Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

  • Quote

    In particular Maris 2015 which summarises Maris's earlier work (from 2002 I think) claiming that he has observed bubbles with fractional electron charge, and the more recent vortex explanation of the same phenomenon.


    Maybe yes, maybe not - but I don't see the logic. Of course that the mobility of electron bubbles is much lower than the mobility of single electron - they're much bigger. Why it would require fractional electron charge for its explanation?

  • There is no entanglement. Photon correlation is not spooky action at a distance. We are trying to prove this out.

    Thus there is no quantum computing.


    Entanglement or at least what looks like this is the basis of quantum cryptography. If you switch the spin at location A then location B can see the switched spin.


    Such entangled states are transmitted without being bound to light speed. This is an experimentally proven fact and was the basis for some Swiss companies that sell such infrastructure.


    Mills as others too completely misses SO(4) physics as he does not understand the nature of the second radius flux that is not time bound. Photons can entangle over the weak force orbit that is 2D (rotations) orthogonal to the other 2D time like flowing energy of the photon. All masses that are equivalent can entangle = bind over such a shared orbit. This is one of the big miss conceptions of QM as the true nature of entanglement is not just overlaying the wave function.

  • For example entangled atoms in boson condensate are said to behave like single orbital described by single wave function. Which brings an interesting conspiracy theory of why even after more than thirty years we still have no good video or even just a photo of boson condensate. Because such a photo would show, it's not true. The atoms inside boson condensate can be observed even by naked eye or under strong loupe like individual glowing dots (resembling particles of smoke above knot of freshly quenched candle). I.e. they're definitely not dissolved into a single orbital - which immediately contradicts Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, according to which entangled particles get delocalized across whole quantum function.


    After then we should ask, how wave functions of these individual atoms really look like and what makes them entangled after then? These "subtleties" are just why physical phenomena should be never confused with or even replaced by their formal models.


    Even less people also know, that quantum entanglement is complex composite effect which also has directional component similar to Allais effect occurring during solar eclipses and planetary conjunctions.

  • For example entangled atoms in boson condensate are said to behave like single orbital described by single wave function. Which brings an interesting conspiracy theory of why even after more than thirty years we still have no good video or even just a photo of boson condensate. Because such a photo would show, it's not true. The atoms inside boson condensate can be observed even by naked eye or under strong loupe like individual glowing dots (resembling particles of smoke above knot of freshly quenched candle). I.e. they're definitely not dissolved into a single orbital - which immediately contradicts Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, according to which entangled particles get delocalized across whole quantum function.


    After then we should ask, how wave functions of these individual atoms really look like and what makes them entangled after then? These "subtleties" are just why physical phenomena should be never confused with or even replaced by their formal models.


    Even less people also know, that quantum entanglement is complex composite effect which also has directional component similar to Allais effect occurring during solar eclipses and planetary conjunctions.


    Zephir, if you can see the outer electrons (which are supposed to be entangled) then each electron wave function must be interacting with visible light photons. That interaction will decorrelate the electrons and they are no longer a BEC.


    But, in any case, entanglement is not the same as merging. Two wave functions can be correlated but separated in space, indeed this is what happens when entangled photons are emitted. So you are quite wrong in thinking, if one could observe the entangled electrons with visible light without decorrelating them, that correlated wave functions have a different and orbital structure from decorrelated ones.


    I suggest that you start off with the mathematical definition of QM correlation: that is NOT spatial overlap, but | phi1 . phi2 | > 0


    Here phi could be a Schroedinger wave function, where correlation => phase coherence, or it could be a spinor, where correlation => aligned spins (though alignment here is a bit loose because spinors are not identical to 3d vectors). In fact teh QM state of a system is a cartesian product of many different parts, each of which can (possibly) be correlated.

    entanglement => two parts of the composite wave function are correlated (a bit loose again, I'll do the math if anyone asks later - or no doubt someone else could).

  • Quote

    if you can see the outer electrons (which are supposed to be entangled)


    I'd guess that atoms are entangled via pilot wave of the whole atom. The electrons in all orbitals move independently (not just these outer ones). The energy of atoms at low temperature is in range of microelectronvolts, unable to correlate electrons in range of electron volts in any meaningful way.


    Quote

    Two wave functions can be correlated but separated in space


    Of course, this is the first outcome of the observation of individual atoms within condensate: the atoms and their wave functions aren't merged or overlayed. These atoms thus don't form one giant orbital, their electrons the less. Now, what "corelation" of wave function" is supposed to mean?

  • Entanglement or at least what looks like

    Entanglement is discussed in the traditional QM context by Sean Carroll.

    Engaging presenter..


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Of course, this is the first outcome of the observation of individual atoms within condensate: the atoms and their wave functions aren't merged or overlayed. These atoms thus don't form one giant orbital, their electrons the less. Now, what "corelation" of wave function" is supposed to mean?


