-
#2260 by meberbs on 18 Oct, 2017 23:53
-
...quantum mechanical ...
Forgive the butchering of your quote, but I have found that quantum mechanics usually results turning attempts at understanding into a "complicated mess." Unfortunately necessary sometimes, but best to avoid when possible.
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.I understand that half of the energy is in the magnetic field and half is in the electric field.
I generally agree with what you wrote, but one fine point here. I am not sure how accurately you can say the split is 50-50. That might be a valid perspective, but at the same time, it is probably better to just think of the fields as a single "electromagnetic field," and all of the energy belongs to the fields. This is particularly apparent in relativity, where the fields transform together as a single tensor object. -
#2261 by dustinthewind on 19 Oct, 2017 00:47
-
You mean for some reason like gravity? You are just going in a big circle here adding a bunch of unnecessary steps to then write down the original conclusion. Even if your explanation actually involved time dilation in any way (you can't jump from particles with negative mass travelling backwards in time -> time dilation), your explanation still does not account for time dilation from non-gravity based accelerations
Gravity is more than just time dilation, and time dilation is caused by any acceleration (or just by having a relative velocity) so it doesn't make sense to say that time dilation causes gravity.Time is gravity?
Almost Kenjee,
gravity is time dilation, to be more specific. Problem is we don't really know how time dilation acts to engender gravitational acceleration, do we... Ideas anyone?
That seems to me to be in question because we don't really know the source of what causes the time gradient. It is really just because of relative velocity (or existing under acceleration) or something more fundamental that causes time to change?
For instance what if the vacuum is made up of positive matter that runs forward in time and negative energy matter that run backwards in time. The negative energy matter appearing in our universe as positive energy matter because it runs backwards in time but then it annihilates with positive energy matter their time cancels out between them and suddenly they annihilate. While separation because of the time aspect allows them to have what appears as positive energy.
Maybe for some reason this negative energy matter in the vacuum is attracted to large masses of positive energy matter.Maybe having a large velocity in the vacuum also polarizes these particles causing Lorentz contraction and the time effects.
"Large velocity in the vacuum" does not make any sense and contradicts the essence of special relativity, that there is no vacuum rest frame.
Supposing anti-matter is this other component it would have to be attracted for some other reason than gravity for it to work. It is attracted to its counterpart so maybe it is feasible for it to be attracted to other large quantities of positive time matter, hypothetically speaking. It could polarize at some equilibrium between its positive time partner and the other positive time particle with out a partner. Maybe for electric field reasons or some other reason. The polarization of this negative time aspect in the vacuum would then induce gravity. It's an incomplete work but something I have mulled over from time to time.
There is large amounts everywhere. enough energy converges and suddenly e-p pairs start popping in and out of existence. Its been observed already.Supposing anti-matter is this other component
Are you trying to describe the universe we live in, or some other fictional universe?
This is simply a non-starter of a proposition. If there was large quantities of antimatter to cause these effects, it would be impossible to not see them.QuoteAlso, consensus is that anti-matter has the same interaction with gravity as normal matter, meaning it would be attracted to regular matter by gravity, though it hasn't been conclusively measured yet.
You also did not actually address what I said.
Yes positrons are attracted to gravity because they appear to be positive energy. If you invert negative energy by inverting time you get positive energy. Not saying this is a fact, this is a speculation on the nature of gravity. I am sure some of us have wondered why gravity and Lorentz contractions even exist in the first place. Until we know for a fact, it may be worth while to speculate as to how it exists, not just that it exists. Do we even know how a Wheeler-Feynman propagator might propagate backwards in time? Maybe a particle that behaves similarly might be key.
