physica

How in the world do you think this will develop the thread?? Are you going to be another person who's going to ignore the content that's trying to be developed and just make character assumptions? Well done you managed to further disjoint a thread that I've spent time trying to bring back from petty high school politics pushed by bluemercury, and you manage to ignore that and bring it back to high school politics. I'm not asking for super politeness but at least post something that develops the thread.... Why hasn't he changed??? What is wrong with his statement in relation to the thread???? How is his post halted the development of the comments of this thread???? You may not like Ophiolite's manner but he is at least posting something that relevant to the thread. What you've done is represents a kid jeering when the "bad guy" comes on stage. This thread isn't titled: previous grievances Robittybob1 has with Ophiolite. If you've got a comment about Ophiolite that offers no development to the thread private message him about it in future, don't undermine mine and everybody-else's efforts to have a discussion about a particular topic. This is basic social skills that should have been taught to you by the age of 12.

I have to say that this is more your style Mike. You're artistic and you have an interest in science. I personally think you should have your own science news blog popularising science, I'd read that. I personally think you do better outside the speculations forum.

Bluemercury this is a shame. You ignore everything from my last post and focus on the use of one "offensive" word used by Ophiolite. It's as if you want it to be personal. You cannot post stuff like this then act like you're the victim when someone replies in a heated tone. Conservations are not that one dimensional. Again you should study more maths and read up on what defines a good question. How would we quantify it? You could simply count the amount of rude words but this would miss out on your passive aggressive nature. The previous quote are examples that you're not an angel in this conversation. Ophiolite has made points, you outright ignored them, when I rephrased his point in a more direct manner you stated that you were going to sulk and that the real world required your attention. You completely ignored my reply to this... I'm seeing a theme here. This is a science forum. Science requires a higher form of reasoning than law. With law you can blag it and use technicalities to get a result in a particular case. In science the trial is eternal. Your reasoning has to be very good and it has to stand the test of time and multiple experiments and technological uses of your reasoning. Emotional blagging will not change the outcome of experiments. It is clear that you express yourself like a lawyer because you acting like there's a trial and you're trying to win on technicalities and character attacks.... sorry to break it to you but character attacks and technicalities do not reverse the laws of physics or change the nature of computers. If you want to have fruitful discussions on a science forum you're going to have to improve your reasoning and expression. A lawyer's reasoning and expression will not cut it. Again this is sad. You could look back at what's been said and learn something. You clearly don't know much about science, computers or maths, you could have used the conversation to ask questions about these and develop yourself. This statement says more about you than the conversation. What you mean is that you had some ideas, I showed you that they stem from a misunderstanding of certain concepts and you tried to make it personal by stating that you were sulking, ignoring further comments that weren't heated, tried to make it more personal by focusing solely on the heated comments and tried attack Ophiolite who was trying to get you to define science, you could have learn't from doing this but instead ignored him, focused on one word, frustrated him then tried to make out that he is a bad person. This conversation serves no purpose for you this because WE are trying to focus on content, learning and idea development.

To be honest no one on this forum is going to lose any sleep over this. It wasn't personal before and it's not personal now. Take what I said however you like it really doesn't matter to me. You may like to hide behind the fact that this conversation is on the internet to keep your delusion but this is still real life. Hate to break it to you but you are talking to real people who have studied real science degrees and we are talking about real things. You seemed keen and confident to engage when you thought you had the upper hand, what you are doing now sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating to yourself "your not real" over and over again. That's a shame. Again the only person losing out is you. No one has learn't anything from you in this particular thread. You have the opportunity to learn, of course you throw it away when you decide to run away if your logic isn't 100% bullet proof. Most people on this forum won't understand your behaviour because we enjoy learning and we are mature enough to swallow our pride when we are shown to be wrong. It's up to you how you develop as a person and it won't affect our lives. Don't kid yourself into thinking that you're punishing anyone but yourself when you say stuff like this.

