Experiment shows that arrow of time is a relative concept, not an absolute one

December 1, 2017 by Bob Yirka report
Schematic of the experimental setup. (A) Heat flows from the hot to the cold spin (at thermal contact) when both are initially uncorrelated. This corresponds to the standard thermodynamic arrow of time. For initially quantum correlated spins, heat is spontaneously transferred from the cold to the hot spin. The arrow of time is here reversed. (B) View of the magnetometer used in our NMR experiment. A superconducting magnet, producing a high intensity magnetic field (B0) in the longitudinal direction, is immersed in a thermally shielded vessel in liquid He, surrounded by liquid N in another vacuum separated chamber. The sample is placed at the center of the magnet within the radio frequency coil of the probe head inside a 5mm glass tube. (C) Experimental pulse sequence for the partial thermalization process. The blue (red) circle represents x (y) rotations by the indicated angle. The orange connections represents a free evolution under the scalar coupling, HJHC = (πh/2)JσzHσzC , between the 1H and 13C nuclear spins during the time indicated above the symbol. We have performed 22 samplings of the interaction time τ in the interval 0 to 2.32 ms. Credit: arXiv:1711.03323 [quant-ph]

(Phys.org)—An international team of researchers has conducted an experiment that shows that the arrow of time is a relative concept, not an absolute one. In a paper uploaded to the arXiv server, the team describe their experiment and its outcome, and also explain why their findings do not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy, or disorder, tends to increase over time, which is why everything in the world around us appears to unfold forward in time. But it also explains why hot tea grows cold rather than hot. In this new effort, the researchers found an exception to this rule that works in a way that doesn't violate the rules of physics as they have been defined.

The idea of has been in the news a lot lately as researchers around the world attempt to use it for various purposes—but there is another lesser-known property of particles that is similar in nature, but slightly different. It is when particles become correlated, which means they become linked in ways that do not happen in the larger world. Like entanglement, correlated particles share information, though it is not as strong of a bond. In this new experiment, the researchers used this property to change the direction of the arrow of .

The experiment consisted of changing the temperature of the nuclei in two of the atoms that exist in a molecule of trichloromethane—hydrogen and —such that it was higher for the hydrogen nucleus than for the carbon nucleus, and then watching which way the flowed. The group found that when the nuclei of the two atoms were uncorrelated, heat flowed as expected, from the hotter hydrogen nucleus to the colder carbon nucleus. But when the two were correlated, the opposite occurred—heat flowed backward relative to what is normally observed. The hot nucleus grew hotter while the cold nucleus grew colder. This observation did not violate the second law of thermodynamics, the group explains, because the second law assumes there are no correlations between .

Explore further: Wallflowers become extroverts in a crowd

More information: Reversing the thermodynamic arrow of time using quantum correlations, arXiv:1711.03323 [quant-ph] arxiv.org/abs/1711.03323

Abstract
The second law permits the prediction of the direction of natural processes, thus defining a thermodynamic arrow of time. However, standard thermodynamics presupposes the absence of initial correlations between interacting systems. We here experimentally demonstrate the reversal of the arrow of time for two initially quantum correlated spins-1/2, prepared in local thermal states at different temperatures, employing a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance setup. We observe a spontaneous heat flow from the cold to the hot system. This process is enabled by a trade off between correlations and entropy that we quantify with information-theoretical quantities.

Related Stories

Wallflowers become extroverts in a crowd

September 28, 2010

While it's long been said that two's company and three's a crowd, that's just how mesons like it. A recent experiment at DOE's Jefferson Lab demonstrates that these subatomic particles engage more with other particles when ...

Extra large carbon

February 9, 2010

An exotic form of carbon has been found to have an extra large nucleus, dwarfing even the nuclei of much heavier elements like copper and zinc, in experiments performed in a particle accelerator in Japan. The discovery is ...

Bubble nucleus discovered

October 27, 2016

Research conducted at the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University has shed new light on the structure of the nucleus, that tiny congregation of protons and neutrons found at the core of ...

Carbon displays quantum effects

July 12, 2017

Chemists at Ruhr-Universität Bochum have found evidence that carbon atoms cannot only behave like particles but also like waves. This quantum-mechanical property is well-known for light particles such as electrons or hydrogen ...

Recommended for you

Brittle starfish shows how to make tough ceramics

December 8, 2017

An international team lead by researchers at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, together with colleagues from the European Synchrotron, Grenoble, France, have discovered how an echinoderm called Ophiocoma wendtii, known ...

159 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

KBK
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2017
There are no laws in physics for emergent theory. There are laws in physics for engineers who build things, as you don't want them making physical structures based on hope and a prayer..

Never call a theory law. Law is for human social and cultural considerations - for punishing people who violate agreed upon norms.

All of our formulations are theory, they must remain so, so that they can change with new new science. If not..we will find ourselves consulting books and turning our backs on new science, punishing people who find things that the book says cannot be true. This is known as religion and the enforcement of papal bulls.

This rapidly becomes a circular argument that denies and forces an end to new findings. Science as a dead end. It is the inevitable outcome of "laws" entering the scientific lexicon. Only the illiterate push for scientific law.

In truth, all science is theory and the only fact is there are no facts. Paradox. Exactly as quantum science predicts.
KBK
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 01, 2017
The next thing we find, if we look is that ...in so called 'over unity' devices, we very very much tend to find "Thermodynamics running backward."

Rapid cooling where you don't expect it and rapid heating in the seeming 'wrong' direction.

Hundreds of instances. HUNDREDS.

So go back to the stuff you all dismissed as quackery over the past 100+ years and...

...LOOK AGAIN.

And, to note, quite a few of them talk abut temporal issues.

So...they were all crazy, right?

Not so fast. In reality, they did good science, and the mainstream denied and failed to understand.

Except for the black ops types and efforts. They very much noticed and made sure you stayed away. By relying on the masses in scientific groups - their tendency to rely upon rules. Scientific laws, for instance. Wielded as weapons, manipulations in psychology...

People died.

It's a war. On multiple fronts.
KBK
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2017
One of the things I've said over the years, is that in a superconductor, time is different.

Almost..excluded. Separate. Different. Depends on the relationship of the separate vs the the superconductor's absolute atomic lattice structure.

Now take this finding in thermodynamics and look at this new article on 'fluctuating stripes - cuprate based superconductors"..and look again, with these 'thermodynamic anomaly/explanation' type goggles on.

https://phys.org/...ked.html

It's been right there in front of you for a very long time.
Da Schneib
4.9 / 5 (8) Dec 01, 2017
Basically what this is about is that in a specially prepared system, one where there is existing quantum correlation (note, this is not entanglement), it's possible to prepare the system in such a state that the microscopic 2LOT might force heat to move from the cooler to the hotter part of the system. This seems like a violation of the 2LOT, but in fact it was predicted by Boltzmann when his original derivation of the entropy laws was formulated using statistical mechanics.

Basically anyone who understands statistical mechanics already knew this; it's good they found an experiment to prove it, but it's not some sort of Earth-shattering violation of the 2LOT. I expect there will be analysis of this using the Fluctuation Theorem that will explain it thoroughly.
IwinUlose
5 / 5 (11) Dec 01, 2017
Never call a theory law. Law is for human social and cultural considerations - for punishing people who violate agreed upon norms.


Just in case anyone reads this and believes it; we've kind of tangled some concepts together here.

Law, in terms of social and cultural considerations, is the agreed upon norm. Law Enforcement can use laws as a basis for punishing people, but laws are not for punishing people.

A law, in terms of describing some mechanical feature of nature, is a former-theory that has been tested repeatedly and has never been demonstrated as incorrect or false.
JongDan
5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2017
Temperature of two spins-1/2? But temperature is only definable in macroscopic limit!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2017
Huh? Suppose we see a wave backward or forward and it's sinusoidal; then, is there a time direction? Causality shall define initial conditions. The direction of the observer may be backward or forward; therefore, the observer must be located at a given distance and velocity in order to see it backwards. So I don't think you description of time is accurate. I think in terms of wavelength being both temporal and relative distance. Set c = 1; then t = |lambda|. Now define the distance from the source as wavelength at each instant, backward and forward. The wrinkles only move away from the center?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2017
Huh? Suppose we see a wave backward or forward and it's sinusoidal; then, is there a time direction? Causality shall define initial conditions. The direction of the observer may be backward or forward; therefore, the observer must be located at a given distance and velocity in order to see it backwards. So I don't think your description of time is accurate. I think in terms of wavelength being both temporal and relative distance. Set c = 1; then t = |lambda|. Now define the distance from the source as wavelength at each instant, backward and forward. The wrinkles only move away from the center?
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2017
The scientists know for long time, that quantum phenomena violate thermodynamic law locally. For thermal fluctuations of coffee at the table it's quite normal, when the temperature rises temporarily. The negentropic (i.e. entropy time violating) phenomena are all around us: the overheating, underfreezing, oversaturation. What the physicists still cannot realize is, how much local such a changes can be, if we force many quantum objects (like the flask of undercooled cola from refrigerator and/or magnetic domains within saturate ferromagnets of Searl generator) to violate the thermodynamic law at the same moment.

