Gravity Propulsion Drive

[RoccoR]

Mazulu, et al,

Well, --- it's a lot to digest. I won't pretend I understand this. I'm right in there with Schrödinger's Cat; inside the box. Schrödinger's wavefunction is a description; a mathematical representation of a system found in reality. But the equation to the wavefunction is not floating in space, occupying space-time, or inscribed in the fabric of space. A wavefunction has no coordinate; only what it describes has a coordinate.

What are we describing? What is the wavefunction representing? Since we started out --- discussing a "gravity" propulsion drive, --- I'm thinking we are talking about a "gravity wave."

Try this: wave-functions don't collapse when you detect the particle. Wave functions are always there. Wave-functions are everywhere, even in your head.

(COMMENT)

Do we actually know this?

The double-slit experiment shoots photons or electrons, not a waves. We infer that a wave does not collapses because when we introduce an artificial medium to conduct the wave, or depolarize the light (photon/electron source), we still get an interference pattern in the medium.

We don't know if the particle is in two places at once, to create an interference pattern, or not. We don't know if the interference pattern is a result of the cancellation effects within an unknown and undetectable medium. Suppose a medium is not a prerequisite; with something else at work.

A wavefunction describes a three-dimensional ripple within a disturbed medium. If it is a wavefunction dependent theory, what is the medium?

I'm still trying to digest all this information you've imparted; (still learning). Trying to fit it all together.

I have lots of questions about your theory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mazulu]

Mazulu, et al,

Well, --- it's a lot to digest. I won't pretend I understand this. I'm right in there with Schrödinger's Cat; inside the box. Schrödinger's wavefunction is a description; a mathematical representation of a system found in reality. But the equation to the wavefunction is not floating in space, occupying space-time, or inscribed in the fabric of space. A wavefunction has no coordinate; only what it describes has a coordinate.

What are we describing? What is the wavefunction representing? Since we started out --- discussing a "gravity" propulsion drive, --- I'm thinking we are talking about a "gravity wave."
(COMMENT)

Do we actually know this?

The double-slit experiment shoots photons or electrons, not a waves. We infer that a wave does not collapses because when we introduce an artificial medium to conduct the wave, or depolarize the light (photon/electron source), we still get an interference pattern in the medium.

We don't know if the particle is in two places at once, to create an interference pattern, or not. We don't know if the interference pattern is a result of the cancellation effects within an unknown and undetectable medium. Suppose a medium is not a prerequisite; with something else at work.

A wavefunction describes a three-dimensional ripple within a disturbed medium. If it is a wavefunction dependent theory, what is the medium?

I'm still trying to digest all this information you've imparted; (still learning). Trying to fit it all together.

I have lots of questions about your theory.

Most Respectfully,
R

Hi Rocco,
The wave-function is a mathematical description of an undetectable medium. I see it very clearly, but it's hard to describe. If you plot $$\psi(x,t) = e^{i(k_ix - \omega_i t)}$$ for i = every frequency from 0 to infinity (or 10^27 Hz), then that is what one inertial reference frame along the x-coordinate looks like. When a photon travels along the x-direction, it exists as an excitation of this "undetectable medium" with an energy E=hf and a velocity $$c = \frac {\omega}{k}$$.

I'll explain more at lunch.

 

[Aqueous Id]

If I wanted to make a sinusoid voltage, I could make it out of DC voltages. It's called a DAC (digital analog converter).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-to-analog_converter
Instead of using a large number of constant voltages to make a sine wave, I want to take a large number of sinusoidal frequencies and create a frequency shift.

There exists no DAC that operates in Angstroms which is why I said you would need to do all your processing in the X-ray band which requires alien intervention or 7.5 MY of progress.

The frequency will change when it transitions from one frame to another. It's called Doppler shift. In the interest of discovering something unexpected, we should check to see if changing the frequency will induce an accelerating frame.

It won't. You don't have to do anything elaborate to prove it. Just get a light source with a color wheel and measure away. The frequency will change, but not the velocity. Do you understand why?

An accelerating frame is just a change in the frame with respect to time.