It actually says "moderately super" I think you're seeing what you want to see here. As always this topic is tricky. I sometimes see myself flittering to either side of the fence. I don't think there should be definite rules. Generally when someone is trying to understand or is being reasonable politeness never hurts. However, there are some people who post who don't have a strong grip on reality. They themselves must twist what they see in order to obtain theses views. With these people I believe you have to be very straight with them. We all know a few posters who will spin a thread for pages and pages. We cannot block people unfairly or silence them but we must be straight forward. On the thread: the nature and history of physics, Ophiolite made the point that computers are a tool. The other poster didn't get this nuance. The point had to be repeated to him in a direct manner hinting that he should read a little more. This prevented a side run into a pointless ramble of effectiveness of computers in science which the thread was not about. If we pandered to his feelings it would deter people who actually wanted to talk about science. We all remember Popcorn Sutton. All this guy wanted was attention. He was constantly telling people how smart he was. I got a number of PMs of him waffling about how smart he was. If I wasn't direct with him I get the impression I would have heard from him a lot more. Whilst I think that this forum is very well moderated when someone is being delusional or talking trash they should be told. I acknowledge that I am not the be all and end all of reason which is why I don't contest mod notes even if I disagree with them (that I can remember). My first job taught me that it's a lot easier to criticise someone else's job performance if you've never done the job yourself. I appreciate that mods are looking at the thread from a different angle to me.

Bluemurcury I would tone down on the confidence because your whole post screams that you don’t know what science is, you don’t know what maths is and you don’t know how computers work. 1. Science is formulating a prediction and testing to see if it works by experiment. If you cannot produce an experiment to test to prediction then it isn’t science. This is why some universities have their theoretical physics departments under the department of mathematics. A good example of the scientific method was Einstein’s theory on entanglement. For a while the experiment couldn’t be designed so the board filed it under philosophy as opposed to science. In time he was actually disproved here and he got it wrong. Yes smart people even get things wrong this is why we apply theories to the scientific method to find out which ones are true and which ones are not. Remember science is the opposite of religion. Sadly you blindly quoted Hawking without any evidence so you’re treating science as a religion. Because someone is an established scientist it doesn’t mean that everything they say is divine truth. We have the scientific method to see if it is true. 2. A 10 dollar calculator can compute numbers faster and more accurately than me but cannot do better maths than me. It won’t be able to help me with U substitution; it won’t be able to interpret the meaning behind imaginary numbers or why two answers to a quadratic equation means that antimatter could exist. Your post suggests that you need to read up on what maths is and the difference between computation, arithmetic and maths. Your point about chess doesn’t strengthen your position either. Chess is very algorithmic and the logic behind chess is very simple. The reason why a computer can easily beat a human is that it can calculate millions of moves ahead as opposed to a grand master who can calculate 50 moves ahead. If you try and develop a mathematical model for a physical system you’ll realize that computer can’t really help you that much. Computers are one of the many tools used in science because it is good at a particular thing. Are you going to tell me that a drill is a better builder because it can drill faster and more accurately than the human builder? Is a combine harvester a better farmer because it can harvest crop much cleaner and faster than a human? Or course not there’s more to farming than harvesting crops quickly just like there’s more to maths and science than doing computations quickly and accurately. You have to remember that computers are built and coded by humans. In conclusion you points are fairly useless. All they do is tell me that you don’t understand science, maths or computers. There are social experiments that show that the more confident a person is about something the less they know about it. Your bold statements are no exception.

I've had a look but I'm still a little stuck. I've googled normal ordering and I get the impression that if the ground state is acted on a lowering operator first then the the wave functions in the integral build on an orthonormal basis thus resulting in zero??? I'm not sure why this happens if it does.

This argument lacks vision. If we take this reasoning and apply it to other situations we can say that animals rape each other in nature so why shouldn't we do it? Animals don't have a legal system so why should we bother with ours? I find the natural argument to be very weak when used to show affection or dislike for a particular position. usually the person using it never defines what natural is and instantly assumes that because something is natural it is better. In future Dekan stay clear from this argument, it doesn't make any headway and is easily refuted.

