Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Physics without Modern Physics

Hi all,

I intend to email the address of the site containing the articles
of my book
to real and serious physicists, who apparently don't refer to
newsgroups normally,
and invite them to study and criticize them. So, I request every one
who have any
email addresses of any of them to send their email addresses to my
email address:
hamidvansari<at>yahoo<dot>com or hvansari<at>gmail<dot>com

Thanks



Introduction and Abstract of the book "Great mistakes of the
physicists"

Introduction of the book
------------------------
History of science tells us that there were many theories having
widespread acceptability during long times such that based on their
acceptability many additions were added to them till finally a research
or a scrutiny showed their invalidity and contrary to all of their
additions and widespread acceptability sent them easily to the archives
of history, what has remained being more solid and more scientific
superseding theories or at least those seeming to be so. Let's see
that,
contrary to all of the apparent validity and acceptability and
additions,
what would cause a researcher to dare to oppose a theory and to
scrutinize
its bases succeeding in changing the theory in this way. The answer is
clear: The researcher firstly looks into the theory with an acceptance
view. Secondly, he or she tries to become thoroughly conversant with
all
the details of the theory. Thirdly, in the case of weakness of the
theory,
the points of weakness, like some tied knots, find an annoying state in
the mind of the researcher, and he or she spends all his or her mind
and
time to obviate them. Fourthly, little by little the knots are untied
and the difficulties are solved and logical supersedings appear.

What can be said about the contemporary theoretical physicists is that
many of them are practically content with only the first phase; they
accept many of the current theories only because of their widespread
acceptability and add more and more additions to them without any
serious
scrutinizing of their details in order to find out their validity or
invalidity. A smaller group of the physicists proceed to these
scrutinies,
but don't attach any importance to the mental knots created for them
and charge them to the weakness of man's perception or of the logic of
the mathematics!

This book is a collection of some physical articles searched on the
basis of some scrutinizing in the above-mentioned manner. Each of them
has been a set of knots that for their untying a great logical endeavor
has been made. In this explanatory introduction, we introduce them in
three categories.

Contemporary physics, ie the physics related chiefly to the last
century, has been extremely associated with two subjects which at
present bear the much familiar titles of Quantum Physics and
Relativistic Physics. These physicses are still presented under
the title of Modern Physics although they were born many years
ago, and it seems that their novelty is not because of their lateness
but is because of the difference they have with the logic of the
classical physics. It is said that for perception of these physicses
one must go out of the frame of the classical logic. There will be no
problem in this act if firstly superseding frame exists, secondly it is
logical ie in principle is really (not only seemingly) a frame, and
thirdly in principle this act is necessary ie really there exit some
phenomena which the logic of the classical physics is not able to
justify them and it is proven that such a justification is not
possible,
not after encountering a phenomenon which we are not able to justify it
by the classical physics at present we merely try immediately to create
new frames of logic or try to find a position for it in the numerous
current frames of non-classical logic without trying to think
that whether it has any position in the frame of the classical physics
or not. In other words it is not true that the physicist to hide his or
her inability to justify a phenomenon by trying to justify it in any
probable possible way by retouching the logics by their inconsistency
there won't remain any basis for any genuine work. Is it difficult to
be said that we now don't know or only know a little but we are trying
to know, without any haste and trying to disturb everything?

A group of the articles of this book proceeds chiefly with what on
which
the quantum physics has been based. In an article the famous relation
E=h<nu> is rejected analytically (11); in another article we proceed
with
the real justification of the photoelectric effect, and the
justification
of this relation by this way is also rejected (10). With a full beauty
and
simplicity the Compton effect is justified in the classical manner (2),
and
this is the case for the Stern-Gerlach experiment (5) and Franck-Hertz
experiment (16) in two other articles. Some other phenomena which are
thought
as quantum phenomena are also justifed classically in an article (12).
It is tried that the wave equation to be solved for the cylindrical
wave, and in this way it is shown that how weak the bases of the
struggles for solving the Schrodinger wave equation are (14). We
justify
the Hall effect and we see that maybe no longer it is necessary that
the
twentieth century physicists believe in forces exerted on "nothing"
according to their belief (8)!

