Ex nihilo: Dynamical Casimir effect in metamaterial converts vacuum fluctuations into real photons

Mar 08, 2013 by Stuart Mason Dambrot feature
(a) Equivalent electrical and mechanical circuits: the modulation of the Josephson inductance in the metamaterial by a magnetic φext varies the wave length λ with respect to the cavity length, which is analogous to modulating the effective length d of the cavity by mechanical means. The coupling capacitor is equivalent to a semitransparent mirror. (b) Schematics of the measurement setup. The metamaterial sample is a 4-mm-long coplanar waveguide with 250 embedded SQUIDs, each junction having a critical current of ~ 10 μA. The modulation of the flux through the SQUIDs is realized through a lithographically fabricated spiral coil underneath the metamaterial. (c) Resonant frequency ωres/2π vs. reduced magnetic flux φext/φ0 without the pump signal; the DC operating point for DCE experiments is denoted by a green circle. The inset displays the measured phase of the scattering parameter S11 while sweeping frequency, which yields d arg(S11)/dφext = d arg(S11)/dfÍdf/dφext . The steepness of the variation in the phase arg(S11) governs the effective "movement of the mirrors". Copyright © PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.1212705110

(Phys.org) —In the strange world of quantum mechanics, the vacuum state (sometimes referred to as the quantum vacuum, simply as the vacuum) is a quantum system's lowest possible energy state. While not containing physical particles, neither is it an empty void: Rather, the quantum vacuum contains fluctuating electromagnetic waves and so-called virtual particles, the latter being known to transition into and out of existence. In addition, the vacuum state has zero-point energy – the lowest quantized energy level of a quantum mechanical system – that manifests itself as the static Casimir effect, an attractive interaction between the opposite walls of an electromagnetic cavity. Recently, scientists at Aalto University in Finland and VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland demonstrated the dynamical Casimir effect using a Josephson metamaterial embedded in a microwave cavity. They showed that under certain conditions, real photons are generated in pairs, and concluded that their creation was consistent with quantum field theory predictions.

Researcher Pasi Lähteenmäki discussed the challenges he and his colleagues – G. S. Paraoanu, Juha Hassel and Pertti J. Hakonen – encountered in their study. Regarding their demonstration of the dynamical using a Josephson metamaterial embedded in a at 5.4 GHz, Lähteenmäki tells Phys.org that the main challenge in general is to get high-quality samples. In addition, Lähteenmäki adds, they had to ensure that the origin of the noise is quantum and not some unaccounted source of excess noise, such as thermal imbalance between the environment and the sample, or possibly leakage of external noise.

Modulating the effective length of the cavity by flux-biasing the SQUID () metamaterial had its challenges as well. "The pump signal needs to be rather strong, yet at the same time one wants to be sure that no excess noise enters the system through the pump line, Lähteenmäki notes, "and good filtering means high attenuation, which is a requirement contradictory to a strong signal. Also," Lähteenmäki continues, "at 10.8 GHz the pump frequency is rather high – and at that frequency range both the sample and the setup is rather prone to electrical resonances which can limit the usable frequencies." In short, the flux profile needs to be such that the pumping doesn't counteract itself. In addition, trapping flux in SQUID loops can also become a problem, limiting the range of optimal operating points and causing excess loss.

The researchers also showed that photons at frequencies symmetric with respect to half the modulation frequency of the cavity are generated in pairs. "In general, with frequency locked signal analyzers today the extraction of this correlation is not particularly problematic – especially since the low noise amplifier noise is not correlated at different frequencies," Lähteenmäki explains. That said, issues related to data collection and averaging include amplifier gain drift and phase randomization of the pump signal (relative to the detection phase) if the state of the generator is changed. "The noise temperature of the low noise amplifier sets some limits to the amount of data that needs to be collected, especially in the case where one is operating in the regime of low parametric gain."

Lastly, the team also found that at large detunings of the cavity from half the modulation frequency, they found power spectra that clearly showed the theoretically-predicted hallmark of the dynamical Casimir effect. "Large detunings imply low intensity of generated radiation," notes Lähteenmäki. "This means long averaging times, so the system should be kept stable for a long period. Also, the system needs to be fairly resonance-free over a large range of frequencies to get decent data – and/or one needs to know the characteristics of these resonances and noise temperature of the low noise amplifier rather well."

Lähteenmäki points out that addressing these issues required a number of insights and innovations. "We combated amplifier drift by continuously switching the pump on and off, and recording the difference in the observed output power, suitable operating points were searched for using trial and error, and trapping the photon flux was eliminated by applying a heat pulse to the sample and letting it cool down again. The researchers also magnetically shielded the sample with a superconductive shield, and minimized the effect of losses by changing the coupling of the existing samples by making different valued vacuum coupling capacitors with focused ion beam (FIB) cuts.

"However," Lähteenmäki stresses, "our biggest issue – ruling out the source of classical noise as opposed to quantum noise – was accomplished primarily by characterizing the sample and the environment well" Thermal imbalance was ruled out by the symmetry of the sparrow-tail shape of the noise spectrum.

It was essential for the scientists to clearly demonstrate that the observed substantial photon flux could not be assigned to parametric amplification of thermal fluctuations. "By characterizing the parametric gain with a network analyzer," Lähteenmäki notes, "we found that in order to explain the amount of noise one gets, the device would need to have significantly higher gain than is observed if the only source of noise was thermal." Moreover, confirming that photon pair creation is a direct consequence of the noncommutativity structure of was equally important. "Basically the experimental results fit the theoretical predictions rather well – and in the absence of other sources of noise, the theory implies that we should get no output from this sort of device. Since we see output consistent with the theoretical predictions, the conclusion was logical."

Moving forward, Lähteenmäki describes next steps in their research. "Instead of a continuous wave pump, we could have a straight flux line and feed it with a step-like flux pulse," Lähteenmäki says. "This would allow the creation of an analogue to a black hole event horizon. In fact," he adds, "we're hoping to create an artificial event horizon in a metamaterial similar to the one used in our current research and study Hawking radiation originating from it. Also, it would be nice to be able to run experiments on Bell's inequalities." His personal interests, Lähteenmäki says, are fundamental , quantum information and properties of the vacuum itself.

"The obvious applications for these devices," he notes, "come from quantum computation, and in general they may serve as components for multitude of sensitive measurements. I believe the interest towards low loss metamaterials is high and the field is just getting started. Our results show that these devices have potential and can offer a fruitful platform for many experiments and perhaps practical devices as well. Improving such devices – especially eliminating the losses and making them function more robustly – would allow them to create a general purpose component suitable for creating entangled microwave photon pairs, low noise amplification, squeezed vacuum, and other functions that can be very useful for quantum computation and general experiments in the quantum mechanics and in studying the vacuum."

Another possibility, Lähteenmäki adds, is to create a metamaterial which would allow them to stop signal propagation in the material entirely and allow them to resume it later. "This would act as a kind of slow light memory that would store the photon for later use."

Other areas of research might benefit from their study as well, Lähteenmäki says. "There are some connections to cosmology, the big bang, cosmic inflation, and other areas. These metamaterials could possibly offer an analogy to such events and serve as a platform to simulate the evolution of such conditions. Who knows," he ponders, concluding that "perhaps we'd find clues to the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy or other fundamental questions from such systems."

Explore further: Simultaneous imaging of ferromagnetic and ferroelectric domains

More information: Dynamical Casimir effect in a Josephson metamaterial, PNAS Published online before print February 12, 2013, doi:10.1073/pnas.1212705110

Related Stories

Light particles illuminate the vacuum

Feb 26, 2013

Researchers from the Finnish Aalto University and the Technical Research Centre of Finland succeeded in showing experimentally that vacuum has properties not previously observed. According to the laws of ...

