Why can't we go faster than light?

[Schneibster]

No, the Dirac field is the Fermi-Dirac field or fermion field. You're not talking about the fermion field nor have you been at any time despite the fact I've mentioned it in nearly every post I've made.

 

You are attempting to troll me and you are transparent.

[ajb]

No, the Dirac field is the Fermi-Dirac field or fermion field. You're not talking about the fermion field nor have you been at any time despite the fact I've mentioned it in nearly every post I've made.

I beg to differ I explicitly said Dirac field all over the place. Please read what I have written again.

 

You are attempting to troll me and you are transparent.

To be quite honest, I was wondering if your behavior here is bordering on a troll.

 

Anyway, back to what I wanted you to clear up... what is this dependence of the Yukawa coupling on acceleration?

[Schneibster]

I'm sorry I don't see a great deal of advantage in arguing with someone who cannot differentiate between the Dirac Lagrangian and the Dirac Field.

 

You need to learn to understand more than just the math. You don't understand the real fields that the universe exhibits.

 

I told you the Dirac field is relativistic. You denied it, and presented the Dirac Lagrangian to pretend it's not. The Lagrangian is of course not relativistic. You have repeatedly confused the two in order to attempt to deflect, distract, or deceive me. You have failed abominably and are now trying to deny it.

 

Please stop.

 

You have been misled by fools. You should stop talking to them.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Schneibster

[ajb]

I'm sorry I don't see a great deal of advantage in arguing with someone who cannot differentiate between the Dirac Lagrangian and the Dirac Field.

Okay, so you will not attempt to explain what you mean by the Yukawa coupling being dependent on acceleration. Fine.

[Schneibster]

No, you will not listen to the explanation.

 

Fine.

 

Bear in mind we have not advanced beyond post 75 because you will not admit that the Dirac fermion field is Lorentz symmetric.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Schneibster

[ajb]

I told you the Dirac field is relativistic. You denied it...

False.

 

...and presented the Dirac Lagrangian to pretend it's not. The Lagrangian is of course not relativistic.

False and poor language. The Dirac Lagrangian is Lorentz invariant and in that sense relativistic.

 

You have repeatedly confused the two in order to attempt to deflect, distract, or deceive me. You have failed abominably and are now trying to deny it.

False and false.

 

You have been misled by fools. You should stop talking to them.

Okay I will stop talking to experts in QFT LOL.

No, you will not listen to the explanation.

You have not given one!

 

Anyway... either try to give an explanation or just say you can't and we will both move on. Simple as that and no hard feelings.

[Schneibster]

This is simple: admit the Dirac fermion field is Lorentz symmetric or go back to school.

 

Period. I'm a fan of reality.

 

I am amazed by the number of people who think mathematical derivations are physical proofs.

 

Your math is nice but the field isn't the math. Especially when you have to superposition it with fifteen other things in order to describe the field.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Schneibster

[ajb]

This is simple: admit the Dirac fermion field is Lorentz symmetric or go back to school.

Please define what you mean by Lorentz symmetric. I do not understand this, it is a poor choice of language.

 

Again I will repeat myself... Do you mean

 

i) it does not change under a Lorentz transformation?

ii) it is covariant, that is it has a well defined transformation rule under Lorentz transformation?

[Schneibster]

Are you serious?

 

This is basic relativity, do you not understand what the Lorentz Symmetry defines as invariant?

[ajb]

Are you serious?

 

This is basic relativity, do you not understand what the Lorentz Symmetry defines as invariant?

 

Humor me please...

 

remembering you have said symmetric and not invariant.

Edited April 11, 2014 by ajb

[Schneibster]

The experimental results over velocity or orientation (or position, which is implicit in velocity).

See, I think you keep trying "gotcha" maneuvers on me and I keep making you look like an idiot.

 

I think you should stop. But that's just me. You can make yourself look as bad as you want. Go for it.

Symmetric means invariant. A vase is symmetric because no matter what direction you see it from it looks the same.

 

People who play with math always forget these basic realities.

[ajb]

See, I think you keep trying "gotcha" maneuvers on me and I keep making you look like an idiot.

Then just make a clear statement and show that I am wrong or at least misunderstanding what you are saying.

 

You now seem once again to be avoiding questions.

 

I think you should stop.

I am wondering about this now also, your stubbornness, unclear statements and unwillingness to engage in a useful and constructive way have derailed the initial issue I wanted to discuss.

