Aether Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

[AlexG]

I doubt he read either article. I suspect he simply looked at the titles.

 

[Mazulu]

What are you talking about? I would like to see more research into the question of whether or not wave-functions are real. Would you?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The wave functions that create the geometry of space-time are also the same wave functions that create the difference in velocity between two inertial reference frames.

General relativity is a non-quantum construct, so you cannot use it to make statements about quantum phenomena. It's like using Newtonian mechanics to make claims about relativity, it's not going to be fully right.

So I ask, if I emit that linear frequency shift that I told you about, can I energize/activate those same wave-functions, along with the gravity (and/or acceleration field) that comes with it.

You haven't justified anything like that. Firstly, you still haven't been able to justify that changing frequency means creating a gravity field, that is not supported by any mainstream theory or experiment. Secondly, you haven't justify the formula you give. Frequency changes in relativity are not necessarily linear. For example the change in frequency of a photon moving in to or out of a gravity well is a non-linear function of height.

Doppler shift is caused by both gravity (acceleration) and difference in velocity. A generated frequency shift should recover a small fraction of both acceleration and velocity. Do you understand now?

The problem is I understand too much, I actually understand what relativity has to say about photon frequency shifts and time dilation, such as that experienced by the GPS network. Compare that to you, who obviously haven't ever actually done any physics. Have you ever actually done any quantum mechanics, worked with wave functions?

In your other thread you said "Looking that up on Wikipedia..." and basically admitted you don't know any of this stuff on a working level, you're just trying to make sense of pages on Wikipedia which you don't understand. You ignored all my comments about that, so clearly you have realised you don't have any real understanding but you're unwilling to admit it.

The whole point of this exercise is to determine if this could lead to a opto-electronic acceleration field generators. The linear equation that I used is a starting point, a way to test proof of concept. If it works, then the linear frequency shift equation will inevitably have other frequency shift terms that make the field the field stronger. It will also have to include geometry in the designs as well.

You're clutching at straws. The behaviour of photons in general relativity is actually quite complicated, you have to compute null geodesics in the geometry. But since you obviously don't know any mathematical physics you can only grasp at linear equations, everything else is beyond you.

I'm sorry I have to go finish cleaning the apartment I'm moving out of. I have to move a heavy desk. Want to come along and help?

Sorry, I have real physics to do.

 

[brucep]

I doubt he read either article. I suspect he simply looked at the titles.

You mean the papers rpenner linked for Mazulu? The ones Mazulu found in the post by rpenner.?

 

[Mazulu]

General relativity is a non-quantum construct, so you cannot use it to make statements about quantum phenomena. It's like using Newtonian mechanics to make claims about relativity, it's not going to be fully right.

You haven't justified anything like that. Firstly, you still haven't been able to justify that changing frequency means creating a gravity field, that is not supported by any mainstream theory or experiment. Secondly, you haven't justify the formula you give. Frequency changes in relativity are not necessarily linear. For example the change in frequency of a photon moving in to or out of a gravity well is a non-linear function of height.

The problem is I understand too much, I actually understand what relativity has to say about photon frequency shifts and time dilation, such as that experienced by the GPS network. Compare that to you, who obviously haven't ever actually done any physics. Have you ever actually done any quantum mechanics, worked with wave functions?

In your other thread you said "Looking that up on Wikipedia..." and basically admitted you don't know any of this stuff on a working level, you're just trying to make sense of pages on Wikipedia which you don't understand. You ignored all my comments about that, so clearly you have realised you don't have any real understanding but you're unwilling to admit it.

You're clutching at straws. The behaviour of photons in general relativity is actually quite complicated, you have to compute null geodesics in the geometry. But since you obviously don't know any mathematical physics you can only grasp at linear equations, everything else is beyond you.

Sorry, I have real physics to do.

You understand too much about frequency shift? When the physics community abandoned ALL aether mediums because the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved motion through a point-particle medium, the physics community made a mistake. There is an aether medium; it is extremely strange, but it exists as a naturally occurring phenomena. Some people think that math causes nature to behave the way it does. But the math is just an accounting system to keep track of how nature behaves when certain experiments are performed.

