OverUnity Question

[z.monkey]

I'm sorry Feynman, that is not correct.  There is no such thing as a free puppy.

The solar cell receives energy in the form of photons from the sun.  The silicon in the solar cell causes the photons to coalesce into electrons.  There are about 5 photons in an electron, to the ratio of photons to electrons is about 5 to 1.  This means that the solar cells efficiency is perceived to be about 20 percent.  The same amount of energy comes out that goes in, albeit, in a different form.  The solar cell output is proportional to its input.  Hook up the voltmeter across a load connected to a solar cell.  Use a strong flash light to vary the amount of light the solar cell receives and watch the voltmeter.

Although the solar cell is a highly efficient device, despite mans disability to perceive quantum level interactions, it is not "free" energy.  The electricity provided by a solar cell is donated by the sun.  Well, that was awful nice of the sun to give us that energy, lets sent him a fruit basket....

Blessed Be Brothers...

[Feynman]

I think I made my post worded badly, my apologies.  I was trying to allude to the distinction between COP and efficiency.  And yes, sometimes there are free puppies!  You just have to feed them.

You generally lose energy when you transform from one kind of energy to another.  (mechanical to electrical, etc).  The losses come from friction, impedance, and so on.  You are correct that solar cell requires environment input (from the sun), and yes it is indeed 'losing' photons.  It's efficiency is 20% according to your data. Efficiency is never over 100%.  However, the coefficient of performance (COP) can be over 100% and even infinite.  The COP of a solar cell is much greater than 1 because the energy from the sky costs nothing. COP is just the "bang for the buck," as Bearden says. You don't have to 'pay' for the solar cells energy (once you have the cell anyway!).  You put nothing in, but you get voltage out because the system is not closed.  To you, it's free. The dynamics of any open system (which is the earth, point charge, magnet, quantum field, etc) the COP can be greater than one up to infinite. 

That was the point I was trying to make (difference between COP and efficiency), sorry that I wasn't making a clear description.  You are right about efficiency and you make an excellent point.     

PS
Free energy is built into nature and is based around 'payment' to her in return for output. 
In other words, you can pay 10 units of energy in and get 100 units out. (lets ignore impedence or friction losses for a moment). The other 90 units are provided by the environment in any open system, be it the sun, the active quantum vacuum, the earth's magnetic field, local spacetime curvature,  negative energy, etc etc.


PPS

In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. [1] Assuming the existence of dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for almost three-quarters of the total mass-energy of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

[z.monkey]

Fundamentals, Feynman, fundamentals!

Coefficient of performance is efficiency in a thermodynamic system.

A solar cell deals with photons and electrons and regular electrical efficiency applies.

What is termed "free" energy is energy coming from a source that hasn't been identified and/or is beyond our perceptional ability to measure.

This doesn't mean that efficiency flies out the window.

It seems in your mind you are relating units of energy to dollars.  I am talking physics.  To me you seem to be confused.  I can remember, years ago, when I was confused, and all this free energy stuff was fantastic and mysterious.  I wrote many theories of how this "free" energy could be used.  I look back on that stuff now and realize how wrong I was.  We all receive an abundance of energy from our sun and this doesn't cost anything.  But that doesn't mean the laws of physics are going to fly out the window.  When you are making a device to extract energy from nature you have to follow natures rules.  That's just the way it is.  We are not rewriting the laws of physics.  We are not even bending the laws of physics.  The bottom line with what this group is doing is finding new sources of energy which were previously unknown and/or imperceptible.  The idea that the coefficient of performance can be infinite is totally ridiculous.  Sorry...

Blessed Be...

[Koen1]

I think I made my post worded badly, my apologies.  I was trying to allude to the distinction between COP and efficiency.  And yes, sometimes there are free puppies!  You just have to feed them.

And your puppy food comes free of charge as well?

You generally lose energy when you transform from one kind of energy to another.  (mechanical to electrical, etc).  The losses come from friction, impedance, and so on.  You are correct that solar cell requires environment input (from the sun), and yes it is indeed 'losing' photons.  It's efficiency is 20% according to your data.

