LIGHTNING, SUPERNOVAS, COSMIC JETS, AND COSMIC RAYS ARE THEY POWERED BY ONE CAUSE, SUPERFUSION? 

Why study of cosmic rays, lightning on Jupiter, and the spectra of superluminal jets may be of value to science..

In my belief Einstein's idea of the singularity being infinite would not seem to be true because this would violate energy conservation with energy going in and never returning to the universe.

Instead of energy going in and disappearing forever we see huge jets on the cosmic distance level reviving out from these sources. One problem here is about what actually powers these jets.

 My belief has been that gravity is so strong inside of a black hole that it condenses the matter including the gravity condensing itself to form a phase of superdense matter I call superfusion to power the jets. By doing this, any jet going outward (inside the event horizon) would have to go faster than light..

 I also invoke the idea that inside the heavy quanta as they spin faster than light, only by this method of superluminal internal motion can we indeed explain problems like where 97% the mass of the proton comes from.

  Einstein offers no explanation for what the cause of rest mass is..If mass is spinning energy it's easy to explain this but by relativity with everything at the speed of light on the quantum level the spin would only be one or minus one so the mass would only be one or minus one etc. For fermions the spin would be faster than light at different speeds and so we see a rainbow of masses for the heavy quanta. If by relativity a heavier mass goes slower through time we would expect a heavier quanta to have longer and longer radioactive half-lives but instead they get shorter and shorter. The quanta are like small clocks spinning by some of the usual theorems about time like e.g. it's about frequency and it's always about periodic fluctuation so time goes faster and faster with more mass as the spin speeds up. This is also by conservation of angular momentum.

 It would seem that we need a source of all the quanta around us. Maxwell believed the wealth of mass and energy around us was manufactured not created because we see the standard laws for all the physics we find anywhere we look.

 So I believe that the singularity may be this otherwise unseen realm of physics.

Here the heavier superfusion quanta are spinning faster than light to have enough centrifugal force to withstand the super strong gravity there.

So this would save energy conservation and be the cause of the superluminal jets.

Another question that has been asked is about what powers supernovas.. there has seemed to be no known cause of the sudden reversal after the implosion of the star as it collapses. Some people had tried to use supercomputers to simulate by seeing if neutrinos could power the radiation outward but there wasn't enough neutrino energy to do this.

 I think this might possibly be powered by superfusion but only for a short time due to the lack of constant pressure like in the singularity, otherwise seen for supernovas.

Because like the heavy quanta of subatomic physics, the heavier quanta yet of superfusion would spin faster and have a shorter half life than by relativity, and so they will be unstable at lower energy around us.. 

  Only the lower energy quanta like the electron are stable, above the electrons energy level they tend to have shorter and shorter half lives. 

So the superfusion quantum would only be present or stable inside the singularity like the neutrons in the nucleus which are held in by reradiation by the strong force, or for a brief moment when a supernova reverses.

Even so the event of the conversion of the implosion to superfusion for the quanta might be so brief that it wouldn't much change the spectra of the supernova even while powering the reradiance outward after the implosion.

 By this method of short-term superfusion the problem of changes in the spectra as are seen the anomalous spectra of the jets of black holes would mostly be solved perhaps by superfusion being so hugely radioactive and it converts over to common elements and quanta without much of its characteristic radioactive trace leftover we might expect to find and as are seen for cosmic jets.

 It's been believed by many that the real source of cosmic rays is actually supernovas so it seems that they may also be caused by superfusion.

 If so it might seem that they would have some trace in cosmic rays left over from superfusion itself.

 Another unexplained event in physics is about what powers lightning. A lightning bolt has more heat than a solar flare.

 Some believe lightning is caused by low energy nuclear reactions. In this scenario the low energy radioactivity of the cloud will be enough to strip off the electrons of the atoms there and become ionized enough that they power the lightning bolt..

But if there was radioactivity like this it could have an unlimited sort of explosion if it's strong enough to power the lightning bolt.

 So my explanation of lightning itself..

CLICK HERE or as I'll show you on the same link if you like after you read this..

... has been that the protons line up enough in the lightning bolts for some of them to fuse by the stronger near magnetic attraction and the protons flip over 20 times per second as the bolt often reverses between the Earth and the cloud which we would not expect by radioactivity only because there would be no reversal as it radiates out.

 So it seems that fusion could power lightning bolts.

 I think also that higher energy fusion might power superfusion..if the lightning bolts were strong enough like on planets like Jupiter this could also be a source of the cosmic rays. We've only been able to find the general areas of sources like supernovas. 

 So perhaps most of the cosmic rays astronomers see yet without a source might be coming from these super strong lightning sources on planets like in distant star systems which are more numerous than supernovas, and with not so many apparent high energy events, most of these distant planetary sources would not be directly visible to our astronomy. 

 So here I propose that we search cosmic rays, supernovas, and the superluminal jets of black holes and perhaps the lightning of a planet like Jupiter or Saturn within reach of sensors in use for possible evidence of related anomalous spectra by this central cause "superfusion"..

 If they all have related spectra then we have confirmation of SuperFusion..

ABOUT SPECTRAL EVENTS..

According to GPT-4..

..there are known anomalies in the spectra of galaxies, high-energy jets, supernovae, and even lightning that challenge standard spectroscopic models. For instance:

Supernovae and Jets: Observations have revealed that during the death of some massive stars, a jet can be launched through the stellar envelope, creating a cocoon that leaves a unique imprint on the spectrum of light from the supernova. This cocoon carries information about the interaction between the jet and the envelope, which can include broad absorption features not predicted by standard models1.

Galactic Spectra: The spectra of several galaxies, particularly extremely metal-poor galaxies (EMPGs), have shown that the abundances of some Si-group elements differ from the predictions of “spherical” explosion models of massive stars. These discrepancies have led researchers to consider jet-driven supernova models to explain the observed abundance patterns2.

High-Energy Cosmic Rays: Observations have also indicated that jets from collapsed stars, such as those in the Manatee Nebula, are capable of producing some of the Galaxy’s fastest particles. These findings challenge our understanding of cosmic rays and their origins, suggesting that jets from black holes can accelerate particles to near-light-speed, contributing to the cosmic-ray population3.

These anomalies are important because they provide insights into the complex processes occurring in these extreme environments and can lead to the development of new models and theories in astrophysics.

