Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 284287 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #360 on: 06/22/2013 02:55 PM »
If my post was the only problem, then that could easily be remedied by a deletion rather than locking the entire thread.

You don't quite understand the power of a crowd whine on this site.

There really isn't any way to answer that question at least from a physicist's perspective. It simply just is and let's leave it at that.


An exceptionally incurious perspective. Seems inappropriate to a spaceflight board.


An insightful observation.  Good thing, for example, that Galileo had the requisite curiousity in the face of the powerful cognitive infiltrators he had to deal with.

Hopefully this physics discussion is starting to wind down; it's making me nervous. ...

In a second paper (1969) [Sciama] and his coauthors worked out  a linearized integral form of Einstein's field equations ... It seems solving the Einstein field equations without approximation techniques can be really really hard...  who knew?

Well I wouldn't be so nervous, but hey.  If the thread should become silent, with an occasional announcement of experimental results followed by a few posts of "Good Luck!" and "Thanks for the update!"  Then none of us would actually learn anything would we?  It would just be a news site.

So... would you suggest that I focus more on the 1969 paper than the 1953 paper?

Quote from: 93143
Woodward describes the interaction with distant matter happening at the speed of light; he conjectures a transactional radiative interaction involving both advanced and retarded waves, but as I understand it this is not assumed in the derivation, which has to do with local effects in the context of the local value of the total gravitational potential (c˛).

The first time I heard about the advanced/retarded wave notion was in Woodward's recent book.  I'm struggling to accept this notion intuitively.  How does that retarded (or is it advanced?) wave know already whether I'm aiming my inertial drive spacecraft left or right?  There's a causality paradox there somewhere.

In the book, he illustrates the stone tossed in the pond, causing a wave:

Quote from: Woodward
Fig 2.2 The top set of frames, reading from left to right, show waves propogating forward in time and space as they spread from a rock thrown into a pond.  when people talk about "advanced" waves, they often remark that waves propagating back in time are those seen by running a movie of the waves shown in reverse, producing the sequence of pictures seen in the bottom row.  However, the bottom row shows waves propagating backwards in space as time goes forward>

In other words, from the "inertial frame" of the stone thrower, there is no way to tell the advanced wave from the retarded wave.  Furthermore, by my take, the advanced wave cannot already know when the stone is tossed, and when, in the past, it must have already started to propagate backwards in time.

In the text, Woodward could be interpreted as using a false humility when he says, "We'll be concerned here with a much more mundane problem:  How exactly do advanced waves work?"  This is not a mundane question.  Just because the man-made equations of relativity have time reversal symmetry, it is by no means known why the arrow of time as experienced, is assymetric.

His subsequent explanation seems facile.  The word "dodge" comes to mind.

Has MEMS been considered as a way to build a prototype?

That is a good question, but too far in the future.  Take the laser.  Remember the size and power of the early models?  Now you can have lasers that can very nearly pop out a coherent photon at a time, and lasers that can shoot down missiles.  From 1960 to 2010 is fifty years.  So if the device can be made to work in a lab, perhaps in fifty years, an array of them could be manufactured to launch 5000 people at a time on an emigration run to Mars.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 944
  • Likes Given: 663
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #361 on: 06/22/2013 06:45 PM »
That is a good question, but too far in the future.  Take the laser.  Remember the size and power of the early models?  Now you can have lasers that can very nearly pop out a coherent photon at a time, and lasers that can shoot down missiles.  From 1960 to 2010 is fifty years.  So if the device can be made to work in a lab, perhaps in fifty years, an array of them could be manufactured to launch 5000 people at a time on an emigration run to Mars.

But the technology to mass produce microscopic mechanical devices is here and now, not 50 yrs in the future. new/hobbySpace enjoys the fruits in low cost IMUs. It's similar to semiconductor mfg. And there are intermediate steps between, say, milliNewtons for comsat station keeping and kiloNewtons to propel Mars Ark. But can MEMS process produce the required electrolytedielectriccapacitorthingiecomponent, I don't know.
ADˇASTRAˇASTRORVMˇGRATIA

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #362 on: 06/22/2013 07:57 PM »
Woodward didn't invent advanced-wave radiative interaction.  The idea comes from Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory in quantum electrodynamics, and Cramer has used it in his transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.
« Last Edit: 06/22/2013 08:06 PM by 93143 »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #363 on: 06/22/2013 08:09 PM »
That is a good question, but too far in the future.  Take the laser.  Remember the size and power of the early models?  Now you can have lasers that can very nearly pop out a coherent photon at a time, and lasers that can shoot down missiles.  From 1960 to 2010 is fifty years.  So if the device can be made to work in a lab, perhaps in fifty years, an array of them could be manufactured to launch 5000 people at a time on an emigration run to Mars.

