-
#1860 by WarpTech on 25 Sep, 2017 18:10
-
Mono... did you see these ?
http://relaypros.com/Relay/Relay/USB_Relay_Controller
there's stuff from "NI" too, but I suspect they won't be cheap
http://www.ni.com/en-us/support/model.usb-6525.html
(edit)
check out these too
http://denkovi.com/usb-relay-board-four-channels-for-home-automation
(example http://denkovi.com/SoftwareExamples/usb_4_8_labview/USB_4_8_RelayDemoVI.jpg )
HTH
Those relay switches are electromechanical. They use a small EM coil to make contact. I chose solid-state to avoid putting EM coils on the torsional pendulum. Of course the NI USB-6525 would be nice, but it is overkill and expensive. I ordered the numato solid-state relay and it gets here Wednesday.
When using SS relays, you must be very careful of stray inductance in the switched wires. Turning off current can cause "spikes" that could damage the relay, or create spurious noise signals that could damage LV components. I typically put MOV's across the output of an SSR, to prevent the relay from being damaged by transients. -
#1861 by jmossman on 25 Sep, 2017 18:36
-
Mono... did you see these ?
Those relay switches are electromechanical. They use a small EM coil to make contact. I chose solid-state to avoid putting EM coils on the torsional pendulum.
http://relaypros.com/Relay/Relay/USB_Relay_Controller
...
...
When using SS relays, you must be very careful of stray inductance in the switched wires. Turning off current can cause "spikes" that could damage the relay, or create spurious noise signals that could damage LV components. I typically put MOV's across the output of an SSR, to prevent the relay from being damaged by transients.
http://www.circuitstoday.com/metal-oxide-varistor-mov
QuoteThe working of a MOV is shown in the figure above.
The resistance of the MOV is very high. First, let us consider the component to have an open-circuit as shown in figure 1(a). The component starts conducting as soon as the voltage across it reaches the threshold voltage. When it exceeds the threshold voltage, the resistance in the MOV makes a huge drop and reaches zero. This is shown in the figure 1(b). As the device has very small impedance at this time due to the heavy voltage across it, all the current will pass through the metal oxide varistor itself. The component has to be connected in parallel to the load. The maximum voltage that will pass through the load will be the sum of the voltage that appears across the wiring and disconnect given for the device. The clamp voltage across the MOV will also be added. After the transient voltage passes through the component, the MOV will again wait for the next transient voltage. This is shown in the figure 1(c). -
#1862 by spupeng7 on 26 Sep, 2017 04:58
-
OnlyMe,
(...)
2. for finite bodies, the speed of propagation of gravitational field disturbances from one material point to another material point (or from one point in space to another point in space) is c (or less than c when involving particles having mass). Never instantaneous between different points [except entanglement]. This applies to mass distribution changes. As confirmed by experiments [nothing instantaneous except entanglement]. I like the term "mass distribution changes"
Thanks
Rodal, you argue that GR is established almost beyond question but then write about entanglement being an instantaneous interaction, as if there were no contradiction between these interpretations. You write about distance between points at a moment of time as if that moment was definable outside of complex time but that definition requires a preferred perspective, without which the simultaneity breaks down.
What path does the measure, of distance between the points at which particles which are entangled, take. "[nothing instantaneous except entanglement]" instantaneous from whose perspective?
GR is a very good description of the dynamics of gravitation... With some caveats for the necessity of adding dark matter and energy into the mix. To adjust for otherwise unexplained observations.
The velocity limitations for massive and massless particles, is well defined. Massless photons travel at the speed of light and all massive particles or objects travel at velocities less than the speed of light.
No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
is not the fate of an entangled photon the mirror image of its twin from the perspective located at their creation. How else would they qualify as being entangled? -
#1863 by meberbs on 26 Sep, 2017 06:52
-
Entanglement is weirder and more complicated than most people realize.No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
OnlyMe,
is not the fate of an entangled photon the mirror image of its twin from the perspective located at their creation. How else would they qualify as being entangled?
A typical example is a measurement of spin. For a classical object, the spin is about a specific axis. In quantum you can know the angular momentum about one axis (z) and the total angular momentum, but you can't know the x and y angular momentum as a result. Basically you could picture that it is a top spinning with its axis at an angle to vertical. The weird thing is you know how fast it is spinning about its axis, and if it is clockwise or counterclockwise when looking from the top, and the angle between the z-axis and the spin axis, but by the strangeness of quantum, you can't tell what direction the axis is in the x-y plane.
