Don't worry AN.
You know, I actually love physics that much, it actually hurts when someone calls me a plaigarist of physics. If my ability to write about physics is really that SHIT, that I am having problems distinguishing my work from work which isn't mine, then I assure you, it is completely unintentional.
You don't love physics, not in the good honest wholesome sense. Your behaviour implies you realise there's a certain amount of prestige or positive implication about being competent at physics/mathematics on forums like this and you wish to be seen in a good light on such matters.
If you were really in it for the physics you'd be making an effort to actually learn physics, rather than parrot back expressions you don't understand. It's almost a matter of respect for physics (though physics isn't a singular thing like a person) or rather your lack of respect for it. You aren't interested in scientific understanding or investigation, you just want to be seen to be doing something complicated.
Your actions smack of an insecurity about yourself. And before you wheel out the "Oh so you're a PhD in psychology now are you?!" I'm giving my views based on my experiences interacting with people, both inside and outside of the scientific community. Perhaps if you'd actually attempted to go to university to do a science and had a trial by fire you'd have become much more comfortable (and realistic) about yourself but you haven't.
Just like when you said I plaigarised my tachyonic field equations. I didn't, in fact you brought it up again recently saying, ''but all you did was copy standard equation''.
WRONG
I actually made it clear from the very beginning of the post that those equations where extensions of Tsao Changs work on the Dirac Equation, thus I was carrying on the work to make a more complete theory... along with a theory on the Higgs Boson.
You're obviously not paying any attention to what I write. I often wonder if you bother to read the posts of mine you quote, you rarely seem to pick up salient points I make.
For example, my "You plagiarised that stuff about neutrinos/tachyons" comments I explained differently to how you represent it. You obviously don't know spinor quantum field theory. You obviously don't know stuff required
4 years
before university students get to quantum field theory. As such whenever you post such material you're parroting other people, mindlessly. That is plagiarism, as it is trying to present yourself as knowledgeable by presenting things you don't understand and are mindlessly parroting. Shuffling around the equations doesn't change that. I could pick out random words from a Chinese/English translation dictionary and form 'sentences' but it would be ridiculous for me to claim I can speak Chinese simply because no one explicitly told me those sentences.
There's more to "This is my own novel work" than "No one else has ever said this". It has to be something you understand, something you put together using reason and logic, not random permutations of equations you've found by Google searching for particular buzzwords.
Part of the reason people think so poorly of you is you fail to grasp this rather basic concept.
I also said to you that from now on I would make my equations well-known so there cannot be any confusion.
As above.
That should shut your cake hole in the future, especially if you are feeling so strong about this, that you cannot help yourself but involve yourself in my threads.
That wouldn't negate what I just said. You would still be mangling together expressions you don't understand in ways which are meaningless because you don't understand how to combine expressions you read, if they can even be combined.
And fuck my grammar. I just woke up.
Your spelling and grammar are always extremely poor. They have been like that for years. Despite being told many many times you don't bother to even get a web browser with a spell check built into it. Actually, they all have spell checkers now. Turn it on!
So? It would have been catagorically worse if I had got it wrong. There loads of things in physics I have ''heard'' about but never in practice worked out. Plenty.
Except that the proof is a very simple one which anyone covering Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics learns. You have made many posts talking about Lagrangians and Hamiltonians and their associated equations. They are both used everywhere in quantum field theory and general relativity. In fact the proof that $$\partial_{t}(T-V) = 0 \rightarrow \partial_{t}(T+V) = 0$$ is little more than an application of those equations.
You've just shown, again, that you don't know basic quantum field theory/general relativity. The manner in which you get the Dirac equation or the Einstein field equations is an application of
precisely the same method! You cannot say all the "I understand all that about quantum field theory" or "I'm familiar with that in general relativity" you spew yet turn around and say what you just said. It's like claiming you understand multiplication but then say "Addition? What's that?".
You're always doing this. You don't understand which bits of mathematics/physics build on which so you'll say "Well I don't know everything! X is something I haven't learnt about!" right after saying "Of course I understand Y! Look, here's some work on it!", not realising understanding of Y is impossible without understanding of X. It's like how you like to talk about spinor wave equations but you couldn't even understand a solution to simple harmonic motion!
Time and again you get caught in your own web of lies.
Usually it is taken as a priori of fact that particles are pointlike. Perhaps particles are never quite pointlike but they may behave as though they are pointlike simply because they are so small. As I mentioned in the OP, it puts me in mind of the Weyl Limit which can treat Neutrino's as a massless particle - we don't obviously believe that neutrino's are in fact massless, but they have such a small mass they may as well act like Bosons. So in the same sense, I say that perhaps particles of any family are not dimensionless, but because they must be close to it, they more or less act like pointlike particles.
