Inconsistent ban policy?

Ok. Try me with some university level questions James on Newtonian theory. I would like to put my own theory to the test. Deal?

We'll see how I go from that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps a modifed form of 'debate' in the Formal Debate subforum?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right ok, I'll follow the link.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As I previously explained (why do you keep bringing up things I've already addressed at length?), there was a lot more wrong with your Dirac discussion than multiplying matrices. And being able to do something I learnt in 6th form (multiply 2x2 matrices together) doesn't provide evidence you can do postgrad level physics. The stuff which required beyond high school level mathematics you failed to do properly. I went through it at length, with explanations.

It's one thing to lie to other people about what was said between you and I, it's an entirely different thing to lie to me about it.

You made plenty of mistakes, which you then further compounded. As for the scalar vs vector thing, it was STILL a mistake on your part. Rather than adding two vectors and a scalar you were adding 1 vector and a scalar. I've clarified this with you several times now, because you've made the "I wasn't mistaken, you were!" comment on a number of occasions.

Really, who do you think you're going to convince? Do you think if you lie and lie and lie enough that reality will bend to your desires? Wolf might think that, given the nonsense on 'What The Bleep Do We Know' but that isn't how reality works.

And that thread wasn't an isolated incident. You got the string vacua things wrong and you completely arsed up the discussion about Lagrangians which James was involved in. And that's just threads from this last week or so. Countless threads of yours which ended up in pseudo are other examples.

You constantly try to play your mistakes off as little rare errors, little more than typos, but they aren't. EVERYONE knows they aren't. The evidence is so vast even the non-physicists are aware of it.

Wolf is a crank. PhD after ones name doesn't make one automatically right and I've never claimed that.

I'm somewhat hesitant to allow Reiku an open ended time scale because, to be frank, I believe he'll either spend loads of time Googling the question or even post the questions on another forum to try to get others to help him. Hence why I said we could sort out a 2 hour window where he can sit down and work through questions we give him out of the blue, then he has to provide evidence of his own workings, like photos of his calculations on paper. He has demonstrated in previous "Let's test Reiku" instances he isn't above a direct copy and paste of other people's work.

Reiku, you say you spend 4 hours a day doing this stuff. If you could easily deal with undergraduate then you should be able to answer all of James's questions by this time tomorrow, including workings. You admit you have the time, so you have no excuse.

 

You were mistaken and I am not lying. I know that equation was sound, I even demontrated where it originally came from.

And meh, to your time scale, I am actually buisy for the rest of the day, I plan on going to the pictures to see the new underworld movie. Then I am having a few drinks at a friends house.

As for ''answering questions,'' in a reasonable time, I woke up this morning, saw James' post here and began writing it down. Check the post times. They should be within reasonable distance with each other. Thirdly, I am only answering these questions by James and then that's it. I have nothing to prove. I hesitantly agreed to this in the first place, I think if I answer eight random questions that will suffice whether I have any kind of understanding or not...

Oh fuck it, the answer to the associated vectors is

V_1 =

-0.707
0.707

V_2 =

0.6
-0.8

Just in case you think I have asked anyone in a forum.

 

May I ask a question, I don't want big arguements or anything.

My idea's are usually in good scientific context. For instance, I remember my curvilinear distortions idea, where matter comes from curvature to answer where matter came from in the universe. I remember my idea met good reception with many people here. But as it went when I created that, AN, you continued to say, ''your idea means nothing, you have no working model.''

Yet, it seems captain bork has said something similar just very recently here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2892530#post2892530 - I don't believe he has stolen my idea, because essentially, all I did was predict something that made sense from relativity. So why was my idea met with such harsh criticism back then? It seems my idea was very plausible?

Because I didn't have a working model? In all honestly, that is the way of science a lot of the time. Take spin. Spin was hypothesized first, it wasn't until later a full working mathematical model came about?

