physica

I've looked at your paper. It's a complete joke. This is why I quit clinical and went back to university to study physics. It reminds me of the A and E department where I worked where 3 consultants and a reg did an audit on unnecessary coag blood screens. They audited 98 patients revealing 51 unnecessary tests. The next audit consisted of 289 patients revealing 58.... they thought the problem was getting bigger and we were being more wasteful. Furthermore they presented it at a conference and nobody picked up on it. Hospitals are full of doctors and nurses who memorised biology to pass exams who think that they somehow understand science because of it. You are definitely no exception. After reading the paper you wrote and cited I wasn't shocked when it said this: "In addition, photon-photon interactions induce molecular vibrations responsible for bio-amplification of weak signals described by: m(c^2)=BvLq where m is the mass of the molecule, c is the velocity of the electromagnetic field, B is the magnetic flux density, v is the velocity of the carrier in which the particle exists, L is its dimension, and q is a unit charge." http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.6030v1.pdf You offer no testable predictions. The maths is so amateur it doesn't make sense. This isn't scientific it's just rambling....pub talk. Reading your posts and "paper" reminded me of the days when I worked in a hospital. Hopefully people reading this we start to appreciate how amateur and vocational clinical medicine is. In your conclusion you state that: "The reductionist view that aging can be manipulated by simple biomedical repairs is unlikely to lead to any appreciable practical results that can be used in order to diminish the impact of age-related degeneration." This is complete trash and over simplistic. Are you telling me that there is no "appreciable practical results" to giving an elderly patient with type 2 diabetes metformin?? Are you seriously going to tell me it won't affect the degeneration of eyesight?? Although my colleagues complained about it all I can say is: thank god medicine is becoming more protocol driven

Documentaries try and make good TV, they aren't so interested in the truth if it lowers the ratings. I've had experience of 3 universities, live with a scientist, am a scientist and lost count of how many scientists I've socialised with. Most of them (including me) can cook and socialise. I also worked in the emergency room for 4 years at a hospital and if i wanted to make "good" TV i could find a selection of patients who aren't scientists who can't cook and do basic tasks. This is science. Even when Einstein was famous and an established academic people still refuted his claims. Bohr argued with Einstein over entanglement. Again I know many scientists who have been put through to coals when proposing something. This is the scientific method. The difference between a scientist and a crackpot is that the scientist is smart enough to know that this is essential for the scientific method. They try and improve it, crackpots make it personal and then wallow when it gets heated. If someone handles a situation badly they are more likely to have bad experiences. A broken clock is right twice a day... does that mean we should rely on the clock all day to get the time???? NO They get treated just like everyone else. If an established scientist come up with the same standards as a crackpot they would be dismissed. What people are saying when they sympathise with crackpots is that they should have to work as hard as other people when it comes to accepting their ideas. Us dumb scientists had to go to university for years, learn what's already been proved and sit exams on it. Yet a crackpot expects the same audience when he's thought about it for a couple of months and never tested it. In my experience crackpots are the most arrogant people yet they claim scientists to be arrogant.

I am in my final year of physics (hoping to get into a theoretical physics masters). I have been going though quantum mechanics and I haven't seen an explanation as to why there is eigenfunctions in quantum mechanics. From what I understand an eigenfunction is a function that stays the same once it's be derived or integrated. The eigenvalue is a constant that comes from this process. Last year I used eigenvalues to find points of equilibrium. This was a fairly easy concept to grasp. In quantum mechanics is the use of eigenfunctions fundamental like for instance quantisation? Or is it mathematically useful like using e for a general solution to a second order differential equation?

Thank you so much. This now makes sense and I have now solved the problem I was looking at

I have done what you have suggested. I this has resulted in the vector being: (J_z)(x)e_x(y)e_y. However, the equation given in the question is (J_z)(-y)e_x(x)e_y. This seems to be a 90 degree rotation to the left. Is this right or am I being stupid? If it is the 90 degree rotation to the left is this valid because of symmetry? Or is this valid because the electric field is rotating round the wire? Thank you for your patience and sorry that I'm not grasping it quickly.