But the technology to mass produce microscopic mechanical devices is here and now, not 50 yrs in the future. new/hobbySpace enjoys the fruits in low cost IMUs. It's similar to semiconductor mfg. And there are intermediate steps between, say, milliNewtons for comsat station keeping and kiloNewtons to propel Mars Ark. But can MEMS process produce the required electrolytedielectriccapacitorthingiecomponent, I don't know.

It's an interesting idea.  Especially since these devices don't produce local exhaust, so you could layer them...  It all depends on how the design scales.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #364 on: 06/22/2013 08:41 PM »
Woodward didn't invent advanced-wave radiative interaction.  The idea comes from Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory in quantum electrodynamics, and Cramer has used it in his transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I know.  Didn't mean to give the impression that I thought Woodward invented it.  His book is clear on that point.

The point I keep coming back to is that with each successive paper, there seem to be new additions of mind bending math being used to either explain or justify previous claims.

I read the Wiki article on the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory.  It still doesn't make causal sense.  Either that, or there is no such thing as free will; the universe is completely deterministic, down to the quantum level.

Again, how can the universe already know which direction I will be chosing to point my inertial drive spacecraft?  The advanced wave has to get started 15 billion years ago, right?  In order to get here tomorrow, when I start my journey in the unannounced direction.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #365 on: 06/22/2013 08:48 PM »
That is a good question, but too far in the future.  ...  So if the device can be made to work in a lab, perhaps in fifty years, an array of them could be manufactured to launch 5000 people at a time on an emigration run to Mars.

But the technology to mass produce microscopic mechanical devices is here and now, not 50 yrs in the future. new/hobbySpace enjoys the fruits in low cost IMUs. It's similar to semiconductor mfg. And there are intermediate steps between, say, milliNewtons for comsat station keeping and kiloNewtons to propel Mars Ark. But can MEMS process produce the required electrolytedielectriccapacitorthingiecomponent, I don't know.

True, and some of the technology shown in the early ME drive experimental apparatus was also available fifty years ago.  As another example, the transistor was available back then too.  It took several decades before it got shrunk.  Take rockets:  Goddard launched his first one in 1926, but it took forty or more years to scale it up.

What I'm getting at is, grant the clearly working ME drive experimental apparatus, with all of its new take on old physics.  I'm just suggesting that the electrolytedielectriccapacitorthingiecomponent will take a number of decades to scale down to the mems size, and scale up that array of itty bitty devices to the Saturn V size.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline djolds1

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #366 on: 06/23/2013 12:13 AM »
That is a good question, but too far in the future.  Take the laser.  Remember the size and power of the early models?  Now you can have lasers that can very nearly pop out a coherent photon at a time, and lasers that can shoot down missiles.  From 1960 to 2010 is fifty years.  So if the device can be made to work in a lab, perhaps in fifty years, an array of them could be manufactured to launch 5000 people at a time on an emigration run to Mars.
Cunard Liner equivalents would be very sweet, but I'll settle for Carrack equivalents, with a "reach" ambition of Victory Ship equivalents. :)

Again, how can the universe already know which direction I will be chosing to point my inertial drive spacecraft?  The advanced wave has to get started 15 billion years ago, right?  In order to get here tomorrow, when I start my journey in the unannounced direction.
I have a reflexive-disgust reaction to retrocausality as well. But if it works, so be it.

True, and some of the technology shown in the early ME drive experimental apparatus was also available fifty years ago.  As another example, the transistor was available back then too.  It took several decades before it got shrunk.  Take rockets:  Goddard launched his first one in 1926, but it took forty or more years to scale it up.