 

*sigh* Remember how you once asserted that \((a+ib)(a-ib) = a^{2} - b^{2} + 2abi\) and asserted Wolf agreed with you? Remember how you asserted your equations about the \(\psi_{L,R}\) were right but they weren't? Remember how you asserted a pair of 2x2 matrices multiplied to give a number, saying Susskind agreed with you?

As for 'demonstrating where it originally came from' I don't doubt you have it within your capacity to get expressions from other sources. However, it is not unheard of for you to incorrectly copy them or fail to understand the notation or to alter them deliberately in ways which render them meaningless or not know what to do with them.

Being able to list a bunch of equations doesn't mean you understand them. I can list plenty of German words, thanks to Google translate. Doesn't mean I can speak German.

Since you keep bringing it up and not listening each time I explain you were still wrong I'll go through it again. The post in question is here. The part in question is the following,

M is mass, \(\omega\) is frequency and \(k\) is the Fourier dual of x so equivalent to a momentum component. All of them are scalars. \(\alpha\) is a matrix, you give a possible representation for it further on in the post and we discuss things about it at length. Thus the left hand side of the above expression is a scalar, the right hand side is a matrix plus a scalar. It's therefore nonsense. Originally I said the left hand side was a vector, I made an error. As I explained to you in the original thread, your equation was still wrong despite the fact I made a mistake about part of it.

And I explained at length why you were mistaken and how such a mistake could arise. You ignore that, claiming I just waffled unnecessarily. No, I was actually providing you with an accurate explanation of a common pitfall people make with matrix operations.

It's possible that given a spinor \(\psi\) that \(\omega \psi= (\alpha k + M)\psi\). This follows from the fact the matrix maps a spinor to a spinor, just like multiplying a spinor by a number gives a spinor. A simpler case is actions on vectors, ie \(A \cdot \mathbf{v} = \lambda \mathbf{v}\) can be true, it would mean \(\mathbf{v}\) is an eigenvector of A with corresponding eigenvalue \(\lambda\). It would be a mistake to then conclude that \(A = \lambda\), it's the error you just made. Even saying \(\lambda\) is actually multiplied by the identity matrix isn't going to fix it. Such expressions mean that the action of a matrix reduces to the action of scalar multiplication in particular directions in the vector space (ie those spanned by a single eigenvector, ignoring degeneracy in eigenvalues).

Now this is a standard bit of linear algebra you should be aware of if you're knowledgeable enough to handle undergrad stuff. The fact you're making such mistakes and despite a lot of attention being given to that equation you still don't get it further undermines your claims of competency.

You've also been demanding to see where more than 2 of your mistakes are. In each of my larger posts where I post equations I give at least 2 mistakes by you each post. Some of them were about fundamental failures of understanding you have pertaining to the Dirac equation, which you believe yourself sufficiently versed on to be 'teaching' other people.

I would expect a half decent student to do the first 5 of James's questions in under an hour. Most of them are doable by a decent A Level student. If you think you can do well at general undergrad stuff and even perhaps the Dirac equation then you should steamroller his questions without much work. Some of them you shouldn't even need to put pen to paper, just type out the answer.

You say this but obviously you do want to prove something to people. You'd not be engaged in this ridiculous "Here's a lengthy post about conciousness and the Dirac equation. Look, I can multiply matrices!" nonsense for so long. You want people to think you can do this stuff and your behaviour says you're desperate to convince people. I say desperate because when you're reduced to lying to James and myself about exchanges we've had with you it's really quite sad.

If you do manage to answer most of them (which I doubt) it wouldn't then be a validation of your claims. You think being able to multiply 2x2 matrices together is a reason I should think you can do stuff related to the Dirac equation so you struggle to judge your competency levels.

Personally I think you'll be Googling for all you're worth. That's why I suggested the idea of a specific time frame so you can't go away and then come back later, you're unable to ask other people.

 

Before I head out the door, I had a quick glance at one of my favourite subjects here

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112022

No captian, it's nothing to do with a modification of relativity. A black hole has inner boundaries as well. Time and space become distorted so badly, they switch roles for most of the journey, but inside a black hole, you might be lucky enough to come across another boundary before reaching the singular region. In this boundary, space and time switch again, and it is in this boundary things like entire galaxies can exist.

