1. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Without comment on the general discussion...

The above quote is as much a representation of an ideologue as anything. The discussion has been on the interpretaion of theory and as such does not represent interpretation of proven fact. If the term ideologue can be applied to a theoretical interpretation, there are few within the theoretical physics community to which it would not apply.

We are all influenced by where we have been. We all see the world from a perspective that is defined by our past experience. Except to the extent that experience is supported by a consensus of imperical evidence – fact – everything we believe can be described as idealogy.., and thus each of us to some extend an idealologue.
I am happy to engage is some debate over the interpretation of physics. The very idea that wave-functions might be real is a shock to the ideology of some. But discussion and debate shouldn't lead to ad hominem and personal attacks. Nevertheless, there are some potentially very profound technological breakthroughs they are possible if wave-functions really do exist.

2. Originally Posted by Mazulu
Do you believe that wave-functions are a real phenomena of nature? Or are they just a convenient form of math? If you scoff at the former, then gravity drive propulsion will slip away.
If you're unwilling to respond to the points I make why should I give you the time of day by replying to your questions? This is a discussion forum, not a chance for you to monologue and ignore any criticisms people raise about your claims.

3. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
If you're unwilling to respond to the points I make why should I give you the time of day by replying to your questions? This is a discussion forum, not a chance for you to monologue and ignore any criticisms people raise about your claims.
I would happily engage in a dialogue with you. You don't think I know anything about wave-functions, but I can tell you that a wavefunction which represents a particle must be finite, single-valued and continuous. Wave-functions are solutions to the Schrodinger energy equation. What else do you wanna know?

4. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Without comment on the general discussion...

The above quote is as much a representation of an ideologue as anything. The discussion has been on the interpretaion of theory and as such does not represent interpretation of proven fact. If the term ideologue can be applied to a theoretical interpretation, there are few within the theoretical physics community to which it would not apply.

We are all influenced by where we have been. We all see the world from a perspective that is defined by our past experience. Except to the extent that experience is supported by a consensus of imperical evidence – fact – everything we believe can be described as idealogy.., and thus each of us to some extend an idealologue.
I'm talking about ignoring the literature [empirical evidence] in support of personal opinion. Thanks for the general psychological profile on humans.

5. What else do you wanna know?
What else do you read in wiki?

6. In the two slit experiment, wave-functions are the naturally occurring pathways that, being waves, interfere with one another. The geodesic described by general relativity is another kind of naturally occurring pathway that guides massive particle and photons through space (as any pathway would). The pathways of geodesics, of gravity, are made of wave-functions.

When frequency shift is generated, the angular property of space is laid down (the wave function is laid down). Since the wave-function behaves like a pathway, then frequency shift emission effectively lays down a pathway with a gravitational potential energy across it. A pathway with a gravitational pathway across it is a geodesic.

This is another way of describing the operational principles of the gravity propulsion drive. If you want evidence, then do the experiment.

7. That sounds so weird. So: a light wave, because it's sinusoidal in behavior, becomes a sine function?

8. Originally Posted by Mazulu
In the two slit experiment, wave-functions are the naturally occurring pathways that, being waves, interfere with one another. The geodesic described by general relativity is another kind of naturally occurring pathway that guides massive particle and photons through space (as any pathway would). The pathways of geodesics, of gravity, are made of wave-functions.

When frequency shift is generated, the angular property of space is laid down (the wave function is laid down). Since the wave-function behaves like a pathway, then frequency shift emission effectively lays down a pathway with a gravitational potential energy across it. A pathway with a gravitational pathway across it is a geodesic.

This is another way of describing the operational principles of the gravity propulsion drive. If you want evidence, then do the experiment.
When did gravity waves become something we could generate? I can't seem to recall that we have even been able to detect them. Maybe you could provide some links that show how this might be done?

9. Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
That sounds so weird. So: a light wave, because it's sinusoidal in behavior, becomes a sine function?
Quantum mech requires the use of wave-functions to describe quantum systems. Wave-functions, in their most simple form, are just e^[i(kx + ky + kz - wt)], which are just plane waves. By Euler's law,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_formula
e^i pi = cos(pi) + i sin(pi).

Question: what are the building blocks of the laws of nature? Of gravity? Quantum mechanics? Everything?

Answer: Phase angles/Radians/Degrees of electromagnetism. Remember that electromagnetisim is implemented by virtual photons. Virtual photons are described by wave-functions, wave-functions are of the form e^i pi.

What about gravity and curvature of space-time? GR?

Answer: Both the speed of light and the square of the interval are invariant. In GR, two events are separated by the interval; the square of the interval is invariant for all reference frames. That means that all reference frames are tied together by:
1. speed of light, c;
2. square of interval between two events.

