Basically what this is about is that in a specially prepared system, one where there is existing quantum correlation (note, this is not entanglement), it's possible to prepare the system in such a state that the microscopic 2LOT might force heat to move from the cooler to the hotter part of the system. This seems like a violation of the 2LOT, but in fact it was predicted by Boltzmann when his original derivation of the entropy laws was formulated using statistical mechanics.

Basically anyone who understands statistical mechanics already knew this; it's good they found an experiment to prove it, but it's not some sort of Earth-shattering violation of the 2LOT. I expect there will be analysis of this using the Fluctuation Theorem that will explain it thoroughly.

Never call a theory law. Law is for human social and cultural considerations - for punishing people who violate agreed upon norms.

Just in case anyone reads this and believes it; we've kind of tangled some concepts together here.

Law, in terms of social and cultural considerations, is the agreed upon norm. Law Enforcement can use laws as a basis for punishing people, but laws are not for punishing people.

A law, in terms of describing some mechanical feature of nature, is a former-theory that has been tested repeatedly and has never been demonstrated as incorrect or false.

Temperature of two spins-1/2? But temperature is only definable in macroscopic limit!

Huh? Suppose we see a wave backward or forward and it's sinusoidal; then, is there a time direction? Causality shall define initial conditions. The direction of the observer may be backward or forward; therefore, the observer must be located at a given distance and velocity in order to see it backwards. So I don't think you description of time is accurate. I think in terms of wavelength being both temporal and relative distance. Set c = 1; then t = |lambda|. Now define the distance from the source as wavelength at each instant, backward and forward. The wrinkles only move away from the center?

Huh? Suppose we see a wave backward or forward and it's sinusoidal; then, is there a time direction? Causality shall define initial conditions. The direction of the observer may be backward or forward; therefore, the observer must be located at a given distance and velocity in order to see it backwards. So I don't think your description of time is accurate. I think in terms of wavelength being both temporal and relative distance. Set c = 1; then t = |lambda|. Now define the distance from the source as wavelength at each instant, backward and forward. The wrinkles only move away from the center?

Basically what this is about is that in a specially prepared system, one where there is existing quantum correlation (note, this is not entanglement),

what is the difference between entanglement and "correlations"?. is entanglement a specific type of correlation?

Entanglement is when two or more particles share at least one parameter that is uncertain, in the Heisenberg sense. This parameter was determined at a mutual interaction between the particles.

Correlation can include entanglement, but can also include simple statistical correlation of a parameter, which may be due to random chance or may be due to a common origin, and need not be a parameter whose value is currently uncertain.

I could be a bit more pedantic and note that when two particles have an entangled parameter, when the uncertain parameter is measured or otherwise determined (because it can be decohered by interacting with the random particles in the environment and thus being determined), it is always found to be correlated between the particles. By "correlated" here, I mean that if the value on one particle is determined the value on the other particle is known. For example, they may be equal; they may be opposite; they may be out of phase by a constant amount, or differ in value by a constant amount. Examples for both equal and opposite correlation among entangled particles are well known; the others are more difficult, and there may not be any examples where the values differ by a constant amount. I can't think of an example of the latter off the top of my head, but it would qualify as entanglement.

No, no, ripples in water move away from the activator! Direction and time of travel can be discerned for any point relative to any other point future or past. The time arrow is defined. Jeez!

so basically entanglement is correlation of heisenberg uncertain parameters that stem from interaction symmetries like conservation of spin etc correct? but what are examples of that other "type" of correlations with non-uncertain parameters?
ps. really appreciate your input Da Schneib, the comments here are full of crank, you're one of the only consistent commenters that makes sense.

so basically entanglement is correlation of heisenberg uncertain parameters that stem from interaction symmetries like conservation of spin etc correct?

That's one way of creating entangled particles. It's not the only one.

but what are examples of that other "type" of correlations with non-uncertain parameters?

There are lots of them. I mean really lots. But what you're probably interested in here is the type of correlation in this experiment. In this particular case, the experimenters have selected (by the design of the experiment) HC molecules in which the nuclear spins of the H and C atoms are correlated, in this case either the same or opposite (for this experiment it doesn't matter how they're correlated, only that they are).

The key point is that the spins need not be correlated; and in many HC molecules they are not. But when they are, this apparently anti-entropic effect emerges.

And thanks for the bump!

@mac, there is only one time dimension. The reason it's a time dimension is because it's not related to the other dimensions circularly, as they are among themselves, but hyperbolically. There may be other dimensions that are hyperbolically related to the rest, but they are small dimensions (if they even exist; this is string physics we are talking about here; I think it's right but without proof it's just another hypothesis looking for a test).

