What do physics geeks think of Gravitons?

Since this little tangent was spawned by a mistyping, maybe we could drop it?

Fine, Perfection, get that chip of your shoulder, you'll live longer.:rolleyes:

Maybe you shouldn't have randomly listed particles in the first place.

And even if you had a list you coulda just said "pretty much everything" for what gravity interacts with.

Obviously you have no understanding of simple English so lets drop it, if you don't like the explanation who the hell cares, except you obviously.
 
Exactly! I'm a complete and utter moron! [party]

I never said that, but if your going to pick on everything I write then you are being pretty petty. I don't think 50 wanted the explanation of QED,QCD QMD and field theory, if you'll note the first post I tried to give people an understanding of

Graviton~electron(or graviton is poorly or very roughly equivalent to the electron)
Higg's Boson~photon(or is poorly or very roughly equivalent to the photon)

Obviously referring to electromagnetic radiation.

Why complicate things by explaining the entire range of interactions?
 
I'm not asking you to give a full explination of everything, it's just that if you're going to try for more you should be right. Here's what would have been a better response response:

on topic: so what exactly are these things? particles that constitute gravity?
Yep!
 
I'm not asking you to give a full explination of everything. Here's what would have been a better response response:

Yep!

Yeah that gives him an understanding.Let's drop it, you obviously have reverted to just picking on every post I make like with the Ice/methane volcanoes thing, and that wasn't even me who made the riddle it was a quote by someone else. Look if I'm going to have to spend hours debating every little mistake I make, I might as well not bother saying anything. And in fact in future I wont, obviously it irks you for some reason.

Oh and Perfection given what I was trying to give equivalence too I am absolutely correct, stop being obsessivley picky. It's a very unflattering characteristic.
 
I never said that, but if your going to pick on everything I write then you are being pretty petty. I don't think 50 wanted the explanation of QED,QCD QMD and field theory, if you'll note the first post I tried to give people an understanding of

Graviton~electron(or graviton is poorly or very roughly equivalent to the electron)
Higg's Boson~photon(or is poorly or very roughly equivalent to the photon)

Obviously referring to electromagnetic radiation.
Um? The graviton is the hypothetical gravitational analogue of the photon, not of the electron.
 
Yeah that gives him an understanding.Let's drop it, you obviously have reverted to just picking on every post I make like with the Ice/methane volcanoes thing, and that wasn't even me who made the riddle it was a quote by someone else.
Well, if your riddle gives off a massive amount of misconceptions about vulcanism in our solar system I think I should be able to object even if it is with someone else.

Oh and Perfection given what I was trying to give equivalence too I am absolutely correct, stop being obsessivley picky. It's a very unflattering characteristic.
Science is obsessively picky, exactness is important.

Seriously, you need to stop taking every question about your science posts as some sort of insult. Being challanged by others is one of the best ways to flush out our own misconceptions.
 
Well, if your riddle gives off a massive amount of misconceptions about vulcanism in our solar system I think I should be able to object even if it is with someone else.

Science is obsessively picky, exactness is important.

Seriously, you need to stop taking every question about your science posts as some sort of insult. Being challanged by others is one of the best ways to flush out our own misconceptions.

Perfection, ESA called them methane volcanoes, I could call lava volcanoes, sulphur volcanoes, magma volcanoes or anything and I wouldn't expect someone to obsess about it. It wasn't even me who said it anyway. Who the hell cares?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I said in context, I think your just doing it because you have a chip on your shoulder about me, if anyone else would have posted that you would have let it go as there is absolutely nothing contraversial or incorrect about any of it.

Do I try and intimate that forces only interact with one particle, no, so where's your beef?
 
Perfection, ESA called them methane volcanoes, I could call lava volcanoes, sulphur volcanoes, magma volcanoes or anything and I wouldn't expect someone to obsess about it.
No, ESA called them "ice-volcanoes" or "cryo-volcanoes". http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cassini-Huygens/SEM1531DU8E_0.html

The reason they don't call them "Methane volcanoes" is as I mentioned here that the amount of methane released is relatively small and not descriptive of the volcano's behavior.

Additionally that was just one of many errors you made there

It wasn't even me who said it anyway. Who the hell cares?
I care! I have a fancy for planetology and I dont like falsities being spread. And I honestly don't care who said it, bad science is bad science.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I said in context, I think your just doing it because you have a chip on your shoulder about me, if anyone else would have posted that you would have let it go as there is absolutely nothing contraversial or incorrect about any of it.
Then why did TLC object and still continues to object to it (albiet to a different point then me).