    Click Here for my link to the post about the possible cause of lightning..

The Song of Time; Rhythm (Energy conservation) And Music (Constant Rise and Fall of Higher Information)..

I have some ideas about time I hope you find of science value and I hope you may have some more time if you like!

 The Song of Time. 

Energy at the basic level is like the rhythm of the song can't be created or destroyed like small clocks that spin because they're quanta. Time may be saved here because if you spin the particle in reverse the total amount of time is saved, the quanta spin and can be reversed because all time is measured by periodic fluctuation like this.

  But all around us is information that's higher information that's being created or destroyed all the time.. this would be the "music of the song" of time. For example, you can change the weight of a mass externally by moving nearer to the N or South of the Earth, even so the mass which would be internal remains unchanged. I call these the events about weight like higher information, or the quanta, about mass. About the higher information being created or destroyed, I mean you can convert a sofa to the shelf and then to a box.

Because time and space are unified in Special Relativity moving back through time also is reversed in space. Yet the future is not as reversible for the music, with a distinct future and past. This may be caused by physics outside of relativity. The unfinished events of time, not yet 100% improved seem to be evidence against absolute relativity.

The "music" of "the song of time" is something else and nonlinear just as music in general is something other than rhythm in a song. 

About time unlike energy conservation we're mortal like the higher energy we're made of like "the song of time". And yet we know energy conservation is well proven. So my question became, does the music of the song of time match that of the rhythm or why?

 One thing I would say is if the music actually violated the rhythm then we wouldn't have energy conservation and energy conservation is really important to relativity.

 Even so I believe if we have the music inside or possibly outside the bubble of the quanta it still might violate relativity if you have the bubble stretched out like light waves and they can be miles across and the waves inside that quantum bubble might be faster than light and so violate relativity inside the bubble, as long as they match back up to the rhythm on the outside like the quanta. 

Einstein, while he's talking a lot about the doppler shift in Special Relativity (which is a wave phenomena because like a train with the whistle it changes pitch with different speed) he also often elaborates to say that light is a particle unchanged from emission to absorption and so the speed of light is constant to all observers because it's not being influenced as it travels by the waves. 

And when I'm talking about the bubble with the music of time inside of it I'm talking about the possibility of a faster than light wave.. we might be able to send the waves inside the bubble by stretching it out on both sides and use it for things like communications or computers as long as the music always matches up to the rhythm by the time it reaches the other side.

But the idea that we could only prove the speed of light by no evidence for this I think is assuming that we measure quanta with quanta and not waves with waves inside the area of the bubble.

 I would think the waves have to interact with the quanta for them to be stable and so some certain changes in the quantum on the outside reflecting the faster than speed of light motion inside that quanta may be experimentally proven.

So by this measure since relativity is fundamentally about quanta even though there is a lot of evidence about the waves, I believe relativity is where Einstein's assuming what he's trying to prove.

Few experiments have proven relativity wrong but I think perhaps physicists were looking in the wrong place. I think the lines of the classic electromagnetic field also may have waves between them to keep them unified and not bunch up or break (and to maintain the motion) and these waves may enable us to send information  faster than light by the waves... provided that they measure those waves with other waves not with the quanta! (more particularly the waves will resonate more with the waves but even so in this view they'll partially be influenced also and be measurable by the changes in the quanta to some extent). This is because relativity and energy conservation seem to be well proven. 

  Even so all around us there are also all sorts of  higher information like the music of time not of relativity..it's being created and destroyed constantly in loops of a sort of evolution, and so the cosmos may be made of alternating events like this.

Just as music is distinct from rhythm even though it obeys the rules of rhythm, I believe it may be something else relativity doesn't describe.

The reason I think it's been so tough to find the waves themselves is because they may move much faster than light being lighter than light by Maxwell's method he used to predict the speed of light exactly with and by the quantum measure they seem to be really slow..

 The quanta only show an average measure of the much faster waves, so the field seemed continuous as Einstein believed.

He said that all his castles in the air including mass and motion fail for gravity without complete continuity of the field.

Even so with a quantum computer you put in the input of the microwaves and they make the quantum gas around the outside of the quanta collapse and then you can measure the change that's taken place by input with output by the way the quanta now collapsed around its atmosphere will show. So even while the waves inside that atmosphere are much faster than light you can easily see that information that is faster than light takes place there and it's influencing the quanta just as Einstein was much concerned about this about the speed of the collapse of the wave function. To me this is disproof of relativity and it really is faster than light.

 You see on some of my older posts I know are now outdated and the post on the link is my most up-to-date and I consider it to be the most valuable and it is indeed at the top of all my pages on the web. 

  What I add as I'm now wiser about physics is what makes it hopefully the most valuable. It's been said that good and quickly seldom meet and I've been building up my ideas for 40 years.

CLICK HERE for this, a favorite page of mine about my ideas about physics in general.

How To Prove If the Collapse of The Wave Function Exists With Crystals and More..

By Using A Crystal With Each Collapse If Multiplied Up In Size..

 Einstein found the method of Brownian motion and put it on a mathematical basis. A lot of physicists had their doubts and he promoted atomic physics with a definite proof that convinced most other scientists atoms exist.

 

 The method Einstein used was about how if you had the motes of dust in the microscope the molecules of water are bouncing around...  Einstein predicted based on math he could prove how much the bits of dust would jostle around in the microscope as a function of how much the atoms of the water cause it.

 Some in science are in doubt now that the collapse of the wave function might exist even here in 2024 after a century of debate..

 It doesn't follow anywhere from Schrodinger's equations. The collapse of the wave function is where you have an atmosphere around each quanta and when you send in another quanta or microwaves as with quantum computers, you collapse that wave function as if converting from gas to the solid and this is the basis of quantum computing which was conceived by Feynman in the early '80s. 

  His idea was if you have the small atmosphere around the outside of each quanta and you send in something like microwaves, which is how they do this these days,  this is then so fast it's collapsing much faster than light and you have your input and you have your output which is the readout about how the particles change after that. This is the basis of quantum computing.  Feynman was a real genius, the founder of quantum electrodynamics, the most well-proven idea other than what is called general relativity (I call it general but not relativity as I say elsewhere).

