Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 482865 times)

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 1894
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1300 on: 03/06/2018 01:50 PM »

I still can't understand your circuit. Maybe other people can shed some light on the issues I am confused with.

Exactly what are you confused with? I provided the circuit diagram on page 4 that includes the gain equation. Instead of changing to a single op-amp output, it amplifies the differential voltage all the way through. It's supposed to be less susceptible to noise.

As soon as I get some free time, I'll solder in the voltage regulators and see what happens. :)

I think you talked about fig 5 on page 4. It is an instrumentation amplifier with two input amp in voltage follower mode, followed by a differentiation amp which actually amplifies. You took away the one stage that actually amplifies, replaced it with another pair of voltage followers. There is no amplification happening. Instead, you have  two stages of voltage followers instead. The gain is exactly 1. Even 4 stages will give you only gain = 1. [Update] sorry I misread the schematic. They can amplify. they are not voltage followers. [end Update]

Also your vin_H, vin_L are all low impedance points driven by the two amps OPA288. You can not drive that two low impedance points with your vin_H and vin_L signal.

Also it is not clear to me why the 100Hz signal is used.

First, it's not an OPA288 anymore. I changed it to an LMC660N, they actually had less noise pickup. The inputs to the op-amp are very high impedance, not low impedance.

The 100Hz is a remnant of the simulations. I was varying this from 100Hz to 100kHz to test the frequency response. I created this using Circuit Lab online. The actual first resonant frequency is at 21.3 kHz, and doubled is 42.6kHz.

« Last Edit: 03/06/2018 01:51 PM by WarpTech »

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1301 on: 03/06/2018 02:47 PM »

First, it's not an OPA288 anymore. I changed it to an LMC660N, they actually had less noise pickup. The inputs to the op-amp are very high impedance, not low impedance.

On your schematic, Vin_H indeed was connected to the high impedance + input pin of 324, but it was also connected to the low impedance output pin of 288. Perhaps  the 288 on your schematic is a remnant of the simulations too?

Quote
The 100Hz is a remnant of the simulations. I was varying this from 100Hz to 100kHz to test the frequency response. I created this using Circuit Lab online. The actual first resonant frequency is at 21.3 kHz, and doubled is 42.6kHz.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 1894
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1302 on: 03/06/2018 04:42 PM »

First, it's not an OPA288 anymore. I changed it to an LMC660N, they actually had less noise pickup. The inputs to the op-amp are very high impedance, not low impedance.

On your schematic, Vin_H indeed was connected to the high impedance + input pin of 324, but it was also connected to the low impedance output pin of 288. Perhaps  the 288 on your schematic is a remnant of the simulations too?

Quote
The 100Hz is a remnant of the simulations. I was varying this from 100Hz to 100kHz to test the frequency response. I created this using Circuit Lab online. The actual first resonant frequency is at 21.3 kHz, and doubled is 42.6kHz.

Oh, I see what you're looking at. Vin_H and Vin_L are just NODE Names, for the simulator. They aren't connections. The connection is; the output of OA5 drives the input of OA16, the output of OA6 drives the input of OA8., etc... Each op-amp contributes a gain of 47.5, and each stage has a gain of 95 (or ~10^2). So 4 stages is ~10^8. I tried not to drive any current back to the center ground reference, but the impedance of the source is still too high so it still drifts and causes hysteresis.

Currently, both Quad op-amps are LMC660N. The low noise OPA288's didn't reduce the noise and had large resonant oscillations at the output that aren't there with the LM660's. Although, this may also be due to the same issue of too much impedance at the center ground causing positive feedback. I just need more time to play with it. I'll get it working eventually, I always do. :)

https://www.circuitlab.com  This is what I'm using for simulations.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2018 04:48 PM by WarpTech »

Offline Mikos

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Czech Republic
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1303 on: 03/20/2018 04:04 PM »
Hello,
I am toying with the idea of writing sci-fi story with Woodward effect based drive and I am particularly interrested in second (wormhole) term. Assume that Woodward effect is real and so is the second term. I have read "Making Starships and Stargates", but I still don't understand how such wormholes could be "targeted". I only understand "classical" possibility of making microscopic wormhole at one place (extracting it from quantum vacuum) and taking one "throat" with you to some other place (e.g. on board of spaceship). But this seems not to be the case with Woodward wormholes.

