Gravity Propulsion Drive

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Mazulu, May 4, 2012.

  1. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Since nobody is challenging my aether-medium interpretation, I will talk about a way to build a gravity propulsion drive. But first, I will recap the important parts of the aether-medium.

    The aether-medium has to be exactly consistent with experimental physics including general relativity, quantum mechanics, and Maxwell's equations. The building blocks of the aether behave like wave-functions; wave-functions are solutions to the Schrodinger equation. You could draw the conclusion that the aether is an ocean of quantum waves, it is the quantum vacuum. These wave building blocks have another important property. They interconnect all particles, all quantum systems, in such a way that the speed of light is invariant for all particles, all photon emitters and all photon observers. These wave building blocks of the aether have characteristics of length contraction and time dilation. This ocean of quantum waves that I call the quantum aether is responsible for the four dimensional geometry of the space-time continuum.

    Why is this interpretation significant? Because it means that gravity fields are just a configuration of wave-functions. A photon may or may not fall into a gravity well of a black hole. But the gravity is still there in either case. This is because the wave-functions are the building blocks of space-time geometry, they are the building blocks of the aether.

    The wave function of a plane wave is Psi = e^{i*omega*t}; this is true for zero photon, one photon or many photons. Light from a laser is simply energizing the wave-functions that are the building blocks of space-time. Simply by turning on the laser (or light source) we are also generating the wave-function.

    If one or more photons does happen to fall into the gravity well, along the radii, it will blueshift. What does the wave-function of a photon look like, mathematically, that is falling into a black hole? The actual answer is very complicated is hard to calculate. But the photon has to frequency shift along the radii. Therefore, the wave-function that includes frequency shift, must also include the gravity field that causes it.

    Any questions or comments so far?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    The term spacetime has taken on a generalized meaning beyond treating spacetime events with the normal 3+1 dimensions. It is really the combination of space and time. Other proposed spacetime theories include additional dimensions—normally spatial but there exist some speculative theories that include additional temporal dimensions and even some that include dimensions that are neither temporal nor spatial. How many dimensions are needed to describe the universe is still an open question. Speculative theories such as string theory predict 10 or 26 dimensions (with M-theory predicting 11 dimensions: 10 spatial and 1 temporal), but the existence of more than four dimensions would only appear to make a difference at the subatomic level.

    The unification of space and time is exemplified by the common practice of selecting a metric (the measure that specifies the interval between two events in spacetime) such that all four dimensions are measured in terms of units of distance: representing an event as (in the Lorentz metric) or (in the original Minkowski metric)[10] where is the speed of light. The metrical descriptions of Minkowski Space and spacelike, lightlike, and timelike intervals given below follow this convention, as do the conventional formulations of the Lorentz transformation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mazulu Banned Banned

    The space-time aether medium, in my interpretation, is made out of quantum waves, like wave functions. Quantum systems (like particles, atoms, virtual particles, virtual photons) which are quantum waves, are interconnected with the quantum waves that make up flat (or curved) space-time. The vacuum energy and the quantum mechanics description of the vacuum are just the quantum appearance of the space-time continuum. It is an Occam's razor attempt to make the building blocks of nature simple wave-functions.
    At present, wave-functions are just mathematical solutions to the Schrodinger equation. The simplest wave function is for a plane wave of light e^{i*(frequency*time}, which describes both a wave function of light and also a plane wave of light. The only difference is the number of photons (energized wave-functions) that participate.

    Events are points, in a selected coordinate system, in 4D space-time. Two successive peaks of a frequency of light can satisfy the definition of "events that make up space-time". If wave-functions are the building blocks of nature, space-time, particles, space-time geometry and everything else, then they have to account for special and general relativity as well. In the two slit experiment, opening or closing one of the slits can change the wave-function that extends from the source, through the slit to the target wall. The photon (or electron) source is interconnected with the slit(s) and the target via the wave-function(s). The wave functions, like an ocean of waves, have to propagate light at a velocity c = wavelength*frequency. If the source or target are moving relativistically with respect to one another, the wave-function will still extend between them, but will length contract the light wave-length and time dilate the light frequency in order to sustain the status of interconnecting medium between them.