Tuning in to noisy interference

Jul 29, 2011

Establishing a detailed knowledge of the noise properties of superconducting systems is an important step towards the development of quantum computers, which will enable new types of computing. However, the ...

Noise is not necessarily detrimental to quantum devices

Feb 04, 2013

The researches of the Aalto University and the University of Oulu have succeeded to simulate a phenomenon called motional averaging, which demonstrates that in certain conditions externally-induced fast fluctuations ...

First noiseless single photon amplifier

Nov 12, 2012

Research physicists have demonstrated the first device capable of amplifying the information in a single particle of light without adding noise.

Recommended for you

Hide and seek: Sterile neutrinos remain elusive

19 hours ago

The Daya Bay Collaboration, an international group of scientists studying the subtle transformations of subatomic particles called neutrinos, is publishing its first results on the search for a so-called ...

Novel approach to magnetic measurements atom-by-atom

23 hours ago

Having the possibility to measure magnetic properties of materials at atomic precision is one of the important goals of today's experimental physics. Such measurement technique would give engineers and physicists an ultimate ...

Scientists demonstrate Stokes drift principle

Oct 01, 2014

In nature, waves – such as those in the ocean – begin as local oscillations in the water that spread out, ripple fashion, from their point of origin. But fans of Star Trek will recall a different sort of wave pattern: ...

User comments : 120

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nanotech_republika_pl
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2013
Gentlemen, start your engines. Adjust the photon flux...
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2013
Talk about timing. VendicarE and J Prins were discussing this very thing on another thread.

Johans, it seems you were incorrect in your stated disbelief in particle sciences and quantum mechanics.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (23) Mar 08, 2013
Moving forward, Lähteenmäki describes next steps in their research. …Also, it would be nice to be able to run experiments on Bell's inequalities." His personal interests, Lähteenmäki says, are fundamental quantum mechanics, quantum information and properties of the vacuum itself….
Other areas of research might benefit from their study as well, Lähteenmäki says. "There are some connections to cosmology ….Who knows," he ponders, concluding that "perhaps we'd find clues to the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy or other fundamental questions from such systems."

This seems to be a big inspiration; anyway maybe this basic foundation of quantum mechanics could help some.
http://www.vacuum...19〈=en
Dr_toad
Mar 08, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2013
How far are we from turning those virtual photons into useful work?

I suppose if you have some sort of collector in the right places, you could capture (and use?) both photons, just so long as your system conserves momentum.

It sounds like the apparatus currently uses a LOT more energy than the photons are worth.
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (31) Mar 08, 2013
Oh boyos, here we go,,, we have "dynamical", "vacuum", "photons", "fluctuations" in the title. And in the article itself we have "cosmology", "waves", "electromagnetic", "flux" and a bunch of other really good words.

The cranks, crackpots and pseudos should have a field day with this one, there seems to be something for everyone to work with.
gmurphy
4.5 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2013
It seems to be rare that Physorg actually do an interview themselves (instead of subscribing directly to other feeds), the quality and detail of the article is noticeably higher.
Dr_toad
Mar 08, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
smd
3.5 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2013
Probably because Physorg didn't do an interview. Dambrot doesn't work for them.

You can tell when a staffer has had their turn with a submission by the typos and grammatical errors.

He's a Contributing author (as is clearly stated on http://phys.org/h...out-us/) and has written an average of four pieces/month since mid-2011.

Try to know what you're talking about before stating an assumption as fact.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2013
[e's a Contributing author (as is clearly stated on http://phys.org/h...out-us/) and has written an average of four pieces/month since mid-2011.

Try to know what you're talking about before stating an assumption as fact.


Mereoww hiss! vacuum-dimwit spams the site with his pseudo-scientific self promotion and this is what you take issue to? Me thinks thou should re-aim thy cannons!
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 08, 2013
I want my ZPM....
Infinum
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2013
Electromagnetic field fluctuations condensed into photons. Useful :)
travisr
2.9 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2013
This is interesting... One only need to shake the strong nuclear and weak nuclear sheets correctly to create matter. My rocket ship doesn't need infinite mass to reach C, it just needs one part nuclear force shaker, 2 part nuclear force amalgamater, and one part particle accelerator. Why carry infinite mass, when you can simply create what you need when you need it?
travisr
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2013
To the antithesis of this... Could we make a matter wave decoherence beam. OOOooooo this is getting more fun. Point and shoot matter vaporization. Physics can't possibly work like this... What are the energy requirements of all this. I read not to long ago we're getting ready to breed Maxwell's demon, now we're outright creating things out of nothing (well save the random force sheet shaker mechanism) and like wise just able to delete it (my own completely unfounded conjecture).
Dr_toad
Mar 08, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 08, 2013
I read not to long ago we're getting ready to breed Maxwell's demon


That's funny, although creepy.

It's unfortunate he used the "demon" as a metaphor, instead of something without an evil connotation.
smd
3.5 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2013
Probably because Physorg didn't do an interview. Dambrot doesn't work for them.

You can tell when a staffer has had their turn with a submission by the typos and grammatical errors.

And those typos would be? These can be fixed if they're really there, rather than being just you trolling instead of discussing content as serious readers do.
Dr_toad
Mar 08, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2013
experiments on Bell's inequalities.
Bell...bell...where have I heard the term before? Ah-
http://en.wikiped...e_Glocke

-Who needs LENR when youve got ZPE? Or are they equivalent?
http://www.youtub...14BcI5o0

Have fun. Dont hurt yourselves. Except you lurker. Hurt yourself.
smd
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2013
And what are you doing? There were no typos in the article above (that I noticed), but in too many cases there are.

I'm not going to get in a pissing war with you, troll.

In your initial post, you wrote (it's there for all to see):

"Probably because Physorg didn't do an interview. Dambrot doesn't work for them.You can tell when a staffer has had their turn with a submission by the typos and grammatical errors."

FYI, when conducting an interview a Contributing Author (or a freelancer by any title) is representing the publication in which the piece is to be published, so in that sense the interview is considered as having been conducted by that publication,

If you catch typos in a Phys.org or Medical Xpress piece' , you should submit them since they can be easily corrected. That would add value to the piece instead of tearing people down.

Have a nice day.

baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2013
Energy that is released from the photon background should become electron/positron pairs, them that don't dissipate into non-being. Capturing them instead must involve some way to facilitate the decay into electron/positron pairs.

Anyway, the experiment proves what I've been saying about the photon background all along. Hah!
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2013
This experimental/research could readily be combined with the MIT process mentioned in the article on seeing complex systems that came out yesterday.
Tausch
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2013
This is a noise cancellation system/unit.
Unfortunately this doesn't cancel thread chatter.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Mar 08, 2013
It's actually a very similar experiment, done already before two years (PDF). It was discussed here multiple-times (my explanation for laymen)...
AntonKole
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 08, 2013
Great work! Look forward to further research results.
indio007
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2013
Dynamical Casimir effect in a Josephson metamaterial

http://ltl.tkk.fi...PNAS.pdf

Supplementary Material

http://ltl.tkk.fi...PNAS.pdf

Seemingly related

http://ltl.tkk.fi...hson.pdf
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2013
This experiment took existing vacuum fluctuations and and rapidly separated them and increased their energy such that they could not recombine and vanish.

No energy was liberated from the vacuum, and while the energy of the photons themselves is in part vacuum energy, their absorption will be in an environment where the same quantum fluctuations that they spawned them are present so some of their energy will return to the vacuum.

