Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 236 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 6 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#50307 - 11/08/13 05:39 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209



Dear Orac Vx ( line velocity )
is very big >C it is perfect mixer

Omega direction ( I marked red colour CCW direction but it can be
CW direction all can finaly give ZERO !!!


We can have different ball mass and size ( above picture I shoved Fife equal mass but it no need have the same mass ) when You change in car somone change mass position to give zero )

Radius can be different for each ball separate

Above model will have 3 D rotation or Not ( 3d = left / rigt own rotation not only one omega like I showed )

Generaly all can give ZERO ( apparent position = mixer )




Edited by newton (11/08/13 05:50 PM)

Top
.
#50308 - 11/08/13 05:55 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Abut my test
exist also full digital ( 0/1 ) method

camera 1 ----R ---Bulb ---R --camera 2 -----> 30 km/s



0 - signal not exist
1 - signal exist

R distance i vacuum light need time To

we can set in tow ideal symetry cameras time To
( please open /close sensor only for time To )

If exist motion ! during time To light will not touch the sensor inside camera 2 and will touch !!! sensor in camera 1

http://youtu.be/PNYiejnl0t0


Edited by newton (11/08/13 05:57 PM)

Top
#50309 - 11/08/13 07:44 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Mass m faster than light = that not exist classical mechanic rules ( mass m will never get iformation about past - gravitation can not stop mass m faster than C> )

Omega and mass m faster than light ? ( right , upper, corner )
rotation can be very fast mass m can hit own apparent position and can feel OWN gravitation from past !!! mass m faster than light can make work and not lost kinetic energy !!! ( planets will feel old apparent position points and go to this points but nobody can inform mass m please stop You made in past work You must lost energy !!! )



Dear Orac In my brain exist many more strange facts
please use Your imagination if mass m will slown down You will be able see mass m and stop mass m by gravitation .

TELEPORTATION ?

Mass m apparent position can change position many bodies in the universe at one and the same time ( mass m faster than light = JOKER this is why teleportation is faster than light Newton gravitation not exist it is past for mass m - nobody can inform mass m please stop You made in past work !!!)

What is it teleportation for me my imagination (I never read about teleportation )

mass m + Huge energy


point 1

mass m exist in point 1
p1 =( apparent point )

very fast travel

p2

How they give so many energy to small body in so small time ?
they = people who made teleportation ( from Your links ) 147 km
400 km ?
biger distance = more bigger energy portion to mass m ?

it is huge energy to mass m and very fast trip !!!
not dematerialization but velocity >C = that body lost mass

I You will travel >C You will not exist for Universe ?
NO
Universe will feel Your old apparent position but Universe will not be able inform You ( Newton Action and Reaction will work only in one direction You ---> Universe not Universe ---> You

Universe can inform You only if You will hit other mass m
other type comunication not exist ( huge aberration outside signals not exist for You )


Build rocket faster than light
it is target for people ( for Engineer )
mass m faster than light lost mass m can not recive information
about observer and other problems work that mass m made in past

how we can stop mass m faster than light ? this mass must hit
other mass to stop or slown down .

147 km .... 400 km... I think that they not register the same mass m only other mass m1 that feel apparent position mass m
and change own position ( they register mass m1 mass m1 joust feel apparent position mass m )

( it is very hard stop mass m faster than light and not destroy this mass )



Edited by newton (11/08/13 08:13 PM)

Top
#50310 - 11/08/13 08:25 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
I You like physics please read about MR Mach

for Mr Mach the universe = many bodies conected ( roped ) by gravitation please push mass small mass m on table in Your room
the universe will feel what You did ( will feel new position of mass m )

Mach was first person who like use apparent position to measure velocity ( his ide is very close to my experiment camera bulb )



Mach FAR FAR star apparent position = My Bulb apparent position

bulb ----- camera >>>>> 30 km/s


WHAT IF MASS m will go more faster than C> ( this mass exist has huge kinetic energy ) but nobody can see mass m we only can register apparent position mass m.

Mass m faster than light lost conection with universe ( grvitation information can touch only past apparent signal that already made mass m > C )

"lost conection with universe " = that mass m faster than light
will not register that You made move small mass m on Your table



Edited by newton (11/08/13 08:28 PM)

Top
#50312 - 11/10/13 06:39 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Please look how works dark matter model

I have evidence that energy can not finish !!!

sorry I started new topic to special explain only this problem
what if mass m go faster than gravitation (own gravitation signal )

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=50311#Post50311




Edited by newton (11/10/13 06:46 PM)

Top
#50314 - 11/11/13 09:44 AM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209



Top
#50316 - 11/11/13 05:50 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: newton]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
This is one of those I did warn you about taking the spin analogy too classical and too far laugh

Ready for this because it's a bit hard to work in a classical sense

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-success-nuclear-quantum-closer.html

Quote:

They can rotate both clockwise and counterclockwise (equivalent to 1 and 0), and in both directions simultaneously (a mix of 1 and 0) – something that is completely unthinkable in the traditional, "classical" world.


