'Tunneling of the third kind' experiment could search for new physics

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   


In an attempt to solve some of the observational puzzles in physics, theorists have proposed a number of new physics models. Several of these models suggest the existence of extremely weakly interacting lightweight particles with tiny fractional electric charges called minicharged particles (MCPs). Constraining the masses of MCPs could help theorists refine their models, but so far it has been very difficult to detect MCPs. Now in a new study, physicists in Germany have proposed a new search for MCPs based on a new tunneling mechanism called "tunneling of the third kind," which could prove very useful in the search for new physics. Read more at: phys.org...





In tunneling of the third kind, a quantum particle that cannot pass through a barrier changes into a pair of virtual particles that pass through the barrier before changing back into the first particle. Gies, along with coauthor Joerg Jaeckel, discovered this kind of tunneling in 2009. They suggested that this tunneling could take the form of photons changing into MCPs, which can tunnel through certain barriers and then change back into photons. Like the second kind of tunneling, this kind would also appear as light shining through a wall.


"The nice thing about the light-shining-through-a-wall effect is that known (i.e., Standard Model) particles cannot produce such an effect within current sensitivities," Döbrich said. "Thus, if light shining through a wall were observed, it would be a clear hint of new physics! As a second step, one would have to determine the nature of this new particle precisely (as ongoing, for example, for the new particle at the LHC, a.k.a. the Higgs boson, whose spin, for example, still has to be determined). In our experiment, changing, for example, the angle of the incident light or changing its polarization would be a way to discriminate minicharged particles from other weakly interacting new particles."

EXCITING!
And you looney tunes think physicists are in on this conspiracy to keep science boring. If we find evidence of anything slightly different from the standard model physicists go bonkers! They love it!

If your confused about virtual particles here is a good description from a good friend of mine.
www.quora.com... an-interaction

For more in-depth looks at MCP's...
arxiv.org...
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Ok, so they will take an ultra thin, say 3 angstrom thick rhodium sheet and bombard it with boron ions via laser coupling, get light out the other end and call it tunneling, when actually it's just 2 step energy transference coupling. How is anyone, any lay person, going to tell that tunneling is actually happening unless they understand the science and/or see the benefit through commercial application? We have to take the word of the media and we all know where that leads, dis and mis-information. Controlled quantum tunneling of "information" has been in operation since 1993 and in the universities for pragmatic analysis and commercial exploitation since 1997. The technology has incredible military applications in focused energy weapons (lasers, microwave, etc), spontaneous energy release weapons (fission/fusion replication and EMP), energy transfer (non-local power supply) and communications (voice and data), so I doubt any real information will become public for some time.

And then.... there is the "reality" problem, since we live in what appears to be a virtual reality, I guess all particles are virtual LOL

Cheers - Dave
edit on 10/3.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Ok, so they will take an ultra thin, say 3 angstrom thick rhodium sheet and bombard it with boron ions via laser coupling, get light out the other end and call it tunneling, when actually it's just 2 step energy transference coupling. How is anyone, any lay person, going to tell that tunneling is actually happening unless they understand the science and/or see the benefit through commercial application? We have to take the word of the media and we all know where that leads, dis and mis-information. Controlled quantum tunneling of "information" has been in operation since 1993 and in the universities for pragmatic analysis and commercial exploitation since 1997. The technology has incredible military applications in focused energy weapons (lasers, microwave, etc), spontaneous energy release weapons (fission/fusion replication and EMP), energy transfer (non-local power supply) and communications (voice and data), so I doubt any real information will become public for some time.

And then.... there is the "reality" problem, since we live in what appears to be a virtual reality, I guess all particles are virtual LOL

Cheers - Dave
edit on 10/3.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)


Your missing the point. They have yet to detect MCPs, if they exist we need to modify our theories getting us farther out on each side of the super low energy spectrum. Its not about novel applications in this case (tho i figured your also referring to the recent work with touch screen cell phones?)

Fundamental physics doesn't work like that, yet. The US might have been able to keep the Manhattan project secret but the fundamental physics was open to the public.
Tho, I see if we are not carefull, the noose is tightening.
But THIS brings hope.
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Awesome!
Thanks for the heads up, man!
S&F



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Ok, so they will take an ultra thin, say 3 angstrom thick rhodium sheet and bombard it with boron ions via laser coupling, get light out the other end and call it tunneling, when actually it's just 2 step energy transference coupling. How is anyone, any lay person, going to tell that tunneling is actually happening unless they understand the science and/or see the benefit through commercial application? We have to take the word of the media and we all know where that leads, dis and mis-information. Controlled quantum tunneling of "information" has been in operation since 1993 and in the universities for pragmatic analysis and commercial exploitation since 1997. The technology has incredible military applications in focused energy weapons (lasers, microwave, etc), spontaneous energy release weapons (fission/fusion replication and EMP), energy transfer (non-local power supply) and communications (voice and data), so I doubt any real information will become public for some time.

