Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 284354 times)

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #840 on: 04/10/2017 12:05 PM »
A noob question I have a rather shaky understanding of the physics of this but doesn't a theory like MOND better support ideas like this than current conventional theories?

Conventional theory of gravity (that is, Einstein's general relativity) does not include Mach's principle, although Einstein was convinced that a future theory embracing GRT would necessarily include such relativity of inertia. Woodward citing Einstein:
Quote from: Jim Woodward
So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest:

1. The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance.
2. The principle of equivalence.
3. Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.

In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added,
“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however.”
… It must be said that, as far as I can see, to this day Mach’s principle has not brought physics decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach’s principle may therefore have a future – but not without the quantum theory.
— Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, pp. 287–288. (Quoted by permission of Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982)

MOND is a theory sprinkled with ad-hoc parameters which are there only to fit observations deviating from the prediction of standard theory (where standard model seems to fail). You are free to support such theories, but I personally I prefer theories where predictions perfectly fitting observations emerge naturally from their framework.

Like I said in my previous message, the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity can be considered as general relativity + Mach's principle. Indeed, H-N Theory reduces to general relativity in the limit of a smooth fluid model of particle distribution, and the two theories make the same predictions. Except in the Machian approach, a mass changing effect emerges from the general equation of motion, from which Woodward's transient mas equation can be derived.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8251
  • UK
  • Liked: 1335
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #841 on: 04/10/2017 12:46 PM »
A noob question I have a rather shaky understanding of the physics of this but doesn't a theory like MOND better support ideas like this than current conventional theories?

Conventional theory of gravity (that is, Einstein's general relativity) does not include Mach's principle, although Einstein was convinced that a future theory embracing GRT would necessarily include such relativity of inertia. Woodward citing Einstein:
Quote from: Jim Woodward
So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest:

1. The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance.
2. The principle of equivalence.
3. Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.

In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added,
“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however.”
… It must be said that, as far as I can see, to this day Mach’s principle has not brought physics decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach’s principle may therefore have a future – but not without the quantum theory.
— Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, pp. 287–288. (Quoted by permission of Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982)

MOND is a theory sprinkled with ad-hoc parameters which are there only to fit observations deviating from the prediction of standard theory (where standard model seems to fail). You are free to support such theories, but I personally I prefer theories where predictions perfectly fitting observations emerge naturally from their framework.

Like I said in my previous message, the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity can be considered as general relativity + Mach's principle. Indeed, H-N Theory reduces to general relativity in the limit of a smooth fluid model of particle distribution, and the two theories make the same predictions. Except in the Machian approach, a mass changing effect emerges from the general equation of motion, from which Woodward's transient mas equation can be derived.

This business of arbitrariness was pointed out in a recent New Scientist article about MOND. But it was also pointed out that conventional theory also contains kludges hence the need for Dark Matter.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #842 on: 04/10/2017 01:29 PM »
conventional theory also contains kludges hence the need for Dark Matter.

I rather see it as "conventional theory can't explain some observations hence the kludge of Dark Matter (and Dark Energy)" ;)

Some anomalous observations the standard model can't explain:
- primordial dark matter and CP violation
- primordial dwarf galaxies and the age of the universe
- the missing mass problem and galactic rotation curves
- the accelerating expansion of the universe
- the large-scale structure
- the local, Super and Giant Voids
- the Great Attractor
- the Dipole Repeller
- the Dark flow
- etc.

Alternately:

• MOND explains many of those observations adding free parameters that modifies Newton's law at large scales.

• Emergent gravity explains same observations (but has been falsified, see [1] and [2])

• MiHsC naturally explains many of those observations like MOND but without employing ad-hoc fitting parameters. 

• The Janus model naturally explains those observations, the identified negative shadow matter of the second metric having the same consequences as dark matter and dark energy of unknown origin in the standard model. It is worth noting that unlike other alternate theories, this one is plain vanilla GR and does not modify Newton's law.