I'm well aware that many overunity effects and generators (like this one described recently) can be explained with macroscopic ensemble of miniature quantum effects. They don't have to violate the thermodynamic law globally for being able utilized for energy production locally.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2017
Experiment shows that arrow of time is a relative concept, not an absolute one
This simple sentence is actually the beginning in revolution of our Universe understanding. Such an assumption would be impossible, if the everyday reality all around wouldn't be high-dimensional space-time with many time arrows at the same moment. Currently the physicists just consider the space-time concept for light wave spreading. But we can also define it for momentum space of common forces, where the entropic time arrow may apply in way more complex way.

We can compare such view to perspective mediated by atomic force microscope. Normally we recognize shapes only by looking at them. But we can use as easily the mechanical probe, which would check them at distance. Such a probe would render everyday reality around us as a way more complex, because it's dominated by short distance forces (Cassimir force, Van der Waals forces, magnetic forces) which we normally cannot see around objects.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2017
The reality mediated by light waves is intuitive for us, because we are using it routinely in real life. The problem is, it's wavelength specific. For example, if we could use microwave of X-ray eyes, we would represent fuzzy nearly transparent objects - a walking skeletons. Why we should adhere on description of reality which is wavelength specific? From perspective of some terrestrials who are visiting the Earth and who don't know anything about wavelength of light preferred by human beings the atomic force microscope scanning approach would be way more natural. Such a terrestrials would perceive by their tentacles the momentum space-time around common solid objects as deformed with short-distance forces, as we are considering it deformed around extremely dense objects: magnetars and black holes. And these observers would immediately realize, that the space-time around objects is complex system of density gradients with many time and space coordinates at the same moment.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2017
Never call a theory law.
The problem is, the boundary between these two concepts is fuzzy. Is Newtonian gravity really a law or just 3D approximation of 4D relativity theory? Especially at the moment when we don't understand the origin of gravity, we cannot be sure if the Newton law isn't the approximate assumption relevant for low number of dimensions, i.e. just a model of gravity. The postulates of many theories play a role of theorems in another theories, being conceptually as relative as time arrows for emergent space-time.
Beethoven
5 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2017
Basically what this is about is that in a specially prepared system, one where there is existing quantum correlation (note, this is not entanglement),
what is the difference between entanglement and "correlations"?. is entanglement a specific type of correlation?
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2017
is entanglement a specific type of correlation?
You're right, the entanglement is strong (intrinsic) example of weak (extrinsic) corelation. We also recognize multiple levels of quantum entanglement. The laser beam is the stream of photons correlated by their wavelength and/or spin, but not fully entangled each other (they don't share phase). The spins within magnetic domains are correlated (they all point to same direction but there are fluctuations and distributions) - whereas the spins within skyrmions (a much smaller quantum vortices) are entangled and they all behave like single object.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2017
Entanglement is when two or more particles share at least one parameter that is uncertain, in the Heisenberg sense. This parameter was determined at a mutual interaction between the particles.

Correlation can include entanglement, but can also include simple statistical correlation of a parameter, which may be due to random chance or may be due to a common origin, and need not be a parameter whose value is currently uncertain.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2017
I could be a bit more pedantic and note that when two particles have an entangled parameter, when the uncertain parameter is measured or otherwise determined (because it can be decohered by interacting with the random particles in the environment and thus being determined), it is always found to be correlated between the particles. By "correlated" here, I mean that if the value on one particle is determined the value on the other particle is known. For example, they may be equal; they may be opposite; they may be out of phase by a constant amount, or differ in value by a constant amount. Examples for both equal and opposite correlation among entangled particles are well known; the others are more difficult, and there may not be any examples where the values differ by a constant amount. I can't think of an example of the latter off the top of my head, but it would qualify as entanglement.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2017
No, no, ripples in water move away from the activator! Direction and time of travel can be discerned for any point relative to any other point future or past. The time arrow is defined. Jeez!
mackita
1 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2017
No, no, ripples in water move away from the activator!
Not always... I'd expect, that just long-time commenters of PhysOrg should remember its articles best...
Beethoven
5 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2017
so basically entanglement is correlation of heisenberg uncertain parameters that stem from interaction symmetries like conservation of spin etc correct? but what are examples of that other "type" of correlations with non-uncertain parameters?
ps. really appreciate your input Da Schneib, the comments here are full of crank, you're one of the only consistent commenters that makes sense.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2017
BTW The rogue waves at the sea were also conjectured, they drain energy from their environment instead of scattering it into an outside. The probability of rogue waves increases when waves traveling in one direction meet a current traveling in the OPPOSITE direction. So that the rogue waves may serve as a water surface analogy of various overunity devices.. The analogous rogue waves of stock prices at the financial market may lead into uncontrolled crashes of stock exchange: they induce a panic, which enforces another propagation of wave even more.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2017
really appreciate your input Da Schneib, the comments here are full of crank
He just opposes the things, which become subject of PhysOrg article a year later...;-) And he also doesn't really understand the subject: his effort to describe things exactly makes him denier of apparent progress, because progress is always based on extrapolation not interpolation of known facts (it's also negentropic effect). From the same reason you cannot find an usable information about cold fusion or overunity at Wikipedia despite we have tons of literature about it already on the web.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2017
so basically entanglement is correlation of heisenberg uncertain parameters that stem from interaction symmetries like conservation of spin etc correct?
That's one way of creating entangled particles. It's not the only one.

but what are examples of that other "type" of correlations with non-uncertain parameters?
There are lots of them. I mean really lots. But what you're probably interested in here is the type of correlation in this experiment. In this particular case, the experimenters have selected (by the design of the experiment) HC molecules in which the nuclear spins of the H and C atoms are correlated, in this case either the same or opposite (for this experiment it doesn't matter how they're correlated, only that they are).

The key point is that the spins need not be correlated; and in many HC molecules they are not. But when they are, this apparently anti-entropic effect emerges.

And thanks for the bump!
mackita
1 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2017
The time arrow is defined. Jeez!
The trick is, mainstream physics recognizes multiple time arrows, not just single one. And whereas these arrows normally coincide each other, their different definition provide no warranty of this consistency at sufficiently wider Lagrangian scale. The same applies to various radiative time arrow based symmetries and energy/momentum conservation "laws" once the extradimensions (as defined by thermodynamic time arrow) get involved.

We can just discuss, which time arrow is more fundamental than another ones. In my understanding both quantum time arrow, both radiative time arrow are of emergent origin and both derived from thermodynamical time arrow, which applies to human observer scale.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2017
@mac, there is only one time dimension. The reason it's a time dimension is because it's not related to the other dimensions circularly, as they are among themselves, but hyperbolically. There may be other dimensions that are hyperbolically related to the rest, but they are small dimensions (if they even exist; this is string physics we are talking about here; I think it's right but without proof it's just another hypothesis looking for a test).

When we talk about the "arrow of time" this only seems to be a thing in classical physics. It doesn't really seem to fully apply in quantum physics, and the Fluctuation Theorem shows it (though it does not explain it in terms that make any sense in classical logic). The FT was demonstrated in the lab a decade ago. If you want to understand the relationship between entropy at the macroscopic and microscopic levels, you need to understand the FT.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2017
if they even exist; this is string physics we are talking about here
String theory is based on radiative time arrow, but extradimensions are all around us and they're way more macroscopic, than string theorists ever assumed. For example, these extradimensions are sought by violation of gravitational law at short distances. Now, the question is, why for example the magnetic force, dipole forces and/or Van der Waals/Cassimir forces aren't such a violations too?
Because they were recognized and named independently before these searches ever started? Oh, come on... For every extraterrestrials approaching the Earth the first violation of gravitational law would be the Earth atmosphere - from where they should know, we don't consider it violation of gravitational law? There is no apparent reason for it: everything what they would feel is, the gravity doesn't act normally.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2017
String theory is based on radiative time arrow
I don't know what that means.
UrFriendJim
3 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2017
Law, in terms of social and cultural considerations, is the agreed upon norm.
With some exceptions where the lawmakers favor their donors and lobbyists over the voters.

A law, in terms of describing some mechanical feature of nature, is a former-theory that has been tested repeatedly and has never been demonstrated as incorrect or false.
Hypothetically - What is it then, if under some new condition it fails?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2017
I think what the experiment quite nicely demonstrates is that there is something more fundamental than energy and even a bit more fundamental than information.

