Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 286793 times)

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #780 on: 12/16/2016 12:41 AM »




« Last Edit: 12/16/2016 12:42 AM by aceshigh »

Online tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 298
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #781 on: 12/16/2016 03:06 AM »
Thanks. We can forget among the latest Emdrive brouhaha, that there is another competitor for space drive in town.

And this one with a pretty solid theory and experimental record itself.

BTW it was great to see all these people we hear so much about or see them posting here, now in video.
« Last Edit: 12/16/2016 03:09 AM by tchernik »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #782 on: 12/19/2016 11:55 PM »


Looks like more updates. I found this particular presentation the most interesting. While I have considered the stacking idea to be useful way of increasing total thrust due to the size of each thruster. The idea that you could leverage the phased array idea to get a thrust increase was never something that occured to me. I am going to have to sit with this for a bit.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #783 on: 12/31/2016 03:04 PM »
...could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?

I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.
Perhaps the same mechanism is responsible for both the EM Drive and the piezoelectric/electrostrictive stacks tested by Woodward/Fearn: see

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588165#msg1588165

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214

for Dr. Montillet's paper explaining the EM Drive's acceleration as being due to the Mach/Sciama/Woodward gravitational effect.

...Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive  operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.
I don't know what was his opinion previously, but the above statement is incorrect as of the Estes Park Breakthrough Workshop, as Prof. Woodward was agreeable to Dr. Montillet's explanation of the EM Drive as being due to the Mach effect.  Actually Prof. Woodward proposed an experiment (that a superconducting EM Drive's performance will be less than expected because of the much reduced skin depth) to test this idea.

Am I interpreting the above correctly? Is the suggestion that the Mach Effect was the underlying cause of the thrust signatures all along, and that the EMdrive theorists' search for alternative explanations might merely lead them back to the Mach Effect in the end?

If so, I believe this is something Prof. Woodward alluded to some years ago. Rather than saying that the EMdrive results were completely flawed, I seem to recall him suggesting originally that if there is any thrust there, it might be due to accidental Mach Effects being generated.

Are we approaching some kind of consensus among those involved in studying both phenomena that this might indeed be the case?

your recollection is correct. I remember the same comment. However, Woodward was never actually against the EmDrive. He was just against the theory, Dr. White's i believe, that was being used to explain it. I would have to troll through the em drive thread but I believe this was relayed to us by Paul March in one of his ghostly appearances on the forum.

Yes, the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation theory in particular was the one he disagreed with I believe. Also, in his audio interview on the Space Show about a year or so ago, which I listened to, he was quite clear in his disagreement with the above.

I just find it exciting that after all of the focus on the EMDrive, and the apparent disregard for Woodward's work during this time (this thread received almost no updates for months on end compared to the multitude of EMDrive threads), things seem to be going full circle, back to his Mach Effect theories once more.

What I'm trying to ascertain is whether this is indeed the case, or whether I am misinterpreting the latest developments.

MET:

I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3893
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #784 on: 01/01/2017 09:55 AM »
I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.

I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?

http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #785 on: 01/03/2017 02:04 PM »
I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.

I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?

http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411


Sanman:

"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"

In short, no he does not.  Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue.  Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?"  Drum roll please...

Best, Paul M.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2017 02:05 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #786 on: 01/03/2017 05:35 PM »
I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.

I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?

http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411


Sanman:

"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"

In short, no he does not.  Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue.  Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?"  Drum roll please...

Best, Paul M.

I think that Woodward subscribes to Einstein's 1920 interpretation of the aether:

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Quote from: Einstein
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter.

Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H Weyl; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Bold added for emphasis
« Last Edit: 01/03/2017 05:37 PM by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #787 on: 01/03/2017 05:40 PM »
1) I added new calculations for the Mach effect drive free in space and compares with the results for damping force end fixity, a preliminary model of the Fearn-Woodward experiments.