NB: Some peculiar observations are not left unexplained by the standard model (such as the recent discovery of the dipole repeller) but I cited them because their origin and dynamics are sometimes explained differently by alternate theories.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2017 01:36 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #843 on: 04/10/2017 06:19 PM »
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Thank you! That explains the potential cross over comment from Prof. Woodward, then. And also ties in with his comment that he believes the "solid state" Mach Effect Thruster would likely work much better, because of "all kinds of other things going on in the EMdrive cavity", to paraphrase him.

This is also entirely consistent with the previous time I heard him talk about the EMdrive, in a radio interview. That time I believe he also said that if there is any real effect in the EMdrive, it is probably due to some type of accidental Mach Effect being generated. Which your reference to the paper above seems to just have put into some kind of solid theory.

M.E.T.:

Yes, I attended the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop and yes, the Paul that Jim referred to was I.  And I also gave a talk on the Eagleworks Lab's Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) in-vacuum test series reported in the AIAA/Journal of Propulsion and Power.  You can find my video talk a few places below Jim's on the SSI.org YouTube page.

As far as Jim's preference in MEGA drive construction goes, we will end up using the best performing approach be it the current PZT stacks, redesigned Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT), or a better understood EMdrive that at its heart is a MEGA drive in hiding.

BTW, Dr. Rodal has an interesting and fundamental observation on the operation of the MEGA drives that he just revealed to the MEGA drive NIAC team that will blow the doors off this business.  And yes, that is a tease...:)

Best, Paul M.

Paul

That's a hell of a tease you left us with there. Can you share any more, and if not, when will we be able to learn more about it?

On a broader note, over the years of following the Mach Effect research I've formed a bit of an impression in my mind as to its key roleplayers - rightly or wrongly. I got a sense that for much of the period of Dr. Woodward's research, you were one of his key "allies" so to speak, in the face of much derision from the mainstream.

Then, when the EMdrive arrived on the scene, I got the sense that you diverged from Dr. Woodward's point of view somewhat.

Am I correct in sensing that you guys might have moved slightly closer together again after the latest developments, as far as your views on the validity and existence of the Mach Effect are concerned? The current convergence seems to suggest that the EMDrive and Woodward Effect might both have Mach Effects at their heart. Do you share that view now, as opposed to Dr. White's QVF theories?

I'm just very interested to hear the current views of someone like yourself who has been so deeply involved in both of these camps.

And lastly, no comments or thoughts from you on the RB-47 issue? :)

M.E.T.:

First off on the July 1957 RB-47 UFO encounter, see attached 1971 AIAA report, it is probably the best documented UFO case out in the public domain and its reported RF signals by its three RB-47 flight engineers and radio operators are very suggestive of what a mature Mach-Effect drive would generate, and Jim and I both agree on that observation.

As to what Jim's view of the Quantum Vacuum is, and it's simply that it can't work the way Dr. White has posited it to do.  I on the other hand think that there is more alike between Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect and Dr. White's mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) conjectures than differences, and ultimately they will be merged into a coherent quantum gravity theory that finally marries QM and GRT without any disconnects.  Now it appears there is at least one way to view the EMdrive is as a Mach-Effect drive and it has been put forward by a french gentleman last fall at the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop, see attached paper, but I'll leave this topic for another time.   

In the mean time, I have to help the Woodward & Fearn team increase the thrust levels for their NIAC award from micro-Newtons (uN) to hundreds of uN over the next six months as a proof that the MEGA drive thrust output can be increased per the M-E derived MEGA drive thrust equations.

Lastly a hint as to what Jose' has come up with and it concerns a major clarification of where ALL the kinetic energy that the MEGA drive imparts to a vehicle comes from...

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #844 on: 04/10/2017 06:31 PM »
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Thank you! That explains the potential cross over comment from Prof. Woodward, then. And also ties in with his comment that he believes the "solid state" Mach Effect Thruster would likely work much better, because of "all kinds of other things going on in the EMdrive cavity", to paraphrase him.

This is also entirely consistent with the previous time I heard him talk about the EMdrive, in a radio interview. That time I believe he also said that if there is any real effect in the EMdrive, it is probably due to some type of accidental Mach Effect being generated. Which your reference to the paper above seems to just have put into some kind of solid theory.