If you look at the wave functions in quantum mechanics then there's already an indication of this, because the probabilities of something happenening only come about when you square them (e.g. which gives you the probabiity density of a particle position). But the unsquared terms should have some sort of 'meaning' in themselves (this is just a gut feeeling)
Maybe it's some sort of 'potentiality' of the system which can be decreased by converting it into thermal energy (and vice versa)

At least that was what I got from the figures on page 3 of the pdf linked in the article (which are all kinds of interesting. Go check it out)

The measure that is the source of the non-intuitive heat flow is the decrease in the so-called "quantum geometric discord"...which I'm still trying to wrap my head around.
mackita
1.5 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2017
String theory is based on radiative time arrow ... I don't know what that means
That means, it has Lorentz symmetry in its postulates, because Lorentz invariance is based on light cone and radiative time arrow. When string theory talks about extradimensions, then it has relativistic space-time on mind.
experiment quite nicely demonstrates is that there is something more fundamental than energy
It implies that energy conservation can be violated at least locally if this "more fundamental" quantity requires to be conserved. Otherwise I don't understand what you mean with "more fundamental", and what does it imply
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2017
Reality shows the arrow of time is always forward. When charge moves, relative or not, the field response is always next! Absolutely!
rrwillsj
3.5 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2017
Well, my take-away of all this.... That the "Laws of Thermodynamics" that I learned in school (late paleolithic) were too simplistic? That advanced technology and progressing experimentation are revealing unexpected adjuncts to the original rules?

I'm still confused (surprise!) why the hoopla. A small, localized effect during an experiment (not yet repeated and confirmed by other researchers) is being accepted as proof that time is reversible?

Okay, I guess the best thing for some one in a state of baffled ignorance as myself should be patience. Wait and see what comes out of these experiments in the future.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2017
String theory is based on radiative time arrow
I don't know what that means
That means, it has Lorentz symmetry in its postulates, because Lorentz invariance is based on light cone and radiative time arrow.
Yes, as all physics does. Are you denying Lorentz invariance? Do we get some data to go with that, or is this another of those data-free things you keep making up?
When string theory talks about extradimensions, then it has relativistic space-time on mind.
I don't know what "on mind" means either. Can we have some bleu cheese dressing for the word salad please?
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2017
This is just a matter of your perception (i.e. casual or psychological time arrow). The ball is moving along a curved plane because its shape dictates its path. The massive bodies don't spontaneously move without a reason - it means this reason (charge or some other field) must be already present there.

The physical concept of time is much narrower. For example, when we would watch a movie composed of random noise, then we have no observational mean how to decide, if this movie isn't reversed. It's time arrow isn't defined, despite the show undoubtedly changes each moment. But only the physical (i.e. observable) definitions of time have practical meaning - for example for construction of devices, which would drain an energy from ambient noise.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2017
@mac it's one of those data things. You'll need to figure out how that works.
mackita
1.2 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2017
Yes, as all physics does. Are you denying Lorentz invariance?
You can tell me - wouldn't the extradimensions manifest itself just by violation of Lorentz invariance, for example? After then the string theory would assume two contradicting concepts at the same moment: no wonder, it leads to myriads of solutions like every system of mutually inconsistent equations.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2017
Yes, as all physics does. Are you denying Lorentz invariance?
You can tell me - wouldn't the extradimensions manifest itself just by violation of Lorentz invariance, for example?
Why is that? Maybe you can actually explain it instead of handwaving at it. Maybe without the wordsalad.
mackita
1 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2017
it's one of those data things. You'll need to figure out how that works
I just respect the data very much, so I clear them from any subsequent interpretations. For example the expansion of Universe isn't observational fact - it's one of many possible interpretations of actual data, which are Hubble red shift. This is what we actually observe - not the expansion of Universe.

In analogous way, if we are looking for extradimensions by violations of gravitational law, for example, we must put the question, whether the Cassimir force around objects violates the inverse square law for gravity or not. The physicists are indeed saying: noo way, it's completely different force than the gravity. But why the gravity force should get violated by itself? Of course, it would be violated by some other force. My conclusion therefore is, the Cassimir force is evidence of extradimensions. I don't care about historical connotations and text book interpretations - just about the data.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2017
Why is that? Maybe you can actually explain it
Lorentz invariance describes analogy of light spreading in vacuum with waves at the 2D water surface under situation, when we would completely ignore the effects of 3D underwater. If we have no underwater, we cannot have reference frame for (surface) wave motion, reference frame drag and every motion will be completely relative there - well, in the same way, like for light waves in vacuum. Just the presence of additional dimensions of underwater would violate this invariance. Therefore the extradimensions of vacuum would manifest itself just with Lorentz symmetry breaking. Unfortunately the string theorists consider the both all the time - so that they cannot derive any testable predictions from their model. They already know about it and they know that string theory leads into too many solutions for being practically testable. I'm just explaining why it is so, because I don't like blind combining of randomly borrowed equations.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2017
The deviations from inverse square law of gravity at distance isn't the only way, in which extradimensions were tested. The physicists for example know, that extradimensions would stabilize products of particle collisions - it just requires to add some additional dimensions into Einstein equations. It would lead into formation of particle clusters which would resist their fast decay - these clusters will be hold together with short-distance forces, which also violate the gravitational law.

But after then we have a question, why physicists looked for black holes in LHC and ignored way more common particle clusters like the atom nuclei, atoms and molecules during it. Aren't these objects hold together with forces, which also violate the gravitational law?
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2017
The whole problem in understanding of extradimensions is, the scientists consider objects around us as threedimensional, as the 3D space-time. Whereas both concepts are borrowed from dual observational perspectives. We can imagine it easily with concept of gravitational lensing: no doubt that perfectly 3D space is flat without sign of gravitational lensing. Once we observe some deform of light spreading, then this space cannot be 3D anymore. But we can imagine the common object - for example glass sphere - also like the example of lensing, because it deforms the path of light. Therefore the glass sphere cannot be 3D object from space-time perspective: it's high-dimensional object instead. Why?
We know, that surface / volume ratio of platonic solids increases with their dimensionality. The very high-dimensional objects would behave like spiky hypersolids which would penetrate our 3D space in clusters of 3D points - exactly like the real objects around us, which are composed of atoms.
milnik
1 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2017
For the beginning: time is only a measure of motion of matter in the space, and space is a place for the accommodation and movement of matter, and nothing more.
Other: it is again noticeable that science is wandering through its imaginative dark matter with dark energy. This is about something that has an inevitable connection with gravity, magnetism and mutual forces of particles. But the big problem is that none of the scientists knows how they are formed: matter, energy of all kinds, gravity, magnetism, light, and the like. It is a proof that science has no idea about the structure of the universe. If you point any intensity of the laser beam to any subatomic particle, you have caused a "revolution" there, and in this clash of natural and artificial collisions, draw some conclusions as you have seen them, but without knowing the properties that I have listed above.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2017
In general relativity the time has very simple geometric notion: it's simply the gradient of space-time curvature, which is subject of Hamiltonian flow along geodesics in similar way, like the path of waves across any other gradient. In analogy with 2D water surface the spatial dimensions represent the direction for free spreading of surface waves, whereas the time dimension is just the remaining direction perpendicular to surface, along which the surface waves can never spread freely. The water surface is simply 3D model of 4D space-time with two spatial and one temporal coordinate.
If we imagine common objects like gravitational lens fragmented into many 3D singularities, then the time dimension at their surface gets fragmented into many local time dimensions - which is what this article is all about.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2017
For example, if we pass the image of distant galaxy through gravitational lens, its image will get scattered into multiple images so we can observe multiple temporal copies of the same phenomena. If we do the same with beam of light passing the cluster of atoms (glass sphere from the above example) - then each of atoms can affect scattered beam differently, so we also get multiple copies of event, but in this case each image of original event could look less or more differently. Some of images may even look reversed temporarily (as a result of negentropic anti-Stokes scattering). Quantum mechanics handles it with Everett's "many worlds" concept.
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2017
Meh.

What you have is a bunch of excuses for why the huge community of scientists says you're wrong.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2017
Oh and BTW this technique of bringing up a bunch of different subjects too fast for a response to be made is called the "Gish Gallop." It's named for the Darwin Denier religionist who invented it. The idea is to tell as many lies as quickly as possible and then leave.
HenryE
5 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2017
What aspect of this experiment shows that the arrow of time is reversed? It seems more like an interesting new thermal property has been discovered.

What happens when you 'correlate' nuclei? And how are you correlating them?

Perhaps 'correlation' just primes the nuclei to allow the colder atom to pass even more of it's own heat to the one that is already hotter. This doesn't seem to be time reversal, though.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2017
What aspect of this experiment shows that the arrow of time is reversed? It seems more like an interesting new thermal property has been discovered.
Heat has flowed from a cold place to a hot place. It's a bit hyperbolic if you ask me.

What happens when you 'correlate' nuclei?
In this case they have correlated spins.

And how are you correlating them?
With NMR. It does that using magnets.

