SHE ???????
It's a machine for God's sake.
Rather, English employs natural gender, where animate entities with a biological sex take the masculine (he/him/his/himself) or feminine (she/her/hers/herself) gender, and inanimate nouns take the neuter (it/its/itself) gender.
And so are my beloved boat Anna and also my chat duck Elsa which help me debug my data programs 
Display MoreThis is all correct if you believe that physics is made of points that produce fields. further you must believe that the 4-Potential can be used for particles... What is obvious nonsense as it does not contain the strongest field = magnetic moment.
Even worse: Any use of E=mc2 in a field equation is physical nonsense as mass does not act field like - not even the electron. The e +/- annihilation does not follow symmetric waves (Y,Y*) it follows a 3 wave structure.
So the fake AI tools GPT just repeats old fake....
The Dirac equation is the biggest fail in physics history!
Actually from my discussion I think you can realize that what you are saying may very well be right. In principle the DIrac equation is an infinite number of equations where one for each direction of the spin. So it is a specially made equation for essentially one pattern of a special case. A projection come to my mind. To see the problem consider modelling a system of particles where the spinn are along different axcis and they can interact. It should then be obvious that something is missing as this is impossible using the DIrac formulation.
Chat gpt and Wolfram
External Content youtu.beContent 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.
Not available yet for all, but give it some time one can start getting actual numbers to back up ones argument.
This is an example of the Dr. Fox Effect.
No the actor would not be able to have that conversation!
Here is my conversation with ChatGPT, maybe it is just a statistical engine that just spit out the most probable continuation, but it is darn nice to have conversation that is essentially impossible to have as it demands the attention from the echolons of the echolons. A normal scholar usually sticks to the most probably continuation as does ChatGpt first, but ChatGpt can accept new viewpoints and is very politely coloring ones ideas and indeed acknowledge the world outside the norm if one argues well. Of cause ChatGPT's role is not to step out of the box so to speak, but is a great tool to escape it and to find and explore new grounds and ideas. Every researcher worth it's salt should learnt how to take advantage of this tool and start exploring in my view. Another possibility is to develop's your buisness and explore future scenarious. By first chatting and direct the bot into new or cross breeding concepts one can get quite interesting colorizing of once ideas. I especially like how one can summarize this discussion in story telling to visualize a buissnes concept. Anyway here is my chat, enjoy ...
Is it possible to extend the Dirac equation so that it is properly spherically symmetric
The Dirac equation is a relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation that describes particles like electrons, which are fermions with spin-1/2. It is already consistent with spherical symmetry. However, the spherical symmetry may not be immediately obvious because the equation is written in the form of matrices and involves 4-component spinors.
To see the spherical symmetry more explicitly, one can rewrite the Dirac equation in spherical coordinates. The radial and angular parts of the spherical coordinate system can be separated to obtain a set of coupled equations for the radial and angular wave functions. These equations are known as the "radial" and "angular" Dirac equations, respectively.
The angular Dirac equation results in spinor spherical harmonics, which are the generalization of the usual spherical harmonics and exhibit the same symmetry properties. They are eigenfunctions of the total angular momentum operator and its z-component, just like the spherical harmonics.
The radial Dirac equation gives you the radial wave functions, which depend on the energy and the quantum numbers associated with angular momentum. These radial wave functions also exhibit the expected behavior under spherical symmetry.
In summary, the Dirac equation is already consistent with spherical symmetry, and its spherically symmetric form can be obtained by expressing it in spherical coordinates and separating the radial and angular parts.
how does the Dirac equation look in spherical coordinates
In spherical coordinates, the Dirac equation takes a more complicated form due to the presence of radial and angular parts. The covariant form of the Dirac equation in natural units is:
(i * gamma^mu * partial_mu - m) * psi = 0
where gamma^mu are the gamma matrices, partial_mu is the four-gradient, m is the mass of the particle, and psi is the 4-component spinor.
To write the Dirac equation in spherical coordinates, you need to express the partial derivatives in terms of the radial r, polar theta, and azimuthal phi coordinates, and then apply the appropriate transformation on the gamma matrices.
