.
by
.
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE, Alakapuri
Hyderabad-35, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
S.Lakshminarayana
Dept.of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India
Email: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
Abstract
Point of ‘big bang’ can be considered as the center or characteristic reference point of cosmic expansion in all directions.
If so, the existence of ‘preferred direction’ in the universe may not be wrong.
Based on the Mach’s principle, it can be suggested that, within the ‘Hubble volume’ overall distribution of ‘Hubble mass’ will explain the
observed physical phenomena.
With the discovered applications it is very clear to say that, without a joint and unified study of cosmology and atomic & particle physics, one should not deny the concepts of black hole cosmology.
The most interesting thing is that, at any given cosmic time, if the universe is a primordial growing black hole, then certainly its ‘Schwarzschild radius’ can be considered as its characteristic minimum size at that time.
Clearly speaking, “forever rotating at light speed, high temperature and high angular velocity small sized primordial cosmic black hole gradually transforms into a low temperature and low angular velocity large sized massive primordial cosmic black hole”.
Independent of the redshift observations and considering the proposed relations, with a great confidence now one can start seeing/observing the universe as a primordial expanding and light speed rotating black hole. Based on the proposed relations and concepts of black hole cosmology, definitions of cosmic homogeneity and cosmic isotropy must be re-addressed.
It is also clear that, now the black hole universe is expanding in a decelerating mode at a very small rate in such a way that with current technology one cannot measure its deceleration rate.
Finally it can be suggested that cosmic acceleration and dark energy can be considered as pure mathematical concepts and there exists no physical base behind their affirmation.
For the most serious cosmologists this may be a bitter news, but it is a fact.
Authors hope that, by 2015 definitely this subject will come into main stream physics.
With reference to Black hole cosmology, it can be suggested that, characteristic nuclear charge radius and the characteristic angular momentum of the revolving electron increase with cosmic time.
In addition, characteristic nuclear charge radius is more fundamental than the reduced Planck’s constant.
The key point to be noted is that the Planck’s constant can be considered as a cosmological constant.
.
.
Dear Andrea,
1. Can we expect that it will be possible to initiate one single Rossi-Effect-reaction on the time you want it to occur and on the place you choose, e.g: one specific nickel “grain” ?
2. Can it, if former is positive, be managed to generate a predefined amount of excess energy ?
I mean scientifically, not commercially profitable or exploitable.
3. Is this part of your R&D ?
thought full greetings
Koen
Giovanni:
I think that what they said ( as you report) is an unsustainable generalization. Every specific source has its particular application limits we have to make a distinction of. About us, I have not the data necessary to make that kind of forecast.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Pietro F.:
Thak you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
Today on the Italian Radio there was a debate about the various sources of energy. Somebody said that accordinga data collected in 150 years, every new source of energy to pass from 1-2% of the total market to about 50% needs 50-60 years. Do you think that the same will apply to LENR and E-Cat? Hard to say, right?
Le interessa?
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-nickel-doubly-magic-isotope.html
buon lavoro
Roberto:
When we will be allowed to give information regarding the operation of the 1 MW plant we will publish the available data. Now is too soon to talk about it, we still are in a preliminary phase.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
As you say, the third party report can be positiv or negative, but what can you say instead of 1 meg plant that you gave to an industry, have you had any feedback from them? Is it performing well? Are theme pleased or disappointed?
Roberto
Joe wrote in September 5th, 2014 at 1:27 AM
Wladimir,
Space and time are not of the physical world. That does not mean that the physical world does not exist. The physical world is not constrained by space and time. But our view of the physical world IS constrained by space and time since they are mental objects. Results of an experiment are therefore independent of our view of it.
========================================
Joe,
therefore from such viewpoint the sharpness of the entangled image in the detector in the Gabriela Lemos experiment cannot change if she changes the angles between the beams of entangled photons.
Such assumption can be tested in her experiment.
regards
wlad
Georgehants:
Too soon to say. So far we are focused on the product we are making.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Giuliano Bettini:
NDA, commercial interests and 3rd Party Report are normal issues in a serious technological innovation.
I repeat that we need to wait the results of the work on course before confirming if our work needs corrections or if it is on the right trail.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea.
I’m sorry, in all this circus of NDA, commercial interests, 3rd Party Report, I’m lost.
