Can We Generate Gravitational Wave And Convert It Into Useful Energy?

[Super Polymath]

Um sorry that really doesn't make a lot of sense. Your better off using Helium 3 and lasers to make a fusion reactor. The energy is already confined in the atom of helium 3. While its not abundant on Earth there is plenty in our solar system including our moon.

Alternatively, fusion can be catalyzed by achieving a high spatial density, as happens for the nuclei within a muonic molecule. When a muon replaces the electron, it brings the nuclei ∼200 times closer together than in an ordinary molecule, greatly enhancing the spontaneous nuclear reaction rate even at low temperature . In many ways, the ground state of such a molecule is the ideal situation for fusion because the phase space density of the reacting species takes on the largest possible value consistent with quantum mechanics. While greeted by much excitement when it was discovered in the 1950s, muon-catalyzed fusion still just falls a bit short of practicality because of the insufficient lifetime of the muon.Fusion does not occur to a measurable extent in the ground state of normal molecules bound by electrons because of the lower density of nuclei (∼1/ų, not 1/pm³) and the low vibrational energy (meV, not keV) compared to muonic molecules. In this paper we will explore whether laser pulse shaping could allow quantum control to enhance intramolecular nuclear collision rates, starting from normal internuclear distances.

 

& it would be hard for us to "allow quantum control to enhance intramolecular nuclear collision rates" if the quantum theory is wrong.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

Why would I think either is wrong? They both can model every dynamic under physics.

 

The higher dimensions are mathematical dear they aren't different universes.

 

Example loop quantum gravity [math]SU(2)\otimes SO(2)/mathbb{Z}[/math] is an x,y plane times an x,y plane with z as the parity operator.

 

A Hilbert space has a coordinate basis of the x,y graph. All of physics is how to plot a graph.

 

Multiple graphs have transformations or holomorphisms and diffeomorphisms that transform from one graph to another.

 

If you overlap two graphs partially you have a holomorphism.

 

Some graphs are connected while others are not. This forms your index and the complete set of graphs is the index. Each tensor represents elements of a graph so similar rules apply.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

Why would I think either is wrong? They both can model every dynamic under physics.

 

The higher dimensions are mathematical dear they aren't different universes.

But neither are compatible with the basic principles of Einstein's relativity because of the simple issue of local realism vs non-locality. Why even assume non-locality when C covers 1/n planck lengths in 1/n planck times assuming n>1 gravity can operate superluminally under those conditions due to frame dragging & lorentz transformations. Instead of QM why not just use scale relativity from fractal dimensions instead of non-locality from higher dimensions? The quantum theory does way too much for what could be expressed classically.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

Oh come on local realism is a causality relation under the speed of information exchange. The whole argument was Einstein didnt think a statistical correlation function could be used to predict values on a different dataset. Bells and EPR showed that was wrong and without violating relativity.

 

Google Pearson Correlation function for an example. It had nothing to do with particle a causes particle b to change. Correlations don't require cause.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

Oh come on local realism is a causality relation under the speed of information exchange. The whole argument was Einstein didnt think a statistical correlation function could be used to predict values on a different dataset. Bells and EPR showed that was wrong and without violating relativity.

 

Google Pearson Correlation function for an example. It had nothing to do with particle a causes particle b to change. Correlations don't require cause.

Every action has an equal & opposite reaction, does that sound a-causal to you? How can there even be a-causal symmetry? There can't be without non-locality. That's the whole point of why QM & GR are incompatible & why there's no GUT.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

Here is an online correlation calculator.

 

http://www.alcula.com/calculators/statistics/correlation-coefficient/

[Shustaire]

Google the terminology dear. A correlation function is a statistic math. Its used all the time by data analysists.

 

For example city a has population x what is the correlation to insurance claims.

[Super Polymath]

Google the terminology dear. A correlation function is a statistic math. Its used all the time by data analysists.

 

For example city a has population x what is the correlation to insurance claims.

& how would statistical analyses be better for a specific & isolated event i.e. measurements in determining quantum positioning than using SR beyond C with scale relativity (fractal geometry) to apply GR to a causality relation under the speed of information exchange? The answer is as significant as determinism vs the uncertainty principle. & Einstein also believed that there was another level of reality in which everything is determinable. Now, doesn't that sound like fractal cosmology's scale relativity to you?

