in science must be awful. I think I know what he needs to fix the problem though, I think his diagrams could use a little more cowbell (http://www.buzzhumor.com/videos/28180/More_Cowbell).

Terry Giblin

09-08-10, 02:00 PM

Plus to truly learn physics and understand it, you have to practice it by applying the principles to solve thousands of problems. You'll never learn the true meaning behind physical concepts unless you play with the math, go through the deductions, explore the little details, and learn to describe and model realistic systems. Experience doing actual experiments in real labs with proper equipment also helps a great deal, otherwise your learning will be disconnected from reality.

You get no argument from me, it doesn't take a genius to know practice makes perfect. Especially when it comes to mathematics, practicing and going through all the examples is the only way to learn.

But you seem to be missing the most important fact about science, especially mathematics and physics, which is to use what you have learned to apply it to the unknown and make predictions.

I remember studying the Maxwell Equations (http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell/maxwell_hand.htm) and realizing the true beauty and power of mathematics.

Based purely on Maxwell "mathematical equations", it is possible to make several predictions about electricity and magnetism, for example that somewhere in the world, even if I had never seen one, a piece of metal would should the properties of magnetism, ie they would be magnets.

Using only mathematics to predicting the physical properties of magnets, that beauty, that's the power of mathematics.

http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_hand_all1.JPG

Another and very important point you are also missing, we all have different ways of learning.

As it happens I prefer diagrams and listening to someone, rather than reading a book, which is why when I watched and listen to the Richard Feynman lectures, most of what I read in books all started to make sense.

Green Destiny

09-08-10, 02:25 PM

Terry, read my avatars message, shut your hole you sanctimonious little worm.

I hate people proclaiming understanding of a physical theory which cannot at present be toppled.

You know Terry, I have a lot of respect for psuedoscience, for in rare cases they can state trivial truths, which can be at a later date validated - mind you - with the array of cranks persistant on the net, this ratio is small compared to possibly those maveriks we meet here, hence not you.

Move on, or learn something before declaring anything on it. Just some advice.

Terry Giblin

09-08-10, 04:05 PM

What can I say about Alpha(Nob), without getting banned......

Everything he writes, he writes very carefully, so that it contains 95% of polite and factual information and 5% of crass lies and insinuations and false information.

Terry claims to have done physics, including starting a PhD in fluid mechanics.

Terry thinks '3' was the solution to the problem he supposedly had for his PhD project, as if that's enough to solve a PhD level problem.

Yes, as per my CV, I had a degree in Maths and Physics.

Yes I studied for a PhD, in Computational Fluid Dynamics, working for British Aerospace in collaboration with Bristol University, to design the engine configuration and layout of HOTOL, to make sure and avoid shock waves from damaging the rocket itself.

What amazes me, is that I calculated and solved the problem in six months, answer 3. - Which Alpha(Nob) disputes.

Yet, neither he or his father or his 25 post docs, after nearly 5 years since we have been having this argument, has still to been able to prove or deny my claim.

It is time he shut or prove me wrong, by showing me his or his fathers answer.

I will stake my reputation that the answer is 3. Yet Alpha(Nob) and all his 'merry men' cannot even solve the problem I solved over 20 years ago.

He refers to the most senior scientist in the UK, the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, as his 'mentor' because Terry read a pop science book Sir Martin wrote years ago.

The most senior scientist in the UK, the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees.

And I chose, him as my mentor.....

In 1987, out of all the mathematicians and Physicists in the world, just by 'chance', I happened to picked and read everything Martin Rees wrote.

There was no chance involved.

It is only a reflection of my dedicated hard work and in depth studying of the subject, that I came to choose Martin Rees as my mentor. I respected the man and I respected the work which he did involving Quasars.

I am not surprised he became the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, he gets my vote.

Ironically, when I last posted my work on Quasars, Alpha(Nob) attacked and criticized the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees own work.

And for the record, I would not call the IAU (http://www.iau.org/), as a 'popular science book'.

Light in, Light out.

Terry Giblin

09-08-10, 04:57 PM

I have a lot of respect for psuedoscience, for in rare cases they can state trivial truths, which can be at a later date validated.

I hate people proclaiming understanding of a physical theory which cannot at present be toppled.

""Forum Mafia's" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIqlysM9DTo) always hunt in packs.

Please accept my apology, but from previous experience dealing with "Alpha(nob)" and his wing man rpenner, they are know to attack in groups.

He gets all his forum mafia friends to create new accounts and together they attack anyone they don't like repeatedly, with lies and personal attacks.

So if you don't mind if I natural assume your one of them.

If you don't like what I have to say, everyone is entitled to their own option.

If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it, go somewhere else.

With regards to 'psuedoscience', it was bentheman who moved this thread into this forum, I think he was doing it for my benefit, but I don't understand.

I discussed performing this experiment, at CERN years ago, but what's the point I know it works.

It can't be toppled because it correct, that's the whole point.

For over 40 years people have tried to solve the Double Slit Experiment, but all they have done is widen the discussion, using different number of slits etc., but none has ever gone deeper, until now.

That's why I said I solved it, for the first time in 40 years, I did something which was very simple but mind blowing.

I realized if you remove the 'source', place it behind a quantum barrier, you don't change the experiment.

Everything from black holes to electrons, quantum tunnels through to cause and interference pattern.

Why, simple everything we see in the world, at its heart is a wave.

That's the true beauty of this experiment, it is so simple and so easy to understand and see.

Why did no one think of it sooner. - It has taken me 20 years to find a solution which works.

Now there is no argument or disagreement, everything we understand and know about the universe is correct and here is a Physics diagram to prove it.

It is so simple and beautiful, people don't fully appreciate the true significance.

It is so obvious, yet so true.

Light in, Light out.

Green Destiny

09-08-10, 04:58 PM

What can I say about Alpha(Nob), without getting banned......

Everything he writes, he writes very carefully, so that it contains 95% of polite and factual information and 5% of crass lies and insinuations and false information.

Yes, as per my CV, I had a degree in Maths and Physics.

Yes I studied for a PhD, in Computational Fluid Dynamics, working for British Aerospace in collaboration with Bristol University, to design the engine configuration and layout of HOTOL, to make sure and avoid shock waves from damaging the rocket itself.

What amazes me, is that I calculated and solved the problem in six months, answer 3. - Which Alpha(Nob) disputes.

Yet, neither he or his father or his 25 post docs, after nearly 5 years since we have been having this argument, has still to been able to prove or deny my claim.

It is time he shut or prove me wrong, by showing me his or his fathers answer.

I will stake my reputation that the answer is 3. Yet Alpha(Nob) and all his 'merry men' cannot even solve the problem I solved over 20 years ago.

The most senior scientist in the UK, the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees.

And I chose, him as my mentor.....

In 1987, out of all the mathematicians and Physicists in the world, just by 'chance', I happened to picked and read everything Martin Rees wrote.

There was no chance involved.

It is only a reflection of my dedicated hard work and in depth studying of the subject, that I came to choose Martin Rees as my mentor. I respected the man and I respected the work which he did involving Quasars.

I am not surprised he became the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, he gets my vote.

Ironically, when I last posted my work on Quasars, Alpha(Nob) attacked and criticized the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees own work.

