Quantum Thermodynamics Simplified

Thermodynamic theory structure is well known and documented.  Quantum theory?  Not so much.  Meshing the two fields together is a new and exciting endeavor because we have so much left to learn.  But how do we learn about things we can not see?

A:  We postulate, contrive, and come up with theories that seem to make sense.

That is how the atom was discovered.  And through the science of chemistry and mathematics we were able to verify the postulated theory of the atom to a very good degree.  And so we generally accept the atomic theory.

Quantum mechanics is the study of things that are up to hundreds of times smaller than the atom.  And we have yet to discover or mathematically quantify any of the postulations or theories that are emerging.  So, what gives?  Why are we still in the dark?

Let’s look at what we call quanta.

“Quanta” is a term attributed to Max Planck, who studied light around 1900-1918.  He postulated that light is made up of individual particles he termed quanta.  At the same time many other scientists were studying light, including Einstein.  In fact Einstein’s earliest work was to postulate that photons are physical things – later called “quanta” by Planck.  Tesla, who worked with waves and electro-magnetism, also postulated the idea of very small particles passing from the sun to earth in his much earlier work with radiant energy, long before Planck’s revelation.  Then enters Louis de Broglie, who postulated that all matter, tiny or not, moves as two distinct forms – particles or waves.  And that laid the groundwork for Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which in short form ties all natures forces together in one way or another.

Let me stop here a moment.  There are many other theories coming after the work these early pioneers did.  One of them is called the many worlds theory, which has something to do with multiple universes and changes in time-space and continuum.  That is way beyond my ability to understand but I am familiar with it – though will not endorse it for lack of better understanding.

Much of our most recent postulation about quanta is based on an idea offered by Werner Heisenberg.  Around 1930 Heisenberg offered the theory that any particle could exist in two states at the same time – until we look into it to find which state it is actually in.  This sounds like it is against nature – but it actually is key to understanding things we can not see.

Imagine putting a bird into a cage with a bowl of poisoned water.  Then leave the room.  While you are outside the room you don’t know if the bird drank the water or not.  And you don’t know if the bird is dead or not.  Therefore the bird is both dead and alive while you are outside the room.  Returning to the room will let you know if the bird is in fact dead or not.  Repeat this with 100 different birds and you can formulate a mathematical probability of finding the bird dead or alive.  It’s really not rocket science.  It’s a field called quantum computing based on superposition and it can be helpful establishing properties of things that we can not see.

Moving onto thermodynamics.  This is the field of everything physical in our environment of heat, cold and energy, and basically how they interact.  It is the basis behind theories like chemistry and mechanics.  Suffice it to say that it is a very deep source of information on all things physical.  And I’ll stop there because that is all this conversation needs to know about thermodynamics.  Einstein once said never cloud your mind with things you can more easily look up in a book.  Being smart is just knowing where to look.

Underlying all this basic information is the fact that gravity is wrong.  After several centuries of hashing and mashing out theories and others spending their entire lives and fortunes to perfect it –  recently we discovered those theories are off by a little bit.  Now what?

Literally, we must go back to the drawing board.  Back to the beginning of the theory.  Which was a long time ago.  But we have so many other theories on forces like thermodynamics, electricity, electromechanics, chemistry, etc., etc, that have come along since then….  Which ones do we discard to retrace in order to find our error in gravity?  None, I say.  There are no known observations in any field that will change because of a mathematical error in gravity.  Observations are facts, more certain than death and taxes.

So how do we find our error in gravity?  We simply look for those elements that were not  present when the theory of gravity was postulated.  What things did we not know about in the 17th, 18th, and mostly 19th centuries?

The answer is Electro-magnetics and quantum mechanics.  So that is where we will go to find our error.  Period.  The answer lies there.  And just as Einstein advised us, we now know which book to look in.

I am happily spending my life trying to find the answer.  What are you happy doing?


Science, Poetry, and Spirituality

For those of you – if any – familiar with my blog you know that I have interests in poetry and science.  Those things are fun but the most important thing to me is spirituality.  And the other two should never take precedence.

Poetry is just something I do.  I don’t know why.  The few cavemen who took the time to draw pictures on cave walls probably didn’t know why they did that either.  It just comes from something inside.  I think all of us have that one thing that when we find it – makes us pretty happy.