Perhaps 'correlation' just primes the nuclei to allow the colder atom to pass even more of it's own heat to the one that is already hotter. This doesn't seem to be time reversal, though.
That's kind of what they're saying: if you prepare the system right you see what appears to be anti-entropy, but really isn't. It happens because you prepared the system in a special state.
mackita
2 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2017
What aspect of this experiment shows that the arrow of time is reversed?
The group found that when the nuclei of the two atoms were uncorrelated, heat flowed as expected, from the hotter hydrogen nucleus to the colder carbon nucleus. But when the two were correlated, the opposite occurred—heat flowed backward relative to what is normally observed. The hot nucleus grew hotter while the cold nucleus grew colder.
This doesn't seem to be time reversal, though.
The thermodynamic time arrow got reversed.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2017
It is an interesting result, but the title of the article is leading to a misunderstanding.

The results show that in a correlated state, the heating occurs(entirely)relative to which particle is being heated, meaning that ONE of the correlated nuclei heats at the expense --or RELATIVE TO-- the other, from the initial system condition.

In a non-correlated system, BOTH nuclei would heat up relative to their initial SYSTEM condition.

The tricky part to conceptualize is that there is no departure --one assumes-- from overall energetic balance within the {system + heat} relation, IOW, no net energy production or loss.

This is a very interesting effect, which should have useful applications in any number of areas: material science, energy research, quantum computing --you name it.
HenryE
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2017
Yes, heat flowed from a cold place to a hotter place -- but only after the atoms were prepared by adding energy to the system in the form of an intense magnetic field. If they used NMR, then they could have had a resonance frequency that slowed the spin rate of the carbon atom while increasing the spin of the hydrogen.

Intense fields can alter the spin rates of atoms as well as their spin axis and represents a sizeable addition of energy. This net input of energy has to be accounted for - it doesn't just disappear.

While it is an interesting experiment, it doesn't demonstrate a reversal of the time arrow.
mackita
1 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2017
It's miniature version of this device, which generates electricity, while it cools itself. Strictly speaking, no energy escapes from it anyway, so you cannot use it for heating of your home. But you can place it at your backyard and leave it to cool the rest of Universe, while you will use its electricity inside. So that effectively it's still a perpetuum mobile (just of 2nd kind).
cardzeus
5 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2017
String theory is based on radiative time arrow
I don't know what that means.

...neither does he
milnik
2.7 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2017
What is heat is originally, and this question can be posed for electro charge, gravity, magnetism and light. What are the processes that allow such occurrences?
I am interested in what is the shape of the "thermometer" of those experts with whom they entered the nucleus of the atoms and there were some "operations" there. Does science know what is heat and whether this phenomenon arose before or after the onset of magnetism, movement, or any other cause of their interrelations.
milnik
1 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2017
Science tries to become an unbelievable "magician" for those who do not understand the nature and structure of the universe. Who is the one who can believe that these experts, with the help of lasers, can measure something from which the laser is formed.
It's the same, as when an expert makes a model, puts it in a PC, extracts, is tasked with solving it, and after that, the expert believes that the model has overcome the knowledge and understanding of the expert who constructed both the computer and the to him all to learn something new from this. Look at what it looks like.
Do these models and such measurements represent some deities that we should worship?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2017
So this needed some unpacking, at least for me that has not dived into non-entanglement quantum correlations.But precisely this system has been used previously to characterize general non-pure, non-entangled quantum correlations [ https://arxiv.org...1596.pdf ] by discord [ https://en.wikipe..._discord ].

Their data demonstrates the effect. But the interpretation that it 'reverses' the arrow of time is based on Eddington's original idea of heat flow, which later was accepted as based on the thermodynamic arrow of increasing entropy; their own figure 2 shows that the entropic terms sum to zero (no work produced) within the errors of the experiment (compare fig 2 E and F for the uncorrelated and correlated experiment) [ https://arxiv.org...3323.pdf ].

Real relative arrow reversals are admissible in the detailed classical statistical physics of entropy, though they tend to be rare even in small systems.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2017
On the thread questions:

- "Laws" is (mostly) a historical term. Today scientists tend to use theories and their basis in hypothesis theory to describe scientific results.

@mackita: "I just respect the data very much, so I clear them from any subsequent interpretations. For example the expansion of Universe isn't observational fact - it's one of many possible interpretations of actual data, which are Hubble red shift. This is what we actually observe - not the expansion of Universe."

The expansion is accepted as an observational fact (and is today based on many kinds of observations). Remember that we do have to make observations to quantify system properties, and there is no limit to the constraints you can use in doing that by observational hypothesis testing. You can complain that we use the whole universe as the observational experiment, but, well, duh - and so it is easily understood that your science understanding won't be understood by most scientists. ;l
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2017
@milnik: Do you really think you will get answers by first insulting the commentators, and the field, and claiming the answers are useless? (Commentators who may have read the paper that you are too lazy to, by the way, so they can understand for themselves the points you ask.) Obviously science works, or you would not be complaining (over your own lazy and mean incredulity).
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2017
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson I don't understand, why you're so surprised with results and their interpretations and why do you even inventing your own interpretations, because the experiments like this above are quite frequent in the recent time (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2017
The expansion is accepted as an observational fact (and is today based on many kinds of observations)
The inflation was also considered as a robust theory supported by many kinds of observations - and Big Bang model is just waiting for its demounting as well. I'm just better informed than others, so I can see it in advance. But the future of cosmology isn't the subject of this forum (despite it follows from time reversal at cosmological scale).
mackita
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2017
BTW The graphite device pumping the environmental heat into the electricity against thermodynamic time arrow isn't just a subject of research, you can actually buy it for quite some time (Silicon Graphite Battery of QuantaMagnetics, update). Here Victor Petrik prepares and tests graphite based thermoelectric generator before eyes of his scientific visitors. Graphene-based "battery" for capturing the thermal energy of ions and converting it into electricity (PDF) was discussed even here, at PhysOrg before some time.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 03, 2017
@Zeph
I'm just better informed than others, so I can see it in advance
no
you're reading the material and hoping you're correct because you have a vested interest in supporting a known pseudoscience

that is different

essentially you're making the same argument the Christians did to the other Abrahamic religions in an effort to establish your influence

that doesn't work in Science because it's not based on authority or unsupported conjecture
But the future of cosmology isn't the subject of this forum (despite it follows from time reversal at cosmological scale)
1- none of your pseudoscience is topical to this (or any other) Science forum

2- if there is a logical extrapolation from the evidence that can be proven and validated, it is topical
This is the reason your continued pseudoscience isn't topical - it doesn't comply with the scientific method

mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2017
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2017
@torbjorn,
Did you see the goal, when you plotted and fired the "chunk" -metal without charge, and do you know, what is the time, what is the heat, and how it can expand and switch from the lower temperature to the higher. Besides, do you know how, in general, neutrons are formed and their role in all processes in the universe. Use your reason and do not use others' statements, because I can read them.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 03, 2017
Got some amusement out of a google search for "quanta magnetics hoax."
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2017
Try "string theory hoax" or something similar instead: way more results and fun to say at least...
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 03, 2017
You #physicscranks never quit, do you?

I knew you had to be bent some way after you started trying to tell us tens of thousands of physicicsts working for over a century were all wrong, @mac. And here you are with the free energy woo.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2017
Idiot logic
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2017
tens of thousands of physicists working for over a century were all wrong
As if it wouldn't happen many times in the past.. At the moment when overunity and cold fusion goes into mainstream one doesn't have to be a lone genius for to realize it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2017
Sorry, you're on ignore and will stay that way. The free energy #physicscranks are the worst of all, because they're out to rip people off.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2017
Can you imagine how much money the people like Brian Greene made with string theory hoax? Stephen Hawking has made millions just by writing about phenomena, which was never observed and which - what's even worse - would help anybody on the Earth, even if he would be proven right. This is the saddest thing about ostracizing of free energy research.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2017
Another interesting negentropic effect: A jumble of thousands of cubic dice, agitated by an oscillating rotation, can rapidly become completely ordered, a result that is hard to produce with more conventional shaking In condensed phase physics it would mean, that if we would shake liquid in specific way (with polarized microwaves or something similar), it would freeze spontaneously. The so-called laser cooling applied to boson condensate is also similar negentropic effect.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
All experiments carried out in particle collisions and by lasers will never allow to find out how matter arises, as various forms of condensates form, such as quark-gluon plasma.
Everything that is obtained there is a consequence of the effect of AETHER substance, from which matter is formed, and that does not understand science, and therefore there is no result.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2017
I'm just better informed than others,

Lol...thanks for the laugh. Oh my...you really believe this? You? informed? Someone who can't read the simplest paper (let alone understand)? Where would *you* get anything that would actually *inform* you? Dr. Seuss?
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
Well, we can try it. Could you provide at least ten links to various graphite based thermoelectric generators presented at the web?
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
@zeph
I'm just better informed than others, so I can see it in advance

One of proposed measures of intelligence is the ability to anticipate the future events After wit is everybody's wit.
Delusion and Dunning-Kruger confirmed

so what is the next step when you're proven wrong?
Well, we can try it. Could you provide at least ten links to...
Hmm... so: how does random googling and linking of pages in any way prove you're better informed than anyone, eh zeph?

the problem isn't *that* you can find pages on any topic

the problem is that you think that if it's published on the internet then it must be factual

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
Seriously, sincerely, if you are claiming you're smarter than tens of thousands of scientists over a period of hundreds of years, you're certainly wrong. A whole bunch of us humans over a very long period of time figured this stuff out and went looking for evidence against it. We didn't find it. That's how science works.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2017
Ya know Zeph, being informed means actually understanding what one reads. Just reading isn't enough.

