Text Size

Stardrive

Correction to my generalized Carnot Heat Engine efficiency equation.
dU = TdS - Xidx^i
Xi are generalized intensive parameters paired with extensive parameters x^i with summation convention.
dU/dS = T - Xidx^i/dS
maximal efficiency = Eout/Ein = 1 - (dUout/dS)/(dUin/dS)

Feb 10

Are quantum computers impossible?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Adrian Kent at Cambridge et-al appear to be able to derive the rules of orthodox quantum theory. However, orthodox quantum theory is only a limiting case of a more general theory. This is obvious in Bohm's interpretation and has been developed in some detail by Antony Valentini now at Clemson University. The idea of entanglement signaling is that we no longer need the classical signal key to decode the message from the sender at the receiver. One key assumption in no-signaling propositions is the indistinguishablity of non-orthogonal states. At least one Chinese physicist thinks otherwise: "Tian-Hai Zeng  
Department of Physics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China  
"I design a simple way of distinguishing non-orthogonal quantum states with perfect reliability using only quantum CNOT gates in one condition. In this way, we can implement pure quantum communication in directly sending classical information, Ekert’s quantum cryptography and quantum teleportation without the help of classical communications channel." Tian-Hai Zeng  
Department of Physics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China" 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0509093.pdf
I have proposed another way using entangled non-orthogonal Glauber states produced by lasers. In effect, the Glauber states show the measurability of non-Hermitian photon destruction operators when there is spontaneous symmetry breaking. I presented this at the SLAC APS meeting 11-1-11 and will again at the Boston APS meeting section D30 Monday, Feb 27, 2012.

see http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/why-im-wagering-100000-on-quantum-computing

Feb 10
I propose a new generalized Carnot Engine efficiency formula Eq 2 to replace Eq 1 below.

i.e. use 1/T* = 1/T + 1/X in Carnot's formula for max efficiency rather than T* = T + X

The analogy above is is to Kirchoff's circuit laws for resistance/impedance. Eq 1 is for a series connection. The above is for a parallel processing connection that seems more natural because the different intensive parameters are orthogonal dimensions in abstract thermodynamic phase space. Also if there are order parameters from spontaneous symmetry breakdown or from topology then there will also be Berry phase shifts.

Remember TdS and Xidx^i all have same dimensions as energy, so the dimensions must be consistent in the sums.


On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:01 AM, GNPellegrini@aol.com wrote:

Hi Jack,
 
Just to clarify one point:
 
The Navy experimentalists did not allege "anomalous energy output".  They reported as much as 50% discrepancies in the (d and d*) Maxwell relations:
 
http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/japiau/v109/i7/p07A922_s1?isAuthorized=no
 
The University of Maryland experimentalists reported an isothermal anomalous energy output (mechanical work output > magnetic work input) associated with Maxwell (d and d*) discrepancies:
 
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011SMaS...20g5008Y
 


"If 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." - Eddington

This is admittedly half-baked as I have not digested the details of Gerry Pellegrini's reports of the US Navy work on what seems to be anomalous energy production in one-dimensional magnetostrictive filaments in materials. Gerry worries that the Second Law of Thermodynamics seems to be violated because of work output under isothermal conditions in a closed cycle in which allegedly dissipation is not significant. This is a bit like the cold fusion claims.

1) there is still little understanding of far-from-thermal equilibrium physics. It's pretty much like quantum gravity and string theory really.
We have fluctuation-dissipation theorems, but they are only near equilibrium. This is analogous to first order perturbation theory of a small huv spin 2 tensor field on a non-dynamical Minkowski space-time as in Feynman's CIT Gravity Lectures. We also have Haken's work on pumped laser type systems, but none of that seems applicable to the alleged US Navy "over-unity"? data.

2) assuming that the Navy data is quasi-static reversible so that the Carnot heat engine idea is a reasonable place to start. We know that the maximal efficiency in a closed cycle (for ignorable irreversibility) in a closed cycle

MAX efficiency = (Work Output)/(Energy Input) = 1 - T(output)/T(input)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle

Therefore, if the condition is isothermal we get ZERO. In fact, the Navy guys seem to be getting something positive out, if I understand Gerry right?

