Quantum Physics #1

By the-cosmic-engine 16/02/2012 56


Quantum Physics for Beginners # 1

Until the 20th century, the only physics humankind was aware of was that which involved energy and time. The science that successfully describes these processes is called thermodynamics. This is based on the very reasonable idea that any activity in this Universe requires energy to be expended and takes time to complete. Alas this isn’t true. At the beginning of the 20th century Einstein completely revised the traditional thinking on time. Time had always been thought of as universal, one time for all; however Einstein showed that your time is different from mine. Indeed your time depends on the speed you’ve been travelling, the acceleration you’ve been subjected to, and the gravitational field you’ve been living in. But Einstein’s theory of relativity is incomplete; it provides a mathematically useful geometric analysis of time and space but by-passes the fundamental science completely.

Until the 20th century we thought that thermodynamics and relativity described everything there was to know about the Universe, or perhaps more accurately, the fabric of the Universe. Max Planck in 1900 had fired the first warning shot that showed that all wasn’t so cosy when he discovered that light can absorb and admit radiation only in energy bundles (later called quanta) whose size was proportional to the frequency of radiation. It ranks as one of the greatest discoveries in science but Planck hated his idea. He was obsessed with thermodynamics (particularly the second law), his problem was that for his quanta to work they had to temporarily break the second law (for reasons to be explained in later posts). Photographs show a miserable Planck at the time — yes, really miserable. The discovery won him a Noble Prize in 1918 but that didn’t cheer him up, I guess you can’t please everyone.

The wonderful (I use the term advisedly) thing is that thermodynamics and relativity are not the underlying truth of the Universe; they are just special cases of a more fundamental physics. That physics is called quantum physics. Quantum physics does away with the pesky inconvenience of time and energy, indeed any particle that finds itself in the quantum world will be everywhere simultaneously. Don’t laugh — life, including you, couldn’t exist if for significant periods the sub-atomic particles that you are made of don’t temporarily appear everywhere in the Universe simultaneously. You don’t have to take my word for this, the great Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize in 1965) spent a large chunk of his career demonstrating it.

Next article I’ll get down to specifics, and if you don’t agree with any of it or don’t understand it then please comment.


56 Responses to “Quantum Physics #1”

  • I presume by temporarily appear everywhere in the Universe you are referring to the concept of Sum-over-histories, inferred by the inclusion of Feynman in the piece.

    I was under the impression that this was either a theoretical construct, or else the particles alternate paths were cancelled out to leave only the actual path taken.

    If I’m mistaken about what you were referring to, sorry about that.

    Also the post is lacking a title, this may cause problems in feeds and such.

    • Darcy, thank you for your helpful response. I suggest that we are both right. Feynman’s approach is theoretical but only because it is a necessarily rather clumsy attempt to impose classical features on a phenomenon that is fundamentally quantum. Quantum because Feynman’s insight was there is a contribution to the trajectory from each of the infinite number of routes from A to B, including the one via Mars. The final trajectory represents a weighted mean of all of these; some do cancel because vectors are being added. Importantly, the contribution of the Martian route is finite (which is the important point) but very small. However, the smaller the rest mass of the transiting particle the more quantum its behaviour, i.e. the bigger the contribution from the wayward routes. A higher the rest mass particle spills more information (releases more energy) en route and behaves more classically. The fun starts in the explanation of the trajectory of zero rest mass particles, travelling at the speed of light (photons) which should required infinite energy to make the transit. Only quantum physics can explain that.

  • Until the 20th century we thought that thermodynamics and relativity described everything there was to know about the Universe, or perhaps more accurately, the fabric of the Universe.

    Mr. Hanson, Einstein published his first relativity paper in 1905. No one, including physicists, could have thought that relativity contributed to our understanding of anything until the 20th century.

    Perhaps you might have said that until the 20th century, physicists believed that mechanics, electricity and magnetism, and thermodynamics formed the complete basis for understanding the universe.

    • Bernard
      You’re right – I can hopefully redeem myself that by saying that the sentence you refer to is a case of my poor use of English.

  • Roger, I don’t take this quantum mechanics’ concept seriously of a particle that can be at point A and point B simultaneously. I’m one of those that take Feynman’s advise, of just shut-up and calculate.

    To try to construct the physical universe in the way we perceive it thru observation (as in double slit experiment for example), I think is a mistake. The thing is, the theory works in accordance with what is expected from observation. However, that has been no experimental evidence (zilch) whatsoever to directly confirmed that material objects (photon, electron, atom) can be at 2 places (point A and point B) simultaneously. This conclusion is inferred indirectly and not directly. Such inferred conclusion, is consistent with what the mathematical solution says and it is logical/reasonable for physicists to reach that conclusion.

    To claim that objects can be at 2 places at once (despite of no direct observation whatsoever but only inferred), is actually the same thing as religious claims of an omnipresence God or entity. This kind of thinking in Physics allow nonsense as time going or flowing backward to be proposed as real (ie, it exists). Any object (regardless of how small it is, be it a photon or a sub-atomic particle) that’s claimed to go back in time, meant that causality is reversed. Reverse causality doesn’t exist in physical reality. For anyone (even top scholars or Nobel laureate in physics) to accept such concepts must also accepts that everything around us (even ourselves) are just illusion. We know that we are not just here as illusion. We do really exist.

    The problem with modern physics is that mathematics has taken over and causality has been thrown out the door. It is more like children’s simon says game. Everything the math says is interpreted as having a corresponding physical reality.