After some algebra and introducing the following definitions:
A = 1 + (r * m)
B = (i * sigma_r) * (1 / r) * (d / dr + A)
C = (i * sigma_theta) * (1 / (r * sin(theta))) * (d / dtheta + i * cot(theta))
D = (i * sigma_phi) * (1 / (r * sin(theta))) * (d / dphi)
the Dirac equation in spherical coordinates can be expressed as:
((d / dt) - H_r - H_theta - H_phi) * psi = 0
where
H_r = (1 / 2) * (B + B^+)
H_theta = (1 / 2) * (C + C^+)
H_phi = D
and sigma_r, sigma_theta, and sigma_phi are the spherical coordinate representations of the Pauli matrices.
This equation can be further separated into radial and angular parts by assuming that the spinor psi has the form:
psi(r, theta, phi, t) = (1 / r) * (F(r) * chi(θ, φ) * exp(-i * E * t))
where F(r) is the radial part, chi(θ, φ) is the angular part (spinor spherical harmonics), and E is the energy of the particle. Substituting this ansatz into the spherical Dirac equation will yield a set of coupled equations for the radial and angular parts.
Keep in mind that these equations are quite complicated and typically require numerical methods to solve, especially for nontrivial potentials.
Hoe does the dirac equation transforms got a rotation of the reference system
Under a rotation of the reference system, the Dirac equation is transformed by a unitary transformation, which rotates the spinor wave function. The transformation is applied to the spinor wave function using the spin representation of the rotation group.
Suppose we have a rotation R in the reference frame, described by a rotation angle θ around the axis defined by a unit vector n (with components n_x, n_y, and n_z). The rotation matrix for a spin-1/2 particle, which is a 2x2 matrix, can be expressed in terms of the Pauli matrices σ_i as follows:
U(R) = exp(-i * θ/2 * (n_x * σ_x + n_y * σ_y + n_z * σ_z))
The Dirac spinor ψ has two 2-component spinors, often denoted as upper and lower components, which we can write as:
ψ = (ψ_u, ψ_l)
To transform the Dirac spinor under the rotation R, we apply the unitary transformation U(R) to both the upper and lower components:
ψ'(x') = (U(R) * ψ_u(x), U(R) * ψ_l(x))
where x' is the rotated coordinate and x is the original coordinate. Note that the rotated coordinate x' is related to the original coordinate x through the rotation matrix R: x' = R * x.
After applying the rotation, the Dirac equation remains invariant under the transformation:
(i * γ^μ * ∂_μ - m) * ψ'(x') = 0
where the covariant form of the Dirac equation is used.
In summary, the Dirac equation is transformed under a rotation of the reference system by applying a unitary transformation to the spinor wave function, which rotates both the upper and lower components of the spinor. The Dirac equation remains invariant under this transformation.
how does the Klein Gordon equation translform under a rotation
The Klein-Gordon equation is a relativistic wave equation that describes scalar (spin-0) particles. The equation is given by:
(∂^μ∂_μ + m^2)ϕ(x) = 0
where ∂^μ is the four-gradient, m is the mass of the particle, and ϕ(x) is the scalar field.
Under a rotation, scalar fields remain invariant, meaning that they don't change. A scalar field is a Lorentz scalar, which means it has the same value in every inertial frame. Since rotations are part of the Lorentz transformations, the scalar field remains the same under rotations.
Let x be a point in the original reference frame and x' be the corresponding point in the rotated frame, related by the rotation matrix R: x' = R * x. Then, under a rotation, the scalar field transforms as:
ϕ'(x') = ϕ(x)
The Klein-Gordon equation is also invariant under rotations. In the rotated frame, the equation takes the same form:
(∂'^μ∂'_μ + m^2)ϕ'(x') = 0
where ∂'^μ is the four-gradient in the rotated frame.
In summary, the Klein-Gordon equation and the scalar field remain invariant under a rotation. Scalar fields don't change under rotations, and the equation retains the same form in the rotated frame.
So if we produces a Dirac like equation from Klein Gordon we can chooce meny versions of the Firac equation simply by selecting different dirac spinor representations
Yes, that's correct. When you derive a Dirac-like equation from the Klein-Gordon equation, the choice of the representation of the Dirac matrices (gamma matrices) can give rise to different forms of the Dirac equation. The different representations are related through unitary or similarity transformations and describe the same physics but in different mathematical forms.
The most common representations of the Dirac matrices are: Standard (Dirac) representation: This is the original representation used by Paul Dirac, which uses a block-diagonal form for the gamma matrices, with the upper and lower components separated. This representation is also known as the "canonical" representation.Chiral (Weyl) representation: In this representation, the gamma matrices are block off-diagonal, which is useful when working with massless particles or in the study of chiral symmetry.Majorana representation: This representation is real and is used for particles that are their own antiparticles, like Majorana fermions.
