06-30-12, 05:52 PM #261
The mathematical formulation of things like quantum field theory allow us to explore similar but not identical constructs. For example, we can construct a quantum field theory where T symmetry doesn't exist. We can then see what difference this makes to predictions and then we can go do experiments which probe those differences. It's how we found out that C and P symmetries aren't obeyed by all physical phenomena via chirality in the weak force. The maths was a guide for what physics to examine and test.
But you aren't interested in that, you just want to make up your own version of things to delude yourself.
Time and again you put your foot in your mouth. When are you going to learn to not repeatedly lie?
Seriously, it seems like every paragraph you post contains something dishonest and ignorant. Don't you get tired of jumping to conclusions and misrepresenting people whose work you don't know anything about?
06-30-12, 05:58 PM #262
06-30-12, 06:32 PM #263
I'm not here to troll, I'm here to voice an opinion that the physics community is going the wrong way. There are experts who can do the advanced mathematics and the details; those experts are paid well to do the heavy lifting. But abandoning the aether medium was a mistake; that's why physics is going in the wrong direction. There is a kind of medium, a kind of absolute reference frame that will reproduce observations of SR, GR and QM. But there are trolls who want to suppress any.
I applaud everyone who has asked good tough questions and has argued their position based upon physics. But those who want to suppress debate and discussion are the real trolls.
06-30-12, 06:53 PM #264
I'm happy to defend my position that there is a medium, an aether medium and it's made out of waves. These waves facilitate the existence of the EM spectrum, and do others things.
But you don't want to discuss; you want to flout others with your 0.1% knowledge of the universe. Good luck with that.
06-30-12, 08:01 PM #265
I don't know which is crazier, the belief that God told you about your blinking lights, or that Aliens told you.
Both are pretty lunatic.
06-30-12, 08:04 PM #266
Let's talk about an actual medium. Why does visible light get transmitted through glass, or why is glass transparent, and what does it really mean to say glass is transparent to a certain range of frequencies?
Then, why is glass reflective at its surface, and why is some light reflected, some transmitted (i.e. what's the mechanism?). Why does a vacuum remain transparent and not have this reflective property (why is the vacuum's "transmissive medium" characteristically different to a material one)?
If you've read anything by Feynman or perhaps Penrose, the answer is obvious (but not trivial).
06-30-12, 09:01 PM #267
I have Feynman lectures vol 3, third printing July 1996. Chapter 3 talks abuot probability amplitudes. On page 3-3, fig 3-2 shows slits 1 and 2 are open. Under that is an equation that adds two paths together.
This started giving me the idea that the paths are somehow real and that they add together to produce interference patters; others may disagree. In my interpretation, the path, described by a wave-function, is something that must exist, or else the light won't propagate. I think that the wave-function contributes the permittivity and permeability of free space for the vacuum so that light can propagate.
When the ray of light passes through glass, the medium of the glass has it's own permittivity so you get
The permittivity of the medium of glass is contributed by the glass molecules. The outer shell electrons vibrate at the same frequency as the light. If there are atoms/molecules that have a band-gap equal to E=hf_gap, then photons of that frequency, f_gap, will be absorbed by the those atoms, and the glass will be opaque to that frequency.
Silvered glass has silver atoms that reverse the photon's k-vector: becomes
I would like to hear your interpretation of the Feynman lectures.
06-30-12, 09:35 PM #268
Originally Posted by Mazulu
In my interpretation, the path, described by a wave-function, is something that must exist, or else the light won't propagate. I think that the wave-function contributes the permittivity and permeability of free space for the vacuum so that light can propagate.
07-01-12, 12:00 AM #269
Why can't there be multiple paths for propagation?
In the two slit experiment, there are two sources of of light. So the wave function, of from each source, will interfere and produce interference patterns.
And why is a vacuum 'completely' transparent, unlike glass?
Last edited by Mazulu; 07-01-12 at 12:08 AM. Reason: More information.
07-01-12, 12:18 AM #270
Originally Posted by MazuluThe electric field of the incident beam of light causes the electrons to vibrate and produce a reflected beam. The harder it is to make the electrons vibrate, the less light will be reflected, and the more light will be transmitted.
In a "clean" vacuum with no charges, there is nothing to respond to light's electric field, nothing to draw energy out of the stream of light.