Spirituality is different.  Spirituality is a cognizant duty to each other.  Many things in our feeble human attempts to do good can actually become “stumbling blocks”   for others without our realization of that.  For example, we might ourselves be so certain of Christianity as the one true religion that we want to share that knowledge with others.  Those are certainly good intentions.  But when shared with non-Christians of other faiths it can sometimes become a “stumbling block” for them.  They might take offense at our unintended insinuation that their own religion is paganism or worse.  And then they might become resentful, or take action against us which is sinful.  So in a way, we set them up to do something that is sinful.  That’s called a stumbling block in the Bible.

We are told in the Bible to avoid laying stumbling blocks in the paths of others.  Even the men who crucified Christ believed they were acting in good faith.  The true devil’s minions do not know that they are doing Satan’s bidding.  Their hearts have been hardened by self love and ego, leaving them able to justify in their own minds any action against other children of God, who they view as being not as worthy as themselves.  Beware looking down on even the least of our brethren.  “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.”

I believe that everything we are and are capable of doing comes directly from God, or form that supreme being who created us if you don’t believe in God.  Or universal karma, or whatever you wish to believe in.  My point is that we did not create ourselves.  And so we have no right to be proud in how smart we are, or what we can achieve.  We are merely the recipients of that and should be grateful, not egotistical.

So the next time you feel it is ok to spread rumors about someone, or verbally attack him for any reason, you should think twice about that.  As a child of God he is no lesser than you.

Perhaps there is no afterlife.  Or maybe there is.  Is it worth the effort of throwing shit on someone if there is a 50% chance you’ll spend eternity on your hands and knees licking it off of him?  I don’t think so, which is why I don’t like returning the shit others throw at me.

If this makes you angry, then it is a stumbling block.  And I apologize.


Quack Me This?

Current science supposes that man-made magnets are many times more powerful than the Earth’s magnetic field.  That little gem aligns with another assumption that man-made magnets are THE SAME THING as the Earth’s magnetic field.

If these things were true then……  wouldn’t a man-made magnet cling to the Earth, instead of allowing us to pick it up with our hands and with no more force than a non-magnetic object of the same shape and size?  There is usually a definite force holding magnets together when we try to separate them.  Why isn’t that true between a magnet and the Earth if both are just magnets?

Or in the very least ——–  wouldn’t  a magnet fall from a predetermined height a little faster than a non-magnetized chunk of metal the same size?  (Given that the magnetized metal would have more attraction to magnetic Earth?)

I believe that the Earth’s magnetic field is not the same as lode-stone or man-made magnetic material.  Similar, perhaps, in that man-made magnets can interact with the Earth’s magnetic field – such as pointing to the North Pole – but not exactly the same force.  The two simply must be different forces.

The very simple questions above absolutely prove that difference in my opinion.  Our current thought about gravity being a different valid force has made us incapable of seeing the simplicity of it.   If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.  And the whole noisy notion of gravity is screaming that “no it isn’t a duck!  Look – a magnet is not attracted to a leaf – therefore there must be some magical notion we shall call gravity that holds the tree to the earth and the earth to the sun and the sun to milky way and on and on and on”…. ad infinitum…..

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to jump to conclusions.

Gravity is simply magnetism that we don’t understand yet.  And we never will understand it if we don’t look for it.  Putting faith in a magical fairy that keeps all things aligned in the universe is stealing our ability to see the duck.  And frankly it is stifling technology.

The “G” in Gravity… Constant?

Newton’s law of universal gravitation assumes that the force of planetary gravity is the same for every planet and body of mass in the universe.

It’s wrong.  The force of gravity is not the same for all bodies of mass.  Here’s why we know this  is a fact:

Newton developed his formula (wherein two bodies are attracted to one another proportionately to the product of their masses and inversely to the square of their distance)  based on the attraction between the Earth and the Moon.  What that means is he is producing a mathematical number to define a force known as “G.”