And for the record, I would not call the IAU (http://www.iau.org/), as a 'popular science book'.

Light in, Light out.

Why do you do that? Always end a post in the estranged idiom ''light in, light out.''

It's such a bizarre thing to do. Is there any merit of understanding when you use it?

Terry Giblin

09-08-10, 06:05 PM

I hate people proclaiming understanding of a physical theory which cannot at present be toppled.

Dear Green Destiny,

Congratulations, you might not believe this but you are the very first person to admit, the experiment works. :)

"The basic element of quantum theory is the double-slit experiment. It is a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman

He else also said, who ever solves the Double slit experiment, will win a Nobel Prize. - Time will tell.

http://a.imageshack.us/img340/1843/terrygiblindse.jpg

Now compare this with Josephson Junction (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-are-josephson-juncti).

http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/img/josephson_junction.gif?475605ef=

Which is almost identical to my experiment, but in reverse.

Which begs the question, which came idea came first, the Josephson Junction or "Quantum fluctuations"? It would be interesting to know the answer to this question.

Everything is easy, once you know the answer and what you are looking for.

Now do you get the 'picture'.

Light in, Light out.

AlphaNumeric

09-09-10, 01:27 AM

Yes, as per my CV, I had a degree in Maths and Physics.Then you've forgotten all of it, as you seem to have no grasp of even the ethos of science, let alone the details.

What amazes me, is that I calculated and solved the problem in six months, answer 3. - Which Alpha(Nob) disputes.I dispute that any project worth a PhD can have an answer summed up in a single 1 digit number. The route to the solution is as important, if not more than, the solution itself.

Yet, neither he or his father or his 25 post docs, after nearly 5 years since we have been having this argument, has still to been able to prove or deny my claim. My father knows nothing of you, in that I don't speak to him about you and you obviously aren't known in the community. Its not on me to disprove your claims, its on you to prove them. Your inability to hold a coherent conversation shows that regardless of what you may have done in the past you are incapable of doing science now.

It is time he shut or prove me wrong, by showing me his or his fathers answer.Flawed logic. The ability (or not) of anyone else to provide a detailed model of rocket exhausts has nothing to do with your claims. Your 'evidence' for your claim was the picture of jet engines having particular exhaust patterns. Hardly the evidence a serious scientist would provide.

I will stake my reputation that the answer is 3. You cannot stake what you do not have.

Yet Alpha(Nob) and all his 'merry men' cannot even solve the problem I solved over 20 years ago. If the problem was hard enough to be worth awarding a PhD and took someone working on it full time 6 months (at least) then even if you weren't full of it it would mean that someone isn't going to solve such a thing in their spare time. I'm not going to waste my time on you Terry, this post is something I am typing in the morning while eating my breakfast. For the rest of the day I won't spend 1 nanosecond thinking about you. I have my own research to do, research for my employer who expects results. Unlike you I can't just provide Google image search pictures and say "That's the solution", I have to come up with results.

The most senior scientist in the UK, the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees.

And I chose, him as my mentor.....

In 1987, out of all the mathematicians and Physicists in the world, just by 'chance', I happened to picked and read everything Martin Rees wrote. Reading someone's books and claiming them as your 'mentor' is disingenuous, as saying "X was my mentor" implies a personal relationship, which you have not had with Sir Martin.

I respected the man and I respected the work which he did involving Quasars.Respecting the man and his work doesn't make him your mentor.

Ironically, when I last posted my work on Quasars, Alpha(Nob) attacked and criticized the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees own work. Terry, you complain that I attack you and yet you constantly come out with such lies (at least this isn't as gross a lie as some of your previous ones). I didn't attack his work, I rubbished your claims you understood it and have done science.

Which is almost identical to my experiment, but in reverse.
Then you clearly have no clue about Josephson gates.

Terry Giblin

09-10-10, 04:36 PM

Einstein's genius was to realize that if the speed of light is constant and nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, it must have implications if you are traveling at a high percentage of the speed of light, to begin with.

If you accept that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then special and general relativity naturally follows.

The same applies to my double slit experiment, once you see the solution, it is and looks so obvious, that you cannot understand my excitement.

The same use to happen when I use to go round asking people "what is an electron" I was once told, "If I switch on the light switch and the light comes on, who cares were the electron came from."

If you think about it carefully, I took just for example, three of the best and well known quantum physics 'thought' and real experiments, Schrodinger's Cat, quantum tunneling and the double slit experiment and combined all three into one simple experiment.

I 'collapsed' all three ideas and experiments, into one real performable consistent experiment, with its own valid explanation. Using standard accepted physics.

If you look at my experiment it is obvious that is works and agrees with all accepted physics, so where is the big fuss.

But that is exactly the point I am trying to make, my version of the Double Slit Experiment, encompasses the whole of Quantum Mechanics in one diagram.

Once again I apologize, its not the best diagram in the world and I only drew it as a joke.

So allow me to explain what I see when I look at the diagram.

"If you remove the source, you don't change the experiment."

In the diagram I have drawn a black hole and an electron, these are to represent everything in the known universe, to represent the source.

Then using quantum tunneling, I block out the source from view, "I remove the source", by placing it behind a quantum barrier.

I can't see the source, but I still see an interference pattern behind the double slits.

If I get the same interference pattern, regardless of what source I use, whether it is a black hole or an electron, it automatically tells me that 'deep' down all sources are the same in nature and behaviour.

QED - Light, electrons and everything up to a black hole, all behave and exhibit the same behaviour and produce an interference pattern, because fundamentally, deep down, they are the same.

Light in, Light out.

hf - (mc2) - hf.

In the diagram I label 'real' source (matter) as "+mc2" and behind the quantum barrier, I label the 'imaginary' source as -mc2.

This is whole purpose of the experiment, it is simply a diagram which shows and demonstrates what we already know and understand.

The original double slit experiment, Schrodinger's cat and quantum tunneling 'thought' experiments, as intended and designed, was to highlight the complexity and bizarre nature of quantum mechanics.

My thought experiment, combines all three into one, in a way no one had ever thought of before.

Another simple example, would be to simply use a piece of radioactive material as the source. A simple piece of rock and watch the interference pattern form.

The experiment looks so simple but it took me 20 years to think of it. Like everyone else for the first 20 years I only widened the discussion and experiment. It was a single moment of genius, to see something which had been staring everyone in the face, if we had only put them together.

Once I realized I could place one quantum barrier in front of the source, I immediately realized I could place as many quantum barriers as I liked, without changing the experiment.

Sidney Coleman (http://www.physics.harvard.edu/about/Phys253.html) said it best "an infinite number of quantum exponential dampers...."

I then asked the question, "how does an electron, get from the center of a piece of wire, to the outside." - As demonstrated and indicated in the diagram the answer is quantum tunneling. - Because it can.

Now I am forced, with the use of a diagram, to see that everything in the universe is made of waves, but if I try to observe them or interfere with them, I simply collapse their wave function.

If the double slit experiment is the "Grand daddy of all Quantum Mechanics" I am very pleased to say, mine goes one step "DEEPER" and shows and explains even more than the original experiment does.

Now we can prove everything is made of waves, what does that tell us about the fundamental structure of space and time.... That's for another thread.

But what else does it teach us or remind us of, what we should we always remember.

