Jack Sarfattiabout a minute ago via TwitterIf someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.— Sir Arthur Stanley EddingtonGifford Lectures (1927), The Nature of the Physical World (1928), 74http://t.co/2VR1fByb allows delayed choice & faster-than-light entanglement signals (A.Valentini ) but violates2nd Law Thermodynamics[1206.5485] Open timelike curves violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principlelnkd.in/Gd5gT5Open timelike curves violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principleJ.L. Pienaar, C.R. Myers, T.C. Ralph(Submitted on 24 Jun 2012)Toy models for quantum evolution in the presence of closed timelike curves (CTCs) have gained attention in the recent literature due to the strange effects they predict. The circuits that give rise to these effects appear quite abstract and contrived, as they require non-trivial interactions between the future and past which lead to infinitely recursive equations. We consider the special case in which there is no interaction inside the CTC, referred to as an open timelike curve (OTC), for which the only local effect is to increase the time elapsed by a clock carried by the system. Remarkably, circuits with access to OTCs are shown to violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, allowing perfect state discrimination and perfect cloning of coherent states. The model is extended to wave-packets and smoothly recovers standard quantum mechanics in an appropriate physical limit. The analogy with general relativistic time-dilation suggests that OTCs provide a novel alternative to existing proposals for the behaviour of quantum systems under gravity.Subquantum Information and ComputationAntony Valentini(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh(Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)Subjects:http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2012/05/its-wrong-but-it-feels-so-right.htmlA violation of the uncertainty principle implies a violation of the second law ofthermodynamicsEsther Hänggi∗ and Stephanie Wehner†Centre for Quantum Technologies, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 2, 117543 Singapore(Dated: June 1, 2012)Uncertainty relations state that there exist certain incompatible measurements, to which theoutcomes cannot be simultaneously predicted. While the exact incompatibility of quantum measurementsdictated by such uncertainty relations can be inferred from the mathematical formalismof quantum theory, the question remains whether there is any more fundamental reason for theuncertainty relations to have this exact form. What, if any, would be the operational consequencesif we were able to go beyond any of these uncertainty relations? We give a strong argument thatjustifies uncertainty relations in quantum theory by showing that violating them implies that it isalso possible to violate the second law of thermodynamics. More precisely, we show that violatingthe uncertainty relations in quantum mechanics leads to a thermodynamic cycle with positive network gain, which is very unlikely to exist in nature.
Weak measurementFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_measurementmodified slightly by me in italic font
Weak measurements are a type of quantum measurement, where the measured system is very weakly coupled to the measuring device. After the measurement the measuring device pointer is shifted by what is called the "weak value", so that a pointer initially pointing at zero before the measurement would point at the weak value after the measurement. The system is not disturbed by the measurement. Although this may seem to contradict some basic aspects of quantum theory, the formalism lies within the boundaries of the theory and does not contradict any fundamental concept, in particular not Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
The idea of weak measurements and weak values, first developed by Yakir Aharonov, David Albert and LevVaidman, published in 1988,  is especially useful for gaining information about pre- and post-selected systems described by the two-state vector formalism. This was the original reason that Aharonov et al developed weak measurement. Since a "strong" perturbative measurement can both upset the outcome of the post-selection and tamper with all subsequent measurement, weak nonperturbative measurements may be used to learn about such systems during their evolution.
If (history| and |destiny) are the pre- and post-selected quantum mechanical (retarded past to present) history and (advanced back from the future) destiny states, the weak value of the observable Â is defined as
Aw = (history|A|destiny)/(history|destiny)
The weak value of the observable becomes large when the post-selected state approaches being orthogonal to the pre-selected state, . In this way, by properly choosing the two states, the weak value of the operator can be made arbitrarily large, and otherwise small effects can be amplified.
Note that the theory of weak measurement allows Hardy's paradox to be explained. In Hardy's paradox a positron and an electron go down both arms of each of their interferometers. If they meet in the overlapping arms, they should annihilate each other. But, strangely, they are still registered as arriving at the detectors.
