AbstractDreamer

How do you have momentum without mass? Do all massless particles have the same energy? Will a gamma ray photon have greater gravitational effect than visible light photon? If gravity propagates at the speed of light, from a photon travelling at the speed of light, how does this effect the gravitational field created by the massless excitation in the electromagnetic field?

How do you remove the presence of an electromagnetic or gravitational field from a macroscopic or microscopic test environment, or rather how can you prove that the value of the charge or gravity is locally zero? Let's take electromagnetism. Any test on Earth or close by will be subject at the very least to the Earth's magnetic field. If you create a shielded volume, how do you measure and prove there is no charge inside? Must any device that measures electromagnetic field interact with the field itself and potentially change it? Let's take gravity. Any test involving mass-ive equipment will be subject to gravity. Can you actually observe an absolute certain measurement for gravity, or only calculate it - is it subject to the uncertainty principle? Is gravity quantum? If the strength of a gravitational field is proportional to inverse square of distance between your measuring device and the object, then is the value of the gravitational field really zero in some deepest parts of space where there is no mass anywhere within a distance that creates an excitation in the gravity field of 1q other than the device you are measuring with?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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/

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?

Apparently information can change position without advancement in time. IF you prescribe to action-at-a-distance interpretation of QM.

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.

how could anything other than coal and oil drive an industrial revolution?

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.

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?

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!"

Im not sure if the following analogy is appropriate: The state of the electron, is analogous to the location of a particle in the double-slit-experiment. The hidden variable (state-function) is analogous to the wave function. The state is determined probabilistically by the state-function and orientation. Analogous to the location determined probabilistically by the wave-function and direction. So call it a hidden variable or call it an discoverable function. The point is QM and Locality are not mutually exclusive. I don't think it is different, I'm not sure. I used information in the video and interpreted it. The video presents it differently - confusingly. However I cant be certain that my formulas would give the same results as QM. They were just loose examples to demonstrate the idea of a probabilistic function. But then why does QM imply action-at-a-distance?

Honestly, I'm not aware of the precise details of the different types of experiments. All I have is the pop-science material that is easy to hand such as You-tube, and various linked websites I found. I'm certainly conflating material that I've come across. My ideas only really apply to the experiment presented in You-Tube video at the top of my post, but I hope to have put enough detail in to get my point across. Whether or not they can be generalised across the other experiments, I simply haven't done enough research to comment. Thank you for helping. PS i have just edited photons to electrons in my main post.

got me stumped

bah details just add another water molecule!

Methane from water and carbon dioxide? Cool! You would have 2O2 left over i think. And you would need something to "make it happen"