You want a ground frame which is typically called the inertial reference frame. The other frame doesn't have to be accelerating. It can just have a constant velocity. Ouila. You got frame dragging. It's that simple.

I am glad there are people looking into this. I hope they can come up with a good experiment to test it.

What's to test? Frame dragging, doppler/red shift/blue shift are passe. How do you think radar works?

Your example, and FM radio make me think that the rate of change in frequency has to be high (e.g. $$ \frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t} = \frac{800 - 400THz}{10^{-6}-0 sec}=4x10^{20} cycles/sec^2$$.

I have no idea what you mean. Modulation index is irrelevant. Doppler is proportional to velocity (which is how the radar gun nails you). Modulation is irrelevant. All you need is a CW carrier, and velocity. Without relative velocity there is no relativity.

Right! Every time you frequency shift, I expect there to be a small change in the vacuum energy.

No, the vacuum is what stays constant, and the source (such as the light with a color wheel) is what changes - in spectral content - when you are playing with a synthesizer. You can generate any kind of wave under any modulation scheme you want, but if the transmitter and receiver are in the same inertial reference frame there is no space bending.

But that change goes away. You have to keep generating the frequency shift for as long as you want to induce a change in the vacuum energy.

Changing the color of a light has no effect on anything except the light.

If we sustain a large positive vacuum energy, space will expand.

What does that mean? You mean like a megawatt radio tower? You think the space around it is bent?

If we sustain a large negative vacuum energy, space will contract.

Space, as you conceive it, is relative, but only in the presence of frame dragging. Space is transparent to frequency. Changing frequency of a light source does not change the velocity of the wave. It still travels at c.

Also, I picked visible light because I'm more familiar with LED's. We could try the same thing with microwaves, but we would need a large frequency shift. I'm also a bit worried about jamming the RF/microwave frequency spectrum.

But it's all irrelevant. Changing the color (frequency) of a light source, or FM-ing a UHF/SUHF source will not affect the propagation velocity of the EM wave, nor will it bend space or counteract any force including gravity.

Let me try to say it this way: frame dragging causes an observed doppler shift but synthesizing a doppler shift does not cause frame dragging. Without frame dragging no relativistic effects, such as space bending, are observed. Therefore, synthesizing a doppler shift will not cause space to bend.

 

[Mazulu]

Hi Rocco,
The wave-function is a mathematical description of an undetectable medium. I see it very clearly, but it's hard to describe. If you plot $$\psi(x,t) = e^{i(k_ix - \omega_i t)}$$ for i = every frequency from 0 to infinity (or 10^27 Hz), then that is what one inertial reference frame along the x-coordinate looks like. When a photon travels along the x-direction, it exists as an excitation of this "undetectable medium" with an energy E=hf and a velocity $$c = \frac {\omega}{k}$$.

I'll explain more at lunch.

$$\psi(x,t) = e^{i(k_ix - \omega_i t)}$$ for i = every frequency from 0 to infinity (or 10^27 Hz), describes an interial reference frame in the x-direction. Now I can shine a light or a laser along the x-direction, and there are waves in the undetectable medium that will carry my photons.

In order for a gravity propulsion drive or an acceleration field generator to work, I require one important assumption: I have all of these waves that are real things in the medium. I have to require that these waves are bundled together in such a way that when I tug on one wave, the other waves of the inertial frame come with it. I can't just tug on one way, using frequency shifting, and it slips out of the inertial reference frame.

By defining my inertial reference frame as a bundle of wave-functions of different frequencies and k-vectors (momentums), something interesting happens. For a point in space at x=0, I have a virtually infinite number of clocks. For every frequency, from f=1Hz to f=10^27 Hz, there is a wave available that will pass that frequency. But more importantly, every one of these frequencies acts like a clock that ticks away at that frequency. Therefore, the progression of time, for that inertial frame, at that point, is performed by a near infinite number of clocks across the whole frequency spectrum. These waves of the form $$e^{i\omega t_{1Hz}} + e^{i\omega t_{2Hz}} +...+ e^{i\omega t_{10^{27}Hz}}$$ act like the clock for that inertial reference frame.