What I'm getting at is, grant the clearly working ME drive experimental apparatus, with all of its new take on old physics.  I'm just suggesting that the electrolytedielectriccapacitorthingiecomponent will take a number of decades to scale down to the mems size, and scale up that array of itty bitty devices to the Saturn V size.
If the effect exists, demonstrate it conclusively in the lab first. The cute innovations can wait.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2013 12:17 AM by djolds1 »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #367 on: 06/23/2013 12:32 AM »
The advanced wave has to get started 15 billion years ago, right?  In order to get here tomorrow, when I start my journey in the unannounced direction.

No, the advanced wave starts in the future, when the distant emitting object receives the retarded wave.

I think...

But the process here depends on the situation here, so the ordinary gravitational propagation that resulted in the local value of the potential is all you really need before anything happens.

Offline Supergravity

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #368 on: 06/23/2013 01:50 AM »
Hopefully this physics discussion is starting to wind down; it's making me nervous.  It seems to be a question of reading the references, because I suspect neither of us has sufficient expertise to hash it out in detail here even if we were allowed to.
On the contrary, I think it is starting to get interesting. I actually did some research this time around.

Okay, yes, in his first paper (1953) he derived the effect from a vector theory of gravity that turned out to be an approximation to GR, but the principle is the same.
I don't think it completely approximates GR except for maybe for special cases. This formalism, as you likely know, is linear and hence obeys the superposition principle. As you also know, one of the striking features of the field equations is their nonlinearity, which is why it is so difficult to solve. For this reason alone, it is not too difficult to show solutions of Einstein's equations that are completely inconsistent with Sciama's toy model and thus Mach's Principle.

Another thing about Sciama's model is the apparent addition of new fields and forces in order to make it Machian. What mediates this interaction that Sciama is using in his model? This is now the domain of quantum gravity.

Also, this would raise quite a number of fundamental questions. If correct, what does this mean for the Unruh Effect? What would be the cosmological implications of Mach's Principle? If inertia arises from the interactions of gravitating masses, what does this say about the equivalence principle? Why doesn't the gravitational constant depend on the distribution of masses in the universe as Mach's Principle would clearly suggest?

I have also read a few days ago Sciama would later abandon this model, but I have no source for this at this time, unfortunately. Will try to look for it, though.

Woodward describes the interaction with distant matter happening at the speed of light; he conjectures a transactional radiative interaction involving both advanced and retarded waves, but as I understand it this is not assumed in the derivation, which has to do with local effects in the context of the local value of the total gravitational potential (c˛).
So, Woodward is essentially suggesting he has found some form of macroscopic coupling of gravity and electromagnetism that occurs on energy scales lower than electroweak symmetry breaking? If so, how does he justify this given the fact no collider or particle physics experiment in the past has seen evidence of such coupling?

Also, if this phenomenon is limited by the speed of light, then it would seem to me that it's applications to space travel would also be similarly limited.

Finally, how does this interaction conserve momentum? Has Woodward shown it does without a preferred reference frame? As all I'm seeing is momentum can only be conserved if such a frame can exist, which obviously incompatible with relativity.


Einstein considered Mach's principle to be one of the three pillars of general relativity, along with the equivalence principle and general covariance, and remarked on how odd it was that people kept ignoring it.  He never came up with a good way to include it explicitly, but if Sciama was approximately correct it's just as well.

Really? From what I've read in the historical literature, Einstein was inspired by Mach's Principle in formulating general relativity but came to reject it entirely later on. There are solutions of Einstein's Field Equations that show just how spectacularly wrong Mach's Principle is, or at least how Einstein and the other major theorists interpreted it at the time. One such solution is Gödel's rotating universe.


Well, whatever you think of Woodward's mass fluctuation derivation (and I haven't been able to give it enough sustained attention to form a solid opinion yet), the foundation seems to be plausible, and the experiments do seem to be working...
Truthfully, I'm just skeptical. No "normal" (I stress normal since Sciama's work isn't exactly mainstream) understanding of physics predicts Dr Woodward will see anything in his experiment, but that is no reason not to do the experiment. At worst, it will be an experimental test of standard GR, which should always be done. At best, Woodward's experiment produces spectacular results that can be replicated and could be the dawn of another physics revolution.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2013 02:08 AM by Supergravity »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #369 on: 06/23/2013 04:33 AM »
I have a reflexive-disgust reaction to retrocausality as well. But if it works, so be it.