Do I try and intimate that forces only interact with one particle, no, so where's your beef?
Well, your list wasn't so much as overtly wrong as much as difficult to understand.
 
That's nice, but will any of this result in repulsor lifts or gravity guns down the line?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

Maybe who knows, this theory came out in the 50's it's alleged that the chief of the US NASA's space program wrote to him after hearing about it and asked if he should bother with rocketry. However it's considered very controversial, most people take it with a pinch of salt, but there are peer reviewed papers out there, I've seen one that was sent to NASA, I don't think it panned out though :).

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200

Spoiler :
Take a leap into hyperspace

* 05 January 2006

EVERY year, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics awards prizes for the best papers presented at its annual conference. Last year's winner in the nuclear and future flight category went to a paper calling for experimental tests of an astonishing new type of engine. According to the paper, this hyperdrive motor would propel a craft through another dimension at enormous speeds. It could leave Earth at lunchtime and get to the moon in time for dinner. There's just one catch: the idea relies on an obscure and largely unrecognised kind of physics. Can they possibly be serious?

The AIAA is certainly not embarrassed. What's more, the US military has begun to cast its eyes over the hyperdrive concept, and a space propulsion researcher at the US Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories has said he would be interested in putting the idea to the test. And despite the bafflement of most physicists at the theory that supposedly underpins it, Pavlos Mikellides, an aerospace engineer at the Arizona State University in Tempe who reviewed the winning paper, stands by the committee's choice. "Even though such features have been explored before, this particular approach is quite unique," he says.

Unique it certainly is. If the experiment gets the go-ahead and works, it could reveal new interactions between the fundamental forces of nature that would change the future of space travel. Forget spending six months or more holed up in a rocket on the way to Mars, a round trip on the hyperdrive could take as little as 5 hours. All our worries about astronauts' muscles wasting away or their DNA being irreparably damaged by cosmic radiation would disappear overnight. What's more the device would put travel to the stars within reach for the first time. But can the hyperdrive really get off the ground?
“A hyperdrive craft would put the stars within reach for the first time”

The answer to that question hinges on the work of a little-known German physicist. Burkhard Heim began to explore the hyperdrive propulsion concept in the 1950s as a spin-off from his attempts to heal the biggest divide in physics: the rift between quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Quantum theory describes the realm of the very small - atoms, electrons and elementary particles - while general relativity deals with gravity. The two theories are immensely successful in their separate spheres. The clash arises when it comes to describing the basic structure of space. In general relativity, space-time is an active, malleable fabric. It has four dimensions - three of space and one of time - that deform when masses are placed in them. In Einstein's formulation, the force of gravity is a result of the deformation of these dimensions. Quantum theory, on the other hand, demands that space is a fixed and passive stage, something simply there for particles to exist on. It also suggests that space itself must somehow be made up of discrete, quantum elements.

In the early 1950s, Heim began to rewrite the equations of general relativity in a quantum framework. He drew on Einstein's idea that the gravitational force emerges from the dimensions of space and time, but suggested that all fundamental forces, including electromagnetism, might emerge from a new, different set of dimensions. Originally he had four extra dimensions, but he discarded two of them believing that they did not produce any forces, and settled for adding a new two-dimensional "sub-space" onto Einstein's four-dimensional space-time.

In Heim's six-dimensional world, the forces of gravity and electromagnetism are coupled together. Even in our familiar four-dimensional world, we can see a link between the two forces through the behaviour of fundamental particles such as the electron. An electron has both mass and charge. When an electron falls under the pull of gravity its moving electric charge creates a magnetic field. And if you use an electromagnetic field to accelerate an electron you move the gravitational field associated with its mass. But in the four dimensions we know, you cannot change the strength of gravity simply by cranking up the electromagnetic field.

In Heim's view of space and time, this limitation disappears. He claimed it is possible to convert electromagnetic energy into gravitational and back again, and speculated that a rotating magnetic field could reduce the influence of gravity on a spacecraft enough for it to take off.