OK first we have conjugate variables in thermo T (absolute Kelvin) temperature is intensive conjugate to extensive entropy

intensive pressure conjugate to extensive volume - this extends to electromagnetic properties.

Then we have for example for the differential of internal energy of the material



Here the Xi are the generalized forces corresponding to the external variables xi

X are intensive x are extensive

I conjecture that in the general case we have a higher dimensional space in which the P-V plane is a slice.
 
Carnot's formula then generalizes to

      Eq 1

In Gerry's case in particular



Why permeability of free space? Should it not be permeability of the material that could be meta-material? Similarly can add for electrostriction, for piezo electromagnetism etc.



If the above formula I have concocted out of thin air, stolen from the future like Jack and the Beanstalk ;-) is crazy enough to be true then  we see:

1) no problem when the two absolute temperatures T are the same.

2) the fraction on the RHS can be negative. This would result in apparent over unity sucking out the internal energy of the material so there is no contradiction with energy conservation first law of thermo. The material would self-destruct in such a case undergoing some kind of dramatic phase transition.

3) the fraction can be negatively large causing the efficiency itself to go negative. What does that mean? Well, it might mean exotic matter negative energy output needed to make warp drive and wormhole star gates?

As I said this is all very half-baked at this point.


"If 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." - Eddington

This is admittedly half-baked as I have not digested the details of Gerry Pellegrini's reports of the US Navy work on what seems to be anomalous energy production in one-dimensional magnetostrictive filaments in materials. Gerry worries that the Second Law of Thermodynamics seems to be violated because of work output under isothermal conditions in a closed cycle in which allegedly dissipation is not significant. This is a bit like the cold fusion claims.

1) there is still little understanding of far-from-thermal equilibrium physics. It's pretty much like quantum gravity and string theory really. We have fluctuation-dissipation theorems, but they are only near equilibrium. This is analogous to first order perturbation theory of a small huv spin 2 tensor field on a non-dynamical Minkowski space-time as in Feynman's CIT Gravity Lectures. We also have Haken's work on pumped laser type systems, but none of that seems applicable to the alleged US Navy "over-unity"? data.

2) assuming that the Navy data is quasi-static reversible so that the Carnot heat engine idea is a reasonable place to start. We know that the maximal efficiency in a closed cycle (for ignorable irreversibility) in a closed cycle

MAX efficiency = (Work Output)/(Energy Input) = 1 - T(output)/T(input)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle

Therefore, if the condition is isothermal we get ZERO. In fact, the Navy guys seem to be getting something positive out, if I understand Gerry right?

OK first we have conjugate variables in thermo T (absolute Kelvin) temperature is intensive conjugate to extensive entropy

intensive pressure conjugate to extensive volume - this extends to electromagnetic properties.

Then we have for example for the differential of internal energy of the material

dU = TdS - Xidx^i

Here the Xi are the generalized forces corresponding to the external variables xi

X are intensive x are extensive

I conjecture that in the general case we have a higher dimensional space in which the P-V plane is a slice.
 
Carnot's formula then generalizes to

Eout/Ein ~ 1 - (Tout + sumXi(out))/(Tin + sumXi(in))

In Gerry's case in particular

X1 = stress

X2 = magnetic B field

Why permeability of free space? Should it not be permeability of the material that could be meta-material? Similarly can add for electrostriction, for piezo electromagnetism etc.

If the above formula I have concocted out of thin air, stolen from the future like Jack and the Beanstalk ;-) is crazy enough to be true then  we see:

1) no problem when the two absolute temperatures T are the same.

2) the fraction on the RHS can be negative. This would result in apparent over unity sucking out the internal energy of the material so there is no contradiction with energy conservation first law of thermo. The material would self-destruct in such a case undergoing some kind of dramatic phase transition.

3) the fraction can be negatively large causing the efficiency itself to go negative. What does that mean? Well, it might mean exotic matter negative energy output needed to make warp drive and wormhole star gates?

