Gravity Propulsion Drive

[Mazulu]

Equivalent doesn't mean "the same mechanism" in general.

In this case, they're the same mechanism. The physics community has avoided the issue of "how are the laws of physics implemented"; they have dodged and avoided any kind of aether medium because mediums don't satisfy the postulates of SR. So I found a medium that did. I used the whole E&M spectrum, removed all the energy, and made the medium out of that. What remains are aether medium waves. They are the infrastructure that give the vacuum of space its properties. They are aetherial and easily overlooked. Aether waves transmit energy as E&M waves and photons; they even store energy as massive particles. But they are too subtle too detect. The wave-function (which is a math solution for quantum mechanics problems) is the closest that science can come to understanding these waves.

The result is that now everything is made of these waves, even gravity. Since gravity will frequency shift light, then acceleration fields in general occur when the whole EM frequency band is frequency shifted.

Gravitational and inertial acceleration are equivalent, but in the first case acceleration is due to a gravitating mass, in the second case can be a lot of things including gravity.But emitting radiation at different frequencies does not shift the frequency of the radiation. In free space each photon will have the same frequency it had when it was emitted. You're saying a frequency spectrum (a mixture of different frequencies) is a frequency shift. It isn't.

Yes, gravity is caused by large amounts of mass and energy, so large that the "fabric of space-time" starts to curve. These aether waves are the "fabric of space-time". GR describes the behavior of these aether waves.

Any massive particle is an inertial reference frame unto itself. The particle is a kink in the aether waves; the mass of the particle is a particular configuration of the aether waves such that energy is stored in the particle.

To change a frequency you need to do something else than emit another frequency, because all you have then is two frequencies. It doesn't matter if the two are emitted at different times or the same time. This is especially true of EM radiation because photons have no effect on each other.

A photon is thought to be independent of everything, including a medium. But if that were the case, then the photon would have no reason to obey conservation of energy nor would it have any reason to interact with anything. Instead, the photon is an excitation of the waves of the aether medium. The waves are interconnected with everything, all matter, all energy. That allows the photon(s) to conserve energy.

When a photon falls into the gravity well of a black hole, the well itself is a configuration of the aether waves. Specifically, the entire EM band blueshifts up to the event horizon. Photons that fall into or escape from the gravity well are just excitations of these aether waves.

If you synthesize a train of 64 photons of increasing frequency, and you take care to line up their phases, then eventually, it becomes indistinguishable from a frequency shifted aether wave that is implementing an acceleration field.

 

[AlexG]

This should really be in Pseudoscience.

 

[arfa brane]

I used the whole E&M spectrum, removed all the energy, and made the medium out of that.

In that case, there is no medium, it has no physical basis.

What remains are aether medium waves. They are the infrastructure that give the vacuum of space its properties. They are aetherial and easily overlooked.

No, what remains is nothing. It has no structure so no "infrastructure". Calling it aetherial doesn't change the physics.

A photon is thought to be independent of everything

?? Well it certainly isn't independent of energy, because that's what it "is".

If you synthesize a train of 64 photons of increasing frequency, and you take care to line up their phases, then eventually, it becomes indistinguishable from a frequency shifted aether wave that is implementing an acceleration field.

No, what you have is still 64 individual photons. The phase of different frequencies doesn't "line up", instead you get a beat frequency.

 

[Mazulu]

In that case, there is no medium, it has no physical basis.

The physics community has been saying there is no medium for 150 years. Yet, the laws of physics have been operating for 13.7 billion years.

No, what remains is nothing. It has no structure so no "infrastructure". Calling it aetherial doesn't change the physics.

Some people might not be able to understand how a medium or a system can exist without energy. It goes back to your beliefs about energy. Is energy something that can stand alone? I believe that energy can only be expressed through something that has energy content. These aether waves provide information content that can be expressed if there is energy available.

?? Well it certainly isn't independent of energy, because that's what it "is".
No, what you have is still 64 individual photons. The phase of different frequencies doesn't "line up", instead you get a beat frequency.

You get a beat frequency if you emit two frequencies at the same time. I'm talking about: first f_1 for duration t_1, then f_2 for duration t_2, ...

I got the idea for aether waves from the 2 slit diffraction experiment. How can a single photon (particle) have an interference pattern when two slits are open, but there is no interference when only one slit is open? So I reasoned that there are aether waves that exist, one for each slit. When two slits are open, the aether waves interfere. When one slit is open, the wave has nothing to interfere with. I also got the idea from the wave-functions that describe the system. There is one wave-function for each slit.

