Posts by Zephir_AWT

This simple animation illustrates how curved space-time deflects path of light. In the vicinity of massive bodies the space-time gets locally more curved, so that photons are forced to travel along longer paths there. The another question is, why space-time behaves so in presence of massive bodies. The answer may come from presence of two space-time arrows again: the first (classical) one is defined by transverse waves of light which are giving expanding perspective (red shift) at long scales, the second one by longitudinal ("scalar") waves of vacuum which are giving contracting perspective at short scales (blue shift) for us. As one can guess, once transverse and longitudinal waves come in ballance, then the space-time looks flat and steady-state (local expansion by photons is balanced by contraction of space induced by scalar waves). Once one of kind of ripples prevails, then the space-time gets curved locally and it exhibits "lensing" at large scales.

In dense aether model the massive bodies are source of this disbalance itself due to their ability to shield transverse and longitudinal components of omnipresent vacuum energy at different distance. Analogously to water surface the transverse waves of vacuum bear high energy density, but they're relatively slow. The extradimensional scalar waves are much weaker, but they propagate much faster than the speed of light in similar way like sound waves at the water surface. Every massive body thus shields virtual photons at relatively short distance (Casimir field) but longitudinal waves (virtual neutrinos) at much larger distance (gravitational field). The Casimir field is thus curved in similar way, like the gravitational field and it exhibits attractive force - but it contains excess of scalar waves and it contracts time arrow. Whereas gravitational field contains excess of virtual photons and it dilates the time arrow instead.

Quantum Foam of SpaceTime Scrubs Away Gigantic Cosmic Energy Empty space is filled with enormous energy, but according to a new proposal, this energy may be hidden because its effects cancel at the tiniest scales.

Mainstream physics is finally starting to sniff around physical concept of seemingly "empty space" or vacuum but water surface analogies of space-time in dense aether model already provide multiple clues how to drain this energy. In certain sense our vacuum resembles calm surface of molten iron inside of blast furnace: despite that everything around us is immensely hot, we have no effective ways how to drain such an energy because whole environment is effectively isothermic: there are no temperature gradients which would allow us to utilize energy flux.

But famous drinking bird toy demonstrates how to tackle this problem: once the water surface gets artificially protruded and spread along bird's beak, then the space-time gradient has opportunity to evaporate fast due to its latent heat. In addition, such a "beak" must protrude space-time gradient fast, or the space-time gradient would get enough of time to follow its motion and the beak wouldn't spread space-time at all. This evaporation of space-time gradient into an energy can be even observed directly as so-called dynamic Casimir effect in form of radiation. Low-dimensionality and transient arrangement are thus key for utilization of both vacuum energy both latent heat of matter in form of cold fusion.

Quote

even though the vacuum energy is huge everywhere, the juxtaposition of expanding and contracting regions creates a patchwork that is essentially indistinguishable from a large-scale spacetime that is neither expanding nor contracting. Such a spacetime can be described macroscopically as having zero cosmological constant. The only major assumption needed for the gluing procedure to work is that the spacetime foam has no intrinsic direction of time.

Before some time I proposed similar concept in cosmological time arrow: the space-time appears expanding from intrinsic relativistic perspective and collapsing from extrinsic relativistic one. Both perspectives not quite surprisingly intersect just at the human observer scale (Boltzmann brain).

Virtual particles of vacuum can be observed in similar methods like virtual particles of water. For example water and atmosphere has blue color from its density fluctuations, which preferably scatter short wavelength radiation. Vacuum exhibits analogous absorption threshold - just shifted toward much shorter wavelengths due to its immense energy density: the GZK limit is about 5×10¹⁹ eV. Other than that the wavelength of vacuum fluctuations (~ 0.1 mm) is remarkably similar to this of water (1.73 cm), which points to universality of fine structure constant.

Quote

Watch my lips: energy is conserved. Full stop. The Standard Model "explanation" for photon-photon interactions is wrong.