So when you measure an entangled particle, and get "up" that means it is spinning counterclockwise, and you know that if someone measures the z axis angular momentum of the other particle (or already did so) they will/would get "down." After that I believe entanglement is broken, and if you measure a different direction, like x or y, it won't be tied to the other particle's state anymore (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though). The weirdest part is what happens if you decide to measure angular momentum about some weird angle (say rotate the measurement device by 45 degrees). Since your measurement is not lined up with the eigenstate of the particle, you will get different statistics in your results. If someone else also does a measurement on the other particle, but they keep theirs lined up with the eigenstates, it turns out the results you get will be different depending on whether they measured up or down, but since they get either one half of the time, your own statistics will not show this difference, it only appears when correlating the data sets and splitting yours based on the other person's results. It turns out (Bell's inequality) that you get different results depending on whether you assume the result of "up or down" was predetermined when the entanglement started, or if it was not determined until it was measured. The answer is the second one, which means that somehow the one measurement affects the results of the other instantly. At the same time no actual information is passed, since there is now way to tell that this happened without correlating the data sets.
Basically something happens "instantly" but in a way that it doesn't matter the order of events, because no real information is passed. (There are a couple interpretations, and the only one ruled out by experiment so far is the state having already been known.) -
#1864 by Monomorphic on 26 Sep, 2017 13:21
-
30W amplifier is working! Looks like ~35dB of gain as advertised. The yellow wire is the logic level enable pin which requires grounding to enable power to this amplifier. I will use this wire and the solid-state USB relay to toggle power on/off because the amplifier does draw 6.6A idle. I just need to clean up the wiring a bit and wrap it with shielding.
I'm getting very close to being finished and am looking forward to getting everything working with LabView.
-
#1865 by PotomacNeuron on 26 Sep, 2017 14:19
-
30W amplifier is working! Looks like ~35dB of gain as advertised. The yellow wire is the logic level enable pin which requires grounding to enable power to this amplifier. I will use this wire and the solid-state USB relay to toggle power on/off because the amplifier does draw 6.6A idle. I just need to clean up the wiring a bit and wrap it with shielding.
I'm getting very close to being finished and am looking forward to getting everything working with LabView.
Thanks. Please use two separate commands/lines to turn on "signal generator" and "power amplifier". In their 2014 paper, EW made the mistake of turning them on and off together thus it is impossible for them to separate thrust (if there is any) and Lorentz force caused by the 6+ Ampere DC current. -
#1866 by OnlyMe on 26 Sep, 2017 16:16
-
OnlyMe,
(...)
2. for finite bodies, the speed of propagation of gravitational field disturbances from one material point to another material point (or from one point in space to another point in space) is c (or less than c when involving particles having mass). Never instantaneous between different points [except entanglement]. This applies to mass distribution changes. As confirmed by experiments [nothing instantaneous except entanglement]. I like the term "mass distribution changes" Thanks
Rodal, you argue that GR is established almost beyond question but then write about entanglement being an instantaneous interaction, as if there were no contradiction between these interpretations. You write about distance between points at a moment of time as if that moment was definable outside of complex time but that definition requires a preferred perspective, without which the simultaneity breaks down.
What path does the measure, of distance between the points at which particles which are entangled, take. "[nothing instantaneous except entanglement]" instantaneous from whose perspective?
GR is a very good description of the dynamics of gravitation... With some caveats for the necessity of adding dark matter and energy into the mix. To adjust for otherwise unexplained observations.
The velocity limitations for massive and massless particles, is well defined. Massless photons travel at the speed of light and all massive particles or objects travel at velocities less than the speed of light.
No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
is not the fate of an entangled photon the mirror image of its twin from the perspective located at their creation. How else would they qualify as being entangled?
First entanglement is far more complex than the my simplistic description. That said...
When you ask about "the fate of..." it suggests to me some persistent entangled connection between two particles.., meaning some entangled connection that continues beyond the interaction of either of the entangled pair with an event (or measurement) that occurs after the instant of their entangled origin. To that I would answer no! There is no entanglement that could be described in terms of "the fate of..." independent of the fate of either particle of the pair.
As a crude example of this consider that you begin with an entangled pair of photons and after the instant of their origin one of the pair, without being observed or measured, is involved in an absorption/emission event with an atom. That half of the pair for all intents and purposes, no longer exists. One photon is absorbed and a second emitted, or even one photon is absorbed changing the energy state of the atom, to a state that is stable and no photon remitted. What happens to the other half of the entangled pair? It does not just disappear. But if you later measure some aspect of that remaining half of the entangled pair, Will can know something about the other half, before it was absorbed and remitted (or not) by the atom...
