[Bell_quantum_foundations] presentation at Energies Webinar

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Friends,

I would like to draw your attention to my report “The Centuries-Old
Belief in the Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Machine Provoked an
Obvious Mistake in the 20th Century ” which will be presented 9 Nov
2022, 15:00 (CET) at Energies Webinar, Advanced Thermodynamics, Type-B
Energetic Processes and Their Applications, see
https://energies-8.sciforum.net/ .

I would like to draw the scientist's attention in this presentation to
the obvious, but not recognized by most physicists, fact that some
physical theories are based on faith rather than understanding. This
fact applies, first of all, to the most successful theories, such as
quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and superconductivity theory.
Quantum mechanics is not a scientific theory because of its
contradiction with realism. Thermodynamics is based on the
centuries-old faith in the impossibility of a perpetual motion
machine, which has no scientific substantiation. This unfounded faith
provoked an obvious mistake after the discovery of the Meissner effect
in 1933. No one for almost ninety years has noticed this obvious
mistake on which all theories of superconductivity are based.

The slaids of this presentation is available at ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365131329_The_centuries-old_belief_in_the_impossibility_of_perpetual_motion_machine_provoked_an_obvious_mistake_in_the_20th_century?showFulltext=1&linkId=63662e77431b1f530070adf8
, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21844.27521 .

With best wishes,
Alexey

[Chantal Roth]

Hi Alexey,

This sounds interesting!
Maybe you could also present this in one of our seminars, so it can be discussed and debated?

Best wishes,
Chantal

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4i%2ByzJafUPc8AaKbGk96r_C_7vLA9r%2BrHR_u6L-3r1GcMQ%40mail.gmail.com.
>
> Attachments:
> * MDPIwebinarLee.pdf

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Chantal,
Thank you for your interest. The violation of the second law of
thermodynamics has not only fundamental but also practical importance.
We are forced to use fuels in heat engines, not to get energy, but to
create a temperature difference because of the second law of
thermodynamics. Therefore the violation of the second law of
thermodynamics can solve the world's energy problems. The question of
the possibility of such a solution requires the widest possible
discussion.

With best wishes,
Alexey



пн, 7 нояб. 2022 г. в 09:16, Chantal Roth <cr...@nobilitas.com>:

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/f904a2b6-4782-4a82-9702-dac58a10c1a4%40app.fastmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Chantal and All,

Professor James W. Lee, Organizer and Chair of 2022 MDPI Energies
Webinars/Seminars Series invites to participate in his seminar:

FYI: Our 2022 MDPI Energies Webinars/Seminars Series "Advanced
Thermodynamics, Type-B Energetic Processes and Their Applications" is
now already up running on the Energies website:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fenergies-8.sciforum.net%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Cjwlee%40odu.edu%7Cfd8dbb698a14479b880008dabe829648%7C48bf86e811a24b8a8cb368d8be2227f3%7C0%7C0%7C638031765337899833%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=ehQV6uLLTS9lOz7lJI%2BgmV5QSNSsTEtibSmyoZTc%2Fwo%3D&amp;reserved=0
You and your associates are cordially invited to register free to
attend for the Energies Webinars/Seminars Series I (9:00-11:00 am New
York time on Wednesday, November 9, 2022), II (November 16), and III
(November 23) at the website now:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fenergies-8.sciforum.net%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Cjwlee%40odu.edu%7Cfd8dbb698a14479b880008dabe829648%7C48bf86e811a24b8a8cb368d8be2227f3%7C0%7C0%7C638031765337899833%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=ehQV6uLLTS9lOz7lJI%2BgmV5QSNSsTEtibSmyoZTc%2Fwo%3D&amp;reserved=0.
After your registration, the Zoom link for the webinar seminar series
will be provided to you by the MDPI Energies conference team system.
Note, the registration and attendance of the Energies webinar seminar
series I (9:00-11:00 am New York time on Wednesday, November 9, 2022),
II (9:00-11:00 am New York time on November 16) and III (9:00-11:00 am
New York time on November 23) are completely free of charge to all
attendees (Thanks to our sponsors: MDPI and Energies Journal)

Thank you with Best Regards
Organizer and Chair
James W. Lee, PhD
Professor, Old Dominion University
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry New Chem Building 4024C
4501 Elkhorn Avenue
Norfolk, Virginia 23529 USA
Tel: 757-683-4260 (Office) and 443-935-9198 (iPhone)
Email: JW...@ODU.edu






