Woodward's effect

[Stormbringer]

not sure if that was a question or not so:

well the video Kramer's i think mentioned the issues with quantum back pressure on wormholes. it does some neat things but is most often invoked as a constraint at the least on what can be done with wormholes. in fact it is sometimes said by critics of traversible wormholes that if a quantum gravity theory emerges it must surely forbid traversible wormholes likely by unknown aspects of quantum back pressure to preserve chronology.

but since QG is not even a thing yet quantum back pressure thus far only constrains mucking about with worm holes it does not forbid it. Anyway when you send stuff through a worm hole quantum backpressure sets up a back reaction. so if you sent charged particles the end of the worm hole developes that charge. furthermore it's not just charge but all other properties including some surprising ones. amgnetic charge is not too surprising butt hings like  mass, inertia and momentum are. but via quantum back pressure you can alter a wormholes properties in a way that leads to being able to steer them, move them at will and perhaps enlarge them.

that's in the video too.

but if you have a tube or filament with a magnetic charge on one or both ends you have a de facto monopole. the end of the tube is a point like magnetic charge even if the other end has the opposite polarity charge.

over the past few years there have been at least two peer reviewed papers that claimed emergent monopoles in condensed matter physics and solid state physics. in one the monopole arose unexpectedly and in the other they tweaked their material to force monopole like properties and behavior. the experiments had two different set ups and particulars as well. so because of these prior art articles it appears that if  you have a tube with a magnetic charge on the end it is functionally the same as a monopole.

as there are several whole families of proposed monopoles and among them are the ends of a "froze out" cosmic string resulting in a permanent topological vacuum defect in space time this assertion seems to be acceptable.

[D_Dom]

two peer reviewed papers that claimed emergent monopoles in condensed matter physics and solid state physics.

Link?

[Stormbringer]

two peer reviewed papers that claimed emergent monopoles in condensed matter physics and solid state physics.

Link?

yeah. I'll edit at least one of 'em in here as soon as a find them again

NM. here is one of them. still looking for the second.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140129164807.htm

edit actually that not it either the article in question should be at least 1 year probably 2 or three old.

I'll keep looking.

well i don't hink this type was one but it could be because it has the filament thing. but it does not look like the pictures i recall from when i read the article a few years ago.

http://phys.org/news/2010-10-scientists-capture-images-theoretically-magnetic.html

it may have been but i know the articles i looked at only one had to do with spin ice. but so far this comes closest: http://www.psi.ch/sls/ScienceResearch_HighlightsEN/moving_monopoles_01.pdf

because of the moving pictures and clear reference to a filament with  discrete magnetic charge on either end of opposite polarity.

[Stormbringer]

OK; while researching Woodward and wormholes i ran into some of the relativistic and quantum restrictions on wormholes and i found something that appears to be a contradiction to some related articles i was reading. you know the articles that recently said gravity and entanglement require wormholes to work?

well that would mean a vast so as to be uncountable number of wormholes in close proximity. but one of the restrictions on wormholes that allow information or stuff through is that only one wormhole of can exist in the distance traversed by the wormhole. so if you had a wormhole between here and some place 1000 light years away no other worm hole could be opened within 1000 light years. if you did both would explode. in the Kramer video he and a questioner from the audience joked about it being a unique way to probe for alien civilizations.

but how does that square with the wormhole gravity and wormhole entanglement idea?

[Hanelyp]

... but one of the restrictions on wormholes that allow information or stuff through is that only one wormhole of can exist in the distance traversed by the wormhole. ...

Sounds like you came across a garbled presentation of the chronology protection conjecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture

[Stormbringer]

Sounds like you came across a garbled presentation of the chronology protection conjecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture

i really doubt a professor emeritus of physics such as Kramer would have a garbled understanding of any relevant topic concerning what he was presenting. Nor was his interlocutor likely to have a garbled understanding of it since he was a physicist too and one of the physcists on the team consulted on what a wormhole would look like for Carl Sagan's Contact movie. 

I may have a garbled understanding of the topic. they likely don't. and i was basically relaying exactly what they said.



EDIT:  its the first questioner from the audience itself. the one in the blue shirt at 30 minutes 34 seconds. it is chronology protection though. and he was not the physicist that was on Thorne's team for Sagan's movie; that was the 4th questioner at: 37 minutes and 5 seconds.

[JohnFornaro]

... but one of the restrictions on wormholes that allow information or stuff through is that only one wormhole of can exist in the distance traversed by the wormhole. ...

Sounds like you came across a garbled presentation of the chronology protection conjecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture

I wouldn't question Kramer's credentials.  But I would question the grammar of the clause, "only one wormhole of can exist".  Only one wormhole of what can exist?

[Stormbringer]

I wouldn't question Kramer's credentials.  But I would question the grammar of the clause, "only one wormhole of can exist".  Only one wormhole of what can exist?

all of this over a typo left because i tried to remove a dependent clause i was not sure of?

the missing bit was going to speak of a wormhole of the opposite polarity. i dropped it because it the polarity isn't really the thrust anyway; it concerns allowing a second wormhole which would allow a causality violation by time travel into the past. and i was going by memory and i didn't trust my memory to get the facts straight but didn't want to go look it up at the time.