And then.... there is the "reality" problem, since we live in what appears to be a virtual reality, I guess all particles are virtual LOL

Cheers - Dave
edit on 10/3.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)


Your missing the point. They have yet to detect MCPs, if they exist we need to modify our theories getting us farther out on each side of the super low energy spectrum. Its not about novel applications in this case (tho i figured your also referring to the recent work with touch screen cell phones?)

Fundamental physics doesn't work like that, yet. The US might have been able to keep the Manhattan project secret but the fundamental physics was open to the public.
Tho, I see if we are not carefull, the noose is tightening.
But THIS brings hope.
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)


I don't miss the point at all, fundamental changes to physics theory is accomplished through analytical computation, experimentation (among other things) and the production of repeatable results. My point is that not everything the MSM and periodicals feed to the lay markets is real or "usable" information that would allow replication. It's so easy to twist a theory to mean something else, you know like BS baffles brains. It's very difficult for 99.9% of the people to check the "math," hence they rely on the MSM, periodicals and of course experts. Then there is another problem in that quantum reality is totally different than classical reality. So an effect produced in quantum states does not replicate equally if at all in classical states. There are some instances, but they are few and far between and require very specialized equipment. So, how do you tell (virtual) reality from fiction?

Cheers - Dave



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


The purpose of a science article in the media is not to help Joe Schmoe or other scientists to repeat the experiment, its grossly simplified info for the layman. Read the actual paper if you're interested in the gritty details.

No one is stopping you or a anyone else training as a scientist. The fact that it is difficult and time consuming is not the fault of science. Science shouldn't be simplified just because you or anyone else can't understand it. you dont have to take anyone's word at it but unless you're prepared to train as a scientist, you will. Laziness or apathy is not a grand conspiracy so please stop blaming science.
edit on 4-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


The purpose of a science article in the media is not to help Joe Schmoe or other scientists to repeat the experiment, its grossly simplified info for the layman. Read the actual paper if you're interested in the gritty details.

No one is stopping you or a anyone else training as a scientist. The fact that it is difficult and time consuming is not the fault of science. Science shouldn't be simplified just because you or anyone else can't understand it. you dont have to take anyone's word at it but unless you're prepared to train as a scientist, you will. Laziness or apathy is not a grand conspiracy so please stop blaming science.
edit on 4-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


I've worked as an engineer and phsysicist for 40 and 25 years respectively for governments, military weapons programs, universities and R&D think tanks, and I believe information for lay people should be considerably easier to understand than what is presently available. The dumbing down of society coupled with the msm promoted "mystical" aspect of science has almost turned it into a religion, which it should not be. Science should be presented on repeatable and provable facts, not faith in alleged "experts" pontificating from on high. So as in religion, how can you trust the "priests?"

I read the article, concerning probabilities looking for these alleged "MCP's" at 7x10^-7 electron volts using a 5 Tesla field structure. I am no stranger to magnetics since I designed, built (at local universities/colleges) and run a 14 Tesla adiabatic reactor that performs the measurement and material programming requirements as specified by the NRC/NSERC and their clients as well as erase your credit cards at 2 metres and heat your blood.


Although MCPs are very difficult to detect due to their weak coupling, several experiments are currently searching for them. Here, the scientists propose using "tunneling of the third kind," which is so named because it was the third kind of tunneling to be discovered. In all three known types of tunneling, a quantum particle passes through a barrier that a classical particle cannot pass through. In the first kind of tunneling, known simply as standard quantum mechanical tunneling, this phenomenon occurs due to the uncertainty principle, which gives a finite probability that a quantum particle can pass through a barrier. Read more at: phys.org...


If the third type of tunneling has been found as stated, there must be empirical eveidence which would indicate that MCP's have already been found. Have they lost them somewhere?


In tunneling of the third kind, a quantum particle that cannot pass through a barrier changes into a pair of virtual particles that pass through the barrier before changing back into the first particle. Read more at: phys.org...


This is a difficult process to imagine since generally speaking the probabilities of two particles split from one do not have equivalent characteristics, in fact through previous experimentation are shown to be active orthogonally, meaning equivalent action inverse in three dimensions. When the "split" occurs, if we use classical directions and a little visualization, and particle A travels in say the "left" direction, particle B travels "right." If particle A is further acted on to change its direction to "up" then particle B will change its direction to "down." If the particles have to split to get through "the wall" it would seem that they will not meet up again to recombine into the original particle. Unless of course there is some "mechanical" method, some external intervention we are not being told about that forces the particles to recombine.

