PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-26, 15:22:43
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: Principles of Operation  (Read 10955 times)
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Quote
For sure and the minimum I used was around 100kV. Initially I was using my 500kV Van De Graaff, 20 plate (6"x12") parallel plate capacitor and quenched SG. Later I found a properly rectified Oudin, Ruhmkorff or Tesla coil setup can also work. It must be a unidirectional HV DC impulse with no return path so that whatever energy enters the load must radiate from the load.

***Disclaimer***
I should note HV is very dangerous more so when is has any amount of capacitance to store energy. A 100+kV impulse from a large capacitor is deadly in most cases and extreme care must be taken. As well, these systems are literally designed to unload all it's energy in the smallest time period which is even more problematic.

I use a no hands approach which includes non conductive tools on the end of 24" insulated rods. At the end of any experiment I use a dedicated ground terminal on my bench, attached to a 8' Earth ground rod outside through a #6 conductor, to discharge all components. I also like to sweep the components/area with an NE2 neon probe in case some nearby objects became charged in the process.

It's cool, we just have to follow certain procedures and treat everything as if it's deadly until we have proven otherwise.

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
try 2kv first...into a Brooks-shape coil of 1200 feet of magnet wire

You'll need a radiant energy detector of some sort.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Hakasays
For sure and the minimum I used was around 100kV. Initially I was using my 500kV Van De Graaff, 20 plate (6"x12") parallel plate capacitor and quenched SG. Later I found a properly rectified Oudin, Ruhmkorff or Tesla coil setup can also work. It must be a unidirectional HV DC impulse with no return path so that whatever energy enters the load must radiate from the load.

I was experimenting with that circuit around 10+ years ago when it was called the water spark plug circuit. It's a great circuit for lean burn and/or water injection engines. I found it will not produce a true radiant event because the discharge is at the zero point of the circuit. That is, all the negative charge is negating/cancelling itself when it meets the equal and opposite positive charge across the gap. This qualifies as a focal point for the dissipation of energy which is not what we want. Our focal point must be the load surface and the space surrounding our emitter.

I developed my own theory and form of notation based solely on energy/transformations and unfortunately it would take forever to explain. The main consideration is the zero point/plane where two opposite conditions/charges meet forcing the dissipation of energy as a transformation. For example, we short a battery with a resistance and wherever the opposite charges meet, the resistance, the majority of energy is dissipated. Thus by observing and understanding how and where energy generates/dissipates within any given system we can modify and focus said generation/dissipation.

It begs the question, how many people focus only on energy/transformations?. Not a given field of science, not math or equations, not any given phenomena but only on energy/transformations?. As Viktor Schauberger implied, if everyone is doing the same thing and it's not working out as expected we should consider doing the opposite...

Regards
AC


Thanks a lot AC, I was expecting much more 'tame' numbers (10-50kv) :o
It would fill in one piece of the puzzle as to why some elements of Tesla's work had inexplicable HV rectification built-in.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
Try something simple like the hairpin circuit with unidirectional pulses.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Hakasays
Quote
Thanks a lot AC, I was expecting much more 'tame' numbers (10-50kv) :o
It would fill in one piece of the puzzle as to why some elements of Tesla's work had inexplicable HV rectification built-in.

I found very high voltages were required for radiant matter discharges however many FE inventors like E.V.Gray, Moray, Hubbard etc.. supposedly used 5 to 10kV for radiant energy devices.

In the picture you posted, I believe Tesla claimed the part labelled C1-C2 was an extra spark gap used to lower the transmission frequency. I remember Tesla saying he wanted to avoid higher frequencies because it tended to radiate energy from the top load. As Tesla explained, the upper spark gap introduced a time delay near the zero crossing when the polarity alternated. So the (+) peak polarity discharges, time delay, (-) peak polarity discharges, time delay, (+) peak polarity discharges, time delay and so on.

In this way we could utilize all the benefits of very sharp high voltage impulses(high rate of change, small time period) without all the drawbacks of high frequency and radiation losses. As I said prior, most of the effects of high frequency have little to do with the actual "frequency". It relates more to the fact high frequency alternations generally have a higher rate of change/small time period just like a high voltage DC impulse. This is why Tesla ultimately abandoned AC and started using DC impulses in my opinion.