These different representations are mathematically equivalent, and you can transform from one representation to another by applying a similarity transformation:
γ'^μ = S * γ^μ * S^(-1)
where γ^μ and γ'^μ are the gamma matrices in the original and new representations, respectively, and S is a non-singular transformation matrix.
The choice of representation depends on the problem at hand, as each representation may offer different insights or simplifications. Ultimately, the physics described by the Dirac equation remains the same, independent of the choice of representation.
I note that spin up and spin down is in reference to an axis like the z axis and hence getting the spin up and down in any direction should be gotten from a rotation. Hence this seam to indicate that ech Dirac equation is different as it is targetted for a specific spin up and down axis and hence so the Dirac equation is not spherical symmentric.
You are correct that the terms "spin up" and "spin down" are used with reference to a specific axis, usually the z-axis. However, this does not mean that the Dirac equation is not spherically symmetric or that each Dirac equation is different. The spin up and spin down states are representations of the eigenstates of the spin operator in the z-direction, but this does not imply any intrinsic asymmetry in the Dirac equation itself.
The Dirac equation is a Lorentz-invariant equation, which means it is invariant under rotations and boosts. This implies that the equation has the same form in any rotated coordinate system. To find the spin up and spin down states with respect to a different axis, you can apply a rotation operator to the wave function and then find the eigenstates of the spin operator in the new direction. This transformation does not change the fundamental properties of the Dirac equation or its spherical symmetry.
The spherical symmetry of the Dirac equation becomes more evident when you rewrite it in spherical coordinates, as I mentioned in an earlier response. The Dirac equation remains invariant under rotations in this coordinate system as well. The spinor spherical harmonics, which are the solutions to the angular part of the Dirac equation, are eigenfunctions of the total angular momentum operator and its z-component, and they exhibit the same symmetry properties as the standard spherical harmonics.
Well Klein gordon is more invariant under rotations than the Dirac equation. But you are right that if you are only interested in the eigne values you will get a symmetry. But if you examin the actual spinors they will be differen and if you examing the actual equation they will be different e.g. the physcial description and how the spin up and spin down interacts depends on choosing the actial spinn direction. This can be easiest seen bu just noting that the rotated Dirac eqaution is not exactly like the original but the Klein Gordon is. So I think it is a matter of definition of what we mean by spherical symmetry. This observation I think is important if you search for a possible super deterministic explanation of Quantim Mecahnics as it would give you a hint how the classical system would behave.
You raise an interesting point, and I agree that the distinction between the rotational invariance of the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations can be a matter of definition. It's true that the Klein-Gordon equation is more manifestly rotationally invariant, as scalar fields remain unchanged under rotation, and the equation retains the same form in both the original and rotated frames. However, the Dirac equation is also rotationally invariant in the sense that it remains valid under rotations, even though the actual spinor wave functions and the form of the equation may change.
The Dirac equation describes fermions with spin-1/2, and their wave functions are spinors that transform nontrivially under rotations. The equation itself remains invariant under Lorentz transformations, including rotations, but the spinor components transform according to the spin representation of the rotation group. Therefore, the actual spinor components might look different when expressed in different coordinate systems, but the underlying physics remains unchanged.
Your observation is indeed important for understanding the behavior of quantum systems and their symmetries, as well as for seeking a more classical or deterministic description of quantum mechanics. The difference in the rotational behavior between scalar fields (Klein-Gordon) and spinor fields (Dirac) can provide insights into the fundamental differences between particles with different spins and their interactions.
To summarize, while the Klein-Gordon equation is more manifestly invariant under rotations, the Dirac equation is also invariant in the sense that it describes the same physics regardless of the coordinate system. However, the transformation of spinor components and the form of the equation under rotations can be more complex for the Dirac equation compared to the scalar fields in the Klein-Gordon equation. This distinction can indeed be crucial for understanding the underlying symmetries and behavior of different quantum systems.
Display MoreAt least four studies published this year say hydrogen loses its environmental edge when it seeps into the atmosphere. This is because it reduces the concentration of molecules that destroy the greenhouse gases already there, potentially contributing to global warming.
If even 10 per cent leaks during its production, transportation, storage or use, the benefits of using green hydrogen over fossil fuels would be completely wiped out, two scientists told Reuters.
