1

General Science / Re: Can 'Devs' and macroscopic superposition become reality?

« on: 15/12/2024 09:07:01 »

Thanks for all Your comments, input.

"Even so, any outputs will be classical information, because we can't measure quantum information. The reason we can't is, the equipment does that. So the double slit in a quantum interference experiment 'measures' something that we can't, and will never be able to, unless we don't need any interference."

Speaking of human consciousness, I take it a very smart and self-aware future robot, he (his consciousness) could measure quantum information directly w/o any "problems"; as though artificial life bypasses certain limitations or differences that apply to relationship between classical and quantum. 

2

General Science / Re: Can 'Devs' and macroscopic superposition become reality?

« on: 13/12/2024 12:11:32 »

Maybe you can't develop a prediction algorithm for a bee's next direction of flight. But, what if you could? What if you could "know" or "choose" a state, like the bee's next position, be it clairvoyance or, less likely, applied macroscopic superposition? Isn't that playing God, possibly blasphemy or just advancement of science, or destiny, determinism, some kind of quantum computer and a labyrinth, a simulation in which we are all trying to solve countless puzzles, where determinism negates free will, to such extent that You think that you have a choice and that you're thinking about the bee and its movements, at the moment, but in fact you are being operated all the time like a puppet by the greatest puppeteer: destiny/superdeterminism? In particular, since we can't control our thoughts, our thoughts might be borrowed radio transmissions from a hidden  radio transmitter. Or am I talking out of my ear?   

3

General Science / Can 'Devs' and macroscopic superposition become reality?

« on: 12/12/2024 12:08:27 »

I saw the above, to me great SF series 'Devs'. I'm a bit puzzled though; not that good a science. But I'm sure someone here can alleviate my confusion.

1. Apparently, if you can inhibit decoherence, macroscopic superposition IS impossible; considering Everett interpretation. However, since we are built by quants or small particles, that exist in many states before observed, if we consider, for example, a human being not as a whole, but as countless little quants or particles that make him up, that are in many states before observed directly, isn't it true that a human being, or the Moon for that matter, IS susceptible to macroscopic superposition after all, and not just to classical state/mechanics, regardless of his/its size? Of course, if the man is observed as a collection of many particles, instead of as a macroscopic living object, that is to say, if you consider a man's particles that make him up, you might somehow produce a result known as macroscopic superposition? If so, is it possible to resurrect a dead Schrodinger's cat into a living one in a blink of an eye, if you somehow inhibit decoherence and you have an advanced computer, direct access to quantum fluctuations, superposition and many states of the cat?

2. While I'm watching a human being without a microscope or nanoscope, just using my eyes, I'm not watching particles he is made of, not directly. Instead, I am watching the man as a whole, say focusing on his face, which is to say, particles inside of him or quants ARE in the state of flux or quantum superposition, for my eyes don't have microscopic zooming ability? So, the man is not in a state of macroscopic superposition as a whole, but his particles are in a state of quantum superposition for they are not observed directly? Must I zoom all the way to the man's particles to turn quantum mechanics into classical mechanics, on a subatomic level, so that the system (for all particles in question) chooses one classical state out of many quantum states, considering countless particles that make this man up, observing him with or without a zooming ability? Or simply by looking at the man (as a whole) his particles that make him up revert from quantum superposition to a classical, one state? If it is the former, the man truly is in a state of quantum flux on a quantum level nearly all the time, or indirectly maybe even in a state of macroscopic superposition because of his quantum particles, electrons etc. that make him up, until not him as a whole, but all of his particles are directly observed with a zooming scanning ability? So, the man is in a state of classical mechanics (observed as a whole) but also in a state of superposition (on a quantum level) at the same time?! Or, this observed man is in a classical state as a whole, and his particles as well, that make him up, because it is enough to observe the man as a whole to render not just his outside, but also all of his particles inside that make him up on a subatomic level? Aw. My mind is foggy on this one.

4

General Science / Re: Can an electron travel a bit in a copper wire for inertia?

« on: 26/11/2024 14:10:01 »

Thanks paul cotter and alancalverd. I am a bit more optimistic now. I'll try to expand my idea, make it clearer and easy to understand, offer it to my cousin, and if He refuses and thinks it is total baktag, or has other projects, I still might send a private message to one of You, dear Naked Scientists, for your opinion and suggestion, possibly partnership. After all, hope dies last, and humanity needs hope more than ever, where pollution is potentially apocalyptic.

5

General Science / Re: Can an electron travel a bit in a copper wire for inertia?

« on: 26/11/2024 09:27:47 »

"If you abruptly stop (or start) charged particles, you get EM radiation."
This part gave me fright.

That's how we make x-rays. Very handy!