пн, 7 нояб. 2022 г. в 17:22, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com>:

[Austin Fearnley]

I have theoretical model to throw in which appears to be perpetual.  This is the Penrose Cyclical Conformal Cosmology where the universe restarts in successive cycles.  At the end of cycle the universe is very cold and full of infinite wavelength, or flat and exhausted, bosons with no energy left.  All the fermions had been transformed into bosons.  The end-of-cycle bosons are in a Bose Einstein Condensate and in a single state.  The large scale metric built by fermions and the exclusion principle is lost and the universe restarts in a single state at a point in a new small scale metric.

The very cold temperatures needed to obtain apparent perpetual-ness is a problem for making use of the superconductivity effect. The climate is warming and super cold temperatures are needed for this to work.  So one needs to be perpetually using energy to keep cooling some volume of interest.

(I am just an amateur.)

Best wishes


Austin 

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Chantal,

Yes, photoelectric effect would be a reason for doubting a purely wavelike description of matter.

Similarly, that in a wavesplitter with a 50% wave in both arms there is no coincidence of particle detection.

I would  add that the quatum waves are normalised to one when integrated over all space, just like a probability function even though fractions of a wave still satisfy the wave equation. I can't think of any classical linear waves where the amplitude is quantized. 

Also non local colapse is characteristic of an abstract probability function, not of a real wave. 

The wave equations of quantum theory don't have values at spacetime locations, they only have values in a higher dimensional configuration space.

Those seem quite compelling to me. 

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/f904a2b6-4782-4a82-9702-dac58a10c1a4%40app.fastmail.com.

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Just a comment on:

“Similarly, that in a wavesplitter with a 50% wave in both arms there is no coincidence of particle detection.”

This statement is NOT general. If the electromagnetic field contains ONE photon, a 50% beam splitter could not show coincidences between two single photon detectors, but just a single detection in one of the detectors. If the field contains many photons, coincidences may be seen. If it contains just a few photons, rare coincidences can still be seen, due to the non-zero photon probability p(n).

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: GeraldoABarbosa@keybits.tech 

Skype: geraldo.a.barbosa

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo2N_BC75jmd0iNAjffLbraBL64DNQrCbaGEGeK4xnT8_A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chantal Roth]

Hi Mark,

What about radio waves? The whole quantization seems to be an emergent effect caused by (quantized) emission and absorption.

Radio waves however, which are man made, are not quantized:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327578880_Man-Made_Electromagnetic_Radiation_Is_Not_Quantized

Imagine a radio wave with a wave length of 100 km - how could that possibly be a "particle" :-).

Plus, it can move electrons in an antenna, and that is not in any way quantized.

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Mark Hadley]

Radio waves are quantized. 

Are you suggesting there is a magic frequency where electromagnetic waves are particle like above the frequency and classical above it? Where suddenly all the equations of quantum theory stop?

If the quanta have a, low energy as in low frequency waves, then you need more to be detectable. 

Large numbers of quanta give the same results as a classical wave. That's why light looks like a classical wave until you do experiments with one photon at a time. 

The paper that you quote confuses the dscreteness of the spectrum with the discreteness of the amplitude. 

Cheers

Mark 

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Mark

While I completely agree with you about quantisation, I do not understand the process of weak measurement and suspect that it is an illusion.  I mean weak measurement rather than Weak charge.

Already in recent posts the role of a human observer making measurements has arisen.  I think that the fundamental aspect is an interaction event of elementary particles.  That event could be hidden inside a closed zone in a Feynman diagram (leading to virtual particles) or be peripheral where a particle product of the event could be measured in the laboratory.  To me it is all the same, that is, the fundamental aspect is an interaction event where particles come in and different particles come out of the event. It could be viewed as the same particle coming out of an event but every particle is definitely changed by the interaction.  For example an electron changes spin (changes chirality not merely helicity) at an interaction and in my books a right-handed electron is not the same as a left-handed electron as the l.h. electron possesses weak isospin which it has picked up from the vacuum.

So at a particle interaction event a particle is produced which can be detected at a measurement.  All the particles change at the event.  How can weak measurement make a measurement without changing the original states of the incoming particles an yet still have an outgoing particle to provide the measurement via its detection.