When he presented his idea in public in 1957, he became an instant celebrity. Wernher von Braun, the German engineer who at the time was leading the Saturn rocket programme that later launched astronauts to the moon, approached Heim about his work and asked whether the expensive Saturn rockets were worthwhile. And in a letter in 1964, the German relativity theorist Pascual Jordan, who had worked with the distinguished physicists Max Born and Werner Heisenberg and was a member of the Nobel committee, told Heim that his plan was so important "that its successful experimental treatment would without doubt make the researcher a candidate for the Nobel prize".

But all this attention only led Heim to retreat from the public eye. This was partly because of his severe multiple disabilities, caused by a lab accident when he was still in his teens. But Heim was also reluctant to disclose his theory without an experiment to prove it. He never learned English because he did not want his work to leave the country. As a result, very few people knew about his work and no one came up with the necessary research funding. In 1958 the aerospace company Bölkow did offer some money, but not enough to do the proposed experiment.

While Heim waited for more money to come in, the company's director, Ludwig Bölkow, encouraged him to develop his theory further. Heim took his advice, and one of the results was a theorem that led to a series of formulae for calculating the masses of the fundamental particles - something conventional theories have conspicuously failed to achieve. He outlined this work in 1977 in the Max Planck Institute's journal Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, his only peer-reviewed paper. In an abstruse way that few physicists even claim to understand, the formulae work out a particle's mass starting from physical characteristics, such as its charge and angular momentum.

Yet the theorem has proved surprisingly powerful. The standard model of physics, which is generally accepted as the best available theory of elementary particles, is incapable of predicting a particle's mass. Even the accepted means of estimating mass theoretically, known as lattice quantum chromodynamics, only gets to between 1 and 10 per cent of the experimental values.
Gravity reduction

But in 1982, when researchers at the German Electron Synchrotron (DESY) in Hamburg implemented Heim's mass theorem in a computer program, it predicted masses of fundamental particles that matched the measured values to within the accuracy of experimental error. If they are let down by anything, it is the precision to which we know the values of the fundamental constants. Two years after Heim's death in 2001, his long-term collaborator Illobrand von Ludwiger calculated the mass formula using a more accurate gravitational constant. "The masses came out even more precise," he says.

After publishing the mass formulae, Heim never really looked at hyperspace propulsion again. Instead, in response to requests for more information about the theory behind the mass predictions, he spent all his time detailing his ideas in three books published in German. It was only in 1980, when the first of his books came to the attention of a retired Austrian patent officer called Walter Dröscher, that the hyperspace propulsion idea came back to life. Dröscher looked again at Heim's ideas and produced an "extended" version, resurrecting the dimensions that Heim originally discarded. The result is "Heim-Dröscher space", a mathematical description of an eight-dimensional universe.

From this, Dröscher claims, you can derive the four forces known in physics: the gravitational and electromagnetic forces, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. But there's more to it than that. "If Heim's picture is to make sense," Dröscher says, "we are forced to postulate two more fundamental forces." These are, Dröscher claims, related to the familiar gravitational force: one is a repulsive anti-gravity similar to the dark energy that appears to be causing the universe's expansion to accelerate. And the other might be used to accelerate a spacecraft without any rocket fuel.

This force is a result of the interaction of Heim's fifth and sixth dimensions and the extra dimensions that Dröscher introduced. It produces pairs of "gravitophotons", particles that mediate the interconversion of electromagnetic and gravitational energy. Dröscher teamed up with Jochem Häuser, a physicist and professor of computer science at the University of Applied Sciences in Salzgitter, Germany, to turn the theoretical framework into a proposal for an experimental test. The paper they produced, "Guidelines for a space propulsion device based on Heim's quantum theory", is what won the AIAA's award last year.

Claims of the possibility of "gravity reduction" or "anti-gravity" induced by magnetic fields have been investigated by NASA before (New Scientist, 12 January 2002, p 24). But this one, Dröscher insists, is different. "Our theory is not about anti-gravity. It's about completely new fields with new properties," he says. And he and Häuser have suggested an experiment to prove it.