[Hanelyp]

all of this over a typo left because i tried to remove a dependent clause i was not sure of?

the missing bit was going to speak of a wormhole of the opposite polarity. ...

In this case the dropped qualification makes a big difference, between no second wormhole allowed vs. no second wormhole if it has certain qualifications.

I have no idea who the people are who gave the presentation described, and assumed the description was accurate.  I've seen far too many presentations of science topics that make just that sort of goof.

[JohnFornaro]

... But I would question the grammar of the clause, "only one wormhole of can exist".  Only one wormhole of what can exist?

all of this over a typo left because i tried to remove a dependent clause i was not sure of?

Say what you mean.  Just fix the typo and move on, instead of asserting somehow that the nonsensical sentence made sense.

[Rocket Science]

... But I would question the grammar of the clause, "only one wormhole of can exist".  Only one wormhole of what can exist?

all of this over a typo left because i tried to remove a dependent clause i was not sure of?

Say what you mean.  Just fix the typo and move on, instead of asserting somehow that the nonsensical sentence made sense.

Ya just had to open "a can of wormholes"...

[kch]

... But I would question the grammar of the clause, "only one wormhole of can exist".  Only one wormhole of what can exist?

all of this over a typo left because i tried to remove a dependent clause i was not sure of?

Say what you mean.  Just fix the typo and move on, instead of asserting somehow that the nonsensical sentence made sense.

Ya just had to open "a can of wormholes"...

Looks like the catalog of astronomical objects just got a hole lot Messier ...

[Stormbringer]

anyway; as i said i am not a physicist but i don't see how a wormhole network could cause a CTL that would cause a causality violation in the way that is commonly meant. firstly because the one wormhole only goes back in time to the point it was created.  and i would think that if you opened a second wormhole rather than going back through the one you arrived from (why even bother since the first one is perfectly serviceable?)  it would start and end later than the first wormhole anyway. you could not go back and tell someone about their future or interdict history with foreknowledge in any way.

in several proposals where time travel of various sorts was a side effect or a main effect (Ronald Mallet) the time travel only worked from the inception point of the wormhole or device (In Mallet's case) on into the future where it terminated operation.

I think that if you did create a CP violation (by arriving in the timeline with foreknowledge of future events from the point in the timeline you inserted yourself into) the change would occur in a parallel universe and not have any effect in the original time line anyway.

[JohnFornaro]

Looks like the catalog of astronomical objects just got a hole lot Messier ...

Whut?  You mean they haven't updated the catalog since 1771?  Sheesh.

[MP99]

Brian Wang's site is relaying discovery of a high dielectric, high (77deg C) operating temperature superconductor.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/02/high-dielectric-constant-enables.html

77K doesn't sound very impress...

Wait, what?! 77^oC! Holy moly!

cheers, Martin

[Hanelyp]

anyway; as i said i am not a physicist but i don't see how a wormhole network could cause a CTL that would cause a causality violation in the way that is commonly meant. firstly because the one wormhole only goes back in time to the point it was created.  and i would think that if you opened a second wormhole rather than going back through the one you arrived from (why even bother since the first one is perfectly serviceable?)  it would start and end later than the first wormhole anyway. you could not go back and tell someone about their future or interdict history with foreknowledge in any way.

Presume 2 wormholes going opposite directions, overlapping, each with one end time dilated relative to the other.  Enter wormhole A send from a distant star towards us.  At the other star enter wormhole B we sent that direction.  End up before you started.

Or take a single wormhole.  Hold one end still and time dilate the other into the future in a particle accelerator.

The chronology protection conjecture holds that you can't create such a configuration.  A wormhole will collapse at the threshold of a closed timelike curve.

[Stormbringer]

Presume 2 wormholes going opposite directions, overlapping, each with one end time dilated relative to the other.  Enter wormhole A send from a distant star towards us.  At the other star enter wormhole B we sent that direction.  End up before you started.

Or take a single wormhole.  Hold one end still and time dilate the other into the future in a particle accelerator.

The chronology protection conjecture holds that you can't create such a configuration.  A wormhole will collapse at the threshold of a closed timelike curve.

well what about static wormholes after the worm hole has arrived at the distant station? there is a divergence of the time line of the near station and the far station if the wormhole traveled at relativistic speeds. and (according to Dr Kramer) you can go from the future (at the far station) back through the worm hole and to the original time the worm hole was started plus an interval of relativistic time as experienced when the wormhole was traveling (a few weeks.) that is still time travel but you cannot do anything to change the past that way because you always arrive after you left and of course after the wormhole was created.

but the freaky thing is the wormhole is fully useable (again according to Kramer) once the the amount of time the wormhole would experience in the accelerated reference frame (from time dilation) elapses even if you are in the stationary reference frame.  meaning it should take the wormhole 1200 years in his example to get to the distant star. but in a few weeks or months you can step through the wormhole and get to it's ultimate target even though according to time as experienced at the stationary end) the thing has 1,199 year left to even get to the far station. never mind that from the point of view of the near station the wormhole could meet with an accident or the machinery breakdown before the traveling wormhole end gets to the  destination which should take 1200 years. yet it is usable after the relativistic time lapse.

thanks for taking the time to try to explain it anyway.