I thought the concept was absolutely brilliant and shows the level of understanding Tesla had at the time. Even today most of the ultra high voltage transmission lines will be DC not AC to avoid radiation/transmission losses.

Regards
AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
“Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” - Rupert Sheldrake

 ;D ;D


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Borderline troll-post removed.

You never did answer my question, F6.   https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4321.msg100617#msg100617

Are you actually exploring the subject and materials, or just wasting time here?


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
...
Are you actually exploring the subject and materials, or just wasting time here?

I return your remark. Your reference to Sheldrake shows a propensity to waste time.

As for the questions, I am waiting for yours, on how to distinguish radio waves from longitudinal waves in a US/UK link, or on the balance of the longitudinal waves between US and UK...
There is no point in doing experiments if you don't know what you are checking.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
I return your remark. Your reference to Sheldrake shows a propensity to waste time.

As for the questions, I am waiting for yours, on how to distinguish radio waves from longitudinal waves, or on the balance of the longitudinal waves between US and UK...
There is no point in doing experiments if you don't know what you are checking.

My question precedes yours, because if you're not going to explore the experiments, simulations, and principles-of-operation yourself then there's no point discussing things with you.   I may as well be talking to a flat earther.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
“Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” - Rupert Sheldrake

 ;D ;D

Rupert Sheldrak is a biologist, obviously he speaks outside his field of competence, and moreover he is a "researcher" in parapsychology, in other words a crank who does not feel subjected to any plausibility or experimental verification.

He has not understood anything about the big bang, and that science does not pretend to explain what happened at t=0 nor before, supposing moreover that t=0 existed.

The big bang is however quite simple to understand: it is enough to replay the expansion of the universe in reverse, and one sees the convergence. It is simple common sense and therefore beyond the reach of fools.

The denigration of science by idiots who have never advanced human knowledge nor provided anything useful to humanity is ridiculous and pathetic. The right place for Sheldrak's thoughts is the trash can.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Guest
Rupert Sheldrak is a biologist, obviously he speaks outside his field of competence, and moreover he is a "researcher" in parapsychology, in other words a crank who does not feel subjected to any plausibility or experimental verification.

Obviously you haven't studied the subject and experimental evidence.
Very similar to FE subjects. You just assume that you know everything and all other people are idiots.
Don't be surprised that nobody want to talk to you.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Obviously you haven't studied the subject and experimental evidence.
Very similar to FE subjects. You just assume that you know everything and all other people are idiots.
Don't be surprised that nobody want to talk to you.

This whole tirade started when F6 ignorantly declared Tesla's telluric work to be a failure without even knowing the frequency range or circuit arrangements or any details whatsoever, or any experimental attempts to replicate since then.  I was triggered by the pretentiousness to respond as I've spent years studying the work.

But what's worse is I spent days hand-feeding him all the useful citations and experiments that he never bothered to even click on.

That's why he's no longer welcome in my threads (he's always welcome to start his own).


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
This whole tirade started when F6 ignorantly declared Tesla's telluric work to be a failure
...

I confirm, a failure.
"What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof".
Euclide


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Obviously you haven't studied the subject and experimental evidence.
Very similar to FE subjects. You just assume that you know everything and all other people are idiots.
Don't be surprised that nobody want to talk to you.

Sheldrake would have a parapsychology experiment that works? Explain it to the group, I'm sure it will be of interest to some people, it will surely be more interesting than his nonsense quoted by Hak.

Not everyone else is an idiot, only some, and not to distinguish between them is to remain as stupid as they are. Sheldrake is one of the idiots, but more annoyingly, a harmful idiot:
"Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been widely criticised. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and inconsistencies between its tenets and data from genetics, embryology, neuroscience, and biochemistry. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science."
Wikipedia

I have no problem finding people to talk to, but very few of them are scientifically coherent. Contrary to the experts in FE who congratulate each other and comfort each other in their illusions, I don't need to flatter anyone to get them to return the favor. Only facts and logic matter to me, that's why so many of them are reluctant to discuss, they have none or so little.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Adrian Marsh is a PHD Electrical Engineer whose papers are easily peer-review quality.  Do you have any actual comments on his ranged telluric experimeents?

Quote
Only facts and logic matter to me
Same, which is why i've been backing up my statements with detailed recent and historical references and eperiments.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Adrian Marsh is a PHD Electrical Engineer whose papers are easily peer-review quality.  Do you have any actual comments on his ranged telluric experimeents?
...

