05-13-12, 01:42 AM #21
I doubt he read either article. I suspect he simply looked at the titles.
05-13-12, 01:42 AM #22
What are you talking about? I would like to see more research into the question of whether or not wave-functions are real. Would you?
05-13-12, 01:43 AM #23
In your other thread you said "Looking that up on Wikipedia..." and basically admitted you don't know any of this stuff on a working level, you're just trying to make sense of pages on Wikipedia which you don't understand. You ignored all my comments about that, so clearly you have realised you don't have any real understanding but you're unwilling to admit it.
05-13-12, 02:17 AM #24
05-13-12, 03:17 AM #25
Yes I know all about FM radio. So why don't FM transmitters make wormholes? When light frequency shifts, it transitions from one reference frame to the next to the next. The very vibrations of that photon are interlaced with the medium of space-time.
The formula I gave you: f(t)= [df/dt]t + f_0, is the frequency shift that you have to generate, as quickly and accurately as you can, with as large a df/dt as you can, in order to create a frame shift, or frame slide, in front of your emitters. The phase, from one frequency to the next, has to be as unbroken as possible. This experiment has never been done. If you think it has, then I recommend a smooth frequency shift from 400 to 800THz, every microsecond. There is no tunable laser in the world that can achieve this kind of performance. You will probably have to do it in frequency steps. The better the performance of your frequency shift experiment, the stronger your gravity field will be.
I have a BS in physics, a BS in electronics, and I have taken some graduate level classes in electrical engineering, semiconductor physics. So how do I know that this experiment will induce a measurable gravity field? I don't know for sure without performing the experiment.
Do with this information what you will.
05-13-12, 03:42 PM #26
Mazulu believes that if he can make colored lights blink fast enough, he can trick the universe into accepting that the frequency is changing.
05-13-12, 03:55 PM #27
05-20-12, 01:35 AM #28
05-20-12, 01:53 AM #29
A minor opinion; and speaking from experience...:
A Bachelors in Physics is respectable. It can get a person a nice job, but not at a University, not conducting research in Relativity or QM.
A B.S. says one basic thing: "I am capable of learning."
It does not say, "I've learned what I need to know."
This is why many pursue their Masters and The PHD. To show, "I can learn more!" and get those jobs working with Relativity and QM so that they can finally, after years of education- buckle down to the task with appropriate tools to LEARN about physics.
05-20-12, 02:35 AM #30
But even so, someone doing a physics degree will see the role mathematics and formalisation takes in physics. The complete dearth of it from the original poster's posts suggests he either didn't understand that when he did his degree or never did it in the first place.
05-20-12, 02:42 AM #31
05-20-12, 05:34 AM #32
There is an Einstein aether theory:
In physics the Einstein æther theory, also called æ-theory, is a controversial generally covariant generalization of general relativity which describes a spacetime endowed with both a metric and a unit timelike vector field named the æther. In particular such theory has a preferred reference frame and so is not Lorentz invariant.
In gravity theories with extended supersymmetry (extended supergravities), a graviphoton is normally a superpartner of the graviton that behaves like a photon, and is prone to couple with gravitational strength, as was appreciated in the late 1970s. Unlike the graviton, however, it may provide a repulsive (as well as an attractive) force, and thus, in some technical sense, a type of anti-gravity. Under special circumstances, then, in several natural models, often descending from five-dimensional theories mentioned, it may actually cancel the gravitational attraction in the static limit. Joël Scherk investigated semirealistic aspects of this phenomenon, thereby opening up an ongoing search for physical manifestations of the mechanism.
05-20-12, 09:41 AM #33
There are and continue to be explorations of an ether like relationship between space and matter. The credible attempts are likely the result of remaining inconsistencies in GR and QM and a fundamental tendency to want to find some way to explain matter energy-relationships in a manner consistent with classical experience.
There are some better references to ether interpretations of both GR and Newtonian gravity than WiKi. However, this is getting away from the subject currently under discussion.