 

I'm not lying.

You go figure. \(\omega\) is energy, \(M\) is mass and \(k\) is the wave number (momentum). So what we have really is

\(E=p+M\)

This is true for relativity.

 

No, it isn't. Firstly you've changed the equation, the equation which I originally corrected you on was, according to you, \(\omega = \alpha k + M\), where you've mixed scalars and matrices. Secondly \(E=p+M\) isn't true in relativity. \(-E^{2} + p^{2} = -m^{2}\) can be rearranged to \(E^{2} = m^{2} + p^{2}\) but that doesn't imply \(E=m+p\). That is precisely the mistake you made in the thread in question, one I spent considerable time explaining to you. You complain I waffled too much but you've just shown you didn't even learn anything from it!

In fact, I explained at length here why you can't say \(E = \sqrt{p^{2}+M^{2}} = p+M\) but it's something you could mistakenly conclude given the structure of the Dirac equation. It's a structure the whole \(\{ \gamma^{\mu} , \gamma^{\nu} \} = 2g^{\mu\nu}\mathbb{I}\) thing we talked about is for!

I'll explain it again since obviously you didn't understand it before, you didn't understand the explanation and you still don't understand it.

Oscillating things obey the massive wave equation, which for v=1 is \((-\partial_{t}^{2} + \nabla^{2})A = M^{2}A\). This is second order as there's second order derivatives. Got that or do I need to go over it again? If you Fourier transform this or hit it on \(e^{i(\omega t - \mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{x})}\) you'll get that \((-\omega^{2} + \mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{k})\tilde{A} = -M^{2}\tilde{A}\), where \(\tilde{A}\) is the Fourier transform of A. From this we get that \(-\omega^{2} + \mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{k} = -M^{2}\) because the coefficients are all scalars and none are differential operators. This is a reformulation of the mass-energy-momentum relation.

So how can we get something to do with just E and not \(E^{2}\)? Through particular arguments (see Chapter 1 of 'Quantum Theory of Fields' by Weinberg) Dirac realised he needed a first order operator to apply to a spinor. But the operator has to square to something which is the wave operator on all components of the spinor. Clearly something with a second order time derivative and likewise spatial derivative needs to be of the form \(D = a\partial_{t} + \mathbf{b}\cdot \nabla\). Except such a thing doesn't square to the wave operator no matter the scalar values of a and the components of b. But if you make them all matrices you can do it, then the operator you want at the end is the wave operator times the identity matrix. Using the whole anticommutation relations thing I've explained multiple times you can deduce the conditions the matrices must satisfy, the Dirac algebra relations. In what follows I probably drop factors of i or -1 but that isn't relevant to what I'm getting at here. Then what happens if you have \(D = \gamma^{0}\partial_{t} + \gamma^{i}\partial_{i}\) is a matrix operator, which when you apply to the spinor you get \(D \psi = m\psi = \left( \gamma^{0}\partial_{t} + \gamma^{i}\partial_{i} \right) \psi\). If you Fourier transform this you get the usual alteration of the coefficients, \(m\tilde{\psi} \propto \left( \gamma^{0}\omega + \gamma^{i}k_{i} \right) \psi\). However, unlike the scalar wave equation case you cannot say that the coefficients are equal, ie \(-\omega + \sum_{i}k_{i} + m = 0\) because there's matrices involves and these matrices are not all the same. If you expanded out \(m\tilde{\psi} \propto \left( \gamma^{0}\omega + \gamma^{i}k_{i} \right)\tilde{\psi}\) in terms of spinor components you'd find you don't get \(-\omega + \sum_{i}k_{i} + m\) in front of each term.