Edited December 20, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

Detector a reads 1 when a particle has horizontal polarity. Dectector B reads 1 when a particle has vertical polarity. If the particles are entangled previously this will affect the statistical average. Superposition is a mixture of the two. Statistically it can only be one or the other. However you don't know which photon has which. When they were originally entangled one photon is vertical while the other horizontal.

 

(done from a monochromatic wave through a beam splitter)

 

The detector angles and angle of the beam splitter affects the correlation function. (they will be 90 degrees from each other.)

 

Once you read 1 photon you automatically know the other assuming you detect it.

 

Nothing fractal about it.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

Statistically it can only be one or the other. However you don't know which photon has which.

I'm saying, provided my thesis is correct, you could determine which has which by applying the principles of fractal dimensions to the principles of Einstein's relativity. My thesis is that the universe looks practically the same at the planck length (more so than any statistic in QM could ever discern) in a near-perfect vacuum (that has nothing but photons scattered between their respective wavelengths) as it does at 13 billion light years. This is because the cosmic event horizon & h are related to C, which is equal to the rate of frame-dragging GW waves (indivisible from the other three fundamental interactions as well as mass, what we perceive as the Higgs field, & dark matter in this case) & it's polar opposite; expansion (dark energy & anti-gravity). Obviously electrons are larger collections than photons, & protons possess more variations in their respective cosmological constants than do photons & electrons but the same thesis applies to everything in the universe. This sameness is crucial for a TOE, as is local realism. It's imperative that we abandon QM, as well as non-locality, altogether IMO as well as radically altering how we perceive particles because they're not at all what we thought when they were first conceived & that's evident from the wave function itself.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30701-can-someone-model-this-mathematically/

Edited December 20, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

Um no I've been to the Wolds most powerful electron microscope and the atom looks nothing like planetary orbits. so You lost your fractal identity right there.

[Super Polymath]

Um no I've been to the Wolds most powerful electron microscope and the atom looks nothing like planetary orbits. so You lost your fractal identity right there.

 

Oh, good. & what do they look like? Let me guess, little dots. Yes, I've seen them as well.

 

 

All our observations would offer is virtually no detail, a still frame, not saying what's within or in between them. For that you need a more accurate equipment:

 

 

Now does that not look like a quasar?

 

 

But that's a very simple atom with one proton.

 

This is what goes on inside the nucleus of a more complex atom:

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81190/whats-inside-a-proton

 

"You can't consider a proton just as three quarks (called valence quarks, because they determine the quantum numbers) because virtual quarks and antiquarks are constantly being created and anhilated via strong force. So a proton is more like a quark sea. In fact, this process gives most part of the proton's mass (the valence quarks are just the 2% of the mass).

 

"

 

What if I told you that the protons are constantly transferring the material of the accretion disk around that planck particle to-&-fro stripping it of its mass during brief bouts of negative charge & spitting the material stripped of is mass into the neighbor atoms' nuclei in the form of the electron's wave during less brief bouts of positive charge? The big rips in electron microverses get hit with that outward flowing accretion disk & form one solid-state electron very briefly that's bright enough for us to see.

 

A bit of a mind bender isn't it? For that revelation you'd need a mind like mine. But I need someone who knows the mathematical rigors & with the academic acumen to model it so they can more accurately predict quantum behavior.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

These pictures don't do the real thing justice. You can't take a camera to a lens and take a picture. These images are compilations of scatterings. In essence your imaging probability densities of multiple scatterings.

 

Via electron holography.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

These pictures don't do the real thing justice. You can't take a camera to a lens and take a picture. These images are compilations of scatterings. In essence your imaging probability densities of multiple scatterings.

That is neither here nor there. 

 

Can you have your husband read this please:

 

Could you perhaps help me model this mathematically, it would be much appreciated. I lack the mathematical or academic know-how. I mean, it sort of requires a Physicist. Here's the theory

 

Why are general relativity & quantum mechanics incompatible theories? Non-locality isn't compatible with the basic principles of Einstein's relativity because of the simple issue of local realism vs non-locality. Why even assume non-locality when C covers 1/n planck lengths in 1/n planck times assuming n>1 gravity can operate superluminally under those conditions due to frame dragging & lorentz transformations. Instead of QM why not just use scale relativity from fractal dimensions instead of non-locality from higher dimensions? The quantum theory does way too much for what could be expressed classically.