They say the lack of technology for monitoring hydrogen leaks means there is a data gap, and more research is needed to calculate its net impact on global warming before final investment decisions are taken. Yet governments and energy companies are lining up big bets on green hydrogen. In Europe, the energy squeeze prompted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is forcing governments to seek alternative sources of power – and the spike in gas prices has made green hydrogen appear much more affordable. The European Union approved €5.2 billion in subsidies for green hydrogen projects in September. The United States, meanwhile, included billions of dollars of green hydrogen tax credits in its Inflation Reduction Act.
Studies on the risk of leaks undermining green hydrogen’s climate benefits have been published by Columbia University, the Environmental Defense Fund, the universities of Cambridge and Reading, and the Frazer-Nash Consultancy. Anne-Sophie Corbeau, Columbia University said: We need much better devices to measure the leakage, and we need regulation which actually enforces the measurement of the leakage. It is estimated that leakage rates could reach up to 5.6 per cent by 2050 when hydrogen is being used more widely. Norway’s climate research institute CICERO is also working on a three-and-a-half-year study, due to conclude in June 2024, on the impact of hydrogen emissions. Maria Sand, who is leading the research, says there is a big gap in the science.
Hydrogen has not been monitored for leaks in the past, and most of the odourless gas used now is made where it is consumed – but there are plans to pipe and ship it vast distances. The fossil fuel industry hopes that hydrogen could eventually move through existing infrastructure, such as gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas import and export terminals. About 1 per cent of the natural gas – which is mostly methane – moving through European infrastructure leaks. However, rates are higher in some countries including Russia, according to analysts and satellite images of leaks. “There’s a lot we don’t know about hydrogen,” says Sand. “We don’t know yet if we can assume it will behave the same way as methane.”
Initial results of tests in pipelines at DNV’s Spadeadam research site in northern England showed that hydrogen leaks in the same places and rates as natural gas. Companies working on green hydrogen projects say, however, that careful monitoring would be needed. Scientists and analysts say that as hydrogen molecules are much smaller and lighter than those in methane, they are harder to contain.
Once hydrogen enters pipelines, it can weaken metal pipes which can lead to cracking. Hydrogen is also far more explosive than natural gas which could create safety issues. While potential leakages of hydrogen are not expected to be on a scale that could derail all green hydrogen plans, any seepage would erode its climate benefits, scientists say.
Green hydrogen vs grey hydrogen
Hydrogen, a highly combustible gas that can store and deliver energy, is the simplest and most abundant element on Earth, but it doesn’t typically exist in its free form and must be extracted from compounds that contain it, such as water, coal, natural gas or biomass. Producing the hydrogen long used in oil refineries, chemicals factories and the fertiliser industry relies on natural gas or coal, in processes that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. This type of fossil-based hydrogen is often referred to as ‘grey’ hydrogen.
Industry experts estimate that close to 95 per cent of hydrogen production currently uses fossil fuels, and it generates as much CO2 as the emissions of the UK and Indonesia combined.
‘Green’ hydrogen, by contrast, is made by using renewable energy to split water into its two components – water and oxygen – through electrolysis, without producing greenhouse gases.
This type of ‘clean’ hydrogen could replace fossil fuel in sectors that can’t easily switch to electricity, such as steel making or heavy transport. The chief attraction of using hydrogen as a fuel is that the main by-product is water vapour, along with small amounts of nitrogen oxides, making it far less polluting than fossil fuels – assuming it doesn’t seep out. Leaks are one of many issues plaguing the adoption of green hydrogen, besides high costs, safety concerns, and the need to invest in enough renewable energy to make it, as well as in the infrastructure to store and transport the colourless gas.
How can the risks of hydrogen leaks be assessed?
In December 2022, Brussels called for applications for funding for more research into the risks linked to a large-scale deployment of hydrogen. It asked the research to show how hydrogen could reduce global warming by replacing fossil fuels, but also how it could contribute to global warming in the event of leakages. The Environmental Defence Fund’s study, meanwhile, urged governments and businesses to gather data on hydrogen leakage rates first, then identify where the risks were highest and how to mitigate them before building the infrastructure needed. The Frazer-Nash report also flagged how measures to prevent hydrogen leaks needed to be taken into account to allow for greater up-front and maintenance costs.
