swansont

Geez, I thought I had. Doing it now. Reverse beta decay, aka electron capture. [math]p + e \rightarrow n + \nu[/math] But you need enough gravitational pressure to overcome the electron degeneracy pressure

You;re going to have to explain the baryon table. I don't see why the width is in inverse GeV, and the particle with mass 938 GeV is the proton, which has no width (it's stable). The neutron is 939.6 GeV and has a width that is very small. The delta does not contain a strange quark. There are several numbers I can't match up with http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/mcdata/mass_width_2006.csv

Bound states have excited states as well, and these will have different masses. You can do this with atoms, too, except nobody bothers unless the excited state is relatively long-lived (isomers). I linked to one of these experiments recently — the Fe-65 excited state was something like 400 keV more massive. What fraction would that be? You don't provide links to where you're getting your information, so there's no easy way to check on any of this. I don't know what "Heseilberg's paper" is (most scientists write more than one paper in their careers). I don't know what "the paper removed from this forum" is. I haven't deleted anything of yours that I can recall, only moved things to appropriate places.

Technically you have to account for effects that aren't SR if your gravitational potential changes, but there are problems you can analyze that are simple additions to SR.

You claimed that ZPE could be tapped in the OP. Your claim, your burden of proof. And I rarely wear a lab coat.

Randi announced that he's going to stop running the challenge. I think the implication here is Randi is doing so to avoid paying out, but there's almost two years until the contest ends. I haven't bothered to wade through the details here, so that's just a guess.

Right. For small v, you can use v = at. If you analyze this in terms of the fractional change in frequency, you should end up with an expression that's ad/c^2 (acceleration x distance) which is exactly the same form as the gravitational term of gh/c^2. (Again, for small v, so you can use the binomial expansion for gamma)

Nothing is added to baryons on mesons, since they are combinations of three and two quarks, respectively. What you appear to have done is arrange them in some order and found the fractional difference in mass. If one had a mass about twice the other, you'd identify it as a fraction of 1/2. There's no physics here. It's numerology, data mining, since it's all done after-the-fact. Expressing ratios will yield fractions. You can do the same thing with the change in your pocket. Are a quarter and nickel elementary particles because their ratio is 1/5? Predict something.

Gravity is part of general relativity, not special relativity. If you mean kinetic energy, AFAIK the entries into the stress-energy tensor are what dictate gravity. However, a mass change is not part of that; the mass used is the invariant mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor

Ah, yes, the great conspiracy. Tell you what. Go to one of the places that has claimed to have made a ZPE machine. See if they're still hooked up to the grid. If they have free energy, why would then need an electrical connection?

The energy isn't hidden. Electrons with different spin orientations in an atom with a magnetic field have different energies — this is the hyperfine splitting that can be observed in atomic spectra, and has been observed in positronium (electron and positron, with parallel and antiparallel spins)

Schlieren optics/photography will allow you to see density changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieren_photography http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/LightOptics/SchleirenOptics/SchleirenOptics.html

As far as I can tell, you're asking why the fractional increase in mass of isotopes as you add nucleons is about 1/A+1 It's because neutrons and protons have about the same mass, and the change in binding energy is roughly constant and small compared to their masses. Each nucleon adds a mass of about 1 amu. If you go from a nucleus of mass A and add a nucleon, it will have mass A+1. The fractional increase is 1/(A+1). Just like 7 + 1 = 8, and the fractional increase is 1/8 of 8. It's basic math, nothing more.

Fill out a card. There's now a link at the bottom of the post, so you can generate one. (It's my opinion that the center square should also be an "any fallacy" wildcard, in addition to the randomly generated attribute)

The fax machine analogy, while not a bad start, still falls short (one issue being what the analogy was intended to address. It's a good analogy for the "not sending the original" aspect of the situation). The subtle point about quantum teleportation is that it transmits quantum-mechanical information, which you can't do classically any better than 50-50 (for atoms). It would be as if you were faxing but putting the paper in facing a random direction (i.e. face-up or face-down), because you aren't allowed to look at the paper — half the time the writing doesn't get transmitted. Quantum teleportation is a way of sending the information no matter which way the paper is facing. (and even this addition to the analogy still doesn't explain the whole issue, which is the trouble with analogies. One has to know when they stop being analogies.)

It's even more subtle than that. The uncertainty principle is not actually the problem of measurement of one quantity making another larger — that's separate, the observer effect. It's a limit on how precisely you can determine the values. The two often get commingled. http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/11/misconception-of-heisenberg-uncertainty.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect

Precisely. The hot-air balloon does not have to withstand the kind of pressure differential that leads to a significant force on the superstructure, which is the case for a vacuum device.

You haven't explained anything about what you mean by any of this. Your table of strange mesons does not appear to be mesons. What does column b represent? What does the rest of it mean? Why should an average value of all elements mean anything for electron binding energies? What is column e in the table of isotopes?

No. Mirrors and Morse code don't involve involve information about quantum states. You detect a photon or not, but you don't send information about its polarization. From your article — "Teleportation involves dematerializing an object at one point and transferring the precise details of its configuration to another location, where the object is then reconstructed." That's the journalist interpretation, so it's simplified. It's the information that is sent — that's what is meant by the "precise details of its configuration" means. If you have something on the other end, you can put it in the same state. If it's photons, you can create them, but if it's atoms, you have to have them there, at the ready, and the "teleportation" puts them in the same state. It's really unfortunate that Star Trek gets mentioned in most of the popular science articles. The trick here is that classical transmission of quantum information is limited to 50% fidelity for atoms and 67% for photons. If you don't know the state ahead of time, you don't know what measurement basis to use, and you can't recreate the state. Over the long haul, you'll get the numbers already mentioned. Quantum teleportation means you can, in principle, get the information with 100% fidelity. But it's all information. No matter is transported. Don't rely on journalists writing popular science articles to tell you what's going on. In this blog post I link to an interview with Jeff Kimble, who does this kind of atomic physics. Scientific American: What's the biggest misconception about teleportation? Jeff Kimble: That the object itself is being sent. We're not sending around material stuff. If I wanted to send you a Boeing 757, I could send you all the parts, or I could send you a blueprint showing all the parts, and it's much easier to send a blueprint. Teleportation is a protocol about how to send a quantum state—a wave function—from one place to another. (emphasis added) If the energy comes from somewhere it's not a perpetual motion machine. That doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Hundreds? Where are they? I think you mean "zero." There are hundreds of claims, but they all seem to not work when put to the test.

Quantum teleportation is about transmitting information, and not matter.

As opposed to your appeal to conspiracy that prompted it?

emphasis added That's just it, though. We don't know all of the facts. Things are claimed, but not corroborated, and when corroboration is asked for, all we get is complaint about persecution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "None" is, alas, quite ordinary. That's what gets material moved to speculations. And you know what? People don't generally get in my face on the street, spouting nonsense, and interrupting a discussion. And if they do, I'll damn well say, "Prove it!" to them if I want to. The thing about people on the internet claiming to be the next Fulton, Edison or Einstein is they're invariably wrong.

I think it's to differentiate the mass-energy from the photon energy in that blurb. Energy manifests itself in different forms, none of which a physicist is likely to call pure vs unpure. OTOH, photon energy is one form that is not associated with rest mass. It's purely the kinetic term of the energy equation. Mostly semantics, IMO.

Still not sure where you're going with this. Photons have momentum.