Yes I know all about FM radio. So why don't FM transmitters make wormholes? When light frequency shifts, it transitions from one reference frame to the next to the next. The very vibrations of that photon are interlaced with the medium of space-time.

The formula I gave you: f(t)= [df/dt]t + f_0, is the frequency shift that you have to generate, as quickly and accurately as you can, with as large a df/dt as you can, in order to create a frame shift, or frame slide, in front of your emitters. The phase, from one frequency to the next, has to be as unbroken as possible. This experiment has never been done. If you think it has, then I recommend a smooth frequency shift from 400 to 800THz, every microsecond. There is no tunable laser in the world that can achieve this kind of performance. You will probably have to do it in frequency steps. The better the performance of your frequency shift experiment, the stronger your gravity field will be.

I have a BS in physics, a BS in electronics, and I have taken some graduate level classes in electrical engineering, semiconductor physics. So how do I know that this experiment will induce a measurable gravity field? I don't know for sure without performing the experiment.

Do with this information what you will.

 

[AlexG]

Mazulu believes that if he can make colored lights blink fast enough, he can trick the universe into accepting that the frequency is changing.

 

[Mazulu]

Mazulu believes that if he can make colored lights blink fast enough, he can trick the universe into accepting that the frequency is changing.

Why not? I can synthesize a perfectly good sine wave using a digital to analog converter. Why can't I synthesize a frequency shift using a range of frequencies? Then we can perform an experiment to see if gravity fields are coupled to frequency shifts.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You understand too much about frequency shift?

I understand too much physics to be taken in by the completely vapid and nonsense postings you have made. I understand too much physics to be blinded by buzzwords and technical terminology, because I work with that technical stuff everyday. You might sucker others in by throwing out lots of big words but it doesn't work with me.

When the physics community abandoned ALL aether mediums because the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved motion through a point-particle medium, the physics community made a mistake. There is an aether medium; it is extremely strange, but it exists as a naturally occurring phenomena.

There are occasional ideas about aether but none of them get even close to matching current ideas in terms of descriptive ability. Aether always seems to address one specific phenomenon and fails in regards to everything else. The crank community always try to resurrect it because they struggle to accept that light behaves in a way counter to their extremely ignorant intuition. Intuition is short for "I expect this new thing to behave like old things". It might have served humans well 50,000 years ago scratching a living out in the middle of Africa but it doesn't work well when you're exploring far flung corners of physics.

Some people think that math causes nature to behave the way it does. But the math is just an accounting system to keep track of how nature behaves when certain experiments are performed.

Who says that? I'm a mathematical physicist in the research community and I don't know anyone who thinks that. Maths is an abstract logical construct independent of reality. Physicists attempt to make associations between structures within that artificial construct and phenomena observed in the universe but maths no more causes nature to have as it does than English causes reality to behave as it does.

Yes I know all about FM radio. So why don't FM transmitters make wormholes? When light frequency shifts, it transitions from one reference frame to the next to the next. The very vibrations of that photon are interlaced with the medium of space-time.

I seriously doubt you know all about radio, particularly the associated electromagnetic models.

The formula I gave you: f(t)= [df/dt]t + f_0, is the frequency shift that you have to generate, as quickly and accurately as you can, with as large a df/dt as you can, in order to create a frame shift, or frame slide, in front of your emitters.

You still don't get it, do you? You haven't provided a single nano-iota of justification for that formula or anything you're claiming in regards to it. You're just making stuff up without any evidence.

The better the performance of your frequency shift experiment, the stronger your gravity field will be.

You have no evidence for that.

I have a BS in physics, a BS in electronics, and I have taken some graduate level classes in electrical engineering, semiconductor physics.

Really? I find that extremely hard to believe given your complete dereliction of the scientific method in your posts. You haven't shown you understand anything about the need for evidence, derivations, justification, sound arguments, experiments etc. You don't even know the level of detail in the models required. Someone with a BSc in physics I'd expect to know a bit more details. I've taught 1st year physics undergrads more maths than you've displayed!

So how do I know that this experiment will induce a measurable gravity field? I don't know for sure without performing the experiment.

You don't know at all.

