Mathematical Proof of Solving Wigners Friend's Problem

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by brennus, May 30, 2010.

  1. brennus Registered Member

    Messages:
    73
    PART ONE

    IN A MORE verbal approach, these axioms lead to resonably acceptable models of how informaton in a black hole that, instead of mangling the information past the event horizon and then tunnelling the information through the black holes barrier and back into the spacetime we are usually aquainted with, i see my model as one far more simplistic but certainly not as elegant.

    I stated:

    1. Information between universes with local QD's are the most probable universes for information exchange.

    This means that information can be retained within a black holes (and maybe beyond into parallel unuierses) without any tunnelling effect occuring in a lame opportunity to replace this valuable information, the fact of the matter is, is that the probabilities retaining and sustaining this world act in accordance to these rules which we call conservation. It also plays a most pivotal part in where there is another universe, so identical to ours, that an exact equivalent of this energy is finding its way into our ground state universe in accordance to balancing the information, in an attemt not to cause any contradictory, oxymoronic paradoxes.


    I also said:

    3. Shared information is a synonymous process between two parallel universes to keep a net-balance.

    This means in short that the most probable universes to share energy equally are not only both in their ground state, but also one which is consistently shared by informaton by informaton. (Informatons here are simply beng used as a visual blueprint to which is desired to be mentally-percepted. They could be seen as physical conduits for information ''itself'', but more intuitively, it seems more appropriate to think that all particles contain the same ability to share information, such as a photon energy, being shared between two atoms possessing angular momentum. Exchange of energy does not occur otherwise).

    So if Information Peice A changed into configurating \(|\psi>\) a structure with such a representation, has no absolute state until the amplitude of the system is measured. In this case, Information Peice A changed into an Information Peice B. These are considered as symbolized as being space points.

    So from A to B, there must be a complemetarity if their observables are invariant with each other. So \(\int <\psi|\psi>=1\). Any information therefore, between one point and another is wayward when trying to contemplate the order of things without falling upon the theory of predeterminism, slave to its logic.


    PART TWO

    I MIGHT AS far to go to say the universe has a state vector over all the universes \(<0>\) meaning that the finite model of universes has a respective wave function \(\psi\) governing its probability smear of information. Interpreting the usual equations, in respect of talking the integral of this respective wave function \(\psi\) Should lead to a probabilty density. The ampitude of the frequency can be seen as a shadow to the formation of the universe itself.


    PART THREE

    THE PROBABILITY DENSITY[/b] of these states evolve into [*], however, without imposing a time-dependancy (Were for instance \(\psi\) was not a function of \(t\), a problem arises in physics about when the value was originally measured, which kind of dilluted the paranaoia of beleiving that time coud not be somehow important when we make our measurements.

    [*] The mathematics which describes the evolution of the state of a system is almost certainly a postulate of quantum mechanics according to evolution equation of the schordinger equation:

    \(\hat{H}|\psi>=i\hbar \partial_{t}|\psi>\)

    In the mathematics of quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian operator is self-adjoint so it's diagonalisable and all its eigenvalues are real. There is always atleast one family of orthogonal states \(|\phi_n>\) that span the state space:

    \(\hat{H}|\psi_n>=E_n|\phi_n>\)

    and the state \(|\phi_n>\) evolves as:

    \(|\phi_n(t)>=e^{-i \omega_{n}t|\phi_n>\)

    These are called time-dependant evolutions of the schrodinger equation. If we eleiminate the use for time we find an equation called the Wheeler de Witt equation which was designed to express a universe which had no motion, therefore, no change in energy states. Fotini Markopoulou pointed out that this remarkable prediction of relativity can be pretty much summed up as something about observers being inside the universe. The equations where they stand are completely behond comprehension, yes these things we do not understand, seems to be, the only theories which will lead us somewhat further towards the truth.

    Taking Wigners Friend's Paradox seriously, just as many have before me, it is not a matter where all conscious beings on the earth, nearly a 7 billion toll count of souls, all are somehow intrconnected to some single unified field of cosmic mind, which three scientists independantly came to the consclusion to, but rathar, we have unique roles in this eternal present.

    PART FOUR

    Time; the imaginary vector of space

    WHEN RELATIVITY WAS[/b] formulated by Einstein, it seemed that the great manifold of spacetime was intertwined with the presence of matter. In fact, according to Fred Alan Wolf [2] who i have had the pleasure of talking to a few times in brief conversations, that you cannot have a spacetime with matter or energy. In fact the union of space and time was but one of the remarkable features, but generally-speaking, is incomplete. The truth of the matter is, is that spacetime really becomes space-time-matter-energy. If you remove any of these quantities, you cannot have the rest!

    It is possible to state that space itself (which must include time according to relative standards) that the geometry of space is actually an emergent organization of matter itself. If we had what was initially called ''a pure gravity solution'' [3] to the universe, then what geometry would exist? You would have no phyical objects that would define such a geometry, so it seems that by reasonable conclusion that the whenever matter ''appears'' from the vacuum, is when the vacuum itself has a geometry. In a pure gravity solutioned universe, time does not exist, due to mathematical diffeomorphisms.

    But wait a minute! Did i not say that you must involve space-time-matter-energy as a single form in which if any of them where to be removed, the rest would follow? It is true and so a pure gravity solution cannot be right, and therefore, one can proove that the idea of ''timelessness'' in physics is purely obsurd, which means that there is some kind of conceptual error, evolved itself from this dubious paradox. In another sense, one can interpret timelessness as saying that time seems to not exist!

    Indeed, many paradoxes can arise from a timeless universe where energy does not change, given in a previous paper i wrote [5], but to take an overview of some of the more interesting points, we will take a look at a famous equation called the Wheeler-de Witt equation, which is given as

    \(\hat{H}|\psi>=0 \)

    The Wheeler-de Witt equation uses a non-relativistic approach to its parts \(\hat{H}\) and \(\psi\), which is purely Dirac Notation. The equation put in simplistic terms, does not care for any time-evolution as would be found in a time-dependent description of the Schrodinger Wave Function [*] (who created the first wave-function of matter). The psi-wave function \(|\psi>\) does not refer to the spatial wave function which is a complex-function. Instead, it refers to all properties of a relativistic universe, such as its geometry and the distortions inherent in the quantized vacuum of space. This would mean that any time-dependence would fail. It’s not concerned with how things unravel inside it.

