and later i saw https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.htm(It's not important that Dr Tajmar retracted due to experimental error. It's important that the articles on this acknowledge a predicted coupling (in relativity) between magnetism and gravity. and that credentialed commentary acknowledged that this has been known all along (at least since the time of Einstein.) )

This Tajmar experiment is related to Podkletnov, isn't it?

This idea of Feynman (PT-symmetrical particles) implies the presence of antichron components in the complete extended Poincaré group. Yet, such antichron components are usually withdrawn from conventional physics equations, in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, when you work with the complete Poincaré group in the dynamic group theory, you see that time inversion from the coadjoint action of the group on its momentum space changes the sign of the mass and energy.

I thought Podkletnov stuff was the hokier claim of "anti-gravity" using a superconducting wheel, whereas Dr Tajmar's experiment also happened to use a superconductive wheel but was about measuring a gravitomagnetic moment and did not involve any claims about anti-gravity.

it is generally assumed that such anti physical results of physics math are unreal and thus should be excluded when modeling what is possible in the physical universe. But this is not a universally held notion. At least not when exploring strange phenomenon. At such times theorists sometimes evoke hidden sectors in which at least some if not all of the normally discarded non physical results are real. These hidden sectors preserve real physics in our familiar world while allowing really weird physics to be real so long as they are generally walled off from measurement.I have mentioned this several times in the past and just the other day in the EM drive thread. The first time i heard of hidden sectors was in reference to mirror neutrons. The last time was about something else all together. I know considering such things makes"serious" physicists buttocks itch but these ideas come from serious physicists as well; so i suggest getting some analgesic creme for that itch.

Quote from: flux_capacitor on 01/07/2017 12:55 PMThis idea of Feynman (PT-symmetrical particles) implies the presence of antichron components in the complete extended Poincaré group. Yet, such antichron components are usually withdrawn from conventional physics equations, in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, when you work with the complete Poincaré group in the dynamic group theory, you see that time inversion from the coadjoint action of the group on its momentum space changes the sign of the mass and energy. Doesn't this PT-symmetry then amount to a "trivial solution" which can be invoked for all cases?Isn't that why many physicists would avoid it?

There are no states of negative energy. If we supposed that T is linear and unitary then we get the disastrous conclusion that for any state Ψ of energy E there is another state T-1Ψ of energy -E. To avoid it we are forced here to conclude that T is antilinear and antiunitary.

...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.

Quote from: sanman on 01/07/2017 02:43 PMQuote from: flux_capacitor on 01/07/2017 12:55 PMThis idea of Feynman (PT-symmetrical particles) implies the presence of antichron components in the complete extended Poincaré group. Yet, such antichron components are usually withdrawn from conventional physics equations, in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, when you work with the complete Poincaré group in the dynamic group theory, you see that time inversion from the coadjoint action of the group on its momentum space changes the sign of the mass and energy. Doesn't this PT-symmetry then amount to a "trivial solution" which can be invoked for all cases?Isn't that why many physicists would avoid it?Why PT-symmetric particles would be a "trivial solution"?According to Dirac and Feynman we should account for 4 types of matter:• our own normal matter• our antimatter (C-symmetric matter)• mirror matter (PT-symmetric of our matter)• mirror antimatter (C-symmetric of the mirror matter, and CPT-symmetric of our matter)Because of the T-symmetry, mirror matter and mirror antimatter have negative energy and negative mass, and emit negative energy photons, so they can't be seen directly, they could only be detected indirectly through their gravitational effects on the matter in the universe. They are good alternate candidates to explain all effects usually attributed to the mysterious dark matter.May I add that if our matter dominated the cosmological antimatter because of the CP-violation, the same but opposite CP-violation may have occurred during the baryogenesis of the adjacent sector. This is very speculative but this elegant solution to preserve the symmetry globally has been first proposed by Andrei Sakharov in 1967.Apparent problem: the mirror antimatter, C-symmetric of the mirror matter and CPT symmetric of our matter, would contradict the CPT theorem, which states the CPT-symmetric of a particle behaves like that particle, that it is the same. This implies that T-symmetry, as classically viewed by the quantum field theory, does not reverse the energy. But this is a postulate originating from an ad hoc arbitrary choice with respect to the time-reversal operator. Quantum mechanics depends on the structure of operators, and we have P and T operators. In dynamical group theory, these operators are real, so that T-symmetry goes with the inversion of energy. But in quantum mechanics, operators become complex so that they may be:unitary – antiunitarylinear – antilinearIf the time-inversion T would be unitary and linear, T-inversion would create negative energy states.Steven Weinberg wrote in the "bible" "The Quantum Theory of Field", pp. 74-76, section "Space inversion and Time-Reversal":Quote from: Steven WeinbergThere are no states of negative energy. If we supposed that T is linear and unitary then we get the disastrous conclusion that for any state Ψ of energy E there is another state T-1Ψ of energy -E. To avoid it we are forced here to conclude that T is antilinear and antiunitary.Until the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, nothing in physics indicated that negative energy would be present somewhere. But this acceleration implies the action of a negative pressure. A pressure is a density of energy per unit of volume by the way. So this question must be reconsidered. It's anything but trivial.

