If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
john richard: on 1/30/18 at 10:17am UTC, wrote https://callpcexpert.com/Microsoft-Support-CallPC.php
John Cox: on 9/14/17 at 23:10pm UTC, wrote Tom, Thanks, I was able to download the attachment but have been...
Thomas Ray: on 9/14/17 at 18:13pm UTC, wrote John, I apologize. I didn't know the site was so restricted. I knew you...
John Cox: on 9/14/17 at 15:47pm UTC, wrote Thanks Robert, The nomenclature often gets confusing, and in QM there are...
Robert McEachern: on 9/14/17 at 14:42pm UTC, wrote John, "But it is interesting to treat the QM methodology... as a...
Joe Fisher: on 9/14/17 at 14:19pm UTC, wrote Dear John D. Cox, Visible reality does not contain invisible quantum...
John Cox: on 9/14/17 at 14:05pm UTC, wrote Tom, The Briggs experiment as presented in the article does clearly imply...
Thomas Ray: on 9/14/17 at 4:08am UTC, wrote I must be losing my mind. I find that I carried on a running dialogue in...
john richard: on 1/30/18 at 10:17am UTC, wrote https://callpcexpert.com/Microsoft-Support-CallPC.php
John Cox: on 9/14/17 at 23:10pm UTC, wrote Tom, Thanks, I was able to download the attachment but have been...
Thomas Ray: on 9/14/17 at 18:13pm UTC, wrote John, I apologize. I didn't know the site was so restricted. I knew you...
John Cox: on 9/14/17 at 15:47pm UTC, wrote Thanks Robert, The nomenclature often gets confusing, and in QM there are...
Robert McEachern: on 9/14/17 at 14:42pm UTC, wrote John, "But it is interesting to treat the QM methodology... as a...
Joe Fisher: on 9/14/17 at 14:19pm UTC, wrote Dear John D. Cox, Visible reality does not contain invisible quantum...
John Cox: on 9/14/17 at 14:05pm UTC, wrote Tom, The Briggs experiment as presented in the article does clearly imply...
Thomas Ray: on 9/14/17 at 4:08am UTC, wrote I must be losing my mind. I find that I carried on a running dialogue in...
FQXi FORUM
May 23, 2022
It is very nice to see more and more attempts to measure quantum phase noise separate from Shannon noise. The recent LISA Pathfinder resulted in an upper limit decay rate of 1e-8/s for the CSL. This was measured at 1.5 million km at L1 for a 3 hour measurement with two test masses and an interferometer. They managed to measure noise of 1e-14 m/s^2/sqrt(Hz) with this very stable craft far away from Earth's gravity.
It is very unlikely that any terrestrial measurement will better reveal the CSL limit, which others have suggested may be as small as 1e-17/s...another nine orders of magnitude. But have at it. My money is on 8.1e-18/s since that is the aether decay that ties gravity and charge together and is an intrinsic constant of aethertime. This is also the decay of the IPK mass standard and a bunch of other decays as well.
The only chance for such a measurement over several months at L1. Very high precision clocks show these kinds of phase decays for several hours before their phases begin to wander off due to local gravity noise. In a sense, this experiment is just a precision acoustic clock which simply will not be as sensitive as atomic lattice clocks.
report post as inappropriate
It is very unlikely that any terrestrial measurement will better reveal the CSL limit, which others have suggested may be as small as 1e-17/s...another nine orders of magnitude. But have at it. My money is on 8.1e-18/s since that is the aether decay that ties gravity and charge together and is an intrinsic constant of aethertime. This is also the decay of the IPK mass standard and a bunch of other decays as well.
The only chance for such a measurement over several months at L1. Very high precision clocks show these kinds of phase decays for several hours before their phases begin to wander off due to local gravity noise. In a sense, this experiment is just a precision acoustic clock which simply will not be as sensitive as atomic lattice clocks.
Dear Steve Agnew,,
Which came first, visible Natural reality, or humanly contrived abstract information about the behavior of invisible atoms?
Only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition obtainable. The real Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. There have never been any invisible atoms. There has never been any invisible space. Infinity is immeasurable.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
report post as inappropriate
Which came first, visible Natural reality, or humanly contrived abstract information about the behavior of invisible atoms?
