QM "Experts" are Poor Scientists

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Physics - Particle Forum » QM "Experts" are Poor Scientists

Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Author

Message

Steve Bell

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:19 am

Guest

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:5d196$4814973e$943f641c$27291@STARBAND.NET...

Quote:

"Smooth John" <yoshioory@umpire.com> wrote in message
news:cde54d5e-b2ae-4ad1-8e69-703ed721529f@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 3:44 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message

news:3e0914lgtmmc5gogdelvcc041h56200qs0@4ax.com...

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell"
sb...@starband.net
wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for
Hydrogen."

Steve Bell

so one must read one hundred carp posts in that thread in order to get
your crap link to your crap whatever you said you did

you are crap by definition, buy a brain fool

If you think I'm crap, I would think you would not want to smell my crap.
I
suggest you do not participate in any of the threads I participate in. Why
would you want to?

Steve Bell

I should have said you should not participate in any of the threads I have
initiated. If you think I spew only crap, like I said, why would you want to
hear anything I have to say?

Steve Bell

Androcles

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:37 am

Guest

Surfer

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:00 am

Guest

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:44:40 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net>
wrote:

Quote:

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3e0914lgtmmc5gogdelvcc041h56200qs0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net
wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for Hydrogen."

I found a link in your post to PPT slides.

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm

But the slides may provide a SIMPLIFIED account for students.

To prove that QM EXPERTs have made an inaccurate prediction I think
you really need to provide links to QM physics papers that have made
an inaccurate prediction.

Steve Bell

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:38 am

Guest

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:cm7914hbjvre2ht0dd3kg70e30sfmauran@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:44:40 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net
wrote:

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3e0914lgtmmc5gogdelvcc041h56200qs0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net
wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for
Hydrogen."

I found a link in your post to PPT slides.
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm

But the slides may provide a SIMPLIFIED account for students.

To prove that QM EXPERTs have made an inaccurate prediction I think
you really need to provide links to QM physics papers that have made
an inaccurate prediction.

I have. In the pasts discussions, I provided a link to a "modern" (1994) QED
prediction. Please see the past posts. And if you don't want to take the
time to read them, I don't want to take the time to say it again.

What I will repeat again, is the fact that these PPT slides were for a
"simplistic" level of sophistication has no effect at all on the observed
value presented in them. Data is data, and the observed value could be
quoted in the most sophisticated presentation on QED. Of course, probably
such a non-relativistic value would never be quoted in a QED presentation
(it wasn't, in the QED paper I referenced) because it agrees with
Schroedinger's non-relativistic theory, not Dirac's theory.

Steve bell

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:56 am

Guest

I would almost say for certain that the experimental values you give
are nothing more than using the experimental value of R_\infity and
replacing the mass with a reduced mass.

Without having better references one can't be 100% sure but the
numbers do agree.

kp

Steve Bell

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:51 pm

Guest

"kp" <4vector@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa4f2bf0-3ce6-4da7-a493-a941953506d7@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

http://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch379/documents/exp2_Hatom_000.pdf

It clearly explains how to derive an empirical Rydberg constant based on
unbiased spectroscopic data. It even shows how to correct for the fact
that
the data are taken in air. All you have to do is a linear regression and
estimate the slope. The experimental error (standard error of the
estimate),
even going back a long while ago, was about +/- 1-2^m-1. This is plenty
good
enough to show the significant difference between the observed and the
predicted.

