Thursday, December 07, 2006

A note to spammers

Telling me that your spam is not spam will not work. Take the following spam I recently received:

Wazzzup. You site is realy cool!
viagra
viagra
Its'not a spam [Links removed. I'm not going to help their business.]


It's hard to imagine what could be going through someone's mind when they think that simply saying it's not spam will fool us. Especially after they've just linked to viagra twice, which is in contention with penis enlargement for the most-often spammed product.

This isn't, however, the strangest spam I've ever received. In response to my post, Quantum Mechanics for Dummies: Wave Nature of Matter, I received the a very long-winded e-mail trying to prove a claim that an electron is a heavy photon.

Very pleased 82 years young research scientist very plwased with your arcticle and its insights on the wave character of matter ---you wrote " Then things got stranger. We tried firing things that we were pretty sure were particles through a double-slit experiment, such as electrons. They, too, showed a diffraction pattern. We went bigger and shot atoms through it. Same deal. Our record so far has been shooting Bucky Balls (spherical molecules of 60 carbon atoms) through it, and even they act like waves.

Now that you have cleverly mastered problematic math, try catching up with where Einstein left off with mechanical visualization of matter and its energy transport using event local determinism at the individual freqency pulse level.. As Maxwell knew by gut feel only --all measure is by molecular size electron quantum. You are bright and young enough, figure out how to prove in a deterministic way that an electron is a helical string of 1/h-squared Higgs particles and a tandem linked 1/h quantum waves---literally a maximum density extrusion that can tandem link as a continuous pulse series of electrons, across open space--- to span the distance from the surface of a bright moon to your romantic eyeballs --to touch your very soul in real time--per E = Mc-squared! I offer you my latest short theory paper as just posted --- pasted below


So, you're 82 years young, yet don't have the courtesy to use proper grammar, and you haven't figured out how your backspace key works (judging by "posted --- pasted")? Somehow I doubt that. Seems a bit more likely you're a failed up-and-comer who failed because he wasn't smart enough to properly understand quantum mechanics or particle physics, and then crossed over to the dark side. Now, fast-forwarding to the end of the e-mail:

1. The quantum wave is one helical world line turn around R of 1/h G-size Higgs particles that pulse- move from one R to another R next door in one of just 6 directions. When 1/h such quantum one turns around R build a wavy line around a single line of R's as a ray of radiation propagating through DM space, you have one electron segment of the wave string of radiation. When a ray of radiation of whatever frequency, including the light range thereof, extends from the moon, say, to one's retina, the radiating surface of the moon has touched our eye! In well recorded fact, the ray of moon radiation has literally touched our very soul in terms of a measurable sequence of extruded electrons that travel to us per E = Mc 2! Deny this in any way and you destroy the commonly held foundation of physics as we best know it today!

2. It takes 1/h electrons in helical strong Higgs particle tandem to equal a unit of mass and DM granulates so that E = Mc2 is always numerically equal to nhf, where n is the count of electrons in parallel and/or series, and f is the number of such electrons pulsing per second through the measurement aperture. We do not now nor did we ever have the ability to measurement parse series versus parallel electron passage and do not even bother to understand fully what is meant here by "aperture". How could we be so Wheeler-announced stupid for so long --and still have prediction? By the h-symmetry that lets h be both quantum energy in ergs and quantum mass in grams. Any systematic approach could get there like a dumb "Piece of cake"!


I really have no idea what he's talking about, but I'm guessing he doesn't either. Take the following quote for example:

Maxwell knew that molecular sized electrons were ubiquitous in our measure of physical reality...


Yeah... no such thing as "molecular sized electrons." All electrons are the same size (well, size is hard to define at that scale), and that's much much less than the size of an atom. Now, there are other leptons that are similar to electrons but much more massive, such as muons and taus, but that's not what we're talking about here.

So anyways, here's a quick list of reasons an electron is not simply a heavy photon:

1. Electrons have charge (classical electrons have negative, but there are also positrons with a positive charge), photons don't.
2. Electrons have a spin of 1/2, photons have a spin of 1. It follows that electrons are fermions while photons are bosons.
3. Photons have polarization, electrons don't.

So a quick word to the wise: Spamming bloggers is not a good way to get a scientific theory accepted. Submit it to a scientific journal like everyone else. Also, please make sure your theory doesn't have obvious holes like this one does.

6 comments:

Akusai said...

I wonder if that's the same guy who's responsible for The Timecube. The manic craziness and complete lack of anything resembling sense sure line up. But then, I'm quite sure the net has more than one loony like this.

Bronze Dog said...

I got much the same on Wednesday. Hard to imagine anyone falling for that, but some of our forefathers probably said the same of Uri Geller.

Infophile said...

I wonder if that's the same guy who's responsible for The Timecube. The manic craziness and complete lack of anything resembling sense sure line up. But then, I'm quite sure the net has more than one loony like this.

Hmm, that didn't occur to me. The original e-mail did have a lot of random text style and size changes, which is along the lines of what Gene Ray does. However, the source is one "L. F. Morgan," judging by the e-mail address, so my money's on it being just another wacko.

Akusai said...

Most likely. Gene Ray is obsessed with his own work and wouldn't use someone else's name. He's also so oblivious that he doesn't realize the people who invited him to MIT were doing it for the irony value.

Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer said...

I hate to mention it, but photons have spin 1, not 0. That's why they can be polarized. It still makes your commenter wrong though. :)

Infophile said...

Ah, thanks for catching that. I knew they were bosons, just couldn't remember what their specific spin was.