    Even though in these studies I have come to use the phrase ‘’time is relative to the observer,’’ from strictly a geometrical sense where we feel or sense some flow to time, the term has also meant to distinguish something larger as well. On the cosmological scale, or universal scale and even possibly a multi-verse scale, time according to a famous equation is not really relevant.

    Ultimately, the Wheeler-de Witt equation is non-local; this means that asymptotic time (the time we all come to experience) would be best described as a local theory, making time essentially local relative to any observer. So we do indeed end up with a local and non-local description of time. You may also remember my theory suggesting that the universe may not have a preferred origin being local or non-local, but rather both. In a better understanding, the Wheeler De-witt equation cannot really have any application to the ''experience of time'', but causes more contradictory problems for a model which may come to describe the human observer.

    If you could theoretically be an observer who could sit outside of space and time, you wouldn’t notice an expanding universe, in fact, it would seem essentially frozen to itself. So the observer would note ‘’the universe is essentially unchanging.’’

    So from a cosmological analysis, we can see that the universe is a frozen entity, a system that is completely unchanging. The Wheeler-de Witt equation is a proof of non-localized dimensions and existing alongside it, is the Schrodinger Equation, which for some observer posits a linear time and also a local frame of reference (or dimension, if you like). Since quantum mechanics states that everything must follow its rules, that must mean that consciousness follows a specific condition where it does not exist in space, but is part of a linear existence of observations through time. This linear existence measures motion within the universe F and some usage of time as a measuring rod, but most importantly, it exhibits a local nature to time, which would mean time in general is local.

    The point of this, is that on a global scale, it could easily be shown that everything may as well be determined (from the universes point of view) since internal change never happens.

    It’s only when you come to the observer and how the observer uses time as a useful tool to catalogue events made in instantaneous frames of space. On the grand scale of the universe, the Wheeler-de Witt Equation – with these measuring devices, the only interpretation of time arises from being relative to an observer! This means that not only do our experience of time make such a thing real, but it is also a local phenomena. There may even not be such a thing as a non-local time - nor may we find that time on geometrical scales exists. In truth, recent evidence seems to be showing us that time is really ''events of starts and stops'' - not a flow to time at all. Even though our experience is local, we can seem to show that whilst that part is fundamentally-true, there is however evidence showing there is no real flow to time [6]; the kind of flow we all inexorably feel.

    Now - this takes some discussion. And raises many issues of applicability to the theory, for instance; why should we accept that time has no flow despite our contradictory experience of it, whilst we are to accept that our experience of it is local?

    It's not to complicated to issue that the experience of locality is not an illusion, for if it where that in itself would be an ultimate contradiction of our experience. But the sense of flow can be itself an illusion because conciousness does not seem to be itself an extention of time. By this, i mean that the flow of time it not a requisit for a working quantized theory of time, so we can actually remove this aspect and leave the experience of time in this rigid mannor. As explained breifly before, time has been shown that it doesn't have an actual (flow) as to be associated with geometrical events. Instead, these events on a quantization level or also known as ''the fundamental time'' is really fleeting flashes of beginnings and ends.

    To provide some analogy to this, you could assume to have a peice of string which has been cut into several fragments. However, placing the fragments together as though it where one peice would cause an illusion for the observer. Instead of fragments, we would observe a linear system. Albiet, its a poor analogy, but one hopefully which would help to grasp the conceptual idea's presented.

    So essentially, time is real, but exists at a quantized level. It seems also that time itself, destinguishing from the external time to the time we experience is purely local. But moreover, what is this subliminal experience of time, and does time exist outside of the mind in a quantized form?

    We will be touching later more on the world of the quantized and geometrical time.

    PART FIVE

    No Time, No Energy

    ANE SO IMAGINE if we where to consider a timeless universe as adopted by many growing number of physicists, we would actually present ourselves with more problems, such as energy. To define the energy in the universe, you would almost certainly need time since time and energy are acting conjugates under the Noether Theorem; though, mind you, and not intentionally trying to complicate things, but how could anyone measure the energy of the universe because you would need to be outside of it to do so... but without adding any more to the problems, it still remains true that neglecting time in a final theory of quantum mechanics will degrade the chances of measuring energy at levels required for quantum synthesis exploration, maybe more mathematically than so much experimentally.

    In fact, the problem of time is the adaptation of the Scrodinger equation to a diffeomorphism invariant context by a quantizing equation gives the Wheeler-deWitt equation, which is an equation which governs the universe in a lifeless non-changing state, where time is essentially frozen, and the internal energy is non-changing. Everything should be best then to describe the universe which would be immutable.

    But the universe does have an energy, just not one that can be well defined. Only a very small portion of this cloud will be condensed, and some of it we can observe measure in their various multi-particle systems to an approximation. But as expected, these problems concerning energy and time are not alone. Without time, it is also contrary to our experience. Why would we seem to experience and represent something like a time if it was not in the manifold of space? Would evolution be audacious enough as to give us an experience of something so exotic it is not an extention of space itself, which would then imply that perhaps consciousness is not extention of space either? Consciousness and time are inexorably linked, and in many ways are the same. As i have already explained, remove time directionality, spice it up with a few negatives here and there as to allow it to not follow a logical linear path, then our experiences in the world would be shortlived and perhaps even non-existent.

    Readings of interest: - http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2008.1 ~ The topic of timelessness was the basis of many essays written in 2008.

    What is Life? - Cambridge University press 1959 and also by Schrodinger ''Mind and Matter'' Cambridge University press 1959

    PART Six

    Solving the immucalate wave function collapsing when two minds or conscious minds are involved, is not really a matter of consciousness at all. Sure we are conscious beings, but if Wigner observed the tiny electron, does it have a spin up or a spin down, was it determined there?

    It seems like this can only be the correct way to solve the Wigners Friend Paradox. It does require however that the Wheeler de Witt equation is a special case of an equation, which has some inverse relationships to our specific roles in the spacetime pantomime.

    Time is essential to break free the question concerning when the wave function first collapsed, without resorting that there cannot be any more than a single consciousness. It simply requires from now on, that we mathematically work it out logically, which i will show next.

