Sunday, February 5, 2017

Wind Powered Train

source: wikipedia commons

 The picture below shows a windmill in general. This windmill is used to generate power.

The blades of the windmill have an initial shaft/ sometimes called slow shaft that is connected to a gearbox. 

The gears are designed in such a way that the shaft connected to the generator spins much faster than the initial shaft, the generator produces electricity and can be connected to a grid or a battery.

Below is an electric train, it could also be a diesel train, the type of train does not matter what we are after is using less fossil fuels and creating less emissions. 

The front view of the train looks like below, it could be diesel, or electric collecting power from a third rail, or it collects power from a pantograph. 

Below is a diagram of a controlled wind jet on side of train, this controlled wind turns blades/ a wind turbine. 

The wind turbines are attached to a gearbox through retractable shaft, through an initial shaft and then connected to a generator that produces electricity that is stored in a battery. This batter depending on design can be used to power lights or the train itself aiding the diesel train or the electric train meaning it is drawing less power from the grid. The shaft is retractable because the whole system needs to be retractable and allowed to come out when train hits a viable speed so that there is enough wind to turn the blades or in case a train is going through a tunnel that is not wide enough, or once battery is fully charged there is no need to generate more power. This will add distance for train if it is diesel, add distance to train if it is powered by lithium batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. 

The train with fins is shown below, be it diesel, uses lithium batteries, hydrogen fuel cells or a pantograph. 

The turbines can be added to the top of the train.

When added to the top the view of the train looks like below.

Forget about patents, who can afford looking after one, enjoy the mind. Now if you are a scientist not a politician you will understand that the power of this can be equivalent to a windmill generator that powers into megawatts, depending on how much space of a train car one is willing to take, it is not size of the turbines, its speed of the rotation of shafts, wind could make a train never needing power from the grid or fossil fuel as battery can always be charged. That is a reality. :-D

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

Sunday, December 18, 2016

It’s All Information

Source: wikicommons

Information is everything and it’s first law is that every relationship results in a loss of freedom. This loss of freedom is what creates complexity. Everything is information

Information has been confused with many things in the past, but all these concepts are merely to describe information. Sometimes information has been described as mathematics, as logic, and some confuse information with data.

Mathematics is a great tool for describing information and help us understand and make sense of all the relationships involved concerning information. Let us give mathematics the benefit of the doubt, but what has mathematics to do with instantaneous events. We know from mathematics theory and dimensions that at infinite spatial dimensions mathematics is completely useless as all changes happen instantaneously. What can mathematics describe in instantaneous changes, only the change can be known but not the event.

Instantaneous Events.

Instantaneous events, ◊, however as has been explained above are what we can not understand, if I existed in infinite dimensions, it means all information in that dimension has infinite dimensions, and exhibits behavior associated with infinite dimensions. Just as we exist in 3 dimensions and exhibit behavior associated with three dimensions and have the limitations associated with 3-dimensional reality, with the effects from the lower dimensions. Therefore, if we where in a reality with infinite dimensions every action is instantaneous, to get across the world must be instantaneous, that is the reality of the implications of different dimensions.

As it is the reality at such a dimension, it means an instantaneous event, ◊ can take many forms, a discipline in an infinite dimension because all events are at the instantaneous the mathematics there can only deal with instantaneous events that take several forms as everything is happening instantly. Our thinking is not yet at that level because we have no idea what a single instantaneous event looks like.

All spatial dimensions must exist together, right now if there are higher spatial dimensions they exist right now in this reality, but somebody from another dimension can’t come here because they are a higher dimension just as we can’t go into 2-dimensional reality even though it is around us everywhere just as higher dimensions are around us everywhere.


If Alain Aspects experiments truly fits the data, why would he fudge with data, then right now we have an instantaneous event proven by experimentation. However, there are doubts, but those doubts are unfounded but must be considered. There is still a simpler experiment that can be done, where entanglement and light have a race in a classical way, the fastest on the stop watch is the winner.