    I still can’t get my head around the concept of complex mass (as in complex number square root of -1). I mean, the math says that tachyon particles have complex mass. The mass of say a little marble is 40 grams (real number), but can you tell me what is the physicality of some object that has a mass of 40*i grams? (40 times square root of -1) . Can 40*i grams be regarded as real or can we say that it may be a mathematical artifact that has no correspondence to physical reality at all? I’ll take the second interpretation. It has no basis in physical reality. It is meaningless, useful for computation/calculation but has no physical meaning at all.

    Physics has gone wild with interpretation of mathematical solutions as if each of them are somehow correspond to some physical observable or entities. Scientists/engineers work with FFT (fast-fourier-transform) everyday, however the fourier transformed numbers (complex numbers) has no physical meaning whatsoever. The usefulness of fourier numbers/series is unquestionable. Fourier numbers/series is a useful (abstract) mathematical concepts only but it has no physical meaning. It is useful in de-nosing real time-series data (eg: sales data), but to interpret FFT time series as if it is real, is meaningless.

    I see physics in a similar fashion. Taking the math literary as if it is somehow represent or correspond to physical reality. I think that this mistake has been going on for decades, since modern physics begun. I’m not questioning the usefulness of modern physics’s theories. I’m questioning the simon says mentality. The math says A, then we all jump and endorse it that physical reality must be in accordance with attributes of A, despite the alarm bells, such as violation of causality.

    There was a blog post from Ken here at SciBlog a couple of weeks ago, about his enthusiasm about Dr. Lawrence Krauss’s idea that everything in this material universe came from nothing. Well, I bet that you buy into that as well, if you accept that an object can be at 2 places at once or it can travel back in time.

    If we accept these kind of nonsense from physicists, then we may as well convert into Christianity. At least Christians are honest about their beliefs in omnipotence & omnipresence of their creator.

    I know that my post here is long, but this kind of topics that we (Objectivists) have been debating it with physicists/scientists for quite sometime. We accept modern physics as valid scientific theories (largely correct) except that we dismiss any claim in modern physics that endorse non-causality (such time going backward, complex/imaginary mass, pop into existence from nothing, an object can be everywhere at once, etc,…), because they cannot be real (or they don’t exist).

    • Falafulu
      Thank you for your considered reply. We might have to differ on this one. Certainly the mathematical expression of quantum physics demands a superposition of states and that approach works extremely well. There are some pretty convincing experiments with photons and beam-splitters that give results totally incompatible with the notion of single states. What I will say is that to register a single state you have to be able to detect it, and that needs a release of information. The detection limit of the Universe is the reduced Planck constant, so it could concievably be that the particle is in a single state but this Universe can’t detect it. But we’re getting into some pretty deep physics here.

  • Thanks for that Roger,

    about the zero rest mass particles, I thought the infinite energy objection only applied to particles with mass?
    Also that it only applied to accelerating massive particles* to light speed, not particles that originate at light speed. Or does the generation of a photon count as acceleration?

    Again, sorry if I’ve conflated two different ideas here.

    *were the term “massive” denotes particles that have rest mass, not the more colloquial meaning “lots of mass”

    • Darcy – neat reply. I can’t argue with that. As Einstein himself said photons are difficult to some to terms with, although at some time I’d like in the near future I’d like to be more specific about what the issues with photons are, particularly with respect to their trajectory from A to B.

  • I liked Fala’s response I am new to all this so forgive me if I am a little ignorant, but I have been researching radiant energy. Which has lead me here (energy from the vacuum) and into the quantum level. Scalar waves are what got me interested and some of the theory around it is enlightening, for example Nicola Tesla s research into this field. His announcement that scalar waves travel 1 &1/4 the speed of light. Also theories on the ether which pervades all space I believe to be where the energy from the vacuum comes from, is missing in relativity and Einsteins mathematical doctrines. Maybe I am on the wrong track but from what I know there is a sea of energy in the vacuum and for some reason modern day science mainstream hasn’t found out how to tap it yet.

    • Derek – thank you for your comment. We’re all beginners where quantum physics is concerned and I must say yourself and Falafulu have a good point in the role of mathematics in all of this. There are two aspects to quantum physics: the clear, unambiguous experimental results, then there is the far more difficult, interpretation of the results – if I can use the dreaded word, that is where the speculation comes in. I’ll make a point of separating the fact from the speculation in the future. In the coming days I’d like to describe the experiment (other than the legendary 2-slit experiment) which demonstrated to me something was drastically different in the quantum world and why complex numbers just have to be introduced to clean up the accounting.

  • Derek, quite the mishmash of misunderstanding you’ve got there. Not hard to do if most of your research is unguided and via the internet, so nothing to be embarrassed about. There’s lots of unreliable stuff out there.

    I can’t really comment on the Scalar Waves you mention, though preliminary reading on the subject suggests they are fictitious. Except to say that while Tesla was undoubtedly a genius, we are surely to have advanced our understanding of electromagnetic phenomenon in the 70 odd years since his death*.

    As for the ether, this was a very specific theoretical substance that was conjectured to exist to explain what electromagnetic waves propagated through. It’s possible that it does exist but is completely impervious to observation, but given it didn’t end up explaining the very thing it was invented for, that possibility seems unlikely.