Entanglement does not persist beyond the first measurement or interaction of either of the entangled particles, after their initial entangled origin. If it were otherwise information would have to have traveled between the two a velocities greater than the speed of light. This is not as yet consistent with any observation or experience. -
#1867 by aero on 26 Sep, 2017 16:24
-
So, in that case, the atom takes on the role of the observer.
-
#1868 by OnlyMe on 26 Sep, 2017 17:06
-
Entanglement is weirder and more complicated than most people realize.No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
OnlyMe,
is not the fate of an entangled photon the mirror image of its twin from the perspective located at their creation. How else would they qualify as being entangled?
A typical example is a measurement of spin. For a classical object, the spin is about a specific axis. In quantum you can know the angular momentum about one axis (z) and the total angular momentum, but you can't know the x and y angular momentum as a result. Basically you could picture that it is a top spinning with its axis at an angle to vertical. The weird thing is you know how fast it is spinning about its axis, and if it is clockwise or counterclockwise when looking from the top, and the angle between the z-axis and the spin axis, but by the strangeness of quantum, you can't tell what direction the axis is in the x-y plane.
So when you measure an entangled particle, and get "up" that means it is spinning counterclockwise, and you know that if someone measures the z axis angular momentum of the other particle (or already did so) they will/would get "down." After that I believe entanglement is broken, and if you measure a different direction, like x or y, it won't be tied to the other particle's state anymore...
This much I am in full agreement with, in that entanglement is/must be broken at the first interaction/measurement of either half of an entangled pair.… (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though).
I am less sure of this last qualification.The weirdest part is what happens if you decide to measure angular momentum about some weird angle (say rotate the measurement device by 45 degrees). Since your measurement is not lined up with the eigenstate of the particle, you will get different statistics in your results. If someone else also does a measurement on the other particle, but they keep theirs lined up with the eigenstates, it turns out the results you get will be different depending on whether they measured up or down, but since they get either one half of the time, your own statistics will not show this difference, it only appears when correlating the data sets and splitting yours based on the other person's results. It turns out (Bell's inequality) that you get different results depending on whether you assume the result of "up or down" was predetermined when the entanglement started, or if it was not determined until it was measured. The answer is the second one, which means that somehow the one measurement affects the results of the other instantly. At the same time no actual information is passed, since there is now way to tell that this happened without correlating the data sets.
Basically something happens "instantly" but in a way that it doesn't matter the order of events, because no real information is passed. (There are a couple interpretations, and the only one ruled out by experiment so far is the state having already been known.)
And again I am not sure I agree with the above interpretation, as it relies on, as you said a comparison of data sets and thus has questionable significance when attempting to apply the statistical results to individual entangled pairs.
…….. But.., I have not seen any of the raw statistical data and have no clear memory of specific published work, to be certain in my uncertainty. It may just be that, I am fundamentally suspicious of statistical interpretations, which rely to some extent on assumptions and are thus subjective... Other than my own of course, (This last said tongue in cheek.).
-
#1869 by meberbs on 26 Sep, 2017 17:42
-
As I tried to indicate with my wording I am uncertain as well. I only added it because it is a piece required for how I get quantum to almost make sense in my head, and maybe it might help things fit together for someone else as well. It could be completely wrong though.… (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though).
I am less sure of this last qualification.
I was only attempting to describe as simple as possible the way tests of Bell's inequality work, however it is possible that I misstated something, because it is confusing. Researchers who spend a lot more time than me on this seem to think these have been conclusive. What these specifically rule out is "local realism." Generally alternative interpretations end up needing something non-local, but as far as I know, there is no testable difference in any other interpretations anyway. I tried to stick to the description of what happens and away from interpretation, but a bit of interpretation slipped in, because it is hard to avoid doing so....
And again I am not sure I agree with the above interpretation, as it relies on, as you said a comparison of data sets and thus has questionable significance when attempting to apply the statistical results to individual entangled pairs.
…….. But.., I have not seen any of the raw statistical data and have no clear memory of specific published work, to be certain in my uncertainty. It may just be that, I am fundamentally suspicious of statistical interpretations, which rely to some extent on assumptions and are thus subjective... Other than my own of course, (This last said tongue in cheek.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments -
#1870 by Bob012345 on 26 Sep, 2017 18:00
-
As I tried to indicate with my wording I am uncertain as well. I only added it because it is a piece required for how I get quantum to almost make sense in my head, and maybe it might help things fit together for someone else as well. It could be completely wrong though.… (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though).