Standard Model has fundamental problem with its reference frame, which is attributed to dense nuclear matter instead of vacuum. For example in Standard Model the gluons are considered massless gluons, despite in gauge theory such a bosons should have infinite range. Which gluons of course haven't - they can exchange forces only up to 10-15 meter distance before they decay. This gives effective mass of gluons around 0.12 MeV. This is also average density of nuclear matter if we account to mass and diameter of proton. Not surprisingly all calculations of Standard Model are similarly biased.

Field is as real for light waves as water surface would appear real for surface ripples. It's just an inertial environment for both. The similarity of field with any massive environment also follows from fact, both mediate an energy in harmonic waves - i.e. it must be elastic. No environment can actually be observed by its own waves and transverse waves impede additional constrains for observation of its reference frame. The special relativity is actually valid for all transverse waves in any environment, vacuum is not special environment at all from their perspective.

Quote

energy is conserved. Full stop.

Energy is conserved at the water surface neither. A portion of it escapes into underwater due to scattering of surface ripples in underwater. Once we admit, that field remains unobservable, then we should also admit energy dissipation without trace - even in vacuum. And vice-versa: ripples of certain wavelength can gain energy from density fluctuations of their environment. From perspective of water surface observer such an energy looks like being generated from nothing. Strictly speaking, such an energy is moving across extradimensions of hyperspace but from deterministic perspective of low-dimensional observer such a transfer still looks like flagrant violation of mass/energy conservation law as the sink or source of energy cannot be traced by waves of light.

The above picture explains, how extremely sharp pulses of Tesla waves can drain energy from vacuum - the space-time becomes deformed in such a way, that pulse itself becomes selfabsorbing for neighboring waves including omnipresent photons of CMBR. For to achieve such a fast change of energy density Tesla developed very fast interrupters based on magnetic quenching of discharge between their spark gaps.

GQEnergy revealed composition of its new graphene batteries and it has begun with experimentation of the first self-powered vehicle.

You may also want to check Facebook video based on ver. 1.0 of technology (backup)

It's worth to note, that even classical mechanics has its own "many worlds" interpretations, for example this one in Huyghens and/or Fermat principle. It's not accidental, because quantum mechanics also follows Hamilton mechanics.

Quote

if PW interpretation is physical - more than an interpretation - it must make some different prediction. That can be tested and eliminate it.

It's actually very simple with using of double experiment - see here.

Quote

Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested...

It all depends on definition of reality and dimensionality of space-time. For example, at the water surface the density fluctuation formed by Brownian noise are observable by underwater waves, whereas they're still unobservable by surface transverse waves. Analogously in dense aether model (which compares 4D space-time to 3D water surface gradient) the virtual particles of vacuum will not be observable with transverse waves of light but they will refract scalar waves and also neutrinos (which are considered a solitons of scalar waves, i.e. supersymmetric analogy of photons in dense aether model). For example solar neutrinos are focused by sunspots, making solar corona hotter above them.

Quote

It's not easy to show how Maxwell equation leads to the Dirac equation, otherwise it would be in textbooks already.

Maxwell equations can be written in a Dirac-like form (see Laport and Uhlenbeck, Phys. Rev. 37, 1380 (1931)) by van der Waerden 2-spinor formalism which leads to Riemann-Silberstein representation for electromagnetic field and Majorana-Oppenheimer QED.

Zitterbewegung is scalar motion, it should have no magnetism attributed.

Regarding the actual topic of this thread, I found few examples which could be relevant to this it:

1. Can bismuth sphere generate heat in presence of heterogenous magnetic field? Bismuth is diamagnetic metal exhibiting roughly thirty magnetic anomalies and it's also weak topological insulator as well.
2. Dennis Cravens Golden Ball reaction it's attributed to LENR, but it also uses fragments of neodymium magnets in its protocol, which would create inhomogeneous magnetic field
3. Concept of scalar diode mimics the generation of electricity at thin polarized layers (PN junction in this very case). Bismuth polycrystal may also behave like system of Schottky junctions.
   Sch

Quote

But you, from comments here, behave as though you are not (a scientist).