According to what can be inferred to date, is the Rossi effect real or not?
Nuclear Regards,
Giuliano Bettini.
Dear Mr Rossi, with your discovery of the Rossi Effect, are you aware of any other new science that may come from that discovery.
Can you see the Rossi Effect as just the beginning of a whole new area of science.
Best wishes
Wladimir,
One last thought:
QM is right about the existence of instantaneity.
QM is wrong about the existence of QE.
QM says that neither of two entangled particles can be fully described without considering the other. The problem with that scenario is that it is illogical. A particle is a particle because it contains all its properties without doubt. A particle is defined by the presence of all of its properties. There could never be any actual uncertainty in the property of a particle lest that particle cease to exist altogether.
All the best,
Joe
Wladimir,
Space and time are not of the physical world. That does not mean that the physical world does not exist. The physical world is not constrained by space and time. But our view of the physical world IS constrained by space and time since they are mental objects. Results of an experiment are therefore independent of our view of it.
All the best,
Joe
Frank Acland:
The quality is equal, but, obviously, in view of an industrial production the manufacturing system cannot be manual. The stage our powders preparer was involved in was a prototypical phase, when you have to be ready to change anytime the formula, depending on the experiments. Industrialization is a different thing, but without the first stage you cannot reach the second one. You couldn’t have a hen shouldn’t you have an egg before.
silvio caggia wrote in September 4th, 2014 at 4:08 PM
@Vladimir Guglinski
1) =================================
Sorry but I am a little confused from your answers… You say that Alain Aspect’s experiments require no kind of communication because the entangled properties of the two photons are “predefined” at photon emission and travel with the photons as hidden variables (i.e. Distance between particles)… But you say that Gabriela’s experiment requires a sort of communication when photon C is absorbed by the cat trasmitting something to photon D…
Why do you give different explanations of the two experiments? Should not entanglement logic be universal?
====================================
Simple.
Because Alain Aspect does not require entanglement when we consider the photon formed by particle and antiparticle, with the distance “d” between them equal in the case of twin brother photons.
Unlike, there is no way to explain Gabriela’ experiment without to consider some sort of entanglement, which mechanism we need to discover.
2) ====================================
Anyway, you seem to accept that Gabriela’s experiment implies that D photon “is aware” of C photon destiny, and that this “awareness” cannot be explained with “hidden variables” but needs a kind of communication from C photon (when hits the cat) to D photon (when hits the detector) and you are looking for a phisical explanation.
=======================================
Yes,
but photon D does not hit the detector (pay attention that the image in the detector is black, which means that photon D does not hit the detector).
So, there are two possibilities:
a) the trajectory of the photon D is deviated due to the collapese of the entanglement, and that’s why it does not hit the detector. (this hipothesis can be tested,putting detectors along the trajectory of the photon D.
b) the photon D collapses, because ot the collapse of the entanglement, and that’s why it does not hit the detector.
3) ===================================
According to Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation of QM the life of two entangled photons is a sort of “bank transaction” that is closed THRU the time of their travel till they are both absorbed, so C photon “destiny info” flows BACKWARD in time till the entanglement source and is disponible to D photon at ANY time of its life. In other words the two photons have got agreements with their FUTURE absorbers in order that all conservation laws will be respected. But one of the weirdest prediction of this theory is that the cat image is obtained even if D arm is shorter then C arm… In other words you should be able to see the cat photo BEFORE you put the cat! Now Gabriela can validate/falsify this teory very simply.
========================================
Such interpretation is based on the concepts of Quantum Mechanics, and as I dont believe QM is correct, I dont think his interpretation can be correct
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in September 2nd, 2014 at 11:34 PM
———————————————
But time (and space) is a mental object, not physical.
———————————————
Dear Joe
you did not answer my question:
what happens if Gabriela puts a video so that to film the experiment, and no person will see it.
Later she and her staff will see the video, so that to see if the entanglement image of the cat was formed in the detector.
In this case there is not any “mental” object in the experiment
What do you think happens?
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
I’m sorry to hear of the loss of your powder preparer. It sounds like his contribution was very important.
