tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303246073824127471.post7097422487573302386..comments2024-03-17T08:13:42.240-04:00Comments on Multiplication by Infinity: A Nasty Critique of Physicists, Oh NO!Steven Colyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303246073824127471.post-68871215799629362202017-03-16T15:50:20.867-04:002017-03-16T15:50:20.867-04:00Guys, any updates on your progress?
Guys, any updates on your progress?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02154619092022683648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303246073824127471.post-34753877398244170682010-07-16T10:17:52.354-04:002010-07-16T10:17:52.354-04:00Well, you're more than welcome! Once we're...Well, you're more than welcome! Once we're both up to speed, I see no reason not to at least think of starting our own Institute for Advanced Study, or Advanced Logic, which would be my call. But not to fret, we have years to go before we sleep and move on. :-) <br /><br />Not decades, years, and that's important to keep in mind. We needn't DERIVE all these wonderful equations, we need only understand the logic behind the derivations, especially the beautiful Dirac Equation. We will get there.<br /><br />Before the books you just ordered from Amazon come in however, I would advise you click <a href="http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/index.asp" rel="nofollow">here</a> which is Andrew Thomas' "What Is Reality?" website, andd read at least the articles. A fellow admirer of Penrose, he accomplishes the seemingly impossible, which is to reduce Penrose's very thick tome into 12 neat webpages of exposition and discussion. <br /><br />Focus on the first 5 chapters in particular, and read the rest for pleasure as they get increasingly speculative after that. Good luck!Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303246073824127471.post-88928256524997363142010-07-16T07:49:38.393-04:002010-07-16T07:49:38.393-04:00Thank you for the advice. I should be able to do ...Thank you for the advice. I should be able to do a lot with it. Sometimes all it takes is talking to someone who has the right experience. For example, my current circumstance, teaching English in South Korea, does not offer me a way to visit a library. So when I hear about good books for self-study I also need to know the context, which is what you provided in your advice, because I have to determine whether or not to spend the money to purchase the book. Anyway, the pieces are coming together nicely now; I can see a way forward. Thank you again!coffeekrakennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303246073824127471.post-7499284019477127052010-07-16T06:51:14.011-04:002010-07-16T06:51:14.011-04:00How would I go about joining you in the study of G...<i>How would I go about joining you in the study of Group Representation Theory? I made it to multivariate calculus at university, but haven't really been back since (8 years). </i><br /><br />By multivariate calculus I assume you mean Calc II and Calc III, the two boring Calculuses (Calculi?)? That's an important start, but that which truly launched Mathematics into the stratosphere was Calculus IV, the Study of Differential Equations, or Diff-E-Q for short.<br /><br />Master DiffEQ, and you should understand half of all scientific papers in Physics. Complete your basic MathPhys education with Linear Algebra. Excruciatingly boring, yet vitally important, especially when you study Heisenberg/Born/Jordan's Matrix Mechanics. <br /><br />Learn who Hermann Weyl was, and why he was important. This and so much more can be found in Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality, the one popularly available Physics book which I strongly feel everyone should own.<br /><br />If you wish to get into General Relativity, begin with a study of Non-Euclidean Geometry, which begins with Carl Friedrich Gauss and was hammered home by his student Bernhard Riemann. There are many internet sources to help further your studies from there. I am currently skim-reading Einstein's Mirror by Hey and Walters for a review.<br /><br />Penrose's book is chock full of Math. To get a "grand overview" of state-of-the-art issues in MathPhys, you can't go wrong with Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong.<br /><br />Woit is a Master of exposition. The so-called "hard parts" in the middle of his book are key. He brilliantly describes, in prose form, how quantum mechanics developed and thanks to Paul Dirac, was unified with Special Relativity, and from there things really took off. QM is a linear theory, but Quantum Field Theory is non-linear. This is what Dirac gave us: Quantum Field Theory beginning with Quantum Electrodynamics. QFT ==> QED. Oh look, a Representation! :-)<br /><br />Gauge Theory developed from there, and from that came The Standard Model.