Now watch what happens if we set the clock to 0 and hold it there. For each value of k, there is a distance $$[k_i = \frac{2\pi}{\lambda_i}]$$, there is a wavelength distance. These wave functions, or waves of the medium, have measuring sticks, a near infinite number of measuring sticks, that define distances along the inertial reference frame. Nature already defines time and distance, naturally, by constructing these inertial frames out of waves.

 

[RoccoR]

Aqueous Id, Mazula, et al,

Yes, interesting.

There exists no DAC that operates in Angstroms which is why I said you would need to do all your processing in the X-ray band which requires alien intervention or 7.5 MY of progress.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure. But this sounds about right. The fastest D/A Converter I ever used was in the range of 900-1000 ns.

It won't. You don't have to do anything elaborate to prove it. Just get a light source with a color wheel and measure away. The frequency will change, but not the velocity. Do you understand why?

(COMMENT)

This is correct. The amplitude will change, but the propagation speed will remain at its constant. That way the total energy is conserved.

You want a ground frame which is typically called the inertial reference frame. The other frame doesn't have to be accelerating. It can just have a constant velocity. Ouila. You got frame dragging. It's that simple.

(COMMENT)

Relativity.

What's to test? Frame dragging, doppler/red shift/blue shift are passe. How do you think radar works?
I have no idea what you mean. Modulation index is irrelevant. Doppler is proportional to velocity (which is how the radar gun nails you). Modulation is irrelevant. All you need is a CW carrier, and velocity. Without relative velocity there is no relativity.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is straight forward. The modulation schemes will effect the power output, but not the velocity of the signal. The velocity of the signal has to remain constant if the time-distance calculations are to work.

No, the vacuum is what stays constant, and the source (such as the light with a color wheel) is what changes - in spectral content - when you are playing with a synthesizer. You can generate any kind of wave under any modulation scheme you want, but if the transmitter and receiver are in the same inertial reference frame there is no space bending.

(COMMENT)

Well, I'm not sure I understand. In general if an RF signal traverses mediums it can alter the signal through refraction, or alter the fixed modulation. It is how a Time Domain Reflectometer (TDR) works. Its what makes spear fishing difficult. But again, I'm not getting the connection.

Changing the color of a light has no effect on anything except the light.
What does that mean? You mean like a megawatt radio tower? You think the space around it is bent?

(COMMENT)

At a fixed output power, a change in color is a change in frequency. Only the amplitude will change.

Space does not bend around an energy radiator, except for the mass of the radiator that bends space-time whether it radiates or not. However, it is theoretically possible for energy to couple (intermodulation) which could change the overall energy of a lasar or other information carrier in proximity. There are a number of factors involved.

For the radiator to bend space-time (the fabric of space), it has to shed enough energy to alter the mass of the radiator. That would impact the power source; not the radiator itself.

Space, as you conceive it, is relative, but only in the presence of frame dragging. Space is transparent to frequency. Changing frequency of a light source does not change the velocity of the wave. It still travels at c.

(COMMENT)

In general, I agree. However, gravitation can impact this.

But it's all irrelevant. Changing the color (frequency) of a light source, or FM-ing a UHF/SUHF source will not affect the propagation velocity of the EM wave, nor will it bend space or counteract any force including gravity.

(COMMENT)

I agree.

Let me try to say it this way: frame dragging causes an observed doppler shift but synthesizing a doppler shift does not cause frame dragging. Without frame dragging no relativistic effects, such as space bending, are observed. Therefore, synthesizing a doppler shift will not cause space to bend.

(COMMENT)

I agree. Light, no matter how the frequency is modulated, does not bend the fabric of space.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[arfa brane]

By defining my inertial reference frame as a bundle of wave-functions of different frequencies and k-vectors (momentums), something interesting happens.

Yes, it does.

A k-vector is a specific wavelength, a wave-packet is a superposition of different k-vectors. It isn't an inertial frame of reference, so it cannot be a "clock" of any kind. The only way to use light as a clock of some kind is to confine its interaction with matter (and energy) to an inertial frame and count wavelengths, given light has a constant speed. Such a frame is otherwise known as an atomic clock.
Or you could just bounce light off a mirror--same principle if the source and mirror are stationary.

