h a l f b a k e r yAmbivalent? Are you sure?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Here's a imaginary wild thought.
How about a hydraulic blob or flubber type state entity as a physical description for the wave. This state can split and reform and infinitely stretch due to virtual particles being pulled into the state. Think skating coffee bubble that can get bigger or change shape
from atmospheric steam,
Getting particle information tears this state and the act sends the collapse through the entity causing this flubber to lose its special, outside or on top of normal, state.
So with the Quantum eraser experiment The flubber is created at the entanglement crystal, it spreads out through experiment and hits the screen, The screen isn't a particle detection so doesn't collapse flubber and it stretches through fo the other pathways to the eraser detectors. If set for information loss , The state is perturbed but not torn, only on an observation does the flubber lose it state and tear. Part of the flubber is still sitting at the screen The volume of the flubber is touching all parts at once so the tear travels through the experiment, reverting virtual particles and leaving the mind bending pattern on the screen.
Really 'wave' has trapped the mind to the classic wave, with all it's temporal baggage. This flubber wave would be a special quantum entity with actions and abilities that can take advantage of the universe's virtual particle structure/environment.
So where's there is magic smoke there is green goo.
[link]
|
| |
The practical applications of this idea are unexpectedly imponderable. |
|
| |
You can say that again ... |
|
| |
Presumably, the green goo is also quantized. Maybe
there's a weight loss method in there somewhere... |
|
| |
Holy crap I think I kind of understand what [wjt] is trying to say.
I'm going to try and see if I can compress it into a sentence. |
|
| |
If possibilities were visualized as a foam of un-realised bubbles of potential then the film between the bubbles, (flubber), being a continuous entity would fluctuate with the popping of any individual possibility-bubble thereby solidifying that singular possibility as reality in that universe. |
|
| |
It's bubbles all the way down. |
|
| |
One thing I like about your sending the flubber on an optical bench is that whether looking at it like [wjt] version, or [2fries] version, when you (at the world I seem to sense) make a knot out of foam; it falls through itself, but is leaves a anisotropic record in the bubbles it it made out of. (if you overextend, don't get it, miss out and think its bubbles). |
|
| |
So someone really motivated could try to make up a flubber that retained anisotopy, after some path event or especially *testable* optical lab bench event, even if it is like math anistropy) after passing through itself, or being Knotted* -or- otherwise* topologically subjected to change |
|
| |
anyway if the thing being tested for was completely novel, and they found it, then light and matter would have some new(!) attribute. That attribute could be awesomely and usefully technologized. [wjt] would just casually say things like if you put two "hall of mirrors" facing each other, put the flubber between them, the usual dimming you perceive doesn't lead to actual flubber wearing out or extinction, at any hypthetical possible rereflection, however dim, it still is flubber.exists.on |
|
| |
That reminds of Feynman either having a theory or writing about the idea in physics that there is just one electron, but it happens to be everyplace in different amounts. |
|
| |
Aside: delayed quantum choice eraser, even though I'm very ignorant, seems to make it so there's a future of a photon, and a past of a photon, so that might work against having been reminded of the "there's one electron" idea. |
|
| |
I'm kind of feeling uninsightful, so I just translated [wjt's] new thing into hackneyed old physics metaphors and I think [wjt] is looking for something awesomer. |
|
| |
Here's one:
Transverse waves have more tricks they can do than longitudinal waves, Like they can have polarization, when the other isn't a big enough math continer/physics container to support polarization. perhaps at 4D "flubber-space", or -mere- 3D+T "flubber-space" there are "travelling things that are equationable extensions on the math series 1.compression_wave, 2.transverse.wave 3.moomin/ocean_swell 4.flubber_travelling_thing; ---> At groovy books like Gamow's 123...infinity they make a point, extend it to a line, make a square, make a cube, then make a hypercube, all using only simple mathematical extension of the previous thing. So I just extended the idea of wave from 1->2->3->4 with [wjt]'s flubber as extension 4 |