<br /><br />But before you read any of those books, read The Age of Entanglement by Louisa Gilder. She has a terrific way of making the early Quantum pioneers come alive as real people, especially Pauli, the class clown of Physicists in his day. :-)<br /><br />Perhaps the best book I have ever read on Quantum Mechanics is The New Quantum Mechanics 2009 Updated Edition, also by Hey and Walters. It is especially brilliant for tying in real-world applications of the field. It also has a step-by-step solved problem using Schrodinger's wavefunction equation, that is to say just enough math to whet your whistle and get you started.<br /><br />Good luck!Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303246073824127471.post-78304288208149149632010-07-15T17:57:03.119-04:002010-07-15T17:57:03.119-04:00How would I go about joining you in the study of G...How would I go about joining you in the study of Group Representation Theory? I made it to multivariate calculus at university, but haven't really been back since (8 years). I'm just getting back into math and physics. I've got an introductory text on modern algebra, but haven't started it yet. I liked the reviews on that book, Fearless Symmetry, so I'll probably purchase that soon. My goal is to get back to university within two years for a degree in physics. I'd love to get a head-start now, but so far it's been slow going. I'm interested in too many of the more theoretical aspects of physics and I haven't found a spot to jump-in at. I was thinking about starting with orbital mechanics since it was more concrete and has a good historical basis. I like where you started with Hamilton and Quarternions, but I assume you already have an engineering background (I think that's what your profile says) which gives you a lot of the basic physics.coffeekrakennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303246073824127471.post-10847629783520892842010-07-14T14:33:29.241-04:002010-07-14T14:33:29.241-04:00Very well said, coffeekraken. Join me if you will ...Very well said, coffeekraken. Join me if you will in the study of Group Representation Theory in Mathematics, with an eye on the prize of Differential Geometry, THEN applying those to Physics (to the extent that "Physics" is actually known), and I believe both you and I will lose our "amateur" status.<br /><br />Although lest we forget, "amateur" doesn't mean "ignorant" or "newbie", no, it means "self-studier." One can very much therefore be both an "amateur" and an "expert" at the same time.<br /><br />I wish to ADD one thing to what you said, and that is the guy rejects EINSTEIN! For God's sake, no. Oh no. Crank shoals ahead? I think so, well, the odds are in favor of it.<br /><br />The REASON I posted this thread is that because in spite of his highly potential crackpottery, the guy seems to be intelligent. I was utterly shocked at his viciousness, but not at his use of language, which is better than most.<br /><br />I accept that we're all fallible humans, a set that includes "Physicists." The real problem here may be the misquoting of said experts by Science "Journalists" in presenting the experts opinions to the public, and with just a LITTLE bit more education that they already have (Math isn't THAT hard ... it's just a language), the failure of crackpotic yet otherwise intelligent people to NOT MAKE ARSEHOLES of themselves ...<br /><br />... could be avoided, thus adding LESS noise to the world, hmm?.Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303246073824127471.post-4036977938661511382010-07-14T13:36:46.894-04:002010-07-14T13:36:46.894-04:00I'm an amateur physicist, if you will, and I a...I'm an amateur physicist, if you will, and I am also an avid listener of podcasts such as Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, which is as science-based as the lay public usually gets. My only thought from reading the article and the comments is that the people who are going after physicists and contemporary science in general are simply misguided and looking to make a name for themselves. The classic debate that comes to mind is the one about whether or not scientists should give any time or recognition to people like them, because if scientists do debate them then it seems as though they have a certain level of legitimacy or truth to their arguments, when they really have none whatsoever. Take for example the comment on the article that you posted. In that comment the commentor links to a blog called Rebel Science. This blog has an air of science about it, but really the blogger makes absurd claims about free energy and ancient human civilizations using levitation to create structures like Stonehenge or the pyramids. It's just more pseudoscientific attacks against established science that leave the public wondering if there really is somehting wrong with contemporary science when the only thing that is wrong is that scientists (actually, it's usually journalists and sometimes even politicians) are giving these pseudoscientists a soap-box to stand on and make false claims. It's sad. My personal opinion is that it is best to ignore these people (the pseudoscientists) so long as they are not doing anything illegal. The more we reproduce their arguments, especially when we reproduce them without clearly denouncing them, the more the lay public will wonder if there isn't some truth to them.coffeekrakennoreply@blogger.com