The gravitational force is much weaker than the electric and the vacuum is stiff. To polarize it you would need something more effective. Take an electron-positron pair alone and insert a lone electron. Could the new position be the positron some where between the two electrons? We don't know because when they annihilate they become invisible but are they truly gone? (And if they are not, their rest energy is not zero as we know the vacuum can not reach zero rest energy). Now take a lone electron in a cloud of these pairs. Might the position of the lone electron be some function of the energy level of the vacuum giving us some uncertainty about its actual position? Might this lone electron induce some minor polarization of this e-p pair cloud because of its existence?
Might a very fast object moving through a vacuum, that is polarized by matter, induce some accumulated polarization wave with a time gradient that is responsible for Lorentz contraction and time travel? We know gravitational waves do exist and they do Lorentz contract.
We argue for the non-existence of a rest frame yet ignore the existence of the CMB and the Twin paradox where one twin, who does not reach near c speed, does not slow in aging, while the one who does remains young. The Lorentz contraction exist because of time travel via the tilting of the space axis into time and time in to space. In the case of the twin paradox there appears to be only one time traveler. Acceleration only changes the tilting of the axis of the light cone, determining how one travels through time, but its how long you stay at that relative velocity with respect to what defines that light cone that determines how long you travel through time. So what determines the tilting of our axis with respect to the light cone such that the stationary twin ages faster?
Regardless, it is just my speculation. I am just reluctant to dismiss that a gradient in time may some how be responsible for gravity instead of gravity being responsible for the time gradient.
-
#2262 by Mulletron on 19 Oct, 2017 01:17
-
...quantum mechanical ...
Forgive the butchering of your quote, but I have found that quantum mechanics usually results turning attempts at understanding into a "complicated mess." Unfortunately necessary sometimes, but best to avoid when possible.
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.I understand that half of the energy is in the magnetic field and half is in the electric field.
I generally agree with what you wrote, but one fine point here. I am not sure how accurately you can say the split is 50-50. That might be a valid perspective, but at the same time, it is probably better to just think of the fields as a single "electromagnetic field," and all of the energy belongs to the fields. This is particularly apparent in relativity, where the fields transform together as a single tensor object.
https://physics.info/em-waves/
-
#2263 by spupeng7 on 19 Oct, 2017 02:43
-
(...)
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem. Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.
In my opinion, we must continue to investigate the possibility that gravity is an electromagnetic effect, as Faraday suggested. Gravity, and pressure through contact, are the only forces that can act through the walls of the frustum, while everything that we are inducing inside it must be electromagnetic.
This may appear to be tenuous evidence upon which to ask such a big question but the argument can be made that this question should be asked anyway because the models we have all lead to paradox. Maybe we need to answer this bigger question before we can objectively assess the mechanism of action of the emdrive.
Gravity may simply be an imbalance of em forces due to the displacement of the electron from the nucleus, causing an imbalance between the sum of attractions and repulsions between all mass composed of charges, whether or not those masses have a neutral balance of opposite charges. I see this in the action of a bar magnet which can be explained as a stable longitudinal displacement of charge within the bar.
This requires a different mechanism for gravity and inertia (which must be interaction between all charges which falls in intensity with the inverse of the square of their separation) and the mechanism of interaction between pairs of charges in resonance exchanging quanta of energy, which we currently describe as photons. This is not an attempt to outrage, just an attempt to think outside the box, which is what circumstance now requires of us.
Without cynicism I fear we could waste a century more in attempts to explain emdrive thrust by classical or quantum mechanics. There is an alternative, to accept the possibility that Special Relativity is correct when it describes traverse at the speed of light as having no progress through clock time from its own perspective. That leaves only one option; the veracity of complex time and the absence of any extension in time for a photon from its own perspective as well as from the covariant perspective.
Folks, General Relativity is a translation from the covariant back into the Euclidian, is it not, and the Euclidian is a broken model full with paradox. It is time to focus on logic. Out of my depth I may be, but so are all who attempt to force resolution of this modern puzzle into the Euclidian box of quantum paradox.
-
#2264 by spupeng7 on 19 Oct, 2017 03:02
-
Maxwell Vindicated, blogpost by John Newell.. 6/2/2014
(...)