Do with this information what you will.

I'll file it under "BS" and I'm not referring to your supposed physics degree.

 

[Neverfly]

A minor opinion; and speaking from experience...:
A Bachelors in Physics is respectable. It can get a person a nice job, but not at a University, not conducting research in Relativity or QM.

A B.S. says one basic thing: "I am capable of learning."
It does not say, "I've learned what I need to know."

This is why many pursue their Masters and The PHD. To show, "I can learn more!" and get those jobs working with Relativity and QM so that they can finally, after years of education- buckle down to the task with appropriate tools to LEARN about physics.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

A minor opinion; and speaking from experience...:
A Bachelors in Physics is respectable. It can get a person a nice job, but not at a University, not conducting research in Relativity or QM.

Even a PhD doesn't make that certain. I could go on an enormous rant about the number of maths and physics PhDs I see during employment interviews which are useless at undergrad stuff which doesn't relate to their thesis area. It's a real problem and says something about the way science is taught (and that's not just about here in the UK, it includes examples from all over Europe and the US).

A B.S. says one basic thing: "I am capable of learning."
It does not say, "I've learned what I need to know."

This is why many pursue their Masters and The PHD. To show, "I can learn more!" and get those jobs working with Relativity and QM so that they can finally, after years of education- buckle down to the task with appropriate tools to LEARN about physics.

Definitely. I didn't really get my act together in terms of really being a motivated and competent mathematician until I was perhaps 2 years into my PhD! If I hadn't carried on in mathematical physics past Masters level I'd be a much less competent mathematician, even allowing for the obvious difference in how much information I'd gathered. I started to get competent when I stopped viewing the learning as "Someone puts the relevant information in front of me and I consume it" to "I want to find out about and understand this, so I'm going to go and look at it". Rather than reading other people's derivations or ideas once I got the basics from a book I try to see what I can do with it myself, before looking at other people's results. It might result in a reinvention of the wheel a few times but it helps so much in understanding. Just a shame it took that long for me to get into the right frame of mind

But even so, someone doing a physics degree will see the role mathematics and formalisation takes in physics. The complete dearth of it from the original poster's posts suggests he either didn't understand that when he did his degree or never did it in the first place.

 

[brucep]

You understand too much about frequency shift? When the physics community abandoned ALL aether mediums because the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved motion through a point-particle medium, the physics community made a mistake. There is an aether medium; it is extremely strange, but it exists as a naturally occurring phenomena. Some people think that math causes nature to behave the way it does. But the math is just an accounting system to keep track of how nature behaves when certain experiments are performed.

Yes I know all about FM radio. So why don't FM transmitters make wormholes? When light frequency shifts, it transitions from one reference frame to the next to the next. The very vibrations of that photon are interlaced with the medium of space-time.

The formula I gave you: f(t)= [df/dt]t + f_0, is the frequency shift that you have to generate, as quickly and accurately as you can, with as large a df/dt as you can, in order to create a frame shift, or frame slide, in front of your emitters. The phase, from one frequency to the next, has to be as unbroken as possible. This experiment has never been done. If you think it has, then I recommend a smooth frequency shift from 400 to 800THz, every microsecond. There is no tunable laser in the world that can achieve this kind of performance. You will probably have to do it in frequency steps. The better the performance of your frequency shift experiment, the stronger your gravity field will be.

I have a BS in physics, a BS in electronics, and I have taken some graduate level classes in electrical engineering, semiconductor physics. So how do I know that this experiment will induce a measurable gravity field? I don't know for sure without performing the experiment.

Do with this information what you will.

You are whacked. After two years of incessant nonsense now you tell these folks you have a BS in physics and electrical engineering. You have a BS in BS. You work on an electrical assembly line. That's what you said last year at physforum.

 

[khan]

There is an Einstein aether theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

In physics the Einstein æther theory, also called æ-theory, is a controversial generally covariant generalization of general relativity which describes a spacetime endowed with both a metric and a unit timelike vector field named the æther. In particular such theory has a preferred reference frame and so is not Lorentz invariant.