You totally fail at the 'understanding' part.

As evidence I give you: Every one of your comments. Ever.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
Ya know Zeph, being informed means actually understanding what one reads. Just reading isn't enough.

You totally fail at the 'understanding' part.

As evidence I give you: Every one of your comments. Ever.

It's OK, none of this makes any sense
Merrit
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
@all science is constantly evolving and we don't always get it right the first time. For instance, we had experiments showing light is a particle and experiments showing light is a wave. There was a big debate until they came up with duality.

Our current model has a big issue, namely DM and dark energy. Scientists want the easy out of finding a new form of matter to explain the issue, but it isn't going anywhere. The problem with cosmology is we have made many assumptions by necessity and then we built on these assumptions as if they were fact. Now, we need to re think everything in cosmology and see if we can find any of the issues. I believe mistaking the hubble red shift as expansion is one of those errors or at least expansion isn't necessarily the only factor.
Merrit
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
Also, about the article itself. It would be interesting to know if this property is stable or if meta materials could be made with this property or 2d materials. This could be used to make heat flow in only one direction. Meta materials have been made to make other properties flow in only one direction. I could see this being really useful for heating and cooling purposes such as keeping a super conductor below it's critical temperature.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
Also, about the article itself. It would be interesting to know if this property is stable or if meta materials could be made with this property or 2d materials. This could be used to make heat flow in only one direction. Meta materials have been made to make other properties flow in only one direction. I could see this being really useful for heating and cooling purposes such as keeping a super conductor below it's critical temperature.

Or not. Think! There is only the Field! Charge is an object that exist for all time and stretches from the center to infinity, an infinite number of pairs! We know this, Coulomb! Why any of the bull$hit! When charge moves, relative or actual, either move through the field or the field through you. Always one direction for time. In fact, a given state defines the future. You may define possibilities to produce a state. Here's a puzzle; place an electron at point 0(any point) and 2 protons at the same point, what happens?
Merrit
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
@hyper you seem to be spouting nonsense. Do you have experimental proof for any of your ideas. Also, in what ways would your ideas be better than mainstream science?
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
Does any of you know how to explain how heat is generated, how it is transmitted through space and matter, and how it can accelerate and slow down the movement of subatomic particles. In all the previous explanations, science knows little about it. Again the question is: WHY UNKNOWN?
The answer is: Because science can not understand and accept the existence of substance Aether, which is found in the "empty" particles of the particle collider, and therefore the researchers "find" some new particles, "dead people" who are seen as some "abortions".
Science, for this reason, will never be able to "produce" a permanent particle as something new.
All that they are doing now is a forgery of a natural product.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
in what ways would your ideas be better
The question isn't in what ways they could be better but in what ways they WOULD BE GOOD at all - once you promote some concept or idea here, the very basis question arises: what you say is amazing - but WHAT DOES IT IMPLY? And this question applies to every idea of high end string theory in similar way, like for every low end idea of arm chair twaddlers here: once even you can not deduce any new prediction from your ingenious insight, then you should definitely keep it yourself.

So that it absolutely doesn't matter, if there exist only one field or many different ones at the same moment, charge-like or whatever else: once you cannot deduce anything new from this insight at place. The people here should therefore present not new ideas, but always LOGIC based on these ideas as well, i.e. not categorical claims, but LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS of these claims.

Can we all agree with it?
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
science can not understand and accept the existence of substance Aether
I'm aetherist as well, but without logical deductions based on this concept the whole aether thing is just a void empty word. It just requires to realize, which logical deduction this concept REALLY ENABLES to deduce and which are introductory postulates of this concept. Once again: aether is OK, but WHAT DOES IT IMPLY? Many people for example consider aether as a fluid, many others as a foam or gas and their deductions will logically differ after then - so that we can safely say, that aether concept is about NOTHING LIKE THIS. Instead of it, it's LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR all of it. This ambivalence also is what makes people annoyed once they hear about aether in the same way, like the ambivalent predictions of string or quantum field theory. The contemporary people are busy and theories are mental shortcuts: they're here for saving our time during description of things - not for increasing its consumption.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
Idiots, try beginning with truth not assumptions! Get it!?
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
being informed means actually understanding what one reads
I can fully agree with it, but I asked you to provide sufficient factual background about graphite based thermogenerators. Until you cannot provide any, then you have nothing to read and after then it absolutely doesn't matter how smart and capable to understand it you are. This is also the problem of mainstream physicists with cold fusion and overunity thing: because they're not familiar with its factual basis (because they learned to systematically ignore it), their bright intellectual capability is useless for them: they have nothing to apply it.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
By the way God existed before money. Our concept of God is a connotation and is nonsense, just like quarks and GR and trying to define a time arrow based upon non-causal theory. I'd expound but I don't think anyone will understand, since over 6000 years of misunderstanding now allows nonsense as Religious Truth.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
Idiots, try beginning with truth not assumptions! Get it!?
What is truth without any means how to verify/falsify it? What people universally accept as true is only logic connecting the facts, not the facts as such. The same thing can be described from multiple observational perspectives which bring various facts together - so that only the logical deductions connecting these facts is what remains invariant.

For example we know about multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, which are indistinguishable each other - everything what remains solid in such cognitive system are just the deductions connecting postulates and theorems of individual interpretations - not the postulates and theorems as such.

For example your assumption there are only charge fields at the bottom is just assumption, not a fact. Many gravitating bodies have no charge so that I can say as easily, the gravity fields are fundamental here - this would be another assumption.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
Physics today is a study in WTF? Everything is mysterious, yet you may get a PhD in this mysterious nonsense. I'll use what was defined at the beginning of the 20th century. Factually! Juz say'n
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
By the way God existed before money.
This is just another assumption without any deduction, which is deeply irrelevant to article subject in addition. Maybe it's right, maybe not - nothing to catch is here. Why are you telling us it right here? The people who aren't intelligent enough for to realize, they're off topic with their ideas wouldn't be probably intelligent enough even for deductions, which would be perfectly on topic (if they would indeed have some). Don't spread assumptions and religion - spread the deductions. The time must exist even in solely empty Universe without any facts. The logic of deduction defines the causality arrow of time, which is fundamental here.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
Everything is mysterious
Most things are relative. This is a difference (and also memo of the above article).
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
@zeph
epic fail: not only did you not understand what you read, but you didn't understand what you even wrote! you just claimed:
but I asked you to provide sufficient factual background about graphite based thermogenerators
and yet, written blatantly and clearly above, anyone who is literate can see that: No, you didn't! you stated
Could you provide at least ten links to various graphite based thermoelectric generators presented at the web?
and then, making it worse, but still explaining how you can't read or understand science or physics, you dig the hole deeper with
This is also the problem of mainstream physicists with cold fusion and overunity thing: because they're not familiar with its factual basis
how exactly do you get to overunity being plausible because the internet allows you to be duped?

you do know that you just proven both A_P and Me correct, right?

Merrit
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
Over unity, even if it existed, would be a bad thing. Just about as bad as under unity would be, maybe worse. The thing is, to date it has never been observed that a closed system gained nor lost energy. Hence unity, not over nor under unity. Any over unity event would likely result in the destruction of the entire universe. It would be an unstoppable increase in energy that would lead to infinite mass in at a point due to e = Mc squared and then you have the equivalent of a big bane. Thanks for wiping out all life on earth.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
The thing is, to date it has never been observed that a closed system gained nor lost energy
Only if we systematically ignore tons of previous reports of closed systems, which gained energy. Of course, until we would ignore them one after another, then every new anomaly report would be just a single evidence against many others, which is much easier to doubt. Pooof!