I also have a preon model and I use that to try and make sense of an off-shell reduced particle mass.  In my preon model a particle interaction involves exchanges of preons between particles.  If there is some delay in particles forming from preons then a quasi particle could be very temporarily formed which is not quite the proper elementary particle form.  All the preons would be there in the mix so there could still be a measurement on an outgoing particle.  But every particle would change in state.  So this does not explain how in a weak measurement there is an outgoing particle for the measurement and yet the incoming particle is somehow not disturbed in its state.

Best

Austin

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Austin,

Fundamentally an interaction with the environment is required. The state operator is effectively diagonalized by such interactions. It then becomes a classical probability function.

For the environment anything with a large number of unimportant degrees of freedom suffices. These degrees lf freedom are integrated over. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/2a0dfd1f-6d9f-4538-bb2d-676968d5fab6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Chantal Roth]

Mark,

What I am suggesting is that for some frequencies there is no natural quantized emission mechanism that would cause any quantization (such as human generated radio waves).

Is there any experimental evidence,at all, that radio waves should be quantized :-)?

(I think that this is simply an assumption).

The paper talks about both aspects in quite detail (it didn't seem to me that it was confusing it?).

What are you suggesting, exactly, what is quantized? 

Best wishes,

Chantal

[Austin Fearnley]

Thanks Mark

I think that I understood part of your answer.  

My background is maths and stats and I followed some years ago all of Susskind's online lectures from Stanford in his 'Theoretical Minimum' series. That includes his mathematical lectures on QM, QFT, Standard Model and Entanglement, and all others.  So I think I know what you mean about a diagonalised state operator which has zero on the off diagonals leaving state eigenvalues along the diagonal which makes it a classical outcome.

But I am having trouble understanding 'the environment' which seems possibly like a classical input. The environment must interact through QM methods such as particle inputs from the environment into an interaction.  Years ago, I found a list in the online bible of interactions of about fifteen or so pion decays, and I used my preon model to confirm each decay mode.  I made different decays, using preon exchanges, via different environmental inputs, that is, different environmental or vaccuum particles incoming to the interaction. Such as W, Z and Higgs incoming and outgoing.  In every case, every particle changed state at the interaction so I never saw any instance of the possibiliy of weak measurement (which relies on not changing the state of the particle being weakly measured).

I seem to remember that weak measurement arose in my readings about superposed particles and anything to do with those I find doubtful as I do not believe in superposition.  This makes me think that weak measurement is another flawed process.

I am too old and tired to write any more physics papers and it seems convenient to slowly wind down my physics at a time when I believe much of QM is flawed.  That is disappointing but a convenient place to slow down. I should add a reminder that I model Bell's experiment working via retrocausality.

Thanks again

Austin

[Mark Hadley]

I'm suggesting that all electromagnetic waves, including radio waves can only be emitted and absorbed in units (multiples) of h \nu called photons. Qed is our only theory of elctromagnetism and that is how it is formulated. 

[Mark Hadley]

Atomic and molecular spectra rely on superposition to calculate the energy levels to very high accuracy.

Benzene is a lovely example. 

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ac6a79e2-f505-4967-9655-ae331bd56984n%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Mark

It is the case that superposition works in QM to a high degree of accuracy, but phlogiston also 'existed' for a long while and also the earth-centred planetary orbits.  The question as I see it is whether particle 1 is enforcing an effect, but sometimes it is particle 2,  or is it an unreal superimposed physical mix of particles 1 and 2.  That is, are particle 1 and 2 states genuinely coexisting in a superposition or is it just particle 1, then 2 then 1, then 2 in a fluctuating sequence of states.   The latter is equivalent to observer ignorance, but one can imagine summing the different states in the sequence to get an overall effect.  This is a statistical process and stats can also give a high degree of accuracy of results.  We have at least two professors of statistics on this site so I will say no more about stats.

Reverting to my preon model.  It is merely a lego-like model with four preons as the four fundamental building blocks to make elementary particles.  A long time ago superposition was a problem for me in building say the gluons, which have a supposed superposed colour charge structure.  Anyway I built gluons without superposed structures and was able to make all interactions work.  In my model, the gluon is a third generation and therefore complicated structure.  More complicated than the photon and the Z boson. It is, however, possible to build in superpositions into a single complicated preon structure (by having numerous colour components in the structure) but not in the simpler photons and electrons.