I don't know how much you know but be careful with this concept. Electromagnetism is much stronger than gravitational force so it's understandable that people speculate that this may be utilised for some antigravity device however, there are people running around on the internet claiming that gravity is electromagnetism. This is unfounded. Edit: (sorry for the slight overlap with davidivad was typing whilst he posted his reply)

I don't know where this popularity contest concept has come from. People's personalities clash a lot. I am certainly no angel in this regard. However, you don't get masses of negative rep for saying something someone doesn't like. You will generally get positive rep if you show a willingness to learn, share and develop ideas and realise when someone knows more than you. You will get a negative rep if you ignore people and facts, repeatedly make statements without backing them up, confidently talk about something you know nothing about whilst stating that others are idiots. I myself have received a warning point from a mod and I don't hold back in expressing when someone is being silly (honestly trying to be better at this). However, I haven't been targeted by anyone and every point I've made has been taken by its own merit (always the odd rare exception). My rep is ok. We have to see this forum for what it is, a science forum not a petty politics forum. For some people it's easier to think that others are being nasty as opposed to realising that their own logic and persona isn't 100% bullet proof. The first option is easy but it will get harder as life goes on. The second option is hard but it will get easier as life goes on. Vexen: If you want some clarification have a look at some of the rep posts of a person with a low rep points by looking at their profile. You'll definitely start to see a theme in their posts and you'll know what style to avoid. If you find yourself agreeing with one or two of them then you get a chance of some inner reflection without losing rep points. You have no idea. These people have been very patient and have helped me out a lot and they do it for free. You want to see ego?? You'll find it in particular university professors who don't bother replying to emails, certain cardio surgeons who like belittling their juniors. They display the exact opposite characteristics of what these mods display. Ego would be banning you for disagreeing with them once whilst not even bothering to reply to you.

You're not the only one to discover this late. I'm 25 and in my final year of physics. Did a completely different degree before. I blame school, they never tell you how powerful maths and physics is. At the age of 21 I thought that maths was just counting, multiplying and dividing. I work funding my tuition for physics. I know 2 other people in the same boat who are also doing physics as a second degree. No one is stopping you and the people on this forum (especially the experts and mods.. and studiot) are amazing and will help you in every way. The fact that they do it all for free shows their passion. Money cannot buy the attention and advice they give you. Trust me i've hired a few private tutors and as soon as they're paid you never hear from them again until you're paying for the next session.

I don't know what you're reading? People have given historical examples of famous productive people using anonymous names on this thread. People like me have also said why it's an advantage to have anonymous names as I gives us freedom of speech without the fear of being bullied in our personal lives. If you wanted a more specific discussion you should have a more specific opening. All you've done on this post is ask two very vague open questions. You haven't put forward your position or asked anyone to elaborate of their posts. What you should be saying is: I shouldn't expect much from a discussion that I put no effort in and don't develop. We are not mind readers. You have to put at least a little effort in your own thread if you want it to develop.

I think generally this is a good thing. Although there are clear dangers like people bullying others I think that the internet is one of the last defences for freedom of speech. Because no one knows my true name I am treated on the merit of what I actually say. I can speak openly about what I think about my job or a particular political movement without having my job threatened or people attacking my character in other aspects of my life. I think in this day and age there is a growing number of people who hide behind taking offence and attacking someones character as opposed to dealing with what's been said. If you want to progress ideas and see what others think of them you can't do better than this forum. Appeal to authority isn't tolerated and it cannot be implied or enforced because we don't know each other. Personally I think that mainstream science should be conducted like this if we want to see progression increased.

This all seems a little vague. I can't see how you're going to make testable predictions of these things. It seems like a classic case of abusing the term science to make something seem more credible. A classic example of this was a book I came across called the science of Karma. Considering that we can't come up with an experiment to test the outcomes of Karma it isn't a science. The person who wrote the book clearly doesn't know what science is. The outcomes that you're talking about are vague and subjective I don't know how you could quantify them, let alone measure them and turn it into a science.

I have been told that for a ground state harmonic oscillator, if a lowering operator is placed on the extreme right no matter what operators follow the expectation value will be zero. I don't fully understand this. Is this because the right operator acts first and lowering the ground state will result in zero, once this is happened it cannot be raised by a raising operator? Can somebody be so kind as to post maths on this if possible. On a further note I am completely clueless as to why unequal numbers of raising and lowering operators equate a ground state harmonic oscillator to a zero expectation value.