Thank you for the tip. Yes you guessed my function correctly sorry about the notation. From what I gather from your point you define the x vector and the y vector separately and then add them? I've now done this but what I don't get is that there is a y component on the x vector and a x component on the y vector. I also don't get how the x vector is negative. It looks like a result from a cross product with the z vector. I understand that the function I'm trying to prove makes sense as it imitates the right hand rule which is expected. Still struggling on how to get there mathematically. Thank you for your patience.

Attached is the question and the result I have got so far. I have used cylindrical coordinates to get so far (my equation is clearly marked in the attachment). However, I am having trouble converting it to Cartesian coordinates. r would give Pythagoras's theorem which is not like the function I'm supposed to prove. I would be so grateful for some pointers. For starters is my function even remotely close? Many thanks

Coming back to this topic, why would Gauss's law still be valid if Coulomb's was replaced by an inverse cube law?

A_r is the reduced mass. I calculated it in a previous question. I know it's right because the question asked to prove that the reduced mass is... and gave a value. The reduced mass can be defined by Kg or by a fraction with U (meaning atomic units) next to it. I'll the the atomic units but still won't they have to be included in the answer?

I try and do my problems by myself as opposed to running to this forum but once again I have simply come across something that has me stumped. This will be the third time I've posted here this semester. Hopefully I'll get better by the end of the year otherwise final exams are going to be shaky. I have been asked to calculate the rate of the reaction of deuteron fusing with a proton. My units don't seem to add up as I have a kg^-1 extra at the end. I also know that the rate is wrong because the next question asks to prove that the mean lifetime of deuteron in this reaction is one second. When I divid the number of deuterons by the rate of the reaction and it is way out from one second. I believe that most of my calculation is correct. The main problem I think is with the first fraction of the rate equation as that is where the extra kg^-1 comes from. The question doesn't give the mass fraction so looking at the examples in the textbook don't give much help at all. I've attached my approach to solving this question. The values given in the question that have been inserted in the approach are: T, n_p, n_d, s(E_0). I worked out E_G and A_r in previous questions. Those questions asked to prove that these are: [value given] so I know they're right. Would be so grateful if someone could point me in the right direction. I have been stuck on this for the last 3 days. It's like staring at a brick wall, I can see nothing that I can move.

Thanks guys this has helped a lot.

I have been reading about how dipoles produce an inverse cube law. The sad thing is that I can't find any maths behind it. Am I reading a crackpot theory? If not could someone post the maths or give a link to the maths?

This may seem silly. I understand the mechanical way of doing the maths but do you know why the wave function star has a positive imaginary component whilst the non-star wave function has a negative imaginary component? I feel like I've gone through it but I can't remember why. Looking back at it this is why I was struggling with the question in the first place. Many thanks

Oh yes I remember this now when doing measurement and uncertainty. Thank you the rest is straightforward. Thank you for being patient with me.

It's ok. I'm still stuck though. How did the e raised to the imaginary function disappear?

Odd function means that it's not symmetrical. But if the function is squared it should be symmetrical. Will try the U substitution thank you

I'm trying. There are two issues I still have. 1. Why do we do this substitution in a physical sense? 2. I'm starting to see a solution to this with the substitution but I can't get rid of the e^(-b^2/4) in the result

I-try You keep missing the point of all the posters here. These posts are not personal. We do not know you. We comment on the nature of your posts, for instance if a post comes off as arrogant we will point out that it comes off as arrogant. Most of us on this forum are interested in science. It's because it's a science forum. The problem is that you want to believe that you have something of worth but you don't have any predictable outcomes that can be measured. It's like me speculating who's knocking at the door but I don't have a key to open the door and find out if my speculations were correct. As for looking into it from a theory perspective people who have had formal education in physics usually start to switch off when the person says they haven't used maths. This is because we have been shown again and again that our preconceptions after reading the textbook are wrong because the maths tells us something else or that our approach is incorrect because the units didn't make sense. Saying you have a physics explanation without maths is like going to a publisher with a novel and telling him you didn't do a spell check and you didn't reread it to see if it made sense. Maths is the language of physics. Like a spell checker maths is a logic checker. As for your theory I cannot look at its predictions and see if its consistent with previous experiments. Should I spend my time in lingual debate with you where words have multiple meanings and can vary on the context? I don't see how that's a productive use of anyone's time. The reason why people may be short with you is that you are not some 15 year old kid. You have lived a full life. You could have written to a university physics department telling them of your situation and your desires/plan. You could have asked them for a list of subjects that you'd need to learn or a list of subjects that they teach their students. You should have looked at historical people in physics. You would have noticed that they all had strong math backgrounds or tons of experimental data. Your approach isn't productive. You keep looking at the attitude of others instead of looking at your approach. Below is a link to a scale. It displays classic crackpot characteristics. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