I get this could represent a picture of what the aether waves look like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Doubleslit.svg

 

[arfa brane]

I'm talking about: first f_1 for duration t_1, then f_2 for duration t_2, ...

So how do the phases "line up"?

Some people might not be able to understand how a medium or a system can exist without energy. It goes back to your beliefs about energy. Is energy something that can stand alone?

A medium is physical, so it has energy content. A corollary is that zero energy content = no medium.
Energy is something that can stand alone, as you put it, the evidence is that there is a universe.

 

[Mazulu]

So how do the phases "line up"?

I don't know if you could do this with individual photons. But you could always program function generator to output a waveform that transitions from f_1 to f_2; it looks like this. Notice that there are no discontinuities in the phase. Then you send the signal to an amplifier/RF dish and you emit this frequency shift as E&M.

A medium is physical, so it has energy content. A corollary is that zero energy content = no medium.
Energy is something that can stand alone, as you put it, the evidence is that there is a universe.

Why does a medium have to have energy content? The medium does have to be a support structure for EM frequencies. Don't get confused by my use of words like "support structure" & "infrastrure"; the support system for EM frequencies is not solid. The waves are aetherial. The medium has to support light.

Believe me, it is no picnic trying to argue that the aether medium is ghostlike and non-physical. This is a very awkward characteristic to try to argue with someone trained in facts and measurements. But you need a medium that carries information content with or without there being any energy to express that information. How else can gravity extend its reach for light years? How else can you explain the Double slit experiment?

The closest thing you have is the wave-function. The wave function is modeling a phenomena of nature. It's modeling aether waves. Aether waves have the characteristics of light built into them: c, permitivi, permeabilty, frequency, wavelength, etc...

 

[arfa brane]

I don't know if you could do this with individual photons. But you could always program function generator to output a waveform that transitions from f_1 to f_2

If you do that, then the output won't be continuous like the picture in your link, there will be a discontinuity where the frequency output changes.

Why does a medium have to have energy content? The medium does have to be a support structure ...

If it has structure and can support something physical, then it's also physical.
If it's physical it's made out of something material. Anything material has mass, so it has energy.

In fact energy is "material" in some sense.
So a photon or EM radiation is material (i.e. not made of nothing, an oxymoron), although it has no rest mass because it's never at rest.

The wave function is modeling a phenomena of nature.

Can you answer this question: Why do we need a wave-packet to describe a particle of mass m?

 

[Mazulu]

If you do that, then the output won't be continuous like the picture in your link, there will be a discontinuity where the frequency output changes.

At lower frequencies, you can DACs to synthesize a frequency shift as easily as you can a sine wave. It's just a matter of the quality of the wave. At higher frequencies, like visible light, controlling the phase might not be so easy. But you would get a higher $$\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}$$ with visible light.

If it has structure and can support something physical, then it's also physical.
If it's physical it's made out of something material. Anything material has mass, so it has energy.

In fact energy is "material" in some sense.
So a photon or EM radiation is material (i.e. not made of nothing, an oxymoron), although it has no rest mass because it's never at rest.

I don't know if this will make sense, but mass is trapped light. How do you free the light? You bring a particle and an anti-particle together, and light (gamma rays) are released, freed.

The support structure for light only has to be waves that uphold the relationships: $$c = \lambda f = \frac{1}{sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}$$. The support system has to be able to enforce the distance between two points. It does this with the wavelength of each wave of the frequency band. None of this requires energy. But these aetherial waves do have to embody the information content of the system.

There is no logical reason why aetherial waves cannot serve as the medium. The benefit of using aetherial waves is that we can explain the properties of space itself. The downside is that the crazies would see this as proof of ghosts. :shrug:

Can you answer this question: Why do we need a wave-packet to describe a particle of mass m?

Quantum mechanics ascribes a special significance to the wave packet: it is interpreted as a "probability wave", describing the probability that a particle or particles in a particular state will be measured to have a given position and momentum. It is in this way related to the wave function. Through application of the Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics, it is possible to deduce the time evolution of a system, similar to the process of the Hamiltonian formalism in classical mechanics. The wave packet is thus a mathematical solution to the Schrödinger equation.[2] The area under the absolute square of the wave packet solution is interpreted as the probability density of finding the particle in a region. The dispersive character of solutions of the Schrödinger equation has played an important role in rejecting Schrödinger's original interpretation, and accepting the Born rule.

Wave packets and wave-functions are just ripples in the aether medium.

 

[arfa brane]

The support system has to be able to enforce the distance between two points. It does this with the wavelength of each wave of the frequency band. None of this requires energy. But these aetherial waves do have to embody the information content of the system.