Related to this, the research group of Aephraim Steinberg at the University of Toronto confirmed Hardy's paradox experimentally using joint weak measurement’ of the locations of entangled pairs of photons. Independently, a team of physicists from Japan reported in December, 2008, and published in March, 2009, that they were able to use joint weak measurement to observe a photonic version of Hardy's paradox. In this version, two photons were used instead of a positron and an electron and relied not upon non-annihilation but on polarization degrees of freedom values measured.
Building on weak measurements, Howard M. Wiseman proposed a weak value measurement of the velocity of a quantum particle at a precise position, which he termed its "naïvely observable velocity". In 2010, a first experimental observation of trajectories of a photon in a double-slit interferometer was reported, which displayed the qualitative features predicted in 2001 by Partha Ghosefor photons in the de Broglie-Bohminterpretation.
In 2011, weak measurements of many photons prepared in the same pure state, followed by strong measurements of a complementary variable, were used to reconstruct the state in which the photons were prepared.
Further readingDiscover Magazine article: "Back From the Future" A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-futureStephen Parrott questions the meaning and usefulness of weak measurements, as described above.Quantum physics first: Researchers observe single photons in two-slit interferometer experiment:http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-quantum-physics-photons-two-slit-interferometer.htmlAdrian Cho: Furtive Approach Rolls Back the Limits of Quantum Uncertainty, Science, 5 August 2011, vol. 333, no. 6043, pp. 690-693, doi:10.1126/science.333.6043.690References^ Y. Aharonov, D.Z. Albert, L. Vaidman, "How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100," Physical Review Letters, 1988. ^ Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman in Time in Quantum Mechanics, J.G. Muga et al. eds., (Springer) 369-412 (2002) quant-ph/0105101^ O. Hosten and P. Kwiat Observation of the spin Hall effect of light via weak measurements Science 319 787 (2008) ^ a b J. S. Lundeen, A. M. Steinberg, "Experimental Joint Weak Measurement on a Photon Pair as a Probe of Hardy’s Paradox", Physical Review Letters 102, 020404 (2009) ^ Hardy's paradox confirmed experimentally, Perimeter Institute, downloaded 20. November 2011^ K. Yokota, T. Yamamoto, M. Koashi, N. Imoto, "Direct observation of Hardy's paradox by joint weak measurement with an entangled photon pair", New J. Phys. 11, 033011 (2009) ^ Partha Ghose, A.S. Majumdar, S. Guhab, J. Sau: Bohmian trajectories for photons, Physics Letters A 290 (2001), pp. 205–213, 10 November 2001^ Sacha Kocsis, Sylvain Ravets, Boris Braverman, Krister Shalm, Aephraim M. Steinberg: Observing the trajectories of a single photon using weak measurement, 19th Australian Institute of Physics (AIP) Congress, 2010 ^ Sacha Kocsis, Boris Braverman, Sylvain Ravets, Martin J. Stevens, Richard P. Mirin, L. Krister Shalm,Aephraim M. Steinberg:Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer, Science, vol. 332 no. 6034 pp. :1170-1173, 3 June 2011, doi:10.1126/science.1202218 (abstract)^ Jeff S. Lundeen, Brandon Sutherland, Aabid Patel, Corey Stewart, Charles Bamber: Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction, Nature vol. 474, pp. 188–191, 9. June 2011, doi:10.1038/nature10120View page ratings
Higgs Discovery on the Brink, but is it THE Higgs?by Philip GibbsBy now you should know that physicists working on the CMS and ATLAS experiments on the Large HadronCollider are about to announce important new results in the search for the Higgs boson. The announcement will be made on the morning of the 4th July at CERN in advance of the ICHEP conference in Melbourne where more details may emerge. The expectation is that this update will actually be a discovery announcement for the Higgs Boson. This is based on vague rumours, plus the fact that CERN PR are not saying that it is not a discovery, plus the fact that it would make no sense to have such an update at CERN before a big conference unless it were a discovery, plus the fact that they would not have been so sure so soon that there was something big to say unless the signal had come through very clear and strong. The details will have to wait for the day and of course I will be here to add my independent analysis and unofficial Higgs combinations as the story unfolds. Others will be live blogging including Tommaso Dorigo of CMS who says he will be in the auditorium. I hope he has a seat reserved for him so that he does not have to camp outside the door overnight to get in. I will be watching the live