Steve Bell

What value are you calming this chemistry lab experiment is giving, as
the Hydrogen Rydberg constant, (13.58 eV?) at the same level of
accuracy as a QED calculation.

kp

The document states on the first page a value of 109677.5805 cm^-1, and yes,
I was wrong in interpreting this as an actual experimental value derived
from the described experiment. But note the authors refer to this value as
"the established value of R_H." Any "established value" *for some particular
atom* must necessarily be interpreted as what that atom shows in nature, or
else something is amiss with the "establishment" of the value. A value of
R_infinity absolutely must be only theoretical, and is "just a constant"
because no atom has an infinitely-massed nucleus. But values quoted for
*some particular atom* like hydrogen must, imo, be interpreted as what that
atom shows in nature, otherwise, what's the point in even quoting the value?
Just simply to confuse someone? I have never been discussing R_infinity,
only R_H. In the above paper, the "established value" is essentially
identical to the unbiased values I've quoted all along, where it is clear
the authors (I've given every reference) definitely were referring to an
experimentally derived value, with a standard error in the +/- 1-2 m^-1
range. And as I have point out many times, this is plenty accurate enough to
see the significant difference between it and a QED prediction. And this
difference equals the first order specially relativistic effects. Do you
really think this is a coincidence? The above document tells the student to
do the experiment (meaning collect the spectroscopic data) and compute a
Rydberg constant for hydrogen using simple linear regression. I assume it
means to then to compare it to the "established" value the teacher
him/herself quoted on the first page. Also, the experimental procedure was
very well statistically thought out, talking about if data are rejected,
then justify why based on good sound statistical procedure, etc. I
congratulate the teacher.

Like I said, if you do not accept a value close to 109677.5805 cm^-1 as a
good, solid, unbiased experimental value, find one yourself. In my opinion,
I have provided sound logic as to why this should be accepted as such. Every
single solitary value for R_H I have ever found where it was directly stated
"from experiment (line spectra)" or from "recent spectroscopic data" has
always been close to 109677.5805 cm^-1. I fully admit, I may be completely
wrong (anyone, not only me, but including you, can make a mistake), but the
only way I'll accept that is if someone, anyone, can come up with an R_H
value that is not just a theoretical value, not "just a number", where it is
directly stated or clearly implied it is an unbiased observationally
determined value, and it also does indeed significantly differ from
109677.5805 cm^-1.

Look, we do not need to rehash this again. If you want to prove me wrong,
you yourself find a clearly unbiased, experimentally determined value for
R_H. Then we'll go from there. This is what I tried to do at the begging of
the other thread, to establish what *we all* could agree upon what is a
good, accurate, unbiased, experimentally determined, observed (how many ways
can I say it?) value for R_H, but was pissed on just because I was trying to
follow the scientific method.

Steve Bell

Steve Bell

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:08 pm

Guest

"kp" <4vector@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:32d8bdda-fac4-49a6-b5c9-0c8c8c86374d@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

How about this. Take your "reference" and calculate the energy levels
given in the CODATA paper. I bet they don't agree with theory or the
experimental data given. What then? Who is right? It must be a
conspiracy and you have uncovered it. I confess.

kp

Are you just goading me here or something? I have never mentioned the word
"conspiracy." But I have used the words "pulling a fast one," etc., and I
apologize, not to you, but to NIST. There must be a simple explanation here.
There must be something I am missing. I know I have not presented things as
such, but I *have* stated that it absolutely seems highly unlikely that the
natural value is 109677.5805 cm^-1. But then there is such a logical pathway
to accept it as such. How could so many people have missed this, though, if
true.

Steve Bell

FrediFizzx

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:13 pm

Guest

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:d948d$4814aa3b$943f641c$23321@STARBAND.NET...

Quote:

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:cm7914hbjvre2ht0dd3kg70e30sfmauran@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:44:40 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net
wrote:

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3e0914lgtmmc5gogdelvcc041h56200qs0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell"
sb635@starband.net
wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in
a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for
Hydrogen."

I found a link in your post to PPT slides.
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm

But the slides may provide a SIMPLIFIED account for students.

To prove that QM EXPERTs have made an inaccurate prediction I think
you really need to provide links to QM physics papers that have made
an inaccurate prediction.

I have. In the pasts discussions, I provided a link to a "modern"
(1994) QED
prediction. Please see the past posts. And if you don't want to take
the
time to read them, I don't want to take the time to say it again.