This will require a huge rotating ring placed above a superconducting coil to create an intense magnetic field. With a large enough current in the coil, and a large enough magnetic field, Dröscher claims the electromagnetic force can reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free. Dröscher and Häuser say that to completely counter Earth's pull on a 150-tonne spacecraft a magnetic field of around 25 tesla would be needed. While that's 500,000 times the strength of Earth's magnetic field, pulsed magnets briefly reach field strengths up to 80 tesla. And Dröscher and Häuser go further. With a faster-spinning ring and an even stronger magnetic field, gravitophotons would interact with conventional gravity to produce a repulsive anti-gravity force, they suggest.
“A spinning ring and a strong magnetic field could produce a repulsive anti-gravity force”

Dröscher is hazy about the details, but he suggests that a spacecraft fitted with a coil and ring could be propelled into a multidimensional hyperspace. Here the constants of nature could be different, and even the speed of light could be several times faster than we experience. If this happens, it would be possible to reach Mars in less than 3 hours and a star 11 light years away in only 80 days, Dröscher and Häuser say.

So is this all fanciful nonsense, or a revolution in the making? The majority of physicists have never heard of Heim theory, and most of those contacted by New Scientist said they couldn't make sense of Dröscher and Häuser's description of the theory behind their proposed experiment. Following Heim theory is hard work even without Dröscher's extension, says Markus Pössel, a theoretical physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam, Germany. Several years ago, while an undergraduate at the University of Hamburg, he took a careful look at Heim theory. He says he finds it "largely incomprehensible", and difficult to tie in with today's physics. "What is needed is a step-by-step introduction, beginning at modern physical concepts," he says.

The general consensus seems to be that Dröscher and Häuser's theory is incomplete at best, and certainly extremely difficult to follow. And it has not passed any normal form of peer review, a fact that surprised the AIAA prize reviewers when they made their decision. "It seemed to be quite developed and ready for such publication," Mikellides told New Scientist.

At the moment, the main reason for taking the proposal seriously must be Heim theory's uncannily successful prediction of particle masses. Maybe, just maybe, Heim theory really does have something to contribute to modern physics. "As far as I understand it, Heim theory is ingenious," says Hans Theodor Auerbach, a theoretical physicist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich who worked with Heim. "I think that physics will take this direction in the future."

It may be a long while before we find out if he's right. In its present design, Dröscher and Häuser's experiment requires a magnetic coil several metres in diameter capable of sustaining an enormous current density. Most engineers say that this is not feasible with existing materials and technology, but Roger Lenard, a space propulsion researcher at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico thinks it might just be possible. Sandia runs an X-ray generator known as the Z machine which "could probably generate the necessary field intensities and gradients".

For now, though, Lenard considers the theory too shaky to justify the use of the Z machine. "I would be very interested in getting Sandia interested if we could get a more perspicacious introduction to the mathematics behind the proposed experiment," he says. "Even if the results are negative, that, in my mind, is a successful experiment."
From issue 2533 of New Scientist magazine, 05 January 2006, page 24
Who was Burkhard Heim?

Burkhard Heim had a remarkable life. Born in 1925 in Potsdam, Germany, he decided at the age of 6 that he wanted to become a rocket scientist. He disguised his designs in code so that no one could discover his secret. And in the cellar of his parents' house, he experimented with high explosives. But this was to lead to disaster.

Towards the end of the second world war, he worked as an explosives developer, and an accident in 1944 in which a device exploded in his hands left him permanently disabled. He lost both his forearms, along with 90 per cent of his hearing and eyesight.

After the war, he attended university in Göttingen to study physics. The idea of propelling a spacecraft using quantum mechanics rather than rocket fuel led him to study general relativity and quantum mechanics. It took an enormous effort. From 1948, his father and wife replaced his senses, spending hours reading papers and transcribing his calculations onto paper. And he developed a photographic memory.

Supporters of Heim theory claim that it is a panacea for the troubles in modern physics. They say it unites quantum mechanics and general relativity, can predict the masses of the building blocks of matter from first principles, and can even explain the state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.


Spoiler :
Testing Heim's theories

* 18 February 2006


I was glad to see Haiko Lietz's article on Burkhard Heim's theories (7 January, p 24). I do not believe the American military industrial complex of the 1950s ignored his work.

Heim presented his theory at two International Astronautical Federation (IAF) congress sessions: 1952 in Stuttgart, Germany, and 1954 in Innsbruck, Austria. Andrew G. Haley of the American Rocket Society was IAF vice-president during both of Heim's presentations. Frederick C. Durant III was the IAF president during the 1954 session. Durant was a member of the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence. Considering the nature of the cold war paranoia of that period in history, it is reasonable to assume Durant was compelled to notify policy-makers and researchers in America about Heim's claims.