You can't take the classical spin too serious it's a simplification smile

So you need to put in option 4 with it spinning both ways simultaneously laugh

Yes it's sort of hard to imagine but it does it and it is testable, only when you measure it will it take on a definite value ... that observation thing again smile

I am sorry you can only bring QM into classical world to a simplistic and sometimes erroneous level.


Edited by Orac (11/11/13 06:05 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50317 - 11/12/13 12:29 AM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I am not sure if this is going to help or make things worse for you it depends how you have gone with accepting quantum mechanics and abandoning your classic world.

This is a really interesting discussion about using very "weak measurements" or observation and then essentially restoring the spin back to it's proper unobserved or uncollapsed state.

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-physicists-uncollapse-partially-collapsed-qubit.html
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50318 - 11/12/13 08:00 AM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Dear Orac

below post ---> Important for Quantum Computers and Spin?

how looks athoms in laboratory ( localization small mass m )
please compare to big mass M


BEFORE STUDY BELOW PLEASE SEE LEFT SIDE OF PAGE (below link)
( 4 situations, ZERO , 0> , =, INFINITY )

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/doppler/doppler.html


Laboratory localization and Quantum ?

1 http://youtu.be/iHMYfYo9cXg

Do You Undrerstand that not exist III Newton's Law

I know You not like speak about cosmos I also
but it is explain why They HAVE zero LUX ( main topic forum )

2 http://youtu.be/H8ER7Rr3tvU

Athom for me = Infinity rotation

3 http://youtu.be/-_DPoFJadyk


Edited by newton (11/12/13 08:02 AM)

Top
#50320 - 11/12/13 08:52 AM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: newton]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: newton

Athom for me = Infinity rotation


Unfortunately that is not even close it's so badly wrong it's as we say stupid and you are reverting back to your old stupid where you are ignoring science facts on how things we know work.

This stuff is beyond you to challenge because Quantum Mechanics makes many thousands of predictions al of which are shown to be true.

I can show you thousands of tests on quantum spin to show you it is nothing like the rubbish you just wrote.

CLASSIC PHYSICS IS DEAD ... IT IS WRONG AND A BAD SIMPLIFICATION.

There is no infinities in Quantum Mechanics and your error is thinking that a quantum spin is remotely like a classical spin we have told you time and time again to stop that rubbish.

So you have a clear choice.

Accept you are wrong about the atom and learn or go off on the stupid nutcase path.

You have made steps to stop and learn I hope you continue to make that choice rather than go off on more stupidity.


Edited by Orac (11/12/13 08:53 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50321 - 11/12/13 09:28 AM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
OK You Like study problem

In My links ( Ytube ) I showed that Your
laboratory can be in two place :

( please imagine that You have Quantum Laptop )

place no 1 ( small mass m )
place no 2 ( big mass M )

Quantum Mechanic not feel different places ( laboratory location ) QM is absolute the same ? why low temperature help keep spin ? What is it temperature / preasure ?

Ok I don't know nothing about athom
( no problem I can learn I will learn )

What about Orac who like QM how You want to add
constant velocity problem to athom ???



Edited by newton (11/12/13 09:33 AM)

Top
#50324 - 11/12/13 01:47 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: newton]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
It's a Quantum Problem movement is irrelevant to QM ... remember it can jump from one end of the universe to the other instantly if it needs to.

See the problem your classic movement rubbish mean nothing to a quantum problem.

Things in the quantum domain don't play by our silly little classic rules ... as I said learn the Quantum rules or look like a complete idiot your choice.

I am sorry you silly little motion and mass rubbish means NOTHING and you are completely lost and you can't make any sort of argument about it.

You can't wipe QM out in a black hole, at the start of the universe in a big bang ... DO YOU REALLY THINK IT GIVES A TOSS ABOUT MASS AND MOVEMENT?

Stop and learn or just keep dribbling more rubbish and go back to being a LUNATIC ... choose A or B.

This stuff is all well known and we build bombs and all sort of weird electronic stuff around it ... stop and learn instead of trying to make up more and more stupid answers smile

Occasionally when you stop dribbling ever more stupid things and actually just follow the evidence of all the experiments a great many very smart scientists have done you make progress.

Lets face you are not the cleverest person in the world I don't get what makes you think that you somehow can solve the workings of the universe. You realize you haven't got a clue how QM works and still you want to insist you can answer these problems ... that is classic stupidity.

