References for ZapperZ

  • Thread starter Careful
  • Start date
1,667
0
Since another thread was killed without any good reason, here I give some references concerning the ideas I was talking about:

http://streaming.ictp.trieste.it/preprints/P/90/268.pdf#search="Barut self field account of atomic transitions" (for barut)

and

http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:quant-ph/0304203 [Broken]

(for Bohm de Broglie)

and references therein and so forth and so forth.

May we all rest in piece.

Careful

PS: Both are peer reviewed in prestigious mainstream journals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
25
0
What causes a thread to get locked? I'm new to this forum.
 

berkeman

Mentor
55,907
5,963
RogerPink said:
What causes a thread to get locked? I'm new to this forum.
Welcome to PF, Roger. Generally a thread will get locked or deleted for a violation of the PF posting guidelines:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

I'm not familiar with the thread that the poster is referring to, but I am familiar with the quality of ZapperZ's posting and mentoring.
 
1,667
0
berkeman said:
Welcome to PF, Roger. Generally a thread will get
locked or deleted for a violation of the PF posting guidelines:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

I'm not familiar with the thread that the poster is referring to,
but I am familiar with the quality of ZapperZ's posting and
mentoring.
I concur the quality of ZapperZ's postings about
those issues he is familiar with are of high standard.
Unfortunately, the issues he is not familiar with get no fair
treatment while he clearly shows not to even master the basic lines
of thought in the latter and neither to be aware of their
achievements (despite of numerous citations which - if he reads them
- should make this clear). In contrast to what he thinks, I feel no
obligation to type out all equations (which would take much time) in
detail when I think the ideas expressed are clear enough for the
reader to proceed; supplemented with some papers anyone can find
using google. Actually, Zapper does the same, as soon as an idea requires some work,
he refers to papers. There is a difference between uttering a sound idea
worked on by some part of the community and a singleton presenting
his theory of everything. The guidelines you refer to apply to the
latter and not the former. The material presented here has been worked on by some of
the best researchers of their time.

I wish this kind of behavior would stop, there is clearly to be gained something from thinking deeper
about QM and QFT as another mentor, Vanesch, acknowledges.

Careful
 
Last edited:

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,177
3,974
Careful said:
I concur the quality of ZapperZ's postings about
those issues he is familiar with are of high standard.
Unfortunately, the issues he is not familiar with get no fair
treatment while he clearly shows not to even master the basic lines
of thought in the latter and neither to be aware of their
achievements (despite of numerous citations which - if he reads them
- should make this clear). In contrast to what he thinks, I feel no
obligation to type out all equations (which would take much time) in
detail when I think the ideas expressed are clear enough for the
reader to proceed; supplemented with some papers anyone can find
using google. Actually, Zapper does the same, as soon as an idea requires some work,
he refers to papers. There is a difference between uttering a sound idea
worked on by some part of the community and a singleton presenting
his theory of everything. The guidelines you refer to apply to the
latter and not the former. The material presented here has been worked on by some of
the best researchers of their time.

I wish this kind of behavior would stop, there is clearly to be gained something from thinking deeper
about QM and QFT as another mentor, Vanesch, acknowledges.

Careful
You WILL note that in the closed thread, I asked this specifically:

ZapperZ said:
Er.. you call this the answer to my question? It isn't. All you did was claim to have the equation of motion for such a transition, which I haven't seen. You are more than welcome to cite a specific equation of a text or a paper, and I will try to go find it. Or if you want, give me the exact equation of motion of a hydrogenic transition from n=2, l=1 to n=1, l=0, including the time scale for such a transition that has been verified.
Yet, you refused till now to produce anything substantial. I gave you not one, not two, but at least 4 separate opportunities to either explictly show the equation of motion OR to make a citation. This isn't a "FAIR" opportunity to you? Again, you have decided to somehow IMAGINED a series of things, not the least of which is the accusation about my "comments" about phonons (which you STILL have failed to produce any evidence of).

The thread isn't about a discussion of QFT, non-locality, etc. And the thread was locked because of your attempt at hijacking it. You are MORE than welcome to create your own thread to push whatever it is you're pushing, and as I've recalled, there have been plenty of threads on this very subject. Thus, your incursion into that thread, AND, under a very false premise of some "non local phonon" supposedly said by me, is astoundingly weird.

And oh, this thread, just like the other one, is done. If you have complaints about my actions, you can submit that to the Feedback forum or the Administrators.

Zz.
 

Related Threads for: References for ZapperZ

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
871
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Top