(March 14, 2016 at 5:13 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ok, @little_monkey, you've come here, had the gall to call me a "confused student" and claimed that I write nonsense, yet the only "criticism" you produced is something you misunderstood because you didn't read properly what I wrote, and some absolutely irrelevant (for this discussion) factoids about lagrangians and hamiltonians. I think an apology is in order lest people here are falsely led to believe that what I originally wrote is incorrect.

I said confused, not incorrect. And I pointed out subsequently, it's not about your knowledge  but about your understanding. It would be good that you read what I wrote, not what you think what I wrote. But I understand your situation only because in my professional life I met many people who were in your situation, you're trying to sort out things, and I like that in a person. And I said I would not go point by point as there is too much convolution, so I picked one particular point you've made. I did not address all of your points, it would not be conducive to a good dialogue. We are discussing right? We are exchanging ideas, right? I'm not trying to humiliate you, I have no interest in doing that. We'll talk another time, if that's ok with you.

(March 14, 2016 at 7:48 pm)little_monkey Wrote:

(March 14, 2016 at 5:13 pm)Alex K Wrote: Ok, @little_monkey, you've come here, had the gall to call me a "confused student" and claimed that I write nonsense, yet the only "criticism" you produced is something you misunderstood because you didn't read properly what I wrote, and some absolutely irrelevant (for this discussion) factoids about lagrangians and hamiltonians. I think an apology is in order lest people here are falsely led to believe that what I originally wrote is incorrect.

I said confused, not incorrect. And I pointed out subsequently, it's not about your knowledge  but about your understanding. It would be good that you read what I wrote, not what you think what I wrote. But I understand your situation only because in my professional life I met many people who were in your situation, you're trying to sort out things, and I like that in a person. And I said I would not go point by point as there is too much convolution, so I cked one particular point you've made. I did not address all of your points, it would not be conducive to a good dialogue. We are discussing right? We are exchanging ideas, right? I'm not trying to humiliate you, I have no interest in doing that. We'll talk another time, if that's ok with you.

What I wrote may not be my clearest output ever, but is not particularly convoluted. I've written, read and edited enough material to know a convoluted text. You're allowed to disagree with what I wrote because those are rather philosophical and not so much physical issues that different people interpret differently. However, I wrote what I wrote for precise reasons. You just seem to have trouble sorting out a handful of statements for some reason. From what you've written so far, I don't get the impression that you have a clearer idea of these things. Why else would you go off on irrelevant page-long tangents about how in field theory, Lagrangians are better than Hamiltonians instead of addressing my points or the OP. Maybe it would be more helpful to you if you asked me pointed questions about my post which I then can elaborate on a bit.

(March 15, 2016 at 1:46 am)Alex K Wrote:

(March 14, 2016 at 7:48 pm)little_monkey Wrote: I said confused, not incorrect. And I pointed out subsequently, it's not about your knowledge  but about your understanding. It would be good that you read what I wrote, not what you think what I wrote. But I understand your situation only because in my professional life I met many people who were in your situation, you're trying to sort out things, and I like that in a person. And I said I would not go point by point as there is too much convolution, so I cked one particular point you've made. I did not address all of your points, it would not be conducive to a good dialogue. We are discussing right? We are exchanging ideas, right? I'm not trying to humiliate you, I have no interest in doing that. We'll talk another time, if that's ok with you.

What I wrote may not be my clearest output ever, but is not particularly convoluted. I've written, read and edited enough material to know a convoluted text. You're allowed to disagree with what I wrote because those are rather philosophical and not so much physical issues that different people interpret differently. However, I wrote what I wrote for precise reasons. You just seem to have trouble sorting out a handful of statements for some reason. From what you've written so far, I don't get the impression that you have a clearer idea of these things. Why else would you go off on irrelevant page-long tangents about how in field theory, Lagrangians are better than Hamiltonians instead of addressing my points or the OP. Maybe it would be more helpful to you if you asked me pointed questions about my post which I then can elaborate on a bit.

I will reiterate a point I made earlier: it's not in the knowledge department the problem lies, it's in the understanding department we can sort things out. 

I gave you a post on how kinematics is of the utmost importance. Yet you did not respond to that. You know and should have realized I was talking about Galileo's Law of Inertia, which was the first law discovered and put physics on the map. It allowed Newton to discover F = ma (dynamics) and every physicists that came after to develop what physics is today. You're no reaction to that post is symptomatic of your difficulties.

Yes, you can know everything about Wilson loops and the renormalization group theory, or whatever else there is in QFT, but do you really understand what it means? How can you understand that if you don't understand the first principles on which all physics is based? 

You're asking me to ask you point-by-point questions to clarify what you said, but I'm not interested in what you know, I take it for granted that you know a lot in physics. I have a lot of experience to know that you know a lot. You don't have to convince me. But if you want to understand better, I can help you. If not, this conversation will be terminated.

Yes, kinematics is important. Many things are important. But why is this in particular relevant for the topic we are discussing here? Why did you bring it up?

(March 15, 2016 at 11:55 am)Alex K Wrote: Yes, kinematics is important. Many things are important. But why is this in particular relevant for the topic we are discussing here? Why did you bring it up?

Because you can know a lot of physics, but unless you have understood what happened from Galileo to QFT at every step of the way, then you may be knowledgeable but most likely confused.

(March 15, 2016 at 2:44 pm)little_monkey Wrote:

(March 15, 2016 at 11:55 am)Alex K Wrote: Yes, kinematics is important. Many things are important. But why is this in particular relevant for the topic we are discussing here? Why did you bring it up?

Because you can know a lot of physics, but unless you have understood what happened from Galileo to QFT at every step of the way, then you may be knowledgeable but most likely confused.

In order to stay on topic, would you be a bit more concrete as to what in my initial posts here you think betrays confusion about what?

WTF ?