07-01-12, 12:45 AM #271
07-01-12, 02:45 AM #272
You are the one stone walling. You won't (probably can't) respond to the points I raise.
If I could kill special relativity tomorrow I would. If I could kill quantum mechanics tomorrow I would. Not because I dislike them (I very much do like them) but because if they are wrong, demonstrably wrong, then people should know. Hacks have this misconceptions physicists need to cling to the mainstream lest they lose their jobs. MORE funding, MORE jobs arise when paradigms are knocked over, so if a hack things physicists are all in it for the research grants then they contradict themselves by thinking physicists wouldn't kill a mainstream theory if they had the chance.
I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. If I wanted to get an aether model published in a reputable journal I'd need to provide good justification. Such justification, at a bare minimum, would have to include a working model of some phenomenon. The Michelson–Morley experiment was motivated because someone constructed a model involving aether which predicted something in contradiction to alternative models. The experiment was then guided by this to measure a specific phenomenon. Similarly, when Einstein presented general relativity it was not welcomed by the scientific community but he provided several phenomena where GR didn't agree with Newtonian gravity, so the model could be tested and one of them (or both!) discarded. Someone wanting to present an aether model would have to do the same. You would need to construct a quantitative aether based model of some set of phenomena, derive it's predictions for those phenomena and then either compare with already done experiments or propose new ones. Your 'gravity drive' thing is insufficient. You need to provide a precise prediction for what should happen. What readings should be taken and what, precisely, does the current model say should happen and what does your model say.
You have already shown you don't know enough about what the mainstream says about light and gravity, so it's clear you cannot compute what the mainstream has to say about such experiments. In fact the experiment you propose is not a valid one, for reasons I've already done into. The fact you've not realised this is a testament to your lack of formalisation because formalisation would have allowed you to see it for yourself (though it's a flaw visible on the qualitative level too).
If your entire argument for listening to you is "Because I say so!" then you don't have an argument. Science funding doesn't grow on trees. Someone with the time, money, man power and equipment to do precision experiments involving gravity and light is going to want to do other experiments. You have to convince such people you've got a sound enough argument that it is worth doing your experiment. You have failed utterly in that regard. Saying "Well I have a gravity drive experiment, what do you have?" is laughably stupid. Simply pulling assertions out your backside doesn't a case make. It's easy to do that.
How about the following experiment : Place a pair of superconducting flat plates above and below a toroidal superconductor, all immersed in liquid Helium-3. Pass equal and opposite direct currents through each plate and an alternating current through the torus. It will lower the Casimir force between the plates and cause quantised vortex formation in the surrounding fluid, which can then be used as quantum computer states.
There, something I made up off the top of my head with plenty of buzzwords. If I went into a quantum computing lab tomorrow and demanded this experiment be run, claiming it could lead to working quantum computers, would anyone have any reason to listen to me? Would saying "Well I have a quantum computer design, do you?" make my claims any more valid? Of course not. Yet that is what you're trying to do now. You've jumbled together a few concepts you clearly haven't understood and concluded you have something worth listening to. It's easy to come up with BS nonsense like that when you don't have to give details. It's when you get into constructing the details you find you can't just make any conclusions you wish. This is the power of mathematics, it means that you are led by logic, not by your whims, going from assumptions to conclusions. When Einstein stated his 2 postulates of special relativity he locked the predictions of his model. He was inevitably going to reach , a logical corollary of the postulates. He wouldn't have been able to lead the model to whatever he liked, say . You, on the other hand, make up the conclusions and then try to justify them. That is classic rank mentality.
If you truly have a degree in physics then you wasted your time because you haven't gained anything from it, either because you don't remember it or it was so terrible, so awfully shockingly terrible, that you learnt pretty much nothing of any use from it.
Last edited by AlphaNumeric; 07-01-12 at 02:52 AM.
07-01-12, 03:23 AM #273
But some light is reflected and some is transmitted, why do the electrons vibrate for some of the incident light but not all of it? If the light is reflected from the surface, why isn't it reflected by atoms in the glass? Why don't you see a fuzzy reflection?
But the vacuum is still "made out of" wave-functions with zero energy?
07-01-12, 03:54 AM #274
07-01-12, 04:04 AM #275
Hi AlphaNumeric! Im not trying to interrupt, I am enjoying your conversation with Mazulu
But if you could find the time, Id like to see some clarification on the following issue:
Cantors proof that the natural numbers cant be paired with the real numbers ...Sigh
Also I agree with your view of common sense.
