It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 51
39
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by -PLB-
Secondly, this description does not explain the interference patters in the double slit experiment, as the confined standing wave is still not dividable, and still does not go through both slits at once in the double slit experiment. So it doesn't solve the paradox.


Right on the money!
Your point shows the paucity of depth in Beebs' argument, in a compelling way.
Right on the money about the "confined standing wave" not being dividable, something not characteristic of a confined standing wave, so indeed this does destroy beebs' assertion.

Double-slit experiment

when a laboratory apparatus was developed that could reliably fire single electrons at the screen, the emergence of an interference pattern suggested that each electron was interfering with itself, and therefore in some sense the electron had to be going through both slits.
Even when the single electron appears to be interfering with itself and goes through both slits at once in some sense, we don't get 2 half electrons, one from each slit to hit the screen, it's always one single electron hitting the screen in exactly one spot, showing it's not divisible even when it's somehow passing through both slits at once.
edit on 30-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
I am unaware of Larson's opinion on your questions. I have not read all of his work. I doubt he and I agree on everything, but I am sure he has very nuanced positions regarding E=mc^2 and how his model accounts for electrons. I will let you know when or if I have located his answers to those questions. If you would like to locate for yourself and criticize his own statements go for it, I am all ears.
I haven't found anywhere Larson explains the photoelectrec effect in the context of his theory, so if you can't explain it either, I don't know why you would believe it, that was the way we determined that Larson's idea was false before he had it, when other people had the same idea decades earlier.


Your statements about Searl are unfounded and not at all considering the available evidence. Start watching videos:
I've seen thousands of motors and generators before, with stators and rotors, and the only thing unusual about that is that the parts of the rotor aren't connected together, and then to a shaft and a load, like they usually are so that the rotor can be used to do practical work in the real world. Here's a more typical motor but it's still very similar except the rotor magnets are connected together instead of seaprate:

what-when-how.com...

See the stator windings here like the stator windings in the Searl demo video? And in both cases, the rotor consists of magnets. In the Searl video the magnets aren't connected together, in this design you can see how the magnets are connected to the housing:


If I'm supposed to see something in that video showing my comments about Searl are unfounded, you'll have to point out what it is. All I'm seeing is a motor like the one I pictured where the rotor magnets are round and disconnected so they can't do work like the motor in the pictures I posted. The Searl demo may get some ooohs and aaaahs but the real motor can actually turn a shaft and get something done. Can you guess why there's more demand for the latter and not the former?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Pure energy is different than a material particle. Energy would be described as fields or fluids, not particles. It isn't so easy to just say that photons are 'created' when there is too much energy. What form is that energy in before they are 'created' in emission? A photon wave is emitted in a cohere state, and when we detect it it behaves like a particle after superposition is collapsed. The photon is more like a bundled wave structure in space.


So you want to describe a photon or electron as a standing wave confined in a small space? Then it still has particle properties. But aside from that, I see some issues with this description. First, what exactly confines the standing wave? What are the borders made of? Secondly, this description does not explain the interference patters in the double slit experiment, as the confined standing wave is still not dividable, and still does not go through both slits at once in the double slit experiment. So it doesn't solve the paradox.


There are no borders like classical particle physics. There is no definite Heisenberg Cut. Particle properties only appear through the distorting lens of certain presuppositions. There is no need to make arbitrary separations of nature, no need to define borders - only to find out how the system flows, eddies, vibrates, and interacts among itself as a whole system. The paradox is only a paradox with the presuppositions of classical/nuclear/particle physics. It is no paradox, when the particle going through the slits is not a particle, but a discrete wave structure of space. A wave structure is divisible into component 'parts', only the parts are better characterized as subharmonics. This is what quarks would be.

The wave center(the densest part of space/energy) is what appears like a particle, it is confined only in our ability to detect its outermost energy levels. Like the center in this photo:



The wave structure dissipates, like a wave in water, into the surrounding environment and eventually approach infinitely less energy density. This is what we call Zero Point Energy, or the density of the 'vacuum' or space.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


The summery of the benefits of a Searl generator contains "Eliminates virus and bacteria". That should ring some alarm bells, just like with Rodins claims. A device that eliminates virus and bacteria very likely emits deadly radiation by the way.