Another group of the articles proceeds chiefly to the bases of the
relativistic physics. In an article the electromagnetic theory is
generally
revised in details and in an interesting manner it is seen that how
easy the relativity is hindered from resorting to this theory in its
justification (13). In another article we see that attraction of the
stars
light passing beside the sun is simply optical and it is not necessary
to consider it as gravitational (3). By investigating the stellar
aberration in rejecting the existence of ether we shall see in another
article that how surprising the current reasonings in support of the
relativity are involved in apparent weakness (4).

Another group of the articles proceeds chiefly with some material which

are basically not related to the modern physics although more or less
will
be related to it. Some quite sure mistakes in the electrostatics will
be
shown in a detailed article study of which should be done with great
attention (6). In some articles it is shown that how some quite open
mistakes are still current in the world of physics (7 and 9), and
because of the cursory passing of the physicists over them, their
existence in the preliminary textbooks has exposed the prestige of the
physics to danger. And in a very important, brief and simple article
(1),
existence of the geomagnetic field has been justified careful and deep
study of which is recommended particularly in comparison with the
current unsatisfactory theories in this respect (including the theory
of dynamo). In an article we try to see what mass and force are, and we

shall see that distinguishing between inertial and gravitational
masses is invalid (15). We try to find out what actually the conductor
is and in this respect we discover that probably volume of the electron
is so much bigger than what is thought at present (18). It is
shown that in a polished surface, solid matter has not flowed and
filled
unevennesses of the surface as the current theories state (17). That
the
torque exerted on a stationary body is zero must not be presented as an
axiom (19). As appendices (A1 and A2), the simple solution
to the famous four-color problem is presented and Goldbach's conjecture
is proven.

What remain are non-few other phenomena of the kind of the first and
second categories, which we don't proceed to their
classicaljustification,
just as there are many other phenomena of the third kind that we don't
proceed to their classical justification or to obviating the mistakes
from their justifications. Namely, after careful studying of the
articles
of this book, maybe you can believe that those unconsidered phenomena
of
the first and second categories must have the same sensitivity as
unconsidered phenomena of the third category, and no more. And maybe it
can also be understood that we can have confidence in the frame of the
classical logic trying to justify the unknowns in this frame. Rush of
the plentiful empirical results of the physics of the 20th century
cannot
justify destruction of the frame of home, but we should look for the
places of the existent things in the home and if we are not able to
find
the position of a phenomenon at present, we must commit this work to
posterity.

If, after careful studying of this book, you are made aware that much
of its contents proceeding to the bases and being in the level of the
first years of the undergraduate courses of physics, just because of
this very reason and without any scientific encountering and because
they are not in the category of the material being published enormously
in the international journals of physics chiefly in praise and
admiration of the modern physics, are rejected by some international
first-rate physicists, won't you entitle the author to select the title

on the cover of his book? Should the writers of the history of science
confine lonliness of science to only the past eras? We read in the
history of science that Fresnel, who was diligently defending the
wave theory of light, answered Poisson, who was defending the
corpuscular theory of light, when he had said to him "Your theory
is not in accordance with my equations", that "The remedy is that you
change your equations". Now, if by this book, we become able to prove
that we cannot ignore so easily the logic of the classical physics,
can it be said that what we can do with the huge amount of the
material published in support of the modern physics? Logic, and only
logic, must be the only guide. What presented as nonclassical logic
will be acceptable only if it is really logic; but we believe that
this is not really the case.

I hope that, in next editioins of the articles of this book, in
addition
to the inclusion of new materials, I can proceed to the improvement of

and necessary changes in the articles criticism of which by the readers

is requested insistently.

In the articles of this book there are many proposals for experiments
related to the theoretical contents of the articles that since
performing
of them has not been possible by the author, accomplishing of them is
left to the interested readers as a test for the validity of the
articles.

Hamid V. Ansari

Abstract of the book
--------------------
We use the following terminology here:
~A means the vectot A.
[] indicates subscript.
<four> means 4.