What most of us don’t realize is that we can perform another coincidentally reliable formula by swapping our mother’s waist line for the squared distance.  No, the numbers won’t be the same as Newton’s.  But it would be a reliable scale because what-ever planet we could have studied during Newton’s lifetime would correspond to the waist formula exactly.  So Newton’s scale in correlation to our mother’s waist scale would be like the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit.  Neither of the two are wrong and they are both precisely coordinated.  Just different numbers.  I like to throw that little piece of interesting tidbit  in just to take the dead-genius stigma away from something like Newton’s law.  It’s amazing how complicated things get the more likely people tend to believe them, perhaps thinking “Hey, that guy’s pretty smart.  He probably knows what he’s talking about.”  Thusly, this is most likely why no one in 350 years has questioned Newton’s base principles.  Well…..  I am.  It’s obvious something is amiss because gravity is the one science failing to prove itself, and which is the same magical mystery today that it was in Newton’s lifetime.

Today we have telescopes that go far beyond the capability of Newton’s day and we can clearly see that “G” is not a definite constant.  Using these telescopes we can see farther out into the expanding universe than ever before.  And we can see that the universe is currently expanding and also see that that the moving bodies in that expansion are not behaving as they should according to Newton’s constant.  In other words because they are moving in a particular direction we could expect their direction to be slightly altered by Newton’s constant of gravity.  But their directions are being altered far beyond what our known constant of gravity could affect them.  So gravity in these distant galaxies is not the same as ours.  “G” is not a constant across the universe.  Point blank.  Fact.  Newton is wrong.

And that correlation of expanding galaxies is an observed fact.  Not a theory.  A theory only comes into play when we try to figure out why gravity is not constant across the universe.  And below is my theory:

Gravity is magnetism.  Simple.

And magnetism fails at certain high temperatures.  Very hot bodies, like perhaps those covered in a molten material, will not have the same gravitational attraction as cooler planets.  Magnetism also increases with cooler temperatures, like when the temps get close to absolute zero.  Super-magnetic fields which use liquid nitrogen to cool magnets to extraordinary temperatures are like those used for suspending a train above a rail.  These are known facts.

Another possible catalyst for the marked difference in gravity could be due to planetary composition.  If a planet is abundant with a lot of metals that are attracted to magnetism than it will have a slightly higher “G” than those planets which might have less, thereby leaving each planet with it’s own distinct “G”.

The problem with our stride in the science of gravity is due completely to these falsely held beliefs.  The Earth’s magnetic field – which I prefer now to call the Earth’s electrical field – is not the same thing as any magnet’s field. The two are simply not the same thing.  The only thing allowing modern science to cling onto these false beliefs is the notion that they can not measure the magnetism of the earth, or at least believe it is a much smaller force than a magnet.  If they open their eyes they could plainly see that we have already measured the Earth’s magnetic field for every known atom.  Simple weight is a measurement of magnetism.  Every atom of carbon in the universe is attracted to some degree to planetary magnetic (electrical) fields.

A falling leaf is indeed not attracted to a man made magnet.  Assuming the Earth’s field has the exact same properties of that magnet generates the false conclusion that the Earth’s field does not attract the leaf either.  But wait..  Yes, the leaf is indeed attracted by the Earth’s magnetic field.  That tells me the earth’s magnetic field is thousands if not millions of times stronger than the magnet.  Which leads to only one conclusion: the testing apparatus used to measure the Earth’s magnetic field is not valid.





The Bystander Effect and the Moon’s Poles

Recently I engaged in a scientific debate with engineers over the possibility of neutrinos being related to electrons.  Unfortunately the only comments it stirred were that I – apparently as a known nobody – am not able to make any advancements in the field of electricity and that we should all put our faith into the “experts.”  The most verbal of them actually told me that we already know everything that we ever will know about electricity.  It takes a while for that to soak in.  A human being, in full awareness of the history of science and chain of discovery and technology, in fact, a quasi-scientist himself in the role of electrical engineering – believes that we are at the end of our discovery chain – that we already know everything that we ever will know.

But let’s talk about something else for a moment.  The bystander effect is a social phenomenon common to the human animal.  It is part of group dynamic studies and it purports that groups of people are more likely to sit on their laurels and allow some fictional other person to solve the problem for them.  Most of the tests involved people falling in front of single individuals and also groups of individuals.  Then time was measured to see how fast anyone responded to help the falling person.  When the fall took place in front of individual people the tests showed the mean results as less than 30 seconds.  But when the fall took place in front of groups of people the mean results were well over two minutes.  Why do groups of people hesitate to help the fallen person?