The whole of maths and physics is based on the unit sphere, from which the block sphere and the Lorenz transformations are derived.

As I have said previously, Leonard Susskind, in his lecture on special relativity
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY&feature=PlayList&p=CCD6C043FEC59772&index=0), said every equation solved in Quantum Field Theory is derived from one equation.

I love mathematics, you have to study the subject and do all the examples to learn it , but once you get older you realize the fundamental physics is more important than simply calculating the different coefficients. I can say this because its not my job to calculate the coefficients.

If I worked at CERN, then I would have to calculate the coefficients but since at the moment I don't, I can worry about the fundamental physics and the true mathematical concepts behind them, instead.

Alpha, Omega - Be light Made.

Light in, Light out.

AlphaNumeric

09-10-10, 05:20 PM

If I worked at CERN, then I would have to calculate the coefficientsYes, if you worked at CERN you'd be expected to do physics, not delude yourself with laughable pictures.

To go back to something you said earlier Terry,

to design the engine configuration and layout of HOTOL, to make sure and avoid shock waves from damaging the rocket itself.

What amazes me, is that I calculated and solved the problem in six months, answer 3. - Which Alpha(Nob) disputes.
...
I will stake my reputation that the answer is 3. Firstly I've commented many times that '3' is not a sufficiently detailed response to be worth a PhD. Furthermore you say that it was your job ", to design the engine configuration and layout of HOTOL, to make sure and avoid shock waves from damaging the rocket itself.". Asking "What is the number of shock diamonds an exhaust creates?" is not the same as asking "What design minimises the damage". Your proclaimed answer doesn't answer the question you were supposedly addressing during you supposed PhD.

But it gets better. For work related reasons I went looked for pictures of rocket exhausts and couldn't help but notice how many of them don't have 3 diamond shock waves in them.

This one has at least 6 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/research/x1/x1_02.jpg)
This one has at least 4 (http://jazzroc.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/shock-diamonds.jpg?w=450&h=300)
This one has at least 7 (http://www.physicstogo.org/images/features/SR-71-large-3-9-10.gif)
This one has at least 7, possibly 10 (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-AQa73BIBuM/SlzPQzrNw7I/AAAAAAAADjE/NRueduBUqX8/s400/J58_AfterburnerT.jpeg.jpg)
This one has 4 (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FfkgwPNm3uA/RsZl_LPOPmI/AAAAAAAAAzw/TZ0GkWsw2lU/s320/t012sa.jpg)

What was that about staking your reputation on it being 3?

Terry Giblin

09-10-10, 09:05 PM

Dear Alpha(Nob),

You are a God send.

First of all, a Nobel Prize in Physics is only given to someone who has performed an experiment.

I discussed performing my experiment in CERN, a few years ago, but could not see the point of performing and experiment I already new the outcome of and answer to. Why do something which I know works, when you can take my word.

But if the committee of Nobel Prize in Physics, need experimental proof, who am I to object.

Where is the best place, in the world, to perform such a simple quantum mechanics experiment, than CERN.

How do I apply?

Thanks for the suggestion and thanks for the wonderful pictures.

It's a shame, when I was doing my PhD. in Computational Fluid Dynamics, we didn't have the internet, my job would have been so much easier and so much more fun.

Every word you say you dig yourself deeper and deeper.

If you look carefully at what I said in 2004, I described the question as Shock waves traveling around corners. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18241)

I got the solution from studying rocket exhausts of HOTOL, but the same applies to any shock wave, from the front or back of the rocket. But it doesn't only apply to rockets or planes, it also applies to explosions in tunnels for example.

The problem first came to light with the X1, after they kept "losing control" after mach 1 and crashing.

The problem was eventually solved. It turned out that just by bad luck, when the X1 broke the sound barrier, a shock wave was formed in the front of the nose cone and closed in on itself, just where the tail rudder of the aircraft was, which is why they lost control of the aircraft and crashed.

My PhD. was simple, rocket exhaust fumes, create shock waves.

I was asked to solve "How many corners does it take to reduce the effects (the energy) of the shock waves, so it doesn't damage the rocket when it closes in on itself. I also had to make sure and calculate the drag effects etc."

when a shock wave encounters any corner, it loses some of its energy, a shock wave has a certain amount of energy, how many corners do you need, to be on the safe side, 1, 2, 3, 4,..... there has to be a simple answer and there is.

If you do the calculations you find the answer is three. 3.

when I posted the question, someone asked me if I was talking about the diamond shock wave pattern, as per you photo's show.

It was only then I realized I was talking about 2 dimensions but in 3 dimensions the answer would become a diamond shock wave pattern.

The same physics and nature which controls the shock waves as they leave the exhaust is the same physics and nature that control the motion of the exhaust fumes. what I calculated, nature works out for itself.

As the exhaust fumes travel through 'space and time' it find outs and discovers its own diamond shock wave as the most effective solution to its own problem.

So to correct your mistake, I never said they had 3 diamond shock waves, I said the answer was 3, which is why the diamond shock waves are formed in the first place. Diamond patterns are found in the most strangest of places in nature.

what you have got to remember, is it is always better to know the answer before you ask the question, but since I know the answer I often ask general of the top of my head type questions.

That's why it is always better to discuss in person, I hate long detailed complex written questions, its better to talk and discuss or even better draw a new diagram, wouldn't agree, it avoids and saves so many misunderstanding.

Light in, Light out.

Dywyddyr

09-10-10, 09:30 PM

but could not see the point of performing and experiment I already new the outcome of and answer to. Why do something which I know works, when you can take my word.
:roflmao:
Why do you think experiments are done?

The problem first came to light with the X1, after they kept "losing control" after mach 1 and crashing.
"Kept" losing control and crashing?
And crashed?
Source please for these "multiple" crashes.
3 of the 6 X-1 aircraft built are on display, 1 was destroyed in a ground accident, 2 were jettisoned by their carrier aircraft and crashed because they were neither piloted nor powered.

The problem was eventually solved. It turned out that just by bad luck, when the X1 broke the sound barrier, a shock wave was formed in the front of the nose cone and closed in on itself, just where the tail rudder of the aircraft was, which is why they lost control of the aircraft and crashed.
Um, no. It was inertia coupling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia_coupling) causing loss of control.

the aircraft developed a slight left roll, but when Yeager attempted to correct, the aircraft snapped to the right and began a violent tumble toward earth. The pilot was rendered unconscious from being tossed about in the cockpit, and the aircraft continued out of control until Yeager regained consciousness and recovered at approximately 25,000 feet, an early example of inertial coupling.
Source: AMERICAN X-VEHICLES Centennial of Flight Edition SP-2003-4531 An Inventory—X-1 to X-50
Dennis R. Jenkins, Tony Landis, and Jay Miller
Monographs in Aerospace History No. 31, written for and published and approved by NASA. They'd probably know...

AlphaNumeric

09-11-10, 03:26 AM

First of all, a Nobel Prize in Physics is only given to someone who has performed an experiment.
Einstein, Dirac, Schrodinger, Pauli, Swinger, Gross, Nambu, 't Hooft. Those are just a few off the top of my head who weren't experimentalist, they did the theory which either explained the experiments or made predictions which later were confirmed by experimentalists.

