studiot

But I didn't quote you. And my reply included a quote from another member with specific words I replied to and repeated in my reply. But now you come to mention it. Do you have an agenda ? I am trying to evaluate where something based on the original idea might be usefully deployed. You, on the other hand, appear to be exclusively bent on finding odd parts of my posts to quibble with (without reading them properly I might add). Are you seriously claiming that there is no room in Canada for the outflow? Even in the much more densely populated UK I can find such places exactly where I proposed them. Have you never seen a british motorway ? I can assure you there is plenty of scope there to mount the type of vertical access rotors proposed for ships. These are totally independent of wind direction. And before you start wrongly accusing me of thinking of things I am not, here is a picture of flettner rotors driving a large ship. Perhaps there is not enough room for the outflow air in the middel of the Atlantic ocean ???

You have just asked this and been told my answer. The question as it stands is meaningless.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear Have you taken nothing from this thread ?

Yes that is correct. That is because the word 'particle' is short for the true phrase 'point particle' which has a special meaning in Physics. But once again there are many things to know about relativity before you bother with world lines.

Once again you are trying to impose absolute measurements on something. Take a metre rule. In its own frame it is exactly one metre long - if it is an end standard if you know what I mean - ask if you don't. In most most (but not all ) frames it has a different length. There is no such thing as an absolute metre. Now if you measure other objects in the same frame as the metre rule, for instance trains, atoms and so on you will find them all scaled by the same factor. The only things you will come up with the same numbers for are electric charges and numbers of those atoms, trains etc. I started to tell you about this near the beginning of this thread and understanding this is the key to understanding Special Relativity. Most other stuff ( including the maths) can be derived fairly easily from this. World lines are artificial constructs like graphs of stocks and shares - useful in their own way, but not the be-all and end-all of relativity.

Agenda ? I didn't mention anyone specific, but are you feeling guilty ? Smallscale wind generation ( a good termthank you I will adopt it), has been arounf for decades. Not only on narrowboats, you only have to visit any marina to see many of these on boats trickle charging vital onboard electronic equipment. Also visit umpteen highway locations, especially remote ones. All manner of electronic highway equiment is being supplied from smallscale wind generators. Wind generators have the advantage over solar in that the wind blows at night as well as in the day, unlike the sunshine. In the UK it blows approximately 75% of the time. Compare this to say 80% sunshine available 50% of the time. (Do you get 80% sunshine where you live ?) Now these small generators would not power the big motorway display boards. But conceivably one of those walls would . The point being that to scale up the conventional propellor driven generator would place an enormous risk of extreme damage/loss of life, if it failed and spun off into the traffic. A suitable wall would not pose such a risk and could be sited and oriented so that MacSwell's flow problems did not exist. So what if it was a bit less efficient ? The biggest problem with such equipment I can see is thievery by antisocial members of the public who also don't care about environmental protection.

Are you sure you posted this in the right thread ? We have two current threads discussing the nature of interference and 'the slits experiments'. This one couldn't be more clearly about entanglement. Your input to entanglement is, however welcome. I see that your opinion is that entanglement is only applicable to 'quantum systems' ie to quantum description of systems, whatever they may be. I see opinion is divided on this. And of course the object of this thread is to give the whole subject a proper airing. So fire away. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=classical+entanglement&source=hp&ei=79B-YYihJq2dlwS4hI-gBg&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYX7e_3e-xUlFE4jFLwPsk6BgDmf6Prqt&oq=classical+entanglement&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAEIAEMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeOhEILhCABBCxAxDHARCjAhCTAjoICAAQgAQQsQM6DgguEIAEELEDEMcBEKMCOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARDRAzoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6CAgAELEDEIMBOggILhCABBCxAzoLCC4QgAQQxwEQrwE6DgguEIAEELEDEMcBEK8BOhEILhCABBCxAxCDARDHARCjAjoFCC4QgAQ6CwgAEIAEELEDEMkDOgUIABCSAzoRCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQ0QMQkwI6CwguEIAEEMcBENEDOgUIABCxAzoHCAAQgAQQClDKCVjgJmCGKWgAcAB4AoABxAWIAeJGkgEOMC4xLjAuNi4xMC4zLjGYAQCgAQE&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjI1PH8lPXzAhWtzoUKHTjCA2QQ4dUDCAk&uact=5

Not at all it simply makes a nonsense of any pretty diagrams showing streamtubes. It is pretty obvious that 1) I can't have one (or more) of those big offshore type turbines in my garden as it is a normal subarban one. 2) If I lived an Exmoor and had the space for one, (there are some) placing it directly infornt of a wall or rock facce would enconter the same problems. In fact a horizontal axis turbine might actually be more efficient. But I thought the purpose of this thread was to discuss and dispassionately evaluate the worth and practically of the idea, not to destroy it with a negative agenda.

It's apparent you omitted to read the second line.

The rotors in the article picture are nothing like your diagram. I note that the rotors in the picture do not vent into clear air. Interestingly I had a detailed discussion about the idea with a gas dynamics engineer. He offered the following points. He agreed that the there is an issue with the structural design of having most of the weight at the tip of the rotor in vertical axis turbines. However he pointed out that this could be overcome with more machinery ie a low friction support track at the edges. He also agreed that this would be impractical in marine situations where you can't support the track on water. He also said that vertical axis turbines of the sort described have a problem starting and are prone to stopping particularly when the incident wind is not in the best drection. He said that conventional vertical arrays (yes apparently they have been studied from an engineering point of view) are designed with a helical set to the blade direction to offset this issue. Reverse Axial flow impellors are also possible.