Anyway, a perfect example of this problem in the upcoming religion of science, is all of the fraud and deliberate skewing of data surrounding global climate change science. Since this happens in one scientifically politicized arena that is common knowledge, there is more than a reasonable probability of this kind of fraud and disinformation happening in many other areas, which it does. So my only point was, yes, nice to get some information, but is the information trustable in it's present form? And if so, why in this specific case if disinformation has been so prevelant in the past?

As the article says, they are looking, no facts here, just supposition based on theory with a non-zero probability of success. As explained in thier text and to be flippant, it appears they found the effect and lost the particle LOL.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 10/4.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle


This is a difficult process to imagine since generally speaking the probabilities of two particles split from one do not have equivalent characteristics, in fact through previous experimentation are shown to be active orthogonally, meaning equivalent action inverse in three dimensions. When the "split" occurs, if we use classical directions and a little visualization, and particle A travels in say the "left" direction, particle B travels "right." If particle A is further acted on to change its direction to "up" then particle B will change its direction to "down." If the particles have to split to get through "the wall" it would seem that they will not meet up again to recombine into the original particle. Unless of course there is some "mechanical" method, some external intervention we are not being told about that forces the particles to recombine.

Anyway, a perfect example of this problem in the upcoming religion of science, is all of the fraud and deliberate skewing of data surrounding global climate change science. Since this happens in one scientifically politicized arena that is common knowledge, there is more than a reasonable probability of this kind of fraud and disinformation happening in many other areas, which it does. So my only point was, yes, nice to get some information, but is the information trustable in it's present form? And if so, why in this specific case if disinformation has been so prevelant in the past?

As the article says, they are looking, no facts here, just supposition based on theory with a non-zero probability of success. As explained in thier text and to be flippant, it appears they found the effect and lost the particle LOL.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 10/4.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)


Hahaha. I was just saying you sounded like an engineer.

Thats the point of peer reveiew. If someone makes claims of new physics, you already know theres a mad rush to prove instrument failure, anything.
But believe me, the quantum world is just a "real" as newtons. The problem is with our definition of "real".



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
As the article says, they are looking, no facts here, just supposition based on theory with a non-zero probability of success. As explained in thier text and to be flippant, it appears they found the effect and lost the particle LOL.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 10/4.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)


Hahaha. I was just saying you sounded like an engineer.

Thats the point of peer reveiew. If someone makes claims of new physics, you already know theres a mad rush to prove instrument failure, anything.
But believe me, the quantum world is just a "real" as newtons. The problem is with our definition of "real".


Yes, peer review, repeatability in empirical data/findings, I agree with that. Quantum reality however has all the appearances of being totally different from classical reality. You should try building a classical emulation of a quantum function, it will show you just how different they actually are. We did this with Bell's Theorem, it was simple and yet complex because we had to build physical monopoles in order to test "spooky interaction at a distance" which then allowed us to confirm what it actually was, which was quantum tunneling using the same BEC expression in two places. This of course amounts to a single-->dual particle theory of communications allowing information to traverse vast distances (light years) with an almost zero (infinitely small) propagation delay. My point is I guess, will this information stay within the confines of university research and military application? Or will the process be made commercially available?

Th commercial availability and hence "news" relies on two things, the first being; is the process/technology more valuable to the military or commercial endeavors? The second, is the process/technology commercially viable, eg. can a company make money with it and build in a long term revenue stream? The answer to the first question is that it is more valuable to the military, specifically in long distance reconnaissance, isolated secure communication and drone/robotic control of space vehicles.

But, even if the technology was available to corporate ventures it is not commercially viable as it provides a communication solution that is non-tappable (it cannot be monitored by a third party), non-regulatable (the nature of the technology is direct rather than third party controlled/mediated) and the cost to produce is very low using parts that would last much longer than 20 or 30 years (screwing up the engineered obsolescence business formula).

I once thought myself rather clever for developing a feropolymer that created better than a -10db attenuation in reflected microwave radiation (MTU/speedtraps/military radar/etc.). I had it tested at two universities, it was all good. The police and military tested and watched the demos, it too was all good (at least till they went away and started talking). In the meantime, I tried to sell it to GM to make cars "radar" proof LOL, my NRC rep thought it was a rather unique although eccentrically motivated application. Anyway, the US military grabbed it, now it falls under national security and I can't sell it or export the technology because they can coat planes with it and make them appear to be 1,000 miles away when they are only 10 miles away. I could give you other examples. So in the words of Bruce Willis from the "Die Hard" series, "Yippe-Ki-aah MF!" LOL no offense just thought it was funny.