I am less sure of this last qualification.
I was only attempting to describe as simple as possible the way tests of Bell's inequality work, however it is possible that I misstated something, because it is confusing. Researchers who spend a lot more time than me on this seem to think these have been conclusive. What these specifically rule out is "local realism." Generally alternative interpretations end up needing something non-local, but as far as I know, there is no testable difference in any other interpretations anyway. I tried to stick to the description of what happens and away from interpretation, but a bit of interpretation slipped in, because it is hard to avoid doing so....
And again I am not sure I agree with the above interpretation, as it relies on, as you said a comparison of data sets and thus has questionable significance when attempting to apply the statistical results to individual entangled pairs.
…….. But.., I have not seen any of the raw statistical data and have no clear memory of specific published work, to be certain in my uncertainty. It may just be that, I am fundamentally suspicious of statistical interpretations, which rely to some extent on assumptions and are thus subjective... Other than my own of course, (This last said tongue in cheek.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
If Quantum Mechanics actually made sense, it wouldn't be weird! A quote widely attributed to Feynman goes as "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." That may be a paraphrase but it captures the essence of the idea which is if you feel confused, you're in good company!
-
#1871 by ThatOtherGuy on 26 Sep, 2017 18:16
-
Bouncing photons
http://www.sciencealert.com/light-continues-to-behave-really-weirdly-in-the-large-hadron-colliderQuoteOne thing they had never been observed doing was bouncing off each other and changing direction like snooker balls. But new research from the ATLAS experiment at CERN describes the first direct evidence of this actually happening.
The phenomenon is called light-by-light scattering, described by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian published in 1936 by Hans Heinrich Euler and Werner Heisenberg (of uncertainty principle fame), and calculated by Robert Karplus and Maurice Neuman in 1951.
could the above effect be related to the anomalous thrust ?
-
#1872 by OnlyMe on 26 Sep, 2017 20:09
-
As I tried to indicate with my wording I am uncertain as well. I only added it because it is a piece required for how I get quantum to almost make sense in my head, and maybe it might help things fit together for someone else as well. It could be completely wrong though.… (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though).
I am less sure of this last qualification.
I was only attempting to describe as simple as possible the way tests of Bell's inequality work, however it is possible that I misstated something, because it is confusing. Researchers who spend a lot more time than me on this seem to think these have been conclusive. What these specifically rule out is "local realism." Generally alternative interpretations end up needing something non-local, but as far as I know, there is no testable difference in any other interpretations anyway. I tried to stick to the description of what happens and away from interpretation, but a bit of interpretation slipped in, because it is hard to avoid doing so....
And again I am not sure I agree with the above interpretation, as it relies on, as you said a comparison of data sets and thus has questionable significance when attempting to apply the statistical results to individual entangled pairs.
…….. But.., I have not seen any of the raw statistical data and have no clear memory of specific published work, to be certain in my uncertainty. It may just be that, I am fundamentally suspicious of statistical interpretations, which rely to some extent on assumptions and are thus subjective... Other than my own of course, (This last said tongue in cheek.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
My comments were intended more as a statement of my own interpretation and uncertainty, as it relates to the general issue. Emphasis on uncertainty...
I almost went back and deleted that last portion of my post but decided too much time had past since posting. -
#1873 by graybeardsyseng on 26 Sep, 2017 20:51
-
30W amplifier is working! Looks like ~35dB of gain as advertised. The yellow wire is the logic level enable pin which requires grounding to enable power to this amplifier. I will use this wire and the solid-state USB relay to toggle power on/off because the amplifier does draw 6.6A idle. I just need to clean up the wiring a bit and wrap it with shielding.
I'm getting very close to being finished and am looking forward to getting everything working with LabView.
You ROCK!
Seriously - getting the full 30 watts (+44.7 dBm) from these type of amps is great work. I like your setup too, although PM's suggestion of separate control lines is excellent.
Labview is a terrific way to automate the system. NI has a "home bundle" which is sold via various distributors such as sparkfun. Its not very expensive BUT not sure if the application restrictions (mostly non-commercial) which may be too restrictive for what you are doing.
Herman
graybeardsyseng -
#1874 by Monomorphic on 26 Sep, 2017 22:42
-
Seriously - getting the full 30 watts (+44.7 dBm) from these type of amps is great work. I like your setup too, although PM's suggestion of separate control lines is excellent.
