Ask me (***ALMOST***) A N Y T H I N G about E V E R T H I N G (Mastermind for Success)

[jon.a]

Yeah...

Right, this is one of my favourite themes what i'am talking about

Glass is amorph and not solid, so thats why the glass of a window flow down and make the base of it (like old church window) thicker.

Arxiv.com - my choice if you wanna learn more about matter and his propertys ...

Friendly greets

Heiko

Welcome back

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lowtek]

@CapLab

With regards to quantum physics:

Can fundamental particles consist of zero-sized points in space and time, essentially being points of indeterminate size, or would they have a certain minimum size related to Planck's constant?

At the Planck scale, would they have a hypersphere geometry, but be so small as to not have enough room inside to permit anything from the outside to fall into itself?

QM particles don't have "sizes" in the way we think of them. The position of an electron (or any other elementary particle) is described by a wave function, which will always have some exponential tail out to infinity (unless it is confined in an infinite potential). It is therefore impossible to define a radius for a fundamental particle.

Concretely, when you look at a chunk of metal, each electron could be found at any point in the metal, with some probability. How can you define the size of something when you can't exactly specify its position?

If string theory pans out, then there could be some sort of size since it would have some sort of geometry - but there is no experimental evidence for string theory to date. Indeed, the noose is tightening around the theory; as the LHC explores higher energies and doesn't find examples of super symmetric partners to normal matter, the room for string theory to hide is rapidly shrinking.

 

[CapLab]

@CapLab

With regards to quantum physics:

Can fundamental particles consist of zero-sized points in space and time, essentially being points of indeterminate size, or would they have a certain minimum size related to Planck's constant?

At the Planck scale, would they have a hypersphere geometry, but be so small as to not have enough room inside to permit anything from the outside to fall into itself?

hi...

First:

i didn´t believe in particles or the concept of universal based space and time (Evidence?!)
particles or matter is one of the most misunderstood phenotype of energy .

the point of view determines, what we can see (Einstein to Heisenberg)

matter is same as energy and of course it needs a volume wich is related to frequency, wavelenght, amplitude and background metric setting to become part of universe .

also it is geometric field wich have nearly the same propertys like a calabi yau space but it´s no hypersphere; it is more like a n-dimensional fractus field wich is constructed like a vortex.

this is why matter have the stability and do not collapse .

you can see this incredible fundamental principle everywhere in universe - but most people are blind for these kind of natural wonders and didn´t see this detail.

Nature is changing her clothes on every scale but they cant change her basic principle.

planck scale only describes the base of interactions, so do not wonder if you must see this detail if you want or not...

friendly greets,

heiko

 

[CapLab]

To OP...

In your opinion, how close are we to the AI singularity? Years? Decades? Centuries?

Hi,


deepmind is watching every search on google to learn more about human behavior and the fundamental psychology of creating decisions .

Quantum Computing and Neural Networking are actual technology (Not the DWave Crap Chip) wich is given to military developement 30 years ago .

weaponizing this high tech concept is actual too and we will see it revealed in upcomming first REAL Cyberwar (Because military have to use them to protect own systems).

But i do not believe , military is so stupid to give them access to public network enviroments trough uncutable data link .

but i´am honest too, size this AI in portable devices is not so far away from today if small cooling devices are avaible to cool down the hardware.

i expect, that device will come in next decades - if no one is so stupid and give them the skills to do that earlier...

friendly greets


heiko

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Roli]

Heiko,

How far are we from producing and stabilising anti-matter?

Can it exist naturally outside of a stabilising field, without being obliterated?

 

[AmericanSpartan]

@CapLab

Peter Carroll, who I think you would be familiar with if you study the occult esoteric, says in "The Octavo":

"Down at the microcosmic end of reality, on the quantum scale, we encounter similar difficulties in visualizing the structure. Fundamental particles cannot consist of zero size points in space and time or else all sorts of ridiculous infinities would occur which we do not actually observe. Instead a certain minimum size related to Planck’s constant applies, and nothing gets any smaller than this. At the Planck scale fundamental particles seem to have the same sort of geometry and topology as the universe itself. They consist of hyperspheres as well, objects which curve back in on themselves so that nothing inside can get out without falling back in, due to their intense spacetime curvature. However unlike the universe itself the quantum hyperspheres do not have enough room inside to permit anything from the outside to fall in. The universe never faces the possibility of stuff falling into it, so far as we know, because no space or time exists outside of it to contain anything else. The mass and energy within it subtends all the space and time which exists."

I think his observation is not taking into account a many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. He is arguing that our universe is a 5-dimensional hypersphere and that fundamental particles follow the same geometry ("as above, so below"). He believes that the universe simply is and that is it.

I am leaning toward the idea that you can view the universe like an onion, and there are many layers to it, but which layer you view is dependent upon a point of consciousness being an observer. I feel that at the top (and interestingly enough the center) there is the summation of all things, the infinity of infinity of infinity (...to infinity), and depending upon where we decide to pick our point of reference, this collapses different dimensions into our reality based upon probabilities that are determined by the initial conscious reference point.

That being said, with regard to quantum particles, they exist in a being/no-being state within a "probability field." I think this falls in line with the wave/particle nature of the particles. The reality we experience is just a collapsing of the top level to our level (where our point of consciousness/observation is), BUT every other level exists simultaneously as well (although time is irrelevant at this point, but saying simultaneously gets the point across). What this means is that time travel is possible, but not the way we think, and that we can actually travel to different realities where any variable we want to change in our world exists.