Do you find the powder prepared by the new process is inferior, equal, or superior to the manually prepared powder?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
@Vladimir Guglinski
Sorry but I am a little confused from your answers… You say that Alain Aspect’s experiments require no kind of communication because the entangled properties of the two photons are “predefined” at photon emission and travel with the photons as hidden variables (i.e. Distance between particles)… But you say that Gabriela’s experiment requires a sort of communication when photon C is absorbed by the cat trasmitting something to photon D…
Why do you give different explanations of the two experiments? Should not entanglement logic be universal?
Anyway, you seem to accept that Gabriela’s experiment implies that D photon “is aware” of C photon destiny, and that this “awareness” cannot be explained with “hidden variables” but needs a kind of communication from C photon (when hits the cat) to D photon (when hits the detector) and you are looking for a phisical explanation.
According to Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation of QM the life of two entangled photons is a sort of “bank transaction” that is closed THRU the time of their travel till they are both absorbed, so C photon “destiny info” flows BACKWARD in time till the entanglement source and is disponible to D photon at ANY time of its life. In other words the two photons have got agreements with their FUTURE absorbers in order that all conservation laws will be respected. But one of the weirdest prediction of this theory is that the cat image is obtained even if D arm is shorter then C arm… In other words you should be able to see the cat photo BEFORE you put the cat! Now Gabriela can validate/falsify this teory very simply.
Joe wrote in September 4th, 2014 at 3:45 AM
There can never be experimental evidence since time and space are nonphysical. In fact, by logic, the onus is on scientists to produce evidence for their new claim that time and space are physical objects – something that they have never done.
===============================================
That’s why I would love if Gabriela decides to perform the experiments suggested by me, in order to verify if , by changing the angles of interaction between the beams of photons, the sharpness of the entangled image in the detector is changed.
If the sharpness changes, it implies that QE is interaction of fields
regards
wlad
Frank Acland:
Yes, you are right: that old master of mine is returned in God’s Spirit, but after his teaching we have industrialized the powders production.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
In the early days of this blog you mentioned that you employed a 95 year-old man to prepare the nickel powder that you use in your E-cats.
Is your powder still prepared manually, or have you developed newer techniques?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
silvio caggia wrote in September 3rd, 2014 at 3:23 PM
@Wladimir Guglinski
1) ========================================
What I don’t understand is how your model explains the way Gabriela obtained the cat’s photo without using cat’s side photons.
===========================================
Caling photon C that which hits the cat, and photon D that which hits the detector, I think in two possibilities:
a) when the photon C hits the cat (and therefore it collapses), as the entanglement is broken the photon D becomes instable, and collapses, and it does not hit the detector.
b) when the photon C hits the cat (and therefore it collapses), as the entanglement is broken there is a deviation in the trajectory of the photon D, and it does hit the detector.
Such hypothesis can be tested, putting detectors along the trajectory of the photon D.
2) ======================================
By the way, how your model explains circular polarization?
========================================
It can be explained by considering that when the photon is polarized, the particle ahead the photon’s motion has an increase in the radius R of the helical trajectory of that particle. So, in spite of the velocity of rotation stays the same, however the angular velocity W of the particle becomes lower than the angular velocity of the antiparticle.
The electric field vector will take the form as shown in the figure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization
regards
wlad
>>>>>Mario on September 4th, 2014 at 4:44 AM wrote.
Think about it: imagine a huge pool heated by the hot-cat with many people taking a bath the opening day (April is still cold in Italy )
What a wonderful world!
-mario<<<<<<
And invite the Kardashian sisters to swim in the pool.
This will bring attention of all the population of the world.
But for sure, the critics still will say.
Of course the water is hot because the girls are hot.:)
Robert Curto:
The E-Cat is a heat generator, therefore it is simpler to produce heat . With heat it will be possible to make also electric power.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mario:
Thank you for the suggestion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I cannot contribute to the technical discussion because phisics is out of my knowledge.
But I’m a dreamer.. Actually, with the TPR2 coming and the first plant reaching the production site, I’m moving my mind to tomorrow..
Next year, as you probably know, there will be the Universal Exposition in Italy, Expo 2015 in Milan.
Just imagine an Hot-cat running at the Expo.. it would be like the Eiffel Tower for the Paris expo.. something unforgettable!!
An occasion for million of people to see your invention from really close.. and without any doubt the way for you to get all the attention your invention deserves.
