Jump to content

Please add a Theoretical physics section


Theoretical

Recommended Posts

It would be very nice if you would add a Theoretical Work section in the Physics section. Posting theoretical work that is based on experiments and math in the "Speculation" section is just wrong. Everything is speculation. In 1 million years from now, if humanity survives, all present science will be laughable.

 

Putting one's life work that they have worked extremely hard and long on in the speculation area is just insulting.

 

Thanks!!

 

ps, it's called theoretical work, not speculation work lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is speculation.

 

We describe what we mean by speculation. Basically if it's not mainstream physics, most likely it's speculation.

Putting one's life work that they have worked extremely hard and long on in the speculation area is just insulting.

 

Perhaps not having your ego tied up so much in the idea would help. But if that's not possible, you'll just have to suffer a little bit of being insulted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps not having your ego tied up so much in the idea would help. But if that's not possible, you'll just have to suffer a little bit of being insulted.

Ego lol. Try looking at academic community and you'll see the biggest ego ever.

We describe what we mean by speculation. Basically if it's not mainstream physics, most likely it's speculation.

Then you admins better get to work because you have thousand of posts to delete. It's so obvious to see the blatant biased opinions of the admin's at work at this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ego lol. Try looking at academic community and you'll see the biggest ego ever.

 

Lots of big egos, but not so much tied up in being right by virtue of having worked on something for a long time. They have big egos (in part) because they are usually right.

Then you admins better get to work because you have thousand of posts to delete. It's so obvious to see the blatant biased opinions of the admin's at work at this forum.

 

Your participation here is voluntary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of big egos, but not so much tied up in being right by virtue of having worked on something for a long time. They have big egos (in part) because they are usually right.

Then there's going to be an ego meltdown in academic science community over the next few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there's going to be an ego meltdown in academic science community over the next few years.

 

Oh, really? How come so.. ?

 

If we measure now object with mass m to be accelerated by force F to speed v, will it change?

 

When you're just a big puddle of wrong, we'll still love you.

 

Only Jesus, would say so.. Are you Jesus? :)

 

Anyway, it was very nice. We should love even people with who we disagree.

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When you're just a big puddle of wrong, we'll still love you.

Yeah it must really SUCK your quantum religion will be taken down by classical mechanics.

 

Talking about an ego crusher lmao. No wonder you people are taking extremes to suppress it.

 

It'll take you people a decade to regain the publics confidence again. :( let's just hope they don't all flock over to the religions again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it must really SUCK your quantum religion will be taken down by classical mechanics.

 

Talking about an ego crusher lmao. No wonder you people are taking extremes to suppress it.

 

It'll take you people a decade to regain the publics confidence again. :( let's just hope they don't all flock over to the religions again.

 

I remember at least fifty people like you who said that ten years ago. The ego on you people is truly amazing. It's so clear to everyone else that your adamant stance isn't the product of rational thought. You have such an emotional investment in your idea that you're lovestruck, blinded by the light of your own imagined brilliance.

 

And you can't admit all this work you've done is for nothing. That's always going to be a problem for you. Sorry, I truly am. Nobody has anything against you personally. We're just... sad, that a mind is being wasted for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I remember at least fifty people like you who said that ten years ago. The ego on you people is truly amazing. It's so clear to everyone else that your adamant stance isn't the product of rational thought. You have such an emotional investment in your idea that you're lovestruck, blinded by the light of your own imagined brilliance.

 

And you can't admit all this work you've done is for nothing. That's always going to be a problem for you. Sorry, I truly am. Nobody has anything against you personally. We're just... sad, that a mind is being wasted for nothing.

Or maybe you're just delusional. "Oh gee I've met a 97 people like you." Too bad you can't find any error in my math. I ask, you people blur out some vague thing which is often a blatant lie, I respond asking you to be specific, and no response. ...And you think you're the intelligent one?

 

and pretty funny how numerical antenna analysis software gets correct results for photon momentum lol. Ah, just stroke of luck, right? You know damn well there are no errors in my math. Makes one wonder what your intent is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be very nice if you would add a Theoretical Work section in the Physics section.