So if you create wormhole with Woodward effect, how do you "target" it? How do you choose where the second throat should emerge?

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1304 on: 03/21/2018 02:54 AM »
According to the book you were reading; the main thing that makes targeting the other end of the wormhole possible is the very thing physicists first proposed to make navigable wormhole impossible. if you dump energy or mass into a wormhole at one end the opposite sort of state, energy or matter develops at the distal end. Your wormhole can develop charges and states of various sorts which can be manipulated or arranged to your favor.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1305 on: 03/21/2018 01:13 PM »
Hello,
I am toying with the idea of writing sci-fi story with Woodward effect based drive and I am particularly interrested in second (wormhole) term. Assume that Woodward effect is real and so is the second term. I have read "Making Starships and Stargates", but I still don't understand how such wormholes could be "targeted". I only understand "classical" possibility of making microscopic wormhole at one place (extracting it from quantum vacuum) and taking one "throat" with you to some other place (e.g. on board of spaceship). But this seems not to be the case with Woodward wormholes.

So if you create wormhole with Woodward effect, how do you "target" it? How do you choose where the second throat should emerge?

More than just energy and mass is required; information has to travel through the wormhole. Some assembly may be required at the distant wormhole end.

Most likely, the information channel would be embedded in the outer wall of the wormhole. Putting an information channel in the middle of the wormhole would block passage of energy and matter.

In building a bridge, many civilized approaches use a bow and arrow, or an air gun, to launch a lightweight threat to the other side. The strong string is tied to a stronger strong or rope. Then there is a point where a pretty hefty rope bridges the gap, so strong that a second rope can be pulled.

In the past few centuries, cable has been used to cross canyons. Notably, during the later part of the 19th century US gold rush and logging.

In the case of a wormhole, one would need to send energy, matter and information through the wormhole to a construction site. Self-assembly from energy, then atomics (nanotech) and then molecules would be required. Probably want to produce a 3D printer.

The idea  that feeding the wormhole from both ends is a good idea that should be explored.

Steering a wormhole? Study caterpillars, snakes and worms. What might work is segmented wormhole generation, preferably periodic rings that form the basis for walls.


Offline Mikos

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Czech Republic
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1306 on: 03/21/2018 04:16 PM »
I have somehow came to an idea that wormholes generated with Woodward effect can be generated from one place (spaceship) without some other part (gate) at second end. Maybe it was in some article, paper or Woodward's book, but I am not sure now. So this is not true? And if it is true, how can be place where other wormhole ending emerges "choosen" or how can be wormhole "targeted"?

The only reference that I have now found in "Making starships and stargates" is this:

Quote
Even if we assume that we can lay our hands on the requisite amount of exotic matter and confine it in a structure of suitable dimensions, there is the problem of how the induced wormhole forms. In general terms, there are two possibilities. One is that wormhole induction by the exotic matter causes a tear in spacetime before the forming wormhole reconnects (God knows where!) with some distant location in spacetime. In this scenario, the tearing of spacetime occurs because the topology of the spacetime is changed by the wormhole. The other is that wormhole induction produces a smooth deformation of spacetime, so no topology change accompanies wormhole formation.

But this is in general section about wormholes, there seems to be nothing more specific for Woodward wormholes (or I am bad at searching and/or my memory is bad ;-)).

Offline Mikos

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Czech Republic
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1307 on: 03/21/2018 04:41 PM »
And even if I would have some pre-existing device (gate) on the other end, how would this help? How would one gate know to connect with some other specific gate? You can't even synchronize the process of creating wormhole on both gates without some other instantaneous FTL communication channel, so concept of stargates (without pre-existing wormhole between them) seems moot.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1308 on: 03/22/2018 02:23 AM »
in Woodward's scheme both ends of the wormhole are generated at the same location. one end is then sent towards the destination at relativistic velocities. Because of this a trip through the worm hole is possible before the distal aperture would arrive by the reconning of people at the near end of the wormhole. in the example he gave the distal end of the wormhole was aimed at a star system 1200(?) light years away. Naturally at light speed one would expect classically that one would have to wait 1200 years for the bridge between the distal and proximal ends to become operational. However due to relativistic effects the bridge would function as intended a few weeks after the distal end was set on its way to the target.