webcast from home instead.How do they know it is the Higgs Boson?This is now the most frequently asked question, how do they know it is the Higgs boson and not some other particle they are seeing? In the scientific papers we can expect that the physicists of the collaboration will be careful about how they word the discovery. They will say something like: "We have found a new resonance (i.e. particle) in the search for the Higgs boson which is consistent (or maybe not) with the standard model Higgs Boson. Further measurements will be needed to confirm that its properties are as predicted." And of course they will quantify what they mean by this with a slew of numbers and plots. In the press you will simply hear that they have discovered the Higgs boson. Dont by upset by this, you can't expect a report in the New York times to read like a paper in Physical Review D, but it is fair to ask to what extent its known properties so far indicate that it really is the Higgs boson.What is the Spin?The most distinctive characteristic of the Higgs Boson is that it is a scalar, i.e. it has no spin. Other elementary particles in the standard model are either fermions with spin one half or gauge bosons with spin one. Particles with spin that is any multiple of one half are possible and it is a quantity that needs to be checked experimentally. The channel where they are seeing the signal for the Higgs boson most strongly is through its decay into two high energy photons. The photons have spin one but spin is conserved because the two photons take away spin in opposite directions that cancel. It is not possible for fermions that have a odd-integer spin to decay without producing at leat one new fermion so we know already that the particle observed is a boson. By a theoretical result known as the Landau-Yang theorem it is not possible for a spin one particle to decay into two photons either, but it is possible for a spin-two particle to decay into two photons with spins in the same direction.So we know already that the new particle has spin zero or spin two and we could tell which one if we could detect the polarisations of the photons produced. Unfortunately this is difficult and neither ATLAS nor CMS are able to measure polarisations. The only direct and sure way to confirm that the particle is indeed a scalar is to plot the angular distribution of the photons in the rest frame of the centre of mass. A spin zero particle like the Higgs carries no directional information away from the original collision so the distribution will be even in all directions. This test will be possible when a much larger number of events have been observed. In the mean time we can settle for less certain indirect indicators.In March the Tevatron presented their final observations in their search for the Higgs boson. Their detectors are more sensitive to the decay of the Higgs to two bottom quarks. A weakly significant signal was seen at the same mass of 125 GeV where the LHC is seeing its resonance. This too will be confirmed with more certainty by the LHC later. This shows (or will show) that the particle can decay into two spin half fermions. This is certainly possible for a spin zero particle and also for a spin one particle but is it possible for a spin two particle? If not we would know that the spin must be zero by a simple process of elimination. In fact it is possible for a spin-two particle to decay into two spin halfs provided the extra spin one is carried away either as orbital angular momentum (p-wave) or as a soft photon that is not seen, but neither of these possibilities is very likely. We can therefore be reasonably sure already that the observed particle is indeed spin zero, but for absolute certainty we will have to wait for more detailed studies.What about other quantum numbers?As well as spin, any elementary particle is partially classified by other quantum numbers including electric charge, colour charge, baryon number, CP, etc. The charges are strictly conserved due to gauge invariance and are zero in the decay products so we know for sure that the particle is neutral. We also know that the baryon number is zero otherwise the particle would provide a mechanism for baryon number violation that would probably destabilise the proton. The quantity CP can be either even or odd but it is hard to know for sure which it is because CP is known to be unconserved at an observable level. Given that the decay modes are predominantly into a particle and its anti-particle or into two particles that are the same, it is unlikely that the CP is odd, but we will have to wait for more carefull tests to be reasonably sure. In any case there are versions of the Higgs boson in theories outside the standard model that have odd CP so this question does not