It transmitted a radio signal on 1.86 Mhz with 400 W, for only 8 miles. This is what you would expect from a radio antenna as small as its Tesla coil.

It distinguishes between the two modes, radio and longitudinal waves, according to the resonance, whereas such a device can have several classical resonance frequencies.

He confirms, as I also said, that a Tesla coil is sensitive to radio waves. So I don't see anything in his work that proves that it would not be radio waves that he would receive in all cases.
If he thinks that longitudinal waves pass through the earth, why does he put his coil on the surface? Let him put it deep underground in a cellar, or in an airtight container underwater, and if there is still a significant signal, we'll talk about it.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
F6FLT
Quote
Contrary to the experts in FE who congratulate each other and comfort each other in their illusions, I don't need to flatter anyone to get them to return the favor. Only facts and logic matter to me, that's why so many of them are reluctant to discuss, they have none or so little.

As always it's debatable and if the scientific community has everything figured out why are they so useless?.

99% of the scientific community are still driving primitive vehicles and living in primitive houses based on 1950's technology. They still get almost all there fuel, power and heat from fossil fuels which is essentially rotten dead plant and animal matter. They seem more like little children completely dependent on others for all the necessities to survive. So if there so smart... why are they so useless?.

Take global warming, there supposed solution is to ban fossil fuels and convert to electric vehicles and HVAC when the current grid technology can only handle 30% of the predicted load. Oh wait, there's the nuclear option however we know what a fiasco that turned into and they have no idea how to manage the cost, maintenance or toxic waste. Maybe there trillion dollar god particle smasher program yet to show any practical results?. Let's be honest it's all turned into a complete shit show and nobody has a clue how to even begin to solve our problems.

On the other hand I have great news...
The gross incompetence and complete failure by the business and science communities to find any practical solutions to our problems makes the Clean/Free Energy community look fabulous. Sure we may have some problems but apparently no more than anyone else...

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
F6FLT
As always it's debatable and if the scientific community has everything figured out why are they so useless?.

99% of the scientific community are still driving primitive vehicles and living in primitive houses based on 1950's technology.

Selection bias. In front of a denial of the current technology which has considerably evolved since 1950, there is nothing to say, it is a psychological effect.

If you wanted to tell us about the benefits of free energy and alternative sciences, there is no need for denial. There's nothing. Not even a smartphone, not even a flat screen, not even an MRI, not even a PC, not even a microwave oven.  Nada de nada. Nichts. ничего. Rien. The technological production of alternative science gives an idea of the nothingness. Alternative science is not science.

When a movement has produced nothing but nothingness, I think it is better to keep quiet and do some introspection, rather than criticizing scientists with computer and networks means that did not exist in 1950 and that come from their science!


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
We use fossil fuels because they have proved cheaper to produce and are more profitable than investment in alternatives, such as fusion, and other sources of energy.

I try to look beyond what we use now, and wonder if we have missed anything along the way.

I see UFO's and wonder how they are powered, how they propel themselves.  What mistakes were made developing them?  What discoveries led to their development?

As for FE status, Centraflow has a working prototype.  I think he said the output was about 700 watts, input much less.

At least two Spherics-type devices should be completed this year and we'll see if any of what he said is correct.

The alternate energy forum claims to have an OU device. Itsu is working on his own version.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
We use fossil fuels because they have proved cheaper to produce and are more profitable than investment in alternatives, such as fusion, and other sources of energy.

I try to look beyond what we use now, and wonder if we have missed anything along the way.

I see UFO's and wonder how they are powered, how they propel themselves.  What mistakes were made developing them?  What discoveries led to their development?

As for FE status, Centraflow has a working prototype.  I think he said the output was about 700 watts, input much less.

At least two Spherics-type devices should be completed this year and we'll see if any of what he said is correct.

The alternate energy forum claims to have an OU device. Itsu is working on his own version.

All I see here are conspiracy theories, fairy tales and science fiction.

It makes no sense to talk about energy without mentioning the cost, the state of human knowledge or the time needed for research.