IMO- Many laws and theorem describe what happens naturally and spontaneously in the universe. But we have seen many cases where we have done, by twisting nature’s arm, things that do not happen by themselves in the universe. If we intend, once more, to twist nature’s arm into doing something that is not spontaneously happening out there, we should be cautious about the apparent limitations imposed by these laws and theorems. Because by leaving the realm of spontaneous processes, “intervention” may bring about new rules and new possibilities.
James Clerk Maxwell is credited with the unification of electricity and magnetism just as Albert Einstein is credited with unification of space and time. Formal physical analysis has a nasty habit of separating them out again in order to reveal magnetic field behavior. The great benefit of their unification is that our understanding of electromagnetism is simplified by being a consequence of charge distribution alone.
If we need a reminder of this there is none better than the paper by Oleg D. Jefimenko titled ‘A neglected topic in relativistic electrodynamics : transformation of electromagnetic integrals’ but not dated. Available at arXiv:0509159, this understated but deeply elegant work provides the simplification required to open the door to dunderheads like myself, so that we may comprehend the universe of electrodynamics without being intimidated by the appalling complexity of the magneto-hydrodynamics which usually comes with it.
Then gravity can be considered to see if it fits within a purely electrodynamic explanation and electric force can be considered to see if it fits within a purely relativistic explanation, requiring nothing more than a mind open enough to try time dilation as a mechanism of action for electric force. If you can bring yourself this far then it may be possible, if your math is better than mine, to resolve gravity without limiting it to a monopole. The rest looks easy from there because unification will have realized its ultimate expression.
Thank you Oleg D, it is a shame you’re not around to finish the job for us…
-
#2265 by meberbs on 19 Oct, 2017 03:20
-
The exactly half applies to electromagnetic waves in free space. I am fairly certain that it does not apply in general, such as inside a resonator where you have nearby (temporary) charge distributions on the metal walls. It certainly is not true for the region of space near a point charge, with no other fields present. It could be true inside a resonator, but I wouldn't trust that unless someone could work out the proof....quantum mechanical ...
Forgive the butchering of your quote, but I have found that quantum mechanics usually results turning attempts at understanding into a "complicated mess." Unfortunately necessary sometimes, but best to avoid when possible.
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.I understand that half of the energy is in the magnetic field and half is in the electric field.
I generally agree with what you wrote, but one fine point here. I am not sure how accurately you can say the split is 50-50. That might be a valid perspective, but at the same time, it is probably better to just think of the fields as a single "electromagnetic field," and all of the energy belongs to the fields. This is particularly apparent in relativity, where the fields transform together as a single tensor object.
https://physics.info/em-waves/
I mostly just wanted to express my suggestion (just a suggestion) to treat the electric and magnetic fields as a single "electromagnetic field" instead. -
#2266 by WarpTech on 19 Oct, 2017 04:14
-
The exactly half applies to electromagnetic waves in free space. I am fairly certain that it does not apply in general, such as inside a resonator where you have nearby (temporary) charge distributions on the metal walls. It certainly is not true for the region of space near a point charge, with no other fields present. It could be true inside a resonator, but I wouldn't trust that unless someone could work out the proof....quantum mechanical ...
Forgive the butchering of your quote, but I have found that quantum mechanics usually results turning attempts at understanding into a "complicated mess." Unfortunately necessary sometimes, but best to avoid when possible.
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.I understand that half of the energy is in the magnetic field and half is in the electric field.
I generally agree with what you wrote, but one fine point here. I am not sure how accurately you can say the split is 50-50. That might be a valid perspective, but at the same time, it is probably better to just think of the fields as a single "electromagnetic field," and all of the energy belongs to the fields. This is particularly apparent in relativity, where the fields transform together as a single tensor object.
https://physics.info/em-waves/
I mostly just wanted to express my suggestion (just a suggestion) to treat the electric and magnetic fields as a single "electromagnetic field" instead.