Anyhow so we are clear there in no spin in a classic sense, any motions and mass you want to somehow make an argument about are irrelevant because the Quantum Information won't see it doesn't care one bit about it ... it has it's own rules it obeys and those are very different to your silly classic rules.


Edited by Orac (11/12/13 02:02 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50325 - 11/12/13 02:59 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Dear Orac You did'nt wach my link

Things in the quantum domain don't play by our silly little classic rules ...


I already proved that not exist III Newton Law


I already proved that if mass m not exist = that mass m can make work !!!

please see again ? ( How big work made mass m ? why mass m will not slown down after pull mass M big ? )

it is only 5 minutes

http://youtu.be/iHMYfYo9cXg

after above You Tube I will ask You again

Your lab can be near big mass M or near small mass m .

Position of laboratory where You test Quantum Computers is not importnat for QM ? so why temperature is impotrtant for keep spin ( in lower temp Quantum computers work better )


You not understand what I did in abve Ytube
for classical mechanic it was impossible recognize constant velocity ( in my You tube constant velocity is important ? )


For Mr Einstein also not exist any special coordination system
he also not recognized constant motion problem

For QM exist velocity or not ? below picture it is joke ?
why it is ellipse not perfect circle ?



above picture made nice microscope

problem is that in Lab nobody think before picture where is
Earth Constant Velocity Arow and where is Lab

Laboratory ----> 30 km/s ? ( angle ? )

lab position is important or not for QM ?

Story of the image => http://io9.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901


Edited by newton (11/12/13 03:15 PM)

Top
#50326 - 11/12/13 03:40 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I am going to take a leap of faith and assume you might actually want to learn something rather than keep inventing garbage ... so you may ask what are the rules of Quantum Mechanics.

1) Particles are waves, and waves are particles .. with one possible exception. All matter and most known energy in the universe exhibits this weird property that they are not solid like classic physics used to imagine. The one big exception here is gravity which only has a proposed particle the graviton and as it has never been verified gravity remains the one big item outside the scope of Quantum Mechanics. So nothing in the universe we know of is truly solid it all phases in and out of existence and the nucleus of all atoms have to do that or the strong force could not work.

Implications: For really large objects made up of billions of atoms the phasing in and out is dwarfed by the sheer number and so is not noticeable. So at large scales classic physics works as a pretty good approximation and for most layman it is all they will ever need. You start playing around down at the atom level you need to understand Quantum Mechanics.


2. The quantum waves oscillate in discrete states. However, unlike classical states (which are discrete), a two-state quantum system can actually be in a superposition of the two states at any given time.

However the oscillation of QM states create it's own weird behavior

1.) A quantum state cannot be read without the state becoming the measured value ... in layman terms locked to reality.

2.) As the quantum state can not be determined with measurement and measurement locks the quantum state you can not clone quantum information. It is actually impossible to clone a quantum wave because you can't measure or observe it or it locks.

3.) As a quantum state is a superposition waveform you can't possibly lock or collapse both states because that would require you to be in two realities at the same time. This is called the Quantum no deletion theory that Quantum Information can not be deleted

Implication: You can never be sure about a quantum state without measurement all you can do is go on probability. The problem is making a measurement seems to lock the quantum state and create a fixed reality. The problem from a classic physics point of view is that it makes an assumption a universal reality exists. That is why the double slit experiment with light drives people crazy because it shows you reality is created by observation you can't assume you can work out which slit the photon went thru without observation.

Implication: This create one of the strangest and most important consequences of quantum mechanics that of “entanglement.” When two quantum particles share a superposition state they interact right way, their states will depend on one another, no matter how far apart they are in space.


3. Everything not forbidden is mandatory.
A particle moving from point A to point B will take absolutely every possible path from A to B, at the same time. Classic physics describes only the most probable path which for large objects turns out to be almost always correct but you can't assume it when looking at small individual particles.

Implication: Initially as weird as it sounds the prediction is the only way to create the interaction between an electron and a magnetic field correctly. All electronics ultimately relies entirely on this understanding.

Implication: It is why weird effects like quantum tunneling happen and get exploited in electronics. In the quantum world there is a probability things will pass straight thru barriers that under classic physics they shouldn't.


That is the 3 rules of QM .. some people break rule 3 apart to measurement creates reality, no-cloning and no-deletion and have 5 rules but the result is the same.


You will note non of that cares anything about mass or motion, temperature or any other classic physics stuff it's a totally different set of rules they are simple and all encompassing EXCEPT GRAVITY.