Anyway, I don't think an energy generator that somehow makes use of the vacuum fields is impossible by definition (at least, I can imagine how it would work without breaking any laws of physics), but there has to be some extremely convincing evidence for it, which I have never seen yet. This whole Searl story is a big con joke.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



I don't really know what you mean by collapsing the superposition. Super position of what on what? And how do you collapse a superposition? Or did you mean something else than superposition?

I am pretty sure that when you do not measure it, it still behaves like a particle. Whether we measure it or not, the photon or electron is at a certain position in space, and not at an infinite positions at once, only deciding a single position when we measure it.

But the bottom line is, it doesn't really matter what you are concerned with. Electrons and photons have particle like behavior, with or without your concern. A model would be incomplete if it is ignored.


The superposition of quantum mechanics. What model are you basing your argument on? Sounds like classical to me...

Superposition is collapsed, or 'realized', when we disturb the functional natural quantum state of whatever we are measuring, when we measure it. The natural state is coherent, the collapsed state is decoherent.

Well, I am pretty sure that when we do not measure it, it behaves like a wave. That is why we have the mathematics of the wave function. That is the whole gist of the WPD, and DSE.

That is where the Copenhagen interpretation, and idea of complementarity, are used to say that they behave like both particle and wave.

I think the particle-like behavior is a misinterpretation of reality, and is an optical illusion of sorts - especially with psychological interference from misleading presuppositions.

I am arguing for just the wave interpretation, rather than have an awkward contradiction like the Copenhagen interpretation about everything in reality.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



Radio waves (essentially photons) are emitted from an antenna. Radio waves are not a part of the structure of the antenna. Photons are just propagating fields, and fields are created by electric charges under certain conditions. It's their property. Look at the Maxwell's equations. There are equivalent mathematical instruments in quantum electrodynamics.

Form follows function. The functional behavior is wavelike. The form or structure, therefore, makes more sense as a standing wave center of space than a 'material' particle in space.


If you insist on "function", you still can't say it's unequivocally "wavelike". You've been given examples here which you promptly chose to ignore.


Yeah, radio waves. Propagating fields.

Form follows function.

Therefore, wave structure of space rather than material particle in space.

You don't have to agree with me, but please realize that a wave only interpretation of quantum mechanics is not only legitimate, it has very serious credibility and proponents.

To me, the only reason anyone would doubt such an idea, is a psychological adherence to separation, borders, and material reality. You think the parts are more real than the whole, I think the whole is more real than the parts.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Start watching videos. I linked you to a playlist, all you have to do is sit and watch - no click choices involved.

There are some short demo-videos, and then a very informative interview, and then you are on your own. There are plenty more to go, but I cannot spoon feed you every video I watch.

Here again:

here



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Or it is emitting Orgone radiation...
It is taking the chaos of ZP, converting into electricity.

And please, do yourself a favor and research Searl and his work before just making ignorant opinions about it.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


An alternative is to read this document by the same YouTuber: "Message from Searl Magnetics, Inc." (A playlist link from the YouTuber's channel is embedded in the document.)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Pure energy is different than a material particle. Energy would be described as fields or fluids, not particles. It isn't so easy to just say that photons are 'created' when there is too much energy. What form is that energy in before they are 'created' in emission? A photon wave is emitted in a cohere state, and when we detect it it behaves like a particle after superposition is collapsed. The photon is more like a bundled wave structure in space.


Photons can be described as particles, and they are energy only. It seems that you regard a particle as a solid piece of mass, a grain-of-sand-like structure as you called it earlier. You even suggested I should not regard it like that, but it seems that you do it yourself. Particle like behavior just means there is an object of "something" that occupies a fixed amount of space or is in a certain point in space. A photon can be described as such.

As for the form of energy, it seems to me that it would be thermal energy in the case of a light bulb. But what does it matter? And yes, it behaves like a particle when we measure, hence the wave/particle duality. It seems you totally agree on that, but somehow you still want to look at it as a wave only. I don't really understand why you want to ignore the particle-like behavior which you agree there is.