    PART SEVEN

    SOLVING WHEN THE wave function collapsed when two minds or conscious minds are involved, is not really a matter of consciousness at all. Sure we are conscious beings, but if Wigner observed the tiny electron, does it have a spin up or a spin down, was it determined there?

    It seems like this can only be the correct way to solve the Wigners Friend Paradox. It does require however that the Wheeler de Witt equation is a special case of an equation, which has some inverse relationships to our specific roles in the spacetime pantomime.

    Time is essential to break free the question concerning when the wave function first collapsed, without resorting that there cannot be any more than a single consciousness. It simply requires from now on, that we mathematically work it out logically, which i will show next.


    PART EIGHT

    I'LL TYPE THIS the way i would when writing a paper for some thesis on a class project, or something alone those. Without making this too much to handle, i've tried to write it as simplistic as i can, trying to remember the mathematical basis of 1st year university levels.

    There are some identities which must be analyzed first:

    \(\alpha\) is the observer/mind of knowing the state

    This is a local system, with local effects. Time as well is relative to \(\alpha\) (the observer), meaning that time is a local phenomenon not of motion, but of human psychology and perception. [1]

    If time is then a local phenomenon relative only to an observer (not meaning specifically a human observer, but it can nevertheless) then the wave function governing the object being wathed by our observer whose state includes the perception of time, means that we inexorably impose the need to catalogue the watched object under some vector of time.

    To attempt a solution to understand the observer \(\alpha\) and the observed (or object) \(\beta\) i came to treating the observer as part of an eigenstate solution:

    \(\alpha (\beta)=\beta\)

    And \(\beta\) on the left handside operates as a ''point reference''. The point-reference is allowing the idea of some communicative mathematic between the observed and the object, not only in terms of time coordinates, but also in terms of giving them values which have mathematical properties identical to that of the dirac function. There must be a quantum wave function governing these states and so, i arrived at an expression to hope to satisfy that question:

    \(\sum^n_{i=1} | \alpha_i (\beta_i) \psi(t)|^2\)

    where \(i=1\) and \(j=0\)

    This simple expression is an amplitude relation. The amplitude itself has the components which represent the observer and the object, but they have subscriptions marked with lowercase \(i\) and \(j\). Well, this relationship had to be introduced, or the entire theory would fail.

    In other words, i required there to be some kind of interaction between \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\). For sucessful interaction, one where the observer and the observed are in visual union, the we require that both \(\alpha_i\) and \(\beta_i\) have these commuting values attached.

    This means, that in the case originally given: \(\sum^n_{i=1} | \alpha_i (\beta_i) \psi(t) |^2\) simply leads to a union between \(\alpha_i (\beta_i) \) but more importantly, it requires that the wave function mut be able to collapse without invoking any problems.

    Mathematically-speaking, \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) are members, so they satisfy this following relation:

    \(\alpha_i \beta_i = < \alpha_i(\psi(t)) |\beta_i \psi* (t)>\)

    If interaction is sucessful, as it almost always is, then using symbol theory to represent what we want, we can state that \(\alpha(\beta) \in \mathbf{R}_4\), meaning that the observer and the observed exist in the four dimensional spacetime manifold. In theory, if my speculations concluding time has been true, then the identity \((\beta) \in \mathbf{R}_3\) is pretty much a safe assumption. Afterall, time seems to be directly linked with our perception of motion. Remove the observer from that equation, and you find that only the objective real dimensions can only exist.

    Describing their roles in a more dynamical sense, we evaluate the observer and the observed under linear complex algebra.


    \(\zeta_{\alpha} (\psi (t) ) = (\alpha, t)\)

    and

    \(\zeta_{\beta} (\psi* (t) ) = (\beta, t)\)

    This means that these procedures will behave explicitely on time, and the orders of events in such time.

    The Proof in a Nutshell

    We have observer 1 \(\alpha_1\) and observer 2 \(\alpha_2\). Before any resolution is made on a hypothetical object \(\beta\) there needs
    to time coordinates to a measure of both observer 1's and observer 2's actions. Let us speculate, that the subject (observer 1) goes into the lab and measures
    the object. Before this action, both \(\alpha_1\) and \(\alpha_2\) were in fact, if quantum theory is correct, existed in some state of superpositioning.

    This means, they would be mathematically-expressed as: \(\frac{\alpha_1 + \alpha_2}{2} = |\psi>\). As soon as \(\alpha_1\) interacts with the object
    \(\beta\), this is a function made in some certain time, so a measurement made earlier, according to these equations we would need admit that the wave function
    must have been determined upon the first measurement, and any uncertianty after that cannot be anything but paranoid minds. Using linear models in order to follow these
    paths to where these idea' first sprung from, it means that a principle had to be introduced to answer why \((\alpha_i (\beta_i))\) have the properties they do.

    The equation describing a sucessful mapping between an observation and observed system, in a coherent state is:

    \(\zeta_{\delta^j_i} |\psi (\Delta t)> = \int |\alpha_i(\beta_i)\psi(t)|^2\)

    where \(i=1\) and \(j=0\)

    This is actually equivalent to this equation: I firstly derive some axioms to base the road to the derivision.

    Firstly you have to identify some easy maths here, \(\alpha(\beta(t)) = \beta(t)\) thus a change in time would be \(\alpha (\beta (\Delta t)) = \beta (t+1)\).

    This means that \(\alpha (\beta (\Delta t)) = \alpha(\beta(\mathbf{A}^{n+1}))\)

    So it has a form equivalent to \(\zeta_{\delta^j_i}|\psi(\Delta t) = \int |\alpha_i(\beta_i)\psi(t)|^2\) when solved.

    \(\alpha \psi ( k \beta \psi* (\Delta t)) = \int |\alpha \beta (\psi(t))|^2\)

    If observer 1 made a measurement on the state of the object \(\beta \psi(t)\), then the time quantity, marks the wave functions collapse at a certain period, or frame which has a chronological appearance.

    The fact observer 1 made such an observation on \(\beta\), at an earlier time than his collegue, gives us the grounds in which to claim whose knowledge of the wave function is ultimatey defined. If observer 2
    measured the object \(\beta\) , then the state observer two measures it in will be predictable for observer 1, where their observation had originally unlocked the probability surrounding \(\beta \psi\).

