Room-temperature superconductivity?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

TallDave
Posts: 3152
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

johanfprins,

Interesting arguments.
What Milo Wolff does not appreciate is that when the boundary conditions do not change a matter wave does NOT vibrate harmonically within three-dimensional space, but along two dimensions lying outside our three-dimensional space
Starting to sound a bit string-y there.

Will your book offer some experimental predictions? That could bolster its reception. It seems like there ought to be some unambiguous distinctions one could identify.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Giorgio wrote: So, suppose that the light wave has travelled across half our galaxy and, undisturbed by the galaxy boundary, has now reached us in a coherent state (on this I can agree in principle). This wave should now have a cross section thousand of times the starting wave.

When this wave encounter our boundary (a telescope, an interferometer, other), will it have to collapse over itself to regain it's original (starting) cross section before interacting with the boundary?

If your answer is yes, how do you solve this mathematically?
Excellent question: You have gone for the jugular! You did, however, not specify whether the wave has the energy of a single quantum or is an entanglement of quantum waves. I assume that you imply a photon being spread over such a large area.

Let us first consider a special double-slit experiment where we send through single photons one-at-a-time. Then, according to what I postulate, each photon moves through both slits and the two lobes spread out and interfere with each other. Thus when this spread-out wave front reaches the screen, this front will cover a large area of the screen. Within the screen there are an array of atomic-sized absorbers which are resonating owing to Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship for energy and time. When the expanded photon-wave resonates with such an absorber, it collapses in size and becomes absorbed by this absorbing point. Thus you still have to accept that the wave can collapse or inflate when its boundary conditions change. The only difference is that it is a real wave that collapses not a probability distribution.

In other words when the photon impinges into the slits it encounters new boundary conditions which forces it to morph into two parts (which stay in immediate contact with each other) and which then interfere and spread out on the other side. When it reaches the screen it collapses to form a point. Since there are many points on the screen at which such a wave can collapse, a large number of identical photons moving through the slits must generate the intensity of the diffracted wave fronts in pixel-format.

When now training two detectors on the slits to see through which slit the photon came, the photon-wave will collapse into the detector with which it resonates first. We then conclude that the photon came through a single slit. But this change in boundary conditions forced the diffracted wave to collapse: There can then be no diffracted-interfered wave front reaching the screen. Thus after many photons have passed through the slits roughly 50% would have collapsed into one detector and 50% into the other. We conclude from this that the photons could not have moved through both slits at once.

But there is now no diffraction pattern on the screen anymore. This is compelling evidence that our measurements on the slits destroyed the wave that has moved through both slits. If the diffraction pattern remained: THEN YES we will have Copenhagen-magic!

Now to return to your question of a light wave that has a wave front of millions of kilometers: Assuming that it has the energy of a single photon and extrapolating from the double-slit experiment above, the conclusion has to be that it will collapse near-instantaneously. However, we have never observed a single photon producing star yet. But my inclination is that this is what would happen.

Now you asked how do I handle this mathematically: I suppose you mean how would it be possible for such a large light wave to collapse at a speed faster than light speed. Consider it as follows: The shape and size of ANY wave are determined by its boundary conditions. When the boundary conditions change suddenly, is the wave going to wait for Einstein's permission to morph and adjust? I do not think so. I expand on this aspect in my book. What it really implies is that a photon wave (and thus alo an electron-wave) is in immediate contact with itself. If it is spread out over light years and you tickle it on one side, the other side will know immediately. The same for a single wave formed by the entanglement of photons (or electrons).

Note that "instantaneous morphing" also explains so-called "quantum jumps". When an electron wave around a nucleus absorbs energy, it cannot fit the boundary conditions which held it stable before absorbing the light energy. It then has to morph "instantaneously" in shape and size. The wave "jump-morphs": There is not a "particle" involved.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

johanfprins wrote:
GIThruster wrote: This is starting to remind me of what Randell Mills says in his critique of the double slit experiment. I'm curious if you're familiar?

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
Yes I am aware of Randall Mills and I have read some extracts of his work. Unfortunalely I did not yet have the time to look at it in depth. Therefore I cannot judge it objectively at this point in time. So far, I have also not seen any other scientist criticizing Mill's work by using impeccable logic to prove it wrong; if it is wrong. Unless the latter is done, one is a criminal if one rejects new ideas outright. Nowadays any idea which challenges mainstream physics is treated with animosity and insults (see WizWom above). This is why physics is in a total mess!

