Quote from: meberbs on 08/27/2018 07:48 amNo, I have given you arguments based on math and logic. I am very confident in the logic because many people smarter than me have reviewed it. That is not "argument from authority." If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you have to actually respond what was said, rather than ignoring it.meberbs, math and logic which is far from seamless. I love your confidence but I ignore arguments which to my mind are flawed. Your questions are, however, valid and I will do my best to answer them more often and more clearly.
No, I have given you arguments based on math and logic. I am very confident in the logic because many people smarter than me have reviewed it. That is not "argument from authority." If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you have to actually respond what was said, rather than ignoring it.
Quote from: spupeng7 on 08/28/2018 02:10 amQuote from: meberbs on 08/27/2018 07:48 amNo, I have given you arguments based on math and logic. I am very confident in the logic because many people smarter than me have reviewed it. That is not "argument from authority." If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you have to actually respond what was said, rather than ignoring it.meberbs, math and logic which is far from seamless. I love your confidence but I ignore arguments which to my mind are flawed. Your questions are, however, valid and I will do my best to answer them more often and more clearly.No, what I have provided is seamless as far as I can tell. If you think there is a flaw, please share it. When you say "I ignore arguments which to my mind are flawed." What I hear is "I ignore arguments that prove me wrong." Again, if there was any actual flaws in the arguments, the appropriate response is to point them out. When you say something is flawed "to your mind" it pretty much just means anything that conflicts with your preconceived notions.You have repeatedly said you will try to answer my questions, but you have yet to actually attempt to do so. Rather than repeating those empty statements you could actually answer some simple questions, or just generally respond to the content of this post. There are some easy ones there like "Can you provide definitions for terms that you appear to have just made up?"
meberbs, my recall is hazy, in a discussion of Bohmian mechanics on the wonderful BBC radio 4 program 'In Our Time' Roger Penrose describes pilot wave theories as "un-physical". I will go home and dig the quote out for you and specify its source and argument. The last twenty years of 'In Our Time' are available as a free downloads from the BBC website. Amongst the boring discussion of religion there are some fabulous interviews of many Oxbridge dons on aspects of physics and its history with a focus on complex numbers and quantum mechanics. I recommend it highly. Reply #342 does deserve better answers and I will work on them if you give me a little time. Definitions are also required I agree. Thankyou for pointing this out.Edited to correct reply number.
Edit: though if that requires too much extra setup, ignore the idea! At some point all projects require a feature freeze for the sake of sanity and the project.
Quote from: Slyver on 08/27/2018 06:56 pmEdit: though if that requires too much extra setup, ignore the idea! At some point all projects require a feature freeze for the sake of sanity and the project.I was given a sign I kept over my work desk:"In the life of every project comes a time when you shoot the Engineers and start production."
Quote from: spupeng7 on 08/25/2018 02:49 amCrystal Set Question What difference does it make what perspective we have on a covariant system,And this is how far I got into your post before you started speaking a foreign language.I am curious what you think the phrase "covariant system" means, because it sounds like you just made it up. (Google reveals the term comes up in some obscure pure math work, but that clearly isn't what you mean)Covariant is a defined concept in physics that is related to how basis vectors or their components change under a change in basis for non-orthonormal coordinate systems. A system as a whole is not "convariant" or "contravariant," you need both at the same time to describe something, so your statement literally has no meaning under standard definitions of the words you are using. Quote from: spupeng7 on 08/25/2018 02:49 am then we could have misinterpreted visible separation as distance when it would be better described as separation in the linear component of complex time.There are defined concepts in relativity for "spacelike" "timelike" and "lightlike" separations between events. Different reference frames can for example make 2 spacelike separated events happen at the same time, or in either order. What is invariant is the magnitude of the 4 vector sqrt(r^2-(ct)^2)Also "linear component of a complex number" doesn't make sense. A complex number has a real part and an imaginary part, linear is not a valid descriptive word in this context.Quote from: spupeng7 on 08/25/2018 02:49 am If that energy is not enough You could at least attempt a bit of research on your own rather than expecting others to do it for you. (The least time consuming part of writing this post was finding the information below)from wikipedia:Quote In modern crystal sets, signals as weak as 50 picowatts at the antenna can be heard.