 The collapse of the wave function in quantum computing involves something about time that Einstein believed .. There's a belief that this collapse of the wave function determines what possible futures take place in this computational event.. it computes by selection out a large number of the futures so Einstein was saying as he was getting older! Time doesn't even exist, so all possible futures exist if they do exist and are the same and will be ce la vie with cest la vie..   

 And Einstein was saying this was what many people had believed, the idea that these futures are being selected out each time the wave function collapses with so many possible  combinations of the waves, and quantum computing is a thousand times faster than usual speed of computing now. 

 Older machines multiplied twice every 18 months by Moore's law with quantum computing building online by the internet.. It would seem that quantum computers may solve most codes and so the security methods have to be made secure so even quantum computers can't solve them.. the codes are valuable but also quantum computing is valuable.. So perhaps in 2 years quantum computers will be a million times faster than we have here in 2023.

In solving the quantum codes so the internet is still secure.. They found how to solve this by way of a matrix, small points in a grid in the XYZ like three dimensions but instead 50,000 dimensions also called degrees of freedom and inside the matrix they put a dot at random to store the code and when they do this the quantum computer totally stops the computation and doesn't even make it to the first level to find where the dot is in that matrix and solve the code. And so we can rest about quantum computing and rest at high speed... So quantum computing is sound and we can sleep well about this..

Because there are so many possible ways it can compute so fast, Einstein believed all possible futures may exist.. There's a world where old dogs may learn new tricks, and sure enough by the R&D!

 

 I have this belief about what causes the passage of time..where does the arrow of time come from? Is it related to quantum time like this, or the collapse of the wave function? Einstein seemed to assume it was, and other people were too but I disagree was George Ellis the English physicist who was saying that perhaps gravity selects out the collapse of the wave function..

In Ellis' idea the collapse of the wave function is sort of the edge of time and you have different radii of the gravitational field like the Earth and different ones select the collapse of the wave function so gravity by way of the wave functions determines the distinction between the future and the past.

  One problem with this is about how if you had a starship more distant from the gravity like the Earth, time will pass much the same. And recent experiments seem to show that this isn't true. The collapse of the wave function is not about distinctions in gravity.

 

The idea that we don't have a definite past present and future in quantum mechanics needs to be improved I think. No one has yet achieved this.

My idea is that the future is the energy coming in from like the sun and also energy radiating out from radioactive processes with thermodynamic radiation outward. The present will be mostly where the bonding angles of the atoms like in and out are changed eg chemically and this will be the present because it stores the computation.

 The energy that causes the change of time comes from both the inside or the outside like astronomers have hypothesized about rogue planets or wandering planets far from their star but they have pressure enough for the atmosphere so they can have liquid water and the source of energy for life and time from inside not outside and they're powered from the heat inside the planet so it's not necessary for the heat to come to us from the outside for the future or the present just so there's energy to do the computations where they balance. 

 

  In this my idea about time, the past is the record of what's happened from these previous levels of computation from the energy from outside or sometimes the inside traveling forward in the present and there is no past only the record of it per se and that's how we know the past doesn't exist anymore. By this, the future doesn't exist yet either because the energy like from the Sun hasn't yet reached us. Weather reports without heat much would not have much weather.

 

Since the past is stored in atomic bond angles, and the present is being consistently worn down so it becomes the past, the older the record is the more worn it tends to be.

 And we could also say that the computations in the present are also continually wearing down right from the moment they're created.

 But what causes the heat to radiate out by the heating I think of as the slow speed of light in relativity. 

 Einstein said in relativity that light is a particle uninfluenced from emission to absorption so the speed of light is constant. Disconnectivity by way of relativity and the slower speed of light may cause energy to radiate out not in as Einstein believed about the collapse of the wave function, and this may also be a major source of the radiance of entropy outward. The disconnection by the "slow" constant speed of light also would cause the energy to always radiate out more by entropy.

 I also believe that CPT (charge parity time) violation involves a sort of asymmetry of time relativity doesn't describe. While the spins like small clocks are assymeteical, if space and time are unified by relativity when you move backwards through space you will move backwards through time, and yet we don't. I think this is because time is asymmetrical and this is where the arrow of time comes from as some have suspected about the rate of radioactivity of K mesons in subatomic physics. 

It's possible if relatively is thus incomplete, every spinning body has a certain amount of time asymmetry like this because of the lack of general value of relativity for other physics. 

 Another example of a problem about relativity is how Einstein says mass slows time and yet the heavier  the mass of a quanta is, from the mesons through to the baryons, the faster is its general rate of decay. This will be like a small clock running faster because it spins faster with more mass.

 These are ideas about time that don't involve a collapse of a wave function as Einstein or Ellis believed with an inward collapse..we're looking at radiation outward instead mostly.. We evolved mostly with electromagnetic bond angles changing and so our sense of time is from the entropy and radiance outward.

 Time also needs change of some significant sort for work done on the field. This reminds me that in the evolution of behavior the most important behavior is that which creates change.

Heat radiates outward thermodynamically and that's what I was saying about Brownian motion.. Einstein proved this mathematically based on larger scale observations to prove what's going on at a smaller scale with math and there are some who still don't believe the collapse of the wave function exists. It  doesn't follow from any of the equations of quantum mechanics like Schrodinger's equation.

I believe it does exist because it seems to fit quantum computing so well.. after all, we know so much so I believe we may be able to test about the collapse of the wave function by using a crystal. 

  All the atoms are higher energy sending in the microwaves and measuring the size of the crystal.. This would multiply the change in the wave function, so its hugely more then just the one quanta with the contribution all the quanta multiplied up by their number and measurable.

 Here we might take the change in one quantum and hope to carry it over by trying to measure change in the crystal at more common size with a laser and prove whether the collapse of the wave function exists or not. Since inside the crystal is out of reach we could use a crystal plate. 

 A more advanced way may be by using a superconducting crystal that offsets each input wave like solitons without much energy loss to access the inside of the crystal, also of use in higher speed applications. Since the crystal is essentially transparent to the radiation in or out this allows access to it for more uses.

One thing we could say about tuhe collapse of the wave function of the crystal if on a large scale at first I thought we could definitely prove or disprove if Einstein's concern was correct about the speed of the collapse about the speed of the wave function being so fast.

 While the crystals motion as the wave function collapses may at least prove about this, it may not be faster than light because the crystal may involve the problem that the collapse of the wavefunction is only short range around the outside of each quanta. 