 

I quote Gerard t'Hooft:

 

"Einstein had difficulties with the relativistic invariance of quantum mechanics (“does

the spooky information transmitted by these particles go faster than light?”). These,

however, are now seen as technical difficulties that have been resolved. It may be consid-

ered part of Copenhagen’s Doctrine, that the transmission of information over a distance

can only take place, if we can identify operators A at space-time point x1 and operators

B at space-time point x2 that do not commute: [A, B] 6= 0 . We now understand that, in

elementary particle theory, all space-like separated observables mutually commute, which

precludes any signalling faster than light. It is a built-in feature of the Standard Model,

to which it actually owes much of its success.

So, with the technical difficulties out of the way, we are left with the more essential

Einsteinian objections against the Copenhagen doctrine for quantum mechanics: it is a

probabilistic theory that does not tell us what actually is going on. It is sometimes even

suggested that we have to put our “classical” sense of logic on hold. Others deny that:

“Keep remembering what you should never ask, while reshaping your sense of logic, and

everything will be fine.” According to the present author, the Einstein-Bohr debate is not

over. A theory must be found that does not force us to redefine any aspect of classical,

logical reasoning.

What Einstein and Bohr did seem to agree about is the importance of the role of an

observer. Indeed, this was the important lesson learned in the 20th century: if something

cannot be observed, it may not be a well-defined concept – it may even not exist at all. We

have to limit ourselves to observable features of a theory. It is an important ingredient

of our present work that we propose to part from this doctrine, at least to some extent:

Things that are not directly observable may still exist and as such play a decisive role

in the observable properties of an object. They may also help us to construct realistic

models of the world.

Indeed, there are big problems with the dictum that everything we talk about must be

observable. While observing microscopic objects, an observer may disturb them, even in

a classical theory; moreover, in gravity theories, observers may carry gravitational fields

that disturb the system they are looking at, so we cannot afford to make an observer

infinitely heavy (carrying large bags full of “data”, whose sheer weight gravitationally

disturbs the environment), but also not infinitely light (light particles do not transmit

large amounts of data at all), while, if the mass of an observer would be “somewhere in between”, this could entail that our theory will be inaccurate from its very inception."

 

Key Terms

 

    Local realism

    Teleparallel quantum gravity

    Quantum observer/entanglement/eraser/venn diagram paradox

    Quantum cellular automaton interpretation

    anti/de sitter space/ADS/CFT duality

    fractal geometry/scale relativity/special relativity beyond the speed of light

    White hole

    Higgs field/dark matter/gravity waves

    The cosmological constant/dynamic dark energy/Hawking radiation

    FRBs & the OMG particle

    The transplanckian problem

    Dark Flow/Cosmic Bruising

 

Let's start with the Black Hole. What is it exactly? My theory:

 

 

 

Matter with positive dimensions doesn't get turned inside out with the spacetime that enters the event horizon of the black hole, matter cannot pass into perpendicular dimensions, instead the micro black holes within all quasar matter combines with the macro black hole (parallel spacetimes merging in anti desitter space leading to dark energy there).

 

 

 

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipNq9eYBOTDMvR--SsLquT6H3OR5Fgofelcfe72e

 

 

 

This is why matter jets are so powerful around black holes, & the source of FRBs & OMG particles (relativistic protons) - the microverses of these relativistic particles don't have any microblack holes to delay expansion at first until they pick them up as they meet other radiation propagating through space. Stripping microverses of their black holes gives you more energy than matter/anti-matter annihilation.

 

A black hole is a white hole in ADS space (with negative three dimensions). Everything that's contracting in desitter space is expanding in ADS space. So black holes are perpendicular universes that have negative dimensions, so when black holes are in a near perfect vacuum the only mass they consume comes from vastly reduced infinitesimal bhs within the microverses of photons which, as a white hole hot in the center where parallel universes continuously emerge that dissolves near its horizon, this means that the rate of expansion about that white holes horizon increases while the hot core of the white hole shrinks & its inside out DS counterpart as a black hole shrinks. That's Hawking radiation for you.

