(Reprinted with permission)

Future quantum computers will be built on the principle of *Quantum Interference*

as shown in the above link?

But why use Josephson junctions

Tony B.:

Because they are defined in the Josephson Constant 2e/h, which relates directly to the natural superconductivity (of free space) and the Action Law: Action=Charge^2.

2e/h is in units of Frequency/Voltage=Frequency.Charge/Energy=Charge/Action=Current/Energy.

So the electromagnetic parameters become associated with the 'mass' of the electron and the inertial properties for energy (as function of velocity say).

Why not use the much smaller electron and do the same thing as our universe does?

Tony B.:

The electron is implied via the Josephson Constant.

It's been known for many years that electrons will attract each other when their closest sides are in phase.

Tony B.:

Yes, and this is just the Cooper Pairing of the 2e factor, when the spin angular momenta of two oppositely quantum spins cancel for a bosonic 0-spin in the superpositioning of the dynamic phases.

The electron pairs are than dimensionally restricted in a plane and the quantum effects of the action law can materialise with the electron mass effectively made equal to a 'quasi-current' by I=2ef=2eE/h=2emc^2/h.

This is studied in lattice vibrations, phonons and other quasi-particles.

The strongest attraction in magnetism happens when one magnet with a certain pole facing up is placed on top of a second magnet which also has that same pole facing up.

From this it is clear that the __strongest__ **attraction** between two electrons happens when **both electrons have the same spin direction and the same spin axis** or when these entire electrons are in phase with one another.

Tony B.:

This is not quite correct. The magnets simply obey the 'series' law of say Kirchhoff's rules in electric circuits.

Resistors in series add voltages V=iR (Ohm's Law) and so sum resistances R and voltages V for the same current i=dq/dt=N.2ef.

Resistors in parallel carry different currents and so sum currents i=V/R for a constant voltage with 1/R=Sum (i/V).

The DC forms above then transform into the AC form with Impedance Z replacing Resistance and the resonance condition being I=V/R (I=V/Sqrt(R^2+(wL-1/wC)^2) in a general and common RCL-Circuit with real and imaginary parts say).

Here the inductive reactance wL and the capacitative reactance 1/wC with angular frerquency w^2=1/LC.

Capacitors in series sum as 1/C and sum as C in parallel as definition for capacitance is Charge/Voltage=Ne/V=Ne(f)/V(f)=Current/V(f).

Inductors in series sum as L like the voltages by Ampere's Law (lineintegral BdL=ìoi).

So a conducting wire, say a solenoid of length L and with n turns contains a magnetic field BL=ìoi, with the summed current i=nio as the current io per turn.

So a magnetic domain, characterised in magnetic induction (or magnetic flux density) B and the magnetic flux BA gives a magnetic field strength H with B=ìH for the particular permeability ì of a medium.

Lenz' Law in conjuction with Faraday's Law then states, that BA=Li or A.dB/dt=-L.di/dt=Induced EMF.

So when you say that the strongest electronic attraction is given for like electron spin direction, you are simply inferring the electronic selfinduction BA, measured in Webers (Wb) like the magnetic flux and as the ratio of magnetic dipole moment (m) to magnetic length.

This is a torque mxB (in (A)mperes.m^2.(T)esla) or mxH (in Wb.m.A/m).

Generally then, the magnetic dipole moment has units Am^2=J/T.

For the individual electron, the magnetic moment is a spin property as defined in the Bohr Magneton eh/4ðm for the electron.

This has units A m^2 or J/T=Jm^2/Wb, showing you that the electron current i=ef times the magnetic flux equals the selfinduction energy.

Describing the electron as a 'bar-magnet', then defines its spin axis as 'up' for a clockwise current loop in the South-North direction.

Then the magnetic field lines would be from Northpole to Southpole

Corollarily, the spin axis would be 'down' for an anticlockwise current loop in that direction.

Any composite or material bar magnet then possesses magnetic domains, where the electron spins align themselves producing magnetisation.