0 Great misakes of the physicists
_Return to logic.
1 Geomagnetic field determines ionization energy
_Magnetic field of the earth comes into existence due to the movement
of
the freed electrons of the hot core of the earth along with the earth
rotation.
2 Compton effect is a Doppler effect
_Compton effect is completely a Doppler effect.
3 Deviation of light by Sun is optical
_Deviation and speed reducion of the stars light passing beside the
sun is completely an optical phenomenon.
4 Stellar aberration with ether drag
_Stellar aberration is not in any contradiction with the ether drag.
5 Stern-Gerlach experiment is not quantized
_Classical physics does not at all predict a uniform distribution
for magnetic atoms of the beam in the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
6 Obvious mistakes in Electrostatics
_The famous formula of the electrostatic potential energy in the
current form U=1/2<integral>~D.~Edv is completely wrong and in it
~E must be replaced by ~E[<rho>]. Then, capacitance of a capacitor
does not at all depend on its dielectric which indeed acts as a source
of potential. Besides, there are two different kinds of potential
difference for a capacitor; thus the results of the experiments of
Millikan and Thomson to determine the charge and mass of the electron
must be revised.
7 Surface tension theory; Glaring mistakes
_Current relations <capital delta>p=4<gamma>/R and
<capital delta>=2<gamma>/R for pressure difference between inside and
outside of a bubble and a solid drop respectively are completely wrong.
8 Logical justification of the Hall effect
_To justify the Hall effect it is not necessary to suppose existence of
hole and of magnetic force being exerted on it (ie in fact on nothing).
9 Actuality of the electric current
_Countrary to the current belief, existence of the electric conduction
currnt is not because of the existence of any electric field in the
conductor.
10 Photoelectric effect is not quantized
_Empirical results of the photoelectric effect have a perfect classical
justification, thus cannot result in the relation E=h<nu> exclusively.
11 Wrong construing of the Boltzmann factor
_A quite wrong construing of the Boltzmann factor is current that just
on the basis of this wrong construing the famous relation E=h<nu> has
been derived (by Planck). Correct form of this factor is presented.
12 Wavy behavior of electron beams is classical
_Gas molecules existent in the electric discharge tubes play role
of a medium for the electron beams which thereby propagate as
longitudinal waves showing wave phenomena; thus there is no need
to suppose existence of matter waves.
13 Electromagnetic theory from a new viewpoint
_Considering point magnetic charges fundamental equations of
electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations are completed and modified.
Therefore, no longer the action-reaction law is breached, form of the
electromagnetic wave motion throughout its carrier medium is justified
beautifully, and the relativity is hindered from resorting to the
electromagnetism.
14 Cylindrical wave, wave equation, and mistakes
_Wave equation (eg cylindrical wave equation or Schrodinger equation)
cannot be solved for general spreading of the wave by using the method
of
separation of variables.
15 Definitions of mass and force; A critique
_Mass is an undefined concept, and force is not anything but prevention
of masses against each other, and separation of mass into inertial and
gravitational is a wrong and useless act.
16 Franck-Hertz experiment is not quantized
_What we see in the Franck-Hertz experiment isn't anything but a
regular
repetition of a breakdown voltage.
17 A wave-based polishing theory
_In a polished surface, solid matter has not flowed and filled
unevennesses of the surface.
18 What the electric conductor is
_Probably the volume of electron is very larger than what is
thought at present.
19 Why torque on stationary bodies is zero
_That the torque exerted on a stationary body is zero must not be
presented as an axiom.
a1 Solution to four-color problem
_The four-color problem is simple and solved easily.
a2 A proof for Goldbach's conjecture
_A busy problem solved by a systematic mind.

My email addresses: hamidvansari<at>yahoo<dot>com or
hvansari<at>gmail<dot>com
To see all the articles send an email to one of my above-mentioned
email addresses.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/news97_k.html
 
R

RP

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi all,

I intend to email the address of the site containing the articles
of my book


Some of your objections are justifiable, but your solutions are not
justifiable.

The Hall effect is due to the imbalance of *effective* charge in the
conducting materials.

The force between parallel conductors (which have B fields associated
with them in lab frame) is the vector sum of four components of force,
these are:

1) The mutual attraction of the protons in conductor 1 to the electrons
in conductor 2
2) The mutual attraction of the protons in conductor 2 to the electrons
in conductor 1
3) The mutual repulsion of the electrons in conductor 1 and the
electrons in conductor 2
4) The mutual repulsion of the protons in conductor 1 and the protons
in conductor 2

Given equal numbers of quanta in both conductors, the net force on any
charge component will be exactly equal to the net force on its
complimentary component when the currents and electron drift rates are
perfectly equal, i.e. the electrons and protons in conductor 1 will
have equal forces acting on them (in the same direction), the net force
on the conductor being the algebraic sum of the forces acting on these
two charge components within the conductor. Likewise for conductor 2.

