Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Physicists spooked by faster-than-light information transfer
Nature ^ | 8/13/08 | Geoff Brumfiel

Posted on 08/14/2008 5:42:56 PM PDT by LibWhacker

Quantum weirdness even stranger than previously thought.

Two photons can be connected in a way that seems to defy the very nature of space and time, yet still obeys the laws of quantum mechanics.

Physicists at the University of Geneva achieved the weird result by creating a pair of ‘entangled’ photons, separating them, then sending them down a fibre optic cable to the Swiss villages of Satigny and Jussy, some 18 kilometres apart.

The researchers found that when each photon reached its destination, it could instantly sense its twin’s behaviour without any direct communication. The finding does not violate the laws of quantum mechanics, the theory that physicists use to describe the behaviour of very small systems. Rather, it shows just how quantum mechanics can defy everyday expectation, says Nicolas Gisin, the researcher who led the study. “Our experiment just puts the finger where it hurts,” he says. The study is published in Nature.

Spooky and unsettling

In the everyday world, objects can organize themselves in just a few ways. For example, two people can coordinate their actions by talking directly with each other, or they can both receive instructions from a third source.

In both these cases, the information is communicated at or below the speed of light, in keeping with Einstein’s axiom that nothing in the Universe can go faster. But quantum mechanics allows for a third way to coordinate information. When two particles are quantum mechanically ‘entangled’ with each other, measuring the properties of one will instantly tell you something about the other. In other words, quantum theory allows two particles to organize themselves at apparently faster-than-light speeds.

Einstein called such behaviour “spooky action at a distance”, because he found it deeply unsettling. He and other physicists clung to the idea that there might be some other way for the particles to communicate with each other at or near the speed of light.

But the new experiment shows that direct communication between the photons (at least as we know it) is simply impossible. The team simultaneously measured several properties of both photons, such as phase, when they arrived at their villages and found that they did indeed have a spooky awareness of each other’s behaviour. On the basis of their measurements, the team concluded that if the photons had communicated, they must have done so at least 100,000 times faster than the speed of light — something nearly all physicists thought would be impossible. In other words, these photons cannot know about each other through any sort of normal exchange of information.

Framed

The team also ruled out other possible reasons for the apparently coordinated behaviour. For example, one could imagine that the photons might have shared information before they left Geneva — but Gisin’s measurements showed that they could not.

A second test ensured that the scientists in the two villages weren’t missing some form of communication thanks to Earth’s motion through space. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, observers moving at high speeds can have different ‘reference frames’, so that they can potentially get different measurements of the same event. The Geneva results could possibly be explained if the two photons were communicating through a frame of reference that wasn’t readily apparent to the scientists."

But theoretical calculations2 have shown that performing tests over a full spin of the globe would test all possible reference frames. The team did just that, and they got the same result in all cases.

The bottom line, says Gisin is that “there is just no time for these two photons to communicate”.

The experiment shows that in quantum mechanics at least, some things transcend space-time, says Terence Rudolph, a theorist at Imperial College London. It also shows that humans have attached undue importance to the three dimensions of space and one of time we live in, he argues. “We think space and time are important because that’s the kind of monkeys we are.”

If you are baffled by the result, fear not — you’re not alone. “For me, honestly, it doesn’t make any sense,” says Gisin. “I don’t think we can today claim that we have a good story to tell how this all happens.” He hopes that the work will stimulate theorists to come up with new ways of explaining the spooky effect.


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: physics; quantum; spooked; stringtheory; transfer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 08/14/2008 5:42:56 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
It also shows that humans have attached undue importance to the three dimensions of space and one of time we live in, he argues.

Add one dimension, recompute and remeasure. Repeat if necessary.
2 posted on 08/14/2008 5:46:01 PM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Mr. Bell & Mr. Bohm were right.


3 posted on 08/14/2008 5:46:30 PM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy ("It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom

Open a subspace channel to Star Fleet Command, Lt. Uhura.


4 posted on 08/14/2008 5:47:04 PM PDT by Steely Tom (Without the second, the rest are just politicians' BS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

read later


5 posted on 08/14/2008 5:47:27 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
The finding does not violate the laws of quantum mechanics, the theory that physicists use to describe the behaviour of very small systems. Rather, it shows just how quantum mechanics can defy everyday expectation, says Nicolas Gisin, the researcher who led the study.