2) Book format

3) Thanks to NSF member Meberbs once again for pointing out the difference between a Woodward MEGA drive in space vs. a Woodward MEGA drive in the Woodward experiments, (concerning damping force fixity in the second case).  I solved the equations for the MEGA drive in space (which are much simpler in space than in the experiment) and are featured in this new version:


https://www.researchgate.net/project/Mach-effect-propulsion
« Last Edit: 01/03/2017 05:41 PM by Rodal »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #788 on: 01/03/2017 06:02 PM »
I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.

I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?

http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411


Sanman:

"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"

In short, no he does not.  Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue.  Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?"  Drum roll please...

Best, Paul M.

I would reply this: A 'pure void' is a thing that the human mind in principle cannot even imagine. A biological mind only works if there is 'something' (sensory and/or self-generated neural data) that it can process. Believing in spacetime to be a 'void', which actually cannot be imagined due to, uh, (bio)technical reasons rooted in the way a thinking mind works, opens a dangerous path into self-delusion. 'Spacetime' is very obviously something that connects everything in a mind-boggling manner which our minds, that simply have evolved to survive on this planet and nothing more in the first place, simply cannot process. Humans need food, shelter, clothing and produce offspring that hopefully repeat the process (perhaps even more successfully). That's what our brains and minds are good at. It is no wonder at all why so many people fail miserably at modern life. It is too demanding on a brain that just didn't evolve to be excellent at abstract thinking and process the immense data flow nowadays. A small fraction of people can do and cope with this, as can be observed. But overall.. nah  :D .
« Last Edit: 01/03/2017 06:10 PM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3893
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #789 on: 01/05/2017 09:56 AM »
Sanman:

"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"

In short, no he does not.  Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue.  Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?"  Drum roll please...

Best, Paul M.

Heh, it's like believing in the carpet but not the threads, or believing in the air/water but not the molecules.

I wonder how Prof Woodward explains Hawking Radiation from black holes...



I think that Woodward subscribes to Einstein's 1920 interpretation of the aether:

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Quote from: Einstein
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter.

Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H Weyl; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Bold added for emphasis

"as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

And yet the idea of "foam" accommodates Einstein's restrictions, due to the transient brevity of its "bubbles" which don't persist beyond a Planck-length in time.
Like the "snow" you see on your TV set, when you're not receiving a signal.

Michelson-Morley only disproved the existence of a persistent aether, but did not disprove the idea of the transient/dynamic quantum-foam aether.

What's most important is Occam's Razor. Whether you find the Quantum Vacuum idea to be the more convenient visualization, or whether you find some other form of expression to be more convenient to deal with, they still need to tie multiple fundamental phenomena together to explain everything more economically.

I wonder if there's some way to reach/attain Planck-scale frequencies, to find some way to briefly couple with those short-lived vacuum constituents, pushing off them before they vanish. Like those animals that can walk on water by moving their legs fast enough, before the water gives way beneath each step of their feet. When a virtual particle-antiparticle pair has vanished, it's beyond the point of being able to interact with it -- it's only during that brief fleeting appearance that there's a possibility of interacting with and pushing off it.

And yet, anytime we see some fundamental conversion event happening - like when a photon transfers its energy to an electron, or when a photon/wave reflects off some matter to change direction - aren't these seemingly instantaneous events happening on that Planck-time scale? Is what why an EMdrive or MEGA could work? Is that where the coupling with the Quantum Vacuum fluctuations is happening, to "push" off them?  :-X
« Last Edit: 01/05/2017 09:59 AM by sanman »

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 928
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #790 on: 01/05/2017 10:32 AM »
I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.

I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?

http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411


Sanman:

"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"

In short, no he does not.  Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue.  Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?"  Drum roll please...

Best, Paul M.

I think that Woodward subscribes to Einstein's 1920 interpretation of the aether:

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Quote from: Einstein
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter.

Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H Weyl; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Bold added for emphasis

Exactly. Let me add Woodward's own comment on that text:

"Einstein's use of the term "aether" and the role of spacetime in general relativity.  This goes back to a lecture given by Einstein at Leiden in 1920 with Lorentz in the audience.  Einstein allowed as how general relativity had reintroduced the notion of the aether in spacetime, something he knew Lorentz would view with approval.  Einstein had no intention of reintroducing the aether of Maxwell and Lorentz.  He was in the process of adopting the view that spacetime IS the gravitational field.  In part, he was motivated by his view of inertia, for he was of the view that inertia is a property conferred on material stuff by the spacetime in which it resides.  Just as it is in Newtonian mechanics.

