-
#360 by meberbs on 28 Aug, 2018 02:43
-
No, what I have provided is seamless as far as I can tell. If you think there is a flaw, please share it.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.
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.
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?" -
#361 by spupeng7 on 28 Aug, 2018 02:59
-
meberbs,
No, what I have provided is seamless as far as I can tell. If you think there is a flaw, please share it.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.
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.
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?"
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. -
#362 by meberbs on 28 Aug, 2018 05:10
-
meberbs,
I am not sure what the relevance of the pilot wave theory is. I should probably clarify some things to make sure we are on the same page. As far as I have ever seen (and I look it up occasionally in case it changes) various interpretations of quantum mechanics are all equivalent to each other in the sense that they make the exact same predictions (Except local hidden variable theories, which are effectively disproven by Bell's inequality tests). There is no known experiment that can tell them apart, including hypothetical experiments we don't have the practical capability to actually run. Of these, pilot wave (de Broglie–Bohm) theory is one of the main ones. I personally do not like it possibly for similar reasons as stated in the quote that you had heard that called it "un-physical." It contains backwards in time propagating waves that could be called "unphysical" although since it makes the correct predictions, I don't think that is the right word to use. Personally, I find it easier to describe things in terms of the Copenhagen interpretation, which like all interpretations that are consistent with the unintuitive experimental results, it has its own unintuitive points.
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.
The point of all of that is that which interpretation of quantum mechanics you choose is irrelevant since they are all consistent with experiment. Unless someone comes up with a way to tell them apart, I don't really want to spend much time discussing the different options. There isn't much point to this because none of the interpretations are testable. That pushes them out of the realm of science into pure philosophy, and there is no practical difference between them. (Researching to try and find an equivalent to Bell's inequality for them is still scientific.)
I look forward to your reply to my questions from post 342. -
#363 by Bob Woods on 29 Aug, 2018 02:41
-
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.
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."
-
#364 by sghill on 29 Aug, 2018 13:21
-
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.
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."
I'm fighting that battle at my business right now.
-
#365 by spupeng7 on 30 Aug, 2018 02:15
-
In answer to your good questions:Crystal Set Question
And this is how far I got into your post before you started speaking a foreign language.
What difference does it make what perspective we have on a covariant system,
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.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.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:QuoteIn 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
Those 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.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.
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.
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. Scalar time does not give us that because other locations have no specific energy in scalar time and location is then unspecified except by markers which vary relative to the observers perspective. Clock time only remains regular and true from one perspective, our confusion about it stems from that perspective being almost common to the entire surface of the earth, until you use highly sophisticated navigation.
I try not to bring frivolous questions to this forum, this forum whose diversity does not in any way diminish its depth. I ask about the unamplified crystal set radio because determining its functionality within the precepts of QED is well beyond my pay grade, experience or frankly, my capability. It remains, however, a valid question and I am not the first person to ask it.
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.
Not sure if any of this will satisfy your desire for a direct response to your questions. Questions which I respect because asking the question is the quickest way to initiate the development of an answer. In hope that you will continue to ask them,
John Newell..
-
#366 by meberbs on 30 Aug, 2018 05:39
-
Quotes from BBC Radio4 program 'In Our Time' with Melvyn Bragg: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl/episodes/a-z/a
Is that supposed to be a reference to support the supposed incompatibility of quantum mechanics with relativity? You were talking about relativity with a specific context of electrodynamic phenomena like photons. That is special relativity, not general relativity (which has to do with gravity.) My responses to you all specifically were about special relativity and quantum mechanics.
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.
None of these statements are in any way relevant to our conversation that I can see. Especially that last one.
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.
The first page of the textbook I learned quantum mechanics has the quote from Bohr and a similar one from Feynman. The fact that quantum mechanics is confusing and unintuitive is beyond dispute. Your claim that there is no consistent relativistic quantum mechanics is simply wrong. Quantum gravity is a different unknown, and we do have theories for it, the problem is the lack of practical tests to distinguish them.Definition of terms (which may require further clarification).
"Imaginary time" refers treating time as a pure imaginary number. "Complex time" implies both real and imaginary parts. You are contradicting yourself here about whether it is your term or not. I don't have that book, but Hawking certainly meant only imaginary time, so what you are saying is different.
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.
None of what you said comes close to being a definition.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.
A formal statement of the assumption you give is simply the "principle of relativity." (with caveat that it is experimentally obvious that inertial and accelerating frames can be distinguished due to "fictitious" forces.)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.