QM describes several key things about the universe that the conservation of energy in the classic physics sense is guaranteed. Quantum information can't be created or destroyed (that should sound familiar) and QM explains why that law exists for classic physics because classic physics is a simplification of QM for large objects.


So are we clear nothing in Classic Physics is ever going to challenge QM because classic physics is a dumbed down version of large scale QM ignoring weird effects. To challenge QM you would have to violate one of the central tenants of QM above.


So will you please accept that all your silly stupid classic physics garbage above is wrong when you are dealing with the atom and just learn rather than that make up stupid rubbish that seems to make sense to only you. When you get down to the atom you have to throw your classic physics away it does not work at that scale.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50327 - 11/12/13 03:50 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Dear Orac athom have mass m or zero mass ?

Top
#50328 - 11/12/13 03:50 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: newton]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: newton


lab position is important or not for QM ?




READ THE ABOVE.

POSITION, MOTION, MASS, TEMEPRATURE NONE OF THAT MATTERS.


WHY???

THOSE THINGS ARE BUILT OF QUANTUM INFORMATION THEY ARE LARGE SCALE EFFECTS YOU MEASURE.



QM is a waveform fluctuation in space and time and it is only affected in the ways described above ... those rules create classic physics as a simplification for large objects.

Your classic physics is a simplification of QM for very large objects.


The atom is not a very large object you can't use classic physics and you certainly can't apply large classic effects to them.

Surely this has to be sinking in!!!!!!!

NO ALL YOUR DETAILS ABOVE ARE RUBBISH ... COMPLETE RUBBISH.


Edited by Orac (11/12/13 03:58 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50329 - 11/12/13 03:56 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: newton]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: newton
Dear Orac athom have mass m or zero mass ?




The better question you need to ask is do they really exist at all.

They are continually phasing states to hold them together.

How the hell does something that is phasing in and out of the universe care about mass.

Specifically you measure a quantum momentum because they are quantum in nature you can't lock it's position and speed.

That little quantum problem again called uncertainty principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

So in chemistry we allow you to have atomic mass etc because in normal situations at large scale solutions it's a reasonable approximation but they are approximations make no doubt.


Edited by Orac (11/12/13 03:58 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50330 - 11/12/13 04:01 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
So contrary to your garbage above the shape of the atom in the real world is rather vexing because it would change and morph over time as it phased states.

So in many ways the whole idea is beyond stupid and the idea that some classic physics was having an effect is even more retarded.

Does it really have any shape at all is probably the better question. It's charge potential would be spherical, it mass would be a quantum spin anywhere and everywhere and most of its interactions would be from the center point in space. That's probably as best you could describe it with accuracy.



Edited by Orac (11/12/13 04:04 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50331 - 11/12/13 04:01 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209

Below link You showed me it is about Quantum Computer

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-success-nuclear-quantum-closer.html


I'm sorry I'm not a partner to speak with You about all problems

I want to ask You about words that I already found in link

Dynamic nuclear polarisation via conduction electrons has, however, not yet been demonstrated at room temperature – which is crucial for the method to be useful in practice for the development of quantum computers. The main problem is that the spin orientation in the electrons can easily be lost at room temperature, since it is sensitive to disruptions from its surroundings.

Temperature ? can You explain me temperature problem ?
Why the can in lover temperature and have problem with high temp?

Top
#50332 - 11/12/13 04:16 PM Re: LUX says no to most dark matter [Re: newton]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Temperature is a composite quantum mechanics effect.

The history of it goes like this temperature was measured because a liquid expanded up a tube when you heated it.

So a whole pile of garbage classic physics rubbish was built around this effect and measurements on it ... you learnt them all at school no doubt.

The bigger question is what is temperature in classic physics and they eventually worked it out that it is energy.

And you end up with whole piles of garbage classic physics built around energy and work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(thermodynamics)


The question that's not answered in all that was what is why does the liquid in the thermometer expand in fact not all substance behave that way .... in fact ice expands when cools smile


Long story short ... energy is quantum information and what it does in certain molecules is make the quantum spins faster. In some molecules but not all the faster spinning bonds makes them expand.


So what the problem is with temperature for a quantum computer is it represents random quantum information in a computer trying to store quantum information.

In an electrical sense it would be like asking you 5 volt computer processor to deal with a baseline of 110 volts AC running thru all its circuits.

I should have asked you to try and come up with a description of temperature in your classic physics .. it's actually quite funny watching people try and work out what temperature is.

This is what temperature really looks like
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130909092835.htm

Now if you want to see something really weird under quantum mechanics how about a material that expands under pressure. See once you understand the rules of QM you can break many classic physic simplifications.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130718161353.htm


Edited by Orac (11/12/13 04:20 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 6 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.