    For objects not being vigintly watched over, have an equation describing this as:

    \(\int |(\alpha_i,\beta_j)\psi(t)> \ne \int |\alpha, \beta \psi(t)|^2\)

    PART NINE

    REAL TIME OBSERVATIONS are always present for an observer, simple because the measurements of observers occur mathematically-speaking, in real time frames. That means then that the frame of reference for an observer occurs only in a real time sense - and this may include the description of the object \(\beta\) the observer is measuring. This will become important soon.

    To make sense of the real invariance in the state of \(\alpha_i\) on \(\beta_i\) asks us if there is allows a complex decscription for the \((\beta_i)\) component. If it does (which it should when not being observed) has a new form of an imaginary coefficient \((\beta_i)\). This means that if the reference principle satistifies the mathematical subscripts in \(\alpha_i(i\beta_i)\) leads to a negative eignstate, which contradicts the real time notion... and influence of the component \(\alpha_i\), since from his or hers frame of reference, mathematical measurements on time remain strictly real with no complex values.

    Because of this, i have been forced to intriduce to concept of super complex numbers, which hardly no physicist ever uses. But i literally have been forced to use it, to regain the postive time description for \(\alpha\) to remin invariant, and constant. The eigenstate equation then between the reference point \(\beta\) and the observer \(\alpha\) are now given in the fomula:

    \(\hat{\box}\alpha_i(i\beta_i)=\beta\)

    Which makes the eigenstate absolutely a positive result. However, because the subscripts that act of reference points in terms with each other are dependant on the time component, it means then there must a solution where even:
    \( j=i\) [1] and for the identification of whether the object is interaction with observer 1 \(\alpha_1\), can be misleading because they both hare the same subsrcipt \(i\).

    This means that there are two main condition equations in a slice \(\sum\) of spacetime corresponding to \(d^4\), so that

    Condition eq. one fo \(\alpha_1\) which satisfies for a past \(t\) or a present \(t\);

    \(\mathbb{C}_{\math{1}}=\sum^{t_1}_{i=t} \hat{\box} \alpha_{1}_{i} (i\beta_i)\)

    The condition eq. two satifies for a future condition:

    \(\mathbb{C}_{\math{2}}=\sum^{t_2}_{i=t+1} \hat{\box} \alpha_{2}_{i} (i\beta_i)\)

    with a second observer \(\alpha_{2}\).

    Even though \(\hat{\box}j=i\) acts on the subscript of \(\alpha\), we can see that even if \(\alpha_i\) is reduced to be expressed with \(i\beta_i\) even though the true form of \(\alpha\) is not actually in phase of reference \(\alpha_j\) means that the subscript \(j\) must resort to the value of \(j=0\) - the all or nothing show.

    [1] - This means that this identity holds: \(\hat{\box}j=i\)

    FINAL THOUGHTS

    The Reference Principle

    This was devised when i realized we could trace relationships between the observer and the observed, even though the observer is considered more important with the delicates of the theory.

    We do, incomparably with any inannimate object, refer to their existence due to having a knowledge on the system, gained from;

    1) Either entering my consciousness from the outside,

    2) Or gaining of information which has been dorment within consciousness itself.

    I prefer the latter, for many reasons i do not have time to cover here. The reference of the object on the first observer is not a conscious connection from the frame of the object. Instead, it could have reference to the observer in terms of its observables. If their observations are disturbed, then we can use this as being a reference to our presence.

    However, if i begin an arguement on how the object \(\beta\) refers to out existences, one must result to some type of back-reaction theory carefully part of a gradient of knowledge \(\alpha_{\bold{k}}\) [2]. To cut this short, we don't just define the world, the world needs to retain order so it can make sense of our frame of reference; a dual self-reflection principle on both states, conscious and innanimate.

    [2] For instance observer 1's knowledge on \(\beta\) is given as \(\alpha_{\bold{k}}\), and if this happened previous to any measurement from \(\alpha_2\) on \(\beta\) on a later state, then presently in accordance with the first postulate, \(\alpha_1\) has a greater knowledge thus: for simplicity, in an ineequality expression this would be seen as \(\alpha_1_{\math{k}} < \alpha_2_{\math{k}}\). This means that there is an inherent law of preterminism when states are analysed by humans, because they can subectively define the path's of other potential observers. Destiny is then written for someone, so long as something before them managed to see their proverbial outcomes.

    The knowledge of the first measurement must be according to this line of thought as a substantial marker to locally agree as being when the wave function was determined, no matter how much uncertainty is inherent in \(\alpha_2_{\bold{k}}\).
    [excerpts of the first document/paper]

    It should be noted

    \(\hat{\box}\alpha_i(i^2\beta)= +\beta_{\sum \psi(i,j)}\) Has in fact, after some private rigurous investigations, must have a commutative rule \(\alpha_i(\beta_i)\). This means the observer and the observed can be described under similar mathematics found in Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle, only this time, uncertainty arises when we have the absolute identity of |\alpha_j,\beta_i|.

    \(\hat{\box}\alpha_j(i^2\beta_i)=\) where is the state of \(\alpha_j\) is not absolute, and so the supercomplex configuration must mean it indicate a solutin to something else, rather than equivalent to that of the state, or influencing the state \(i^2\beta_i\).

    Note. Some of the math leads to identify \(\hat{\box}(-\beta_i)=\beta\), and will continue to be compelled to stay represented this way, unless the first observation holds an important relation to the first measurement.

    The final equation describing \(\alpha_1\) as the observer who initially collapsed the wave function of \(-\beta \psi*\) the in the case of:

    \(\hat{\box}_1_{\mathbb{k}}_i(\mathbb{k}\beta_i)\) must then lead to the final part of \(\mathbb{k}\beta_i}\) is the same as \((\mathbb{k}\beta_i)=\hat{\box}\alpha_1_{\mathbb{k}}_i (-\beta_i)\).

    This means that the value of knowledge is important when cataloging the unravelling of events in accord to a wave function requiring time.''
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Perhaps its just the 15 seconds of scrolling through the post I've done (I've not got the time this morning) but my Reiku sense is tingling. Well its closer to indigestion but you get my point....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    That's a possibility.

    Personally, I'm getting more of a Vkothii vibe from this.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    I still don't understand why Vkothii even bothered. He'd post a bunch of gibberish dressed in technical terms pulled off Google, and I never saw anyone ever bother to reply. It's just weird why someone would do that, maybe he had to convince his mom he was doing real science homework or something.
     