THE CATCH, is that if you were to assume this point of consciousness in this alternate reality or past, you would have no concept of the other realities due to the level of perspective. If you were to view from a higher layer to a lower layer, you could see all the differences, but you wouldn't be able to directly experience the differences.

What are your thoughts?

 

[CapLab]

Antimatter could be unlimited avaible N O W !

Producing Antimatter (at last, Antihelium was achieved) is a daily (!) performed process on university lab'z, particle accellerators in medicine and actual scientific research .

Making large ammounts of it is actually impossible, because they dont know exactly what they doing there...
By sending a particle Bunch on Target or into a Beamdump single protons flip into Antimatter State .

With simple Words:

They shoot with a Pumpgun into a Forest and expect, that 1:100000000 Reactions will be achieved !

This is wrong way - you need millions of years to get even one gramm of antimatter...this technique is also useless .

But there's a kind of process, you can flip every single atom directly into antimatter (mirror !) state .

But - you see it right - there's a problem ...

Antimatter anihilates if it comes in contact with pedant .

To keep it, complex magnetic traps and a lot of Energy must be invested to save ,as example, antihydrogen for 1000 seconds .

for use and application you have to create it in a constant
process because you can't handle large ammounts of this (anti-) matter without extremly high risk for thermodynamic enviroment .

A potentially useful quick production process is based on a concept, wich only could be compared with the upside exampled shotgunfire into a forest against a real sniper rifle, wich hit's the target accurately and under special conditions .

If research-money and technical ressources are not the problem (reconfigurate and modding LHC), we can start in few months...

But honestly:Sorry...

The Details are military relevant and i do not publish dangerous things like this in public or this state of human civilisation .

So i hope your Question is answer'ed .

many friendly greets,

Heiko

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[greyhound]

Antimatter could be unlimited avaible N O W !

Producing Antimatter (at last, Antihelium was achieved) is a daily (!) performed process on university lab'z, particle accellerators in medicine and actual scientific research .

Making large ammounts of it is actually impossible, because they dont know exactly what they doing there...
By sending a particle Bunch on Target or into a Beamdump single protons flip into Antimatter State .

With simple Words:

They shoot with a Pumpgun into a Forest and expect, that 1:100000000 Reactions will be achieved !

This is wrong way - you need millions of years to get even one gramm of antimatter...this technique is also useless .

But there's a kind of process, you can flip every single atom directly into antimatter (mirror !) state .

But - you see it right - there's a problem ...

Antimatter anihilates if it comes in contact with pedant .

To keep it, complex magnetic traps and a lot of Energy must be invested to save ,as example, antihydrogen for 1000 seconds .

for use and application you have to create it in a constant
process because you can't handle large ammounts of this (anti-) matter without extremly high risk for thermodynamic enviroment .

A potentially useful quick production process is based on a concept, wich only could be compared with the upside exampled shotgunfire into a forest against a real sniper rifle, wich hit's the target accurately and under special conditions .

If research-money and technical ressources are not the problem (reconfigurate and modding LHC), we can start in few months...

But honestly:Sorry...

The Details are military relevant and i do not publish dangerous things like this in public or this state of human civilisation .

So i hope your Question is answer'ed .

many friendly greets,

Heiko

*applause*

Are we living in a computer simulation?

 

[GastonEE]

How many genders are there?

 

[CapLab]

*applause*

Are we living in a computer simulation?

Hi,

Because every single h (6,626x10'34 J/s) in Universe is directly connected and in "superposition", we have definitely to say :

This Universe is a hughe "Quantum Computing Process" if we make our own technical Q-BIT Design to Reference for Definition of this act .

So this Point of View answered your Question .

Because a kind of Susskind's Holographic Principle is creating Reality and the impression of 3D Space in floating time it's possible that we're living in a process state of single Q-Bit, but we will never be able to find out if this is true .

My Knowledge ends definitely at the point of init the Big Bang Event, i know exactly what is the base of it and how it works - but i can't verify what is the Reason for starting this process...

Speculative Assumption's do not help to find out because everything -we cant imagine,too- is possible .

Maybe a higher dimensional creator just push a button ? - i dont know...

So this is also point, you're free to believe in what ever you wanted.



Friendly greets

Heiko

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[CapLab]

This is a deep philosophical question .

and i introduce shortly :



John Archibald Wheeler said : "Mass without Mass" ...
Sartre said : It is was it isn't, what that is, what it is...
Schopenhauer said : "World as a Will and Imagination"
Platon : sing'ing a deep underground refrain ...

i do'nt know if my english is good and if it's save enough to answer this question in a online forum - but i just try it and hope, you will understand how i mean the following ...

I'am (almost) unisono with you (Point of View, Observable, Conclusio)...

To this, i see one more problem : Communication/Imagination .

One of most dismissed Fact's is the verbal limitation to describe what we found on our research or examinations .

On my own scientific examinations i found a lot of really " extraordinary " Phenomena wich show me, how deep the white rabbit's hole gone .

But i have to use terms from newtons dynamic to explain modern physics phenomena - this is hughe Problem of modern physic Science and the why i cant answer accurate!

I Explain : Dualism ...
Bohr call it "Complementary" ...

How we can describe the phenomena of wave and corpus in a single event, integrated in a background metrik ?
we can't explain because we have no idea what it is or simplifized what it could be...
a electron can't be a wave with his unlocal properties and a particle with localized properties at the same time .

Because we can't find words for this, we can't imagine .

Shure, you can create a word like "wavicle" and associate all the properties with it - but you dont get a new imagination because our terms are out to date ...