    The vacuum energy you speak of is something different (but pseudo-science conflating the two is possible), there are two possible things you could be talking about here. First is quantum fluctuations in spacetime whereby virtual particles pop in and out of existence very fast. This could possibly be termed a “sea of energy” and we certainly don’t have any idea how to tap it to do work. It is also (one of) the proposed mechanism(s) by which the “Casimir Effect” operates.

    Another possibility is the proposed energy of spacetime itself, so-called Dark Energy. This we also have no idea of how to tap into. But given how very “dilute” it is, it would not be a very efficient source of energy anyway. We would likely have to harvest the energy from vast tracts of space to do anything useful. I just calculated that you would have to harvest the energy from about 150,000 cubic kilometres to charge your cellphone. Hardly the end of our energy woes. You would need 600 times the volume of the Earth just to charge the world’s cellphones.

    The reason this energy becomes important in the universe is because it is everywhere and the universe is Vast. The distances between galaxies (outside the local cluster) are such that this energy can overcome the attractive force of gravity.

    Roger, can you recommend some good popular science books Derek can read to get a good foundation in quantum physics?

    I recommend reading people like Michio Kaku, Roger Penrose, Brian Greene, Marcus Chown, Clifford Pickover, Stephen Hawking (“A Brief History of Time” is Awesome, but may be out of date. “A Briefer History of Time” is the updated version), Steven Weinberg, Lawrence Krauss .
    Not all of them deal directly with this topic but they should give you a good place to start.

    Good luck, :-)

  • * Though I am a fan of the tv show “Sanctuary” which posits that Tesla is a Vampire who is still living among us and creating even more impressive inventions.

  • Roger,

    I know that there are many publications in the Physics literature in an attempt to address the assault on causality (that has been going on for decades) & restore sanity to Physics, but here are 2 publications (first appeared more than a decade ago) that interests the likes of me (& others) who are strictly adherents to causality of Physical laws. They may not be the correct theories, but at least they’re trying to restore sanity in Physics, where dominant non-causal theories are being accepted without being questioned.

    #1) Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death

    #2) The Theory of Elementary Waves

    Paper #2 has got a few serious problems in its postulations (as you can find other physicists debunking it on the net), but nevertheless, it can explain many phenomena in Quantum mechanics in a causal manner, without invoking non-causal God-like behavior as being in 2 different places at once for an object or instantaneous events (with zero time lapse – between the cause & the effect such as quantum entanglement & double-delay-choice experiment of Alain Aspect, et al), etc.

    Paper #2 throws out uncertainty principle and also dismiss complementary principle, because as you know that those 2 principles are fundamental pillars in Quantum mechanics which they invoke God-like non-causal physical behavior.

    As the author of Paper#1 quoted in his article about “Big Bang”.

    Paul Marmet…
    It is actually a creationist theory (Big Bang) that differs from other creationisms (for example, one that claims creation took place about 4000 B.C.) only in the number of years since creation.

    The 2 theories are fringe theories and yet accepted by mainstream physics. They’re even being attacked by main stream physics not for proposing sane solutions (restoring causality to physics), but their supposed perceived shortfall, even the main stream theories have also got shortfalls and problems on their own.

    I think that in the long term, sanity in Physics will be restored and causality will be crown king again. This will only happen (may be decades or a few hundred years from now), when physicists run out of explanation or all the experiments keep failing to detect entities or physical observables that the mathematics have (mis) directed them to search for (in fruitless manner but no results), then they realised that they have been guided blindly by mathematics rather than being guided by philosophy. Physics must be guided by philosophy first and foremost, and the mathematics should come in second. Today, mathematics rule supreme in Physics and philosophy is ignored or totally thrown out. Just look at the number of non-causal theories that have been (unquestionably) accepted as the true mechanisms of how nature work.

    I believe that causal theories will explain the physical laws that we observe in the Universe today, but without invoking God-like behavior. As in Paper #2, the mathematics is almost the same as the current mathematics in Quantum mechanics, except that it proposed a different origin of the waves (waves travel in the opposite direction as opposed to forward direction proposed in Quantum Mechanics), which as a result of applying the theory, all the God like behavior (such as being in 2 places at once) disappears, thus after all there is no mystery in Quantum mechanics (according to the author). Every perceived magic in QM has simply got causal explanations.

    Finally, Einstein was correct in his dismissal of QM as a non-complete theory. However his effort to disprove it on a theoretical basis, was fruitless. Energy Conservation laws doesn’t apply in General relativity as well, which again again bring back the question of non-causality to the fore-front.

    If someone wants a good laugh of how insane some proposed theories in physics are, then I suggest you start with the Anthropic Principle – AP (on Wikipedia). If someone with no background in Physics read the AP theory, he would almost think instantly, “aha! I’m reading the book of Genesis about creation”. I put physicists who talk nonsense like that in the same box as christians and other religious followers. The funny thing is, those same physicists will dismiss the beliefs of christians from time to time, but their proposed theories are no difference to the beliefs of christians. It is ironic, isn’t it?

    Just go on readers, check out Anthropic Principle on the net.

  • I said…
    The 2 theories are fringe theories and yet accepted by mainstream physics.

    but I meant to say,

    The 2 theories are fringe theories and NOT yet accepted by mainstream physics.

  • Darcy said…
    First is quantum fluctuations in spacetime whereby virtual particles pop in and out of existence very fast.