I have not pushed the amp to 45dB yet. The 12V power supply I am using tops out at 8.5A, but it takes ~10A to fully power this amplifier. I will have to use the lipo battery to test it at full power. At 2.404GHz I can expect ~28W for this amp due to its falloff curve. With other losses from the sma cables and circulator, I am expecting ~25W max into the frustum.
-
#1875 by M.LeBel on 26 Sep, 2017 23:45
-
`
Entanglement is weirder and more complicated than most people realize.No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
OnlyMe,
is not the fate of an entangled photon the mirror image of its twin from the perspective located at their creation. How else would they qualify as being entangled?
A typical example is a measurement of spin. For a classical object, the spin is about a specific axis. In quantum you can know the angular momentum about one axis (z) and the total angular momentum, but you can't know the x and y angular momentum as a result. Basically you could picture that it is a top spinning with its axis at an angle to vertical. The weird thing is you know how fast it is spinning about its axis, and if it is clockwise or counterclockwise when looking from the top, and the angle between the z-axis and the spin axis, but by the strangeness of quantum, you can't tell what direction the axis is in the x-y plane.
So when you measure an entangled particle, and get "up" that means it is spinning counterclockwise, and you know that if someone measures the z axis angular momentum of the other particle (or already did so) they will/would get "down." After that I believe entanglement is broken, and if you measure a different direction, like x or y, it won't be tied to the other particle's state anymore (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though). The weirdest part is what happens if you decide to measure angular momentum about some weird angle (say rotate the measurement device by 45 degrees). Since your measurement is not lined up with the eigenstate of the particle, you will get different statistics in your results. If someone else also does a measurement on the other particle, but they keep theirs lined up with the eigenstates, it turns out the results you get will be different depending on whether they measured up or down, but since they get either one half of the time, your own statistics will not show this difference, it only appears when correlating the data sets and splitting yours based on the other person's results. It turns out (Bell's inequality) that you get different results depending on whether you assume the result of "up or down" was predetermined when the entanglement started, or if it was not determined until it was measured. The answer is the second one, which means that somehow the one measurement affects the results of the other instantly. At the same time no actual information is passed, since there is now way to tell that this happened without correlating the data sets.
Basically something happens "instantly" but in a way that it doesn't matter the order of events, because no real information is passed. (There are a couple interpretations, and the only one ruled out by experiment so far is the state having already been known.)
Very interesting ... and weird!
Two particles are entangled because they briefly shared a moment and place together ... Two particles in one place cannot have all the same quantum numbers because of Pauli exclusion. But here, the only parameter actually being quantized is the one which is under constraint i.e. the one being measured. At the meeting, the particles must “draw” which one gets the “up” and which one get the “down”, and then they part their way. A one “up” will always correspond to a one “down”, no matter how far they are apart.
Or do I have this wrong?
-
#1876 by RonM on 27 Sep, 2017 01:07
-
Bouncing photons
http://www.sciencealert.com/light-continues-to-behave-really-weirdly-in-the-large-hadron-colliderQuoteOne thing they had never been observed doing was bouncing off each other and changing direction like snooker balls. But new research from the ATLAS experiment at CERN describes the first direct evidence of this actually happening.
The phenomenon is called light-by-light scattering, described by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian published in 1936 by Hans Heinrich Euler and Werner Heisenberg (of uncertainty principle fame), and calculated by Robert Karplus and Maurice Neuman in 1951.
could the above effect be related to the anomalous thrust ?
No, it's an elastic collision, so total kinetic energy is conserved. -
#1877 by spupeng7 on 27 Sep, 2017 01:31
-
Marcel, mon ami,
`
Entanglement is weirder and more complicated than most people realize.No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
OnlyMe,
is not the fate of an entangled photon the mirror image of its twin from the perspective located at their creation. How else would they qualify as being entangled?
A typical example is a measurement of spin. For a classical object, the spin is about a specific axis. In quantum you can know the angular momentum about one axis (z) and the total angular momentum, but you can't know the x and y angular momentum as a result. Basically you could picture that it is a top spinning with its axis at an angle to vertical. The weird thing is you know how fast it is spinning about its axis, and if it is clockwise or counterclockwise when looking from the top, and the angle between the z-axis and the spin axis, but by the strangeness of quantum, you can't tell what direction the axis is in the x-y plane.