Once a race happens between light and entanglement we will then know if we have an instantaneous event, ◊, or not in front of our eyes. Mathematics is no longer useful there all we know is the polarization of the particles must be opposite as they are entangled.


Often data is confused with information, no data is a pattern of information it shows the effect of a relationship. It’s a pattern, that’s all it can be and that is a lot. Here is the definition of data from
1.       a plural of datum.
2.       (used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items of information:
These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered by terminal for immediate processing by the computer.
3.       (used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information:
Additional data is available from the president of the firm.

Data is facts collected about information, data is a human method of storing information because of understanding of patterns, but data is not information that is everything. Those writing the don’t understand that everything informs us as can be seen from their definition of information.

1.       knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news:
information concerning a crime.
2.       knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data:
His wealth of general information is amazing.
3.       the act or fact of informing.
4.       an office, station, service, or employee whose function is to provide information to the public:
The ticket seller said to ask information for a timetable.

This definition of information is clearly from people who have not fully researched the concept of information and received the good news from trillions of dollars of research, everything is information because to know anything it must inform you what it is, I inform people what I am, by merely looking at my name you know I must be black and of African descent. By merely looking at me you ill see a black man without me having even said a word to you. You see you read this through a screen, it doesn’t have to even speak. Everything is information. In reality, the act or fact of information is undertaken by everything at every moment, even a mouse is being informed otherwise it would not know what is food and what is not food, in terms of information the human action is no greater than the action of the mouse, just different forms of information with different roles and functions.

That useless rock to information as a whole has a role to play, otherwise that useless rock wouldn’t be there, maybe its role is for you to remove it, but it would never exist if it was not meant to exist, just like humans would not exist if they where not meant to exist.All information trying to keep its form, trying to survive for as long as possible through information, we are eating atoms, and we are atoms, we are information and we eat information to survive.

Data shows these patterns of information, data is more like knowledge, it needs information to exist. 

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

Saturday, December 3, 2016

Superposition, Beyond Speed of Light? Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr

Entanglement is a process that is illustrated firstly by Thomas Young’s experiment commonly referred to as the double slit experiment. The double slit experiment raises the question of superposition, a key sticking point between Einstein and quantum mechanics, in his era the sticking point was with the likes of Niels Bohr, their argument must be settled by an experiment.

With Young’s experiment light tends to have a wave pattern at point of observation in the manner illustrated by figure 1. This wave pattern of course is very different when observation takes place at the slits, we get a particle pattern, but this is not important to know for purposes of the final question, was Einstein correct on insisting on locality or was he just been a spoil sport. 

Superposition is also shown in the Stern Gerlach experiments, by illustrating superposition by deduction entanglement is implied. The stern Gerlach experiments show at point of observation the polarity of a particle, this is illustrated in figure 2.

We say be deduction superposition leads to entanglement, and it is here that what can be called well experimented physics, probably the most experimented field in science, quantum mechanics. However great these experiments are they do have a logical flow, because they test for superposition not for entanglement. They are assuming they are testing for entanglement because superposition leads to the principles of entanglement, but tests concerning entanglement being thorough because of assumptions made in the tests for superposition, this leaves the debate open because they can never prove 100% what it is they are trying to because the tests are around superposition and superposition can’t prove entanglement merely support it.

We must first however look at the greater implications of one last enhancement to the double slit experiment. The double slit experiment is illustrated if figure 3.

At the point of observation we shall of course see a wave pattern as in figure 1. What happens when we combine the minds of Young and Stern and Gerlach, we get figure 4. 

What now is observed at the location of observation. The first possibility of course is we observe as in figure 1, a similar wave pattern. If this is the reality then the magnetic field would have no effect, this is highly unlikely. The second type of observation we can get is illustrated if figure 5.

Figure 5 shows the results of possible polarization associated with the proposed Young Stern Gerlach experiment.

Figure 6 shows another possible scenario from this proposed experiment, a bit more complicated but none the less a possibility.