Hi Steve,

Can you please just give the link again?

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

Steve Bell

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:14 pm

Guest

"kp" <4vector@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:89283163-6eaa-43c8-a307-891cbad95e6b@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

Please forgive my transgression, but I personally find using lab
projects and powerpoint slides as references hard to swallow (who
knows when or where the values they cite came from) especially when
used to try and debunk well established theoretical and experimental
evidence. I'm sure if one spent a little time doing a literature
search through the journals more reliable sources could be found.

kp

Transgressions forgiven. I would love to find some solid reference for an
unbiased R_H value. And I have searched mightily for one, but just on the
Internet, and almost always, you have to buy the articles, and I wouldn't
want to spend the bucks just to find out the article did not contain a good
solid experimental value of R_H. I don't know if you would consider the
following to be so, but the Eisberg and Resnick text I've referenced is well
respected. Yes, it is low level, but as I pointed out, with regards to some
experimental value quoted in it, that does not matter, as long as they give
the standard error, which they do. And yes, the simple Schroedinger theory
is presented, but that's true for just about every "advanced" text book
also. And the E&R text does show Dirac's originally derived hydrogen energy
equation. But they did not compare its predictions to their own observed
value. They did compare it to the Schroe. prediction and here is what they
say (2nd ed., p. 105): the "model, corrected for finite nuclear mass, agrees
with the spectroscopic data to within three parts in 100,000!" (Their
explanation point, not mine). The first time I saw this, I said wait a
minute, this theory does not contain any relativistic effects in it, and
that began this insane quest of mine.

I am not a kook and I am not a crackpot. If these referenced experimental
R_H values I've given are truly natural, then something else beside just
specially relativistic effects are going on inside hydrogen. I think I know
what is going on, but that my friend, even I think is highly speculative.

Steve

Steve Bell

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:36 pm

Guest

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:67ju6sF2p5796U1@mid.individual.net...

Quote:

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:d948d$4814aa3b$943f641c$23321@STARBAND.NET...

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:cm7914hbjvre2ht0dd3kg70e30sfmauran@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:44:40 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net
wrote:

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3e0914lgtmmc5gogdelvcc041h56200qs0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell"
sb635@starband.net
wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in
a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for
Hydrogen."

I found a link in your post to PPT slides.
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm

But the slides may provide a SIMPLIFIED account for students.

To prove that QM EXPERTs have made an inaccurate prediction I think
you really need to provide links to QM physics papers that have made
an inaccurate prediction.

I have. In the pasts discussions, I provided a link to a "modern"
(1994) QED
prediction. Please see the past posts. And if you don't want to take
the
time to read them, I don't want to take the time to say it again.

Hi Steve,

Can you please just give the link again?

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

Yes, here it is:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/57/9/001

You have to buy the article if you do not have a subscription. The QED
prediction it quotes is 109678.7717374 cm^-1. They do not place any
standard error on it. They take the value out to pretty many significant
digits, and we have make up our minds about how many really are significant.
But, the difference between the predicted and observed point estimates is
about 118 m^-1, and with a +/- 1 m^-1 standard error typically quoted for an
observed, this is about a 118-sigma difference. Do you think that's really
significant? I sure do.

Steve

Steve Bell

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:47 pm

Guest

"kp" <4vector@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7c995fd-2aca-4f95-9eca-2c9cd0f2c2d1@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

It doesn't cost much or none at all. You can go to any good
university library. They usually have all the back issues of Journals
available which you can look through for free or photocopy for a few
cents.