    That has never been observed. It has been inferred directly from the math. The math proposes that this is actually what happens. Physicists simply take this mathematical solutions at face value, but there has been no observation of that. Time-flowing-backward is also mingled in there as well to explain this God-like behavior. Umm! Time-travelling backward? I thought I read something similar in the book of revelationi, that God Jehovah, exists in a time-less manner, in which he (whatever that means) can go backward or go forward in time to change past events (which will affect the future) or change future events (in order to avoid a pre-destined catastrophe) in order to do favour to the Israelites. I can’t remember exactly of the specific chapter in the Book of Revelation that mentioned that, as my memory from what I learnt at Sunday School some eons ago is very rusty.

    Derek, I suggest you buy a book on (Objective) Meta-Physics to read first and then get Physics books to read afterward.

  • Falafulu, I haven’t read anything about backward causality for virtual particles, got a ref for this? I sure I’d find it very interesting.. Generally it is explained as “borrowing” energy very quickly.

    The most disturbing thing about your comments is you seem to have decided how reality should be and criticise everything that doesn’t match up. You like to fling the insult that the scientists are behaving like the religious but I would submit that your behaviour here smacks of the very same thing.

  • I’d just like to point out that I am not “wedded” to the idea of virtual particles.
    I’m not an expert so have to take the word of those who are, and most are of the opinion that virtual particles tell us something meaningful about the way the universe works. Should they be dis-proven then I will change my thinking to what the prevailing consensus is.

    I even note that they are only one interpretation of the Casimir Effect.

  • Darcy, before you try to have a go at me. How about trying to address first if non-causality in Physics is science. If you can give a brief answer to that, then I’m willing to engage with you. Pointing out this obvious fact is somehow regarded as anti-science. I’m pro-science all the way. Speculation that leads to non-causality is not science if that’s your definition of science.

  • Now, I would like to perhaps elaborate further & clarify here regarding my position in the discussion. Facts are facts. Whatever observation that we measured in experiments are undeniable, including the Quantum Entanglement, Cashmir Effect, consequences of Uncertainty principle, and others. The proposed theories for the observation of those physical observables is what is being criticized because they clearly lead to unphysical consequences as a result. Can some other theories be proposed to account for those observables but completely eliminate the magic? There are a few in the literature but I have posted 2 of them above, even if they’re fringe theories? My position is not anti-science. If I’m anti-science, then I’ll dismiss all science, including the 2 fringe theories I have referenced above.

    I like the comment from the “Whyevolution” website:

    PROBLEM! If nothing is something, it would seem to logically follow that there is NO nothing, there is only something!
    Well, problem solved, the reason we can’t get something from nothing is because there never was a nothing, there has always been only something! But, what was the nature of the something that preceded our universe, that we mistakenly thought was nothing? Maybe we should do further research!

    If, the universe came from nothing, they (physicists) made out to be (ie, their definition of nothing is not something), then clearly they’re wrong. However if the nothing that they mean is definition given in the quote from “whyevolution” website, then well, we should be all happy because causality is not violated, because nothing is simply actual (thing) something that has always pre-existed there (in the so called nothingness) that we came from. Physicists are vague on this.

  • There appears to be an assumption in the article that QED explains everything. Is that the right assumption that should be taken from the article?

  • It is true that that the kasmir effect can be attributed to the sea of energy in the vacuum (or dark energy/ radiant energy), or whatever name it is called these days
    (Heaviside seemed to have an understanding of it ). In the days before the 19th century it was called the aethar. Fringe science it may be, but I have done experiments with Bedini’s SSG (simplified school girl) motor and found through practical experience that over unity is real and it is possible to get more energy out than you put in, as the environment contributes the balance (for those with doubts please go to yahoo groups Bedini monopole motor). My understanding of electricity is that a magnet will induce a current in a copper wire. I look at the universe and see it is filled with magnetism, I look in the sky and see the electrical energy arcing in a storm. Tesla got his idea for the rotating magnetic field from observing the circular patterns of the planets.He even proposed a unified field theory after his exhaustive years of study and experiments(which was pretty much his life’s devotion) . In terms of scalar waves it might be good to open your mind to other possibilities rather than try to debunk everything. I am not an expert but Professor Dr. Konstantin Meyl from Germany has done some excellent research in this field and even has some serious research kits that you can buy off the internet and discover that everything is not black and white in the world of science. I shall endeavor to read some of the authors you have recommended and do still more research. Like I said I am but a novice but have found through practical experiments that there is two sides of the story.

  • Derek, there is a company in Auckland (start-up from Auckland University – Electrical/Electronic Department at Engineering School) that their devices can transmit power wirelessly.

    PowerbyProxi

    I do not know if PowerbyProxi’s devices have anything to do with scalar waves as described here by Konstantin Meyl or not, but it is something that I’ll ask Greg Cross (PowerbyProxi’s founder/director), next time I see him.

    Derek said…
    sea of energy in the vacuum

    That’s a contradiction. You can’t call something vacuum if there are objects (energy) in there. Vacuum is nothing. If it has energy, then it can’t be vacuum anymore.

  • Falafulu, the PowerbyProxy website quite clearly says that the underlying mechanism is inductively coupled power transfer. The very well understood mechanism by which a changing magnetic field induces a voltage in metal wires.

    If that’s all Scalar waves are I have no problem with them, it’s just another name for a known phenomenon. But I suspect that isn’t the claim.

