In spite of not having any where near as much physics education some people feel a need to prove they know more than I do. These people are never physicist themselves, they have nothing to prove. Usually they are someone with little education and/or self esteem.
For example my last blog entry "Dark Matter and Dark Energy as Undiscovered Particles of Scalar and Vector Fields.".
In which I am describing quantum field theory in curved space-time. There are no matrices being used here yet. I get this hostility laden response.
Garnered this anonymous response "Your paper contains an elementary algebraic mistake in the calculation of \sqrt{g}, which is a shorthand \sqrt{|\det(g)|},....If you don't know how to compute determinants, look it up in a Linear Algebra textbook".
I informed the person that they are wrong to think of g as the determinant of a matrix etc... because it is really a contracted metric tensor g=g^{/mu}_{/nu}. This is Einstein's summation convention, and tensor contraction in action. No determinants being taken here. What I did was perfectly proper.
What I ask of the readers is can anyone explain to me weather I was right or wrong about such a thing why would anyone word their comment with such hostility?
Comments
However the people pointing out errors are not always right either. The person who did not know the difference between tensor contraction (into a scalar) and taking a determinant of a matrix was the last straw.
Last but not least there is no need to be a jerk about pointing out an error.
Hontas Farmer | 05/14/09 | 23:37 PM
Yes, you did. After first declaring the person who pointed out the mistake as not being very clever. Next you highlight the mistake and present it as if you found out yourself. And nowhere I see you drawing the conclusion that given your mistake your whole 'theory' is blatant nonsense.
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/15/09 | 17:01 PM
I have more than one theory. There is Quantum Space time Dynamics.. a theory of quantum gravity..
Which has nothing to do with the blog posting you refer to. Which was idle conjecture on planck units and standard general relativity. That person pointed out something that was not wrong and missed my real big error!
Which has even less to do with the last blog posting I made. Which is all about very standard quantum theory, in curved space time, where that curvature is found from standard general relativity. The only new thing is conjecturing that unknown scalar and vector fields have yet to be discovered and could account for the dark matter/energy . The error in which chages none of my conclusions once it is corrected. Which was pointed out nicely and respectfully by another blogger here.
The fact that you have not read enough to see that speaks volumes about your mental faculties you read little and speak much. The fact that you can't seem to express an opinion, or make any statement without a snide remark or snippy attitude bespeaks the lack of emotional inteligence you have.
Hontas Farmer | 05/15/09 | 23:53 PM
Steve Davis | 05/15/09 | 16:25 PM
Take care.
Hontas Farmer | 05/16/09 | 00:18 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/15/09 | 16:25 PM
The Schwarzschild metric is used because it is the simplest solution to Einstein's field equations (that I know of). The sin(theta) is there because the metric is always formulated in Spherical Polar coordinates. Without the sin(theta) this would be in correct. The only way one can ignore the theta dependence is IF one assumes Azimuthal symmetry over and above spherical symmetry. What justification is there for assuming that symmetry? Otherwise the angular dependencies on both theta and phi have to be considered in general.
Hontas Farmer | 05/16/09 | 00:15 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/19/09 | 18:47 PM
The choice of coordinates does not change physics, so says Einstein. If one orients the disc of the galaxy in the x-y plane then there is no symmetry about the theta coordinate like there is if the object in question were spherical. One can ignore this and say...treat the galaxy as a true point, but that would be cheating. :-) One can also locate the disc of the galxy in the x-z or y-z plane, all that gets you is messier equations.
Do you see what I mean by Spherical but not Azimuthal (in the theta direction) symmetry?
Hontas Farmer | 05/21/09 | 12:28 PM
Don't visualise an anonymous commenter as an enemy, visualise them as Jabba the Hut. :)
Patrick Lockerby | 05/19/09 | 19:24 PM
I just can't help myself some times. I'll take your advice from now on.
You know what would be cool, if there were a way to keep unregistered users from commenting. I'm surprised we haven't experienced at least a little spamming yet.
Hontas Farmer | 05/21/09 | 12:30 PM
Hank Campbell | 05/21/09 | 12:48 PM
Hontas Farmer | 05/21/09 | 12:51 PM
I'm surprised we haven't experienced at least a little spamming yet.
Oh, they try! It's just that this site has a 'one strike and your nowt' policy!
Patrick Lockerby | 05/21/09 | 12:46 PM
-- I says, I reckon Sarge, jes' 'cause you're voting for Nixon doesn't mean I gotta vote for Nixon. How d'ya reckon on peeling some potatoes, says he --
But going Anonymous suggests that one is like a particle in a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Hontas, when you say:
One can also locate the disc of the galaxy in the x-z or y-z plane, all that gets you is messier equations.
would you object if, for a while, I turn into a mini-troll? Surely in the context of galaxies, Messier equations are what one ought to expect?
Robert H Olley | 05/21/09 | 17:32 PM
It just does not make sense to orient the disc of the galaxy in the xz or yz planes. True that would get rid of the theta dependence... But then the phi dependence would be come more complex. I just don't get how someone can look at a physical system that is a disc, and think that it can be treated exactly like a spherical object. That I have even had to have extended conversations about this surprises me.
As I said to someone. Physicist tend to be either hypercritical or too trusting. i.e. I make a minor mistake in the alphabet soup...now some people want to question my ability to multiply the diagonal terms in a matrix. If I were a well known person i could get away with a mistake or two and the same people would likely spend a good line while thinking they were wrong somehow.
Hontas Farmer | 05/21/09 | 20:31 PM
The basic problem is that physicists are social beings, as are all humans, and humans are a pack animal. The first thing a pack animal does when it meets another pack animal is to sniff its butt. With physicists, this amounts to checking out which institution you graduated from and where you are working. This is why it is very hard for outsiders to get their work listened to; the inclination is to sniff and then quit reading when you find the most trivial error (even if the error is on the part of the reader, that is enough).
On the other hand, if the physicist smells a superior, he is inclined to read and reread the paper until he understands it. After all, the great master, the product of the best institutions, couldn't have written a junk paper, it must be a problem in the reader's understanding. Unfortunately, all difficult physics papers are difficult to read.
When you are young these facts are harder to understand. As you get older, and you learn how short the human lifetime is, you will understand better why people act this way. Time is precious and they sniff in order to save themselves time.
Carl Brannen (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 10:47 AM
I suppose a real difference is when a scientist with the right smell makes a trivial error it is not used as a reason to ignore the persons work.
A issue with the open nature of a forum like this one, is that anyone can comment without any accountability, or even bothering to just make up a name.
Hontas Farmer | 07/11/09 | 11:28 AM
Your posts here do contain elementary errors. I am in fact not referring to your dark matter post (haven't even read that one), but to a recent post of you where you derive blatently wrong conclusions by an erroneous dimensional analysis.
Stay critical, and don't fall in love with your results for whatever reason.