M.E.T.:

Yes, I attended the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop and yes, the Paul that Jim referred to was I.  And I also gave a talk on the Eagleworks Lab's Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) in-vacuum test series reported in the AIAA/Journal of Propulsion and Power.  You can find my video talk a few places below Jim's on the SSI.org YouTube page.

As far as Jim's preference in MEGA drive construction goes, we will end up using the best performing approach be it the current PZT stacks, redesigned Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT), or a better understood EMdrive that at its heart is a MEGA drive in hiding.

BTW, Dr. Rodal has an interesting and fundamental observation on the operation of the MEGA drives that he just revealed to the MEGA drive NIAC team that will blow the doors off this business.  And yes, that is a tease...:)

Best, Paul M.

Paul

That's a hell of a tease you left us with there. Can you share any more, and if not, when will we be able to learn more about it?

On a broader note, over the years of following the Mach Effect research I've formed a bit of an impression in my mind as to its key roleplayers - rightly or wrongly. I got a sense that for much of the period of Dr. Woodward's research, you were one of his key "allies" so to speak, in the face of much derision from the mainstream.

Then, when the EMdrive arrived on the scene, I got the sense that you diverged from Dr. Woodward's point of view somewhat.

Am I correct in sensing that you guys might have moved slightly closer together again after the latest developments, as far as your views on the validity and existence of the Mach Effect are concerned? The current convergence seems to suggest that the EMDrive and Woodward Effect might both have Mach Effects at their heart. Do you share that view now, as opposed to Dr. White's QVF theories?

I'm just very interested to hear the current views of someone like yourself who has been so deeply involved in both of these camps.

And lastly, no comments or thoughts from you on the RB-47 issue? :)

M.E.T.:

First off on the July 1957 RB-47 UFO encounter, see attached 1971 AIAA report, it is probably the best documented UFO case out in the public domain and its reported RF signals by its three RB-47 flight engineers and radio operators are very suggestive of what a mature Mach-Effect drive would generate, and Jim and I both agree on that observation.

As to what Jim's view of the Quantum Vacuum is, and it's simply that it can't work the way Dr. White has posited it to do.  I on the other hand think that there is more alike between Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect and Dr. White's mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) conjectures than differences, and ultimately they will be merged into a coherent quantum gravity theory that finally marries QM and GRT without any disconnects.  Now it appears there is at least one way to view the EMdrive is as a Mach-Effect drive and it has been put forward by a french gentleman last fall at the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop, see attached paper, but I'll leave this topic for another time.   

In the mean time, I have to help the Woodward & Fearn team increase the thrust levels for their NIAC award from micro-Newtons (uN) to hundreds of uN over the next six months as a proof that the MEGA drive thrust output can be increased per the M-E derived MEGA drive thrust equations.

Lastly a hint as to what Jose' has come up with and it concerns a major clarification of where ALL the kinetic energy that the MEGA drive imparts to a vehicle comes from...

Best, Paul M.

Thank you Paul. Much appreciated. Fascinating insights.

As to the source of the kinetic energy: Wasn't it established that it is being stolen from the Universe at large? From the rest of the mass in the observable Universe? I have even read speculation by some that it might be contributing to the accelerating expansion of the Universe and various other conjectures. Basically, that use of the Mach Effect on a large scale could accelerate the end of the Universe, and so on and so forth.

But in any case, I take it to mean that Dr. Rodal has come up with something more specific. And oh yes, good luck with your efforts for the next 6 months. Will this be as secretive as your Eagleworks work was, or will we be getting regular updates?

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #845 on: 04/11/2017 05:28 AM »
I suspect light may be electron positron pairs in the vacuum that act like they have zero rest mass because they annihilate each other but in reality they never disappear.  When excited in an electric field they osculate and waves travel through them giving local light a set velocity.  Possibly why you can create e-p pairs out of the vacuum with large enough electric fields.  This local velocity of light depends on the object measuring and its local e-p pairs which are attracted to it some how.  (probably in equilibrium with it in a sort of dance as virtual particles)  Transferring energy between local pairs at different velocities may be what give us the Doppler effect.

If e-p pairs are light and e-p pairs can change in mass via separation then we may have a mechanism of light to change in effective mass some how while still having a zero rest mass.  We have what "appears" to be a change in wavelength inside the EM drive cavity which may indicate some mechanism to effectively change the mass of the pairs, or possibly I'm wrong.