Well, I most certainly don't want to be responsible for radiating people. It appears, this truly is a dead end, that is to say, and if You agree, periodically disconnecting the wire from zinc and especially in a big battery could (among other cons) even harm citizens? If so, I offer my sincere apologies, even though my intentions were for the greater good. I was focusing on one thing, oblivious to quite a few obstacles and cons. 

6

General Science / Re: Can an electron travel a bit in a copper wire for inertia?

« on: 25/11/2024 13:54:41 »

Thanks, Bored chemist.

"If you abruptly stop (or start) charged particles, you get EM radiation."
This part gave me fright. I sure hope that this big battery, when you disconnect the wire from zinc, wouldn't radiate people.

7

General Science / Re: Can an electron travel a bit in a copper wire for inertia?

« on: 25/11/2024 12:52:14 »

Or, and I just had another idea, why not think big and consider big batteries, eternal big batteries, that could power buildings and cities? I take it they have a high voltage, so an electron inside a copper wire WOULD travel even more than a few millimeters or 1 cm after the wire is disconnected from zinc? If so - hold onto your hats! - my initial idea might turn into free, uninterrupted electricity for buildings, shaped like a giant zinc-carbon (or something like that) battery! This might give power plants a break, even make them obsolete, since nuclear power plants can, well, explode and poison cities. Hopefully, an eternal giant battery is less dangerous than that.

8

General Science / Re: Can an electron travel a bit in a copper wire for inertia?

« on: 25/11/2024 12:22:53 »

Thanks, alancalverd.

Well, so much about my "fine" idea. For my idea to even be considered, the electron in a modified zinc-carbon battery (say, AA) ought to travel a little bit (and hopefully not measured in nanoseconds) after disconnecting the wire from zinc. I won't go into details, for now, but that is it: a very important part of the concept for an electron to travel a bit, at least a few millimeters, after disconnecting the wire from zinc. As per creating an "arc", and I'm not sure what that is, I can only hope that the battery wouldn't melt or explode or something. And, to the one member on this amazing forum, whose members are keepers of humanity's future, who might offer an ingenious and STABLE solution to this riddle, for an electron to somehow travel a little bit (a few millimeters at least) after disconnecting the wire from zinc, I'll probably send a private message and offer Him or Her 50/50 for my initial idea (after elaborating it a bit) and his addendum or additional idea and hopefully his technical solution for: an eternal battery. I know. It sounds great and a bit silly at the same time, and to prove it, electronics isn't my thing. I am a poet and writer. Tesla would be turning in his grave if he weren't cremated and his ashes placed in a spherical urn. Einstein was just asking questions, and I myself sometimes ask silly questions, or so it seems, trying to turn initial chaos into order, a silliness into brilliant solution to some of our problems. But, I digress, that is to say, perhaps someone here can figure it out and increase time a bit for traveling of an electron in an AA or some other battery.

9

General Science / Re: Can an electron travel a bit in a copper wire for inertia?

« on: 25/11/2024 08:51:05 »

That is all very interesting, y'all. And quite discouraging at the same time, since I'm not good at electronics. But, an idea (which I might share later on, considering copyright) lingers in my head, and it revolves around a zinc-carbon battery, actually. But I take it if the wire connecting zinc and carbon is either cut (somehow) or its end removed from zinc, the electron traveling in the wire will not continue to travel at all (a few millimeters) because of the low voltage? Oh well.

10

General Science / Re: Can an electron travel a bit in a copper wire for inertia?

« on: 24/11/2024 15:17:45 »

Thanks vhfpmr and alancalverd, and to all who might reply in the future.

11

General Science / Can an electron travel a bit in a copper wire for inertia?

« on: 24/11/2024 09:49:48 »

Hi. An electron is traveling through a copper wire, talking about electric circuit, let's say low voltage (though not necessarily low voltage). But, say 1 cm directly ahead you cut the wire with scissors. Will the electron freeze in place right away? Is it possible for the electron to continue traveling 1 cm for inertia or some other reason, if certain conditions are met? So, is it at all possible for the electron to somehow continue moving for a little while or longer if the wire is cut (or there's blackout or whatever) and if you were to apply something other than electricity? Thanks.

12

Just Chat! / Does an infinitely long iron bar have two tangible endpoints? (Have mercy.)

« on: 09/03/2024 13:15:03 »

Hello.

1. If You pour an infinite amount of water in an instant (by using a holodeck or advanced technology) in a bottomless well infinitely deep, by applying advanced replication, quantum teleportation and distribution of water particles,  would there be water aligned with its upper brink, at least for a short while, until it soon starts to descend, because of the antigravity plates placed equally everywhere in the well? AG here corresponds to Earth's gravity, that is to say, if you fall into the well, you will fall forever. Or the well would seem completely empty right from the start when you look into the abyss (right after putting off the magic bucket of endless water)? Forwhy, just because there is an infinite amount of stars in cosmos, that doesn't mean they are all placed next to each other filling almost the entire space (hence the blackness of space). And this perhaps applies to water molecules, if you somehow compare them to stars.