This make the way to understand the nature complicated.

Abstract speculations like more dimensions pp will be the result.

The 5-Dimensions Model (a inverted torus ?) from Kaluza is one of them and i cant believe in because this are not this, what i see daily .

This is like Kurt Gödel's work about closed timelines...
(Gödel bring the "proof", that ART and SRT are possible with this closed and like a "self filling flask" working timelines).



You ask for my own (autistic) view to natures ground ?

Ok, but these words are hard to understand right ;

There are only 2 Dimensions visible - of course, they simulate the impression of a 3rd space and a 4th time dimension (like Lenny Susskind's holographic princple)

Interaction of these 2 well known but definiteley not symetric (!) dimensions create 3rd space fractus and his artefact wich look's like timeflow (this is reason for 4D Entity) .

The field is not so complicated structured, it just follows a very simple algorythm - but every step of this algo is like a new dimension view if you compare it with your onion layers example.


If you follow this concept - all "mysteries" or problems of understanding are gone and you can see, E=hv and E=mc² are just 2 Parameters wich are included quantity's .
They do not concurrent - the mathematical collapse is only our wrong imagination from the equals properties .

Nature still answered all of our Questions - but nobody understand the Answer and so we see no light at end .

We do not even know the simplest : MATTER

So i give you something for your Mind :

I have a dispute with the interpretation of rutherford's experiment and the on its based theoretical concept of matter wich was presented by Nils Bohr, also i can't believe in maxwells work because he did'nt know something from these things, we know today exactly ...

we know, every particle is still oscillating ...

In shortly Summation :

There's no Evidence wich validate, that nucleus is massive corpus ... A PRIORY you have to make the assumption, that the Nucleus is corpuscular to achieve the same conclusions about structure of atomics and matter like Rutherford or Bohr .

Rutherford's experiment was not real serious science, more like Maxwell's interpretation of EM without knowledge about electrons or "atomic" and periodic table structure...

But these results are, what you read now in every physic book and wich defocused students from right lane...


However, Matter is condensed Energy Field Config !


Validated is :

Quarks as a constituent of nucleus can't exist stand alone.

"Seperate" one of a Pair of them needs a minimum of energy feed but in real high energy experiment a lot of evidence show, that you C A N 'T seperate them... A L W A Y S you will get 2 compounded pieces wich shows, it's "condensed energy"...

To get exactly this results and see deep ground of every physical phenomena you only need these 2 dimensions as interacting background metric - thats enough (less !) ...

Nature is no 11 dimensional string-monster or a pervert calabi yau space in warped anti de sitter space...

No No No and thousand times NO !

Nature is the simplest thing ever !

Human Brain Evolution is not finished and i believe in, the day humans can see more of reality will come - but now humans are to stupid because our Brain stand on the begin of evolution and not at the end .

(this is not the end, not the beginning - but maybe we're at the end of the beginning)

hmmm...

I cant explain my knowledge in simple (english) words and it will be dangerous to share every single aspect - if i wanna tell you the deep truth, also i have to show you some live-experiments and make a debate about point of view , interpretation and the conclusions .

this is what Einstein means oint of view determines theory and not theory the point of view .

so it will me be a pleasure if we can speak on day directly about this - because here's not the right time or place .

Maybe i open a sidekick thread for physic discussions .



friendly greets,

heiko


P.S.: I'am not happy with my answer - my english is real bad and i cant articulate my mind in these language .
also i'am stressed because i have to answer some more questions with bad working low end hardware .

i try to find better words in next few days and answer again and more precise !

@CapLab

 

[AmericanSpartan]

@CapLab

We are having similar thoughts. It is very hard to describe what we are both trying to describe because our current words (in english) fail to describe it. It is more of a felt knowledge than logical, but it stems from a logical background. It's seeing the third picture from adding two pictures together. Thank you for your answer. I think we both think and understand the same things with regards to how the universe may work.

 

[Roli]

@CapLab - Some questions and observations

Are infinities a result of a mathematical collapse?

If the language of Newtonian, or quantum physics is too limiting, make up another.

Is the Uncertainty Principle, a collapse in human understanding, or a "real" phenomena?

Will quantum computing use the Uncertainty Principle; and will it work the way we think (simultaneous multiple calculations, collapsing to single point [answer])?

Maybe write some answers in German as well, if English limits you.

Do you agree we can use technology to speed up the evolution of the human brain?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Chazmania]

Hey thanks for the cool thread.

I saw a documentary on savants once and it showcased some amazing abilities. One young kid could reproduce any song by Louis Armstrong on the piano perfectly note for note without ever having learned to play the instrument. And he would sing the lyrics too.

If he heard the song just one time he could replay it perfectly. How does he have access to the knowledge and the technique to do this without ever studying and practicing the instrument?

 

[CapLab]

Hi,

in following text i try to answer your complex questions -----almost--- shortly:

1) are infinities a result of a mathematical collapse?

AW: Of course... our mathematical System is not realized in Nature - decade sys is developed from our fingers...

Nature do not calculate in digit's from 0-9 ...

infinitys are there, because our system have main error in his base : 10:3x3=9,99999...

how you can get a definitely true result, if the system you're working with generates relict's in his fundamental operations !

Also our understanding from infinity is wrong .

they are NO Infinitys - only we create them !



2) if the language of Newtonian, or quantum physics is too limiting, make up another.