Every era has its own type of energy. Before the 19th century, it was wood. In the 19th century, it was coal. The 20th century was oil, fusion was not yet within our reach, now it is theoretically possible but still very problematic. And on top of that, politicians are impoverishing people in order to produce intermittent energies, such as wind or voltaic, in a hurry, under the pressure of environmental lobbies and the green industry.

The people who claim to have FE plus the people who are working on FE give us a huge number of people who have not produced anything yet. With LED lighting, scientists have saved us much more energy than the others have ever produced.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
F6FLT
Quote
Selection bias. In front of a denial of the current technology which has considerably evolved since 1950, there is nothing to say, it is a psychological effect.
If you wanted to tell us about the benefits of free energy and alternative sciences, there is no need for denial. There's nothing. Not even a smartphone, not even a flat screen, not even an MRI, not even a PC, not even a microwave oven.  Nada de nada. Nichts. ничего. Rien. The technological production of alternative science gives an idea of the nothingness. Alternative science is not science.

I think you may have it backwards and almost every revolutionary new discovery/theory was ridiculed initially and labelled alternative science. Einstein was called a quack, a heretic, a fraud and supposedly one year later only one other person had the integrity to claim they understood it. As well, Nikola Tesla received the same harsh treatment for his "alternative science" we now call polyphase induction motor/generator technology. It was Tesla, the engineer/inventor who opened up a whole new field for science to study.

Quote
When a movement has produced nothing but nothingness, I think it is better to keep quiet and do some introspection, rather than criticizing scientists with computer and networks means that did not exist in 1950 and that come from their science!

Sorry to burst your bubble but the person credited for inventing the first real computer was Charles Babbage, an inventor and engineer. As well, most who contributed to the technology were also an inventor/engineers. It was only after the technology was realized that it was studied and became a science as is most often the case. For example, all the computer operating systems we know and use were invented by people who started programming in there garage ie. Gates, Jobs, Linux, not scientists.

It's not a difficult concept, people/inventors discover and invent stuff then scientists study it. Science: "the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement". The definition doesn't mention discovery or invention anywhere to my knowledge.

Most people seem confused on this matter and one cannot study something which is not in there possession or can be measured. Creativity, experimentation, discovery and invention always comes first. Once we have discovered/invented something then we can begin to study it which is where science comes in. So many seem to be putting the cart before the horse...

Regards
AC







---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
All I see here are conspiracy theories, fairy tales and science fiction.

It makes no sense to talk about energy without mentioning the cost, the state of human knowledge or the time needed for research.

Every era has its own type of energy. Before the 19th century, it was wood. In the 19th century, it was coal. The 20th century was oil, fusion was not yet within our reach, now it is theoretically possible but still very problematic. And on top of that, politicians are impoverishing people in order to produce intermittent energies, such as wind or voltaic, in a hurry, under the pressure of environmental lobbies and the green industry.

The people who claim to have FE plus the people who are working on FE give us a huge number of people who have not produced anything yet. With LED lighting, scientists have saved us much more energy than the others have ever produced.

Starting the with the assumption that we missed something...

Maxwell included the longitudinal wave in his original equations.  This was later removed after his death, assuming LW's do not exist.   Tesla insisted that they do exist and purported to use them. 

Tesla's radiant electrical effect. What the hell was he talking about?  He collected charges from the sky even when the sky was night and charged capacitors.  He further showed in his patents that spark gaps (with reflector) and some tubes (Roentgen or Leonard tubes) produced the same effect as the sky (space? sun?)  What was he collecting / detecting?

On the scalar longitudinal wave thread, an author claims to detect these waves from the sun during an eclipse.  What did he detect?

Are these phenomenon the same thing?
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
I think you may have it backwards and almost every revolutionary new discovery/theory was ridiculed initially and labelled alternative science. Einstein was called a quack, a heretic, a fraud and supposedly one year later only one other person had the integrity to claim they understood it. As well, Nikola Tesla received the same harsh treatment for his "alternative science" we now call polyphase induction motor/generator technology. It was Tesla, the engineer/inventor who opened up a whole new field for science to study.

It's not a difficult concept, people/inventors discover and invent stuff then scientists study it. Science: "the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement". The definition doesn't mention discovery or invention anywhere to my knowledge.

Most people seem confused on this matter and one cannot study something which is not in there possession or can be measured. Creativity, experimentation, discovery and invention always comes first. Once we have discovered/invented something then we can begin to study it which is where science comes in. So many seem to be putting the cart before the horse...