 In other words the heavy quanta of the crystal may only move inward at the speed of light overall because on the outside of each quanta they're still interacting with the electromagnetic field like the virtual photons, and so overall the crystal won't collapse any faster than the speed of light. 

 Even so while this may prove the collapse of wave function I don't rule out the possiblity that even the general motion of the crystal might be faster than light as the wave functions collapse.

About Biology and The Speed of the Collapse of the Wave Function.

In the brain research of the 1920s it was proven with mice when their brain tissue was reduced  there was no limit to the memory that they held so it was believed that every neuron in the brain contains all the memory of the brain, this was the  Hologram mind concept of Carl Pribram in the '70s. The hologram as a record of an image contains all the image even on a small area when you divide it up like the brain.

 The brain has four quadrillion bits so if each neuron holds this huge amount of memory the only conceivable way it could do this I think is by way of the faster than light collapse of the wave function there. The value of this may relate directly to what we measure with the crystal as it collapses, including how the entropy of the crystal directly relates to the entropy of a neuron in complex ways with combinations of both the thermodynamic and the collapse of the wave function's influence on the computation of the time and the neuron.

One thing we say about the flow of time as the field would radiate outward like from the Sun, the present is caused partially by the collapse of the wave function and also by the field radiating outward more yet.

 If you have the crystal when it collapses it's going to collapse to a certain degree and then it's going to radiate back out and this changes the bond angles of the crystal so I believe this may be a quantum computer of a sort.

But not only that we can predict from this where the weighted values of the thermodynamic entropy arise from, if this is their source like the branching out of a tree like the right employee for the right labor in business, it's going to have the weighted value of the cause of the collapse of the wave function embedded in the electromagnetic field and the computation of time is taking place by the in and out of that radius of the field of the quantum. 

 But time doesn't radiate in it radiates out more in general because heat flows from hot to cold not vice versa. So when you have your crystal like this it's going to radiate out.. it changes  the bond angles but you're doing computations by way of the collapse of the wave function also.

This means we may have a really super super computer because it's easy to self assemble in the test tube. If we know the right kind of crystal that will do this it will be easy to make.

  It's a crystal so this is as simple as making the right kind of crystal and we send in the radiation and collapse the wave function by how it changes the bond angle. This could be achieved on a much huger scale than by usual quantum computers because so many more atoms are involved and it's so much easier to make.

This might be a way to make a quantum and room temperature quantum computer much cheaper since it doesn't need to be super cool to be stable.

  And Einstein was saying the most important thing is never stop questioning and if the cosmos was there he didn't have to look it up, and Carl Sagan was asking if there were worlds where people arise from the grave and live their life in reverse and then they're born or whether these questions have any meaning.

And I think because time and heat flow mostly from hot to cold even while it flows inward partially with the collapse of the wave function.. in general, the possibility of reversed world time events indeed have no meaning. While the collapse of the wave function Einstein believed is part of the flow of time, and while it will influence part of the weighted value of entropy, we evolved much more with the radiant outward heating of thermodynamics.

The folding of proteins in evolution seems to be much huger speed than relativity will allow as it says in the Wikipedia on the unsolved problems in science page, and with much more cohesion of the atoms that are computing this way than relativity tells us they would, the idea that this part of the computation of nature for making use of the flow of time has value. 

 Evolution would obviously get an advantage of making use of the higher speed computational power of the collapse of the wave function it was valuable for the survival of the individual there.

 Even so I believe heat radiates out more than in and so my idea about time that the future is in the energy that creates change mostly externally would seem to still be true. The direction of entropy and the general flow of time seems definitely to be more outward than inward because heat doesn't flow inward.

 Boltzmann, the father of thermodynamics held that all life is trying to achieve the lowest state of entropy and entropy is like randomness and with entropy things get old and wear out.

So even while heat flow seems about the passage of time it would seem that we hope for youth so the maintenance of youth might seem to be what's life about. What is new in this way of seeing time would be  a high energy blob of simplicity.

 Entropy goes from simple masses to wearing out.. an old Subaru wears out more the more you have it. 

 Youth would be life that's simple and this is why there are some forms of life those who study biology are aware of that actually don't age like sea anemones or small plants living in the arctic and some kinds of trees.   

 Other than mortality by way of predators or competitors these forms of life actually go from old age to youth and don't age, they actually go from old to young with time. 

 And I believe simplicity is what novel events are about because the higher forms of life age as time passes. So we pay the price for our smartness and higher evolution by getting older and dying. I think dying is not as bad as it would seem because there's a molecular clock in every cell and your body has to know what time it is, a time to live a time to die..

Entropy is actually a measure of simplicity so I disagree with Boltzmann's idea that the goal of life is to maintain simplicity.

And neither is it the use of energy because energy wears you out and causes aging.

 Simplicity hasn't done any real labor or interacted with the environment. An infant can do much and are undefeated at football kicking with mom because they haven't yet won or lost.. So life and time are both both about efficiency and simplicity. Simplicity isn't as efficient and a child can't do as much as others.

 When you look at the lives of the great people of history they did most of their great work when they were in their thirties. So life and time would seem to be about neither simplicity which can't do as much and is dumb and the wiseness and health issues like old age and somewhere in between is most efficient.

The reason we have to die in our natural lifespan I believe is that overcrowding is a limit set by millions of years of evolution and if every cell in your body didn't die you would probably get sick and die yourself.

I believe this was about what's going on with the world generally about problems like the debt and as with Covid they say it wouldn't have happened if people had been in their natural realm and not running over nature so they had moved into places like underground where we hadn't been in nature with millions of years of evolution..

 It's been believed there are going to be repeats of these type of pandemic events. It's been said that we could change the world for the good if we want to about the ecology if we cause no more harm to it.

 So that's why I believe we are wise to accept that at the end of our life.. we really aren't perfect and we should hand our life to the youth because the young people can adjust well with us and allow them room to live and breathe and move. They have life by our time of passage and there is great love in being so unselfish we live our life for others. So these are my ideas about time and time is thought of as being a final area of science and maybe the time and the future ain't what it used to be but it will be right away! 

If not right away we hope that we can make the world ecologically sound and well and healthy.  