Only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition obtainable. The real Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. There have never been any invisible atoms. There has never been any invisible space. Infinity is immeasurable.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
Measurement is the key to understanding the finite world that we call nature. Without measurement, understanding the world is only by belief in things like infinity. With infinity, any world is possible...
report post as inappropriate
Dear Steve Agnew,
Empirical evidence is the source of our knowledge, and, therefore, it is the arena that measurements take place in. However, those valuable measurements are subject to the sometimes whimsical interpretations of theoretical physicists. In other words, as crucial as actual empirical measurements are, they are vulnerable to being misapplied in physics equations. The properties that may actually exist and, what properties experimental physicists are making measurements of, are left to the mercy of theorists' assertions and imagination-born ideas. The damage done can become seen as the truth being done. Errors of interpretive thought can become staples of physics equations. I think that that often makes measurements not the key. To not be the case, measurements must be many times be used to remove peer supported locks that protect theoretical physics while it imposes its unempirical self upon empirical evidence.
James A Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Empirical evidence is the source of our knowledge, and, therefore, it is the arena that measurements take place in. However, those valuable measurements are subject to the sometimes whimsical interpretations of theoretical physicists. In other words, as crucial as actual empirical measurements are, they are vulnerable to being misapplied in physics equations. The properties that may actually exist and, what properties experimental physicists are making measurements of, are left to the mercy of theorists' assertions and imagination-born ideas. The damage done can become seen as the truth being done. Errors of interpretive thought can become staples of physics equations. I think that that often makes measurements not the key. To not be the case, measurements must be many times be used to remove peer supported locks that protect theoretical physics while it imposes its unempirical self upon empirical evidence.
James A Putnam
No edit button available so:
To not be the case, measurements must sometimes be used as the lone justification for removing peer supported advocacy that protects theoretical physics while theoretical physics imposes its unempirical self upon the equations of physics.
report post as inappropriate
To not be the case, measurements must sometimes be used as the lone justification for removing peer supported advocacy that protects theoretical physics while theoretical physics imposes its unempirical self upon the equations of physics.
Dear James and Steve,
I again ask you: Which came first, visible Natural reality, or humanly contrived abstract information about the behavior of invisible atoms? Obviously, Natural reality must have come first. And Nature must have adhered to providing the simplest visible physical construct of the real Universe obtainable. Visible physical presence cannot possibly be finitely measured. For instance, although you can affix the same numbers to a ruler, or a meter, or a gauge or a timepiece, you are assuming that all objects you are supposedly measuring have the same finite characteristics. But there must only be one single infinite surface.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
report post as inappropriate
I again ask you: Which came first, visible Natural reality, or humanly contrived abstract information about the behavior of invisible atoms? Obviously, Natural reality must have come first. And Nature must have adhered to providing the simplest visible physical construct of the real Universe obtainable. Visible physical presence cannot possibly be finitely measured. For instance, although you can affix the same numbers to a ruler, or a meter, or a gauge or a timepiece, you are assuming that all objects you are supposedly measuring have the same finite characteristics. But there must only be one single infinite surface.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
In measurement the role of gravity in Quantum Mechanics has been entirely subsumed by the Spin co-ordinate system being taken as axiomatic, when at origin it was devised on an ad hoc provisional basis ONLY. And what that provision was lacking in measurement, was a solution for the mathematical problem of how to equate the quadratic form of 1/r^2 with distribution of that (as intensity), in the finite confines of a spherical volume, given any finite quantity of energy. Hence the decision in formulation of GR to dispense with 'force' and go to its constituent parameters in the geometric progression of spherical surface co-ordinates.
Spin, thus normalizes to 1 where the c proportion of difference between the electrostatic and magnetoststic intensities in a point charge (Maxwell) is subsumed by the classical gravitational model that the electron's mass would require an orbital velocity in excess of light velocity (eg: the QM time parameter is already at c). While in GR there is still lacking a rationale for an inertial proportion as determinant of a maximum (upper) mass density bound, and so can only treat macroscopic bodies with a parameter of 'average' mass density.
Those are the clues. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Spin, thus normalizes to 1 where the c proportion of difference between the electrostatic and magnetoststic intensities in a point charge (Maxwell) is subsumed by the classical gravitational model that the electron's mass would require an orbital velocity in excess of light velocity (eg: the QM time parameter is already at c). While in GR there is still lacking a rationale for an inertial proportion as determinant of a maximum (upper) mass density bound, and so can only treat macroscopic bodies with a parameter of 'average' mass density.
Those are the clues. jrc
Dear John,
This is not a social club where friendly members can trade anecdotes. This site has been set up to try to find the answer to the question of what reality am. Now please answer my question: Which came first, visible Natural reality, or humanly contrived abstract information about the behavior of invisible atoms?
Only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition obtainable. The real Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. There have never been any invisible atoms. There has never been any invisible space. Infinity is immeasurable.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
report post as inappropriate
This is not a social club where friendly members can trade anecdotes. This site has been set up to try to find the answer to the question of what reality am. Now please answer my question: Which came first, visible Natural reality, or humanly contrived abstract information about the behavior of invisible atoms?