It's actually much easier to do QM using the gauge potentials (Phi, A), than the fields, E & B. The effects of a gravitational potential is equivalent to a gauge transformation of the EM gauge potentials. The gravitational field has no effect on the Lorentz force, despite its affect on the gauge potentials. So gravity has no "locally" observable affect on experiments that measure the force of the EM field.
-
#2267 by WarpTech on 19 Oct, 2017 04:39
-
We do know how time dilation induces gravitational effects.
We do not know that it does. In fact to the contrary, gravitational effects cause time dilation, not the other way around. Saying that we know how something happens that does not happen is 2 levels of wrong.
Actually, there is nothing wrong with RERT's statement. There is no experiment or theory that has predicted or determined which came first, gravity or time dilation. The effects are indistinguishable under all observations that I am aware of. In addition, "ANY" process which puts matter in an accelerated reference frame, is equivalent to a gravitational field. Unless you want to disprove the EEP.In the presence of a variable 'rate of time' the geodesic paths are accelerated - like gravity. Newtonian gravity can be accounted for by only varying the rate of time. GR requires changes in the space dimensions as well.
Newtonian gravity does not have any time dilation. also, "rate of time" is not a defined physics term, so I am just assuming you mean "time dilation."
It is well known that Newton's gravitational potential and acceleration may be derived from the g00 Schwarzschild metric coefficient, which is also responsible for time dilation. Newton may not have theorized or written about it, but it was there none the less. Also, "rate of time" is understood to mean be the relative rate of a clock at two different altitudes in a gravitational field. IMO, there is nothing wrong with anything that was said. It's common sense to anyone willing to understand rather than look for reasons to nitpick.
-
#2268 by DusanC on 19 Oct, 2017 07:57
-
30W amplifier successfully mounted to the torsional pendulum.
@Monomorphic:
I'm showing images from both sides below. I think this is the first time I've shown the back side of the pendulum.
The two temperature sensors for the draft enclosure will be added tomorrow.
With your pendulum layout you'll get settling oscillations because you induce torque T=FxL around the axis of your beam where F is EM drive force. As your damper is also displaced from the axis of the beam you'll get oscillations around axis of the beam but because that displacement is different from EMdrive displacement you'll see settling oscillations in other directions also. Your laser point will make elliptical movement.
OFC this doesn't inhibit you from measuring the EM drive force, you'll just have some noise afterwards.
I can assist you in redesigning your pendulum in 3D CAD by you specs, if you want to do it OFC.
PS. In the lower sketch I drew torque in wrong direction but you get the idea
-
#2269 by flux_capacitor on 19 Oct, 2017 10:15
-
If you invert negative energy by inverting time you get positive energy. Not saying this is a fact, this is a speculation on the nature of gravity.
Again, this has been proven since 1970. An important milestone of symplectic geometry is the Kirillov-Kostant-Souriau symplectic form on the coadjoint orbit, after the work of the three mathematicians Alexandre Kirillov (now 81 years old), Bertram Kostant (1928–2017) and Jean-Marie Souriau (1922–2012).
Within this trio, Souriau was the one who connected these mathematics with reality, with a true mathematical physics. His speciality was group theory, especially dynamical group theory. Groups are extremely important in physics, as they rule geometry, which fathers differential equations. Souriau showed that the coadjoint action of a group on its moment map describes the geometrical nature of all fundamental quantities (mass, energy, momentum, etc.) of particles. Thereby, he produced the first geometrical interpretation of the spin.
More importantly Souriau showed in 1970, using the coadjoint action of the complete Poincaré group on its moment map, that the signification of time reversal for a particle is nothing but the inversion of its energy.
For a particle with nonzero mass, a negative energy implies a negative mass, due to Einstein's equivalence principle between matter and energy E=mc².
