Tim, I had to rewrite the comment because YouTube deleted it. Probably because they’d call it misinformation.
Anyway, note the username.
Okay. The whole double slit experiment thing perfectly demonstrates how mainstream science is incorrect when it comes to the Standard Model.
They believe that particles are made up of pieces of matter comprised of many other pieces of matter yet they call it “fundamental.” No. It would be comprised of “one” fundamental piece of matter unique from all others. They go on to believe that “election’s” orbit this matter and the number of these gives the particle it’s properties. Again, incorrect. Something spinning around something isn’t going to create something unique.
Because they realized that light seems to be both, they created the double slit experiment so they could determine whether light was a particle or a wave. But, their misunderstanding of what light is is only compounded by the experiment’s results.
They believe that “observation” magically bestows physical characteristics to matter. On its face this is rediculous. They’ve created a whole new science called Quantum Mechanics eith a bunch of theories and explanations made to fit their failure to understand why the particle, demonstrates an “interference pattern” on the wall behind the two slits. (Proving its a wave) And, why they cant seem to predict where this “change” is going to occur. (Uncertainty principle.)
I have a blog site “thesingularityeffect.wordpress.com” where i get into some of this. My theories are based on the work of a Mr. David LaPoint who once ran a plasma research lab in Canada experimenting with “plasma structures in vacuum.” David made some didcoveries during these experiments and created a video series called “The Primer Fields.” A sort of “video” research paper.
Peer reviee is the strongest testiment to any theory and with today’s internet, believe, these findings have been challenged harshly. And successfully defended i might add.
Particles of matter, (including light) ARE indeed fundamental in nature. Comprised of only one thing. Energy. Particles are understood to be “concentrations of Energy.”
What gives any particle its characteristic’s are how dense the energy is, the size of the particles structure, and its related magnetic field. A particle of solid matter, let’s say, Carbon. Would have a large very dense structure and a very small or weak magnetic field. This would cause it to bump into everything if it had the momentum to do so, thus slowing it down and causing it to easentially “rest “
Light on the other hand would bump into virtually nothing* as the concentration of energy (COE) is an extremely small structure that is not dense at all and has a very large magnetic field.
More information on this can be found at my site in the primer fields catagory.
The reason the double slit experiment is so controversial in my opinion is because it completely validates their hypothesis (Not.) (since they literally made the results fit their theories.)
(*)I said a moment ago that light would bump into virtually nothing. Thats not exacly correctsince we know that it can and will bounce off of surfaces (reflection) can be diverted (refraction) and will interfere even with itself. The statement was to simply illistrate a point.
The reason mainstream science came up with the uncertainty principle is because they cant predict where a particle is at any given time even if they just fired it themselves. My theories however, explain this.
“As the particle travels through the slits it does in fact interfere with itself thus changing it’s direction based on its frequency, sending it to “hit the wall” in the places characteristic of said frequency. (Different freauency, different magnetic field, different interference pattern.)
The reason they cant predict anything is because they fail to realise that when their detector’s come into contact eith the field the entire COE forms at that spot essentially causing the particle to be observed somewhere they didnt expect.
They think that the contact with the field should change the particles direction like it bounced ehen contacting the field. (doesnt work that way.)
Anyway…
I could go on for days. As it is though, this comment is going to cause me headaches for the next three years as I’m going to have to now defend it to every mainstream yahoo with a pencil, the ability to write linear algebra, and perform differential equations. lol
What can I say.. I got triggered! lol
Intel moves towards production quantum computing with new 17-qubit chip
Devin Coldewey,
TechCrunch
Intel’s quantum computing efforts have yielded a new 17-qubit chip, which the company has just delivered to its partner in that field, QuTech in the Netherlands. It’s not a major advance in the actual computing power or applications — those are still in very early days — but it’s a step toward production systems that can be ordered and delivered to spec rather than experimental ones that live in a physics lab somewhere.
Intel’s celebration of this particular chip is a bit arbitrary; 17 isn’t some magic number in the quantum world, nor does this chip do any special tricks other quantum computer systems can’t. Intel is just happy that its history and undeniable expertise in designing and fabricating chips and architectures is paying off in a new phase of computing.
I chatted with Intel’s director of quantum hardware, Jim Clarke, about the new system.
It’s not quite like popping out a new Core processor every year, but there’s plenty of overlap.
“Our infrastructure allows us to adapt the materials and the package,” Clarke said. “If you think of a material that might be good for a qubit chip, Intel likely already has a mature process for that material or at least experience with it.”
That isn’t easy when the field of computing they’re attempting to enter is largely theoretical. That’s why partners like QuTech, a research institute under TU Delft, are essential. Intel isn’t short on big brains, but a dedicated facility under a major technical university is likely more fertile ground for this kind of bleeding-edge work.
The basic relationship is that Intel makes the chips, and QuTech tests them with the latest algorithms, models, and instruments. They turn around and say something like “that was great, but we’ll need at least 14 qubits to do this next thing, and we saw a lot of interference under such and such conditions.” Intel jots it down and a few months later (there’s no set timeline), out comes a new one, and the cycle repeats.
I’m simplifying, of course, because I don’t know the details of all this quantum tomfoolery (who can, really?), but that’s a powerful cycle to nurture.
The results so far let Intel boast of a chip that, thanks to the company’s manufacturing prowess and the work by QuTech, has considerably improved in reliability and performance over the last two years, while the architecture, system infrastructure (such as interconnects and testing methods) and so on have evolved alongside.
Of course, these amazing quantum computers still don’t really do anything yet — and they have to operate at around 20 thousandths of a degree above absolute zero. But the first problem is more exciting than limiting (the potential of these machines, theoretically, is enormous), and the second one, to my surprise, isn’t really a big deal any more.
Turns out (perhaps you knew, but I didn’t) that you can package a multi-qubit quantum computing system, cooled to the millikelvin level, in an enclosure the size of an oil drum.
There’s a long way to go in the quantum computing world, but it’s a no-brainer for companies like Intel to bet on the concept; its billions of dollars in infrastructure serve excellently for collateral.
There are new ideas of space, energy, and matter
Bose–Einstein condensate
Chill a gas to almost absolute zero and all particle movement ceases.
When this occurs, information is shown to behave according to the rules of Quantum Mechanics. But no one knows why.
Einstein predicted in 1925 that this phenomenon would occur, but actually reaching the conditions necessary to observe this in the lab has always been a challenge.
His understanding was that a Bose–Einstein condensate, which is a state of matter of a dilute gas of bosons cooled to temperatures very close to absolute zero (that is, very near 0 K or -273.15 °C). Would create such conditions where a large fraction of the bosons would occupy their lowest quantum state. at which point quantum effects would become apparent on a macroscopic scale. These effects are called macroscopic quantum phenomena.
Mixing two Bose–Einstein condensates isn’t like blending ordinary gases — the condensates instead behave like waves, interfering with one another so that two atoms combined together can result in no atom at all.
When these gasses become Bose–Einstein condensate’s it’s because they’ve been “forced” to show this characteristic. This phenomenon shows in experiments that all particles hold this potential. Thereby proclaiming wave particle duality as fundamental
Satyendra Nath Bose first applied the quantum statistics of light quanta or photons, expanded later by Einstein to include general matter. Taken further by experiments in electromagnetism and metallurgy, we currently call this principle Superconductivity.
…”The International Space Station is a prime location to perform such experiments because of lack of interference from the pull of gravity.” Nola Taylor Redd stated in his article on the International Space Station and NASA’s Cold Atom Lab.
When we are able to see concepts and observations prove out from a few angles like this, it becomes clear that all matter, energy, and light are comprised the same way.
David LaPoint, the creator of the video series “The Primer Fields,” emphatically declares this to be true as well. Although his theory is in direct opposition to the Standard Model, I feel that it explains much more that it leaves to question and supposition.
Following his concepts of energy to matter conversion, I propose the following as a better understanding of particle physics as we currently understand them.
The reason this effect occurs is because at any other temperature other than absolute zero, the waveforms (particles) are able to move about their environment This movement acts as a natural insulator from this phenomenon for particles not normally forced into these parameters within our normal space.
Once they have been slowed to a point where there movements no longer cause interruptions, the magnetic fields of the waveforms are able to maintain cohesion.
In this state, current is allowed to travel throughout the entire piece of matter as if it were the energy of the matter itself. This effect is most observable in nature when conducting experiments in the electromagnetic spectrum.
The SM does not allow for these interactions without QM. I propose that all matter, energy, and light are created as concentrations of energy called Waveforms or particles.
That each particle is a stable, self sustaining structure of energy created by electromagnetic interactions in plasma in vacuum.
I could be wrong,
But what if I was right?