@dustinthewind, do you think antimatter has a negative rest mass? In order for your model to work, it is my understanding it has to, since you are claiming that a photon is the combination of an electron (of positive mass) and a positron into a single zero-rest mass particle.

Besides this problem, a single photon can't produce an e-p pair alone. Pair production involves other quanta. And put the other way, the annihilation of an electron with a positron does not produce one, but two photons propagating in two opposite directions.

Theoretically, antimatter shouldn't have a negative energy, hence it would not have a negative rest mass. Indeed the standard model indicates that Dirac's antiparticles, i.e. normal particles with charge conjugation (or C-symmetry) like antiprotons, antineutrons, positrons, antineutrinos… have positive energy and mass.

However when one extend the standard model (which basically only takes into account positive energy particles as an axiom, because of Hermann Bondi's Runaway Paradox) using the complete Poincaré group, i.e. including all particles, those running forward in time but also those running backward in time), a new kind of particles appears: Feynman's antimatter (PT-symmetry of normal matter) but that exotic matter has never been observed.

A fundamental trick here is that T-symmetry translates as inversion of energy, and thus the inversion of mass (as -m = -E/c2). Such negative-energy particles cannot be observed because emitting negative energy photons which evolve along their own geodesics in their own conjugated metric, among us but somewhat "parallel" to us, our eyes and our instruments can't see them although they are everywhere in the universe. But we could feel and map that exotic matter through its gravitational interaction on our own: it is incidentally a candidate for dark matter (an antigravitational one).

I don't know how this dual metric scheme, emerging from two conjugated Einstein field equations, would match with Woodward's Mach effect, especially if integrated within the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity (which already includes Mach effects through Feynman's gravitational absorber framework). It would be quite an interesting evolution.

Whatever, back to the topic, a few planned experiments (AEgIS, ALPHA, ASACUSA, ATRAP, GBAR) will settle the big question:
Does antimatter fall up?

My guess is that anti-matter may have a negative rest mass, but running backwards in time, it has a positive rest mass.  That is until it comes in contact with positive matter running forwards in time.  Upon contact the mask of positive mass is removed and both matter-antimatter melt into the vacuum as phantom particles not truly disappearing but losing their energy to the surrounding vacuum via the local dipole electric fields the two pairs induce before merging (polarizing the vacuum or making light). 

I don't look at anti matter matter e-p pairs as requiring only 2 photons to be created but rather look at it in reverse.  Take 2 e-p pairs in a vacuum and release them so they annihilate.  Upon acceleration of the charges a light wave is created perpendicular to the acceleration of both charges.  If we reverse time a wave merging upon a single point could also create such a pair.  I suppose if we reduced it to just 2 photons of high enough energy converging on a single point it could also create such a pair. 

Maybe some how the anti matter can send out a backwards pulse and absorb energy from the rest of the wave to give one quanta or photon of energy absorbed. 

Some speculation on my part is that for some reason anti-matter in the vacuum is attracted to large volumes of mass which polarizes the vacuum and may explain the 1/r^2 behavior of gravity.  This re-distributes some of the planets mass into a field around the planet and may explain polarization of the vacuum and the dielectric constants of the vacuum.  The gradient in the concentration of vacuum negative time (anti-matter) attracted to the large mass slows down time near the planet surface causing the effect of gravity.  Really just speculation but seems interesting. 
« Last Edit: 04/11/2017 05:30 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline qraal

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #846 on: 04/11/2017 07:52 AM »
There was a preprint on the ArXiv today that said something similar. Weird.


My guess is that anti-matter may have a negative rest mass, but running backwards in time, it has a positive rest mass.  That is until it comes in contact with positive matter running forwards in time. 

Offline qraal

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #847 on: 04/11/2017 07:55 AM »
Well if Lenny Susskind & Juan Maldacena are right about ER=EPR, then it'd make sense...


M.E.T.:

As to what Jim's view of the Quantum Vacuum is, and it's simply that it can't work the way Dr. White has posited it to do.  I on the other hand think that there is more alike between Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect and Dr. White's mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) conjectures than differences, and ultimately they will be merged into a coherent quantum gravity theory that finally marries QM and GRT without any disconnects. 