A few years after Heim's IAF presentations, one of the largest aerospace firms in the US initiated contact with him for gravity propulsion research. The New York Herald-Tribune (20 November 1955) and The Miami Herald (30 November 1955) reported the completion of contractual arrangements between Burkhard Heim and the Glen Martin Aircraft Company Research Institute for Advanced Study (RIAS) in Baltimore, Maryland. The creator of RIAS, George S. Trimble, told astronautics historian Lloyd Mallan his two goals were: "Space flight and the control of the force of gravity itself for propulsion."

The second agency interested in Heim's work was the Gravity Research Foundation of New Boston, New Hampshire. In 1956, Heim sent the Gravity Research Foundation a 17-page progress report. It summarised his philosophy (syntrometry) and his theory (principle of dynamic contrabarie) for coupling general relativity with quantum dynamics for propulsion applications. Sample calculations for an expedition to Mars appeared at the end of the report.

By an apparent coincidence, the US air force immediately acquired an intense appetite for general relativity and quantum dynamics research. During September 1956, the General Physics Laboratory of the Aeronautical Research Laboratories (ARL) at Wright-Patterson air force base in Dayton, Ohio, hired Joshua N. Goldberg. He was to direct a strong in-house programme that coordinated support of research into gravitational and unified field theories. The ARL programme generated more than 70 papers that were published in peer-reviewed journals, and compiled 18 technical reports. None cited Heim's work, but it is possible that the undocumented purpose for creating Goldberg's programme may have been to reconstruct or replicate Heim's work from fundamental principles.

The literature evinces formal interest in Heim's work by the Gravity Research Foundation and RIAS. ARL possessed the resources during the paranoia of the cold war to study Heim's theory. Subsequently, I believe at least one of those agencies must have thoroughly examined Heim's theories.
 
Perfection. I think this is silly. :) Suffice to say your arguing over a typo that was up for precisely 3 seconds before I corrected it. So let it go.
 
I think gravitons are part of God's design, and support (if such were needed) of Intelligent Falling.

Newton be damned.
 
I think gravitons are part of God's design, and support (if such were needed) of Intelligent Falling.

Newton be damned.

No that would be the FSM pushing things down to Earth, which is a different sort of intelligent falling, how dare you spread your nonsense religion! I will not have Heretics ruining a perfectly good scientific discussion with religious nonsense, this is not a Perfection KO's creationism type thread!:mad::gripe: [pissed] ;) :D

More of this bunk here:-:rolleyes:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

Amen :lol:
 
I will not have Heretics ruining a perfectly good scientific discussion with religious nonsense

Ah, I see. I thought this was another "Perfection needles Sidhe unnecessarily" type thread. My bad.
 
Ah, I see. I thought this was another "Perfection needles Sidhe unnecessarily" type thread. My bad.

I'd argue that it's necessary. It's not like Sidhe has any plans in majoring in physics, so only more knowledge will only help his curiosity in it.

I'd like to see how he would react if he talked with KH on Apolyton myself. :lol:

Sidhe, your knowledge level of Physics is commendable for a layman, but try not to think that you're an expert. If you're corrected, don't take that as an insult.
 
I'd argue that it's necessary. It's not like Sidhe has any plans in majoring in physics, so only more knowledge will only help his curiosity in it.

I'd like to see how he would react if he talked with KH on Apolyton myself. :lol:

Sidhe, your knowledge level of Physics is commendable for a layman, but try not to think that you're an expert. If you're corrected, don't take that as an insult.

Bill3000 I wasn't corrected I didn't make a mistake, I made a typo that was corrected, TLC had spotted an error where I wrote electron instead of photon as the mediator particle by mistake, by the time he had posted it was corrected so it became redundant, and then Perfection posted mistakenly thinking I had actually made an error but there wasn't one, so I fail to see what her point was? Perfection got the wrong end of the stick and apparently we ended up where we are, in a complete mess, because of a misinterpretation. Honestly there is nothing I have said that is controversial or untrue at all.

Bill3000 I am doing that exactly, I am studying maths with a view to doing a degree in physics? I just happen to enjoy reading about it as well :lol:

I frequent the Physics Forum anyway, I know how to be respectful when talking to experts. Where do you think I get my information from, the interweb and forums etc. :)

Yes more knowledge would help me, but pointing out errors that don't exist is pointless :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom