| Pages:
1
2 |
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If the measurements are actually accurate, there may be other possible explanations, such as "quantum entanglement" that could be causing a particles
to respond slightly prior to being affected, a sort of "time travel" phenomena within the realm of particle physics, which has already been well
documented.
If neutrinos can actually travel faster than light, it might suggest that the quantum vacuum is interacting with matter to give it mass, and that
neutrinos apparently have less interaction with the vacuum energy.
But no one really knows at this time. Probably most scientists suspect it is a measurement error, because if it is true it, everything that physics
assumes is true would have to be rethought.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"everything that physics assumes is true would have to be rethought."
This pretty much was my point. If a Gamma with enough energy hits a nucleus an electron and positron are produced. Here in the matter world we see two
particles. Say there is a connection between them, you might call it quantum entanglement. Physics in the mainstream does not seem to have a problem
thinking there is some 'magical' connection between them. Somehow one 'knows' what the other is doing when they are far apart. Yet they refuse to
believe in such concepts as zero point energy as it relates to being sought after as a source of usable power. Is it much of a stretch to see this
quantum connection as a single entity existing extra dimensionally which shows itself in our timespace as two separate particles? Just because the
electron appears to be going there does not mean it is not the same entity seen as the positron going somewhere else, with said entity existing in
'other dimensions' we do not perceive? If so the connection is not so 'magical', they are two aspects here of something which really exists somewhere
outside of our known spacetime. I have no doubt this concept would be said to be quackery by physicists, the same ones who will be forever looking for
the error in an experiment rather than admit they after all did not have the good bead on things they were so sure of.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I understand what you are saying, but I must personally disagree.
I am rather partial to the belief that "quantum entanglement" is actually a consequence of a much more simpler phenomena; that of interference.
The so-called "randomness" of decay to lower energy states cannot be entirely random. Two photons overlapping in the wrong way would result in
destructive interference, which is to say that such overlap is forbiden.The real interesting phenomena is that two photons will never head towards
eachother in the first place, in a way that would eventually result in destructive interference. What seems to be randomness, in which direction and
phase the photons were emitted, is actually predetermined to avoid a future forbiden state. This is not specifically to say that a decaying particle
"knows" what will happen in the future, but there does seem to be some sort of correlation, which is not well understood. And I think the difficulty
understanding this comes mostly from our limited perception of time in terms of "cause" and "effect". Time is not necessarily "flowing" forward or
backward. I think that things are less "Random" than we realise, and that there exist patterns between the past and future which cannot be explained
merely through cause and effect.
[Edited on 23-9-2011 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"Probably most scientists suspect it is a measurement error"
Only because they refuse to open their minds. The test was over a distance light would need 2.4 msec to travel, yet the neutrinos made it in 60
nanoseconds. I find it hard to believe their errors would be this order of magnitude. I think they have really discovered something new and paradigm
altering.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That's 60ns faster than expected, not 60ns total transit time. It's
about 25 parts per million.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Yeah I knew that but somehow blew it making the post. Really have to stop reading so late at night.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Parthiban Santhanam and fellow researchers from MIT have exceeded 100% efficiency in converting electric power into light. Some of the ambient room
temperature heat is converted into light in the process.
http://phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html
This would seem to be an example where the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.
[Edited on 9-8-2012 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Please read the
article completely, exercise some bare shred of knowledge of physics. There's no violation of the second law evident here. That's like claiming that
refrigerators violate the second law. Analyzing this device as a heat engine, it moves entropy from its immediate region, which it cools, to whatever
the emitted light hits, which it heats.
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
But the experiment not merely involved heat transfer, because some of the heat was converted to light. And such light could
(potentially) be converted to electric current. The only thing preventing such a device from being able to produce more electric current than it
consumes would be the low efficiency of converting the light back into electricity.
Converting ambient room temperature heat (without the presence of a heat differential) into useful energy has long been a goal of inventors, but such
a device has never been demonstrated.
[Edited on 11-8-2012 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  | | The only thing preventing such a device from being able to produce more electric current than it consumes would be the low efficiency of converting
the light back into electricity. |
The light emissions have an entropy and an effective temperature. Just
because this device as a heat engine uses a novel means of exhausting heat (as light) doesn't mean that these quantities aren't relevant.
That said, I don't know of an analysis as a photovoltaic cell as a heat engine, but I'm sure one exists or could be developed. I have, however, seen
some things analyzed as heat engines that are not obviously so. The best example of this I know is Ed Jaynes's analysis of muscle as a heat engine.
