- #26

- 227

- 0

Karlisbad, where's your ingenious theory?

Oh wait... not so easy, is it?

Oh wait... not so easy, is it?

- Thread starter Swapnil
- Start date

- #26

- 227

- 0

Karlisbad, where's your ingenious theory?

Oh wait... not so easy, is it?

Oh wait... not so easy, is it?

- #27

- 131

- 0

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0610948 generalization of SE to any arbitrary (non polynomial Hamiltonian)

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0608355 using Borel transform to evaluate functional integrals (second part of paper)ç

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0607095 a (proposed) Hamiltonian H=T+V so its eigenvalues are just the imaginary part of the Riemann zeta function non-trivial roots, the V(x) must satisfy a certain integral equation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0402259 an use of zeta regularization to get a finite meaning for integrals of the form [tex] \int_{0}^{\infty}x^{m}dx m=-1 or m>0

Of course you can make me a lot of criticism..."lack or rigour" "the solution to RH is not complete" and so on, math involved in these papers is very easy (any graduate student could understand this, the same it happened that every student could understand the MATH involved in SR, Bohr model or Photoelectric effect and Specific Heat) if i knew mor mathematics i could solve harder problems.

- #28

- 1,548

- 0

But note that Planck understood his own idea as a convenient mathematic analogy and not a description of reality – even his Noble was for work on the plural “quanta”.Karlisbad said:Yes,but Photoelectric effect was (or could have been derived) from Planck's idea of quanta ........

i'm not saying "I'm the biggest genious in the world ......

It was the “luck” of Einstein to identify the simple reality of an individual “quantum”, much later to be named a photon. In the opinion of a lot us, that insight to make use of such “luck” on Einstein’s part was “Genius”, even if you think it was a simple solution with current information for anyone to solve.

Although you may not be the biggest genius, I’m sure you’re as bright as the “Guinness BRILLIANT! Scientists”.

But allow me to express an opinion that you still can prove yourself more than just BRILLIANT! - and a true “Lucky Genius”!

IMO the biggest solution in physics for our new millennium will at the end of the day be fundamentally as simple as any of the great ones you complain were really so simple to solve.

And the person that solves will have to consider themselves lucky that the clues, any UNDER-graduate student could use solve the puzzle, went laying around for all to see - but left unanswered for that lucky person to solve so simply.

I’ll grant you I may be wrong and the solution may be PHD level complex.

But if I’m right, since you are looking, you need to find this simple thing before someone else does.

My expectation is a lot of current high level genius will be embarrassed and jealous if someone as “lucky” as Einstein finds a truly simple solution.

- #29

- 1,667

- 0

There is no such thing as luck in these matters. Those people first rejected contemporary thinking about these subjects, which required hard work in itself. They had to figure out why things were not being solved in the first place, then they could really see what was lacking in the first place. And, again, this has nothing to do with mathematical complexity.RandallB said:But note that Planck understood his own idea as a convenient mathematic analogy and not a description of reality – even his Noble was for work on the plural “quanta”.

Careful

- #30

- 11

- 0

I'd say it takes a lot of courage and confidence in ones own mathematical ability to throw out contemporary thinking and replace it with something of your own conception. The math may seem simple now, but I don't think performing calculations has ever been considered particularly hard, it's always been about understanding the scope and meaning of the calculations, or even where to begin on them. A computer can do math, but it probably won't be creating general laws to describe the universe.Careful said:There is no such thing as luck in these matters. Those people first rejected contemporary thinking about these subjects, which required hard work in itself. They had to figure out why things were not being solved in the first place, then they could really see what was lacking in the first place. And, again, this has nothing to do with mathematical complexity.

Careful

- #31

- 1,548

- 0

I think you missed the point of my post here,Careful said:There is no such thing as luck in these matters.

what Karlisbad calls "lucky"

you and I and most on this forum call genius.

[Edit] OK I see; you were adding to my comments, not responding to them.

Another good example of “seeing flaws” as you put it, is the biggest flaw of both QM and GR. It has been well known 20th century fact; the two are incompatibility with each other. Yet they both make their best progress by ignoring that flaw and each other as, Astrophysics uses GR and particle physics uses QM.

Neither can be truly correct and complete unless they can correct or replace the other. With over half a century of tremendous effort to fix one to combine them or even replace both them this solution will be the biggest of them all. Some even claim it is impossible to do, But I have no doubt when it does happen, come some even many will say; “shucks, I could have thought of that!”

Last edited:

- #32

- 1,667

- 0

No, actually I just wanted to add something to your post by saying that the progress made by these people just did not originate from wanting to see things differently, but from seeing flaws in existing programs as well as probing for a deeper level of understanding.RandallB said:I think you missed the point of my post here,

what Karlisbad calls "lucky"

you and I and most on this forum call genius.

Careful

- #33

- 1,667

- 0

True, but at the same time you never throw out contempary thinking away like that. There is always something essentially correct in what is done (even today); it is just that we do not understand yet what is right and what not. I have heard many particle physicists say that they do not really understand what they are doing but they are pretty confident that their results are more or less correct. I entirely agree with this, but I am equally confident that some physical insights behind these calculations are entirely wrong ; the difficulty is to find out why it does not matter that they are so. That is understanding.... A beautiful example of this is the radical destruction of the Newtonian insights by Einstein's relativity ; nevertheless a starting point for Einstein was the Laplace equation for Newtonian gravity.Fox5 said:I'd say it takes a lot of courage and confidence in ones own mathematical ability to throw out contemporary thinking and replace it with something of your own conception. The math may seem simple now, but I don't think performing calculations has ever been considered particularly hard, it's always been about understanding the scope and meaning of the calculations, or even where to begin on them. A computer can do math, but it probably won't be creating general laws to describe the universe.

Careful

Last edited:

- #34

- 131

- 0

- #35

- 1,667

- 0

Now, with this I agree ... the path from having a good idea to a nice realization of it takes hard work. But the conception of a good idea requires very different skills, lots of time, much patience and persistence .... Once I bought the CD's of ``a beautiful mind'' by silvia nasar and in the part about how nash found the embedding theorem for Riemannian manifolds, the narrator cited the MIT professor Nash was talking to about his approaches to the problem. The text went something like this : ``the thing about nash was that he persisted where everyone would have given up for a long time, most mathematicians can work for a few months on a hard problem and then eventually give up if nothing comes out. But Nash kept on coming back and back, tried over and over again for about one year or so...´´ , the same applies to Wiles and the Fermat theorem and so on.Karlisbad said:

Careful

- #36

- 223

- 0

karlisbad, I think the point you are missing is that **anything** that you truly understand is absurdly simple..

when first confronted with calculus it's a complete mystery, then when you learn it it's extremely easy.

same with anything, for example I'm learning QFT at the moment. Every new page seems to be written in greek :S :P (it's an extremely condensed treatment) but once I get past a line I think how very easy it is to get from A to B if you know how..

the difficulty in studying/researching physics is not how advanced or developed the physics is, but finding the road to understanding/solution when you have few or no maps/signposts..

when first confronted with calculus it's a complete mystery, then when you learn it it's extremely easy.

same with anything, for example I'm learning QFT at the moment. Every new page seems to be written in greek :S :P (it's an extremely condensed treatment) but once I get past a line I think how very easy it is to get from A to B if you know how..

the difficulty in studying/researching physics is not how advanced or developed the physics is, but finding the road to understanding/solution when you have few or no maps/signposts..

Last edited:

- Last Post

- Replies
- 43

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 487

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post
- Quantum Interpretations and Foundations

- Replies
- 76

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 959

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 917

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 499