    The quantum waves that extend between emitter and observer, source and target, must be the building blocks of the 4D space-time continuum. Even if they have to regulate the measuring stick & clock between two relativistically moving masses. Wave functions make "action-at-a-distance" phenomena possible.

    As for 10, 26 or other dimensions above 4D space-time, super-string theory has to reconcile with wave-functions in order to be experimentally verifiable.

    The speed of sound through a body of water if v = wavelength*frequency. If there are many different bodies of water, all moving at different speeds with respect to one another, how could they ever agree upon a single speed of sound (through water)? As a point particle medium, they can't. It takes a wave-function, with the ability to entangle (quantum) to engage in action-at-distance phenomena. By Occam's razor, that's it for things that implement nature; so regulation of time in a quantum system or regulation of distance between two reference frames, falls to the activities of wave-functions.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    I did and you haven't provided anything but further random guessing and wishful thinking.

    So you're going to tell us about the important parts of something no one can observe and which you don't have any working models for? Perhaps after this you'd like to describe God's taste in music or the colour of The Invisible Pink Unicorn?

    Yes. Given you have nothing but your own arm waving notions why should anyone pay any attention?
  8. Mazulu Banned Banned

    If there is no medium that interconnects all physical objects, then why do we observe relativity? We should observe Galilean laws of motion without there ever being a speed of light dependence. Time dilation between two frames of reference is evidence that those frames are connected somehow. They are connected by something, a medium, that can only transmit information and/or light at "the speed of light". Speed of light is a restriction of the medium.

    The success of quantum mechanics, the success of wave-functions, suggests that this medium is likely made out of wave-functions. It's like trying to fit the clues together to arrive at a conclusion. If physics was a murder mystery, then the photon did it.
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Exhibiting a total lack of understanding of relativity.

    All efforts to detect a medium have failed.

    You like the words wave-function. You use it to describe just about everything. Lots of hand waving and word salad. :soapbox:
  10. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    What evidence do you have for that assertion?

    Relativity is a statement about space-time, not something within it. Saying "It should be Galilean if there's no medium" is making an assertion about space-time too. So why do you default to Galilean transforms? Why should space-time be Galilean and require a medium for Lorentz transforms? Because you find Galilean transforms more understandable or less conceptually unappealing?

    You sound like someone completely unfamiliar with the science in question. If you were familiar with relativity, quantum mechanics, wave-functions etc you wouldn't be saying some of the unjustified assertions you are. Sorry, some of us require a little more than "Because I don't like the alternative model put forth" or more probable "Because I don't understand the alternative model put forth". Wave-functions and photons and high level physics in general might seem this weird realm of "Say lots of buzzwords and people think you're doing physics" but those buzzwords mean something to physicists and you can't just expect to be taken seriously if you throw a few out. Speaking as someone with experience in both relativity and quantum mechanics I can say there's nothing in either which make your assertions justified.

    This whole "But I prefer Galilean transforms!" thing which so many pseudoscientific hacks have is because they don't know the maths and thus cannot grasp the structure of Lorentzian geometry, instead having to cling to the models which they can grasp, at least qualitatively, due to hands on experience. Everyone understands rotations and translations, everyday objects can be used to demonstrate them. A Lorentz boost however is something few people ever actually see in objects.

    I'll ask you again, can you provide any justification for your claims? Thus far you've done nothing but make vapid assertions and arguments from ignorance (that's a logical fallacy, I'm not specifically calling you ignorant. Much....). You've asked "If there is no medium that interconnects all physical objects, then why do we observe relativity?", which can easily be turned around and asked of you "Why should a medium-less space-time cause us to observe Galilean transform properties?". By Occam's razor you're on weak ground, as you've had to assume something about space-time we don't observe and also the existence of a medium we don't observe, compared to relativity which assumes things we can observe and test. Of course Occam's razor isn't always right but it certainly puts the burden of proof on you in this case, as you assume extra things, things unseen, to explain something already accurately modelled by something with less assumptions. And relativity actually models things. So far you haven't demonstrated it's even possible to make an aether model which does all the things you require of it, never mind a gravity propulsion drive.