At the very end we can sit on the pile if not mountain of evidence and we'll still ignore it because we're caring just about these new ones (and we care about them just for their immediate dismissal). A boiled frog effect ensues.
Over unity, even if it existed, would be a bad thing.
Maybe yes, maybe not - the physics isn't about ethics but about facts. Their judging is on moralists and philosophers. But we shouldn't forget we ignore overunity for one century while we are still polluting environment and eradicate species including ourselves - needlessly.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
By the way God existed before money.
This is just another assumption without any deduction, which is deeply irrelevant to article subject in addition. Maybe it's right, maybe not - nothing to catch is here. Why are you telling us it right here? The people who aren't intelligent enough for to realize, they're off topic with their ideas wouldn't be probably intelligent enough even for deductions, which would be perfectly on topic (if they would indeed have some). Don't spread assumptions and religion - spread the deductions. The time must exist even in solely empty Universe without any facts. The logic of deduction defines the causality arrow of time, which is fundamental here.

Try reading Ancient Hieroglyphics written in stone. Earthlings are not intelligent and all this (i don't know what you call this $hit), is laughable.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
how exactly do you get to overunity being plausible because the internet allows you to be duped?
Being learned and able to sieve the facts from noise and wishful thinking. This is mental process not very different from spotting the order within random chaos - the primary point here is, the reproducibility of facts. What all these random facts have in common? Is there some causal gradient in it?
The situation is complicated not only by ostracizing and boycotting the researchers from the side of mainstream but also by greediness of researchers itself. The'll never tell you everything. But as far as the body of evidence is growing, we can spot some common points and causal gradients in otherwise random and independent findings. But it requires to become familiar with many of them at the same moment while having no warranty of immediate success. Which is the attitude, which mainstream science really hates. It's based on gradualist, but robust progress, not fishing in murky waters.
Merrit
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
@mackita overunity, besides likely destroying the planet, is also completely pointless. Earth is neither a closed system nor in equilibrium. All you need is renewable energy such as a solar panel. Trees get by just fine on solar energy. The only thing I can think of that can't be sustained on renewable energy would be rockets. Need to burn something to get unto space.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
All you need is renewable energy such as a solar panel. Trees get by just fine on solar energy
Trees are sustainable and recycling - solar panels are not. And for expansion into cosmic space you'll need some independent source of energy anyway. But again, this is about philosophy of facts, not about facts. I'd like to have some facts first - their handling is matter for another decisions.
From my perspective the overunity would be way better than the cold fusion for example - not because it's essentially sourceless, but because it cannot overheat the Earth at the case of extensive abuse (which would undoubtedly follow). It just speeds up the cooling of Earth if I understand it well. And of course, the risk of military and terrorist abuse of overunity will be way lower than at the case of cold fusion.

But is it all of it principally possible or just a delusion? This is what intrigues me by now.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
We also have macroscopic analogies of Maxwell demon devices, which would enable us to drain energy from random fluctuations.According to this study it should be possible with using of swastika shaped nanorotor. I also noted, that the ATP synthase resembles such a rotor, so in theory it could serve as a device for draining energy from vacuum fluctuations. If some way how to utilize energy of vacuum fluctuations would exist, then the evolution would already utilize it.
mackita
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
I'm aware its deeply speculative, but such an explanation could provide some clue to the famous breatharian controversy. For example Israeli television investigative show The Real Face (פנים אמיתיות) hosted Amnon Levy, Israeli practitioner of Inedia, Ray Maor (ריי מאור), who survived without food or water for eight days and eight nights. According to the documentary, he was restricted to a small villa and placed under constant video surveillance, with medical supervision that included daily blood testing. We can just ask, why these experiments weren't replicated in some peer-reviewed study. The way, in which mainstream science avoids anomalies gets really annoying: we are paying it just for it.
Merrit
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
@mackita here on earth renewable energy is better than fusion and overunity even if they existed. Renewable has zero waste. Fusion turns useful and important hydrogen into helium and overunity would increase the mass of the earth. Plus, overunity would likely fall into one of two categories if it existed. Either destructively powerful or prohibitively weak. Neither one being useful.
mackita
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
Renewable has zero waste
We discussed it extensively here (you may start with this article, for example). The renewables actually increase fossil fuel consumption on background, which is visible on both global statistics, both energy prices in the countries like Denmark, which utilize renewables the most. And renewable plants have limited life-time, so they must be renewed again and again. "Renewables" are just dream for people, who cannot calculate, but I don't want to discuss it here again. The physical existence of overunity is independent of economical feasibility of it or sustainability of renewables.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
overunity would increase the mass of the earth
It could actually decrease it by radiating it into space. For me the overunity utilizes the latent residual energy of matter remaining after incomplete explosion of supernovas. The fusion and fission utilize this latent energy by merging/splitting particles from inside the atoms, whereas the overunity does slowly the same from outside. We are just finishing the process which has been interrupted during supernova explosion too soon. It's not actual production of energy from nothing, just catalyzing the process by increasing the surface/dimensionality of it.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
ha, ha, ha, ha, ...
How can anyone use so many words to say nothing? You gotta be kidding, you left science long ago, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ush, ush, mmm
about 100 years ago. i couldn't help it, i was laughing so hard
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
complete idiots, with nothing, yet you act like you are wise, or worse, not wise but believe anything nonsensical. later you'll tell me particles exist in a separate reality, and that's why we've never found any, or time is moving backward that's why science is going backwards toward voodoo.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
The trend of science got really reversed and we can illustrate it with ducks observing the water surface with its own ripples. These ripples are fuzzy at proximity but at distance they will change into a regular circles. The modern physicists therefore don't care about human observer scale, because its too complex for them but with increasing distance scale the reality becomes gradually simpler and easier to describe with formal equations. So that they got an impression, the more math, the more progress (mathematical universe, shut up and calculate!). Unfortunately the technological progress enabled us to observe the distance scales, where this trend gets reversed and the formal (LQG, SuSy, stringy) theorists got doomed again. The contemporary science looks fuzzy and fragmented, because this is simply how the hyperdimensional reality looks like: no spheres and clean waves - just fuzzy clouds.
Merrit
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
@mackita even if overunity was real, you have no idea the cost of production or the amount of energy it will produce. Wind and solar will likely be more cost efficient. Also, there is no knowing the life expectancy of overunity when it doesn't even exist. Not to mention the cost of RND for a technology that may never be discovered. Why bother even thinking about magic fairy dust when we have real clean renewable energy today.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
@zeph
Being learned and able to sieve the facts from noise and wishful thinking
you do realise that you've just proven you can't do that, right?
hell, you can't even sieve the facts from your own comments!
the primary point here is, the reproducibility of facts
by who's standard? Your own?
because the one thing you've not produced is actual facts supporting things like overunity (AKA Perpetual motion) or aether

the *facts* show aether doesn't exist, yet you still claim it does! that isn't sieving facts from noise so much as it's clinging to a belief despite the evidence, which is either religion or delusoin: you pick
greediness of researchers itself.
right! because there are so many millionaire scientist researchers that we...
Oh wait! you're full of sh*t and reaching for anyone you can to blame for your epic failure!
right
nevermind!
LOL

the rest of your BS post is your attempt to justify your belief because you don't have evidence

nothing more
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
@zeph - here: let me prove to you that you are religious, not scientifically literate: you said
It could actually decrease it by radiating it into space. For me the overunity utilizes the latent residual energy of matter remaining after incomplete explosion of supernovas
where are the "sieved facts"?
there are none

where is the proof that overunity/perpetual motion is possible?
none

evidence that it has been done or is reproducible?
none

web pages exist?
too many, with too many claims that have never once in history been reproduced

conclusion:
you believe
you admit this when you state "For me the overunity utilizes the latent residual energy of matter"

so it's not about facts, following the evidence or even objective observation
it's all about what you believe and what *you think* makes sense *to you*
Now read this: https://www.damni...e-of-it/