I can look at benzine spectra and I do not expect to find fault with the results.  But will I suspect that the superposed accuracy is really just statistical accuracy along with observer ignorance?  Also QM explains the high correlations in a Bell experiment, but I prefer the retrocausal method as it is local.  Maybe retrocausality does not fit current ideas of reality but it does not require effects at faster than light speeds.

BTW I am still not convinced that weak measurements are genuine.  My post here was really following Chantal's question about wave & particle effects.  A weak measurement to me seems like a measurement on a wave yet you and I both seem to agree that the underlying processes are quantised.  How does a weak measurement not change the spin state of the measured particle?

Best wishes

Austin

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Austin,

As I see it you can do a measurement or not do a measurement, but can also have apparatus that's part way between. So it gets some information about position, but not a clear determination for example. 

Superposition is inevitable when you are working with a linear wave equation. It seems to me to be a mathematical accident that the square route of a probability function satisfies a linear equation. So experiment C can be expanded as the sum of experiments A and B. But really it's experiment C and that's that.

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/1f1cb1ec-f044-4e51-99ea-9d901c22ae04n%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Mark

I don't see how you can make a measurement, weak or otherwise, on an elementary particle without changing the state of the particle.
Supposition of two particle states for me is really ignorance about which single particle is present at any instant.

An article last year at https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-08-subatomic-particle-seen-changing-antiparticle-and-back-first-time
reports that "the charm meson can be itself and its antiparticle at once. This state, known as quantum superposition, ..."
To me this is particle and antiparticle being produced in sequence caused by particle interactions with vacuum particles.  I have not modeled this particular charm meson process with my preon model but I could do so. I have, years ago, done something very similar with neutrino oscillations into the three different generations. Producing the oscillations exactly in terms of preon contents at each step of the decays.

Best wishes

Austin

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Mark

I took a short break and have put art materials and old sketches and paintings on a table at home to encourage me to start painting landscapes again.  

If anyone wants to see my old life drawings of [warning] nudes they are here:
https://wordpress.com/view/ben6993slifedrawings.wordpress.com

[If Bryan can post his poems I thought I could send a link to my old paintings. I stopped attending my class in about 2017 as the lighting failed in studio and as these places run on charity they could not afford to replace the lighting fixtures for several years.  Then covid came along and the classes stopped for isolation purposes.  Then they went online but I was not happy that it would be the same experience online.  So I have not painted for about five years.  The life classes are back to near normal now but I want to revert to landscapes.]

But particle physics keeps drawing me back.  This thread was about Alexey's perpetual motion and that is relevant to my preons.  Also about superposition and linearity. And Chantal's point about wave verses particle behavior.  And my own view that entanglement can exclude superposition and depends instead on backwards in time motion of antiparticles.

I did not previously comment directly on Mark's point that: 'Superposition is inevitable when you are working with a linear wave equation ...   So experiment C can be expanded as the sum of experiments A and B. But really it's experiment C and that's that.'  
IMO 2+3=5  but 5 does not necessarily equal 2+3  as it could equal 1+4.  As an example K0 + K0bar could equal (in a count of preon contents) two particles of π0.  But two particles of π0 could equally well be divided into π+ + π-.  I do not think there is a universal freedom to divide particles as you please.  Nor to add as you please.

However, of course I agree in the linearity of QM.  I rely on linearity to let my preon model function.  My preons add in a particle interaction in a similar way to elementary chemical interactions such as HCl + KOH --> KCl + H2O.  The molecules change at an interaction but the count of atoms is identical before and after interaction.  Likewise elementary particles change at an interaction but the count of preons is identical before and after interaction.  This is also why elementary particles are always changed at an interaction, and therefore are changed by a particle measurement.

Even in (Susskind's lectures on) SUSY there is some kind of linearity using Grassman numbers/algebra.  The order of adding matters, as with geometric algebra, but [very conveniently] any quadratic term or higher becomes zero.  My preon model is an alternative in my opinion to SUSY as preons are exchanged between fermions and bosons linearly. And preons do not have the drawback of needing to form superpartners, which IMO are illusory.

Enough for now. I will write about the rest if anyone is interested eg the wave/particle issue and perpetual motion within my preons.

Best

Austin