Differences of the Micro or Quantum Level and Macro Level.

You are a very curious and creative individual... trying to come up with explanations for why things happen... and in that way you are very much like me.

However, unfortunately you do not have a very good grasp of basic science. I am not blaming you. Real science is actually an extremely complicated subject. There are not many people who could properly discuss these types of topics with you, and answer your questions...

 

As far as Electrons....I have no issue with what you posted however there are aspects to Electrons that we have found that is pointing again to a Multiversal System being in play.

A specific experiment that was able to use ONE SINGLE ELECTRON and this Electron could either power a Microscopic Electric Motor....Nanobot....or Ground Out.

The experiment was conducted many times and in many cases A SINGLE ELECTRON DID BOTH!!

The experiment was checked and rechecked many times to make certain that ONLY ONE ELECTRON was being used....but still....it was found when the experiment was run in a manner THAT DID NOT ALLOW OBSERVATION of a specific aspect of it's set up.....THE ELECTRON EXISTED IN A STATE OF SUPERPOSITION....thus as it's FUNCTION AND VALUE HAD NOT YET BEEN LOCKED INTO OUR ONE UNIVERSAL REALITY.....the Electron would exists at AS MANY ELECTRONS AS THE EXPERIMENT WOULD ALLOW IT TO HAVE VALUE AND FUNCTION!!!

Thus a SINGLE ELECTRON.....left in a state of SUPERPOSITION.....could run both the Micro-Electric Motor....as well as Ground Out....as well as power other additional Micro-Motors....or ground out to mutiple ways and manners.

Do you understand this?

Do you understand why this hapens?

AboveAlpha

 

Anders....making that statement about me is both a mistake and a reality in a sense.

How are you defining Basic Science?

As well.....as I never could decide exactly what field I would ultimately choose...I hold multile degrees and if you have any knowledge specific to Physics, Cosmology, Astronomy, and in particular Gravitic Lensing as if you check out Abell 1689 at a distance of 2.2 Billion Light Years and check out Abell 2218 at a distance of 3 Billion Light Years you will see my two favorite examples of Gravitic Lensing with Abell 2218 able to resolve a Galaxy 13 Billion Light Years Distant.

But don't make the mistake of thinking I am not what I know I am.

AboveAlpha

 

You also are making a classic but not your fault...mistake concerning this posting from you....

That's not really entirely true. The photon simultaneously exists only at a single point and multiple points simultaneously. In reality, the photon exists at the point, but it's waveform exists at multiple points, and it is this waveform that is responsible for entanglement, or in other words what the point-like character of the electron is allowed to do. The point-like electron interacts in ways that the waveform cannot....end quote Anders.

You are confusing the concept of a Particle/Wave Form.

Now Physicists for decades have been calling Photons and Electrons and other Quanta as Quantum Particle/Wave Forms because THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE AS TO WHY THEY ACT AS BOTH PARTICLE AND WAVE!!!

What would seem to be going on and those Light Wave Disbursement Double Slit Experiments help back this....Quantum Particle/Wave Forms are actually Particles that exist in an INFINITE NUMBER OF DIVERGENT UNIVERSAL STATES OF REALITY.....and thus a Photon in a Wave Packet seems to exist at all points along the wave length at the same time or in NT...NO TIME.

Current Multiversal Models....which are NOT Many Worlds Models as Many Worlds is far too limited and do even get me going on M-Theory.....have such Quanta existing at all points but as well in all Divergent Universal States of Reality.

This would explain a HUGE part of Quantum Mechanics and also helps explains aspects of QCD and QED.

Get it?

AboveAlpha

 

A single electron should only be able to impart work energy to one of the paths, at least from what I understand.

However, I suppose it would be theoretically possible for the waveform not to be broken. It is quite common for a wave function to lose one aspect of it's indeterminate nature but still keep the rest. That is, we might know the electron gave up energy on one specific path, but we still do not know which path all of the electron took!

There have been some interesting experiments around this sort of phenomena, only observing one property of particle to avoid disturbing the rest of the waveform, so the particle still acts like a wave when it comes to its other properties, if that makes sense.

In other words, just because you "observe" the particle, it still does not necessarily force the particle to choose one path. You only observed one characteristic of the particle, another of the particle's properties is still in a state of superposition and can result in interference patterns when the two possible paths are allowed to come together again.

Show me an experiment where a single electron can run two motors in parallel and then I will be surprised.
I think it is important that there is only one motor, and work energy is only performed on one side.

 

Anders...you posted this.....

What if we view space-time as not simply a stretchable fabric, but something that actually has energy and mass itself ? Imagine a sloshy sea of energy. Very long wavelengths and huge amplitudes. If the wavelengths are long enough, the energy will not interact with matter in the same way that ordinary electromagnetic radiation does....end quote Anders.

Now we KNOW that 95% of the Universe is comprised of Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

The other 5% is Galaxies, Planets, Stars...etc.

But you will have to clarrify what you are trying to say in your post.

AboveAlpha

 

I will look this up as I happen to know the guy's who did it.

Here is what they found....this experiment was done some time ago by some people I know from that world renown Higher Learning Institute based in Massachusetts....and they were doing tests specific to what would be the best way to design Quantum Processors and whether using Photons or Electrons was better....Photons.....and it was all about QUIBITS.

In a Quantum System Binary Code is still used but unlike a BIT......the 0 and 1 exists in a state of Superposition.

They wanted to take this a bit further and see what could be done with an Electron is a state of Superposition and they found.....IT IS NOT LIMITED TO 2 EVENTS...OR LIMITED TO 3 EVENTS.....IT IS NOT LIMTED!!

AboveAlpha

 

Here in lies the excitement and the drama.

As I am sure you know such an Institute runs on a VERY HIGH LEVEL OF U.S. R&D MILITARY FUNDING.

They took a look at this and came to the realisation that we do not need to limit ourselves with just BINARY CODE!

Do you understand this as I would prefer not to have to spell it out?

AboveAlpha

 

The multi-world view is only one way of looking at quantum mechanics. It is not that the multi-world view is "wrong". Nothing that fits into the equations that describe the actual observations can really be wrong. It is just that it is more of a philosophical view.

The equations that describe what is observed use a wave function. The question is to what extent that wave function is a "real".
The multi-world view might someday lead to an important discovery, but at the present time it is really more of a philosophical view about what the wave function actually represents. The mathematical equations that describe what happens already exist. We just do not know exactly what it is those equations are actually describing.

It is not the only view, there are others.

 

Because of what I do....and I was supposed to be retired and I am somewhere rigt now where it is hot....and sunny.....a few decades ago I was made aware of something specific as because I am NOT MILITARY.....as I am..."CIVILIAN"....in the manner the quotes denote....I can say NO.

But because of what was at stake I said Yes....and because of this I was told I had be be brought up to speed and read into a few things.

I wish I had said NO.

Here is the thing.....all this Star Trekian Talk about Matter/Antimatter Warp Drives....well...there does not exist enough Antimatter in the UNIVERSE to be used in a controlled Matter/Antimatter Reaction to generate the necessary amount of Energy needed TO REPRESENT MASS....thus be able to generate a Gravity Well of sufficient size and stength to get a ship more than a few light years distant.

Never mind the unvelievably dunting task of developing or EVEN UNDERSTANDING how to NAVIGATE.

Then a few things changed.

It was thought that as Photons and Electrons as Wave Forms might simply be Particles existing in all Infinite Divergent Universal states of Reality until Observed then Locking in Function and Value.....that as well....a Matter/Antimatter Reaction might as well EXIST IN ALL DIVERGENT UNIVERSAL STATES OF REALITY.....thus such a reaction in one Universal State COULD CREATE A CASCADE REACTION within the originating Universal State thus only the tiniest amount of Antimatter would be needed to generate the necessary Energy to represent Mass....to Fold or Warp Space-Time.

Now this might all sound like Sci-Fi.....but believe me IT IS NOT!

AboveAlpha

 

This is why I am not discussing Many Worlds....I am discussing Multiversal Theory.

It is different.

It explains PARTICLE/WAVE DUALITY......by simply describing the Space-Time of the existing Wave Packet to exist IN ALL INFINITE IN NUMBER DIVERGENT UNIVERSAL STATES OF REALITY.

Thus the Particle....seems to be both Particle and Wave in ONE UNIVERSE.....when what it really is....INFINITE NUMBERS OF PARTICLES at all positions within SHARED SPACE-TIME between all Universal States.

AboveAlpha

 

This concept also explains and solves the Uncertainty Principle.

One GRARING reality is that Quantum Processors and Quantum Systems cannot be assembled in any other way than ROBOTICALLY and even if a Digital Video Camera was the record the process....if that Digital Video is watched....THE QUANTUM SYSTEMS WILL NOT WORK!!!

A Quantum Computer must be sealed completely and if it's seals are broken and the internal parts are observed....it WILL NOT WORK.