What does the word "if" mean in your comment?  If an authority tells you it is true, you have already committed to belief?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #370 on: 06/23/2013 04:36 AM »
So, Woodward is essentially suggesting he has found some form of macroscopic coupling of gravity and electromagnetism that occurs on energy scales lower than electroweak symmetry breaking? If so, how does he justify this given the fact no collider or particle physics experiment in the past has seen evidence of such coupling?

The layman would say that he converts electrical energy into forward momentum, without using a road or a wheel or a motor.

Quote
...it is not too difficult to show solutions of Einstein's equations that are completely inconsistent with Sciama's toy model and thus Mach's Principle.

It appears to be too difficult to show those solutions on this thread, however.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #371 on: 06/23/2013 04:41 AM »
The advanced wave has to get started 15 billion years ago, right?  In order to get here tomorrow, when I start my journey in the unannounced direction.

No, the advanced wave starts in the future, when the distant emitting object receives the retarded wave.

I think...

But the process here depends on the situation here, so the ordinary gravitational propagation that resulted in the local value of the potential is all you really need before anything happens.

Not quite, as I understand Woodward's telling.

Forget the spacecraft.  Stick with the rock in the pond.  I threw that rock in the pond yesterday.  Remember that a portion of that wave (let's just call it retarded, ok?) has to come from the edge of the causal universe.  It had to have started 15BYA, in order to get here yesterday, since it can only travel at c.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline MP99

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #372 on: 06/23/2013 07:59 AM »
For example, why is the strong interaction stronger than the electromagnetic interaction? There really isn't any way to answer that question at least from a physicist's perspective. It simply just is and let's leave it at that.

Surely, one of the great unanswered questions in cosmology.

Cheers, Martin

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #373 on: 06/23/2013 01:46 PM »
For example, why is the strong interaction stronger than the electromagnetic interaction? There really isn't any way to answer that question at least from a physicist's perspective. It simply just is and let's leave it at that.

Surely, one of the great unanswered questions in cosmology.

Cheers, Martin

Nothing happening here.  Move along.  Move along.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline djolds1

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #374 on: 06/24/2013 01:41 AM »
I have a reflexive-disgust reaction to retrocausality as well. But if it works, so be it.
What does the word "if" mean in your comment?
Retrocausality.

If an authority tells you it is true, you have already committed to belief?
I have little to no respect for the authority of credentials. I have great respect for the authority of demonstrated ability and demonstrated results. In the scientific context, demonstrated results demand empirical laboratory verification of claims. Thus IMO, most of cosmology for the last 40 years has been little more than third-rate metaphysics. And whether he's correct or not, Woodward has been laying out all his assumptions, hypotheses, and hardware testing for the world to judge for going on 20 years now; if nothing else, that's good science. If those hardware test stands can demonstrate the effects he claims, then his foundational assumptions and hypotheses needs must be credited, or at least examined with a much more accepting eye. If the effect he hypothesizes cannot be demonstrated however? (Shrug) 'Too bad. So sad. Next?'

From a philosophical viewpoint, I would much rather retrocausality be ruled out - as I said, it repulses me. From a practical standpoint, I can adjust if physical results demonstrate that it needs to be ruled in.

So, Woodward is essentially suggesting he has found some form of macroscopic coupling of gravity and electromagnetism that occurs on energy scales lower than electroweak symmetry breaking? If so, how does he justify this given the fact no collider or particle physics experiment in the past has seen evidence of such coupling?
No. Woodward's explicit claim is that his approach does NOT couple gravity and electromagnetism in the typical Left Field "electrogravitic" vein.

The layman would say that he converts electrical energy into forward momentum, without using a road or a wheel or a motor.
Woodward insists on calling the thrust mechanism "recycled propellant propulsion," as distinct from the more typical "reactionless propulsion." In practical terms there is no effective difference, but Woodward insists the former is the more technically correct.
« Last Edit: 06/24/2013 01:51 AM by djolds1 »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #375 on: 06/24/2013 12:45 PM »
I have a reflexive-disgust reaction to retrocausality as well. But if it works, so be it.
What does the word "if" mean in your comment?
Retrocausality.