I discussed performing my experiment in CERN, a few years ago, but could not see the point of performing and experiment I already new the outcome of and answer to. Why do something which I know works, when you can take my word.You clearly have no grasp of the scientific method. And why were you at CERN? It wasn't because you'd demonstrated physics knowledge, you were likely there as they let the public wander around sometimes.

It's a shame, when I was doing my PhD. in Computational Fluid Dynamics, we didn't have the internet, my job would have been so much easier and so much more fun. If you think that a PhD is done by using Google image search you're naive.

But then we know you are.

If you do the calculations you find the answer is three. 3.Show the calculations. I was reading about rocket exhaust and its interactions with the launch platform only yesterday. Why don't you go into the details?

It was only then I realized I was talking about 2 dimensions but in 3 dimensions the answer would become a diamond shock wave pattern.
Diamond shockwaves don't form by thrust going around corners, they are due to reflections of shock waves along a boundary between the ambient atmosphere and the thrust exhaust. This is a different thing to being forced around corners. For instance, corners involve stagnation, where the air flow stops and large amounts of heat are produced. An exhaust system with shock waves forming diamonds is nowhere stagnant.

Completely different.

The same physics and nature which controls the shock waves as they leave the exhaust is the same physics and nature that control the motion of the exhaust fumes. what I calculated, nature works out for itself.
Yes, fluids follow Navier-Stokes and thermodynamics. That wasn't something you realised, it was something known from the outset.

As the exhaust fumes travel through 'space and time' it find outs and discovers its own diamond shock wave as the most effective solution to its own problem.
No, it depends upon whether the thruster bell is over or under expanded and the ambient atmosphere outside the thrust, as without an ambient atmosphere its hard to have a boundary between it and the thrust.

I said the answer was 3, which is why the diamond shock waves are formed in the first place.
There's no need for corners to get those patterns, its boundary effects between different regions of the fluid.

is it is always better to know the answer before you ask the question, but since I know the answer I often ask general of the top of my head type questions.
You think you know the answers but you obviously don't. If you've got all the answers why are you such an abject failure at physics? Why can't you do any?

That's why it is always better to discuss in person, I hate long detailed complex written questions
The devil is in the details, they are the essential part of science. Without the details the conclusions are often worthless.

its better to talk and discuss or even better draw a new diagram
You have an obsession with diagrams. You should spend time doodling and more time actually trying to do some physics. Though I suppose it'd be wasted, you're incapable of it.

Terry Giblin

09-11-10, 07:54 AM

:roflmao:
Why do you think experiments are done?

"Kept" losing control and crashing?
And crashed?
Source please for these "multiple" crashes.
3 of the 6 X-1 aircraft built are on display, 1 was destroyed in a ground accident, 2 were jettisoned by their carrier aircraft and crashed because they were neither piloted nor powered.

Um, no. It was inertia coupling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia_coupling) causing loss of control.

Source: AMERICAN X-VEHICLES Centennial of Flight Edition SP-2003-4531 An Inventory—X-1 to X-50
Dennis R. Jenkins, Tony Landis, and Jay Miller
Monographs in Aerospace History No. 31, written for and published and approved by NASA. They'd probably know...

Dear Dywyddyr,

I stand corrected, thank you for pointing out my mistake. Someone told me this story many years ago and it was theoretically possible.

I never performed the calculations or did any of the experiments, but I had no reason to doubt him, or it was a simple case of chinese whispers, who knows.

Only goes to show you learn something new everyday.

Light in, Light out.

Terry Giblin

09-11-10, 02:54 PM

Dear Alpha(Nob),

First of all, a Nobel Prize in Physics is only given to someone who has performed an experiment.

I discussed performing my experiment in CERN, a few years ago, but could not see the point of performing and experiment I already new the outcome of and answer to. Why do something which I know works, when you can take my word.

But if the committee of Nobel Prize in Physics, need experimental proof, who am I to object.

Where is the best place, in the world, to perform such a simple quantum mechanics experiment, than CERN.

How do I apply?

Thanks for the suggestion and thanks for the wonderful pictures.

It's a shame, when I was doing my PhD. in Computational Fluid Dynamics, we didn't have the internet, my job would have been so much easier and so much more fun.

Every word you say you dig yourself deeper and deeper.

If you look carefully at what I said in 2004, I described the question as Shock waves traveling around corners. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18241)

I got the solution from studying rocket exhausts of HOTOL, but the same applies to any shock wave, from the front or back of the rocket. But it doesn't only apply to rockets or planes, it also applies to explosions in tunnels for example.

The problem first came to light with the X1, after they kept "losing control" after mach 1 and crashing.

The problem was eventually solved. It turned out that just by bad luck, when the X1 broke the sound barrier, a shock wave was formed in the front of the nose cone and closed in on itself, just where the tail rudder of the aircraft was, which is why they lost control of the aircraft and crashed.

My PhD. was simple, rocket exhaust fumes, create shock waves.

I was asked to solve "How many corners does it take to reduce the effects (the energy) of the shock waves, so it doesn't damage the rocket when it closes in on itself. I also had to make sure and calculate the drag effects etc."

when a shock wave encounters any corner, it loses some of its energy, a shock wave has a certain amount of energy, how many corners do you need, to be on the safe side, 1, 2, 3, 4,..... there has to be a simple answer and there is.

If you do the calculations you find the answer is three. 3.

when I posted the question, someone asked me if I was talking about the diamond shock wave pattern, as per you photo's show.

It was only then I realized I was talking about 2 dimensions but in 3 dimensions the answer would become a diamond shock wave pattern.

The same physics and nature which controls the shock waves as they leave the exhaust is the same physics and nature that control the motion of the exhaust fumes. what I calculated, nature works out for itself.

As the exhaust fumes travel through 'space and time' it find outs and discovers its own diamond shock wave as the most effective solution to its own problem.

So to correct your mistake, I never said they had 3 diamond shock waves, I said the answer was 3, which is why the diamond shock waves are formed in the first place. Diamond patterns are found in the most strangest of places in nature.

what you have got to remember, is it is always better to know the answer before you ask the question, but since I know the answer I often ask general of the top of my head type questions.

That's why it is always better to discuss in person, I hate long detailed complex written questions, its better to talk and discuss or even better draw a new diagram, wouldn't agree, it avoids and saves so many misunderstanding.

Light in, Light out.

I have lived and worked in Switzerland for over 10 years, so naturally when I think of quantum mechanics experiments I think of CERN, not far from where I live.

Then it occurred to me, if I am not willing to perform my own experiment why should I expect someone else to do it for me.

So I have definitely decided to do the experiment myself, the question is where to do it?

Therefore under the circumstances and considering we are talking about the double slit experiment, using "quantum" electrons.

History, honour and respect, dictates there can be only one place for me to apply to and do the experiment.

Cavendish Laboratory (http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/history/)

Light in, Light out.

Terry Giblin

Guest254

09-11-10, 03:27 PM

You should offer to give a talk at DAMTP.

Terry Giblin

09-11-10, 04:44 PM

Terry Giblin

09-11-10, 04:45 PM

You should offer to give a talk at DAMTP.

It would be my pleasure and honour to give a talk at DAMTP.

Light in, Light out.

Terry Giblin

Guest254

09-11-10, 04:48 PM

Speak to someone. Ring people. Make it happen!

Terry Giblin

09-22-10, 02:53 PM

You should offer to give a talk at DAMTP.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhaucer.