|
| |
flubber travelling_thing as extension 4 of (the W word)
could be mathematically destined to do more tricks than wave.2 and wave.3 It might have entirely new attributes, just like the way wave.2 is the first to support polarization. So anyway at flubber.Travelling_thing search for experimentally, entirely new places to get nifty effects or even store data. (like you can store data with polarization) |
|
| |
I'm massively ignorant, but I heard of bell's inequality, and how one of the simplest demonstrations is three polarizing filters doing something like "retransparency", so at wave.3.Moomin_ocean_lump there might be more nifty wave characteristics, and perhaps Bells inequality has some different way of being stated, a novel, maybe even meaningful bifurcation of forms, or some kind of new data implications. |
|
| |
flubber travelling_thing.4 might have, not only more nifty characteristics (like 2,4,8 completely different than polarization, but progressed new *lab testable* attributes) it might have a Bell's inequality effect, absence of effect, or some other kind of thing with each of the 2,4,8 new attributes that go with flubber.travelling_thing.4 |
|
| |
Like as another question, a simplifier might say: ok, so you need an attribute depth of at least transverse waves to have polarization, does that mean that Bell's inequality is nonapplicable to the too-simple-for-polrization compression.wave.1 stuff, or is Bell's inequality there too? Does it do something "really honking big" because there's just a lot of simplicity going on at compression.wave.1 |
|
| |
If there is a "really honking big" Bell's inequality thing at kinds of waves (like compression.wave.1) too simple for polarization, what is it? Can you make a technology out of it? Does someone at the halfbakery know what it is already called? What's it called? |
|
| |
Previous material at this annotation: |
|
| |
if you add another 4th spatial dimension then perhaps there's a new kind of "traveling thing" that has even more tricks than a transverse wave. |
|
| |
So like:
"travelling thing.4" -> math says it can do 2, 4, or 8 more things than a 3 spatial dimension wave. They do not have names yet. Fourier representation unknown (but likely!) |
|
| |
transverse wave: polarization, solitons, fourier representation |
|
| |
compression waves: no polarization, solitons, fourier representation |
|
| |
note:
*I head of about 3D+time as 4 dimensions, but when they do 4 spatial dimension as mathematicians, the math knots simply fall through themselves and can't be tied. I do not know their names, but I think I read there are stable 4D+T math options where some kind of 4Dspace+time arrangements or loopy things or something (a step above, and complete alternative to, a knot) ahve "absence of automatic untying/fall through, unlike a 4D knot; I do not know what the 3D projection of a 4D "lasts like a knot, but differs from a knot" thing is, but perhaps they can be printed with 3D printers or certainly viewed on a computer or with VR goggles. |
|
| |
What the math of 4 spatial Dimension "stable like a knot, even though it's different" has to do with [wjt]'s idea is that --->Is there anything [wjt]'s flubber can do as a shape or form that produces durability, chirality, stability, or (startlingly) like a flubber.4 popsicle stick exploder, sudden energy release? These could all be technologized. |
|
| |
Plural overlapping delayed quantum choice eraser lab-bench paths might actually make such: stable, durable (and potentially new observables at) things, or popsicle stick sudden energy release things out of [wjt]'s flubber. Or, as I'm having fun with it flubber.travelling_thing.4 |
|
| |
so one weirdly practical thing about the size of the delayed quantum choice erasers (at the actual world I am told I sense 3D+t) (my own actual experience is that the world I sense is 3D+paranormal jungian synchronization +t) volume is that it is made of optical components, which if they were disrupted (fluorine on the mirror zaps all the electron-sea of the metal layers) have an actual minimum size of function in picometers. |
|
| |
So if you change from say lenses made of some crystal that is like 40 picometers on an edge to one that is (C300 crystal fullerene lens, or even some massive 100,000 atom transparent protein crystal lens) 30 picometers to (at the protein, 1 nanometer) on an edge, then the size of the "EM region", "arranged orbitals" and other stuff around has either:
1) less than the minimum size to effect time, that is, as a delayed quantum choice eraser component it's too small for "linear chronological progression" at the experiment to be spanned by it