Theoretical just means 'working with a model'; as such there is no very clear separation of theoretical physics with experimental physics. Theoretical physicists are typically looking to calculate something that can be measured, while experimental physicist are using theories to find things to measure.

 

Anyway, the point is that if the work is more-or-less mainstream, then I expect it can stay in the main Physics Sections. The problem is most 'theoretical work' people post here is not really of the standard the majority of members want in main sections. Moreover, you should read the rules again.

 

If you really have some new theory up to the standard expected of science, then submit it for peer-review.

 

Posting theoretical work that is based on experiments and math in the "Speculation" section is just wrong.

Maybe, so do not post it there. Again, if you really have something new then do not post it on a public forum, submit it to a proper journal.

 

Putting one's life work that they have worked extremely hard and long on in the speculation area is just insulting.

Mod the quality of the actual work, okay. But again, typically the kind of work you are referring to is just not suitable for this forum.

 

 

Too bad you can't find any error in my math. I ask, you people blur out some vague thing which is often a blatant lie, I respond asking you to be specific, and no response.

At the risk of getting off topic... for example the photon momentum thing. It did not look like a mathematical mistake, but it was impossible to follow the physical reasoning. You set v=c and then pulled E = hf out without giving any proper explanation. The bottom line is that even if the mathematics works, it is not at all clear you presented a reasonable physical argument. I hope you see the difference here.

 

Ah, just stroke of luck, right? You know damn well there are no errors in my math. Makes one wonder what your intent is.

It looks to me like you simply rigged it that way. You pull E = hf from nowhere etc.

 

Anyway, this is really off topic.

 

 

Back to the original issue... It seems we do not really need an additional 'theoretical physics' section. One can post theoretical physics in the closest matching subsection of physics. (Maybe there is not an obvious choice, but adding more sections would just complicate things more)

Edited by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Everything is speculation. ....

Putting one's life work that they have worked extremely hard and long on in the speculation area is just insulting.

 

.

So, you don't want your work classed as part of everything.

Doesn't that mean it's nothing?

 

Seriously, as you say, everything is speculative. The "speculations" category is for stuff with no evidentiary base and outside the "mainstream" and, as you say, the definition of "mainstream" is moving all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The distinction between "mainstream" and "speculation" made by this, and most other science forums seems partly to do with where the works is published. For example, there is a lot of "speculative" (as in unconfirmed) science published in peer reviewed journals. That is generally OK to discuss in the mainstream sections of the forum even if it isn't yet (and may never be) part of mainstream science.

 

So, as ajb suggests, get your work published in a (reputable) journal and then try again.

 

The other aspect is whether one is promoting or just asking about an idea. So it is usually OK to discuss some crank theory from Vixra or someone's web site, but not to promote it as being correct.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous. It's classical mechanics! It's been proven for hundreds of years to work on the macro scale, and oh how funny it works on the microscopic scale as well. Insane what a few scientists did, people such as RayleighJeans who enter an INFINITE amount of energy to derive blackbody radiation equation. Absolutely unbelievable.

 

Like I've said. Classical mechanics never failed anyone. We failed classical mechanics.

 

 

At the risk of getting off topic... for example the photon momentum thing. It did not look like a mathematical mistake, but it was impossible to follow the physical reasoning. You set v=c and then pulled E = hf out without giving any proper explanation. The bottom line is that even if the mathematics works, it is not at all clear you presented a reasonable physical argument. I hope you see the difference here.

 

Is everyone reading this? So you're saying it looks like I did not make a math error. Then the equation clearly derived from classical mechanics predicts photon momentum. And your issue is the E=hf. But like I said, instead of hf, it can be derived from one joule of energy instead. The point is, the equation gets the correct prediction for photon momentum. As for deriving h, plancks constant, from classical mechanics that's for another topic. BTW QM never derived h. It's derived from experiments. So if I derive h from purely classical electrodynamics, ... :) BOOM Edited by Theoretical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it must really SUCK your quantum religion will be taken down by classical mechanics.

 

There are preachers peddling this on a lot of streetcorners, but whenever it comes down to substance, all we get is "I already proved it" (except that you won't address criticisms) or "I'll post a video". No other response to critiques.

