People who don't keep in mind that thermodynamics, classical electrodynamics, and continuum mechanics are asymptotic theories valid only in the limit of large systems tend to make those sorts of mistakes. You take it outside its region of validity and get nonsense, but that isn't the theory's fault.
In relativistic quantum mechanics, the wave function doesn't go identically to zero at the light cone boundary, so technically there's a nonzero chance of some object traversing a spacelike interval (propagating faster than light). However, the wave function drops off as a very steep exponential outside the light cone, so causality violations are prevented.
You can't get there/then from here/now.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Well, yeah. Put enough energy in and you can get a relativistic thermal shockwave; trouble is, it takes astronomical (as in neutron star+ grade) energy density to do. :-)
"Experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT)
0.2mA is a typical "nominal discharge current". You can draw more than that (depending on the exact type of battery, perhaps as much as 200 mA). But if you do that a lot, you will severely reduce the energy capacity of the battery. It is fine for short peaks of usage.
The self-discharge of coin cells is extremely low - way lower than 0.2 mA. That's how you can have a battery run a calculator or watch for many years.
It's not a topic I'm deeply familiar with, no idea exactly how much energy or what kind of material it would take to get any particular behavior.
The point of my statement wasn't to be unconditionally supportive of whatever these researchers claim to have done I have no idea if it actually works, nor not. It was in response to the sort of snide "Even the fools at MIT knew you can't get a resonance out of The Heat Equation because of its first order time dependence"-type of statement which implied there is only one Heat Equation that anyone should ever be looking at.
Which isn't the case relativistic heat transport is an active area of research. And like nobody else with a PhD knows what you can and can't do with a first-order-in-time PDE.
Nothing less, nothing more, any other objections is just goalpost-shifting
In any case it's probably the case that the Daily Mail misreported the story as usual and whatever they built doesn't rely on any kind of "novel physics" or application of more sophisticated heat equation at all.
Looks like what they're doing is the thermal equivalent of say some kind of circuit where you have one RC filter connected to one voltage source, another RC circuit connected to another voltage source 180 degrees out of phase, and the output junction of the two filters connected to some type of dielectric of some thickness, and you're trying to tune the two RCs to generate a maximum electric field gradient across the dielectric for a given input amplitude and frequency
I'm agreeing with you, and amplifying the comment about the heat equation predicting superluminal heat propagation, which is cracked. Continuous diffusion isn't just exponentially small at short times and long distances, it's Gaussian (exp(-x**2)) small.;
Yeah, I dropped the course too, but pretty late--Stanford let you ask to be graded "incomplete". My study partner flaked on me, and as I had a wife and baby at the time, I really needed to graduate. It wasn't something I was ever going to use unless I became a prof (which I expected to do at the time).
It's a little less weird if you think about what it means for something to exist. IIRC QM nonlocality mostly affects things like photons that don't qualify as existing--a photon is a property of something else. But it's still weird. Just electrodynamics is weird enough for me.
I don't take the EPR stuff that seriously, because physicists are, almost to a man, horrible at philosophy. I think that it's because they have no respect for the history of ideas, and so keep going down the same old rabbit holes that were explored 2000 years ago.
Einstein was a really bad philosopher.
Once in awhile--it's on my RSS feeds someplace. Fun.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
Huh, photons aren't enough for you, you need a non-local electron experiment? I've no idea, but some spin determined electron system might be possible. I guess you can argue that the spin 'coupling' is by some weird photon (E-M thing). At which point I shrug, I treat photons as things, which for me is the right way to think in lots of situations.
I dream of making cheap fast NIR avalanche PD's to do the Bell inequality experiment. It's like the next step from two slit interference.
She writes well for the layman (which I consider myself) I'm fascinated with this idea (now expressed in my own crude language) that dark matter (and dark energy*) is some kind of MoGR modified general relativity. We need the next Einstein... (a link to the neutrino mass, would be good too.) Who cares if she's a good philosopher. She just needs to have a good idea.
George H.
*my understanding of GR is less than that of rel. QM, AIUI GR already has the dark energy term, we'd like to understand it's value.
You just reminded me of evanescent wave transfer between almost-touching prisms set up for total internal reflection. Evanescent waves "aren't real" but can transfer information. IIRC there was at one time some argument about how fast they propagate.
But then that's a near-field effect and they tend to bend the rules anyway.
Sometimes you can but you still can't beat c over useful distances.
Yeah, evanescent waves are part of QM boundary values. The same sort of theory 'explains' alpha decay in nuclei, Oh and low voltage Zener diodes! You can walk through walls in QM, as long as it's low enough and thin enough.
Single electrons going through a double slit produce a diffraction pattern.
It's easy enough to keep the electron flow down to a level that the chance of there being a second electron around when one electron is going through both slits is very low.
The grass must be awfully green around Slowman's place >:-} ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
"At least one physicist considers the "wave-duality" as not being an incomprehensible mystery. L.E. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development, p. 4, explains:"
" When first discovered, particle diffraction was a source of great puzzlement. Are "particles" really "waves?" In the early experiments, the diffraction patterns were detected holistically by means of a photographic plate, which could not detect individual particles. As a result, the notion grew that particle and wave properties were mutually incompatible, or complementary, in the sense that different measurement apparatuses would be required to observe them. That idea, however, was only an unfortunate generalization from a technological limitation. Today it is possible to detect the arrival of individual electrons, and to see the diffraction pattern emerge as a statistical pattern made up of many small spots (Tonomura et al., 1989). Evidently, quantum particles are indeed particles, but whose behaviour is very different from classical physics would have us to expect."
Jeroen, there is no debate by any physicist that experiments can fire "particles" one at a time so that they can't interfere with each other.
As far as, "both at once" for a single electron magically splitting , despite much nonsense from pop accounts, such an event contradicts QM, for example, as explained here:
formatting link
To wit: The probability of two simultaneous, necessarily orthogonal, Eigenvectors occurring, is zero. End of story.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.