Between the publication of general relativity in late 1915 and the early 1920s Einstein's take on his own theory underwent some serious critiques, and Einstein seemed to vacillate on some foundational points.  We've already noted that he was seduced by the idea that gravity equals curvature, and had to be corrected by Levi-Civita.  This was the time when he floated the idea and name) of "Mach's principle", which he was forced to abandon under the withering criticism of Willem deSitter.  Nonetheless, he remained firmly committed to what he called "the relativity of inertia",  which was code for Mach's principle without the action at a distance field theory that theory demanded.

By 1924, Einstein had pretty well figured out where he stood on the foundational issues and how he thought general relativity should be understood.  He wrote this up in an essay "On the Aether", readily accessible in English translation on the web.  In the essay he quickly rejects the earlier ideas on "aethers" and says that by aether what he means is a physically existent entity, spacetime, which, unlike the space and time of classical physics, is a deformable entity that responds to the presence of matter.  Actually, he goes farther and asserts that spacetime IS the gravitational field  He did this because in his view the chief role of spacetime is to confer inertia on stuff therein, and produce the actions that we recognize as inertial effects.  Note that by doing this, Einstein makes inertia a gravitational effect.  This is the essence of Mach's principle without the label and controversy.

Einstein's 1924 essay "On the Aether" is the culmination of his thought on the issues of the meaning of general relativity.  How do we know?  Well, if  you read his letter to Born in 1950 you'll find his remarks informed by his essay, and the exchanges with Levi-Civita and deSitter.  This is NOT the "modern" view of general relativity in the eyes of some relativists."

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3893
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #791 on: 01/06/2017 10:50 AM »
So just a question regarding the relationship between Mach Effect and the whole "distant masses of the rest of universe" thing -- why would the oscillation of the masses in the apparatus produce an instantaneous effect in terms of motion, when the rest of the universe that the apparatus is supposed to be interacting with is so distant? Doesn't Mach's Principle take into account lightspeed delay when interaction is happening across vast distances?

If inertia itself is something which we know is experienced instantaneously, then how is this rationalized under Mach's Principle that inertia is the result of interaction with the entire rest of the universe? How can the entire rest of the universe - much of which is so distant - communicate its side of the interaction with us so quickly, from so far away?

Doesn't this stuff violate Locality?
« Last Edit: 01/06/2017 10:55 AM by sanman »

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 928
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #792 on: 01/06/2017 11:10 AM »
So just a question regarding the relationship between Mach Effect and the whole "distant masses of the rest of universe" thing -- why would the oscillation of the masses in the apparatus produce an instantaneous effect in terms of motion, when the rest of the universe that the apparatus is supposed to be interacting with is so distant? Doesn't Mach's Principle take into account lightspeed delay when interaction is happening across vast distances?

Inertial reaction forces are instantaneous and do not propagate at (are not limited by) the speed of light. Mach's principle need a field for such an "action-at-a-distance" provided by the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory.

Dennis Sciama, who first formulated Mach's principle as a vector theory of gravity then in a tensor formalism equivalent to general relativity, stated that instantaneous inertial forces in all accelerating objects are produced by a primordial gravity-based inertial radiative field created by distant cosmic matter and propagating both forwards and backwards in time at light speed.

As previously formulated by Sciama, Woodward suggests that the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory would be the correct way to understand the action of instantaneous inertial forces in Machian terms:

• J. F. Woodward: "Radiation Reaction"

The Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory is an interpretation of electrodynamics that starts from the idea that a solution to the electromagnetic field equations has to be symmetric with respect to time-inversion, as are the field equations themselves. Wheeler and Feynman showed that the propagating solutions to classical wave equations can either be "retarded" (i.e. propagate forward in time) or "advanced" (propagate backward in time). The absorber theory has been used to explain quantum entanglement and led to the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, as well as the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity, a Machian version of Einstein's general relativity, that is now used to explain Mach effect propulsion or "Woodward effect".