Richard Lowes, senior associate at The Regulatory Assistance Project think-tank, said: The more we know about how to produce it in a sustainable way, and the regulation and management needed, the more it costs and therefore that limits its use unless there is no alternative.
Hydrogen projects are on the rise globally Almost 300 green hydrogen projects are under construction or have started up worldwide, but the vast majority are tiny demonstration plants, International Energy Agency data shows. The largest is in China where Ningxia Baofeng Energy Group is using green hydrogen produced from solar power to make petrochemicals such as polyethylene and polypropylene. Consultancy DNV forecasts that green hydrogen would need to meet about 12 per cent of the world’s energy demand by 2050 to hit Paris climate targets. Based on the current pace of development and DNV’s modelling of future uptake, the world is only on track to reach about 4 per cent, DNV says.
David Cebon, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Cambridge, says 4 per cent might be only what’s “manageable”, given the huge amount of renewable energy needed to make enough green hydrogen. To replace the dirty hydrogen used now in refineries, fertiliser and chemical plants, almost double the electricity produced by every wind turbine and solar panel worldwide would be required – and that’s before green hydrogen is used for anything else, such as steelmaking, transport or heating, Cebon says. Still, the EU is considering mandates for green hydrogen’s use in transport, while countries such as South Korea, Japan and China have targets for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.
Energy giant BP, which is planning to build multiple green hydrogen projects, including a facility in Britain due to start in 2025 known as HyGreen Teesside, says it is developing leakage monitoring systems. Felipe Arbelaez, senior vice president for hydrogen and carbon capture at BP, said: We really want to launch an effort now to assess how low can we maintain the level of leakage across a value chain and that’s going to be the critical thing.
I do not think this is an issue. Say you would like to use Hydrogen to stabilize wind energy production. That means that you need (Sweden, if i'm right in an analysis) to produce Hydrogen 10% or such of the Wind energy in my estimates using a 3X conversion factor in the roundtrip electricity <-> electricity via Hydrogen. If 10% of that is lost, then we are talking about 1% Hydrongen lost and not 10%. Also technically speaking reducing that 10% loss is probably not too difficult of a problem might not be so large. But good to know for the engineers for sure. If you use Hydrogen in car's then the losses seam higher and more difficult to reduce than if you take advantage of the energy in a plant - also something to concider.
Display MoreI agree with Arthur Clarke on this issue. He said something like, "I am sure that conscious, sentient machines are possible because I carry one on my shoulders." In other words, if biological neuron-based brains that evolved on earth can be conscious, we have no reason to think that similar brains based on other biology elsewhere in the universe are also conscious, or that technology-based machines with similar neurons cannot also be conscious. To say it is impossible is to imply there is something magical or ineffable about brain tissue that cannot possibly be replicated in other media. When I say "replicate" I mean something similar to the way electroactive polymers replicate muscles, or ventricular assist devices (VAD) replicate the heart. I mean they perform the same function, with the same outcome, even though the underlying physical properties are different.
The "ineffable" hypothesis -- that there is something science can never understand -- has been applied to many phenomena in the past, especially the origin of life, genetics, and the ability of one cell to reproduce an entire complex organism. These things were once considered miraculous and forever beyond our grasp. Nowadays we know exactly how they work. The basic principles are taught in junior high school.
To address the author's points:
"a) We do not understand the neural basis of consciousness in humans, nor do we have a clear, uncontroversial philosophical answer to the hard problem of consciousness . . ."
We don't have to understand it completely. No one knows exactly, in every detail, how combustion works. We learn more about it every year. Despite our incomplete knowledge we have been using fire successfully for 400,000 years. We do not know every aspect of E. Coli biology, but we know enough to control infections and use E. Coli to manufacture many useful things such as human insulin.
"This makes a theoretical, top down approach to building machine consciousness difficult."
So what? A bottoms up approach has worked for nearly every technology we use. We had no top down approach to fire, metallurgy, stone cutting or anything else before 1650.
"b) We don’t know if building conscious machines is even compatible with the laws of nature."
Of course we know this! There are billions of conscious machines all around us.
"c) We don’t know if Big Tech will want to build conscious machines due to the ethical sensitivity of creating conscious systems."
That is a completely separate issue, having nothing to do with the technical issues. If Big Tech in the next 50 years will not do this, perhaps it will 100 years from now, or 300 years from now. This is like saying big automobile manufacturers did not want to make electric cars in 1980. That is true, but it did not mean electric cars were not feasible or practical in 1980. Manufacturers made a business decision not to develop electric cars, which turned out to be a mistake.
