Double Slit Experiment

[Terry Giblin]

I hate people proclaiming understanding of a physical theory which cannot at present be toppled.

Dear Green Destiny,

Congratulations, you might not believe this but you are the very first person to admit, the experiment works.

"The basic element of quantum theory is the double-slit experiment. It is a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman

He else also said, who ever solves the Double slit experiment, will win a Nobel Prize. - Time will tell.

Now compare this with Josephson Junction.

Which is almost identical to my experiment, but in reverse.

Which begs the question, which came idea came first, the Josephson Junction or "Quantum fluctuations"? It would be interesting to know the answer to this question.

Everything is easy, once you know the answer and what you are looking for.

Now do you get the 'picture'.

Light in, Light out.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Yes, as per my CV, I had a degree in Maths and Physics.

Then you've forgotten all of it, as you seem to have no grasp of even the ethos of science, let alone the details.

What amazes me, is that I calculated and solved the problem in six months, answer 3. - Which Alpha(Nob) disputes.

I dispute that any project worth a PhD can have an answer summed up in a single 1 digit number. The route to the solution is as important, if not more than, the solution itself.

Yet, neither he or his father or his 25 post docs, after nearly 5 years since we have been having this argument, has still to been able to prove or deny my claim.

My father knows nothing of you, in that I don't speak to him about you and you obviously aren't known in the community. Its not on me to disprove your claims, its on you to prove them. Your inability to hold a coherent conversation shows that regardless of what you may have done in the past you are incapable of doing science now.

It is time he shut or prove me wrong, by showing me his or his fathers answer.

Flawed logic. The ability (or not) of anyone else to provide a detailed model of rocket exhausts has nothing to do with your claims. Your 'evidence' for your claim was the picture of jet engines having particular exhaust patterns. Hardly the evidence a serious scientist would provide.

I will stake my reputation that the answer is 3.

You cannot stake what you do not have.

Yet Alpha(Nob) and all his 'merry men' cannot even solve the problem I solved over 20 years ago.

If the problem was hard enough to be worth awarding a PhD and took someone working on it full time 6 months (at least) then even if you weren't full of it it would mean that someone isn't going to solve such a thing in their spare time. I'm not going to waste my time on you Terry, this post is something I am typing in the morning while eating my breakfast. For the rest of the day I won't spend 1 nanosecond thinking about you. I have my own research to do, research for my employer who expects results. Unlike you I can't just provide Google image search pictures and say "That's the solution", I have to come up with results.

The most senior scientist in the UK, the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees.

And I chose, him as my mentor.....

In 1987, out of all the mathematicians and Physicists in the world, just by 'chance', I happened to picked and read everything Martin Rees wrote.

Reading someone's books and claiming them as your 'mentor' is disingenuous, as saying "X was my mentor" implies a personal relationship, which you have not had with Sir Martin.

I respected the man and I respected the work which he did involving Quasars.

Respecting the man and his work doesn't make him your mentor.

Ironically, when I last posted my work on Quasars, Alpha(Nob) attacked and criticized the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees own work.

Terry, you complain that I attack you and yet you constantly come out with such lies (at least this isn't as gross a lie as some of your previous ones). I didn't attack his work, I rubbished your claims you understood it and have done science.

Which is almost identical to my experiment, but in reverse.

Then you clearly have no clue about Josephson gates.

 

[Terry Giblin]

Einstein's genius was to realize that if the speed of light is constant and nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, it must have implications if you are traveling at a high percentage of the speed of light, to begin with.

If you accept that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then special and general relativity naturally follows.

The same applies to my double slit experiment, once you see the solution, it is and looks so obvious, that you cannot understand my excitement.

The same use to happen when I use to go round asking people "what is an electron" I was once told, "If I switch on the light switch and the light comes on, who cares were the electron came from."

If you think about it carefully, I took just for example, three of the best and well known quantum physics 'thought' and real experiments, Schrodinger's Cat, quantum tunneling and the double slit experiment and combined all three into one simple experiment.