Bose–Einstein condensate – Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensateedia
Scientists to Create Coldest Spot in Universe on Space Station
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-create-coldest-spot-universe-space-station-video-170711710.html
The Primer Fields
The Eight Biggest Stories In Exponential Tech
Written By: Jason Dorrier
Posted: 12/30/13 10:30 AM
2013 in Review: The Eight Biggest Stories In Exponential Tech
It’s been a fast-moving year, so before diving headlong into 2014, we thought we’d tap the brakes and revisit some of the year’s most notable stories in exponential technology. Keep in mind, this ain’t science, and the list is by no means all-inclusive. If you have a favorite topic we missed, forgive but don’t forget—tell us in the comments!
Google Robotics
In December, Google announced they’d acquired seven robotics companies over six months. Then they announced an electrifying eighth purchase—Boston Dynamics and their menagerie of mind-blowing bots. Added to Google’s ongoing artificial intelligence research, the potential for smart, capable robots seems greater than ever.
Bitcoin Mania
The virtual currency, Bitcoin, had a hyperactive year. In short: bubbles, busts, hackers, heists, speculators, regulators, pirates, and IPOs. Bitcoin evangelists believe it’s the beginning of a momentous shift from traditional centralized currencies to decentralized digital currencies. Skeptics think it’s a fascinating experiment, but ultimately untenable.
A Computer for Your Face
For $1,500, tech geeks rocked Google’s touch- and voice-operated augmented reality Glass device—even as skeptics warned Glass would mark the end of privacy. Oculus took their Rift virtual reality headset from duct-taped ski goggles to $75 million venture darling. Gamers and developers say its the real deal. A consumer version is on the way.
Driverless Cars
Self-driving headlines were previously dominated by Google, but 2013 brought the idea mainstream as heavy hitters including BMW, Nissan, Toyota, and Ford promised the tech from 2020 to 2025. Tesla beat all, pledging 90% automation in 2016. CEO, Elon Musk, said the last 10% is a more difficult problem and further away.
Technological Unemployment
Some economists suggested stubbornly elevated unemployment isn’t cyclical, it’s structural. The culprit? Advanced robots and automation are taking jobs from humans, and it’s only going to get worse. History tells us such arguments fail to predict all the new things humans will do instead—but a few experts insist this time is different.
Uncle Sam Wants Your Data
According to secret documents leaked by Edward Snowden some of the biggest names in tech had enabled the NSA to snoop on, well, just about everyone. The Snowden affair has changed the cost-benefit calculation of information exchange, somewhat tarnished trust in big tech companies, and heightened interest in information security.
Drone Delivery
Drones for good? What a novel idea. Amazon grabbed headlines by promising door-to-door fulfillment of orders by drone. But the firm wasn’t the first to suggest drone delivery. Matternet proposed an automated, Internet-inspired drone network to deliver goods in cities or medicine to poor rural areas seasonally cut off by flooded road.
Buy Your Next 3D Printer…at Staples?
Staples announced it would offer the $1,300 3D Systems Cube desktop 3D printer, while other firms introduced cheap (or free) 3D scanners. Is 3D printing poised to go mainstream? Autodesk CEO Carl Bass cautioned against the hype but went on to say, “Just as rip-mix-burn became the anthem for digital music, we are starting to do the same thing for the physical world with capture-modify-print (or download-modify-print)…”
http://singularityhub.com/2013/12/30/2013-in-review-the-eight-biggest-stories-in-exponential-tech/
A clue to duality
High energy physics researchers still rely on the concept that it is the nucleus of the photon that they must isolate in order to measure (observe) the particle.
The nucleus is only a “concentration” of “some” of the energy.
When this concentration becomes enough to be detected, it has already formed a stable structure complete with polarity and field lines.
The particle’s field lines are comprised of “the same” energy; only smaller… As is the nucleus.
If you are looking for the nucleus of a photon, you immediately run into a problem. Your assumption asserts that the photon’s existence is contained within it’s nucleus. It is not.
A piece of energy, or a particle is comprised of many smaller, individual, pieces of the same energy. The nucleus is only a concentration of the energy, and is only “part” of the atomic structure of the photon.
All interaction, with any part of this structure, will cause interference, if forced into a frame of reference. Since the photon is a “sum of it’s parts,” any attempt (accidental or otherwise) to reference just the nucleus will fail, and any point that is detected will reference the entire piece of energy as if it were in that location.
The Mission is Sedition
By: Richard L. Brown
October 2, 2013
Sedition is defined as an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority with the intent of causing the disruption of government. Considered a subversive act, it often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. The intent to “overthrow the government” is not a required element of the charge.
In 1798 the United States stood on the brink of war with France. The Federalists believed that Democratic-Republican criticism of Federalist policies was disloyal and feared that aliens living in the United States would sympathize with the French during a war.
Directed against Democratic-Republicans, of the time, a series of bills were passed by the Federalist Congress in 1798 and signed into law by President Adams. The most controversial of the new laws was the Sedition Act. It permitted strong government control over individual actions, and was in essence, an act that prohibited public opposition to the government. Fines and imprisonment could be used against those who “write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government.
When Democratic-Republicans in some states refused to enforce federal laws, such as the Whiskey tax, and threatened to rebel, Federalists threatened to send the army to force them to capitulate
SUBVERSIVE POLITICAL ACTION – “A planned series of activities designed to accomplish political objectives by influencing, dominating, or displacing individuals or groups who are so placed as to affect the decisions and actions of a government.” Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.
Under the laws of the United States, to betray a sworn oath of office, may be considered “treason,” “sedition,” or a “high crime”
History also shows that these “suspensions” of civil liberty’s were soon afterward removed, as they were only required to be in place due to the distracting influence of the time. When we look at the wordings, what Speaker Boehner and his allies are doing, seems to fit into the definition of perfectly. If this is in fact true. Then the definitions should, and I believe will, mirror the actions and accusations being compared to, and against them.
That said…, if we now agree that their intent, and actions meet the definition proposed; “Sedition,”
-
Then, we as citizens would be honor bound to discuss this amongst each other in an attempt to verify it’s validity.
-
Argue it’s merits amongst each other in an attempt to reach a quorum,
-
If the quorum is in agreement, present an accusation and demand that charges be proffered.
What about a Human Singularity?
I was just thinking about how the Human race could itself be on a course towards a “Singularity.”
I’ve made the comment many times before, that “we are at a time when changes in morals, values, and ethics are at an all time high for our species.”
At no other time in history, have we gone through so many different changes in sociological and psychological belief systems at one time.
Evolutionary change is apparent in our species as we attempt to adapt o the environment that is being created around us.
If we now look at things this way, isn’t it a bit more apparent how some of these might be related?
The world communicated for history very slowly. As such, neither did MVE’s. (When everyone lives in the same communities, raising the same kids, etc, values and traditions are handed down. These traditions and values will typically be reflected in the behaviors of the larger group. (or the species in Darwinian evolution)
Only when the larger group “needs” the change, (unless isolated) the individual desires will be suppressed and therefore largely unchanged. ( Edit/cont. – What is done in privacy against these …. )
If however, the group DOES need for the MVE systems to change, they will.Let’s look at an example. When “population needs raise, so drops the age of marriage.
But I want to mention the Singularity connection.
In this, one might look at the numbers of changes within numbers of generations.
Ie: How many (and on what level) MVE changes have gone on within a society as a whole, and how many generations did it take for the change to occur. (Ie: The acceptance of homosexual behavior.)
If we take today
The only “assertion” David has really made.
…”But we must realize that the fields around an electron, as well as all around
other matter are actually two opposing bowl shaped electromagnetic fields.
Unless we properly understand this basic magnetic field structure,
we will never be able to properly understand the fundamental forces of matter
from the sub-atomic to the galactic.” David LaPoint
![The_Primer_Fields_Part_1.mpg_snapshot_04.15_[2013.07.21_22.14.52]](https://thesingularityeffect.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/the_primer_fields_part_1-mpg_snapshot_04-15_2013-07-21_22-14-52.jpg)
Baffling pulsar leaves astronomers in the dark
http://sci.esa.int/xmm-newton/51314-baffling-pulsar-leaves-astronomers-in-the-dark/
Baffling pulsar leaves astronomers in the dark
24 January 2013
New observations of a highly variable pulsar using ESA’s XMM-Newton are perplexing astronomers. Monitoring this pulsar simultaneously in X-rays and radio waves, astronomers have revealed that this source, whose radio emission is known to ‘switch on and off’ periodically, exhibits the same behaviour, but in reverse, when observed at X-ray wavelengths. It is the first time that a switching X-ray emission has been detected from a pulsar, and the properties of this emission are unexpectedly puzzling. As no current model is able to explain this switching behaviour, which occurs within only a few seconds, these observations have reopened the debate about the physical mechanisms powering the emission from pulsars.
 |
|
Artist’s impression of a pulsar in radio-bright mode. |
Few classes of astronomical objects are as baffling as pulsars – which were discovered as flickering sources of radio waves and soon after interpreted as rapidly rotating and strongly magnetised neutron stars. Even though about 2000 pulsars have been found since the first was discovered in 1967, a detailed understanding of the mechanisms that power them still eludes astronomers.