When it comes to news, the common person does not see a lot of it, at least not the "real" news and as far as technology announcements, we are only generally seeing the tip of the iceberg, actually less than 10%. That is why I say that any information that is presented by mainstream sources is either a.) cherry picked or b.) disinformation, both with an agenda.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 10/4.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
As the article says, they are looking, no facts here, just supposition based on theory with a non-zero probability of success. As explained in thier text and to be flippant, it appears they found the effect and lost the particle LOL.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 10/4.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)


Hahaha. I was just saying you sounded like an engineer.

Thats the point of peer reveiew. If someone makes claims of new physics, you already know theres a mad rush to prove instrument failure, anything.
But believe me, the quantum world is just a "real" as newtons. The problem is with our definition of "real".


Yes, peer review, repeatability in empirical data/findings, I agree with that. Quantum reality however has all the appearances of being totally different from classical reality. You should try building a classical emulation of a quantum function, it will show you just how different they actually are. We did this with Bell's Theorem, it was simple and yet complex because we had to build physical monopoles in order to test "spooky interaction at a distance" which then allowed us to confirm what it actually was, which was quantum tunneling using the same BEC expression in two places. This of course amounts to a single-->dual particle theory of communications allowing information to traverse vast distances (light years) with an almost zero (infinitely small) propagation delay. My point is I guess, will this information stay within the confines of university research and military application? Or will the process be made commercially available?

Th commercial availability and hence "news" relies on two things, the first being; is the process/technology more valuable to the military or commercial endeavors? The second, is the process/technology commercially viable, eg. can a company make money with it and build in a long term revenue stream? The answer to the first question is that it is more valuable to the military, specifically in long distance reconnaissance, isolated secure communication and drone/robotic control of space vehicles.

But, even if the technology was available to corporate ventures it is not commercially viable as it provides a communication solution that is non-tappable (it cannot be monitored by a third party), non-regulatable (the nature of the technology is direct rather than third party controlled/mediated) and the cost to produce is very low using parts that would last much longer than 20 or 30 years (screwing up the engineered obsolescence business formula).

I once thought myself rather clever for developing a feropolymer that created better than a -10db attenuation in reflected microwave radiation (MTU/speedtraps/military radar/etc.). I had it tested at two universities, it was all good. The police and military tested and watched the demos, it too was all good (at least till they went away and started talking). In the meantime, I tried to sell it to GM to make cars "radar" proof LOL, my NRC rep thought it was a rather unique although eccentrically motivated application. Anyway, the US military grabbed it, now it falls under national security and I can't sell it or export the technology because they can coat planes with it and make them appear to be 1,000 miles away when they are only 10 miles away. I could give you other examples. So in the words of Bruce Willis from the "Die Hard" series, "Yippe-Ki-aah MF!" LOL no offense just thought it was funny.

When it comes to news, the common person does not see a lot of it, at least not the "real" news and as far as technology announcements, we are only generally seeing the tip of the iceberg, actually less than 10%. That is why I say that any information that is presented by mainstream sources is either a.) cherry picked or b.) disinformation, both with an agenda.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 10/4.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)


Your entire argument is based off a lifetime of human experience. You have never experienced non-locality, or other quantum mechanical phenomenon so of course its not gunna make sense, and every fiber of your being can say it doesn't makes sense. Doesn't make the uncertainty princple any less true. Infact, its more experimentally proven than relativity. But you don't complain that time dilation doesn't make sense, or most people wont, tho its as threatening to our everyday picture as the standard model.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
As the article says, they are looking, no facts here, just supposition based on theory with a non-zero probability of success. As explained in thier text and to be flippant, it appears they found the effect and lost the particle LOL.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 10/4.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)


Hahaha. I was just saying you sounded like an engineer.

Thats the point of peer reveiew. If someone makes claims of new physics, you already know theres a mad rush to prove instrument failure, anything.
But believe me, the quantum world is just a "real" as newtons. The problem is with our definition of "real".


..../ My point is I guess, will this information stay within the confines of university research and military application? Or will the process be made commercially available?

Th commercial availability and hence "news" relies on two things, the first being; is the process/technology more valuable to the military or commercial endeavors? The second, is the process/technology commercially viable, eg. can a company make money with it and build in a long term revenue stream? The answer to the first question is that it is more valuable to the military, specifically in long distance reconnaissance, isolated secure communication and drone/robotic control of space vehicles.