What I can say about Mill's work is within the framework of an opera: I like his music but am still struggling to understand the libretto. The latter is most probably due to the fact that I have not yet been able to study his ideas in depth. It would be interesting to meet him.
I've never met nor talked with Mills, and I'm not an apologist for his work. I have tracked it for 15 years however, and the man is an authentic genius. That doesn't mean he's right.

He does have many thousand data points in support of his theory, and to be honest, the claims that the standard model is the best attested scientific theory in history are sorely mistaken. There are for example these tens of thousands of data points to consider, and generally scientists will refuse to do this, and blithely go about their business refusing to smell the stinking fish in the cupboard.

My suggestion is as philosopher of technology, intellectual historian, philosopher of science, rather than as scientist: look at how revolutions in scientific understanding always work their way out. Whether challengers to QM are right or wrong, they will all be abused by the establishment. You'll be most abused by those who have never had a creative insight but rather have just learned the current paradigm and then blunder along--generally technologists rather than authentic research scientists.

If it ever gets lonely, I heartily suggest a fun read:

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scienti ... 305&sr=8-1

Doesn't mean I think you're right, but I'm sure not going to assume you're wrong based on preconceptions of QM. I personally would be delighted to find QM overthrown for that would explain why physics has made such little progress this last century.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

TallDave wrote:
What Milo Wolff does not appreciate is that when the boundary conditions do not change a matter wave does NOT vibrate harmonically within three-dimensional space, but along two dimensions lying outside our three-dimensional space
Starting to sound a bit string-y there.
Sounds like it; but not quite: The fact that a a matter-wave does not vibrate directly within our three-dimensional space can be derived directly from Schroedinger's equation: See excerpt 7.5 on my website.
Will your book offer some experimental predictions? That could bolster its reception. It seems like there ought to be some unambiguous distinctions one could identify.
Yes it does.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

GIThruster wrote: I've never met nor talked with Mills, and I'm not an apologist for his work. I have tracked it for 15 years however, and the man is an authentic genius. That doesn't mean he's right.
A guy with the name David Fasold said: "Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong". Unfortunately our present "physics church" consider it a heresy if anybody argues that Born, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Feynman were dead wrong. It does not mean that they have failed! As I have said many times to my colleagues: "Even I can be wrong!" No wonder some of them hated me.
He does have many thousand data points in support of his theory, and to be honest, the claims that the standard model is the best attested scientific theory in history are sorely mistaken.
Mistaken! As Einstein said you only need one small fact to prove that a model is wrong. All quantum field theories are based on "mathematics" which totally violate elementary vector-calculus.
There are for example these tens of thousands of data points to consider, and generally scientists will refuse to do this, and blithely go about their business refusing to smell the stinking fish in the cupboard.
Of course! Our funding agencies and peer review systems mandate stinking fish in the cupboard.
My suggestion is as philosopher of technology, intellectual historian, philosopher of science, rather than as scientist: look at how revolutions in scientific understanding always work their way out.
Exactly! This why as a human race we are doomed. I cry every night for my grandchildren.
You'll be most abused by those who have never had a creative insight but rather have just learned the current paradigm and then blunder along--
Correct!
generally technologists rather than authentic research scientists.
NOT correct! What do you defrine at present as "genuine research scientists"? They have all died out!
Doesn't mean I think you're right, but I'm sure not going to assume you're wrong based on preconceptions of QM. I personally would be delighted to find QM overthrown for that would explain why physics has made such little progress this last century.
I do not want people to BELIEVE me; but expect them to give reasons solidly based on impeccable physics if they want to state that I am wrong! I have not been able to raise such honesty during the past 10 years. Although this forum has proved a welcome respite.
It is not helpful when a well-known theoretical physicist can contact an editor and state that he should not publish my aricles which "he knows must be wrong!", without giving ANY reason why they must be wrong!

TallDave
Posts: 3152
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

BTW, Mills is not taken seriously because 1) it was discovered much of his book had been directly lifted, word for word, from another and 2) there is no credible evidence of "hydrinos."