really affect whether or not they are seeing the Higgs.What about other Higgs properties?The mass of the Higgs boson is the last parameter of the standard model to be determined. With the imminent discovery we now believe it to be about 125 GeV. With this quantity known every other property of the standard model can in principle be calculated, but it is not always easy due to non-perturbative effects that are difficult to model and uncertainty in other measurements that adds uncertainty to the any calculation. The decay time ( or width ) of the Higgs boson can be calculated but because 125 GeV is less than twice the W or Z masses the boson is relatively stable and the width is a few MeV. This is far too narrow to be measured at the LHC where the mass resolution is in the order of a GeV.However, the most distinctive characteristic of the Higgs boson is its coupling to massive particles. By the nature of the Higgs mechanism that gives mass to the fundamental particles in the standard model, the coupling is always proportional to the mass. according to the theory the fermions and gauge bosons do not have any mass in the unbroken electroweak phase due to gauge symmetry and chiral symmetry (however the fact that neutrinos have a small mass takes us beyond the standard model) This affects all the production rates and branching ratios for the decays so if these are measured and found to be in agreement with the standard model we will have a useful test that what we have found really is the Higgs boson. Only by producing the unbroken state can we get a clearer sign that it is the real Higgs mechanism that breaks electro-weak symmetry but that is not accessible to present day technology....Can they say they discovered the Higgs boson then?Once we have the data from the first 2012 run in our hands in ten days time we will already have enough data to say that the new particle looks like a Higgs boson. We may even be able to make some preliminary statements about any deviations from the standard model. These will improve in time.There will always be those who say that we dont really know for sure that this is the Higgs boson rather than some other scalar neutral particle that happened to be around, but the fact is that this particle turned up just about where the Higgs boson was most expected and with the right properties. We already know from the discovery of the W and Z bosons and many other tests that the standard model is a good one and it is a model based on electroweak symmetry breaking. Something is required to break that symmetry and now we have found a particle that fits nicely the characteristics of such a particle. Only the most obstinate skeptic would complain if they claim to have discovered the Higgs boson given the evidence we expect to see very soon. If it swims on a pond and quacks like a duck it is not unreasonable to say it is a duck, especially when you were expecting to find a duck. Further observations will just tell us more about what kind of duck it is.http://blog.vixra.org/2012/06/24/higgs-discovery-on-the-brink-but-is-it-the-higgs/
Signal nonlocality is a crazy idea for which there is evidence in the human mind. Does this mean overthrow of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in spite of Eddington’s famous remark?Subquantum Information and ComputationAntony Valentini(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh(Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277On Jun 22, 2012, at 8:32 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:A violation of the uncertainty principle implies a violation of the second law of thermodynamicsEsther Hänggi, Stephanie Wehner(Submitted on 31 May 2012)Uncertainty relations state that there exist certain incompatible measurements, to which the outcomes cannot be simultaneously predicted. While the exact incompatibility of quantum measurements dictated by such uncertainty relations can be inferred from the mathematical formalism of quantum theory, the question remains whether there is any more fundamental reason for the uncertainty relations to have this exact form. What, if any, would be the operational consequences if we were able to go beyond any of these uncertainty relations? We give a strong argument that justifies uncertainty relations in quantum theory by showing that violating them implies that it is also possible to violate the second law of thermodynamics. More precisely, we show that violating the uncertainty relations in quantum mechanics leads to a thermodynamic cycle with positive net work gain, which is very unlikely to exist in nature.
The previous Blog message has been corrected + should have been X, i.e. tensor product in Hilbert qubitspace not addition & new content added V3 is second revision to the original.