I 'collapsed' all three ideas and experiments, into one real performable consistent experiment, with its own valid explanation. Using standard accepted physics.

If you look at my experiment it is obvious that is works and agrees with all accepted physics, so where is the big fuss.

But that is exactly the point I am trying to make, my version of the Double Slit Experiment, encompasses the whole of Quantum Mechanics in one diagram.

Once again I apologize, its not the best diagram in the world and I only drew it as a joke.

So allow me to explain what I see when I look at the diagram.

"If you remove the source, you don't change the experiment."

In the diagram I have drawn a black hole and an electron, these are to represent everything in the known universe, to represent the source.

Then using quantum tunneling, I block out the source from view, "I remove the source", by placing it behind a quantum barrier.

I can't see the source, but I still see an interference pattern behind the double slits.

If I get the same interference pattern, regardless of what source I use, whether it is a black hole or an electron, it automatically tells me that 'deep' down all sources are the same in nature and behaviour.

QED - Light, electrons and everything up to a black hole, all behave and exhibit the same behaviour and produce an interference pattern, because fundamentally, deep down, they are the same.

Light in, Light out.

hf - (mc2) - hf.

In the diagram I label 'real' source (matter) as "+mc2" and behind the quantum barrier, I label the 'imaginary' source as -mc2.

This is whole purpose of the experiment, it is simply a diagram which shows and demonstrates what we already know and understand.

The original double slit experiment, Schrodinger's cat and quantum tunneling 'thought' experiments, as intended and designed, was to highlight the complexity and bizarre nature of quantum mechanics.

My thought experiment, combines all three into one, in a way no one had ever thought of before.

Another simple example, would be to simply use a piece of radioactive material as the source. A simple piece of rock and watch the interference pattern form.

The experiment looks so simple but it took me 20 years to think of it. Like everyone else for the first 20 years I only widened the discussion and experiment. It was a single moment of genius, to see something which had been staring everyone in the face, if we had only put them together.

Once I realized I could place one quantum barrier in front of the source, I immediately realized I could place as many quantum barriers as I liked, without changing the experiment.

Sidney Coleman said it best "an infinite number of quantum exponential dampers...."

I then asked the question, "how does an electron, get from the center of a piece of wire, to the outside." - As demonstrated and indicated in the diagram the answer is quantum tunneling. - Because it can.

Now I am forced, with the use of a diagram, to see that everything in the universe is made of waves, but if I try to observe them or interfere with them, I simply collapse their wave function.

If the double slit experiment is the "Grand daddy of all Quantum Mechanics" I am very pleased to say, mine goes one step "DEEPER" and shows and explains even more than the original experiment does.

Now we can prove everything is made of waves, what does that tell us about the fundamental structure of space and time.... That's for another thread.

But what else does it teach us or remind us of, what we should we always remember.

The whole of maths and physics is based on the unit sphere, from which the block sphere and the Lorenz transformations are derived.

As I have said previously, Leonard Susskind, in his lecture on special relativity
, said every equation solved in Quantum Field Theory is derived from one equation.

I love mathematics, you have to study the subject and do all the examples to learn it , but once you get older you realize the fundamental physics is more important than simply calculating the different coefficients. I can say this because its not my job to calculate the coefficients.

If I worked at CERN, then I would have to calculate the coefficients but since at the moment I don't, I can worry about the fundamental physics and the true mathematical concepts behind them, instead.

Alpha, Omega - Be light Made.

Light in, Light out.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

If I worked at CERN, then I would have to calculate the coefficients

Yes, if you worked at CERN you'd be expected to do physics, not delude yourself with laughable pictures.

To go back to something you said earlier Terry,

to design the engine configuration and layout of HOTOL, to make sure and avoid shock waves from damaging the rocket itself.

What amazes me, is that I calculated and solved the problem in six months, answer 3. - Which Alpha(Nob) disputes.
...
I will stake my reputation that the answer is 3.