 

 

 

My thesis is that the universe looks practically the same at the planck length (more so than any statistic in QM could ever discern) in a near-perfect vacuum (that has nothing but photons scattered between their respective wavelengths) as it does at 13 billion light years. This is because the cosmic event horizon & h are related to C, which is equal to the rate of frame-dragging GW waves (indivisible from the other three fundamental interactions as well as mass, what we perceive as the Higgs field, & dark matter in this case) & it's polar opposite; expansion (dark energy & anti-gravity). Obviously electrons are larger collections than photons, & protons possess more variations in their respective cosmological constants than do photons & electrons but the same thesis applies to everything in the universe. This sameness is crucial for a TOE, as is local realism. It's imperative that we abandon QM, as well as non-locality, altogether IMO as well as radically altering how we perceive particles because they're not at all what we thought when they were first conceived & that's evident from the wave function itself. This kills two birds with one stone; for one, it tells us what's beyond the cosmic event horizon, and two, it tells us what's inside of a subatomic particle.

 

 

 

 

http://g3.nh.ee/images/pix/1000x654/GQtBJSgQGew/d5e7d5335434091797-68331551.jpg

 

 

 

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipNCJm-i_SKiJwwKdyuTJSi0Gx_rrgsElUOIpEpv

 

 

 

Dynamical dark energy:

 

 

 

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipNaL_Y7LCjAHtt1OB3hVy7sPWHtVN4kg1ZytUTy

 

You have late entropy stage monster SM black holes increasing the space-time via evaporation surrounding early entropy stage CMB bodies causing the isotropic qg plasma to break apart into the first atoms there. What happens with this new cosmic portion is anisotropic black hole sizes. As the universe section ages macro bh's become larger as they consume mass from matter & micro black holes (the higgs field that gives matter-energy mass & DM) shrink overall until a new late entropy section forms overlapping the previous one where those monster black holes of the previous one have been reduced to micro-bh's.

 

Now, the atom:

 

 

 

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EogdalfXF4c/hqdefault.jpg

 

 

 

All our observations would offer is virtually no detail, a still frame, not saying what's within or in between them. For that you need a more accurate equipment:

 

 

 

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4G7sq5GVhos/hqdefault.jpg

 

 

 

Now does that not look like a quasar?

 

 

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/QuasarStarburst.jpg/220px-QuasarStarburst.jpg

 

 

 

But that's a very simple atom with one proton.

 

 

 

This is what goes on inside the nucleus of a more complex atom:

 

 

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81190/whats-inside-a-proton

 

 

 

"You can't consider a proton just as three quarks (called valence quarks, because they determine the quantum numbers) because virtual quarks and antiquarks are constantly being created and anhilated via strong force. So a proton is more like a quark sea. In fact, this process gives most part of the proton's mass (the valence quarks are just the 2% of the mass).

 

 

 

https://fbarradass.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/proton_hr.jpg"

 

 

 

What if I told you that the protons are constantly transferring the material of the accretion disk around that planck particle to-&-fro stripping it of its mass during brief bouts of negative charge & spitting the material stripped of is mass into the neighbor atoms' nuclei in the form of the electron's wave during less brief bouts of positive charge? The big rips in electron microverses get hit with that outward flowing accretion disk & form one solid-state electron very briefly that's bright enough for us to see.

 

 

 

We also have this notion of black hole atoms, now suppose that these micro black holes are crucial in the formation of all atoms:

 

 

 

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMPcSi2giMCa0Sk6I_FZ6FnBkw-ozrXDGvXUkGz

 

 

 

This is an atom with an atomic nucleus composed of one proton. However, most atoms have multiple protons with charge as well as a charge-neutral "neutron" which, unlike said protons, flies apart within 10 minutes when freed from the nucleus. Why? Let's break it down:

 

 

 

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipP4zX3SAJJi2xytqo-JO-7j0LwJWTCRORNm6AQF

 

 

 

The protons of adjacent atoms feed each other, as the micro black hole is in the process of consuming it's accretion disk; that's negative charge & all material around said nucleus, even the electrons that form, are going inward. Going outward would be positive charge, & that is when the proton has fully consumed it's accretion disk, stripped of it's mass, the matter of the accretion flows back outward in the form of Cherenkov radiation. That is positive charge, & as that proton's BH evaporates, the - proton within the nuclei of adjacent atoms grow. The cycles must be synchronized perfectly or the atoms will annihilate into light. A proton with negative charge will always become positively charged. Now, this is also an example of how quantum entanglement comes about, these atoms are causally linked by micro-gravity. It also solves the anti-matter problem; what annihilation would leave in its wake were rapidly evaporating microversal scale cosmic unit black holes in a pre-CMB, CDM state, just like a big rip. Whatever is pulled back by the expansion generated by BH shrinkage would have to be causally synchronized by gravity, just like all particle pairs.