If however the conductors are restrained from moving wrt each other,
then the electrons will migrate from one side of the conductor to the
other, that is, since they are free to move within the conductor, while
the protons are not, the latter essentially being the conductor itself.
If the currents are parallel then the electron components will migrate
toward the other conductor, or toward the *inside edge* of their own
conductors. If the currents are anti-parallel, then they will migrate
toward the outside of their own conductors. In terms of classical
electromagnetic theory, this migration is supposed to be due to the
deflection of the electrons by the B field, whereas the B field, in
contrast to the classical view, is a completely fictitious entity. The
migration is due instead to the attraction of the electrons to the
protons in the other conductor, which is due in turn to the Lorenz
force developed between them because of their motion relative to each
other.

Thus in order to achieve the opposite migration of the electrons when
the currents are parallel, we need only have the repulsive component of
force on the electron charges be greater than the attractive component
of force acting on them. This can be achieved by allowing the electrons
in the two conductors to be moving much faster wrt each other than they
are moving wrt the protons. If the electron drift rate is v in
conductor 1 and 20v in conductor 2, then the relative velocity of the
electron charges wrt each other will be 19v. The force developed is
proportional to their relative velocity squared, and thus chopping
units we can simplify the math and state that the force developed
between the electron components is 361 units, which will be a repulsive
component of force on the electrons. Because of the assymetric
currents, the velocity of the electron components wrt the proton
components in the opposing conductors will no longer be equal, thus
breaking the symmetry that existed in the ideal case.

The velocity of the electrons in conductor 1 wrt the protons in
conductor 2 will be 1v thus providing an attractive component on the
electrons in conductor 1 of 1 unit, leaving a net force on the
electrons of 360 units toward the outside of the conductor.

The velocity of the electrons in conductor 2 wrt the protons in
conductor 1 will be 20v, thus providing an attractive component of the
electrons in conductor 2 of 400 units, leaving a net force on the
electrons of 39 units toward the inside of the conductor.

Thus with these two conductors one will "appear" to conduct by positron
flow, and the other by electron flow, even though it is only electrons
flowing in both.

Such paradoxes illustrate the evils of the very concept of the B field,
which being a frame dependent field should never have been regarded as
real, nor allowed to explain such things as the Hall effect, which it
has nothing whatsoever to do with.

Richard Perry
 
S

Sam Wormley

Jan 1, 1970
0
RP said:
That would be properly "alternative reality." . Just hold onto that
crap if it makes you happy to do so.

Richard Perry

It is spiritual to have a decent understanding of how things work!
 
R

RP

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sam said:
It is spiritual to have a decent understanding of how things work!

Are you saying that I'm more spiritual that you? :)

Regardless of your sentiment about that, let me share with you that the
Hebrew scripture states something like "seek ye the truth in all
things, " and also "in all things be spiritual." Thus I might conclude
from these two statements, having like eliminands [Carroll] that being
spiritual means remaining in touch with reality, which is quite
contrary to the general view, at least from my perspective, since those
who *claim* to be spiritual are for the most part a pack of raving
lunatics. I can only conclude that man made religion is mutually
exclusive to spirituality. So I concur with your statement above,
wholeheartedly. What remains to be seen is whether you will accept the
derivation of the Hall effect that I just presented, or whether you
will choose to be less spiritual. :)

Richard Perry
 
S

Sam Wormley

Jan 1, 1970
0
RP said:
Sam said:
It is spiritual to have a decent understanding of how things work!

Are you saying that I'm more spiritual that you? :)

Regardless of your sentiment about that, let me share with you that the
Hebrew scripture states something like "seek ye the truth in all
things, " and also "in all things be spiritual." Thus I might conclude
from these two statements, having like eliminands [Carroll] that being
spiritual means remaining in touch with reality, which is quite
contrary to the general view, at least from my perspective, since those
who *claim* to be spiritual are for the most part a pack of raving
lunatics. I can only conclude that man made religion is mutually
exclusive to spirituality. So I concur with your statement above,
wholeheartedly. What remains to be seen is whether you will accept the
derivation of the Hall effect that I just presented, or whether you
will choose to be less spiritual. :)

Richard Perry

You seem to imply that spirituality is a measure of scientific correctness?
Get real--the real arbiter is agreement with the unbiased data of observation
and experiment.
 