Yes, "hidden sector" is a trending name nowadays. In the past cosmologists used other terms such as "parallel universe", "multiverse", "bubble universe", "membrane universe", "shadow universe", "mirror matter", "twin fold", "bimetric", bigravity, etc. (not all equivalent)

The three issues are:whether potentials are "physical" or just a convenient tool for calculating force fields;whether action principles are fundamental;the principle of locality.Because of reasons like these, the Aharonov–Bohm effect was chosen by the New Scientist magazine as one of the "seven wonders of the quantum world".[8]

Global action vs. local forces[edit]Similarly, the Aharonov–Bohm effect illustrates that the Lagrangian approach to dynamics, based on energies, is not just a computational aid to the Newtonian approach, based on forces. Thus the Aharonov–Bohm effect validates the view that forces are an incomplete way to formulate physics, and potential energies must be used instead(Prof Woodward's criticism of EMdrive as "pushing on the car windshield" may likewise be incomplete). In fact Richard Feynman complained[citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead as this would be more fundamental. In Feynman's path-integral view of dynamics, the potential field directly changes the phase of an electron wave function, and it is these changes in phase that lead to measurable quantities.Locality of electromagnetic effects[edit]The Aharonov–Bohm effect shows that the local E and B fields do not contain full information about the electromagnetic field, and the electromagnetic four-potential, (Φ,A), must be used instead. By Stokes' theorem, the magnitude of the Aharonov–Bohm effect can be calculated using the electromagnetic fields alone, or using the four-potential alone. But when using just the electromagnetic fields, the effect depends on the field values in a region from which the test particle is excluded. In contrast, when using just the electromagnetic four-potential, the effect only depends on the potential in the region where the test particle is allowed. Therefore, one must either abandon the principle of locality(this sounds Mach-ian/Woodward-ian!), which most physicists are reluctant to do, or accept that the electromagnetic four-potential offers a more complete description of electromagnetism than the electric and magnetic fields can. On the other hand, the AB effect is crucially quantum mechanical; quantum mechanics is well-known to feature non-local effects (albeit still disallowing superluminal communication), and Vaidman has argued that this is just a non-local quantum effect in a different form.[9]

Quote from: Star-Drive on 12/31/2016 03:04 PM...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.Hi Paul,I for one would really like to read Sonny's response to Dr. Woodward's recent JBIS article. He makes a really good case, in that if the QV were the propellant, it would be easily detectable by its mass. I add to this, that it would also be detectable by an enormous amount of heat.It could be, as you've told me that, the virtual electron-positron pairs are not fully formed. They do not have the full on-shell mass that real particles would have. Therefore, their annihilation might not produce that much hea. However, if they have enough mass to make a reasonable propellant, then the temperature of annihilation should still be detectable, but just not 1000's of Kelvin.

Just an FYI – Space Studies Institute (ssi.org) was selected as a NASA NIAC Phase I grantee:https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-conceptsfor our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.

Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/06/2017 11:56 PMJust an FYI – Space Studies Institute (ssi.org) was selected as a NASA NIAC Phase I grantee:https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-conceptsfor our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.Several of our colleagues (José Rodal, Paul March, Bruce Long, Nolan van Rossum and Marshall Eubanks) are Co-PIs or consultants. Prof. Jim Woodward will also consult on the project. SSI will administratively manage the grant for the team.The Project Summary from our proposal:We propose to study the implementation of an innovative thrust producing technology for use in NASA missions involving in space main propulsion. Mach Effect Thruster (MET) propulsion is based on peer-reviewed, technically credible physics. Mach effects are transient variations in the rest masses of objects that simultaneously experience accelerations and internal energy changes. They are predicted by standard physics where Mach’s principle applies – as discussed in peer-reviewed papers spanning 20 years and a recent book, Making Starships and Stargates: the Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes published by Springer-Verlag. These effects have the revolutionary capability to produce thrust without the irreversible ejection of propellant, eliminating the need to carry propellant as required with most other propulsion systems.Our initial Phase 1 effort will have three tasks, two experimental and one analytical:1. Improvement of the current laboratory-scale devices, in order to provide long duration thrust at levels required for practical propulsion applications.2. Design and development of a power supply and electrical systems to provide feedback and control of the input AC voltage, and resonant frequency, that determine the efficiency of the MET.3. Improve theoretical thrust predictions and build a reliable model of the device to assist in perfecting the design. Predict maximum thrust achievable by one device and how large an array of thrusters would be required to send a probe, of size 1.5m diameter by 3m, of total mass 1245Kg including a modest 400 Kg of payload, a distance of 8 light years (ly) away.Ultimately, once proven in flight and after more development, these thrusters could be used for primary mission propulsion, opening up the solar system and making interstellar missions a reality. The MET device is not a rocket, it does not expel fuel mass, and does not suffer from the velocity restriction of rockets. Freedom from the need to expel propellant means very high velocities might be achievable simply by providing electrical power and adequate heat rejection for the drive system. A mission to Planet 9 is possible in the near future using RTG power and thruster arrays. A future goal would be interstellar travel to the nearest exoplanet, within 5-9 Ly distance. A mission of this type might take 20 or more years using the MET thruster. Although the nearest exoplanet is 14 or so ly distance, more Earth-like planets are being discovered daily.This aerospace concept is an exciting TRL 1 technology, ready to take the next step to providing propellantless propulsion, first in incremental NASA smallsat missions, but later enabling revolutionary new deep space exploratory capabilities beyond anything achievable by conventional chemical, nuclear or electric propulsion systems. This unexplored opportunity has been uniquely developed by our co-Principal Investigators, breaking new ground in both science and engineering. Finally, it is technically credible – if bold and unconventional – and is fully consistent with modern physics, having been demonstrated over ten years of careful laboratory demonstration and investigation.