it perfectly describes exactly what you're doing above

'nuff said
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
even if overunity was real, you have no idea the cost of production or the amount of energy it will produce
Of course, but this is different matter. But I'm getting increasingly optimistic - for example this professor is talking about graphene based generators, which would produce 100 kWatt/square meter of graphene. This guy demonstrates few watts from square feet of graphite routinely (albeit some electrochemistry may be still involved). Such a situation simply calls for replications instead of further doubts and speculations.
Merrit
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
@mackita those are not examples of overunity. They are actually turning heat or brownian motion into energy. Assuming they actually work. Heat is another source of energy that would be nice if we could efficiently convert onto useful energy.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
The problem is, these devices generate electricity even when their temperature remains the same, like environmental temperature - which is what thermodynamic law prohibits. Assuming they actually work as presented on videos. I've theory about it, which is based on the fact that thermal fluctuations depend on number of dimensions where they apply. If you heat narrow filament of layer, then the atoms would wiggle along its length more than in another constrained directions. Therefore such a wire would behave like hotter at its ends while it will remain cooler along its length. So you can drain the energy from its ends. Once you make wire/plane less asymmetric or even spherical, then the effect disappears.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
There are another more conventional explanations, like that the materials absorbs and/or reemits infrared background radiation, which has spectral maximum corresponding higher temperature, than the temperature of environment (providing that the room has colored walls which block the radiation of certain wavelength). But what we need to decide is are additional experiments - not just doubts and skeptic discussions.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
All these discussions are merely an riveted dust that hinders the perception of the true image of any event and occurrence. Can any one of you explain the phenomenon: when a variable magnetic field crosses the conductor, who is the one who instills the electrons to move through that conductor? Or, the second question, but in connection with this phenomenon: if you have a closed circle of electricity flow from a hydro turbine to a consumer, from where do all the electrons flowing through the conductor come in and whether they are electrons that are only in the conductor?
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
Who forms the magnetic field around the conductor through which the current flows?
What do you think, this can happen without the presence of Aether? If you find the answer here, you will get a clearer riddle about heat, time, and other enigmas. If you do not know, I will vow to cry, but I know that among you there are those who will in their anger, even to call this IDIOTIAN MANEVER.
I am also sorry for the sciences and those who do not want and can not understand the existence of the substance AETHER.
Merrit
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
@milnik there is an aether. Empty space is not actually empty. Scientists just don't call it aether. Quantum mechanics has the creation of virtual particles in a vacuum so that it is a medium of sorts. Likely has something to do with the non zero universal constant and dark energy.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
The trend of science got really reversed and we can illustrate it with ducks observing the water surface with its own ripples. These ripples are fuzzy at proximity but at distance they will https://i.imgur.com/Hbex3I8.jpg about human observer scale, because its too complex for them but with increasing distance scale the reality becomes gradually simpler and easier to describe with formal equations. So that they got an impression, the more math, the more progress (mathematical universe, shut up and calculate!). Unfortunately the technological progress enabled us to observe the distance scales, where this trend gets reversed and the formal (LQG, SuSy, stringy) theorists got doomed again. The contemporary science looks fuzzy and fragmented, because this is simply how the hyperdimensional reality looks like: no spheres and clean waves - just fuzzy clouds.

nonsense
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
@milnik there is an aether. Empty space is not actually empty. Scientists just don't call it aether. Quantum mechanics has the creation of virtual particles in a vacuum so that it is a medium of sorts. Likely has something to do with the non zero universal constant and dark energy.

There is no empty space, the field of each charge fills eternity. QM is not science!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
The spamming of the EUdiots and free energy scammers, #physicscranks all. Some with an illicit profit motive, others trying to deny they were scammed. It's amusing to watch people who have spent thousands of dollars try to justify the expenditure when they can't make what they bought work. They choose to believe they didn't do it right. The data says it doesn't work. Simple as that.
mackita
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2017
Your resistance is futile: EU Project Aether has a new website and it saves energy and life environment. Eat it!
mackita
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2017
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
The spamming of the EUdiots and free energy scammers, #physicscranks all. Some with an illicit profit motive, others trying to deny they were scammed. It's amusing to watch people who have spent thousands of dollars try to justify the expenditure when they can't make what they bought work. They choose to believe they didn't do it right. The data says it doesn't work. Simple as that.

Wow, another thinker. I didn't know one existed!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
Sorry, @mac, we've seen lots of Russian free energy #physicscranks and ignored them all.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2017
I see, ignorant who is proud of his ignorance.. Western world was always ignorant to ideas & findings, once it couldn't smell money behind it. The Russians are prone to ideologies, which have no economical substance instead. It would be great to balance it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
@mac, ignoring #physicscranks isn't "ignorance." It's mental hygiene.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2017
Graphite, quartz and rubber based solid state electric generator. Generated voltage 0.6 - 0.9 V, current ~ 1 mA / 0.4 gram (YT video 1, 2, 3)
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2017
Ermanno also promotes an OLED table lamp which doesn't require an apparent external power (TV show). Note that his cell generates as noisy output, as famous Steorn Orbo battery, which was based on graphite/electret wax mixture. The quartz is also piezoelectric so it probably serves as an electret as well.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2017
I don't see any point in this. If anyone actually made a device that produces power from nothing, the first thing to do is write a paper and collect the Nobel Prize in Physics. Somehow this "T" never gets crossed, though.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2017
Schneib: It's not surprising, that people who ignore actual contemporary physics also have no idea, how the contemporary science and society is actually (not) working.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2017
Everything moves slowly towards what I'm saying.
AETHER ABSOLUTE POSTOJI !!
Science invented and gave names to phenomena that they can not explain because they do not believe in the existence of Aether. So they invented the virtual particles that occur when they change the particle velocity and increase the magnetic field strength, and are unaware that the AETHER particle is in it all. And quantum mechanics is an area for hiding everything that can be explained by the appearance of Aether.
And I can make PERPETUUM MOBILE, without any share of energy. Only using natural magnets and wire windings. There are many experiments where even non-electricians create such a device that works without any kind of energy introduced (bulbs, fans, etc.). It can work forever and anywhere in space. WHY? Because AETHER is the basis for everything.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2017
Do you agree to nominate me to the Nobel Committee to explain the role of AETHER in the universe, and then the power on our planet will change everything.
In the universe there is infinitely much energy that can be obtained by "agreeing" with AETHER, how to deal with it. It does not matter whether I will receive the Nobel Prize, but it is certain, when it is understood that many awards will lose value.
A natural magnet could not have this trait that it was not "submerged" in Aether as well as all matter in the infinite universe. The magnet (gluons in it, and the most influential neutrons) forms magnetic forces with the aether. Since this is not the place here, because here's the biggest prize, be called -IDIOT.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2017
@Schneib,
There is no empty space in the universe, but there is a space without matter. All that is "empty" as the science says, it's AETHER, for which science has no evidence, because everyone has driven it out of science, and Aether's place has moved into this area for its favorite: virtual particles, dark energy and matter, gravitons, tachyons, and many particles they get in experiments, but they do not know that Aether has formed them in a primitive manner.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2017
And I can make PERPETUUM MOBILE, without any share of energy. Only using natural magnets and wire windings.
That's great - but how can you prove it right here? Once you cannot, then such an information is irrelevant for poor readers of this very forum. We should discuss here only things, which everyone of us can verify independently. From this reason I'm also sending here one link after another one. The discussion about Aether is also irrelevant here, once you cannot provide any independently verifiable connection of this concept to time reversal or relative time arrow in quantum mechanics, which is subject of this thread.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Dec 06, 2017
sick and wishful nonscientific fodder
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2017
I had a neighbor who fell for the Water for fuel, hydrogen power, free energy scam. He managed to ruin the engine on his truck, when he installed the bogus devices. As I walk past his house, I can see the ruined vehicle squatting there. Slowly eroding into rust and rotting tires.

If, if there was any chance at all that these free energy frauds had any basis in reality? All those landsharks at the Wall Street Casino would snap up control from you gullible losers. And stop wasting their sucker clienteles wealth on the petroleum industry. Just like they smarten up and stopped wasting funding on the coal industry.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2017
@mackita,
how does current flow in conductors occur, in general?
There are two basic ways: by chemical means, when using various metals and acids, you force electrons or ions to move between anodes and cathodes, and another way is to rotate a magnet whose silences cut through the conductors in which the electrical current is induced. What is it that instills electrons in the conductor to move through the conductor, or there is another cause that brings these electrons out of it?
It is a secret that can solve all of the dilemmas and riddles in the scientific community that we have so far.
Therefore, it is not a place to make a solution, but only a remark that this can be done with a completely new understanding of the structure of the universe and the knowledge of how and from what the matter forms.
Shortly: You heard about the gluon, but the science did not explain how it was formed and from what, and what all that gluon can do in nature.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2017
It is essential that there is no neutron without a gluon (here you have to think deeply about what it means). and without the neutron in the chemical elements, magnetism can not occur. And what is magnetism? It is formed by gluons and AETHER. You can all start the "Third World War" against the existence of Aether, but it will be futile for you, because the understanding of the existence of Aether is growing.
From what scientists and how do they get some subatomic particles in the collision of one another, protons, neutrons, electrons? This takes place in the "empty pipes" of the collider.
Can a proton get a new particle 200 times the proton, or how can the gamma ray have energy from a few kilograms to several billion?
Think about it, because I gave you quite good basics to change the mind about the structure of the universe and about matter and its origins.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2017
And what is magnetism? It is formed by gluons and AETHER
Gluons exist only inside the atom nuclei - this opinion is silly even by PO forum measures, the IQ of which is already negative.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2017
@mackita,
If this is my opinion silly, then you are ignorant of which protons and neutrons are made. Especially your incomprehension is how neutrons arise, and let's not talk about the formation of gluons and their role in the entire energy state of the universe, from photons, plasma, magnetism, and the formation of celestial bodies from magnetists to stars like ours Sun.
There may be a gluon outside the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom, when we observe the atoms. ? So it's not clear to you how the atoms are formed. It is not a miracle, because science has not understood it, nor will it ever be understood if it ignores the structure of the universe. Perhaps you have a new model with which you will form a new type of universe.?
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2017
Milnik: Magnetism is generated also by electrons, and they don't contain any gluons. In addition, you're off-topic. This is my last comment in this regard.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2017
Why there are so many uncertainties and wrong theories in science? Because science has not understood what is fundamental in nature, and that is that everything visible in the universe must be formed from something and not from anything, as confirmed by the appearance of a monster BB.
It's not clear to you that this is what we are discussing with an old relationship with the existence of AETHER, as the gluons have a terrible strong relationship with quarks from which they form protons and positrons, and especially electrons and positrons, but, unfortunately, you are not aware of it.
Magnetism arises as an "arrangement" of the gluon with Aether, and gluons are formed by the annihilation of electrons and positrons.
Learn this before abandoning a discussion in which you do not understand the basic thing that formed the Spiritual entity of the universe.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 07, 2017
@zeph
We should discuss here only things, which everyone of us can verify independently. From this reason I'm also sending here one link after another one
posting a random internet link or a youtube video to "verify independently" is like posting a picture of a random shoe to prove you don't have chlamydia