There are no borders like classical particle physics. There is no definite Heisenberg Cut. Particle properties only appear through the distorting lens of certain presuppositions. There is no need to make arbitrary separations of nature, no need to define borders - only to find out how the system flows, eddies, vibrates, and interacts among itself as a whole system.


Then how is the wave confined in a single spot? Why doesn't the wave dissipate, diffuse or defract, but keeps it particle-like properties? To give an analogy, you can't have a standing wave in an infinite large surface of water, unless you have something to confine it (like the walls of a pool).


The paradox is only a paradox with the presuppositions of classical/nuclear/particle physics. It is no paradox, when the particle going through the slits is not a particle, but a discrete wave structure of space. A wave structure is divisible into component 'parts', only the parts are better characterized as subharmonics. This is what quarks would be.


But then we measure it, and it is not a wave at all, it is a particle. Hence the paradox. The view you propose is an outdated classical view. From Wikipedia:


The resulting Huygens–Fresnel principle was extremely successful at reproducing light's behavior and, subsequently supported by Thomas Young's discovery of double-slit interference, effectively disbanded the particle light camp.[4] Thomas Young's sketch of two-slit diffraction of waves, 1803. The final blow against corpuscular theory came when James Clerk Maxwell discovered that he could combine four simple equations, which had been previously discovered, along with a slight modification to describe self propagating waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. When the propagation speed of these electromagnetic waves was calculated, the speed of light fell out. It quickly became apparent that visible light, ultraviolet light, and infrared light (phenomenon thought previously to be unrelated) were all electromagnetic waves of differing frequency. The wave theory had prevailed – or at least it seemed to.


So at that moment, around 1800, it seemed settled that light were waves. But then, around 1900, Einstein came with the idea that light consisted of discrete quanta:


The idea of light quanta began with Max Planck's published law of black-body radiation ("On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum". Annalen der Physik 4 (1901)) by assuming that Hertzian oscillators could only exist at energies E proportional to the frequency f of the oscillator by E = hf, where h is Planck's constant. By assuming that light actually consisted of discrete energy packets, Einstein wrote an equation for the photoelectric effect that agreed with experimental results. It explained why the energy of photoelectrons were dependent only on the frequency of the incident light and not on its intensity: a low-intensity, high-frequency source could supply a few high energy photons, whereas a high-intensity, low-frequency source would supply no photons of sufficient individual energy to dislodge any electrons. This was an enormous theoretical leap, but the concept was strongly resisted at first because it contradicted the wave theory of light that followed naturally from James Clerk Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic behavior, and more generally, the assumption of infinite divisibility of energy in physical systems. Even after experiments showed that Einstein's equations for the photoelectric effect were accurate, resistance to the idea of photons continued, since it appeared to contradict Maxwell's equations, which were well-understood and verified.


So it actually took effort to change the classical wave only view. The conclusion:


Electromagnetic radiation propagates following linear wave equations, but can only be emitted or absorbed as discrete elements, thus acting as a wave and a particle simultaneously



The wave center(the densest part of space/energy) is what appears like a particle, it is confined only in our ability to detect its outermost energy levels. Like the center in this photo:



The wave structure dissipates, like a wave in water, into the surrounding environment and eventually approach infinitely less energy density. This is what we call Zero Point Energy, or the density of the 'vacuum' or space.


But it is still a particle which can not be divided. It doesn't solve the paradox.
edit on 31-3-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
The superposition of quantum mechanics. What model are you basing your argument on? Sounds like classical to me...

Superposition is collapsed, or 'realized', when we disturb the functional natural quantum state of whatever we are
measuring, when we measure it. The natural state is coherent, the collapsed state is decoherent.


Superposition of quantum mechanics? Do you mean the Everett many-worlds interpretation?


All the possible consistent states of the measured system and the measuring apparatus (including the observer) are present in a real physical (not just formally mathematical, as in other interpretations) quantum superposition. Such a superposition of consistent state combinations of different systems is called an entangled state. While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe, i.e. the consistent state contribution to the mentioned superposition, we inhabit.



Well, I am pretty sure that when we do not measure it, it behaves like a wave. That is why we have the mathematics of the wave function. That is the whole gist of the WPD, and DSE.

