Jump to content

Spooky Action At A Distance Anarchy


Recommended Posts

A couple of years ago, it was big news that objects that were too tiny to see could exhibit quantum entanglement, which Einstein dismissed as "spooky action at a distance."

Quote

One of the strangest aspects of quantum physics is entanglement: If you observe a particle in one place, another particle—even one light-years away—will instantly change its properties, as if the two are connected by a mysterious communication channel. Scientists have observed this phenomenon in tiny objects such as atoms and electrons. But in two new studies, researchers report seeing entanglement in devices nearly visible to the naked eye.

Now they've observed this effect in a couple of 40 kilogram mirrors

Quote

 

Normally, that background of quantum "noise" is too subtle to detect in objects that are visible at the human-scale. But the new research shows that scientists have finally detected those movements, using new technology to watch for those fluctuations.

Researchers at the MIT LIGO Laboratory saw that the those fluctuations could move an object as big as a 40-kilogram mirror. The movement pushed the large mirrors a tiny amount, as predicted theoretically, allowing it to be measured by scientists.

 

Also,

cliffsignal.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tom, that's cool.

 

Did you know that Mike Wofsey actually designed and built the prototype for those mirrors using mylar he left in a basement during his weed growing days and the innards of a TRS-80, and that he taught three of the scientists on that project physics while designing a row boat made of cardboard boxes?

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Thanks Tom, that's cool.

 

Did you know that Mike Wofsey actually designed and built the prototype for those mirrors using mylar he left in a basement during his weed growing days and the innards of a TRS-80, and that he taught three of the scientists on that project physics while designing a row boat made of cardboard boxes?

I think you may have him confused with Woofsey....

:)

 

WL

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

so that they are now still enough to be kicked around by quantum fluctuations and this spooky popcorn of the universe."

Gawd I love tech jargon!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 10:58 AM, bplipschitz said:

Not so much batsignal, as theoretically a bitching communications medium.  Ham radio on steroids, jacked on meth and snorting PCP.

 

The batsignal is the "Calling Mike Wofsey" signal!!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

In other dweeby news,

Physicists build circuit that generates clean, limitless power from graphene
 

Quote

 

...

The findings, published in the journal Physical Review E, are proof of a theory the physicists developed at the U of A three years ago that freestanding graphene—a single layer of carbon atoms—ripples and buckles in a way that holds promise for energy harvesting.

The idea of harvesting energy from graphene is controversial because it refutes physicist Richard Feynman's well-known assertion that the thermal motion of atoms, known as Brownian motion, cannot do work. Thibado's team found that at room temperature the thermal motion of graphene does in fact induce an alternating current (AC) in a circuit, an achievement thought to be impossible.

...

 

"Feynman was wrong" is not real high on the list of smart things to say, usually...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Polytelum Tom said:

"Feynman was wrong" is not real high on the list of smart things to say, usually...

Ist alle in the deliverey and circunstance .......  annyoune cane spatch togethere a fiew lines aboute the "Feynman Fopah", throwe in someting licke spookey entangelmentes and macke themselfes sonde smarte.  If you planne it correctey the panties starte slideng .......     :)   butte if Mickey expoused such assertiones to hisre Einsteinian cohorttes, theide laffin hisse face.

As they saye "Ist alle rellatieve"             :)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 4:52 PM, Burning Man said:

Damn, thought this thread was about this:  

ac130-laser-1200.jpg

Me too...the ones out of Hurlburt used to use my ponds as a visual reference on their training flights...allegedly...:ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

Ist alle in the deliverey and circunstance .......  annyoune cane spatch togethere a fiew lines aboute the "Feynman Fopah", throwe in someting licke spookey entangelmentes and macke themselfes sonde smarte.  If you planne it correctey the panties starte slideng .......     :)   butte if Mickey expoused such assertiones to hisre Einsteinian cohorttes, theide laffin hisse face.

As they saye "Ist alle rellatieve"             :)

Damn Snaggs, you sound pretty smart there. 

But 

I think we all should be avoiding relatives for the time being.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that one of the longer threads of snaggeleze?  Quantum snag speak?

snag-entanglements?

the black hole that is SA?  (no no no, not what VWAP will likely think)

string theory for light air chutes?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2020 at 3:47 AM, Polytelum Tom said:

In other dweeby news,

Physicists build circuit that generates clean, limitless power from graphene
 

"Feynman was wrong" is not real high on the list of smart things to say, usually...

Feynman was right, and those guys are wrong, I've little no doubt. I have no idea how the editors at Phys.org even let that POS press release in without publishing a counter.

If they're extracting energy from that graphene layer, it's definitely just temporary, pulling energy from the depositional potential, and interfacial stresses between the diffusion layers. There is a zero-point-zero percent chance that they will ever be able to pull more energy from the layer than it cost for the to deposit it. We know that due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and also from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, because constant energy extraction from a monolayer would allow localization of the particles.