“There is a general agreement about the origin of the radio emission from pulsars: it is caused by highly energetic electrons, positrons and ions moving along the field lines of the pulsar’s magnetic field, and we see it pulsate because the rotation and magnetic axes are misaligned,” explains Wim Hermsen from SRON, the Netherlands Institute for Space Research in Utrecht, The Netherlands. “How exactly the particles are stripped off the neutron star’s surface and accelerated to such high energy, however, is still largely unclear,” he adds.
Hermsen led a new study based on observations of the pulsar known as PSR B0943+10, which were performed simultaneously in X-rays, with ESA’s XMM-Newton, and in radio waves. By probing the emission from the pulsar at different wavelengths, the study had been designed to discern which of various possible physical processes take place in the vicinity of the magnetic poles of pulsars. Instead of narrowing down the possible mechanisms suggested by theory, however, the results of Hermsen’s observing campaign challenge all existing models for pulsar emission, reopening the question of how these intriguing sources are powered.
“Many pulsars have a rather erratic behaviour: in the space of a few seconds, their emission becomes weaker or even disappears for a while, just to go back to the previous level after some hours,” says Hermsen. “We do not know what causes such a switch, but the fact that the pulsar keeps memory of its previous state and goes back to it suggests that it must be something fundamental.”
Recent studies indicate that the switch between what are usually referred to as ‘radio-bright’ and ‘radio-quiet’ states is correlated to the pulsar’s dynamics. As pulsars rotate, their spinning period slows down gradually, and in some cases the slow-down process has been observed to accelerate and slow down again, in conjunction with the pulsar switching between radio-bright and quiet states. The existence of correlated variations in both the rotation and emission suggest a connection between a pulsar’s immediate vicinity and, on a grander scale, its co-rotating magnetosphere, which may extend up to about 50 000 km for objects like PSR B0943+10. In order for the radio emission to vary so radically on the short timescales observed, the pulsar’s global environment must undergo a very rapid – and reversible – transformation.
“Since the switch between a pulsar’s bright and quiet states links phenomena that occur on local and global scales, a thorough understanding of this process could clarify several aspects of pulsar physics. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to explain it,” says Hermsen.
 |
|
Artist’s impression of a pulsar in X-ray-bright/radio-quiet mode. Credit: ESA/ATG medialab |
Hermsen and his colleagues planned to search for an analogous pattern at a different wavelength – in X-rays – to investigate what causes this switching behaviour. They chose as their subject PSR B0943+10, a pulsar that is well known for its switching behaviour at radio wavelengths and for its X-ray emission, which is brighter than might be expected for its age.
“Young pulsars shine brightly in X-rays because the surface of the neutron star is still very hot. But PSR B0943+10 is five million years old, which is relatively old for a pulsar: the neutron star’s surface has cooled down by then,” explains Hermsen.
Astronomers know of only a handful of old pulsars that shine in X-rays and believe that this emission comes from the magnetic poles – the sites on the neutron star’s surface where the acceleration of charged particles is triggered. “We think that, from the polar caps, accelerated particles either move outwards to the magnetosphere, where they produce radio emission, or inwards, bombarding the polar caps and creating X-ray emitting hot-spots,” Hermsen adds.
There are two main models that describe these processes, depending on whether the electric and magnetic fields at play allow charged particles to escape freely from the neutron star’s surface. In both cases, it is believed that the emission of X-rays follows that of radio waves, but the emission that is observed in each scenario is characterised by different temporal and spectral characteristics. Monitoring the pulsar in X-rays and radio waves at the same time, the astronomers hoped to be able to discern between the two models.
Obtaining observing time on the requested telescopes turned out to be a rather lengthy procedure. “We needed very long observations, to be sure that we would record the pulsar switching back and forth between bright and quiet states several times,” says Hermsen, “So we asked for a total of 36 hours of observation with XMM-Newton. This is quite a lot of time, and it took us five years before our proposal was accepted.”
 |
|
The two states of pulsar PSR B0943+10 as observed with XMM-Newton and LOFAR. Credit: ESA/ATG medialab; ESA/XMM-Newton; ASTRON/LOFAR |
The observations were performed in late 2011. The X-ray monitoring performed with XMM-Newton was accompanied by simultaneous observations at radio waves from the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) in India and the recently inaugurated Low Frequency Array (LOFAR) in the Netherlands, which was used during its commissioning phase, while testing its science operations.
“The X-ray emission of pulsar PSR B0943+10 beautifully mirrors the switches that are seen at radio wavelengths but, to our surprise, the correlation between these two emissions appears to be inverse: when the source is at its brightest in radio waves, it reaches its faintest in X-rays, and vice versa,” says Hermsen.
The XMM-Newton data also show that the source pulsates in X-rays only during the X-ray-bright phase – which corresponds to the quiet state at radio wavelengths. During this phase, the X-ray emission appears to be the sum of two components: a pulsating component consisting of thermal X-rays, which is seen to switch off during the X-ray-quiet phase, and a persistent one consisting of non-thermal X-rays. Neither of the leading models for pulsar emission predicts such behaviour.
“The data collected during our monitoring campaign are truly challenging our understanding of pulsars, since no current model is able to explain them,” comments Hermsen. “In the second half of 2013, we plan to repeat the same study for another pulsar, PSR B1822-09, which exhibits similar radio emission properties, but is characterised by a different geometrical configuration. This will allow us to study these extreme objects under different viewing angles,” he adds.
In the meantime, these observations will keep theoretical astrophysicists busy investigating possible physical mechanisms that could cause the sudden and drastic changes to the pulsar’s entire magnetosphere and result in such a curious emission.
“The unpredictable behaviour of this pulsar, revealed using the great sensitivity of the telescopes on board XMM-Newton, may require a radically new approach to study the fundamental processes that power these fascinating objects,” comments Norbert Schartel, XMM-Newton Project Scientist at ESA.
Notes for editors
The study presented here is based on X-ray observations of pulsar PSR B0943+10 performed with ESA’s XMM-Newton between 4 November and 4 December 2011. These observations consisted of six observations in the energy range between 0.2 and 10 keV, each lasting six hours. The X-ray data were gathered at the same time as observations at radio wavelengths performed with the Indian Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) at 320 MHz and the international Low Frequency Array (LOFAR) at 140 MHz.
The research was led by Wim Hermsen (SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research and Astronomical Institute ‘Anton Pannekoek’, University of Amsterdam), Lucien Kuiper and Jelle de Plaa (SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research), Jason Hessels and Joeri van Leeuwen (ASTRON and Astronomical Institute ‘Anton Pannekoek’, University of Amsterdam), Dipanjan Mitra and Rahul Basu (NCFRA-TIFR, Pune, India), Joanna Rankin (University of Vermont, Burlington, USA), Ben Stappers (University of Manchester, UK), and Geoffrey Wright (University of Sussex, UK). The Pulsar Working Group and the Builders Group from the LOFAR-telescope, which was at the time in the commissioning phase, supported the observations.
The European Space Agency’s X-ray Multi-Mirror Mission, XMM-Newton, was launched in December 1999. It is the biggest scientific satellite to have been built in Europe and uses over 170 wafer-thin cylindrical mirrors spread over three high throughput X-ray telescopes. Its mirrors are among the most powerful ever developed. XMM-Newton’s orbit takes it almost a third of the way to the Moon, allowing for long, uninterrupted views of celestial objects. The scientific community can apply for observing time on XMM-Newton on a competitive basis.
Related publications
W. Hermsen, et al., “Synchronous X-ray and Radio Mode Switches: a Rapid Global Transformation of the Pulsar Magnetosphere“, 2013, Science, 339, 6118, 436-439, DOI:10.1126/science.1230960
Contacts
Wim Hermsen
SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research
Utrecht, The Netherlands
and Astronomical Institute ‘Anton Pannekoek’
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Email: w.hermsen
sron.nl
Phone: +31-88-7775871; +31-614547929
Norbert Schartel
ESA XMM-Newton Project Scientist
Directorate of Science and Robotic Exploration
European Space Agency
Email: Norbert.Schartelesa.int
Phone: +34-91-8131-184
America’s Next Era in Space. The Plasma Universe
Einstein On The Porch:
It’s Sunday or so says the calendar and the habit of knowing what day it is because it tells me what my responsibilities are, or should be, is waning as a natural consequence of fully immersing myself in the Florida environment I have contemplated for 20 years or so.