  • here is the link to the Dr’s website which explains things better than I ever will. http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=10_Home&page=1&sublevel=0
    Fala said “That’s a contradiction. You can’t call something vacuum if there are objects (energy) in there. Vacuum is nothing. If it has energy, then it can’t be vacuum anymore.”
    well one thing I have learned about life is that it is a contradiction. It can also be called Zero Point Energy.

  • Electrical longitudinal waves = scalar waves

    Darcy said ” assertion that over unity can be achieved.
    Well, good luck with that.”
    Don’t need luck mate it has already been proved by “fringe science” It’s not something I have to prove to you guys.

  • Derek, that NASA guy, has somehow not willing to publish his research into cold fusion that he talks about in that short video clip. I suspect that he’s mistaken about what he observed from his device and thought it is cold fusion or otherwise, he likes to obfuscate and confuse the public perhaps to get more funding.

    That sort of invention will make him an instant billionaire today, but the fact that he doesn’t want to be rich (or appear to be), somehow is very suspicious. If it is my invention, I would just keep quiet, until I sort out investors and financial backers to come on board and fund the startup business.

    Current theory says that the temperature he (including others who support low temperature cold fusion) is supposed to take place is impossible. With that in mind, I’m wondering why the NASA guy has not yet published his findings.

  • I just want to add the following video clip from the author of the TEW (theory of elementary wave), Lewis Little, which I’ve already posted a link to his original paper in a previous message up at the top of this thread. Dr. Little gives an explanation of his theory and how it leads directly to special relativity (and also Quantum Mechanics).

    Special Relativity

    Now, as I have already stated above, that this theory might be wrong or correct (experimental verification is needed), but the explanation is logical and make sense. He used philosophical concepts to clearly explain some misconceptions in the word semantics that some physicists are using, which may lead to the error in the formulations of physics theories.

    I invite readers of this thread to please watch the video (~ 12 minutes). You may not like his theory (perhaps its false), but I think that you’ll like his explanation about the physical origin & causation in relativity.

    He has got other video presentation on his site where you can check them out.

  • Interesting to say the least, I agree in the assumption that Einstein had it all wrapped up in his explanations of relativity can be misleading. When we talk about the mechanics of what makes things tick, to put all our eggs in one basket and say this is how it is, could be prone to error. I like to see this field more as an evolutionary jigsaw puzzle, which with time pieces get added some taken away till we eventually get a better view of the big picture.
    In terms of the cold fusion there are 2 versions of the Low Energy Nuclear Reactor LENR being readied for production. 1/ is Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer . The 2nd one is a Defkalion product called “Hyperion”. Nasa is using Rossi’s product.
    The Defkalion product specs are here http://defkalion-energy.com/files/HyperionSpecsSheetNovember2011.pdf
    You heard it from me first..
    Over unity…

  • Derek, I have some reservations about the LENR machine and its claim. I bet that the inventors of the LENR are refusing independent testing of their machines, because they might be afraid that others are going to find out that it’s claim is none other than a machine similar to the one that James Randi described in the video clip below:

    Phoney Bomb-Detectors

    The spec for the LENR type machine that you linked to above, looks legit (from a point of view of engineering specification), but the question to ask, is if the specs’ purpose is to deceive? May be the kind of pseudo-science that Feynman warned us over 30 years ago.

    I find it very odd that this LENR company stated the following in their home page:

    The science behind Hyperion increases the probability of particles overcoming the electrostatic potential Coulomb barriers in order to penetrate the nucleus by the quantum mechanical tunneling effect…

    Now, it is the same Quantum Mechanics theory that dismisses the possibility of such low temperature fusion that this company is claimed to have achieved, is used by the company itself to claim that the (Quantum mechanics) theory of energy barrier tunneling was applied in their design of their machine? Which QM did they use? It smells like what Feynman had cautioned us about. The company did everything to appear scientific, however they say that their theory is based on Quantum Mechanics, but it is the same Quantum Mechanics theory that says that this (fusion) claim of the physical process that takes place at that low temperature is impossible to achieve. Do you know if the company had employed a PR or marketing person who has a PhD in wordsmithing?

    I have doubts about the claim about this LENR machine, but I’ll wait until the machine hits the markets to find out, because there is no doubt that it will be revealed as fake or genuine by then.

    Hey if you have a machine already (given out by the company itself to those who are very enthusiasts about their technology), can I borrow it from you, so I can overhaul it to examine its parts? See, James Randi got hold of a bomb-detector machine only to opened it out and found no useful electronics at all inside it. Well, he found that the bomb-detector machine had wires all over the place inside it, but to his surprised, the wires were hanging lose and not connected to anything. If you have an LENR machine, then I’m very keen if you can invite me to take a look at it and I’ll promise you that I won’t bring along anyone else, not even Duncan Garner from TV3 because he will report it. Just myself.