Two events can be as simple as two phases of a light wave. I'll explain more later.

10. Originally Posted by KilljoyKlown
When did gravity waves become something we could generate? I can't seem to recall that we have even been able to detect them. Maybe you could provide some links that show how this might be done?
Gravity waves have not been detected by LIGO. Scientists do not know how to generate gravity waves. I am trying to persuade others that the way to generate a constant gravity field is to emit, a frequency shift of electromagnetic energy, from 400 to 800THz, every microsecond. That this will imitate what gravity does to light (it frequency shifts it).

The two slit diffraction experiment can be performed one particle at a time, in such a way that the photon (or sometimes electron) has no other particle to interfere with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The way the Double slit experiment works is if particles are fired at two or more slits, such that nobody knows which slit the particle went through, then the particles will seem to act like waves and accumulate on the back wall in an interference pattern. If only one slit is open, then the particle(s) land on the backwall without an interference pattern. If many particles are fired at once, through two or more slits, then one might suspect that the interference pattern is caused by the particles interfering with each other. But if only one particle at a time is fired at the slits, the particles still behave like waves.

I believe that the wave-function pathway, one for each slit, is a naturally occuring phenomena. I believe that the pathways are what interfere as waves. I further interpret the space-time continuum to be made out of wave-functions itself. Since wave-functions can be pathways for particles and light, then they can behave like geodesics.

A point in space-time can be described, relative to reference frame S, as [-ct,x,y,z]. A wave-function for a plane wave, can be described as
Psi = exp^i[kx + ky + kz - wt]. While the square of the interval between two events can be described as,

-cdt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = -cdt'^2 + dx'^2 + dy'^2 + dz'^2. More to follow...

11. Mazulu: Mathematics is a Model of reality. It's a very accurate model, but no model is 100% accurate. For example, you can divide any number- except zero. It has minor bumps.
Being a model of reality is different from being reality.

I think you are mistaking the model for the real thing.

12. Originally Posted by Neverfly
Mazulu: Mathematics is a Model of reality. It's a very accurate model, but no model is 100% accurate. For example, you can divide any number- except zero. It has minor bumps.
Being a model of reality is different from being reality.

I think you are mistaking the model for the real thing.
You put your finger right on the issue: which part of the mathematical model is the true part of nature? Is the universe made of matricies? What would that even look like in nature? Is the universe made of Plus signs? Have you ever seen a plus sign come out of a particle? Of course not. What about differential equations? Could the building blocks of the physical universe be made of differential equations? What would that look like? Probably not. What about sinusoids? Sinusoids are everywhere in nature. Light itself is made of sinusoids, photons of frequency wt, such that there electric and magnetic fields vary as E(t) = E_0 cos(wt).

I believe that the light, space, and time are implemented by wave-functions which are just cos() + i sin(). So it would go:
physical matter,
molecules,
atoms,
protons, neutrons, electrons,
quantum particles (Quarks, neutrinos, particles of the Standard Model),
Wave-functions/space-time

13. Mazulu has been told this directly by God.

How can you question it?

14. Originally Posted by Mazulu
You put your finger right on the issue: which part of the mathematical model is the true part of nature? Is the universe made of matricies? What would that even look like in nature? Is the universe made of Plus signs? Have you ever seen a plus sign come out of a particle? Of course not. What about differential equations? Could the building blocks of the physical universe be made of differential equations? What would that look like? Probably not. What about sinusoids? Sinusoids are everywhere in nature. Light itself is made of sinusoids, photons of frequency wt, such that there electric and magnetic fields vary as E(t) = E_0 cos(wt).

I believe that the light, space, and time are implemented by wave-functions which are just cos() + i sin(). So it would go:
physical matter,
molecules,
atoms,
protons, neutrons, electrons,
quantum particles (Quarks, neutrinos, particles of the Standard Model),
Wave-functions/space-time
The question here is, what is the difference between phenomena and the way way perceive and abstract our perception phenomena by the use of symbols and language to represent the phenomena.

It's OK to say light behaves like a sine wave, but it's quite a different thing to say it's made out of a sine function, as if the universe is created out of our particular notions of how to represent the way it behaves.

That would be really weird. Unless you're agreeing AlexG's point about some divine connection.

Following that, we just need a new definition of God. Something like: God is made out of dot products of fields impinging on surfaces, plus the rest of the stuff Maxwell's equations are made out of...plus an attitude...(something like that).

15. Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
The question here is, what is the difference between phenomena and the way way perceive and abstract our perception phenomena by the use of symbols and language to represent the phenomena.

It's OK to say light behaves like a sine wave, but it's quite a different thing to say it's made out of a sine function, as if the universe is created out of our particular notions of how to represent the way it behaves.