R

RP

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sam said:
RP said:
Sam said:
RP wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
[email protected] wrote:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/news97_k.html

Proper alternative:
http://www.motionmountain.net/text.html
That would be properly "alternative reality." . Just hold onto that
crap if it makes you happy to do so.

Richard Perry

It is spiritual to have a decent understanding of how things work!

Are you saying that I'm more spiritual that you? :)

Regardless of your sentiment about that, let me share with you that the
Hebrew scripture states something like "seek ye the truth in all
things, " and also "in all things be spiritual." Thus I might conclude
from these two statements, having like eliminands [Carroll] that being
spiritual means remaining in touch with reality, which is quite
contrary to the general view, at least from my perspective, since those
who *claim* to be spiritual are for the most part a pack of raving
lunatics. I can only conclude that man made religion is mutually
exclusive to spirituality. So I concur with your statement above,
wholeheartedly. What remains to be seen is whether you will accept the
derivation of the Hall effect that I just presented, or whether you
will choose to be less spiritual. :)

Richard Perry

You seem to imply that spirituality is a measure of scientific correctness?
Get real--the real arbiter is agreement with the unbiased data of observation
and experiment.

You just contradicted yourself in these two statements. Scientific
correctness is synonymous with empirical agreement. Get spiritual,
Sam.

Richard Perry
 
S

Sam Wormley

Jan 1, 1970
0
RP said:
Sam said:
RP said:
Sam Wormley wrote:
RP wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
[email protected] wrote:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/news97_k.html

Proper alternative:
http://www.motionmountain.net/text.html
That would be properly "alternative reality." . Just hold onto that
crap if it makes you happy to do so.

Richard Perry

It is spiritual to have a decent understanding of how things work!
Are you saying that I'm more spiritual that you? :)

Regardless of your sentiment about that, let me share with you that the
Hebrew scripture states something like "seek ye the truth in all
things, " and also "in all things be spiritual." Thus I might conclude
from these two statements, having like eliminands [Carroll] that being
spiritual means remaining in touch with reality, which is quite
contrary to the general view, at least from my perspective, since those
who *claim* to be spiritual are for the most part a pack of raving
lunatics. I can only conclude that man made religion is mutually
exclusive to spirituality. So I concur with your statement above,
wholeheartedly. What remains to be seen is whether you will accept the
derivation of the Hall effect that I just presented, or whether you
will choose to be less spiritual. :)

Richard Perry
You seem to imply that spirituality is a measure of scientific correctness?
Get real--the real arbiter is agreement with the unbiased data of observation
and experiment.

You just contradicted yourself in these two statements. Scientific
correctness is synonymous with empirical agreement. Get spiritual,
Sam.

Richard Perry

It is spiritual to have a decent understanding of how things work.
 
B

Bill Hobba

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi all,

I intend to email the address of the site containing the articles
of my book
to real and serious physicists, who apparently don't refer to
newsgroups normally,
and invite them to study and criticize them. So, I request every one
who have any
email addresses of any of them to send their email addresses to my
email address:
hamidvansari<at>yahoo<dot>com or hvansari<at>gmail<dot>com

Thanks



Introduction and Abstract of the book "Great mistakes of the
physicists"

Introduction of the book
------------------------
History of science tells us that there were many theories having
widespread acceptability during long times such that based on their
acceptability many additions were added to them till finally a research
or a scrutiny showed their invalidity and contrary to all of their
additions and widespread acceptability sent them easily to the archives
of history, what has remained being more solid and more scientific
superseding theories or at least those seeming to be so. Let's see
that,
contrary to all of the apparent validity and acceptability and
additions,
what would cause a researcher to dare to oppose a theory and to
scrutinize
its bases succeeding in changing the theory in this way. The answer is
clear: The researcher firstly looks into the theory with an acceptance
view. Secondly, he or she tries to become thoroughly conversant with
all
the details of the theory. Thirdly, in the case of weakness of the
theory,
the points of weakness, like some tied knots, find an annoying state in
the mind of the researcher, and he or she spends all his or her mind
and
time to obviate them. Fourthly, little by little the knots are untied
and the difficulties are solved and logical supersedings appear.