  • ha ha ha very funny video, am surprised the government spent so much money without testing the product. By the way I like your name it’s funny too “Fella full of faeces”. No I don’t have an LENR machine
    . It is interesting what a big part to electromagnetics has to play at the quantum level holding together quarks and the like.
    Did you know ” in 1897, Tesla researched radiation, which led to setting up the basic formulation of cosmic rays” . Apparatus for Utilizing Radiant Energy(685,957) patented Nov 5,1901,descibed by Tesla over 100 yrs ago. The patent describes that Tesla found cosmic rays in the form of charged particles, as well as high energy em waves.More Tesla.
    Electromechanical devices and principles developed by Nikola Tesla:
    Various devices that use rotating magnetic fields (1882)
    The Induction motor, rotary transformers, and “high” frequency alternators
    The Tesla coil,[42] his magnifying transmitter, and other means for increasing the intensity of electrical oscillations (including condenser discharge transformations and the Tesla oscillators[43][44])
    Alternating current long-distance electrical transmission system[45] (1888) and other methods and devices for power transmission
    Systems for wireless communication (prior art for the invention of radio) and radio frequency oscillators[46]
    Robotics and the electronic logic gate[47]
    Electrotherapy Tesla currents[48][49][50]
    Wireless transfer of electricity and the Tesla effect[51][52]
    Tesla impedance phenonomena[53]
    Tesla electro-static field
    Tesla principle
    Bifilar coil
    Telegeodynamics
    Tesla insulation
    Tesla impulses[54]
    Tesla frequencies[42]
    Tesla discharge[42]
    Forms of commutators and methods of regulating third brushes
    Tesla turbines (e.g., bladeless turbines) for water, steam and gas and the Tesla pumps
    Tesla igniter
    Corona discharge ozone generator
    Tesla compressor
    X-rays Tubes using the Bremsstrahlung process
    Devices for ionized gases and “Hot Saint Elmo’s Fire”.[55]
    Devices for high field emission
    Devices for charged particle beams
    Phantom streaming devices[56]
    Arc light systems
    Methods for providing extremely low level of resistance to the passage of electric current (predecessor to superconductivity)
    Voltage multiplication circuitry
    Devices for high voltage discharges
    Devices for lightning protection
    VTOL aircraft
    Dynamic theory of gravity
    Concepts for electric vehicles
    Polyphase systems

    Yet not one noble prize and his theories are considered fringe science, his work on resonance and oscillations are legendary.
    Tell me what did you learn about him at university ?

  • Derek,
    Your list of Tesla related technologies/inventions are well understood in physics & electronic engineering even if Tesla had a (or an indirect) hand in their proposals, theorizing or developments. Besides, there’s no Nobel prize awarded in (Electrical/Electronic) engineering. Only in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature (Economics as a late addition). Tesla’s achievements (majority or all of them) can be viewed as (somewhat) engineering which is in fact applied physics.

    The Nobel prizes, I’m aware that have been awarded in physics which were pretty much prizes for electronics was Einstein’s photo-electric effect and Bardeen-Shockley-Brattain’s invention of the transistor.

    Now can you explain of how that company which manufactures the LENR devices you linked to above can claim that they used Quantum Mechanics (QM) theory (energy barrier tunneling) in the design of their machines, but it is the very same concept that Physicists have used to conclude that such cold fusion reaction can’t take place at the low temperature range as made out by its (cold fusion) proponents? Are there 2 different concepts in QM about energy barrier tunneling that I’m not aware of? I mean that company Defkalion-Energy claimed that they’re using the same QM concept to produce cold fusion does indeed take place at low temperature and the same time, physicists who are skeptical about such claim apply the same theory and concluded that it doesn’t stand up at all (ie, no fusion can take place).

    Can you answer my question? Who is correct? Physicists who have published their findings or cold fusion proponent who hardly ever publish their work?

  • Advances in the field of cold fusion and the recent success of the nickel and hydrogen exothermal reaction, in which the energy release cannot be explained by a chemical process, need a deeper understanding of the nuclear reactions and, more particularly, the possibility for modification of the Coulomb barrier. The current theoretical understanding based on high temperature fusion does not offer an explanation for the cold fusion or LENR. The treatise “Basic Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory”, based on an alternative concept of the physical vacuum, provides an explanation from a new point of view by using derived three-dimensional structures of the atomic nuclei. For explanation of the nuclear energy, a hypothesis of a field micro-curvature around the superdense nucleus is suggested. Analysis of some successful cold fusion experiments resulted in practical considerations for modification of the Coulomb barrier. The analysis also predicts the possibility of another cold fusion reaction based on some similarity between the nuclear structures of Ni and Cr. Is one possible explanation but a better one is here
    http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf

  • Derek, the author of the book you’ve quoted above:

    Basic Structures of Matter –
    Supergravitation unified theory, based on a
    new concept of the physical vacuum. Major
    prediction

    is a believer in UFOs. That should have raised the alarm bell for you.

    From some info that I found on the net about Dr.
    Stoyan Sarg is that he offered no theoretical framework at all for the physics he claimed to exist. All he does is speculate. Physicists critique other theories (and that’s how it should be), but they offer a theoretical framework as an alternative to the ones they’re critiquing. Whatever new theoretical frameworks that they come up with must reproduce the observations that have been known or established in the theories that they critique (and perhaps their new proposed theoretical framework can go further in uncovering new phenomena that existing ones may have failed to account for or explain). Facts are facts.

    If one doesn’t provide a theoretical framework, then he/she is surely engaging in a religious debate. Creationists believe that we were created about 4 or 5 thousand years ago. There is no physical theoretical framework proposed or offered. Their proof is if you bother to ask them, they say that the evidence is mentioned in the Book of Genesis in the bible.

  • Derek, do you understand the references that you linked to here? It seems to me that you have evaded my question above but instead posting link/s to research work, which I suspect if you understood it (them), then you would have answered my question. The paper that you linked to :

    Bose–Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal

    proposed some interesting outcome in their theory, however I don’t have a problem with that, as I already said above, that’s how it should be, because in doing so, our knowledge will always grow and advanced. There should not be any final consensus in science.

