Opposing Magnets Query

[PurpleBuddha]

Neat, another perpetual motion machine.

You need to read what one of those is, because what i'm talking about doesn't have motion at all let alone motion that is perpetual.

Perpetual motion and free energy machines are the same thing. The very nature of electricy is motion. Electricity itself moves and cause other things to move. If you plan to have electricity you have motion. Period. Your experiment has been tried before, you may want to look at those results first.

Anyway, I had a really cool physics teacher years back who made us team up and each come up with our own ideas for a free motion/perpetual motion machine and then build it. We then had to present it in class and describe in very precise terms where it failed and why. It was actually a pretty brilliant learning device.

My bet is that all our knowledge about magnetism is not as deeply flawed as you think,

Well that's a bet you'll lose.

I see. So you are right that your perpetual motion machine will work and I am wrong. Great. Have at it friend.

Anyway, here is a good starting point for you if you do not feel like searching google yourself. This is a summary of a 3400 word article describing experimentation with energy production from use of magnets. Several of the designs had no visible moving parts and were based on your idea. This is by no means comprehensive, but is a good jumping off point if you are serious about this.

http://phact.org/e/z/freewire.htm

This may not deter you, but at least keep this in mind (near the end of the article):

A perpetual motion of new "inventors" thinks they are making fresh attempts at this "engineering holy grail". I've had scores of people tell me that they are hoping to fine tune some collection of wires and magnets that can finally come out ahead. Justifications are given along the lines, "if I try hard enough" "it must be possible because it is needed", "xyz book reports someone did it and then forgot how", or "my new theory of physics explains why it can work". My prize money for proof of free energy will be awarded if anyone can show me the real thing working - and I have no interest in someone's new theory until they win the prize. I feel the existing formulas comprising relationships between energy, motion, current, magnet flux lines, fields, etc. do a fine job of explaining evidence.

I still encourage you to go through with your experiment. The best way to begin to understand the scientific process is to actually put it into practice.

 

[TIN_MAN]

And I like quaternions too

Didn't some of the gauge theories develop isomorphisms with quaternions? I remember when I first learned about them (quaternions) seeing some asides on 'spinors' and quantum spin.

So do these (macroscopic) field theories tie into the (compartmentalized) gauge theories through algebraic structures like the quaternions?

Yes indeed, 'spinors' and quantum spin come into play because particles are not actually stable in referance to time! Put simply, spin is a tricky concept because a particle with 'double rotation' or 'spin 2' characteristics rotates through more than 360 degrees, it in fact takes 720 degrees to return to its original starting configuration (relative to the 'observer' or laboratory frame). This is telling us that we are not dealing with one particle, but two, one 'real' and the other 'vitual'! That is, we don't 'observe' the virtual particle because it doesn't 'exist' in our space/time referance frame, one might say it exists in 'hyperspace'. The two particles, real and virtual, are linked via the 'quantum tunneling' phenomena, and this is why electrons seem to 'jump' orbit when energy is added to the system, they don't jump orbit, rather they expand their orbit to maintain balance in the system, tunneling, and reversing spin and polarity, etc., as they do so. It only appears to us that the elctrons have mysteriously jumped (or beamed?) to a higher orbit because we don't percieve the orbit or 'anti-matter' quantum state in between! This is also related to the electron/positron cooper pairs mentioned above. And all this has great utility for understanding 'time sequences' and the apparent one way 'arrow of time', why the universe seems to contain only (or mostly) matter (when it should contain equal amounts of M & A/M) as well as alternate universes, anti-gravity, and things of similar import!

Quaternions reconcile quantum physics with relatavistic physics (and hyperspatial physics) because, again simply put, the scalar/quaternion subset of Maxwell's equations that Heavyside removed (see my previous post above) are precisely the missing element, or "hidden variables" that would allow the unification and completion of "The Grand Unified Theory". As a result, each of these areas or disciplines of modern physics has remained incomplete, and what each needs, turns out not suprisingly, to be exactly the same thing! When we restore Maxwell's original theory, and apply it to quantum and relatavistic physics, out pops such things as 'electrogravity' and the means where we might engineer 'local space-time' by creating 'space-warps' with little power/energy requirements, sufficiant to do all kinds of things, without having to use planetary or stellar masses/energies to do it (as relativity would currently have it).

So to sum up, spinors are the result of cohered or 'polarized' vacuum fluctuations. Such elementary particles can be described by either hypercomplex or 'ordinary' complex numbers, it amounts to the same thing. as a (vortex) particle spins it rotates around and turns itself inside out as it expands and contracts. So ultimately the Universe is holographic or fractal in its most basic structure and has complete symetry or parity across all scales and magnitudes.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Still waiting on results...