 

People use QM because it works in the relevant areas of physics. That's the same reason they use classical mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are preachers peddling this on a lot of streetcorners, but whenever it comes down to substance, all we get is "I already proved it" (except that you won't address criticisms) or "I'll post a video". No other response to critiques.

 

People use QM because it works in the relevant areas of physics. That's the same reason they use classical mechanics.

Blatant lies. All I require is someone who knows classical electrodynamics in order and to hold a conversation because I'm not here to teach anyone classical mechanics. I addressed the hf question dozens of times. STOP LYING!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blatant lies. All I require is someone who knows classical electrodynamics in order and to hold a conversation because I'm not here to teach anyone classical mechanics. I addressed the hf question dozens of times. STOP LYING!

 

This is starting to look like a fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la kind of situation. Not sure it will ever get better.

 

I will admit that our process here at SFN fails when a member refuses to take on board critique from working professionals. If that rich, broad road of knowledge is unappealing, if intuition and emotional attachment is preferable to expertise and rigor, there's not much we can do.

 

We're a science discussion site that discusses science. The claim-that-everyone-but-me-is-wrong forums await you, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blatant lies. All I require is someone who knows classical electrodynamics in order and to hold a conversation because I'm not here to teach anyone classical mechanics. I addressed the hf question dozens of times. STOP LYING!

 

So let's see, do we have a substantive response, or a diversion into complaining? Looks like B. No surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is off topic, however needs to be said.

 

The problem wasn't your math. The problem is your math included the Planck constant which is a discrete unit of measure. Your test does nothing to show you can measure units smaller than the Plancks constant.

 

A joule of energy is significantly larger.

 

A single photon of energy can be derived from

[latex]E=hv[/latex]

 

The Planck constant, h, is a physical constant used to describe the varying sizes of quanta in quantum mechanics

 

where [latex]h=6.626070040*10^{-34} joules*s[/latex]

 

Another formula is

[latex]E=\frac{hc}{\lambda}[/latex]

 

When you use h in your formulas you limit the possible results to discrete packets/quanta multiple units. Ie units divisible by h. Just as QM does. In point of detail you used a QM formula in your math.

 

Then made the claims you don't require it. Well if you didn't require it "Why did you include it?

 

As I stated the problem isn't your math. It's your interpretation of said test/math.

 

This is why your thread was moved to speculations. You can have perfectly valid math but if the interpretation or claims is wrong then it doesn't even count as theoretically accurate.

 

You can go ahead call me whatever name you like. This doesn't change the fact you claimed your experiment and math can replace everything QM does. By stating you don't need QM, because you don't believe single photons exist. News flash QM doesn't just deal with photons. It also deals with other standard model particles and their properties such as spin statistics.

As far as a theoretical forum its not needed. If say for example I want to describe a universe without dark energy. I can easily post this in the cosmology forum by including the terminology "toy universe". This makes it clear I am not modelling this universe but a hypothetical one.

Provided I follow the rules and include the correct mathematics

In other forums I would think being clear you state the model as hypothetical and follow the minimum requirements this would also be sufficient.

 

This is completely different than stating "this is how it is"

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is everyone reading this? So you're saying it looks like I did not make a math error.

There are other steps in your derivation that are unphysical, or for sure you do not explain them properly. Please do not twist what I have said into looking like I support your derivation. The point is you may have not made any mathematical mistakes, not that I have checked everything carefully, but you have not presented a well founded physical argument.

 

If there was a basic mathematics error, then we can be quite sure the result will be unphsyical. This does not mean that if there are no basic mathematics errors then the results are physical.

 

There is some kudos here for trying to make a mathematical argument, not everyone tries.

Edited by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ajb

not that I have checked everything carefully, but you have not presented a well founded physical argument.

 

 

 

 

Theoretical, when you presented a mathematical derivation, I started to work through it line by line with the intention of doing this with you.

 

However you were so rude in the thread (to various members) it was closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is everyone reading this? So you're saying it looks like I did not make a math error.

 

In many cases, there is nothing wrong with your maths, in the sense of making a mistake, it is just irrelevant to the question. The fact you can't see that is part of the problem.

There is some kudos here for trying to make a mathematical argument, not everyone tries.

 

Seconded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.