    I asked you if there are 2 different Quantum Mechanics theory, where physicists who are doubters about cold fusion said that it can’t happen (specifically at the temperature range where proponents say it does) against the proponents who say that their theory is derived using Quantum Mechanics which lead to cold fusion. I have come across some articles or online commentaries from some cold fusion proponents who say that QM failed or can’t explain cold fusion but at the same time other proponents say that in fact QM can explain it. They say that they use QM after all. Look no further than the paper Bose–Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal. If you read the paper, you’ll come across the familiar QM Schrodinger wave-function, the Hamiltonian operators, Boson quantum statistics, etc,…

    You (proponents) can’t criticize physicists who are skeptical about cold fusion because they use QM to deduce (or conclude) that it can’t happen and you lot jumped & down to say that QM is wrong, but then some researchers who are proponents of cold fusion just went ahead and use QM to propose a physical basis for cold fusion. The example is Dr. Yeong E. Kim (author of the paper above).

    I’ll repeat my previous question again. Are there 2 different QM theories, where skeptics say that cold fusion can’t take place (according to QM) and the proponents say, yes it can (also according to QM). Can you address my question here, otherwise I won’t be bother to respond back to you, since I’ll be wasting my time.

  • My ip has been blocked and the site has changed wtf ?

    Interesting to say the least Stoya Sarge quote was a 5 second google search and the first answer I got. So what if he believes in ufo’s (some people believe religion ) cultures all around the world have inferred that people have come from the sky. The Sumerian people have an advance astronomical knowledge and depict the ” Anunnaki” in their art. Another explanation for ufo’s comes from Nazi world war 2, what else did they invent (not much just modern rockets, vertical take off, helicopters, sonic weaponry, the flying wing precursor to the stealth bomber, Hans Colers “Magnetromapparata ” and maybe a couple of other things, am sure you get the picture). One Austrian inventor of particular note was Victor Schauberger who invented an over unity machine called the repulsine which was said to defy gravity based on his research into vortices, it is from this that we have the urban legends of the nazi bell, the hanebu, vril and the foo fighters. But this is a quantum physics blog and not about ufos.
    You understanding of english is pretty good you seem to know what a contradiction is, do you know what a rhetorical question is ?
    you asked “Are there 2 different QM theories, where skeptics say that cold fusion can’t take place (according to QM) and the proponents say, yes it can (also according to QM).”
    i will say again .. . I like to see this field more as an evolutionary jigsaw puzzle, which with time pieces get added some taken away till we eventually get a better view of the big picture.
    So glad to have wasted your time..
    My question to anyone who wants to answer is have you heard of this cold fusion (ie Rossi’s E Cat) before and if not why ?

  • my ip appears to be working again no longer have to go to a friends house.
    Ps/ It wasn’t Deuteron fusion it was Nickel ,Carbon and Hydrogen surprised you didn’t see that, big difference I suppose in explaining how it all works

  • Derek, if you can’t defend your arguments here on this thread then why do you bother to participate? I wouldn’t pop up in a law debate in some forums where Mai Chen and Jeffery Palmer are involved. The reason is obvious of why I wouldn’t participate there. They understood the legal domain far better than me. However, if I have an opinion about court cases such as Peter Ellis (convicted of being a child molester), I won’t argue or discuss it in a forum where Mai Chen and Jeffery Palmer are involved. I will definitely go to my local pub and find some drinkers there to argue with them if our justice system have failed Peter Ellis. My point is, don’t cry-baby when you’re being challenged in the science debate here.

    There is no such thing as unity machine ever existed. I have argued on this thread about the ignoring of causality in physics theories. Guess what, any machine that is claimed to be such (ie, unity machine), must be dismissed straight away, no iffs , no butts. Causality is violated. Anything that’s claimed to have no cause doesn’t or cannot physically exist because something has materialized out of nothing. If such device is claimed to exist (ie, have been developed), then either the inventors of the machine have mistaken the physics of the machine or simply they just like to spout BS. I think that it is a bit of both. Mistaken/misunderstood about the real physics of what they observed in their machine or otherwise, they tell lies because to admit that their unity machine can’t do what they claim it can, is embarrassing for them.

    I won’t go into UFO, but here is a fact that UFO claims have to be dismissed. Most of the UFO claims involved physical processes that are clearly non-causal. Some alleged alien abductees have claimed that aliens came to their house thru the solid wall (with the wall remaining intact with no obvious holes after the aliens walked right thru it) and abducted them. I don’t understand why the aliens just didn’t just smashed thru the front door or the side windows to enter the house, instead they prefer to play mind games with the abductees by demonstrating that they’re omnipotent and omnipresent? See, they (aliens) wanted to demonstrated to the abductees (and perhaps to all us humans) that they are everywhere at once. They’re inside the house and also outside the house simultaneously. No wondered the wall remains perfectly intact with no apparent holes thru it well after the abduction.

    Now, I can list many non-causal physical behavior about UFO claims, but I think that the point I just made above, is enough. There is no known laws in physics that prohibits the existence of aliens at some corner out there in the universe, I have no problem with that because they must obey the same physical laws that we experienced here on our planet where causality is strictly obeyed . However if UFO proponents claim that aliens can do magical things (according to reports of sightings and abductions) which are clearly non-causal and non-physical, then one has to dismiss it straight away. Don’t waste time arguing.

