Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

My last contributions to physics

  1. Feb 9, 2004 #1
    I am feed up there is no good journal to publihs your ideas because they are alll f.... snobs and don,t let you publish anyting unless you are steven weinberg or something like that and it arxiv.org you must have an university account to publish your works...i give up physics and maths is imposible to understand and have nobody to explain it, these are my last contributions perhpas some of them will appear puyblished by some snob in a snobish physics journal:

    a)Complex trajectories in Bohmian mechancs":=an explication to how compelx trajectories could explain normal and bohmian mechanics...in fact there are trajectories but are complex x(t)=a(t)+ib(t) and how quantum mechanics can be reduced to optics.


    b)Quantization of arbitrary hamiltonians:"=in this work the quantization to arbitrary hamiltonian is epxlained ..how you could quantizy an arbitrary Hamiltonian
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 10, 2004 #2
    sorry..for my bad words.

    -Sorry..i must apologize for my bad works in fact i feel depressed as perhaps i will never be a good physicist or mathematician (i have only a degree on physics)..i feel very insignificant in this world in fact i had no luck and noone wanted to publish my files (the Pi(x) fucntion and others) so this forum is my last chance to express my ideas i do not know if they are right or wrong.
     
  4. Nov 22, 2004 #3
    its ok dude, I wonder why people havent reply to this thread yet. But you just have to keep trying. Also, its also not advisable to get too attached to our theories and those guys at the journals might have a reason for not publishing them.

    But i think its too early to give up, just gotta keep on going....
     
  5. Nov 24, 2004 #4

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Surely the contradiction in these two statements exemplifies the problem. If you don't understand math and physics and need somebody to explain it to you, then why do you think you are able to produce publishable work? You'll need to continue your formal studies if you'd like to reach that level of accomplishment. You'll also have to work more on your written English skills if you wish to publish in English language journals some day. Both can be accomplished at the same time through more formal education.
     
  6. Nov 24, 2004 #5

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh I don't know, maybe it's because he's been whining about this since he got here.

    Cases in point:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=14422
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=8910
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=7396
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=6659
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4562
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4079
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4010
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=3439
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=3444

    eljose:

    If you want to get published, you'll have to become affiliated with a university or sponsored by a faculty member. It's as simple as that. You obviously know the rules, and you seem like a smart person, so I cannot figure out why you don't get serious and do what you need to do. But could you please give it a rest about what "snobs" the arXiv people are? I, for one, am thoroughly sick of reading about it.
     
  7. Nov 24, 2004 #6
  8. Nov 24, 2004 #7
    Quite right. Snobs, the lot of them. Never met one who didn't wear a top hat and monocle. Ninnies, every one...
     
  9. Nov 24, 2004 #8

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    LOL, really? The ones I meet wear graduation attire and carry lecturing pointers. :rofl:
     
  10. Nov 24, 2004 #9

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, that just shows how out-of-touch with modern physics you are! Professors no longer need to worry about poking anyone in the eye with those long pointers, there are laser pointers now, which only leads to them blinding themselves (and not others) when they look at the wrong end to see if it's on. :rofl:
     
  11. Nov 25, 2004 #10
    eljose I really feel for you. I can't even do most of the math required in advanced physics and don't understand your papers, but I've been published 5 times. Seems unfair doesn't it?
     
  12. Nov 25, 2004 #11
    this thread has been a complete waste of time, I'm ashamed I took the time to read it. Please grow up.
     
  13. Nov 25, 2004 #12
    It does seem unfair. But isn't that the pinnacle of childish talk? "That's not fair!". Grow up with it. Be a mature adult. If you were really intelligent, you would've told yourself this numerous times. (to eljose)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2004
  14. Nov 26, 2004 #13
    Yes lots of things in this world do seem very much so on fair, but that’s when you must make a decision. To either give up, or walk alone. I made the decision to walk alone and investigate paths which were not explored many generations ago. I like your idea of explaining quantum mechanics by the use of optical science. I suggest if you examine this path at some point note what tagging does in slit experiments. It raises an interesting question, about if there exists a primary force which has not been observed beforehand which travels at a dimensional velocity versus a maximum field velocity used. On that note I wish you the best of luck in your theories, I myself believe theorists who rely on a probabilistic model of reality are not trying hard enough. Well probability is a good thing but nowadays it’s greatly overused and has convoluted thing too much.
     
  15. Nov 26, 2004 #14
    Hii eljose79,
    Where are your papers?
    Can you post the Abstracts here?
    Has Pi(x) got something to do with 3.1415926535897932384626433..... ?

    Ashfaque
     
  16. Nov 26, 2004 #15

    shmoe

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The Pi(x) he's referring to is the prime counting function [tex]\pi(x)=\sum_{p\leq x,\ p\ prime}}1=\text{number of primes less than or equal to x}[/tex]

    Have a search for posts by eljose79, he's posted links to some of his papers before.
     
  17. Nov 26, 2004 #16

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Since shmoe pointed out there were links to some of his "papers," I took a quick look (I guess I'm bored today). I don't know anything about pure mathmatics research, so have no idea whether there is any value to the proof presented, but there are pretty serious problems with the format, such as the abstract is worded in a very wishy-washy way, like a high schooler would write an abstract for a lab report; there is NO introduction, and there are NO references (perusing some other math journals online for some comparison of standard formatting of articles for that field, I'm not sure if math journals require any form of discussion beyond the explanation of the proof, but there is none of that either). It's very clear why nobody is reading what he sends to them. If I received something like that unsolicited, I'd toss it straight to the trash bin. If I were a journal editor, thus not allowed to toss it straight to the trash bin, I wouldn't even waste the time of my reviewers and would return it unreviewed until it was submitted with the proper formatting.

    Well, eljose has been looking for an honest answer about what is wrong with his paper, and that's what I see as wrong before even getting to the point of looking at the math included in it.
     
  18. Dec 9, 2004 #17

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Most of what he has written that I've read is mathematically good, it just isn't new,. The techniques have been in use for well over 50 years, some even published in a textbook by Wiener in 1952 I think. The idea of using transforms on these functions is old hat, that's why no one will bother with them even if they were better presented, and the unsubtantiated claims for "solving pi(x)" say were removed.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: My last contributions to physics
  1. My Last Night In Paris (Replies: 1)

  2. My last reserves (Replies: 10)

Loading...