Yes well about that data, expressions like "there are 5 photons in an electron" are close but no cigar... It's not about number of photons per electron,
it's about energy contained in ONE photon and the ionisation potential (for ONE electron) of the irradiated material, and the ratio between those plus the resistance of the material determines the output of a solar cell. So it also depends very much on the material used, in solar cells generally abundant semiconductors, but the photovoltaic effect also occus when photons strike a simple metal plate... Solar cell efficiency up to 40% has been reached, so 40% of the energy that hits it in the form of light
gets transformed into electrical output, but the more efficient the cell the more expensive to make, and the most efficient cells are also the most fragile.
Fragility is something that does not combine very well with the weather, as any weather induced damage like corrosion or hail impact can have seriously negative
effects on the output. That's why the cheap plastic-based low efficiency solar cell films that are now being developed are so interesting: they are cheap,
they don't have to be made in special clan rooms by people in 'spacesuits', and they can be attached to more and different surface types more easily. Overall,
cost-efficiency wise, they are a nice improvement on the applicability of solar cells.

Efficiency is never over 100%.  However, the coefficient of performance (COP) can be over 100% and even infinite.  The COP of a solar cell is much greater than 1 because the energy from the sky costs nothing. COP is just the "bang for the buck," as Bearden says. You don't have to 'pay' for the solar cells energy (once you have the cell anyway!).  You put nothing in, but you get voltage out because the system is not closed.  To you, it's free. The dynamics of any open system (which is the earth, point charge, magnet, quantum field, etc) the COP can be greater than one up to infinite. 

Yes, well, although the "fuel supply" is free and unlimited, the "engine"
itself is not, and actually quite expensive to make. ("fuel"=light, "engine"=cell, obviously)
So it comes down to how much energy does it take to gather and refine the materials, and to machine them into a solar cell, and how long does a cell like that work
at significant output before weather and environmental influences have damaged it so much it needs to be replaced, and how much energy does that cost...
That is the "cost" of a solar cell in energy. If one solar cell during its effective lifespan produces significantly more (because just barely more won't cut it) than
this energy cost, then it is a cost-efficient long term energy solution.

PS
Free energy is built into nature and is based around 'payment' to her in return for output. 
In other words, you can pay 10 units of energy in and get 100 units out. (lets ignore impedence or friction losses for a moment). The other 90 units are provided by the environment in any open system, be it the sun, the active quantum vacuum, the earth's magnetic field, local spacetime curvature,  negative energy, etc etc.

That depends on how efficiently you can collect that energy. I don't think you can simply say that 90% of all energy in any open system can be collected just like that.

PPS
In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. [1] Assuming the existence of dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for almost three-quarters of the total mass-energy of the universe.

Erm... You're leaving out a lot of terms like "alleged", "supposed", "possible", etc.
Dark energy is nothing more than a hypothesis that could possibly account for the assumed expansion of the universe.
There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that it does really exist.
It is only one of the easiest ways to explain the assumed expansion.
(I say "assumed" because expansion is just one of 3 possible outcomes of the relativity theory, and the only reason for
it to be the generally accepted assumption is the "proof" of the cosmic redshift. With the theory that is also currently
assumed to be plausible that the speed of light in interstellar space might be slightly variable, the entire conclusion that
redshift must mean distance increase becomes shaky. The main difficulty is that we simply have no idea what exaclty
goes on half a universe away, and that certain "natural constants" may well be different there, which could easily
invalidate all our earth-based theories.)

[Feynman]

@z.monkey

COP can be infinite because symmetry is broken.

QED: Quantum Electrodynamics
QFT: Quantum Field Theory
FLOT: First Law of Thermodynamics
LHC: Large Hadron Collider




Graph of spontaneous symmetry breaking function using Lagrangian potential
L = KE - PE


How CERN thinks they will produce Higgs at LHC

Sorry, I am not confused. I may get certain details wrong, but I strongly believe the main ideas I am expressing are correct. And the main idea is this:  CONVENTIONAL THEORY IS WRONG.   The rest, take it or leave it.  . . and on the contrary, I believe it is you who must revisit the fundamentals of QED to make sense of thermodynamics.