Jaynes was the one who connected thermodynamic entropy with information entropy, in papers published in the 1950's.
|
|
|
zed
International Hazard
Posts: 2283
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord
|
|
Apparently, before the evolution of our kind of "space".... The rules of what we call relativity, did not apply.
Some of the math nobs are suggesting that during the course of the "big bang", the universe expanded abruptly from the size of a sesame seed to
approximately the size of the Milky Way Galaxy. Took less than a second.
Since the Milky Way is approximately 120,000 light years in diameter, having a radius of about 60,000 light years....It suggests that this whole speed
of light thing, might be a local traffic ordinance.
[Edited on 26-9-2012 by zed]
|
|
|
arsphenamine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 236
Registered: 12-8-2010
Location: I smell horses, Maryland, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Extracting. Oh. You said extracting.
Nevermind.
Here, I was thinking about all those $#%&! Hessians I've generated over the last year for 5 dozen pnictogen clusters and their hydrides in
pursuit of zero-point corrections and now it was all *futile*?!
(cough!)
Carry on.
|
|
|
zed
International Hazard
Posts: 2283
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord
|
|
Measuring the detectable Zero-Point Energy is a fine thing. Still, the deeper we go, the more questions arise. At the moment, we are in an era of
rampant speculation.
We don't really understand what "space" is (it isn't nothing!). We have no idea what exists or existed, beyond the boundaries of our finite universe.
Or, how our universe really came into being....Where did the primordial speck of energy come from? Further, our conventional ideas can't quite
explain observed phenomena, and there might actually be 11 dimensions.
Until experiments can be performed that prove or disprove some of the hordes of contemporary speculations, it is hard to know what to believe.
[Edited on 27-9-2012 by zed]
|
|
|
violet sin
International Hazard
Posts: 1480
Registered: 2-9-2012
Location: Daydreaming of uraninite...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Good
|
|
let me just begin with I am not an expert of anything( i know a lill bit)... that being said all I can offer is personal opinion in this. to that
point, the LED operating @ >100% efficiency basically implies that it will work with said efficiency *until* it depletes the room of extra
extractable energy. so lets exaggerate the concept; to do something similar with another form of energy would mean you needed a substance that sought
to shed all energy, or channeled it outta other materials for free, regardless of how the neighboring materials acted no? almost like something that
would NEVER get warm no matter how much you heated it. then you would have something (ambient) to counterpoint it for energy production. but just
like the LED this would eventually seek to vent off all light/heat/motion away from the unit. or at least drain the "fuel" of energy at the
frequency/temp what ever being consumed. I think that hoping to find "ice" that refuses to melt is kinda odd.
the term overunity was used by one man (thomas bearden) to describe his transformer that supposedly gave off more energy than the core was being
charged with, so at best it did like the LED but magnetically. but he assumed it to be an antenna of sorts( somehow channeling the void) and the
returns were poor so they tried to refine it thinking wow we are so close. using pulsed tuned frequency's and in the end it all turned up being
hooey. same guy who thought the Russians had "scalar technology" and were gonna take over the world back in the 80's... crackpot
seems to me that this concept can't really go further till we have a better understanding of energy. we have tried soo hard to unify all the laws
and it is getting more and more complex. but do you ever have the feeling that we are just looking at "energy" in the wrong light? yes that was a
pun.. I *personally* feel that we have missed some simple part of how it functions, and, I don't know if it because of our limited ability to
understand time( on galactic scale) or what. but *seems to me* the cheapest way to go from A to B is 0energy. ie easiest way to do something is let
it happen.
when you have to try verry verry hard to describe a concept it usually means ya missed something and the process is usually quite easy to explain.
that is unless you believe us to be anything greater than toddlers in our understanding of everything known. have we actually reached the point where
every lill detail is spelled out with 30 dedicated tomes of knowledge? or have we simply missed an integer portion of it all and just see fractions?
the universe loves patterns. they pop up everywhere from a sunflowers spiral to a galaxy's arms. seems that we can learn a lot more from simple
little things.
sorry this post is not meant as scientific rebuttal of theory, but more to getting a better perspective of the actual question at hand.. or in worst
case scenario "food for thought"
[Edited on 28-9-2012 by violet sin]
|
|
|
D4RR3N
Hazard to Others
Posts: 271
Registered: 9-1-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I read somewhere that the electron cloud around the nucleus of an atom is continuously extracting energy from the vacuum energy. I also read that the
light produced by sonoluminescence is in fact a direct polarization of this energy.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Just because you read it doesn't make it so.
Particularly online.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