So all magnetic properties are reducible to electron spin properties, which are reducible to the nature of quantum spin in conjunction with the nature of the charge quantum as linked to mass (say in the e/m ratio).

This is also the same attraction that is present in pi bonding but pi bonding is the weaker of the two chemical bonds because this is not a steady bonding like sigma bonding but it only happens for a short time during each orbital when the two electrons, that pass each other, are spinning the same way on the same axis.

But there is a weaker magnetic attraction when two electrons are spin up and spin down and they are both spinning in the same plane

Tony B.:

Yes, this is the Pauli-Exclusion and the basis of quantum physics and the electron configurations, the chemical elements and the quantum eigenstates etc.

You have this magnetic attraction when you put two magnets on a table with their poles reversed and you see that their sides attract.

This attraction is weaker because only the closest sides of the attracting electrons are in phase.

This is the attraction you have in sigma bonding and in light transfer between two electrons.

Both in light transfer and in sigma bonding there is an attraction between a spin up and a spin down electron.

Tony B.:

The spin cancellation of proximate electrons results in the Cooper Pairings and the quasi-particles in superconductivity. You have Bose-Condensating electrons, which ultimately relate to phase changes of the crystalline lattices, which describe the solid state bondings and the chemistry. So whilst the spin oppositions describe stable elements in electron shells; they can also describe a breakdown of that 'Pauli-Fermion-Stability' in forming 'Boson-Eigenstates'.

This attraction does not decrease with distance and this is why a quantum of light from a far away star comes to your eye with no energy loss whatsoever.

It is only the number of these spin up--spin down electron pairs that decrease with the square of the distance.

Tony B.:

Yes, but as the quasi-particle quantum states inherent in the 'unified field', i.e. the vacuum of the pair production and the ZPE.

The manifestation of this is most fundamentally observed in the like spin orthopositronium and opposite spin parapositronium pairings of electrons and positrons.

There is a key to the nature of charge, as the mass association holds in identity between particle and antiparticle, but the charges reverse.

For like charges, one finds superconductivity or chemical stability in cancellation or magnetism in attraction and as a function of displacement.

For unlike charges, one gets the particle-antiparticle annihilation as a function of timerates of decay.

Note here that the energy conservation in Lenz' Law -Ldi/dt=iR leads to a characteristic time constant to.

The discharging of a capacitor across a resistor obeys the exponential charge law in Q=Qoexp(-t/RC) for a constant current i; with to=RC describing the charge Q to fall to 1/e its original value at t=0.

The inertia of an inductor (ultimately the electronmass) is a consequence of Lenz' Law with the inductor attempting to preserve the now missing EMF (say battery).

Integrating di/i=-(R/L).t gives ln(i/io)=-Rt/L for i=io.exp(-Rt/L).

So after a time to=L/R has elapsed, the current will be i=io/e.

This is related to cosmoslogy as well, where the luminosity of say a galaxy falls to 1/e its value (of so 37%) with the characteristic to being given by displacement from the centre.

And so the luminosity parameters are intrinsically related to natural superconductivity parameters and the Action Law.

In a previous post, I have discussed this as the decoupling time after the Big Bang; when the universe changed phase from being opaque to becoming transparent.

This is popularised as the 400,000 year frame of the cosmogenesis, when radiation decoupled from matter in the homogenous equilibrium of the early universe.

But what does certainly decrease with distance is the relative width of the plane that both these electrons sense they are spinning in. This thins out so much at the Hubble limit that beyond this point ho more attraction is possible.

Tony B.:

This is why I have mentioned the luminosity relationship 1/e as linked to basic electromagnetism.

Light and matter are linked via the Action Law and 2e/h of the superconductivity and so on, but always fundamentally associated with the nature of Coulombic Charge as related to magnetosm (QR's magnetocharge as mass equivalent in 'stringed' superbosonic monopoles say).