Dear Alpha(Nob), you studied at Cambridge and didn't your friend Euler, do his degree and PhD at Cambridge, you said that you had lots of friends at Cambridge, some even arrange conferences and meetings.

So you must know, how and who to talk to and arrange to give a talk or lecture at Cambridge.

Can you ask your friends to arrange for me to give a talk at Cambridge?

This way you can fill the audience with your friends....

Ironically I contacted Cambridge and they kindly suggested that I contact the Cavendish Laboratory.

How do you arrange to give a talk at Cambridge?

Who do I speak to?

Any suggestions or help would be gratefully appreciated.

Light in, Light out.

Guest254

09-22-10, 03:07 PM

Surely you can just go to the department website (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/) and get the contact details of the relevant people?

EDIT: I should add, I don't think Euler spent any time in Cambridge. And I very much doubt AlphaNumeric is old enough to have been one of his friends (Euler died in the 1700s)!

Terry Giblin

09-22-10, 04:10 PM

Hats off to Euler of PhysOrg....

Alpha(Nob) and Euler attacking someone else (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103562)

Guest254, what you don't understand is that Alpha(Nob) and 'Euler' are the original members of the Forum mafia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIqlysM9DTo) as I originally coined the phase on PhysOrg.com.

In 2006 I was invited to the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge and since then Alpha(Nob) has lead a campaign to attack and try to discredit me.

I was banned from PhysOrg, for defending myself and Alpha(Nob) was politely asked to go somewhere else, until the heat went away, so he joined sciforums.

Guest254

09-22-10, 04:31 PM

Aha, I see our wires were crossed. I assumed you meant Euler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler)!

You were invited to the Newton Institute?! That's very impressive. How did that come about, if you don't mind me asking?

AlphaNumeric

09-23-10, 01:48 AM

So you must know, how and who to talk to and arrange to give a talk or lecture at Cambridge.If you aren't smart enough to work it out for yourself, you aren't smart enough to give a talk there. Consider it a minimal requirement.

Can you ask your friends to arrange for me to give a talk at Cambridge? No, because firstly none of my friends would consider your nonsense something they want to inflict on members of staff there. If you're so good you should be able to convince people you're worth listening to without needing my help.

Ironically I contacted Cambridge and they kindly suggested that I contact the Cavendish Laboratory.'Ironically'?

How do you arrange to give a talk at Cambridge?You spend years doing good work which is considered to be worthwhile to the community and then you are either invited or you're allowed to attend a conference and give a talk by the organisers of said conference. You can't just ring up and say "I want to present my work to your department, book me a room".

Guest254, what you don't understand is that Alpha(Nob) and 'Euler' are the original members of the Forum mafia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIqlysM9DTo) as I originally coined the phase on PhysOrg.com. You called me part of 'the forum mafia'. I never called myself that, unlike some of the other members of that forum. To say 'forum mafia' implied there's some sort of organisation behind our postings, which there wasn't. I posted when and where I wanted, I didn't need to be part of a 'forum mafia' in order to shoot your claims down.

So you must know, how and who to talk to and arrange to give a talk or lecture at Cambridge.If you aren't smart enough to work it out for yourself, you aren't smart enough to give a talk there. Consider it a minimal requirement.

Can you ask your friends to arrange for me to give a talk at Cambridge? No, because firstly none of my friends would consider your nonsense something they want to inflict on members of staff there. If you're so good you should be able to convince people you're worth listening to without needing my help.

Ironically I contacted Cambridge and they kindly suggested that I contact the Cavendish Laboratory.'Ironically'?

In 2006 I was invited to the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge and since then Alpha(Nob) has lead a campaign to attack and try to discredit me. Your nonsense speaks for itself. I don't need to 'discredit' you, you've never had a reputation to begin with. Even now you still repeat "No one has ever questioned my good name and reputation", yet you also admit Euler and I did. Don't you see the contradiction there?

Euler and I didn't believe you were invited the the INI on the grounds of scientific merit. You have yet to refute that position, as the fact you have a letter saying "You're welcome to come" does not imply you were invited to come out of the blue. When someone applies to attend a conference they will be an 'invitation' to it, assuming there's no reason to turn them down (which for conferences with spare room that's pretty rare). That's what you have. You weren't there because someone thought your 'work' worth you attending, as you have no work. You have no publications, you have no experimental results, you have absolutely no 'good reputation' in the physics community.

Other than replying to your posts on PhysOrg I didn't 'campaign' against you. You weren't worth the time Terry. Because what would I campaign against, you have no reputation, no standing, no work. I can't destroy what does not exist.

Name one bit of work of yours which you think is valid physics which is publishable which I have 'campaigned' against. Please explain how in any way your absolutely failure in science is anything to do with me.

I was banned from PhysOrg, for defending myself and Alpha(Nob) was politely asked to go somewhere else, until the heat went away, so he joined sciforums.Now you're simply lying, again. Terry, if you have to resort to being dishonest you can't complain about me being out to 'discredit' me! That's called hypocrisy, but then you seem to do that a lot. You've said Rpenner and I wished you dead. You've said I supported a paedophile and now you're saying I got asked to leave from PhysOrg 'till the heat went away'. Nonsense. I'm joining here had nothing to do with you and I continued posting on PhysOrg. The moderators on PhysOrg didn't do anything, they never did so they certainly wouldn't contact me. Rpenner now moderates there and he will confirm he's never said anything like that to me.

There was and is no 'heat' because no one gives a crap about you Terry. You aren't that important. You aren't that competent. You aren't that sane. You got banned because you were a disruptive nut who couldn't answer any questions and just posted incoherent nonsense. Now you're hear doing much the same and adding in your own slew of lies for good measure. You complain I lead a campaign against you and yet you repeatedly tell lies about me and others. If you have to resort to lying, blatantly and repeatedly, it demonstrates you know you have nothing to justify your position and you've clutching at straws.

You clearly have your own rose tinted view of the world, where you're the centre of people's universe. Other than when I'm on this forum you don't enter into my mind. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to do anything to 'campaign against you'. I don't need to, your work is so obviously the product of complete ignorance and is so laughably bad anyone who didn't sleep through school can instantly see you're a hack, they don't need me to tell them.

CptBork

09-23-10, 06:02 AM

In 2006 I was invited to the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge and since then Alpha(Nob) has lead a campaign to attack and try to discredit me.

I was banned from PhysOrg, for defending myself and Alpha(Nob) was politely asked to go somewhere else, until the heat went away, so he joined sciforums.

If you were the next Isaac Newton or Galileo, you would have already had more cowbell in those diagrams, as I suggested earlier. At least 3 cowbells, in fact. How long's it been now, 2 weeks and still no cowbell? I gotta have more cowbell!

funkstar

09-23-10, 02:00 PM

I often wonder at the psychopathology of cranks and crackpots - is there a gold mine of material for a psychiatrist in the rantings of, say, the OP? Is it merely a standard delusion, with no special characteristics?

[Edit: And, yes! More cowbell!]

Terry Giblin

10-31-10, 06:39 AM

Hell has no fury - Like a women scorned.