So when you measure an entangled particle, and get "up" that means it is spinning counterclockwise, and you know that if someone measures the z axis angular momentum of the other particle (or already did so) they will/would get "down." After that I believe entanglement is broken, and if you measure a different direction, like x or y, it won't be tied to the other particle's state anymore (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though). The weirdest part is what happens if you decide to measure angular momentum about some weird angle (say rotate the measurement device by 45 degrees). Since your measurement is not lined up with the eigenstate of the particle, you will get different statistics in your results. If someone else also does a measurement on the other particle, but they keep theirs lined up with the eigenstates, it turns out the results you get will be different depending on whether they measured up or down, but since they get either one half of the time, your own statistics will not show this difference, it only appears when correlating the data sets and splitting yours based on the other person's results. It turns out (Bell's inequality) that you get different results depending on whether you assume the result of "up or down" was predetermined when the entanglement started, or if it was not determined until it was measured. The answer is the second one, which means that somehow the one measurement affects the results of the other instantly. At the same time no actual information is passed, since there is now way to tell that this happened without correlating the data sets.
Basically something happens "instantly" but in a way that it doesn't matter the order of events, because no real information is passed. (There are a couple interpretations, and the only one ruled out by experiment so far is the state having already been known.)
Very interesting ... and weird!
Two particles are entangled because they briefly shared a moment and place together ... Two particles in one place cannot have all the same quantum numbers because of Pauli exclusion. But here, the only parameter actually being quantized is the one which is under constraint i.e. the one being measured. At the meeting, the particles must “draw” which one gets the “up” and which one get the “down”, and then they part their way. A one “up” will always correspond to a one “down”, no matter how far they are apart.
Or do I have this wrong?
knowing that we don't know, but yet that there may be an answer that does not require Feynman's donkey, is the hope we hold for a real answer to this essential dilemma.
What everyone seems to forget is that photons travel at the speed of light, whatever that may be in the medium that they are in. This indicates that there remains the unexplored possibility that entanglement is the direct result of simultaneity
Of course that would require time to have its complex conjugate, from any but the point perspective. A leap of faith (a roll of the dice) which it seems, most folk are unwilling to take. -
#1878 by Bob Woods on 27 Sep, 2017 04:03
-
Great work Jamie! Looking forward to the end of test characterization and full power tests.Seriously - getting the full 30 watts (+44.7 dBm) from these type of amps is great work. I like your setup too, although PM's suggestion of separate control lines is excellent.
I have not pushed the amp to 45dB yet. The 12V power supply I am using tops out at 8.5A, but it takes ~10A to fully power this amplifier. I will have to use the lipo battery to test it at full power. At 2.404GHz I can expect ~28W for this amp due to its falloff curve. With other losses from the sma cables and circulator, I am expecting ~25W max into the frustum.
We miss you here at NIAC, but understand your need to move forward. Greybeardsyseng, Rodal and and I have been here and have great discussions. I can't remember when I have had this kind of fun. So many challenging projects on the cutting edge across many disciplines. As a non-scientist I have been amazed how gracious and patient folks have been with me and my old college roomie Brad, in explaining their projects, especially Dr Fearn who engaged in several conversations. The enthusiasm is truly contagious.
Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:20 Mountain Time. It's available live at
Word is that the Q & A may be very interesting.
Keep focused and keep up the good work.
-
#1879 by graybeardsyseng on 27 Sep, 2017 04:19
-
My bad Jamie - I misread you post - I was catching up on the forum in between speakers at NIAC.Seriously - getting the full 30 watts (+44.7 dBm) from these type of amps is great work. I like your setup too, although PM's suggestion of separate control lines is excellent.
I have not pushed the amp to 45dB yet. The 12V power supply I am using tops out at 8.5A, but it takes ~10A to fully power this amplifier. I will have to use the lipo battery to test it at full power. At 2.404GHz I can expect ~28W for this amp due to its falloff curve. With other losses from the sma cables and circulator, I am expecting ~25W max into the frustum.
Speaking of which the NIAC symposium is outstanding. If anyone needs some encouragement on NASA and space exploration log into the live-streaming video.
www.livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017
Nothing uniquely on EMdrive itself but quite a few applications that would benefit from working EMdrive technology. Several asteroid mining projects, outer planet exploration concepts, quite a few competitors i.e. fusion drive systems. About 2/3s of the Phase I NIAC projects and probably 3/4 of the Phase 2 projects look workable. Some will likely fly within a couple of years. A lot of interest in really exploiting the cubesat approach.
NASA has done an outstanding job setting up this symposium and keeping it on schedule and running smoothly.
graybeardsyseng
Herman
From Denver - one mile closer to LEO !!
Thanks