The theory is that they believe someone else from the group will stand up and help the person.  And that makes sense to me since the individual person can see that there is no other help coming, he is more likely to help the fallen person.

And so, as I return to the scientific conversation with engineers, I quickly correlated most of their comments to the bystander effect.  Here are some of the comments I’ve heard:(paraphrased)

“Average people can not make advancement in science.  It has to be people who are more intelligent.”

“We already know everything we are ever going to know.  There is nothing left to discover.”

The correlation is obvious to me.  The one gentleman may not understand that Einstein and Tesla were just as average as anyone else until they followed their studies into perfection.  And I would add that I’m sure they believed themselves to be average as well.

After some befuddlement and examination I came to a suspicion that these engineers were so certain that others are correct that they have put too much faith in theories, making them facts instead.  But there are no facts in the scientific world.  And every scientific report is presented in a way that makes this simple reasoning true.  Scientific observations are reported as facts.  But conclusions on why those facts exist are theories.

Here is an example of a scientific report that follows the general scientific rule.  It involves the Moon’s changing north and south magnetic poles.  The reason they are believed to be changing is that there are possibly hydrogen atoms accumulated at two different spots for each pole, presumably the current pole and the previous ancient pole.  One theory offered by the scientists to explain this phenomenon is that the molten core of the moon shifted significantly during a volcanic eruption.

If you read the story (linked below) please notice that everything is reported as possible, or probable, but not actual fact.  (As I presented it in the above paragraph with words like “believed”, “possibly”, “presumably”, and “theory offered.”)  There are no “actual facts” in science because science is constantly changing.

So I am beginning to believe that the human psyche is so affected by trust in others that it allows the words “probable” and “possibly” to melt into the word “actual.”  And these engineers are so imbibed with this phenomenon that they are arguing well beyond their own areas of expertise to protect their beliefs.  On several occasions they resorted to Wikipedia and other online sources to prove that other peoples in fields way outside of their own already have the facts and that we needn’t pursue them ourselves.  That is absolute bystander effect.

So what is the lesson?  Teachers, encourage your students to break the mold of bystander effect.  Teach that all science is fleeting and changing and at best probable.  The entire generation of engineers in that conversation have been robbed by the system of ingenuity – and like cancer they continue to sprout the same message: “We already know everything.”  But we so don’t.



The March of Science

Long ago people thought the Earth was flat.  Sounds like they were pretty stupid, huh?  In reality they were no more stupid than we are.  We of today are just lucky enough to see the difference.  And “seeing” is believing.  That’s why those people of the 14th and 15th centuries believed that the Earth is flat.  That is what they could see.

Yet we in our generation have “seen” images of the Earth from space.  So we know better.  People of the 16th, 17th, 18th, and even part of the 19th centuries hadn’t seen those images though – so the debate actually raged on through all those centuries.  True, scientists were able to convince most people that the Earth was round.  But there were those who just refused to give up the ghost.  They believed the Earth was flat and they just would not listen to anything of the contrary.

As a police accident investigator for many years I responded to many, many accident scenes.  Often cars were totaled and needed to be towed off somewhere.  Of the thousands of times I saw that happen, a few times I had to take a breath and listen to the owners’ reasons for wanting to keep their now totaled car in their backyards.  Despite my efforts to convince them that their car was completely worthless now, and the tow-truck driver repeating the same mantra, they were still adamant about keeping their car.  So off to their back yards the cars would go, and through out my career I would often see them there rusting and growing grass and trees in and around them as I patrolled my district.

Those owners were usually older and about half the time widowed or widowered(?), (if that’s a word.)  And they were simply attached to the cars.  Either their husband had bought the car and babied it or it had somehow become like any other family member and they just could not part with it.  The cars held too many memories for them to just let them go.

I get that.  I love my significant other deeply – I want to keep her, and whatever reminds me of her as long as I can.

But science is just friggin’ different.  Never believe that we already know everything we are ever going to know.  Don’t hang onto an idea so strongly that it will sit and rust in your portfolio while sciences marches and waltzes around you.  Because we don’t know everything and I don’t think we ever will.