Besides, photons doen't interact with each other. And you can't bounce light off a vacuum.

 

[Mazulu]

Yes, it does.

A k-vector is a specific wavelength, a wave-packet is a superposition of different k-vectors. It isn't an inertial frame of reference, so it cannot be a "clock" of any kind. The only way to use light as a clock of some kind is to confine its interaction with matter (and energy) to an inertial frame and count wavelengths, given light has a constant speed. Such a frame is otherwise known as an atomic clock.
Or you could just bounce light off a mirror--same principle if the source and mirror are stationary.

Besides, photons doen't interact with each other. And you can't bounce light off a vacuum.

Wiki had this to say about wave-packets of wave-functions,

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.

 

[RoccoR]

Mazulu,

Hi Rocco,
The wave-function is a mathematical description of an undetectable medium. I see it very clearly, but it's hard to describe. If you plot $$\psi(x,t) = e^{i(k_ix - \omega_i t)}$$ for i = every frequency from 0 to infinity (or 10^27 Hz), then that is what one inertial reference frame along the x-coordinate looks like. When a photon travels along the x-direction, it exists as an excitation of this "undetectable medium" with an energy E=hf and a velocity $$c = \frac {\omega}{k}$$.

I'll explain more at lunch.

(QUESTION)

Do you have a theory on the mechanism; how it might work? (Nuts & Bolts)

v/r
R

 

[Mazulu]

You don't know that synthesized frequency shift won't cause frame dragging (basically an acceleration field). You don't know unless you perform an experiment.

Synthesized frequency shift will increase the local cosmological constant to a very large positive or negative value (if you do it right). If you perform the experiment, you will change $$\Lambda$$, you will increase the intrinsic energy of the vacuum, space-time will expand (or contract) and you will observe an acceleration field.

It would be a mistake not to experimentally verify that synthesized frequency shift does nothing.

 

[Believe]

You don't know that synthesized frequency shift won't cause frame dragging (basically an acceleration field). You don't know unless you perform an experiment.

Synthesized frequency shift will increase the local cosmological constant to a very large positive or negative value (if you do it right). If you perform the experiment, you will change $$\Lambda$$, you will increase the intrinsic energy of the vacuum, space-time will expand (or contract) and you will observe an acceleration field.

It would be a mistake not to experimentally verify that synthesized frequency shift does nothing.

Except for the fact that there is no reason to think it would. You go ahead and pay for that experiment out of your own pocket.

 

[arfa brane]

Wiki had this to say about wave-packets of wave-functions

Wiki doesn't say anything about wave-packets of wavefunctions. It does say something about how a wave-packet IS a wavefunction, because of a certain relation. The wiki says "It is in this way related to the wave function", right?

The wave-packet "model" is kind of where you start; then you apply the HUP which says ΔkΔx ≈ 1. But now you need to derive at least the momentum relation, which (if you do it right) shows momentum and position are conjugate.

This is basic QM stuff.

Synthesized frequency shift will increase the local cosmological constant to a very large positive or negative value (if you do it right). If you perform the experiment, you will change , you will increase the intrinsic energy of the vacuum, space-time will expand (or contract) and you will observe an acceleration field.

What??
If you dump lots of photons into the vacuum, you increase the energy "in" the vacuum. You don't (because you can't) increase the intrinsic vacuum energy by adding external energy to it from somewhere. It's like saying a glass expands because you put water in it.
Think about it, if what you claim is true the vacuum would expand around stars and planets when they form because of the extra energy "in" the vacuum.

 

[Mazulu]

Mazulu, et al,

I'm confused. So slow-down for a minute. Forget the math functions and models. I did spectrum analysis (energy) for a living. I look at reality, not theoretical models.

Maxwell's equations also described advanced waves, rippling backwards in time (what we believe today is anti-matter) . Don't let a unconfirmed math model mess things up. So let's leave the modeling behind; for now.



(COMMENT)

I know of several on-going experiments that involve Interferometer detection; some are space-based and some are ground-based. Most are searching in the frequency range of 30 Khz and below (practical bottom is 0.1 Hz). Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) is one such project; while the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is another. They are searching for evidence of a gravity wave. To my knowledge, we don't know what gravity is yet, but the leading theory is that gravity occurs when a detector encounters a curvature in space-time.

