Isn't this supposed to be a debate forum?

[Justice Hunter]

The last exit of all who fight a lost cause

You misunderstand, I'm actually insulting you based on what you said. There is no argument here. You and many of your science advisors are bad at advising. You don't listen to questions, and you don't give good answers. That's why most of the threads end up being closed, or end in the questions not even being answered.

One of the answers in the OP's thread was this : " the OP should construct an alternative theory of physics (sans Hilbert space, etc), compatible with all empirical results, and get it published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. (Good luck with that.)"

This is the least constructive thing I've ever read coming from a science forum. Not only is it degrading and belittling, but your advise to someone is to tell them to go make their own theories with little to no reason as to why they should. How is that not counter productive to what a science advisor is supposed to do...you're supposed to answer questions and give advise as to WHY there are no other formalisms on Hilbert space, and even PROVING that is the case since you know the science...not just tell them to go make their own theories because we're right and you're wrong wtf?

 

[Ibix]

Yes. You must obey everything Peter says as gospel because he know all things and is god.

You are absolutely determined to paint us all as irredeemably stupid, aren't you?

Should OP take your word for it that there is no other formalism of Quantum Mechanics?

Mine? Hell no. I was just paraphrasing the answers he got.

Then low and behold 10 years later someone comes up with another, better formalism on Quantum Mechanics.

Lo and behold, I think. If this formalism isn't going to be invented for ten years how are we supposed to discuss it now? If you, or anyone, wish to develop a new formalism then good luck to you - but PhysicsForums is not the appropriate venue. We explicitly don't do theory development here.

Again this isn't about how much science you know, this is about how you advise, respond to questions and silence them without actually analyzing the question really.

We analysed your "conjecture" sufficiently, including pointing out ways you could convince us (an experiment to detect an effect of "at rest" or "not at rest"). If you didn't understand the responses it's on you to ask questions about the responses, not just repeat yourself but in bold face this time. And the OP of this thread, on whose behalf you are so fiercely battling, agreed before you even started that he'd actually got what he was looking for from his thread.

 

[fresh_42]

This is the least constructive thing I've ever read coming from a science forum.

Then you never have been on one. If you want a subject to be discussed on a science forum, then the subject has to become part of science in the first place. What you were quoting is merely a description of how things become part of science, i.e. it is useful per se.

To discuss non-science on a science forum is actually a waste of time. Could it be that you confuse science with articles in some fancy magazines?

 

[Justice Hunter]

To discuss non-science on a science forum is what is actually a waste of time. Could it be that you confuse science with articles in some fancy magazines?

Why should i have to be as educated on you in the subject? If I was then why should I bother coming to the forum in the first place to ask you any questions to you anyway? Can't see how your own behavior is contradictory to what you are supposed to be doing?

If I, and other normies knew as much science as you, then I would have no reason to ask you anything...The same applies for everyone here that has a question ever. If people already knew the answers to the questions they wanted to ask, they wouldn't ask you.

Some of us strive to get the most relevant and true information we can...that's actually WHY we come to these forums to ask questions...questions you advisors don't actually like to answer or even bother trying, so where else is there to go other then getting our information from fancy magazines.

 

[etotheipi]

Some of us strive to get the most relevant and true information we can

And clearly you are not one of them...

I mean, you can't actually declare that you are at rest, because you need to know an infinite amount of information to do so...and physically you can't have a system where you are moving at 0% the speed of light, because it requires an infinite amount of energy to move all components in a system into your reference frame.

 

[fresh_42]

Why should i have to be as educated on you in the subject?

You don't have to. However, you are contradicting yourself. If you are not as educated as to the person who answers your question, then it is not logical to complain, that you have to take the words as gospel. You cannot doubt what you don't understand. O.k. you can, but that is leading nowhere.

 

[hutchphd]

You misunderstand, I'm actually insulting you based on what you said.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of ad hominem argument.
Then as a favor to me, perhaps you could stop prattling.

I will close with my favorite Feynman:
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

I think every good scientist understands this, but still remembers ignorance is a relative measure.

 

[berkeman]

Why should i have to be as educated on you in the subject? If I was then why should I bother coming to the forum in the first place to ask you any questions to you anyway?

Think of PF as a very good university. You and other students have come here to learn from the best educators, And you should be willing to take the prerequisite classes (and do the reading outside of class) before taking the advanced classes.

If you blurted out in class one day "But I have a better theory!", how do you think the professor and your fellow students would react? They would probably not appreciate the distraction from reality, and the introduction of noise into a high signal-to-noise environment.

We as Mentors work hard here to maintain a high S/N ratio in the technical PF forums. That is why your thread was closed.

 

[Ibix]

If I was then why should I bother coming to the forum in the first place to ask you any questions to you anyway?

You didn't really ask a question. You came with a half-baked conjecture based on a not-even-half-baked unattributed quotation. When we pointed out that you were attempting to validate nonsense, and even provided you with a way to start to explore why it was nonsense (try to find an experimental result that depends on being at rest or not) you simply repeated the nonsense. This is not an effective strategy if you genuinely want to learn. A much better one would be to get a textbook - Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler is an excellent introduction to special relativity and now free to download from Taylor's website.

Jonjacson's mistake, as far as I can see, was simply not asking a straight question. If he'd said "what formalisms apart from standard Hilbert spaces are there for QM" I expect everyone would have answered as Kolmo did. Instead he added peculiar bells and whistles to the question that appear to have led to misinterpretation by almost everyone.

 

[Ibix]

Meta point, @Justice Hunter, and then I'm going to bed: your first post on this thread complained about insults. You might like to take a look at the beam in your own eye.

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm actually insulting you based on what you said.

Hm. So you complain when you think others have insulted you, but you think it's just fine for you to insult others?

You definitely need to adjust your attitude.

That said, however:

You and many of your science advisors are bad at advising. You don't listen to questions, and you don't give good answers.

These are not actually insults. They are statements of your opinion, but it is not an opinion about anyone being a bad person. It is an opinion about how well (or in this case badly) you think the advisors and staff here at PF are doing what we say we are trying to do. It's not an insult to state such an opinion, any more than it was an insult for me (and various others) to state our opinion that what you posted in your thread that got closed was nonsense.

The question is whether your opinion is correct. The evidence you give, aside from one cherry-picked example, is basically this:

That's why most of the threads end up being closed, or end in the questions not even being answered.

So you think "most" threads on PF end up being closed, or end in the questions not even being answered? I think you are generalizing very poorly from your limited, anecdotal experience.

 

[berkeman]

We as Mentors work hard here to maintain a high S/N ratio in the technical PF forums.

It appears that the poster has left PF on a 10-day Memorial Day vacation. Accordingly this thread is closed. Thanks folks.