Since you no doubt haven't got a clue what I'm talking about since you don't know spinor matrix behaviour I'll use a previous example. In 1+1 dimensions the Dirac operator could be written as \(D = \gamma^{0}\partial_{t} + \gamma^{1}\partial_{x} = \left( \begin{array} i\partial_{t} & \partial_{x} \\ \partial_{x} & -i\partial_{t} \end{array} \right)\). This hits the 2 component spinor \(\left( \begin{array}{c} \psi_{1} \\ \psi_{2} \end{array} \right)\) as \(D\psi = \left( \begin{array} i\partial_{t} & \partial_{x} \\ \partial_{x} & -i\partial_{t} \end{array} \right)\left( \begin{array}{c} \psi_{1} \\ \psi_{2} \end{array} \right) = m \psi = m\left( \begin{array}{c} \psi_{1} \\ \psi_{2} \end{array} \right)\). So we Fourier transform each side and the equation reduces to \(\left( \begin{array} -\omega & ik \\ ik & \omega \end{array} \right)\left( \begin{array}{c} \tilde{\psi}_{1} \\ \tilde{\psi}_{2} \end{array} \right) = m\left( \begin{array}{c} \tilde{\psi}_{1} \\ \tilde{\psi}_{2} \end{array} \right)\) which gives up a pair of equations, \((-\omega-m) \tilde{\psi}_{1} + ik\tilde{\psi}_{2} = 0\) and \(ik\tilde{\psi}_{1} + (\omega-m)\tilde{\psi}_{2} = 0\). Clearly this hasn't reduced to \(\omega = m+k\), there's mixing between the different components.

To see this in the proper light it's useful to consider \(D^{2}\psi\). As I previously showed \(D^{2} = \left( \begin{array} -\partial_{t}^{2}+\partial_{x}^{2} & 0 \\ 0 & -\partial_{t}^{2}+\partial_{x}^{2} \end{array} \right) = \mathbb{I}(-\partial_{t}^{2}+\partial_{x}^{2})\). This is diagonal, there is no mixing between the different components of whatever spinor I apply it to. This is the power of the Dirac algebra, in order to get a first order operator which squares to something that acts like the wave operator on each component separately you have to use a non-diagonal matrix operator. If it could be diagonal you'd not need matrices at all! But this non-diagonalness (which isn't really a word) is why you can't just say "Square root both sides of \(E^{2} = M^{2} + p^{2}\) to get \(E = M+p\)!", because the squaring was done using matrices, so you can't unsquare the expression ignoring that fact.

As I said to you in the original thread, this is a fundamental thing in the Dirac equation. The book of Weinberg I mentioned devotes the whole chapter to discussing how Dirac come to realise this requirement, the methods he considered, the algebra he worked through and the implications of the results and that's just the introduction, never mind the detail. It's something every course on QED and the Dirac equation will highlight in the extreme. You claim you are knowledgeable in the Dirac equation, well enough to perhaps handle university material in it. This is repeated evidence you're not. This isn't a typo, this isn't a little slip, this isn't a transcription error, this isn't an "I was heading out to get drunk and I just wrote it down" mistake, it's a fundamental gaping hole in your supposed knowledge. It undermines any claim to be knowledgeable in this stuff because it means you've never do any real working calculations with the Dirac equation else you'd know all about this. Spinor components and matrix actions on them are the bane of many a student in this stuff. I speak from personal experience of getting lost in indices many times.

Seriously, give it a rest. How many times do you need to have your ignorance exposed before you stop lying?

 

I haven't changed anything. Go back to our original debates, your arguement was that I mixed up my vector and scalar notations.

YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG, MR PHD! lol

If you had mentioned the matrices, I would have honestly remarked, ''yes, the equation is incomplete in this sense, this is why I said it is 'starting to look more like the Dirac Equation,' implying it is not quite there.''

 

As for the squares, big deal. Atleast I never squared one side and not the other. Here, is this better

E^2 = \sqrt{M^2 + p^2}

Fin!

 

I just look at your post and shake my head... why do you insist on writing long-winded posts, I mean seriously dude? Who are you trying to impress? I know what you are talking about, are you trying to go over my head or something?