Okaaaaay....I so do not get the distinction.

“Our experiment just puts the finger where it hurts,” he says.

Where it hurts? Snort. Namely my brain, from trying to figger this out.

6 posted on 08/14/2008 5:47:27 PM PDT by mewzilla (In politics the middle way is none at all. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Bump for later read....C


7 posted on 08/14/2008 5:49:00 PM PDT by colinhester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

This is news? The Demicans and Republicrats have been demonstrating ‘entanglement’ like this for decades.


8 posted on 08/14/2008 5:50:09 PM PDT by ovrtaxt (This election is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if McCain wins, we're still retarded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

“if you are not confused and annoyed by quantum theory you do not understand it”
-Richard Feynman


9 posted on 08/14/2008 5:51:47 PM PDT by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, deport all illegals, abolish the IRS, ATF and DEA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
The bottom line, says Gisin is that “there is just no time for these two photons to communicate”.

Ummm...aren't photons, like, inanimate objects?

Dang, Mr. Mew just gave up trying to explain this to me, and he's usually got the patience of Job.

Aaaaaargh.

10 posted on 08/14/2008 5:53:07 PM PDT by mewzilla (In politics the middle way is none at all. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I don’t know why they are surprised at this. There has been experiment after experiment showing this. I know many scientists have been in denial and have claimed for some time that entanglement would not allow faster than light information travel but it does. There has also been some very good experiments using entangled photons in remote scanning where two beams of photons are used. The one beam of entangled photons are used to scan a target while the other is directed to a sensor and from the resultant information of the second beam only there has been some success generating an image.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a crude quantum semaphore system couldn’t be devised to show clearly that information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.


11 posted on 08/14/2008 5:53:40 PM PDT by Maelstorm (John McCain is ready to be commander in chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

You and me, Mew! I still can’t wrap my brain around the concept that the speed of light is constant, and any circumstance where the speed of light appears to be faster or slower, than time is either slower or faster, respectively. Why can’t it be the other way around?


12 posted on 08/14/2008 5:54:06 PM PDT by hunter112 (The 'straight talk express' gets the straight finger express from me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker
“if you are not confused and annoyed by quantum theory you do not understand it”

-Richard Feynman

Hee hee. I feel better now!

Thanks! :)

13 posted on 08/14/2008 5:54:14 PM PDT by mewzilla (In politics the middle way is none at all. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

ker ping!


14 posted on 08/14/2008 5:55:59 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

You’re not alone, buddy, lol!

First they say that direct communication is impossible. Then they say that if it occurred it had to have taken place at least 100,000 times faster than light! Huh?


15 posted on 08/14/2008 5:57:30 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Not to pop any bubbles, but the comments start with this:

There was no FTL information transfer. The wavefunction instantaneouly collapsed into an observable, by the book, sourcing consistent data. Information existed only after opposite ends compared datasets - and that transmission happens no faster than lightspeed. Viewing one dataset allows no conclusions to be drawn. It won't even do FTL Morse code. The universe is causal.

16 posted on 08/14/2008 5:59:29 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

The secret lives of subatomic particles! I just love this stuff.


17 posted on 08/14/2008 6:03:33 PM PDT by SatinDoll (Desperately desiring a conservative government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I just wish I could stop thinking like a monkey!


18 posted on 08/14/2008 6:05:29 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

complicated by the fact that observation has an impact on the outcome.


19 posted on 08/14/2008 6:05:43 PM PDT by driftdiver (No More Obama - The corruption hasn’t changed despite all our hopes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

There are a few other examples in quantum physics of instantaneous effects, but to call it “information” is misleading. It can never be used for communication purposes, for instance, because the “information” is really only partial. Altering an entangled particle will effect the other one similarly, but also randomly. In order to compare the two, you still need to communicate the information at light speed (or less).


20 posted on 08/14/2008 6:11:30 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

The article says the photons are “entangled” which means they are connected in some fashion.

The best analogy I can some up with is to imagine a 2 x 4 of infinite length. (we’ll ignore mass and rigidity in this example) If you move the 2 x 4, at any point along the length, it will communicate motion almost instantaneously. However, it won’t violate the laws governing the speed of light, even though a million miles away, it will be moving at the same time as the other end. Obviously, in this instance, distance matters. Two feet away won’t gain you anything. 200,000,000,000 feet away, though.....