Imagine preparing two networks A & B of trapped ionsspacelike separated from each other with Glaubercoherent states |z) in their nano-meter COM mechanical phonon oscillations entangled with their internal Jaynes-Cummings qubits |1(0)). Then do an entanglement swap between the Jaynes-Cummingsinternal bit networks. Sure this will take light cone limited classical time delay to accomplish, but once that is finished then the nonlocal superluminalcommunication can begin to be tested - evenretrocausally.
The initial preparation is the Schrodinger Cat entangled state
z = (n)^1/2e^i@(coherent)
|Az)|A1) + |Az*)|A0)X(|Bz)|B1) + |Bz*)|B0))
tensor product of Hilbert spaces
after the entanglement swap (inside respective light cones)
the new state ready for nonlocal entanglement signaling is
|Az)|B1) + |Az*)|B0)X(|Bz)|A1) + |Bz*)|A0))
For example, the receiver signal at B to detect aJaynes-Cummings internal bit “1” will be
S(B1) ~ (1/2)(1 + |(Az|Az*)|^2)
in violation of the Born probability rule because of the “More is different” (P.W. Anderson) phase rigidity of the nano-mechanical oscillator coherent real phonon (center of mass motion) over-complete distinguishable non-orthogonal Glauber states.
It is the Born probability rule that needs to be tested in this situation and not simply assumed apriori
Zeilinger et-al wrote:"In the entanglement swapping1-3 procedure, two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to Victor. The two other photons from each pair are sent to Alice and Bob, respectively. If Victor projects his two photons onto an entangled state, Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled although they have never interacted or shared any common past. What might be considered as even more puzzling is Peres’ idea of “delayed-choice for entanglement swapping”4. In this gedanken experiment, Victor is free to choose either to project his two photons onto an entangled state and thus project Alice’s and Bob’s photons onto an entangled state, or to measure them individually and then project Alice’s and Bob’s photons onto a separable state. If Alice and Bob measure their photons’ polarization states before Victor makes his choice and projects his two photons either onto an entangled state or onto a separable state, it implies that whether their two photons are entangled (showing quantum correlations) or separable (showing classical correlations) can be defined after they have been measured. In order to experimentally realize Peres’ gedanken experiment, we place Victor’s choice and measurement in the time-like future of Alice’s and Bob’s measurements, providing a “delayed-choice” configuration in any and all reference frames" - end quoteUnfortunately, for trapped ions the nanomechanical phonon coherent state is physically attached to the internal Jaynes-Cummings bit so we cannot send one to Victor. We would need an additional step, teleporting the Jaynes-Cummings bit to another two level system that could be physically moved to Victor.It’s not yet clear to me if this could be done keeping the basic initial entanglement pattern using the trapped ions. However, there may be some other more suitable way of implementing the basic idea.
Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swappingXiao-song Ma1,2, Stefan Zotter1, Johannes Kofler1,a,Rupert Ursin1, Thomas Jennewein1,b, ?aslav Brukner1,3, and Anton Zeilinger1,2,31 Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, A-1090 Vienna, Austria2 Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ), Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria3 Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austriaa Present Address: Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, Hans-Kopfermann-Str. 1, 85748 Garching/Munich, Germanyb Present Address: Institute for Quantum Computing and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W., Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L3G1Motivated by the question, which kind of physical interactions and processes are needed for the production of quantum entanglement, Peres has put forward the radical idea of delayed-choice entanglement swapping. There, entanglement can be “produced a posteriori, after the entangled particles have been measured and may no longer exist.” In this work we report the first realization of Peres’ gedanken experiment. Using four photons, we can actively delay the choice of measurement – implemented via a high-speed tunable bipartite state analyzer and a quantum random number generator – on two of the photons into the time-like future of the registration of the other two photons. This effectively projects the two already registered photons onto one definite of two mutually exclusive quantum states in which either the photons are entangled (quantum correlations) or separable (classical correlations). This can also be viewed as “quantum steering into the past”.