That would be really weird. Unless you're agreeing AlexG's point about some divine connection.

Following that, we just need a new definition of God. Something like: God is made out of dot products of fields impinging on surfaces, plus the rest of the stuff Maxwell's equations are made out of...plus an attitude...(something like that).

I'm not saying that the universe is made out of mathematical symbols. I'm saying that the universe is made out of things that look like this, and this and even this. The mathematics of quantum mechanics, operators, and wave-function solutions to Schrodinger equation were all invented by scientists & mathematicians by observing nature. Do you understand?

Also, I am not trying to obtain authority by claiming that God or aliens or whatever told me this stuff. If I mention it, it's only because I was truly inspired by the experience(s). My actual intent is to discuss certain ideas with others just to check to see if the idea(s) make sense, or does not make sense..

16. Originally Posted by Mazulu
Quantum mech requires the use of wave-functions to describe quantum systems. Wave-functions, in their most simple form, are just e^[i(kx + ky + kz - wt)], which are just plane waves. By Euler's law,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_formula
e^i pi = cos(pi) + i sin(pi).
Wave functions do not take that general form. That is a single plane wave solution which is only valid in the absence of anything else.

My previous comments about you clearly not understanding wave functions were entirely accurate. You're just spewing out things you don't understand thinking they sound impressive. Some of us work with the Schrodinger equation and the dynamics of wave functions for a living.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Two events can be as simple as two phases of a light wave. I'll explain more later.
No, you'll make up more things later about topics you don't understand because of what voices in your head tell you. That isn't 'explaining' any more than me rolling dice tells you the lottery numbers.

17. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Wave functions do not take that general form. That is a single plane wave solution which is only valid in the absence of anything else.
Plane waves are a simple example of wave functions. Here is a picture of a wave function for the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom wave function has an ethereal, almost ghostly quality to it. You have lost sight of the forest for the trees. That etheric looking atom wave-function represents all of the information that can be measured.
Some of us work with the Schrodinger equation and the dynamics of wave functions for a living.
Is this one of your friends?

18. Lets talk about gravity propulsion drives, experiments and mathematics. I propose that we try a frequency shift experiment to see if we can induce an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum. Take a look at the Einstein equations.

$R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu\nu}$

There are two driving terms that result in curvature of space-time, the stress energy tensor and the cosmological constant. If we want to build a gravity propulsion drive, then we really can't depend upon the stress energy tensor because it tells us we need to manipulate solar masses of mass-energy in order to generate gravity. For all practical purposes, this is impossible. It makes more sens to set the stress energy tensor to 0, which means that we're not going to bother with manipulating black holes; we're not going to convert Jupiter into energy. If $T_{\mu\nu}=[0]$, a 4x4 matrix all set to 0, then we are left with,
$R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu} = -\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}$

Curvature terms are on the left and a Cosmological driving term is on the right. I don't see the gravitational constant anywhere, do you? All I see is the Cosmological constant as a driving term for acceleration fields. The next step is harder than anything you've ever done before. You have to use your imagination to come up with a way to physically manipulate the Cosmological constant, locally; you have to think up an experiment to see if your idea works.

19. Geeze, that's some great physics there. You arbitrarily set a term to 0 and then do some whiz bang Junior Highschool algebra and presto you have gravity propulsion. How freaking sad and embarrasing!

Let me try that:

F=ma, since I am not going to manipulate mass I will set it to zero. So force equal acceleration. Golly this is easy!

I wonder if you have even graduated from highschool!

20. Originally Posted by origin
Geeze, that's some great physics there. You arbitrarily set a term to 0 and then do some whiz bang Junior Highschool algebra and presto you have gravity propulsion. How freaking sad and embarrasing!

Let me try that:

F=ma, since I am not going to manipulate mass I will set it to zero. So force equal acceleration. Golly this is easy!

I wonder if you have even graduated from highschool!
The goal is to figure out how to build an acceleration field generator; this would lead to anti-gravity and eventually warp drive technology. Setting the stress-energy to zero allows us us to think about just the Cosmological constant and how it expands/contracts space-time. Remember that the Cosmological constant is different from gravity; it's not obligated to obey the Stress-energy tensor. Hubble's law tells us that redshift is proportional to distance away from other galaxies. Hubble's law is the experimental observation that space is expanding. Gravity is attractive and is based upon how much mass-energy there is exists. Expansion of the universe is another phenomenon entirely. Cosmological constant is the part of the Einstein equations that describes expansion/contraction of space-time caused by intrinsic energy density of the vacuum, not the stress-energy term.
It's too hard and impractical to curve space-time by changing the stress-energy tensor. However, it might be possible to curve space-time by changing the local energy density of the vacuum. Can we figure out a way to do that?

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•