I just came across this article: The tendency of scientists to favor generalized, bolder claims sacrifices precision and leads to spreading misinformation, according to a new study.

So - now, I'm not scientist by profession, as I don't take money for scientific job. At second, I don't even want to behave as a scientist, as it occasionally implies spreading of unprecise misinformation and misconceptions. I want to be correct, not a scientist.

Quote

Temperature changes caused by ambient heat (changes, or gradients) allow energy extraction without a sink while keeping 2LOT

Why not - but how to create these "temperature changes or gradients without sink" while keeping 2LOT? Because 2LOT implies presence of this sink actually.

Quote

It is just obsessional to believe that 2LOT has been experimentally discredited.

First of all, natural laws aren't persons, they cannot be discredited. They're mental construction of people and they don't give a sh*t what we think about them.

At second, many (and I presume all actually because I've no reason to think otherwise) natural laws exhibit less or more subtle exceptions - this doesn't make them invalid - but less universally valid.

It's obsessional to believe that natural laws are universally valid. But I don't want to twaddle about philosophy here.

What interests me, whether I can draw an electricity from piece of graphene without introduction of any energy to it from outside. Because media outlets including Thibaldo inventor imply, yes - it should be possible. Personally I don't really care, what proponents of some laws are thinking about it or not - as subjective feelings aren't experimentally testable.

Do you agree with this interpretation?

If yes, we can finally put the question, what is driving these thermal fluctuations? What is keeping atoms in motion and prohibits them to radiate their energy?
What is for example prohibiting liquid helium in freezing even at absolute zero temperature?

Quote

I thought the graphene was generating heat from the vacuum, according to you. This is really disappointing. You have to up your psuedoscience game.

No heat - but electricity from heat. According to Paul Thibado graphene generates electricity from temperature changes caused by ambient heat, i.e. thermal fluctuations of material. He is a scientist.

Discovery of topological Weyl fermions and drumhead surface states in a room temperature Co2MnGa magnet

Co2MnGa is ferromagnetic Heusler compound which can change their size by up to 10% in a magnetic field. This indicates their electrons are subject of internal stress and when magnetic field tries to reorient, they expand whole crystal lattice. By general understanding the electrons only mediate attractive forces between atoms. But similarly to human society where racism and bullying often takes place, the position of electrons between atoms isn't such a simple. Sometimes attractive forces are mediated by elongated orbitals protruding from surface of atoms and their attractions sqeezes and expels movable electrons from inner layers. Such an electrons behave like mercury in pores of brick, from where it gets expelled to surface, where it's forming conductive surface layer.

Physicists are calling these materials topological insulators, because they lose conductivity in the center on behalf of increased conductivity at their surface. With compare to metals, which are also soaked by electrons, the surface electrons are subject of internal stress because they repel each other like water on surface of hydrophobic material or like minorities people on perimeter of xenophobic society. Such an electrons propagate along surface not in transverse waves like ripples at the water surface, but merely like vortices, which behave like less or more independent particles.

With compare to common topological insulators the Heusler ferromagnetic insulators don't sqeeze electrons betwwen atoms by Coulombic forces but they behave like tiny magnets which are arranged in repulsive arrangement, so that their electrons get also stressed, but in perpendicular way, than the electrons in normal topological insulators. Their vortices aren't arranged and locked perpendicularly to surface like sunspots

, but in parallel and they move around here like Falaco solitons in mutually locked pairs, so called Weyl fermions, which resemble the Cooper pairs at the surface of superconductors - they're not composed of electron pairs though, but from their magnetic vortices.