But...Ahem... I do make an exception when it comes to my own!
And the difference between pure and applied mathematics is not awfully clear to me,
I suspect it may matter what objects we count and what we mean by "addition":
Suppose we, in free fall, are adding one drop of water to another then we get one drop of water ...
Yes it has more mass, but if what interest us only is the shape then 1+1=1.
But within mathematics the equation x+x=x only have zero as a solution
so it seems maths cant be applied in this way to water drops...
But what then are we doing when we are adding water drops this way?
Also it seems that everything added to everything remains everything,
a quick check into set theory shows addition isnt defined for everything...convenient isnt it?
07-01-12, 04:30 AM #276
OK, I'll come clean. I am frustrated that the physics community can't come up with a gravity propulsion drive. The big reason is because the only known way to manipulate gravity is to use huge amounts of mass/energy. It is very inconvenient to travel through space quickly if your spaceship is as heavy as Jupiter (just an example).
So I thought, well, if you have an aether medium, then you could manipulate it locally so that it gives you a gravity field where you need one (expansion in the back, contraction in the front) and you fall forward. But the physics community doesn't use an aether medium: which is very inconvenient.
A while back, I was thinking about dropping photons and shining lasers into black holes. It made sense that a photon gains energy as it falls in. I knew about gravitational time dilation and gravitational redshift. The fact that clocks run slower near the event horizon seemed very odd. Why would they need to? What could possibly require slower running clocks near the event horizon. But not just there. Time dilation from special relativity also causes clocks to run slower. For SR, one of Einstein's postulates states that the speed of light, c, is invariant for all observers. Time dilation happens because both inertial frames measure c to be the same for both reference frames. So what is so special about the speed of light that time dilation and length contraction occur between two reference frames? In GR, it's the invariance of the interval between two reference frames. I would have missed it except some books write , while other books drop c from the equation. So here we have the speed of light showing up again. Meanwhile, I'm looking for the right kind of aether medium to thwart Lorentz invariance.
Now look at quantum mechanics. If V=0, then solving the Schrodinger equation is easy. It's just an equation for a plane wave. Step potentials are a little harder and you get terms like . The oscillatory nature of simple wave-functions is apparent. Maybe if I could solve harder quantum systems I would have overlooked the oscillatory nature of wave-functions.
I'm searching for a medium that can facilitate the existence of quantum mechanics, SR and GR. QM gives me oscillations and waves, SR/GR gives me "speed of light, c". Speed of light and waves are two properties of EM radiation, two properties of light. It took a long time to make the connection, but if there was an aether medium, it had to support the properties of light.
I'm gonna go to bed. If you're interested, I'll tell you how I came up with the idea of frequency shifting as a means to get back gravity/acceleration fields.
07-01-12, 04:52 AM #277
If you can't see the logic of that, then I will go through the table of contents of all my physics books and count how many times I see the word "waves" or references to the properties of light.
Feel free to go through yours and count the number of times you see "invisible fairy magic".
07-01-12, 09:29 AM #278I'll tell you how I came up with the idea of frequency shifting as a means to get back gravity/acceleration fields.
07-01-12, 12:28 PM #279
What happens when light falls into a black holes? It blue shifts. Why do clocks slow down near the event horizon? Because GR says they do. Why do we observe GR? Because waves facilitate the existence of space and time itself. Light is a wave. Light blue shifts as it falls into the black hole. The vacuum of space is made of waves, the whole EM frequency band. Gravity and gravitational time dilation are caused by frequency shifting of the whole EM frequency band.
It's just a series of logical steps that follow from the assumption that the properties of the vacuum come from the existence of AM waves.
07-01-12, 02:40 PM #280
In conclusion, gravity drives are possible. But your aether-less physics models obscure this simple fact.
By RealityCheck in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & CosmologyLast Post: 08-30-12, 06:52 PMReplies: 56
By deadrats in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 07-21-11, 11:13 AMReplies: 11
By Just Curious in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 06-04-11, 06:11 AMReplies: 6
By weed_eater_guy in forum Architecture & EngineeringLast Post: 06-02-09, 11:38 PMReplies: 33
By Giambattista in forum Computer Science & CultureLast Post: 09-27-08, 01:27 AMReplies: 6