The question asks to apply born's rule. I know what born's rule is. Squaring the wave equation will give a probability distribution. Integrating this over a distance with an arbitrary constant and summing the whole equation to one (normalizing the constant) will give me the normalized function. This question then give the normalized function and also gives 3 integrals and asks me to prove that the function is normalized. I know that you have to pull the squared constant out of the integral, do the definite integral. divide one by the definite integral and the take the square root of this to get the normalized constant. However, I have no idea how to use the definite integrals that they have given me in the question. They are slightly different from the integral I need the integral is too hard for me to solve. Can someone give me any clues? Many thanks

I agree completely. Also a crackpot will insist on looking at the "big picture". They don't bother with details. If anything they try and avoid details. I think the social science of Belbins roles has a lot to answer for. It describes the thinker who comes up with the idea as a plant who doesn't need to get involved with the details. I've seen some crackpots hold on to this. A good idea comes from details.

I made no bones about the problems being easy. I even stated that they were simple. You've tried to be pedantic about them but they are just questions. Your point about the axis is pedantic and incorrect. stating that a particle travelling along the negative y axis collides with a particle travelling along the x axis is a fine question. The term particle means you treat it as a particle meaning you don't worry about the centre of mass (this is very basic physics terminology). Your problem with this question just shows how limited you are at answering simple questions. You also simply hinted at classical answers. The point of these problems was for you to demonstrate how YOUR theory predicts these two situations. Also another note for the future. I am in my final year of a physics degree, there are plenty of people smarter than me in this forum who have phds in physics etc. We already know that the questions are easy. The questions are kept simple to keep us from straying from the main point: YOUR THEORY and if it's consistent with simple situations. You just look silly when you bumble along, don't give an answer and fail to comprehend the basic question. The icing on the cake is when you then say it's easy. This is dripping with arrogance. Mainstream science has developed computers, medicine, scanning machines and pioneered space travel and satellites.... you've achieved nothing to date. You clearly do not understand what science is. I'm going to have to repeat myself if you can't offer testable predictions then it cannot be tested to see if it is true therefore you cannot apply the scientific method so it isn't science. Let's do something more your caliber. What predictions does YOUR THEORY give on the following: A pulsar, which is 1019 m from Earth,emits pulses of electromagnetic radiation across a 14 broad spectrum. The pulses travel to Earth through the interstellar medium, which can be regarded as a dilute plasma within which the number density of electrons and ions is about 3 × 104 m−3. What is the difference in arrival time at Earth of the pulse detected with a radio telescope sensitive to frequencies around 100 MHz and the corresponding pulse detected with an optical telescope with a red filter? How does the magnitude of the force of gravity acting on the Earth due to the Sun compare with the magnitude of the force of gravity acting on the Earth due to Jupiter? Calculate the ratio of the magnitudes of the two forces when the Earth is at its closest to Jupiter. For simplicity, you may assume that the orbits of the Earth and Jupiter are circular, with a⊕ = 1 AU and aJ = 5 AU, respectively, and that M⊕ ∼ 3 × 10−6 M% and MJ ∼ 10−3 M%. YOUR THEORY has give predictions to these questions that are consistent with previous experiments and observations.