At first I would like to ask if i understand this topic. ref: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/ https://youtu.be/ZuvK-od647c So Bell's Theorem essentially claims to disprove the existence of hidden local variables in entangled photons/electrons; and it concludes that action-at-a-distance is present (or superdeterminism, global variables). Per experiment, by "repeating the procedure over and over" (4:38) and considering the expected unequal distribution of frequencies (6:31) as if there were hidden variables (Bell's inequalities) or "hidden plans" (5:00), and comparing them to the actual recorded distribution of results that are obtained (6:37), these results show that Bell's inequalities are violated. Experimentally, these actual distributions consistently violate Bell's inequalities and also consistently follow Quantum Mechanics "action at a distance". So my problem is with how these hidden variables are modeled (and thus seemingly always in disagreement with results). They seem to be modeled classically, as if there is some explicit agreement between entangled pairs to precisely (classical precision) what values to hold. That is, for instance, electronA "plans" with electronB: "if we are measured like <such and such>..." (in particular, explicit but different directions) "..then I will show definitely UP and you will show definitely UP" or another plan such as "if we are measured in the same direction, then I will show definitely UP and you will show definitely DOWN". Then the experimenter exposes these plans through frequency analysis of all the possible explicit combinations of hidden variables (6:08), and finds that no such plans can exist. But these electrons are modeled classically as if their hidden variables must explicitly and definitively describe one state or other in a certain measurement. If there is anything I have learnt, it is that before anything is measured nothing is certain (superposition, wavefunction etc). That includes any "hidden plans" or "hidden variables" that entangled electrons might be have. So my conclusion then is that why is it not possible for entangled pairs to have uncertain hidden variables, and that these variables are orientated, symmetrical, opposing, and probabilistic in nature? The orientation allows the pair to agree on a frame of reference with respect to direction (actually this variable need not be uncertain or implicit). The symmetry ensures all arbitrary orientations are equivalent. The opposing nature ensures that when a measurement is made in the same direction, it is certain that the result will be opposite. The probabilistic nature of the hidden variables is such that the distribution of frequencies that the experimenters see are a direct measure of this probable nature! E.G. 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. Given that the pair agree on orientation, they are inherently, mutually, symmetrically, opposingly certain when measured along any same arbitrary axis; and internally, symmetrically, opposingly probabilistic otherwise. That is, arbitrarily orientated, the hidden plan could be: "if electronA is measured at [math]\alpha=0[/math] and electronB is measured at [math]\alpha=\frac{\pi}{3} [/math] then electronA will show 100% UP 0% DOWN and electronB will show 25% DOWN 75% UP". They could show both UP if measured at such angles. After many measurements, the individual discrepancies balance out and a probability pattern emerges; and it is this probability that experimenters are comparing to frequency distribution expectations (as long as they are opposing when they must be opposed, such as when measured in the same direction). "if electronA is measured at [math]\alpha=0[/math] and electronB is measured at [math]\alpha=\pi [/math] then electronA will show 100% UP 0% DOWN and electronB will show 0% DOWN 100% UP" "if electronA is measured at [math]\alpha=\frac{\pi}{4}[/math] and electronB is measured at [math]\alpha=\frac{\pi}{2} [/math] then electronA will show 85.35% UP 14.64% DOWN and electronB will show 50% DOWN 50% UP" That is, the electron's themselves do not know precisely what state/value they will be measured at - there's no explicit plan/variable. But they might have an implicit hidden function/variable that tells them how likely they will be measured in any state relative to a given orientation. And it is this likeliness, over repeated measurements, that consistently violates Bell's inequalities! Over many electron pairs, the recorded distribution of frequencies simply describe the hidden probability function and not any hidden explicit values. So to me, Bell's inequality of expected frequency distribution only apply when the hidden variables are explicit. If the hidden variables are implicitly described through a probability function, then violation of Bell's inequality is only proof against explicit hidden variables and not proof against implicit hidden variables. In other words, when we explicitly list all the possible states and calculate the expected frequencies (Bell's inequalties), we are inadvertently collapsing the probability distribution as described by the hidden state function, which in turn would naturally lead to consistent violations with experimentation, as is apparently the case. This is akin to listing all the possible paths of a photon through a double slit, calculating the expected distribution on the detector (particle-like distribution), and then declaring the interference patterns we consistently see are violating the expected distribution. So an orientated, symmetrical, opposing, and probabilistic hidden state function seems to preserve Quantum Mechanics AND Locality! Einstein would be proud! Ok, I'm ready for my schooling. PS This is not intended as speculation, rather this is likely confusion on my part. Please correct me. Just to clarify: I'm not questioning the mathematical derivation of the inequalities. I'm not questioning the accuracy of the experimental methods. I'm not questioning the results of the experiments. I'm not questioning any arguments about loopholes. I'm not questioning Quantum Mechanics predictions. I'm merely querying whether it is appropriate to apply the inequalities to the situation in the experiments, that is, Bell's Theorem.

Happy to get involved i need to learn stuff, but trying to visualise what going on first Area under a curve is found by integration. I'm not sure how you can normalise the result to between 0 and 1. The result of integration can only be a constant if the integrand f(x) is such that x is only raised to the power of 1. This means you only get a non-x-value result (or a constant) if f(x) is a line not a curve. (I think). There are some odd techniques but i don't see how a curved function can have an area (within any significant limits) that doesn't have a variable that changes with respect to x. I don't have mathematica. Also my experience in maths is around 2-3 weeks lol So take your x-axis cone of unit length, where [math] \nu = \frac{\pi}{4} [/math] (i just drew two lines with limits, figuring out how to plot a real right cone with varying \nu) So point D is somewhere on the two lines? The area enlosed between the x-axis, and f(x), between x=1 and x=D_x Would be [math] \int_{D_x}^1 (-x+1)dx [/math]

Ok so what is the difference between (the three coordinate antivector) and (the scalar value of the radius of the sphere)? So summing the coords of the antivector gives you the radius? So say you have the three-3D-direction coords perpendicular to each other [math] L_1 (x_1, y_1, z_1) [/math] [math] L_2 (x_2, y_2, z_2) [/math] [math] L_3 (x_3, y_3, z_3) [/math] Then the antivectors [math] A_x = (x_1 + x_2 + x_3), A_y = (y_1 + y_2 + y_3), A_z = (z_1 + z_2 + z_3), [/math] But then there would be three solutions to the radius? What am i missing? What use does the three-coord-antivector give us?