Think about it: imagine a huge pool heated by the hot-cat with many people taking a bath the opening day (April is till cold in Italy :-))
What a wonderful world!
-mario
Wladimir,
1. You wrote,
“Therefore, the flux of magnetons within the strings of gravitons of the gravitational field can work by resonance.”
I have already explained how gravitational fields in the Universe are present everywhere, interacting with your potential gravitational strings and thereby destroying any possibility for the existence of QE within the framework of QRT. But now the same holds true for your potential magnetic fluxes whereby magnetic fields which are present everywhere in the Universe will interact with those potential magnetic fluxes and thereby destroy any possibility for the existence of QE within the framework of QRT.
2. You wrote,
“Actually, Quantum Mechanics is wrong, because there is not a physical model of photon in the theory.”
Even if your theory about the polarization of photons is correct, the reality is that ALL properties, not just polarization, are subject to QE.
3. You wrote,
“There is not experimental evidence for such assumption […]”
There can never be experimental evidence since time and space are nonphysical. In fact, by logic, the onus is on scientists to produce evidence for their new claim that time and space are physical objects – something that they have never done.
All the best,
Joe
Dr. Rossi, I know you want to develop an E-Cat to supply electricity for a home.
In a location like Ft. Lauderdale, we have very little need for heat. when
needed we get it from our AC unit.
But in a State up North, where the temperature is sometimes below zero,
the need for heat is enormous.
Will you develop an E-Cat to produce heat for a home ?
Will you develop an E-Cat to produce electricity and heat for a home ?
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Joe wrote in September 2nd, 2014 at 11:34 PM
Wladimir,
1) =======================================
1. Gravity works independently of
i) any potential frequency that it might have;
ii) the speed of the source (particle) of that gravitational field.
===========================================
COMMENT
I am not speaking about gravity.
I am refering to the gravitational field.
The gravitational field in QRT is formed by strings of gravitons crossed by a flux of magnetons, as shown in the Fig. 2.5 of the paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2.5%3D_flux_of_magnetons_within_string_of_gravitons.png
The resonance can be caused by the flux of magnetons
.
2) ==========================================
(That is why the gravitational field of the Earth pulls everything down independently of its nature or motion.)
=============================================
This is concerning the gravitational attraction, due to the strings of gravitons.
However the motion of a photon can have influence in the flux of magnetons within the strings of gravitons
.
3) ========================================
Therefore, it is unacceptable to claim that QE within the framework of QRT works by
i) resonance;
ii) two (or more) particles sharing a common speed,
respectively.
============================================
Therefore, the flux of magnetons within the strings of gravitons of the gravitational field can work by resonance
.
4) =========================================
2. Your concept of a cause for QE is wrong. The concept of cause and effect is a temporal (and spatial) one obviously.
============================================
No.
Actually Quantum Mechanics is wrong, because there is not a physical model of photon in the theory.
There is a distance “d” between the particle and antiparticle of the photon, and the polarization depends on this distance “d” (a process of resonance between “d” and the atomic distance within the crystal used for polarization)
A photon A and B can have the same wavelenght, but with different values of the distance “d”.
So,
when they are polarized, in spite of they have the same wavelength, however their polarization follow statistical laws.
Unlike, two twin broter photons (as produced in Gabriela’s experiment) have the same distance “d”, and therefore whe you measure their polarization you get the same value.
Therefore,
considering two entangled twin photons, if you measure polarization of the first photon here in the Earth, and I measure the polarization of the second photon in the Moon, I will get the same value of polarization measured by you, because the two photons have the same distance “d”, and not because the photon measured by me in the Moon was affected by your measurement of the first photon in the Earth.
Such misunderstanding of the Alain Aspect experiment is the reason why you and the quantum theorists believe that The concept of cause and effect is a temporal in QE.
======================================
.
5) =====================================
But time (and space) is a mental object, not physical.
========================================
There is not experimental evicende for such assumption, by considering physical phenomena ruled by the laws of Physics.
Such assumption is consequence of the wrong interpretation of the Alain Aspect experiment
=============================================
.
6) ==========================================
So QE lacking cause and effect (atemporality, aspatiality) demonstrates the physical nature of QE which is unadorned by time (and space).
=============================================
There is NOT entanglement in the Alain Aspect experiment, as I already had explained.