A wavelength is physical, though, so it does "require" energy.
Your aetherial waves can only have ("embody") information if they are physical, because information, although abstract, is physical.

That is to say, no physics = no possible information. You have to measure something, nobody knows how to measure nothing, or rather there is zero information content in nothing, and nothing doesn't exist, by definition.

There is no logical reason why aetherial waves cannot serve as the medium.

Sure, as long as they're physical (leaving the logic aside for now).
Space is physical, it has, as you've noted, permittivity and permeability to EM fields. It has intrinsic energy and there is a nonzero probability that material particles can emerge from it. It's expanding too, perhaps because of the intrinsic energy.

Wave packets and wave-functions are just ripples in the aether medium

That isn't an answer. Do you know what DeBroglie waves are? Do you know why a wave-packet defines a probability that a particle is located in it rather than anywhere else? Quoting wikipedia isn't an answer either. So what's your answer?

 

[Mazulu]

(1) A wavelength is physical, though, so it does "require" energy.
Your aetherial waves can only have ("embody") information if they are physical, because information, although abstract, is physical.
That is to say, no physics = no possible information. You have to measure something, nobody knows how to measure nothing, or rather there is zero information content in nothing, and nothing doesn't exist, by definition.

(2) Sure, as long as they're physical (leaving the logic aside for now).
Space is physical, it has, as you've noted, permittivity and permeability to EM fields. It has intrinsic energy and there is a nonzero probability that material particles can emerge from it. It's expanding too, perhaps because of the intrinsic energy.That isn't an answer.

(3) Do you know what DeBroglie waves are? Do you know why a wave-packet defines a probability that a particle is located in it rather than anywhere else? Quoting wikipedia isn't an answer either. So what's your answer?

(1) I am extrapolating an Occam's razor (very simple) explanation that explains why we observe the invariance of c, permittivity/permeability, evolution of time, natures ability to resolve distances very accurately, inertial/accelerating reference frames, length contraction, time dilation, universal constants and conservation of energy. Physicists have affirmed their right not to explain why nature acts this way, only that it does. Physicists have done a lot of work in seeing the details of the trees, but there is nobody out there who can see the forest. Without being able to see the broad picture, we can't pursue advanced technology, things like gravity propulsion drives.

I am extrapolating from wave-functions. For a plane wave, the wave function is $$\Psi = e^{i \omega t}.$$ Yes, I understand that wave-functions have to be normalized and they have to contain a particle. But wave-functions only resemble aether waves. Aether waves can be empty, and still be "nature's description" of a wave at that frequency. The speed of light, permittivity and permeability are characteristics of the aether wave.

When you pour a lot of energy into the aether wave, then it looks like a regular electromagnetic wave with a Poynting vector.

(2) Aether medium waves are the only explanation that makes sense. I define them as having zero energy and performing necessary functions to establish the properties of space. I might concede that it doesn't take long before a zero energy aether wave fills up with virtual particles and energy at every frequency in the bandwidth (called noise).

When galaxies fly apart, more space has to fill the void. Since aether waves are made of the frequency bandwidth, how does it fill the void? Well, how does a slinky get longer? The distance between each ring must get larger. In other words, every wavelength in the EM bandwidth has to get longer. That is your explanation for Hubble's law. Photons are traveling along a wave in the EM bandwidth, but as the universe gets larger, the bandwidth has to stretch further, this makes every wavelength longer, and causes the photons from billions of light years away to have a progressively longer wavelength.


(3) DeBroglie waves are particles with mass that also have a wavelength inversely proportional to their mass. $$\lambda = \frac{h}{p}.$$ A wave packet has a low frequency, a high frequency and in between frequencies. You may not see it this way, but this is the beginning of a bandwidth. A bandwidth establishes the space around the particle. That space can be called a reference frame. Reference framess have bandwidth. If the bandwidth has a frequency slope or frequency shift, then it becomes an accelerating reference frame, and the particle will accelerate. Particles act like DeBroglie waves because they are wave packets, packets of aether medium waves..

 

[arfa brane]

Aether medium waves are the only explanation that makes sense. I define them as having zero energy and performing necessary functions to establish the properties of space.

Then the definition doesn't make any sense.
How does zero energy "perform" anything?

DeBroglie waves are particles with mass that also have a wavelength inversely proportional to their mass.

No they aren't. Their wavelength is inversely proportional to their momentum. They describe the probability of a particle being contained in a wavepacket, which is a superposition of many different wavelengths, because that's the only way to restrict the position to a finite region of space and time.