"d) We don’t know if building conscious AI would be technologically feasible — it might be ridiculously expensive."
Of course it is not technically feasible today. This is like saying in 1960 that "a desktop computer than does 3 billion operations per second is not technically feasible." Everyone knew that back in 1962. It would have been ridiculously expensive. Such machines are everywhere today, and they cost practically nothing. There is no reason to think that a silicon based intelligent machine will take large amounts of materials, or large amounts of electricity, or expensive materials, or processing and manufacturing more expensive than today's computers. Obviously it will take techniques we have not yet discovered, but once you invent a technique it costs nothing after that. Once you teach a robot how to balance, deal with the center of mass, and dance, robots will be able to do that for the rest of history at no additional cost. (See the video below.)
There is no reason to think that an intelligent machine with approximately the power of a human brain will be much larger than a human brain. Unless we happen to want one that is a million times more powerful than a human brain, which might be a handy thing to have. Sometimes it is useful to have a machine that is far more powerful than any human or biological equivalent, such as an airplane that flies faster than any bird, or a supercomputer that does more computations per second than the entire human race could with pencil and paper.
Granted, some biological data processing devices are far better than human technology. DNA storage is so compact, all of the world's data could fit into a liter of DNA. It it longer lasting. DNA kept in proper conditions will last for hundreds of thousands of years. DNA is far ahead of human data storage today . . . but people are working on DNA storage, and similar molecular data storage. I expect in 20 to 50 years our data storage will be as good as DNA. It might actually be DNA. Prof. Church at Harvard has stored and reproduced book in DNA. Storage and reading back is slow, but reproduction is far faster than any human technology. It is likely that small, cheap machines to read and write DNA will be developed, giving us hard disk-like storage billions of times denser than anything we now have. There is no reason to think this will not happen.
Dancing robots. This ability will soon be in all robots at no cost, like our ability to store gigabytes of data is in every computer, cell phone and camera, at practically no cost:
After trying out Chat GPT and see the reaction from insiders I think that the step to a get consciousness is just about creating a recursive machine e.g. the output is in some more or less clever way put to the input side and it will be able to simulate things an develop dynamically. We really got enough training material to do this after myself evaluating Chat Gpt. Currently this is not something that is done, but when people start playing with that for these powerful networks I'm sure that in the end it will develop conciusness. You are right that the goal is not to do this when we create tools today. But sooner or later the missing connection will be connected and I bet that in some server hall in some defense building real life can take it's first breath maybe even today. Hmm maybe that's' why I started to follow Arnold Schwarzenegger on facebook and not because my body is in sore need of training.
https://ukdaily.news/this-17-y…lectric-motor-278522.html
This teenager's improvement on the electric motor has attracted a lot of attention. Seems to have been confirmed, and if so would represent a major advancement.
Looks cool, seams we where lucky to have him alive though,
"
The young man did not arrive there by chance: during his young career as a self-taught engineer, he would have already developed no less than sixty prototypes, which includes a robotic hand and a kart capable of driving at more than 110 km/
"
What is the warranty on the battery? I figure I'll have to get an electric down the road and it seems batteries are expensive and fail too soon.
What scale is your 0 degrees? Mine is fahrenheit.
Celcius, You pay for extra horsepower and that the car is expensive, a larger battery means higher cost of replacing all figures I'm in the lower end. So I pay about 900 dollars a year which is not something strange in Sweden. From asking around I expect the interval 800-1200 dollars a year for this car.
I got my small electric car now, takes me about 200km on a full charge in normal winter conditions (around 0) with no pre heating. And I use the old diesel car for
trips where this form factor is less optimal. I love it, just love it. I'm reducing fuel costs from 300 dollars to 50 dollar a month. And the experience driving the
new electric car is fantastic. I went for a more cheaper variant with smaller battery and smaller car, essentially a two person car (the dog fits behind)
which is fine in my use case. I mostly drive the diesel car a bit ones a weak to keep it working. I expect that this is one of the most environmentally
friendly options you have as a small car is more environmental than a big one. The regen braking is the best feature as it gives a new interesting way to drive
the car and I find the trip is so much smoother, yep I like the smooth drive. It got 175hp and going around slow vehicles are not a problem but very smooth. I'm
also amazed that it feels like I'm driving a big car. That car cost me about 35 000 dollars. I've also spent 2000 dollars on home charging stations so I can charge 22kW
at home. If we need to be more people in the car, more carriage or that temperature is cold, longer trips or simple needing to tow something bigger the old diesel will still
be there. ALso it's good to have an extra car when the kids starts to be able to drive. But boy, those electric cars today are so enjoyable to drive. My old car have
costed me somwhere between 6000-8000 dollars a year the last 5 years. This figure is now going down significantly.