I don't fully understand what you mean by there being a connection between frequency shift and gravity but there is the interesting idea of "graviphotons", yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviphoton

In gravity theories with extended supersymmetry (extended supergravities), a graviphoton is normally a superpartner of the graviton that behaves like a photon, and is prone to couple with gravitational strength, as was appreciated in the late 1970s. Unlike the graviton, however, it may provide a repulsive (as well as an attractive) force, and thus, in some technical sense, a type of anti-gravity. Under special circumstances, then, in several natural models, often descending from five-dimensional theories mentioned, it may actually cancel the gravitational attraction in the static limit. Joël Scherk investigated semirealistic aspects of this phenomenon, thereby opening up an ongoing search for physical manifestations of the mechanism.

 

[OnlyMe]

There is an Einstein aether theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

The Einstein aether theory, was and is not Einstein's baby. It is a name given to an attempt to resurrect the aether with an air of credibility.

There are and continue to be explorations of an ether like relationship between space and matter. The credible attempts are likely the result of remaining inconsistencies in GR and QM and a fundamental tendency to want to find some way to explain matter energy-relationships in a manner consistent with classical experience.

There are some better references to ether interpretations of both GR and Newtonian gravity than WiKi. However, this is getting away from the subject currently under discussion.

Note: Einstein did liken spacetime to the ether of GR in his Leyden address, but one must keep in mind, at the time he was speaking to an audience whose education had been heavily influenced by an understanding of reality, that included the luminiferous aether. You speak to an audience in a language and with analogy they can understand or you speak to yourself.

 

[Neverfly]

Definitely. I didn't really get my act together in terms of really being a motivated and competent mathematician until I was perhaps 2 years into my PhD! If I hadn't carried on in mathematical physics past Masters level I'd be a much less competent mathematician, even allowing for the obvious difference in how much information I'd gathered. I started to get competent when I stopped viewing the learning as "Someone puts the relevant information in front of me and I consume it" to "I want to find out about and understand this, so I'm going to go and look at it". Rather than reading other people's derivations or ideas once I got the basics from a book I try to see what I can do with it myself, before looking at other people's results. It might result in a reinvention of the wheel a few times but it helps so much in understanding. Just a shame it took that long for me to get into the right frame of mind

Speaking of people putting the work in front of you... the past year, the trouble I had is in getting proper guidance.
My instructor was primarily absent and questioning his absence and offering to contact the administration to resolve his unresponsiveness got you a better grade in the course. I'm sure you can figure out how that worked. So, I got an "A." I neither earned it nor deserved it and it really messed me up badly going into the next set ignorant of what I should have learned and understood from the previous year. Side note- I contacted the administration, anyway. And yes, they were emphatic in looking into it.
I have a better instructor now and hell... Yes I know what you mean about it finally clicking in place when you realize that if you understand the fundamentals, you can build the mathematics without 'memorizing.'
Having said that... I do not post on the math - my knowledge is pathetically weak. But I am trying to learn... I fear it always will be my weakest point, in spite of a love for it.

This is true.

Many lecturers today teach but they don't teach about the work in great detail. They might spew equations without explaining them in the proper rigor they require.

Or... as I lament above^ Claim excuses about how the proper coursework had a glitch and he must assume full credit for work he's seen from me so far (Even gave me 100% on one assignment I never handed in!)

Then again, I don't post what little I know on here for fear of looking like you. Worse, probably.
I stick to just words.

The Einstein aether theory, was and is not Einstein's baby. It is a name given to an attempt to resurrect the aether with an air of credibility.

There are and continue to be explorations of an ether like relationship between space and matter. The credible attempts are likely the result of remaining inconsistencies in GR and QM and a fundamental tendency to want to find some way to explain matter energy-relationships in a manner consistent with classical experience.

There are some better references to ether interpretations of both GR and Newtonian gravity than WiKi. However, this is getting away from the subject currently under discussion.

At the very least, it does provide some insight into why aether is a concern at all.
Unlike Tesla's claim, <cough> space is not "nothing." Space is something and we do not yet know what it is. Personally, I believe the answer lies in research in the Quantum world and not the macro world.

 

[khan]

I would like to see more research into the question of whether or not wave-functions are real.