Only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition obtainable. The real Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. There have never been any invisible atoms. There has never been any invisible space. Infinity is immeasurable.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
"At the borderline between large and small objects, the writ of one set of nature’s rules rather mysteriously falls away in favor of the other..."
There is nothing mysterious about it. It is the size of the information content that matters, not the size of the physical container, carrying that content. As the information content approaches one-bit, things MUST become quantized, because that is the nature of information.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
There is nothing mysterious about it. It is the size of the information content that matters, not the size of the physical container, carrying that content. As the information content approaches one-bit, things MUST become quantized, because that is the nature of information.
Rob McEachern
Robert,
That goes to density in field theory, which might be paraphrased as content of information in a larger volume at equivalent 1 Bit is equal to the same content in a smaller volume. It what that 1 Bit of information means to the information density at the receiver. jrc
report post as inappropriate
That goes to density in field theory, which might be paraphrased as content of information in a larger volume at equivalent 1 Bit is equal to the same content in a smaller volume. It what that 1 Bit of information means to the information density at the receiver. jrc
John,
Information does not "mean" anything, in and of itself. Information recovered at a receiver is, in essence, nothing more than a "serial number" that can be used to "look up" the appropriate response to that number. So the response or "meaning" is entirely dependent upon what the receiver looks up, not the received information itself, which merely serves as an address at which the...
view entire post
Information does not "mean" anything, in and of itself. Information recovered at a receiver is, in essence, nothing more than a "serial number" that can be used to "look up" the appropriate response to that number. So the response or "meaning" is entirely dependent upon what the receiver looks up, not the received information itself, which merely serves as an address at which the...
view entire post
Oh but now you focus on the information and not the noise...if the bit of noise comes from a single determinate source, we are in a classical Shannon universe. If the bit of noise comes from any number of sources, we are in a quantum universe.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Steve Agnew,
This is not a social club where friendly members can trade anecdotes. This site has been set up to try to find the answer to the question of what reality am. Now please answer my question: Which came first, visible Natural reality, or humanly contrived abstract information about the behavior of invisible atoms?
Only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition obtainable. The real Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. There have never been any invisible atoms. There has never been any invisible space. Infinity is immeasurable.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
report post as inappropriate
This is not a social club where friendly members can trade anecdotes. This site has been set up to try to find the answer to the question of what reality am. Now please answer my question: Which came first, visible Natural reality, or humanly contrived abstract information about the behavior of invisible atoms?
Only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition obtainable. The real Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. There have never been any invisible atoms. There has never been any invisible space. Infinity is immeasurable.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
Steve,
Focusing on the information, in order to eliminate (not merely reduce) the measurement errors caused by noise, is what Information Theory is all about. There is only one universe. But Shannon offered a long-ignored insight, into why naive observers seem to perceive two; they remain inappropriately focused on the measurements, rather than the measurements' information content. The latter is the only thing that conveys repeatable, actionable "detection" of anything to ever interact with (and thus capable of supporting the existence of identical interactions amongst identical particles).
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Focusing on the information, in order to eliminate (not merely reduce) the measurement errors caused by noise, is what Information Theory is all about. There is only one universe. But Shannon offered a long-ignored insight, into why naive observers seem to perceive two; they remain inappropriately focused on the measurements, rather than the measurements' information content. The latter is the only thing that conveys repeatable, actionable "detection" of anything to ever interact with (and thus capable of supporting the existence of identical interactions amongst identical particles).
Rob McEachern
Robert,
"identical interactions amongst identical particles"
allow us to deduce something of those particles or interactions. But that does not mean that one is "sharing information" with another, just that the values of properties are the same. Modulate that interaction, then you have a basis for 'information'. jrc
report post as inappropriate
"identical interactions amongst identical particles"
allow us to deduce something of those particles or interactions. But that does not mean that one is "sharing information" with another, just that the values of properties are the same. Modulate that interaction, then you have a basis for 'information'. jrc
Dear Shivangi Trivedi.
All of the physicists who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible Universe. Only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition obtainable. The real Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. There have never been any invisible atoms. There has never been any invisible space. Infinity is immeasurable.
Apparently you have not noticed that you have eyes. Eyes are used for observation and every living creature has always been naturally provided with them.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
report post as inappropriate
All of the physicists who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible Universe. Only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition obtainable. The real Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. There have never been any invisible atoms. There has never been any invisible space. Infinity is immeasurable.