2. Everything is a matter of perspective. If you are infinitely small, a toothpick seems infinitely big to you. If you are infinitely big, the Sun seems infinitely small to you. And is it at all possible that cosmos is made out of infinitely small particles? "If from a stick a foot long you every day take the half of it, in a myriad ages it will not be exhausted." just as Zhuangzi suggested. (Is this a fine thought of mine, right before mentioning Zhuangzi, or You deem it a bit silly? I might use it for my prose project.)

3. Imagine two neighboring infinite, glowing, straight lines, that is to say, iron bars, parallel to each other, placed in a holodeck simulation, inside an endless empty space, filled with starless darkness, where the laws of physics more or less apply. And now, let's imagine that the iron bars are slowly starting to tilt towards each other, at the moment, 1 degree. Now, since the two bars are infinitely long, if they were to meet with their tips, endpoints, would that mean that their infinity is compromised? You see, if the two iron bars are truly infinite, their endpoints could NEVER touch, or else it would imply that they are not infinite after all, rather finite. So they must stay parallel to each other and never tilt, because of some unknown force, perhaps compatible with formula of creation. Ergo the two (infinitely long) iron bars MUST stop tilting (similar to the phenomenon when a starship slows down and becomes heavier when nearing the speed of light) or they cannot tilt in the first place, in order to preserve the integrity of infinity. Because, it would otherwise mean that they were finite, instead of infinite. This means, aside for yet another infinity paradox, that infinity has "certain" shapes, and it is capable of stopping or slowing down movement of certain shapes, then when two infinities would otherwise cancel each other out (similar to a computer safety measure, if we are indeed living inside a simulation generated by a quantum computer). Perhaps infinity means that there are no endpoints, tips of both iron bars, otherwise the bars would be finite? (I'm struggling with infinity.)

In other words, if you were to imagine a simple iron ring with 1 m in diameter, and then you enlarge it so that it becomes infinite, because of its "shape", which corresponds to edge, endpoint or tip, it MUST vanish and not be there anymore. And this vanishing part, I believe, has to do with the core of infinity, which applies to certain shapes or at least endopints. In essence, the one who is chasing infinity, he is actually chasing nothingness. And lack of dimensions could be a dimension by itself.

In short, there is an iron bar, infinitely long. Since I don't understand infinity, not in the slightest, and yet I'm attracted to it like a magnet, although you may or may not agree, isn't it true that endpoints are either not possible to imagine with our limited brains, hardly quantum processors? Or the endpoints simply put do not really exist, otherwise they'd compromise the integrity of "infinity"? Forwhy if endpoints do exist, doesn't that mean that the iron bar is finite after all? If you CAN imagine endpoints of an infinitely long iron bar, then you are either John Nash, who can see Big Brother as well, or infinity is but an illusion. So, infinity equals non-existing endpoints, and "finity" equals existing endpoints. Ergo infinity has parts that do not really exist, sort of like an illusion or holographic particles.

Does the darn iron bar have two endpoints, or since I can't imagine them, or because the bar is infinitely long, perhaps the endpoints don't exist, which is precisely why the bar is infinite? If the answer is "yes", as in there ARE two endpoints,  why can't I imagine these endpoints?

Does anything at all I mentioned above, hopefully, corresponds to trace of intelligence? If so, please highlight it, forwhy I might use it for my short SF story.

I just can't Imagine (infinity). Hopefully Mr. Lennon doesn't mind.

So, when do I get the Nobel prize? -_- Hopefully, You will not remove this topic, unless you really have to. After all, members here are accredit to this fine forum, who, in retrospect, are a lot less clueless than myself (and thank God for that).

In my defense, and to paraphrase Mr. Einstein, I'm just a guy asking questions. And yet, in retrospect, his questions were a lot smarter than mine. At least he is not turning in his grave, being cremated instead. (Alas, I believe that scientists took his brain before cremation of his body, in order to study it. It appears, serving humanity has its disadvantages.)

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Would a gigantic stick out of neutronium bend around the Sun?

« on: 23/02/2024 13:59:46 »

Much appreciated, Janus, for simplifying things. I understand better now.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Would a gigantic stick out of neutronium bend around the Sun?

« on: 22/02/2024 14:00:19 »

Much appreciated, Eternal Student. That was very helpful.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Would a gigantic stick out of neutronium bend around the Sun?