Sorry to go all grammatical on you.  That's what the word "it" means.  You may indeed have great respect for "the authority of demonstrated ability", but that doesn't make "if" true in and of itself.

No question, if there is such a thing as retrocausality, the dictators of yesterday and today will rejoice at the new possibilities.

The layman would say that he converts electrical energy into forward momentum, without using a road or a wheel or a motor.

Woodward insists on calling the thrust mechanism "recycled propellant propulsion," as distinct from the more typical "reactionless propulsion." In practical terms there is no effective difference, but Woodward insists the former is the more technically correct.[/quote]

He's pumping electricity into it, and expects the damn thing to foat across the conference table.  Technical that.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline djolds1

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #376 on: 06/24/2013 03:20 PM »
I have a reflexive-disgust reaction to retrocausality as well. But if it works, so be it.
What does the word "if" mean in your comment?
Retrocausality.
Sorry to go all grammatical on you.  That's what the word "it" means.  You may indeed have great respect for "the authority of demonstrated ability", but that doesn't make "if" true in and of itself.
De nada. I can go Grammar-Nazi myself at times. ;D

No question, if there is such a thing as retrocausality, the dictators of yesterday and today will rejoice at the new possibilities.
The political dictators don't worry me so much. Not immediately, at any rate. But the philosophers who over decades and centuries shape the intellectual climates in which societies, sensibilities and novel political implications develop? The effective death of free will will allow THEM to go hog wild, and the creeds they create to be eventually exploited by the political dictators will be a severe problem.

Woodward insists on calling the thrust mechanism "recycled propellant propulsion," as distinct from the more typical "reactionless propulsion." In practical terms there is no effective difference, but Woodward insists the former is the more technically correct.
He's pumping electricity into it, and expects the damn thing to float across the conference table.  Technical that.
The current level of output, if accurately reported, certainly isn't going to be floating across conference tables. OTOH, technical qualifications of that nature are precisely the type of answer you want to see out of the physics end of the equation that (hopefully) results in practical applications.

A great cartoon from a few years ago (no longer have the link), to paraphrase:
Philosophy Conferences: "Does STUFF exist?"
Physics Conferences: "Is the universe made of STUFF?"
Engineering Conferences: "Can we make GREAT STUFF into GREATER STUFF?" :)
« Last Edit: 06/24/2013 03:57 PM by djolds1 »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #377 on: 06/24/2013 08:21 PM »
The effective death of free will

If God can see the universe in Einstein Block format without destroying free will, retrocausality won't do it either.

And that is all I'm going to say about that in this thread.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #378 on: 06/24/2013 11:04 PM »
I don't think it completely approximates GR except for maybe for special cases.

That's kinda the whole point of an approximation...

Quote
This formalism, as you likely know, is linear and hence obeys the superposition principle. As you also know, one of the striking features of the field equations is their nonlinearity, which is why it is so difficult to solve.

Which could be why there seem to be a number of different approximate solutions for Sciama-type inertia that all require that the universe have a density parameter "of order of magnitude unity", but don't match each other exactly.

Quote
For this reason alone, it is not too difficult to show solutions of Einstein's equations that are completely inconsistent with Sciama's toy model and thus Mach's Principle.

Of course; Gilman (1970) said as much.  Mach's principle isn't inherent in GR; it's just that a non-empty FRW cosmology happens to show an effect that acts exactly like inertia.

Quote
What mediates this interaction that Sciama is using in his model?

Gravity waves, presumably.  Woodward touches on this in his book.  Accelerating an object produces a kink in its gravitational field that propagates outward at c, etc.

Quote
Finally, how does this interaction conserve momentum?

This is the easy one.  If there is a force interaction (however delayed) between an object and the distant universe, momentum is transferred between them, which trivially results in conservation.

...hold on, you aren't talking about the M-E thruster, are you?  You mean basic inertial reactions, right?  I don't see the problem, and I certainly don't see why an absolute velocity reference frame is necessary (the universe has an average velocity, and this factors into the derivation, but the result doesn't depend on it).  Remember that forces don't just show up out of nowhere and push on stuff; they're exerted by other stuff that also has inertia.  My brain's a bit fried at the moment, but I can't imagine it not adding up.