The reason why the two twin photons exhibit the same polarization is due to the same distance “d” between the particle and antiparticle in the both photons.
The entanglement occurs only in the Gabriela Lemos
.
7) ====================================
Schrodinger was right in considering the instantaneous phenomenon of QE the only true separator of quantum mechanics (QM) from classical mechanics (CM).
=======================================
As I said, there is no entanblement in the Alain Aspect experiment.
The polarization of the second twin photon measured in the Moon is NOT affected by the measurement of the polarization of the first twin photon here in the Earth.
So, the reason why in the Moon the measurement gets the same value is due to the property of the two twin photons: the have the same distance “d”.
The phenomenon is NOT instantaneous, since there is not any phenomenon caused by the quantum entanglement between the two photons.
We even dont know if the entanglement detected by Gabrela Lemos can be obtained by having the cat here in the Earth and the detector in the Moon.
Perhaps her experiment works only in short distances.
regards
wlad
All the best,
Joe
@Wladimir Guglinski
I knew your model of photon and its interesting explanation of linear polarization and entanglement by a sort of “hidden variable” (the offset between the two particles that make the photon). What I don’t understand is how your model explains the way Gabriela obtained the cat’s photo without using cat’s side photons.
By the way, how your model explains circular polarization?
Regards
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you, the work of Prof. Stephen Hawking is extremely interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Edward,
Recently, Professor Stephen Hawking revised his theory of Black Holes. Perhaps this may help answer your questions.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/455880/Stephen-Hawking-says-there-is-no-such-thing-as-black-holes-Einstein-spinning-in-his-grave
http://www.space.com/24454-stephen-hawking-black-hole-theory.html
http://www.space.com/24418-stephen-hawking-no-black-holes.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140127-black-hole-stephen-hawking-firewall-space-astronomy/
Whatever they are, I wouldn’t want to get near one.
Joseph Fine
Silvio,
in another words:
when Gabriela produces two twin brother photons in her experiment, she eliminates the statistical feature of the two photons. They have the same distance “d”, and so they will have the same behavior when somebody measures their polarization.
This is waht the quantum theorists do not know.
If you measure here in the Earth the polarization of the first photon and you get 60º, then if Joe goes to the Moon and he measures the polarization of the second photon he will get 60º too, because the two photons have the same distance “d”, and not because when you measuered the polarizaton of the first photon it had affected the polarization of the photon measured by Joe.
That’s why Joe and the quantum theorists believe that “fields can not be responsible for QE since their range is indefinite and would therefore interact immediately with any other fields in their vicinity, making the reality of QE impossible for even a moment”
regards
wlad
Edward:
I do not understand what you want to say. Can you rephrase clearly?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
silvio caggia wrote in September 2nd, 2014 at 7:15 PM
@Wladimir Guglinsky
Does the correlation between two entangled photons depend from the lenght of the two arms of the experimental setup?
Does the correlation depend from the order in which you take measurements?
Does entanglement “vanish” when first photon is measured?
Why entangled photons should behave in asymmetric way respect to time?
====================================
Silvio,
entanglement is a link between two photons.
There are two aspects:
1) If one photon has collision with matter (and so it calllapses), the other collapses too. Accordding to Quantum Mechanics, it does not occur via physical causes, and it is instantaneous.
2) If we take a measure of one photon, the other is affected (according to Quantum Mechanics)
.
Let us analyse the two aspects:
1)
Regarding the first aspect, I am not agree that the second photon collapses via phantasmagoric way, and instantaneously.
There are not experiments comproving that it is instantaneous.
Also, as enfphasized by Mr. Joe, according to Quantum Mechanics:
fields can not be responsible for QE since their range is indefinite and would therefore interact immediately with any other fields in their vicinity, making the reality of QE impossible for even a moment
There is not experimental confirmation for such assumption
.
2)
According to Quantum Mechanics, when you take a measure of the polarization of one of the photons, the second photon instantaneously takes the same polarity.
In my book Quantum Ring Theory I show that such interpretation is wrong.
The origin of the misunderstanding is because there is not, in Theoretical Physics, a physical model of the photon.
Einstein and Dirac supposed be impossible to exist a physical model of the photon, because the photons have statistical behavior.
However, in my model of the photon there is a distance “d” between the particle and the antiparticle. The statistical feature of the photon behavior is due to such distance “d”, because when the photon hits a polarizator, the angle of polarization depends on the distance “d”.