Apparently you have not noticed that you have eyes. Eyes are used for observation and every living creature has always been naturally provided with them.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
Is the phishing bot attack over? The headings column is still full of lead-ins which seem to have been deleted from access as 'inappropriate'. There apparently is no sub-routine in the FQXi server to eliminate those corresponding headings that crowd out clicks to ongoing dialogue in the forum. The likelihood of such blanket postings as those of 'brain wave' being a sucker punch to get responses that open a malicious software of some sort is potentially high in the so called 'self-policing' of the www. And unfortunately, that same 'self-policing' fails due to the costs of trying to hold the large competing publishers of content accountable. "There's no end of it" so let's just clear out this batch of intrusive mass marketing hype; is the cost effective response of most open source websites.
However, as an effort to reclaim the FQXi header column in effect of a class action, I now submit this post.
report post as inappropriate
However, as an effort to reclaim the FQXi header column in effect of a class action, I now submit this post.
Dear Anonymous,
You may not have noticed that Professor Scott Aaronson and Professor Max Tegmark are users of this site. They are the foremost experts of computer programming in the world. No phishing intrusions take place, and although individual members sometimes chuck in a self advertisement comment, those comments are easily removed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
You may not have noticed that Professor Scott Aaronson and Professor Max Tegmark are users of this site. They are the foremost experts of computer programming in the world. No phishing intrusions take place, and although individual members sometimes chuck in a self advertisement comment, those comments are easily removed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
My tech guy says that the sort of "IT support" links that have been appearing in fast succession on FQXi are typical of a common 'Trojan Horse' virus which is robotically perpetrated as coming from different sources. And, DO NOT call that number, and DO NOT provide your email address or password(s), and DO NOT surrender administrator function to any instructions. Just close out and shut down!!! jrc
report post as inappropriate
Dear Physicists,
The first mistake y’all made was when you decided that Nature had to have complex secrets, without specifying why. Only humanly contrived conjecture am capable of sustaining complex speculation Nature had to furnish reality for all living beings and all non-living things. Nature’s visible simplicity is utterly extravagant. Every real surface of every real person place and thing am actually existing securely attached to a real visible Natural infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
The first mistake y’all made was when you decided that Nature had to have complex secrets, without specifying why. Only humanly contrived conjecture am capable of sustaining complex speculation Nature had to furnish reality for all living beings and all non-living things. Nature’s visible simplicity is utterly extravagant. Every real surface of every real person place and thing am actually existing securely attached to a real visible Natural infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
I'm a little surprised that this article has gotten so little interest, given the preferences of a number of regular commentators for either QM or Relativistic theoretical interpretation. While the article itself is quite brief and does not go into specifications of the experimental protocols to be employed, careful reading does reveal that firstly; the experimenters led by Andrew Briggs at U of Oxford are treating the theoretical question as an attempt to find a realistic measurement in the relativistic macro-realm produced by Quantum events in the micro-realm. I would personally expect some success.
It does not take too great a leap to consider the parameters of 'superposition of quantum states' as proposed by Gerard Milburn, U of Queensland, Brisbane, being collapsed under gravity into definite states, as a practical mathematical deconstruction into several spin characteristics associated with any particular chosen atom. And a little research into the lattice structure of silicon nitride shows that depending on the method of processing a pure molecular product can result in an inherent stress at the corners of the atomic matrix. So by supercooling the thin wafers, that stress would tend to sustain resonant vibration in the lattice structure without much dampening interference from spurious vibrations. It would be nice to know more about what sort of detection systems the Briggs team with Edward Laird and Natalia Ares are employing, but as very brief, low intensity emissions of energy as electromagnetic frequency pulses could be expected, Small Quantum Interference Detectors (SQUIDs) placed in an array might get some clicks. jrc
report post as inappropriate
It does not take too great a leap to consider the parameters of 'superposition of quantum states' as proposed by Gerard Milburn, U of Queensland, Brisbane, being collapsed under gravity into definite states, as a practical mathematical deconstruction into several spin characteristics associated with any particular chosen atom. And a little research into the lattice structure of silicon nitride shows that depending on the method of processing a pure molecular product can result in an inherent stress at the corners of the atomic matrix. So by supercooling the thin wafers, that stress would tend to sustain resonant vibration in the lattice structure without much dampening interference from spurious vibrations. It would be nice to know more about what sort of detection systems the Briggs team with Edward Laird and Natalia Ares are employing, but as very brief, low intensity emissions of energy as electromagnetic frequency pulses could be expected, Small Quantum Interference Detectors (SQUIDs) placed in an array might get some clicks. jrc
Anonymous, I agree. I don't know how I overlooked this article, especially since it is a primary research interest of mine. Re: sustaining resonant vibration without damping interference, what effect would a perfect damper have? My attempt to answer:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Chasing-the-source-of-g
ravity-down-a-black-hole-and-back/update/5974d7474cde26e1c1d
0fc6f
title and abstract:
Dynamic spacetime imposes matter-wave continuity
We identify a least wave harmonic in 1-dimension continuous spacetime, a ground state source by which every succeeding global state is locally connected. Continuous spacetime allows generalization, in Hilbert space, to a single wave state that manifests physically as a spacetime soliton. We propose a validating experiment.