    The formal definition is a bit of a pain.


    If you have a product space A X B


    and orthogonal basis a1,...,an for A, b1, b2,... bn for B


    The states phi of A X B has A and B components correlated (coherent) if:


    phi = Sum over i ( ki|ai>|bi>) for any constants ki.


    Thus each A state component => a pure B state component and vice versa.

    • Official Post

    I did not know there was a crisis in mainstream Physics, but after reading this well written article...maybe we do?


    https://backreaction.blogspot.…cs-is-not-only-about.html

    well, I got the book “Lost in Math” after learning about her in this thread, but she is pointing out what many others think and just don’t dare say.

  • I did not know there was a crisis in mainstream Physics, but after reading this well written article...maybe they do?


    https://backreaction.blogspot.…cs-is-not-only-about.html

    There is. I wrote a piece a few years back about it for James Delingpole's "Bogpaper" blog. Here we go, 2013:


    https://bogpaper.wordpress.com…ith-john-duffield-crisis/


    "There’s been some feather-spitting outrage on the internet this week. It concerns a speech made last month by Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute. He was on-stage for about forty minutes welcoming a fresh intake of graduate students. He said theorists working on particle physics were in a state of confusion, and “to a large extent the theories have failed”. He said the extensions to the standard model were supposed to simplify matters, but made it more complicated. He explained that the number of parameters in the standard model is about 18, whilst supersymmetric theories have at least 120. He also said “string theory seems to predict 101000 different possible laws of physics, this is called the multiverse, and is the ultimate catastrophe”. He went on to say that theoretical physics has led to a crazy situation where theorists seem to have no definite predictions at all. And that there’s a fundamental crisis wherein “the lines of enquiry that have been pursued have sort-of self-destructed...”


    Note though that Sabine Hossenfelder isn't sincere about all this. If you were to post a useful comment that pointed to the real issue, she'd delete it. Because she's just banging her own drum. It's the Sabine Hossenfelder show. For example, if you were to post a comment pointing to my article on a potted history of quantum mechanics where I talk about the electron papers by people like de Broglie, Schröodinger and Darwin, your comment would never see the light of day. Even though she talked about "looking at the history of physics" and my strapline is "perhaps the past, if looked upon with care and hindsight, may teach us where we possibly took a wrong turn".


    The old papers include Schrödinger’s 1926 quantization as a problem of proper values, part II. On page 18 he said this: “let us think of a wave group… which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length”. Once you get a handle on this you know that electron mass is just resistance to change-in-motion for a wave in a closed path. Then you understand E=mc² and then you know that the Higgs mechanism is wrong. Then you'll really understand what the crisis is really all about. The irony is that Alfred Nobel did more harm with his prizes than with his dynamite.


  • this is the core of my post...its comical because someone I worked with in the past sent her a softball philosophical question. Sjhe seems to want to debate what the purpose of science is, and what a starting point to embark on a new direction would look like. Meanwhile - energy is a great place to ground all of that - reality!


    As for philosophy...these physicists could not handle 10seconds of true scholarly debate with any religious / philosophical scholar without squirming in their seat...they always have hubris that because they are in physics that gives them an elevated position to sound off on all of reality, cosmology, and the like.


    The best way to bring them back would be to put their hand in a SunCell for a few seconds and ask them if they can propose a theory to stop the pain...

  • this is the core of my post...its comical because someone I worked with in the past sent her a softball philosophical question. She seems to want to debate what the purpose of science is, and what a starting point to embark on a new direction would look like. Meanwhile - energy is a great place to ground all of that - reality!


    As for philosophy...these physicists could not handle 10seconds of true scholarly debate with any religious / philosophical scholar without squirming in their seat...they always have hubris that because they are in physics that gives them an elevated position to sound off on all of reality, cosmology, and the like.


    The best way to bring them back would be to put their hand in a SunCell for a few seconds and ask them if they can propose a theory to stop the pain...

    Noted Navid. The "new energy tech" is something people tend to be cautious about. But IMHO that doesn't warrant deletion of the comment. Especially since the other stuff is spot on. Which presumably is the real reason why such comments don't appear. The $64,000 dollar question is this: if the Standard Model is wrong, how could they have possibly discovered the Higgs boson? There aren't many people who are willing to spit it out.

  • On page 18 he said this: “let us think of a wave group… which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length”.


    A closed path is what we have in SO(4). Unluckily the old man were not yet aware of this famous symmetry structure inside SO(4). But this truly proves that he understood what de Broglie said.

    Once you get a handle on this you know that electron mass is just resistance to change-in-motion for a wave in a closed path.


    I'm not sure whether this is the correct picture. What ( exact effect!) does generate this resistance? The second question is: Do you still believe that mass is different form EM mass ? This was the basic error behind all the nonsensical inventions around the Higgs blabla.