The calendar may be the first to go into obsolescence followed shortly afterward by my watch thus allowing my full perception of the time-space continuum in new contexts and my place in it.
The cranes now stroll to within 30-feet of my back porch and I don’t obstruct their movement with my movement for a camera or even a sip from my coffee cup because for a few minutes I am not a steward of nature but part of it.
The first day of my calculus class years ago the teaching assistant announced, Anything known to man can be expressed through math,” and as she walked through the aisles of desks gifting us with the course syllabus I waited for her arrival.
When she handed me the paper I asked her, “How does math express beauty?”
She smiled and surely made a mental note she had a trouble maker in her class.
A Gorilla or a Dog???
Right before I saw this, I witnessed my dog anticipating a physics “cause and effect.”
I had a used water in the freezer, so when I went to open it it’s “cap” was blocked. (Frozen)
So, I went to tap it with my finger,
“Nope, too much.”
But I figured a small squeeze, “Maybe not,” and the dog noticed my grip on the bottle, he saw the pressures could “cause” him to “Shy, for a split second, (like we all do, yes I know what Anthropomorphism is) 🙂
I already speak most of his for him, (Real problem is he actually speaks four of ours) I swear! 🙂
Anyway, cognitive thought, or the ability to “sense” our environment and spatially equate that to the mind, as awareness, (The sense of something different and out of place within your normal (at what point?) existence. that is cognitively understood to be of something “separate” of “us.”
Vision, Hearing, (echo location) and (not always) touch are the only senses that give us this understanding, or “awareness.”
Cognitively though, the only thing required for “intelligence” as we apparently call it, is this “awareness.”
The others that follow are of course varied, more and more journals I’d have to write,
but it comes down to this,
Work in progress
http://screen.yahoo.com/gorilla-shows-kids-whos-boss-104751530.html
But how do we know if it’s bigger?
Let’s say we take a piece of Helium.
We’ll weigh it, and call it 2.
Let’s take another of these and slam it into the first one really fast.
What comes out must surely be less than what went in right?
What if it comes out 3 plus 1?
Can there be one that’s bigger?
Or would that be fusion?
How do we know it can’t be 3?
Do we really know our He weighs 2?
If the piece is opened isn’t there a lot of energy there?
How much do you think “it” weighs?
What if I told you that the numbers that fly off are not just a weight per say, but more along the lines of a ratio of the whole piece flying?
That only temperature of the fusion is required to go up or down the scale? (The assumption being that Iron is at the bottom of this scale)
Try this.
Let’s convert Hydrogen Plasma into a number we can deal with.
157,500 deg K (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+13.6eV+%2F+boltzmann+constant++in+fahrenheit)
Want to know something interesting?
Our Suns core temperature, (a Hydrogen burning sun) is almost exactly ten times that.
15.7 Million
CERN: Universe of Particles
A speaker magnet with poles like ???
I just decided it was time to pull out the old experiment from school.
So, I took one of my many precious pictures of my daughter, and removed it from it’s glass, and frame enclosure. (It’s for science, she’ll understand!)
WI just realized I should probably do it with prep props! 
WHAT: Experimental Platform for working with Magnetism.
NEEDED:
1 inexpensive glass photograph frame (thinner glass)
1 scrap mid range speaker (magnet still intact)
1 piece of “Steel wool.”
A file
1 sheet white paper
1 pair vice grips (larger than the circumference of the speaker)
1 pair channel loc’s
Here’s how I got the magnet. (Sorry, I forgot to film this part)
I took the vice grips and applied pressure around the outside of the magnet until I was able to remove it from the speaker while still in it’s circular shape. (I got lucky I think. This may take you a few times)
Anyway, once removed, there was also a “plate” I had to separate. (That’s what the channel loc’s were for.
Once removed, I ended up with a magnet like this.
(Note the white sheet of paper?)
The picture frame is just that. Clean the glass well, (BE CAREFUL!) Make sure it’s dry, then shave the “Steel wool” over the glass with the file. Let as many shavings hit the glass as possible.
Now, by using the magnet underneath the glass, you can see how the magnetic fields work.
My first observations?
There is a field zero halfway into the side of the magnet.
That the shavings will be able to diagram the entire magnet for me.
That it (so far) looks amazingly like the way the poles work on a planetary body.
Some might ask, “How are pics of space Singularity?”
Easy.
It’s all iow we define Singularity.
If we say that it’s a time when changes will occur around us to such a degree that Humanity itself will change, and that these changes will be dramatic in their scope, yet seen as if they were everyday common events, then pictures like this would surely qualify.
We are at a time in history where we are able to see the Universe with such clarity that our entire understanding of it is being challenged and re-written.
NASA Admits Alcubierre Drive Initiative: Faster Than The Speed Of Light
NASA is currently working on the first practical field test toward the possibility of faster than light travel.
Traveling faster than light has always been attributed to science fiction, but that all changed when Harold White and his team at NASA started to work on and tweak the Alcubierre Drive. Special relativity may hold true, but to travel faster or at the speed of light we might not need a craft that can travel at that speed. The solution might be to place a craft within a space that is moving faster than the speed of light! Therefore the craft itself does not have to travel at the speed of light from it’s own type of propulsion system.
It’s easier to think about if you think in terms of a flat escalator in an airport. The escalator moves faster than you are walking! In this case, the space encompassing the ship would be moving faster than the ship could fly, keeping all the matter of the ship intact. Therefore, we can move faster than light, in a massless cloud of space-time.
What is the Alcubierre Drive? It’s actually based on Einsteins field equations, it suggests that a spacecraft could achieve faster-than-light travel. Rather than exceed the speed of light alone in a craft, a spacecraft would leap long distances by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it. This would result in faster than light travel (1). Physicist Miguel Alcubierre was the first that we know to identify this possibility. He described it as remaining still on a flat piece of space-time inside a warp bubble that was made to move at “superluminal” (faster than light) velocity. We must not forget that space-time can be warped and distorted, it can be moved. But what about moving sections of space-time that’s created by expanding space-time behind the ship, and by contracting space-time in front of the ship?
This type of concept was also recently illustrated by Mathematician James Hill and Barry Cox at the University of Adelaide. They published a paper in the journal proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences (3).
It was once believed that Einsteins theory of special relativity means that faster than light travel is just not possible. This is a misconception, special relativity simply states that the distance you travel depends on how fast you move, for how long you’re moving for. So if you are driving at 70 mph you will have covered 70 miles in one hour. The confusing part is that, no matter how fast you are moving you will always see the speed of light as being the same. It’s similar to sound, if you close your eyes and imagine that the only sense you have is hearing, you will identify things by how they sound. So if a car is driving at a rapid speed and honks its horn, we know that the horn is always tooting the same tone, it’s just the car’s motion that made it appear to change.
Special relativity also showed us that the atoms and molecules that make up matter are connected by electromagnetic fields, the same stuff light is made up of. The object that would break the light speed barrier is made up of the same stuff as the barrier itself. How can an object travel faster than that which links it’s atoms? This was the barrier.
The only problem with our modern day science is that creating distortions in space-time require energy densities that are not yet possible for humans, or so they say. NASA scientists are currently working on tweaking Alcubierre’s model.
Faster-than-light travel, also known as hyper space or “warp” drive from what the masses know for sure is currently at the level of speculation. Although there is already a lot of evidence that shows it is possible and has already been accomplished, mainstream science is still catching up. We are at the point right now where faster-than-light travel is still theoretical, but possible.
At the same time, we have to look at other factors that are now coming to light. As former NASA Astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor Dr, Brian O’leary Illustrates. This topic has recently had another media explosion and congress recently discussed and looked at evidence for Earth like planets recently found by Kepler Telescopes. Three “super-Earths” to be exact that are most probably teeming with life (4). Furthermore, former congressmen and women recently participated in a citizens hearing on the subject of UFOs a few weeks ago. You can read more about that here. I’ve used this video in many articles before, but it’s just a great clip from when Dr O’leary was still with us.
UFOs and the technology behind it should not be subject to speculation. Odds are we have retrieved some of that technology, or manufactured some ourselves. Some of our science may not be so theoretical after all.
“We now have the technology to take ET home” – Ben Rich
Related articles
- Is Warp Drive Possible? (33rdsquare.com)
Cosmography of the Local Universe
This is a really cool 3-D model of the known Universe.
Cosmography of the Local Universe
I think it’s kind of ironic and I must say awesome, that they put it just how I see it.
When playing around with some of my theoretical ideas, I typically attempt to see it just like this.