This summary takes as given that the mechanics of stabilizing, launching and guiding a wormhole distal end would work as he envisions, -which is generally disputed by the physics community. After all; "they" created the cosmic back reaction principle as a way to forbid the survival of wormholes which allowed the passage of information and matter and energy through a macroscopic wormhole in the first place. But if i understand it his warping of the CBR principle is as plausible as the CBR itself.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Mikos

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Czech Republic
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1309 on: 03/22/2018 03:12 AM »
Stormbringer: Thanks. Can you please give me some paper or article, where is this Woodward's wormhole scenario described in more details?

Offline Mikos

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Czech Republic
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1310 on: 03/22/2018 05:12 AM »
Btw. your (or Woodward's?) example is time machine (due to relativistic effects - you are simply using your wormhole to go 1200 years into future or 1200 years back into past). If you make just 2 similar wormholes, you can create a paradox (if some "magic" quantum effects don't destroy your wormhole, like Stephen Hawking and others suggested). Or did Woodward somehow overcome this issue?
« Last Edit: 03/22/2018 06:53 AM by Mikos »

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1311 on: 03/22/2018 06:20 AM »
Woodward and others believe you can avoid this by not making more than one wormhole connecting any two sets of coordinates and that failure to follow this rule results in the explosive destruction of one or both wormholes.

One of Woodward's peers , John Kramer from Washington U, gave a talk on video about this in which some references are given



His talk is pretty interesting and the Q&A session at the end is pretty good. references mentioned all around though you'd have to use google-fu to track them down.

The advantages of having some sort of anchoring gate at either end are speculation on my part but i think it might help ensure the wormhole is more stable or permanent. alternatively you might be able to terminate and re-establish the wormhole at will once the initial set up is accomplished. this might make it possible to bend the rule about potential recursive routes that allow time travel of the sort that horrifies physicists and philosophers.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2018 06:32 AM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Mikos

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Czech Republic
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1312 on: 03/22/2018 07:01 AM »
So in this scenario if you close your original wormhole (maybe by accident), you can't go back to Earth (if you create new wormhole from original destination to Earth, you will arrive 2400 years in Earths future). Only Earth can create new wormhole to communicate with you or take you back. Is this correct?

Offline Mikos

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Czech Republic
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1313 on: 03/22/2018 07:14 AM »
Btw. can you give me some sources where Woodward talks about this scenario (how to create wormhole, accelerate one wormhole opening to relativistic speed and then stop it at destination with Woodward effect)? And is it really limited by speed of light and relativistic effects? Wormhole is spacetime construct and in some GR constructs like Alcubierre warp drive (or in cosmic inflation), movement/constriction/expansion of spacetime itself isn't limited by speed of light, so maybe wormhole opening can even move by superluminal speeds and avoid relativistic effects (like spaceship in warp bubble)?
« Last Edit: 03/22/2018 08:17 AM by Mikos »

Offline Mikos

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Czech Republic
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1314 on: 03/22/2018 08:15 AM »
Ok, I have looked at video with Cramers lecture that you have provided, but there really isn't anything specific about Woodward's wormholes. It is general lecture about wormholes and to be fair there was nothing new or interresting said (for people who already know something about wormholes, read some papers, etc.).

Is this Cramers scenario really what Woodward is proposing or did he proposed also something else?

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1315 on: 03/22/2018 02:27 PM »
So in this scenario if you close your original wormhole (maybe by accident), you can't go back to Earth (if you create new wormhole from original destination to Earth, you will arrive 2400 years in Earths future). Only Earth can create new wormhole to communicate with you or take you back. Is this correct?
The wormhole works both ways. Cramer mentions that if you don't like what you find at the other end you can go back through to earth practically instantly. there is only a problem if you have two wormhole tunnels that are parallel to each other because it allows forbidden time travel. Woodward is not concentrating on the second term of his equation since his immediate objective is to verify his Mach effect; not to mention talking about the second term except in passing would make his job of finding independent peer replication and legitimacy much much more complicated.