As I said this is all very half-baked at this point.

Feb 01

Dark Energy Back From The Future 12-31-2011

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

We see the cosmic microwave blackbody radiation from the big bang aftermath in our past. The dark energy accelerating our universe's expansion however is black body Hawking radiation back from our future horizon.

See the pdf uploaded to Library Resources Cosmology on 12-31-2012
Now I am going to pull the White Rabbit out of the Top Hat for all the Pundits shining the strong light in the wrong part of the dark room.
On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:51 PM, art wagner wrote:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1011.1657v2.pdf

"This is an ongoing review on the idea that the phase space information loss at causal horizons
is the key ingredient of major physical laws."
I have been saying this quite independentlly, but Lee does not say it's a retro-causal effect from out future de Sitter horizon. Our past particle horizon is not de Sitter. Specifically, the dark energy density hc/ALp^2 is the cosmological redshift of hc/Lp^4 from our future horizon.
Tamara Davis Fig 1.1c Ph.D.
There is a contradiction in his abstract, the cosmological constant is not zero, in fact it is 1/A where A is the area of our future horizon.
On the Verlinde model I am not sure - maybe.
Look at Lee's Fig 6 and compare with Tamara Davis's Fig 1.1 c - you see Lee's problem? Which horizon is it?
Note that when g00(r) = 1 - / ^2
for STATIC LNIF (ACCELERATING) DETECTORS at fixed r in accelerating expanding curved spacetime with flat Hubble flow spacelike slices at constant CMB temperature with maximal isotropy of the CMB to 10^-5.
g(r) = +2c^2/ (1 - / ^2)^-1/2
we are at r = 0
the cosmological horizon is at g00(horizon) = 0
Using the cosmic redshift
Therefore,
1 + z = (g00(0)/g00(horizon))^1/2 ----> infinity classically without quantum gravity
but we can only see this if we could see advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking radiation because our past horizon is not even closely de Sitter.
Suppose the horizon of area A = /^-1 is Lp thick
Then the fuzzy horizon from quantum gravity is
g00(horizon) = 1 - /(/^-1/2 - Lp)^2)^2 ~ 1 - 1 + 2Lp/^1/2 + higher order terms
since Lp/^1/2 ~ 10^-3310^-28 = 10^-61
g00(horizon)^-1/2 = (1/Lp/^1/2)^1/2
g00(0) = 1
Therefore, the advanced dark energy back-from-the-future redshift is
1 + z = 1/g00(horizon)^1/2 ~ Lp^1/2A-^1/4 = T(horizon)/T(us here-now) = hf(horizon)/hf(us here-now)
i.e. the energy per advanced photon we see is 10^-61 smaller than it was when it left our future horizon and moved back along our future light cone. Indeed, that energy here-now is
hc/A^1/2
At the horizon it is  (hc/A^1/2)(1 + z) = hc/A^1/2Lp^1/2A^-1/4 = hc/A^1/4Lp^1/2
i.e. the energy of the Hawking radiation photon at our future horizon is approximately
hc/(Geometric mean of Planck length with Hubble radius)
The Unruh effect for a static LNIF observer is that the Hawking radiation black body temperature is proportional to its acceleration.
The redshifted Unruh temperature of advanced Wheeler-Feynman-Hawking black body radiation from our future horizon that we see at r = 0 here-now where a0 = 1 in the time-dependent form of the metric, is
kBT(receiver) = c^2/Lp^1/2A^1/4)
Planck et-al showed before 1900 that the energy density ~ T^4 and when you stick in the Stefan-Boltzmann coefficient you wind up with the observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2A.
To see that this obviously correct
Let A = R^2
1 + z = 1/(Lp/R)^1/2 = (R/Lp)^1/2
T(receiver)(1 + z) = T(horizon)
(LpR)^-1/2 (R/Lp)^1/2 = 1/Lp
i.e. energy density at the hologram screen horizon is hc/Lp^4 exactly as it should be using quantum field theory.