Yes, some things I say are incorrect. I have huge gaps in my understanding.  I make mistakes all the time.. That's fine, it's how we learn.  But are we so stupid to believe we have the answers firmly in hand?  Of course not. I also believe many of the 'fundamentals' you find in textbooks are wrong. Why?  Because the experiment has contradicted them.  When the experiment contradicts, it's time to change the theory.

You claim that somehow I cannot connect thermodynamics with quantum theory or cosmology.  This idea is what is ridiculous.  Of course they can be connected.  Most particle physicists now concede that the so-called standard model will unify at higher energies. Why else are they building LHC at CERN besides a just another higher energy accelerator toy. (Yes I know they are looking for Higgs). The point is, how you can you speak of energy within a system, or energy transfer between systems , without understanding it within the framework of both quantum theory and special relativity?  You absolutely cannot, because your answers will only make sense within certain energy scales. Yes, you can approximate at every day energies. But at really large scales and really small scales (Planck length) your entire model will  break down.   So the classical thermodynamics toolbox has only one size screwdriver. The fat tail problem is in addition to the known violations of these 'laws' which occur at normal energy scales.


LHC: Biggest TPU ever

Let me show you what I mean.  The first law of thermodynamics is 'conservation of energy.' What the hell does that even mean!  We haven't even defined energy!!!  Something beyond the illusions of words!  Okay, "the ability to do work" ... well then what about asymmetrical re-gaugeing?  That's work-free.  Does that mean the process is energy-free?   No, of course not, because it involves the transfer of potential energy, and we know it happens because there are experiments which prove it. What I am saying here is that we don't even have rigorous definitions in these theories.  The whole set of immutable 'laws' are built on a foundation of semiology and assumption!

Noether's Theorem:

Take, for example, the hundred year old First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy), in its modern incarnation.  There are all sorts of tricks and slight of hand to make it fit with Einstein's general relativity, but let's ignore that and focus instead on how classical thermodynamics might be reconciled with quantum electrodynamics.

We the must focus on Noether's Theorem, which the 'heavy lifter' of the First Law of thermodynamics, the 'club bouncer' if you will, used to keep the grad students and workshop inventors at bay, with it's thick integral calculus and dizzy mathematics.  Look at this confusing mess of an equation. Dirac would absolutely hate this monster.





Now, this is part of the sacred First Law (conservation of energy) and is the continuity equation associated with energy symmetry in space-time.  So what does this mean?  Well ,

"if we integrate this current over a space-like slice, we get a conserved quantity called the Noether charge (provided, of course, if M is noncompact, the currents fall off sufficiently fast at infinity).

Furthermore

This applies to any derivation Q, not just symmetry derivations and also to more general functional differentiable actions, including ones where the Lagrangian depends on higher derivatives of the fields and nonlocal actions. Let ε be any arbitrary smooth function of the space-time (or time) manifold such that the closure of its support is disjoint from the boundary. ε is a test function. Then, because of the variational principle (which does not apply to the boundary, by the way), the derivation distribution q generated by q [ ε ] [ Φ ( x ) ] = ε ( x ) Q  [   ÃŽÂ¦  ( x ) ] satisfies q [ ε ] [.S.]=0 for any ε on shell, or more compactly, q(x)[.S.] for all x not on the boundary (but remember that q(x) is a shorthand for a derivation distribution, not a derivation parametrized by x in general). This is the generalization of Noether's theorem.

Wow that almost put me to sleep.  Realize there are some seriously fatal assumptions in Noether's theorem.  We are assuming a SMOOTH space-time.  Space-time is not smooth !!  It's a veritable particle circus! Wave functions that never go to zero!  Virtual photons are bubbling out of nothing! Faster than light tunneling! Have we learned nothing from  experiments?   Quantum theory has broken symmetry at and below Planck length. As Bearden says, examine Lee and Yang's Nobel prize for broken symmetry in 1957.    Do you seriously think broken symmetry (well accepted in QED) has no consequence on Noether's theorem or classical thermodynamics?  Noether's theorem came in 1918, when quantum theory was still a joke and people believed quanta were mathematical accidents!  Never mind the time-reversed photons or antiparticles or quarks which are now believed to be manifestations of the underlying symmetry transformation (which has yet to be solved).