I don't see the relevance of any of this to your "complex time" concept. These statements basically mean that the universe is what it is regardless of what frame you choose to write the numbers down in. Just like the contents of writing on a piece of paper don't change no matter how you rotate it, just how easy it is for you to read based on how you are looking at it.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,
That use of the word covariant is rigorously correct, unlike yours which has no relation to the definition of that word. The use of that word has not narrowed over time. You will note how it is directly talking about vector transformations, which is the context in which that word has meaning in physics.
"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.
The basis vectors in an arbitrary frame in special relativity are non-orthonormal (Orthonormal is like orthogonality, but also refers to being of unit length.) You expressing that as if it is a novel consequence of your ideas only makes it seem like you haven't studied basic relativity in any depth.By 'the linear component of complex time' I am referring to the real component not its complex conjugate.
"complex conjugate" is where you take a complex number and change the sign of the imaginary part. It is not in opposition to the "real component." Please look up a basic introdiction to complex numbers, and learn the terms "real part" "imaginary part" "complex conjugate" "magnitude" "phase." Your sentence here does not tell me anything other than that you don't know what the words you are using mean.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.
No, scalar, means "not a vector" which is a different concept. Use the words real and imaginary, like everyone else. Pretty much everyone wishes those terms were different but if you want to communicate with other people, you are stuck with them. You use the word "we" as if "engineers" is a group that you are part of but I am not. I have a degree in engineering, and work daily as an engineer. If you actually are a qualified engineer, then why do I keep having to explain to you concepts from entry level courses?
Also, for reference, it does depend on the context, often, such as in electromagnetic waves, only the real part is meaningful, and the imaginary part is actually just there as a mathematical shortcut that saves you a bunch of trig identities, but has no effect as long as you only do linear operations, but it is completely context dependent.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.
No, they are basic concepts, that can be taught easily without diving into any of the mathematical details of relativity with simple space-time diagrams. Refusing to use common terms because they are "too complicated" is insulting.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.
But as I have said it is mathematically useless, and has no physical consequences whatsoever.meberbs,
Nothing you listed is a paradox. A paradox is something contradictory, such as killing your own grandfather before your parents were born. What you listed is horribly confusing and unintuitive, but completely mathematically consistent. Quantum mechanics already links up just fine with the macroscopic world. Just like any credible new physics theory, it is consistent with previous theory in the appropriate limit. In this case the limit is the limit of large numbers. QED is perfectly consistent with special relativity, and as I said in my previous post, the various interpretations of quantum mechanics produce equivalent results, so which actually happens is purely philosophical.
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.
Except as far as I can tell, it doesn't do that. You have not given a single example of how you could use complex time to describe the simplest of physical systems such as a ball rolling down a hill.We have a specific location whose energy is directly proportional to our velocity multiplied by our mass in charges, relative to other locations.
How can a location have energy? An object has energy a location is just a point in space (or space-time). You can have a "potential" at a location (see gravitational potential, electric potential, etc.) You still sound like you are throwing words together in grammatical sentences without regard for their meaning. Although after this post, I am getting the impression that you should know better than to do that.Attempts to define the concept of complex time have been around at least since 1988 and I have quoted my own incomplete attempts directly.
As stated before "complex time" with both real and imaginary parts is not something that anyone else has talked about ever to my knowledge. Your attempts have essentially no definition, and lots of unsupported assertion.Your refusal to recognise such reflects rejection of the ideas, not the lack of an attempt to define them.
You have refused to recognize just about everything I have said. Your statements can be boiled down into 2 categories, ones that are statements of fact that contribute nothing, and are already well known (despite you presenting them as novel ideas), and ones that are complete gibberish, as you continue talking about "complex time" and asserting that is solves all sorts of problems, yet you might as well be saying "agsfhusv solves ajsfijdbsf" The problems you state don't exist, and you have not provided a definition for complex time that can describe even a basic situation.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. -
#367 by RERT on 30 Aug, 2018 09:28
-
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.)
-
#368 by spupeng7 on 31 Aug, 2018 01:27
-
Guys - it is becoming hard to see how this conversation is ever going to end.
RERT,
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.)
this conversation will end when there is no longer any hope of provoking questions. My prediction is that the emdrive, or something similar employing an inertial interaction with the wider universe, will one day be used for propulsion in space. Maybe you should share your ideas with us, what's to lose so long as you make them provisional. This forum is an evolution of the private letter exchanges that assisted the inception of so many technical developments since the quill, it being public is what gives it power.
It most definitely does not need to be consistent with the corps of existing presumptions. Unless you intended to single me out for that unusual punishment. Nay saying is easy, maybe it would be strengthened by allowing alternative ideas without entirely negative criticism. In more enlightened times an open mind was considered an asset. Speculation, yes, this amateur is proud to indulge in speculation. -
#369 by spupeng7 on 31 Aug, 2018 01:40
-
(...)
meberbs,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.
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. Nobody knows, you must see, what will be considered true in twenty, let alone a hundred, years. -
#370 by ThinkerX on 31 Aug, 2018 02:01
-
At this point, given the initial results from Monomorphic's excellent tests, backed by other tests, and the utter lack of anything resembling a credible theory, I am highly skeptical of the validity of the EM Drive concept. That could change with additional tests or better theory work.
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. -
#371 by meberbs on 31 Aug, 2018 04:44
-
Since you are yet again ignoring my questions even as you state this, this is self-evidently false.(...)
meberbs,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.
anyone can see that I do recognize your questions and their validitybut I think your conclusions are inadequate and your criticism is forced by indignation rather than constructive purpose.
This is an ad hominem attack. You are ignoring the specific criticisms I have provided by attacking my motivations for providing them. Even if your statement was true (it isn't) this would be inappropriate.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.
If you insult me, and ignore my questions, and then thank me for providing them, the only way I can possibly read the "thank you" is as dripping with bitter sarcasm.
Also by the way: (emphasis added)
There is a big difference between observation and presumption. Your twisting of this phrase (which is behavior consistent with your other actions) indicates to me that you are arguing in bad faith and will distort what others say to suit your own purposes.and it is consistent with the corpus of existing observations,
It most definitely does not need to be consistent with the corps of existing presumptions. -
#372 by Ricvil on 31 Aug, 2018 09:55
-
C'mon guys.
I think Spupeng7 is only searching a good answer for the question about what exactly is the Unruh effect.
How a diffeomorphism can produce two realitys for different observers?
Just this.
-
#373 by Monomorphic on 31 Aug, 2018 17:30
-
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.
The Woodward-Mach drive is more akin to a "Harry Bull Reaction Motor," but my impression is that they are both "Dean Drive" variants. Since the Dean Drive is the most popular name I think it gets the distinction of headlining the category even though the Dean Drive (~1960) is 25 years younger than the Harry Bull Reaction Motor (1935).
I recently built a Woodward-Mach/Harry Bull/Dean Drive-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.
-
#374 by Monomorphic on 31 Aug, 2018 18:49
-
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.
I made a quick video to show the apparatus in operation. This was a fun project to design and build. 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.
-
#375 by flux_capacitor on 01 Sep, 2018 16:09
-
First — Do you have a link to the source, of Woodward’s comments?
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.eduWoodward has sent out the following critique of quantized inertia. I'm trying to see if Mr. McCulloch cares to address these criticisms.
{…}
Here are McCulloch's first answers on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1035867749032095744
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1035878502451621899
which summarize today's posts on his blog: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2018/06/does-qi-predict-woodward-effect.htmlQuote from: Mike McCullochThank 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.
Quote from: Mike McCullochI 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.
-
#376 by Povel on 01 Sep, 2018 17:09
-
I'm not completely sure why Woodward is discussed here and not in the relevant thread. Could the discussion be moved over there please?
AnywayNo 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
Thank you for this info, I sent you a pm some months ago asking if you could submit a question of mine to Woodward, guess I'll ask him directly.
I'm rather skeptical of McCulloch, his theory has been criticized numerous times already by multiple physicists.
The whole business of a "cosmological Casimir effect" makes no sense, since horizons in relativity do not act at all like metal plates.
@MonomorphicI 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.
I'd be rather curious to see these simulations.
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. -
#377 by Monomorphic on 01 Sep, 2018 18:11
-
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.
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.
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.
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. -
#378 by flux_capacitor on 01 Sep, 2018 18:25
-
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.
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.
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.
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? -
#379 by Monomorphic on 01 Sep, 2018 18:38
-
Would such "spurious thrust signature" (Dean drive effect) increase using an array of multiple thrusters (instead of just one) like a genuine thrust would?
You know, this is something I really wanted to test, but adding another device in the simulation will be a big hassle. I doubt I can get to it before the presentation on Sept 11.
The biggest testable experimental prediction I can make is that, all things being equal, identical Mach effect devices mounted at a greater distance from the center pivot will produce less apparent "thrust" than those mounted closer. But that already seems to be the case when MET's have been tested on larger torsional pendulums than the one woodward uses. Woodward will claim something about the experiment wasn't performed correctly, but my position is that this is a fundamental property of dean drives mounted to torsional pendulums.