When we talk about the "arrow of time" this only seems to be a thing in classical physics. It doesn't really seem to fully apply in quantum physics, and the Fluctuation Theorem shows it (though it does not explain it in terms that make any sense in classical logic). The FT was demonstrated in the lab a decade ago. If you want to understand the relationship between entropy at the macroscopic and microscopic levels, you need to understand the FT.

String theory is based on radiative time arrow

I don't know what that means.

Law, in terms of social and cultural considerations, is the agreed upon norm.

With some exceptions where the lawmakers favor their donors and lobbyists over the voters.

A law, in terms of describing some mechanical feature of nature, is a former-theory that has been tested repeatedly and has never been demonstrated as incorrect or false.

Hypothetically - What is it then, if under some new condition it fails?

I think what the experiment quite nicely demonstrates is that there is something more fundamental than energy and even a bit more fundamental than information.

If you look at the wave functions in quantum mechanics then there's already an indication of this, because the probabilities of something happenening only come about when you square them (e.g. which gives you the probabiity density of a particle position). But the unsquared terms should have some sort of 'meaning' in themselves (this is just a gut feeeling)
Maybe it's some sort of 'potentiality' of the system which can be decreased by converting it into thermal energy (and vice versa)

At least that was what I got from the figures on page 3 of the pdf linked in the article (which are all kinds of interesting. Go check it out)

The measure that is the source of the non-intuitive heat flow is the decrease in the so-called "quantum geometric discord"...which I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

Reality shows the arrow of time is always forward. When charge moves, relative or not, the field response is always next! Absolutely!

Well, my take-away of all this.... That the "Laws of Thermodynamics" that I learned in school (late paleolithic) were too simplistic? That advanced technology and progressing experimentation are revealing unexpected adjuncts to the original rules?

I'm still confused (surprise!) why the hoopla. A small, localized effect during an experiment (not yet repeated and confirmed by other researchers) is being accepted as proof that time is reversible?

Okay, I guess the best thing for some one in a state of baffled ignorance as myself should be patience. Wait and see what comes out of these experiments in the future.

String theory is based on radiative time arrow

I don't know what that means

That means, it has Lorentz symmetry in its postulates, because Lorentz invariance is based on light cone and radiative time arrow.

Yes, as all physics does. Are you denying Lorentz invariance? Do we get some data to go with that, or is this another of those data-free things you keep making up?

When string theory talks about extradimensions, then it has relativistic space-time on mind.

I don't know what "on mind" means either. Can we have some bleu cheese dressing for the word salad please?

@mac it's one of those data things. You'll need to figure out how that works.

Yes, as all physics does. Are you denying Lorentz invariance?

You can tell me - wouldn't the extradimensions manifest itself just by violation of Lorentz invariance, for example?

Why is that? Maybe you can actually explain it instead of handwaving at it. Maybe without the wordsalad.

For the beginning: time is only a measure of motion of matter in the space, and space is a place for the accommodation and movement of matter, and nothing more.
Other: it is again noticeable that science is wandering through its imaginative dark matter with dark energy. This is about something that has an inevitable connection with gravity, magnetism and mutual forces of particles. But the big problem is that none of the scientists knows how they are formed: matter, energy of all kinds, gravity, magnetism, light, and the like. It is a proof that science has no idea about the structure of the universe. If you point any intensity of the laser beam to any subatomic particle, you have caused a "revolution" there, and in this clash of natural and artificial collisions, draw some conclusions as you have seen them, but without knowing the properties that I have listed above.

Meh.

What you have is a bunch of excuses for why the huge community of scientists says you're wrong.

Oh and BTW this technique of bringing up a bunch of different subjects too fast for a response to be made is called the "Gish Gallop." It's named for the Darwin Denier religionist who invented it. The idea is to tell as many lies as quickly as possible and then leave.

What aspect of this experiment shows that the arrow of time is reversed? It seems more like an interesting new thermal property has been discovered.

What happens when you 'correlate' nuclei? And how are you correlating them?

Perhaps 'correlation' just primes the nuclei to allow the colder atom to pass even more of it's own heat to the one that is already hotter. This doesn't seem to be time reversal, though.

What aspect of this experiment shows that the arrow of time is reversed? It seems more like an interesting new thermal property has been discovered.

Heat has flowed from a cold place to a hot place. It's a bit hyperbolic if you ask me.

What happens when you 'correlate' nuclei?