[43] Crystal radios can receive such weak signals without using amplification only due to the great sensitivity of human hearing,[3][44] which can detect sounds with an intensity of only 10^−16 W/cm2Those radios are significantly distance limited and work because of the sensitivity of human hearing with the sound dropped off directly in the ear. It might do you some good to consider that if the signal powers did not add up, someone would have noticed sometime in the last century.Quote from: spupeng7 on 08/25/2018 02:49 amNB: I continue to ask these questions in the spirit of freedom of enquiry, with respect for and in appreciation of not being banned from this forum and out of a perfectly peaceful desire to find truth as best as I am capable of understanding it. I have the same deep respect for the giants whose shoulders we stand upon, that I am sure everyone here has but physics should be permanently on the cusp of a revolution in understanding. That can only happen if we have the courage to ask stupid sounding questions, in my opinion.That is great, but you keep bringing up your completely undefined concept of "complex time" making claims about it and asserting that it solves nonexistent problems. You have not responded to requests for clarification when you use words that literally have no meaning in context (2 examples I pointed out in this post). When you came up with the concept of looking at relativity from the perspective of a photon, I pointed out that it has been considered many times before, but is useless and I explained why. Instead of accepting the explanation, or asking for clarification, you insisted that your idea was somehow novel and useful. You can talk all you want about how you appreciate standing on the shoulders of giants, but when offered a ladder to get on their shoulders, you kicked it over instead of climbing it. So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.If you want to demonstrate with your actions that your goals are as pure as you claim, one place you can start is by responding to the parts of this post where I point out that you are using terminology that has literally no meaning in any relevant context.
Crystal Set Question What difference does it make what perspective we have on a covariant system,
then we could have misinterpreted visible separation as distance when it would be better described as separation in the linear component of complex time.
If that energy is not enough
In modern crystal sets, signals as weak as 50 picowatts at the antenna can be heard.[43] Crystal radios can receive such weak signals without using amplification only due to the great sensitivity of human hearing,[3][44] which can detect sounds with an intensity of only 10^−16 W/cm2
NB: I continue to ask these questions in the spirit of freedom of enquiry, with respect for and in appreciation of not being banned from this forum and out of a perfectly peaceful desire to find truth as best as I am capable of understanding it. I have the same deep respect for the giants whose shoulders we stand upon, that I am sure everyone here has but physics should be permanently on the cusp of a revolution in understanding. That can only happen if we have the courage to ask stupid sounding questions, in my opinion.
Quotes from BBC Radio4 program 'In Our Time' with Melvyn Bragg: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl/episodes/a-z/a In 2002 'The Physics of Reality' explores the incompatibility of quantum mechanics with gravity theory.
34 minutes in, on 29th of May 2008 'Probability', describes the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. 18th of December 2008 'The Physics of Time', discusses the need to resolve the nature of time itself. 30 minutes in, on May 3rd 2009 'The Measurement Problem in Physics', Roger Penrose speaks about Bohm's theory, describing it as '...not revolutionary enough', 'the cat must either be alive or dead.' 40 minutes in, on September 23rd 2010 'Imaginary Numbers', Prof Marcus de Sautoy and friends beautifully describe the necessity of complex numbers.
40 minutes in, on Feb 12th 2015 'The Photon', Prof Susan Cartwright ascribes Niels Bohr with the casual quote '...anybody who thought that they understood quantum mechanics had demonstrated that they did not understand quantum mechanics'. I do appreciate that this is hearsay and I will keep a eye out for a direct quote. So you are correct that it was not Feynman anyhoo.
Definition of terms (which may require further clarification). The term 'complex time' is not mine but I use it because it is less obfuscating of its purpose than the term " imaginary time" coined by Stephen J Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' Bantam 1989, P141.
The term 'covariant system' refers to the universe and everything in it being directly mathematically inter-related. I am making the assumption that physical reality must be essentially the same thing from all perspectives both inertial and accelerated.