I’ve always assumed that this is how it would be done in a lab, so it’s how I always try to imagine the big picture.
For me, it allows me to be able to see space, matter, and energy in a scale that my mind can comprehend. I can see energy as simply a plug in, matter as what’s taking up the space. and motion through the glass walls.
Because it’s 3-D, I can see the stuff that isn’t there as well. In fact, it’s one of the main reasons why I know we exist in a closed environment. (At least relative to us anyway, but that’s a whole other page!)
I just wish I could freeze and save a few of the frames of this presentation. If anyone of my readers knows how I might be able to do this, I’d appreciate it.
Thank you,
thesingularityeffect
Aluminum-air battery (Primer Fields Technology?)
Typically, ramblings like that below are some of my most brilliant of ideas. What they usually are is my attempt to simply get them down in whatever medium I have available. That said, I don’t like to remove them either.
below was an attempt to state something a little closer to this. (I hope)
When I think of batteries. I think of 1.5 v of various sizes that Duracell made for all of my toys, hobbies, devices. Because of the same voltage, I learned of current with these dry medium, electricity storing devices.
I also knew of the one in our car. This one, and the one in the motorcycles had lead plates, and battery acid, (but people always added water???) Anyway. We also called it Electrolyte which kind of spelled it out. Had to learn current again. 🙂
When I think of cars, I think of helicopters.
??????
R/C Helicopters! lol
I play with UAV’s. And unfortunately, one of the only reasons we don’t all have a very safe helicopter in our driveways, is because of the fact that battery technology does not scale upwards. Why not?
There has never been a combination of metals, or hydried’s or whatever, that works quite right.
My thinking was this. Picture better “waveforms” that store in better substances.
I’m thinking that the energy conversion part would be better off done using electrical engineering rather than brute force chemistry however I also believe this problem may also only be industry or application related.
What I’m saying is this. There are going to be various possible ways that manipulation of these fields are done. As we are currently left to theorize on some of these at this time, we can only do just that. Since we know that some of our science was good, 🙂 we also know that some of it still is.
If energy is separated in as many different ways as it is. And each of these have certain specific useable properties, it makes sence that there are commonalities with some more combinations that we already imagine. Stability or manipulation of current frequencies might be one such a way. If a waveforms equal to it’s field size, and matter etc. Then that would indicate that in some cases these might be separated, isolated, manipulated, etc thus allowing for very specific uses of energy and matter.
If one type stores and releases better when in this range of wave frequency’s then that could mean use Iron in Oxygen with a touch of Sulfuric acid and dry till crispy or something! lol
Either way, the switch would be using the chemistry to force the change this way, this might be a wholly wrong approach though. It shouldn’t take long to knock out most of the thinking that aren’t going to work. Whatever the course, I can definitely see storage of energy working way better if electrically “loaded” so to speak. I’m sure that there is some Waveform (particle) that is going to be very good at loading and holding and releasing large sums of energy, It’s going to probably be of some conductive material, that will say “fill up” those little fields. IDK
Could something like this be the switch?
Think about it.
If we are using fields, then we think copper.
f we are thinking Copper, we are thinking Lead, and Acids.
Lead, Acids, Copper, and Electromagnetism equals the ability to very simply change field conditions and environments.
Storage and therefore use, currents etc stability, would come from using common storage mediums, to whatever “field” or Energy structure, Stable waveform at a specific frequency to mass, that is stored in say, a medium of another where it’s conductivity, to , etc … get it? To convert these, I could easily see how an acid, and or oxidation type reaction could serve as the mechanism for a common electrical current need.
Metal-air batteries get their energy via interaction between oxygen and metals. In this new battery system, the aluminum serves as the anode and the oxygen in the air as a cathode. The system is made up of aluminum plates that give up their energy and must eventually be replaced (via recycling, the company says). Water is used as an electrolyte, and thus it too must be replenished on a regular basis. The company claims that each plate holds enough energy to carry an EV for approximately 20 miles and that their system currently holds 50 of the plates at one time, which together add up to a charge capacity of 1000 miles (the system needs a water fill-up every 200 miles). Once the plates are depleted they must be replaced.
The idea of using metal-air batteries isn’t new, researchers have been studying the possibilities for several years and some have even suggested aluminum-air batteries are the wave of the future. What’s been holding them up is the problem of carbon dioxide in the air causing corrosion damage—that’s what’s new with this system. Phinergy claims they have found a way to prevent the gas from entering the system and in so doing have created a battery that can last as long as the car it powers. The entire approach is novel in the respect that a metal is used almost as a fuel source, rather than as a battery component. When it runs out, more fresh metal is needed, and it being metal, it’s rather heavy—one pack of 50 plates weighs roughly 55 pounds. For that reason, Phinergy is promoting the aluminum-air battery as a trip extender, rather than as a means of powering commuter trips. It could be used either in vehicles that typically make long journeys, or as an added feature for traditional EVs (which typically have a 100 mile range at best). They add that they believe cars using their aluminum-air batteries will be sold commercially as early as 2017.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-phinergy-aluminum-air-battery-capable-fueling.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-phinergy-aluminum-air-battery-capable-fueling.html#jCp
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-phinergy-aluminum-air-battery-capable-fueling.html
Demonstration of an inductively coupled ring trap for cold atoms
Abstract
We report the first demonstration of an inductively coupled magnetic ring trap for cold atoms. A uniform, ac magnetic field is used to induce current in a copper ring, which creates an opposing magnetic field that is time-averaged to produce a smooth cylindrically symmetric ring trap of radius 5 mm. We use a laser-cooled atomic sample to characterize the loading efficiency and adiabaticity of the magnetic potential, achieving a vacuum-limited lifetime in the trap. This technique is suitable for creating scalable toroidal waveguides for applications in matter-wave interferometry, offering long interaction times and large enclosed areas.
GENERAL SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY
Introduction and background. Trapping and manipulation of particles in a ring geometry is of interest on length scales varying from the giant LHC at CERN, to atoms trapped in microscopic optical vortices about the focus of laser beams. One particular advantage of a ring trap is its closed geometry, meaning that trapped particles are confined to a finite space but without any confinement in one dimension. The lack of azimuthal trapping is interesting, as this complete degree of freedom opens a one-dimensional phase space for exploration.
Main results. We have implemented a new type of ring trap for cold atoms that is conceptually different from existing technology. We utilize Faraday’s law to induce an alternating current in an isolated conducting loop of copper, through application of an external, time-varying magnetic field. The induced current in turn creates a spatially varying magnetic-field near the loop, which, when superimposed with the drive field, creates a magnetic minimum that traps ultra-cold atoms. Using induced current means that the undesired perturbations due to the magnetic-field from connecting wires are eliminated. We demonstrate that this technique can store atoms on second-long scales, limited by the background vacuum pressure.
Wider implications. Our results show a method of making toroidal traps that inherently minimize roughness of the potential. This geometry is being actively explored for atom interferometry with long interrogation times to develop precision rotation sensors, which could offer unprecedented sensitivity for internal navigation, reducing the dependence upon GPS.
1. Introduction
Development of ring traps for cold atoms is an active topic of theoretical and experimental study, motivated by the ability to create one-dimensional waveguides with periodic boundary conditions, which have applications in two regimes. For radii smaller than ~ 100 μm these traps can be filled with quantum degenerate gases, enabling studies of persistent current flow of a superfluid in a multiply connected geometry to realize atomtronic [1] analogues to a SQUID [2, 3] or of Hawking radiation from sonic black holes [4]. Alternatively, large radius rings can be utilized to create a matter-wave interferometer [5]. Atom interferometry is sensitive to both inertial effects and external fields and has been used to perform precision measurements of rotation [6–8], acceleration and gravitation [9, 10], in addition to determination of fundamental constants [11], magnetic gradients [12] and ac Stark shifts [13]. State-of-the-art experiments typically use unguided atoms, requiring large path lengths at which point acceleration due to gravity or the Coriolis force due to the Earth’s rotation becomes significant [14]. Ring traps provide an ideal geometry for these applications due to the common-mode rejection of the identical paths, with trivial extension of the enclosed area using multiple revolutions [8]. They are especially suited to performing rotation measurements using the Sagnac effect [15]. As the rotation sensitivity of a Sagnac interferometer is directly proportional to the enclosed area, large area interferometers are desirable [16].
Early techniques for generating large area ring waveguides exploited dc magnetic traps to create large ring [16, 17] and stadium [18] geometries. One of the challenges in producing scalable magnetic traps is avoiding losses from Majorana spin-flips at field zeros, which can be achieved using time-averaged magnetic fields [19, 20, 33] or radio-frequency (rf) dressing [21–24]. These methods can be combined to realize time-averaged adiabatic potentials [25, 26] to create versatile traps with adaptable radii. For studies of persistent flow in quantum fluids small traps with r ~ 20 μm are required which are possible using combined magnetic and optical or all optical traps [3, 27–29]. A novel technique to create time-averaged toroidal potentials using mechanical oscillation of a magnetic nanowire has recently been proposed [30].
