My primary issue with that paper is that it gives very few examples in nature. I do like the fact he thinks highly of engineers.
As I was tracking hurricane sandy I noticed what looked like "cosmic" strings and multiple interlocking junctions (we call them ice halos, but do not know what forms and aligns the crystals, nor why the number of rings varies) in the jet stream NASA linked to hurricane sandy and there were what humans call gravity waves emanating from the same location. Hurricane Isaac had the same "phenomena" I recently posted photos and video of both. So to me I saw in nature what looked like quantum waves in a photo and decohering/overlapping gravity waves on the GOES satellite photo at the same locations. It is all on my blog Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Saturday, August 10, 2013, wrote: > My model predicts that the wavefunciton collapses at a velocity of > 1,094,000 meters per second. > > > http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22&rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22 > > > > Frank Znidarsic > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Bowery <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Aug 10, 2013 12:53 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:How Smart Do You Need To Be To Collapse A Wave Function? > > Most discussions of the meaning of quantum mechanics these days seem to > be about the problem of the "collapse of the wave function." In link theory > this problem simply vanishes, since there is no wave function to collapse. > Imagine if the Eighteenth Century caloric were still hanging around as the > official theory of heat: we'd be chronically plagued by ever more > complicated theories explaining the collapse of the "caloric field" when > you measure an atom's energy. What a relief to get away from the spell of > such nonsense! > > > http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/articles/PSCQM.pdf > > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]>wrote: > > This is the title of a provocative piece on quantum mechanics written by > Dr. > Dave on the "Ask a Physicist" series. > > The article is fairly lightweight but the conclusion is valid: Physicists > have no idea how the wave function collapses ... cough, cough ... but they > suspect it happens on a very short time interval, so that it is not easy to > document even with state of the art instruments. > > Since the collapse is transient and the situation returns to normal in a > femtosecond or so, one can almost opine that wave function collapse could > be > a fiction (but it is not a fiction if you are a quick study, so to speak). > At any rate, looking for QM answers - to LENR questions - can confuse > everyone unless one is very careful with the element of "time lapse." > > Here's Dr. D's (paraphrased) thirty-second quantum mechanics course: At a > fundamental level, everything in the universe behaves like a probability > wave. Particles are literally in many places at once, each with some > probability. Take an electron and fire it at a screen with two slits cut > through it, and astonishingly, the electron will go through both slits > simultaneously. But if you set up a pair of super-fast cameras to monitor > which slit the electron goes through - then suddenly - poof - the "wave > function collapses" and it really goes through only one of the two. Somehow > "observing" the system directly affects the outcome, or at least having a > very fast camera allows one to document what has happened. > > OK. Does this tell us anything about LENR? Can the required observer be > reduced to nano-dimensions? Is a virus an observer? What about a proton? > What about a proton which is now designated as the surrogate observer in > the > "expectations" of an optimistic experimenter? > > We have talked about the "expectation effect" in LENR before - and the fact > that those who expect better results more often achieve them - but this > particular detail goes beyond that bit of trick-cyclery. We want to > examine > the collapse of the nickel wave function in the context of time, with or > without ego-expectation. IOW we might explain thermal anomalies better if > we > can open up the time lapse window significantly. > > Nickel CAN open that window ... much wider than other hosts for at least > one > outcome. This is because nickel has at least twice the chance of a > favorable > redundant ground state outcome at a short time interval - compared to other > proton conductors (when we look at this in the Rydberg sense). Nickel has > 10 > valence electrons of its 28 total electrons, and it should be noted that > the > first five IP electrons of Nickel represent a Rydberg multiple and also the > first 6, so consequently there is a wider "target" for coupling hydrogen to > a wave function collapse - since both five and six are active. > > The 11th Rydberg multiple (27.2 eV * 11) which is seen in this partial > collapse is almost a perfect fit for nickels 6th IP sum. For nickel, that > total is 299.96 eV and the perfect fit would be 299.2 eV. But as fate (and > physics) would have it, nickel also has a 5th ionization potential that sum > >
