Locrian

It seems so completely not feasible to me that I'm not sure even where to begin. If your electrodynamics and statistical mechanics are good, then you just need to get a book on plasma physics and see. Sorry, each time you ask these vague questions about plasma and microwaves I feel compelled to answer, seeing as how I generate plasmas with microwaves 5-7 days a week. But you are always really asking questions from a different field than I work in. I've done some searches on Elsivier and came up dry.

Heh, show me the experiment that measured the radius of an electron. And blast us both for ressurecting this pathetic thread.

You thought he was funny??

Yes! I think that someone more versed than I would have a lot to argue with some of the word choice that is going on here, but as far as I can tell you are interested in the ideas, not the formalism, so it makes little difference.

In a way. I mean, we talk of where our plasma is, and controlling its size, but it has to do with the way it is generated. It isn't as if you use microwaves by themselves to control a plasma - you use them to make one and your chamber (among other things) determines where it is formed. The last time you posted about this I did a little research and there are some novel designs for fusion reactors out there that use bursts of microwaves in some manner to aid, but it wasn't alone or in a simple manner. That's why I was asking you if this is still about fusion.

Didn't Jack Black propose that Rock-Ons hold atoms together?

AHA! My original, pre-edit response was correct! You did not read the papers!! EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED HAS VIOLATED THE BELL INEQUALITY. You need to read those links I posted. Especially Bell and Aspect's papers.

From the Aspect paper I linked to you: The results are in good agreement with quantum mechanical predictions but violate the Bell Inequality by five standard deviations.

Depends on how confined you want it and how you plan to confine it. Microwaves by themselves don't confine a plasma. Microwaves in a resonance cavity generate a plsama in a certain area, but it isn't confining it, it is just a matter of where you are reaching critical field strength to produce breakdown. Can you give any more details? Is this still for fusion?

What explanation? (Hint: Unless it can be used to accurately determine the luminosity of type Ia supernovae with high redshifts it's not an explanation)

I think in my initial post I misunderstood your intention in your OP. A better reposnse would be to thank you for adding another experiment to the list of ones that have all come to this same conclusion, just in different ways.

Great thread

Energy is a scalar quantity used to describe the state of a system. In this case, it is reasonable to use the definition of energy as the ability to do work. There is clearly work being done on matter in our universe in a way we were not expecting. When we say there is energy involved, all we're doing is admitting that what we're percieving is real; when the enegy is given a new name, we're suggesting it involves a force we weren't previously aware of. So we've observed that something is happening we can't explain. We've proposed there's a reason for it. What's so radical about that?

These days it is difficult to tell what they might mean by "multiverse theory." In context of quantum mechanics it sounds most like the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI). However, MWI is entirely interpretational. Although some thought experiments have been proposed, no observable has ever been suggested that could verify the MWI interpretation of quantum mechanics. In other words, whether you accept MWI or not has no affect on any operation or observation. So in short, no. Quantum entanglement is not a useful method of communication.

There are several threads concerning this issue in the first page of this forum. The consensus is that there is no communicating faster than light, and radio is light. I think you may have to take some liberties.

When measured, it's state function changes. It is now in the new state. It will not go back to being in a new superposition of states unless something occurs that causes it to. This issue of what is in a superposition and what isn't is a deep subject. The process by which a quantum system ceases being in a superposition of states and begins to act classically is called decoherence.Obviously, when you look around, nothing appears to be in a superposition - so why is anything ever in one at all? It is actually quite a bit of trouble to keep large systems from decohering, because something in the lab is very likely to interact with them, thereby changing their state function to one that is no longer a superposition. This is why work done on quantum systems tend to be done in incredibly controlled environments at very low temperatures. Actually, understanding decoherence may help you understand the issue here. Let me refer you to a GREAT paper on the subject: Decoherence. I love that paper...though I admit, I have yet to actually read all 41 pages . It is well written and I think you may get some further information out of it.

If direct solar to electrical power conversion through solar panels was cost effective there would be great advantage to having them directly on houses instead of out in solar fields. First off, it places electrical generation right in one place it is needed. Wind power is actually pretty cheap, but one of the greatest problems wind power faces is getting the electricity from the wind farms to the big cities. It would be more expensive to install the power delivery necessary to move the electricity from the solar panel field to areas where it is used than it would be to just generate it at those places. Secondly, it reduces the use of land space. Let's say solar power becomes cheap per kilowatt - it will never be cheap per square foot when compared to any traditional power source. Placing them right on houses that take up the space anyhow reduces this problem.

It's worth mentioning that there are some very different designs for solar cells that may come in the future. Thin film is one area, and using quantum dots is another. Currently these technologies are very new and with few exceptions have not begun production, much less mass production. However, by utilizing them, solar panels may more than triple their efficiency. This would send solar panels skyrocketing from an expensive but clean power source, to a cheap and clean power source. They'll never be our sole source of power, but there is reason to expect that in the coming decades they could become a serious player. If anyone would like further information on these I'd be happy to post more of what I know.

On the contrary, it seems quite useless, which is about the worst thing that can be said of any proposed theory.

CDT seems more popular by the day.

The following links have information on this topic, including referenced experimentation. Dr. Chinese's site. Zz on the Physicsforums blog. Baez on Bell-Aspect

You aren't the first to be uncofortable with this. Consider some routes taken by physicists in the past: 1) Say that there must be a better theory than QM in the near future for this regime, but that QM is the best theory available now. Use QM, but never entirely accept it. 2) Say that QM is simply inferior and accept another system, such as bohmian mechanics, because of their successes and despite their failures. You would then claim this new theory was the better and that QM was obsolete - but you'd still use QM, because the fact is there is no better theory available for solving problems in the quantum mechanical regime. Including bohmian mechanics. 3) Admit that this system you've created where a particle knows it is spin up or down somehow predicts nothing, is philosophically difficult to defend, and appears (currently) to be invalid. You would then use QM, and leave the worrying for a time when experiment invalidated the theory. Maybe there are more choices to add?

That's one example; there are many ways systems can be entangled. Personally I avoid using the word "collapse," as did my QM textbook. Say instead that when measured, the wave function is now such-and-such. This is a matter of philosophy, but in my opinion using the word "collapse" suggests physical connotations, some of which may be indefensible. That's okay. You can see a problem with the change in state function being instantaneous, but that doesn't mean there actually is one. The suggestion of studying EPR and Bell is a good one. Also consider Bohmian mechanics.

Upaired electron spin is not due to moving electrons!