In this case they have correlated spins.

And how are you correlating them?

With NMR. It does that using magnets.

Perhaps 'correlation' just primes the nuclei to allow the colder atom to pass even more of it's own heat to the one that is already hotter. This doesn't seem to be time reversal, though.

That's kind of what they're saying: if you prepare the system right you see what appears to be anti-entropy, but really isn't. It happens because you prepared the system in a special state.

It is an interesting result, but the title of the article is leading to a misunderstanding.

The results show that in a correlated state, the heating occurs(entirely)relative to which particle is being heated, meaning that ONE of the correlated nuclei heats at the expense --or RELATIVE TO-- the other, from the initial system condition.

In a non-correlated system, BOTH nuclei would heat up relative to their initial SYSTEM condition.

The tricky part to conceptualize is that there is no departure --one assumes-- from overall energetic balance within the {system + heat} relation, IOW, no net energy production or loss.

This is a very interesting effect, which should have useful applications in any number of areas: material science, energy research, quantum computing --you name it.

Yes, heat flowed from a cold place to a hotter place -- but only after the atoms were prepared by adding energy to the system in the form of an intense magnetic field. If they used NMR, then they could have had a resonance frequency that slowed the spin rate of the carbon atom while increasing the spin of the hydrogen.

Intense fields can alter the spin rates of atoms as well as their spin axis and represents a sizeable addition of energy. This net input of energy has to be accounted for - it doesn't just disappear.

While it is an interesting experiment, it doesn't demonstrate a reversal of the time arrow.

String theory is based on radiative time arrow

I don't know what that means.

...neither does he

What is heat is originally, and this question can be posed for electro charge, gravity, magnetism and light. What are the processes that allow such occurrences?
I am interested in what is the shape of the "thermometer" of those experts with whom they entered the nucleus of the atoms and there were some "operations" there. Does science know what is heat and whether this phenomenon arose before or after the onset of magnetism, movement, or any other cause of their interrelations.

Science tries to become an unbelievable "magician" for those who do not understand the nature and structure of the universe. Who is the one who can believe that these experts, with the help of lasers, can measure something from which the laser is formed.
It's the same, as when an expert makes a model, puts it in a PC, extracts, is tasked with solving it, and after that, the expert believes that the model has overcome the knowledge and understanding of the expert who constructed both the computer and the to him all to learn something new from this. Look at what it looks like.
Do these models and such measurements represent some deities that we should worship?

So this needed some unpacking, at least for me that has not dived into non-entanglement quantum correlations.But precisely this system has been used previously to characterize general non-pure, non-entangled quantum correlations [ https://arxiv.org...1596.pdf ] by discord [ https://en.wikipe..._discord ].

Their data demonstrates the effect. But the interpretation that it 'reverses' the arrow of time is based on Eddington's original idea of heat flow, which later was accepted as based on the thermodynamic arrow of increasing entropy; their own figure 2 shows that the entropic terms sum to zero (no work produced) within the errors of the experiment (compare fig 2 E and F for the uncorrelated and correlated experiment) [ https://arxiv.org...3323.pdf ].

Real relative arrow reversals are admissible in the detailed classical statistical physics of entropy, though they tend to be rare even in small systems.

On the thread questions:

- "Laws" is (mostly) a historical term. Today scientists tend to use theories and their basis in hypothesis theory to describe scientific results.

@mackita: "I just respect the data very much, so I clear them from any subsequent interpretations. For example the expansion of Universe isn't observational fact - it's one of many possible interpretations of actual data, which are Hubble red shift. This is what we actually observe - not the expansion of Universe."

The expansion is accepted as an observational fact (and is today based on many kinds of observations). Remember that we do have to make observations to quantify system properties, and there is no limit to the constraints you can use in doing that by observational hypothesis testing. You can complain that we use the whole universe as the observational experiment, but, well, duh - and so it is easily understood that your science understanding won't be understood by most scientists. ;l

@milnik: Do you really think you will get answers by first insulting the commentators, and the field, and claiming the answers are useless? (Commentators who may have read the paper that you are too lazy to, by the way, so they can understand for themselves the points you ask.) Obviously science works, or you would not be complaining (over your own lazy and mean incredulity).