    We have mass that in our reality has a weight because it is built of EM mass with a certain topology. Protons react obviously different than electrons or photons in a situations where a large mass is close to them.

  • A closed path is what we have in SO(4). Unluckily the old man were not yet aware of this famous symmetry structure inside SO(4). But this truly proves that he understood what de Broglie said.

    He understood it all right. And I understand the double rotation. But I'm still not getting this SO(4) I'm afraid. Sorry.


    Quote

    I'm not sure whether this is the correct picture. What ( exact effect!) does generate this resistance?

    Energy. A photon is a wave, and a wave is energy. Imagine an ocean wave. Take some energy out of it with a wave power generator, and the amplitude of the wave is reduced. Take all the energy out of it, and the wave isn't there any more. The photon is similar. In his E=mc² paper Einstein said this: “If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²”. Radiation is a form of energy. The photon isn’t some billiard-ball thing that has energy. The photon is energy. And matter is made of it. An electron is just a photon in a closed path. Have a read of the mystery of mass is a myth.


    Quote

    The second question is: Do you still believe that mass is different from EM mass ? This was the basic error behind all the nonsensical inventions around the Higgs blabla.

    Sorry Wyttenbach. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Mass is resistance to change in motion. Electromagnetic mass denotes how much the electron's electromagnetic field contributes to its mass. The answer is all of it, because the electron is field. Only that field is only there because the electron is a wrapped-up photon. The minimum and maximum portions of the electromagnetic wave add up to the same value all round, so it looks like a standing electromagnetic field:


    ?key=a3138f81118b4e6c914cdd745ba4cb75bc66cfa1f4159ea75ddf41271e8666b1-aHR0cDovL3BoeXNpY3NkZXRlY3RpdmUuY29tL3dwLWNvbnRlbnQvdXBsb2Fkcy9zdHJpcDVlbGVjdHJvbi1lMTU2ODQ2NTU3OTEwOS5wbmc%3D


    Dammit. the image isn't appearing. See this: https://www.lenr-forum.com/ima…TU2ODQ2NTU3OTEwOS5wbmc%3D


    Quote

    We have mass that in our reality has a weight because it is built of EM mass with a certain topology.

    I kind of agree with that, but would express it in a slightly different fashion.


    Quote

    Protons react obviously different than electrons or photons in a situations where a large mass is close to them.

    I'm not sure they do. A proton is merely a wrapped-up wave with a more complicated topology. But no matter, I definitely think the Higgs mechanism is abject nonsense.

  • Evercell’s technology of Evergreen technology seems to impose order on the random movement of matter via filter with selective spectral permeability capable of extracting usable energy from thermal energy present in all matter above absolute zero. Evercell™ operates entirely passively, simply from the layering of engineered materials in a way that promotes the release of electrons through the phenomenon of quantum tunneling. The patented Evercell™ will never run down, because its particles will always have a temperature difference. This novel approach is actually supported by the latest thinking in the field of quantum thermodynamics. Research and development on Evercell™ is ongoing at Applied Research Center of Old Dominion University. The company plans to manufacture various models of their harvester with different capacities, size, and thickness, for example (expected features/performance):

    • 5μW device
      • 34mm x 34mm x 1mm
      • 1.2V output
      • 4.2μA continuous current
    • 480-nW device
      • 30mm x 30mm x 0.2mm
      • 1.2V output
      • 400nA continuous current
    • 960-nW device
      • 50mm x 75mm x 0.1mm
      • 1.2V output
      • 800nA continuous current
  • APS March Meeting 2020: Optimizing Power Output of Graphene Energy Harvesting


    Free standing graphene has been found to invert its curvature over time by researchers at the University of Arkansas. Recently, they have been working on building a chip for converting kinetic energy from the system to electrical energy by using a variable capacitor principle. In this study we investigate the macroscopic models of graphene energy harvesting (GEH) with the goal of finding the output power optimal conditions. We present a GEH circuit model, which contains a manually-driven variable capacitor in series with a DC voltage source, diodes components for rectification, and a storage capacitor for storing the harvested charge. The DC experiment, however, presents difficulties with measuring efficiency, controlling the frequency, and reaching high voltage limits. Therefore, we design an equivalent AC experiment, in which we replace the DC voltage with an AC source and the variable capacitor with a fixed one. Our power studies reveal that the maximum efficiency of is reached at the maximum power output point, which happens at the time of times the time constant of the circuit.


    According to the University of Arkansas, Thibado plans to produce a proof of concept—a device capable of charging a capacitor using only ambient heat and the motion of graphene—within a year.

    NTS Innovations is working with the University of Arkansas on a electronic recharging device it hopes to use for wireless sensors and GPS trackers. A commercialization team in Peoria is working to move it to the market. It currently converts ambient energy into electricity to power microchips, but the technology can scale to juice up bigger things.

    wkBJ95i.png