three is a magic number

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by Albers

Search for the Stanford Alumni Monthly, 1996, and Dr. Stanton Glantz, "Tilting at Tobacco".

For those interested.

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/m...s/tobacco.html

Originally Posted by Albers

I will never go back and become like them.

Is it ever lonely?

I lost a full scholarship with paid expenses, was diagnosed insane; and, when that didn't work, was sent to the DMZ in Korea. Not bad for having served on the New Jersey in the Atlantic and Gitmo. The nice part is that I outlived all the bastards.

In the early 90s I often visited Stanford and EPRI.

[Albers]

I wrestled for a long time with the difference between lonesome and lonely. The first implies, to me, being alone, simply. This is my necessary state much of the time. My work required me to sit most mornings with a completely available mind. I made a deal with the Spirit when walls starting falling before me with some regularity, and I said I will give most of myself to this search since it seems I am succeeding at a unique path. At a moment of deep pain a few years ago I wrote a powerful song, "Grateful for the Blues". When I wept this winter in frustration, I wrote another sign on the wall: "If I falter, I am not being as strong as the truth in this mathematics." This brings me peace. It is no longer about me, I know who I am and what I have done, and it is larger than me. I can tire and falter, but really, it does not matter. It is our choice to entertain our emotional dramas, and if you have really taken care of whatever business you need to, you may truly detach yourself from emotional pain. It is like training; if I drink too much the next morning I feel low and the doubts can creep in. I can, thankfully, see this and remind myself to not drink so much! This is a spiritual challenge like nothing I have ever known or expected. I put a Boltzmann statistical exponent into the dark energy equation. He killed himself when no one supported his kinetic theory with atoms. My friend, let us weep together for this world. I have for five years consorted with the dead. Live people do not impress me lately, for the most part. I have the few true friends I need, and there are more people "of power", as I call them, than I feared. All others no longer interest me. We cross bridges and that's OK.

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by Albers

I wrestled for a long time with the difference between lonesome and lonely. The first implies, to me, being alone, simply. This is my necessary state much of the time. My work required me to sit most mornings with a completely available mind.

Cell phones, iPods, Blackberries, etc. how does a multitasker ever focus on the introspection that’s so important for wisdom’s growth? Does anyone care anymore?

Originally Posted by Albers

I made a deal with the Spirit when walls starting falling before me with some regularity, and I said I will give most of myself to this search since it seems I am succeeding at a unique path.

I gave up the tilting at windmills for more than forty years. I assumed that physics resolved its problems and got on with my life. Little did I imagine that nothing had changed; in fact, without Einstein as a keel, the entire field sold out to grants, sinecures, and the cult of personalities. Encouragement from the military/industrial complex certainly played a part.

Originally Posted by Albers

This brings me peace. It is no longer about me, I know who I am and what I have done, and it is larger than me. …I put a Boltzmann statistical exponent into the dark energy equation. He killed himself when no one supported his kinetic theory with atoms. My friend, let us weep together for this world.

There are hundreds of other tragic lives among those that brought us “great ideas that shaped our world.”

In the late 80s I realized what I considered the greatest threat to world civilization was an expanding, unrecognized fundamentalism (including secular fundamentalism). I felt only an understanding of physics, in the hands of laypersons, could relieve the problem. Now, that I understand the personal fallacies of theoretical physicists, I believe they, themselves, are a large part of the problem.

Science, Theology, and Philosophy must be united.

How nice to be on a renaissance forum that lets us drift a bit.

[Albers]

This song I cannot sing in public: (I): When the way is dark, with no sign to show, and nobody can find the right way to go; I feel something inside me rise up like a snake, it rattles me deep and says, "Take this on faith................I will show you the truth if you'll pay me the dues. Are you ready, to be grateful.........for the blues?" (II) You know this tight feeling up here in your guts? Let it lead you where others will leave you for nuts. There is something's been missed by the others who searched, you must stay here and find it, sitting patiently perched. There's a way through this wall and the damned thing will fall.......if you're grateful.......for the blues. (III) There's a light that shines, if you'll just allow. Let go your old self, you don't need that now! There is something must change and I think now I see, that what stands in the way is part you and part me! At the heart of this matter all that's not true must shatter. We'll be grateful.........for the blues. (IV) If you'd seek to find what nobody else sees, know: the light will be blinding, it'll bring you to your knees. It will surely be different from what you had guessed, you will cry, then you'll laugh 'cause you know you've been blessed, to have danced at the point where the NOW MEETS FOREVER. NOW YOU'RE GRATEFUL..............FOR THE BLUES.

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by Albers

...you will cry, then you'll laugh 'cause you know you've been blessed, to have danced at the point where the NOW MEETS FOREVER. NOW YOU'RE GRATEFUL..............FOR THE BLUES.

