timo

You have to register the business with the city administration (it's usually just a matter of informing the administration, not a matter of getting a permit). See for example http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewerbeanmeldung (German Wikipedia).

I'm not really convinced that my research is more groundbreaking or of interest to more people than this one.

The limit of the series is [math] +\infty[/math] before and after the multiplication. The statement in which the limit is minus one uses an ad hoc argument instead of a proper proof. The ad hoc argument implies the assumption that you can rearrange the order of the terms in a series without changing the limit of the series. This assumption is wrong, and even if it was correct I am not sure that the series would converge to -1, since I think it would alternate.

There is no option to delete your profile. You can change the your username yourself in the settings, if I remember correctly. Other entries about you in your profile you can also delete yourself. If you cannot change your username send a PM to Cap'n Refsmmat, he can change it in "the guy who is afraid of his Google past" or whatever you prefer.

Makes sense. Thx for the comment.

Point apart that one is not a prime number, shouldn't the series be 1,2,3,7,43,1807,3263443, ... in that case? Why is there a 13 after the 43?

I was thinking towards a solution that would work without underwear, too.

Just imagine that some radical monotheistic group believing in a punishing god is right and science has tried to work in directions that contradict the respective holy book - even though that is unlikely, of course. Man, some people are so in for trouble, then. Makes overlooking the ultimate theory of explains-everything-predicts-nothing appear like a piece of cake. Ok, a bit more seriously: Apart from a complete underestimate of the complexity of modern physics the idea that outsiders' ideas should be given more attention essentially suffers from the incorrect assumption that professionals' ideas were given sufficient attention. Quite contrary, professionals must work pretty hard for getting the attention of their colleagues, and many never get enough to make the jump to a permanent position. In fact, you should have already noticed that in the whole of today's society, attention is a scarce and valuable good that you are not given for free just because there is a remote chance that you might have something to say. If you want to put a number on it send a mail to Google and ask them what they charge you for putting your homepage on rank #1 for the search term "theory of everything". You're best advised to entirely concentrate on the part about "reasonable success" in organic chemistry. Considering that you seem to think that a retired electrical engineer who never held a Bunsen burner in his hand may make significant contributions to be most puzzling problems in organic chemistry (whatever those may be) I think there is a bit of way ahead of you.

But what do you do if the OP is not convinced, because future equipment may prove wave mechanics wrong?

I think you just broke the sfn necromancy record

If a device/mechanism/whatever that violates uncertainty is found then by definition it violates uncertainty. I don't see how there can be any disagreement on that point. But I guess you didn't actually want to ask whether X is true in the hypothetical situation in which X is true. The standard interpretation of QM implies that there can be an uncertainty in an observable that is not due to the fact that devices can only measure to some precision but that the observable indeed physically has no well-defined value.

Considering that some Christians take the idea of creationism seriously I think it indeed should. All we ever learned in (protestant) Religion (which is a kind of mandatory school subject in Germany), at least in the school years 5-10 that I attended it, was alternating between the topics "sects are evil" and "drugs are evil". Learning a bit more about the Cristian faith would have been great.

Yes for vacuum. Some people speak of photons in media like glass (which technically is a problematic statement). Since in media the speed of light can depend on the wavelength (which e.g. causes the spectral decomposition in a prism) so does the speed of those "photons". Yes. Mass (zero), electric charge (zero), color charge (zero), spin (one), momentum (depending on momentum ), energy (depending on momentum), velocity (depending on momentum), speed (speed of light), wavelength (depending on momentum), frequency (guess what that may depend on ...) spontaneously come to my mind. To keep it simple: Light indeed is just waves, except that there is some minimum amplitude ("height") for those waves. A photon is just a wave with the minimum amplitude. Larger amplitudes than the minimum one are created by adding up multiple minimum-amplitude waves (photons). There is a little bit more to it in reality, but I think the "minimum-amplitude wave" picture is already better than most laymen ideas about photons.

The "vector" used to describe e.g. the electromagnetic field actually is the potential, not the force. "Force" is a somewhat sub-optimal term since in this context it does not mean the "F" in "F=ma" but rather means something like "interaction" (which in the context of this particular thread also is not a suitable term).

