Physics - Page 18

Kate · 01-30-2010, 06:34 PM

Quote:

nastassja wrote

Nothing I said was a response to Choobus, rather than to the original poster and then the subsequent response.

Thank you clearing that up.

Quote:

You guys are pretty strange in the way you flock together and the "heeheehee lesse what Choobs says!!!!!111" (I couldn't distinguish Lily from the rest of you!)

Well, you'll want to work on that.

Quote:

I'm not challenging him,

indeed

Quote:

and I don't doubt he knows his physics.

That's good, because he knows yours, too.

Quote:

I know you want me to, but that's another story.

01-30-2010, 06:41 PM

Hmmm. SSJ asked, if he had understood a point he had just read correctly. Your response (incorrect as it turned out) was that he hadn't, and that anyone who wants to read about Physics had better knock it off, because (apparently) s/he is just part of the great,unwashed public who couldn't possibly understand it anyway. If they could that would make it pop science and beneath your notice. Okayyyyy.

Hey SSJ, I have a book on raising day lilies that might not be too hard for ya.

Kate · 01-30-2010, 06:43 PM

Quote:

nastassja wrote

...No.

Quote:

Choobus wrote

Yes.

Quote:

lostsheep wrote

As always, so helpful, so informative...thanks for turning everyone who's not a physicist off to physics. If it were up to people like you, there would be no public funding.

Quote:

nastassja wrote

Anti-particles do not travel backward in the macroscopic sense--in the sense of what the general public considers 'traveling backward in time.'
...
you're not going to understand shit. People like to jump to the "implications" of physical phenomena without understanding the phenomena itself, and that's a pretty damn important step. If you like physics that much, become a physicist. If all you're interested in is the "philosophy of physics," kindly fuck off.

Just to sum up.

nastassja · 01-30-2010, 06:44 PM

Uh, yes?

Was I supposed to respond to any of that? (Both of you.)

Kate · 01-30-2010, 06:45 PM

I'm not the physicist.

nastassja · 01-30-2010, 06:45 PM

I'm quite aware of my own though processes, crazy as it may seem. Thank you for breaking it down for me, Kate.

nastassja · 01-30-2010, 06:46 PM

I'm still lost on your purpose, if you had one.

Kate · 01-30-2010, 06:49 PM

Eva · 01-30-2010, 07:06 PM

who did you tell to fuck off, nastassja? to lost sheep or to single serving?

Choobus · 01-30-2010, 07:08 PM

Quote:

nastassja wrote

Anti-particles do not travel backward in the macroscopic sense--in the sense of what the general public considers 'traveling backward in time.' The Wheeler–Feynman Absorber theory proposes that electromagnetic processes do not require a certain time direction, and it does address the issue of causality, but in the end, its just an illusion due to the arbitrary choice of the absorber and emitter. And from that theory, the possibility of particles 'traveling backwards in time' was extrapolated.

You are wrong, again. The theory to which you refer has nothing whatsoever to do with negative energy particles. If you understood the Dirac Equation maybe you'd do better. (Ironically what you are talking about is often referred to as "retarded time"). [http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node50.html]

See also http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...n-lecture.html

Do they really go back in time, or is it a quantum mechanical trick? The question means nothing because we are talking about wavefunctions doing things, andf we don't evenknow what a wavefunction is. We do know, from the amazing experiments of Aspect and others, that the wavefunction is not simply a mathematical tool. Particles really do exist in the sorts of quantum states implied by the theories. There seems to be no hidden variable explanation for this, so asking what an electron or positron "really" does has no validity.

In my class you'd get a D.

nastassja · 01-30-2010, 07:09 PM

Quote:

nastassja wrote

If all you're interested in is the "philosophy of physics," kindly fuck off.

So, I imagine it's referring to those only interested in the philosophy of physics. I don't read minds.

lostsheep · 01-30-2010, 07:11 PM

Quote:

nastassja wrote

Yeah, I don't give a shit. Pop science, in the end, is just pop science. You can't understand this shit unless you know the math.

Yeah, since you don't give a shit, why do you keep posting here? Just hang with all the folks who truly understand your field, and avoid the misinterpretation that seems to annoy you. IMO, explaining what you love to do, what you find interesting to people who don't do what you do for a living, well, that's fun to me, but then, I was a teacher in my past life. I am sure you are correct in that there are some things that cannot be translated from math into words accurately, but even so, misconceptions can be corrected, and some general ideas conveyed.

Quote:

nastassja wrote

I'm avoiding the subject because, in all honesty, it seems a bit pointless when the only way I know how to explain is to do a proof and scan it up here. If you would like me to do that, great, but you're not going to understand shit. People like to jump to the "implications" of physical phenomena without understanding the phenomena itself, and that's a pretty damn important step. If you like physics that much, become a physicist. If all you're interested in is the "philosophy of physics," kindly fuck off.

I don't think I have ever implied, by anything that I have ever posted, that I am into the metaphysics of physics. I am genuinely interested in science, always have been. Fortunately, there are physicists who care to explain what they do to those of us who don't do it for a living. Just because you can't think of an effective way to do this, well, that's not my fault, and I never asked you to do this anyway. When I taught science I could “dumb down” topics without distorting their meaning completely: some accuracy is lost, but that’s not important when communicating with lay persons, in most cases.

But your snide, condescending comment was in no way elicited by Single Serving…you not only did not help him by correcting any misunderstanding on his part, you just said: “no” [‘you’re wrong…and too stupid for me to bother explaining why’ was implied]. You could have just ignored him if he annoyed you so much, but it’s clear that you enjoy feeling superior and berating non-professionals who attempt to understand your field. (Maybe you are insecure?) I suppose I could have ignored you too, and will in the future.

lostsheep · 01-30-2010, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Eva wrote

who did you tell to fuck off, nastassja? to lost sheep or to single serving?

Me. And I think her initial post to Single Serving said as much.

nastassja · 01-30-2010, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Choobus wrote

You are wrong, again. The theory to which you refer has nothing whatsoever to do with negative energy particles. If you understood the Dirac Equation maybe you'd do better. (Ironically what you are talking about is often referred to as "retarded time"). [http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node50.html]

In my class you'd get a D.

It involves both. The Dirac Equation only proposes the existence of those particles.

lostsheep · 01-30-2010, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Lily wrote

Hmmm. SSJ asked, if he had understood a point he had just read correctly. Your response (incorrect as it turned out) was that he hadn't, and that anyone who wants to read about Physics had better knock it off, because (apparently) s/he is just part of the great,unwashed public who couldn't possibly understand it anyway. If they could that would make it pop science and beneath your notice. Okayyyyy.

Hey SSJ, I have a book on raising day lilies that might not be too hard for ya.

LOL!