Even while here on this link I offer a way we might solve Covid the same way the 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic fizzled out, by replacing the harmful virus by another safe bug as it was then, this isn't a deeper cure like reducing overcrowding as I say here for you.(Both links also at end of my edit if you like for a more relaxed read. Research shows your brain makes a map of the site and links are a strain because it's like teleporting from one area of the city map over the area code! I offer this option of both sets of links as on all my posts.. I think most authors might as a service readers might think well of!)

 One thing I can say as above where I'm talking about measuring the collapse of the wave function, is that a crystal like this also may have  other uses.

I think if we took the atoms of a crystal with the right type and we set the electron orbits off center of each atom and by using the right type of electron clouds and the right spacing of the atoms and molecules of the crystal this could make a sort of relay for the current flowing through it. By this we can have a superconductor at room temperature.   

 This might be a simpler kind of superconductor to make because all that would be needed is the right kind of crystal and all this would need is the right configuration of the geometry of molecules of the crystal. This wouldn't take elaborate computations and trial and error.. as with the common superconductor theories. Instead this would be based on a sort of simple wiring of the crystals flow that you can send the current through.

 To me this seems like solitons except in the crystal which is really easy to manufacture by being self-assembled. (Solitons are where the wave length of a flowing wave is offset to match more the force that holds the wave together since all waves in the universe have both forces to dissipate and hold them together so that by the time the wavelength reaches the point where would dissipate instead there it holds it together and so the wave travels much further without dissipation.)

The idea here would be that instead of the wave in the wire offset by its timing and cohesive force for the superconductor in the crystal as the current flows through it, each atom would relay that current to the atom beside it before it dissipated. The overall entropy of the crystal is almost negative and so not so much energy is lost. Because it relies on pure electromagnetic energy instead of the acoustical oscillations in the standard superconductor explanation, it may be more efficient.

If we can use this to increase the flow of currents we might also use it to reduce them, making perhaps a really good super lightweight insulator used to insulate from electricity, sound or other radiation. Lead is considered to be one of the best acoustic insulators like for wall panels but of course it's toxic and it is heavy. By using crystals I think we could take the frequency of the sound and while the crystal's atoms are not matched up to the frequency, by their separation I imagine that we could set up oscillating resonances that would match up to the sound waves, or we could even use electric currents sent through the sheet of crystal insulators that change according to the sound. Another method of achieving good sound attenuation might be just to use a layer a few atoms deep for each frequency of the sound to stop by the resonances of the oscillation and overlap them for different changes in sound (no not noise! this is science) to stop even while the insulator is lightweight and much more able to stop the sound heat or other radiaton.

Overall this might be lightweight and cheap to make so it might make a good insulator, useful for a cheap way to insulate power wires which otherwise lose 87% of their power to radiation, an energy savings comparable to alternative energy but far cheaper than building the infrastructure.

 One problem about getting the wave functions of the crystal to all collapse for measuring the wave function itself or other use like this is that it would seem you could only collapse the wavefunctions on the outside of the crystal. At any rate we could at least use a thin crystal to measure this for the proof of the collapse of the wave function itself. 

 

 Because it could be made invisible to the microwaves going in to collapse the wave function by overlapping the the orbits of the electrons I could imagine even "collapsing the entire crystal" with no problem by this method, also rendering it's ability as a quantum super computer more than just for a flat computer chip although this is also possible by a laminar chip with connecting wires like the usual computer chip but much faster, cheaper and for use as a quantum computer or research about other events like about time and entropy.

This also relates to the new physics of using a crystal with molecules that rotate trillions of times a second or more with no overall motion of the crystal.

 Another possible use of a crystal like this I think might thus be to use off center molecular rotors that would have a bit more weight on one side than the other. If necessary part of the current offsets the rotor say every millionth turn with a net force in the direction away from where we want to send that crystal as a power source.

 It might be easy to create more of these crystals for power because by simple self assembly there's an unlimited amount of spin of the molecules that would be available to use for power. All we would need to get more power would be to self assemble more by simple chemical reaction.

Here's my link about evolution overcrowding and its historic influence

Here's my later post after Covid about how we might solve covid by "fighting its dogs with our dogs", much as the 1918 Spanish flu eventually resolved.

DARK MATTER AND CLUMPING, (why Dark Matter even so may be superluminal.)

 Dark matter may be faster than light

This page is ancillary about what I consider my most important physics page for my improvement on General Relativity see this link at end of page first if you like! Or....Click Here!

 DARK MATTER AND CLUMPING, (why Dark Matter even so may be superluminal.)

 

 

 Dark matter may be faster than light in its motion of transmission. Dark matter is thought to be cold by some, that is, it moves slower than the speed of light.

This is because by usual matter around us the clumpier it is the slower it tends to travel.

Since the cosmological distribution of dark matter seems to show it to be more clumpy, it's been ruled out supposedly that dark matter is faster than light.

 Note as I say here though that gravity being an attractive force is blue shifted and higher in speed as it becomes more massive and accelerates inward towards the mass not red shifted. 

 So because of the reversal of sign between gravity and inertia or relativity that creates this clumping with lower speed of the mass in general, the argument that dark matter is slower than the speed of light may not be true and for dark matter GWD is not ruled out. As much as I know so far, this is the only theoretical reason and based on the one observation, that dark matter is thought to be cold or slower than the speed of light. So one piece of evidence like this is not disproof of superluminal dark matter. 

 

While dark matter itself has two independent lines of theory and experiment that reached the same conclusion, for the same predicted level of dark matter in the cosmos, clumping is the only known evidence so far that might limit the possibility of superluminal dark matter, and the evidence as I say about GWD may be what allows superluminal motion for dark matter.

While it's true that bodies slow down in general with more mass the speed of transmission of the force is the radial speed and here it definitely speeds up with more mass. So while clumping up may mean slower motion for the mass in general the speed of the acceleration that the force causes may be increasing and so this doesn't rule out a faster than light connection by dark matter.

Dark matter may move slower with bunching in general but here I seek to disprove or at least add on more to special relativity for gravity and dark matter. I think of the bunching as sort of a quantum related event since obviously the more mass a quantum has the slower it moves on average but for dark matter the speed of the acceleration of the force as it radiates inward would be blueshifted and also be partially superluminary for some frequencies and speeds of the acceleration.