For all I know the references you point to are quoting nothing more
than R_H obtained from R_\infity with an experimentally determined
reduced mass for hydrogen and not an actual experimental value.

kp

It sure looks like that, doesn't it. From this logic, these R_H values are
based on equations, just like is R_infinity, and I quite agree are "just
numbers." But then the authors are definitely misleading because they
directly use the words "from expt (line spectra)" and "from recent
spectroscopic data." Also, this is definitely not true for the E&R text,
because they do just that for computing a prediction to compare to their
quoted observed value, namely compute R_inf and introduce reduced mass
effects to get the predicted R_H. If their observed was in fact a
prediction, a 100% agreement would have been seen, and they did not show
that. Also, the last class experiment I showed sure seems to strongly
suggest the value on the first page is what the students should come close
to.

I hope you are beginning to see the significance that this observed value
has been around for decades. If all of these, right from the beginning were
nothing but computations derived from the R_infinity values back then, how
in the world did people back from decades ago know what we were going to get
for a modern computation of R_infinity using the reduced-mass,
non-relativistic Schroe using *today's* best values of e, h, etc?

I hate quantum mechanics <g>. You can't even know what the hell you are
dealing with in the literature, predicted or observed <g>. Of course, I hate
it for other reasons too <g>.

Steve

FrediFizzx

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:02 pm

Guest

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:92b42$4814d5c3$943f641c$1572@STARBAND.NET...

Quote:

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:67ju6sF2p5796U1@mid.individual.net...
"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:d948d$4814aa3b$943f641c$23321@STARBAND.NET...

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:cm7914hbjvre2ht0dd3kg70e30sfmauran@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:44:40 -0600, "Steve Bell"
sb635@starband.net
wrote:

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3e0914lgtmmc5gogdelvcc041h56200qs0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell"
sb635@starband.net
wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error
in
a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for
Hydrogen."

I found a link in your post to PPT slides.
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm

But the slides may provide a SIMPLIFIED account for students.

To prove that QM EXPERTs have made an inaccurate prediction I
think
you really need to provide links to QM physics papers that have
made
an inaccurate prediction.

I have. In the pasts discussions, I provided a link to a "modern"
(1994) QED
prediction. Please see the past posts. And if you don't want to
take
the
time to read them, I don't want to take the time to say it again.

Hi Steve,

Can you please just give the link again?

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

Yes, here it is:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/57/9/001

You have to buy the article if you do not have a subscription. The QED
prediction it quotes is 109678.7717374 cm^-1. They do not place any
standard error on it. They take the value out to pretty many
significant
digits, and we have make up our minds about how many really are
significant.
But, the difference between the predicted and observed point estimates
is
about 118 m^-1, and with a +/- 1 m^-1 standard error typically quoted
for an
observed, this is about a 118-sigma difference. Do you think that's
really
significant? I sure do.

Sheesh, they want $80. If you already have a pdf of this article please
email to me.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

Steve Bell

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:29 pm

Guest

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:67k84vF2nqijaU1@mid.individual.net...

Quote:

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:92b42$4814d5c3$943f641c$1572@STARBAND.NET...

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:67ju6sF2p5796U1@mid.individual.net...
"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:d948d$4814aa3b$943f641c$23321@STARBAND.NET...

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:cm7914hbjvre2ht0dd3kg70e30sfmauran@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:44:40 -0600, "Steve Bell"
sb635@starband.net
wrote:

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3e0914lgtmmc5gogdelvcc041h56200qs0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell"
sb635@starband.net
wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error
in
a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for
Hydrogen."

I found a link in your post to PPT slides.
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm

But the slides may provide a SIMPLIFIED account for students.

To prove that QM EXPERTs have made an inaccurate prediction I
think
you really need to provide links to QM physics papers that have
made
an inaccurate prediction.

I have. In the pasts discussions, I provided a link to a "modern"
(1994) QED
prediction. Please see the past posts. And if you don't want to
take
the
time to read them, I don't want to take the time to say it again.

Hi Steve,

Can you please just give the link again?