QT Electron Structure:

Let's look at the wave amplitude of the electron for a minute, since it relates to the structure of space-time and the active vacuum.

Figure 1.  Electron Structure.  The upper diagram shows a cross-section of the spherical wave structure, something like the layers of an onion.  It is comprised of an inward moving wave and an outward moving wave.  The two waves combine to form a single dynamic standing wave structure with its center as the nominal location of the electron.  Note that the amplitude of a quantum wave is a scalar number, not an electromagnetic vector.  Thus these waves are part of quantum theory, not electric theory.  At the center the quantum wave amplitude (and the electric potential) is finite, not infinite, in agreement with the observed electron (Wolff, 1995).  The lower diagram shows the same quantum wave amplitude plotted along a radius outwards from the electron center. The lower diagram is a 'slice' from the upper diagram.

Figure 2.  Radial Plot of the Electron Structure.  When the IN and OUT quantum waves combine they form a standing wave.  This detailed plot, the same as the approximate lower plot of Fig. 1 above, corresponds exactly to the equations below.  The envelope of the wave amplitude matches the Coulomb potential everywhere except at the center, where it is not infinite in agreement with the observations of Lamb and Retherford.  If the electron were moving and observed by another detector atom with relative velocity v, the deBroglie wavelength appears as a Doppler effect on both  waves.  The frequency mc2/h of the waves was first proposed by Schroedinger and deBroglie,  proportional to the mass of the electron.  This frequency is the mass so that mass measurements are actually frequency measurements.  There is no mass 'substance' in nature

Okay besides the obvious element of frequency convertability with mass here (should rings some bells), the other big thing is the WAVE AMPLITUDE NEVER GOES TO ZERO.   The electron goes out to the ends of the damn universe.  That's what the math says, Schroedinger has yet to be proven wrong, so let's stop renormalizing every damned infinity that pops up and just accept the things that defy understanding. Also , these are scalar waves.  Does this affect the structure of space-time?  You bet it does.
http://www.quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_spin.html


QED and Ward-Takahashi:

So back to First Law, is it even possible to put Noether's theorem (and by implication classical First Law Of Thermodynamics) together with quantum electrodynamics? (Are you still going to tell me there is no connection between QED and classical thermodyamics? Well, keep reading...)

QED and Noether's theorem are connected (through generalization of Noether's equations) via the Ward-Takahashi identities, but these are just more mathematical 'smoke and mirrors' which enforce a narrow view of what is possible in our world.  The equations are fine, and yes they are difficult and interesting, but they operate on incorrect ASSUMPTIONS.  Here is the usual quantum version of Noether's theorem (*IF* the gauge transformation corresponds to a global symmetry):




Above is the QFT analog of the asinine Noether continuity equation. The whole equation is just ASSUMING gauge symmetry, which may or may not be the case!  In fact, outside of your textbook, there is no local space-time with unbroken symmetry!  What a bunch of nonsense! Broken symmetry is everywhere!  And this is the LAW of thermodynamics as applied to QED?   Are you kidding me?  This passes for education on planet Earth?  Incredible...

In reality, the Ward-Takahashi identity that should be used is not the 'First Law' Noether version displayed above, because it's flat out wrong for broken symmetries !  Instead, one should use the identity which is NOT gauge invariant!!   If only the particle physicists would speak to the electrical engineers once in awhile!  What on earth do you think they are doing at CERN?  Smoking doobers?  They are there to find the Higgs boson because they think it will explain the acquisition of a non-zero vacuum expectation value. These dude's KNOW there is broken symmetry; they are just searching for the collision debris to balance the books in the standard model.


Computer reconstruction of particle tracks,
originating from the simulated decay of a Higgs-boson.