Your thoughts?


21 posted on 08/14/2008 6:14:04 PM PDT by stylin_geek (Liberalism: comparable to a chicken with its head cut off, but with more spastic motions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stylin_geek

The problem is I don’t think you can ignore rigidity. That’s too much of a simplification and undermines the analogy.


22 posted on 08/14/2008 6:22:16 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: stylin_geek

Didn’t someone write about this many moons ago? Something like a non-compressable fluid in a long tube as a circuit, or something? Fell apart with insufficiently rigid tube. Plus, any distance reasonable with current materials much cheaper w/radio, light, etc.

I swear, there’s a fallacy here, but I’m too sleepy, or dopy or one of them dwarves...


23 posted on 08/14/2008 6:24:49 PM PDT by Right Winged American (No matter how Cynical I get, I just can't keep up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

100,000 times faster than the speed of light? Wow... Only thing faster is the speed at which a LibTard mind slams shut in the face of logic.


24 posted on 08/14/2008 6:28:20 PM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Even if Feynman didn’t say it, I would still be confused.


25 posted on 08/14/2008 6:32:25 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: colinhester

I’m bumping too.


26 posted on 08/14/2008 6:35:21 PM PDT by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The universe is causal.

I prefer a universe that is casual. Those formal affairs are a pain...

27 posted on 08/14/2008 6:48:59 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

A few considerations:

The 500 pound gorilla that still must be beat is “causality”. This boils down to cause and effect, with the idea that it is impossible to see the result before the cause of that result has happened.

This means that even if communication happens faster than light, you still can’t get the message before it has been sent.

The big question will be to see what happens when matched pairs are separated by more than 186,000 miles. The pair might communicate faster than light, but the information itself might not be part of that communication until a second has passed. And at twice that distance, two seconds, etc.

This would mean that not only is causality preserved, but the universal speed limit.


28 posted on 08/14/2008 6:49:11 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
The 500 pound gorilla that still must be beat is “causality”.

After I tried to beat up a 500 pound gorilla, I'd be a "casualty"...

29 posted on 08/14/2008 6:52:00 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Where it hurts? Snort. Namely my brain, from trying to figger this out.

I think what they stopped short of saying is that the communication path between the two photons took place in a different dimension where the speed of light is far greater than our three or four dimensiona.

30 posted on 08/14/2008 7:03:09 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Ansible


31 posted on 08/14/2008 7:09:57 PM PDT by Little Pig (Is it time for "Cowboys and Muslims" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
I just looked out the window and saw that Mr. Schrödinger's cat is dead.

Or is it??

32 posted on 08/14/2008 7:23:18 PM PDT by Lawgvr1955 (You can never have too much cowbell !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Next thing you know big foot is going to pop right out of that lab in Switzerland.


33 posted on 08/14/2008 7:27:36 PM PDT by BRL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The universe is causal.

Yes, but is it floating-point or fixed-point?

34 posted on 08/14/2008 7:40:43 PM PDT by Steely Tom (Without the second, the rest are just politicians' BS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Time is an illusion. It has been said for many centuries.

At any rate; if they build a mother board with faster than light photons the next version of Windows will slow it down to molasses in January.

35 posted on 08/14/2008 8:14:08 PM PDT by TigersEye (Berlin '36 ... Olympics for murdering regimes. ... Beijing '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

No point of reference is the true reality.


36 posted on 08/14/2008 8:15:25 PM PDT by TigersEye (Berlin '36 ... Olympics for murdering regimes. ... Beijing '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BRL

Re: big foot

No, he’s dead in Georgia. in an icebox. Or a costume shop.


37 posted on 08/14/2008 8:44:43 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Interesting question. On purely asthetic grounds I vote for trancententals all the way down.


38 posted on 08/14/2008 8:52:22 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BBell

Thanks BBell.

Spooky Physics: Signals Seem to Travel Faster Than Light
LiveScience | Aug 13, 2008 | Charles Q. Choi
Posted on 08/13/2008 12:11:36 PM PDT by decimon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2061306/posts


39 posted on 08/14/2008 10:17:51 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile hasn't been updated since Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


40 posted on 08/14/2008 10:18:35 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile hasn't been updated since Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Another variant on this experiment? Afterward the lead scientist gets to give a little interview to some newsman and explain how its really puzzling and on one has a clue what’s going on.