    I'll take it from your inability to retort my explanation of why a frequency shift in a photon doesn't mean a gravitational field has been made that you either concede your mistake or do not grasp it. If it's the latter I'll explain it again if you wish.
  11. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Innovation. Imagination. Creativity. If gravity drive technology is to become possible, you will have to make some educated guesses about how the laws of physics are implemented, from a nuts and bolts point of view. Once you have a guess that will satisfy Occam's razor, relativity, quantum mechanics, Maxwells equation, laws of motion, then you can come up with experiments to test your guess. I chose the wave-function as the means by which laws of physics are physically manifested. Let me explain why I chose the wave-function.

    Modern Physics & Quantum Mechanics, Anderson, pg 120:
    4. The wave nature of particles
    The idea of associating a wave and a particle nature with the electron was first proposed by DeBroglie in his doctoral thesis in 1925. His work was motivated by the mystery of the Bohr orbits, which he attempted to explain by fitting a standing wave around the circumference of each orbit.

    I looked up Lamb shift in wikipedia.
    In physics, the Lamb shift, named after Willis Lamb (1913–2008), is a small difference in energy between two energy levels ^2S_{1/2} and ^2P_{1/2} (in term symbol notation) of the hydrogen atom in quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to Dirac, the ^2S_{1/2} and ^2P_{1/2} orbitals should have the same energies. However, the interaction between the electron and the vacuum causes a tiny energy shift on ^2S_{1/2}. ​

    In the first reference, all particles have wave behavior: wavelength = h/p, where p is the particle's momentum.

    The Lamb shift is a case in which the quantum vacuum is causing an energy shift in the hydrogen atom. I drew the conclusions that the quantum vacuum is made out of wave-functions. The wave functions of the quantum vacuum interact with the wave-functions of the hydrogen atom.

    I looked up the Casimir effect in wikipedia.
    In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect and the Casimir–Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field. The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, like capacitors placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. In a classical description, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them.[1] When this field is instead studied using the QED vacuum of quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force[2]—either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects. ​

    The last sentence says that the Casmir effect is best described in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects. Words like "quantized field" tell us that wave-functions will be calculated to describe the interaction between physical objects and the zero-point energy quantum vacuum.

    Anderson pg 141.
    In section 6 we defined a complex wave function psi(x,t), which is assumed to completely describe the dynamical state of a particle in the Schrodinger representation. Although the wave function Psi(x,t) cannot be measured directly, we interpret its "intensity", that is, its modulus squared, to correspond to the relative probability of detecting the particle at position x at time t​
    It is my belief that the wave-function exists as a real phenomena in spite of the fact that we cannot measure it directly. Waves and oscillations are everywhere in nature: water waves, sound waves, 60 Hz AC voltage, photons, classical Poynting vector of electromagnetic waves, etc... All of these are real phenomena, so why wouldn't a wave-function be a real phenomena too? After all, it contains all of the information contained in the dynamic system. Maybe because it is the dynamic system. You contain all of the information about AlphaNumeric because, you are a real biological entity with a job and a life.

    I assume you need more convincing that the wave-amplitude is a real phenomena in nature.
  12. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    In other words, I don't have to know shit, I just have to make crap up.
  13. Mazulu Banned Banned

    All you do is spew forth nasty comments. Why can't you address the relevant question? Are wave-functions a real phenomena of nature.
    Last edited: May 9, 2012
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    There's a difference between educated guesses based on a working understanding of observed physics and just making crap up. You don't have a 'nuts and bolts point of view' as you clearly are not a physicist or have any hands on experience with this type of stuff. If you did then you wouldn't be looking up the meaning of things like 'Casimir effect' on wikipedia, you'd already know it.