 

[Jadzia]

That's very interesting Tin Man.

Are you familiar with fractal dimensions? eg, box counting dimension.

I remember a little calculation I did that may be interesting or not. I'm not physics-oriented enough to have insight on it's significance.

The idea is to think of the universe as a fractal. Observe that mass structures are composed of many smaller mass structures.

galactic clusters are made of galaxies.
galaxies are made of star-systems.
star-systems are made of planetary bodies.
planetary bodies contain human sized structures (living organisms).
living organisms are composed of cells.
Cells are composed of atoms.
Atoms are composed of nucleons.


So if you do the box counting, the somewhat nebulous distribution of matter across the universe can be seen to have a fractal dimension that is (approximately) self-similar at all scales. And is very close to being = 2. If you do a line of best fit across the log-log graph, the slope is very close to 2 dimensions.


So at least in the geometry, the matter in the universe could be thought of as a 'fragmentation' of a continuous two dimensional structure, into a third dimension. So perhaps we could think of mass as a property of surface rather than of point or of volume?

I don't know, I'm just speculating. But the fractal dimension is eerily close to 2 at several scales of comparison.

 

[Silvercrest]

Neat, another perpetual motion machine.

You need to read what one of those is, because what i'm talking about doesn't have motion at all let alone motion that is perpetual.

My bet is that all our knowledge about magnetism is not as deeply flawed as you think,

Well that's a bet you'll lose.

You think everyone else's knowledge of magnetism is flawed. This is saying you know more than anyone else on the subject.

The question is why should I read something somewhere and then just believe it? why should I assume someone has tried this? why should I accept someone else's results, theories or conclusions? Why should I accept someone telling me it won't work when they themselves have never tried it?

I will be the judge of whether it will work or not because I will be the one doing the experiment.

Look at what you're saying.
1) you understand the subject better than anyone else
2) you will not accept other people's reasoning on the subject
3) you insist that you will be the judge of whether it works or not

So why are you asking for anyone else's opinion?

Anyway i've just thought up another experiment.

You are in desperate need of education. To be this ignorant of the simplest basic principles, yet to proceed to theorize as though you know the first thing about the subject, borders on a kind of mental illness, and is most certainly a complete waste of time.

That's a little harsh. A lot of Trek episodes can be described the same way, but we don't dismiss the writers as mentally ill. Usually.

 

[TIN_MAN]

That's very interesting Tin Man.

Are you familiar with fractal dimensions? eg, box counting dimension.

I remember a little calculation I did that may be interesting or not. I'm not physics-oriented enough to have insight on it's significance.

The idea is to think of the universe as a fractal. Observe that mass structures are composed of many smaller mass structures.

galactic clusters are made of galaxies.
galaxies are made of star-systems.
star-systems are made of planetary bodies.
planetary bodies contain human sized structures (living organisms).
living organisms are composed of cells.
Cells are composed of atoms.
Atoms are composed of nucleons.


So if you do the box counting, the somewhat nebulous distribution of matter across the universe can be seen to have a fractal dimension that is (approximately) self-similar at all scales. And is very close to being = 2. If you do a line of best fit across the log-log graph, the slope is very close to 2 dimensions.


So at least in the geometry, the matter in the universe could be thought of as a 'fragmentation' of a continuous two dimensional structure, into a third dimension. So perhaps we could think of mass as a property of surface rather than of point or of volume?

I don't know, I'm just speculating. But the fractal dimension is eerily close to 2 at several scales of comparison.

I'm aware of fractal dimensions, but not the term 'Box counting'? Sounds like it's related to 'Global Scaling Theory' though?

As for surfaces vs. points or volumes, this relates to the utility of String Theory (I think)? It seems the reason infinities keep arising in the mathmatical theories of physics (necessitating the 'accounting trick' called 'renormilization') is that they all start with the assumption that fundemental particles are dimensionless points! naturaly infinities arise in such calculations, because points are by definition infinitely small! String theories avoid this pitfall by starting out with 'strings' (flux lines?) = 1 dimensions, and 'loops' = 2 dimensions (a.k.a. 'spinors'). But these theories are ultimately limited, and lead to a dead end, what needs to be done IMHO, is extend these 2 dimensional strings into 3 dimensional 'twisters' by distortion or 'warping', this is where 'M' theory comes in, and from here things get more topological, but that's a whole 'nother mathmatical headache.

 

[Jadzia]

Are you familiar with fractal dimensions? eg, box counting dimension.