@Zeph

I'm just better informed than others, so I can see it in advance

no
you're reading the material and hoping you're correct because you have a vested interest in supporting a known pseudoscience

that is different

essentially you're making the same argument the Christians did to the other Abrahamic religions in an effort to establish your influence

that doesn't work in Science because it's not based on authority or unsupported conjecture

But the future of cosmology isn't the subject of this forum (despite it follows from time reversal at cosmological scale)

1- none of your pseudoscience is topical to this (or any other) Science forum

2- if there is a logical extrapolation from the evidence that can be proven and validated, it is topical
This is the reason your continued pseudoscience isn't topical - it doesn't comply with the scientific method

@torbjorn,
Did you see the goal, when you plotted and fired the "chunk" -metal without charge, and do you know, what is the time, what is the heat, and how it can expand and switch from the lower temperature to the higher. Besides, do you know how, in general, neutrons are formed and their role in all processes in the universe. Use your reason and do not use others' statements, because I can read them.

Got some amusement out of a google search for "quanta magnetics hoax."

You #physicscranks never quit, do you?

I knew you had to be bent some way after you started trying to tell us tens of thousands of physicicsts working for over a century were all wrong, @mac. And here you are with the free energy woo.

Idiot logic

Sorry, you're on ignore and will stay that way. The free energy #physicscranks are the worst of all, because they're out to rip people off.

All experiments carried out in particle collisions and by lasers will never allow to find out how matter arises, as various forms of condensates form, such as quark-gluon plasma.
Everything that is obtained there is a consequence of the effect of AETHER substance, from which matter is formed, and that does not understand science, and therefore there is no result.

I'm just better informed than others,

Lol...thanks for the laugh. Oh my...you really believe this? You? informed? Someone who can't read the simplest paper (let alone understand)? Where would *you* get anything that would actually *inform* you? Dr. Seuss?

@zeph

I'm just better informed than others, so I can see it in advance

One of proposed measures of intelligence is the ability to anticipate the future events After wit is everybody's wit.

Delusion and Dunning-Kruger confirmed

so what is the next step when you're proven wrong?

Well, we can try it. Could you provide at least ten links to...

Hmm... so: how does random googling and linking of pages in any way prove you're better informed than anyone, eh zeph?

the problem isn't *that* you can find pages on any topic

the problem is that you think that if it's published on the internet then it must be factual

Seriously, sincerely, if you are claiming you're smarter than tens of thousands of scientists over a period of hundreds of years, you're certainly wrong. A whole bunch of us humans over a very long period of time figured this stuff out and went looking for evidence against it. We didn't find it. That's how science works.

Ya know Zeph, being informed means actually understanding what one reads. Just reading isn't enough.

You totally fail at the 'understanding' part.

As evidence I give you: Every one of your comments. Ever.

Ya know Zeph, being informed means actually understanding what one reads. Just reading isn't enough.

You totally fail at the 'understanding' part.

As evidence I give you: Every one of your comments. Ever.

It's OK, none of this makes any sense

@all science is constantly evolving and we don't always get it right the first time. For instance, we had experiments showing light is a particle and experiments showing light is a wave. There was a big debate until they came up with duality.

Our current model has a big issue, namely DM and dark energy. Scientists want the easy out of finding a new form of matter to explain the issue, but it isn't going anywhere. The problem with cosmology is we have made many assumptions by necessity and then we built on these assumptions as if they were fact. Now, we need to re think everything in cosmology and see if we can find any of the issues. I believe mistaking the hubble red shift as expansion is one of those errors or at least expansion isn't necessarily the only factor.

Also, about the article itself. It would be interesting to know if this property is stable or if meta materials could be made with this property or 2d materials. This could be used to make heat flow in only one direction. Meta materials have been made to make other properties flow in only one direction. I could see this being really useful for heating and cooling purposes such as keeping a super conductor below it's critical temperature.

Also, about the article itself. It would be interesting to know if this property is stable or if meta materials could be made with this property or 2d materials. This could be used to make heat flow in only one direction. Meta materials have been made to make other properties flow in only one direction. I could see this being really useful for heating and cooling purposes such as keeping a super conductor below it's critical temperature.

Or not. Think! There is only the Field! Charge is an object that exist for all time and stretches from the center to infinity, an infinite number of pairs! We know this, Coulomb! Why any of the bull$hit! When charge moves, relative or actual, either move through the field or the field through you. Always one direction for time. In fact, a given state defines the future. You may define possibilities to produce a state. Here's a puzzle; place an electron at point 0(any point) and 2 protons at the same point, what happens?

@hyper you seem to be spouting nonsense. Do you have experimental proof for any of your ideas. Also, in what ways would your ideas be better than mainstream science?

