Wait a minute.... calculate this macaw
i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ +i(α\hat{p})cψ- βsMscēψ = 0
that gives units of energy. i(α\hat{p})c- βsMscē should have units of energy but this is zero, and so here you are adding an extra energy term i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ. This is not zero.
Banned
Wait a minute.... calculate this macaw
i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ +i(α\hat{p})cψ- βsMscēψ = 0
that gives units of energy. i(α\hat{p})c- βsMscē should have units of energy but this is zero, and so here you are adding an extra energy term i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ. This is not zero.
Banned
What we really want is:
i(α\hat{p})cψ+ βsMscēψ - i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ = 0
But I admitted I made a mistake four days ago on another site without any one pointing it out, yet you proclaim it here as though i am unaware of this.
Banned
Banned
Here you introduced the SECOND (and a THIRD) mistake. You'll excuse me that I don't believe your claims of "teaching" this subject but I don't believe you're teaching anything.Originally Posted by Goldstone
Banned
Nope, still wrong. You seem unable to perform basic algebraic operations involving basic sign changes.
Last edited by macaw; 2011-Oct-07 at 05:14 PM.
Banned
You're evading the original arguement you posed any way. Because of this I am refusing to continue this with you. I know the proceedure is the langrangian, and the very fact you are disagreeing just tells me you've never dealt with them, or understand what they are or what they are composed of.
Banned
Here you introduced the SECOND (and a THIRD) mistake. You'll excuse me that I don't believe your claims of "teaching" this subject but I don't believe you're teaching anything.
Macaw you've been warned already. Since your last warning we've actually not progressed a singal bit have we?
Banned
I am simply pointing out your basic algebra mistakes. tusenfem asked me to point them out specifically, so I did. Five different mistakes in only two posts.
Banned
Sorry, SIX mistakes in just two posts.
Banned
Firstly, he will only decide whether my equations hold merit. Secondly, if this is the case, what was all this rubbish you where spouting off saying a langrangian cannot be zero?
Banned
I think this arguement has been trivial from the start. The fact you point out something which isn't an error and then worry about a dynamic which doesn't even effect the end result all seem like suspicious trolling behaviour.
Banned
They don't, you riddled them with basic algebraic mistakes.
Moderator
Don't start playing moderator yourself.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Banned
I wouldn't dream.
Banned
Macaw... the langrangian. Why did you say it couldn't equal zero?
recall i said
''The fact you point out something which isn't an error and then worry about a dynamic which doesn't even effect the end result all seem like suspicious trolling behaviour. ''
You've ignored standing up for yourself. You keep coming to the alledged algebra mistakes, but you can't defend why the dirac langrangian cannot be equal to zero?
Banned
I was just pointing out that you don't know the difference between an equation (RHS=0) and an expression (i.e. the lagrangian). Compounded with the basic algebraic errors it explains why your spam posted all over the internet is rubbish.
You keep coming to the alledged algebra mistakes, but you can't defend why the dirac langrangian cannot be equal to zero
The algebra mistakes are out there for everyone to see. I explained them to you one by one.
Banned
Rubbish.
You also don't seem to know the difference between an expression and an equation. You are quite clearly lying as you said:
Nope. Zero multiplied by anything is ...zero, so you did not derive any lagrangian.
It wasn't a matter of anything being an expression. You've simply made things up now.
Banned
You really should get the facts straight before you rabbit on macaw.
Banned
I did, you can see your basic errors explained in detail.
Banned
Basic errors very trivial. TEST IT YOURSELF!
Work out the Langrangian. See if the way I presented it makes any difference. I did it twice this week, and there is no fundamental problem. The so-calledbasic errors make absolutely no difference to the physics. Now instead of avoiding my question, and making yourself out to be a liar, explain why you are contradicting yourself? Because you seem to be backing off the langrangian episode you had.... Just in case you have forgotten within the last two posts, the contradiction is here:
''Nope. Zero multiplied by anything is ...zero, so you did not derive any lagrangian.
I was just pointing out that you don't know the difference between an equation (RHS=0) and an expression (i.e. the lagrangian)..''