Nothing you've said has any bearing on the size of particles. Furthermore a particles mass has no bearing on it being a boson or not. Massless fermions are fine, as are massive bosons. Again, another little nugget of evidence you don't grasp even simple concepts.
If you want, that was my verbal addressing towards a problem in physics.
The force equation
$$-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2$$
$$= (-\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}})^2 \mathbb{I}$$
$$= F_{ij}^{2}$$
Has a number of uses.
It has no uses because it's nonsense. The matrix bit is irrelevant, you're just stating a well known identity. The other bit though is where the flaw lies. You say that
$$(-\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} $$
That is obviously false. $$\partial^{2}A^{2}$$ is not the same as $$(\partial A)^{2}$$. The first is the second derivative of $$A^{2}$$ while the second is the square of the first derivative of A. In fact the latter expression just has too many squared's in it at all. It's like you know you're supposed to put some 2's somewhere, you just don't know where so you put it everywhere.
Not once in physics literature have I found an equation which describes specifically the force in two distinct ways
Except you don't describe it in two distinct ways, unless you think $$2^{2}$$ and 4 count as two distinct numbers? All you do is manipulate the matrices using well known identities. You haven't shown two seemingly unrelated quantities are related, you've just rearranged, incorrectly, a very basic expression.
Also, it's pretty daft of you to say "Not once in the literature have
I found..." since you don't understand the literature so you wouldn't know such an occurrence if it snuck up behind you and gave you a prostate check.
In a conventional approach, we may measure the distance in a unit vector, given as $$\hat{n}$$. As soon as we allow the spin to enter the equation,
The unit vector in the expressions you give is not to do with the line joining two particles together. It is representing the direction of a spin alignment, which is a different concept. This is what happens when you stumble about in equations you don't understand, you think "I've seen unit vectors before, they are to do with difference between positions. It must be to do with that!" and then it turns out to be wrong.
I have never seen a ''force along a spin axis'' proposal in physics before. Usually when force is considered with spin, it is usually around as axis, or the forces resultant.
You should read more.
Of course, it also measures the magnetic moment in these equations, actually, it eventually described the gyromagnetic ratio for that spin as well, which is not a new approach, but applying it in the way I have, is, as far as I am aware.
You haven't applied anything, you've hardly
done anything at all. Even if your result were valid and not nonsense you've failed to show any derivation. You get your information from lecture courses, where much of the details and derivations are skipped over, left for the students to read in textbooks. Someone presenting a new result has to lay out every single step in a clear and precise manner. A new result claiming to do what you claim your result does would be in a paper pages and pages in length. Papers under 5 pages on topics like this are eye brow raisingly short. The sum total of the non-defining notation stuff you've done is probably under a page. Not to mention you always use mathematics almost remedial in its complexity. Sure, you talk about spin matrices etc but all
you ever do with them is multiply or add. Your level of innumeracy prevents you even making up interesting or elaborate mathematical nonsense. The best you can manage is to parrot some definitions in bra-ket notation.
I guess importance is in the eye of the beholder. I suppose it is significant for very detailed analysis of particle-spin behaviours.
I really hope you don't believe what you're posting. You're detached from reality if you do.
A) Don't have the money
B) And extremely pressed with time at the mo
In Scotland it's free, the amount it costs you to live right now is the amount it'll cost to go to university. And what is taking up so much of your time? You said you have 4 hours a day to work on this stuff.
But maybe you're just making excuses for yourself, since in reality a good university like Edinburgh would never let you in.
You just went out your way to cause trouble for me, as usual. It's obvious.
He spent 2 minutes going out of his way to point out a mistake you made, thus demonstrating criticisms of you are not without reason. You've gone 2~5 years out of your way to accomplish nothing but be exposed as a liar.
Go you.
So all I have done the last 2-3 years is teach myself vigorously from of course, Susskind lectures... (did all those classical ones... you'll enjoy ''new revelations in particle physics'' that was very eye-opening). Emmm... and a few other vids, books, generally anything I could work with and eventually the more I learned, the more I could move onto harder physics, a bit like what you are doing. There are of course, still holes there which I am planning to fix. Sometimes the relevant information is never there easily to be grasped or if it is, no one is there to take you through it half the time.
And every single person here who actually has gone to university to do a science thinks you're deluding yourself and terrible at all of it.
Well done, you've squandered 2~5 years of your life. Go you.