The 'thinning out' of the electron planes is the 2D confinement of superconducting electrons and the Hubble scale relates indirectly to this (as Milo has correctly approximated); because the classical electron radius (Re) represents (in QR) a quantisation of the cosmological distance scale in certain ratios with the electron radius defining the electron mass me.c^2=ke^2/Re=mapping (say holographically) the scale of a typical (Kuiper) solar system in so 3.4x10^14 metres or so 2000 AU's.

Another ratio then directly gives the Hubble Radius as the envelope for the former.

Dr. Milo Wolff has mathematically proven this.

So this is a universe that has built itself in steps using the weak and strong attractions of electrons for each other.

And these are all nothing but simple in phase attractions.

**Thus this universe is a quantum computer** using nothing but scalar, standing wave resonances whose closest sides have different phase relationships with each other.

Once we can figure out all these phase relationships and use the electron exactly as the universe does, then we can build the first true quantum computer.

But please note what Stephen Wolfram tells us in the final chapter of his massive 1,000 page *"A New Kind of Science"*.

Tony B.:

Yes, I agree, the electron is the fundamental entity and a more thorough understanding of the e/m ratio will open many doors to new discoveries, including quantum computation.

"And indeed in the end the Principle of Computational Equivalence encapsulates both the ultimate power and the ultimate weakness of science. For it implies that all the wonders of our universe can in effect be captured by simple rules, yet it shows that there can be no way to know all the consequences of these rules, except in effect just to watch and see how they unfold."

As Stephen Wolfram states, we can now see how this universe is built via simple rules

But as he also tells us, we can only know a bit of how the future will unfold.

We know that first our sun will enlarge to a red giant star with its flames scorching the earth.

Long, long after this we know that the stars will convert almost all the elements into iron and since neither fission nor fusion energy can be derived from iron then all the lights go out in this entire universe.

And then after many more hundreds of billions of years, if my theory is correct and the fine structure constant is slowly changing, then this cold, darkened, lifeless universe can expect another Big Bang with all our present molecules being totally replaced by something entirely different.

Tony B.:

I do not agree with your interpretation of Goedel's incompleteness. The latter applies to formal application of logic to definitions and rules intrinsic to the system.

There is leviancy built into the universe in the form of the Uncertainty Principle and the 'breakdown' of physical law at the Einstein-Rosen-Bridge or wormhole of the Big Bang pathos.

Then you have the finestructurings of Planck's Constant h and Maxwell's Constant 1/c^2.

Alpha is not changing in the lower dimensions, but the electron charge is subject to a particular uncertainty interval related to the electron mass in the form of the Josephson Constant 2e/h.

There will indeed (according to QR's calculations) be a 'recharging' for the universe in a Black Hole evolution of the Hubble radius and a 'heat death' will not occur.

The characteristic supercluster scale defines a Black Hole Schwarzschild metric of so 236.5 Million lightyears and when this (higher D and not observable in our spacetime) scale has 'shrunk' as a Strominger Brane' or an 'Extremal Black Hole Brane' to the scale of the wormhole radius; then and after so 7.56 Trillion years, the initial Big Bang mass seed of so 1.8x10^51 kg will 'reignite' somewhat in the form of Fred Hoyle's mass creation and Dirac's slowly changing Gravitational Constant 'Big G'.

In terms of the higher dimensions (QR's string parameters), alpha is independent of both lighhtspeed c and the electric permittivity and represents a direct form of the Action law in Alpha=60ð.e^2/h.

It seems Einstein was wrong and God does throw dice.

And Niels Bohr ends up being right in that it is all nothing but probabilities in the end.

Tony B.:

They are all right, but relativity of perception and interpretation does apply.

*"Universities Asleep at the Switch" - - 30 Pages FREE*

*Get "Universities Asleep at the Switch" NOW.*

© 2006 amperefitz

All rights reserved

Comments or complaints about anything on this site???

post to: *Daniel P. Fitzpatrick *