41 posted on 08/15/2008 12:54:14 AM PDT by eclecticEel (men who believe deeply in something, even wrong, usually triumph over men who believe in nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
On purely asthetic grounds I vote for trancententals all the way down.

Yeah, OK. But... the further down you go, the more quantized things get, don't they?

42 posted on 08/15/2008 8:54:05 AM PDT by Steely Tom (Without the second, the rest are just politicians' BS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Yippee!!!
A couple of years ago I got into a debate with another FReeper over this idea. I thought the concept had been basically (but not extensively) verified when CERN did an experiment like this around 2000.


43 posted on 08/17/2008 4:38:18 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Las Vegas Dave; Fred Nerks
The experiment shows that in quantum mechanics at least, some things transcend space-time, says Terence Rudolph, a theorist at Imperial College London. It also shows that humans have attached undue importance to the three dimensions of space and one of time we live in, he argues. "We think space and time are important because that's the kind of monkeys we are."
We primate a mistake coming down from the trees. ;')
44 posted on 08/21/2008 10:52:54 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile hasn't been updated since Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

HOpe you’re listening to C2C tonight.

Thanks.


45 posted on 08/22/2008 1:14:07 AM PDT by Quix (key QUOTES POLS 1900 ON #76 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2031425/posts?page=77#77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Hoagland asserts that when PART III of his disclosures comes out soonish . . .

there will be plans such that any clever person in their garage can make their own zero-point energy production unit.

Says it’s super simple.

Have read that before . . . could get interesting.


46 posted on 08/22/2008 1:16:41 AM PDT by Quix (key QUOTES POLS 1900 ON #76 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2031425/posts?page=77#77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Quadratic Bump!

Makes my head hurt!

47 posted on 08/22/2008 2:25:48 AM PDT by JDoutrider (Obama: The Hype and Chains candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JDoutrider; ActionNewsBill; AFreeBird; airborne; albertp; ALASKA; Alice in Wonderland; Angelas; ...
Any experts in such things have any comments?

From:

HERE: http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun2.htm

From part 2:

So, precisely as predicted by the HD model (and DePalma!) -- a key section of von Braun's rocket, in fact, did rotate that night ... as it placed Explorer I into space!

Mystery of "the unexplained higher orbit" ... finally ... solved.

Well ... not quite, of course.

For, this "confirmation" only deepened the real mystery:

Why does "spinning" a steel pinball, or ... rotating a one-ton, high-tech "tub" -- containing 15 solid rockets -- allow both to climb SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER against gravity ... than if they were NOT spinning!?

One of the first reactions I had to this fascinating confirmation -- that portions of von Braun's rocket HAD to spin, inevitably (from DePalma's experiment ...) resulting in the higher orbit for Explorer I -- was a feeling of intense gratification for Bruce; for, this simple engineering detail proved that Bruce DePalma has been absolutely right all along ... for over 34 years ... in insisting that "spinning a mass" also creates "some kind of anti-gravitational, anti-intertial field ..." which allows the object to fly higher against gravity than if it was NOT spinning!

Von Braun -- decades before Bruce DePalma ever conceived of his elegant little "spinning ball experiment" -- had already PROVED Depalma right ... with easily the most expensive "spinning ball" demonstration one could possibly imagine (Explorer I cost the American taxpayer approximately 20 million dollars, in 1958; today, allowing for inflation, that would be something like "half a billion ... ").

Further, it was now obvious that this is why von Braun also missed the Moon ... by those "pesky ~37,000 miles" with Pioneer 4.

Again he was using, in his Juno-2 "moonrocket" (a further modification of the Jupiter-C ...), EXACTLY the same "spinning tub" arrangement for the four solid-rocket upper stages that he'd used in the previous Earth-orbiting Explorer launches; and (from what we now know ...), the "DePalma Effect" struck again ... neatly over-accelerating the Pioneer 4 spacecraft to a slightly higher velocity than JPL had calculated using only standard "Newtonian dynamics" ... thus, causing the spacecraft to arrive at the Moon's orbit slightly sooner than it should have ... passing ahead of the Moon itself (which, of course, hadn't reached the "rendezvous point" yet ...) by those disappointing "37,000 miles (below) ...."

It all fit -- beautifully.

Of course, the reason why simply "spinning an object" should so dramatically change its "Newtonian dynamics" -- against all current mainstream theories (including, "sacred" Relativity ...) -- was still as profound a mystery as ever ....