 

You're very unwise to bend the truth when I link to the posts directly above you.

I made a slip up, in that the explanations I then provided clearly demonstrated I understood the nature of \(\omega\). Furthermore your equation was still nonsense even though \(\omega\) is a scalar. Furthermore you just got basic relativity wrong, by saying \(E=m+p\) in relativity. Furthermore it's a mistake you've repeated, despite having a lengthy indepth explanation from me, an explanation you've complained was unnecessary but which you obviously need given you're made the mistake twice now.

Incompleteness has nothing to do with it, it's bullshit!

Well that's STILL wrong! \(E^{2} = m^{2} + p^{2}\) is the equation, you've got an unnecessary square root over the right hand side! And it was a 'big deal' because you were showing you don't understand the nature of the Dirac operator, which is what the Dirac equation is all about. Remember, you are the one claiming to be knowledgeable in it. If you didn't make that claim I'd not be holding you to this standard. You claim you're sufficiently familiar with it to understand working details, to be able to do some of the algebra, to even perhaps handle university material on it. The fact you're failing to understand basic notation is undermining all of that and I'm going to point it out.

If you just put your hands up and said "Ok, the truth is I don't understand this stuff, I just copy expressions from Wikipedia and other websites and just reword other people's explanations. In truth I don't have any working understanding of this stuff" then I'd stop saying you're dishonest.

You made mistake after mistake after mistake, in some cases repeatedly. Why are you surprised people think you're full of crap?

You don't know what I'm talking about because I explained it before and you still made the same mistake!

As for trying to go over your head, anything university level is over your head. I could post old homework problems I used to have along with a solution and it would go over your head, as we're seeing in your laughable attempts to do James's questions. If I wanted to go crazy with the algebra I could but what I'm posting here is bookwork. It's assumed knowledge for anyone who does quantum field theory. It might seem like trying to go over people's head to you but you have very low standards as you understand so little. If you really understood this stuff you'd see I'm posting little more than a simple explanation of the form of the Dirac operator. If I wanted to go nuts with over the top stuff I'd have gone into detail about compact spaces in string vacua in the Hawking thread.

Unlike you I'm not required to misrepresent myself to talk about this stuff. This stuff is, literally, lunch time discussion material for me, discussing it isn't something I expect to terribly impress people.

Reiku is happy to play the "Oh I'll explain that to you, I have a good understanding of it. I'll do it by posting lots of equations!" card when he's the one posting the equations but not when he's the one whose being schooled. Just look at his 'book' he says is aimed at 14~16 year olds. It includes Lie algebra commutation relations and the Dirac equation! He wants to be seen to be informed and knowledgeable so he posts the most complicated thing he thinks he can get away with. When someone else posts an explanation on similar material he shows his own attitude when he accuses them of trying to unnecessarily impress people. It's a complete double standard, just like how he demands civility from people but out of all the people in this thread he does many times more swearing and name calling then the rest of us put together.

He doesn't like being hold to standards he demands of others. It's why he doesn't like moderators dealing with him, he wants to be immune from criticism while throwing plenty of it.

 

It's called a reflection on the obvious behaviour.


Please continue with these dark-ages attitude.

 

I did swear at the man afterall
I sent him a message of apology.

And I meant it.

If the man let's me back here, tell, me, how can anyone hold him judgement of my behaviour?

The answer is ''no one''. It's my fault always anyway.

 

I will give you one word of advice, alphanumericunt, your behaviour is out of order. You are not showing modest or mod behaviour. You are below the purity of real scientific adventure. You've lest embraced the finer points of your knightood and belowed your power to support the likes of Guest who James has already questioned whether there is a clique in itself and if he himself does not know what I mean, then I say this: It's clear that from James' post in university first year thread for me in the free thoughts, that Guest clearly has a strange, (Yet similar to your) attitude towards me.

Too obvious.

Every time in private messages of Guest being a sock, you quickly changed the subject.