So not only should we accept people who have different ideas but we should encourage them to follow their own beliefs and achieve whatever they can.  And that is true whether we agree with them or not.  Implying that they are idiots for trying to find a better way or better explanation for something only makes us look like the idiot.  Or what I would call a flat-earther.  People are not stupid simply because they might disagree with one of us.  In fact the harder we blow our trumpet decrying what immense fools they are could actually come back to bite us the day that they prove their point scientifically.  We would be the idiot then, huh?

Case in point: 1969, less than 50 years ago, Apollo 12 was struck by lightning from what appeared to be an innocuous cloud as it shot up from the launch pad.  Immediately all the bells and whistles went off and instantly everyone feared the rocket was going to explode – like others before it.  The astronauts were able to reset the system with auxiliary power, which fixed the computer systems.  But it was obvious that the lightning strike had caused the scare.

How is it that in 1969 we could not know enough about lightning to prevent the rocket and capsule from being struck?  Who knows?  But we didn’t have an accurate picture of lightning at that time.  Oh sure, we thought we did.  We were confident we knew everything about lightning that existed.  We believed it just as strongly as flat-earthers believe the earth was flat.  The problem is that the real understanding of lightning didn’t exist yet, so we couldn’t have known all about it.  And I hesitate to say “the real understanding of lightning” because it will probably be refined again and again in the upcoming decades and centuries.  I only use that phrase in deference to Scientific American who did an article on the subject.

It only goes to show that as little as 50 years ago we didn’t have “all” the knowledge on a phenomena we have all witnessed and which so-called “experts” had studied and hypothesized for centuries.  It took something as important as a moon-rocket take-off to make us realize there must be something more.  And so a German meteorologist, Heinz-Wolfram Kasemir, was employed to bring a clearer understanding of lightning for us.

A lot of people complaining about new ideas and who are resistant to research in certain fields because of their strongly held beliefs often cite that the new-idea researcher is attempting to change everything there is about a subject that “we already know everything about.”  Well, obviously Kasemir proved that in fact we didn’t already know everything about lightning.  And his hypothesis and concurrent research did not change anything about what we already knew about lightning.  It only gave as a little better understanding of it so it wouldn’t strike our rockets anymore.

I have personally been on the end of agonizing and tortuous arguments from closed minded people implying that I am stupid for wanting to research electricity.  So I would like to say here, right now, that if any of you out here ever poo-pooed or “bah humbugged” a researcher like Kasemir, well, then I guess you are the idiot, huh?  Man I’ve been wanting to say that lately!

Electric Universe

The “Electric Universe” theory is one which alters a little from the standard beliefs in the astrophysical arena.  But not by much.

Debunkers refer to the “Electric Universe” gaining momentum on the internet, which is about like saying that it must only be believed by crazy stalkers and child molesters.  When a debunking blog starts out like that I’m certain the findings are going to be biased.  So what is the Electric Universe?

First of all it was pioneered long before the internet was even a thing.  Secondly it dismisses some major currently held beliefs in a wholesale way, which I think pisses off most main-streamers.  Some believers think that neutrinos and sub-atomic particles don’t exist, and that stars are not run by fission but more like florescent lights gas illumination.

I say so far neither side has absolutely proven their point.  And that is my very point here.  We should never limit our selves to currently held beliefs because they can be wrong.  And yes, it’s hard to leave the bias outside the door.  But we must do it to move forward.  WE DON’T ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING WE WILL EVER KNOW.   WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE DON’T KNOW.

So never get into arguments with closed minded people.  They are only protecting their very structured worlds by arguments against new theories.  People like that have been around for centuries.  They were the ones who scoffed at Christopher Columbus, Galileo, and other forward thinking men.  Some of these forward thinkers were actually put to death for not following mainstream science beliefs.  Can you imagine that?

In short just remember that arguing with idiots is a lot like playing chess with pigeons.  They will only knock all the pieces over, crap on the board, and strut around like they won the game anyway.

Visit youtube and see this tetra-hedron magnetic field which comes from a magnet.  Then look at the space picture from Nasa below to see if they look similar. Can you see the magnetic flux lines in the photographs?  Be aware that the space photos show several magnetic fields interacting, not just a single one.  Now you decide if gravity is not in fact magnetism.




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 669 other followers