Quote
No "normal" (I stress normal since Sciama's work isn't exactly mainstream) understanding of physics predicts Dr Woodward will see anything in his experiment, but that is no reason not to do the experiment. At worst, it will be an experimental test of standard GR, which should always be done. At best, Woodward's experiment produces spectacular results that can be replicated and could be the dawn of another physics revolution.

Well, hopefully we do get spectacular results.  But you're talking as though he hasn't done any experimentation yet.  He's been doing experiments for decades; sure, the early ones were a mix of "why doesn't it work?" and "why doesn't it work as well as it's supposed to?" but refinements to the theory and device design have resulted in repeatable thrust measurements that approximately match theoretical predictions.  There was also the rotator work, which showed the expected effect at the proper harmonic and scaling as expected.

I'm about halfway through trying to understand his book.  Unfortunately it isn't the only substantial demand on my mind right now...

Stick with the rock in the pond.  I threw that rock in the pond yesterday.  Remember that a portion of that wave (let's just call it retarded, ok?) has to come from the edge of the causal universe.  It had to have started 15BYA, in order to get here yesterday, since it can only travel at c.

No, it's travelling at -c.  It starts in the far future, and arrives yesterday.  And it's called advanced, not retarded.  The retarded wave is the ripple from the rock.

Now, if you could rig the rock to cause an advanced-wave ripple itself, that would propagate backward in time to trigger a retarded-wave response.  But due to wave cancellation or something, that's not supposed to happen...
« Last Edit: 06/24/2013 11:28 PM by 93143 »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #379 on: 06/25/2013 01:25 AM »
Stick with the rock in the pond.  I threw that rock in the pond yesterday.  Remember that a portion of that wave (let's just call it retarded [edit: advanced, then], ok?) has to come from the edge of the causal universe.  It had to have started 15BYA, in order to get here yesterday, since it can only travel at c.

No, it's travelling at -c.  It starts in the far future, and arrives yesterday.  And it's called advanced, not retarded.  The retarded wave is the ripple from the rock.

Now, if you could rig the rock to cause an advanced-wave ripple itself, that would propagate backward in time to trigger a retarded-wave response.  But due to wave cancellation or something, that's not supposed to happen...

Plus c, minus c.  Same speed, by the numbers, assuming time symmetry.  No such thing as minus c in this universe, given the direction of time's arrow.

I'm not sure I buy this at the moment.

So the retarded wave is yesterday's wave, created by the rock in the pond.  And the "advanced" wave would be the one from the far future, timed from the edge of the universe with a radius sized to the case of that future, traveling at -c, which is a speed not included in reality, but included in the what I would call a careless rendering of the universe as being time symmetric, back to the past, yesterday, when I cast the rock.  Even now, today, those waves propagate across the pond.

If there is free will, then there must be a simulataneous time transaction which begins here, yesterday with my rock tossing actions, and some time in the distant future, with the universe being compelled, at that distant, not previously determined future, to fire off a wave, from that un-previously known distance, so that it would conserve the momentum I created by tossing that rock.

If there is not free will, then I have already been constrained by the universe to toss that rock, and it would stand to then reason that the future universe would have been constrained to send back that advanced wave.

This strains the credulity of common sense.

Stand at the other end of the universe, at that distant moment in space and in the future, for a sec.  From that viewpoint, at some random point in time, a wave would be generated, moving backwards in time at -c, in order to conserve the momentum that I tweaked in firing up my ME thruster.  As my spaceship zigs and zags thru the universe, day after day, then at that point in the future, day after day, their instruments would be reflecting the bizarre back and forth readings of the sudden momentum waves (or whatever they're called) back in time to this present.

One might think, in that advanced future situation, that that civilization would be able to tweak the past, had they free will.  With their presumably advanced technology, why couldn't they send a wave back in time to create ripples in the pond, somehow compelling me to toss that rock in the first place?

This is the paradox of retrocausality.  If this is true, then there is magic in the universe after all.  Anybody can be made to do anything by any magician who knows how to cast the spell.

This cannot be the case.  Woodward seems to be grasping at straws to hold in all seriousness, that causality can be violated to conserve momentum.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2013 01:28 AM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.