report post as inappropriate
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Chasing-the-source-of-g
ravity-down-a-black-hole-and-back/update/5974d7474cde26e1c1d
0fc6f
title and abstract:
Dynamic spacetime imposes matter-wave continuity
We identify a least wave harmonic in 1-dimension continuous spacetime, a ground state source by which every succeeding global state is locally connected. Continuous spacetime allows generalization, in Hilbert space, to a single wave state that manifests physically as a spacetime soliton. We propose a validating experiment.
I must be losing my mind. I find that I carried on a running dialogue in this forum, and posted the same article. Maybe it bears repeating--maybe not.
report post as inappropriate
Tom,
The Briggs experiment as presented in the article does clearly imply that there is no boundary between the Quantum and Classical. It takes a little bit of teasing out of the article to recognize where the Quantum events occur, and where the effects produce a measurable condition. Both, it seems, are in those tiny, membrane-like flecks of silicon nitride. What is not explained in the article is how those flecks are suspended in what sort of containment, to be set vibrating by what means, in the first place. But it is interesting to treat the QM methodology of the additive process of Spin Number for any given Characteristic, as a superposition of several Characteristics of one particle, rather than the usual treatment of the same single Characteristic as a superposition of several particles. At least that is how I understand the Milburn theory base as articulated.
Researchgate requires certifications to gain access to archives, which does keep the discourse scientific but also limits knowledge of your papers. I do have at least one on my reader that is on the soliton, and which I think might find a fit as a gravitational collapse model of the Briggs/Milburn superposition of characteristics into a definite state. Though I would think that where the gravitational collapse of superposed states under near absolute Zero K would approach a definite ground state, would be where an emission of energy would become necessary. And it would be by detection of that thermodynamically necessary emission that would produce a quantitative result in the experiment. The scope of the article doesn't allow for a presentation of the theoretical base, but it can be safely assumed that is predictive of a time dependent shedding of energy quantity for any collapsing superposition and thus would be detectable in a frequency window by a SQUID.
In casual language, how do you see your paper as having a pertinent fit with the experiment? best - jrc
report post as inappropriate
The Briggs experiment as presented in the article does clearly imply that there is no boundary between the Quantum and Classical. It takes a little bit of teasing out of the article to recognize where the Quantum events occur, and where the effects produce a measurable condition. Both, it seems, are in those tiny, membrane-like flecks of silicon nitride. What is not explained in the article is how those flecks are suspended in what sort of containment, to be set vibrating by what means, in the first place. But it is interesting to treat the QM methodology of the additive process of Spin Number for any given Characteristic, as a superposition of several Characteristics of one particle, rather than the usual treatment of the same single Characteristic as a superposition of several particles. At least that is how I understand the Milburn theory base as articulated.
Researchgate requires certifications to gain access to archives, which does keep the discourse scientific but also limits knowledge of your papers. I do have at least one on my reader that is on the soliton, and which I think might find a fit as a gravitational collapse model of the Briggs/Milburn superposition of characteristics into a definite state. Though I would think that where the gravitational collapse of superposed states under near absolute Zero K would approach a definite ground state, would be where an emission of energy would become necessary. And it would be by detection of that thermodynamically necessary emission that would produce a quantitative result in the experiment. The scope of the article doesn't allow for a presentation of the theoretical base, but it can be safely assumed that is predictive of a time dependent shedding of energy quantity for any collapsing superposition and thus would be detectable in a frequency window by a SQUID.
In casual language, how do you see your paper as having a pertinent fit with the experiment? best - jrc
Tom,
Thanks, I was able to download the attachment but have been combatting a virus this afternoon and the reply box isn't showing the anti-robot function. This panel has a separate 'I'm not a robot' quiz and maybe that will reactivate things. Onward through the fog! jrc
report post as inappropriate
Thanks, I was able to download the attachment but have been combatting a virus this afternoon and the reply box isn't showing the anti-robot function. This panel has a separate 'I'm not a robot' quiz and maybe that will reactivate things. Onward through the fog! jrc
Login or create account to post reply or comment.