AbstractDreamer

Senior Members
  • Content count

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About AbstractDreamer

  • Rank
    Atom

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical physics

Recent Profile Visitors

2490 profile views
  1. Nuclear Fusion

    Well my point was about comparing the scale of solar panels required as the problem, compared with the technology of fusion required. Pulling some random figures out of air.... building solar panels spanning 1 million km square, or a £4 trillion orbiting fusion reactor (that hasn't been invented yet... unless the vacuum problem can be solved with building the thing in space!) So far as getting the energy back to earth is concerned, how about geosynchronous orbiting laser firing energy back to earth? It would be easier to attach a fusion reactor to this than some vast array of solar panels.
  2. Nuclear Fusion

    Well on that point, which is more practical: a fusion reactor satellite in orbit around the earth, or solar panels in space? Assuming the problem with energy transfer is the same for both systems. Perhaps, the planet sized fusion reactor solution is better suited to interstellar travel. Good point on centrifuge. Ok lets turn it around... On the point of fusion,... a Shell of deuterium, inside of which protons are centrifuged into fusing with the shell. I'm guessing deuterium is liquid near absolute zero, but will be gaseous near the reaction plasma. So a liquid body of deuterium with protons in the core, spun to create centrifugal induced fusion. On the point of confinement, I'd have to speculate on quantum anti-centrifugal forces https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0108069.pdf Apparently, possible either with negative energies with a delta-function potential, or with positive energy with vanishing angular momentum, in a two dimensional eigenstate space.
  3. Nuclear Fusion

    Just read an article on nuclear fusion http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-china-blog-43792655 while eating my oatmeal porridge I drifted off with wild fantasies of imaginations, which needed some more knowledgeable people to ratify or ridicule. If leakage is a problem, why not just build it in space? Nature worked this out a long time ago! What about using the center of a gravitational well to mitigate the electromagnetic cost to confine the reaction. Is there a planet or moon with center that is plausibly cool and low enough pressure in which to build a reactor, but of sufficient mass to be significant in confining the plasma? Can also use the body mass itself as the actual walls of the reactor, to both absorb and to transfer the output energy? The body might be slowly destroyed and consumed eventually over time, but that's a problem for the next eon. A planet-eating fusion reactor is cool! What about centrifugal forces as an supplement to electromagnetism in fusion confinement? Is it more efficient or precise to control an object's rotational motion to control a fusion reaction, than do achieve the same result with electromagnetic fields? So the plasma is "spun", not just "squashed". Are lasers only required to produce high symmetry with the fusing particles, to make it the reaction more precise and easier to contain? It is possible to generate enough centrifugal force to fuse a deuterium nucleus and a proton? Say a large mass of deuterium with protons in centrifuge around it, increasing the energy in the protons until some start to fuse? How do you impart angular momentum to an object in a vacuum, with nothing to "push back against"? Stored chemical energy in rocket fuel can be released with exhaust, but what if the object is atomic sized? Is the artificial gravity from centrifuge only a relative force, and not something "real" that might affect fusion? Maybe the answer lies not in precision, but in scale. A moon-sized fusion reactor, in the vacuum of space, near absolute zero temperature environment orbiting in the permanent shadow of a planet. The reaction occurs at the very center. The body's mass is used both as a natural shield and as the structure used to house the lasers, electromagnets, and energy collection. Brain dump over, I'm late for work.
  4. Is the Universe infinite?

    But for the many theories of quantum mechanics that are correct or not, that describe interactions of the forces, and have useful applications; these models are not dependent on the absence of non-local interactions. To state that no information is transferred during entanglement decoherence is an assumption that, either true or false, does not contradict the principles of quantum theory. I did not mean to imply that quantum theory is incorrect, neither is that my argument. What I'm trying to say is: Is it possible the universe may have an infinite number of sizes, with respect to coherent states, depending on the boundaries of the volume in question at a specific time.
  5. Is the Universe infinite?

    That is a conclusion, based off a theorem, underpinned by a number of assumptions, one being that no non-local influences are at play. But you didn't address the main point, which is about the difference between the size of the observable universe, and one that it is in a coherent state.
  6. Is the Universe infinite?

    If, a long time ago, a quantum entangled pair of photons were separated such that, presently, one photon is outside the observable universe for an observer and another is measured in a specific orientation by that observer, does that mean information can travel beyond the observable universe? Can the reverse be true? If locality is violated, surely then it’s possible that the interactable universe is far larger than the observable universe?
  7. Questions on Bell's Theorem

    I'm not trying to have it both ways. Can you explain what you mean? Frankly, its difficult to comprehend many of your responses, and how they might correlate to questions i had asked. At the same time, its hard to know whether you have misunderstood what I'm trying to say, or simply way ahead of the conversation. You certainly don't make it easy to follow your train of thought. On the other hand, I have tried to answer each of your responses directly, all the while having no idea what you really asked or what I'm really saying. I'm suggesting alternatives in direct response to your questions. Can you explain why non-locality falsifies probability information, or can you explain or show me where I can review the proof for this? Had you said locality is dead in the water at the start, we might have saved a lot of time. However the probability function is not dependent on locality. Though i had hoped that locality was not dead in the water. I explained possible solutions in my previous post and in my OP, in the attempt to reconcile locality. I Indeed i raised the question about the conservation law with respect to how accurately direction can be measured, which you haven't answered. How can you expect me to answer your questions if you do not answer mine? How can i do anything but make further speculations? But if locality is dead in the water, I guess there's no point trying to explain how probability function might work with locality. On the other hand, if action-at-a-distance is the only alternative, then anything goes to be honest. If there are any relevant sources of information that i can access, that would be useful. I really wanted to stay on track with Bell's Theorem and why it might or might not be appropriate for it to pre-assign expected combinations of values to an entangled pair. Also I would like to review the QM interpretation as you suggested in #7, and how it uses a known function to explain the violation of Bell's inequalities.
  8. Is this equation right?