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3893
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #793 on: 01/06/2017 12:15 PM »
I hear what you're saying, and I can parse it at an abstract level - but when you talk of "propagating backwards in time", this to me makes it difficult to reconcile with what we experience as observers, which is always in a forward chronological direction of causality. It's extremely counter-intuitive, and I realize that abstracting it into mathematics helps us to cope with that, but I want to know why this "propagating backwards in time" isn't construed as a violation of causality.

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 928
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #794 on: 01/06/2017 12:30 PM »
I agree our brain is not wired to visualize two simultaneous events counter-propagating in time. But the absorber theory doesn't violate causality because the advanced wave never propagate before (said in our own chronological order) the event that triggered the departure of the retarded wave.

There is a concrete image given by Woodward in his book "Making Starships and Stargates" allowing to grasp the mathematical idea a bit, that I wrote in this post in the EM drive thread:
Quote from: flux_capacitor
A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore.
Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges.
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2017 12:32 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3893
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #795 on: 01/06/2017 01:19 PM »
I agree our brain is not wired to visualize two simultaneous events counter-propagating in time. But the absorber theory doesn't violate causality because the advanced wave never propagate before (said in our own chronological order) the event that triggered the departure of the retarded wave.

There is a concrete image given by Woodward in his book "Making Starships and Stargates" allowing to grasp the mathematical idea a bit, that I wrote in this post in the EM drive thread:
Quote from: flux_capacitor
A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore.
Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges.
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.

But it seems to hint at "pre-determination" though -- that wave is heading "backward in time" toward you, the observer -- meaning that it's coming backwards from the future.

You're saying that's okay, just as long as you haven't experienced any of these events yet, that they can keep moving back towards you from the farther future into your immediate future, where they will then combine to create your present.

But from a causality perspective, something that hasn't happened yet is reacting to my present-moment action -- ie. the distant mass of the universe is already interacting with something I have yet to do -- moving on an intercept course with it.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #796 on: 01/06/2017 06:55 PM »
I agree our brain is not wired to visualize two simultaneous events counter-propagating in time. But the absorber theory doesn't violate causality because the advanced wave never propagate before (said in our own chronological order) the event that triggered the departure of the retarded wave.

There is a concrete image given by Woodward in his book "Making Starships and Stargates" allowing to grasp the mathematical idea a bit, that I wrote in this post in the EM drive thread:
Quote from: flux_capacitor
A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore.
Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges.
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.

But it seems to hint at "pre-determination" though -- that wave is heading "backward in time" toward you, the observer -- meaning that it's coming backwards from the future.

You're saying that's okay, just as long as you haven't experienced any of these events yet, that they can keep moving back towards you from the farther future into your immediate future, where they will then combine to create your present.

But from a causality perspective, something that hasn't happened yet is reacting to my present-moment action -- ie. the distant mass of the universe is already interacting with something I have yet to do -- moving on an intercept course with it.

I could be wrong here... but I am wondering if the model you're applying in your question is really the problem here.

It feels like your question presupposes that pre-determination requires that actions define the space of possible reactions available to the universe.

I would argue another model would be, what if the universe already has defined every possible action that could ever be taken within it. It doesn't know or need to know the order of those actions. It doesn't need to know when or how far away those actions are. It has simply defined that only these set of actions will be allowed for the lifetime of the universe. If that is true, then one potential answer to your question about pre-determination; would be that the chiefly distant matter of the universe is always emitting advanced waves of every possible configuration. Then when you trigger an event, that event emits a specific retarded wave that matches a specifically configured advanced wave. Thereby bringing the effect the event is supposed to trigger into existence.

It is in a way a kind of pre-determination. but I would argue this kind of pre-determination is required for the scientific method to work. The system has a finite set of possibilities and is aware of all the possibilities it can support. It just can't pre-determine which possibility it will see next.

