# Mister's take on gauge potentials

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Reiku, Dec 18, 2011.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
I lay any work I've made as thought it is as such. I don't pass anything I've made up as the maintream. Atleast, doing so would be woo woo in my eyes.

To give a particle mass, you must assume some field $\phi = \rho e^{i \alpha}$. Explaining this in terms of a mexican hat potential, you can calculate it to the first approximation in respect to $f= \rho$:

$\phi = f e^{i \alpha}$

One might know that $\phi$ is in fact frozen but the alpha field in the exponential is allowed to shift. To calculate the Langrangian, you first need to work out the Covariant Derivative:

$D\phi = \partial \phi + iA \phi$

To compute the action, you must multiply this by it's conjugate:

$= i(\partial \alpha + A)f e^{i\alpha}$

$= f^2(\partial \alpha + A)^2$

Doing so removes the $e^{i\alpha}$. Using a special gauge transformation now, $A' \Rightarrow \partial \theta + A$

we should notice that in the equation $= f^2(\partial \alpha + A)^2$ the $(\partial \alpha + A)$ is a gauge transformation where $\partial \theta$ plays the role of our alpha field. So the final expression is:

$f^2A'^2$

$f^2$ term plays the role of mass and notice the alpha field has been absorbed by our object $A'$, that means no more Goldstone Boson, the Higgs field has provided a mass through shifting the potential from the ground state of origin. This is what a mass is. When this effects a particle like a photon, or any massless boson field it gives that quanta a mass.

The small fluctuation of the Higgs Potential is moving your massless system away from the ground state. This is a cost of energy and this energy is resultant in the appearance of mass in your system. A higgs field for instance, might appear in a fermion field and can be given as a dirac equation with some Yukawa Couplings mixed in there.

And please, anyone with any basic physics knowledge can talk about such things. You aren't impressing anyone saying you are doing ''scientific work'' when in your eye's I am quite the layman yet still able to talk about such subjects with just as much clarity as you ever could.

3. ### funkstarratsknufValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,390
You really want that perma-ban, don't you?

5. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Funkstar

Well I did more or less ask for it. Maybe James is keeping me around for some kind of psychological dissitation.

However, that is beside the point. If I am banned, it will be quite an elaborate reason. Just as the last time, but enjoyable to watch.

PS. besides there is nothing wrong with my post. If cpt wants to mention my name, I am within my own right to respond.

But then biased natures do as they do right?

7. ### Captain KremmenAll aboard, me Hearties!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
12,738

This post looks fine to me.
I don't understand any of it.
Could some non-alternative scientist let me know.
Does Mister's work:

1. Make some sense, but he makes errors.
2. Make some sense but he introduces his own non-established theories.
3. Make no sense at all.
4. Other

8. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,853
And this is why I keep telling you to get some proper schooling so you don't have to keep lying about knowing any of this stuff. Hint: those two lines aren't equal.

It's a poor attempt at plagiarizing material he clearly doesn't understand, hence some of the equations look sort of semi-relevant and only slightly dead wrong, but none of it actually makes any sense when you try to fit it all together and compare it to the topic being discussed. He's been doing this for years and years now; I think he probably believes math just involves throwing pretty symbols around wherever they look cool.

9. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Yes those two lines are not directly equal. I asked to multiply it by it's conjugate, the identity of the equation first, I never expressed it's conjugate, but the last line would make that if it had been.

10. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,853
Well if you're going to basically copy and paste from Wikipedia or other sources, then you should at least be very clear about what operations you're doing and where. Maybe that's one of the problems with trying to learn the notation without learning what the notation actually represents.

11. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
I could write so much more. It was to express the way you can see the dynamics in way of the Goldstone Boson.

Anyway, the written work is mine. No one commits any more pleigerism than I do, unless I passed the equations as off as being mine. If I am guilty of pleigerism, then so are you, hundreds of times.

As for cool symbols, if that is what I was achieving I would just write out a langrangian for a fermion field, introduced the Yukawa Couplings and explained it in terms of the Higgs Field. What I introduced above as you should know, was pretty minor and just a quick look over the theory.

12. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Wikipedia???? :bugeye:

Whatever Bork. You are full of insults but you will show no evidence to back up your baseless accusations.

13. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,853
I did say "or other sources", did I not?

The evidence is already located in this thread and all over this message board. I'm not going to bother spending 6 years educating you on your "math" so you can understand why it's wrong, that's your job to do for yourself.

14. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
What evidence, I've never went and passed a maintsream written equation off as my own and trying to say I have done as such is just again another example of you being biased again. As I have said, everyone uses equations here that they never qoute.

None to rarely few people have ever come and here and used equations they are simply not-reitterating from a book. Which come to mention it, let's not forget why I said what I said in the first place. I was banned and you felt the need to have a quick stab in the back with your comment. The fact you call me and others woo woo, but when most of us, or some of us can do just a good a job as you are doing in answering the questions.

15. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,853
That's not the problem I was referring to. What's most problematic are your countless efforts to write down equations which sometimes correspond (minus the multiple typos) to actual physical theories, and then presenting yourself as someone who understands what those equations actually mean.