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/3277/violenceinheaven.jpg

Science is a bitch. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQSXNq7b8GQ)

What would a free man do? (http://www.spike.com/video/300-what-would-free/2823460)

We could always settle this argument like gentlemen and scientists.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1843/terrygiblindse.jpg

Here is the diagram of the experiment, which I have asked to carry out at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge (http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/).

In your professional 'opinion' does it work?

A simple Yes or No?

Alpha, Omega - Be light made.

Light in, Light out.

funkstar

10-31-10, 12:33 PM

You know, you keep posting that diagram, but do you also realise that nobody has any idea what it is supposed to mean?

Gremmie

10-31-10, 01:43 PM

You know, you keep posting that diagram, but do you also realise that nobody has any idea what it is supposed to mean?

I do...It means...Ummm....Well, you see... No, not a clue..

And, what's up with the angel pic?:confused:

CptBork

10-31-10, 02:07 PM

We could always settle this argument like gentlemen and scientists.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1843/terrygiblindse.jpg

Here is the diagram of the experiment, which I have asked to carry out at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge (http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/).

Why do you need Cavendish Laboratory to carry it out for you? That game was already made, it's called Pong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong).

Terry Giblin

10-31-10, 06:56 PM

Why do you need Cavendish Laboratory to carry it out for you?

Simple, to win and claim a Nobel Prize, they prefer if you can perform a repeatable experiment to prove your theory is correct.

I said and asked,

Dear Alpha(N),

We could always settle this argument like gentlemen and scientists.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1843/terrygiblindse.jpg

Here is the diagram of the experiment, which I have asked to carry out at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge (http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/).

In your professional 'opinion' does it work?

A simple Yes or No?

Alpha, Omega - Be light made.

Light in, Light out.

And Alpha(Nob) reply was,

No.

And he has the nerve to call himself a 'Physicist'.

I thought he was just being awkward, when he kept asking what I meant by a 'quantum barrier' or a 'quantum well', but its true he doesn't have a clue.

He has never studied Physics.

So for his benefit, here is a quick Physics lesson.

Quantum Tunneling for dummies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LKjJT7gh9s)

Quantum Tunneling for mathematicians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9OKOw7gDSY&feature=related)

The infamous Double slit experiment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA)

Now image what happens if we combine both experiments.

Placing the electron's behind the 'quantum barrier' does not change the experiment, you still get an interference pattern.

Anything from a black hole to an electron will eventual quantum tunnel through, pass through the double slits to form an interference pattern.

But the whole purpose of my version of the experiment, is to stop everyone thinking that we are starting with a 'particle electron'. How does a 'particle electron' go through both slits at the same time. It doesn't because in my version of the experiment, I do not use 'particle electrons' I use 'quantum electrons'.

For the past several decades Physicists have tried various methods to modify the Double slit experiment, to see if they could beat nature, but all have failed.

Mine is the first real successful attempt to modify and solve the experiment, without changing the experiment.

Starting with a 'particle electron' when it passes through the 'quantum barrier' it is no longer a 'particle electron' but instead now has a simple probability, or 'probability wave function' of existing beyond the 'quantum barrier', which propagates through both slits. Its 'wave function' only collapses at the screen, when it is observed.

Do you still think my experiment does not work?

Alpha, Omega - Be light made.

Light in, Light out.

AlphaNumeric

11-01-10, 02:32 AM

And he has the nerve to call himself a 'Physicist'.I've got more of a physics education than you.

You're doing the same as Farsight, you find out I did a maths degree and suddenly its "You're not a physicist!". Anyone whose done a physics degree should know how much mathematics there are in it and in terms of topics there's a great deal of cross over between physics and applied mathematics. In fact most universities have their general relativity department in their maths department. Cambridge has their theoretical physics department in their maths department. Its in the name of the department Terry, DAMTP = Department of applied mathematics and theoretical physics.

In fact friends of mine who did the Cambridge physics degree had to spend the 1st year of their PhD doing material I'd already done in my maths degree, like quantum field theory and string theory. I went straight into research.

Clearly you haven't bothered to check your facts before hand, you're just so desperate to throw out the "You're not a physicist, you're a mathematician!" insult. Or rather an attempt at an insult, since I personally think my more mathematical background put me in a much better position to do theoretical physics than people who had a more practical physics background. Anyone who looks at the theoretical physics section of www.arxiv.org will see how mathematical it is. I didn't spend any time in a lab during my degree and it wasn't a hinderance when going theoretical physics. If I'd gone into solid state optical physics, which I had a PhD offer for also, then I'd have wished I'd done more experiments but I didn't.

Yes, I don't have a physics degree, I have a mathematics one. I'm still a trillion times the physicist that you are Terry. Must be annoying to have done less physics than a lowly mathematician ;)

I thought he was just being awkward, when he kept asking what I meant by a 'quantum barrier' or a 'quantum well', but its true he doesn't have a clue.

He has never studied Physics.Are you really this daft? You just went to DAMTP to try to talk to people about your work (harass more like) and you know I studied in that very department for 4 years and yet you're trying to claim I didn't study the relevant material? You can't simultaneously say DAMTP has the relevant people in it and then claim that I didn't study the relevant material when I was there.

As I said, I've taught quantum mechanics. I might not have been in a physics department for my degree but I was for my PhD. The fact you're saying this and yet you have just found out who I am and where I did my PhD suggests you're desperate to lie about me, even when you know differently. Didn't you bother to look at the url you PM'd to me? It's in the physics department.

I never asked you "Whats a quantum well" in the sense of "I don't know what that is" but in the sense of "Do you know what it is". Which you don't.

Mine is the first real successful attempt to modify and solve the experiment, without changing the experiment. You haven't done the experiment so claiming its a success before you've done it is a little premature.

Terry Giblin

11-01-10, 01:11 PM

Dear Alpha(Nob),

I am not going to argue with you any more. I should have simply ignored you from the beginning, its when you got personal I did not like.

For the past 5 years all you have done is attacked me personally and the more I have defended myself the more you have attacked.

Everything I say you twist around and use it against me.

I know who you are now, I have a list of your references and I know who your Prof of fluid dynamics is. I am going to contact them and make sure they know what you do in your spare time and how you treat innocent people.

All you have done, for the past 5 years, is bring shame and dishonour to your family name and every institution you represent.

I am pleased to say that you are the exception, not the norm. Which is probably why you are no longer in academia.

Alpha, Omega - Be light made.

Light in, Light out.

AlphaNumeric

11-01-10, 03:18 PM

I guess you just showed what kind of a person you really are Terry. How sad you have to blame other people for your own short comings and failures. You couldn't present a single iota of coherent argument so instead you have to sink to what is basically harassment. Well done, your actions are a complete vindication of what I've said about your lack of reason and argument.

CptBork

11-01-10, 03:58 PM

Simple, to win and claim a Nobel Prize, they prefer if you can perform a repeatable experiment to prove your theory is correct.

I said and asked...

And Alpha(Nob) reply was...

And he has the nerve to call himself a 'Physicist'.