Does any of you know how to explain how heat is generated, how it is transmitted through space and matter, and how it can accelerate and slow down the movement of subatomic particles. In all the previous explanations, science knows little about it. Again the question is: WHY UNKNOWN?
The answer is: Because science can not understand and accept the existence of substance Aether, which is found in the "empty" particles of the particle collider, and therefore the researchers "find" some new particles, "dead people" who are seen as some "abortions".
Science, for this reason, will never be able to "produce" a permanent particle as something new.
All that they are doing now is a forgery of a natural product.

Idiots, try beginning with truth not assumptions! Get it!?

By the way God existed before money. Our concept of God is a connotation and is nonsense, just like quarks and GR and trying to define a time arrow based upon non-causal theory. I'd expound but I don't think anyone will understand, since over 6000 years of misunderstanding now allows nonsense as Religious Truth.

Physics today is a study in WTF? Everything is mysterious, yet you may get a PhD in this mysterious nonsense. I'll use what was defined at the beginning of the 20th century. Factually! Juz say'n

@zeph
epic fail: not only did you not understand what you read, but you didn't understand what you even wrote! you just claimed:

but I asked you to provide sufficient factual background about graphite based thermogenerators

and yet, written blatantly and clearly above, anyone who is literate can see that: No, you didn't! you stated

Could you provide at least ten links to various graphite based thermoelectric generators presented at the web?

and then, making it worse, but still explaining how you can't read or understand science or physics, you dig the hole deeper with

This is also the problem of mainstream physicists with cold fusion and overunity thing: because they're not familiar with its factual basis

how exactly do you get to overunity being plausible because the internet allows you to be duped?

you do know that you just proven both A_P and Me correct, right?

Over unity, even if it existed, would be a bad thing. Just about as bad as under unity would be, maybe worse. The thing is, to date it has never been observed that a closed system gained nor lost energy. Hence unity, not over nor under unity. Any over unity event would likely result in the destruction of the entire universe. It would be an unstoppable increase in energy that would lead to infinite mass in at a point due to e = Mc squared and then you have the equivalent of a big bane. Thanks for wiping out all life on earth.

By the way God existed before money.

This is just another assumption without any deduction, which is deeply irrelevant to article subject in addition. Maybe it's right, maybe not - nothing to catch is here. Why are you telling us it right here? The people who aren't intelligent enough for to realize, they're off topic with their ideas wouldn't be probably intelligent enough even for deductions, which would be perfectly on topic (if they would indeed have some). Don't spread assumptions and religion - spread the deductions. The time must exist even in solely empty Universe without any facts. The logic of deduction defines the causality arrow of time, which is fundamental here.

Try reading Ancient Hieroglyphics written in stone. Earthlings are not intelligent and all this (i don't know what you call this $hit), is laughable.

@mackita overunity, besides likely destroying the planet, is also completely pointless. Earth is neither a closed system nor in equilibrium. All you need is renewable energy such as a solar panel. Trees get by just fine on solar energy. The only thing I can think of that can't be sustained on renewable energy would be rockets. Need to burn something to get unto space.

@mackita here on earth renewable energy is better than fusion and overunity even if they existed. Renewable has zero waste. Fusion turns useful and important hydrogen into helium and overunity would increase the mass of the earth. Plus, overunity would likely fall into one of two categories if it existed. Either destructively powerful or prohibitively weak. Neither one being useful.

ha, ha, ha, ha, ...
How can anyone use so many words to say nothing? You gotta be kidding, you left science long ago, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ush, ush, mmm
about 100 years ago. i couldn't help it, i was laughing so hard

complete idiots, with nothing, yet you act like you are wise, or worse, not wise but believe anything nonsensical. later you'll tell me particles exist in a separate reality, and that's why we've never found any, or time is moving backward that's why science is going backwards toward voodoo.

@mackita even if overunity was real, you have no idea the cost of production or the amount of energy it will produce. Wind and solar will likely be more cost efficient. Also, there is no knowing the life expectancy of overunity when it doesn't even exist. Not to mention the cost of RND for a technology that may never be discovered. Why bother even thinking about magic fairy dust when we have real clean renewable energy today.

