quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

The excited electron must pass through some sort of gate or door without an excited electron on the other side passing the other way.

You say that almost as if people had thought of this highly-original idea before.

[lumen]

Not in the distinction you raised.  That's the point.*sigh* I know this next question will probably set you off into some ignorant rant because somehow you think after never being educated in my field you have some right to say a word about it but here goes:

Don't you think you can simulate this random crashing and sorting on a computer?

No, a computer cannot simulate random.
Much work has been put into random generation on a computer and in the end it is usually based on time and some fractal number divisions or other math trying to simulate random.
True random in a computer now is by accessing a junction device like a bad diode that generates thermal electron noise for the 1 or 0 bits much like Philips device.

[lumen]

The problem with such an idea is coming up with a passive mechanism by which the excited electron segregates and remains segregated from its calmer brethren.  The excited electron must pass through some sort of gate or door without an excited electron on the other side passing the other way.

It is indeed quite possible to prevent some excited electron from passing back through with a simple magnetic field. It's already been done!

"While you are standing there thinking it's impossible, someone else is already doing it"

[profitis]

Right I'm back from meditation let's see what one of the elite-circle physicists has to say about non-randomity:

'Once the event occurs, all of the probabilities against
it happening become irrelevant for that event even if
the same probabilities occur again in the same way
for future events.
In quantum mechanics it is called collapsing the wave
function, meaning that a lot of odds just get
reshuffled.
The message from Schrödinger about life was that
one success tends to improve the odds of future
successes, and the entropy tends to be minimized
and even decreased by non random mechanisms
according to the third law of thermodynamics.
(1) Third law of decay S = k Ln D for D the number of
states that can be randomly occupied.
(2) for creation (-S) = k Ln (1/C) for C the number of
states that are prevented from being randomly
occupied.
(3) Combined total third law (net S) = k Ln D/C
Then creation occurs when C is greater than D, and
the second law is not violated because the process is
nonrandom and reversible.'

Thus even in an perfectly isothermal box a discrepency occurs because the number of possible random states in a quenco is reduced by the quantum to two sates..up or down.our chances for growth go dramaticaly up here at the demon surface.the third law of thermodynamics ensures that the second law of thermodynamics is only applicable to random processes and not non-random processes. This aside when we have an assymetric nonquantum interaction with the quantum then we press on what they call the vaccuum field of the universe.when we press against this field then space-time begins to curve and funny things begin to happen,rules can bend to its (the vacuum-field's) needs.this is what the best of the best (physicists) have to say in a nutshell about spontaneous localized order.

[profitis]

Sarkeizen:'Well if someone says: "Like a computer" they are
presuming sufficient expertise as to make that
judgement.  So are you now saying that you are NOT
COMPETENT to have made that statement?'

If a prism is a computer then YES the quenco is a computer too.a bit better now?