..../ When it comes to news, the common person does not see a lot of it, at least not the "real" news and as far as technology announcements, we are only generally seeing the tip of the iceberg, actually less than 10%. That is why I say that any information that is presented by mainstream sources is either a.) cherry picked or b.) disinformation, both with an agenda.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 10/4.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)


Your entire argument is based off a lifetime of human experience. You have never experienced non-locality, or other quantum mechanical phenomenon so of course its not gunna make sense, and every fiber of your being can say it doesn't makes sense. Doesn't make the uncertainty princple any less true. Infact, its more experimentally proven than relativity. But you don't complain that time dilation doesn't make sense, or most people wont, tho its as threatening to our everyday picture as the standard model.


Errr, I am the guy who developed the first adiabatic reactor in 1992/93 under NSERC/NRC programs, the model of which Eric Cornell at JILA labs used to prove Bose Einstein Condensates existed, so I think I know a "little" about quantum "structures," non-locality and of course quantum gateways (ER/EPR solutions). The Uncertainty Principle both is and is not valid, depending on relativistic perspective, eg. the position of the observer, whether they are inside or outside of the system being observed. Quantum tunneling makes perfect sense if there is a mediation "layer" or dimension that connects all particle systems at Plank length. I do have a problem with the split-ultra-weak-particle theory (and I am not saying it is impossible, just improbable) however since it appears to require an outside mechanism to force the split and then recombine while not maintaining an orthogonal "trajectory," I see the theory as being unworkable.

I don't normally "complain" as things are the way they are in this virtual reality. Time dilation is problematic and actually I used the monopoles in my initial proof systems as temporal proxies in a device used as a gravity wave interferometer (and yes, we did measure time dilation since the control timing stream applied for analysis was forced outside of non-virtual space-time, read - outside of our local system of reality).

One thing, when you refer to time dilation, you do mean temporary variances in the ebb and flow of time that might be caused by gravity wells and not time travel, right? Because if you mean time travel there are rules to the game that are paradoxical and limit what one can and cannot do, at least from inside the system. From outside the system, our virtual reality unrolls like a tape in a VCR and every aspect of our "classical" reality and every particle interaction can be plotted and analyzed, which in simple terms means there is no free will and what we deem to be reality is in fact a virtual construct of which, I am not sure of the purpose.

But I digress, you are trying to use other arguments to divert away from the simple fact that my original point was that any information from any mainstream source with regards to any kind of news is "coloured" and coupled to an agenda and therefore cannot be trusted.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle


Errr, I am the guy who developed the first adiabatic reactor in 1992/93 under NSERC/NRC programs, the model of which Eric Cornell at JILA labs used to prove Bose Einstein Condensates existed, so I think I know a "little" about quantum "structures," non-locality and of course quantum gateways (ER/EPR solutions). The Uncertainty Principle both is and is not valid, depending on relativistic perspective, eg. the position of the observer, whether they are inside or outside of the system being observed. Quantum tunneling makes perfect sense if there is a mediation "layer" or dimension that connects all particle systems at Plank length. I do have a problem with the split-ultra-weak-particle theory (and I am not saying it is impossible, just improbable) however since it appears to require an outside mechanism to force the split and then recombine while not maintaining an orthogonal "trajectory," I see the theory as being unworkable.

I don't normally "complain" as things are the way they are in this virtual reality. Time dilation is problematic and actually I used the monopoles in my initial proof systems as temporal proxies in a device used as a gravity wave interferometer (and yes, we did measure time dilation since the control timing stream applied for analysis was forced outside of non-virtual space-time, read - outside of our local system of reality).

One thing, when you refer to time dilation, you do mean temporary variances in the ebb and flow of time that might be caused by gravity wells and not time travel, right? Because if you mean time travel there are rules to the game that are paradoxical and limit what one can and cannot do, at least from inside the system. From outside the system, our virtual reality unrolls like a tape in a VCR and every aspect of our "classical" reality and every particle interaction can be plotted and analyzed, which in simple terms means there is no free will and what we deem to be reality is in fact a virtual construct of which, I am not sure of the purpose.

But I digress, you are trying to use other arguments to divert away from the simple fact that my original point was that any information from any mainstream source with regards to any kind of news is "coloured" and coupled to an agenda and therefore cannot be trusted.

Cheers - Dave


You know why I don't brag about my credentials, for fear of sounding full of it like you.

The worst people to debate are the ones who "think" they are using the correct terminology. Sir, your using words right out of laybook, or a "quantum mechanics for electrical engineers". The argument about Quantum reality has been going on since Schrodinger first challenged the Copenhagen interpretation.

Sorry, what gave it away was you asking about t-dilatation. You should know exactly the point I was making. Come on.

And explain a BEC, with classical mechanics PLEASE? Seems impossible.