And it is just not Human Observation that will rener them worthless as observation by an animal or even a FLY renders them worthless.

AboveAlpha

 

Just to add a thought to the discussion, I would like to remind that the existence of this particle [virtual particle] is well far from being certain [even if there are theoretical reasons to consider this possible].

This article on Fermilab site can help about this:

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2012/today12-10-19_NutshellReadMore.html

I quote a paragraph.

 

The one time belief in Gravitons pretty much went out the window with the discovery of the Higgs Boson and understanding how the Higgs Field allows Hadrons to obtain mass.

AboveAlpha

 

Besides....95% of the Universe is comprised of Dark Energy and Dark Matter and only 5% is standard matter and Energy.

A spiral Galaxy spins and has stars orbiting it's cental Black Hole at a velocity that if not for the existence of Dark Matter would cause those stars to fling themselfs out into space!!

AboveAlpha

 

This said, we are substantially pondering an hypothesis [which was Einstein's idea of gravity] which indicates the gravitational force as an "apparent force", that is to say an aspect of the system of reference which appears to act as a force but doesn't.

The problem with this approach to gravity [as physics has analyzed for decades since Einstein's time] is that in the world of the very little relativity generates very odd results [and like the article I mention above says

, this means that there is something which escapes to scientists ...].

And by the way, the quantum approach to gravity can be valid also without the graviton. It's the well known Loop Quantum Gravity.

The LQG could offer a good field where make relativity and QM meet together generating something functional. Anyway also this quite recent solution leaves room for criticism [it doesn't allow to predict further dimensions or a super symmetry].

The discussion is still well open, but to go back to Einstein's theory in its pure form means to elude all the problems it generates, since the application of one of its base principal [that gravity is an apparent force].

 

Hey Above-Alpha. No one here is trying to slander,libel, or insult you. Most seem to even like you personally as do I. The problem occurs when you attempt to redefine, add to, etc the well known sciences with your own ideas and hypothesis. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that but do not expect to be respected for making non- verified claims. To most scientists statements like most of your prior statements would be in league with fraud. So when you post your own highly non-traditional (for lack of a better word) ideas etc. I am afraid you will be met with heavy resistance even ridicule for making a claim that has no empirical evidence. Then if you have no mathematics to support your ideas as well as no evidence empirical or otherwise, well that is a zillion times worse! Just saying....

reva

 

Oh yeahhh there is something that the scientists are missing big time! I do not fault them for that. I am often amused though. Can you imagine when just after the TP (theoretical physicists etc) were finally coming to terms with empirical proofs of the big bang emerging over a period of decades, how they felt when many contradictions began popping up. The big bang model predicted the behavior of stars and other objects by tracing them back to the original expansion, most of it intuitive. THEN! They noticed that the objects most distant, were not slowing as they should, rather they are speeding up! Dark energy etc is one of the many reasons but there are many things that are doing things they shouldn't, from tiny quantum size to giant structures in the universe! We live in wild times my friend, its the wild west of trying to explain reality or why reality is as it is...

And by the way, the quantum approach to gravity can be valid also without the graviton. It's the well known Loop Quantum Gravity.

I am in the 'other camp' and feel and have always been somewhat skeptical of SUSY and its related appendages. Are you a fan of SS.String theory etc? Check out this site. I have only read some of it but this guy (the author of the first article) is good.
The Rise and Fall of Supersymmetry – Starts With A Bang
scienceblogs.com/.../2013/05/15/the-rise-and-fall-of-supersymmetry

May 15, 2013 · That’s the idea behind Supersymmetry, known as SUSY for ... not happen in SUSY, you need a new symmetry ... about these days is that the LHC ...

Its not good to criticize Einstein! LOL! A lot of men that tried and a lot of men died (intellectually and scientific career, lol) ....hey, I am just trying to produce some comic relief, for some reason today seems so...so...monday!

reva

 

Sorry for the late reply AA. I don't spend as much time as many people do online, as I am retired and like to go places before I get too old to be capable.

The only problem I ever had with you only involves your bad habit of dissing, sometimes in a very rude manner, men, physicists that you are in no way equal. Bohm comes to mind, but I am sure there are others who do not buy into your own particular view of reality, and have different ideas about it, that they devoted their academic lives in thinking about, writing books about, and so on. I think you even had some disparaging words in regards to Basil Hiley, not about the man, but his work in physics. But at least his peers have a much better opinion, even if they do not agree with him. And that is the only problem I ever had with you, the arrogance, not generally seen in serious physicists, who do physics for a living.