That press release is so dunderheaded, I'm surprised that Clean's picture wasn't on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

If they're extracting energy from that graphene layer, it's definitely just temporary, pulling energy from the depositional potential, and interfacial stresses between the diffusion layers. There is a zero-point-zero percent chance that they will ever be able to pull more energy from the layer than it cost for the to deposit it. We know that due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and also from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, because constant energy extraction from a monolayer would allow localization of the particles.

This makes sense to me. Boils down to "there's no free energy machine."

But look at the bright side. We got a whole paragraph of Snagspeak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of physicists were conspicuously wrong about “unlimited energy too cheap to meter” from their nuclear fission dreams. Obviously they made a measurement error in cost.

The instant physicists likely made a small measurement error that proper peer review will soon catch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mikewof said:

Feynman was right, and those guys are wrong, I've little no doubt. I have no idea how the editors at Phys.org even let that POS press release in without publishing a counter.

If they're extracting energy from that graphene layer, it's definitely just temporary, pulling energy from the depositional potential, and interfacial stresses between the diffusion layers. There is a zero-point-zero percent chance that they will ever be able to pull more energy from the layer than it cost for the to deposit it. We know that due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and also from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, because constant energy extraction from a monolayer would allow localization of the particles.

That press release is so dunderheaded, I'm surprised that Clean's picture wasn't on it.

Woude the BDK helpe hearre?

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan-s-rules-for-bullshit-busting-and-critical-thinking?utm_source=pocket-newtab

5db9d18e8285d.jpg

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, El Borracho said:

The vast majority of physicists were conspicuously wrong about “unlimited energy too cheap to meter” from their nuclear fission dreams. Obviously they made a measurement error in cost.

The instant physicists likely made a small measurement error that proper peer review will soon catch.

They weren't wrong about nuclear fission. It was expensive back then, and it's even more expensive now.

We were under the illusion that nuclear fission power was cheap because the energy was a side-hustle of our Cold War efforts to build a nuclear infrastructure and enrich uranium. The power industry was able to offload most of the costs of safety, compliance, waste disposal, waste security, construction, research and training onto the public dime as a necessary cost of building lots of nuclear warheads to keep up with the Soviets.

They didn't make a error in measurement and cost, but rather the energy customers didn't see the actual cost on the bill, it was (and still is) mixed in with taxes and shuttled downstream to their great-grandchildren.

If you have any doubt of what I'm telling you, look at the DOE budget. About half of our tax dollars there go to the costs of current nuclear projects and cleanup of legacy nuclear waste. Anything can look cheap if we hide the costs somewhere else.

2011-DOE-BUDGET-2.jpg

 

This link is a little newer, but basically the same thing ...

https://itif.org/sites/default/files/Figure 2_0.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2020 at 12:40 AM, mikewof said:

They weren't wrong about nuclear fission. It was expensive back then, and it's even more expensive now.

We were under the illusion that nuclear fission power was cheap because the energy was a side-hustle of our Cold War efforts .....

Thanks for your inadvertent confirmation.

Physicists as a whole were absolutely wrong and complicit regarding nuclear power. Just like now: Gung-ho on milking the fusion cow. Nary a dissenting physicist voice can be heard over fifty years of chanting “free, clean, completely safe!” “Success is surely just around the corner this time.” “If ITER is successful in 2019 [wait, is that in the past?] we might see commercial power by 2050.”

I’m all for it. But they might try some honesty rather than their self-serving engorgement at the taxpayer buffet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, El Borracho said:

Thanks for your inadvertent confirmation.

Physicists as a whole were absolutely wrong and complicit regarding nuclear power. Just like now: Gung-ho on milking the fusion cow. Nary a dissenting physicist voice can be heard over fifty years of chanting “free, clean, completely safe!” “Success is surely just around the corner this time.” “If ITER is successful in 2019 [wait, is that in the past?] we might see commercial power by 2050.”

I’m all for it. But they might try some honesty rather than their self-serving engorgement at the taxpayer buffet.

You're wrong about "nary a dissenting physicist voice." The "free energy" crackpots are almost never actual physicists. Back in the 1990s, I visited the Tokamak at Princeton, and even there, with actual physicists, nobody I met gave a rat's ass about "free energy" it was mainly about understanding the process.

The problem with fusion is that it's still nuclear energy, and it still creates nuclear waste ... not in the fuel, but the containment is still bombarded by neutrons, and at the end of the service life, we're still left with a few hundred thousand tons of nuclear waste.