16. ### Captain KremmenAll aboard, me Hearties!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
12,738
@Mister
I don't understand these equations, but doing a quick google on them I have found some of them quoted as the work of "a leading scientist in his area of research, Tsao Chang", and using virtually exactly the same phrases.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/...-equations-against-a-modified-dirac-equation/

If you are Tsao Chang, let me know if you would like me to remove this post.
If you are not Tsao Chang, you should not quote his work without referencing him/her.

17. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,699
Mister, you're posting stuff you've posted before and it's stuff you've been corrected on before. I remember you posting this using previous accounts too so you really have no excuse for poor presentation.

Your expressions are not equal. What you mean is $\partial\phi = i(\partial \alpha + A)f e^{i\alpha}$ and $|\partial\phi|^{2}$ is what your second expression is equal to.

Poor presentation and sloppy attention to detail (or your complete lack of) has no excuse. Not after all the times you've been walked through your work's issues.

If you insist on posting what is supposed to be pretty basic book work at least get it right. Now we all know you haven't got a working grasp of quantum field theory or even basic calculus so you posting it should really be only in cases where you ask others to clarify things, not trying to pretend you have a working understanding.

Not true.

Don't. You are known not to be educated in any degree level physics, much less masters or postgrad stuff. You are not in a position to be trying to teach or review quantum field theory to anyone. Even if you think you haven't made a mistake you almost invariably have.

Please refrain from posts of such a nature. Well, I say 'please' but I'm telling you not to. It contributes nothing and always leads to pages and pages of people pointing out your mistakes, you denying them, it then becoming undeniable and you hopping to another thread.

If you want to talk about QFT then don't pretend to know more than you do.

You have certainly been caught plagiarising stuff in the past.

Mister/Reiku, as I said, we all know your level of education (or lack there of) and your what can only be described as 'extremely poor' grasp of mathematical physics. As you said, it's pretty minor stuff but even that is not within your grasp.

No one benefits from you incorrectly spewing bookwork. If you want to post about QFT you read about from another source then post the source, don't copy it, butcher it and then post it. No one benefits from that, especially you.

Just as with the Hodge star thread, discussing the specifics of a QFT with you is a waste of everyone's time. You'd learn a lot more if you just accepted your current level of knowledge and started working from there. Perhaps you'd like a thread on vectors or calculus? It'd benefit you a lot more than what you're currently engaged in.

There's a difference between me picking up a book on German and copying out phrases here and actually being able to speak German. I can say select phrases using the former method but I don't understand German, unlike the latter case. You are doing the same with physics.

Yes, every single topic discussed here pertaining to non-research level physics will be about equations and results you can find in books. That's almost the definition of non-research level material! But a discussion between Cpt and myself about quantum field theory would be a viable discussion, we both have working understandings of pieces of it. You do not.

To use another example, if someone understands tangent spaces and inner products they can have differential forms explained to them. I went over the simple details in your Hodge star thread. If someone doesn't understand calculus and inner products there's no point in explaining the Hodge star, because it's very definition relies on an understanding of said things. The reply would be full of technical terms. It might as well be in German to someone who doesn't understand the technical terms.

It's easy for a native English speaker to spot someone who is using a dictionary to translate a sentence from their language to English. They mess up the grammar, say words incorrectly and it's robotic. But it might seem like valid English to a non-English speaker, they too don't understand the grammar etc. Your posts are like that. To Capt K. you seem believable but to Cpt, myself etc they are just as I described.

Don't continue in this manner.

Last edited: Dec 18, 2011
18. ### Captain KremmenAll aboard, me Hearties!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
12,738
Tsao Chang is at the Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomy Research,
University of Alabama in Huntsville

Here's a reference to his paper
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/476759/files/0011087.pdf

Mister. Every time you quote someone's work, you need to say whose work it is, and give a reference so people can go back to the original work if possible.
Otherwise, it can look like plagiarism, even if that was not what you intended.

19. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,699
Mister/Reiku, given CK's demonstration you're lifting much of this from other people's work, not citing them and then lying about plagiarising I'll make this even more firm. Any repeat of this "Post a load of high level algebra" will be deleted, in any thread.

Last edited: Dec 18, 2011
20. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,699
Moderator action : 16 posts split from the CERN Higgs announcements thread due to being related to Mister's insistence on posting a poorly presented plagiarised take on the Higgs field's mathematical structure.

The thread is closed due to evidence of plagiarism, as presented by CK, and the fact Mister has posted such a post previously (multiple times even) and hasn't take on board any of the comments/corrections given in previous instances.

This thread will NOT be reopened, no matter who asks, due to the evidence the original post is plagiarism. If anyone, particularly the original poster, wishes to discuss the specifics of the Higgs mechanism and the role of a scalar Higgs field in that mechanism then they should start a new thread clearly laying out what they wish to discuss. Continuing this particular discussion will only go down hill, as it is not even clear the original poster understands the topic himself.

Complaints about the moderation of this forum on a post card to....