It’s a difficult paper to understand fully. However, their main point seems to be that they have an algorithm for computing key properties like superconductivity of non-relativistic v/c << 1 Galilean relativity many-particle systems with spontaneous broken ground state symmetries. Unlike the special relativity case, the number of massless Goldstone bosons need not be equal to the number of broken symmetry Lie algebra generators dim G - dim H when G ---> G/H (coset space of degenerate macro-quantum coherent ground states), H is the residual unbroken symmetry group where G is the initial symmetry group prior to the quantum ground state phase transition.Also, localizing the global symmetry group is not studied in their paper.It’s important to realize - and this is my insight not in the paper, that in every case the actual ground states in the coset space is a ROBUST not FRAGILE coherent condensate of VIRTUAL zero frequency Goldstonebosons as distinct from real Goldstone bosons.Furthermore the condensates are essentially generalized Glauber states for the relevant Lie algebra of the particular many-particle system.For example, space crystals are Glauber states of zero frequency virtual phonons (1 longitudinal 2 transverse) with finite wave vectors that are the reciprocals of the lattice unit cell base vectors. This is analogous to the electrostatic Coulomb field in the rest frame of a point charge that is a Glauber state of virtual zero frequency photons with a continuum of wave vectors in the Fourier transform of e/r.On Jun 18, 2012, at 7:34 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/06/08/theorem-unifies-superfluids-and-other-weird-materials/The new theorem expands on Nambu’s ideas to the more general case, Watanabe said, proving that in weird materials, the number of Nambu-Goldstone bosons is actually less than the number of broken symmetries.“What Nambu showed was true, but only for specialized cases applicable to particle physics,” he said. “Now we have a general explanation for all of physics; no exceptions.”
this Russian paper Art Wagner found is getting more interesting in terms of exotic jet propulsion, though in a cavity it might be a kind of saucer engine. Too soon to tell - I have not finished the paper but it smells good.On Jun 18, 2012, at 6:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:Begin forwarded message:From: JACK SARFATTI < email@example.com>Subject: New Russian Jet Propulsion System?: Local Quasigravity Fields of Strongly Swirling Gaseous FlowsDate: June 18, 2012 4:19:26 PM PDTTo: Exotic Physics < firstname.lastname@example.org><Screen Shot 2012-06-18 at 6.17.41 PM.png>Yeah, it looks interesting. Remember the alleged “Bell” machine in Nick Cook’s “Hunt for the Zero Point”.Die Glocke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_GlockeDie Glocke (German for "The Bell") was a purported top secret Nazi scientific technological device, secret weapon, or Wunderwaffe. First described by Polish ...Speculation - In popular culture - See also - NotesGas Dynamic Theory of Local QuasigravityVyacheslav Volov(Submitted on 11 May 2012)In the present work there was found a class of noninertial frames of reference, which satisfy Einstein "equivalency" principle more than the known noninertial frames - these are strongly swirling gaseous flows. Field intensity and potential in the mentioned frames of reference are similar to the corresponding values of natural gravity fields, but have the opposite sign. Scalar curvature of this space is negative and proportional to absolute gas temperature. There was obtained a new solution of Einstein equation which refers to type I in Petrov's classification for cylindrical symmetrical swirling ideal gas with variable angular velocity and nonzero pressure. The equation of state has a more complicated form than the known equations of state in theory of the vacuum.Comments: 23 pages, 7 figuresSubjects: Fluid Dynamics (physics.flu-dyn)Cite as: arXiv:1205.2473v1 [physics.flu-dyn]On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:01 PM, art wagner wrote:"investigations of the strong quasigravity fields that are realized, for example, in synchrotrons,where velocities of electrons rotation can achieveV ? 0,95c ? . In this case quasigravity fieldpotential quasi ? and intensity quasi g can amount to the giant values ... " http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1205.2473 ?