    Hacks mistake random guessing for 'creativity'. They are quite different things. I could program a script to parse Wikipedia pages pertaining to science and then make sentences out of buzzwords it finds. Would it be doing science? Not in the slightest. You aren't doing anything more than that it seems.

    You don't have anything which satisfies those things. I keep asking you to provide anything to justify your position and you just come out with more assertions.

    I'm really hoping you're just pretending to be this blind to your complete lack of justification, reason or evidence, else it would mean you actually believe the nonsense coming out of your mouth.

    So your method of arriving at your conclusions is you look up the meaning of words you don't understand, because you've never learnt any physics or mathematics, try to grasp them from layperson explanations and then reached conclusions often completely at odds with the people who developed the physics you just tried to read about?

    I don't have to read those Wikipedia pages, I went to university to learn it. Just like the other people who developed science you now find in textbooks. Why do you think you're in a position to reach 'insightful' conclusions about wavefunctions, quantum mechanics, relativity etc when all you've done is read a few wiki pages? Why do you have a grasp of this stuff from only reading some layperson explanations people like myself have written? Why is it you think you're in a better position of understanding than the people who are actually supplying you with this information?

    You said a 'nuts and bolts view' but your view is nothing but "I read some wikipedia". So you don't actually have any hands on experience, any working understanding, you don't know what quantum mechanics actually does with the wavefunction, the sorts of properties it has, the way in which observable predictions are made from it, you just have "I looked it up on Wikipedia".

    Please tell me you're a joke, that you're aware of how staggeringly daft you're being. You can't seriously think you have some insight or grasp of this stuff just because you looked up Wikipedia pages? Wikipedia is 3 or 4 levels removed from actual research level discussions. Compare the quantum mechanics papers on to Wikipedia, there's no comparison.

    You haven't provided anything convincing. You haven't provided me anything I didn't already know. In case you haven't realised, I actually do physics research, including quantum mechanics and relativity. You quoting a paragraph from wikipedia isn't telling me something I didn't know, so you haven't given me (or anyone else in the physics community) anything to change our minds. It's people like me who do the research, which is then eventually taught to graduates, then undergraduates, making it's way into textbooks and finally have Wikipedia pages. You quoting Wikipedia at me is a laughable way to try to convince me, it's people like me who do the work which ends up on Wikipedia, which you're having to go read because you don't know it.

    Do you honestly think quoting to the physics community something the physics community created, while claiming it means something utterly different, is going to make for a convincing argument?

    You have provided nothing to justify your claims. What you have provided, however, if clear evidence you don't have any unique insight into this. You're relying on the layperson explanations of actual physicists' work and trying to claim it says things it doesn't. You might be able to con friends, family and fools by scaring them with buzzword laden Wiki quotes but to actual physicists it makes you look like a joke. Again.
  15. Mazulu Banned Banned

    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.
  16. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Oh NO! How will be ever get to Tatooine!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

  18. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Yes I like subspace. Sounds like a good place for FTL physics.
  19. Mazulu Banned Banned

    I guess I'll have to walk.:bawl:
  20. Mazulu Banned Banned

    You complained bitterly that my interpretation that wave-functions are a real phenomena of nature must be a joke because I am citing wiki. Well, here you go...

    In a process called quantum tomography, they are reconstructing the density matrix of the wave-function.
    [2] An ensemble of photons with wavefunction (x) is emitted
    from a single mode (SM) fiber and collimated. We will begin
    by directly measuring this wavefunction (described in detail in
    Fig. 1).​

    I hope this will lead to a new revolution in physics ideology, and then a breakthrough into a wide range of new technologies.
  21. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Delusional stuff. He actually thinks this is true. Pretty much like every other scientifically illiterate pretend scientist.
  22. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Physics ideology. Ideologue [you]: somebody who ignores any fact that doesn't fit their world view. So there isn't any such thing as 'physics ideology'.
  23. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    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.

Share This Page