So, when a photon is created, you cannot predict how it will be behave when is submitted to polarization.
Therefore, when two twin photon brothers are criated as happens in Gabriela’s experiment, the quantum theorists believe that the two entangled photons have each one a random angle of polarization.
But such assumption is wrong, because as they are twin brothers, the distance “d” in the two photons is the same.
Therefore, if you take a measure in one of the photons, and the polarization gets 45º, when the other photon will be measured it will have also 45º, because their distance “d” is the same.
But the quantum theorists suppposed that, when the two twin photons were created, one could hava a polarization for instance 60º, while the second had 30º. And when the first photon had been measured for 45º (and so its polarization changed from 60º to 45º), the second photon also changes its polarization, from 30º to 45º.
This is not true. Because as you are using a polarizator 45º, the both photons will be polarized in the same way, because their distance “d” is the same.
So,
if you use a polarizator 30º, both the two photons will be polarized by 30º
if you use a polarizator 45º, both them will be polarized by 45º
if you use a polarizator 60º, both them will be polarized by 60º
The two photons always exhibit the same angle of polarization because their distance “d” is the same, and not because the second photon is affected by the measurement of the first photon due to their entanglement, as believe the quantum theorists.
regards
wlad
try to combine Enshten theory and law of Keeps saved weight.(E=mc2). mass disappears and becomes energy. add to the several paradoxes and you get a black hole. Do you believe in it ?
Wladimir,
1. Gravity works independently of
i) any potential frequency that it might have;
ii) the speed of the source (particle) of that gravitational field.
(That is why the gravitational field of the Earth pulls everything down independently of its nature or motion.)
Therefore, it is unacceptable to claim that QE within the framework of QRT works by
i) resonance;
ii) two (or more) particles sharing a common speed,
respectively.
2. Your concept of a cause for QE is wrong. The concept of cause and effect is a temporal (and spatial) one obviously. But time (and space) is a mental object, not physical. So QE lacking cause and effect (atemporality, aspatiality) demonstrates the physical nature of QE which is unadorned by time (and space). Schrodinger was right in considering the instantaneous phenomenon of QE the only true separator of quantum mechanics (QM) from classical mechanics (CM).
All the best,
Joe
Joe wrote in September 2nd, 2014 at 4:33 PM
Wladimir,
And do you believe that their gravitational fields would not be affected by any of the myriad of gravitational fields that exist between them in the Universe? Because if they would be affected, then your scenario is impossible since any change to their fields would collapse them immediately.
======================================
Joe,
consider also another fact:
the two entangled photons move with the speed of the light.
Therefore, in order to afect their gravitational field (in a say similar to the interaction which occurs between the two entangled photons), only the gravitational field of other photon can affect their entanglement (because other photon also moves with the speed of the light).
The gravitational field of other elementary particles as protons, electrons, neutrons, etc. do not affect the entanglement, because protons and electrons do not move with the speed of light.
But only a third photon with the exact wavelength of the two entangled photons would be able to affect their gravitational fields.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in September 2nd, 2014 at 4:33 PM
Wladimir,
And do you believe that their gravitational fields would not be affected by any of the myriad of gravitational fields that exist between them in the Universe? Because if they would be affected, then your scenario is impossible since any change to their fields would collapse them immediately.
==========================================
For the gravitational field of each of the entangled photons to be affected there would be neeed a gravitational field of another photon in the same exact wavelenght of the two entangled photons.
It’s an interaction by resonance.
Actually we dont know how such resonance affects the field of repulsive gravitons within the body of the photon, responsible for its statility.
Perhaps you may claim that it is hard to believe in such sort of entanglement mechanism.
However in my oppinion it is harder to believe that entanglemnt occurs via phantasmagoric way, with no any physical cause.
regards
wlad
regards
wlad
@Wladimir Guglinsky
Does the correlation between two entangled photons depend from the lenght of the two arms of the experimental setup?
Does the correlation depend from the order in which you take measurements?
Does entanglement “vanish” when first photon is measured?
Why entangled photons should behave in asymmetric way respect to time?
Wladimir,
You wrote,
“So, two photons in two opposite points of the extreme of the universe can interact via their gravity fields.”
