Physics education research, electronic materials, and the musings of Christopher Moore, Ph.D.

Astro · 2010-08-02 09:46:12

Alphanumeric, i posted this on another site. A true question, and perhaps with your increadible ''expertize'' you could perhaps answer my question. The question is cited here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthr … ?t=1352102

You will notice it has been locked. I want to direct you also to the very last comment by suneilr, and his conclusions where based on not knowing the unification of the electromagnetic speed of a photon in a vacuum from Maxwells equations to be dimensionless properties ~ i assume the moderator closed the thread taking suneilr's post as absolute. The reason he is wrong is quite simple.

Suneilr - your question.

''Where does this even come from? From what I assume your working is from the previous line you've missed a factor of 1/c^2 on the RHS, and then you assume Faraday's law to convert curl E into -dB/dt anyway so you've really shown absolutely nothing and incorrectly as well''

Before my thread was abruptly closed, i will take into account this specific questioning. In Maxwells equations $1/c^2$ is actually dimensionless - it's a unification of the magnetic and electric constant which creates the speed of light in a vacuum - using natural numbers.

Since we know for sure that $D = \epsilon E$ , then multiplying $\mu$ on both sides gives $\mu D = \mu \epsilon E$ ~ so as one can see, this alters this to $\mu D = 1/c^2 E$ - and thus we make no dimensional mistakes. How can one if $\mu$ and $\epsilon$ are dimensionless? The above is a derivation, which was pretty much simple if one realized that maxwells equations [permitted] this. The curl of the $\mu D$ must give the law of induction - this is new, because despite stating it isn't, in none of maxwells derivations did he take the curl of the equation presented into account, even though they are related intimately to his four partial differential equations.

So the question again, is why he never introduced these two equations in his set of four partial differential equations?

Last edited by Astro (2010-08-02 09:52:21)

AlphaNumeric · 2010-08-02 18:53:17

Astro wrote:
Before my thread was abruptly closed, i will take into account this specific questioning. In Maxwells equations $1/c^2$ is actually dimensionless - it's a unification of the magnetic and electric constant which creates the speed of light in a vacuum - using natural numbers.

1/c^2 isn't dimensionless. c isn't dimensionless so c^2 isn't so 1/c^2 isn't. Its obvious from the wave equation too.

You're wrong.

And I see your popularity on TSR is as high as elsewhere. Don't you ever learn that people aren't going to accept your BS and your lies are transparent? As it happens I have an account on TSR too, I once even won member of the month. Been a while since I posted there.

Last edited by AlphaNumeric (2010-08-02 18:59:38)

Astro · 2010-08-03 13:06:19

I did note it was in natural units c=1. Even if it was not dimensless (NOTE I AM NOT A MATHEMATICIAN) - as you know, the dimensions simply couldn't be wrong in their dimensions because it''s pretty straightforward in it's derivation by substitution:

$D = \epsilon E$

Thus multiplying $\mu$ on both sides MUST YIELD $\mu D = \mu \epsilon E= \frac{1}{c^2}E$

It's so very simple. Whether or not the quibbles of 1/c^2 is dimensionless, it's still the phase of radiation in a vacuum. It's right.

And TSR is full of immature idiots - sciforums is bad for that too, but not nearly as bad.

Astro · 2010-08-03 13:08:04

It's also interesting i see you pointed out a very remedial mistake - i take it you were satisfied with everything else, so just to be a [prick] you found simply any mistake you could find, just to defend some kind of internal desire to make me feel worthless?

It's the shadow of seeing me as some kind of threat. MY god... you are a psyschologists dream.

Last edited by Astro (2010-08-03 13:08:20)

Astro · 2010-08-03 18:47:39

Alphanumeric - you know fine well that the electric and magnetic constants must be dimensionless - all constants are dimensionless, so if maxwell unified two dimensionless constants together to form the phase of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum state, then the result can only be yet again a dimensionless figure.

Now, how can you dispute this? I think sometimes you just dispute for the hell of it.

The electric and magnetic connections are constants, and this dimensionless, unless you dispute that 1/c^2 is not equal to the two as the speed of radiation in a vacuum. One side cannot be made from dimensions, if the other is... This is confusing me. And even if it wasn't dimensionless, it hardly defeats the point of the arguement, because it changes it in no way. There was a curl of the displacement found, simply by a derivation, despite quibbles on the true definition of $\epsilon \mu$ .

Also, i reject your statements concerning me just plugging in values, substitutions and no physical meaning is a result.

For instance, i know fine well the equation i've been fixated on:

$\bar{e}(i \hbar \partial_t)^2 \mathbb{A} \frac{1}{c^2} \omega^2 \psi = i \alpha \omega^2 A \bar{e} (\hbar (\frac{Mc^2}{\hbar}))^2 \psi$

Has a a physical description. It is part of the abelian group as it is an equation which is isomporhic to the $SO(2)$ group. This ultimately means it is related to the physical $U(1)$ gauge symmetry if treated as a complex quantity because it explains the electromagnetic field effect on the wave function of an ionized particle. The ionization is interpreted as the phase-transition from photon energy to matter on the square of the energy of the system.