I think your burden of proof is high, Johann, but if you can score some successful experimental predictions that unambiguously support your case you may make some headway even in our ossified institutions.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

GIThruster wrote: generally technologists rather than authentic research scientists.
johanfprinz wrote:NOT correct! What do you define at present as "genuine research scientists"? They have all died out!
Not true. The state of affairs has never been any different than it is today, and it is not confined to physics or even to science. This is the way things have always been. It has always been easier to agree with the priest and learn what the clan or church said, then to decide for yourself. Even considering that the local shaman, or priest or scientist is mistaken, causes all manner of angst. It is ALWAYS the case that when a paradigm is in place, those holding the paradigm will defend it until it is obviously indefensible. That is the way life is--always.

BTW, Galileo was persecuted by the church, but it's good to realize that all the scientists of his day were churchmen, and they were the ones who persecuted him. Life and history are completely full of this dynamic. It's not the result of some decay in human civilization. It's the result of how we learn. It's the obvious dictate of human epistemology.

No harm, no foul, no loss. If it were not so, science would be too flighty to trust. The burden of proof is always on the revolutionary and this is just as it should be--but it really is a pain to be a prophet crying out in the wilderness. ;-)
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

TallDave wrote:BTW, Mills is not taken seriously because 1) it was discovered much of his book had been directly lifted, word for word, from another and 2) there is no credible evidence of "hydrinos."

I think your burden of proof is high, Johann, but if you can score some successful experimental predictions that unambiguously support your case you may make some headway even in our ossified institutions.
Dave, again I am NOT an apologist for Mills, however; that said, there are certainly signs that Mills is correct.

First, he has an enviable following. His board of directors reads like a Fortune 50 company. These are not dopey guys, None of them would so risk their reputations if they didn't have very strong warrant for belief and the list includes truly remarkable people. Supporters from NASA center chiefs to senior officers in USG Intel, as well as captains of industry and not a few of them extremely tech savvy.

Second, there is a fantastical amount of physical evidence--so much that to judge it all would take a large team many months of full time effort, and that team would have to be epistemologically open--meaning they would have to have no stake in the outcome. You simply cannot find such people in the National Academies. If anything has changed with regards our reaction to supposed scientific revolutions, it is that we have so institutionalized science, that is it even more resilient to change than in the past, but this dynamic has always existed too. You'd be hard pressed to say the refusal to grant PhD's to those who are out of the box, is any different than refusing the choir boy admittance into the priesthood.

Third, there is the working technology. It speaks for itself.

I could go on, but fact is, there are thousands of data points that say Mills is right and the standard model is wrong, and it has been and will continue to be a huge task to overthrow the current paradigm, even assuming Mills is right--which I am not willing to do.

The nonsense about the plagiarism doesn't even come to the issue and is unworthy of mention, IMHO. It's just an attack on the man--a logical fallacy given measure by those who haven't even read Mills' work.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

kurt9
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

TallDave wrote:BTW, Mills is not taken seriously because 1) it was discovered much of his book had been directly lifted, word for word, from another..."
Really? What book did he copy? I never heard about this.

In any case, they were supposed to have a working generator by fall of '09. Obviously the deadline has slipped.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

They've had a reactor running at Rowan University for more than a year.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

GIThruster wrote: If it ever gets lonely, I heartily suggest a fun read:

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scienti ... 305&sr=8-1

Doesn't mean I think you're right, but I'm sure not going to assume you're wrong based on preconceptions of QM. I personally would be delighted to find QM overthrown for that would explain why physics has made such little progress this last century.
Oh ghu, the lead marxist of science history. Kuhn..... gah anything I have to say about him isn't appropriate for this forum.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

I'm the very last thing in the world to a marxist and I can recommend the book without reservation.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

GIThruster wrote:I'm the very last thing in the world to a marxist and I can recommend the book without reservation.
Kuhn is still a Marxist

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Okay. So? It's a great book regardless.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

GIThruster wrote:Okay. So? It's a great book regardless.
Kuhn's ideas are toxic to science and are what has created the current problems of "post normal science" today where we wind up with scientists engaging in Alinsky methods to use bad science to push their political agendas and suppress anybody who challenges them. Climategate is the natural result of Kuhn.

Post Reply