"How far are we from turning those virtual photons into useful work?" - Lurker

Theoretically you can't just extract energy from the vacuum for an analogous reason to why you just can't extract energy from heat.

You can remove sum. But you can't create a cycle to liberate an large amount.
Kron
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
you can't just extract energy from the vacuum

and the big bang? If energy is required for particle production (be it leptons quarks or bosons) then something preceded the beginning of time. If particles cannot arise naturally without input energy, then the beginning was no beginning but a transformation. Just like a positron and an electron transforming into 2 gamma photons. Just as 2 gamma photons produce an electron and a positron.

So which is it? Can energy be created and destroyed? Or, Is the big bang wrong?
clay_ferguson
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2013
I agree Tausch, it sounds like an explanation of some sort of way to cancel all the noise, but what is always left over is pure quantum noise, but i'm not sure I understand enough about how that can be *USED*. Seems like you would end up with something with about as many vibrational states as a ground state hydrogen atom.
MrVibrating
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2013
you can't just extract energy from the vacuum

and the big bang? If energy is required for particle production (be it leptons quarks or bosons) then something preceded the beginning of time. If particles cannot arise naturally without input energy, then the beginning was no beginning but a transformation. Just like a positron and an electron transforming into 2 gamma photons. Just as 2 gamma photons produce an electron and a positron.

So which is it? Can energy be created and destroyed? Or, Is the big bang wrong?


There's a non-zero chance of virtual particles spontaneously becoming real, due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Some texts consider the required energy as 'borrowed', often 'from time'. Spontaneous pair production costs nothing as they mutually self-annihilate instantaneously, repaying their debt.

What happens though when such spontaneous pair production occurs on an event horizon, per Hawkings, where one falls in and its sibling escapes? Who pays?
MrVibrating
1.6 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2013
Gentlemen, start your engines. Adjust the photon flux...


So could we push against the radiation pressure of such fleeting entities? IE. if we could increase the density of rectified vacuum fluctuations on one side of a mass, doesn't its subsequent acceleration look for all the world like a Newton3 violation?

Then there's asymmetric magnetic interactions to consider - virtual photon exchanges manifest the magnetic force between moving charges - if we can interfere with the density or sign of momentum on either side of an interaction, is the resultant I/O asymmetry free? Presumably the information cost is equal to the mechanical energy gain, photon-for-photon...
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2013
you can't just extract energy from the vacuum
I would never ever say never being you....;-) It just brings the Lord Kelvin belief about planes, that "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible". Doesn't it sound perfectly logical from physical perspective, huh?
Tausch
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2013
...but what is always left over is pure quantum noise, but i'm not sure I understand enough about how that can be *USED*. Seems like you would end up with something with about as many vibrational states as a ground state hydrogen atom. - clay f


Maybe ground states only can only come into being with a background. A background of pure quantum noise.
Information transfer occurs without 'work'.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2013
You can remove sum. But you can't create a cycle to liberate an large amount.
You can theoretically create more energy in one location and less in another. Like entropy. You can theoretically use this excess energy to do work for an indefinite period of time.
What happens though when such spontaneous pair production occurs on an event horizon, per Hawkings, where one falls in and its sibling escapes? Who pays?
Well the black hole eventually evaporates doesn't it?
johanfprins
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2013
Johans, it seems you were incorrect in your stated disbelief in particle sciences and quantum mechanics.


No I am not! Let me quote the Voodoo above:

"In the strange world of quantum mechanics, the vacuum state (sometimes referred to as the quantum vacuum, simply as the vacuum) is a quantum system's lowest possible energy state. While not containing physical particles, neither is it an empty void: Rather, the quantum vacuum contains fluctuating electromagnetic waves and so-called virtual particles, the latter being known to transition into and out of existence. In addition, the vacuum state has zero-point energy – the lowest quantized energy level of a quantum mechanical system – that manifests itself as the static Casimir effect,


Firstly quantum mechanics IS NOT "strange": It follows logically-directly from Maxwell's equations! This disproves the Voodoo just quoted above: Stop believing in non-causal "magic": The latter is NOT physics!
MrVibrating
1.1 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2013
Well the black hole eventually evaporates doesn't it?

..so a pair of photons have been snatched from the vacuum, for free.

This sets alarm bells ringing, no? Has the total energy of the universe increased, or does that total include the vacuum energy?

Normally, we think of the universe's total energy as the sum thermodynamic energy, excluding the vacuum potential. Of course, the vacuum also survives the heat death in current models - it'll still be fizzing away when all else is done and dusted. Yet in this scenario at least, the energy of the vacuum (or two photons' worth anyway) is available to the thermodynamic realm. In which case its total energy is not constant.

ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
Firstly quantum mechanics IS NOT "strange": It follows logically-directly from Maxwell's equations!
Maxwell's equations are inconsistent with quantization - at least in their present state. They describe the pure transverse EM waves, yes - but never quantum wave packets or Coulomb charge force. For derivation of the photon solution you're required to introduce quantum mechanics and special relativity into it - this is essentially, what the quantum electrodynamics is all about. If you're saying, that you can derive the solution for photon and another particles just from Maxwell's equations, then Mr. Feynman wasted his life in development of something, which could be done a way easier... Why not to admit instead, you're just a silly troll, who has no idea, what he is actually talking about?
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
Firstly quantum mechanics IS NOT "strange": It follows logically-directly from Maxwell's equations!
Maxwell's equations are inconsistent with quantization - at least in their present state.


As usual, you are wrong again! But of course you will always without thinking repeat your mantra AWT, AWT, AWT!!

They describe the pure transverse EM waves,


This is exactly what a photon is: It is a pure transverse EM wave which has an energy h.(nu): The minimum that such a wave can have: It is a solution of Maxwell's wave equation (del)^2*PSI=(1/c)^2*(d^2/dt^2)*PSI. That is why for a photon p=E/c.

If you're saying, that you can derive the solution for photon and another particles just from Maxwell's equations, then Mr. Feynman wasted his life in development of something, which could be done a way easier...


One of the few sensible, logical observations you have posted on the forum! Feynman was a nice chap and excellent physics tutor; but his diagrams are Voodoo!
Daminc
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
Hi everyone, I'm new to this site (twitter recommended you). I have a great love of physics but I haven't got any qualifications that allow me to use fancy words :)

Instead I try to find like minded people (very few an far between in my circles) to discuss the topic.

Looking on this thread it's looks as if I've entered a long standing feud. Is that an accurate assumption?

"Nimwit, you and Zephyr need a new hobby. You've worn out crank physics and trolling"

"The cranks, crackpots and pseudos should have a field day with this one, there seems to be something for everyone to work with."

"Mereoww hiss! vacuum-dimwit spams the site with his pseudo-scientific self promotion and this is what you take issue to?"

"I'm not going to get in a pissing war with you, troll.
Why not to admit instead, you're just a silly troll, who has no idea, what he is actually talking about?"

The sites own guidelines state:
Be civil: Please respond insightfully and respectfully, avoiding personal attacks...
Daminc
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2013
Feynman was a nice chap and excellent physics tutor; but his diagrams are Voodoo![\p]
I've seen the leactures. The diagrams are not meant to accurately portray reality just to give a visual representation of a complex subject (complex for people like me anyway)
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2013
Feynman was a nice chap and excellent physics tutor; but his diagrams are Voodoo!

I've seen the leactures. The diagrams are not meant to accurately portray reality just to give a visual representation of a complex subject (complex for people like me anyway)


Where have I claimed that Feynman diagrams are "meant to accurately portray reality"? I am getting sick and tired of people who place words in other people's mouths just to create a straw man at which they can have a cheap shot! So please STOP this despicable behavior!
Daminc
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2013

Where have I claimed that Feynman diagrams are "meant to accurately portray reality"? I am getting sick and tired of people who place words in other people's mouths just to create a straw man at which they can have a cheap shot! So please STOP this despicable behavior!