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 928
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #797 on: 01/06/2017 08:33 PM »
You really should read Woodward's MUSH paper he published in 1995 (cited in the first page of this thread BTW) and see what he has to say regarding causality, determinism and the nature of time, according to the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, especially the Transactional Interpretation which uses the absorber theory and its advanced and retarded solutions:

• Woodward, J. F. (1995). "Making the Universe Safe for Historians: Time Travel and the Laws of Physics". Foundations of Physics Letters, 8(1).

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3893
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #798 on: 01/07/2017 02:44 AM »
I could be wrong here... but I am wondering if the model you're applying in your question is really the problem here.

It feels like your question presupposes that pre-determination requires that actions define the space of possible reactions available to the universe.

Fair enough - I'd had the same idea in mind when I posed my question, and so I guess I was awaiting this kind of response as a validation.


Quote
I would argue another model would be, what if the universe already has defined every possible action that could ever be taken within it. It doesn't know or need to know the order of those actions. It doesn't need to know when or how far away those actions are. It has simply defined that only these set of actions will be allowed for the lifetime of the universe. If that is true, then one potential answer to your question about pre-determination; would be that the chiefly distant matter of the universe is always emitting advanced waves of every possible configuration. Then when you trigger an event, that event emits a specific retarded wave that matches a specifically configured advanced wave. Thereby bringing the effect the event is supposed to trigger into existence.

It is in a way a kind of pre-determination. but I would argue this kind of pre-determination is required for the scientific method to work. The system has a finite set of possibilities and is aware of all the possibilities it can support. It just can't pre-determine which possibility it will see next.

Yeah, I wonder about that stuff, from time to time.

The very process of consciousness/thinking amounts to proceeding through a sequence of electrochemical entropy states, and that sequence becomes the ordinal we define as "time". It's therefore no mere coincidence that the "Arrow of Entropy" is highly correlated to the axis of "time". The whole concept of "time" -- whether past, present, future, or even the "passage of time" -- is an illusion, a byproduct of how our brains work. This creates a fundamental bias in how we humans function as observers.

This "time" axis or dimension which we use to define spacetime when analyzing the universe, has thus arisen from our inherent and inalienable biases owing to the very way our brains work. We then rely upon mathematics to allow us to objectively analyze the world, and yet our human biases once again reappear as we attempt to interpret mathematical results and place them in "real-world" context ("real-world" as we see it).

This stuff perhaps sounds metaphysical (aka. hokey), but it's useful to be aware of these things - because even though in our everyday lives we're stuck on this "track" called "time" because of how our brains work, the rest of reality isn't confined to how we experience things as observers.

So while "spacetime" implies 4 degrees of freedom (x,y,z,t), one of them is pinned down in a particular orientation, (entropy orientation) and we call it "time".

Can we then make additional use of that entropy correlation somehow, to extract further insight into "spacetime" - including its hidden background processes like the Quantum Vacuum?

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #799 on: 01/07/2017 12:02 PM »
OK, here is my take on the absorber theory. One has to wonder where all the antimatter is. I suppose it exists, but beyond a sort of higher dimensional mirror surface that mirrors each action exactly as it appears in our universe. By my understanding of the current model (please correct me if I'm wrong), antimatter can be viewed as matter that travels backwards in time (see electron <-> positron, Feynman et al.) . If we draw a 2D half space on paper with a particle p+ at (x,y), and a particle p- at (-x,-y) and all vectors / properties (including time axis) reversed, then it all adds up to zero, which would satisfy absolute conservation of momentum and energy. This means that in the entirety of reality, all is a zero sum game, as it should be, lest we want to involve 'gods' which are substitutions for 'x' , solving nothing.

In my idea, half of physical reality is actually inaccessible to us. So we are missing something important. In the case of the EM drive, if one exists and works in our part of reality then it also exists and works in the other part. They are mirror images of each other, reflections of a dimensional mirror. In that model, an EM drive that seems to produce energy when accelerating for long enough, does this in both 'half-realities' with - relative to our viewpoint - reversed properties. All properties compensate each other to exactly zero at any point in time, when doing the integral over both half spaces. So in my idea, there is no violation of any conservation laws. It may look like that in our part of reality, but it actually is not.

Just some brainstorming and philosophy here. Let me know what you think of this ;D .
Reality is weirder than fiction