AW: language limit is hardest problem ever - i can show you incredible things and phenomena - and you will understand it without words ... but if we wanna communicate, we can't find words to describe what we see...

wave, particle, infinity, fractus... time...

these terms are not accurate enough to explain something more than this, we know from our daily experience .

crossing terms between different physical disciplines do nothing - ok, you one thing is happen : you will be confused.

3) Is the Uncertainty Principle, a collapse in human understanding, or a "real" phenomena?

AW: This is nice Question...
uncertain principle is REAL phenomena, also it is a wrong interpretation / understanding of the "how it works" (so we believe in indeterministic) .

there is no Indeterministic !

Einstein said: I believe, the Moon is there too, if i dont look up to him...

Some Parameters are not understand by scientist - but time will come they can see them too .


4) Will quantum computing use the Uncertainty Principle; and will it work the way we think (simultaneous multiple calculations, collapsing to single point [answer])?

AW: Definitely NO !!! Quantum computing work on dimensional base slip - this is more like a surfing on surface of dimensional field than a real "superposition" .

but the results are nearly the same, because the coupling to dimensional fieldinteraction is broken .


5) Do you agree we can use technology to speed up the evolution of the human brain?

AW: Hmmm...serious science said, it's definitely possible to manipulate human behavior by using high frequency waves.

military technology developement from early 1990's was able to send direct mind controlling waves over distance of aproximately 100 m .

actual technology for this application are black projects and no scientific report will be published (we know why...).

i have problems to believe in a future technology wich is able to give us deeper sight into natures basic principle or speed up evolution safely .
To enhance cognitive capacity, wich is physical a electron controlled (nuclear and molecular) process, we need more than a simple or advanced frequency bombardement wich we can do now.
Only a natural Evolution of humans neural network will be able to give us real insight .

Maybe in few thousands of years, mankind will be use completely different technology to ours from today, more than the actual small magic behavior tricks will be possible...


friendly greets

Heiko B.

@CapLab - Some questions and observations

Are infinities a result of a mathematical collapse?

If the language of Newtonian, or quantum physics is too limiting, make up another.

Is the Uncertainty Principle, a collapse in human understanding, or a "real" phenomena?

Will quantum computing use the Uncertainty Principle; and will it work the way we think (simultaneous multiple calculations, collapsing to single point [answer])?

Maybe write some answers in German as well, if English limits you.

Do you agree we can use technology to speed up the evolution of the human brain?

 

[CapLab]

Hey thanks for the cool thread.

I saw a documentary on savants once and it showcased some amazing abilities. One young kid could reproduce any song by Louis Armstrong on the piano perfectly note for note without ever having learned to play the instrument. And he would sing the lyrics too.

If he heard the song just one time he could replay it perfectly. How does he have access to the knowledge and the technique to do this without ever studying and practicing the instrument?

savants...

Autism or savant syndrome is just a divergent neuronal connection set between brain hemispheres and a hyperactivity of single cortex region .

One of most reason for this disorder is wrong bacterical set in intestine gut, wich make a failure in brain growth by sending neurotoxic substances in it, or, in many other case, its just a evolutionary step (nature test all ways).

Well this guy now can "feel harmonics" on very high level, so he know intuitive how a piano works and how to play .

There's nothing "magical" :
Play piano perfectly is easiest skill, because harmonic ladder is visible in knobs and following a very simple algorythm .

if the guy hear the track only one time, he can play it perfectly because he "see" the main harmonic structure behind .

autism disordered guy's and girls loves simple repeating structures and the piano is one of the finest, because it is "hearable", "touchable" and "visible" .

also neuronal feedback play a major role :

sending acustic wave trough air let your eardrum oscillating first - this signal will be transformed into electron neurosignal wich stimulate different brain regions .

if the frequency is resonant to neuron signal line, a automatically harmonic feedback will be the result .

the guy just follow the line in his brain - but we dont know, how it looks like (the line)...
in many cases its just a picture wich contains all informations about the track and in other cases, it's just a colour, a text or something, we cant imagine .

(associating type must be testet before you can validate how he "see" it) .

friendly greets,

Heiko B.

Hey thanks for the cool thread.

I saw a documentary on savants once and it showcased some amazing abilities. One young kid could reproduce any song by Louis Armstrong on the piano perfectly note for note without ever having learned to play the instrument. And he would sing the lyrics too.

If he heard the song just one time he could replay it perfectly. How does he have access to the knowledge and the technique to do this without ever studying and practicing the instrument?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Roli]

Danke fur dein sehr gut antworten! Entshuldigung mein deutsch, aber ist nicht sehr gut. Ich kann spreche, aber es ist einfach!

Like I say, thank you for your beautiful answers, if I can ask you more please.

Can you build a star drive? That is to say a rocket engine with more efficiency than our current wasteful levels?

Would you use, plasma technology?

Are plasma engines viable for use in space, and also in our own atmosphere?

In my mind, the best way to eventually mine asteroids, will be to put engines on them, and steer them back towards a near earth orbit; what are your thoughts on this?

Could you personally, build a van neumann probe? If not, how far do you think, are we from this possibility?

 

[Roli]

Oh! One more, I have just thought of.

Theoretically, if we had enough molten iron, and we could drill down to the centre of Mars and pour it all in; could we;

a) Create a magnetosphere?

and

b) Change the gravitational mass of the planet?

 

[Mr.Chaos]

How do they get the fruity filling inside of a trident layer?

I want the exact process....step by step,


Thanks

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[CapLab]

Danke fur dein sehr gut antworten! Entshuldigung mein deutsch, aber ist nicht sehr gut. Ich kann spreche, aber es ist einfach!

