Qunatum Mechanics Text for upper division University course

The Pixie

Well-known member
Ah, so you are the final judge and arbiter of my experiences.
This is not about your experiences, it is about you pretending to be knowledgeable about physics on CARM when that is demonstrably not true.

All I am doing is highlighting that simple fact, Steve.

I actually did study physics at the university, the University of Nevada-Reno. You're more than welcome to call them up, and ask..... Although, you've never struck me as someone who actually cares about the truth, so I won't be waiting for your approval.
So how come you are so clueless about PET scans? This was a topic you said was your favourite application of QM; a topic you chose because you claimed some knowledge of it.

And yet you think positrons bounce off electrons?!?

Either your university education is absolutely appalling... Or this never happened. See, Steve, I go where the evidence leads; I think about the most likely scenario that fits the evidence. On the one hand we have Steve going to university and studying physics, but can remember so little of it he thinks positrons bounce off electrons. And on the other hand, Steve pretending he studied physics at university. Gort to be honest, I find the former hard to swallow.

Furthermore, I'm curious if you remember all the details of things you did under serious duress, and stress, 15 years later.
Of course not. But - and this is important - I have the brains to check before shooting my mouth off.

You even posted a bunch of links. If you could only be bothered to read them, you would not be looking like an idiot right now. But I guess you were so sure you were right, there was no need to check the facts.

But, again, you let me know what permissions I require to live my life. Especially several years before I ever came to this forum.
Steve, I am not telling you that you do not have permission to do anything. I am just suggesting that you not tell lies. I am just suggesting that you check the facts before shooting your mouth off. Whether you take that up is up to you.

Oh, I've been learning. The problem here is that none of you have demonstrated that you're wise enough to actually teach information that is reliable, and trustworthy.
I.e., just one of the many things I've learned from the atheists on this forum.
So I hope you will understand if I do not trust anything you say ever again, because I can now demonstrate that the information you give is not reliable, not trustworthy.

See, Steve, even if that university education actually happened, you still came out of it woefully ignorant, and utterly wrong about the basics. If you can be so badly wrong about positrons despite a university education in physics, how can I possibly trust anything you say about any other topic.

And not just wrong, but so sure of yourself that you so no value in actually checking if you were right.

Did you study theology at university? If not then I can reasonably expect your knowledge of theology to be be even worse than your knowledge of physics. And no doubt you will be just as utter certain you are right.

I have no reason to lie, because telling the truth is so much more fun, and enduring.
Really? Are you enjoying having your woeful knowledge of physics exposed for what it is?

What is the purpose of this thread Steve? It is clearly not to discuss QM, as that is a topic you know nothing about, and when pressed for the QM involved in your favourite application of QM, you dodge the question.

I firmly believe the purpose of this thread is for you to show the CARM community that you are an authority on physics. You do like to drop your supposed university education into the conversation frequently.

These claims that you studied physics at university become laughable when we realise just how ignorant on the subject you actually are. Maybe you really did go to university. It makes no difference because right now you do not know the first thing about it. No one is going to take yor opinion on the Big Bang seriously when you think positrons bounce off electrons!

Let me know when you've verified my college studies at UNR. I attended there from 2001 to 2005.
I used to whistle Ode to Joy walking through the hallways. Although, I think half the professors who were there when I was have since retired. I know my favorites have moved on.
So what you are saying is that your university is so appalling its students do not know the first thing about the subject it teaches!

I am tempted to contact the university. I see Alla Safronova is still there, and there is an e-mail address.

Dear Prof Safranova
This may be a strange request, but I have got into a discussion on-line with a guy who claims to be a former student of yours. We are discussing what he describes as his favourite application of QM, PET scans. However, when questioned, this guy thinks positrons bounce off electrons, and when this happens at just 180° the particles are detected.
I cannot imagine how someone so clueless about positrons could have a degree in physics.
I would therefore, be grate if you could confirm whether you had such a clueless student called Steve between 2001 and 2005.

PM me your full name, and I will send it to him.

But what would that show? You really did go to university, but are nevertheless clueless about the subject you took? That really does not put you in a great light either Steve. Or Prof Safranova's faculty either.

I think the biggest indication that you are lying is that even now you cannot admit you were wrong about positrons. As a reminder, here is how you previously described how PET scans work:

The Positron is given off by the FDG18 molecule injected into the body. The collectors of the PET device, capture the positrons, at 180° angles from their initial location and then the software used in calculating the original position, develops the imagery of the cancerous tissue.
FDG is flouro-deoxy-glucuose, that is ionized.

After I told you you were wrong, you still insisted the detectors collect positrons:

Fdg18 is injected into the patient's body and then they wait for 45 to 90 or so minutes.
The pet device is a capture device that then statistically analyzes the captured results and then converts the data into an image of the highest metabolic activity in the body.
This results in a few limitations on the brain, kidneys, bladder (they make us go to the bathroom before we get on the table), and the mouth.
The positrons bounce off the electrons in the body's cells and while there are many non-coincidental collisions, only the 180° ones are counted.

Remember, this was you describing your favourite application of quantum mechanics. Your favourite, not mine. You chose it. And yet you are clueless about it. And there is no sign of quantum mechanics in what is supposedly your favourite application of quantum mechanics.

You were wrong Steve. In so many ways.

And yet you have yet to hold up your hand and say "my bad, I got that wrong". That would be the honest thing to do. But I see no sign of that. Why is that Steve?