Best, Paul M.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #848 on: 04/11/2017 03:57 PM »
My guess is that anti-matter may have a negative rest mass, but running backwards in time, it has a positive rest mass.

Where have you seen in elementary particle theories (standard model or others) that antimatter is T-symmetric (i.e. running backward in time)? Are you referring to Feynman's unconventional idea of antiparticles (PT-symmetric) different than the conventional view (Dirac's) telling us an antiparticle is C-symmetric? Obviously Dirac is right since we have measured the positron has having a positive charge opposite to the negative charge of the electron (hence its name).

Alas the combination of "running backward in time" with "having a negative mass" does not result in a particle of positive mass. On the contrary, having a negative mass is the signification of time reversal.

It is true the CPT theorem is classically interpreted as: "if your reverse both charge, parity and time of a particle, you obtain the exact same particle."
But as it is, this theorem is false when you consider also the energy and mass of the particle, because time reversal implies mass inversion, and I will show the demonstration below.

Obviously nobody has ever observed such exotic particles. It should be pointed out the standard model does not seriously consider negative-energy particles running backward in time as a reality, due to paradoxes coming from both quantum theory and general relativity. But those kind of paradoxes are only apparent and arise because of deficiencies in current accepted theories (by "deficiencies" I don't talk of the theories themselves, but some assumptions they are made upon, which could be chosen differently).

In Quantum Field Theory, the T operator acting on Hilbert spaces is complex, and can be either linear and unitary, or antilinear and antiunitary. Nobel Prize Steven Weinberg wrote, in his book The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cambridge University Press, 2005), chapter 2.6 "Space Inversion and Time-Reversal" pages 75-76:

Quote from: Steven Weinberg
At this point we have not decided whether P and T are linear and unitary or antilinear and antiunitary.

The decision is an easy one. Setting ρ = 0 in Eq. (2.6.4) gives
P i H P-1 = -i H
where HP° is the energy operator. If P were antiunitary and antilinear then it would anticommute with i, so P H P-1 = -H. But for any state Ψ of energy E > 0, there would be another state P-1 Ψ of energy -E < 0. There are no states of negative energy (energy less than that of the vacuum), so we are forced to choose the other alternative: P is linear and unitary and commutes rather than anticommutes with H.

On the other hand, setting ρ = 0 in Eq. (2.6.6) yields
T i H T-1 = -i H.
If we supposed that T is linear and unitary we could simply cancel the is, and find T H T-1 = -H, with the again disastrous conclusion that for any state of energy E there is another state T-1 Ψ of energy –E. To avoid this, we are forced to conclude that T is antilinear and antiunitary.

So the possibilities of particles running backward in time and having negative energies have been simply ruled out from physics, as an axiom, as an arbitrary choice as shown above in QFT, or in order to avoid various preposterous paradoxes in general relativity (see a previous post of mine about Bondi's runaway motion for example). But why ruling out half of physics and not try to include all particles within an extended framework?

Dynamics of the relativistic material point is described by the Poincaré group. As we have seen, in modern physics only the restricted Poincaré group is used. If we choose to use the complete Poincaré group, interesting things happen, and especially the very important, fundamental conclusion that:

Time reversal = Energy inversion = Mass inversion

Demonstrated below. Excerpt from Structure of Dynamical Systems (JM Souriau*, Birkhäuser 1997 — English translation from original edition published in 1970), Part III. Mechanics, Chapter 14. "A mechanistic description of elementary particles", sections Inversions of space and time; A particle with a nonzero mass and A massless particle, pp. 189-192.

4-page PDF attached at the end of this message below the images.


* Jean-Marie Souriau was a pioneer of symplectic geometry and inventor of the "coadjoint action of a group on its momentum map" from which all geometric quantities of physics can emerge (like mass, energy, linear momentum, etc) which for example allowed him to give the first geometric interpretation of spin. He brought important contributions to quantum theory, as he also found the various quantum equations (Schrödinger, Klein-Gordon, Dirac, Pauli, Maxwell…) starting from groups: this is known as the "geometric quantification".