« on: 21/02/2024 20:16:08 »

Thanks all for commenting, be it a witty reply, because of the healing power of laughter, or a concrete answer. Yes, that is very interesting, Eternal Student and others. I see I'll have to do my homework or be more specific.

My mind turned to clay, and all I that can't think of at the moment would be some other alloy (of the stick), steel or another material, other than neutronium, perhaps an alloy of neutronium, something similar and not so similar, seen in some science fiction shows, no matter how unrealistic that may well be, with EM shields or not. Is it then possible for this stick, enormously long, to, somehow, become the 'darn' ring around the Sun, perfectly symmetrical, considering the space around the Sun that's bent by its immense gravity, or it must be crushed, ripped apart to pieces?

I offer ten thousand apologies for being clueless, again. But at the very least I'm not alienated as long as Zer0 is Clueless too. Join the club! Perhaps not. No need to strive to provide a perfect answer, just if You have an additional idea, that is very welcome, even if it is fantastic, yet possible in SF, regarding the Sun's future ring. I've other stories as well, and not necessarily SF, so this one, no matter how intriguing, is not the only one. Thanks for your efforts. You've already answered quite a bit.

Usually we consider an object being ripped apart as it approaches the sun (because the sun is the more massive thing)...

Must this very long stick, out of a certain other alloy, be ripped apart for sure? Is it at all likely for the stick to get not too close or too far from the Sun, just the right distance, so that it wouldn't be ripped apart, rather form a stable ring (which You call a sphere, perhaps a Dyson sphere, even if the stick, rather than a wall, is no more than, say, 20 cm wide)?

Presumably that force-field along the edges of the stick is also sufficient to keep it long and straight rather than collapsing together to form a sphere.

This part I don't get (science is not my strong suit). I thought that space is bent around the star, so how can this stick defy space that is bent, even if equipped with EM field? Isn't the stick, well, inside this space that is bent around the Star - where else could it be? - so no matter how strong or resistant the stick is, it ought to bend, at the very least, just like the space it occupies? I guess I'm talking nonsense to You, neither do I completely comprehend gravity, being a bit more confused than usual. Perhaps this story is too ambitious for me. Aw.

Later.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Would a gigantic stick out of neutronium bend around the Sun?

« on: 21/02/2024 15:34:20 »

This question has to do with a story of mine I'll most probably include in my manuscript about strange stories.

Imagine stick out of neutronium, two-dimensional (length and height), perfectly symmetrical, so long that it is bigger than the Sun's diameter. It is traveling in the Solar System towards the Sun. Since immense gravity of the Sun bends space and time, if the stick approaches the Star sideways, is it true that, because of strong gravity and space bent around the Sun, that the mysterious stick would be bent as well, so that it forms a perfect circle, ring around the Sun, extending 200.000 miles from the star? If so, and I offer apologies for being a bit ignorant at science, how long would the stick have to be so that it forms a perfect, perfect ring around the Sun (extending 200.000 miles from the star)? And would this mysterious stick cause some disturbance to the Sun and its activity simply by being there, since alignment of planets etc. in the Solar System is a delicate matter and even a slight change of an angle of a planet could potentially cause a bigger problem to the entire Solar System? Thank You.

17

Technology / Will thousands of undeleted e-messages break my Gmail account on cellular phone?

« on: 24/06/2023 10:27:32 »

I'm sorry if this is too simple for You guys and gals, but this is extremely important to me, since I almost never delete my e-messages (usually a bit of text, prose, poetry), and I have thousands of them on my Gmail account on Google browser, and at least hundreds if not thousands on my cellular phone, as I synchronized later on (I guess I synchronized since I use Gmail on both computer and cellular phone). Can a lot of e-mail messages cause problems on Gmail on my cellular phone, or not at all, and even delete automatically many e-messages? Thanks.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How dense is neutronium and how many stars are in the Milky Way?

« on: 20/12/2022 16:52:32 »

This is great stuff. Great. Much appreciated and keep ‘em coming as per an addendum considered. I guess I won’t make a fool of myself in writing SF story as long as I have You guys and gals.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How dense is neutronium and how many stars are in the Milky Way?

« on: 20/12/2022 10:36:23 »

Hello.

Sorry if I'm being a bore, but I need reassurance because I'm writing a SF story. 1) So, are there approximately 200 000 000 000 stars in the Milky Way (200 billion stars) and I take it that the number of the stars in the cosmos is infinite? 2) Is neutronium so heavy and dense that there is virtually no space between subparticles (in its atoms or molecules?)? Thanks.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What would you see looking at a chameleon ship that changes color fast?

« on: 17/10/2022 15:00:28 »

Thanks for the tip.

"I Really wasn't aware it was a Reality."
Me neither. Live and learn.