And do you believe that their gravitational fields would not be affected by any of the myriad of gravitational fields that exist between them in the Universe? Because if they would be affected, then your scenario is impossible since any change to their fields would collapse them immediately.
The bottom line is this: fields can not be responsible for QE since their range is indefinite and would therefore interact immediately with any other fields in their vicinity, making the reality of QE impossible for even a moment.
All the best,
Joe
A POSSIBLE PHYSICAL MECHANISM FOR THE ENTANGLEMENT
Joe wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 5:05 PM
Wladimir,
But since the particles remain entangled for an indefinite amount of time, the idea that fields are responsible for QE can be safely eliminated.
==========================================
Dear Joe,
I discovered that it is possible to have entanglement via interaction of fields for an indefinite amount of time, by considering my model of the photon.
Let me explain it to you.
In my paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism it is proposed the structure of field of the elementary particles, including the photon.
The figure 2.5 ahead shows one gravity string of the gravity field of the particles. The body of the gravitons in those strings is crossed by a flux of magnetons with speed c of light:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2.5%3D_flux_of_magnetons_within_string_of_gravitons.png
The magnetons are captured in the perimeter of the universe, and it means that the lenght of the gravity field of an elementary particle goes from its body until the limit of the universe. So, two photons in two opposite points of the extreme of the universe can interact via their gravity fields.
The mechanism of the photon collapse due to entanglement
Now let us see how one photon collapses when its twin photon is collapsed due to an collision with matter.
According to the photon model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, a photon is formed by particle and antiparticle moving in circular contrary direction about the line center of their helical trajectory.
As the particle and the antiparticle have contrary electric charge, they would have to meet together, and the photon would have to collapse.
However the photon does not collapse because repulsive gravitons avoid the particle and the antiparticle to meet together. So, the repulsive gravitons avoid the collapse of the photon.
When two twin photons are formed (as for instance in the Gabriela Lemos experiment), they interact very easy via their gravity field, because as they are twin brother they resonate very easily.
So, two twin photons brothers move in the aether having entanglement between their gravity field, which means that the stability of each of them depends on that entanglement.
When one of the twin brothers collapses hitting some surface of matter, the entanglement is broken. So, because the resonance with his brother was broken, a disturbance occurs in the field of the repulsive gravitons responsible for the stability of the photon. Due to the disturbance, the particle an the antiparticle succeed to meet together, and the photon collapses.
Joe,
as we may realize, from such mechanism for the entanglement, the Quantum Ring Theory becomes compatible with Quantum Mechanics, from the consideration that the entanglement occurs via interaction of fields.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 5:05 PM
Wladimir,
But since the particles remain entangled for an indefinite amount of time, the idea that fields are responsible for QE can be safely eliminated.
All the best,
Joe
===================================================
Joe,
such assumption is what the quantum theorists claim.
But never any experiment had confirmed it.
Now, if Gabriela decides to perform the experiments suggested by me, from the results we will be able to know if the entanglement is caused either by the interaction of fields or not.
So, I prefer to wait the results of the experiments.
In my last comment, I said to you:
====================================================
Joe,
concerning the experiment made by Gabriela,
I suspect the following:
when the two beams of photons go along the SAME LINE, and moving in CONTRARY direction, NO image due to the entanglement will be formed in the detector.
I suppose it because when the interaction between the fields of the two photons is broken (because the first photon is annihilated when it hits the cat), the second photon will not deviate its trajectory (because the two photons were moving along the same line).
As there is no deviation in the trajectory of the second photon, it will continue its motion and it hits the detector. And therefore the black image is not formed in the detector
==============================================
regards
wlad
silvio caggia wrote in September 1st, 2014 at 5:39 PM
@Wladimir Gusglinski
What happens if “output” arm is much shorter than “input” arm?
Some think that entanglement vanish, but others, like John Cramer, think that something very conuterintuitive happens: retrocausality, you see the cat before you put it!
============================================
COMMENT
Let’s call C the photon which hits the cat, and D the photon which hits the detector.
The photon D hits the detector before the photon C hits the cat.
Due to the collision with the detector, the photon D vanishes. As the entanglement is broken, the photon C deviates its trajectory (or is vanished), and so the photon C does not hit the cat.