Well if you can tell us whether or not the following experiment works, maybe we'd be able to help you out with yours.

http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?albumid=131&pictureid=771

Have a shot, if you think your experiment is superior then please tell me what's wrong with mine, and in what ways yours is better.

chaos1956

11-01-10, 04:30 PM

Alpha N

You might "know" math and you might "know" physics, but you struggle with life. You asserting your dominance does little to help your "reputation" despite what "drivel" Mr. Giblin displays. Science is man's interpretation of the universe and man is indefinitely part of that science. Until you know man you will never fully understand physics. "knowledge" is your friend, but when it comes to man you have no "imagination", no encouragement, no "faith" in your fellow man. You are the supreme being of understanding in this universe you have made for yourself. Ranting about your achievements does little to aid your case against Giblin. You fail to "observe" many actions as you peer through your slits maybe you should take a step back and peer through them at another angle, but I doubt that would help your cause or change the effects.

AlexG

11-01-10, 09:37 PM

Science is man's interpretation of the universe and man is indefinitely part of that science. Until you know man you will never fully understand physics

Liberal Arts major, aren't you?

chaos1956

11-01-10, 10:07 PM

If this is your definition of liberal arts then possibly.

"The aim of liberal education is to create persons who have the ability and the disposition to try to reach agreements on matters of fact, theory, and actions through rational discussions." "The Aim of Liberal Education," DiText, September 1, 2003."http://www.ditext.com/libed/libed.html

Otherwise you better guess again.

AlexG

11-01-10, 10:13 PM

Yep, liberal arts major.

Did you have any physics course, other than intro in your first year?

chaos1956

11-01-10, 10:38 PM

If you are asking If I fully understand Newton's principals, Einstein's thought experiments, the laws of thermodynamics, string theory, the theory of everything, or (gasping at unrealistic probability) the uncertainty principal. I could ask you the same thing couldn't I?

AlexG

11-01-10, 10:58 PM

No, I think I asked if you had taken any intermediate or advanced physics courses.

chaos1956

11-01-10, 11:15 PM

You expect me to answer after you first insult my intelligence, only after you fail to understand the point of my tirade against your friend was not to uphold the drivel that Mr. Giblin undoubtedly spills out. "THAT" information is a given. I ask are you Alpha's proxy or is he yours?

AlexG

11-01-10, 11:19 PM

You expect me to answer

No actually, I had every confidence that you wouldn't answer the question.

chaos1956

11-01-10, 11:27 PM

I did answer your question. I said "THAT" information is "a given". Perhaps you as well need to take a step back or join me on a different discussion. I do however "enjoy" when you lead with your velocity. It gets you a little further from me. take "THAT" for what you will.

AlexG

11-02-10, 01:38 AM

I did answer your question. I said "THAT" information is "a given".

You mean that it's a given that you're a Liberal Arts major who has never taken any physics course other than Intro To in your freshman year.

CptBork

11-02-10, 01:57 AM

You mean that it's a given that you're a Liberal Arts major who has never taken any physics course other than Intro To in your freshman year.

I don't want to take sides in this dispute you're having with chaos (not yet at least), but your mention of "Intro To" kinda reminded me of the planets, stars and galaxies course my department gives to arts students... one of my profs calls it "Rocks in Space" :roflmao:

chaos1956

11-02-10, 12:03 PM

You have said I'm a Liberal arts major a couple of times now. Doesn't make it any more true that I most certainly am not. If you fail to see the point I was originally making then I can't help you escape your thoughts of me. Basically you missed the point and now you are struggling to turn things around on me when I have done nothing wrong. You continually insult me with your sarcasm so allow me to apply some of my own.

V/M/.66(6) = pi(r^2)/5.413*h=42

V/M/.66(6) - pi(r^2)/5.413*h=0

What's 42-42?

I have absolutely no idea what these values are. These values are meaningless mathematical expressions that do not make proper alignment of the pigeonhole principal by incorporating the 3*3*3 magic cube that sums to 42. This expression in no manner expresses any value of any scalar field hypothetical or realistic. There are not any variables taken from uncertainty, Einstein's equations, or from the Greeks who initially calculated π. Nor does this random field of numbers contain the devils number or the number that represents the meaning of life in a very popular novel "THAT" Alex G sleeps with under his pillow. You better start reading the "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth". Otherwise just do like they did for the Cuban missile crisis and tuck your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

funkstar

11-02-10, 12:40 PM

Goats. On. Fire.

chaos1956

11-02-10, 01:10 PM

More like a sheep. You light a sheep on fire and it's sure to run to its master. Or has its master already seen me?

AlexG

11-02-10, 01:14 PM

chaos1956

11-02-10, 01:31 PM

Key word being. "YOU" only see meaningless garbage. Which means you don't understand it. Seeing as you don't understand it, you are obviously the target of the sarcasm. Sometimes the target of sarcasm apparently isn't supposed to see the sarcasm even if it is spelled out plain as day in front of his face. Things apparently go over your head sometimes. Stick to your well known velocity and "fly, fly, fly" as I have said earlier. Or pick up on another thread. Or guess my major incorrectly again. I really don't care what "You" do as long as it makes you disappear. I'm obviously here for your master.

AlexG

11-02-10, 01:49 PM

Well this thread is in the pseudoscience section, and that's obviously the right place for you post.

Just another wacko in a long line of internet cranks.

chaos1956

11-02-10, 01:53 PM

Interesting... as the ideas are currently upheld in the physics sections where I have told you repeatedly to travel. find another goat on fire or better yet save yourself the embarrassment and just give up now.

AlexG

11-02-10, 01:56 PM

I read all the threads, and so far, I must say that you haven't shown any particular knowledge of physics in any post.

chaos1956

11-02-10, 02:24 PM

Then formulate a response to one. I'm completely unopposed. Your last post suggests that you only understand the "particular" side to physics. There is much more to it than that and it all happens at the same time. Still your not a chemist so it appears oxymoronic-al to ask you any questions about the "particular" elements. With that understanding in mind there is only an apparent disregard for "your" understanding of the photoelectric effect.

Ophiolite

11-03-10, 09:11 AM

You expect me to answer after you first insult my intelligence, come on! play fair and give credit where credit is due. At least he took the time to find it. That must have been an epic search.

chaos1956

11-03-10, 05:05 PM

really? check the profile. Some people have been eyeing me already. I bet Alex G still can't place my major, although there is a specific cause effect relationship there as well. The main POINT I was trying to express is that Terry Giblin mainly learns in pictures, alphanumeric mainly understands numbers. If they have been going on with "duck season" "rabbit season" argument for FIVE YEARS, maybe we should stop feeding the troll the wrong way. Obviously he likes picture, so show him some of those and maybe one day he will actually "say" something worth reading.

CptBork

11-03-10, 05:09 PM

Well if those pictures can't somehow incorporate complete mathematical deductions, then it's clear you can't learn everything about physics by taking that approach. In Terry's case, I'm still waiting to receive an explanation for how his picture explains things in a better way than mine.

chaos1956

11-03-10, 05:25 PM

You know what. Why don't we just ask Dr. Quantum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Stare too long and I hope for your sake that you take a step back.

CptBork

11-03-10, 05:43 PM

You know what. Why don't we just ask Dr. Quantum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Stare too long and I hope for your sake that you take a step back.

I wouldn't spend too much time staring at misleading cartoons made by newage cults and fringe "physicists" who got their fame on the Oprah Winfrey show, if I were you...

chaos1956

11-03-10, 06:14 PM

Why not? She bought me a new car and all I had to do was go to her show:roflmao: I was < impressed with his explanation of particles going through the slit, but you would have to admit the main idea is more communicable than Mr Gibblin is trying to make of it...