In this paper, we demonstrate a large radius ring trap created from the time-averaged potential arising from the current induced in a conducting ring [31], suitable for applications in the regime of atom interferometry. A key benefit to this trapping scheme is that the geometry is defined by a macroscopic circular conductor, avoiding end effects associated with dc electromagnetic traps that act to break the cylindrical symmetry of the ring [32]. The other advantage is that the ac field averages out any roughness in the magnetic field to create a smooth trapping potential.
2. Theory
An inductively coupled ring trap for cold atoms is realized using the configuration shown schematically in figure 1(a), where a small conducting ring of radius rring is placed at the centre of two pairs of Helmholtz coils, one of which produces a time-varying ac drive field 
and another providing a uniform dc bias field 
both perpendicular to the plane of the ring. The time-varying magnetic field induces a current in the ring proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the ring, which following Griffin et al [31] is given by
where R and L are the electrical resistance and inductance of the ring, Ω = ωL/R is the ratio of the ac drive frequency to the natural low-pass frequency of the ring and δ0 = tan−1(1/Ω) is the phase-shift of the induced current. The current induced in the ring creates a spatially inhomogeneous magnetic field Bring(r,z), as illustrated schematically in figure 1(c). Inside the ring this field opposes the drive field B1(t) in figure 1(b) such that at any time in the cycle the total instantaneous magnetic field vanishes on a circle inside the ring radius, as indicated in figure 1(d).
Figure 1. Inductive ring trap. (a) A small copper ring is placed at the centre of two pairs of Helmholtz coils that provide an ac magnetic field at frequency ω (green coils) and a static bias field (grey coils) along the 
-axis. Gravity acts along 
. Panels (b)–(d) show the magnetic field along 
in the plane of the copper ring at time t = 0, where (b) is the ac drive field and (c) is the magnetic field created by the out of phase induced current in the ring. The total field is shown in (d), resulting in a field zero indicated by 
that is time-averaged to give a magnetic ring trap.
If the ac drive frequency ω is much larger than the frequency of atomic motion within the trap (typically ~ 100 Hz for magnetic traps), the effective magnetic field experienced by an atom is given by the field magnitude averaged over one cycle 
[19, 31, 33], where T = 2π/ω is the cycle period. The resulting time-averaged field magnitude creates a cylindrically symmetric trapping potential U = mF gF μB〈B〉 for atoms in weak-field-seeking states with mF gF > 0 that provides both radial and axial confinement to create a toroidal trap. This is seen from figure 2(a) which plots 〈B〉 in the plane of the ring (z = 0) calculated for Ω = 20, with a steep barrier on the outside of the trap due to the large magnetic field close to the conducting ring and a parabolic local maximum at the origin. Minimization of 〈B〉 with respect to r shows the radius of the time-averaged minimum rtrap is located at the point where the inhomogeneous field of the ring is equal to 
. As the induced field Bring∝B0, the trap radius is determined purely by the conductor geometry. In addition, for Ω 
1 the induced current is independent of resistance. Thus the trap radius is robust against fluctuations in the external field amplitude and the effects of Ohmic heating. The ac current also averages out corrugations caused by current meandering within the conductor [34, 35] to create a smooth, symmetric potential.
Figure 2. Time-averaged ring potential. (a) Cycle-averaged B-field magnitude in the plane of the ring creating an axially symmetric minimum inside the conductor radius. (b) Radius of the zeros in the instantaneous magnetic field during the ac cycle, calculated for Ω = 20 with no external bias (black) and for Bb = 0.1B0 (red) to show the zeros being excluded from the trap centre at r/rring = 0.8 due to the bias field, preventing Majorana spin-flips. (c) Finite element simulation of the induced current density within the cross-section of the copper ring used in the experiment for B0 = 110 G at ω/2π = 30 kHz, showing the current is strongly localized to the outer edge of the ring. (d) Time-averaged trapping potential for |F = 2,mF = + 2〉 state of Rb including gravity, calculated from the current distribution in (c) for Bb = 5 G. White circles indicate positions of field-zeros across the cycle, white cross indicates trap minimum and the black cross marks the saddle point used to define the trap depth.
In order for the atomic magnetic dipole to follow the external field adiabatically it is necessary for the Larmor frequency 
to be much larger than the rate of change of the magnetic field given by 
[36]. If this condition is not met, then the atom can undergo a Majorana spin-flip into an un-trapped magnetic spin state and is lost from the ring. For the time-averaged potential it is the instantaneous value of the field, which must meet the adiabaticity criterion at all times in the cycle requiring |B(t)| > 0. Figure 2(b) plots the radial coordinate of the instantaneous zero r0 throughout the cycle, which shows that the magnetic field zeros spend the majority of the time centred at the trap minimum rtrap, and sweep through the whole ring plane at times t = T/4 and 3T/4 due to the phase-lag between the driving and induced fields. Thus atoms loaded into the trap would be rapidly lost due to the non-adiabatic potential within a few cycles of the ac field. It is therefore necessary to apply an external dc bias field to move the field-zeros away from the trap minimum. The trivial solution is to place a current carrying wire aligned along the 
-axis through the centre of the ring to generate a radially symmetric azimuthal magnetic field [16]. However, this approach has a number of drawbacks as it compromises optical access within the ring trap and the end effects of the wire can break the symmetry. It also reduces the scalability of the ring trap for creating traps with radii of a few mm.
Instead we consider the case of a uniform dc bias field 
that is generated using a second pair of Helmholtz coils as shown in figure 1(a), which acts to offset the ac field to remove the field zeros. A lower limit for the bias required to remove the zeros from the trap centre can be obtained analytically from the amplitude of the combined ac field at rtrap using the relation for Bring(rtrap,0) given above such that 
, which simplifies to
corresponding to 5.5 G for a 110 G drive field and Ω = 20. As the bias is increased, the circle of zero field is pushed out from the trap centre, creating inner and outer radii in the plane of the ring outside of which atoms are lost, analogous to the ‘circle of death’ in a TOP trap [33]. The effect of the bias field can be seen clearly from figure 2(b), where the zeros no longer sweep through the trap centre but create an exclusion region around the trap in which atoms can adiabatically follow the field. This effect can be characterized by introducing an effective temperature T0 corresponding to the lowest potential energy of the field zeros during the cycle relative to the trap minimum. For atoms with energies large compared to this value, there is a high probability of being lost from the trap over a timescale related to the axial trap frequency, whilst for atoms cold compared to the effective temperature the atoms will only explore the adiabatic region of the trapping potential.
A consequence of the applied bias is to offset the bottom of the trap, reducing the trap depth and relaxing the radial confinement. For large bias fields the trap becomes flat and anharmonic along r, thus a trade-off exists between a large adiabatic energy range in the trap and tight confinement in the radial direction for achieving T0 
10 μK. For ultracold gases, such as a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC), this is not an issue as only a weak bias field is required. An alternative solution proposed by Griffin et al [31] is to apply a quadrupole magnetic field centred on the ring, however for our present trapping parameters the gravitational sag due to the weak (~ 100 Hz) axial trap frequencies causes the resulting trap minimum to overlap with the shifted zeros.
As discussed in the original proposal [31], the inductive trapping technique represents a scalable approach to generating smooth, symmetric magnetic ring traps simply by changing the radius of the conductor. Smaller radii traps require increased driving frequency and amplitude to maintain the condition Ω 1, which approaches the Larmor frequency for traps below 1 mm. In this regime the time-averaged picture breaks down and it is necessary to consider rf dressing of the potential, which is the subject of future work [24]. Thus the time-averaged inductive ring trap is ideal for creating large area traps for interferometry, whereas small inductively dressed traps are more suitable for investigating superfluidity.