What we call the aether is possibly related to the wave-function of the universe, in that finite branching natural number occurrences emerge from a continuum of real number possibilities. Once a theory can establish a causal connection between the parallel worlds, the theory should in principle, be testable.

Hypothetically speaking, atoms exist in multiple parallels simultaneously. Indeed, the double slit experiment even displays wave particle duality for some types of macromolecules.

The larger a particle, the smaller its DeBroglie wavelength. So bigger macroscopic beings perceive themselves as existing in one universe, while individual micro-particles can exists in multiple realities simultaneously.

Objects as large as dust-specks can briefly display wave particle duality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation_of_Quantum_Theory#Physical_consequences

Penrose speculates that the transition between macroscopic and quantum states begins at the scale of dust particles (the mass of which is close to a planck mass). Dust particles could exist in more than one location for as long as one second, a time that is easily measurable with standard equipment.

While Penrose does not advocate the MWI[many worlds interpretation], if a dustpeck can disappear for up to a second it could be jumping to alternate realities during those brief moments, if, MWI is true.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/40723

We physicists believe, for example, that there is really a multiverse that exists even inside our living room. We are waves, vibrating waves given by the wave-function, and these waves vibrate and then split apart with time.

Steve Weinberg, winner of the Nobel Prize, compares it to the following. Think of radio. If you’re inside your living room listening to BBC radio, that radio is tuned to one frequency. But in your living room there are all frequencies - radio Cuba, radio Moscow, the Top 40 rock stations. All these radio frequencies are vibrating inside your living room, but your radio is only tuned to one frequency.

Now, in other words when two universes are in phase, they are coherent and you can move back and forth. But as time starts to evolve, these two universes decouple. They start to vibrate at different frequencies. They can no longer interfere with each other. So why is it that your radio cannot listen to Radio Moscow? Why isn’t it possible for your radio to listen to all frequencies? Because your radio is decohered. It is no longer vibrating in unison with these other frequencies.

And the same thing in quantum physics. We consist of atoms. Our atoms vibrate, but they no longer vibrate in unison with these other universes. We have decoupled from them, we have decohered from them. So in other words, deja vu is probably simply a fragment of our brain eliciting memories and fragments of previous situations. However, in quantum physics, there really are in some sense parallel universes surrounding us, the problem is, we can’t enter them because we have decohered from them. We’re no longer vibrating in unison with them. Sorry about that.

Many worlds interpretation appears to have overwhelming evidence in its favor...

http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_manyworlds/

Reading through the referenced posts will give you a very basic introduction to quantum mechanics - algebra is involved, but no calculus - by which you may nonetheless gain an understanding sufficient to see, and not just be told, that the modern case for many-worlds has become overwhelming. Not just plausible, not just strong, but overwhelming. Single-world versions of quantum mechanics just don't work, and all the legendary confusingness and mysteriousness of quantum mechanics stems from this essential fact.

General relativity and quantum mechanics might require more dimensions to be unified...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0801




...

 

[Mazulu]

What we call the aether is possibly related to the wave-function of the universe, in that finite branching natural number occurrences emerge from a continuum of real number possibilities. Once a theory can establish a causal connection between the parallel worlds, the theory should in principle, be testable.

Hypothetically speaking, atoms exist in multiple parallels simultaneously. Indeed, the double slit experiment even displays wave particle duality for some types of macromolecules.

The larger a particle, the smaller its DeBroglie wavelength. So bigger macroscopic beings perceive themselves as existing in one universe, while individual micro-particles can exists in multiple realities simultaneously.

Objects as large as dust-specks can briefly display wave particle duality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation_of_Quantum_Theory#Physical_consequences

While Penrose does not advocate the MWI[many worlds interpretation], if a dustpeck can disappear for up to a second it could be jumping to alternate realities during those brief moments, if, MWI is true.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/40723

Many worlds interpretation appears to have overwhelming evidence in its favor...

http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_manyworlds/

General relativity and quantum mechanics might require more dimensions to be unified...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0801
...

Khan,
The many worlds interpretation has big problem. First, every time the universe splits in two, you have two universes, each with an energy content of "a big bang". Each of these universe exerts gravity. You would have two earths exerting gravity (or millions of earths exerting gravity). The model violates conservation of energy in absurd ways.