Banned
It's irony at its best when the one preaching to the choir can't even sing the same hymn song.
Banned
Correct, you did not derive any lagrangian.
Correct, zero multiplied by anything is zero. Basic algebra says so.
Correct, you appear not to know the difference. I simply pointed out your error to you."I was just pointing out that you don't know the difference between an equation (RHS=0) and an expression (i.e. the lagrangian)..''
Banned
Not even close, here is the correct expression:
You are missing terms, you have terms that shouldn't be there, in one word, you haven't derived anything and what you wrote down is contradicted by mainstream science.
Banned
"Wave number replaced by four-momentum"? This is total gibberish. Do you even understand what each one of these is? Because if you did, you'd have never posted such nonsense.
Besides, what you wrote above is nowhere close to the Tsao Dirac equation. This is ATM in its purest form.
Banned
I'm going to take great pleasure in correcting you. Took me some while to actually find the relevent information, but eat this macaw:Not even close, here is the correct expression:
You are missing terms, you have terms that shouldn't be there, in one word, you haven't derived anything and what you wrote down is contradicted by mainstream science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD8SE...eature=related
Follow it for the first half hour or something along those lines. Susskind derives the langrangian exactly how I, and another previous poster on another site had presented it. You know... susskind, the brilliant scientist.
Banned
How would you know? I was the one who coined ''Tsao Dirac Langrangian''.
You obviously don't know Tsao's work. Or how to do basic physics, by checking equations out for yourself. I don't know how many times yesterday I told you the algebra did not change the physics, I also told you finding the langrangian was a matter of variational calculus, but you refused to listen.
Banned
The errors in your so-called derivation and in your so-called "lagrangian" are already outlined in post 53. I don't have to spend half hour to know that what YOU are doing is just developing a fringe theory riddled with gross mistakes.
Banned
The point is that:
1. "wavenumber" never appears in the Tsao (or Dirac, or anyone else's) lagrangian , so what you are talking is pure nonsense.
2. Therefore you cannot "replace it" with four-momentum
3. Wavenumber is a scalar, four-momentum is a four-vector, so what you are talking is pure nonsense.
4. You resultant "lagrangian is missing terms , has wrong signs, and it has extraneous terms that shouldn't be there.
So, what you are doing is just developing an ATM and trying to dress it as "research". Might fly on other forums for more naive people, doesn't fly here.
Actually, I do. This is how I found the laughable mistakes in your "paper".You obviously don't know Tsao's work. Or how to do basic physics, by checking equations out for yourself.
Banned
Now that I know I can present you as --- basically trolling, I am interested why you said it looks nothing like that tsao dirac langrangian. I am suspicious as well why you linked the langrangian you did and said I am ''missing terms''.... what am I missing in the way of terms? The equation above is highly simplified using feynman slash notation. Do you even know what that notation is?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0011/0011087v4.pdf
You will see the modified dirac equation, which I call the tsao dirac equation, is in fact identical to the equation I present. We have
I added the wave function in like this, and there are many ways to write this. You can take it's covariant form and write it in terms of gamma notation, then you can further simplify it using feynman notation.
So I am perplexed by you answer saying ''this is not the tsao langrangian''.... perplexed because it sounds like you just want to talk about subjects and be heard, but little does anyone know, apart from me now, you actually make very little sense. A liar, might I add, speaking about the tsao dirac langrangian as if you know what it is, or where it was coined... The link above proves you don't know what you are talking about. The equation is important because mass is kept as a proper mass by rearranging the equation E^2 = p^2 + M^2 to E^2 - p^2 = M^2.
You are a blatent liar. You've done the least amount of work to prove any of the above wrong (which results from I think taking a look at these resuts and finding himself to be proven wrong, deterring any further look) and lastly and probably worst of all, you are spouting buzzwords like ''tsao dirac langrangian'' as if you know where they originate.
Banned
Oh.... did you even watch the lecture by susskind, he seems to disagree with you 100%.... not 10, not 20, but 100%.
Banned
Are you actually allowed to spam peoples threads like this? If I was a moderator, I certainly wouldn't tolorate it.
Posting Permissions