See:
Souriau, J.-M. (1997). "Structure of Dynamical Systems". Progress in Mathematics. Boston: Birkhäuser. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0281-3.
And more exactly Part III–Mechanics, Chapter 14. A mechanistic description of elementary particles, Section Inversions of space and time, pp. 189–193. Attached again below.
If you want to deal with T-symmetry and its implications in particle physics I urge you to read this book.
-
#2270 by flux_capacitor on 19 Oct, 2017 10:40
-
May I add to better illustrate this, that fundamental symmetries for a particle are:
• C-symmetry or charge conjugation, which reverses the electric charge. A particle becomes an antiparticle, this is the antimatter according to Paul Dirac.
• P-symmetry or Parity, which is enantiomorphy, i.e. spatial symmetry (an object becomes its image in a mirror).
• T-symmetry or (the arrow of) time reversal.
Richard Feynman said a particle in a mirror (P-symmetry) that would run backward in time (T-symmetry) would be undistinguishable from its antiparticle. So PT symmetry would be like C-symmetry. PT-symmetry is antimatter according to Feynman.
You see there the foundations of the CPT theorem, which states the complete CPT symmetry of a particle would be the same particle.
Yes, but if you consider, as Souriau showed, that T-symmetry inverses the energy of the particle, then the CPT symmetry of a particle is the same particle but with an opposite (negative) energy. Therefore two kinds of antimatter should exist:
• C-symmetry, the antimatter after Dirac, of positive mass.
• PT-symmetry, the antimatter after Feynman, of negative mass. -
#2271 by sanman on 19 Oct, 2017 11:00
-
There's a theory out there that when our universe was born, another anti-universe (filled with anti-matter) was also simultaneously born. So even as our universe is expanding, the anti-universe filled with anti-matter is also doing the same thing in its mirrored way. So that's claimed as an explanation of why we have lots of matter and little anti-matter, because meanwhile the other universe would have lots of anti-matter and little matter.
I've no idea as to the soundness of that conjecture, but I'd wonder if the tiny Quantum Vacuum fluctuations might possibly be oscillating between our universe and the (conjectured) anti-universe. So if you think of it as jitter, then a jitter peak in our universe would correspond to a jitter trough in the anti-universe and vice-versa.
-
#2272 by Eusa on 19 Oct, 2017 11:16
-
There's a theory out there that when our universe was born, another anti-universe (filled with anti-matter) was also simultaneously born. So even as our universe is expanding, the anti-universe filled with anti-matter is also doing the same thing in its mirrored way. So that's claimed as an explanation of why we have lots of matter and little anti-matter, because meanwhile the other universe would have lots of anti-matter and little matter.
My theory is that we oscillate continuously between normal- and anti-universe at the rate of Planck scale. Hence Higgs field (or whatever mass mechanism) is basis for inertia/gravity and oscillates also and gives at the same time ability for both electromagnetism and nuclear forces as resonances. Handedness is only an agreement.
I've no idea as to the soundness of that conjecture, but I'd wonder if the tiny Quantum Vacuum fluctuations might possibly be oscillating between our universe and the (conjectured) anti-universe. So if you think of it as jitter, then a jitter peak in our universe would correspond to a jitter trough in the anti-universe and vice-versa. -
#2273 by flux_capacitor on 19 Oct, 2017 11:22
-
There's a theory out there that when our universe was born, another anti-universe (filled with anti-matter) was also simultaneously born. So even as our universe is expanding, the anti-universe filled with anti-matter is also doing the same thing in its mirrored way. So that's claimed as an explanation of why we have lots of matter and little anti-matter, because meanwhile the other universe would have lots of anti-matter and little matter.
I've no idea as to the soundness of that conjecture, but I'd wonder if the tiny Quantum Vacuum fluctuations might possibly be oscillating between our universe and the (conjectured) anti-universe. So if you think of it as jitter, then a jitter peak in our universe would correspond to a jitter trough in the anti-universe and vice-versa.