if there was a way to make power from nothing and actually prove it, as you are implying with your "one link after another one", then there would be a revolution and you would be collecting a nobel as well as trillions from nations begging to have your patent

so again: you've proven that you accept any random youtube video or internet claim simply because you can find more than one person making that claim

that isn't knowledge - that's pseudoscience

and ignoring your pseudoscience is not ignorance - it's proof of knowledge if anything

we've discussed this already, and yet still you persist as though you're the only one with knowledge
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 07, 2017
@zeph
It's not surprising, that people who ignore actual contemporary physics also have no idea, how the contemporary science and society is actually (not) working.
you're the only one who is ignoring contemporary physics and science, otherwise you would be anti-aether as well as anti-pseudoscience (like overunity and perpetual motion)

what you have just demonstrated, repeatedly, in the above thread as well as all over PO:
The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone's skill in that space, including their own. When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well. As a result, the incompetent will tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities.


https://www.damni...e-of-it/
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2017
What you say is indeed correct - the problem is, it could be easily applied to you, once you start to ignore way too many recent findings. I linked here quite a few INDEPENDENT examples of graphene thermogenerators (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) which work at room temperature and you can indeed ignore them all one after another - but the general trend speaks for me. These announcements are gradually getting more and more rigorous and they get publicity even in mainstream press... So that at the end it may be just you who is demonstrating Dunning-Krueger effect - not me. Time will tell us soon.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2017
And of course, we are still talking about only one very specific and simple type of "perpetuum mobile" based on graphite. But the #crackpot# literature knows literally hundreds of another less or more intricate "fuel-less generators", which are still silently waiting in queue for their recognition. Once we confirm reliably just one type of overunity in scientific tests, then the main argument, that these devices cannot exist because they violate thermodynamic time arrow would become unsustainable.. We already have published many examples of Maxwell demons and time reversal from quantum mechanics in less or more rigorous arrangement - so I'd be very cautious in this reasoning. The mainstream physicists will not protect your religion, once they realize, that they could get some publications and grants about it... They're indeed still cautious and conservative - but they also look for some good evasion of subsidization of further research.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 07, 2017
@zeph
the problem is, it could be easily applied to you, once you start to ignore way too many recent findings
I predicted you would say this, and you just couldn't help yourself! ...LMFAO
So that at the end it may be just you who is demonstrating Dunning-Krueger effect - not me. Time will tell us soon
you've been saying this for years and to date you have yet to be proven right about anything - especially your overunity, perpetual motion, cold fusion or aether
And of course, we are still talking about only one very specific and simple type of "perpetuum mobile" based on graphite
- there is no "we"
only you
Once we confirm reliably just one type of overunity in scientific tests
and again: you've been making this claim for years

but this specific pseudoscience overunity argument has been around for centuries and not once in all that time has anyone ever created any overunity perpetual motion device

not once
ever

believing doesn't make it real, zeph
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2017
This is symmetric: believing in the opposite also doesn't make it unreal... QuantaMagnetics now tests prototype of graphite polymer power rack. This unit is backed up by large supercapacitor. Those who know about supercapacitors know, they have quite large discharge rate, so that the graphite units must be able to compensate it. You can buy it separately
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2017
Anomalous Dynamical Behavior of Freestanding Graphene Membranes Nanoscale Mechanical Drumming Visualized by 4D Electron Microscopy - video Well, it moves itself... Since the energy would be collected over a wide band of heat energy, the power available would probably be of the order of 10-100W/m² and I'd expect to have somewhere of the order of 5% efficiency, so we're probably talking of a delivered power of 0.5-5W/m², but this would be delivered 24/7.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2017
A hard-boiled egg that's reheated in the microwave could explode when you bite into it or prick it with your fork, and a new study shows that this may happen up to a third of the time. But from perspective of entropic time arrow the local time waits inside such an eggs, thus becoming relative. In my theory of overunity, this is just the moment, where the negentropic phenomena may apply. For example vacuum fluctuations can force the egg to overcome activation barrier and to burst spontaneously. The energy of vacuum fluctuations exerted into it will remain added value of the whole process, once we fully recycle the energy of egg burst in another heating cycle.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2017
The cooking of eggs in microwave oven is apparently rather impractical way of vacuum energy utilization. But for example the utilization of hidden boil during cavitation can be considered a conceptually very similar process and it runs repeatedly many times. The bubble formation isn't fully spontaneous, because of activation barrier of surface tension required for nucleation of bubble. This is just the moment where the vacuum energy can assist the external energy. Once the bubble gets finally formed, the pressure will be released so that the bubble will collapse again and the external energy introduced into bubble formation can get recycled. The energy introduced by vacuum fluctuations into bubble formation will represent the pure yield of the cavitation cycle. The cavitation heaters gain interest because of their claimed overunity.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2017
This animation illustrates the above phenomenon by so-called stochastic resonance. Stochastic resonance (SR) is a phenomenon where a signal that is normally too weak to be detected by a sensor, can be boosted by adding white noise to the signal, which contains a wide spectrum of frequencies. An overdamped particle in a periodically oscillating double-well potential is subjected to Gaussian white noise, which induces transitions between the potential wells. We again have cyclic process which has activation barrier assisted by random noise. Further, the added white noise can be filtered out of signal to effectively detect the original, previously undetectable signal. This phenomenon extends to many other systems - whether electromagnetic, physical or biological - and is an area of intense research.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2017
@mackita,
All that you have put forward, and even all of the scientific puzzles and nebuloses so far can be explained, if the existence of Aether and his relationship and relation with certain "aggregate" states of matter are considered. You've also made perpetuum mobile and an effort to achieve it in science. Who understands the relationship between the substance AETHER, with quarks and gluons, it will see that it implies the processes of continuous movement between the magnetic forces of the magnet and Aether, which is filled with quarks and gluons themselves. And ordinary people without any knowledge of the magnetism properties can make perpetuum mobile (magnet, copper wire spinning spindle or small fan).
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2017
This is about what science is struggling to achieve a cold fusion, is not a good or real undertaking. When science finds out how a hydrogen atom and a helium atom form from it, it will be clear to them that this way can not form an uninterrupted process of fusion without radiation. There are other simpler ways to get free energy "nothing from."
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2017
Aether model as such doesn't provide any explanation for overunity. Before Einstein people used to think about vacuum like about sparse thin gas which pervades space. Such a thin gas supports only longitudinal waves, which cannot violate time arrow (and which are indeed breaking Lorentz invariance, which is what Michelson-Morley experiment disproved). But the light waves are transverse waves, so that this naive model doesn't fit even Helmholz/Hertz observations and Maxwell equations.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2017
Science only believes in what can be proved by the experiment, but why it does not serve the intuitive knowledge from which it will find the way to prove such a secret and experimentally. Each of us human beings has his dreams that no one could record with the camera today, and in words and writing it can not be explained. So I know what is magnetism and gravity and can explain many phenomena, which science is not able to find out.
The movement of Earth and moons is similar to that of a photon. How ? For this I have formulas, but none of the scientific institutions wants to make it a very important thing, but everyone asks me to pay for it, like when I give an ad to sell an old car.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2017
The movement of Earth and moons is similar to that of a photon
You just replaced one off topic subject with another one, even more distant from subject. What are you about to bring next time? No doubt that mainstream science just wants to be heard despite it has nothing to say about subject - but are you really way better?
milnik
1 / 5 (1) 21 hours ago
@mackita,
You'll see, when there's a chance to publish it.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) 16 hours ago
Air-eating bacteria found in Antarctica. The discovery of bacteria that can live on trace gases from atmospheric hydrogen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide in the atmosphere changes the possibilities for extraterrestrial life.
Maybe these bacteria utilize energy of vacuum fluctuations directly, as proposed above.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.