I don't know, I'm just speculating. But the fractal dimension is eerily close to 2 at several scales of comparison.

I'm aware of fractal dimensions, but not the term 'Box counting'? Sounds like it's related to 'Global Scaling Theory' though?

As for surfaces vs. points or volumes, this relates to the utility of String Theory (I think)?
[...]

what needs to be done IMHO, is extend these 2 dimensional strings into 3 dimensional 'twisters' by distortion or 'warping', this is where 'M' theory comes in, and from here things get more topological, but that's a whole 'nother headache.

Well that would seem very compatible with my calculation. If mass is ultimately a property of surface, then add in the time dimension and we've got your twisters


Box counting fractal dimension is easier than it first sounds. I'll stick it in a box

If L is a length.

N(L) is an estimate of the minimum number of 3 dimensional cubes of side length L, needed to contain the mass of the universe.

So if you have a really big box (L = diameter of universe), then you can fit the whole universe into it, so that N(L) = 1.

Do the same for the milky way and other things.

On the small scale, you only need really tiny boxes to contain individual nucleons, but you need very many of them, so that N(L) = a large number.


Then plot points ( log[1/L], log N[L] ), for all these various L's.

and the gradient of the curve is the fractal dimension. If the gradient changes, then you should calculate it as L-->0.

However, you can extend the concept and think of an 'apparent dimension' at a each scale, as being the gradient of this curve at any scale of measurement L.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Box counting fractal dimension is easier than it first sounds. I'll stick it in a box

If L is a length.

N(L) is an estimate of the minimum number of 3 dimensional cubes of side length L, needed to contain the mass of the universe.

So if you have a really big box (L = diameter of universe), then you can fit the whole universe into it, so that N(L) = 1.

Do the same for the milky way and other things.

On the small scale, you only need really tiny boxes to contain individual nucleons, but you need very many of them, so that N(L) = a large number.


Then plot points ( log[1/L], log N[L] ), for all these various L's.

and the gradient of the curve is the fractal dimension. If the gradient changes, then you should calculate it as L-->0.

However, you can extend the concept and think of an 'apparent dimension' at a each scale, as being the gradient of this curve at any scale of measurement L.

Aahh, but I see, said the blind Tao of Physics Master.
But be careful, Cartesian cubic coordinate systems aren't the only way to go. The quantum potential field (or quantum foam, whatever) vibrates in a spectrum of different frequencies, and hence takes on different geometries accordingly! Let's see if I can desdcribe this lucidly? this is where Max Planck stumbled a bit, using a cube to measure the energy/volume of a photon (assigning an arbitrary value of 10) and deriving his fundemental constant (6.626) from that. But the geometry of the photon has a tetrahedral 'shape' as it propegates through space, or seems to follow a tetrahedral path? (two of 'em actually) So his constant is just the ratio of a cube to that of a tetrahedran contained inside, (actually 6.666-two thirds of 10-the remainder being absorbed by the vacuum in this case). Hence, if Planck had used a tetrahedral coordinate system, then the need for his equation E=hv is removed, because the energy will now be measured the same on both sides of the equation, thus E (energy) will equal v (frequency) with no need for a constant between them! Does that make any sense?

 

[Jadzia]

Ok I get that, but fractal dimension is immune to finite scaling errors because of the logarithms.

Like, if I double my mass estimate accidently, because I'm stoopidly using cubes instead of tetrahedra, say, then what happens?

Well N(L) is doubled, but log( 2* N(L) ) = log(N(L)) + log(2),

So as we take L down to zero, then that log(2) becomes insignificant in relation to log(N(L)), which is tending to infinity. So the answer is the same whether we use cubic cartesians or tetrahedra, or any other 3 parameter quasilinear coordinate system.

Fractal dimensions are good like that

 

[hyzmarca]

I'm fairly sure you can safely say you'll never make a penny from this design. Luckily, no-one else will either.

You're just assuming it won't work. I want answers for if it does work. Maybe I experiment and tweak the design and discover something new.

Fine - you can patent your concept, but that doesn't stop people improving on it or changing it and selling one of their own -

Actually, it does, sort of.

Derivative patents can be made, yes, but derivative items cannot be sold without license from the original patent holder. Many countries, however, have compulsory licensing laws. And a patent only lasts about 20 years.
However, there is nothing stopping someone from creating a design that is not derivative of the original patent, which is why it is best to make the patent as broad as is possible.

 

[Jadzia]

However, there is nothing stopping someone from creating a design that is not derivative of the original patent, which is why it is best to make the patent as broad as is possible.