2) is a span of picometers to a nanometer in which time is different
3) is bigger than the size sufficient to "do" chronological linear progression |
|
| |
Another way besides protein lenses and mirrors and optics to make a giant delayed quantum choice eraser: |
|
| |
In really atom sparse areas I hear there is a thing called a rydberg atom. Perhaps with the electron(s) like 10-20 cm from the nucleus. Theoretically you could make a lens, a mirror, an emitter, a detector a beamsplitter, all the parts of a delayed quantum choice eraser technology object out of giant e- orbital diameter very sparse atoms. Then the different chronological and causality possibilities present at each optical element would span meters. So you would have a Meters(!) big "minimum functional, most parsimonious area" for a time anomaly technology (the time anomaly technology is: the delayed quantum choice eraser) |
|
| |
Aside: if any of you are good at math, I have read support of retrocausality at the delayed quantum choice eraser, someone also published a refutation, so the experts are saying different things. Another physicist says that it isn't retrocausal, but in their words, "heralds" material/data. What is the current state of the art on the delayed quantum choice eraser? |
|
| |
As a really nifty thing, and I think it could actually work, a genetic algorithm could do millions of plural delayed quantum choice eraser designs, see what the physics software said about them and come up with two bins of output: Bin 1) Those delayed quantum choice eraser series / parallel / branched / feedback composition variations which have the least predictable physics |
|
| |
and bin 2) Those delayed quantum choice eraser series / parallel / branched / feedback / evanescent wave actual physical optical bench designs with the very largest amount of retrocausality, or if that one physicists "heralding" carries the day, the largest amount of accurate future prediction. |
|
| |
It sounds a little goofy, but actually doing genetic algorithms on the delayed quantum choice eraser is just making a million models of the math of some emitters, lenses, reflectors, (importantly, light pathways; including hypotenuses, and XYZ axis possible beampaths increases options) and detectors, testing them, recombining the physical components they make reference to, generating plural variations, and winnowing again. It's a wonderful use for a workstation or massively parallel internet CPU time. |
|
| |
Another delayed quantum choice eraser experiment is finding out if systems that support transverse.wave.1 and transverse wave.1 but not actual light.photons can do the same exact path as Emitter, beamsplitter, lenses mirrors with say water waves bouncing round a science museum's physics tank, standing waves in plasma, or say xyz actuators (like physical motion from lasertweezers or laser tractor beams, but not the photonic component) wiggling a transparent actual (PMMA?) jello made of atoms. (like really, make the whole thing out of a physical 3D gel that supports 3d+t form.moomin.ocean_lump.3 passage and reflection and splitting and detection of 3D ...as [wjt] calls the new version flubber, but I just sense the (W word) coming on. |
|
| |
So those are some kinds of
-thick- delayed quantum choice eraser a person could stick sensors on, and do stuff with (especially the XYZ axis plurally interconnected serial / parallel / branching / evanescent wave / almost babbage-machine like NAND gate(s) / soliton (100-10,000 times signal durability) Genetic algorithm produced version of delayed quantum choice eraser) That could be made, tested, learned from and technologized into new technologies. |
|
| |
Having the genetic algorithm utilize the NAND gate "form" of the delayed quantum choice eraser (perhaps at lab bench version parallel paths or rejoining branches after retrocausality-causing observations they feed together to do a NAND operation) is because I read you can make any other logic primitive out of NAND gates, and can make a functionalike duplicate of any CPU/GPU logic circuit with only nand gates. So if the genetic algorithm uses NAND gate delayed quantum choice eraser at its iterations, winnowings, genrated output, and bins of things people want, then a delayed quantum choice eraser retrocausal (or heralding) computer could be one of them (bin 3) |
|
| |
I'm enthused about other people's annotations about [wjt]'s idea, that said this is a little interesting:
Someone who actually knows math and computer science could look at the minimum size of a computer: |
|
| |