Firstly I've commented many times that '3' is not a sufficiently detailed response to be worth a PhD. Furthermore you say that it was your job ", to design the engine configuration and layout of HOTOL, to make sure and avoid shock waves from damaging the rocket itself.". Asking "What is the number of shock diamonds an exhaust creates?" is not the same as asking "What design minimises the damage". Your proclaimed answer doesn't answer the question you were supposedly addressing during you supposed PhD.

But it gets better. For work related reasons I went looked for pictures of rocket exhausts and couldn't help but notice how many of them don't have 3 diamond shock waves in them.

This one has at least 6
This one has at least 4
This one has at least 7
This one has at least 7, possibly 10
This one has 4

What was that about staking your reputation on it being 3?

 

[Terry Giblin]

Dear Alpha(Nob),

You are a God send.

First of all, a Nobel Prize in Physics is only given to someone who has performed an experiment.

I discussed performing my experiment in CERN, a few years ago, but could not see the point of performing and experiment I already new the outcome of and answer to. Why do something which I know works, when you can take my word.

But if the committee of Nobel Prize in Physics, need experimental proof, who am I to object.

Where is the best place, in the world, to perform such a simple quantum mechanics experiment, than CERN.

How do I apply?

Thanks for the suggestion and thanks for the wonderful pictures.

It's a shame, when I was doing my PhD. in Computational Fluid Dynamics, we didn't have the internet, my job would have been so much easier and so much more fun.

Every word you say you dig yourself deeper and deeper.

If you look carefully at what I said in 2004, I described the question as Shock waves traveling around corners.

I got the solution from studying rocket exhausts of HOTOL, but the same applies to any shock wave, from the front or back of the rocket. But it doesn't only apply to rockets or planes, it also applies to explosions in tunnels for example.

The problem first came to light with the X1, after they kept "losing control" after mach 1 and crashing.

The problem was eventually solved. It turned out that just by bad luck, when the X1 broke the sound barrier, a shock wave was formed in the front of the nose cone and closed in on itself, just where the tail rudder of the aircraft was, which is why they lost control of the aircraft and crashed.

My PhD. was simple, rocket exhaust fumes, create shock waves.

I was asked to solve "How many corners does it take to reduce the effects (the energy) of the shock waves, so it doesn't damage the rocket when it closes in on itself. I also had to make sure and calculate the drag effects etc."

when a shock wave encounters any corner, it loses some of its energy, a shock wave has a certain amount of energy, how many corners do you need, to be on the safe side, 1, 2, 3, 4,..... there has to be a simple answer and there is.

If you do the calculations you find the answer is three. 3.

when I posted the question, someone asked me if I was talking about the diamond shock wave pattern, as per you photo's show.

It was only then I realized I was talking about 2 dimensions but in 3 dimensions the answer would become a diamond shock wave pattern.

The same physics and nature which controls the shock waves as they leave the exhaust is the same physics and nature that control the motion of the exhaust fumes. what I calculated, nature works out for itself.

As the exhaust fumes travel through 'space and time' it find outs and discovers its own diamond shock wave as the most effective solution to its own problem.

So to correct your mistake, I never said they had 3 diamond shock waves, I said the answer was 3, which is why the diamond shock waves are formed in the first place. Diamond patterns are found in the most strangest of places in nature.

what you have got to remember, is it is always better to know the answer before you ask the question, but since I know the answer I often ask general of the top of my head type questions.

That's why it is always better to discuss in person, I hate long detailed complex written questions, its better to talk and discuss or even better draw a new diagram, wouldn't agree, it avoids and saves so many misunderstanding.

Light in, Light out.

 

[Dywyddyr]

but could not see the point of performing and experiment I already new the outcome of and answer to. Why do something which I know works, when you can take my word.

:roflmao:
Why do you think experiments are done?

The problem first came to light with the X1, after they kept "losing control" after mach 1 and crashing.

"Kept" losing control and crashing?
And crashed?
Source please for these "multiple" crashes.
3 of the 6 X-1 aircraft built are on display, 1 was destroyed in a ground accident, 2 were jettisoned by their carrier aircraft and crashed because they were neither piloted nor powered.

The problem was eventually solved. It turned out that just by bad luck, when the X1 broke the sound barrier, a shock wave was formed in the front of the nose cone and closed in on itself, just where the tail rudder of the aircraft was, which is why they lost control of the aircraft and crashed.

Um, no. It was inertia coupling causing loss of control.

the aircraft developed a slight left roll, but when Yeager attempted to correct, the aircraft snapped to the right and began a violent tumble toward earth. The pilot was rendered unconscious from being tossed about in the cockpit, and the aircraft continued out of control until Yeager regained consciousness and recovered at approximately 25,000 feet, an early example of inertial coupling.

Source: AMERICAN X-VEHICLES Centennial of Flight Edition SP-2003-4531 An Inventory—X-1 to X-50
Dennis R. Jenkins, Tony Landis, and Jay Miller
Monographs in Aerospace History No. 31, written for and published and approved by NASA. They'd probably know...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

First of all, a Nobel Prize in Physics is only given to someone who has performed an experiment.

Einstein, Dirac, Schrodinger, Pauli, Swinger, Gross, Nambu, 't Hooft. Those are just a few off the top of my head who weren't experimentalist, they did the theory which either explained the experiments or made predictions which later were confirmed by experimentalists.

I discussed performing my experiment in CERN, a few years ago, but could not see the point of performing and experiment I already new the outcome of and answer to. Why do something which I know works, when you can take my word.

You clearly have no grasp of the scientific method. And why were you at CERN? It wasn't because you'd demonstrated physics knowledge, you were likely there as they let the public wander around sometimes.

It's a shame, when I was doing my PhD. in Computational Fluid Dynamics, we didn't have the internet, my job would have been so much easier and so much more fun.

If you think that a PhD is done by using Google image search you're naive.

But then we know you are.

If you do the calculations you find the answer is three. 3.

Show the calculations. I was reading about rocket exhaust and its interactions with the launch platform only yesterday. Why don't you go into the details?

It was only then I realized I was talking about 2 dimensions but in 3 dimensions the answer would become a diamond shock wave pattern.

Diamond shockwaves don't form by thrust going around corners, they are due to reflections of shock waves along a boundary between the ambient atmosphere and the thrust exhaust. This is a different thing to being forced around corners. For instance, corners involve stagnation, where the air flow stops and large amounts of heat are produced. An exhaust system with shock waves forming diamonds is nowhere stagnant.

Completely different.

The same physics and nature which controls the shock waves as they leave the exhaust is the same physics and nature that control the motion of the exhaust fumes. what I calculated, nature works out for itself.

Yes, fluids follow Navier-Stokes and thermodynamics. That wasn't something you realised, it was something known from the outset.

As the exhaust fumes travel through 'space and time' it find outs and discovers its own diamond shock wave as the most effective solution to its own problem.

No, it depends upon whether the thruster bell is over or under expanded and the ambient atmosphere outside the thrust, as without an ambient atmosphere its hard to have a boundary between it and the thrust.

I said the answer was 3, which is why the diamond shock waves are formed in the first place.

There's no need for corners to get those patterns, its boundary effects between different regions of the fluid.

is it is always better to know the answer before you ask the question, but since I know the answer I often ask general of the top of my head type questions.

You think you know the answers but you obviously don't. If you've got all the answers why are you such an abject failure at physics? Why can't you do any?

That's why it is always better to discuss in person, I hate long detailed complex written questions

The devil is in the details, they are the essential part of science. Without the details the conclusions are often worthless.

its better to talk and discuss or even better draw a new diagram

You have an obsession with diagrams. You should spend time doodling and more time actually trying to do some physics. Though I suppose it'd be wasted, you're incapable of it.

 

[Terry Giblin]

:roflmao:
Why do you think experiments are done?


"Kept" losing control and crashing?
And crashed?
Source please for these "multiple" crashes.
3 of the 6 X-1 aircraft built are on display, 1 was destroyed in a ground accident, 2 were jettisoned by their carrier aircraft and crashed because they were neither piloted nor powered.