I tried to analyse how much energy extra need to be produced in order to stabilize electricity production in Sweden with storage. The fun thing in Sweden are that there is statistics for electricity production and consumption in hourly data and this should be the wet dream of any data analyst to chew on. I did write a python script to do something better than what everybody is doing in the more open pages of the internet. I have not found any serious approach to answer this question from real data. Any link from a professional is most welcomed. I did an honest try and found out that in Sweden you need to tax wind power with about 10%-20% of its power generation and produce hydrogen for energy storage. This assuming losses of the order of 0.33 for the storage (normally 0.25 is used but in Sweden we can take advantage of the heat produced in the process). Now the answer I got when asking this question was that people assumed 50% needed to be stored. My analysis below indicates that with a good approach with an intelligent control algorithm, the total amount of energy needed to be stored is much lesser than 50%. Interestingly the system of how we organize the production of the energy via a market will probably mean that there is not a strong incitement to invest unless the wind energy is taxed. It do not need to be taxed much, I think, much less than what I though from reading internet sources. A rate of 10-20% might be enough to produce a stable source of energy from wind. Of cause we have a lot of hydro so we can control with that, but we are connected to Europe ... and energy consumption will increase and there is not much more hydro dams that we can make. Anyhow see the link below, it contains the information for you ta investigate this question as well, find bugs, find improvements etc. Enjoy!
Display MoreSome more tomb stones for QM::
The fairy tale of the double slit experiments....
https://assets.researchsquare.…14f4a143.pdf?c=1631888118
Or why it doesn't work for photons in vacuum... :: https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0212103.pdf
As we all know. Fake news or bad experiments did divert physics into wrong directions. If electrons would work as explained in the double slit experiment we would have never have been able to watch TV...
What happens at the slit is that only some photons with a certain polarity get diverted and seem to interfere. Most do not act like QM would like it....
And worst of course "h" the Plank constant is not the minimal change in energy. This is the oldest fake news.
(See modulation of optical carrier waves in fibers...) The delta in energy can be much smaller than "h"....
Yeah and I think I getting homed in on a good argument behind a super deterministic model that produces the same right QM results,
If you think I shouled try to publish let me know, the difficulty to get help from academia to do this is enormous, i'm totally ignored when I try to contact them.
What is complex is the interpretation of the observations in the "deep inelastic scattering" experiments. This does not necessarily imply a complex proton structure.
It is like trying to understand the structure of a glass beaker by shooting it with a gun and studying the fragments produced.
"Proof that the proton contains multitudes came from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in 1967. In earlier experiments, researchers had pelted it with electrons and watched them ricochet off like billiard balls. But SLAC could hurl electrons more forcefully, and researchers saw that they bounced back differently. The electrons were hitting the proton hard enough to shatter it — a process called deep inelastic scattering"
I should have quoted your mistake (you make very long posts),
"
1) Any Hidden Variable interpretation of QM compatible with known experiments must have non-local hidden variables
(not just Bell's inequality - which is approximate - but may similar versions - non-local entanglement forces this)
"
The underlined statement assumes independence.
And I would refer to this blog post discussing a local model that both breaks Bell's inequality and is local, but does not satisfy the independence condition. You will find information in the blog post from a real physicist (Hossenfelder) that discusses the role of super determinism. Also I think that in the end I will show that a physical model where in stead you have one single spin, you have a distribution of spin's that are fixed relative each other would produce the QM result you see in Aspect's experiment and the Stern Gerlash experiment. This is your second mistake as this is really not a complex model. It is deterministic, local and there is a dependence between the hidden variables and what you measure.