    Apparently archaea can metabolise this reaction. Have no idea if the article is correct. Its very vague. http://www.zdnet.com/article/h2o-co2-ch4-thanks-to-archaeans/
  9. Questions on Bell's Theorem

    I don't know, I'm trying not to speculate, because really I have not the slightest idea. I was hoping you would give me some ideas how this is possible, rather than the other way around. Surely I'm not the first to think along these lines. But the most obvious way is that there is no transmission of information. Perhaps the information is created at the same time the entangled pair is created? Without any need for communication beyond the moment of separation/creation, each particle has the information it needs - the hidden probability function - ??stored in some inner dimension?? The measurement is only simultaneous, if you measure it at the same time. The probability information could be always there, whether a measure is made or not. An orientation variable (which could be local or global) and an internally local probability function is maybe all you need. When a measurement is made in the same direction, which necessitates an opposing measure, then a global orientation variable might need to be referenced i guess. But that would not demand superdeterminism nor action-at-a-distance, because neither the global variable, nor the local probability function is solely responsible for determining the measure. I'm making stuff up now. Alternatively, is it even possible to exactly measure direction to be the same to such precision as to violate conservation of energy, IF measurements made "very close" to the same direction were found to have the same spin?
  10. Questions about Time

    Apparently information can change position without advancement in time. IF you prescribe to action-at-a-distance interpretation of QM.
  11. Questions on Bell's Theorem

    The information could have been available to both particles at all times (hidden probability function). Since it could have, why cant it be local? Why must information have to be communicated at the last moment instantaneously? Surely preserving locality agrees with relativity more than action-at-a-distance? I guess the difference is the known one implies action-at-a-distance and faster-than-light information spanning the entire universe instantaneously; and the hidden probability preserves locality and agrees with relativity. How would I test for this? I don't know I'm not a physicist. I watched a You-tube video and it was apparent to me there was something wrong with the application of Bell's Theory. So I tried to put my thoughts into something coherent, and ask people that know better.
  12. WHAT IF SOLAR CAME BEFORE COAL

    how could anything other than coal and oil drive an industrial revolution?
  13. WHAT IF SOLAR CAME BEFORE COAL

    Addressed. The links were to put relevance to my comments. The portability of chemical energy in coal, and the utility of oil and all its refined derivatives makes it surpass any alternative. You would need advanced battery technology to make solar power portable. Any country choosing solar over coal or oil would fall behind in the industrial revolution.
  14. Questions on Bell's Theorem

    The local function is not indeterminate. I have given an example of what it could be, though admitted not in any proper form (only as a probability). Only i have no idea if it fits QM results, its just a loose demonstration. Along any arbitrary orientation/axis/dimension/direction/pole, one entangled electron could have a variable: [math] P_{up}=\cos ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) P_{down}=\sin ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) [/math] and its entangled partner would have [math] P_{up}=\sin ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) P_{down}=\cos ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) [/math] Where [math] \alpha [/math] is the angle of measure relative to the axis, and P is the probability of being measured in that state. Not sure I understand. The state is a probability function before measurement, so i guess in that sense its not a hidden variable. But what does this have to do with QM being incompatible with locality? Again I don't quite understand. If the particle is measured to be in a certain state [uP], then clearly it could be a different result than if it was not determined (then it could then be [uP] or [DOWN]). Again, how does this make QM irreconcilable with locality Where can I review the QM calculations? The probabilities I describe above allows detectors in the same orientation. In such a situation [math]\alpha=0 [/math] or [math]\pi [/math] the entangled pairs will always be in opposing states. "if electronA is measured at and electronB is measured at then electronA will show 100% UP 0% DOWN and electronB will show 100% DOWN 0% UP" , that is, they will certainly be opposed. Similary for [math] \alpha=\pi [/math] For detectors at different angles: for any single pair of entangled waves/particles you can arbitrarily reset the orientation of the axis. If you don't measure either particle, then their states are not defined. You can similarly see the correlation with a <hidden> probabilistic function, no? That's what I'm trying to say, why do you need action-at-a-distance, if locality can preserved? Surely, I thought, given the two options, preserving locality is a preferable stance to action-at-a-distance?
  15. WHAT IF SOLAR CAME BEFORE COAL

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_power_station The initially developed reciprocating steam engine has been used to produce mechanical power since the 18th Century, with notable improvements being made by James Watt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power The early development of solar technologies starting in the 1860s was driven by an expectation that coal would soon become scarce. However, development of solar technologies stagnated in the early 20th century in the face of the increasing availability, economy, and utility of coal and petroleum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropowerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower In India, water wheels and watermills were built[when?]; in Imperial Rome, water powered mills produced flour from grain, and were also used for sawing timber and stone; in China, watermills were widely used since the Han dynasty. In China and the rest of the Far East, hydraulically operated "pot wheel" pumps raised water into crop or irrigation canals.[when?] Cragside in Northumberland was the first house powered by hydroelectricity in 1878[1] and the first commercial hydroelectric power plant was built at Niagara Falls in 1879. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power Wind power has been used as long as humans have put sails into the wind. For more than two millennia wind-powered machines have ground grain and pumped water. The first windmill used for the production of electric power was built in Scotland in July 1887 So wind power or water power came first, then thermal (coal/wood), then solar. Cant imagine it any other way, order based on utility of coal/oil, and tech advancement. No doubt fire came before all that "Fire! Jane! Uggh! Photovoltaic cells to harness the power of the sun to convert renewable solar energy to electricity! Fire! Jane! Ughh!"