Um, no. It was inertia coupling causing loss of control.

Source: AMERICAN X-VEHICLES Centennial of Flight Edition SP-2003-4531 An Inventory—X-1 to X-50
Dennis R. Jenkins, Tony Landis, and Jay Miller
Monographs in Aerospace History No. 31, written for and published and approved by NASA. They'd probably know...

Dear Dywyddyr,

I stand corrected, thank you for pointing out my mistake. Someone told me this story many years ago and it was theoretically possible.

I never performed the calculations or did any of the experiments, but I had no reason to doubt him, or it was a simple case of chinese whispers, who knows.

Only goes to show you learn something new everyday.

Light in, Light out.

 

[Terry Giblin]

Dear Alpha(Nob),

First of all, a Nobel Prize in Physics is only given to someone who has performed an experiment.

I discussed performing my experiment in CERN, a few years ago, but could not see the point of performing and experiment I already new the outcome of and answer to. Why do something which I know works, when you can take my word.

But if the committee of Nobel Prize in Physics, need experimental proof, who am I to object.

Where is the best place, in the world, to perform such a simple quantum mechanics experiment, than CERN.

How do I apply?

Thanks for the suggestion and thanks for the wonderful pictures.

It's a shame, when I was doing my PhD. in Computational Fluid Dynamics, we didn't have the internet, my job would have been so much easier and so much more fun.

Every word you say you dig yourself deeper and deeper.

If you look carefully at what I said in 2004, I described the question as Shock waves traveling around corners.

I got the solution from studying rocket exhausts of HOTOL, but the same applies to any shock wave, from the front or back of the rocket. But it doesn't only apply to rockets or planes, it also applies to explosions in tunnels for example.

The problem first came to light with the X1, after they kept "losing control" after mach 1 and crashing.

The problem was eventually solved. It turned out that just by bad luck, when the X1 broke the sound barrier, a shock wave was formed in the front of the nose cone and closed in on itself, just where the tail rudder of the aircraft was, which is why they lost control of the aircraft and crashed.

My PhD. was simple, rocket exhaust fumes, create shock waves.

I was asked to solve "How many corners does it take to reduce the effects (the energy) of the shock waves, so it doesn't damage the rocket when it closes in on itself. I also had to make sure and calculate the drag effects etc."

when a shock wave encounters any corner, it loses some of its energy, a shock wave has a certain amount of energy, how many corners do you need, to be on the safe side, 1, 2, 3, 4,..... there has to be a simple answer and there is.

If you do the calculations you find the answer is three. 3.

when I posted the question, someone asked me if I was talking about the diamond shock wave pattern, as per you photo's show.

It was only then I realized I was talking about 2 dimensions but in 3 dimensions the answer would become a diamond shock wave pattern.

The same physics and nature which controls the shock waves as they leave the exhaust is the same physics and nature that control the motion of the exhaust fumes. what I calculated, nature works out for itself.

As the exhaust fumes travel through 'space and time' it find outs and discovers its own diamond shock wave as the most effective solution to its own problem.

So to correct your mistake, I never said they had 3 diamond shock waves, I said the answer was 3, which is why the diamond shock waves are formed in the first place. Diamond patterns are found in the most strangest of places in nature.

what you have got to remember, is it is always better to know the answer before you ask the question, but since I know the answer I often ask general of the top of my head type questions.

That's why it is always better to discuss in person, I hate long detailed complex written questions, its better to talk and discuss or even better draw a new diagram, wouldn't agree, it avoids and saves so many misunderstanding.

Light in, Light out.

I have lived and worked in Switzerland for over 10 years, so naturally when I think of quantum mechanics experiments I think of CERN, not far from where I live.

Then it occurred to me, if I am not willing to perform my own experiment why should I expect someone else to do it for me.

So I have definitely decided to do the experiment myself, the question is where to do it?

Therefore under the circumstances and considering we are talking about the double slit experiment, using "quantum" electrons.

