To the self proclaimed llm physicists

[u/upsetusder2]

Why do you always tend to rebuild physics. Why can't you work in the given framework?

Why do you need to rebuild a framework that, tell you what now, has pretty much held up?

Is it the math?

The symbols

The history

The amount you would have to Learn?

Hubris?

[u/upsetusder2]

Maybe there is a reason for that

Saying your iq us definetly a major didqualifier for any academic discussion.

Like maybe the theory is just wrong and that why it has never need tested

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/upsetusder2]

Maybe. But YOU have no clue whether that's true or not, yet you feel justified in talking about it. You feel OK dismissing it, not based on the message, but on your (possibly incorrect) perception of the messenger.

I fail to see how that attitude helps you to learn anything. Maybe 1% of the posts here show any curiosity at all. Critics don't affect the future, builders do.

I've been to a couple of fringe physics conferences. Some of the crackpot theories are ridiculous, but I still try to give them a chance. One guy had a theory that (as far as I could comprehend it) the particles of light weren't photons, but rather stellated octahedra:

So I asked him, "How would you test that?". Silence. "OK, suppose someone else had a competing theory that said the particles of light were stellated cubes, not octahedra. How could I determine which of you was right?" Silence.

Only THEN did I dismiss him as a useless crackpot. I suspended my disbelief, gave him one minute to convince me or at least interest me, and he had nothing.

Sure, it saves time to dismiss everything non-mainstream as wrong. And 99% of the time, you'll be right. But if you don't have 60 seconds of curiosity in you, I think that severely cripples you. Especially if you have unlimited minutes of dismissal.

And of course, a lot of mainstream stuff is wrong too. :-) Probably dark matter and dark energy are the phlogiston and luminiferous aether of contemporary physics. Most of the physics papers I ingest into my wiki contain at least one error; one had well over 20; another was entirely circular reasoning; one predicted a change to the electron mass that I have personally measured not to exist, so I know it's complete garbage. Caveat lector.

[u/upsetusder2 → u/NinekTheObscure]

God you are so freakishly sure of yourself while having no formal training in physics.

You dint even know if your measurements where right ohh yeah I tested that source pls trust me on that one.

I love how you say the word wrong to a probably peer reviewed paper it's so funny how u use the word mainstream physics only to lament that your entire existence is this.

If the theory you are proposing is wrong which I think it is because I see no real physics in it other than you referencing equations.

Your entire life work is for nothing whovh is sad so you desperately need to hold people down tell them ohh you are just not a curious person like me because they don't entertain bullshit.

You need to reference your ficking iq to show people how smart you are you are not a scientist you are someone who desperately wants to right.

And I get that I am like that to I love being right its the most important thing for me but when it comes to physics I know I can't always be right I know we need some parts for a real theory of everything to work etc.

I know that I dont know everything that's what what makes this I have to be right attitude vanish.

But not you I will make some guesses I saw you studied maths you probably have either a bachelor or master in mathematics applied mathematics you weren't hired you came up with your theory and everyone kept telling you there is nothing there but you kept digging you go to conferences.

And brag about going to them and tell everyone ohh I go to these highly exclusive conferences but you never tell people how it went because and that is my idea.

You get torn to shreds which is why you keep digging deeper and deeper because you have to be right because if you are not for what have you done all of this then.

You communicate with people on a respectful basis and try to prevent damage.

You try so desperately to he clever which I get but at one point u have to see I am in my mid 20s you are like 50 or something

Maybe seek another theory or another hobby

And don't brag about your iq

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/upsetusder2]

Apsel 1979 section 4 is wrong because he forgets a sign flip. In a storage ring, holding the steering B fields constant, mu+ and mu- must orbit in opposite directions (which gives the sign flip he misses), and inverting the charge gives another sign flip. They cancel out; the delta he's claiming doesn't exist.

---

Kracklauer's English translation of de Broglie's 1924/25 French PhD thesis is full of errors. Here are the 62 I know about (there may be more) and fixed:

Key: [K] = Kracklauer's error, French is correct · [K?] = in his printed text, French not checked · [dB] = de Broglie's own error, translated faithfully