That is where the Copenhagen interpretation, and idea of complementarity, are used to say that they behave like both particle and wave.

I think the particle-like behavior is a misinterpretation of reality, and is an optical illusion of sorts - especially with psychological interference from misleading presuppositions.

I am arguing for just the wave interpretation, rather than have an awkward contradiction like the Copenhagen interpretation about everything in reality.


That we measure light as particles is a fact, it isn't a misinterpretation. We are entering the field of philosophy and leave the field of science by claiming otherwise. But basically you say that you just don't like the Copenhagen interpretation. Despite the fact we measure light as particles.
edit on 31-3-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


I don't need to do research, I can logically deduce its a scam. If it was real he would be selling working generators that do not require fuel, he had enough time to put them in production. He isn't so its a scam. Any but it just for the gullible.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
This ought to clear a few things up:

Crackpot Flowchart



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Message from Searl Magnetics, Inc."


From page 9:


At the last Tesla Tech Conference 2010, different instruments were
demonstrated to isolate Pr. Searl's scientific claims which will play an important
role in the real prototype.

These are:
The production of eddy currents from the spin of copper materials

The attracting-repulsing forces created by the mix of eddy currents and
magnetized roller

A magnetic material can be de-magnetized from its general magnetic 'spectrum'
and receive at least once permanent magnetic wave in the same operation (if you
get the last Tesla Tech conference DVD, you'll find out more.)


The truth-seeker will not rest on assumptions but will investigate.


The Tesla Tech Conference is a great source for investigation. The use of the word "crackpot" is typical of naysayers who don't investigate or who have reasons why they don't want others to investigate.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


And how exactly will you investigate without the knowledge to truly do such things and say without a doubt that the machine does what it says it does and a lack of motivation to do the work required to get such knowledge or expertise?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


I assume you're insulting me.
Have fun.




posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Is it really an insult to say you don't have the knowledge needed to verify any such claims inventors make? How exactly would you "investigate" it?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by beebs
Pure energy is different than a material particle. Energy would be described as fields or fluids, not particles. It isn't so easy to just say that photons are 'created' when there is too much energy. What form is that energy in before they are 'created' in emission? A photon wave is emitted in a cohere state, and when we detect it it behaves like a particle after superposition is collapsed. The photon is more like a bundled wave structure in space.


Photons can be described as particles, and they are energy only. It seems that you regard a particle as a solid piece of mass, a grain-of-sand-like structure as you called it earlier. You even suggested I should not regard it like that, but it seems that you do it yourself. Particle like behavior just means there is an object of "something" that occupies a fixed amount of space or is in a certain point in space. A photon can be described as such.

As for the form of energy, it seems to me that it would be thermal energy in the case of a light bulb. But what does it matter? And yes, it behaves like a particle when we measure, hence the wave/particle duality. It seems you totally agree on that, but somehow you still want to look at it as a wave only. I don't really understand why you want to ignore the particle-like behavior which you agree there is.


There are no borders like classical particle physics. There is no definite Heisenberg Cut. Particle properties only appear through the distorting lens of certain presuppositions. There is no need to make arbitrary separations of nature, no need to define borders - only to find out how the system flows, eddies, vibrates, and interacts among itself as a whole system.


Then how is the wave confined in a single spot? Why doesn't the wave dissipate, diffuse or defract, but keeps it particle-like properties? To give an analogy, you can't have a standing wave in an infinite large surface of water, unless you have something to confine it (like the walls of a pool).


The paradox is only a paradox with the presuppositions of classical/nuclear/particle physics. It is no paradox, when the particle going through the slits is not a particle, but a discrete wave structure of space. A wave structure is divisible into component 'parts', only the parts are better characterized as subharmonics. This is what quarks would be.


But then we measure it, and it is not a wave at all, it is a particle. Hence the paradox. The view you propose is an outdated classical view. From Wikipedia:


The resulting Huygens–Fresnel principle was extremely successful at reproducing light's behavior and, subsequently supported by Thomas Young's discovery of double-slit interference, effectively disbanded the particle light camp.[4] Thomas Young's sketch of two-slit diffraction of waves, 1803. The final blow against corpuscular theory came when James Clerk Maxwell discovered that he could combine four simple equations, which had been previously discovered, along with a slight modification to describe self propagating waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. When the propagation speed of these electromagnetic waves was calculated, the speed of light fell out. It quickly became apparent that visible light, ultraviolet light, and infrared light (phenomenon thought previously to be unrelated) were all electromagnetic waves of differing frequency. The wave theory had prevailed – or at least it seemed to.