I am not sure what you call "independent", but it certainly is a different flavor of "independent" than that of the engineers who propose the ultimate theory of physics. 1) The idea of Lisi's work was not that new. Even I had heard about the exceptional group and the idea that it may be a candidate for a unification group before Lisi published his paper in which he tried to work out that idea (and I am not exactly from the same field). Admittedly, while the idea may not have been new by the time of publication it could still have been Lisi's idea, just from a few years ago. 2) The work was done in the context of a 77k Dollar research grant given explicitly for working on this (link). Of course he was independent in the sense of not having a direct supervisor and not having a permanent position at a university. But that applies to half of my department once you exclude the doctorate students (who make up the largest fraction - and most of them are also paid from some grant money rather than from university funds). And most of the other half is paid by university but independent in their research by law (possibly even constitution, but I am not sure about that) - as they are tenured professors. I guess the topic was moved to speculations because it is about speculations in the sense of this forum, non-mainstream physics. It is somewhat alien when people complain about their posts about non-mainstream science being moved to the section about non-mainstream science because the other threads about non-mainstream science were all crap. I doubt that your topic will be embraced on physicsforums; I think they actually removed the "independent research" section altogether.

Nope. Just like with the dozens or even hundreds of other engineers who have found the answer to the last and ultimate question (whatever the question may be). 1) Lisi's paper made significant headlines in blogs and even newspapers, more than any other physics paper I could think of at the moment. Its scientific impact has been much less spectacular, as far as I know. 2) Contrary to Dr. Brown, Dr. Lisi is an actual physicists who is actually working in the field of exotic (particle) physics, is actually paid for doing so, and actually speaks with other professional physicists.

The Higgs boson is not related to the graviton or to gravity at all. It is a particle that is predicted by the Standard Model, namely the only particle predicted by the Standard Model that has not been experimentally verified, yet.

The Standard Model contains the Higgs boson - by definition. Whether what we currently call the Standard Model correctly describes nature, and in that sense whether the Higgs boson exists in nature, is another question that is still open. It is no new idea that the Higgs boson may not exist, and people stating that this possibility might in fact be the most exciting result of LHC is no news (it has been a standard statement in particle physics ~5 years ago, and probably way before then). I am not aware that much about this has changed since then. I remotely heard that LHC recently excluded some values for the possible mass of the Higgs boson. But if I remember correctly then these were ranges in which no one really expected the Higgs boson to be found in, anyways (although technically they would have been possible). Is it this exclusion of a mass range that you are referring to?

I think people were trying to tell you that not all Classical Physics is well-described with "Newtonian Physics", and that this forum is supposed to contain more than just NP. You seem to be arguing against the statement that anything involving a Lagrangian must be "Classical Physics". While that is true no one claimed that in the first place. To me it is a bit unclear what your point is.

"Classical" does not necessarily equate with "non-quantum-mechanical". It is just as often used as "non-relativistic". In this case it seems to mean both. Keep in mind that this is just a choice for creating a forum structure. You could also translate it with "school physics" in this case. Or, if you are as cynical as me, with "the part of physics were people know what they are talking about" or "quantitative physics" . I think a much more dubious forum name is "Modern and Theoretical Physics", but from previous debates I know that I am pretty alone with that impression.

It does. You even got the right command in your 2nd attempt, except that the closing command is [/math], not [/tex].

Energy terms can come in a variety of forms. One of them is potential energy. Potential is the potential energy of a particle divided by the charge of the particle (where "charge" is not necessarily the electric charge; in case of a gravitational potential it is the mass). Some people do not understand the difference between potential and potential energy and say "potential" when they in fact talk about the "potential energy". I dunno? Considering you are the one wanting to prove school physics wrong I think you should provide the actual example. Not every force has an associated potential, anyways.

Stritcly speaking: Other way round, the wavefunction is a representation of a pure state. Very loosely speaking: yes, a pure state is just a wavefunction.

If you define ensembles that each contain only a single state then the entropy of all those different ensembles is zero by definition - in an ensemble where each element is equally likely the entropy is just the logarithm of the number of elements (presumably the number of independent elements in QM, but that doesn't really matter here) times a constant.

Entropy is a property of a concept called "ensemble" (or "macrostate" in less math-oriented fields), not a property of what is called a state (->"microstate") in introductory QM books.