This was realized to be true for the $U(1)$ because in the original derivation:

$-\hbar^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{1}{c^{2}} \omega^2 \psi=i \alpha \omega \hbar^2 (\frac{Mc^{2}}{\hbar}) \psi$

Here the equation can now also determine the phase velocity of electromagnetic radiation. This equation also has lined up a possible description of the in phase and out phase response, where the permeability is considered as a function of the frequency, and so, can allow a complex description of the permeability to exist. Thus hence, its importance to its physical description on the $U(1)$ group, a special complex situation of the $S0(2)$ .

Last edited by Astro (2010-08-03 18:49:03)

Astro · 2010-08-04 10:17:19

No retort?

AlphaNumeric · 2010-08-13 12:23:08

Astro wrote:
I did note it was in natural units c=1. Even if it was not dimensless (NOTE I AM NOT A MATHEMATICIAN) - as you know, the dimensions simply couldn't be wrong in their dimensions because it''s pretty straightforward in it's derivation by substitution:

No, you said it was dimensionless because it was in Maxwell's equations. You're backtracking after being called on a mistake.

Astro wrote:
Whether or not the quibbles of 1/c^2 is dimensionless, it's still the phase of radiation in a vacuum. It's right.

I think you should look up what 'phase' means.

Astro wrote:
And TSR is full of immature idiots - sciforums is bad for that too, but not nearly as bad.

Better to be an immature idiot than an immature idiot who compulsively lies about his physics knowledge in an attempt to impress people he then calls immature idiots when they don't believe his lies. Eh Reiku?

Astro wrote:
It's also interesting i see you pointed out a very remedial mistake - i take it you were satisfied with everything else

No, its just the simplest thing to point out you're mistaken on. Since you generally just pull equations out your backside its actually harder to pin down your nonsense because it isn't trying to be valid science, its just an attempt to write down lots of equations to look like science. Nothing you ever write down (which you haven't copied from elsewhere) is ever worthwhile and certainly not valid physics but you'll just refuse to justify yourself if I press you on it so it easier to slap down your lies on the simple stuff. Besides, you're so ignorant of physics and mathematics that errors you make when you copy/edit stuff from complicated Wikipedia pages are beyond your ability to understand.

Astro wrote:
so just to be a [prick] you found simply any mistake you could find, just to defend some kind of internal desire to make me feel worthless?

Yes, its my fault you're a compulsive liar.

Astro wrote:
Has a a physical description. It is part of the abelian group as it is an equation which is isomporhic to the SO(2) group.

Thanks for demonstrating my point. An equation isn't part of an abelian group or any group. You've failed to understand how groups play a part in the equations of quantum physics and as a result you've been unable to make up your own stuff which hangs together. Just to be nice I'll let you have another go and then I'll explain your mistake properly.

Astro wrote:
This ultimately means it is related to the physical U(1) gauge symmetry if treated as a complex quantity because it explains the electromagnetic field effect on the wave function of an ionized particle.

Actually there's no gauge symmetry in the equations you've provided. All you've done is rewrite the time dependent Schrodinger equation.

Astro wrote:
This was realized to be true for the U(1) because in the original derivation:

$-\hbar^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{1}{c^{2}} \omega^2 \psi=i \alpha \omega \hbar^2 (\frac{Mc^{2}}{\hbar}) \psi$

Ah, its all clear now. You lifted a standard equation from Wikipedia (ie this one) and then using your basic remedial maths 'skills' (and I use that word in its vaguest sense) you just multiplied both sides by a few things, squared a few things on both sides and arrived at the previous equation you posted.

Astro wrote:
No retort?

I know you want to think I'm 'infatuated' with you but, like I said, I'm not. I had other things to do with my time the last week or so and slapping your ignorance about is an afterthought. And as this post demonstrates, your ignorance is easy to expose. Come on, tell me what you hope to achieve doing this. You're not convincing anyone, you're not learning anything, you're not understanding anything, you're not working towards anything, you're wasting your time. If you honestly believed you were doing valid science you'd be submitting your work to journals, not finding low traffic forums with LaTeX support. Before you were banned from SciForums you claimed you'd got a paper accepted for publication, that didn't happen did it? As expected, you were full of lies.

Astro · 2010-08-19 13:16:32

Oh whatever.

You were absolutely right though in the other thread. Who is waiting on who here?

Not me. I won't retort any of it, i have no plans to make these threads to be nothing but petty arguements.

Physics education research, electronic materials, and the musings of Christopher Moore, Ph.D.

#1 2010-08-02 09:46:12

Alphanumeric

#2 2010-08-02 18:53:17

Re: Alphanumeric

Astro wrote:

#3 2010-08-03 13:06:19

Re: Alphanumeric

#4 2010-08-03 13:08:04

Re: Alphanumeric

#5 2010-08-03 18:47:39

Re: Alphanumeric

#6 2010-08-04 10:17:19

Re: Alphanumeric

#7 2010-08-13 12:23:08

Re: Alphanumeric

Astro wrote:

Astro wrote:

Astro wrote:

Astro wrote:

Astro wrote:

Astro wrote:

Astro wrote:

Astro wrote:

Astro wrote:

#8 2010-08-19 13:16:32

Re: Alphanumeric

Board footer