Like I say, thank you for your beautiful answers, if I can ask you more please.

Can you build a star drive? That is to say a rocket engine with more efficiency than our current wasteful levels?

Would you use, plasma technology?

Are plasma engines viable for use in space, and also in our own atmosphere?

In my mind, the best way to eventually mine asteroids, will be to put engines on them, and steer them back towards a near earth orbit; what are your thoughts on this?

Could you personally, build a van neumann probe? If not, how far do you think, are we from this possibility?

To Answer this kind of Questions will always be a pleasure for me but Hardware/Browser Lag'z limits the textlenght !


1) Can you build a star drive? That is to say a rocket engine with more efficiency than our current wasteful levels?

AW: I'am High Tech Developer - of course this was one of my first and easiest creations but i cant realize this new technology now, because i have no financial ressources or materials to improve a microsized prototype engine (it's very Expensive).

ESAA - ex somnium ad astra...


2) Would you use, plasma technology?

AW: Shure, the Design is based on modified Ionic Engine ...
My Intention was to make a plasma repulsor to get higher accelleration on shorter distance by save fuel and energy .

Conceptual blueprint's show, its possible to realize a 35 Kg lightweight and "portable" Device wich is able to lift up itself under atmospheric condition for one/two minutes or may more .

Of course, not spectaculary but a first step !

(Y E S: 20 of 35 Kg are LiPo's ...)

3) Are plasma engines viable for use in space, and also in our own atmosphere?

AW: Plasma Propulsion will be the Future in every case because you also can use Quantum-Effects to increase the low Efficiency .

Repulse induce Pulse - hardest technical Problems today are, that you need a hughe ammount of Energy to get a very high (>2500kA) plasma current and trigger it with min. same input current again and again and again ...
(Well, you can do it with a cheap circuit "hack"...)

Also you can't create a "portable" fast (200 times/s) evacuation Chamber* for high energy reactions.

These are the Things, wich are most needed to lift up something in atmosphere or accellerate a mass in space.

In Fusion Devices, liquid Lithium (LTX Tokamak) is used as coating to enhance plasma reactivity (The actual Problem: Hydrogen is Lithium's Death)wich show us, that a catalytic for nuclear reactions is NOT fraud...

Ok,
If we honest, we have to seperate two different Engine Types; one for use in atmosphere and one for space .

On the one Hand, we have a device wich works in atmospherical enviroment - best solution is to disrupt N2 Molecular-Binding and ionize the seperated N Atoms quickly ...

Because in space it's useless you have to use ionized Hydrogen - this is the other Hand ; a device wich works basically like a modified standart ionic engine...

So the Answer to this question is definitely a : "YES" !

(But please do not ask for more Detail - this is my once Invention i'am really proud of and because it is useble as a DEW too, i do not publish the concrete process in a online forum ...)

5) in my mind, the best way to eventually mine asteroids, will be to put engines on them, and steer them back towards a near earth orbit; what are your thoughts on this?

AW: NOW this is best solution and i agree with your POV . There is nothing to extend or add to your desription !

6) Could you personally, build a van neumann probe? If not, how far do you think, are we from this possibility?

AW: It's possible with actual 3D Print Tech... But we have to invest some million dollar into technical design and a first prototype of the probe .

A van Neumann probe is very interesting and the best way to realize them N O W is to use the well known electrical properties of carbon (2Dgraphene) .

You can collect them with a kind of a small "carbon bussard device" directly from space (solar orbit) or manuell from alternative sources and print them directly with a "3D-Printer-Spaceship"...

arrange 2D Graphene layers by printing it 3D is the how to make circuits, mechanic, hydraulic and frame in one single process ready to use !

This i give everytime Open Source !

Just Do it !



friendly greets,

Heiko

* If you wanna see this problem solved :
i will start a project on kickstarter next few weeks to get the funds for patent & rapid prototype of a microsized and incredible portable vacuum device (You will like this Stuff) .

 

[JokerCrazyBeatz]

I love this site so much ! How can we cultivate our own deeper intellegence. That's always interested and puzzled me . People like Tesla , and Einstein who we're admiditly visual first using their imagination to solve problems . Is there a way to improve this mental visualization to have practicle use ? How much effect could this have ?

 

[lowtek]

hi...

First:

i didn´t believe in particles or the concept of universal based space and time (Evidence?!)
particles or matter is one of the most misunderstood phenotype of energy .

the point of view determines, what we can see (Einstein to Heisenberg)

matter is same as energy and of course it needs a volume wich is related to frequency, wavelenght, amplitude and background metric setting to become part of universe .

also it is geometric field wich have nearly the same propertys like a calabi yau space but it´s no hypersphere; it is more like a n-dimensional fractus field wich is constructed like a vortex.

this is why matter have the stability and do not collapse .

you can see this incredible fundamental principle everywhere in universe - but most people are blind for these kind of natural wonders and didn´t see this detail.

Nature is changing her clothes on every scale but they cant change her basic principle.

planck scale only describes the base of interactions, so do not wonder if you must see this detail if you want or not...

friendly greets,

heiko

#landfill

I'm an actual physics PhD holder (several publications in high profile journals and an actual degree) and I have some bad news for you guys.

You are being trolled by an amateur physics crackpot.

I've seen it dozens of times. Some dude reads a little pop physics, maybe some of the slightly more in depth blogs out there, and then comes to believe he has some unique insights that thousands of us over the last 100 years have missed... It's quite common.