Roger Penrose develops the time slice argument whereby the sequence of events alters with perspective, which is what led me to consider the possibility that time is an inherently complex dimension. Penrose makes the assumption that nature is something which exists in the same form irrespective of perspective, despite any difference in timing of the sequence (if not the order) of its development as observed from differing perspectives. As is required by the conservation of energy and charge as well as conservation of the momentum which relates them.
Standard definitions of the term 'covariant' may have been narrowed by the process of mathematical development but their meaning continues to refer to things which are the same from all perspectives, as used by Einstein in his 1921 lectures, see: Einstein A. ‘The Meaning of Relativity’ Princeton lectures 1921, translated by Prof. E.P. Adams, Princeton University Press 1922). I quote from page 11,"We can thus get the meaning of the concept of a vector without referring to a geometrical representation. This behaviour of the equations of a straight line can be expressed by saying that the equation of a straight line is co-variant with respect to linear orthogonal transformations."
'Orthogonality' is a real word. What I am attempting to express is the idea that the three perpendicular spatial dimensions do not have or retain that relationship when time is dilated, which it always is to some extent. Further, that the divergence from orthogonality is not absolute but varies with your perspective because that divergence is not covariant, its basis being artificial.
By 'the linear component of complex time' I am referring to the real component not its complex conjugate.
The term 'scalar' might be better, either way I am attempting again to avoid the use of the terms 'real' and ' imaginary' because they call the validity of the argument into question before it is even made. There is nothing any less than 'real' about the complex conjugate of a complex number, ask any engineer, we use them all the time because there is no substitute for their expression of that aspect of reality which diverges from a scalar measure of the dimensions you are using.
To use the terms 'space-like' and 'time-like' would be to make the arguments impenetrable to anyone not already deeply invested in the math as developed in the first chapter of ‘The Classical Theory of Fields’ Landau L. & Lifshitz E. USSR Academy of Science 1967, English Translation by Moreton Hamermesh, Pergamon Press, Sydney 1971, or similar.
I use the term 'complex time' and the equation exposing the gradual collapse of distance with increasing relative velocity, to describe how it is possible that our observation of the the sequence of the traverse of a single quantum can change with our perspective. It is just a different take on relativity which may help to simplify our understanding, hopefully bringing it within the grasp of our imagination and thus becoming useful in the design of devices such as the emdrive.
meberbs, you insist that there is no paradox within quantum mechanics. This is hard for me to understand when the behaviours of exchange particles are inherently non-local and cannot be described in the same way that we describe the macroscopic world. Hidden variables violate causality. Many worlds, string theory and other complicated 'work arounds' are attempts to resolve that paradox. What we need is a theory which explains both the macroscopic and the particle worlds, which explains both the experimental results supporting relativity and those supporting quantum mechanics, within a single credible explanation.
Complex time is satisfying to me because it places us firmly in the present moment, it allows us to specify the energy difference between our presence and another’s.
We have a specific location whose energy is directly proportional to our velocity multiplied by our mass in charges, relative to other locations.
Attempts to define the concept of complex time have been around at least since 1988 and I have quoted my own incomplete attempts directly.
Your refusal to recognise such reflects rejection of the ideas, not the lack of an attempt to define them.
All I can do is recommend them as hitherto unexplored solution to both quantum paradox and emdrive thrust.
Guys - it is becoming hard to see how this conversation is ever going to end.It is *not* a bad idea to fundamentally review the basis of physics, though the word hubris does spring to mind. But unless such thinking is accompanied by a real prediction of some phenomenon which turns out to be correct, and it is consistent with the corpus of existing observations, it is just speculation. It can't be validated by opinions of the great and good.I have some modest ideas (which I think are well cool) inspired by conversations around the EMdrive. But I'm not going to burden the world with them until I can show some calculations which are solid and interesting. (ETA mid-next decade, if I ever get round to starting again.)
(...)Quote from: spupeng7 on 08/30/2018 02:15 am All I can do is recommend them as hitherto unexplored solution to both quantum paradox and emdrive thrust.Neither of which have been shown to exist, even if you actually were providing something useful.
Quote from: meberbs on 08/30/2018 05:39 am(...)Quote from: spupeng7 on 08/30/2018 02:15 am All I can do is recommend them as hitherto unexplored solution to both quantum paradox and emdrive thrust.Neither of which have been shown to exist, even if you actually were providing something useful.meberbs, anyone can see that I do recognize your questions and their validity
but I think your conclusions are inadequate and your criticism is forced by indignation rather than constructive purpose.
