Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.


mme...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1161651800.088343.78310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mainargv@xxxxxxxxx writes:
oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
They tell you that there are this and that particle, photons,
electrons, and other interesting corner cases.
While they could have told you, there was just this one equation,
derived from the second derivative of Maxwell's equations, that they
regularly do math tricks with. No wonder no one will give a straight
face explanation where that quantum wave function came from. Every
introductory textbook either fudge the argument to unimpenetrable depth
to tell you how you must accept the wave function as a postulate. Of
course no one understands it, because there was no argument, no
insight, just an empty framework for people to do experiments to fill
in the corner cases. Now, that's a good strategy.

You know, some days ago when you started posting it appeared, briefly,
that you may be worth some investment of time. This impression is
rapidly fading, though. Nothing wrong with ignorance per se (we're
all ignorant of many things), it is curablebut only if you realize
that you've a lot to learn before trying to make pronouncements. The
way you're progressing now you're on path to become another Savain.

And, no, QM is not derived from the second derivative of Maxwell's
equations.

Where does it come from then?
Why does it look so much like Maxwell's [ del^2 E = u0e0 (d/dt)^2 E ]
with E replaced by psi,
and the constant replaced by 1/v^2 ? and the requirement v must be
constant?
Also P=psi^2=1 => del psi=0.
Of course, everything developed under this framework is right, because
they automatically satisfy classical EM. I was harsh saying there was
no good insight, there was probably very good insight.
You need a very good argument to convince me otherwise.


Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | chances are he is doing just the same"

.