« Last Edit: 04/11/2017 11:37 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8251
  • UK
  • Liked: 1335
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #850 on: 04/12/2017 09:46 PM »
« Last Edit: 04/12/2017 09:46 PM by Star One »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #851 on: 04/13/2017 01:32 PM »
Something has been bothering me for a bit now, given the comparison to Graitational Assist.  With a Gravity assist you can not only transfer momentum away from the large gravitating body. to pick up momentum. I believe you can do the reverse, you can use it to slow down.

So I wonder if the comparison continues to hold that there is a way to not only transfer momentum to the thruster but also transfer momentum from the thruster.

Offline Ric Capucho

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #852 on: 04/13/2017 07:16 PM »
Something has been bothering me for a bit now, given the comparison to Graitational Assist.  With a Gravity assist you can not only transfer momentum away from the large gravitating body. to pick up momentum. I believe you can do the reverse, you can use it to slow down.

So I wonder if the comparison continues to hold that there is a way to not only transfer momentum to the thruster but also transfer momentum from the thruster.

Yup, point it in the opposite direction. It's all relative, innit.

Ric

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #853 on: 04/13/2017 08:28 PM »
Something has been bothering me for a bit now, given the comparison to Graitational Assist.  With a Gravity assist you can not only transfer momentum away from the large gravitating body. to pick up momentum. I believe you can do the reverse, you can use it to slow down.

So I wonder if the comparison continues to hold that there is a way to not only transfer momentum to the thruster but also transfer momentum from the thruster.

Yup, point it in the opposite direction. It's all relative, innit.

Ric

Exactly. which is why I find it very very intriguing to know how valid a comparison this is. if the comparison is very accurate then given all possibilities of a traditional gravity assist. I would imagine that you could use a MET to not only propel a spacecraft. you should be able to use it to slow it down (without flipping the thruster around). You should also be able to use it to change direction (again without changing the orientation of the thruster).

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #854 on: 04/18/2017 06:37 PM »
Something has been bothering me for a bit now, given the comparison to Graitational Assist.  With a Gravity assist you can not only transfer momentum away from the large gravitating body. to pick up momentum. I believe you can do the reverse, you can use it to slow down.

So I wonder if the comparison continues to hold that there is a way to not only transfer momentum to the thruster but also transfer momentum from the thruster.

Yup, point it in the opposite direction. It's all relative, innit.

Ric

Exactly. which is why I find it very very intriguing to know how valid a comparison this is. if the comparison is very accurate then given all possibilities of a traditional gravity assist. I would imagine that you could use a MET to not only propel a spacecraft. you should be able to use it to slow it down (without flipping the thruster around). You should also be able to use it to change direction (again without changing the orientation of the thruster).

You'd reverse the phase relationship of the AC drive power waveforms.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #855 on: 04/19/2017 01:51 AM »
My guess is that anti-matter may have a negative rest mass, but running backwards in time, it has a positive rest mass.

Where have you seen in elementary particle theories (standard model or others) that antimatter is T-symmetric (i.e. running backward in time)? Are you referring to Feynman's unconventional idea of antiparticles (PT-symmetric) different than the conventional view (Dirac's) telling us an antiparticle is C-symmetric? Obviously Dirac is right since we have measured the positron has having a positive charge opposite to the negative charge of the electron (hence its name).

...

I think this may be what I am getting at.  I'll attach a few equations that get at what I am thinking.  Below should be the equation for negative energy but this actually requires imaginary mass.  If you manipulate the imaginary values you can arrange it so the mass is imaginary, its space is imaginary, and its time is negative imaginary.  What is interesting is that its momentum appears to be negative so that when they collide momentum cancels instead of them osculating passing back and forth though each other. 



To simplify the expression above i*i*i/-i/-i=i  notice how it implies the imaginary time is negative. 

When we add the matter and its anti-matter counter part together so they annihilate we get one countering the others flow in time.  Because of the imaginary moment of the anti-matter to add it to the matter we have to square the energy so the components can add but as a result the anti-matter mass appears to be negative mass. 