There are some telltale signs:

1) Assertions that things that are currently used in the lab every single day are actually misunderstood. For example, claiming that QM isn't "undeterministic". The outcome of a quantum measurement cannot be predicted with certainty, however once the state of the system is known it evolves deterministically according to the Schroedinger equation. Concrete example: precisely predicting when an unstable isotope will undergo radioactive decay is impossible; that's why we have the phrase "half life".

Attacks on Maxwell's work are also telltale signs. Maxwell's equations perfectly describe non relativistic electrodynamics and form the basis for literally everything that relies on electricity. Heck, you can even predict the speed of light by a very simple proof just by combining a few of his equations. It's quite beautiful and something every upper level undergrad physics major gets to do.

2) Misunderstanding basic fundamental physics - i.e. asserting that matter and energy are the same thing. They're most certainly not, though they are interchangeable under certain circumstances. Energy has a very specific definition: it is the capacity to do work. The idea that matter and energy are the same thing comes from a misunderstanding of Einstein's famous E=mc^2 equation. It just gives you the amount of energy stored in a quantity of matter. You can split atoms to liberate energy, and you indeed turn some of the matter into energy, but it's erroneous to say that they are identical.

Or, asserting that "every single h (and he quotes the value in SI units for good measure) is in a superposition... h is just a fundamental constant of nature that describes the scale of quantum interactions. It's very small, because well... quantum mechanics isn't relevant until very small scales (though we are pushing the boundaries at which we can observe quantum mechanical correlations). A mathematical constant cannot be in a superposition.

Claiming that the universe is a giant quantum mechanical super computer is ... well... also wrong. quantum computers rely on superpositions of states, but these superpositions are destroyed by even the slightest interaction with energy. Needless to say the fact that we can observe the universe (i.e. it is interacting with light) means that you cannot have universal superpositions. That statement borders on quantum woo, and it's a common thing for the physics crackpot to say.

3) Usage of language outside of the field. Like any other discipline, in physics we have common jargon. Phrases like, "dimensional base slip" or "fractus" are not part of that jargon. This cannot be explained by a language barrier, as physics is an international discipline. I worked with a both a russian and german group while I was a grad student, and communication with them never involved any terms with which I was unfamiliar. I invite you to Google these terms, and find any physics literature that uses them.

4) Claims of expertise in a wide variety of topics in physics. This is a dead giveaway of the crackpot. Professional physicists spend many, many years going deep on a single topic within a subdiscipline of physics. There is virtually no crossover from condensed matter to plasma, for instance, as these are perpendicular skill sets. One can get a bird's eye view of another field, but no actual physicist would claim expertise in more than a couple topics, even within a whole field. Meaning, if you're a graphene expert, you're not an expert in quantum computers.

I think this guy actually believes he knows something.... but it's pretty clear to anybody with a couple semesters of college physics that he's spewing nonsense. I don't think it's malicious, but it is certainly delusional.

If you're curious about the current state of physics, pick up "The elegant universe" by Brian Greene. It's a great exposition on modern physics in plain language. Also, PBS spacetime on YouTube has great content if you're into video.

Not my intention to thread crap, but I think there should be some sort of standards for the discourse here. I would argue those standards should include not lying about your level of expertise in a given topic.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Roli]

2) Misunderstanding basic fundamental physics - i.e. asserting that matter and energy are the same thing. They're most certainly not,
.

Isn't this in direct contradiction to certain experiments at the LHC? My (base) understanding is that at energies of 30 Gev or more, the state of certain quarks will become pure energy; is that not so?

Plus, I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss the OP, there have been brilliant pioneers in the sciences before that were called wrong by the establishment. However their intuition later shone through; I mean, let us not forget that Einstein himself intended to dismiss Quantum Mechanics.

Then there was Barry Marshall, the establishment just absolutely knew, that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. He was called ridiculous, and then he drank the broth containing Helicobacter pylori, and proved everyone wrong.

#justsaying

 

[lowtek]

Isn't this in direct contradiction to certain experiments at the LHC? My (base) understanding is that at energies of 30 Gev or more, the state of certain quarks will become pure energy; is that not so?

Plus, I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss the OP, there have been brilliant pioneers in the sciences before that were called wrong by the establishment. However their intuition later shone through; I mean, let us not forget that Einstein himself intended to dismiss Quantum Mechanics.

Then there was Barry Marshall, the establishment just absolutely knew, that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. He was called ridiculous, and then he drank the broth containing Helicobacter pylori, and proved everyone wrong.

#justsaying

Again, matter being converted into energy is well known. Matter certainly stores energy, in proportion to its relativistic rest mass. That's fundamentally different than saying matter and energy are the same thing, which is false.

Matter has fundamental properties, such as spin and charge, that don't have analogues in energy. For instance, there is no spin or charge associated with gravitational potential energy, or classical kinetic energy. Saying that they are the same thing is as wrong as saying a photon is an electron. They have completely different properties and behave in completely different ways.

I am 100% justified in being quickly dismissive of the op, with respect to his claims of being an expert in all things physics. I am justified because I spent 10 years going through the process of becoming a physicist. Thousands of hours, and countless late nights studying the brilliant minds that came before, all in the hopes I could catch a glimpse of the glory of nature. That process equipped me with the capacity to parse statements and determine if they are being produced by someone who has gone through at least some part of that process.

Bringing up Barry Marshall only proves my point. He had two bachelors degrees, and was actually educated in medicine. His work contradicted the prevailing school of thought, but nothing he suggested contradicted reality. Moreover, his new theory for ulcers was couched in the language of his branch of science, rather than the language of star trek. His peers would have attacked him as being wrong, but he was taken seriously enough to actually prove that he was right.