Yes, that was Andrei Sakharov's original conjecture in 1967, to resolve the puzzling missing cosmological antimatter problem and the associated violation of CP symmetry during baryogenesis.Quote from: A. D. SakharovWe can visualize that neutral spinless maximons (or photons) are produced at t < 0 from contracting matter having an excess of antiquarks, that they pass "one through the other" at the instant t = 0 when the density is infinite, and decay with an excess of quarks when t > 0, realizing total CPT symmetry of the universe. All the phenomena at t < 0 are assumed in this hypothesis to be CPT reflections of the phenomena at t > 0.
Although Sakharov did not introduce any (anti)gravitational interaction between his two sheets (that would be caused by the relative inversion of the arrow of time) this has been continued as J.P. Petit's Janus cosmological model (which can be summed up by "Petit = Sakharov + Souriau")
The theme of the reversal of time's arrow and its effect on gravity and entropy has made a comeback in the media recently, after the work of British physicit Julian Barbour and the unpublished ideas of American physicists Alan Guth and Sean Carroll on a "mirror universe" where time would run backward.
The Big Bang as the origin where the arrow of time reverses is known as the Janus Point. This is a good picked name since Janus is the two-faced god of the Romanian mythology who "looks simultaneously to the future and to the past"
I illustrated Sakharov's baryogenesis in the figure below, with the addition of positive and negative energies. You see that Sakharov's universe looks a bit like a hourglass.
Quarks and antiquarks of positive energy (at t > 0) and negative energy (at t < 0) are in pale green-yellow.
An excess of quarks at t > 0 led to a remainder of matter (red) after matter-antimatter primitive annihilation, and photons of positive energy in the orthochronous sector.
Due to complete CPT reflection at t < 0 (hence opposite CP violation) the excess of positive energy quarks in the positive sector flowing through the Janus Point gives an excess of negative energy antiquarks in the negative sector, which led to a remainder of negative energy antimatter (purple) after negative energy matter-antimatter annihilation (as well as negative energy photons) in the antichronous sector.
This is how Sakharov restored CP symmetry as a whole and eliminated the apparent violation in this twin universe model.
So matter dominates in our sector, and negative mass antimatter dominates in the antichronous sector.
One more thing: The Janus point does not have to be an "initial singularity" at all. The singularity can be cancelled, as shown in this didactic 2D figure above, replaced by a throat (like that of a hourglass). In higher dimensions and more precise terms, it would be a throat surface acting as a bridge joining the two sheets together at t = 0. This geometric object is not a manifold in the classical sense of the term, but an orbifold, containing a singular region Σ2(0) where the object is locally non-orientable. This is not a sphere but a projective P2 (so similar to Boy's surface). Crossing its boundary inverses coordinates, hence makes "any object its own image in the mirror of time". -
#2274 by sanman on 19 Oct, 2017 12:01
-
Yes, thank you for those posts. I too have been thinking about Arrows of Time and Entropy a lot (Dammit, I really need to make another thread specifically for this! )
The Quantum World does not experience the Arrows of Time or Entropy -- it's the Macroscopic World which does (whether it's made of matter of anti-matter)
When it comes to sending some small particle to the other side of the universe quickly, it can be sent by Quantum Teleportation. But you can't do it for large objects like you and me - we're macroscopic, and are subject to the limits of Time, velocity, etc - limits in rates of change. We'd like to go faster, but the limits in rates of change prevent us.
If we measure change in Entropy, then we are limited in how much change in position we can undergo macroscopically relative to the entropy change in the universe. Maybe we have to figure out how to trade entropy to get what we want? Is it possible? Can we even somehow trade it with the anti-universe that we are joined at the hip with?
Somehow it makes me picture space as a thin membrane, and the other anti-universe is on the other side of it. Space is the interface between the two.