Considering that in your profile you consider yourself as a NLP practitioner I'm hedging that this is more of an advert as opposed to a scientific discussion. I've reported this for moderator review

I haven't failed a single course I've been on or dropped out. Family pressured me into NHS (most probably because it was safe when the recession kicked in) after 5 years (with graduation) I realised I didn't like the medical scene. I've managed to skip the first year of physics and at the end of this year will graduate in physics studying full time whilst working in the emergency department. Only the last part of my education has been self funded and I've paid that through my salary as opposed to a government grant so I have zero student debt at the age of 25. I'll be shocked if people look at my CV and are concerned. Thank you for this insight. I will keep this in mind and look at which ones seem the most friendly. I actually agree with this. I've seen this many times with students. I don't think universities help when they keep massaging the egos of their students. However, this trait is always harder to see in yourself. Although I might be perceptive of others there is a very high chance that I'm not very perceptive about myself. We will say what it is it is criticism but don't get the impression that I've taken offence. I'm not going to go very far in life if I don't listen to criticism. So what I'm getting from you is that I haven't proved myself to be special at all so I should expect to go through the technicalities like everyone else no matter where I end up going. Thank you as always studiot, I remember you helping me out with some of my maths problems last year. This also leads to another question. Incase academia isn't for me or I fail to get onto a phd is a msc in theoretical physics much use in industry?

After moving around being involved in 3 different universities (maybe a 4th next year) I come to realise that I can't really tell the difference between grads from different universities. Is this just me having terrible perception or have others found this? The suicide of one of the professors in my hospital got me thinking. He killed himself because he stated that the university was obsessed with grant money not science and that he'd been bullied via technicalities (link to news article below). One of the other professors at Imperial just has computers in his lab and makes all his juniors to literature reviews. Although he hasn't produced a single original piece of work in years the college loves him as he bashes out loads of publications every year at a very low cost. This has got me thinking, I've worked round the clock to have a chance at world leading universities in London. However, do these universities provide better education or are they just obsessed and efficient at hitting the technicalities to bump but the world rankings. I appreciate that bigger universities have more money but I'm retraining in physics with the aim to get onto a theoretical physics msc next year. From my understanding theoretical physics isn't wildly expensive. Would it be better for me to go for a university that's not competing in the top 10 world rankings? I'd prefer to actually do physics and appear like I haven't achieved much to outsiders than appear like a high flyer but simply hit technicalities behind the scenes. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/12/01/imperial-college-london-investigates-role-pressure-death-academic

From what I'm getting if is not an eigenfunction the function will not converge when x goes to zero. Is this why energy levels are quantised? They can only jump between different eigenvalues???

I think we can look at the nature of physics compared to other sciences. Physics uses a lot of maths. It can be easier to see if someone is wrong in physics as opposed to biology or medicine. Maybe in physics it is easier to isolate the crackpots as opposed to sciences in less math orientated degrees. Depak Shopra has a phd and lectured at Harvard medical school. Lanza is a highly renowned stem cell research scientist. Judging on what they write if they tried to do their undergrad and phd in physics with their ideas they would be regarded as crackpots and would be trolling science forums as opposed to having the resources to write books and give lectures. If you're going to have a subject that's more strict on logic you're going to get more rejects. The other thing to consider is the very nature of physics compared to other sciences. We can rerun experiments again and again. Cold fusion was a prime example. When it was released within 24 hours labs all over the world had repeated the experiment and disproved it. If you want to check up on an academic's claims on a medical trial you'd have to go though ethics, recruit loads of patients and do follow ups years later. This is very expensive and time consuming with the concept that the person you're checking up on might be right away. Maybe other sciences have the same amount of crackpots.... it's just that more fly under the radar.