What can be said about the contemporary theoretical physicists is that
many of them are practically content with only the first phase; they
accept many of the current theories only because of their widespread
acceptability and add more and more additions to them without any
serious
scrutinizing of their details in order to find out their validity or
invalidity.

False. In order to understand current theories any serious student (and
that includes virtually any student that goes on to become an actual
physicist) will look for possible alternatives.
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html
'Do get me right: you don't have to believe anything you read on faith -
check it. Try alternative approaches, as many as you can. You will discover,
time and again, that really what those guys did indeed was the smartest
thing possible. Amazing.'

Rest of misconceptions snipped.

Bill
 
R

RP

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sam said:
RP said:
Sam said:
RP wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
RP wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
[email protected] wrote:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/news97_k.html

Proper alternative:
http://www.motionmountain.net/text.html
That would be properly "alternative reality." . Just hold onto that
crap if it makes you happy to do so.

Richard Perry

It is spiritual to have a decent understanding of how things work!
Are you saying that I'm more spiritual that you? :)

Regardless of your sentiment about that, let me share with you that the
Hebrew scripture states something like "seek ye the truth in all
things, " and also "in all things be spiritual." Thus I might conclude
from these two statements, having like eliminands [Carroll] that being
spiritual means remaining in touch with reality, which is quite
contrary to the general view, at least from my perspective, since those
who *claim* to be spiritual are for the most part a pack of raving
lunatics. I can only conclude that man made religion is mutually
exclusive to spirituality. So I concur with your statement above,
wholeheartedly. What remains to be seen is whether you will accept the
derivation of the Hall effect that I just presented, or whether you
will choose to be less spiritual. :)

Richard Perry

You seem to imply that spirituality is a measure of scientific correctness?
Get real--the real arbiter is agreement with the unbiased data of observation
and experiment.

You just contradicted yourself in these two statements. Scientific
correctness is synonymous with empirical agreement. Get spiritual,
Sam.

Richard Perry

It is spiritual to have a decent understanding of how things work.

Agreed. What we probably don't agree upon is "how things work." I
think very many of the great scientists understood that a mathemtical
model doesn't pass for "understanding," and in light of the fact that
very many mathematical models have very many equivalent
interpretations, this seems to be an obvious truth. For instance the
various quantum interpretations shown later to all be equivalent [See
"Quantum Realtiy"]. Even special relativity that has an aether
interpretation and a non-aether interpretation.

The problem with the B field is that it is always assumed to be at rest
wrt the obsever, which is of course contradictory to the premise that
reality is independent of frames of reference (PoR).
If only the electron charge drifts wrt the conductor, then there is an
assymetry wrt lab frame. But if we assume a frame of reference such
that the protons and electrons are moving in equal but opposite
directions then we reestablish a symetry. Only in this frame is the B
field the lone operator. In the lab frame there is also an E field
component, because in actuality we are moving wrt the seat of the B
field and thus experience a vB or E field. Only when an external charge
is moving at a much greater speed than the drift rate of the electrons
does the B field appear to be at rest wrt that charge, and then only
approximately. But when we are dealing with the forces exerted on
charges in an opposing conductor due to their drift, then we are not
dealing with fast moving charges. The lateral force on that current
will depend upon whether it is flowing at a drift rate that is either
greater or lesser than 1/2 the drift rate of the electrons in the other
conductor. Thus the entire argument that I presented initially can be
derived in terms of E and B fields, though we would have to assume a
drift of the B field at a rate exactly 1/2 that of the electron drift
rate. This is of course assuming that there are equal numbers of
positive and negative quanta of charge in the conductor, which isn't
going to be the case in real materials. Thus I only provided a
beginning point, the purpose of which was to show that the Hall effect
is not at all mysterious.

The quantum hall effect is no more mysterious. It is the difference in
binding energies of the conduction bands of the material that produce
the quantum "stepping" of the hall effect. This follows from the fact
that the release of an entirely new set of drifting electrons alters
the equation that I prescribed. When another band of electrons is
released the drift velocity reduces because there are now more carriers
present in the material. This must result in a sudden change, or
"step", in the Hall voltage.