It is hard to overstate both the scientific and political significance of von Braun's initial Explorer I discovery (swiftly confirmed, as we have documented, by Explorers III and IV, and all three Vanguard launches!) -- as well as all their confirmed connections now to DePalma's totally independent, rotating laboratory experiments.

Oh, did I forget to mention--

The US Navy Vanguard three-stage rocket also utilized a solid-propellant in its third stage ... so, it also had to be spun during the burn ... for "stabilization" -- at ~100 rpm (below)!

And, of course, then there was Allais ....

ALL these independent, dynamical results revealed "huge, gaping holes ..." in conventional "Newtonian mechanics" ... to say nothing of what they did to "General Relativity!" Yet, mainstream science -- and the mainstream science press, including those covering the space progream for the last 50 years -- blithely went on ... as if nothing was amiss!

DePalma himself, trained as a mainstream physicist for decades at two of the premier universities on the planet -- MIT and Harvard! -- wrestled with the extraordinary implications of his "spinning ball experiment" (first carried out in 1972 ...) for years -- before finally publishing some tentative, but far-reaching conclusions ....

"... the beginning of this author's work with rotating objects began with moment of inertia measurements of constrained gyroscopes undergoing forced precession. The increased moments of inertia discovered for precessional motion were translated into a series of measurements on pendula with rotating bobs. Although the discoveries of the inertial effects associated with precession and pendulum oscillations of rotating bob weights were highly suggestive, this author greatly resisted [for several years] attempts to force him to drop a rotating object for two reasons.

"Firstly, he had no reason to be able to predict the motion of a freely falling object on the basis of the inertial alterations he had measured which had concerned themselves with constrained situations of rotating objects. Second, there was no reason to expect inertial alterations [because of Einstein's inviolate "Principal of Equivalence"] to affect the rate of fall of a released object and there was no available theory which could in any way be applied to the situation or a falling rotating object in a gravitational field. This is a situation known in religious terms as a "leap into the dark."

"Since the author and his assistants are experts in the application of stroboscopic lighting techniques to the study of high speed motions, the first experimental cut at the situation was to photograph the trajectories of a steel ball bearing rotating at a high speed together with an identical [non-rotating] control object moving at a similar initial velocity. The result of the experiment was so startling and anomalous as to have taken me five years to understand.

"... Basically, the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control, presents a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood ... on the basis of radically new concepts in physics [distinct from the existing "Laws of Thermodynamics" ... "Newton's Laws" ... or "Special and General Relativity"] ...

"We know when we can alter the properties of mechanical objects, i.e. change their inertia, we have contravened the conservation of energy, because we have associated the properties of an object with the space which contains the object. The space which contains the object also contains energy and we can go at the project in two ways: we can attempt to extract the energy without worrying where it came from, or we can attempt to understand physics, ourselves, and the Universe by a new formulation of reality.

"... The behavior of rotating objects is explained [after much thought] simply on the addition of free energy to whatever motion the rotating object is [already] making. [Thus] the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control.

"... In terms of the dropping of the spinning ball, the understanding of the experiment involves the results of many other experiments as well as the resolution of a mind picture of the Universe which is our best approximation to understanding at the present time. What makes it difficult for other experimenters to understand the experiment is that it is not simply the results which are important. Without a theoretical foundation of understanding to make the experiment comprehensible -- to fit the results into a context of rational understanding and harmony with the facts of other experiments -- the data become trivial and worthless, and, worst of all, subject to misinterpretation.

"The [technological] availability of free energy from as simple an experiment as colliding a rotating object with a non-rotating one opens up the development of other machines for energy extraction and propulsion which may be more convenient to handle than the extraction of energy from the collision of a rotating object with a non-rotating one [emphasis added] ...."


48 posted on 08/22/2008 7:47:29 PM PDT by Quix (key QUOTES POLS 1900 ON #76 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2031425/posts?page=77#77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

*bookmark*


49 posted on 08/22/2008 7:51:08 PM PDT by airborne (If ignorance is bliss, why are liberals such miserable jerks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Wait. Let me guess. Photon entanglement involves Gravity latching, and we’re going to discover that the speed of Gravity is C squared (an accelerating velocity)?!


50 posted on 08/22/2008 7:58:17 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson