swansont

Energy efficiency would seem to be orthogonal to the discussion. Airbrush seems to be implying that a large area of small fans somehow inherently gives rise to a different flow rate than a large fan "All I can say is if you have many vent fans sucking air out the ceiling, rather than one big fan that creates a wind tunnel, you distribute the motion and increase the area of the air moving up and out the ceiling." Changing the are will matter, but in the above quote it's not at all obvious that the example is changing the area (from the term "big fan" and that wind tunnels generally have a fan as big as the tunnel) It's the speed of the air that matters. The speed of the air being greater near a nozzle is only true near the nozzle, and it's not a given that there is any nozzle in this problem. Mainly what I want is Airbrush to present some science or engineering to back up a claim, rather than a WAG. This being a science discussion site and all. The scenario is proposing that air is only around for a few seconds, which sounds like you are getting 10 or so room changes per minute, instead of per hour. To do this, the air has to move faster, regardless of how you do it. My point is having the air move 60x faster is not an imperceptible change, as was claimed.

We have a specific description of how photons create electron-positron pairs, and how they can annihilate to create photons. You seem to be postulating something different, and explaining none of it. "feed back into the array"? Stop posting word salad. Building speculation on top of other speculation will not fly. You have to demonstrate the basic idea before you can build on it, and you need more rigor. Also, need to explain what QVD is.

We have tested it though, after a fashion. People put light into buildup cavities all the time. Your conjecture says there will be some result. What we want is details of the predictions, based on some model. No, theory precedes experiment in many cases. Relativity, lasers, Bose-Einstein condensates all were described in theory before being found experimentally. I don't care how it happens. You are suggesting that energy is not conserved, or thet some other energy is involved. Those details can't be glossed over. You need to be more specific than "quasiparticles" The experimenters need to know specifically what to look for. Google doesn't know what the QVD paradox is. Can you explain, and link to some reputable source on this? "mass particles specifically assembled by crossing the polarized rays" - what particles? electrons, neutrons? It won't just be an up quark, as you had mentioned earlier, because quarks do not exist on their own. Plus there are conservation laws in play.

If you remove as much as you add, the power will not build up. IOW, the buildup ends when the power lost equals the power added. The point of having a large power can be the existence of a very strong electric field from having so many photons around. There was also the use of reactive power, which is an electrical term. Minimum rigor for a physics discussion would include describing all of these energy terms. Passing it off as other kinds of energy might work as a Star Trek plot device, but this is not supposed to be science fiction.

I’m talking about an optical buildup cavity. You would not use Volt-Amps to describe the power, as there is no current involved. It’s not electrical No, this isn’t based in any actual physics. This isn’t the “make stuff up” forum

Mirrors aren’t perfect, so you always need more energy intake. Can you explain the physics behind making these quasiparticles, and how that won’t cost any energy? In fact, that you get extra energy because this light “will circulate back into the system” If you mean the “demon” then yes, we probably don’t have anything like that. Can we have some actual physics here, rather than hand-waving? What quasi-particles, specifically? Where is a citation for these “perfect mirrors”?

But you’ve added 200%. You will not get more energy than you put in. These devices already exist. Power buildup cavities. You get more power inside but not more energy. Similar setup for lasers, if there is a gain medium inside the cavity.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. Physics/engineering are constrained by the real world. Math is not. A math proof should be comprised of math.

Changing the question doesn’t make the answer correct.

A commercial manufacturer makes things that meet spec. You can buy better optics, as long as you are willing to pay. If not, then you have to invest your own time.

You said yourself a wind tunnel has a big fan. Where is the constriction? I ask again: how is one big fan vs lots of small fans different? (same area)

How is one big fan vs lots of small fans different? If you can’t model the behavior, how can you predict what happens?

e and i are mathematical constants

You haven’t compared anything with an experiment. n isn’t in that equation, so.... k is the wave number (2 pi/wavelength) and omega is frequency. x is position and t is time. See? all variables map to something

I don’t know what they are capable or incapable of expressing. You have not mapped your variables to observables, nor have you worked a problem that can be compared to experiment. At the moment, it looks like the answer is “all of them” How is “you need to explain what your variables mean” not constructive? Same for “you need to show the time-independent solution” and “this needs to be shown as a function of position”

That’s a math question. A physics question might be to present the solution to hydrogen energy levels. Can you do that? No, I don’t. But access to software doesn’t tell me what value to assign to a variable, when I don’t know what it represents. Do the calculation that solves the particle in a potential well.

I don’t see the utility of going into depth when there are obvious errors and omissions. When you present a variable but don’t explain what it is, I’m not going to understand the equation that includes it. And you’ve introduced multiple unexplained variables. When you refuse to address questions, that raises alarms. It suggests you can’t.