That I find such an attitude as undesirable, is my primary contention, as I do not critique a guy for "thinking" especially if that thinking is questioning paradigms, for so much in science has come forth from such questioning.

I don't hold anything against you, so understand that. Life is just too short to engage in such petty behavior, and nothing good ever comes from that. You have nothing that needs to be proven to me, as you are a bright fellow, but you do tend to too easily dismiss some things that astute, notable physicists have spent lifetimes developing, and to call those things basically woo woo, for you do not agree with them, perhaps chaffs me, and perhaps chaffs me a little too much. LOL. I do not think either you or I, or anyone on this forum, can with integrity do such a thing. But I understand also how easily it can be to get emotionally involved in an argument, so it is understandable, and forgivable. We are after all, all, flawed human beings, and I all too well know of my own flaws. So, here is an olive branch, if that is called for...which I offer with all sincerity.

 

My understanding is that they do, which is why transformer cores are laminate or ferrite rather than solid iron, and why induction welding and hardening works.

 

Yes, but that is only a changing magnetic field. What is so interesting about this is that, even with a static magnetic field, on a quantum level, there is constant change, with the magnetic force all being mediated by virtual electromagnetic waves, that come and go. It is only when the average balance of these quantum forces changes that we can extract energy. Or it could be said that the changing field imparts "real energy" to the virtual electromagnetic waves, but what exactly is "real energy" ? It is actually entanglement that is responsible for conservation of energy.

Entanglement is basically a form of interference. Two particles, or even different parts of the waveform of the same particle, interact or "interfere", and this can go through time and across long distances.

But, as alluded to before, the background vacuum is filled with energy. It is just this energy never really materializes, or never imparts energy into the velocity of "actual" matter, at least only does so very fleetingly. I think this has to do with the mathematics of scale, and our frame of reference is so much smaller than the immensity of space-time. Again, averages and interference.

The Higgs boson is still not a well established theory (I mean the experiments have not really proven it). In fact they are not even entirely sure that the new particles they identified were really responsible for the phenomena of mass.

The reality is that many virtual particles have an effect on a real particle's mass. And even if it was proved the Higgs is responsible for mass, it still remains to be seen whether there is any direct connection between the Higgs and gravity.

 

Well yeah. How the hell do you get an eddy current without a changing magnetic field?

 

Basically what is happening here is that the quantum system is entangled, and they need to avoid entanglement of the system with the outside. Do not misunderstand me, everything is entangled with everything else to some extent. Once the system becomes correlated to the outside, that affects the wave-distribution of the system. Basically the wave function "collapses" back into point-like particles, at least from our perspective. If you were a little tiny microscopic person inside the quantum computer, you would still see everything as point-like, that would be your perspective. According to the multi-world perspective, there would really be several of you seeing the point-like particles in different places, if that makes sense. But once the computer is opened to the outside, only one of those possibilities can come out.

Basically if the observer is part of the system of entanglement, they cannot observe the interference effects that result from the wave-like nature of the system.

I can explain it this way: in the double slit experiment, if you see exactly which path the photon took, the interference pattern seems to disappear. But the interference pattern is still there to an outside observer who did not see which path the photon took. To the outside observer, it would seem that you were behaving as a wave, appearing simultaneously in two states, one who saw the photon take one path, and the other who saw the photon take the other path. Of course, the interference pattern would look completely different to him, since the photon has now become part of a much bigger system. When you "observed" it, you became entangled with the photon and changed it's wave function before it had a chance to display it's typical interference pattern.

You do not actually have to affect a particle in any real way to change it's wave function. But if your wave function overlaps with the particle, that affects its wave function, even if you are nowhere near the actual particle. So for example, in an experimental set up, a photon is used for measurement and can take two paths, one that measures the particle we want to see, and one that just activates a detector. Even if we know the photon never took the path to observe the particle, it's wave function of probability still did, and it is possible to learn things about the particle by looking at the photon activating the detector.

 

Eddy currents still exist, for example if a permanent magnet is just standing in close proximity to a panel of aluminum. But the eddy currents are coupled to the quantum spin of the electrons in the magnet. It takes energy to move a magnet into the proximity of a conductor. A conductor resists any changes in the surrounding magnetic field.

Ever heard of the property of diamagnetism? It is usually a very weak force, but it can be demonstrated under the proper conditions...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Zwc5U2kHE

The video is completely real. A thin sheet of graphite is hovering over strong permanent magnets. It takes no input of outside energy to maintain the levitation.

 

Link, please.