Display More(1) Any Hidden Variable interpretation of QM compatible with known experiments must have non-local hidden variables
(not just Bell's inequality - which is approximate - but may similar versions - non-local entanglement forces this)
(2) Whenever concrete hidden variable theories are tested we find new counterexamples which show that experiments are truly non-deterministic
Here is a recent one:
https://www.quantamagazine.org…e-quantum-world-20180725/
You cannot in principle rule out non-local hidden variables as a way to get nondeterminism - and we may in the end get to that through quantum spacetime - but they all look a lot more complex then QM
(3) New proof that Copenhagen-style "collapse" versions of QM cannot be physical:
https://www.quantamagazine.org…quantum-physics-20201203/
(4) Pilot-wave style theories do not cut it (the quantum weirdness is weirder than that)
https://www.quantamagazine.org…antum-weirdness-20181011/
People publish silly things about QM based on slippery English language assumptions that do not stand up
https://www.quantamagazine.org…eality-go-wrong-20181203/
Really? Read the paper, then read
https://www.physics.nus.edu.sg…/5/2020/08/hyp-1819-2.pdf
For why it is flawed (as so many "English language" accounts of QM apparent paradoxes are.
Somone set a poor FYP student the job of proving this!
Or - for an easier read:
https://mateusaraujo.info/2018…ger-and-renners-argument/
Frauchiger & Renner is a fun and interesting version of classic Wigner's friend that exposes the true nature of quantum physics - it does not however contradict QM.
The well-known argument by Frauchiger and Renner about the consistency of quantum mechanics has finally been published (in Nature Communications). With publication came a substantial change to the conclusion of the paper: while the old version claimed that “no single-world interpretation can be logically consistent”, the new version claims that “quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems” or, to use the title, that “quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself”.
This is clearly bollocks. We need to find out, though, where exactly has the argument gone wrong. Several discussions popped up on the internet to do so, for example in Scott Aaronson’s blog, but to my surprise nobody pointed out the obvious mistake: the predictions that Frauchiger and Renner claim to follow from quantum mechanics do not actually follow from quantum mechanics. In fact, they are outright wrong.
Anthropocentrism - little electrons buzzing around like planets etc - or "obvious" notions of reality - is a trap. What seems "intuitive" and "simple" may just be "familiar".
Unless you are very arrogant and anthropocentric there is no reason why all space and energy scales should look like the ones we are familiar with.
THH
This shows your ignorance. If you read the linked wikipedia articles and youtoub videos your statement assume that you have independence e.g if
\lambda represent the underlying hidden variables and $X,Y$ are the measurements, then you have,
P(\lambda|XY) = P(\lamnda)
That is, given your measurement, you do not get any more information about the underlying hidden variables. This is the super deterministic loophole as
Bell fraze it. Now I put great effort and care to explain this (multiple weeks behind doing development), so try be a bit more polite and put some serious
work onto going into opposition. I was curious to see what a super deterministic model could look like, as I could not find a good example on the internet. My latest
development actually shows that Mills orbitsphere most likely is such a physical model. Assuming that there is a local super deterministic model behind
QM is a correct scientific stance. It's just not popular.
Display MoreThis is nonsense in square (nonsense)2! QM is an approximate and totally unphysical model and has no value beyond far field solid state modelling. The particle spin of e/p is fully random due to the 5 rotation induced "Zitterbewegung".
Thus aspect/QM just distinguish between the random spin up/down position of the particle moment vector. (left touch going right right touch going left!).
For a deterministic explanation see:: https://www.researchgate.net/p…m_an_Ontological_Solution
To relate QM with free will shows that you deal with idiots.
yeah, insane or trolling.
This is probably mi final version of the super deterministic example that produces exactly the QM analysis of the Aspect experiment.
I am discussing QM and possible Deterministic models that can explain Aspects experiment. Actually I can define a not unreasonable
deterministic model that gives exactly the quantum mechanical results related to the experiment (see post above). And the QM proponent claimed that
he did not want to do the work and read my paper because,
A deterministic model will mean that there is no free will! And he thinks that we have free will.
And he get's all the up votes!
That must be one of the biggest mistakes in quantum mechanics I have ever seen. I can't see the difference between a seeded
good pseudo random generator and a real one, so now we must accept QM or there is no free will.
I thought it was a joke but then I saw this excellent take on QM,
Discussion of superdeterminism
I use her definition of it the video to prove that my model is indeed super deterministic as it should.
I think that viewing super determinism as nonphysical and to be frown upon as a huge mistake and have given birth to a lot of confusion
like the Copenhagen interpretation which means stuff need to travel at arbitrary speed or many word interpretation. I now think that
I have found a super deterministic example that really looks much less strange that the traditional interpretations.
Here is my newest version of a super deterministic model