So at that moment, around 1800, it seemed settled that light were waves. But then, around 1900, Einstein came with the idea that light consisted of discrete quanta:


The idea of light quanta began with Max Planck's published law of black-body radiation ("On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum". Annalen der Physik 4 (1901)) by assuming that Hertzian oscillators could only exist at energies E proportional to the frequency f of the oscillator by E = hf, where h is Planck's constant. By assuming that light actually consisted of discrete energy packets, Einstein wrote an equation for the photoelectric effect that agreed with experimental results. It explained why the energy of photoelectrons were dependent only on the frequency of the incident light and not on its intensity: a low-intensity, high-frequency source could supply a few high energy photons, whereas a high-intensity, low-frequency source would supply no photons of sufficient individual energy to dislodge any electrons. This was an enormous theoretical leap, but the concept was strongly resisted at first because it contradicted the wave theory of light that followed naturally from James Clerk Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic behavior, and more generally, the assumption of infinite divisibility of energy in physical systems. Even after experiments showed that Einstein's equations for the photoelectric effect were accurate, resistance to the idea of photons continued, since it appeared to contradict Maxwell's equations, which were well-understood and verified.


So it actually took effort to change the classical wave only view. The conclusion:


Electromagnetic radiation propagates following linear wave equations, but can only be emitted or absorbed as discrete elements, thus acting as a wave and a particle simultaneously



The wave center(the densest part of space/energy) is what appears like a particle, it is confined only in our ability to detect its outermost energy levels. Like the center in this photo:



The wave structure dissipates, like a wave in water, into the surrounding environment and eventually approach infinitely less energy density. This is what we call Zero Point Energy, or the density of the 'vacuum' or space.


But it is still a particle which can not be divided. It doesn't solve the paradox.
edit on 31-3-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




Particle like behavior just means there is an object of "something" that occupies a fixed amount of space or is in a certain point in space. A photon can be described as such.


Particle like behavior described as static space should be viewed as a river flowing. Fixed amounts of space are the equivalent of a heartbeat as mass is pulsed inside our vacuum. Quantum Mechanics defines scale as range of position and velocity, so there's your clue.




But then we measure it, and it is not a wave at all, it is a particle


While (observing - measuring) media interference is presented with electromagnetic fields. Static flow never fades, so there goes wave function centralized via induction. Take for example something the size of our galaxy... More recently known for its black hole.




The problem has been solved: As above so below.

Keep searching for gluons and virtual massless particles enough times, and you may just stunt your growth.
edit on 31-3-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





Even when the single electron appears to be interfering with itself and goes through both slits at once in some sense, we don't get 2 half electrons, one from each slit to hit the screen, it's always one single electron hitting the screen in exactly one spot, showing it's not divisible even when it's somehow passing through both slits at once.


For mass to be considered mass it must be found near singularities. Have you ever watched The Price Is Right and the game Plinko? There are quite a few points where the tokens bounce off the pegs. I realize we're simplified now, yet the board being wrapped inward towards its own center with the pegs centers themselves present a range of motion and varying speeds inherent of the vacuum. A two-scale fractal pattern.

You say a particle is not divisible passing through both slits at once, so what else do you imagine this "token" does?


edit on 31-3-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Form follows function.


You don't have to attach such truisms to anything in quantum mechanics, which is obviously not very untuitive at times anyway.


The functional behavior is wavelike.


You keep repeating this mantra which is patently false, as you have been told. A gamma-ray can experience a point-like interaction where it knocks out an electron from an atom, or even create an electron-positron pair. An electron, in turn, can behave perfectly like a particle at sufficient energies, knocking out a quark out of a nucleus.

When you insist on a simplistic point of view, I always remember the Feynman's video. "Maybe in a different world things are more simple, more philosophically pleasing..."



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join