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

Yes, here it is:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/57/9/001

You have to buy the article if you do not have a subscription. The QED
prediction it quotes is 109678.7717374 cm^-1. They do not place any
standard error on it. They take the value out to pretty many
significant
digits, and we have make up our minds about how many really are
significant.
But, the difference between the predicted and observed point estimates
is
about 118 m^-1, and with a +/- 1 m^-1 standard error typically quoted
for an
observed, this is about a 118-sigma difference. Do you think that's
really
significant? I sure do.

Sheesh, they want $80. If you already have a pdf of this article please
email to me.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

Cost alot to get them QED numbers, doesn't it. I don't have a pdf, I have a
hard copy. But even if I did, it would be illegal for me just to sent it to
you. They'd probably sue me or something. Their policy is that it is ok to
quote small pieces of their articles, but with full references given, where
I'm sure (I hope) a link to the page showing the article is a good enough
reference. If not, you won't have to worry about my "crank" ideas anymore,
I'll probably end up in jail <g>. I wanted to scan the table showing the
individual values of the QED, etc., effects, and post it, but I don't think
that's even legal.

Steve
P.S. You can believe the number I've quoted, unless I made a mistake typing
it in (I did on one post, but not above, I checked it about 10 times).

FrediFizzx

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:46 pm

Guest

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:4b048$4814efe0$943f641c$4241@STARBAND.NET...

Quote:

Cost alot to get them QED numbers, doesn't it. I don't have a pdf, I
have a
hard copy. But even if I did, it would be illegal for me just to sent
it to
you. They'd probably sue me or something. Their policy is that it is
ok to
quote small pieces of their articles, but with full references given,
where
I'm sure (I hope) a link to the page showing the article is a good
enough
reference. If not, you won't have to worry about my "crank" ideas
anymore,
I'll probably end up in jail <g>. I wanted to scan the table showing
the
individual values of the QED, etc., effects, and post it, but I don't
think
that's even legal.

Steve
P.S. You can believe the number I've quoted, unless I made a mistake
typing
it in (I did on one post, but not above, I checked it about 10 times).

Well, I doubt if they would be that stingy to worry about sharing a
one-off of an article that is freely available at a good library. They
are more concerned with someone packaging and reselling a package of
articles. Anywise, it is not all that interesting to spend $80 on it.
I don't doubt that you are quoting the correct numbers. I just would
have liked to seen the complete process of how they got the number.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

Steve Bell

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:00 pm

Guest

"kp" <4vector@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ddbc065-1fd4-4961-a6e4-b35c38a194ba@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

I have to ask a simple question, do you think a value of 109677.5805 cm^-1
is a "natural value"? (Of course, no number we will ever produce will
exactly equal the true, natural value, unless by sheer accident.) If you say
no, then why is it the "established value"? For hydrogen, or for any atom,
if the "established value" is not really close to the natural value, what
good is it? Or I should say, we should always view an "established value" as
the best current stab at the true, natural value, especially if there is
some +/- standard error quoted with it, which absolutely implies the true,
natural value lies in an interval (with high confidence, e.g, like a 95%
confidence interval) you could create using the standard error. Also, if you
say the QED predicted value could also be considered the "established
value," then obviously QED will always predict unbelievably well, and the
scientific method is dead. And also, we would be in the obnoxious situation
of having two "established values" for the same atom. And when the QED value
would be finally "established" over the older value, the community would
have to accept a gigantic jump in the "established value." I don't know
about you, but that would make me very leery of any "established value" made
by the people making the "establishment," especially in this late stage of
the game of thinking "we know completely everything there is to know about
the hydrogen atom." I'd have to say: I thought the QM community already
thought that when it "established" the non-relativistic number, with
apparent high confidence given by the relatively small standard errors
quoted for it. I think such a switch would be, and should be, a most
embarrassing switch for the QM community. Then, I would have to change the
title of this thread to 'QM "Experts" are Inept Scientists.'

Steve Bell

Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Mon May 12, 2008 6:27 am Science Forum Index