What are you expecting as a connection between ? As far as I can see we have the following situation. Two particles can be 'entangled' if they have a binary property ie that can be measured in one of two states. For example a ball can be red or blue, an electron can be spin up or spin down etc. Note I have said 'can be entangled' because that is not enough. To actually cause entanglement something extra has to happen to the particles. For instance the two balls can be placed into a bag. The two electrons can be bonded in a bonding orbital. In the case of the balls we also have to ensure that one blue and one red have been selected. In the case of the electrons this step is not necessary as it will happen automatically on bonding. Another difference is that balls in general can come in many different colours so we have to restrict them. Electrons can only come in one of two spin states. Entanglement can occur irrespective of our knowledge of these states, for both the balls and the electrons. We can know that the bonded electrons are entangled without knowing which has which spin. Measuring one spin will automatically determine the other. We can only know the balls are entangled if we can guarantee that one of each colour has been selected since there must be achance of placing two balls of the same colour in the bag. So in neither case is probability a factor. Thank you for you input and sharp example. However I do not see where entanglement could occcur in this example ? Once again thank you all for helping me clarify my thoughts on this difficult subject

What are you expecting a connection between ? As far as I can see we have the following situation. Two particles can be 'entangled' if they have a binary property ie that can be measured in one of two states. OOps the daft control functions got me again before I had finished typing and posted this prematurely.

Probability of what exactly ? The probabilities associated with say electrons in molecules is quite different from the probabilities associated with photon generation. Thank you for this link +1 This theoretical statement seems to be counter to the actual experimental results reported by Walborn in swansont's link.

Please define identity. Are you stating that you can entangle photons that are in different frames ? Surely both photons must be in the same frame to entangle them. And if they are in the same frame they must be in the same frame and therefore subject to the same transformations, relative to any other frame. I simply asked because you originally stated quite clearly. Are you suggesting that say position and momentum are not quantum properties or quantum identities (whatever they may be). ?

Are they ? That is the first I have heard of it. How can we then sometimes determine the ratio of two of them ?

I don't think you caught my drift. With the balls, determining the colour of one ball could tell you absolutely nothing about the colour of the other. Further you can't determine probabilities without further information.

Not sure how this plays out with you previous statement or my 'coloured balls in a bag' example. What if someone blind selected two gloves from a pile of gloves ? How would they be classically entangled unless you had the 'extra information' ( my version of your words I think) that they were a pair ?

Apology accepted. The point is that we often have youngsters from say 10 to 16 posting questions here about something they have just come across. Often they are very enthusiastic about their query, but need a pointer to the bigger picture. I try not to dampen their enthusiasm by presenting highbrow maths arguments, rather I try to offer a more suitable rationale. Since I wasn't sure if you are actually such a youngster I gave the benefit of the doubt as they say, with what I hoped was a gentler and more respectful approach. So I am sorry if this was taken the wrong way. Back to infinity. I have an older trigonometry textbook with a section entitled 'Passing through infinity'. The point is very simply that there are many different 'inifnities'. There is even a whole theory of the arithmetic of infinities, but this is quite different from the arithmetic of ordinary numbers. When you come to add all the light form all sources in an infinite universe you get and infinite quantity. But you also have an infinite universe so when this light is spread over another infinity you can get a finite light density. Mathematically the ratio of one infinity to another is often indeterminate as it could take on any finite value. Further information /theory is needed for those cases that can be determined. So the question becomes Is there sufficient theory to determine this value for the light density we can see and measure and how accurate do we think that theory is ?

The entire body of quantum identities can be entangled but we can only choose to discover one and entanglement is lost. A single observation destroys entanglement. How would you entangle the momentum of two photons, of identical frequency ?

So why haven't you ? I didn't compare you to anything. I told you a true story about encouragement, when it was apparent to me to did not and still do not understand the Science (Maths) of the term infinity. The true story was about how a better man the me helped me with something I did not at the time understand. Furthermore I offered you a polite and reasonable discussion to extend you knowledge of infinity to cover your original question, hopefully in a way that would not be to mathematical. Sadly all I have received in return is insult and either no response or peremptory ones. If I told someone the Pele once told me how best to kick a football, why would that rub them up the wrong way ?

Why do folks always miss my point of view ? I just don't care. But there doesn't seem to be a category for that.

Gosh seeing my last post quoted like that makes me wish my spelling was entangled. Need ? Nature has endowed it whether we need it or no, (to paraphrase the lady).

You keep referring me to other websites for basic information needed to understand your proposal. This is contrary to the rules here. References to other websites etc is OK for those who understand the proposal and wish to delve further. Thank you for telling me where the crystal cells are placed. That could have been said 50 posts ago when I was asking what was happening before the slits (since behind is after). RE polarisation. It could be that is because that is one of the few proprties of phtons that can be entangled.

I think swandont's point was about additional information. Let us conside a classical system of entanglement say two balls hidden in a bag. Measurement of the colour of one ball tells you nothing about the colour of the other ball unless you hve further information. But if you know that one is red and the other is blue then measurement of one colour tells you both.

Firstly thank you for a better description, though it is still not complete enough for dullards like me. Have you no diagram ? I am for instance not sure of the meaning of behind ?