AlexG

11-03-10, 09:26 PM

come on! play fair and give credit where credit is due. At least he took the time to find it. That must have been an epic search.

Still looking.

chaos1956

11-03-10, 09:35 PM

What are you trying to find again? my major was it? I wrote a riddle about that to see if you can rhyme.

oh lookie here.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/Electrostatic-discharge.jpg

Does this background help you understand the duality better Terry?
of course the picture is expose over time.

AlexG

11-04-10, 12:19 AM

What are you trying to find again? my major was it?

The post I quoted from was referencing searching for your intelligence.

I really don't care what your major was, I know what it wasn't.

chaos1956

11-04-10, 08:51 AM

So I make some sarcastic jokes at your expense only After you insult me. Then not only do you give up on the initial thing you attempted to define, but also change the subject to include cognitive tasks. Maybe the absence of your cognitive ability is the main reason we are currently having this discussion over "intelligence" in reference to my major. Say something smart or don't say anything at all when you speak to me. Insults won't get you far my friend.

AlphaNumeric

11-04-10, 01:14 PM

Until you know man you will never fully understand physics. "knowledge" is your friend, but when it comes to man you have no "imagination", no encouragement, no "faith" in your fellow man. You are the supreme being of understanding in this universe you have made for yourself. Ranting about your achievements does little to aid your case against Giblin.
I don't need to present a 'case' against Terry, its immediately clear to anyone he's a few sandwiches short of a picnic and has nothing of scientific worth to present.

And how are you in a position to know how to do science? I have plenty of faith in people around me to produce work, that's how science developed, collaboration. Unlike Terry when I present my work to those in the know, like journals, they see the merit in it. Unlike Terry I don't have to delude myself about my scientific ability, I have other people evaluate it and tell me the good and bad parts and I learn from that.

And I think its funny you have a go at me for 'ranting about my achievements'. Terry claims to have Nobel prize worthy work which is, according to him, the biggest greatest scientific breakthrough ever. I'm a little more down to Earth, I think my work have scientific merit but I don't think I'll ever produce anything even close to 'award winning'. Some people will find my work useful and/or interesting and that's good enough for me.

The main POINT I was trying to express is that Terry Giblin mainly learns in pictures, alphanumeric mainly understands numbers. My my, you have me all figured out. Terry deludes himself into thinking he's learnt about a subject because he's seen a picture from Google image search.

Pictures are an extremely useful thing to augment learning with but you can't go very far on just pictures. Anyone whose do any viable research which has passed peer review will know that details are essential. Terry posts a picture and claims he's 'solved' the double slit experiment.

If they have been going on with "duck season" "rabbit season" argument for FIVE YEARS, maybe we should stop feeding the troll the wrong way. Obviously he likes picture, so show him some of those and maybe one day he will actually "say" something worth reading. Terry has this delusion that I've somehow been running some kind of smear campaign against him since we first crossed paths. He can't face up to the fact the reason no one accepts the scientific merit of his 'ideas' is that they have no scientific merit. Terry isn't worth running a smear campaign against, its clear to anyone whose even half competent at science he isn't. He can't face up to his short comings and he wants someone to blame.

"YOU" only see meaningless garbage. Which means you don't understand itWhat an excellent way of going about deluding yourself. Everyone Terry has presented his 'work' to has thought it nonsense, but he can't face the fact its because it has no scientific merit. That kind of defence is what some religious people tell themselves, "They reject the Bible because they don't understand it". Its possible to understand something and still think its crap. In the case of Terry his work isn't even coherent, so its on an extra level of nonsense!

I was < impressed with his explanation of particles going through the slitThen you're naive, likely because you don't know the details of the relevant physics. Terry hasn't managed to convince those of us who have done the relevant physics that he understands it. Its the typical crank approach, trying to swindle people who don't know its BS that their work is viable.

I really don't care what "You" do as long as it makes you disappear. I'm obviously here for your master. Is that a reference to me? Its possible for people to agree on things without a leader-follower hierarchy. I'm more vocal about my views of hacks but that doesn't make me a 'leader'.

And CptBork, Terry won't reply because he's been permabanned. If you want the details PM me.

chaos1956

11-04-10, 05:33 PM

Feels good to be cut down to size a little:D

My my, you have me all figured out. Terry deludes himself into thinking he's learnt about a subject because he's seen a picture from Google image search.

Pictures are an extremely useful thing to augment learning with but you can't go very far on just pictures. Anyone whose do any viable research which has passed peer review will know that details are essential. Terry posts a picture and claims he's 'solved' the double slit experiment.

Good words as well as good numbers. I do not deny that good pictures at times can promote better understandings of the concepts to a more general audience than the specifics you can find among the detailed journals.

What an excellent way of going about deluding yourself. Everyone Terry has presented his 'work' to has thought it nonsense, but he can't face the fact its because it has no scientific merit. That kind of defence is what some religious people tell themselves, "They reject the Bible because they don't understand it". Its possible to understand something and still think its crap. In the case of Terry his work isn't even coherent, so its on an extra level of nonsense!

There is a huge difference between delusion and imagination, although I am in agreement with you that Terry is delusional I can assure you that I am not. Baring any mistakes that occur due to the inevitable human error.

Then you're naive, likely because you don't know the details of the relevant physics. Terry hasn't managed to convince those of us who have done the relevant physics that he understands it. Its the typical crank approach, trying to swindle people who don't know its BS that their work is viable.

Your calling me naive when the comment was about a video made for a child and only expressed my views of the commentator as he described the particle going through the slit.

Is that a reference to me? Its possible for people to agree on things without a leader-follower hierarchy. I'm more vocal about my views of hacks but that doesn't make me a 'leader'.

It was more a reference against someone else than specifically meant for you. A hierarchy exists to a certain extent, I'm sure you understand this to a degree. The word was "master" not leader. In a world without hierarchy it is always important to show respect to another master, but also to be respectful to those who are both willing and able to help themselves. This means following as well as leading with knowledge of your skills as well as the specialties of others. Knowing the speciality of the people around you determines the degree of "hierarchy" in particular situations. "Mind" your surroundings.

chaos1956

11-05-10, 01:29 AM

V/M/.66(6) = pi(r^2)/5.413*h=42

V/M/.66(6) - pi(r^2)/5.413*h=0

But still there is always more than two ways to look at any scenario. In the cc/mol. Or in the force itself.

f=[mv/.66(6)] - pi(r^2)/5.413*h

but not both at the same "time":D

Me-Ki-Gal

11-05-10, 11:28 AM

Watching vids is nothing, they're only good for illustrating things you already learn about in the more traditional way. How is someone supposed to squash years of math training into a few hours of video, anyhow? Even with the actual Feynman Lectures books, which I believe cover a 2 year course, I found the material lacking, and answers to detailed questions had to be found in other, more focussed resources.

Yeah, it seems to me if Terry thinks he's communicating a brilliant new insight by taping some pages together and spamming the thread with (conceptually) disconnected diagrams, then his understanding of the building blocks in science must be awful. I think I know what he needs to fix the problem though, I think his diagrams could use a little more cowbell (http://www.buzzhumor.com/videos/28180/More_Cowbell).
Yeah more cow bell, My stage name was Crackle , but not anymore