History, honour and respect, dictates there can be only one place for me to apply to and do the experiment.

Cavendish Laboratory

Light in, Light out.

Terry Giblin

 

[Guest254]

You should offer to give a talk at DAMTP.

 

[Terry Giblin]

Einstein's genius was to realize that if the speed of light is constant and nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, it must have implications if you are traveling at a high percentage of the speed of light, to begin with.

If you accept that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then special and general relativity naturally follows.

The same applies to my double slit experiment, once you see the solution, it is and looks so obvious, that you cannot understand my excitement.

The same use to happen when I use to go round asking people "what is an electron" I was once told, "If I switch on the light switch and the light comes on, who cares were the electron came from."

If you think about it carefully, I took just for example, three of the best and well known quantum physics 'thought' and real experiments, Schrodinger's Cat, quantum tunneling and the double slit experiment and combined all three into one simple experiment.

I 'collapsed' all three ideas and experiments, into one real performable consistent experiment, with its own valid explanation. Using standard accepted physics.

If you look at my experiment it is obvious that is works and agrees with all accepted physics, so where is the big fuss.

But that is exactly the point I am trying to make, my version of the Double Slit Experiment, encompasses the whole of Quantum Mechanics in one diagram.

Once again I apologize, its not the best diagram in the world and I only drew it as a joke.

So allow me to explain what I see when I look at the diagram.

"If you remove the source, you don't change the experiment."

In the diagram I have drawn a black hole and an electron, these are to represent everything in the known universe, to represent the source.

Then using quantum tunneling, I block out the source from view, "I remove the source", by placing it behind a quantum barrier.

I can't see the source, but I still see an interference pattern behind the double slits.

If I get the same interference pattern, regardless of what source I use, whether it is a black hole or an electron, it automatically tells me that 'deep' down all sources are the same in nature and behaviour.

QED - Light, electrons and everything up to a black hole, all behave and exhibit the same behaviour and produce an interference pattern, because fundamentally, deep down, they are the same.

Light in, Light out.

hf - (mc2) - hf.

In the diagram I label 'real' source (matter) as "+mc2" and behind the quantum barrier, I label the 'imaginary' source as -mc2.

This is whole purpose of the experiment, it is simply a diagram which shows and demonstrates what we already know and understand.

The original double slit experiment, Schrodinger's cat and quantum tunneling 'thought' experiments, as intended and designed, was to highlight the complexity and bizarre nature of quantum mechanics.

My thought experiment, combines all three into one, in a way no one had ever thought of before.

Another simple example, would be to simply use a piece of radioactive material as the source. A simple piece of rock and watch the interference pattern form.

The experiment looks so simple but it took me 20 years to think of it. Like everyone else for the first 20 years I only widened the discussion and experiment. It was a single moment of genius, to see something which had been staring everyone in the face, if we had only put them together.

Once I realized I could place one quantum barrier in front of the source, I immediately realized I could place as many quantum barriers as I liked, without changing the experiment.

Sidney Coleman said it best "an infinite number of quantum exponential dampers...."

I then asked the question, "how does an electron, get from the center of a piece of wire, to the outside." - As demonstrated and indicated in the diagram the answer is quantum tunneling. - Because it can.

Now I am forced, with the use of a diagram, to see that everything in the universe is made of waves, but if I try to observe them or interfere with them, I simply collapse their wave function.

If the double slit experiment is the "Grand daddy of all Quantum Mechanics" I am very pleased to say, mine goes one step "DEEPER" and shows and explains even more than the original experiment does.

Now we can prove everything is made of waves, what does that tell us about the fundamental structure of space and time.... That's for another thread.

But what else does it teach us or remind us of, what we should we always remember.

The whole of maths and physics is based on the unit sphere, from which the block sphere and the Lorenz transformations are derived.

As I have said previously, Leonard Susskind, in his lecture on special relativity
, said every equation solved in Quantum Field Theory is derived from one equation.