Regards
AC

Indeed one can be a very intelligent expert and still be operating on a false or incomplete set of assumptions.  I recall even Einstein ridiculed the idea of Quantum Mechanics, as most of the scientific community ridiculed the Big Bang (likely due to the Catholic bishop that coined the theory and its apparent creationist implications.)

The sad part though is that because it's deemed impossible, those people won't perform experiments, which makes their failure a self-fulfilled prophecy. :-\https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4321.msg100548#msg100548

« Last Edit: 2022-09-14, 01:40:32 by Hakasays »


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
F6FLT
I think you may have it backwards and almost every revolutionary new discovery/theory was ridiculed initially and labelled alternative science. Einstein was called a quack, a heretic, a fraud and supposedly one year later only one other person had the integrity to claim they understood it. As well, Nikola Tesla received the same harsh treatment for his "alternative science" we now call polyphase induction motor/generator technology. It was Tesla, the engineer/inventor who opened up a whole new field for science to study.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the person credited for inventing the first real computer was Charles Babbage, an inventor and engineer. As well, most who contributed to the technology were also an inventor/engineers. It was only after the technology was realized that it was studied and became a science as is most often the case. For example, all the computer operating systems we know and use were invented by people who started programming in there garage ie. Gates, Jobs, Linux, not scientists.

It's not a difficult concept, people/inventors discover and invent stuff then scientists study it. Science: "the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement". The definition doesn't mention discovery or invention anywhere to my knowledge.

Most people seem confused on this matter and one cannot study something which is not in there possession or can be measured. Creativity, experimentation, discovery and invention always comes first. Once we have discovered/invented something then we can begin to study it which is where science comes in. So many seem to be putting the cart before the horse...

Regards
AC

Do you ever read and try to understand what others write? It becomes exhausting to repeat that the reasoning you hold is simply wrong. I have already explained why here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4350.msg100716#msg100716.

So same answer:
The fact that someone was taken for a fool because what he was saying was taken for nonsense, and what he was saying was later proven to be correct and he was a genius, does not prove that the nonsense that most people, especially in the FE movement, say will turn out to be scientific truths and they geniuses.
A particular case set up as a principle has no value. It is a basic logical fallacy that has absolutely no relevance to demonstrate anything about FE.

And note that it only took Einstein less than 5 years to convince of the validity of his theory, much more revolutionary than a longitudinal EM wave in free space. So today with the fast communication means, if in less than a year a so-called inventor of FE has not been able to transmit his know-how, it is because he is a moron or a charlatan and that in fact, he has nothing at all.

Instead of repeating professions of faith towards people and machines that would make free energy, provide the measurement protocol and measurements that would demonstrate FE, and the engineering plan that would allow to reproduce one.
I am not the bigot of a sectarian movement, and will not become one no matter how much the FE gurus proselytize and manipulate the naive. I need a little more than gossip. We don't need children's stories, sophistries and cheap philosophy. We need facts and logic.
« Last Edit: 2022-09-14, 09:40:42 by F6FLT »


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
...I recall even Einstein ridiculed the idea of Quantum Mechanics, as most of the scientific community ridiculed the Big Bang
...

This is a naivety and a great misunderstanding of the context. Einstein did not "ridicule" QM because everyone, including Einstein, agrees that the mathematical formalism of QM is correct and in accordance with experimental reality, and all the more so because it is Einstein who is finally at the origin of it, with the photo-electric effect for which he received the Nobel Prize, and which implies quantization.

What Einstein contested, with the thought experiment known as "EPR" and his joke "God does not play dice", was the interpretation of QM, that of the Copenhagen school, notably the ideas of Bohr. Since then, there have been several other interpretations of QM (Everett, Cramer's transactional interpretation, Rovelli's relational interpretation...), all of them compatible with the formalism of QM.

So for Einstein, QM is correct, it predicts the probability of a quantum event, but the specific result of a measurement would have an underlying cause according to him, contrary to Bohr's opinion that it is at random. It is not yet clear who would be right or wrong. Although I doubt, as Einstein did, that chance has any place in physics, my personal opinion is that Einstein is neither right nor wrong, but that we must understand differently the causality that is undermined in quantum experiments.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 15:22:43