I can’t. You haven’t explained what these variables mean, and haven’t run through an example in sufficient detail or clarity to figure any of that out. At the end of it all your model has to match nature. If it doesn’t, it’s wrong. You haven’t shown any of this is in a way that be compared with known results. I’m not asking about the creation of the universe. Kindly address question I am asking, and refrain from distractions I would like a time-independent solution to the particle in a potential well. I have been asking for this for some time. I’ve been focusing on that, rather than other problems. But your May 5 post has issues. (see below) Repeating yourself is the problem. I’m asking for information you haven’t posted. We’re on page 7. You’ve had plenty of opportunity to address questions. OK, your May 5 post. If P depends on omega bar, s and te, what is the equation for P? How can it be equal to Planck’s constant, which is a constant, and doesn’t have units of momentum? I’ll leave it at that, for starters.

In the situations where mechanical energy is conserved (zero work), KE +PE is a constant. So this is all wrong.

Components of what? 1. This is QM, not GR. 2. The curvature of spacetime in GR is caused by energy-momentum. It’s not an arbitrary effect. There are equations that relate the curvature to its cause. You’re just kicking the can down the road. These variables need to tie back to some physical property, not just some other variable that has no physical significance Gravity is a tiny effect. If your model doesn’t predict the behavior of particles we already deal with on the atomic/nuclear scale, it’s not going to matter if it gets gravity right. Do you mean momentum as a function of position, or the wave function in momentum space? Have you graphed this and presented it? Can you apply an operator to get the position wave function? Mathematica is doing math. We’re allegedly doing physics. That means connecting the math to behavior seen in nature Not knowing what je physically represents renders this meaningless. ! Moderator Note It had better not be. You are not complying with our rules, and forging ahead without satisfying our rule about being able to test your model would be a mistake, and may result in locking the thread. You have gotten a lot of leeway thus far, but we need you to be more responsive before you start lecturing further, and we are discussing physics rather than philosophy

Key images, item 1. (I can't easily quote you because you posted images) You say you allow particles to measure each other's relative positions. Curvature of what? Caused by what? Why are you worrying about curvature in spacetime? What is the equation that relates kbar to momentum? Why is this an input rather than an output? The equation often tells you what the momentum will be, though I suppose in some problems it would be a boundary condition. What you should do is work a problem like that. hbar is not one. I don't know the correct term, because I don't know what it's supposed to represent. This is your model. When you say it starts at a negative number, what does that mean? It's going to be negative regardless of the problem you are trying to solve? Independent of the boundary conditions or particle properties? That it's going to vary and become positive, again independent of the boundary conditions or particle properties? With repect to what variable is it varying? Position? Time? (Physics time, not the abomination you've come up with) What significance does it have? You look at QM and every variable represents an observable quantity or something of physical significance. By x eigenfunction, I would interpret this as saying you are getting the wave function as a function of position for a 1-D system Is that correct? The input can be time if you have a system that varies in time. But then I don't see why you would get a function as an answer. But I'm asking about a system that is not varying in time, so the answer will not depend on time. We were talking about a particle in a potential well, rather than a free particle. I want the time-independent solution as a function of position, as well as the energy eigenvalues.

How about some math/modeling to back up this claim

I'm not seeing the utility of making this idea incorporate relativity when there are so many unanswered questions about the original proposal. What is the point of having one particle measure another one? A particle in a well has only one particle. Why are we worrying about time evolution? Let's get the time-independent solutions checked first. Whether it's a wave or a point particle should be apparent from the solution, and it doesn't directly depend on whether the particle has spin. If I have a particle in a box, the position and momentum will not be single-valued, but the energy will be, if it's in a single energy eigenstate. That's not an explanation of what s actually is. Physically what is different between these two cases? Please answer without referring to the variable s. We know that s is different. What is it about the system that is different, that would give rise to a different value of s. Now, do the same for n and theta. And k bar. Time is a gamma component without spin? Well, good, I guess, since time does not have spin, but otherwise this makes no sense. And now we have j, which is both positive and negative and almost infinite? Simultaneously? And now time is the resultant vector of x, y, z and some 4th dimension? How do the units work out here? You're calling it the mass eigenfunction but it's not mass, and not something that exists in nature. You don't think that's confusing? (not that it's more or less confusing than a dozen variable with no obvious connection to physical reality, which you refuse to adequately explain. Can you solve the particle in a potential well problem or not? By solve, I mean give us the time-independent wave function (as a function of position) and the energy eigenvalues?

You're saying they are the same, only different. So that's as clear as mud. What particle would have no angular momentum but have energy based on this variable? Arbitrarily? Is this a joke? Nature isn't arbitrary. These variables have to be based on something. You can't just make it up. If you did, you can pick any answer you want out of the results. That's not how this works. An eigenstate has one result. For what value of x does this hold? Why are there two curves? What is the significance of t being negative? But you don't have position as an output. Your graphs are plotted as a function of t. How does one get position information? More initial time? What does that mean?

One issue is that documentaries give a false sense of proportion; you don't know how long a nature documentary spent getting the shot they put in the show. You think the action is typical when it isn't. The boring bits where nothing is happening don't make it into the final cut.