I love mathematics, you have to study the subject and do all the examples to learn it , but once you get older you realize the fundamental physics is more important than simply calculating the different coefficients. I can say this because its not my job to calculate the coefficients.

If I worked at CERN, then I would have to calculate the coefficients but since at the moment I don't, I can worry about the fundamental physics and the true mathematical concepts behind them, instead.

Alpha, Omega - Be light Made.

Light in, Light out.

This is the quote I meant to use.

I have lived and worked in Switzerland for over 10 years, so naturally when I think of quantum mechanics experiments I think of CERN, not far from where I live.

Then it occurred to me, if I am not willing to perform my own experiment why should I expect someone else to do it for me.

So I have definitely decided to do the experiment myself, the question is where to do it?

Therefore under the circumstances and considering we are talking about the double slit experiment, using "quantum" electrons.

History, honour and respect, dictates there can be only one place for me to apply to and do the experiment.

Cavendish Laboratory

Light in, Light out.

Terry Giblin

 

[Terry Giblin]

You should offer to give a talk at DAMTP.

It would be my pleasure and honour to give a talk at DAMTP.

Light in, Light out.

Terry Giblin

 

[Guest254]

Speak to someone. Ring people. Make it happen!

 

[Terry Giblin]

You should offer to give a talk at DAMTP.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhaucer.

Dear Alpha(Nob), you studied at Cambridge and didn't your friend Euler, do his degree and PhD at Cambridge, you said that you had lots of friends at Cambridge, some even arrange conferences and meetings.

So you must know, how and who to talk to and arrange to give a talk or lecture at Cambridge.

Can you ask your friends to arrange for me to give a talk at Cambridge?

This way you can fill the audience with your friends....

Ironically I contacted Cambridge and they kindly suggested that I contact the Cavendish Laboratory.

How do you arrange to give a talk at Cambridge?

Who do I speak to?

Any suggestions or help would be gratefully appreciated.

Light in, Light out.

 

[Guest254]

Surely you can just go to the department website and get the contact details of the relevant people?

EDIT: I should add, I don't think Euler spent any time in Cambridge. And I very much doubt AlphaNumeric is old enough to have been one of his friends (Euler died in the 1700s)!

 

[Terry Giblin]

Hats off to Euler of PhysOrg....

Alpha(Nob) and Euler attacking someone else

Guest254, what you don't understand is that Alpha(Nob) and 'Euler' are the original members of the Forum mafia as I originally coined the phase on PhysOrg.com.

In 2006 I was invited to the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge and since then Alpha(Nob) has lead a campaign to attack and try to discredit me.

I was banned from PhysOrg, for defending myself and Alpha(Nob) was politely asked to go somewhere else, until the heat went away, so he joined sciforums.

 

[Guest254]

Aha, I see our wires were crossed. I assumed you meant Euler!

You were invited to the Newton Institute?! That's very impressive. How did that come about, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So you must know, how and who to talk to and arrange to give a talk or lecture at Cambridge.

If you aren't smart enough to work it out for yourself, you aren't smart enough to give a talk there. Consider it a minimal requirement.

Can you ask your friends to arrange for me to give a talk at Cambridge?

No, because firstly none of my friends would consider your nonsense something they want to inflict on members of staff there. If you're so good you should be able to convince people you're worth listening to without needing my help.

Ironically I contacted Cambridge and they kindly suggested that I contact the Cavendish Laboratory.

'Ironically'?

How do you arrange to give a talk at Cambridge?

You spend years doing good work which is considered to be worthwhile to the community and then you are either invited or you're allowed to attend a conference and give a talk by the organisers of said conference. You can't just ring up and say "I want to present my work to your department, book me a room".

Guest254, what you don't understand is that Alpha(Nob) and 'Euler' are the original members of the Forum mafia as I originally coined the phase on PhysOrg.com.

You called me part of 'the forum mafia'. I never called myself that, unlike some of the other members of that forum. To say 'forum mafia' implied there's some sort of organisation behind our postings, which there wasn't. I posted when and where I wanted, I didn't need to be part of a 'forum mafia' in order to shoot your claims down.

So you must know, how and who to talk to and arrange to give a talk or lecture at Cambridge.

If you aren't smart enough to work it out for yourself, you aren't smart enough to give a talk there. Consider it a minimal requirement.

Can you ask your friends to arrange for me to give a talk at Cambridge?

No, because firstly none of my friends would consider your nonsense something they want to inflict on members of staff there. If you're so good you should be able to convince people you're worth listening to without needing my help.

Ironically I contacted Cambridge and they kindly suggested that I contact the Cavendish Laboratory.

'Ironically'?

In 2006 I was invited to the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge and since then Alpha(Nob) has lead a campaign to attack and try to discredit me.

Your nonsense speaks for itself. I don't need to 'discredit' you, you've never had a reputation to begin with. Even now you still repeat "No one has ever questioned my good name and reputation", yet you also admit Euler and I did. Don't you see the contradiction there?

Euler and I didn't believe you were invited the the INI on the grounds of scientific merit. You have yet to refute that position, as the fact you have a letter saying "You're welcome to come" does not imply you were invited to come out of the blue. When someone applies to attend a conference they will be an 'invitation' to it, assuming there's no reason to turn them down (which for conferences with spare room that's pretty rare). That's what you have. You weren't there because someone thought your 'work' worth you attending, as you have no work. You have no publications, you have no experimental results, you have absolutely no 'good reputation' in the physics community.

Other than replying to your posts on PhysOrg I didn't 'campaign' against you. You weren't worth the time Terry. Because what would I campaign against, you have no reputation, no standing, no work. I can't destroy what does not exist.

Name one bit of work of yours which you think is valid physics which is publishable which I have 'campaigned' against. Please explain how in any way your absolutely failure in science is anything to do with me.

I was banned from PhysOrg, for defending myself and Alpha(Nob) was politely asked to go somewhere else, until the heat went away, so he joined sciforums.

Now you're simply lying, again. Terry, if you have to resort to being dishonest you can't complain about me being out to 'discredit' me! That's called hypocrisy, but then you seem to do that a lot. You've said Rpenner and I wished you dead. You've said I supported a paedophile and now you're saying I got asked to leave from PhysOrg 'till the heat went away'. Nonsense. I'm joining here had nothing to do with you and I continued posting on PhysOrg. The moderators on PhysOrg didn't do anything, they never did so they certainly wouldn't contact me. Rpenner now moderates there and he will confirm he's never said anything like that to me.

There was and is no 'heat' because no one gives a crap about you Terry. You aren't that important. You aren't that competent. You aren't that sane. You got banned because you were a disruptive nut who couldn't answer any questions and just posted incoherent nonsense. Now you're hear doing much the same and adding in your own slew of lies for good measure. You complain I lead a campaign against you and yet you repeatedly tell lies about me and others. If you have to resort to lying, blatantly and repeatedly, it demonstrates you know you have nothing to justify your position and you've clutching at straws.

You clearly have your own rose tinted view of the world, where you're the centre of people's universe. Other than when I'm on this forum you don't enter into my mind. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to do anything to 'campaign against you'. I don't need to, your work is so obviously the product of complete ignorance and is so laughably bad anyone who didn't sleep through school can instantly see you're a hack, they don't need me to tell them.

 

[CptBork]

In 2006 I was invited to the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge and since then Alpha(Nob) has lead a campaign to attack and try to discredit me.

I was banned from PhysOrg, for defending myself and Alpha(Nob) was politely asked to go somewhere else, until the heat went away, so he joined sciforums.

If you were the next Isaac Newton or Galileo, you would have already had more cowbell in those diagrams, as I suggested earlier. At least 3 cowbells, in fact. How long's it been now, 2 weeks and still no cowbell? I gotta have more cowbell!

 

[funkstar]

I often wonder at the psychopathology of cranks and crackpots - is there a gold mine of material for a psychiatrist in the rantings of, say, the OP? Is it merely a standard delusion, with no special characteristics?

[Edit: And, yes! More cowbell!]