Chiral Anomaly:

The point is the classical Noether theorem ("Conservation of Energy") equation doesn't work in quantum electrodynamics. You must break the global symmetry. Below the proper equation for QED broken gauge symmetry, and it VIOLATES the First Law of Thermodynamics.  This is what I am getting at.  Stop messaging me about violating damned physics laws which we already know to be nonsense!

Note that even if there is not a global symmetry (i.e. the symmetry is broken), we still have a Ward-Takahashi identity describing the rate of charge nonconservation.

If the functional measure is not gauge invariant, but happens to satisfy



where λ is some functional of the fields φ, we have an anomalous Ward-Takahashi identity. This happens when we have a chiral anomaly, for example.


A "chiral anomaly"!   What in the hell is that?!  Who dares to break the First Law of Thermodynamics?

Look at the bleeping Feynman diagram dudes!



This photon is breakin' the law!!

A chiral anomaly is the anomalous nonconservation of a chiral current. In some theories of fermions with a chiral symmetry the quantization may lead to the breaking of this (global) chiral symmetry. In that case, the charge associated with the chiral symmetry is not conserved.

The non-conservation happens in a tunneling process from one vacuum to another. Such a process is called instanton. In the case of a symmetry related to the conservation of a fermionic particle number, one may understand the creation of such particles as follows. The definition of a particle is different in the two vacuum states between which the tunneling occurs; Therefore a state of no particles in one vacuum corresponds to a state with some particles in the other vacuum.

In particular, there is a Dirac sea of fermions and when such a tunneling happens, it causes the energy levels of the sea fermions to gradually shift upwards for the particles and downwards for the anti-particles, or vice versa. This means particles which once belonged to the Dirac sea become real (positive energy) particles and particle creation happens.

I notice Dirac's electron-holes and negative energy are completely absent from the Wikipedia article on chiral anomolies. If I were Dirac, I'd be pissed. In fact I'd probably smash my guitar right there on the Nobel stage.  But I digress.   The point is the math behind the stupid First Law of Thermodynamics DOES NOT APPLY TO QUANTUM THEORY.   It's wrong wrong wrong wrong.  You must break the symmetry in the Ward-Takahashi identites (derived from the asinine First Law math) in order to account for reality at the quantum level.

Furthermore, by implication of these bastardized gauge-symmetric Noether/Ward-Takahashi equations, the supposed 'conservation' of electrical charge comes from the invariance with respect to a change in the phase factor of the complex field of the charged particle and the associated gauge of the electric potential and vector potential.  But we know there is asymmetrical re-gaugeing in QED, 'cause it happens all the damn time, and it's free.  Not only free, but work-free and field-free. Bearden has been hammering this into our thick skulls for a reason.  Asymmetrical regauging. Broken symmetry.   So why the contradiction?  Why are we basing these 'laws' on assumptions which have been broken by experiments (some for 50 years now, longer if you include Tesla).  Perhaps someone who understands better can shine some light on this topic. How can you possibly have conservation of charge (which assumes gauge invariance in complex field) with asymmetrical field-free gauge transformations?

Electroweak has broken symmetry.  Chiral anomalies have broken symmetry. And yes, the dipole has broken symmetry. The 1957 experiment proved that. Pauli lost a bet that year because he "did not believe the Lord was a weak left-hander". Many of the leading physicists at the time wanted to believe God gave us symmetry.  But that is not the case. God gave us broken symmetry.  Now we must adjust the theory.  Particle routinely travel backwards in time. Virtual photons bubble up out of nothing.  You get optical pumping in the time domain. We are only beginning to understand magnetics. The charge of the electron is infinite (until you start doing the dippy renormalization mathematical shell-game)..  So I think this whole thermodynamics worship is ridiculous. 

We need to think DIFFERENT than before.   It's okay to be wrong. 


PS  Alternate theories for breaking electroweak symmetry include
* Technicolor[10] is a class of models that attempts to mimic the dynamics of the strong force as a way of breaking electroweak symmetry.
* Abbott-Farhi models of composite W and Z vector bosons [11].
* Top quark condensate