The "taxpayer buffet" you mention is more like a scrap of gristle thrown to a mouse. In the Department of Energy, about $21 billion per year is spent on nuclear energy, and nuclear legacy costs. Of that, about 0.01% is spent on anything related to fusion, and that's mostly as a side-project of our high-energy particle research, which we need to stay reasonably competitive with space research from China, India, Russia and France. (We spend about 20% of what the Chinese do on that, btw.)

But aside from all that, the main problem with fusion is the same problem we have with fission ... we really don't need it given how cheap renewable energy has become, and how cheap it's becoming. That's the nature of extracting energy from a limited resource (i.e. natural gas, oil, coal) versus extracting energy from a nearly unlimited resource using technology (i.e. ocean power, wind, solar, geothermal).

The future of scarcity isn't energy, it's water. If you would have told someone in 1972 that their home water bill would someday be more expensive than their home gas and electric bill, they would have never believed it. But now that's dead nuts money in places like SoCal, Austin and Dallas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, mikewof said:

 

The future of scarcity isn't energy, it's water. If you would have told someone in 1972 that their home water bill would someday be more expensive than their home gas and electric bill, they would have never believed it. But now that's dead nuts money in places like SoCal, Austin and Dallas.

If that is the case, wouldn't it or shouldn't it be just in the short term?

Energy can provide clean water almost anywhere.  You may need a ridiculous amount of energy, but you can have a golf course in the middle of the Sahara desert.

Spool up the limitless energy, and water is no longer an issue.

 

I still think that tapping the heat in the core is the way to go.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Windward said:

If that is the case, wouldn't it or shouldn't it be just in the short term?

Energy can provide clean water almost anywhere.  You may need a ridiculous amount of energy, but you can have a golf course in the middle of the Sahara desert.

Spool up the limitless energy, and water is no longer an issue.

 

I still think that tapping the heat in the core is the way to go.  

Ideally, yes, which is the idea of the water-energy nexus ... how much water does it take to make energy, how much energy does it take to make water?

But in reality, our ability to produce energy has far outpaced our ability to make and move water. Yes, we can potentially use ocean power to make grid-scale power when we need that, and then switch over to desalination when the index pricing falls at night. We can do similar with solar and wind and possibly even geothermal. But water is cheap to store and expensive to move. Power is cheap to move and expensive to store. The cost to move water is a large part of the scarcity issue. Given our even cheapening power, it will still be about a hundred years before it's cheap enough to move water across thousands of miles, from where there is too much to where there isn't enough. It's so expensive to move water that it's still often cheaper to desalinate (!!) water at about $0.40 per cubic meter of power cost.

We could potentially build an economy around that reality, but it's not on the horizon. Right now, a good bit of the food you buy in the supermarket is grown with by sucking water out of Ogalala, and that's going dry, it's already brackish along the edges. For us to change the Midwest-based food economy, means having to shift the foods we eat, moving from beef, corn and wheat to things like beans and yucca. And that may be the most insurmountable problem of all ... we like our beef, sugar and grains too much to give them up.

The USA as a superpower depends on access to that water. Canada has all they need, they control 1/4 of the world's freshwater, there is a reason that so many wars have been fought over water. If you look at our global history of water conflict, it's accelerating in a way that far outpaces the growth of civilizations, http://www.worldwater.org/conflict/list/

And then most of these renewable energies need lots of Rare Earth Elements to make them work. Photovoltaics, advanced batteries, advanced capacitors, power electronics, high efficiency motors, none of that works without access to the REEs. We get those out of the ground, so yes, I agree with you, tapping geothermal energy to desalinate brine, while mining the REEs from the produced waters is probably the way to go. If we don't develop a domestic REE industry (China still controls 97% of that market) then we're fucked, we'll just end up a client-state of China.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I didn't know that Spooky Action At A Distance was a book.

The author of it interviews quantum entanglement expert Tim Maudlin on the question of whether time exists.

My general reaction: huh?

But it does seem like Mr. Maudlin would be useful whenever someone asks why you're late. He could make them truly sorry for asking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On December 26, 2020 at 1:08 PM, mikewof said:

 

But in reality, our ability to produce energy has far outpaced our ability to make and move water. 

Which has historically been more commercially rewarding? 

If making and moving water was minting millionaires and billionaires, there'd be a lot of it going on. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cruisin Loser said:

If making and moving water was minting millionaires and billionaires, there'd be a lot of it going on. 

Dollares attractte the britteste mindes............                :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

Which has historically been more commercially rewarding? 

If making and moving water was minting millionaires and billionaires, there'd be a lot of it going on. 

Historically? Energy. Water was still cheap.

Inthefuture? Water. Energy will be sufficiently cheap.

Now? Billions are made and lost in Western agriculture and Western energy and almost of all of which is water-dependent. Energy still draws more freshwater than agriculture. Other than solar and wind, most energy still runs on heat engines, steam turbines and it needs lots of water to dump heat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...