I think the equation is somewhat incomplete however.  The energy of a particle should also include its electric field.  We could include that in the equation but that may also reverse the electric field if I am speculating correctly. 
« Last Edit: 04/19/2017 02:05 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #856 on: 04/21/2017 05:48 PM »
Sorry flux_cap I didn't quite finish my thought.  The equation is some what what I was getting at except that the anti-matter mass in the equation should be negative imaginary.  This makes the momentum appear to be positive till the particles come in contact, canceling the flow of time/space for them, maybe anti-matter space is inverted instead.  When this happens the mass of the anti-matter in contact with matter appears to be negative mass in contact with positive mass. 

In a sense we never really see the negative mass/energy side of anti-matter, maybe
« Last Edit: 04/23/2017 12:32 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #857 on: 04/23/2017 03:14 PM »
A noob question I have a rather shaky understanding of the physics of this but doesn't a theory like MOND better support ideas like this than current conventional theories?

Conventional theory of gravity (that is, Einstein's general relativity) does not include Mach's principle, although Einstein was convinced that a future theory embracing GRT would necessarily include such relativity of inertia. Woodward citing Einstein:
Quote from: Jim Woodward
So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest:

1. The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance.
2. The principle of equivalence.
3. Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.

In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added,
“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however.”
… It must be said that, as far as I can see, to this day Mach’s principle has not brought physics decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach’s principle may therefore have a future – but not without the quantum theory.
— Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, pp. 287–288. (Quoted by permission of Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982)

MOND is a theory sprinkled with ad-hoc parameters which are there only to fit observations deviating from the prediction of standard theory (where standard model seems to fail). You are free to support such theories, but I personally I prefer theories where predictions perfectly fitting observations emerge naturally from their framework.

Like I said in my previous message, the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity can be considered as general relativity + Mach's principle. Indeed, H-N Theory reduces to general relativity in the limit of a smooth fluid model of particle distribution, and the two theories make the same predictions. Except in the Machian approach, a mass changing effect emerges from the general equation of motion, from which Woodward's transient mas equation can be derived.

All please take note, Mach's concept of inertia having to do with interaction to far off mass seems to have entered the literature in 1893.  As Einstein acknowledged at more than one point, it is a foundational axiom of his work.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #858 on: 04/23/2017 05:34 PM »
A noob question I have a rather shaky understanding of the physics of this but doesn't a theory like MOND better support ideas like this than current conventional theories?

Conventional theory of gravity (that is, Einstein's general relativity) does not include Mach's principle, although Einstein was convinced that a future theory embracing GRT would necessarily include such relativity of inertia. Woodward citing Einstein:
Quote from: Jim Woodward
So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest:

1. The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance.
2. The principle of equivalence.
3. Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.

In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added,
“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however.”
… It must be said that, as far as I can see, to this day Mach’s principle has not brought physics decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach’s principle may therefore have a future – but not without the quantum theory.
— Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, pp. 287–288. (Quoted by permission of Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982)

MOND is a theory sprinkled with ad-hoc parameters which are there only to fit observations deviating from the prediction of standard theory (where standard model seems to fail). You are free to support such theories, but I personally I prefer theories where predictions perfectly fitting observations emerge naturally from their framework.

Like I said in my previous message, the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity can be considered as general relativity + Mach's principle. Indeed, H-N Theory reduces to general relativity in the limit of a smooth fluid model of particle distribution, and the two theories make the same predictions. Except in the Machian approach, a mass changing effect emerges from the general equation of motion, from which Woodward's transient mas equation can be derived.

All please take note, Mach's concept of inertia having to do with interaction to far off mass seems to have entered the literature in 1893.  As Einstein acknowledged at more than one point, it is a foundational axiom of his work.

And I'd like to also point out John Cramer's interesting book (Quantum Handshake) which is also relevant:

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Handshake-Entanglement-Nonlocality-Transactions/dp/3319246402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492968761&sr=8-1&keywords=cramer+quantum+handshake

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3891
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #859 on: 04/23/2017 09:27 PM »
Is this "Quantum Handshake" something that lets Mach Effect allow inertial changes to manifest themselves in realtime, rather than having to interact with the distant universe under the limits of lightspeed?