Our experiment utilizes a 2 mm thick copper ring with internal and external radii of 7 and 12 mm respectively, machined from an oxygen-free copper gasket which has been electropolished to give a smooth surface. These dimensions are chosen to provide a large thermal mass to prevent distortion of the ring due to heating from the induced current. However, the large conductor cross-section means the simple model assuming a single current filament used so far is insufficient to calculate the trap parameters. Current is induced at a frequency of 30 kHz corresponding to in a skin depth of 0.4 mm in copper. This, combined with the radially dependent emf that scales as r2 due to the increased magnetic flux enclosed in a larger area, confines the induced current to the outer edge of the ring. The exact distribution of current density and phase induced within the conductor is determined using a finite element simulation [37], the magnitude of which is plotted in figure 2(c) for B0 = 110 G which reveals the strong current localization, in good agreement with an independent lumped element calculation [38]. Integrating over the cross section gives a total induced current amplitude of 140 A, with phase δ0 corresponding to Ω = 18. The predicted power dissipated in the ring due to Ohmic heating is 4.3 W, giving an effective resistance of 440 μΩ and L = 42.5 nH, significantly larger than the dc values of 100 μΩ and 20 nH determined experimentally and corresponding to a uniform current distribution. The complete time-averaged trapping potential is then calculated using the theoretical current distribution to model the field from an array of 50 × 20 current filaments. Figure 2(d) shows the trap potential for B0 = 110 G and Bb = 5 G for the |F = 2,mF = + 2〉 state of 87Rb including gravity to match experimental parameters presented below. The copper ring creates a trap at rtrap = 5.2 mm with radial and axial trap frequencies of 16 and 60 Hz respectively. These frequencies are much slower than the 30 kHz ac frequency, validating the time-averaged assumption above. The figure also clearly shows both the region of avoided zeros either side of the trap minimum with T0 = 4 μK, and the effects of gravitational sag that shifts the saddle point of the centre below the plane of the ring with a height of 740 μK.
3. Experiment setup
We experimentally characterize the time-averaged ring trap using a laser-cooled cloud of 87Rb atoms, requiring the ring to be held in vacuum. The ring is mounted horizontally on a pair of Macor rods in a home-built octagonal glass vacuum cell, shown in figure 3(a). The octagonal cell is constructed by gluing high quality BK-7 glass substrates to a glass–metal transition using Epotek 353ND to permit anti-reflection-coating on both sides of the glass. The ac drive field is provided by a pair of coils driven by a 600 W audio amplifier, using a series LCR resonance circuit tuned to 30.5 kHz to cancel the inductance of the drive coils and giving a maximum drive field of 110 G in the plane of the ring. The bias field is provided by shim coils surrounding the chamber, giving a maximum vertical bias of 9 G.
Figure 3. (a) Copper ring mounted in vacuo, supported by two Macor bars, (b) ten-shot averaged absorption images of atoms released from the ring trap after 200 ms at B0 = 110 G for Bb = 4.6 G with N = 0.5 × 106 and (c) Bb = 9.2 G with N = 3 × 106, demonstrating the change in the thickness of the traps as the zeros are pushed away from the trap minimum. The images are cropped to the internal diameter of the copper ring.
Atoms are cooled and trapped in a standard magneto-optical trap (MOT) that is axially centred 8 mm below the plane of the ring. Following a short 10 ms optical molasses to reduce the temperature to 20 μK, the atoms are optically pumped into the |F = 2,mF = + 2〉 state and transferred into a 40 G cm−1 quadrupole trap. To load the atoms into the ring trap the quadrupole coils are used in conjunction with an additional bias coil aligned along the 
-axis to raise the atoms in the quadrupole trap to overlap the cloud with the ring trap radius rtrap ~ 5 mm. Atoms are moved in 200 ms followed by a 10 ms hold time using a current ramp optimized to minimize heating, resulting in 1.1 × 107 atoms in the quadrupole trap with a temperature of 40 μK and radius σ = 0.6 mm. The quadrupole trap is then turned off, and the ac drive coils and vertical bias field turned on. As a consequence of the coil geometry the quadrupole coils are strongly inductively coupled to the ac drive coils, and must be electrically isolated using an external relay that imposes a 0.5 ms delay between disabling the quadrupole and enabling the ac amplifier. The atoms then freely evolve in the ring trap for a variable time, before turning off the ring trap and performing absorption imaging of the atoms using a circularly polarized probe beam aligned along the 
-axis after a 3 ms time of flight. Due to the large and fluctuating Zeeman shift caused by the ac magnetic field amplitude it is not possible to image the atoms in the trap directly.
One of the challenges of using a single-chamber vacuum system for the ac ring trap arises due to copper acting as an efficient getter material for rubidium atoms. This leads to a build up of rubidium atoms on the ring from the background vapour required for loading the MOT. At the peak ac drive amplitude there is over 4 W of power dissipated in the ring, leading to a heating rate of 2 K s−1. The effect of this heating for long trap hold times or over accumulated experimental runs is to release rubidium from the copper surface, leading to a significant enhancement of the rubidium vapour pressure and consequently reducing the background limited lifetime in the trap and leading to large shot-to-shot atom number fluctuations. The use of OFHC copper, with its inherently low vacuum outgassing rates [39], for the ring ensures that the increase in vapour pressure is primarily due to the release of adsorbed rubidium atoms.
This issue was circumvented using low rubidium vapour pressures and long (8 s) MOT load times, with regular cleaning cycles performed by running the ac field at full power for up to an hour and waiting for the vapour pressure to recover. This problem might be overcome using UV light to perform light assisted atomic desorption [40] to prevent a build up of atoms on the copper ring, or coating the ring using an insulating material such as sapphire which acts as a less efficient getter of Rb.
4. Results
The theoretical analysis of the time-averaged ring potential presented in section 2 reveals the importance of the position of the instantaneous magnetic field zeros during each cycle of the ac field to avoid violating the adiabaticity requirement. To characterize this effect, data are taken for a range of ac field amplitudes B0, which determine the initial trap depth, and bias fields Bb that control the adiabaticity of the ring potential.
Figure 3 shows absorption images of atoms after 200 ms evolution in the ring trap at B0 = 110 G for Bb = 4.6 G (b) and 9.2 G (c), with each image being the average of ten repeats. These demonstrate the time-averaged potential creates a large radius, cylindrically symmetric waveguide for cold atoms. The effect of the vertical bias on the trap is clearly visible, with the width measured from the standard deviation of the radial distribution changing from a thin ring of σr = 0.19 mm to a wide ring with σr = 0.51 mm as the B-field zeros are pushed further from the trap centre, as illustrated in figure 2(c). As discussed above, the instantaneous zeros cause hot atoms to be lost from the trap leading to a truncation of the radial velocity distribution. This is observed as an effective radial temperature of 7 ± 0.5 μK, measured from time of flight expansion of atoms released from the ring. However, due to the low density and trap frequencies the collision rate is too small to enable rethermalization within the ring, making this technique ineffective for evaporation as is done with the circle of death in a top trap [33]. The lack of thermalization can be seen from the cloud maintaining an azimuthal velocity distribution corresponding to the 40 μK of the initial quadrupole trap as it expands to fill the ring. Using a harmonic approximation for the bottom of the potential, the radial trap frequency can be estimated from the measured cloud size as 
, resulting in a trap frequency of 10 ± 1 Hz, comparable to the predicted frequency in figure 2(d). The relationship between the effective radial temperature and the lowest energy trap zero, T0, is complicated due to the spatial selectivity of the field zeros, however both increase with the applied bias field due to increasing the energy scale over which the trap remains fully adiabatic. This is seen from the increase in the effective radial temperature to 18 ± 2 μK for the trap in figure 3(c). For higher bias fields, the anharmonicity of the trap precludes accurate measurement of the radial temperature and trap frequency as we are unable to observe the cloud for a sufficiently long time for the velocity distribution to dominate over the initial spatial distribution due to expansion of the cloud under the copper ring.
An additional consequence of the increasing bias field is a reduction in the axial trap frequency ωz, leading to enhanced gravitational sag of −g/ω2z. This reduces the trap radius from rtrap = 5.12 mm in (b) to 4.84 mm in (c), which can be understood from the contour plot in figure 2(d). A larger variation in radius is observed for smaller B0 due to the reduction in the initial axial trap frequency. This behaviour shows good agreement with the finite element model discussed above for the trap parameters, enabling the atoms to be used as a probe of the magnetic field.
An important parameter in characterizing the trap geometry is the loading efficiency from the quadrupole trap, and hence atom number within the trap. Figure 4 shows the atom number after 200 ms in the ring as a function of drive field and applied bias. This timescale is chosen to enable the atoms to spread round and completely fill the ring and to enable any untrapped atoms to fall out of the field of view of the probe beam. The peak atom number loaded into the ring at B0 = 66 G is 4.5 × 106 corresponding to 43% of the initial number in the quadrupole trap, limited by the finite mode-matching between the quadrupole trap into the ring trap. Comparison of the required minimum bias field to the threshold value required to observe atoms in the ring trap shows good agreement with (2) above, which predicts Bb > 3 G for B0 = 55 G.
Figure 4. Ring trap characterization of atom number in the ring trap after 200 ms as a function of applied bias field for different ac field amplitudes, B0. Gaussian fits are shown as a guide to the eye, with errorbars equivalent to the markersize. Inset: scaled data showing universal scaling of ring parameters with ξ (see text).