 

 

This may be because attractive forces like those associated with dark matter are not just in any direction like in special relativity and so you have the general motion of the body slowing down even while the radial acceleration relating to the top speed of the force speeds up. This is part of the expression of the idea that Special Relativity, which is without direction mostly since linear motion and the doppler shift of Special Relativity isotropic, the opposite of forces like for dark matter that are attractive which are concerned with the general slowing speed of the motion of the body but also the speed of the acceleration inward to it by the attractive force are distinct in general from the high speed motion of Special Relativity.

In my formulation mass and inertia are not as much the same as Einstein believed. Instead mass is the tendancy for more ponderable bodies to remain at rest and attract other masses while inertia like energy is the tendancy for smaller bodies to remain in motion in more linear motion and radiate out like a gas and so reduce attraction.  This is my nonrelativistic view for dark matter and gravity.

Here's also "one of my best" physics posts. Why I think Relativity is Incomplete perhaps 30 reasons and experiments of value like about the recent measured speed of the fall of antimatter or the speed of protein folding in biology that doesn't fit Relativity (Einstein was much concerned about it) and more!

Did we evolve into the Water and Return To Land to become More Wise?

In the '70s I read a book called The Descent of Woman.. Author Elaine Morgan promotes the idea that like the dolphin or the manatee we evolved into the water and stood upright to then become more dominant by being smart by having our hands less bound and so more active.

The Waterside evolution scenario would seem to explain a lot of things as the proponents say. It's been somewhat derogatively named an explanation of all there is in anthropology, because it supposedly explains so many things while there's supposedly no evidence for it!

 For example we have body fat unlike any other land mammal and this might be easy to explain if we went into the water and developed insulation against the cold of the water and we have little body hair but hair on our head because our head was out of the water as we stood upright and like the dolphins and manatees we lost our body hair so we could be more streamlined in the water.

Our noses are vertical to keep the water out of our nose as we stood upright, and in this explanation like the seagull we have salty tears to keep the salt from toxifying us in the water of the lake. And so on.

It may be said that any good theory explains things that other theories don't like this and this would certainly seem to qualify by this but also makes predictions.

 A question is "what evidence do we have?"

Here I want to offer one possible way that we might eventually prove this hypothesis.

This goes back to what else, how I was cleaning my house one day.

I had these storage boxes and I noticed that if I take my hot weather outfits and outfits like rainwear and put the boxes on the bed with an area to sort them in and out of the box with a short trip this is a way to dramatically reduce my room clutter and keep my house cleaner and reduce time cleaning.

I can find everything in my house  $10,000 worth of stuff that was mostly out of reach if I wanted to keep my house clean and not go to sleep and have my landlord no she won't arrest me!

 In some of his books about evolution of life Carl Sagan talks about how it was much more difficult for life to go from one celled bacteria to larger life like beasts and vegetables. Or perhaps even more so to go from there to higher intelligent life like us based on the time from the first evolution of life to the larger life and also from that time to the evolution of the higher life like us.

 My explanation for this is about how at the molecular level it's a sort of cosmic balancing point.

Einstein was asking why the electron has the charge and mass it does. Supposedly this has been solved in quantum physics by taking the in and out waves and balancing them, subtract the in and out waves and you get a finite residue that gives us the electron's charge and mass to like 30 decimal places which is hugely accurate.

 This is important because I consider this to be where computation is most maximized because it's in balance and hugely faster.

 

Think of a lever as a way to move stuff around compared to just lifting it by hand. Much easier.. but for computing in particular a shorter distance to travel like this can dramatically improve efficiency.

 So the bacteria were in a much more efficient situation than the larger life would seem to be.. solution alert!.. just wait a few billion years.

 The early bacteria were only living by the shore and there was no life at first in the ocean or on land.

  

In a way this was sort of a paradise for the life because they weren't yet competing because they were continuing to radiate out around the shores without much competition and with sharing of the genes.

 Eventually though the distance around the shore matched up and resources got more scarce.. this is my explanation of why some of the life started to become like a predator.  This would have made it so this was the first time when competition had begun. And this is important because it puts pressure on the life to evolve larger structures.

 

One thing I note here is that the length of the shorelines is considerably important to the evolution of life in this explanation because on an archipelago world with many small islands the life is going to wrap around the beach sooner and so higher life may evolve sooner. So as we study exobiology...(life on other worlds) this may have influence on whether we find higher life there or not.

Life like our own hasn't let go of this short distance computing method. The basic method like sorting the boxes is where life with intelligence sorts at short distance with the neurons and this then carries over the signal to control larger boxes!

 The main reason larger or higher life may not have evolved right away is not because we couldn't use a longer distance connection but only because we hadn't found it yet

 And back to the water evolution for our own life...

One thing (among about 20 or 30 other physiological traits that we have that might be explained by our evolution to the water) proponents of this evolution event idea promote also is about how a woman's hair gets stronger in pregnancy and this would be explained because the baby is sailing around in the water with the mother and holding on to the mother's hair.

 But then I start to think about this I would think the baby would surely have sunk if this was true.

 And that was when I started to think about sorting with boxes like I was doing with my house as I said.

 What if the mother had used a raft in the water with the baby on the raft..

 And this was when it occurred to me that the rafts might have a lot of use here too.

 And here's my idea that I've been leading up to. If we evolved into the water and had rafts it would enable us to compare different things like wood and name them by reduction of the distance between what we're comparing on a raft this will give us a definite survival advantage.

 

I read the book I thought highly of in 75. Like the rich lady they gave her a present of a book and she says no thanks already have one! In Morgan's opinion we evolved into the water in our early evolution to stand up to get away from the wolves on the shelf near a level lake.

So as I was sorting my stuff in my house by putting it level on the shelf from my house I realized it's like having $10,000 worth of stuff but my house is not cluttered.

And we may have gotten smarter because we have it sailing around and we're comparing not stones like where it's been believed it was the first science where we would chip the stones and compare them. By comparing masses horizontally in the water it's much shorter trip to  figure out out how to control the sticks by whittling them.

 I think it would have been much easier to chip wood together and compare and contrast than to do something like chip to make flint.

 Life had tried this for millions of years and the dinosaurs went on for more than a hundred million years and they never found how to do chipping stone.

I would think we were both in and out of the water all day so we may have had tools continuously on the shore that might be found to prove we evolved into the water at that time with these chipping marks and rubbing marks with other wood first.

We could have made things like rafts that may be findable for the baby to sail around on and prove the Waterside event.

One of my favorites about why the Waterside Hypothesis evolution event may be valuable is because we have hair on the top of our heads. This is easy to explain if we evolved into the water and only our head was above water like other land mammals or depends on how much! 

Benjamin Franklin said trade never hurt any nation and I can imagine we had all these rafts like shiny ships we find with troves and treats and pelf and shining stones just by trading each day with these rafts to find the best values and this is how I think we may have  started language because we're comparing sidewise not vertically and this could have rapidly increased our verbal dexterity along with our hands and our brain size especially as we're competing with others around us and trading.

 Because of this much closer relationship between what we're handling and our reflexes I think this might be where we got our first language because we're naming the types of wood we  may have been using by an easy way to link the sounds we were making to map those changes in our materials. 

 Many types of animals copy each other so we may have only  needed some basic level of brain size. As I say about cleaning my house and finding all the stuff in my shelves it's far easier to compute with a short distance than a longer distance. 

Perhaps the first major event may have been where we found clubs and spears in the water and we were outcompeting others who soon copied us as we were also more super cooperating. 

 In this scenario we were both in and out of the water each day and so we evolved the known physiology that seems to be evidence for Waterside even while there may have been many times we were not in the water. 

The advantage of being in the water to make our weapons and tools and use the rafts would have been general and not definitely all the time. 

By having the soft wood we could name it with different names as we changed it and this might have been the start of language.

 It's been said the first science may have been when people started to chip rocks to make tools and compare them with each other.

 But it would be much easier to make tools out of wood that were soft and change them before we begin editing stones like this. 

In the history of architecture first usually there were wood buildings like Woodhenge In England followed by Stonehenge where this is made out of stones.

In ancient Greek history and also the history of the Orient first the wooden structures or structures like tents we're used and then later more durable construction.

 

 You may have heard that having a  hands-on hobby or just going shopping every day reduces risk of woes by all causes by a third. The vertical distinction between land and air may have been much tougher to find underlying distinctions than a much easier to compare horizontal distinction between air and water.

 As we stood up in the water and started using rafts and other valuable improvements like carrying food through the water perhaps like this might even explain why we didn't go deeper into the water like the manatees or the dolphins and not return back per se. The usual explanation based on our water evolution has been that we were in a shallow inland lake so we really couldn't go any deeper into the water.

One advantage of my idea about this the idea that we use the rafts is about how the lake explanation is not needed. By this we were living along the rivers and shores of estuaries as most life has been more recently and our genes were common. By evolving with competition without much change in our genes in connection with the life around us we would also have the rafts to aim our center of attention upward instead of down into the waves and new improved back to land.

 It would seem if this about using rafts was a dramatic event our genes would also show a dramatic change to mark out when the raft event was and this might be used to define its area whether the lake or the rivers and estuaries.

 This may also be of course how we evolved carrying ability which makes us more portable on land because we get more land to live on by doing things like carrying our food and water from places where we wouldn't have to fight as much. Have a bite without a bit! The food doesn't bite..

An idea used to explain the water ape evolution idea is about how we have more of a childhood than other life. Animals like the galapagos turtle and elephants have little to fear from other life and so they have fewer young because they are safer. 

I had believed we evolved this  childhood in that lake separated from the rest because it was safe. But my improved event might have where the safety came once we went back to land and we had weapons for the mother to defend with for the baby.

 A lot of the things e.g. cooked foods,

supercooperation, more years of childhood so we could have more time to decide what we should be about, I would believe these all came after we just first had our tools and we're able to name, trade, fight, and defend with them.

For the Waterside evolution by Morgan's idea being relegated to not one area or one time that we can find, instead we look to the continuous history of being presumably in and out of the water that the others  refer to on the Wikipedia site find it CLICK HERE or see the same link at the end of page if you like..

More particularly by way of the rafts or newer technology like this we assume since most of the people involved were able to copy the finders of this method, after first finding the logs or sticks sailing around and using them like to move things around by flotation and for weapons the technology would rapidly spread and this may have made most of the people go into the water for the advantage of using the rafts more generally. And from there the rest of it might have been how we evolved our genius.

 As they say by the Wikipedia, fossil evidence may be the only way we could ever prove or disprove the Waterside Hypothesis. 

 Research going back to the 1920s shows that every single neuron of a mouse brain contains all the memory of the entire brain.

Here's a General Site about this outlining the general principal and Click Here if you like for the Wikipedia..

10,000 year old DNA has been found, so this may allow the possibility of finding old neurons.

 

Here by my discovery in addition to the newer genetic evidence that we can find there may be also the method of finding old neurons and using them to measure out the entire life history of the individuals who originally were the owners so in addition to genetic evidence we may also find the neural and the fossil evidence. 

Wikipedia site about the Waterside Hypothesis CLICK HERE or see the same link below if you like..

 On the Wikipedia post are a lot of anthropologists who agree and a lot who disagree. While it's been ruled out that there's a central area in our history when we were in the water at the same time that Morgan and other proponents of the WH promote by fossil evidence, some of the ones who disagree with WH say that we don't have to rule out that we were generally in and out of the water for most of our evolution.

  I would hold that if most of us were connected with the water and some individuals started finding how to use rafts like this it would spread rapidly and this would make them mostly want to go back into the water and this would be during the continuous period where supposedly we weren't in the water but we actually both were and weren't.. so it seems like we weren't by the evidence cited by those who are not proponents of WH when actually we were in the water.. I believe it's possible all the traits supposedly that we "picked up at wildly different times" were only different in time but not in area because of our relatively constant association with the water. We may have not been there to adapt by evolutionary pressure in this scenaro but moreso because we had a motive and then we then adapted to the water.

Quoting the Wikipedia site .....In The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution (2013), Henry G. remarked on how a seafood diet can aid in the development of the human brain. He nevertheless criticized the AAH because "it's always a problem identifying features [such as body fat and hairlessness] that humans have now and inferring that they must have had some adaptive value in the past." Also "it's notoriously hard to infer habits [such as swimming] from anatomical structures".[38

It's the old physiological adage in anthropology and evolution that heredity is stored environment.

 Are we just to say that a wing is not evidence a bird can fly because the bird also has legs? Are we to say that flippers and fins are not evidence of involvement with the water?

 It seems obvious that our vertical nose would be explained to keep the water out of our nose if we stood upright and we still have hair on top of our head because we were in the water except for our head as we stood.. Do other apes have a nose like this or hair just on their head and not much on the rest of their body?

 As we say good science explains things that other science doesn't and it certainly seems that the water side hypothesis qualifies here, and good science also makes predictions that are definite so perhaps what we would look for is evidence within neurons and the genes. 

 I for one would not be satisfied till the evidence is read.

 The Wikipedia goes on to quote historian Erika Lorraine Milam who says that "independent of Morgan's work, certain standard explanations of human development in paleoanthropology have been roundly criticized for lacking evidence, while being based on sexist assumptions"

Much like the assertions that have been used against the Waterside Hypothesis!

So I think of this idea of the Waterside Hypothesis as not dead but like a restaurant that might be revived and improved with good turnaround value. 

Remember the wave physics of  light? It started and rose to great heights in the mid 1800s and then after relativity supposedly it's out of favor. Science has many of these events that go in and out of fashion and there's no guarantee that some of the ones that were classics may never return. The Waterside hypothesis seems to be possible because of so many things it explains. All it may really need is just more evidence than so many of the things it seems to be of value about.

 Einstein said there's evidence for deeper truths all around us if we look for them and I would say there may be evidence of life millions of years ago in evolution, perhaps even by a decluttered and clean house!

Click Here 

For the Guardian Post About Elaine Morgan's 1972 Book

"Creatures of Flame" or, First Waves, Then Fire?

When the first modern humans appeared 1.8 million years ago our ancestors brain size was up to twice the size than our other ancient relatives, our teeth were much smaller, and the ancient physiology was much like ours.

In 1999 influential primatologist Richard Wrangham claimed that due to fire we got smarter because we could cook food and this allowed for easier chewing and digestion, which nourished our fuel hungry brains.

In this scenario firelight could ward off night time predators and allow our ancestors to sleep on the ground and in caves instead of in trees.

Proving this hypothesis would need evidence from 1.8 million years ago when the first apes most like humans arrived.

Evidence has been found for the use of fire dating back a million years after this or 800,000 years at the Wonderwerk cave site in South Africa's Northern Cape province.

Here while I say this is just preliminary hypothesis, so far the time of the first discovery of use of fire from when we first evolved our more modern physiology is a million year hiatus between when the first modern humans arrived and the known use of fire.

For the above reasons about the Waterside Hypothesis I believe it's possible the influence of water came first, and also because other animals living on land could have done the same.

The common ancestors of all primates had already evolved an opposable digit that helped them grasp branches in the trees where they lived

First may have come behavioral resilience by way of the water and the rafts and only then we also might have been able to be skilled enough by this method to begin to use fire.

A million years would be vast event in evolution and I think we might be able to fill this time not with fire, but with water. So evidence may never appear no matter how much we search for the use of fire dating all the way back to 1.8 million while our activities in the water might have been more continuous.

  97% of fish live within 5 mi of the shore, as does most life. Today 75% of the world's population of people live by the ocean. Our strong bond with the water is seen by the price of real estate within site of the ocean which is 100% higher in value.

The ancient ancestors in the trees were constantly involved with handling wood, probably a lot more than other stuff so it might have been natural if they're in the water to reach up and grab the branch and start using it for other purposes more often.

Rocks may been used at first for no other purpose than others had used it for.

Firewood would seem to need the ability to carry things like fire, but unlike standing up in the water with our hands more able to move and carry things, fire wouldn't seem to have given this ability itself.

So in this possible event first we were in the water then we got smart and involved our higher modern physiology, and only then perhaps a million or 500,000 years later we discovered fire and our brains got larger  with the use of cooked foods or they might not have gotten that much larger with use of fire.

Having fish much more abundantly than we had it before may have been enough to build up our brains to large size by nourishment, and as they say fish is brain food.

More particularly we might find evidence of modern physiology before any evidence of use of fire exists and more evidence of  the water influence. Modern physiology could perhaps be there before the use of fire not just after it. 

If water was the cause of our brilliance we would expect there to be not as much change in our ancestors physiology before or after our use of fire began. Or by way of the Waterside Hypothesis at any rate not as much change as by way of the water.

It might well have been a million years from the time we got more advanced brains and smaller teeth and our more advanced physiology, to the time of the use of fire.

Of course absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence and if we can never seem to prove definitely that there was no fire, perhaps it will never be found because of poor fossilization or other causes even while people really were using fire all the way back to 1.8 million years ago.

If no evidence is ever found for fire beyond the present 800,000 year limit found we could definitely say with no evidence for fire before this time, this is evidence something else perhaps like the water may have been influential.

I would think just having a lot of fish to eat If we were in the water with wicker nets and other use of wood like spears to get the fish would have been valuable to our physiology and would make it so that our teeth could have gotten smaller because fish being soft and like water are moist and relatively easy to chew and also easier to hunt than many land animals.

A large net in the water might have been much easier to catch fish than a net the same size on land, who can catch fish on land! All the people would have had to do was just set up the net and let the water flow through with the fish.

If we were first making use of wood and the water and trading with each other also in competition this would have much improved our ability to cooperate and make us super cooperators.

Changing and naming the wood in the water would have given us language in a way that using fire wouldn't seem to.

I would think that the spread of the use of fire would only have taken place if we had  language and the use of fire itself wouldn't have given us language or the supercooperation. Perhaps from evidence about GE we may find if language was there much before the use of fire by way of our ancient physiology like if speech was before, or much before fire.

It's been found that animals given the computer to type in what they want to achieve don't need language much to solve problems. While this was supposedly evidence that language was unnecessary to our advance and evolution, one thing they're overlooking is that supercooperation itself may have come from language.

In research an ape in diapers if taught with the human child  ahead of the child in development for about 2 years but the child passes them because the child knows about cooperation and the ape has no clue.

So a major part of our evolution was about cooperation and I would hold this is much related to language because by naming materials like for trading like the wood we would have been learning about what was beyond our earlier levels of advantage.

In a way language would have been the first writing because we were writing with our memory and storing the results.

This was the first definite ownership also because research shows our brain thinks of what we own as an extension of our thought.

Language could have given us extension of our thought and this would have also enabled super cooperation.

After much competition and evolution we might have finally used fire, with language first.

Super cooperation would have given us fire but fire wouldn't have necessarily given us supercooperation or language, like evolution into the water might have. Fire seems to be evidence of higher cognition already aware that fire might not have had.