Can EMdrive help us to "borrow" something from the other side? -
#2275 by flux_capacitor on 19 Oct, 2017 12:28
-
In this dual space model with positive and negative energies (orthochronous and antichronous) on both "sides" of the same universe, I really don't know about QVF and quantum interactions between the two sheets (i.e. what could be the link with the EmDrive) since no author I cited ever worked about such quantum interactions.
However, besides the "original singularity" Sakharov talked about a continuity of geodesics beyond the Schwarzschild radius with no singularity in a charged sphere (thus a macroscopic example) allowing an exchange of matter between the two sheets. Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov called such singularities a "collapse" and an "anticollapse", which are an alternative to the couple "black hole + white hole" in the wormhole model. You see, as Novikov's initial work on this was circa 1965, that these ideas are not at all coming from the "modern era" of physics…
When I refer to this, it is to emphasis that it may involve tremendous amounts of energy (like that inside a neutron star) to trigger a junction between these two opposite sheets at a macroscopic level. Could it be done at a microscopic quantum level at a lower cost, with considerably less energies? Maybe involving some kind of resonance or tunneling effect? Very speculative ideas.
You're right we'd need a dedicated thread for all these ideas, but if you create such a topic besides the EM Drive thread, you will be disappointed by the lack of interest and answers to these questions. C'est la vie. -
#2276 by sanman on 19 Oct, 2017 13:31
-
In this dual space model with positive and negative energies (orthochronous and antichronous) on both "sides" of the same universe, I really don't know about QVF and quantum interactions between the two sheets (i.e. what could be the link with the EmDrive) since no author I cited ever worked about such quantum interactions.
However, besides the "original singularity" Sakharov talked about a continuity of geodesics beyond the Schwarzschild radius with no singularity in a charged sphere (thus a macroscopic example) allowing an exchange of matter between the two sheets. Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov called such singularities a "collapse" and an "anticollapse", which are an alternative to the couple "black hole + white hole" in the wormhole model. You see, as Novikov's initial work on this was circa 1965, that these ideas are not at all coming from the "modern era" of physics…
When I refer to this, it is to emphasis that it may involve tremendous amounts of energy (like that inside a neutron star) to trigger a junction between these two opposite sheets at a macroscopic level. Could it be done at a microscopic quantum level at a lower cost, with considerably less energies? Maybe involving some kind of resonance or tunneling effect? Very speculative ideas.
Yes, that's sort of what I was thinking about. We want some way to help ourselves in our macroscopic existence, but due to our Macroscopic world's limitations, we may need to look for a Quantum loophole.
We might like to borrow/steal/scavenge something like Negentropy (negative entropy) from the anti-universe, to make use of it for ourselves here, by using a Quantum loophole for this purpose. The Quantum Vacuum fluctuations straddling both universes could be the key - each vacuum fluctuation peak on our side is a trough on the other side, and vice versa.
The photons resonating within EMdrive operate at a Quantum level where there is Time and Entropy symmetry, but those photons are interfacing with the macroscopic frustrum to contribute to its macroscopic momentum.
Are the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations in empty space the means by which to scavenge momentum for our use, at the expense of one or both universes? If Voyager can steal momentum from Jupiter for gravitational slingshot, can EMdrive steal from one or both universes?
It was Sakharov who said that the mysteries of the Vacuum would be the great challenge for 21st century physics.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0112031.pdfQuoteYou're right we'd need a dedicated thread for all these ideas, but if you create such a topic besides the EM Drive thread, you will be disappointed by the lack of interest and answers to these questions. C'est la vie.
Yeah, I was thinking that too - that's why I haven't made one so far.
-
#2277 by meberbs on 19 Oct, 2017 14:48
-
Inside a closed box you cannot distinguish uniform gravity from some sort of rocket propulsion (to break it down to a fundamental force, it would be electromagnetic, from repulsion between atoms).We do know how time dilation induces gravitational effects.