I didn't claim that you stated that. I was commenting with regards to you saying his diagrams are Voodoo. If I offended you in anyway I apologise because that was not my intention.
johanfprins
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 10, 2013

Where have I claimed that Feynman diagrams are "meant to accurately portray reality"? I am getting sick and tired of people who place words in other people's mouths just to create a straw man at which they can have a cheap shot! So please STOP this despicable behavior!

I didn't claim that you stated that. I was commenting with regards to you saying his diagrams are Voodoo. If I offended you in anyway I apologise because that was not my intention.


I apologize: Rereading what you have written I see that I have been shooting from the hip. After what I have had to endure during the past 13 years after I have discovered superconduction at room temperature which has NOTHING to do with Cooper pairs, I have become very touchy, and probably far too aggressive. I apologize again for the misunderstanding! Best regards and good wishes!
TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2013
I stuck a pin in those diagrams once and my blackboard started twitching.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2013
I stuck a pin in those diagrams once and my blackboard started twitching.
Even joking can be smart and it could bring something new into discussion. But this is a pointless verbiage, which just dilutes the already low informational density of this thread.
johanfprins
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 10, 2013
I stuck a pin in those diagrams once and my blackboard started twitching.
Even joking can be smart and it could bring something new into discussion. But this is a http://www.physor...mments/, which just dilutes the already low informational density of this thread.


Compared to the garbage that ValeriaT consistently post on this forum, your remark improved the level of discussion. Well done!
TransmissionDump
not rated yet Mar 10, 2013
Think of it as spooky action at a distance.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2013
Well, exactly. What is time-reversed wave from future for me, sounds like pure reprehensible garbage for another low-dimensional people.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2013
Well, exactly. What is http://www.aether...ints.gif wave from future for me, sounds like pure reprehensible garbage for another low-dimensional people.


Mathematics allows you to derive such a wave; but only a fool will believe that such a wave from the future actually exists. It is at this point where the boys are being separated from the men:

The boys believe that such mathematics based on time reversal, is also physically real, and then go ahead to model nature in terms of Voodoo: The result is Feynman path-integrals, QED, QFT, and the standard model for "particle-physics". And, I almost forgot, the greatest Vodoo of all "Aether Wave Theory": AWT, AWT, AWT!
TransmissionDump
not rated yet Mar 10, 2013
I stuck a pin in those diagrams once and my blackboard started twitching.
Even joking can be smart and it could bring something new into discussion. But this is a http://www.physor...mments/, which just dilutes the already low informational density of this thread.


By the way, if you're going bang on about FAQ adherence and all that, better give these people a smack too.

Modernmystic - I want my ZPM....

Tausch - This is a noise cancellation system/unit.
Unfortunately this doesn't cancel thread chatter

AntonKole - Great work! Look forward to further research results.



Or have you drawn a target on my arse only?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2013
Mathematics allows you to derive such a wave; but only a fool will believe that such a wave from the future actually exist
At the water surface the waves from future are longitudinal waves of underwater, which mediate the events from distant past faster than the slow transverse ripples at the water surface. These ripples are analogy of light waves in AWT and these fast underwater waves do manifest itself like the CMBR noise, which is notoriously known from 1964 year. Even underwater waves do manifest itself like the noise at the water surface, which is observable for example during underwater nuclear explosions. This analogy is therefore quite straightforward and easy to imagine: the underwater noise will bring the information about distant underwater explosion a way before we could observe its surface waves - so it's wave from future.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2013
Time-reversed waves were announced recently here both in vacuum, both at the water surface, so I can believe, they do indeed exist. I'm not required to become a fool for to believe in it. I'd rather say, the fools are the people, who are trying to deny it.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2013
Mathematics allows you to derive such a wave; but only a fool will believe that such a wave from the future actually exist
At the water surface the waves from future are longitudinal waves of underwater, which mediate the events from distant past faster than the slow transverse ripples at the water surface.
Firatly, we are not working with waves on a water surface for which the water is a medium within which they travel. EM waves DO NOT have a medium (ether) within which they travel.

the underwater noise will bring the information about distant underwater explosion a way before we could observe its surface waves - so it's wave from future.
Even if this absolute nonsense could have applied to EM waves, there is no "wave from the future involved". I really think that you should go and see a shrink: Especially for the sake of your family!

johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2013
Time-reversed waves were http://phys.org/n...re.html, so I can believe, they do indeed exist. I'm not required to become a fool for to believe in it. I'd rather say, the fools are the people, who are trying to deny it.


As usual you do not have a CLUE of what you are yammering about: A time-reversed wave is one that converges from infinity (no source for it) into the source which emits the real non time-reversed wave.

You really are the master in knowing more things that are not so than any other person alive at present. I can well understand Mark Twain's frustration!
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2013
Possibly. But the overall opinion of the cosmology community is that the universe has a total energy of 0.

"and the big bang?" - Kron

I don't hold that opinion, but I hold that there is no real beginning and no volume there was no space to obtain the energy from and no time to do it.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
"A time-reversed wave is one that converges from infinity (no source for it) into the source which emits the real non time-reversed wave."

If the laws of physics are invariant to the direction of time then absorption of a wave is the same as the time reversal of it's emission.

If quack Johanfprins believes that a time reversed wave converges on a target during emission, then he believes that a non-time reversed wave converges on a target when it is absorbed.

Yet we know of, and have found no conditions where the absorption of waves is accompanied by a convergance of a wave front from an infinite distance.

If anyone is interested in learning physics, then they are best to avoid the Kookery pronounced by Johnfprinz .

Quak... Quack... Quack....
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2013
If the fresh Prinz of stupid were living in the mid 1800's he micht very well be correct..

"EM waves DO NOT have a medium (ether) within which they travel." - Johanfprinz

However, here in the real world existence waves are waves in the EM field of space. Specifically the charged particle density of space.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2013
IMO it's rather difficult to explain the formation of energy waves in vacuum without concept of elastic environment, which is forming the vacuum. Even if we would ignore the existence of light waves, the existence of quantum fluctuations (the Brownian noise of vacuum) is something, which requires the introduction of aether concept again. Of course it will not be the sparse aether of preEinsteinan era, which was supposed to FILL the space like some sparse gas, but a true luminiferous aether, which is FORMING the space. Such an aether must be very dense instead for being able to spread even the very energetic waves of X-ray and gamma rays.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
"A time-reversed wave is one that converges from infinity (no source for it) into the source which emits the real non time-reversed wave."

VendicarE:
If the laws of physics are invariant to the direction of time


The laws of physics or the mathematics of the laws of physics? Obviously you are too stupid to see the difference!

then absorption of a wave is the same as the time reversal of it's emission.


Have I stated anything different? If you are too stupid to read and comprehend; as you have proved over and over on this forum, you should not throw around accusations based on your brainless "insights"!

If quack Johanfprins believes that a time reversed wave converges on a target during emission


YOU just asserted that it does when you stated that: "then absorption of a wave is the same as the time reversal of it's emission". If this is the case, the time-reversed wave MUST converge on the source from which the non-time reversed wave is being emitted.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
Yet we know of, and have found no conditions where the absorption of waves is accompanied by a convergance of a wave front from an infinite distance.


Have I stated otherwise? All I pointed out is that according to the mathematics of a time-reversed wave this is what is required; and therefore such a time-reversed wave should not be considered as real physics!