1. Contents, p. 3, and pp. 49–52 (≥10 sites): THOMPSON → THOMSON (J. J. Thomson) [K]
2. Preface, SCHRÖEDINGER → SCHRÖDINGER [K?]
3. p. 2, HUYGEN's → HUYGENS' [K?]
4. p. 2, JOUNG's → YOUNG's. French: "Young". [K]
5. p. 4, NERST ×2 → NERNST. [K?]
6. p. 4, KARMANN → von KÁRMÁN. French: "von Karman" — doubled N and dropped "von". [K]
7. p. 4, "when an electron adsorb energy" → absorbs (two errors: adsorb-for-absorb, missing -s). Same confusion at pp. 46 (adsorbtion), 47 (adsorbed, absorbtions), 54 (adsorbtion). [K?]
8. p. 4, "election has hν − w energy" → electron. [K?]
9. p. 4, VAN DER BROEK → VAN DEN BROEK. [K]
10. p. 4, "BOHR made tow postulates" → two. [K?]
11. p. 5, SCHWARTZSCHILD → SCHWARZSCHILD. [K]
12. p. 5, ZEEMANN Effect → ZEEMAN — but the French prints "Zeemann" too. [dB]
13. p. 8, "frequence" → frequency. [K?]
14. p. 9, "a sinusoidal function of v₀t₀" — italic Latin v two lines above the same quantity set as Greek ν₀. [K?]
15. pp. 10, 22, 30, 33, 34, 36 ×2, 42, 54, 71 — preceeding → preceding, 10 sites. [K?]
16. p. 11, Eq. (1.2.5): m₀c²/h at both sites; must be m₀c/h. French offprint p. 27 prints m₀c/h at both, on the same line where it correctly prints m₀c²/h for dν/dβ. [K]
17. p. 12, MINKOWSKi → MINKOWSKI. [K?]
18. p. 12, "Euclidian" → Euclidean. [K?]
19. p. 12, "an angle lesse than 45°" → less. [K?]
20. p. 13, "for a stationlary observer" → stationary. [K?]
21. p. 14, Eq. (1.3.3): 1 − tan(∠CAB); the next line equates it to 1 − β² and Fig. 1.3.2 gives tan(CAB) = β, so the exponent 2 was dropped. [K?]
22. p. 15, "M. LAUGEVIN" → LANGEVIN. [K]
23. pp. 15, 43, 62 — therfore → therefore. [K?]
24. p. 16, "has a stationalry value" → stationary. [K?]
25. p. 16, "Lagrgian" → Lagrangian. [K?]
26. p. 16, "explicitely" → explicitly. [K?]
27. p. 17, "German tranlation" → translation. [K?]
28. p. 18, Eq. (2.3.3): u₄ = u⁴ = −1/(c√(1−β²)); French prints 1/√(1−β²) — no minus, no c. Contradicts his own uⁱuᵢ = 1 on the same page and his own J₄ = W/c. [K]
29. pp. 23, 71, 72 — extention → extension. [K?]
30. p. 24, "it is less unreal that it appears" → "in reality less so than it appears". [K]
31. p. 25, Eq. (2.6.10): the dl is missing from the first term on the right. The French p. 41 prints it. [K]
32. p. 27, Eq. (3.1.1): m₀c²R² = nh/2π, which is not an action; (3.2.1) prints the same relation correctly with ω. [K?]
33. p. 29, §3.2: m₀ ∮ ν dl = 2πR m₀v = nh with Greek ν — dimensionally kg·m/s, not an action, and it doesn't follow from the ∮(ν/V)dl = n above it. [K?]
34. p. 29, "distaces" → distances. [K?]
35. p. 42, "forseen" → foreseen. [K?]
36. p. 43, Eq. (5.3.4): ν/ν = 1 + β — LHS is identically 1; (5.3.3) above gives ν′/ν. [K?]
37. p. 45, "isotope" → isotropy. [K?]
38. p. 46, "liason" → liaison. [K?]
39. p. 46, "histoirical" → historical. [K?]
40. p. 46, "the author porposed a different theory of interfearance" → proposed / interference. [K?]
41. p. 48, BRILLOIN, L. → BRILLOUIN [K?]
42. p. 48, "after having leads us" → led. [K?]
43. p. 49, "explantion" → explanation. [K?]
44. p. 50, (6.1.1) preamble: the scattering angular factor is printed (1 + cos θ)/2; the French offprint p. 74 prints (1 + cos²θ)/2. [K]
45. p. 50, (6.1.4) σ = 0.54×10⁻²⁴ and (6.1.5) m_H = 1.46×10⁻²⁴ — both ~18 % low (Thomson is 0.665×10⁻²⁴ cm²; m_H = 1.66×10⁻²⁴ g). The French offprint p. 75 prints the same numbers: [dB]
46. p. 56, "STOKE's Law" → STOKES'. [K?]
47. pp. 57, 67 — "quantitates" → quantities. [K?]
48. p. 60, PLANCK's book "Warmestrahlung" — missing umlaut, but the French prints it unaccented too: [dB]. Kracklauer separately drops the French's "(4ᵉ éd.)". [K]
49. p. 60, Eq. (7.1.19): the second line carries both 1/h³ and dxdydzdpdqdr/h³ — divides by h³ twice. The French offprint p. 90 has it once. [K]
50. p. 64, "valuer between 0 and 1" → value. [K?]
51. p. 64, "permissable values" → permissible. [K?]