 

 

 

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipM9S3ujWiaiVXKtQ0igaze1K5AQrTkxBVHcyJjh

 

 

 

As you can see here, the neutron is a glorified subatomic quark-gluon pulsar, held together by the collective gravity of the protons. The up and down quarks are just where the matter jets at the two poles of the microquasars and micro qg plasma bodies are lighting up material - two ups & 1 down or vice versa being where these matter jets ignite material:

 

 

 

https://photos.google.com/search/_tra_/photo/AF1QipMdbMxDNyySzbrTsyjjAzQeQXrwXA1ElC2UU4tP

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, let's explain the observer effect, which can also be attributed to the quantum eraser:

 

 

 

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipN6f8EEQIf8ngGdUpK6Gp-mDxvQAxs-tqs7izfX

 

 

 

As you can see, the protons with negative charge get heated when compressed into the double slits, this is attributed to the wave function. However, when the mass of the photo-electrons are added to that same proton beam, the negatively charged protons in the double slit get positively charged as the accretion disks get stripped from the protonic micro-BH by the mass of the protons interacting with the photo-electrons behind them causing positively charged protons to become negatively charged.

 

 

 

This microversal cellular automaton interpretation is much more versatile than QM, it works in explaining virtually anything in QM. For instance, let's use the quantum venn diagram paradox;

 

 

 

 

 

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipM4wzl7EdqP7do7L7Gwy0ajNA13uO15vomNJMpi

 

 

 

Between wave functions, the photons adopt new polarities as they expand through space-time. More polarizing filters=greater variety of polarities.

 

 

 

Now let's look at the 3rd type of microverse: Quark-gluon plasma is the absolute densest state matter can take. We see it in the cores of neutron stars, discs of quasars as matter is folded upon itself by compressing spacetime (gravity/mass/dark matter) around macro black holes, & in the cosmic microwave background radiation. Any denser, & matter is just a macro black hole as there's no space between micro black holes. It's composed of micro quasars with micro black holes at their cores, barely held apart by micro expansion. Unlike vacuum radiation & the atomic world, these microverses are non-anthropic (no stellar eras) because less entropy equates to less complexity. Quark-gluon plasma is the only state of matter composed entirely of microverses that are exclusively the same as itself. Atoms & vacuum radiation will have microverses with atoms, quark-gluon plasma & vacuum radiation within them, quark-gluon plasma is only composed of microverses that are entirely filled with quark-gluon plasma.

 

 

 

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMYvWqexE9t-KJFjSvkh0linJUkqc-vp66c0fte

Edited December 20, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

QM and Relativity isn't really incompatible. A lot of that is poorly understood. Its the quantization and renormalization that is tricky to get to work with both.

 

The difference is how does each curve fit. They have two different mathematical methods. However much of QM in more modern treatments uses relativity. An example is the Klien-Gordon equation.

 

 

Also my husband and I don't have time for other projects. He is still on his grant for survey camera studies to improve the algorithms for atmispheric changes.

 

As for myself I have midterm exams to grade

Edited December 21, 2017 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil]

QM and Relativity isn't really incompatible. A lot of that is poorly understood. Its the quantization and renormalization that is tricky to get to work with both.

 

The difference is how does each curve fit. They have two different mathematical methods. However much of QM in more modern treatments uses relativity. An example is the Klien-Gordon equation.

 

 

Also my husband and I don't have time for other projects. He is still on his grant for survey camera studies to improve the algorithms for atmispheric changes.

 

As for myself I have midterm exams to grade

Sure, they aren't, laughs at Shustaire

[Shustaire]

You keep trying to discredit me but I teach Calculus at the Unversity of Victoria and have an honorary degree in applied Physics. My husband is has the Doctorates in High energy Particle physics.

 

So honestly dear your math mistakes do make me laugh.