You are a miracle: You have no brains but can read and write and be arrogant as if you are something! Obviously you are nothing, since you are too ashamed to state who you really are and what your qualifications are!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2013
"EM waves DO NOT have a medium (ether) within which they travel." - Johanfprinz

VendicarE:
If the fresh Prinz of stupid were living in the mid 1800's he micht very well be correct..
However, here in the real world existence waves are waves in the EM field of space. Specifically the charged particle density of space.


There IS no charged particle density of space whatsoever: There is NO experimental evidence for this AND also not ANY logical theoretical evidence that this might be so!

As I have stated VE knows an "infinite number of things that are not so". An example: VE adamantly stated that the electrons within a metal cannot have an electronic heat capacity; while even my goldfish knows that this heat capacity has been measured: See for example: http://www.physic...1610.pdf

I have also asked VE if he/she agrees that the energy of a photon is EM-energy: No answer! To answer would mean a logical debate, which is above VE's zero-brain.
Daminc
1.9 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
Ah, the mud slinging is still going on. Many years ago I had an idea about a space-time lattice which a friend of mine, Ben Gunn, insisted sounded like the aether which he stated had been proven not to exist (The Michelson–Morley experiment).

However, I insisted my idea was different and included M-Space as a component. A few years later a couple of scientists came up with the idea of Quantum Foam which almost matched my idea.

I don't have a physics degree, so I never presume that I'm right, similarly I never assume others are right because they shout the loudest or use big words in interesting combinations.

(Just in case it's an issuse I did resently teach myself OU Maths 121 & 221 and an A level in IT for a bit of fun and I design applications to mine data into useable information so I do have a bit of a brain :) )
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2013
IMO it's rather difficult to explain the formation of energy waves in vacuum without concept of elastic environment, which is forming the vacuum.


For your limited brain capacity it might be so. If you have a medium, this medium has to be stationary so that the EM wave-velocity will be different in different reference-frames moving relative to this medium: This violates the Special Theory of Relativity.

Even if we would ignore the existence of light waves, the existence of quantum fluctuations (the Brownian noise of vacuum) is something, which requires the introduction of aether concept again.


Quantum fluctuations cannot occur when there is no EM waves: They only occur within an existing EM wave not within the vacuum surrounding the wave! There is NO Brownian noise of the vacuum itself!

The so-called "Brownian noise" comes from the microwave background radiation which consists of stationary EM waves filling space: Not from a vacuum filled with "particles".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2013
Of course it will not be the sparse aether of preEinsteinan era, which was supposed to FILL the space like some sparse gas, but a true luminiferous aether, which is FORMING the space.


What do you mean by "TRUE"?

Such an aether must be very dense instead for being able to spread even the very energetic waves of X-ray and gamma rays.


But not dense enough for the earth, Sun etc. to move freely through it!! Wow!!!! Stop arguing like a fool!

Daminc
1.3 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
P.S. p.s. I used to go online as Daminc (I forgot my password so I created a new user name) here's a previous conversation I had 8 years ago:

http://www.physic...p;page=2
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
@Daminc:
I don't have a physics degree, so I never presume that I'm right,


Even if you had one, this should still be your attitude: New facts can always prove that what you believe in today might be wrong tomorrow!

similarly I never assume others are right because they shout the loudest or use big words in interesting combinations. (Just in case it's an issuse I did resently teach myself OU Maths 121 & 221 and an A level in IT for a bit of fun and I design applications to mine data into useable information so I do have a bit of a brain :) )


Well I must admit that you have not acted like VendicarE, ValeriaT, Natello, etc. (probably the same person) and therefore you clearly do have a brain! It is only when you refuse to respond to logic and just keep on repeating your own ossified beliefs, as ValeriaT is doing, that you are brainless!

Daminc
1.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2013
I think I lucky-ish since I'm new here I don't have any history with any of you so I'm not that biased.

Saying that, did anyone here frequent Physics Forum 8 years ago?
Tausch
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
For the sake of conservation laws accountants of decay are wearing their pencils out. Every time a balance equation comes up short for a decay process a particle is added. No end in sight.

As long as everyone is playing the insanity card, the rate of accelerated expansion of space is the decay process of energy itself. Send someone to take me away. lol
daywalk3r
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
[VendicarE]: If the laws of physics are invariant to the direction of time then absorption of a wave is the same as the time reversal of it's emission.
With the subtle difference that "time" is not a real physical dimension, and that there is no such thing as a "direction of time" (eg. no "arrow pointing backwards").

The problem being, as already pointed out by JFP, that you CAN solve the equations for the reverse, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should, nor does it prove anything..

[JohanFPrins]: Quantum fluctuations cannot occur when there is no EM waves: They only occur within an existing EM wave not within the vacuum surrounding the wave! There is NO Brownian noise of the vacuum itself!
If we want to be picky, there is also no such thing as "perfect vacuum" either. Every volume of space (above planck volume) is actually part of some (external) EM wave..

So, ummm.. :)
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2013
[JohanFPrins]: Quantum fluctuations cannot occur when there is no EM waves: etc.


If we want to be picky, there is also no such thing as "perfect vacuum" either. Every volume of space (above planck volume) is actually part of some (external) EM wave..


Except that there is no Planck volume, your remark is VERY perceptive, since micro-wave background radiation (MWBR) does fill the whole universe: This indicates that our universe might be a black body cavity; which, in turn, indicates that MWBR are stationary light-waves, with a very small energy-spacing between them. By measuring this spacing (if we can) we will probably have a perfect estimate of the size of out universe.

Furthermore, since these waves are stationary, they probably define a unique inertial reference frame relative to which all bodies with mass are moving. The discovery of "The Great Attractor" seems to confirm that this must be so.

Daminc
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2013
Just to add a bit of a spanners into the mix. Most of the science I do is in my head. My original driving thought was that there was a finite number of basic patterns that define everything in the universe (independant of scale). So I tried to match different observable phenomina to events that we can only partially see or infer. To that end I pictured the big bang origin to have some conection to an electron jumping from one shell to another. I was told that when the electron jumps it doesn't actually pass through the intervening space, it just appears in the other shell while disappearing from the other.

With regards to:

With the subtle difference that "time" is not a real physical dimension, and that there is no such thing as a "direction of time" (eg. no "arrow pointing backwards")


I shall comment in three minutes or so when I can use the forum again :)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
If you have a medium, this medium has to be stationary so that the EM wave-velocity will be different in different reference-frames moving relative to this medium: This violates the Special Theory of Relativity.
Water surface is stationary and it has no apparent reference frame for tiny capillary waves. For these ripples the water surface is behaving like the thin elastic membrane driven with surface tension of water only, and the motion/reference frame of the underwater (motion) therefore doesn't affect the spreading of surface ripples (nearly) at all. You apparently didn't understand, that the transverse waves have no reference frame because of aether or something else, but because of their definition.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
But not dense enough for the earth, Sun etc. to move freely through it!! Wow!
Well, this is just the paradox: the more dense the fluid is, the less its ripples penetrate the underwater at given energy density (their amplitude decreases), the less they're dragged with the fluid. For example the interior of very dense stars is supposed to be in boson condensate state, i.e. it's effectively superfluous in similar way, like the superfluid helium or vacuum by itself. So your "wow!" just indicates, you did never think about it from this perspective.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2013
For example the interior of very dense stars is supposed to be in boson condensate state,,,,


Ah,,, Zephyr, why is it "supposed to be in boson condensate state"?

So your "wow!" just indicates, you did never think about it from this perspective.


If he (or anyone else) had thought about it from that perspective, I would say "wow!".
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
Good ole Zeph, gets his aether all mixed up with the water, causing him to lose track of the quantum ducks.

He is trying hard to be intuitive, but instead he is only confirming that he is unable to form a coherent argument because he cannot understand the maths. He wants to argue against our current best model of the universe, but the concepts are too complicated for him.

It's too bad he wouldn't just ask questions instead of pretending he knows anything.
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2013
why is it "supposed to be in boson condensate state"?
Because the wake waves around ducks are moving with all ducks collectively. This is mechanical analogy of it.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2013
Lol kudos Zephyr at least you have a sense of humor!
BishopBalderdash
1 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2013
Pairs of photons... of what energy? Are these "diphoton events" such as what where reported on here: http://www.scienc...iphotons ?
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2013
Water surface is stationary


Relative to WHAT?

and it has no apparent reference frame for tiny capillary waves. For http://www.aether...aves.jpg the water surface is behaving like the thin elastic membrane driven with surface tension of water only, and the motion/reference frame of the underwater (motion) therefore doesn't affect the spreading of surface ripples (nearly) at all.
This is the most illogical claptrap I have EVER read! One cannot even challenge any aspect of it since in makes no sense whatsoever!

You apparently didn't understand, that the transverse waves have no reference frame because of aether or something else, but because of their definition.


So why do you claim that there must be an aether? You contradict yourself and has done so endlessly on this forum! We all know since 1905 that transverse EM waves have no aether reference frame!
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2013
But not dense enough for the earth, Sun etc. to move freely through it


Well, this is just the paradox: the more dense the fluid is, the less its ripples penetrate the underwater at given energy density (their amplitude decreases), the less they're dragged with the fluid.


What "underwater" in our universe? Are you really all there?

For example the interior of very dense stars is supposed to be in boson condensate state, i.e. it's effectively superfluous in similar way, like the http://en.wikiped...m_theory by itself.


A boson condensate state does NOT consist of separate smaller waves (which you like to call "particles"). It is a single continuous EM-wave, since the original smaller boson-components are not distinguishable after they have formed such a condensate. Liquid helium has NOTHING to do with boson statistics since the helium atoms are still distinguishable after they have formed the condensate! It is a Boltzmann condensate.
Daminc
1.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2013
Two things:

Firstly I would like to finish of my last post (I ran out of space and time :) )

Time may not be a physical dimension but in that respect neither are the other three. They are not physical, they are abstract perceptions of the realty as we see it. It doesn't rule extra dimensions.

I once read a book that converted an xyz cube into an xyt cube with xy representing space at any moment of t. So theoretically you could squash the dimension t and replace it with d representing dimension. This dimension could then be similar to the structure of an atom and the big band being caused by energy moving from one dimension to ours just like the electron did.

None of these thoughts I think are right or even close to being right but I think it is worth having a discussion about.

What do you think?

Secondly:
boson condensate state
I thought this was created by supercooling a gase to reduce it's energy until all the atoms condence into a single quantum state?
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2013
Secondly: boson condensate state I thought this was created by supercooling a gase to reduce it's energy until all the atoms condence into a single quantum state?


To condense into a "single quantum state" the atoms must become indistinguishable. This does NOT mean "identical" since they have been that from the start! It means that they cannot exist as separate atoms anymore. If they still exist as separate atoms, they are distinguishable! When this is the case, quantum statistics DOES NOT apply: Boltzmann statistics applies. Thus, in the case of super-fluid helium BE Statistics DOES not apply: Also not in the case for separate charge-carriers within a superconductor.

That a BE Condensate can be a superconductor was for the FIRST time proved (in 2000) by myself when I extracted electrons into a vacuum and increased their density so much that, by overlapping, they formed pairs which by further overlapping formed a BE. This phase does not have separate charge-carriers!
Daminc
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2013
I didn't know you could create a BEC from electrons. I thought it was just atoms like the rubidium gas experiment in '95.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2013
I didn't know you could create a BEC from electrons. I thought it was just atoms like the rubidium gas experiment in '95.


Nobody knew or understood this until I discovered this in 2000. And nobody wants to accept it yet since they want to believe that a BEC consists of an ensemble of "particles" owing to "wave-particle" duality.

The latter cannot be the case since the statistics of quantum mechanics demands that the "particles" must become indistinguishable when they form a condensate. This means that they cannot be separate "particles" anymore since separate "particles" are ALWAYS distinguishable even if they are identical! In other words, if you can count them they are distinguishable!

Thus, in my experiment I extracted electrons into a vacuum, and as their density increased, they overlapped more and more until they paired up BY OVERLAPPING (just as two electrons do when forming a covalent bond). These paired waves are then bosons which finally overlap and lose their..
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2013
These paired waves are then bosons which finally overlap and lose their
separate existences in order so that they also lose their distinghuishability to form a BEC which is a SINGLE matter wave that consists of a continuous distribution of EM-energy:
http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

It is questionable whether the Rb-gas experiment formed a BEC. If the rubidium atoms are still separate entities, they are distinguishable and are thus not a BEC condensate. Classical physics already predicted that when you cool a gas and prevent it from forming another phase (like a liquid or a solid) these atoms must end up lying stationary at the bottom of the container when T=0 is reached. At that stage they did not know about quantum fluctuations. Nonetheless it means that a condensate of separate atoms has already been predicted by Boltzmann statistics, and has nothing to do with a BEC within which the atoms are not separate entities.
Daminc
1 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2013
Are you talking about Cooper Pairs?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2013
Thus to summarize: There are two possible condensates:

1. A BEC condensate which is a SINGLE macro-wave consisting of continuously distributed EM-energy (like my SC electron-phase)

AND

2. A Boltzmann-("quantum")condensate (BQC) which consists of separate, smaller EM-waves ("particles") which, owing to quantum fluctuations can communicate with one another through resonance determined by (delta)E*(delt)t>(hbar)/2. It is this condensate that is responsible for the formation of superfluid helium, and for superconduction through all the SC-materials discovered to date (except for my BEC electron-phase). Note that in this case, the "particles" need not be bosons to form this phase: It is thus not surprising that He3 also forms a superfluid!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2013
Are you talking about Cooper Pairs?


Cooper pairs, even if they could form by the Cooper mechanism (which I seriously doubt) are not required to cause superconduction within a material.

Firstly, if the Cooper pairs do form a BEC (as is required according to the BCS-model), they will not be separate entities which can be measured as individual charge-carriers.

Secondly, the modelling of the experiments which are quoted as proof that the charge-carriers within a SC are doubly-charged, is based on the assumption that a BEC can consist of separate "particles". Thus these models are incorrect.

If you model SC in terms of a BQS condensate, one finds that the factor 2 has nothing to do with a double charge of the charge-carriers, but is a result of the (delta)E*(delta)t resonance between SINGLY-charged charge-carriers.

Furthermore, it is found that the Quantum Hall Effect is caused by superconduction!
Daminc
1 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2013
I'm sorry, your explanation went way over my head. I specialise more in Math and IT.

Physics has been an interest of mine for the past 25 years but I haven't bothered when getting qualified in it.

I see physics in terms of patterns and cause and effect. I don't understand most of the technical jargon used here because I've never needed it.

I've come up with the Space-Time Lattice theory which has a solution to Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Whether it is correct or not is another matter but I have seen my words copied in magazines which is cool.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2013
Back to the article: why not use the Casimir effect as a reactionless drive?
Let photons in one particular direction escape and catch those travelling in the opposite direction (since they are always created in pairs.) Voila: net momentum for your craft at the sole expenditure of energy. No reaction mass required.

Not very efficient, but it doesn't suffer the problem of other 'light' type drives which need a light emitting surface which is:
Any light emitting surface does so via the transition of electrons from higher orbitals to lower orbitals with some heat generated. This in turn means that the active surface loses atoms over time, since any heat means motion of atoms and hence a finite probability that atoms will leave their position in the material.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2013
Nobody knew or understood this until I discovered this in 2000
You probably don't know, there are exists two main theories of superconductivity: one based on Cooper pairs (http://en.wikiped...theory).


AS usual you are confused: If the BCS model is NOT based on the formation of a BEC condensate, why are "Cooper pair" bosons required to form the BCS condensate?

Your claims therefore sound funny in similar way, like the claims, it's just you, who has found, that the current in superconductor is moving without external voltage


I have explained this claim in detail, but of course as usual YOU are too STUPID to follow logic. I AM the first to prove that when SC occurs from an injection contact to an ejection contact, after connecting these contacts to a circuit with a battery, that the electric-field between the contacts become zero EVEN THOUGH THE BATTERY DOES NOT SWITCH OFF during superconduction!!!

Only an idiot will claim that Onnes proved this!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2013
BTW If you don't like being ignored with mainstream physics, you shouldn't ignore it too. And you shouldn't reinvent wheel - it would be a pure waste of time for both sides. Just saying.


Where did I re-invent the wheel? Only an utter fool like YOU will state such a LIE!

Nobody else has generated a BEC which superconducts: And in my case SC above room temperature right up to about 500 Celsius! Not a single superconductor discovered before my BEC required boson charge-carriers since when SC occurs by means of separate charge-carriers, the condensate cannot be a BEC EVER!

I wish you would keep yourself busy with issues that suit your tiny brain! How about sweeping streets?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2013
If the BCS model is NOT based on the formation of a BEC condensate, why are "Cooper pair" bosons required to form the BCS condensate?


BCS condensate isn't BEC condensate, so your question is nonsensical.


On which quantum-statistics is the BCS condensate based? Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac? PLEASE answer honestly if you can!

Kamerlingh Onnes not only did realize, that the current within superconductor runs without external voltage, .. He measured/observed the current inside of superconductive loop (=no external voltage) by the magnetic field, which this current produces.


Can you get it through your THICK STUPID head that the induced electric-field MUST switch off within the ring when the magnetic field becomes constant; while with a power supply across two contacts the power supply DOES NOT switch off! Thus, the total absence of an E-field around a ring is NO PROOF that it will also be totally absent between two contacts to a power supply!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2013
This device already does exist and it's called http://en.wikiped...d_effect and it's indeed ignored with mainstream science in similar way, like all findings, which do violate mainstream theories (it violates Lorentz symmetry and Newton's Third Law of Motion like any other reactionless drive). Despite it's twenty years old, no peer-reviewed attempt for replication still exists in mainstream press.


A mix of truth and the usual Zephyr distortions of the truth. This is not the forum to discuss the concept in depth, however suffice to say that no laws are "violated" and no experimental evidence exists to support the concept, despite attempts to do so.

Its a bit on the fringe, involves complicated theory, and requires complex math. In other words, Zephyr likes it because it is not well known, but he doesn't really understand it because it is too complicated, and he can't really explain it because he cannot do the maths.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2013
(it violates Lorentz symmetry and Newton's Third Law of Motion like any other reactionless drive)

A Casimir drive has nothing to do with a woodward effect (woodward is bunk).
The casimir drive does not violate laws of motion (just like a flashlight can be used as a drive without violating any laws of motion)

Upon further thought: A Casimir drive wouldn't be a true reactionless drive, as it does have a reaction mass. The advantage is that you do not have to carry that mass with you.

(Well, you sort of do: as the energy needed to create the photons from an oscillating cavity has to come from somewhere. and that means somewhere in your ship's powerplant mass is being converted into energy. So whether it would be worthwhile dependes of what kind of energy you're carrying on your spaceship and how long you like your drive to last)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2013
The math is language of description, not explanation. Whole the math of relativity or let say Maxwell's theory will not explain you, why gravity or magnets works.


Any physicist who has used mathematics to do modelling of results will disagree with this statement: Mathematics is far more than just a descriptive language: See for example:

http://en.wikiped...Sciences

Although mathematics can also be abused and fudged as is being done in QFT, it is far more than what you are claiming here! In all my years I have found that when the mathematics becomes complicated my physics postulates on which I have based my model are wrong! For some reason, when you get it right, the mathematics simplifies in the most remarkable manner. As if mathematics were designed for physics! Occam's razor?
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2013
Once again: even the best formal model will not tell you, what happens in physical system, which it's describing.


So what will tell you what happens in a physical system? The best INformal model? Pookas? Spirits?

Do you have some observations of quantum foam becoming more dense and being able to be directed in any meaningful fashion? Do you even have any direct observations of quantum foam period...???

Or are you using one of those pesky "models" that you don't think give an accurate picture of reality?
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2013
Do you have some observations of quantum foam becoming more dense and being able to be directed in any meaningful fashion?
The vacuum foam around massive body http://www.aether...end.gif, for example. It not only has higher refraction index like the more dense bodies, it really is more dense and it contains additional mass/inertia, which is known as a dark matter.


IOW no you don't....

You're using a model that doesn't reflect reality, because models don't do that by your own admission.

Now which is it? Have your cake or eat it...
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2013
The math is language of description, not explanation. Whole the math of relativity or let say Maxwell's theory will not explain you, why gravity or magnets works.


Perhaps, but the inability to do the maths will lead you to incorrect conclusions or even to down right fantasy - such as the quaint 19th century notion that there is aether. If you do not understand the underlying principles of a subject (ie the maths) then you are simply handwaving.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2013
But the physical mechanism of both actions is completely different - and the math will not tell you about it.


This is flat out wrong. That's the difference Zephyr between handwaving an explanation and understanding an explanation. If you understood the maths you would realize immediately that the maths WILL tell you the difference.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2013
The vacuum foam around massive body looks like the lens, for example. It not only has higher refraction index like the more dense bodies, it really is more dense and it contains additional mass/inertia, which is known as a dark matter.


And to someone who does not understand the math, this seems like a reasonable contention. The problem with it, is that the maths say it is wrong. No, not just wrong - not even in the same general ballpark. The maths don't support you, which you do not understand, because you can't do the maths.

It's a catch 22 for you Zephyr. The way out of it is to LEARN THE MATHS!
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2013
the intuitive holistic approach


Is of no benefit without understanding the underlying priciples of the subject you are trying to discuss. And you cannot - CANNOT - understand the underlying principles if you do not know how to do the maths.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2013
What makes THE understanding of this equation? Is is the math or something else outside of this math, which can be expressed with words and pictures only?


It is the math Zephyr. Words and pictures are great when you are dealing with the general public, but when you are actually trying to formulate understandings of the real world, you must understand the maths behind the concepts. Or, as has been pointed out to you many times, you reach a conclusion that is not supported by the maths; meaning you handwave a fantasy.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2013
Yes I know you do Zephyr, and you are wrong. Dead, flat out, unequivically wrong.

You don't understand why because you can't do the maths which give you the means by which to understand why.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2013
Maybe later, when the people will learn how to handle the dense aether model in formal way it will get its relevance again and whole cycle will just repeat. But not today.


If ya would present a formal "dense aether modal" in a formal way (but not today, eh?), then maybe others will will learn to handle it in a formal way.

Ya complain it's not handled "formally", but ya complain that "formal" science it wrong, and ya complain that "formal" maths are unnecessary, and ya complain that "formal" treatment of AWT will lead us into a new golden age,,,,,

Do ya not see the pathology of your "formal" based complaints?
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2013
Zephyr, you continue to try and play rope a dope with the truth. You do not understand the concepts you argue against. You string togeather scientific-sounding words to make a scientific sounding premise then scream of how you are repressed when people point out to you that you have the concepts wrong.

You are basing your "ideas" on fallacies, and because you do not understand the maths behind the concepts you discuss, you cannot see why your ideas are so out of whack with reality.

There is a word for that Zephyr. Its called "pseudo-science".
Q-Star
3 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2013
I'm not saying, that the formal physics is wrong, but that it exhausted it's limits.


Someone has been saying that since the first person threw a stone at something,,,,

There are still areas, in which robust knowledge of machine code programming will do its job well (the programming of system drivers, for example).


That analogy is as pertinent as electron ducks paddling the foam of dense aether.

But for laymans it's solely unnecessary to bother with math in understanding of the observable reality.


"Laymans" should not pretend bless the world with new science if they can't be bothered with understanding the old science, bothered with the maths, and bothered with reality.

If all the "laymans" want to do is see their vacuous ramblings appear in print, then they are going to have to tolerate ridicule and derision (or not choose science forums to display their vacuous ramblings.)
Daminc
1 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2013
I'm a layman and I get back to you in just a minute...
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2013
I'm a layman and I get back to you in just a minute...


I thought we were too much for ya and you were leaving? It only took ya 2 minutes and 14 seconds to change your mind?

(When ya do get back to me, I hope ya have a new M.O.,,, the old one is too predictable and very boring.)
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2013
I'm a layman and I get back to you in just a minute...


By the By: When ya do get back to us, could we beg an update on how that relativistic anti-gravity flying machine is progressing? Are ya still using a cave to build it in? Or have ya moved into a proper laboratory?

Yes, I am a walking encyclopedia of cranks, crackpots and tin-foil hatters.
Daminc
1 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2013
By the By: When ya do get back to us, could we beg an update on how that relativistic anti-gravity flying machine is progressing? Are ya still using a cave to build it in? Or have ya moved into a proper laboratory?

Yes, I am a walking encyclopedia of cranks, crackpots and tin-foil hatters.


What are you talking about? I typed up that previous comment because page 4 is just full shouting and name calling. I then realised that there was a page 5 and I hoped it may get a bit better.

I'm ok with Math (I used to teach it a bit) and Math is just a descriptive language. A beautiful and elegant language it must be said but if I describe a waddling bird as a "duck" the word dduck doesn't effect the duck itself (or anything else for that matter.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2013
What are you talking about?


What are YOU talking about?

I typed up that previous comment because page 4 is just full shouting and name calling.


Ya should have taken less maths and more reading classes. There was no "shouting" that I saw. If by name calling ya mean opinions on the quality of science, that's all ya will ever find on any site devoted to science.

I then realised that there was a page 5 and I hoped it may get a bit better.


Ya posted a final comment and then thought there was a page of comments posted after your final comment?

A beautiful and elegant language it must be said but if I describe a waddling bird as a "duck" the word dduck doesn't effect the duck itself (or anything else for that matter.


If ya describe a "duck" as a four footed horse-like creature with a single horn sprouting from his forehead? A language, no matter how beautiful and elegant can be perverted. Physicists love math because it is difficult to pervert so.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2013
Physicists love math because it is difficult to pervert so.


It can be perverted but, even so, it works better than no maths at all! Usually mathematics itself shrugs off the pervertions.

Just a pity it did not do this in QFT during the past 80 years: But I believe it will, and it MUST in the interest of the future of humankind. It is clear that this correction is long overdue when we have reached a stage where a person like ValeriaT, Natello, Zephyr or whatever the idiot wants to call himself, questions the validity of mathematics in physics research!

BTW Is this guy REAL? How is it possible that ANY human being can be as retarded?
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2013
BTW Is this guy REAL?


He "really" is that guy. The one who picks a new name, comes into primarily a single thread, likes to present an affect of being wise, civil and "above the fray", never discusses the science (only the other posters), never presents a theory on anything (just dances about with veiled ambiguous one-liners), etc, etc,,,,,

Oops, I left out: thinks his double-speak is witty and philosophical,, put that up there too.

Is he real? Yes he is really that guy.

(At least he really uses the exact same IP address as all those other guy(s) who he claims he really isn't.)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2013
questions the validity of mathematics in physics research
I'm not questioning it, I'm just showing its objective limits. What the formal math can do, it does well. What the numerical models can do, they do well. What the logical thinking does, does it well. The problem just arises at the moment, when these approaches cross the barrier of their usability and competentness.

The limits of contemporary low-dimensional models arise, because the physicists and astronomers started to observe the hyperdimensional parts of reality. The description of water surface with wave equation works well, until the waves aren't scattered and they spread in regular circles. At the large distances the simplistic formal models become unusable for water surface description and the hyperdimensional particle models become more effective. And this situation occurred right now - it manifests itself with failure of relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, SUSY in description of various boundary effects
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2013
questions the validity of mathematics in physics research
I'm not questioning it, I'm just showing its objective limits.


How can you do this "objectively" if you are incapable of doing any mathematics, and obviously do not understand physics at all!

And this situation occurred right now - it manifests itself with failure of relativity, quantum mechanics,..
Just a few posts above you claimed that you have no problems with quantum mechanics and relativity: Here you claim that you do have problems! You must be insane!

Daminc
1 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2013
There was no "shouting" that I saw. If by name calling ya mean opinions on the quality of science, that's all ya will ever find on any site devoted to science.


Unless things have changed in the last 8 years ago using capital letters usually indicates shouting.

Q-Star: If you go over to Physics Forum I think you'll find they can express their opinion without name calling.

never presents a theory on anything

I did present a theory and asked people to comment on it.
Oops, I left out: thinks his double-speak is witty and philosophical,, put that up there too.

Now you're having a go at my manner of speech.
(At least he really uses the exact same IP address as all those other guy(s) who he claims he really isn't)

I used Daminc when I worked for a company called Summit Media (web building & marketing company) I left around 8 years ago to do other stuff. Now I'm back and this site was recommended in Twitter so I thought I'd have a look...on a different computer.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2013
Unless things have changed in the last 8 years ago using capital letters usually indicates shouting.


Capital letters are used for emphasis! Where does "shouting" come into the equation? One is reading not "listening"!

Where on Twitter has this site been "recommended"?

Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2013
Blah, Blah, Blah,,,


I told ya I'd get bored unless ya changed up your M.O. a little.

Oh, yeah, on the list of items describing the M.O. there seems to be another I left off, but is something else that belongs, it features consistently,,, misquoting another poster by omission.

Anyhoo, as I say, I'm bored with ya and have been for a month or so now. So unless ya have something new or novel to use with your latest incarnation, I'll have to leave ya to find some other to play with. Ya are welcome to the last word, and the penultimate word, and so on.
Daminc
1 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2013
Sorry you feel that way. If you want to speak to the grown ups we're over in the Physics Forums :)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2013
Sorry you feel that way. If you want to speak to the grown ups we're over in the Physics Forums :)


I doubt it! Not according to YOUR remarks on this forum!
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2013
Sadly QFT works.

"Just a pity it did not do this in QFT during the past 80 years:" - Johanfprins

Your nonsense fails from the very beginning.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2013
Sadly QFT works.


Only a TOTAL idiot will think that fudged mathematics can model Nature: I wish there was a way to "renormalize" YOU, but it will probably also be just a fudge-up which will not hide the fact that you were born a F-up; and will die being one!

Oh, NOW I know what the F stands for in QFT! It should be named QFUT.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2013
Is the energy of a photon continuous EM energy? If it is not according to QFUT, can it be light?