(QUESTIONs from the PRACTICAL)

• What does a "Gravity Propulsion Drive" use as a source of force? What energy does it create?
• How is it generated? (Thermal, nuclear, magnetic, etc)
• How is it contained and focused?
• Under what system of evaluation do we measure its performance? (What is its unit of power and how does it relate to power equivalencies in traditional conversion?)
  

Most Respectfully,
R

Hi Rocco,
I don't know if this is immediately obvious to everyone or not, maybe not. A gravity propulsion drive will violate conservation of energy. The zero-energy universe hypothesis allows me to violate conservation of energy. In effect, I can lift a 1000 metric ton starship, in a 1g gravity field, to an elevation of 1000 meters, for a potential energy of U = mgh = (10^6kg)(10m/s2)(1000m) = 10^10 joules of energy. As soon as I create this energy, I also create the gravity that this energy causes; gravity is a negative energy, and they add to zero. So technically, 0 energy is created. I can create 10^10 joules of energy with no more power than what is required to run a large computer lab and some spot lights; maybe 10,000 watts. A nuclear power plant would be fine. This kind of technology would allow us to go to Mars very quickly, revolutionize transportation and lower transportation costs; yes, eventually we could be build warp drives. Let's take the first step.

Step 1: build a gravity ray. The Einstein equations tell us everything we know about curving space-time. Long before Einstein came along, we just called it gravity. We dropped apples out of towers, and occasionally dropped a rock on our foot. Curved space-time is just a fancy way of describing an acceleration field. The Einstein equations tell us that there are two things that cause space-time curvature (aka gravity; aka acceleration fields): the stress energy tensor and the Cosmological constant. It is a bad idea to make a gravity ray using black holes and solar masses; why? Because they are heavy to move around. Therefore, we set the stress energy tensor, a 4x4 matrix, to zero (all of it's terms are zero). That just leaves the Cosmological constant, $$\Lambda$$ as the sole cause of space-time curvature. The cosmological constant has the same effect as an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum (wiki). A wise man once said, "if you want to change the intrinsic energy of the vacuum, you have to know something about space".

What is space? I said aether. You said Michelson-Morley experiment, space is nothingness. I think we decided to split the difference and call space a strange medium. I made the casual observation that I can shine lasers and flash lights through space, radio stations broadcast radio waves through space, microwave ovens transmit microwaves, x-rays, gamma rays, etc etc. Space transmits the full frequency from 0.1Hz to 10^27Hz. I mentioned this before, I want to make space out of wave functions at each frequency. This is not a new idea. The valence bands and conduction bands of silicon semiconductor crystals, solid state physics, are made out of wave-functions. These conduction bands are the available space that electrons can travel through. Each silicon atom has electrons that orbit the nucleus, they are contained in the nth energy level of the atom's electronic wave function. When the silicon atoms are arranged as a lattice, something wonderful happens. A wave function for the crystal emerges; it has valence and conduction bands for the electrons and it has phonons (which are lattice vibrations).

But I don't see phonons, I see photons. I see that the speed of light, c, is invariant for all observers. The physics community just accepts it at face value and doesn't try to explain it. The physics community also accepts wave-particle duality at face value, but doesn't try to explain that either. I'm trying to kill two birds with one stone by building the vacuum of space out of harmonic waves: $$y = A sin(kx - \omega t)$$. This allows me to calculate the wave velocity to be $$c = \frac{\omega}{k}$$. These waves make up the fabric of space-time. When they are not energized, they are undetectable. But when they are energized, they become a photon that travels along the wave at the speed of light, c.

But the speed of light is also invariant in accelerating frames and between two different inertial frames. Photons have to be able to frequency shift, and their wavelengths must be able to change length as well. Frequency shifting and length shifting wave-functions must exist as well. It's called time dilation and length contraction or space-time curvature.

Let's just fast forward to the end. I can energize a wave-function of the quantum vacuum and get a photon. If I transmit frequency shift, I energize the wave function of an accelerated reference frame (a transition from one inertial frame to another). If I transmit frequency shift, I energize the wave-function of the accelerated reference frame, and I generate the corresponding acceleration field (or gravity field).