  8. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    I thought this sounded a bit [POST=2466185]familiar[/POST]:
    Am I to understand people out there are actually (*gasp*) reading my posts?

    (Worse, people are actually trudging through the most tiresome thread in the history of SciForums???)
     
  9. brennus Registered Member

    Messages:
    73
    'Who is this Reiku guy anyway? And... it has come to my attention that alphanumeric is heavily paranoid; just a few days back he was accusing a member in the same subforum of EXACTLY the same thing, so what's up doc?

    And even if I was Reiku, which I am not, none of you have attempted to verify or disclaim the theory... You see, I think this is why scientists here are taken more of a joke than anything else... But that's just my point.'
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Sorry: I know this is mindless trolling but when I read "- which I am not -" I couldn't stop a case of the giggles.

    Or posting about them, apparently.

    Anyway, it may all make sense, but it's over my 'ead. Wassit do, then, this model o' yorn?
     
  11. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    This response kinda points to you being a repeat offender: It's pretty strange to kick off with accusing a fellow member of paranoia.
    Another strong indicators that you're not as new to this board as your post count would indicate.

    Try presenting it properly, and more importantly, consicely, then. Noone's gonna trawl through all that drivel unless you can explain your ideas much more clearly.

    Vkothii?
     
  12. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    A delusional dimwit who lies without shame or hesitation about anything and everything and who has a desperate wish to be considered well read and intelligent when he is neither. He posts (or rather, posted) threads much like this, combinations of buzzwords he didn't understand, work he'd lifted from other people, made up nonsense, liberally strewn with LaTeX errors and mathematical mistakes so mind blowingly stupid (he couldn't multiple out (a+b)(c+d) properly, yet claimed to be doing postgrad level GR material at his pre-university level college). He's repeatedly been banned and repeatedly made new accounts and simply repeats the same behaviour.

    I suggest you look up what 'paranoid' means. In the grand scheme of things I couldn't care less if you are Reiku, its just that sometimes a new poster will post in a style extremely similar to him so I comment as such. I've been right more than once, given his bannings and reregisterings on this and other forums. Besides, even if you aren't him the labelling of 'Looks like the work of Reiku' or 'Reiku-like' is SciForums short hand for "Nonsense gibberish plagerised from others, incorrectly copied from Wikipedia, poorly written with no methodology or coherent logic and full of basic mistakes, grammatical, mathematical and factual. If 'Reiku-like' were to be translated into Newspeak it would be triple plus ungood. And that's what your work seems to be.

    You don't have anything even remotely close to coherent or viable. As already pointed out, you've lifted basic definitions and results from someone else's posts so at the very least you're guilty of plagiarism, pretty much the cardinal sin of science. Furthermore you haven't developed any kind of coherent explanation or set of results, you can barely even use the LaTeX function. You provide little to no justification for any claim you make (other than those 'claims' you in fact copied from someone else), its mostly text. You talk about quantum mechanics but you obviously don't understand it and you've clearly unfamiliar with research articles as you've failed to do standard things like provide citations to results you assume, results you use, papers relevant to your claims,

    Anyone who knows any QM can see you don't. And you make many of the same kinds of mistakes Reiku has in the post, such as not knowing when something is a vector or a matrix. You call \(\langle 0 \rangle\) a state vector, when its actually an expectation value of the operator in question. You use a zero but I imagine the place you copied such an expression from actually had O there, as 'O' is often short hand for observable which is precisely what is considered when examining expectation values and Hermitian matrices.

    Another example would be :

    Putting aside for the moment the dubious notation (I imagine you tried to modify an equation you copied but you didn't understand how to do it clearly) this is entirely self contradictory.

    If \(\alpha\) is some operator on \(\beta\) such that \(\alpha(\beta) = \beta\) then \(\alpha\) belongs to the space of endomorphisms defined on the space \(\beta\) resides in. This is a slick way of saying that an eigenvalue problem of that kind requires that \(\beta\) and \(\alpha(\beta)\) belong to the same space, as they are equated in your expression. But you then go on to say that \(\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{4}\) and yet \(\alpha(\beta) \in \mathbb{R}^{3}\). This is wrong. You are wrong. And this makes the following statement of yours seem all the more obviously false :

    Anyone whose done university mathematics and physics knows how to do basic eigenvalue methods, particularly if they go into physics and especially in quantum mechanics.

    Nice try at trolling. Behaving more and more like Reiku. You've posted a pile of miscopied, mistyped, jumbled up plagiarised gibberish and you call us a joke? You mention you type Section 8 as if you would 'a thesis' or 'paper' but clearly you've never read many (if any) given it is nothing like the layout seen in many papers on ArXiv. Even textbook do a better job so it would seem you haven't read any of them either. You're displaying another Reiku-like attribute, the self delusion that knocking up a few paragraphs of nonsense and putting in some equations you made up or copied from something Google found for you elsewhere is somehow thesis-like. Obviously you've never written an actual one, only convinced yourself your high school homework essay counts as such.

    You have pretty much all the attributes of Reiku. And I hope you are him because if you aren't it means there's more people as dim witted, delusional, ignorant, dishonest, attention whores as him on the forums. Reiku was entertaining to smack down and expose as a liar, for a while, but its not like he's the only crank these forums have seen. In the past he's made it clear he thinks some of us are obsessed (or 'paranoid') about him, that he's somehow in an elevated position in our minds but he's not. This level of delusion is demonstrated by the fact he once said in a PM flame exchange with me that he wondered why I didn't ask him for help with a research level GR problem I was working on. That goes beyond the "I'm just doing it for show" through to full blown self delusion. In reality he was, is and forever will be another face in the swarm of cranks who made massive claims and came to nought. If you aren't him then I suggest you consider changing your entire approach to physics. If you aren't don't let the door hit you on the way out, while reminiscing about your stupid and delusions are vaguely humour you're not worth any more effort than that.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2010
  13. brennus Registered Member

    Messages:
    73
    I feel there is more here than meets the eye. A serious pissing contest preceeded this thread I'd wager.
     
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I see you failed to respond to my points where I demonstrate you've said clear and undeniable mistakes. Do you have anything to say about the fact you copied from someone else's posts? What about the mistake about eigenvalues and eigenvectors? Or expectation values?