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate polarization in wave form, these are real possible scenarios of the proposed experiments, have such relationships been considered, are they predicted, that is why experimentation is so important. In the long run nobody really knows what knowledge will lead to, Stern Gerlach experiment is only a possibility because somebody understood magnetism and created a compass, long ago.

Just looking at figure 6 we can already imagine a wave going ahead, and waves perpendicular, how many more cosines?

Is the Young Stern Gerlach experiment worth it? That is a question just put forward, but the obvious answer is yes because a greater understanding of reality will be understood, greater efficiency in technology, ever more precise our measuring instruments.

The Young Stern Gerlach experiment is also important in that it illustrates to an observer of society how fashion affects everything including science. The fashion of the time was the debate of is it possible to travel faster than time and the question of entanglement has given proponents of faster than light a solid foundation, theoretically and experimentally. The Young Stern Gerlach experiment probably should have been done 50 – 70 years ago, just in order to understand wave theory better, just to understand polarization at greater understanding. If it had been done 50 – 70 years ago how would present equations look, possibly some little differences here and there.

Thomas Young’s experiment is so successful, political scientists believe it is so great it can not be named after him it belongs to the committee, so we have the Stern Gerlach experiment, but not the Young experiment, rather the double slit experiment. Being so successful nobody felt it could deliver anymore than superposition and entanglement. It can help us understand polarization better. Instead they immediately went to debate the results of the Young experiment, superposition and its implications.

Entanglement is clearly accepted but the question is, where does this superposition takes place, believe it or not it falls down to, if the entanglement is at the source Einstein is correct, nothing can travel faster than light, if it is at any time a measurement is taken, what is a measurement, it means a relationship has been built. We know that the first law of everything is that every relationship results in a loss of freedom. Measuring results in loss of freedom, so to answer he question merely by looking at the universe does the mouse change the nature of the universe, and the answer is yes, the photons will land in the eyes of the mouse rather than the back of the mouse. If the mouse was not in that spot the photons would hit the rocks, changing their location. It is about locality this debate. An insignificant mouse has changed the nature of the universe, it is just that humans do not understand every piece of information is important, it all has the same value, a knowl basically. Understanding information theory a knowl is the most basic particle, no, it is the most basic piece of information.

If the entanglement is not at the source that means something has gone faster than light, some type of signal, this seems pretty simple to grasp when talking at the quantum level. Successful experiments have been carried out, these tests are to test Bells inequalities. The way John Bells inequalities are set shows he is a clear supporter of Einstein, if the results of he experiment agree with Bells inequalities, then Einstein is correct. If the results contradict Bells inequalities entanglement is faster than light, it has to be looking at the experiment carried out by Alain Aspect. Figure 7 illustrates Aspects experiment.

Figure 7 shows one of the most important experiments in quantum mechanics, without the double slit experiment however we would not have this so important experiment. We have a photon emitter, it shoots two entangled particles and they must pass through a filter, these filters only allow photons of certain polarization to go through. If both particles pass through the filter and if both particles do not pass through the filter that proves entanglement. And just in case theory is not good enough we have a measuring instrument to measure the polarization. 

For the sake of defending general relativity and locality, Einstein said entanglement, superimposition occurred locally, at the source, inside the photon emitter, it is absurd to think of it as happening at the filters, that would imply something is moving faster than the speed of light, to send a message and tell the other particle what it should do.

To counter this argument Aspect set up the filters in such a way that they changed their polarity so rapidly it is impossible to think of anything being able to fool it, we are witnessing a truly random event. There was 100% correlation if one particle went through the other particle went through, if one particle did not go through the other particle did not go through 100% of the time, the experiment has been carried out over and over, Bells inequalities are broken, something is happening at a speed greater than light.