The above observation is thus quite significant and analogous to observation of room temperature superconductivity. The common behavior of strong ferromagnets and superconductors is, they're often very brittle, which indicates strong internal stress within material. This stress also manifests itself by buckling of surface electrons, which undulate like membrane of drum perpendicularly to surface (surface polarons), whereas electrons at the surface of ordinary metals merely form ripples parallel with surface (surface plasmons). They're thus forming pressure waves in analogy to scalar waves of Nicola Tesla rather than transverse waves of light.

Weeyl fermion materials are supposed to find application in spinotronic and magnetic recording media - but for me they're interesting primarily because of their potential utilization in overunity applications. Their surface buckling could behave in similar way, like surface buckling of graphene, which was already found to be able to generate electricity from ambient heat.

Quote

One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.

What it so bizarre about it? One cannot observe something without exchanging some energy with observed object, one cannot exchange energy with subject without affecting it - the opposite is what the perpetuum mobile is called. This is what was originally opposed in this very thread. Not accidentally the minimal energy required for affecting the object and making an observation is just the energy of microwave noise field which surrounds all of us - everything smaller than that would disapper in this background noise.

Copenhagen/Bohr interpretation was apparently developed with lightweight photon experiments on mind and it has principal physical problem with all heavier particles, like electrons. According to Copenhagen interpretations for example electrons are residing around atoms fully delocalized into a fuzzy blobby orbitals. When particle goes through double slit, it gets fully delocalized so that it passes both slits "at the same moment", just at the moment when it hits the matrix at target whole this delocalized blob suddenly "collapses", Copenhagen/Bohr interpretation says....

But which force could be responsible for physical ddissolving and composing such a compact particle like electron on demand, not to say about even heavier ones (proton, neutron)? The energy density of electron orbital (in the range of eV) is clearly insufficient to do that (the splitting of electron to photon would require energy at least 512 keV) - so it's evident, that electrons still revolve atom like real pinpoint particles.

Quote

CI can be distinguished from MWI

CI is based on intrinsic perspective and it denies consistent histories, MWI on strictly explicit one and it denies collapse, whereas pilot wave theory embraces both, being thus more general. Above I explained that collapse of wave function can be easily explained by synchronizing of pilot wave of observer with pilot wave of observed object. But such a perspective is extrinsic and generally inaccessible for us. From intrinsic perspective of observer the wiggling of observed object suddenly just disappears once they get entangled after exchange of quanta of energy during process of observation.

Even more intuitively the CI says, that observed object gets delocalized across whole scope of observation, MWI says, that pinpoint object is surrounded by its own delocalized reality and Broglie pilot wave theory says, that pin point object is surrounded by delocalizing atmosphere of finite radius, in the scope of which it also lives in its own alternative reality - but not outside it. De Broglie himself later improved this view by so-called double solution model, according to which partially delocalized object remains surrounded by delocalizing atmoshere, we are thus dealing with two mutually interfering wave functions here. And this view is actually most exact one (despite it's least known accepted the less) and it can be illustrated easily by double slit experiment.

CI predicts that photons would form smooth interference pattern - but no dots (they must be fully delocalized). MWI predicts that photons would form dots arranged into interference patterns but never any smooth pattern. Only De Broglie theory allows the both: fuzzy dots overlapping into less or more smooth pattern, the fuzziness of dots is function of photon energy. X-ray and gamma ray photons arrive always as a dots at target and they never get delocalized = they violate Copenhagen interpretation. With compare to it, low frequency photons are so delocalized that they never form any distinct dots at target = they violate MWI, because all photons actually share the "same world".

In this way all these interpretations can be easily distinguished from each other.

Quote

GR and SM work for the nucleus

From above diagram follows that GR works best for objects of size of Sun, quantum mechanics works best for objects of size of electron orbital. It's not accidental that Sun is mostly composed of degenerated electron orbitals, because these two objects are holographically dual. Outside these scopes the GR and QM theories are predestined to fail, but parabola for waterfall model also fails at most of common situations, yet it remains most effective and useful model for waterfall description.