    As for pissing contest, you're the one here posting made up stuff in an attempt to swindle others into thinking you're well read and able to do physics. Reiku used to do the same. You, he and other cranks seem to think my posts where I mention a few bits of physics are an attempt to show off, they aren't. The fact they go over your head is a testament to your naivety and ignorance. If I wanted to show off the maths or physics I know you'd not stand a chance of understanding.
     
  15. brennus Registered Member

    Messages:
    73
  16. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    No, it's just that there's nothing that gets under the skin of a competent scientist like an arrogant wannabe who really doesn't know what he's on about. If you try to post made up or plagiarised physics/math you don't understand it'll be immediately obvious (you'll screw it up in all sorts of ways you have no way of knowing about) and you're virtually guaranteed an irritated response from the people whose subject, notation, and terminology you're abusing. So if you're not a troll, don't get ahead of yourself. If you are a troll (I understand this mentality even less than crankish self-delusion, but apparently such creatures exist), then shame on you for picking such an easy and obvious target.
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Ah, so you're not Reiku but just someone who knows him. Given I have no wish to reply on those forums I'll reply here, directing my response to 'Mr Scientist' aka Reiku when appropriate since he's reading this by the looks of it.

    You can't honestly believe what you said. You admit you have crossed paths with me for 'a good two years', have seen me post tons and tons of mathematics and physics across a wide range of topics, often in response to stupidity you've posted and yet you're trying to insinuate I 'can't do basic algebra'. You know full well I can because I've been through such things as the difference between a matrix and a vector with you before.
    Do I understand the basics of linear algebra and its applications to quantum mechanics? Yes. I've proven that to you before, in many threads on both this forum and PhysOrg. I've corrected you on those things many times before too. You're doing as you always do, trying to act as if you haven't ever been corrected or that its not been demonstrated many times you're a plagiarist and a liar.

    Its not 'dubious', its simply wrong. The definition of an eigenvector v for an operator A in a vector space over a field F is that \(A(v) = \lambda v\) for some \(\lambda \in F\). If v and A(v) are not in the same vector space then this equation is wrong, its mathematically nonsense. The issue isn't whether or not I accept or understand the notion of operators, eigenvalues et al (which I do) but whether the expression was correct. Both of the two of you, Bennus and Reiku, have lifted buzzwords and expressions you don't understand from somewhere and then tried to 'jazz it up' by throwing in what you hope to be comments which seem intelligent. Unfortunately because you don't understand the material your comments turn out to be wrong on a regular basis. This is such a case.

    Another demonstration you don't know what you're talking about and yet you try to throw in 'facts' you have made up which you hope will make it seem to the casual reader you know what you're talking about. The bra-ket notation in this context is not to do with space-time, they are a way of representing the abstract notion of 'quantum states', elements in a complete vector space equipped with an inner product (aka a Hilbert space). When doing such things you're not considering the space-time, you're manipulating a description of quantum wave functions. Yes, eigenvalues and eigenforms and eigenstates and eigenvectors arise in the description of actual vectors defined in space-time but the application of such mathematics is not restricted to just space-time, they have a much much wider area of application. They arise in any formulation or construct which involves operators acting on a vector space as endomorphisms, ie \(A : V \to V\). Square matrices acting on vectors is one example. Others would be differential operators. Pretty well all known physics system involve eigenvalue problems in some way, electron orbitals in the Hydrogen atoms, Fourier decompositions, Fourier transformations, rotational mechanics. These would be things anyone whose gone through enough university physics or maths to know quantum mechanics would know about. The fact you don't say it all. I'd suggest looked at such things as Sturm-Liouville methods or spectral theory but it'd be over your head and even if you were intelligent enough to grasp them you obviously have no wish to learn science, only to appear to do so.

    Where did I do this? I pointed out the mistaken claims and the author's poor ability to coherently put forth his 'work'.

    Neither of those two comments actually address directly what I've said, they only say "Oh he's wrong". Can either of you actually explain why I'm wrong, clearly and specifically? I doubt it.

    No, I have never claimed that. Either you're being deliberately deceptive or you're simply happy to repeatedly make claims without making the slightest effort to check their validity. I have a degree and masters in mathematics. I have a PhD in physics. Not that it would negate my previous comments about your incorrect mathematics if I didn't. Saying "1+1=3 is wrong" is valid, regardless of whether the person saying it has a professorship in mathematics or failed the 3rd grade.

    Reiku is still pulling out all the crank stops I see. Firstly I suggest he spell genius properly. Secondly I've never claimed to be a mathematical genius. I'm good at it but I'm a long way from 'genius'. Reiku (and other cranks) might just think that because compared to many of them I am in the realms of maths and physics. However, unlike cranks I'm not naive as to the level of ability possessed by many in academia and I know I fall a long way short of a great many of them. Thirdly Reiku seriously over estimate my regard for him. I don't 'hate' him, I consider him (and most cranks) with varying degrees of contempt, mild irritation, apathy and don't think you're worth anything more than the occasional smack down. They are seriously aren't worthy of hate, they are not unique or special or a thorn in my side. Reiku just seems to be a sad person desperate to have attention and is willing to lie repeatedly, to anyone and everyone, in order to feel like validated by swindling someone into saying "Wow you're clever".

    I have contempt for such attitudes and consider such things as intellectual dishonesty and wilful ignorance as extremely unpleasant things in a person but that means I don't think much of either of you, an entirely different thing to 'dislike' or 'hate'.

    I think that's pretty rich from someone who repeatedly claimed to be doing GR work at his local college (ie pre-university for those not in the UK) and to having a grasp of quantum mechanics yet claimed \((a+ib)(a-ib) = a^{2} + b^{2} + 2abi\). School kids can multiply out brackets yet someone doing GR can't?

    So am I to summise that Brennus is posting Reiku's work? Would explain a lot. The fact is the original post is wrong about the vector spaces \(\beta\) and \(\alpha(\beta)\) belong to. They MUST belong to the same one if you're considering the eigenvalues of \(\alpha\). The original post says otherwise, so its wrong. The bit about plagiarism is the section which seems to be little more than a very minor edited copy and paste from a previous post of przyk. And its not like Reiku hasn't been caught plagiarism before. A post of BenTheMan's from this forum was copied and pasted to make a new thread over in PhysOrg by you Reiku. You tried to change the expressions slightly, such as replacing an 'H' subscript with the expression for a Hamiltonian. Too bad Ben's notation was short hand for 'Higgs', he was talking about a supergravity Higgs model. And now you're repeating the same kind of behaviour again and again making mistakes by trying to slightly change expressions you simply don't understand.