Bells inequalities are for testing for locality, not entanglement, the argument is entanglement faster than light rests upon the Alain Aspect experiment being correct. What this experiments says and rests on this, if the polarization filters are random enough, then we have a random even, and this random event is 100% correct in supporting the idea that what polarization the particles will take place will be at the moment of measurement not at the source of the particles. This is what is being tested and from here it is inferred that because the moment when the particles decide their charge is at measurement, something is traveling faster than light. And to prove it we have figure 8.

Now in figure 8 we have Aspects experiment used to prove that entanglement is faster than light. The underlying idea is that the photon emitter emits 2 entangled photons going in opposite directions. The entanglement will be confirmed by the measuring instruments as they measure the polarity. However, when the photon that travels the shorter distance is registered, immediately a beam of light is shot. The assumption is that if the particle that has to travel the longer distance hits its measuring instrument before the beam of light, there is a timer to measure who gets first the particle or the beam of light, then this is valid proof that entanglement is faster than light. Well calculated results have come up that show that entanglement is from2 times the speed of light to several thousand times the speed of light, it is not consistent.

The big flaw in figure 8 of course is that the particle that travels the longer distance already has a head start over the beam of light, in quantum mechanics that is a big head start, even electrons are travelling at near the speed of light, this is why the results vary so much, sometimes light is 35 times the speed of light, sometimes 10 000 times the speed of light according to the taste of one’s calculations

Science is not about taste, what one favors, it is about reality. First of all, Aspects experiment where designed around the idea of locality, when do particles decide their polarity. If they decide the polarity at the source, there is nothing faster than light, if they occur at point of measure there something faster than light. That is all the experiment can decide, it can’t be adapted for something else, because one can still argue that the change in the filters is not random enough, but if they are random enough there is something faster than light, the argument is around locality not entanglement.

It has been explained why Aspects experiment can not be adapted to test if entanglement is faster than light such as figure 8, how can a photon catch up to a photon, and the resistance in the measuring instruments gives varying results of false faster than light from 2 to almost 10 000 times faster than light, this is disrespect to science. Aspects experiment only say choices are made at moment of measure therefore there is something faster than light, it is instantaneous. It is not 2 times faster than light or 10 000 times, that is mathematics, just enjoying maths for maths sakes. It is instantaneous, an experiment must be designed to measure this instantaneous entanglement, the old-fashioned way, a good old 100-meter dash, a good old sprint, what is faster.

We know from Aspects experiments that have been repeated over and over that entanglement is true, those that fully support the results must accept it is instantaneous, entanglement and light must race, we are no longer testing locality, we are testing speed. Aspects experiments are very important, they are important around teleportation, around commercial commodities like the quantum phone, we must scrutinize ourselves, can we prove ourselves with out doubt. Only a race, something designed to test speed not locality can solve that, this is shown in figure 9. Figure 8 is cheating, it’s like asking one 100-meter runner to do a somersault before and then catch up, photon versus photon. Such faith that one is willing to cheat.

Figure 9 shows a simple race we have two entangled particles, one red one blue, they are entangled so obviously when the red one turns blue the blue one must instantaneously turn red. We have a laser emitter, and we have a timer that will tell us when the blue particle becomes red and light reaches the same distance between the 2 particles. This experiment is around entanglement not locality. It does not matter where the particle got its polarity, at the source or at moment of measure, what matters is the 2 particles are entangled.

The experiment works such that we reverse the polarization of the red particle, at that very moment that the polarization of the red particle occurs a beam of light is released as a laser. When the blue particle reverse polarity the timer will register it, when light reaches the same distance as between the red particle and blue particle the timer will register it, whoever gets there first is the winner and the debate is settled once and for all.

If entanglement is true, the expected results are not that entanglement is not twice as fast as light, or 10 000 times as fast as light. The expected results that taking out the imprecision's in the measuring instruments it can be concluded that by the time the blue particle reverse polarization, light has not even left its source, mathematics as we know it must also change to keep up with our understanding of information. 

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

Obviously you can just test entanglement with a stop watch, but what fun is there in it, let it race light and embarrass it. 



Blog Archive

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

I write about knowledge economics, information, liberty, and freedom