[aceshigh]

Hedi Fearns paper that is being presented at AIAA

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster




-----------------------

SpaceShow interview with Dr Woodward about Mach Effect
http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2509

"We welcomed back Dr. Jim Woodward to the program to discuss the Mach Effect, Mach thrusters and drive, and breakthrough propulsion. During our discussion, Dr. Woodward mentioned his book, "Making Starships and Stargates which you can order at http://ssi.org/exotic-propulsion-initiative as this allows SSI to get a royalty payment on the sale of the book. If you buy the book through Amazon using TSS/OGLF portal, The Space Show gets a percentage of the sales price of the book. In addition, the Charles Platt article, "Strange thrust: the unproven science that could propel our children into space" can be found here: http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html. Finally, Dr. Woodward mentioned the paper written by Dr. Heidi Fearn, "New Theoretical Results for the Mach Effect Thruster." You can download this paper at http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster. Note that in the final minutes of our program, Dr. Woodward spoke very softly and we were unable to get some of what he said as part of his final comments. While the 1 hour 56 minute program was divided into two segments, this summary will be in one segment only and short as the papers above tell the story. I urge you to read them and become familiar with Dr. Woodward's work either before or after listening to this discussion which was at times very technical and heavy in the theoretical physics fields for gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces and more as he described the Mach Effect. In addition to the physics, since Dr. Woodward's work is dependent on funding so he spent a good amount of time in both segments answering questions and telling us what it was like trying to get funding, approved proposals, etc. for cutting edge work or even work considered to be out of the box or on the fringe. His realistic assessment of the challenges posed by his and similar work goes to the point of why we don't see more out of the box science & advanced projects being financed. In addition to the physics and funding discussions, we talked timelines for his having commercial uses for small Mach thrusters which would start off servicing satellites. This discussion covered both segments. Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above. You can contact Dr. Woodward through me at dr[email protected] or his Cal State Fullerton website."

[Stormbringer]

Thank you.

[HMXHMX]

Hedi Fearns paper that is being presented at AIAA

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster




-----------------------

SpaceShow interview with Dr Woodward about Mach Effect
http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2509

"We welcomed back Dr. Jim Woodward to the program to discuss the Mach Effect, Mach thrusters and drive, and breakthrough propulsion. During our discussion, Dr. Woodward mentioned his book, "Making Starships and Stargates which you can order at http://ssi.org/exotic-propulsion-initiative as this allows SSI to get a royalty payment on the sale of the book. If you buy the book through Amazon using TSS/OGLF portal, The Space Show gets a percentage of the sales price of the book. In addition, the Charles Platt article, "Strange thrust: the unproven science that could propel our children into space" can be found here: http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html. Finally, Dr. Woodward mentioned the paper written by Dr. Heidi Fearn, "New Theoretical Results for the Mach Effect Thruster." You can download this paper at http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster. Note that in the final minutes of our program, Dr. Woodward spoke very softly and we were unable to get some of what he said as part of his final comments. While the 1 hour 56 minute program was divided into two segments, this summary will be in one segment only and short as the papers above tell the story. I urge you to read them and become familiar with Dr. Woodward's work either before or after listening to this discussion which was at times very technical and heavy in the theoretical physics fields for gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces and more as he described the Mach Effect. In addition to the physics, since Dr. Woodward's work is dependent on funding so he spent a good amount of time in both segments answering questions and telling us what it was like trying to get funding, approved proposals, etc. for cutting edge work or even work considered to be out of the box or on the fringe. His realistic assessment of the challenges posed by his and similar work goes to the point of why we don't see more out of the box science & advanced projects being financed. In addition to the physics and funding discussions, we talked timelines for his having commercial uses for small Mach thrusters which would start off servicing satellites. This discussion covered both segments. Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above. You can contact Dr. Woodward through me at dr[email protected] or his Cal State Fullerton website."

The last two paragraphs are fairly important [my emphasis]:

"We have shown that by inclusion of the event horizon [14] as a natural cutoff, that the advanced
waves in the Hoyle-Narlikar (HN) theory no longer yield a divergent integral [17]. The event hori-
zon is a manifestation of the accelerating universe and was only recently discovered by Reiss [25].
Einstein understood Mach's principle, as a gravitational interaction between a test particle and the
rest of the mass-energy of the universe, to be of a radiative nature and to act instantaneously. This
is made possible if the gravitational interaction is carried by advanced waves as in the HN-theory.

"In summary we have shown the Woodward result [20] for mass fluctuations can be derived from
first principles from HN-theory. This is a generalization of Einstein's General Relativity to include
radiative effects and advanced waves. The advanced waves explain how momentum can be con-
served in our devices. Experimentally we have shown that the thrust produced by these devices is
not due to heating and it is not a Dean Drive type effect. The thrust is only seen in devices that
have the first and second harmonic frequencies in phase. Finally the thrust appears to be consistent
with a quartic power law for voltage, which is a signature of Mach effects."