I work with the blues. W. C. Handy is in my pantheon.

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by Albers

My Princeton degree was Aero Engineering, so I can take this!!!

Did you know Frank von Hipple?

[Albers]

No. Two years ago or so the Portland Oregonian wrote a feature on Pete von Hippel. The byline: "A good scientist is never wrong. He or she is only incomplete. There are just dimensions to the problem that you don't know about." This is just over my above-mentioned addition on the wall. I knew the sharp firecracker Bogdanoff (Boggie) and wish I could write him. He was sad to see me leave. Aero, physics, plasmas, I figured I'd work on something interdisciplinary. Oh, my! (I heard last summer we are still fairly clueless about reentry dynamics where atoms are too far spaced to do fluid theory! That's what I thought I'd be doing.).............................Here is my latest entry in the fairly receptive Science Forums: . . . . . "In the old Charlie Chan movies there is always a scene where someone is snooping in a library-den, presses a button to make a whole section of bookcase swing open. They make their escape down the secret staircase and the shelf swings shut. Where do you build your secret door? Answer: in the most immovable-looking piece of the architecture. Where best to hide further physics than behind the success of eleven decimals?" (pins are now dropping)

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by Albers

Where best to hide further physics than behind the success of eleven decimals?

Decimals are for the research physicists; integers should be the tools of the theoretical physicist.

[Albers]

Your visions bring us integers. As you see in my three-fold standing wave study, it is nice to get to root in such a clean place as to produce answers like <a,a,b>, <a,b,b>. My other work brings not so easy integrations over the space of beautifully conceived fields, and show that quanta are not the necessary characteristic of light. All light emitted by quantized oscillators, namely all bound states, is quantized. BEHOLD THE FIREBIRD----------------

This exchange took place yesterday between me and Xerxes: The GIGO principle



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of our theoretics are constrained by the GIGO principle: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Programmers know this so well. In a more positive vein I am reading Cohen-Tannoudji p.298, developing the Born approximation. Here though is my bug-a-boo once again. We are discussing interaction Hamiltonians, and develope a picture wherein we assume a far field of 'no' interaction, then witness this statement: "...it is convenient then to take for lambda a function (of 't') which increases slowly from 0 to 1...then decreases slowly...an easy way to simulate the approach and overlapping of two "quasi-monochromatic" wave packets which initially do not interact..." I am a little more openminded than Dirac, who said in 1977(The Relativistic Wave Eq.), "The successes of QED are essentially coincidence." THIS IS AN UNPARALLED SPECTACLE. Producing eleven-decimal accuracy meant nothing to a truly deep mathematician who was not happy with what I call "infinite wallpaper representation". Richard Feynman wanted to spit, I'm sure. These giants are here stuck on the horns of either/or. Dirac: "the great body of theoretical physicists...are complacent about the difficulties of QED...It is a complacency which blocks further progress. Any substantial further progress, I feel, must come from some drastic changes in the basic equations...similar to the changed that Heisenberg introduced. THE ONLY FEATURE OF THE NEW THEORY WHICH ONE CAN BE SURE OF IS THAT IT MUST BE BASED ON SOUND AND BEAUTIFUL MATHEMATICS.".............................My point is that we usually seem to sneak in such an envelope or cutoff point to deal with what we know we must but have not elegantly done so. Now granted, the QED book goes on to say this is "only one convenient way to intruduce the S-matrix by taking as asymptotic states /psi_a> and /psi_b>..." ; what can you tell me here? .................................................. ........................In the old Charlie Chan movies there is always a scene where someone is snooping in a library-den, presses a button to make a whole section of bookcase swing open. They make their escape down the secret staircase and the shelf swings shut. Where do you build your secret door? Answer: in the most immovable-looking piece of the architecture. Where best to hide further physics than behind the success of eleven decimals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . XERXES:
"The most important feature of a theory one should be sure of is that
IT MATCHES EXPERIMENT.

Anyone who says otherwise is a crackpot or a philosopher, not a
physicist."

Xerxes, you seem incapable of appreciating Dirac's words and certainly have not spoken to them, yet you have the gall to work with his spinors and matrix formulations. Why do you carry on so psychotically as if I don't know this also?
__________________
THE STRING UNCUT AND UNSTRUNG HAS NO NOTE.

[Epsilon=One]

Just discovered something interesting.

When you edited the above reply; it blew out my response to the unedited post. ?????

I really, really enjoyed your above post. But, don't have time today to rewrite my detailed reply concerning a fine distinction that I find when discussing quanticized light.

There are XERXES all about. They defend the status quo better than fundamental, religious zealots.

If you really want to upset XERXES send him a link to Pulsoid Theory (www.PulsoidTheory.com) and ask him if there is an Elliptical Constant. Be prepared to be banned.