User talk:JamesHamel

Mind Experiments

Consider, if you will, the subject of "empty space".

It has been my limited understanding thus far that in most theoretical & scientific studies relating to the existance, or at least the observation or "idea" of observation of MATTER in the physical world which we believe to occupy, being that we ourselves are created from the same MATTER in question, there is an infinate and substantially greater amount of EMPTY SPACE that exists in and occupies every theoretically possible position where MATTER does not exist.

Commonly, this VOID where matter does not exist, or tends not to exist is called SPACE, or EMPTY SPACE. Consider the EMPTY SPACE that seems to exist in all dimensions between an electron and the nucleus of an associated atomic particle.

In QUANTUM THEORY, I understand that in order for matter to exist in a specific place in the SPACE-TIME CONTINUAM of what we refer to as a tangiable REALITY, the OBSERVER of this reality has already determined this point, which theoretically has infinate possiblilities of existance in any tangiable SPACE prior to the OBSERVER'S observation.

Now, instead of concerning ourselves with the actual space in which matter does exist or would tend to exist at any given time, I will focus on the space which seems to "exist" where matter does not.

This space as I have come to know is without substance as we define substance, but is it without energy?

The following information is taken directly from pages existing from Wikipedia:

--->

In physics, energy is the ability to do work and has many different forms (potential, kinetic, electromagnetic, etc.) No matter what its form, physical energy has the same units as work; a force applied through a distance.

Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter.

The vacuum energy results in existence of most (if not all) fundamental forces - and thus in all effects involving these forces too - and is observed in various experiments (like spontaneous emission of light or gamma radiation, Casimir effect, Van-Der Waals bonds, Lamb shift, etc) and has consequences for the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales.

In physics, the zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may possess; it is the energy of the ground state of the system. All quantum mechanical systems have a zero point energy. The term arises commonly in reference to the ground state of the quantum harmonic oscillator. In quantum field theory, it is a synonym for the vacuum energy, an amount of energy associated with the vacuum of empty space. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is taken to be the origin of the cosmological constant. Experimentally, the zero-point energy of the vacuum leads directly to the Casimir effect, and is directly observable in nanoscale devices.

Because zero point energy is the lowest possible energy a system can have, this energy cannot be removed from the system.

Despite the definition, the concept of zero-point energy, and the hint of a possibility of extracting "free energy" from the vacuum, has attracted the attention of amateur inventors. Numerous perpetual motion and other pseudoscientific devices, often called free energy devices, exploiting the idea, have been proposed. As a result of this activity, and its intriguing theoretical explanation, it has taken on a life of its own in popular culture, appearing in science fiction books, games and movies.

--->

Speedy deletion nomination of Hamels Equation


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hamels Equation


Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Hamels Equation, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GILO  A&E&uArr;  06:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to provide third party evidence that the term "Hamels Equation" is known in the maths community and not something that you have just discovered. To me, as a non-mathematician, the so-called equation is fairly basic arithmetic. i.e. A+B=C, A-B=D → C+D=A+B+A-B=2A and C-D=A+B-A+B=2B. QED. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

-- JamesHamel (talk) It seems to me, as a non-mathematician, you have missed the point.