    Yet another example of how you think people have any regard for you. I hadn't seen that forum until I opened this thread less than an hour ago. I have not 'seen my mistake' either, since I'm not mistaken. And I certainly haven't joined that forum. I know this is hard for you to understand Reiku but I really don't care enough about you to bother following you around. If you post shit I'll point out its shit. I did it time and again. You repeatedly made things up and lied about your knowledge and understanding and you're trying to blame me for the fact you made thread after thread of bullshit. I repeatedly said "If you stop posting shit I'll not be able to make you look like an idiot" but you kept posting it! For pete sake you argued about multiplying brackets out and then expected people to believe you understood relativity and quantum mechanics?! I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, its just our 'discussions' involved a critique of 'work' you did and given you never manage to tread out of basic stuff without becoming obviously incoherent you and I end up 'discussing' stuff I learnt years ago and consider second nature by now.

    Now you've gone from a rose tinted view of the past to flat out lying. Where did I say that? And when did you ever have any status?

    You're trying to blame me for the fact you couldn't (and still can't) do any physics or mathematics beyond GCSE level, that you lied about your work, your education, your understanding and simply made stuff up. You posted thread after thread, each time making shit up, and then complain when someone says "You're wrong about X because of Y". That someone happened to be me but its your fault you repeatedly lied and made things up. I don't say "You're wrong about X because of Y" to people like Rpenner regularly, if at all, because he posts informed honest things which show he's got some understanding and intellectual honesty. He provides me with no reason to think he's a hack and treat him as such and so I don't. You provided a wealth of reasons and now, as then, you're unwilling to blame yourself. Its not my fault you're unwilling to put in any effort.

    You really do believe the world revolves around you, don't you? You simply assumed I'd read this thread, gone to that forum and was lurking. You assumed I was following you, with nothing else to do. You assumed I'd read your "Come on, reply" post and then you waited only 2 hours before another "I know you're reading, you coward". My life doesn't revolve around you Reiku. You posted in the middle of the day and given as I now work for a living I do other things during the day. Its ironic you jump to all those conclusions, demonstrate your egocentric view point and lack of anything better to do and then call me a coward with insecurities. You post work you know is just nonsense in an attempt for attention and then complain when its the wrong kind of attention. Sounds like you've got an insecurity or two. I'm confident in my ability such that I don't need to post my work here, other than occasional snippets, I'm not churning out posts full of words I don't know.

    As for your 'proposal of friendship' I don't recall it. And I'd not take it up because my regard for you is so low, you are just another blip who can't accept they can't do physics others can. I neither hate nor like you, the interpersonal status between you and I or your work is immaterial to me.

     
  18. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    alphaN.

    you might want to reconsider responding to someone who is banned. It is a kind of unban especially given the advocate, or clone OP writer's direct access. A multiforum as real as professional wrestling tag team match is in the offing.
     
  19. brennus Registered Member

    Messages:
    73
    Banned? Now I understand...Gawd.
     
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I have no intention of posting on that forum. I've responded to Reiku's nonsense so that people here can see if. If he wants to continue trying to delude himself and others on that other forum he can go right ahead. I've known that he goes by the pseudonym 'Mr Scientist' (a completely inappropriate name) on other forums and I haven't followed him there. He desperately wants people to believe he's the centre of their universe and that he invokes strong emotions. He doesn't. Clearly his issues with repeated lying and revisionist history are still all there, desperately trying to convince people (himself the most) that he can do mathematics or physics. This thread demonstrates he can't even copy and paste the most basic of concepts like eigenvectors. His posts on that other forum demonstrates his level of honesty, he knows he's wrong but he continues to profess that others (ie me) are incorrect and the only way he manages this with anyone is to find people who are even less familiar with mathematics or physics than him and to tell them he's right and everyone else is wrong. He's proclaiming I supposedly know I'm wrong and he's right but this is completely false. I'll gladly explain eigenvectors and eigenvalues to anyone who wants to know more, so as to demonstrate his claims about \(\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{3}\) while \(\alpha(\beta) = \lambda \beta \in \mathbb{R}^{4}\) are utterly wrong. I have nothing to hide because unlike him I'm not lying or making this stuff up, I actually know it and I can do it. And he knows that, he knows I've been doing a PhD in physics and yet he still comes out with things like "And this guy has a PhD in maths?". Its not like he's unfamiliar with me, he simply lies when its convenient for him.

    I know it pains him to hear it but he simply isn't worth much more attention than a post listing his failings. He has demonstrated absolutely no wish to be intellectually honest. Anyone from that other forum reading this who thinks I am not being fair or that I'm lying about him feel free to register here and PM me and I'm sure I can come up with a fair few examples of threads where he flat out lied and got caught doing it, using the search function. I can think of two threads immediately where he got caught doing massive amounts of plagiarism, not including this thread obviously.

    'Mr Scientist' was gone via the names of Reiku and gluon on these forums and Neo No.1 and photino on PhysOrg. In all cases he was eventually banned for wasting people's time. He'd post huge 'essays' (as you did for him here) which were then demolished by anyone who didn't sleep through high school physics. He'd then proclaim "Professor Wolf agrees with me!" or simply deny he'd made any mistake. He'd claim he was not doing a physics degree yet but was doing general relativity stuff in his local college, GR being rarely taught to anyone below 3rd year in university. He'd completely refuse to accept any kind of mistake in his work, no matter how glaring, no matter how simple, no matter who pointed it out. As in this thread he'd just make up LaTeX expressions and throw a hissy fit when people commented they were meaningless. As I've previously commented, he failed to even multiply out two brackets, claiming \((a+ib)(a-ib) = a^{2} + b^{2} + 2abi\), rather than the actual expression \((a-ib)(a+ib) = a^{2} + b^{2}\). When someone can't multiply out brackets its a little hard to then accept they are able to do quantum mechanics or differential geometry.