Now, excitingly there is non-turning computation as well as other self-sufficient architectures than turing (confusedly: harvard architecture?)(also seed and rule automata). So, at all the known classes of self sufficent computing architectures, if you are allowed to send, at a semiconductor embodiment, 1, 2, or even 3 electrons backwards in time. repeatedly, Or (physicist: "heralding") 1,2,or 3 electrons forwards in time; or perhaps just "inspected for value" without work or cycles, which among those possible computers have nifty new areas of actual utility, so they can be technologized. |
|
| |
As a tremendously pragmatic thing about the delayed choice quantum eraser, they could see if repeated use, saturates it, increases it, or wears it to anisotropic output. |
|
| |
My perception of the delayed choice quantum eraser is that before 2020AD they run it and get a statistical picture of 100K photons or so. Now, based on [wjt]'s flubber ([wjt's] thing as it is, rather than the name) does the delayed choice quantum eraser variously wear a deep rut or groove (making things easier and higher output), does it saturate a matter electron or photon system to failure (or, more nicely said, change). Analogous to leaving something on a long time and winding novel studd is this: If you turn on a plasma cathode and anode for a 100,000 atom measurement there is no glaringly obvious accessory effect. If you run it for 8760 hours you notice the anode and cathode weight different amounts, have visible wear and the glass on the vacuum apparatus has an obvious metal coating. Even, comically, at humans, if You take 1 million xenon flash photos of me in 72 hours I start to get a tan, and my hair would bleach blonde in the UV light. |
|
| |
Some variations to look for technologizable wobble: Running delayed choice quantum erasers 8760 hours (year) continuously, compared with a 1)nonobserved optical bench duplicate; 2)running at high voltages and currents at the laser diode such that 99% of laser diodes would be expected to fail in 8760 hours, Using laser diodes of such high wattage they are expected to deform the lenses mirrors and optics of the optical bench' light path such that they no longer provide measureable output to the photon detectors after 8760 hours. 3) Using lasers, not necessarily diodes, that make such minute wavelength (Like extreme UV) that they change the matter they repeatedly pass through 4) running the whole thing with x-ray optics and like a dental x-ray source 5) running the whole delayed choice quantum eraser off y-radiation, like photons from Cobalt 60 through a slit, and awesome (x=ray observation satellite instantiated) impressive narrow-glance-angle x-ray optics then see if the amount of radioactivity generated (geiger counter on back of C60 source far from the slit) or something else about it changes with delayed choice quantum erasure retrocausal / heralding path changes from observation; again, over sufficient data collection time that the machine actually wears out (so you can see the analogous to weight change cathodes and anodes, metal plated glass. There could be not-yet-physics-explainable changes in the refractivity of the optics (refractive index change), or, at mirrors and beamsplitters the AFM view of billiard-ball racks of atoms that could become differently terraced / terracing-than expected mirror surfaces |
|
| |
6)At the EUV x-ray version have the alternate path the photons "must" have retrocausally taken composited with things that disintegrate with radiation while allowing it to pass, |
|
| |
7) have a thoughtful optics person divide the delayed choice quantum eraser into sections, so that you can co utilize (components of) the optical path, but get a different photon path out of it at a different frequency; such things as a dichroic mirror, a spectrum-and-slot roygbiv prism that sends different color photons down different optical paths, evanescent wave bandgap effect/forbidden zone perturbation:a couple prisms, just a nudge apart (I saw a wax prisms microwave demo like this) that are great as delayed choice quantum eraser optics, but at a different frequency of radiation cause an obvious and directed evanescent wave; continually measure that evanescent wave all 8760 hours; leave the evanescent wave detector on all 8760 hours, |
|
| |
8)The nifty thing is I have heard about what is called optical bench on a chip. If you can make a complete delayed choice quantum eraser with optics / emitter / detector on an IC, then you can make millions or even a billion of them on a 300mm process wafer. That allows you to make the million to billion versions a genetic algorith suggests as most likely to have strong wobble effect, strong span of chronological novelty, and adjustability between 0-100% observed. |
|
| |