Richard Perry
 
A

Ancient_Hacker

Jan 1, 1970
0
It is traditional to have scientific monographs reviewed by other
scientists. Lots of theories, while well meaning, are quickly
punctured under the scrutiny of other brains.

One excellent example was at CalTech, where a PhD candidate was
explaining his theory, worked out over the course of several years.
In the audience was Richard Feynman. The explanation was long, and
Feynman apparently nodded off into a light doze. The presenter was
well into his third blackboard of equations when Feynman awoke with a
start and shouted out "WAIT, that can't work!". His nearby colleagues
tried to reassure him it looked okay. But he persisted, and went to
thee blackboard and showed how the equation violated some very basic
principle (don't recall, it might have been the Heisenberg or Pauli
principles, or some obscure quantum principle). The poor guy's years
of research, sincerely undertaken, and vetted by his advisers, was
wrong.

More recently, Wolfram's pretty and very thick book, although very
intriguing, once you look into it, doesnt really give any usable
predictions or useful science.

So while you may be totally sincere in your musings, let them be looked
over by others for little holes first BEFORE you announce all these
breakthroughs to the world. Saves wiping a lot of egg off your face.
 
B

Bob Kolker

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ancient_Hacker said:
More recently, Wolfram's pretty and very thick book, although very
intriguing, once you look into it, doesnt really give any usable
predictions or useful science.

Wolfram is rich enough and has enough time to write a vanity piece. A
physical theory based on descrete automata arrays would be totally
intractible. How do you approximate them?

Bob Kolker
 
S

Sorcerer

Jan 1, 1970
0
|
| Bob Kolker wrote:
| > Uncle Al wrote:
| >
| > > [email protected] wrote:
| > > [snip crap]
| > >
| > >
| > >>My email addresses: hamidvansari@yahoo,com or
| > >>[email protected]
| > >
| > > [snip crap]
| > >
| > > Idiot.
| >
| > Al? Al? How did your experiments go?
| >
| > Bob Kolker
| >
| > >
|
| Shhh! You'll scare him away!

The fish has already been landed. I caught him in the river of shit,
sucking on a pebble he thought was a diamond while relying
on the Chinese to do his work for him.
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
It is traditional to have scientific monographs reviewed by other
scientists. Lots of theories, while well meaning, are quickly punctured
under the scrutiny of other brains.

One excellent example was at CalTech, where a PhD candidate was explaining
his theory, worked out over the course of several years. In the audience
was Richard Feynman. The explanation was long, and Feynman apparently
nodded off into a light doze. The presenter was well into his third
blackboard of equations when Feynman awoke with a start and shouted out
"WAIT, that can't work!". His nearby colleagues tried to reassure him it
looked okay. But he persisted, and went to thee blackboard and showed how
the equation violated some very basic principle (don't recall, it might
have been the Heisenberg or Pauli principles, or some obscure quantum
principle). The poor guy's years of research, sincerely undertaken, and
vetted by his advisers, was wrong.

More recently, Wolfram's pretty and very thick book, although very
intriguing, once you look into it, doesnt really give any usable
predictions or useful science.

So while you may be totally sincere in your musings, let them be looked
over by others for little holes first BEFORE you announce all these
breakthroughs to the world. Saves wiping a lot of egg off your face.

I have a New Theory of How The Universe Works, and I can't even get
anybody to _read_ it, let alone critique it.

The problem is, any Theory of Everything has to include all of the gods
and devils, and other crap that people claim that since they don't believe
in them, that therefore they don't exist.

Oh, well. Eventually everyone is going to learn the truth.

Cheers!
Rich
 
U

Uncle Al

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bob said:
Uncle said:
[email protected] wrote:
[snip crap]

My email addresses: hamidvansari@yahoo,com or
[email protected]

[snip crap]

Idiot.

Al? Al? How did your experiments go?

Bob Kolker

1) Parity Eotvos experiment. Physics won't perform it. Cowards.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf

2) Parity calorimetry experiment. 500 g of benzil in hand and two
DSCs promised at an acceptable latitude; hoping for four. Growing
xtals as you read this. To be run during Xmas lull.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

3) Ambient pressure diamond synthesis from molten Devil Solvent,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/c_four.mp3

2007 promises to be an interesting year. Patience.
 
Top