Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: yor_on on 04/12/2010 06:36:17
-
Why would the clocks in a 'clock shop' start to march in time, synchronizing their pendulums?
They like the rhythm?
-
I think they like the rhythm.
-
Ah, a true scyentific answer at last.
Long time no see Mr Chem :)
Good to see you here.
-
Okay :)
Take a look at this little pdf
Coupled Oscillation. (http://www.siam.org/pdf/news/481.pdf)
And from there to Entanglements. Can they too be seen, or made, to oscillate this way? Or, they have to be already, don't they?
Why I wonder is because of the idea of 'transferring' energy through a entanglement. If it is correct then it seems you can throw your gas tank away :)
Also, what we deem 'information' can't be 'energy' if so it seems? And 'energy' itself can't be seen as only acting from transformations in SpaceTime, not if you from one begets two, only by observing.
==
And what would it do the conservation of energy in SpaceTime?
Either it have to be conserved, and then we will need something more transforming it seems, as we otherwise introduce energy from nothing?
==
I'm still looking for the one I saw suggesting how to transfer 'energy' but I seem to have mislaid it. Although i can offer this as an alternative, not the exact same but the principle exist. mysteries of photosynthesis (http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2010/05/10/untangling-quantum-entanglement/)
-
Let's assume that the idea holds water. You can 'entangle' a energy transfer. Why haven't we seen it macroscopically? It has to be one of the best ways there is to efficiently 'move' energy, or 'materialize' new energy?
I'm not sure which one it is by the way? If it actually falls out to 'double' the energy, could that be why we don't see it macroscopically? But this isn't really a quantum level phenomena, is it? As the end result is happy green plants? Or maybe it is thinking of it :)
Ah well, think about it and tell me what you think.
===
And combining that idea with the idea of a Bekenstein bound? Defining the states readable for you. If that is true then the same must be true for the receiving end. Teleports would become so much simpler, wouldn't they :) As we then would have a principle somehow stating that the information visible in your 'area' would have to be the information 'hidden' behind it too?
Now that's what I call remarkable?
"So you need three liter, una minuta, let me just port this ccm, don't worry it will 'inflate'"
Now that would be some gas station, wouldn't it?
PS: ccm => cubic cubic centimeter, a thousand of a thousand of a centimeter. Yes It's a new standard.. Portable one.
-
There could be as simple explanation for pendulums synchronizing, if the clocks are all mounted on a slightly flexible common surface there would be some leakage of energy from one to the other.
Comparing it to radio receivers the pendulums could be said to have a very high Q and very narrow bandwidth (anyway that's how technicians think about these matters)
-
... if the clocks are all mounted on a slightly flexible common surface there would be some leakage of energy from one to the other.
two pendulum clocks (of identical frequency) mounted on a common wall will tend to synchronise. This phenomenon was first observed by Christiaan Huygens in 1665.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupled_oscillation#Coupled_oscillations
Coupling is possible via the air, (i.e. sound) ...
(dreadful presenter [xx(] )
-
Yoron,
I think you've solved the problem of why my Atmos is such a lousy timekeeper. Obviously, it's lonely.
All I have to do is find another ten or so of its pals, and all will be well.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!
-
Eh, don't thank me,
Athos just need his musketeers :)
Oh, Atmos?
A time device you say, how quaint, calling a musketeer a time device.
Are you sure?