And your right, im sure there are certain applications for fundamental physics that might be top secret but like I stated before the physics itself is open source. Once its on arvix server, its open to everyone. Lack of funding is creating more tight control on what actually gets attention, but the basis is the same. If new physics is found, its reported. I'm not saying in the future it may not be as open, but its kinda hard to hid this stuff, when most physicists would give their lives to announce a discovery such as "actual ftl neutrinos". Thats a perfect example, physicists are like like kids. They jump the gun all the time. Now your telling my you could convince CERN no not announce things like "extra spacial dimensions" or "SUSY" even if it had the best military application in the world? Especially experimental particle physicists. You couldn't do it.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

But I digress, you are trying to use other arguments to divert away from the simple fact that my original point was that any information from any mainstream source with regards to any kind of news is "coloured" and coupled to an agenda and therefore cannot be trusted.

Cheers - Dave


You know why I don't brag about my credentials, for fear of sounding full of it like you.

The worst people to debate are the ones who "think" they are using the correct terminology. Sir, your using words right out of laybook, or a "quantum mechanics for electrical engineers". The argument about Quantum reality has been going on since Schrodinger first challenged the Copenhagen interpretation.

Sorry, what gave it away was you asking about t-dilatation. You should know exactly the point I was making. Come on.

And explain a BEC, with classical mechanics PLEASE? Seems impossible.

And your right, im sure there are certain applications for fundamental physics that might be top secret but like I stated before the physics itself is open source. Once its on arvix server, its open to everyone. Lack of funding is creating more tight control on what actually gets attention, but the basis is the same. If new physics is found, its reported. I'm not saying in the future it may not be as open, but its kinda hard to hid this stuff, when most physicists would give their lives to announce a discovery such as "actual ftl neutrinos". Thats a perfect example, physicists are like like kids. They jump the gun all the time. Now your telling my you could convince CERN no not announce things like "extra spacial dimensions" or "SUSY" even if it had the best military application in the world? Especially experimental particle physicists. You couldn't do it.


You don't seem to realize how little actually gets into the public domain. And btw, I did build the first adiabatic reactor under NRC/NSERC contract, I believe you can still look it up and my is there. It's not bragging, it's a simple fact and the point of that statement is that I have been around the block in both experimental and other rather nasty developments in weapons programs, as well as many other areas. Sh**t happens, we all have a history LOL. BTW, it is highly improbable that you can measure time dilation from within the system where the effect is occurring when the "effect" is larger than the system (or your measurement/analysis tools), directly. The "effect" has the highest probability of being measured from outside the system or via an "effect" proxy.

As an example already used, gravity wells and/or waves can produce temporal distortions, so one would use a proxy that can isolate time and that is the "trick." Much of my work has never been published by the governments, military, companies or universities I have worked for or with, even though much has. Some processes and technology fall under trade secrets and even more secure listing restrictions. In many cases (not specifically related to me) the primary reason is that technology processes are too dangerous or defined as national security issues or might give a different corporation/country a leading edge. That's life. I think if I started posting all the plans on EMP weapons and accelerators or how to make a singularity weapon for a 1/4 million dollars or less, it would result in a lot of deleted posts and suits knocking on my door for possibly breach of NDA's and CA's so those posts are not going to happen ;-)

My original point still remains that any information or disinformation from any mainstream source with regards to any kind of news is "coloured" or contains lies of omission and is coupled to an agenda and therefore cannot be trusted. Believe what you want, everyone has a right to their opinion ;-)

Cheers - Dave



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

But I digress, you are trying to use other arguments to divert away from the simple fact that my original point was that any information from any mainstream source with regards to any kind of news is "coloured" and coupled to an agenda and therefore cannot be trusted.

Cheers - Dave


You know why I don't brag about my credentials, for fear of sounding full of it like you.

The worst people to debate are the ones who "think" they are using the correct terminology. Sir, your using words right out of laybook, or a "quantum mechanics for electrical engineers". The argument about Quantum reality has been going on since Schrodinger first challenged the Copenhagen interpretation.

Sorry, what gave it away was you asking about t-dilatation. You should know exactly the point I was making. Come on.

And explain a BEC, with classical mechanics PLEASE? Seems impossible.

And your right, im sure there are certain applications for fundamental physics that might be top secret but like I stated before the physics itself is open source. Once its on arvix server, its open to everyone. Lack of funding is creating more tight control on what actually gets attention, but the basis is the same. If new physics is found, its reported. I'm not saying in the future it may not be as open, but its kinda hard to hid this stuff, when most physicists would give their lives to announce a discovery such as "actual ftl neutrinos". Thats a perfect example, physicists are like like kids. They jump the gun all the time. Now your telling my you could convince CERN no not announce things like "extra spacial dimensions" or "SUSY" even if it had the best military application in the world? Especially experimental particle physicists. You couldn't do it.