Maybe we should give this a rest for the sake of the good humor of the thread. Meantime I thank you for provoking me into better explanations.
Quote from: RERT on 08/30/2018 09:28 amand it is consistent with the corpus of existing observations, It most definitely does not need to be consistent with the corps of existing presumptions.
and it is consistent with the corpus of existing observations,
The 'new' Woodward-Mach drive does show modest promise, though I see significant issues with both the devices operation (testing - the 'Dean Drive' impression is hard to shake) and the theory work, which might (?) make some questionable assumptions.
I recently built a Woodward-Mach/Harry Bull type apparatus for testing on the torsional pendulum that was built out of a voice coil actuator, a spring, rubber, and some 3D printed parts. It was interesting because the apparatus would move along the ground in one direction when in operation, like a classic Dean Drive, but when I changed the frequency by sending it a "chirped" signal, it would actually change directions and move the other way! It's not real thrust obviously, but it shows that it is fairly easy to build oscillators that can repeatedly displace to one side of equilibrium through complex means. This is the so-called slip-stick effect and it is a special type of vibration. When mounted to a torsional pendulum, where there is nothing to "stick" to, you can still clearly see the "slip" vibration. It is easy to confuse this slip effect for thrust as they look very similar.
First — Do you have a link to the source, of Woodward’s comments?
Woodward has sent out the following critique of quantized inertia. I'm trying to see if Mr. McCulloch cares to address these criticisms.{…}
Thank you for telling me about Woodward's secret email. His criticism was based on his apparent belief that QI is electromagnetic. Well, it isn't. #QI makes motion from just quantum jitter (Unruh radiation) made non-uniform by relativity (horizons). All you need are the quantum uncertainty principle and special relativity. No EM at all! Maybe you can ask him to read my papers, especially this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.06787 which explains the concept.
I would also point out that QI also does a far better job of predicting the Woodward effect than the GR-based theory of Woodward, which is orders of magnitudes out. I am writing a paper on that for EPL. I should also point out that GR that he bases his theory on is a failed theory - it has failed to predict the rotation of every galaxy ever seen. A 0% record. Nevertheless, I admire Woodward still, for his experiments.
No link available as Jim Woodward sent this criticism by email, to his private mailing list. However you can ask to register to be a member of this mailing-list and receive Woodward's updates (as well as being able to give your own wise points of view), sending a message to Jim to his publicly-known email address jwoodward [at] fullerton.edu
I also have detailed simulations I will be publishing in a week or so that show the woodward-mach effect "thrust" can be reproduced using only mechanical vibrations.
Keep in mind that Woodward & co. have spent quite alot of time addressing the "Dean drive" criticism at the best of their possibilities, including measuring the accelerations at the center column of the thrust balance, as it is detailed in the book flux_capacitor linked to in the other thread.Moreover, using only the "slip" of the "slip & stick" effect it is not possible to simulate genuine-looking steady thrust signals, that is signal with averages different from zero.
Quote from: Povel on 09/01/2018 05:09 pmKeep in mind that Woodward & co. have spent quite alot of time addressing the "Dean drive" criticism at the best of their possibilities, including measuring the accelerations at the center column of the thrust balance, as it is detailed in the book flux_capacitor linked to in the other thread.Moreover, using only the "slip" of the "slip & stick" effect it is not possible to simulate genuine-looking steady thrust signals, that is signal with averages different from zero.Yes, I have read all about their attempts at addressing Dean Drive criticisms. They seem to be under the false impression that vibrations need to reach the central flexure bearing in order for there to be a problem. That is not the case. The vibrations only have to cause an asymmetric translational shift in the faraday cage contents. Actually, it is possible to simulate the genuine-looking steady thrust signal using only vibrations. I have the feeling that once everyone sees how it is done, they will all be surprised how simple it really is. However, I couldn't have figured it out without running the simulations myself.
Would such "spurious thrust signature" (Dean drive effect) increase using an array of multiple thrusters (instead of just one) like a genuine thrust would?