You're free to believe what the OP says, but as someone who knows better, it's my responsibility to sound the alarm.

 

[jon.a]

Oh well, I wasn't understanding much of this stuff anyway.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[CapLab]

#landfill

I'm an actual physics PhD holder (several publications in high profile journals and an actual degree) and I have some bad news for you guys.

You are being trolled by an amateur physics crackpot.

I've seen it dozens of times. Some dude reads a little pop physics, maybe some of the slightly more in depth blogs out there, and then comes to believe he has some unique insights that thousands of us over the last 100 years have missed... It's quite common.

There are some telltale signs:

1) Assertions that things that are currently used in the lab every single day are actually misunderstood. For example, claiming that QM isn't "undeterministic". The outcome of a quantum measurement cannot be predicted with certainty, however once the state of the system is known it evolves deterministically according to the Schroedinger equation. Concrete example: precisely predicting when an unstable isotope will undergo radioactive decay is impossible; that's why we have the phrase "half life".

Attacks on Maxwell's work are also telltale signs. Maxwell's equations perfectly describe non relativistic electrodynamics and form the basis for literally everything that relies on electricity. Heck, you can even predict the speed of light by a very simple proof just by combining a few of his equations. It's quite beautiful and something every upper level undergrad physics major gets to do.

2) Misunderstanding basic fundamental physics - i.e. asserting that matter and energy are the same thing. They're most certainly not, though they are interchangeable under certain circumstances. Energy has a very specific definition: it is the capacity to do work. The idea that matter and energy are the same thing comes from a misunderstanding of Einstein's famous E=mc^2 equation. It just gives you the amount of energy stored in a quantity of matter. You can split atoms to liberate energy, and you indeed turn some of the matter into energy, but it's erroneous to say that they are identical.

Or, asserting that "every single h (and he quotes the value in SI units for good measure) is in a superposition... h is just a fundamental constant of nature that describes the scale of quantum interactions. It's very small, because well... quantum mechanics isn't relevant until very small scales (though we are pushing the boundaries at which we can observe quantum mechanical correlations). A mathematical constant cannot be in a superposition.

Claiming that the universe is a giant quantum mechanical super computer is ... well... also wrong. quantum computers rely on superpositions of states, but these superpositions are destroyed by even the slightest interaction with energy. Needless to say the fact that we can observe the universe (i.e. it is interacting with light) means that you cannot have universal superpositions. That statement borders on quantum woo, and it's a common thing for the physics crackpot to say.

3) Usage of language outside of the field. Like any other discipline, in physics we have common jargon. Phrases like, "dimensional base slip" or "fractus" are not part of that jargon. This cannot be explained by a language barrier, as physics is an international discipline. I worked with a both a russian and german group while I was a grad student, and communication with them never involved any terms with which I was unfamiliar. I invite you to Google these terms, and find any physics literature that uses them.

4) Claims of expertise in a wide variety of topics in physics. This is a dead giveaway of the crackpot. Professional physicists spend many, many years going deep on a single topic within a subdiscipline of physics. There is virtually no crossover from condensed matter to plasma, for instance, as these are perpendicular skill sets. One can get a bird's eye view of another field, but no actual physicist would claim expertise in more than a couple topics, even within a whole field. Meaning, if you're a graphene expert, you're not an expert in quantum computers.

I think this guy actually believes he knows something.... but it's pretty clear to anybody with a couple semesters of college physics that he's spewing nonsense. I don't think it's malicious, but it is certainly delusional.

If you're curious about the current state of physics, pick up "The elegant universe" by Brian Greene. It's a great exposition on modern physics in plain language. Also, PBS spacetime on YouTube has great content if you're into video.

Not my intention to thread crap, but I think there should be some sort of standards for the discourse here. I would argue those standards should include not lying about your level of expertise in a given topic.

Sorry my Friend,

Plz Do not kill this S E R I O U S Thread -
because YOU didn't know, what i know and what i can see ...

You injure me that i'am Amateur but you know nothing about my REFERENCE , LIBARY MAIN SOURCE or BACKGROUND !

I 'am autistic physic interested M A N I A C and study nature's phenotype and phenomena, the REALITY himself, since i was 2 years old...

I'am like a databank for scientific research publication so plz com on ;
my intramural libary are minimum my SD Cards full with 1,4 TB PDF Data, all about the LHC / ITER / TOKAMAK Blueprint's , Sat-Data's (WMAP Etc) and all original scientificPublication's since Volta, Hertz, Wien,Einstein, Planck and Tesla (including her Biography's) i read all of legendary "annalen für physik" (YEAH) and know different disciplines like astrophysics, chemistry, electronics, philosophy, history psychology, genetic, technology, nanoeffects and believe me i have sources you cant believe that you didn't know them ...

I read arxiv.org every morning, all of my standart behavior is related to science experiment ...

This is it - i'am E X P E R I M E N T E R too !

I build physical device for scientific application ...

Do YOU found some new REAL Phenomena or physical Effects ?
Do YOU found no simple Answer to radioactice decay ?
Do YOU found some technical Inventions ?

Me too my Friend , me too...

So and sorry but this is the point (!!!) :

You sound's like a only theoretical educated scientist ...

Tell me why you know only 5% from universe and have to call the unspecified rest as "dark" ?

Why your Mathematic runs amok ?

Why you cant explain simple gravity ?

Why you change every hundred years your POV between deterministic or indeterministic (you do not know what this word really means - i believe)

Why you call quantum teleportation and superposition "spooky" ?