I don't think he's going to come back. However, there is still some use from this thread. I have looked up more of his stuff on his theory of living longer. Below is a link to a power point of his. It's very long but if you brush through to the maths of entropy you'll see that he makes some absurd claims and clearly fails to understand the most basic concepts behind the maths that he uses. http://www.academia.edu/1721252/Human_Biological_Immortality_and_the_Global_Brain Remember that this guy has a research grant. He has received an msc from Kings College London medical school. I myself have seen similar standards at Imperial College London medical school. People reading this thread have had an insight into the standards of medical academia. This doesn't mean that every medical doctor is stupid but graduating from an ungraded degree that requires memorisation of anatomy, physiology and drug interactions doesn't mean you are good a science. I cannot speak for other countries but the health system in the UK make a mockery of science. You have more chance of getting into a clinical training scheme of your choice the higher your point score is. If you get published then you get a few extra points per publication (the is a flat score publications are not read). This rewards bad science. I've lost count of how many junior doctors who aren't interested in science will do anything to get as many publications as they can so they can get on the surgical rotation they want. Someone with 5 terrible publications will be more rewarded than someone with one good one. Because of this the quality of the average medical publication is outright terrible. The problem with this is that when you are surrounded with bad quality science you start to think this is standard. Challenging this would completely shake the foundations of medical academia and this is why medical doctors and nurses will appeal to authority so quickly. I hope this thread has offered good insight to it's readers.

Many thanks for your input. So looking at this what is the role of eigenvalues in determining which energy values in are possible in a bound system?

Work in medical academia and you'll be surprised how half of them get research grants. Anyhow I posting a preemptive post to try and save time. Marios' I'm having to lead your hand in your own publication but could you please explain to me how the equation that you have confidence in and wrote in your article alters dimensions. What your equation is saying is that we put in: kg m^2 s^-2 and this is equal to: kg m^-6 s^-4 c For some reason we have lost eight spacial dimensions, two time dimensions and gained a charge. Could you please provide a link to where you got this equation from?? You've either misrepresented it (considering you don't define the L term for "dimension" [i've assumed that this is a 3d spacial dimension]) or the standards of medical academia have slipped so much that they are now publishing equations that can be proved to defy mathematical logic and the laws of physics by someone who has a high school maths ability.

now you're making stuff up I'm at imperial and I went back to study and harder subject. Medicine is littered with people who actually failed physics and maths so they went into medicine. Sorry that I digress don't make something up in future. You'll notice I have made nothing up about you as I don't know you, I've pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. The highlighting of medical academic standards were not a personal attack. They were highlighting how using appeal to authority (especially from medical academia) is not a good argument. The fact that you won't reply to the maths says it all, you're writing about stuff you clearly don't know anything about just more waffle and appeal to authority. what a joke

Love this. You cannot explain why the units don't ad up. All you did was regurgitate it and didn't even develop it in the paper. Just appealing to authority. That's all you can seem to do. This is generally what medics do because their image is greater than their academic ability. If you can't understand the maths don't put it in. I've worked in medical academia as well as clinical. It was so amateur (was at Imperial college London) that I took a pay cut, spent my savings on tuition and went back to study physics. This is simply waffle. I appreciate that you may not have been born in a english speaking country but you're saying nothing here. This is vague trash that makes no points. I know this amateur wishy washy language gets accepted in NHS academia and medical academia but on this forum people are interested in science with testable predictions. As a general point if anyone is thinking I am exaggerating the poor standard of medical academia browse some of them. My friend is a peer reviewer for the emergency medical journal because he knows someone and they put him down. He'll admit it himself. Never been published himself and never undertook post grad study at the time. I've come across professors of medicine who can't get their head round standard deviation and simply calculate the mean all the time stating that it's too complex ..... they are also peer reviewers. The difference with the medical profession and other sciences is that medicine doesn't get a grade in the UK. This means that you can graduate bottom of your year and still get a clinical job, in that clinical job you will be encouraged to write papers and do research. In other sciences you have to get a good grade to get into grad school and only a select few will get phds, you have to be interested and extremely motivated to get into a position of carrying out research in that field. Medical academia is have ago academia because anyone who's passed their undergrad can have ago, that's why there's so much trash. As for your theory the way you put across the hypothesis is terrible. You offer limited or no knowledge of some of the things you write about (the maths equation). The only replies I hear from you are appeals to authority. You then make a point that I hide behind a name. I do this so I can speak the truth, I can actually write about what goes on in my job without the risk having a hard time at work. If anything your stunted, with your name exposed your ego is on the line, you may have funding on your trash research, if you concede and one of your colleagues stumbles across this site it wouldn't be nice for you. This is all he can do Acme. He can't even justify why the maths he's writing makes sense. He's appealed to authority to justify the maths he's used. This is how low NHS academia is.