 

[khan]

Khan,
The many worlds interpretation has big problem. First, every time the universe splits in two, you have two universes, each with an energy content of "a big bang". Each of these universe exerts gravity. You would have two earths exerting gravity (or millions of earths exerting gravity). The model violates conservation of energy in absurd ways.

Branching universes do not violate conservation of energy if the total energy of the universe is zero.

http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html

Stephen Hawking says:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.

"It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."

 

[Mazulu]

Branching universes do not violate conservation of energy if the total energy of the universe is zero.

Nice try.
If you want to sneak in a very light weight parallel universe, I guess we could do that. But if you want to an unlimited number of earth masses to coexist in some hyper-dimensional configuration, I'm going to ask you to round up all your parallel dimension doubles and show up for testing.

While Penrose does not advocate the MWI[many worlds interpretation], if a dustpeck can disappear for up to a second it could be jumping to alternate realities during those brief moments, if, MWI is true.

The only place dust ever disappears to is ... my vacuum cleaner.

I don't fully understand what you mean by there being a connection between frequency shift and gravity but there is the interesting idea of "graviphotons", yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviphoton

I'm thinking of gravitational redshift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

I am an electronics technician and I test and trouble shoot circuit boards on equipment like this. http://www.tek.com/oscilloscope/dpo70000-dsa70000-mso70000 It is very commonplace for this kind of equipment to synthesize sine waves (or any wave) by converting digital (data at a memory address) into an analog signal using DAC's (digital to analog converters). What I am proposing is to generate a frequency shift by creating it out of many different optical frequencies.

Think of the equation of a line. I want to generate a linear frequency shift of the form, f(t) = [df/dt]t+ f_0. I want to generate a frequency shift from 400 to 800THz, inside of a microsecond, repeatedly. Why? Look at Doppler redshift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_redshift Light frequency shifts due to Cosmological redshift (expansion of space), gravitational redshift (acceleration fields), and relativistic Doppler shifts (a change in velocity from one frame to another). Light frequency shifts when it travels from one frame to another (frames traveling at different velocities), it frequencies when it traverses an acceleration field (the radii of a black hole, e.g.), and when the space between galaxies is increasing (Cosmological redshift). There is an equation that ties together displacement, velocity and acceleration. It is the equation for displacement as a function of time. x-x_0 = v_0 t + a t^2.

Frequency shift typically occurs as a response to these three things (increasing displacement, transition between inertial frames, and traversing acceleration fields). But nobody has ever tried to generate a frequency shift to see if it can induce an acceleration field, a change in velocity of an inertial frame or increase the distance between two objects.

I gotta get ready for work.

 

[Mazulu]

Warp drive and gravity drive systems from an alien spacecraft have never been tested at a university physics department, therefore, alien spacecrafts do not exist.

The whole point of synthesizing and emitting a frequency shift is to see if it can warp space-time, induce a gravitational potential energy, create an acceleration field. It is not as easy as you might think. Some scientist might come along and generate a poor quality frequency shift, and it won't work. Then, the physics community will scoff: SEE! IT DOESN'T WORK!!! It's all about QUALITY.

By the way, I chose to make space out of wave-functions so that I could use light to energize the wave-functions that already exist.

 

[khan]

But nobody has ever tried to generate a frequency shift to see if it can induce an acceleration field, a change in velocity of an inertial frame or increase the distance between two objects.

Ronald Mallett abandoned the idea of using light to warp space-time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett#Time_machine_project

For the strong gravitational field of a circulating cylinder of light, I have found new exact solutions of the Einstein field equations for the exterior and interior gravitational fields of the light cylinder. The exterior gravitational field is shown to contain closed timelike lines. The presence of closed timelike lines indicates the possibility of time travel into the past. This creates the foundation for a time machine based on a circulating cylinder of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett#Objections

Later, Mallett abandoned the idea of using slowed light to reduce the energy, writing that, "For a time, I considered the possibility that slowing down light might increase the gravitational frame dragging effect of the ring laser ... Slow light, however, turned out not to be helpful for my research."