Note: Einstein did liken spacetime to the ether of GR in his Leyden address, but one must keep in mind, at the time he was speaking to an audience whose education had been heavily influenced by an understanding of reality, that included the luminiferous aether. You speak to an audience in a language and with analogy they can understand or you speak to yourself.
05-20-12, 10:45 AM #34
My instructor was primarily absent and questioning his absence and offering to contact the administration to resolve his unresponsiveness got you a better grade in the course. I'm sure you can figure out how that worked. So, I got an "A." I neither earned it nor deserved it and it really messed me up badly going into the next set ignorant of what I should have learned and understood from the previous year. Side note- I contacted the administration, anyway. And yes, they were emphatic in looking into it.
I have a better instructor now and hell... Yes I know what you mean about it finally clicking in place when you realize that if you understand the fundamentals, you can build the mathematics without 'memorizing.'
Having said that... I do not post on the math - my knowledge is pathetically weak. But I am trying to learn... I fear it always will be my weakest point, in spite of a love for it.
Then again, I don't post what little I know on here for fear of looking like you. Worse, probably.
I stick to just words.
Unlike Tesla's claim, <cough> space is not "nothing." Space is something and we do not yet know what it is. Personally, I believe the answer lies in research in the Quantum world and not the macro world.
05-20-12, 03:12 PM #35
Hypothetically speaking, atoms exist in multiple parallels simultaneously. Indeed, the double slit experiment even displays wave particle duality for some types of macromolecules.
The larger a particle, the smaller its DeBroglie wavelength. So bigger macroscopic beings perceive themselves as existing in one universe, while individual micro-particles can exists in multiple realities simultaneously.
Objects as large as dust-specks can briefly display wave particle duality...
Penrose speculates that the transition between macroscopic and quantum states begins at the scale of dust particles (the mass of which is close to a planck mass). Dust particles could exist in more than one location for as long as one second, a time that is easily measurable with standard equipment.
We physicists believe, for example, that there is really a multiverse that exists even inside our living room. We are waves, vibrating waves given by the wave-function, and these waves vibrate and then split apart with time.
Steve Weinberg, winner of the Nobel Prize, compares it to the following. Think of radio. If you’re inside your living room listening to BBC radio, that radio is tuned to one frequency. But in your living room there are all frequencies - radio Cuba, radio Moscow, the Top 40 rock stations. All these radio frequencies are vibrating inside your living room, but your radio is only tuned to one frequency.
Now, in other words when two universes are in phase, they are coherent and you can move back and forth. But as time starts to evolve, these two universes decouple. They start to vibrate at different frequencies. They can no longer interfere with each other. So why is it that your radio cannot listen to Radio Moscow? Why isn’t it possible for your radio to listen to all frequencies? Because your radio is decohered. It is no longer vibrating in unison with these other frequencies.
And the same thing in quantum physics. We consist of atoms. Our atoms vibrate, but they no longer vibrate in unison with these other universes. We have decoupled from them, we have decohered from them. So in other words, deja vu is probably simply a fragment of our brain eliciting memories and fragments of previous situations. However, in quantum physics, there really are in some sense parallel universes surrounding us, the problem is, we can’t enter them because we have decohered from them. We’re no longer vibrating in unison with them. Sorry about that.
Reading through the referenced posts will give you a very basic introduction to quantum mechanics - algebra is involved, but no calculus - by which you may nonetheless gain an understanding sufficient to see, and not just be told, that the modern case for many-worlds has become overwhelming. Not just plausible, not just strong, but overwhelming. Single-world versions of quantum mechanics just don't work, and all the legendary confusingness and mysteriousness of quantum mechanics stems from this essential fact.
05-21-12, 08:26 PM #36
The many worlds interpretation has big problem. First, every time the universe splits in two, you have two universes, each with an energy content of "a big bang". Each of these universe exerts gravity. You would have two earths exerting gravity (or millions of earths exerting gravity). The model violates conservation of energy in absurd ways.