Therefore is not formed the real image of the cat, and it is not formed the image due to entanglemnt in the detector.
regards
wlad
dear Andrea Rossi,
You posted “No, the efficiency remains the same during the 6 months of scheduled operation”. You also stated that the eCat under test for the TIR ran continuously for thousands of hours. So I must conclude that the operational performance was long-term stable and was nominally outputting a constant power level. I know that you mentioned the input and output were monitored every second and millions of data points were collected. So a six month continuous run would produce over 15 million data points with sampling at a one Hertz rate. Given these facts and derived knowledge, what should we look for in the TIR report.
1. Energy Density: Given the net output (output minus the input) energy and the size or weight of the eCat, we should expect a bound on the energy density. A bound because the TIR team may not know the fuel size and volume, so they would have to use the eCat reactor size and volume.
2. Likewise for power density.
3. Operating conditions (room temperature? Type and amount of input power). Experiment description and rules.
4. Detected radiation (or lack thereof).
5. Output stability — a Fourier Transform of the recorded data , input and output would be interesting.
6. Any change in weight/mass hopefully would be presented.
7. Change in physical appearance or dis-coloration.
8. Pre and post experiment fuel composition (if allowed under the experiment rules)
Claudio,
Albert Einstein once gave the example of the new versus the old paradigm of time and space. In the old paradigm, when you removed matter and energy from the Universe, time and space would be left behind. In the new paradigm, when you remove matter and energy from the Universe, time and space follow. The reason for this is that time and space are now considered an integral part of the physical Universe. The problem with this example is that it is illogical. And since logic undergirds science, this example is also unscientific. Therefore, the new paradigm can not be true.
So how is it illogical?
When all four species (matter, energy, time, space) are removed from the Universe, there must necessarily be left behind a Universe that acts as a receptacle from which these four species were removed. But this Universe must exist in time and space for it to exist at all in order to extricate the four species. But then we are left with two sets of time and space: one that can be removed, and one that can not be removed. This is contradictory. But Nature is not contradictory, else Nature would not exist.
So one set of time and space must necessarily be false.
So which is the false set of time and space?
If the set that was removed is false, then the new paradigm is obviously false, and time and space are determined to be the mental objects that they have always been considered throughout most of human history.
If the set that was removed is true, then no Universe could be left behind, which would render this example given by Einstein as logically impossible. And being so, the new paradigm that this example purports to illumine is likewise logically impossible. Consequently, time and space can not be physical objects. Therefore, they are mental ones.
As we can see in either case, time and space are mental objects, not physical.
All the best,
Joe
http://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2007Sept/ConductingComposites.asp
This article reminds me of the tubercules on the surface of the nickel powder in the E-Cat.
“Lussey, working in collaboration with Bloor, discovered that the nanoscale spikes on the surface of the nickel particles in his composite are key to its unique conducting properties. By gently mixing the materials by hand, he had limited shear forces during mixing and so maintained the particles spiky shape. Although packed close together, the nickel particles always remain separated by the silicone polymer even when the material is deformed. Electronic charge on the particles is concentrated onto the tips of the spikes on the surface, which generates high charge densities. When the composite is deformed the particles are brought close enough together for electrons from these areas of high charge density to ‘jump’ from one particle to another other. This process is known as quantum tunnelling.”
It makes me wonder what is more important in the E-Cat, the tips of the spikes where high levels of charge can accumilate and create conditions favorable for quantum tunneling, or the cracks between the spikes.
Just letting my mind wander for a bit. I’m hoping the upcoming E-Cat report will be posted soon.
Wladimir,
In my last post, I gave you the temporal reason why fields can never explain QE. Now, let me give you the spatial reason. Two particles separated by space will always have various media between them in real world situations. Whatever field connections these two particles had initially with each other could never be maintained since they would be interacting with their local environments as well as with each other. And remember how QE is destroyed: by particles interacting with their environment (which includes acts of measurement). But since the particles remain entangled for an indefinite amount of time, the idea that fields are responsible for QE can be safely eliminated.
All the best,
Joe
Silvio,
Although I do not fully understand the technical aspects of the experiment, I agree with Wladimir that you are probably confusing the concept of instantaneity with that of simultaneity. The former seems magical. But the latter is mundane, which is why I doubt that we will get something as extraordinary as a time machine from it.
All the best,
Joe