We do not know that it does. In fact to the contrary, gravitational effects cause time dilation, not the other way around. Saying that we know how something happens that does not happen is 2 levels of wrong.
Actually, there is nothing wrong with RERT's statement. There is no experiment or theory that has predicted or determined which came first, gravity or time dilation. The effects are indistinguishable under all observations that I am aware of. In addition, "ANY" process which puts matter in an accelerated reference frame, is equivalent to a gravitational field. Unless you want to disprove the EEP.
However, someone sitting outside the box can easily tell the difference, and does not see a gravitational potential appear out of nowhere. They do see time dilation happen to the accelerated object, so time dilation cannot cause gravity, since we observe time dilation does not cause it.
Even if your statement was right, you would still be contradicting RERT, because you are saying that we don't know which causes which, while he is not only stating that time dilation is the cause, but that we know how (exactly what mechanism) it causes it.In the presence of a variable 'rate of time' the geodesic paths are accelerated - like gravity. Newtonian gravity can be accounted for by only varying the rate of time. GR requires changes in the space dimensions as well.
Newtonian gravity does not have any time dilation. also, "rate of time" is not a defined physics term, so I am just assuming you mean "time dilation."
It is well known that Newton's gravitational potential and acceleration may be derived from the g00 Schwarzschild metric coefficient, which is also responsible for time dilation. Newton may not have theorized or written about it, but it was there none the less. Also, "rate of time" is understood to mean be the relative rate of a clock at two different altitudes in a gravitational field. IMO, there is nothing wrong with anything that was said. It's common sense to anyone willing to understand rather than look for reasons to nitpick.
g00 would be responsible for time dilation in general relativity. General relativity is not Newtonian gravity. Time dilation is not a consequence of Newtonian gravity that Newton didn't realize (like for example the Alcubierre drive is a consequence of GR not discovered until well after Einstein). There is no way to get time dilation out of Newtonian gravity, you need to use general relativity for that. And no, you can't say special relativity plus Newtonian gravity equals time dilation, because Newtonian gravity is not compatible with special relativity, and general relativity is the modifications to Newtonian gravity needed to make it compatible.
RERT did not define "rate of time" and it is not something I have seen a common definition for either, in fact where I have seen it is a poster here who repeatedly insists on a nonsensical theory where he claims that space is not real and only time exists. You provided a definition, but that does not retroactively make it OK for RERT to use an undefined term, or explain why the common term "time dilation" was not used.
My statements were not nitpicks, they were pointing out major factual inaccuracies, and the use of undefined terms, which in particular is necessary for understanding. Your dismissal of this as a nitpick indicates that you are the one not interested in understanding. -
#2278 by Rodal on 19 Oct, 2017 15:11
-
Both critical thinking (rigor) and creative thinking are necessary in order to understand the universe.
Critical thinking is not nitpicking.
Excessive rigor needs to be balanced by creative out of the box thinking.
Excessive formal rigor can lead to rigor mortis.
Both sides of our brains are necessary !
-
#2279 by flux_capacitor on 19 Oct, 2017 15:36
-
It was Sakharov who said that the mysteries of the Vacuum would be the great challenge for 21st century physics.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0112031.pdf
Thank you for this paper, especially for parts 5 and 8, and although many related and unrelated concepts are showed together. The following discussion between Okun and Sakharov made me smileQuote from: Lev Borisovich OkunThe spontaneous decay of a false vacuum starts by formation through quantum tunneling of the smallest bubble […] After that the bubble expands classically, destroying the universe. When I first thought that the creation of a bubble could be catalyzed at a collider, my back shivered. Then I reassured myself: all possible collisions have already occurred in the early universe. A few months later I told Andrei Sakharov about the bubble. His reaction was: “Such theoretical work should be forbidden”. My argument about collisions in the early universe was rejected by him: “Nobody had collided two nuclei of lead”.
I'm showing images from both sides below. I think this is the first time I've shown the back side of the pendulum. 