@zeph

Being learned and able to sieve the facts from noise and wishful thinking

you do realise that you've just proven you can't do that, right?
hell, you can't even sieve the facts from your own comments!

the primary point here is, the reproducibility of facts

by who's standard? Your own?
because the one thing you've not produced is actual facts supporting things like overunity (AKA Perpetual motion) or aether

the *facts* show aether doesn't exist, yet you still claim it does! that isn't sieving facts from noise so much as it's clinging to a belief despite the evidence, which is either religion or delusoin: you pick

greediness of researchers itself.

right! because there are so many millionaire scientist researchers that we...
Oh wait! you're full of sh*t and reaching for anyone you can to blame for your epic failure!
right
nevermind!
LOL

the rest of your BS post is your attempt to justify your belief because you don't have evidence

nothing more

@zeph - here: let me prove to you that you are religious, not scientifically literate: you said

It could actually decrease it by radiating it into space. For me the overunity utilizes the latent residual energy of matter remaining after incomplete explosion of supernovas

where are the "sieved facts"?
there are none

where is the proof that overunity/perpetual motion is possible?
none

evidence that it has been done or is reproducible?
none

web pages exist?
too many, with too many claims that have never once in history been reproduced

conclusion:
you believe
you admit this when you state "For me the overunity utilizes the latent residual energy of matter"

so it's not about facts, following the evidence or even objective observation
it's all about what you believe and what *you think* makes sense *to you*
Now read this: https://www.damni...e-of-it/

it perfectly describes exactly what you're doing above

'nuff said

@mackita those are not examples of overunity. They are actually turning heat or brownian motion into energy. Assuming they actually work. Heat is another source of energy that would be nice if we could efficiently convert onto useful energy.

All these discussions are merely an riveted dust that hinders the perception of the true image of any event and occurrence. Can any one of you explain the phenomenon: when a variable magnetic field crosses the conductor, who is the one who instills the electrons to move through that conductor? Or, the second question, but in connection with this phenomenon: if you have a closed circle of electricity flow from a hydro turbine to a consumer, from where do all the electrons flowing through the conductor come in and whether they are electrons that are only in the conductor?

Who forms the magnetic field around the conductor through which the current flows?
What do you think, this can happen without the presence of Aether? If you find the answer here, you will get a clearer riddle about heat, time, and other enigmas. If you do not know, I will vow to cry, but I know that among you there are those who will in their anger, even to call this IDIOTIAN MANEVER.
I am also sorry for the sciences and those who do not want and can not understand the existence of the substance AETHER.

@milnik there is an aether. Empty space is not actually empty. Scientists just don't call it aether. Quantum mechanics has the creation of virtual particles in a vacuum so that it is a medium of sorts. Likely has something to do with the non zero universal constant and dark energy.

The trend of science got really reversed and we can illustrate it with ducks observing the water surface with its own ripples. These ripples are fuzzy at proximity but at distance they will https://i.imgur.com/Hbex3I8.jpg about human observer scale, because its too complex for them but with increasing distance scale the reality becomes gradually simpler and easier to describe with formal equations. So that they got an impression, the more math, the more progress (mathematical universe, shut up and calculate!). Unfortunately the technological progress enabled us to observe the distance scales, where this trend gets reversed and the formal (LQG, SuSy, stringy) theorists got doomed again. The contemporary science looks fuzzy and fragmented, because this is simply how the hyperdimensional reality looks like: no spheres and clean waves - just fuzzy clouds.

nonsense

@milnik there is an aether. Empty space is not actually empty. Scientists just don't call it aether. Quantum mechanics has the creation of virtual particles in a vacuum so that it is a medium of sorts. Likely has something to do with the non zero universal constant and dark energy.

There is no empty space, the field of each charge fills eternity. QM is not science!

The spamming of the EUdiots and free energy scammers, #physicscranks all. Some with an illicit profit motive, others trying to deny they were scammed. It's amusing to watch people who have spent thousands of dollars try to justify the expenditure when they can't make what they bought work. They choose to believe they didn't do it right. The data says it doesn't work. Simple as that.

The spamming of the EUdiots and free energy scammers, #physicscranks all. Some with an illicit profit motive, others trying to deny they were scammed. It's amusing to watch people who have spent thousands of dollars try to justify the expenditure when they can't make what they bought work. They choose to believe they didn't do it right. The data says it doesn't work. Simple as that.

Wow, another thinker. I didn't know one existed!

Sorry, @mac, we've seen lots of Russian free energy #physicscranks and ignored them all.

@mac, ignoring #physicscranks isn't "ignorance." It's mental hygiene.

I don't see any point in this. If anyone actually made a device that produces power from nothing, the first thing to do is write a paper and collect the Nobel Prize in Physics. Somehow this "T" never gets crossed, though.