That space can be called a reference frame. Reference framess have bandwidth.

You can call it a reference frame, but that doesn't make it one. How do you assign coordinates to a photon? Reference frames don't have bandwidth, they have coordinates.

If the bandwidth has a frequency slope or frequency shift, then it becomes an accelerating reference frame, and the particle will accelerate

That's backwards. Electrons accelerate in an electric field, this changes the DeBroglie wavelength. Photons don't accelerate in "normal" spacetime.

Particles act like DeBroglie waves because they are wave packets, packets of aether medium waves..

No, DeBroglie waves describe particles, they're matter-waves. Particles act like particles, waves act like waves.

 

[Mazulu]

Then the definition doesn't make any sense.
How does zero energy "perform" anything?

Energy only manifests if there is something that it can manifest through, something that has energy content. We can debate this, but the physics community still hasn't explained several things that just exist.

No they aren't. Their wavelength is inversely proportional to their momentum.

DeBroglie waves are matter waves that have a wavelength proportional to their momentum; I wrote mass by mistake. The equation is $$\lambda = \frac{h}{mv}.$$

They describe the probability of a particle being contained in a wavepacket, which is a superposition of many different wavelengths, because that's the only way to restrict the position to a finite region of space and time.

You can call it a reference frame, but that doesn't make it one. How do you assign coordinates to a photon? Reference frames don't have bandwidth, they have coordinates.That's backwards. Electrons accelerate in an electric field, this changes the DeBroglie wavelength. Photons don't accelerate in "normal" spacetime.No, DeBroglie waves describe particles, they're matter-waves. Particles act like particles, waves act like waves.

Particles are annihilated by anti-particles to release gamma rays (waves of EM energy). What is the anti-photon that annihilates the photon? There isn't one. Therefore, photons are more fundamental than matter. It makes sense that light has waves; it doesn't make sense that matter has waves. If you think about it, matter waves are just a collection of EM waves.

I'll answer some more later.

 

[Mazulu]

I looked up the Uncertainty Principle in wiki and found this quote.

Wave Mechanics InterpretationAccording to the de Broglie hypothesis, every object in our Universe is a wave, a situation which gives rise to this phenomenon. The position of the particle is described by a wave function...

The Born rule states that this should be interpreted as a probability density function in the sense that the probability of finding the particle between a and b is

I believe that the DeBroglie hypothesis is right. I don't think anyone is debating this point.

What I am trying to do is propose a simple and reasonable explanation as to why the vacuum of space has various properties (e.g. bandwidth). I eventually want to argue that a gravity propulsion drive is only possible if you do something to the vacuum, to space itself. As you may recall, I defined aether medium waves in such a way that they would be compatible with the postulates of SR. SR postulate #2 says that the speed of light is invariant for all inertial reference frames.

Inertial reference frames are defined with certain characteristics; it's a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and has zero acceleration (if measured by an accelerometer).

Objects like particles (with mass), rockets (engines off), etc., can occupy an inertial reference frame. Yes, sure, you can assign a coordinate system. But I'm not talking about math. I'm talking about how physical objects with mass interconnect with the vacuum. Massive particles are going to be, as you would say, matter waves; but that just means that every particle is a wave-packet of aether waves, a wave packet of different frequencies. This is how a massive particle can be connected to the EM bandwidth of the vacuum.
And, I'm out of time...

 

[arfa brane]

What is the anti-photon that annihilates the photon?

The photon is the antiparticle (of itself); it doesn't annihilate photons though.

Therefore, photons are more fundamental than matter.

That's one interpretation, if say, energy in its "unbound" state is more fundamental than energy "bound" by mass, charge, and spin, although photons do have spin. It's probably more accurate to say energy has more symmetry in its unbound state. But then you have to define what "unbound" is supposed to mean.

If you think about it, matter waves are just a collection of EM waves.

Lots of people have thought about it. EM waves don't have rest mass, so they don't pass the matter-wave test.

 

[Mazulu]

The photon is the antiparticle (of itself); it doesn't annihilate photons though.

The photon is not it's own antiparticle, or it would annihilate itself.

Therefore, photons are more fundamental than matter.

That's one interpretation, if say, energy in its "unbound" state is more fundamental than energy "bound" by mass, charge, and spin, although photons do have spin. It's probably more accurate to say energy has more symmetry in its unbound state. But then you have to define what "unbound" is supposed to mean.