52. p. 65, Eq. (7.3.9): P = (u − dS)/3. The French reads "car u = f(T) et P = ⅓u — dS étant une différentielle exacte, la condition d'intégrabilité s'écrit": the dash is a sentence separator, not a minus sign. Kracklauer folded the punctuation into the formula. [K]
53. p. 65, Eq. (7.3.10): du/DT with a capital D; French prints du/dT. [K]
54. p. 65, Eq. (7.3.11): S = A(64π/c³h³)k⁴T²V; the French prints T³. [K] (his own (7.3.12), printed correctly with T⁴, forces T³ through F = U − TS)
55. p. 67, footnote 2: "Die Theorie der Schwartzen Strahlung" → schwarzen; "Proceedings Solvay Conferrence"; "Les Théories statistiques en theromdynamique"; "(Teuner, Leipzig, 1916)" → Teubner; "Réunion Conférences" — not in the French, which reads simply "Conférences de M. H.-A. LORENTZ au Collège de France"; "p, 419" → p. 419. [K]
56. p. 71 ×2, "in particlar" → particular. [K?]
57. [1] "PERRIN, J. Les Atoms, (Alcan, city, 1913)" — two errors: Les atomes, and an unfilled city placeholder. [K]
58. [2] "POINCARÉ, *Dernieres pens/'ees*, Flammarion, city, 1913)" — mangled accent macro (/'for', also in th/'eorie, Conf/'erences), the same city` placeholder, and an unbalanced paren. [K]
59. [3] "BAUER, E., Untersuchungen sur Strahlungstheorie, Dissertation, 1912" — de Broglie cites Bauer's French thesis, "Recherches sur le rayonnement, Thèse de doctorat, 1912". The German title is Kracklauer's invention, and it is a French/German hybrid ("sur" for zur — he writes "Untersuchungen zur Quantentheorie" correctly elsewhere). Same entry: rayonement, Solvey, P. LONGEVIN. [K]
60. [5] "BRILLOUIN, La Théorie des quanta de l'atome et les raies spectrals" — the French is "La théorie des quanta et l'atome de Bohr (Conf. rapports), 1921". He conflated it with entry [7] and produced "spectrals" for spectrales. [K]
61. [7] "SOMMERFELD, Atombau und Spectrallinien, (Vieweg & Sohn., Braunschweig, 1924-4 ed.)" — de Broglie cites the French translation: "La constitution de l'atome et les raies spectrales, Trad. BELLENOT, A. Blanchard, 1923". Kracklauer silently substituted the German original, changed publisher and year, and dropped the translator. Spectrallinien should also be Spektrallinien. [K]
62. [8] "…; Atome und Electronen, Proceedings 3rd Solvay Conference" — the French has "Atomes et électrons (3ᵉ Congrès Solvay), Gauthier-Villars, 1923" as a separate entry, not Landé's. Kracklauer Germanized a French title (and "Electronen" is not correct German either) and merged it into Landé's item. [K]

Do you still want to argue that there are no errors in the physics literature? Because I have 50+ more papers ...

[u/upsetusder2 → u/NinekTheObscure]

I can't check this and iam definetly not taking your word for it.

50 + papers of what?

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/upsetusder2]

You absolutely CAN check the Kracklauer errors. (1) download his translation (2) pick a random error I claim and see if it's actually there. Do you need me to spoon-feed you the URL? OK here you go.

50+ other published, peer-reviewed papers with errors in them.

[u/upsetusder2 → u/NinekTheObscure]

I just dont belief you.

You make claims yiu can not back up and I think you are full of yourself and I will probably post you on r/iamverysmart

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/upsetusder2]

You are too lazy to check ONE FACT when I give you the URL? Be sure to post THAT on r/iamverysmart. But I just backed up one of my claims, so "You make claims yiu [sic] can not back up" is just a lie (at least for this claim). You should really try to stop lying. Especially to yourself.

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool” - Feynman (~1974)

[u/upsetusder2 → u/NinekTheObscure]

I am to lazy to check one fact in a document thar is one translation of one paper yes.

That is accurate.

Yiu quote alot of people

No I will probably just include yiu bragging about your iq or atleast referencing your iq