You don't seem to realize how little actually gets into the public domain. And btw, I did build the first adiabatic reactor under NRC/NSERC contract, I believe you can still look it up and my is there. It's not bragging, it's a simple fact and the point of that statement is that I have been around the block in both experimental and other rather nasty developments in weapons programs, as well as many other areas. Sh**t happens, we all have a history LOL. BTW, it is highly improbable that you can measure time dilation from within the system where the effect is occurring when the "effect" is larger than the system (or your measurement/analysis tools), directly. The "effect" has the highest probability of being measured from outside the system or via an "effect" proxy.

As an example already used, gravity wells and/or waves can produce temporal distortions, so one would use a proxy that can isolate time and that is the "trick." Much of my work has never been published by the governments, military, companies or universities I have worked for or with, even though much has. Some processes and technology fall under trade secrets and even more secure listing restrictions. In many cases (not specifically related to me) the primary reason is that technology processes are too dangerous or defined as national security issues or might give a different corporation/country a leading edge. That's life. I think if I started posting all the plans on EMP weapons and accelerators or how to make a singularity weapon for a 1/4 million dollars or less, it would result in a lot of deleted posts and suits knocking on my door for possibly breach of NDA's and CA's so those posts are not going to happen ;-)

My original point still remains that any information or disinformation from any mainstream source with regards to any kind of news is "coloured" or contains lies of omission and is coupled to an agenda and therefore cannot be trusted. Believe what you want, everyone has a right to their opinion ;-)

Cheers - Dave


Still haven't answered my question. In your "expert" opinion, Can you please inform me how one would describe the properties of a Bose Einstein condensate with classical mechanics?

And the physics required to build a particle accelerator are public knowledge. So while there may not be plans to build it cheaply like you explained, you the science is not restricted.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

But I digress, you are trying to use other arguments to divert away from the simple fact that my original point was that any information from any mainstream source with regards to any kind of news is "coloured" and coupled to an agenda and therefore cannot be trusted.

Cheers - Dave


.../ And explain a BEC, with classical mechanics PLEASE? Seems impossible.

And your right, im sure there are certain applications for fundamental physics that might be top secret but like I stated before the physics itself is open source. Once its on arvix server, its open to everyone. Lack of funding is creating more tight control on what actually gets attention, but the basis is the same. If new physics is found, its reported. I'm not saying in the future it may not be as open, but its kinda hard to hid this stuff, when most physicists would give their lives to announce a discovery such as "actual ftl neutrinos". Thats a perfect example, physicists are like like kids. They jump the gun all the time. Now your telling my you could convince CERN no not announce things like "extra spacial dimensions" or "SUSY" even if it had the best military application in the world? Especially experimental particle physicists. You couldn't do it.


.../ My original point still remains that any information or disinformation from any mainstream source with regards to any kind of news is "coloured" or contains lies of omission and is coupled to an agenda and therefore cannot be trusted. Believe what you want, everyone has a right to their opinion ;-)

Cheers - Dave


Still haven't answered my question. In your "expert" opinion, Can you please inform me how one would describe the properties of a Bose Einstein condensate with classical mechanics?

And the physics required to build a particle accelerator are public knowledge. So while there may not be plans to build it cheaply like you explained, you the science is not restricted.


This is what I said about BEC's in another post in this thread; "We did this with Bell's Theorem, it was simple and yet complex because we had to build physical monopoles in order to test "spooky interaction at a distance" which then allowed us to confirm what it actually was, which was quantum tunneling using the same BEC expression in two places."

I am paid to do, not teach, I don't mind dropping hints every once in a while but I do hope people will think on their own ;-) Last time I gave away too much info, JILA labs went large on BEC's and the time after that, the US military grabbed my feropolymer that I am now not allowed to export. Oh well, c'est la vie...

I will say it is very difficult to visualize the classical reality expression of a BEC because we are stuck between two or three different potential models. It's not like creating a simple embedding diagram showing a 3 dimensional gateway on a 2 dimensional page. A BEC is entanglement at a particle level and it can't be expressed using simple math. Plus, BEC's do not exist at a classical/Newtonian levels or at least are non-probable, have you ever seen one? I know I haven't while I was driving along. Their existence is actually inferred by way of measurements and analysis of target areas within complex magnetic and laser coupled systems. BTW, here a quick little wiki-link, I know they are not the best, but I still have some work to do tonight.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad


In an attempt to solve some of the observational puzzles in physics, theorists have proposed a number of new physics models. Several of these models suggest the existence of extremely weakly interacting lightweight particles with tiny fractional electric charges called minicharged particles (MCPs). Constraining the masses of MCPs could help theorists refine their models, but so far it has been very difficult to detect MCPs. Now in a new study, physicists in Germany have proposed a new search for MCPs based on a new tunneling mechanism called "tunneling of the third kind," which could prove very useful in the search for new physics. Read more at: phys.org...





In tunneling of the third kind, a quantum particle that cannot pass through a barrier changes into a pair of virtual particles that pass through the barrier before changing back into the first particle. Gies, along with coauthor Joerg Jaeckel, discovered this kind of tunneling in 2009. They suggested that this tunneling could take the form of photons changing into MCPs, which can tunnel through certain barriers and then change back into photons. Like the second kind of tunneling, this kind would also appear as light shining through a wall.


"The nice thing about the light-shining-through-a-wall effect is that known (i.e., Standard Model) particles cannot produce such an effect within current sensitivities," Döbrich said. "Thus, if light shining through a wall were observed, it would be a clear hint of new physics! As a second step, one would have to determine the nature of this new particle precisely (as ongoing, for example, for the new particle at the LHC, a.k.a. the Higgs boson, whose spin, for example, still has to be determined). In our experiment, changing, for example, the angle of the incident light or changing its polarization would be a way to discriminate minicharged particles from other weakly interacting new particles."

EXCITING!
And you looney tunes think physicists are in on this conspiracy to keep science boring. If we find evidence of anything slightly different from the standard model physicists go bonkers! They love it!

If your confused about virtual particles here is a good description from a good friend of mine.
www.quora.com... an-interaction

For more in-depth looks at MCP's...
arxiv.org...
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)


MCP or MicroCharged Particles are right down my alley. I've been studying them for years, and as you and the study have suggested, they are real.

Here is a paper of the study: m.phys.org...

But... the study suggests it was discovered in 2009 by Gies and Jaeckel which is not true. As a matter of fact, I produced a video in 2009 which still runs on YouTube today proving that I had already discovered them. I actually discovered MCP's back in 1995 and have proof that I discovered them then. My videos have more than enough evidence that I discovered them and that there is many, many uses for them; as a matter of fact there are far more uses than any of us can imagine.

I have years of proof about writing about them here on ATS, but without refering to them as MCP's. Many of my tests that I reported here on ATS show the results.

Yes, this is a very new science, and it is tremendous in its extent. I can see that possibly tens of millions of new jobs will be created when this new science reaches the masses.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle


Cheers - Dave




Lol.
Im on punked right?
Your messing with me.

"entanglement at a particle level and it cant be expressed using simple math"

So lets say you have never read a post of mine, and lets just go off the idea that you just read the article I posted. Common sense says since I posted it, I know what entanglement is, OR atleast I know as much as you cared to share with me. Seems like an individual who is being defensive and doesn't want to focus on the ACTUAL explanation of BEC in newtonian physics. I am well aware of the theory, concepts, experimental and commercial uses, and believe it or not the 'non simple math'.of BEC.

Newtonian mechanics is referred to as his picture of gravity. Before Albert. So Newtonian mechanics is classical mechanics. No quantum or relativistic ideas allowed with classical mechanics sir. So how do you make something quantum mechanical without qm? Don't hate on me, I didn't make the rules. Infact, since there is no way to explain a BEC with classical mechanics*, but only one really. The Bose Einstein way
It was predicted long before it could be achieved experimentally. I dont think they did it till the 90s.

Why bother with relativity or QM at all if we can just bench them whenever?

Im going to have to pass on continuing to pwn you tonight, tho there is still SO much left to go after.
Im nodding off from the evening festivities, or shall I say the portland beer I drank.
edit on 6-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists

MCP or MicroCharged Particles are right down my alley. I've been studying them for years, and as you and the study have suggested, they are real.

Here is a paper of the study: m.phys.org...

But... the study suggests it was discovered in 2009 by Gies and Jaeckel which is not true. As a matter of fact, I produced a video in 2009 which still runs on YouTube today proving that I had already discovered them. I actually discovered MCP's back in 1995 and have proof that I discovered them then. My videos have more than enough evidence that I discovered them and that there is many, many uses for them; as a matter of fact there are far more uses than any of us can imagine.

I have years of proof about writing about them here on ATS, but without refering to them as MCP's. Many of my tests that I reported here on ATS show the results.

Yes, this is a very new science, and it is tremendous in its extent. I can see that possibly tens of millions of new jobs will be created when this new science reaches the masses.


pics or it didnt happen. rofl



but seriously, cant you atleast hook up some links to your work?



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 

HEY! You still have not bet me that the Higgs that was discovered is not what is advertised! I still have $100 burning a hole in my pocket that I am willing to bet it is not! LOL! Split Infinity



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Also...this tunneling experiment sure sounds a lot like a Multiversal System to me! Split Infinity





 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join