ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 202 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

ECW E-Cat World

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

Panacea-BOCAF

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
EMediaPress
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Sarfatti_Physics
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

Was Einstein wrong?
Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 @ 10:51:17 UTC by rob

Science According to a young astronomist at Cambridge University, Dr Michael Murphy, the speed of light may not be as constant as most are led to believe, thus rocking the foundation of Einsteins Special Relativity:

"It could turn out that special relativity is a very good approximation but it's missing a little bit. That little bit may be the doorknob to a whole new universe and a whole new set of fundamental laws."


Read whole story here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1456747,00.html


 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by rob


Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


Article Rating
Average Score: 3
Votes: 1


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"Was Einstein wrong?" | Login/Create an Account | 2 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: Was Einstein wrong? (Score: 1)
by mojo on Friday, April 15, 2005 @ 13:34:14 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message)
Hi,

Both the electron charge and c are components of the FSC.
These may both be affected by values of the permittivity and permeability of the vaccuum.

The permittivity and permeability of the vaccuum. may be affected by fluctuations in the basic field matices of space/time (quantum fluctuations of the vaccuum).

Over time these fluctuations (or their average values) may change abruptly as a function of time and of the local mass density as well as possibly other parameters.

mojo



Was Einstein Right? (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, April 17, 2005 @ 16:42:29 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Message: HSG yahoo group
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:24:02 -0000
From: "john_e_barchak"
Subject: QM: States of Belief?



In the Sept 04 issue of Scientific American is an article "Was
Einstein Right?" in which Chris Fuchs deals with that question in
relation to quantum mechanics. The following is from that article:

"Instead of presuming to reconstruct the theory from scratch, why
not take it apart and find out what makes it tick. That is the
approach of Fuchs and others in the mainstream of studying the
foundations of quantum mechanics.

They have discovered that much of the theory is subjective: it does
not describe the objective properties of a physical system but rather
the state of knowledge of the observer who probes it. Einstein
reached much the same conclusion when he critiqued the concept of
quantum entanglement--the "spooky" connection between two far-flung
particles. What looks like a physical connection is actually an
intertwining of the observer's knowledge about the particles. After
all, if there really were a connection, engineers should be able to
use it to send faster than light signals, and they can't. Similarly,
physicists had long assumed that measuring a quantum system causes it
to "collapse" from a range of possibilities into a single actuality.
Fuchs argues that it is just our uncertainty about the system that
collapses."

In support of his thesis that QM is not an objective view of
reality, and that quantum states and (at least some) quantum
operations are taken to be states of belief rather than states of
nature, we have the following:
Unknown Quantum States and Operations, a Bayesian View
Christopher A. Fuchs and Ruediger Schack2
Quantum Information and Optics Research, Bell Labs, Lucent
Technologies, 600-700 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, New Jersey
07974, USA ,Department of Mathematics, Royal Holloway, University of
London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK
(26 February 2004)
37 pages, 3 figures, to appear in "Quantum Estimation Theory,"
edited by M.G.A. Paris and J. Rehacek (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004)
Abstract
The classical de Finetti theorem provides an operational definition
of the concept of an unknown probability in Bayesian probability
theory, where probabilities are taken to be degrees of belief
instead of objective states of nature. In this paper, we motivate
and review two results that generalize de Finetti's theorem to the
quantum mechanical setting: Namely a de Finetti theorem for quantum
states and a de Finetti theorem for quantum operations.
The quantum-state theorem, in a closely analogous fashion to the
original de Finetti theorem, deals with exchangeable density-
operator assignments and provides an operational definition of the
concept of an "unknown quantum state" in quantum-state tomography.
Similarly, the quantum-operation theorem gives an operational
definition of an "unknown quantum operation" in quantum-process
tomography. These results are especially important for a
Bayesian interpretation of quantum mechanics, where quantum states
and (at least some) quantum operations are taken to be states of
belief rather than states of nature.

The entire paper is found at:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0404/0404156.pdf

All the best
John B.



 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.