Cramer's stuff is applicable to all wormholes including Woodward's wormhole. Woodward mentions (speculates) some ways a wormhole might be possible technologically but that is about it. For more specific wormhole physics there are lots of independent articles such as articles on entanglement, gravity, cosmology, astronomy over the last decade or so. Cramer's discussion is the most specific i have seen in how steering a wormhole or how to hold the apertures open in the face of the CBR principle i have seen that i can recall.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1316 on: 03/22/2018 02:35 PM »
Btw. your (or Woodward's?) example is time machine (due to relativistic effects - you are simply using your wormhole to go 1200 years into future or 1200 years back into past). If you make just 2 similar wormholes, you can create a paradox (if some "magic" quantum effects don't destroy your wormhole, like Stephen Hawking and others suggested). Or did Woodward somehow overcome this issue?
Not all types of time travel are forbidden by physics. Time travel may be supported if the time travel does not involve going back in time further than the creation of the time machine itself. so going back and forth in Cramer/Woodward's scenario must not violate that providing there is not a second wormhole path parallel to the first. There are however other considerations that may make it impossible that have nothing to do with time travel.

(time travel before the inception of the time machine itself is impossible now but it is possible that there may exist naturally occurring primordial wormholes that are all connected to each other and various points in time. Some astronomers are looking for signs of these in existing telescope data)
« Last Edit: 03/22/2018 03:00 PM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Mikos

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Czech Republic
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1317 on: 03/22/2018 02:46 PM »
The wormhole works both ways. Cramer mentions that if you don't like what you find at the other end you can go back through to earth practically instantly.

I know that wormholes work both ways, I was talking about potential issue that original wormhole is closed after you went through it (maybe by accident). In that case you must hope that Earth opens new wormhole to your location. Because if you open wormhole from your location to Earth, you will end up 2400 years in Earths future (after your original departure).

Offline Mikos

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Czech Republic
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1318 on: 03/22/2018 03:04 PM »
Not all types of time travel are forbidden by physics. Time travel may be supported if the time travel does not involve going back in time further than the creation of the time machine itself. so going back and forth in Cramer/Woodward's scenario must not violate that providing there is not a second wormhole path parallel to the first.

That depends on your point of view (it is still purely hypothetical). According to Stephen Hawking's chronology protection conjecture, I believe that any wormhole that works as time machine (even if there is only one wormhole, like in Cramer's scenario) would be destroyed by quantum vacuum fluctuations. So if Hawking is right (and that is big IF, there are no proofs of that, it is only hypothesis), wormhole would be maybe destroyed just by accelerating it to relativistic speed.

But you can also choose to trust in Novikov self-consistency principle instead of Hawking chronology protection conjecture. And in that case, even 2 parallel wormholes / time machine scenario is not problematic at all and you can go in your own past just like you want (only your free will is then limited by self-consistency principle, but like Wheeler said: "Physics already restricts your free will every day. You may will yourself to fly or to walk through a concrete wall, but gravity and condensed-matter physics dictate that you cannot. Why, Novikov asks, is the consistency restriction placed on a time traveler any different?")

Offline Mikos

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Czech Republic
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1319 on: 03/22/2018 03:34 PM »
But back to the topic. Would it be possible with Woodward effect-based technology to create wormhole from spaceship and then pass through it (so something like creating wormhole opening around your ship) or is it nonsense and you will always need external generator (gate) which will have to stay on place?

I mean scenario like this: spaceship with Woodward effect wormhole generator onboard creates wormhole, accellerates and steers one opening of wormhole at the destination (by wormhole back-reaction) and then goes through wormhole (with wormhole generator still onboard).

And if you can make this work with Woodward effect (by creating massive amount of exotic matter with Woodwards effect second term - by unmasking negative mass of ADM electrons, if I understand it correctly and ADM electron model is true), wouldn't it be easier to create Alcubierre warp drive metric?
« Last Edit: 03/22/2018 03:34 PM by Mikos »

Tags: