
Zener diodes have coupled quantum noise that travels at c [pdf] - gumby
http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0389v2.pdf
======
gmueckl
I only skimmed the first page of the linked paper and got a bad vibe from the
arguments it tries to establish against the validity of Special Relativity. I
looked through the author's list of past publications and that proved
enlightening: he published a lot of papers in Apeiron, a lesser online journal
edited by people who are known in the community to support fringe ideas.

And another thing caught my eye: a paper by Cahill from 2006 which claims in
its title that variations of the Michelson-Morley experiment show deviations
that are caused by gravitational waves. The abstract of the paper goes on to
explain that these waves supposedly have much stronger effects than predicted
by BR because their physics are completely different than what GR describes.
This claim of detecting gravitational waves (a decade before the massive LIGO
effort made its first detection) alone shows that the author is "out there".

Take what this guy reads with a big pinch of salt. He seems to be on a crusade
against relativity and the notion that space is not absolute.

~~~
v_lisivka
Yeah, but LIGO invalidated popular interpretation of Michelson-Morley
experiment results anyway.

~~~
gmueckl
Huh? How so?

~~~
v_lisivka
It detected waves in something instead of nothing.

~~~
gmueckl
I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Gravitational waves are
wave patterns existing inside the curvature of space-time. There is no
separate medium that carries them. It is literally only space and time.

~~~
v_lisivka
I strictly skeptical about any physical curvature of "space-time", because
that requires extra-dimensions. Moreover, it's not clear what you name "space"
or "space-time" here, due to ambiguity. If you referring to mathematical
model, then "space-time" is just mathematical abstraction. I'm okay with that
because it good for calculations. If you seriously believe that we have
"space-time" as physical object, then we are in trouble.

LIGO detected waves in physical vacuum/quantum field/quantum foam/you name it.
You can represent these waves in your favorite mathematical model and use your
favorite tools for calculations, but don't mix mathematics and physics,
please. For me, it's like "space is polygon because this predicted by OpenGL
theory, which very accurately predicts our reality".

~~~
gmueckl
There is no "ambiguity" between space and space-time. They are clearly defined
terms. Space means the 3d space that we experience around us. Space-time
includes time as a fourth dimension.

While time as a dimenauon can be seen as a mathematical formality (it
manifests as a different physical quantity in our observations), it _does_
behave much (but not exactly) like the spatial dimensions.

The entirety of GR, especially the space curvature part is formulated without
embedding space and time into a higher dimensional space of any kind. This
avoids any speculation about extra dimensions "around" our universe. It also
causes the enormous mathematical complexity of GR.

Back to the topic of gravitational waves: these arise out of Einsteins field
equation which describes space-time curvature as a result of the distribution
of mass and energy in space. These equations show the property that certain
small deviations of _curvature_ from their resting state propagate through
space as waves. These curvature changes can be measured as changed in physical
length of solid objects. This is what LIGO achieved. There is no room in
current theories for any different kind of propagation medium for
gravitational waves.

I seems to me that you have some difficulties understanding SR and GR. This is
understandable because both describe phenomena that are not directly
observable in our everyday lives.

~~~
v_lisivka
You did this again. "Einstein field equation which describes space-time
curvature" is mathematics. Formulas are correct, and they will stay correct
long time after GR will be abandoned. You just need to do one more step:
translate mathematics back into physics. Lets me quote very beginning of book
about Quantum(Integer) Mechanics:

Chapter 2

The Formulation of Quantum Mechanics

2.1

Basic Theoretical Concepts

Every physical theory involves some basic physical concepts, a mathematical
formalism, and set of correspondence rules which map the physical concepts
onto the mathematical objects that represent them. The correspondence rules
are first used to express a physical problem in mathematical terms. Once the
mathematical version of the problem is formulated, it may be solved by purely
mathematical techniques that need not have any physical interpretation. _The
formal solution is then translated back into the physical world by means of
the correspondence rules._

I cannot measure space-time with ruler, not touch it, nor walk 10 seconds ago,
nor curve it. It's just mathematical abstraction. When we translate space-time
back into physics, we will have coordinates of points in 3D space and time
points, which we can measure with ruler and clock.

Same for gravity waves. If we want to translate this back into physics, we
will need to reinterpret results of Michelson experiment. He has two
predictions: 1) ether is stationary, 2) ether is attached to planets and
objects like atmosphere (see Master of Light book). He failed to find ether
wind, thus theory of static ether was abandoned. But he also struggled to find
_any_ deviations of light travel time, so that led Einstein to think that c is
constant, so he developed his GR theory. Michelson-Morley experiment was
redone with precision of up to 1E-17 (distance to Alpha-Centaur is just
4E16m), which was good for GR. But then LIGO found that speed of light in
vacuum is NOT constant. Thus, GR is not valid anymore. So we should return to
theory of Ether, or you need carefully explain to me why you still think that
c==constant and GR is valid.

I understand that you may be invested heavily into learning of mainstream
theories, but every theory has limited life. If you think that I will change
my mind if I will spend some more years on learning of SR and GR, then I
should inform you that I think that formulas in these theories are mostly
correct, but they lack interpretation, which lead to lack of intuition. I
tested my theory on students and it's working well. I can explain what Ether,
double slit experiment, atom, and many other things in short time. I hope,
with intuition and formulas they will do much more than with just formulas.

~~~
gmueckl
Please point me to the publication from LIGO where they state that the
measured speed of light is not constant. Any publication like this would be
much more sensational than the apperntly superluminal neutrinos in the OPERA
experiment (which turned out to be caused by faulty equipment).

------
davidmr
I mean, I don’t understand any of this, but I doubt it’s worth trying to
understand. At any rate, this is a strange HN submission title for a paper
whose abstract claims to have unified quantum mechanics and gravity. Also, if
a 2016 paper really did do what it claimed in the abstract, my untrained
intuition tells me that it’s bunk because it’s languished for 2 years in
obscurity. Oh, and he solved dark matter too. That’s a nice side effect.

This seems relevant:
[https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304)

------
dvh
At university one of the assignment was to create hybrid ic, I made white
noise generator using zenner diode, it worked fine but when it was touched
inappropriately it started playing music.

------
_Microft
What is this?

The author mostly self-quotes and his articles are published on either
_vixra.org_ ("arxiv" reversed, in case you missed it; _Physicist Gerard 't
Hooft writes, "When a paper is published in viXra, it is usually a sign that
it is not likely to contain acceptable results. It may, but the odds against
that are considerable"_ from [0]) or in the - as it appears - questionable
_Progress in Physics Journal_ [1]. He even cites news sites.

These are more red flags than one should reasonably need to think it's BS,
imo.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViXra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViXra)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_in_Physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_in_Physics)

------
gumby
Check out figure 11 -- it doesn't look like instrumentation noise.

~~~
codewritinfool
This was going to be my reply also. Seems it would be easy to set up a similar
experiment with zener diodes and achieve the same results. In fact, with DSO's
readily available these days, this should be reproducible in every university
worldwide, and it would be cool to see attempted correlations across much
greater distances.