Everything moves slowly towards what I'm saying.
AETHER ABSOLUTE POSTOJI !!
Science invented and gave names to phenomena that they can not explain because they do not believe in the existence of Aether. So they invented the virtual particles that occur when they change the particle velocity and increase the magnetic field strength, and are unaware that the AETHER particle is in it all. And quantum mechanics is an area for hiding everything that can be explained by the appearance of Aether.
And I can make PERPETUUM MOBILE, without any share of energy. Only using natural magnets and wire windings. There are many experiments where even non-electricians create such a device that works without any kind of energy introduced (bulbs, fans, etc.). It can work forever and anywhere in space. WHY? Because AETHER is the basis for everything.

Do you agree to nominate me to the Nobel Committee to explain the role of AETHER in the universe, and then the power on our planet will change everything.
In the universe there is infinitely much energy that can be obtained by "agreeing" with AETHER, how to deal with it. It does not matter whether I will receive the Nobel Prize, but it is certain, when it is understood that many awards will lose value.
A natural magnet could not have this trait that it was not "submerged" in Aether as well as all matter in the infinite universe. The magnet (gluons in it, and the most influential neutrons) forms magnetic forces with the aether. Since this is not the place here, because here's the biggest prize, be called -IDIOT.

@Schneib,
There is no empty space in the universe, but there is a space without matter. All that is "empty" as the science says, it's AETHER, for which science has no evidence, because everyone has driven it out of science, and Aether's place has moved into this area for its favorite: virtual particles, dark energy and matter, gravitons, tachyons, and many particles they get in experiments, but they do not know that Aether has formed them in a primitive manner.

sick and wishful nonscientific fodder

I had a neighbor who fell for the Water for fuel, hydrogen power, free energy scam. He managed to ruin the engine on his truck, when he installed the bogus devices. As I walk past his house, I can see the ruined vehicle squatting there. Slowly eroding into rust and rotting tires.

If, if there was any chance at all that these free energy frauds had any basis in reality? All those landsharks at the Wall Street Casino would snap up control from you gullible losers. And stop wasting their sucker clienteles wealth on the petroleum industry. Just like they smarten up and stopped wasting funding on the coal industry.

@mackita,
how does current flow in conductors occur, in general?
There are two basic ways: by chemical means, when using various metals and acids, you force electrons or ions to move between anodes and cathodes, and another way is to rotate a magnet whose silences cut through the conductors in which the electrical current is induced. What is it that instills electrons in the conductor to move through the conductor, or there is another cause that brings these electrons out of it?
It is a secret that can solve all of the dilemmas and riddles in the scientific community that we have so far.
Therefore, it is not a place to make a solution, but only a remark that this can be done with a completely new understanding of the structure of the universe and the knowledge of how and from what the matter forms.
Shortly: You heard about the gluon, but the science did not explain how it was formed and from what, and what all that gluon can do in nature.

It is essential that there is no neutron without a gluon (here you have to think deeply about what it means). and without the neutron in the chemical elements, magnetism can not occur. And what is magnetism? It is formed by gluons and AETHER. You can all start the "Third World War" against the existence of Aether, but it will be futile for you, because the understanding of the existence of Aether is growing.
From what scientists and how do they get some subatomic particles in the collision of one another, protons, neutrons, electrons? This takes place in the "empty pipes" of the collider.
Can a proton get a new particle 200 times the proton, or how can the gamma ray have energy from a few kilograms to several billion?
Think about it, because I gave you quite good basics to change the mind about the structure of the universe and about matter and its origins.

@mackita,
If this is my opinion silly, then you are ignorant of which protons and neutrons are made. Especially your incomprehension is how neutrons arise, and let's not talk about the formation of gluons and their role in the entire energy state of the universe, from photons, plasma, magnetism, and the formation of celestial bodies from magnetists to stars like ours Sun.
There may be a gluon outside the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom, when we observe the atoms. ? So it's not clear to you how the atoms are formed. It is not a miracle, because science has not understood it, nor will it ever be understood if it ignores the structure of the universe. Perhaps you have a new model with which you will form a new type of universe.?

Why there are so many uncertainties and wrong theories in science? Because science has not understood what is fundamental in nature, and that is that everything visible in the universe must be formed from something and not from anything, as confirmed by the appearance of a monster BB.
It's not clear to you that this is what we are discussing with an old relationship with the existence of AETHER, as the gluons have a terrible strong relationship with quarks from which they form protons and positrons, and especially electrons and positrons, but, unfortunately, you are not aware of it.
Magnetism arises as an "arrangement" of the gluon with Aether, and gluons are formed by the annihilation of electrons and positrons.
Learn this before abandoning a discussion in which you do not understand the basic thing that formed the Spiritual entity of the universe.

@zeph

We should discuss here only things, which everyone of us can verify independently. From this reason I'm also sending here one link after another one

posting a random internet link or a youtube video to "verify independently" is like posting a picture of a random shoe to prove you don't have chlamydia

if there was a way to make power from nothing and actually prove it, as you are implying with your "one link after another one", then there would be a revolution and you would be collecting a nobel as well as trillions from nations begging to have your patent

so again: you've proven that you accept any random youtube video or internet claim simply because you can find more than one person making that claim

that isn't knowledge - that's pseudoscience

and ignoring your pseudoscience is not ignorance - it's proof of knowledge if anything

we've discussed this already, and yet still you persist as though you're the only one with knowledge

@zeph

It's not surprising, that people who ignore actual contemporary physics also have no idea, how the contemporary science and society is actually (not) working.

you're the only one who is ignoring contemporary physics and science, otherwise you would be anti-aether as well as anti-pseudoscience (like overunity and perpetual motion)

what you have just demonstrated, repeatedly, in the above thread as well as all over PO:

The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone's skill in that space, including their own. When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well. As a result, the incompetent will tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities.

https://www.damni...e-of-it/

@zeph

the problem is, it could be easily applied to you, once you start to ignore way too many recent findings

I predicted you would say this, and you just couldn't help yourself! ...LMFAO

So that at the end it may be just you who is demonstrating Dunning-Krueger effect - not me. Time will tell us soon

you've been saying this for years and to date you have yet to be proven right about anything - especially your overunity, perpetual motion, cold fusion or aether

And of course, we are still talking about only one very specific and simple type of "perpetuum mobile" based on graphite

- there is no "we"
only you

Once we confirm reliably just one type of overunity in scientific tests

and again: you've been making this claim for years

but this specific pseudoscience overunity argument has been around for centuries and not once in all that time has anyone ever created any overunity perpetual motion device

not once
ever

believing doesn't make it real, zeph

@mackita,
All that you have put forward, and even all of the scientific puzzles and nebuloses so far can be explained, if the existence of Aether and his relationship and relation with certain "aggregate" states of matter are considered. You've also made perpetuum mobile and an effort to achieve it in science. Who understands the relationship between the substance AETHER, with quarks and gluons, it will see that it implies the processes of continuous movement between the magnetic forces of the magnet and Aether, which is filled with quarks and gluons themselves. And ordinary people without any knowledge of the magnetism properties can make perpetuum mobile (magnet, copper wire spinning spindle or small fan).

This is about what science is struggling to achieve a cold fusion, is not a good or real undertaking. When science finds out how a hydrogen atom and a helium atom form from it, it will be clear to them that this way can not form an uninterrupted process of fusion without radiation. There are other simpler ways to get free energy "nothing from."

Science only believes in what can be proved by the experiment, but why it does not serve the intuitive knowledge from which it will find the way to prove such a secret and experimentally. Each of us human beings has his dreams that no one could record with the camera today, and in words and writing it can not be explained. So I know what is magnetism and gravity and can explain many phenomena, which science is not able to find out.
The movement of Earth and moons is similar to that of a photon. How ? For this I have formulas, but none of the scientific institutions wants to make it a very important thing, but everyone asks me to pay for it, like when I give an ad to sell an old car.

@mackita,
You'll see, when there's a chance to publish it.

Law, in terms of social and cultural considerations, is the agreed upon norm.

With some exceptions where the lawmakers favor their donors and lobbyists over the voters.

A law, in terms of describing some mechanical feature of nature, is a former-theory that has been tested repeatedly and has never been demonstrated as incorrect or false.

Hypothetically - What is it then, if under some new condition it fails?

In that case, it's someone's career defining moment and congratulations are probably in order

Have we turned off the topic?
These scientists "see" how time is centered on particles that change heat? But do these experts know what is: time, heat, and entropy. Where Aether is participating, and there is no event in the universe where he is not a participant, in those discussions I am never out of the question. "My" Aether is following all, even entropy. And what is entropy? This is the general energy state of the universe, which is distributed and uniformed through the Aether in the universe, in such a way that the total heat amount is maintained as a constant condition, provided that there is no breakthrough in the movement of matter. The origin and disappearance of matter (from Aether) is equal (how much matter goes to Aether through black holes, so much new matter forms (magnetars-quark gluon plasma)

If we well know the mutual relationship between AETHER and gluon, we can achieve and find out everything related to this pair of phenomena. Magnetism arises with the AETHER-GLUONS relationship.

Well, there is a secret, which is worth several Nobel Prizes, call the Nobel Committee to explain this puzzle !!