One way to amplify the chronological novelty, and measure it so as to technologize it is having a deep learning neural net utilize the finding of 100,000 optical bench on a chip (IC fab technique optics) DCQE pathway novelty variations that have the greatest amount of measured retrocausality or physicist,"heralding" at delayed choice quantum eraser optical assembleges / statements / demonstrators. Then the neural network makes more of them. |
|
| |
Ok, so, you found the extreme ones, then you pass them to a genetic algorithm and a neural network. |
|
| |
Using the 10,000 most chronologically unusual or also intense embodiments it does neural network learning, and suggests new ones. A billion of these New Chronological novelty effect intensified embodiment forms are made on another wafer and tested;more data is gathered, repeat. |
|
| |
During that time of course people are doing actual thought and design around what they have learned from the million or billion delayed choice quantum erasers automatically tested, and I am even suggesting chemical science characterization of any change to crystalline or amorphous form, (finding those anomalous effects that are *analogous* to mass-change electrodes and metal sputters at say a machine that's busy doing something completely different like being a plasma advertising decoration or a cyclotron ion source) It just is kinf of sensible that the humans, while also doing and auto-IC-fabbing a pure math software guided production of delayed choice quantum eraser multiplexes (and alternates) That they also make batches of optical bench on a chip ICs and wafers combining their architectures with those suggested by the genetic algorithm and the neural network. |
|
| |
9) clock frequency; observer frequency; beat frequency;
10) Can you stick a photomultiplier crystal/tube on every stage of it, and "zero detectable energy wobble) get orders of magnitude more retrocausal or "heralding" photons out of it without geting any other energy wobbles. If you photomultiplier crystal or tube it up to a Quadillion times more photons. The internet says for photons of some frequency about 11 of them is 2*10-25 joules, so if you photomultiplied a sparse photon source like a 10,000 photon/second source quadrillions of times more moving photon energy could be produced and still be a nonmelting 1-10 Joule detector event. |
|
| |
The thing is though, that if you look for wobble or something unexpected with the photomultiplier crystal/tube, preceding each component of the entire delayed choice quantum eraser pathway, you might find something that was anamolous. That's really nifty because of the possibility of making technologies from the results. |
|
| |
Another rather weird thing you could do with a delyed choice quantum eraser is to strengthen it's signal with a "stoachastic" amplifier. I read that at an image below the threshold of computer/human perception, there's some way to add stochastic signal (TV snow) to it, to raise it above the threshold of detectability to actually resolve an image. There are many places in the delayed choice quantum eraser to add stochastic photons. So, what happens to the stochastic resolution heightening photons, and their photon sources when the DCQE (Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser) does the retrocausel / "heralding" path variation? |
|
| |
note
Now, this is also where doing Genetic algorithm elaborations and winnowings of
(that is of course if an electron can be sent back in time (retrocausal or "heralding") (DCQE is one approach among 4.5 possible ways to do that which cross my mind) |
|
| |
I was trying to start blank and imagine something that isn't a particle or a wave, but still has the scientific measured outcomes. The interference pattern is classical. It seems to me we either look statistically at the whole set or at single data point. It 'would be nice' to have a spacial subset data detector. What's happen to energy in the space or for that matter in the lattice of the slit wall? |
|
| |
I do know one thing,though. [beanangel] knows how to wantonly entangle the written word. If only a method for decoherence can be found. For the betterment of mankind. |
|
| |
But will it make it bounce higher? |
|
| |
Ah, A timeless question. Does more knowledge get you a better bounce? Yes, yes it does. |
|
| |
Is there a trophy for size of annotation? |
|
| |
The received wisdom is that size isn't important (allegedly). |
|
| |
I have this inkling that beanie has been artificially
enhanced with Microsoft's AI and the singularity will
begin here with him somehow. Luckily it will also
end with him as we'll all be much too confused to
understand what he's wanting us to do. |
|
| |