The variation of atom number with the bias field displays an approximately Gaussian dependence. Qualitatively this trend can be understood from the scaling of the trap properties with bias field Bb, which linearly reduces the depth of the trap while linearly increasing the radial separation of the instantaneous zeros on either side of the minimum and pushing them to higher T0. Initially, above the threshold value the increased separation of the zeros reduces the non-adiabatic losses, increasing the useful volume of the ring trap and enabling more atoms to be loaded from the MOT. For higher bias field the gain in radial width comes at the cost of a loss of trap depth and the hot cloud can no longer be loaded. Interestingly, we observe a phenomenological scaling of the peak atom number within the trap in terms of the parameter ξ = (B0 − c)/(m × Bb) as illustrated in the inset of figure 4, where parameters m = 5.6 and c = 26 G are extracted from a straight line fit to the value Bb corresponding to the peak atom number as a function of B0. The coefficients m and c give the scaling of bias field to drive field and the minimum ac amplitude required to obtain a ring trap respectively, with values of ξ = 1 corresponding to the optimum mode matching between the atomic distribution and the ring trap. The exact values of c,m are dependent upon the temperature of the initial atomic sample.
Analysis of the lifetime within the ring potential provides further evidence for this interpretation. Figure 5(a) shows atom number as a function of hold time for B0 = 55 G and a bias field of 4.6 G, showing a double exponential decay in the loss of atoms from the ring. Fitting the data allows extraction of the initially rapid fast decay time τ1, caused by non-adiabatic losses as hot atoms are evaporated out of the ring potential by the instantaneous zeros, and the longer timescale, τ2, associated with losses due to background collisions. Figure 5(b) shows the change in τ1 as a function of bias field, which initially increases from 120 to 220 ms as the bias field increases from 3 to 5 G, consistent with the predicted increase of T0 from 10 to 20 μK. For smaller bias fields, the τ1 relaxation is so fast that it cannot be measured as during the first 50 ms the small signal from the few atoms remaining in the trap is obscured by the absorption from falling atoms that have not been loaded into the ring, after which time there are no atoms remaining. There is no further gain for higher bias due to the relaxation of the trap which only slightly increases T0. Importantly however, the background limited lifetime τ2 plotted in figure 5(c) shows no dependence on the applied bias field, giving an average of τ2 = 1.2 ± 0.2 s which matches the measured lifetime in the quadrupole trap. The biased ring trap therefore creates an adiabatic ring potential for cold atoms, permitting background limited lifetimes and hence long interaction times for atomic interferometry. Observation of the initial non-adiabatic loss is a direct consequence of the relatively hot thermal distribution loaded from the quadrupole trap.
Figure 5. Ring trap lifetime at B0 = 55 G. (a) Atom number at Bz = 4.6 G versus hold time in the ring showing a two-component decay, with short timescale τ1 due to non-adiabatic losses and slow decay τ2 due to background collisions. (b) Lifetime τ1 versus Bz plateaus around 220 ms as the trap is made adiabatic. (c) Background-limited lifetime τ2 is independent of bias, with quadrupole lifetime indicated by dashed line.
In addition to considering how the atom number changes in the ring potential, it is also interesting to consider the evolution of the atomic distribution within the circular waveguide. For atoms loaded into a thin ring with a relatively weak bias field, as seen in figure 3(b), the Gaussian spatial distribution determined by the initial quadrupole trap spreads ballistically around the ring, taking 120 ms to completely fill the ring potential, which is determined by the 40 μK azimuthal temperature. At long times the azimuthal density distribution has a variation of 10%, independent of time. This corresponds to a potential difference of approximately 4 μK across the ring, consistent with a smooth trap tilted at an angle of 4 mrad. One of the proposed advantages of using ac currents for creating magnetic traps is to overcome issues of corrugation due to the electron motion in the conductor. Subtracting off the 4 mrad tilt, we observe no evidence of corrugations in the time-averaged potential at this energy scale, however a significantly colder atomic sample is required to probe the smoothness at the 100 nK level relevant to interferometry using quantum degenerate gases.
For the wide ring geometry, with increased values of Bb, the evolution in the ring is strongly dependent upon the initial loading position of the quadrupole trap and it is possible to induce radial or centre of mass oscillations for atoms in the ring trap due to the shallow potential. Another feature of the wide ring potential that can be exploited is the curvature of the central region seen from figure 2(a), which can be used to act as a beam splitter for the atomic cloud. Figure 6 shows the evolution for atoms loaded on the outer edge of the trap for B0 = 55 G and Bb = 4.6 G. Each image is the average of ten repeats, which shows the cloud being accelerated into the ring centre due to the initial radial displacement and being split into two separate counter propagating clouds which overlap at 150 ms and then refocus at the initial loading position around 300 ms. Videos of the ring evolution for this data and for a weak bias field are provided in the supplementary data (available from stacks.iop.org/NJP/14/103047/mmedia). This example demonstrates the versatility of the ring trap and enables the cloud to explore a large region of the Mexican hat potential. For interferometric applications the initial splitting can be achieved using a coherent optical Bragg scattering [41] to reduce the centre of mass radial oscillations associated with this method, suppressing losses due to atoms exploring the non-adiabatic regions of the time-averaged potential.
Figure 6. Evolution in the ring for B0 = 55 G and Bb = 4.6 G. Atoms loaded on the edge of the ring trap can be split into two counter-propagating wave-packets using the curvature of the toroidal potential that spread out to fill the ring. The small circular fringes are due to imperfections in the imaging system.
5. Outlook and conclusion
Characterization of the trap properties as a function of the ac drive field and applied bias show the importance of meeting the requirements for adiabaticity by removing the instantaneous B-field zeros from the minimum of the trap. This leads to increased loading efficiency and a vacuum-limited lifetime at long times for atoms in the ring trap. Our current setup is limited by the relatively high initial temperature of the atomic sample and the 1 s background lifetime corresponding to a pressure of 10−9 Torr. However, a reduced pressure and using a colder sample or quantum degenerate gas would permit operation at a lower bias field, which could be achieved using a double-cell vacuum chamber and cooling in a magnetic or optical trap. This makes it possible to create rings with a tight harmonic radial confinement with radial trap frequencies of approximately 100 Hz to define a waveguide suitable for atom interferometry offering a large integration time. An important source of heating in the trap is current noise from the ac amplifier, however it is possible to reduce this to 1 part in 105 using active feedback [42]. Our current ring has an area of A = 80 mm2, leading to a rotation sensitivity of 
[20] for a BEC of N = 105 atoms in a single revolution. Extension to exploit the ring trap in this regime is the subject of further work.
[20] for a BEC of N = 105 atoms in a single revolution. Extension to exploit the ring trap in this regime is the subject of further work.We have presented the first demonstration of an inductively coupled ring trap for cold atoms which provides a viable technique for generating macroscopic toroidal waveguides for cold atoms. The main advantage over alternative approaches using current-carrying wires is that the trap potential is determined by the geometry of the conducting ring which can be machined to high tolerance, making it easy to define an axially symmetric trap without any end effects or distortions from the external coils.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the EPSRC under grant EP/G026068/1. PFG received
- Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
J D Pritchard et al 2012 New J. Phys. 14 103047
doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/10/103047
© IOP Publishing and Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft
Received 18 July 2012
Published 30 October 2012
Related articles
- The Primer Fields #1 (Transcript) (thesingularityeffect.wordpress.com)
- Astronomers finally crack mystery of solar system’s strange ‘ribbon of energy’ – The Space Reporter (thespacereporter.com)
The Singularity Effect 
I can’t believe this part still escapes them though. Ready? They mention the He, but then forget it as an individual.
When one thing has mass, and it moves, it creates energy. Gravity is an example of this. As observed, gravitational forces will seek “like” matter thus one becomes two, then three, etc. (Make it easy, a cloud) So one to the other, to the other…wait. They always forget that the gravitational pull is now greater too because of the increase in mass and matter. So it gets stronger.
As one is attracted to another and they meet, the mass of the whole increases as does their gravitational effects.
Give it enough of that cloud of “individual atoms of Helium,” (Oh yea, make it plasma though) and 1 becomes 2, becomes 3, 5 Hundred, 20 Quadrillion, more and more dense,which increases gravity even more, pulling in more matter, etc. See how it can now compound on itself and create an environment for fusion? Remember magnetic fields go hand in hand with this. They work as containment.
And the gravitational attractant!!! 🙂
The “stars” then convert that He, through efficient fusion, into every single element down to Iron. (Ie: Converts He energy, into physical matter) simply by a mechanism of convection.
Believe it or not, you now hold the very simple secret to the Universe.