05-22-12, 03:47 AM #37
Stephen Hawking says:
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.
Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.
"It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."
05-22-12, 02:19 PM #38
If you want to sneak in a very light weight parallel universe, I guess we could do that. But if you want to an unlimited number of earth masses to coexist in some hyper-dimensional configuration, I'm going to ask you to round up all your parallel dimension doubles and show up for testing.
While Penrose does not advocate the MWI[many worlds interpretation], if a dustpeck can disappear for up to a second it could be jumping to alternate realities during those brief moments, if, MWI is true.
I don't fully understand what you mean by there being a connection between frequency shift and gravity but there is the interesting idea of "graviphotons", yes.
I am an electronics technician and I test and trouble shoot circuit boards on equipment like this. http://www.tek.com/oscilloscope/dpo7...70000-mso70000 It is very commonplace for this kind of equipment to synthesize sine waves (or any wave) by converting digital (data at a memory address) into an analog signal using DAC's (digital to analog converters). What I am proposing is to generate a frequency shift by creating it out of many different optical frequencies.
Think of the equation of a line. I want to generate a linear frequency shift of the form, f(t) = [df/dt]t+ f_0. I want to generate a frequency shift from 400 to 800THz, inside of a microsecond, repeatedly. Why? Look at Doppler redshift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_redshift Light frequency shifts due to Cosmological redshift (expansion of space), gravitational redshift (acceleration fields), and relativistic Doppler shifts (a change in velocity from one frame to another). Light frequency shifts when it travels from one frame to another (frames traveling at different velocities), it frequencies when it traverses an acceleration field (the radii of a black hole, e.g.), and when the space between galaxies is increasing (Cosmological redshift). There is an equation that ties together displacement, velocity and acceleration. It is the equation for displacement as a function of time. x-x_0 = v_0 t + a t^2.
Frequency shift typically occurs as a response to these three things (increasing displacement, transition between inertial frames, and traversing acceleration fields). But nobody has ever tried to generate a frequency shift to see if it can induce an acceleration field, a change in velocity of an inertial frame or increase the distance between two objects.
I gotta get ready for work.
05-22-12, 02:56 PM #39
Warp drive and gravity drive systems from an alien spacecraft have never been tested at a university physics department, therefore, alien spacecrafts do not exist.
The whole point of synthesizing and emitting a frequency shift is to see if it can warp space-time, induce a gravitational potential energy, create an acceleration field. It is not as easy as you might think. Some scientist might come along and generate a poor quality frequency shift, and it won't work. Then, the physics community will scoff: SEE! IT DOESN'T WORK!!! It's all about QUALITY.
By the way, I chose to make space out of wave-functions so that I could use light to energize the wave-functions that already exist.
05-23-12, 01:26 AM #40
For the strong gravitational field of a circulating cylinder of light, I have found new exact solutions of the Einstein field equations for the exterior and interior gravitational fields of the light cylinder. The exterior gravitational field is shown to contain closed timelike lines. The presence of closed timelike lines indicates the possibility of time travel into the past. This creates the foundation for a time machine based on a circulating cylinder of light.
Later, Mallett abandoned the idea of using slowed light to reduce the energy, writing that, "For a time, I considered the possibility that slowing down light might increase the gravitational frame dragging effect of the ring laser ... Slow light, however, turned out not to be helpful for my research."
By Reiku in forum Alternative TheoriesLast Post: 02-24-12, 09:31 PMReplies: 48
By Anita Meyer in forum PseudoscienceLast Post: 12-27-11, 10:36 AMReplies: 1003
By Mr.Spock in forum General Science & TechnologyLast Post: 11-13-11, 11:07 PMReplies: 6
By kwhilborn in forum PseudoscienceLast Post: 09-16-11, 08:12 PMReplies: 33