  • Interesting post I take it you are a true skeptic then, no such thing as an over unity machine hahaha. Sounds like the causilty law is wrong then. Or maybe it is just your interpretation of it. Because I have an over unity machine where the COP ( coefficient of performance) is greater than 1. You obviously haven’t listened to anything I have said.
    Interesting link on scalar waves and yet another over unity machine http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm
    I have just given you the E Cat cold fusion machine which has a COP >1 . The clouds are over unity. A permant magnet is a perpetual motion machine.

    cool ufo video that closes an airport in china looks physical to me. There is lots of things said about ufos maybe 99% is BS, but the 1% and I do have more.I would rather discuss over unity than ufos.

  • There is no violation of the law of conservation of energy, the energy comes from the quantum level.
    There have been many reports of motors incorporating permanent magnets and claiming over-unity performance. By `over-unity’ is meant the generation of output power in excess of the electrical power input.
    When a magnetic field collapses as in an electromagnet there is an influx of radiant energy from the “vacuum” which is greater than the conventional voltage used to power the magnet in the first place. An easy example is the fluorescent light when 240v is applied to the ballast (coil) and is then collapsed a voltage of 700v goes through to light the tube.

  • Derek said…
    the quantum level

    You’re starting to talk like a homeopathy practitioner/proponent. Are you talking about real objects or you simply mean the concept of nothingness?

    Derek said…
    There have been many reports

    But where are those devices in commercial use? Any idea of where can I buy them? The main reason (which is obvious) that they are not available commercially is because they don’t work. Jeez Derek! Can’t you see? Its fine to make a claim, but why aren’t we seeing those magic devices available in the markets? Well the answer is obvious. The physics that they (inventors) claim they invented, never existed in the first place, pure & simple.

    So, stop wasting your time arguing about your unproven physics, just show me the money (devices). The markets is awaiting for such devices Derek?

  • My understanding of the physics of over unity Zero Point Energy.1957 Lee and Yang discover broken symmetry in the virtual particle flux of the vacuum.The broken symmetry of opposite charges,(The Dipole) photons are emitted when are a charge absorbs enough virtual particles creating a static field (steady state non equilibrium). That’s where the energy comes from.

  • The broken symmetry of the end charges of a dipole rigorously means that, once the charges are forcibly separated to form that dipole, the dipole (its end charges) continuously absorbs virtual (fleeting) photons from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates these “photon pieces” into real observable photons, and re-emits the resulting real EM energy in the form of real observable photons in all directions at the speed of light.

  • Derek said…
    That’s where the energy comes from.

    I think that you misunderstood zero-point energy in quantum mechanics. It means lowest energy state but not zero energy (ie, energy in a sense of nothingness).

    The virtual particle you mentioned above is something that’s unobserved. It has never been detected at all.

    Finally, I asked you if the so called unity machine is available commercially anywhere and you simply evade. Don’t you think that it makes sense to conclude that the proponents of such physics & machines are either mistaken in their interpretation of the physics of such concepts (ie, they’re deluded) or otherwise, they just simply maintaining the BS in order to save face and don’t embarrass themselves, since they have invested so much time in their claims that they have invented something that will revolutionize the world in terms of technology.

    Now, I’m gonna ask you again. Where one can buy a unity machine? If the claims by enthusiasts such as yourself that the physics of unity machine is correct and there has been actual machines being built in the past (according to your time-line, they’ve succeeded in building proto-type unity machines over the last 100 years), then surely some entrepreneur out there has managed to commercialize such ideas. Don’t you think?

    If such machines are not available commercially anywhere, then I suggest that you admit that there aren’t any and the reason is that, the physics has been misunderstood by its proponents.

  • Acting with untypical speed, the Nobel committee awarded Lee and Yang the 1957 physics prize. Physicists quickly absorbed the shock of finding that so basic a principle was not in fact universally true, and symmetry breaking in many forms is now an indispensable ingredient in theories of particle physics.

    Secondly they are not unity machines they are over unity machines which means they have a coefficient of performance greater than one.
    I have been researching over unity on and off for the last 10 years, it all started with Nikola Tesla, you want everything handed to you on a plate, there are machines available but they are only sold as research kits.I have given you enough information so that if you really wanted to you could find them. Your main interest seems to be trying to discredit me.
    I don’t even know who you are, you have a bogus name and you want me to give you the source of a potential commercial enterprise.
    You want one do the research
    Do you know who stopped Tesla developing world wireless electrical distribution ? A banker (think about that) . He was also excluded from the science text books at school which explains why so few people have heard of him. Compared to Edison, Marconi and yes Einstein. The world financial system depends on finite resources like oil. Despite the so called energy crisis why have so few people heard about the E Cat cold fusion ? “After several years of apparent inaction, the theme of cold fusion has been recently revitalized thanks to, among others, the work and the scientific publications of Focardi and Rossi, which has been conducted in silence, amidst ironical disinterest, without any funding or support. In fact, recently, practical and reliable results have been achieved based on a very promising apparatus invented by Andrea Rossi. Therefore I want to examine the possibility of further development of this technology, which I deem really important for our planet.”
    Think about that Einstein

  • here is great little video showing the power of tesla coils. Why aren’t we studying these ? (I would have stayed at school)

    Cold fusion is here..

  • Einsteins universe is a closed one a start and an end, what if the universe is an open one ?

    E=mc2 apparently is not the case at all
    When theorists replace experimenters as the basis of knowledge we are in trouble.

Site Meter