As I thought nothing. If your theory cannot make predictions that can be measured and tested it cannot be put through the scientific method to see if it is correct, therefore it isn't scientific. Anyone reading it would be wasting their time. The issue is that i-try doesn't understand what science is. They treat science as if it's a religion. People who do this usually quote Einstein saying rubbish like "without religion science is lame." The thing is that Einstein was human, he got stuff wrong as he is not a god. Einstein was wrong about quantum entanglement for instance. This is why science is so successful. No matter how intelligent you are, no matter how reasonable your theory sounds it is put to the test to see if it's right. Maths is for the humble. It acts as a guide. I have lost count on the amount of times I think I'm on the right path only to be shown that my method doesn't make sense due to the sheer simple fact that the units don't add up. What i-try has done is display extreme arrogance. He has spent decades on this but he hasn't bothered to apply maths to it as if his brain is so amazing that it doesn't need maths to guide him. It is very arrogant to chuck a theory at the scientific community without even bothering to show how it could be tested. It's as arrogant as a doctor chucking out a diagnosis and not even bothering to consider what blood tests or scans will confirm this. Any idiot can read and come up with an idea. Writing it down doesn't make the idea any stronger (unless you're a religion). Scientific work and skill comes in developing an idea that can be measured and thus tested and utilised. Your theory offers no predictions (even for first year undergrad energy problems) therefore it's trash. I just hope you haven't dedicated too many hours per year on this.

You clearly didn't understand my point about entanglement. The point wasn't about entanglement mechanics is was about what constitutes science. Because entanglement couldn't be tested it was classed as philosophy until the maths was completed and an experiment could be done. I'm not going to go through your posts with a fine tooth comb. Your posts offer no numerical predictions. How can we test it? How can we compare it to previous experiments and readings to see if it's consistent? We can't. I'm shocked that someone has spent decades on this and hasn't learnt the maths so they can validate it. It's like speculating on your bank balance by the tone of the bank letters and bills you receive as opposed to bothering to look at the figures and carry out basic accounting. Yes you will get an idea if you're in debt or not but the changes of guessing the right amount that's in your bank account is very unlikely. I'm interested in science. I'm not going to invest much time in something that doesn't give any testable predictions. I'm guessing this is why your theories have generally been dismissed. Ok let's say I'm really interested in your theory. Lets look at some basic energy predictions and you can explain how your theory mimics these outcomes. A theorist should be able to show how their theory is consistent with previous readings. A particle (a) with a mass of 3kg is moving at 25ms^-1 along the x axis when it collides with a particle (b) of 2kg travelling at 35ms^-1 in the negative y axis. We can say that the collision is elastic. what predictions does your theory give for the speeds and directions of both particles? A particle with a mass of 55kg is 2 meters from the ground on earth. It is released from rest. Negating air resistance what prediction does your theory give on the particle's kinetic energy? These two problems are very basic. You'd fail first year undergrad physics if you couldn't get these right. If your theory cannot get these basic predictions right how can we say it's consistent with observed phenomena?

also there is no force pulling the block outwards. Centrifugal force doesn't exist. Google it if you don't believe me

The scientific method is there because people are terrible at seeing things and patterns that do not exist. As a little background I am completing my second degree this academic year and I will be sitting exams in quantum wave theory. What I tend to find is that people who link spirituality to quantum physics doesn't know anything about quantum physics. Viewers influencing outcome, I assume you mean observer effect. One huge misunderstanding is observer effect. People think that observing something changes reality. This is plain wrong. When making a measurement you have to interact with the system. For instance checking a tire pressure means some of the air has to come out in order to hit the pressure gauge. In a big system the change is barely noticeable. However, in quantum physics the systems are very small so taking a measurement will drastically change the system. Shooting a laser through a particle to measure its mass will increase the energy of the particle greatly. This is why quantum physicists constantly go on about observer effect because they have to make sure that their measuring equipment is taken into account. People who don’t study physics tend to misunderstand this and think that simply because we’re observing something our mind changes reality. Observer effect is a practical problem for carrying out experiments. Science has brought about computers, modern medicine and has furthered our understanding of the cosmos. Spirituality has brought us cults, wars and oppression. With what you've posted it's outright pathetic that you're bashing science's standards. .