 

Oh well never mind, back to work I guess...

[Schneibster]

I think I have clearly shown what you're trying to do, and that it has nothing to do with physics.

 

I think you've been trying to create a controversy or a fight since post 75. I think you've failed and you're running away to hide.

 

What makes me sure is that when I tell you what the Lorentz Symmetry means, you ignore it and change the subject. It's quite transparent and obvious.

 

Furthermore as far as your lies about "unclear statements," you were the one who was maliciously unclear about the difference between the Dirac Lagrangian and the Dirac Field. You have repeated a deliberate and previously proven untruth in an attempt to discredit me under false pretenses. I stand ready to provide the proof of my allegations, if it is not already obvious to the members and staff.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Schneibster

[ajb]

Can we try to keep this civil please. You are now accusing me of being a troll rather than address my questions and call for some clarifying remarks.

[Schneibster]

I'm willing to keep it civil if I am not maliciously and subtly accused of lying as you have been doing. If you intend to continue trolling me I'll shortly put you on ignore rather than be accused of insulting you.

Now, the Dirac fermion field is explicitly relativistic, correct?

Edited April 11, 2014 by Schneibster

[ajb]

I'm willing to keep it civil if I am not maliciously and subtly accused of lying as you have been doing.

I have not said you have lied, but some of your statements have been false. All I can really say is that you have misunderstood some of what I have said. If that was purposeful, I dare not make any statement.

 

Don't confuse my saying something is false with a personal attack on you.

 

Anyway, do we now agree that the Dirac field has a non-trivial transformation law under the Lorentz group ie. it is a spinor, and that the Dirac Lagrangian or action is invariant under Lorentz transformations?

 

 

If so, you may continue... the Yukawa coupling depends on acceleration of something?

[Schneibster]

I'm not gonna play games, sunshine.

 

You do or you don't. I play nasty with people who are trying to prove I'm stupid. If you wanna play that game I can do it forever.

 

If you're smart you'll stop.

 

You've been trying to catch me in a misstep for fifty posts. What you've got so far is embarrassed.

 

Are you done?

Edited April 11, 2014 by Schneibster

[ajb]

Are you done?

Okay, I will conclude that we cannot really make any sense of your statement about the Yukawa coupling being dependent on some acceleration.

 

Thank you.

[Schneibster]

Unfortunately you haven't heard the justification, nor have you actually understood what the claim is (hint: you screwed it up).

 

Typical.

 

And apparently you aren't done and are too stubborn to stop and too mean to admit it when you're beaten. That's fine but please understand everyone knows.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Schneibster

[ajb]

And apparently you aren't done and are too stubborn to stop and too mean to admit it when you're beaten. That's fine but please understand everyone knows.

Okay, take that attitude. I assure you it will not serve you well.

 

Anyway, I am sorry that I could not get any physics from your statement about the Yukawa coupling.

[Schneibster]

I'd have been happy to explain it except you kept claiming I was wrong before I was finished.

[ajb]

I'd have been happy to explain it except you kept claiming I was wrong before I was finished.

Again, this is false.

 

I just doubt your claim, but that is because I an not aware of any such statements from the literature. But I am not an expert in exactly this, so I am more that willing to be shown the validity of your claim. In fact, I was very interested in what you could mean by that, but things go derailed due to poor language and some seeming misconceptions.

[Schneibster]

Umm, no, it's not false; you still haven't answered post 75.

 

You started claiming I was wrong before you even understood what I was saying.

 

There's no mistake here but yours.

 

Someone told you I was stupid and you believed them. That was your mistake.

 

I've been humiliating you ever since for your disrespect.

 

That's the mistake.

 

You'll want to start trying to fix it with an apology.

 

And not a bunch of bullshit about how sorry you are I was offended, either.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Schneibster

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

ajb, Schneibster,

You both engaged in a pointless bickering, and you both wrote several posts that were aimed only at continuing the bickering, and in which no additional information for the scientific discussion was offered. Please improve.

 

Schneibster, you made some personal attacks that we do not appreciate on this forum. In addition, you make use of some vulgar language, and a particular condescending style of writing which suggests that at least part of your posts were not aimed at getting a scientific point across. I noticed that in the last few hours, you were engaged in another discussion that also required moderation. In both, you were rather insulting. You have been warned about the same in the past already.

 

Since it seems that the OP has not returned to our forum for a long time, I think we can close this thread. Nobody wants to read what you both just created.

 

Thread closed.