And why the f***k you believe, E=hv and E=mc2 are incompatible ?

Plz tell me wich Terrain is your special !
Maybe i'ts one of mine ?!

I believe Y O U are the once A M A T E U R PhD here -

So plz give me your Reference or Pulishing Server link !

Sorry, i'am always respectful and tolerant but also consequent -
i'am pissed off, because someone dissed my reference without showing his nugget'z !

I see only standart from Physic Book but there's no deep detail !?

Is that all you can "repeat" - is there no new content ?

I wanna say a lot of things, explain you why you get wrong ...
But i'am stressed now an i need some time to destroy your POV .

So i have to chill short time and than i will write something to your detailed injuration and show you how deep white rabbit hole gones !

Stay with and remember Einstein,
in discussion with Heisenberg wich ask him (W.H. believes, Einstein only stay with Ernst Mach's POV that Atoms are unreal because you cant see them directly) : " If it's right, you only put directly observable phenomena into your RT to describe the Reality ?"

Einstein's answer :

"It's totally stupid to make a theory only including observables, because a priori the theory defines, what we can see".

Friendly greets

Heiko

 

[Nexus]

#landfill

I'm an actual physics PhD holder (several publications in high profile journals and an actual degree) and I have some bad news for you guys.

You are being trolled by an amateur physics crackpot.

I've seen it dozens of times. Some dude reads a little pop physics, maybe some of the slightly more in depth blogs out there, and then comes to believe he has some unique insights that thousands of us over the last 100 years have missed... It's quite common.

There are some telltale signs:

1) Assertions that things that are currently used in the lab every single day are actually misunderstood. For example, claiming that QM isn't "undeterministic". The outcome of a quantum measurement cannot be predicted with certainty, however once the state of the system is known it evolves deterministically according to the Schroedinger equation. Concrete example: precisely predicting when an unstable isotope will undergo radioactive decay is impossible; that's why we have the phrase "half life".

Attacks on Maxwell's work are also telltale signs. Maxwell's equations perfectly describe non relativistic electrodynamics and form the basis for literally everything that relies on electricity. Heck, you can even predict the speed of light by a very simple proof just by combining a few of his equations. It's quite beautiful and something every upper level undergrad physics major gets to do.

2) Misunderstanding basic fundamental physics - i.e. asserting that matter and energy are the same thing. They're most certainly not, though they are interchangeable under certain circumstances. Energy has a very specific definition: it is the capacity to do work. The idea that matter and energy are the same thing comes from a misunderstanding of Einstein's famous E=mc^2 equation. It just gives you the amount of energy stored in a quantity of matter. You can split atoms to liberate energy, and you indeed turn some of the matter into energy, but it's erroneous to say that they are identical.

Or, asserting that "every single h (and he quotes the value in SI units for good measure) is in a superposition... h is just a fundamental constant of nature that describes the scale of quantum interactions. It's very small, because well... quantum mechanics isn't relevant until very small scales (though we are pushing the boundaries at which we can observe quantum mechanical correlations). A mathematical constant cannot be in a superposition.

Claiming that the universe is a giant quantum mechanical super computer is ... well... also wrong. quantum computers rely on superpositions of states, but these superpositions are destroyed by even the slightest interaction with energy. Needless to say the fact that we can observe the universe (i.e. it is interacting with light) means that you cannot have universal superpositions. That statement borders on quantum woo, and it's a common thing for the physics crackpot to say.

3) Usage of language outside of the field. Like any other discipline, in physics we have common jargon. Phrases like, "dimensional base slip" or "fractus" are not part of that jargon. This cannot be explained by a language barrier, as physics is an international discipline. I worked with a both a russian and german group while I was a grad student, and communication with them never involved any terms with which I was unfamiliar. I invite you to Google these terms, and find any physics literature that uses them.

4) Claims of expertise in a wide variety of topics in physics. This is a dead giveaway of the crackpot. Professional physicists spend many, many years going deep on a single topic within a subdiscipline of physics. There is virtually no crossover from condensed matter to plasma, for instance, as these are perpendicular skill sets. One can get a bird's eye view of another field, but no actual physicist would claim expertise in more than a couple topics, even within a whole field. Meaning, if you're a graphene expert, you're not an expert in quantum computers.

I think this guy actually believes he knows something.... but it's pretty clear to anybody with a couple semesters of college physics that he's spewing nonsense. I don't think it's malicious, but it is certainly delusional.

If you're curious about the current state of physics, pick up "The elegant universe" by Brian Greene. It's a great exposition on modern physics in plain language. Also, PBS spacetime on YouTube has great content if you're into video.

Not my intention to thread crap, but I think there should be some sort of standards for the discourse here. I would argue those standards should include not lying about your level of expertise in a given topic.

I was waiting for this post for a long time now. Thanks a ton.

 

[jon.a]

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lowtek]

Holy crap... I couldn't make it through this entire thread, but as an electrical engineer with a deep physics background, I can tell you that the OP is making up much (if not all) of what he's writing.

Half of this crap is just non-sequitur -- not right or wrong, but just nonsensical. Kinda like if I said, "Two plus tomato melts a semi-circle." Except the OP is using scientific terms that most people have never heard of, so I can see why it sounds like he's a genius.

I can promise you he's not. I would point out specific examples, but addressing any of this directly just lends the OP credibility, which I won't do...

Our assessments match, and I debunked some of the more erroneous claims myself.

 

[CapLab]

Fasten your seat-belt and enjoy the show !

Loading...