Also, you're a bit stupid sometimes. You choose, in the second link, work which you have royally messed up. Why choose that? omega is not a vector, it is a scalar. It is energy.
No, it was a single slip up which didn't alter any of what I was correcting you on. You were still adding vectors and scalars, just rather than 2 vectors + scalar you have vector + 2 scalars. Obviously you didn't understand what I said or the depths of your mistakes.
Yea, an honest mistake you say. More like you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about when you were writing it. That much is clear.
I think it would be a little silly for someone to claim I don't know how to Fourier transform or that the coefficient of t in the Fourier kernel is a scalar. The fact I discussed the Dirac equation at length, never mind having formal qualifications, research and a job pertaining to this stuff, demonstrates that it was an honest mistake. You, on the other hand, have none of those things and cannot discuss these things in any manner other than to copy/edit YouTube videos and other sources. Your discussion with James shows that.
Ask yourself who you think you're convincing. Do you honestly think I
don't know $$\omega$$ is a scalar? Look at the thread where I made that slip up, it's got plenty of posts of mine where I discuss, in my own words off the top of my head, the specifics of the Dirac equation. I've been showing I have working understanding of this stuff for
years. I have plenty of letters after my name because I can do this stuff. So attempting to portray it as if I don't know how to do Fourier transforms or work with the Dirac equation is just laughable. You're really scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
If you really want to stand up to my accusations you're a dishonest hack then why don't you
ever answer direct questions I ask you? Why do you always run from them? You obviously have the time to reply to other people, people who you think you can deceive, so you don't have that as an excuse.
And how did I not demonstrate a working understanding of the physics? You give me such little credit, you are actually failing to point out that I knew were the error lay.
It was clear from your discussion with James you were copying the equations Susskind wrote down. You even told me to watch the YouTube video
you linked to and all of the equations you'd written down were there, right down to the poor notational conventions! It was clear from the discussion about matrix = number you were parroting Susskind again. You claimed to be knowledgeable in the Dirac equation but you don't know its motivation. You didn't even know basic properties of Lagrangians.
That is how you demonstrate you don't have a working understanding.
If you don't know potentials are not functions of $$\dot{q}$$ then you've never worked with Lagrangians. So that means you've never done any workings with quantum field theory (which includes the Dirac equation) or general relativity, since they all start with such principles and move on. You undermine yourself because you don't know which areas of mathematical physics depend on which other areas.
You went onto a massive speil which was totally not required!!!! A simple, your matrix is wrong, check your entries would have sufficed.
I wanted to make it clear to everyone else reading you had demonstrated you didn't understand a
fundamental part of the Dirac equation, something which was
essential to its construction.
This don't mean I did not understand what was wrong. In fact I even found the error! Best part is, you didn't even seem to realize it was only the beta matrix which had an error. When you first said this, you said the alpha and beta matrices were incorrect. Well, actually, it was only the beta matrix that was incorrect, for the same reasons as I have explained loads of time's now. That is what you call an honest mistake. You tried to dress it in all sorts of dishonest acts, as per usually.
You just aren't getting it, are you? If you'd actually been working through the algebra yourself, rather than just copy/mangling it you'd have seen all these fundamental errors because none of the required behaviour of the equation would have worked.
You also made serious errors about how the coefficients of the equation behave, a common error with people who don't understand matrix operations.
I made an accidental slip up by not changing the entires in the alpha matrix.
You did a lot more than that. You do realise I linked to the posts right? People can read them for themselves and see I list a hell of a lot more errors than just that.
And all of this simply from the fact you can't admit your knowledge is nowhere near where you attempt to portray it to be. Not knowing about Lagrangians shuts off pretty much all later undergraduate and postgraduate theoretical physics in some way, yet you claim to be knowledgeable in areas of both quantum field theory and general relativity. Your continued refusal to be honest about all of this does you no favours.
Remember how you once claimed to be doing general relativity, specifically Riemannian curvature, at your pre-university community college? Can you at least admit that was a lie? It's clear it was, no pre-university college anywhere in the UK, including in Scotland, teaches such a thing. Of course you know that but at the time you simply flat out lied. Can you at least be mature enough to admit to that lie now?
Clearly this discussion isn't going to go any further. People have the links to read themselves, they can see how all of the equations you posted for James were from the YouTube video, they can see the lengthy explanations and lists of your errors I give. Attempting to avoid facing up to pages of mistakes by saying "OMG, you're not perfect either!" is laughable but I guess that's all you can do, seeing as you're incapable of stepping up and answering simple relevant questions, seeing as Susskind doesn't provide you the answers in the video.