I had to think about this for a while. Energy is something that can be expressed in many forms. But it can only be expressed in some form, such as EM waves. Otherwise, how can energy interact with matter or fields or anything if it is not "part of the system". Photons, particles, fields, etc., are all part of the aether medium "system". Therefore, it can interact with anything else in the system. Sorry if that's an awkward way to put it.

Lots of people have thought about it. EM waves don't have rest mass, so they don't pass the matter-wave test.

True, EM waves do not have rest mass. But EM waves (gamma rays) can be recovered from a massive particle when it is annihilated. I interpret this to mean that particles with mass can still be a wave-packet of EM waves. I know it is true that they are, I'm just not exactly sure of the details.

 

[arfa brane]

The photon is not it's own antiparticle, or it would annihilate itself.

Yes it is. It has T-symmetry (it doesn't change state moving in either time-direction). T-symmetry is one of the "mirrors" used in the SM and field theories.

Energy is something that can be expressed in many forms. But it can only be expressed in some form, such as EM waves. Otherwise, how can energy interact with matter or fields or anything if it is not "part of the system".

In which case, how can a system exist which has zero energy?

But EM waves (gamma rays) can be recovered from a massive particle when it is annihilated. I interpret this to mean that particles with mass can still be a wave-packet of EM waves. I know it is true that they are, I'm just not exactly sure of the details.

How do you "know" it's true? When particle/antiparticle pairs annihilate, energy is conserved, but the wavefunctions change since mass is now energy, i.e. the symmetry changes.

EM isn't a wavepacket unless it's a single particle. What about an electric field? Is it a wavepacket or a form of potential energy? If it's an oscillating field, what oscillates?

 

[Mazulu]

Yes it is. It has T-symmetry (it doesn't change state moving in either time-direction). T-symmetry is one of the "mirrors" used in the SM and field theories.

Hold on! You're telling me that a time traveling photon is the photon's annihilation partner? I don't see how that helps move theoretical physics forward when time travel is not only "not observed", but it creates paradoxes.

In which case, how can a system exist which has zero energy?How do you "know" it's true?

Wave functions cannot be discarded by quantum physicists because they model nature very accurately. Wave functions describe all measurable information of the system. It is reasonable to imagine that they model aether medium waves. Aether medium waves might be too subtle for some to believe that they really exist. But , at least they do not create paradoxes; T-duality leads to time travel which leads to paradoxes.

When particle/antiparticle pairs annihilate, energy is conserved, but the wavefunctions change since mass is now energy, i.e. the symmetry changes.

Energy is more fundamental then energy. Why? Energy can exist without mass, but mass cannot exist without energy.
Conservation of energy is taken for granted by physicists. Physicists should wear a shirt that says: S**t Happens! Don't care why! Waves and particles wouldn't have any reason to obey conservation of energy unless they were part of the same "vacuum of space", part of the same aether medium, part of the same system.

EM isn't a wavepacket unless it's a single particle. What about an electric field? Is it a wavepacket or a form of potential energy? If it's an oscillating field, what oscillates?

Particles are part of the aether medium; if the aether medium is made of EM frequency bandwidth, then particles must also be made of the EM bandwidth. You told me that massive particles are wave-packets, and I believe you. Wiki tells me that wave packets are interpreted as wave amplitudes, so I conclude that wave amplitudes must be a description of the aether waves. Wave amplitudes describe aether waves; aether waves are EM waves without energy.

What oscillates is the aether medium wave. Aether medium waves embody the orderliness of nature by physically manifesting the support system for electromagnetic energy across the EM bandwidth. Physicists are notorious for overlooking words like "orderliness of nature". Physicists take for granted the "orderliness of nature". Physicists cannot make meaningful progress until they ponder what causes "orderliness of nature".

 

[Mazulu]

Name something that doesn't need a wave to exist. Whether you realize it or not, waves are fundamental to everything, to EM radiation, quantum particles, everything!

Aether medium waves are real things that allow everything to exist; they facilitate existence.

Since the universe exists, and everything requires waves to exist, then everything that does exist, exists because waves exist. The only kind of wave that can make things exist is an aether wave. Therefore, aether waves exist.

 

[Mazulu]

Name something that doesn't need a wave to exist. Whether you realize it or not, waves are fundamental to everything, to EM radiation, quantum particles, everything!

Aether medium waves are real things that allow everything to exist; they facilitate existence.

Since the universe exists, and everything requires waves to exist, then everything that does exist, exists because waves exist. The only kind of wave that can make things exist is an aether mediumwave. Therefore, aether medium waves exist.

Surely somebody in this community of intelligent and educated individuals there is someone who can refute my proof.

 

[AlexG]

Your "logic" bugeye is dizzyingly circular.