Broad you say? Tachyon should invent: Energy Mk-II

 

[TIN_MAN]

Ok I get that, but fractal dimension is immune to finite scaling errors because of the logarithms.

Like, if I double my mass estimate accidently, because I'm stoopidly using cubes instead of tetrahedra, say, then what happens?

Well N(L) is doubled, but log( 2* N(L) ) = log(N(L)) + log(2),

So as we take L down to zero, then that log(2) becomes insignificant in relation to log(N(L)), which is tending to infinity. So the answer is the same whether we use cubic cartesians or tetrahedra, or any other 3 parameter quasilinear coordinate system.

Fractal dimensions are good like that

OK, Gotcha.
In a holographic universe of un-ending unity, how could it be otherwise? You've touched on the heartbeat of the Creator/Creation, pulsing, rythmic, inbreathing/outbreathing, always changing and ever dynamic, yet always and ever the same!
This is how all dimension, densities, geometries, and frequencies can coexist. The trick (for us) is to understand why our equations are telling us what their telling us!

 

[Jadzia]

Do you think it could be possible to use fractal methods to forge a link between large and small scale theories?

Because fractal dimension is independent of scale, it provides a potential geometric framework for both sides of modern physics, that will never give you the singular solutions that are currently impeding unification.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

www.arxiv.org/abs/0812.1148

"The Invariant Set Hypothesis: A New Geometric Framework for the Foundations of Quantum Theory and the Role Played by Gravity" by T N Palmer

ABSTRACT
The Invariant Set Hypothesis proposes that states of physical reality belong to, and are governed by, a non-computable fractal subset I of state space, invariant under the action of some subordinate deterministic causal dynamics D. The Invariant Set Hypothesis is motivated by key results in nonlinear dynamical-systems theory, and black-hole thermodynamics. The elements of a reformulation of quantum theory are developed using two key properties of I: sparseness and self-similarity. Sparseness is used to relate counterfactual states to points not on I thus providing a basis for understanding the essential contextuality of quantum physics. Self similarity is used to relate the quantum state to oscillating coarse-grain probability mixtures based on fractal partitions of I, thus providing the basis for understanding the notion of quantum coherence. Combining these, an entirely analysis is given of the standard "mysteries" of quantum theory: superposition, nonlocality, measurement, emergence of classicality, the ontology of uncertainty and so on. It is proposed that gravity plays a key role in generating the fractal geometry of I. Since quantum theory does not itself recognise the existence of such a state-space geometry, the results here suggest that attempts to formulate unified theories of physics within a quantum theoretic framework are misguided; rather, a successful quantum theory of gravity should unify the causal non-euclidean geometry of space time with the atemporal fractal geometry of state space.

Looks like a promising avenue of approach...

 

[TIN_MAN]

Do you think it could be possible to use fractal methods to forge a link between large and small scale theories?

Because fractal dimension is independent of scale, it provides a potential geometric framework for both sides of modern physics, that will never give you the singular solutions that are currently impeding unification.

Definitely, phi is the answer (that and the # '42' )

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Still awaiting results... but at this point I'll settle for a progress report, Taccy.

 

[Squiggy]

Or at least a receipt.

 

[Jadzia]

Do you think it could be possible to use fractal methods...

Definitely, phi is the answer (that and the # '42' )

I don't get it. Do you mean phi as in the golden ratio 0.618...?

 

[TIN_MAN]

Do you think it could be possible to use fractal methods...

Definitely, phi is the answer (that and the # '42' )

I don't get it. Do you mean phi as in the golden ratio 0.618...?

Yes, powers phi - the golden mean ratio, etc. this allows perfect fractacality across all scales and orders of magnitude. From the smallest scales of atoms and electron orbits to the solar systems and planetary orbits. This is expressed in biology, in spatial terms, as the Fibonacci sequence, as in phylotaxi in plants, and the skeletal structures of all animals etc. and, in temporal terms, in the number of offspring of each succeeding generation (studies done mostly w/ bumble bees and rabbits).

 

[Jadzia]

Well I don't know how widespread that could be in physics, but it tends to appear more in biological organisms because of biological goals: Principally, an evolutionary goal in order to minimise "resonance problems".

For example, it is an important figure for optimal arrangement for cell growth/cell packing structures. Biology systems are all about cell packing.


The reason why phi is involved in this goal is because it has the property of being the least rational number, that is, it is the hardest number to approximate with a rational fraction a/b, where a and b are integers.

So in order to maximise complexity without incurring resonance patterns, you would move towards phi ratios in your harmonics.

Now that may have some relevance in superposition, with quantum waves, but I think it's more of a new age ideal than a work-to goal for a unification theory.