    He is like someone who puts on a white coat and then considers themselves a 'scientist'. They think if they superficially appear to be like scientists then they will be considered one; if he appears to write lengthy work and uses buzzwords and mathematical expressions he'll 'be a scientist'. The problem is he's like a parrot, the words come out but they don't understand what they are saying and so they can say some pretty meaningless things. If you don't speak French then a parrot saying incoherent French sounds much like a parrot saying coherent French, the fact the parrot speaks no sense is only apparent if you understand the language. That's what Reiku relies on, that those who read his work are as unfamiliar with science as him, that way if he keeps the buzzwords high enough he'll not be seen as a fraud. Unfortunately there's plenty of people here whose education and knowledge out strip even Reiku's ability to use Wikipedia and Google to find complicated buzzwords and he eventually got banned for wasting their time (including mine) by repeatedly demonstrating dishonesty.

    If you think I'm being unfair then search pseudoscience for posts by gluon or threads by Reiku. You'll find plenty of examples and I'll provide you with specific ones if needs be. Reiku relies on you not knowing enough mathematics or physics. Experience says that any time he says "I'm right, they are not admitting it" then he's lying. I'll address any specific instances you care to discuss here but if Reiku wants to pretend on that other forum everyone supposedly knows he's amazing and are scared of his genius then let him. In 2 years he's achieved nothing and learnt nothing. At the end of the day that's the knock down punch, he talks and he talks but he's got nothing to show for it. As an example he claimed he'd got accepted for publication before Christmas. That never amounted to anything, another lie.
     
  21. brennus Registered Member

    Messages:
    73
    I do have a lot of interest in physics and in particular quantum mechanics, but on the philosophical side. I am fascinated by its implications and the mind set needed to understand the paradox's it faces. The mathematics needed to fully understand its wonders is quite apparent, not there for me. It reminds me of Taoism, which faces the same type of paradox's. Unlearning.
     
  22. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    I can't resist:
    If you think I'm a "wannabe", then why did you copy from one of my posts? Either you took it seriously enough to consider it worth incorporating into your chimera (and therefore took me, at least to some extent, as authoritative), or you've basically admitted that you don't care about the validity of the material you copy, as long as it sounds technical and impressive.

    Of course the really silly thing is that the little excerpt you copied is hardly revolutionary material. It was a reminder of some basic points in quantum mechanics (a theoretical framework that's been around in its modern form since the 1920's) that any second year undergraduate physics, chemistry, or engineering student is likely to know, and was intended for someone who had elementary misconceptions about QM. And you couldn't even copy it accurately. Even more mysterious is just why introductory QM is directly followed by talk of the Wheeler de Witt equation and relativity in your essay.

    Well for starters I actually do have a bachelor's degree in physics and I'm just now completing my master's. I'm one of the dozen or so students in my year, out of 76 of us who began in first year.

    As it happens I handed in my master's dissertation a few weeks ago. The topic was principally an experiment performed at the university's photonic service where they demonstrated the creation of entanglement in photon pairs in the frequency domain and measured a Bell inequality violation (article). This year I found experimental parameters which would optimise the Bell expression - in doing so I found a way of analytically reducing the seven parameter optimisation problem to a one parameter optimisation problem. Previously the experimenters had settled on ad-hoc parameter choices and numerical optimisation on a subset of the parameters. The experiment in question will be repeated this summer with the new parameters I found.

    Next year there's a good chance I'll begin a PhD, probably in the subject of quantum computing. If not, I'll still have my master's degree and shouldn't have too much difficulty finding a job. In addition to physics, my father is an embedded systems programmer who inspired me to begin to develop computing skills at a young age (eg. he first exposed me to C when I was twelve, although I stuck with BASIC for longer than I should have and moved onto Java next). I can also mention the fact I had a summer job at a company which manufactures electron microscopes before beginning my degree, and that I have dual nationality, speak two languages, and have lived in four European countries on my resumé.

    Now I'm not going to claim I've done anything revolutionary. This year I just made myself useful to some working physicists and helped make their jobs a little easier. But at my age (23 years) I think I'm right on track, don't you?
     
  23. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Its ironic that Reiku tries to label all those who say "You're wrong" to him as wannabes while also having no problem copying things they've said. For instance, on another forum I have the custom title "Actual physicist", which I am justified in using as I was doing physics research in a physics department which was published in physics journals. Reiku had a go at me, saying I had no right to call myself that, despite the fact I met the definition easily. His pseudonym is 'Mr Scientist', despite him failing to meet the required criteria. Another example of his hypocrisy.

    That's, as I commented before, a result of the fact he doesn't understand what he copies from people. To someone who can't do even 1st year physics anything 2rd year and above looks much the same, they can't tell if an equation you or I or someone else might have posted is right or relevant, nor can the issue of whether its basic bookwork or a new formula worthy of publication. As a result he fails to realise he's simply quoting book work when he quotes you, not something complicated. Then to compound that he claims people like you or I don't understand the material, that's why we're not agreeing with him. Reiku and Jack both do this, thinking that because something is new or difficult for them then its likewise for everyone else. I once asked Reiku to answer a simple question given to me in my first year and he replied "I'm not here to do your homework". Not only could he not answer the question, he failed to realise it was basic stuff (which he'd have already done if he weren't lying about his level of education and knowledge) and thought I couldn't do it. His naivety displayed his dishonesty. Same goes for Jack, he thinks substituting expressions into one another to do a Lorentz transformation exercise is difficult and everyone but him struggles with it. His naivety helps to feed his self delusions.

    Its the usual crank method, if you demonstrate they have achieved nothing then rather than retort your criticisms they say "Well neither have you!". The "You're not an actual physicist!!" comment he made to me being an example.

    If a crank wishes to fool someone into believing they know stuff then they have to aim their buzzword usage so high that it goes over the head of everyone. The problem is they don't know what is or isn't advanced, it all looks the same to them, and when they get mixed up and post something basic and claim its advanced or new or beyond our ability to understand they demonstrate their inability understand it.

    No doubt Reiku is whining over on that other forum. I haven't looked and I couldn't care either way. He claimed he'd got a paper accepted for publication late last year, out in time for Christmas, which was obviously a lie and which I'd imagine he made up to make it seem like he wasn't just the abject failure in physics he really is. So at the end of the day he can try to convince people who don't know any better that he's a scientist and we're all just jealous failures all he likes, the fact remains people like myself, you, Ben, Guest, Prom and people from PhysOrg like Rpenner and Euler have contributed more to science than he ever will.
     

Share This Page