The Einstein equivalence Principle says that gravitational force and inertial pseudo force (caused by acceleration) are equivalent. I interpret that to mean they have the equivalent mechanism. That mechanism is the frequency shift wave function. When you energize it with synthesized frequency shift, you increase your intrinsic vacuum energy, and you get back an acceleration field. That's how you make a gravity ray.

 

[arfa brane]

Mazulu: I'm afraid your idea of "using" wavefunctions to generate gravity is based on several misconceptions, of QM and Einstein's theories.

Time dilation has nothing to do with wavefunctions, but with motion of classical objects. The equivalence principle says gravity and acceleration are equivalent, not that the mechanisms are. The earth accelerates you, but so does a rope swing (or a rocket ship). Clearly these are different mechanisms.

All the connections you think you can make just don't exist.

 

[Mazulu]

I was looking at the interferometer diagram and thinking about LIGO. The split beams are tuned to be 180 degrees out of phase. If a gravity wave goes by, there is a deviation in the phase. Technically, if the gravity wave is too strong, the deviation could exceed a full cycle; but you would know there was a phase deviation between the two beams.

So somebody like me comes along and says: BEHOLD!!! Einstein foretold that the Cosmological constant could bring balance to the universe by opposing the force of gravity. The Cosmological constant is regarded as an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum. The only way to measure it is to observe the redshift of light from galaxies; redshift is proportional to distance under conditions of a constant intrinsic energy of the vacuum. So this person has an idea that emitting a synthesized redshift will change the vacuum energy. When the laughter subsides, some experiments are discussed.

The slivers of bandwidth used in FM radio are hardly enough for even LIGO to notice. But we should try. The linear frequency shift formula is $$f(t) = [\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}]t + f_0$$. If LIGO administrators let us perform an experiment, we would bring an FM transmitter that is modulated with a sawtooth wave with a period of 1millisecond (1KHz sawtooth frequency). The FM signal frequency shifts from the lowest frequency (87.8MHz) to the highest frequency (88.0MHz) a thousand times per second. $$\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}=\frac{200KHz}{1ms}=2x10^8 cycles/sec^2$$. At some reasonable wattage, we transmit this frequency shift down one leg of the LIGO interferometer, and we check to see if the intrinsic energy of the vacuum changes. If it does, the interferometer will deviate a degree or two away from 180 degrees destructive interference. I personally don't think FM radio is going to produce a noticeable effect.

If that doesn't work, we could spend $90K and buy a function generator from Tektronix. The maximum output frequency is 9.6GHz. Maybe we could program it to transmit a frequency shift from 4GHz to 8GHz. I'm not sure how good the resolution would be for a fast repetition rate. Maybe we could generate a frequency shift a million times per second, with reasonable resolution. We would then send the signal to an amplifier and a transmitter of some kind. We would turn in on at one end of the LIGO leg, and transmit the signal to the other end of the leg. Is this enough to change the intrinsic vacuum energy? If so, will the interferometer detect a gravity/acceleration field? For this experiment, $$\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t} = \frac{4GHz}{10^{-6}}=4x10^{15}cycles/sec^2$$. The frequency shift slope is much larger than it is for the FM transmitter. A larger frequency shift slope should translate into a higher vacuum energy.

 

[Aqueous Id]

If that doesn't work, we could spend $90K and buy a function generator from Tektronix. The maximum output frequency is 9.6GHz. Maybe we could program it to transmit a frequency shift from 4GHz to 8GHz.

Swept frequency measurements are common. You get them ready to roll in instruments like a network analyzer. But they're not opening worm holes or anything unusual like that. Nor is anyone overlooking the possibility that space might be warping around them. Alarm bells would have been ringing all over the world a very long time ago when the first tests were done, possibly as soon as Newton started playing with prisms. All of his ideas about gravity would refer to wavelengths of light.

Your basic flaw in logic is twofold. One, it violates first principles. Putting that aside, since you're convinced the principles are wrong, let's look at number two: your ideas are contradicted by nature. Consider doppler radar. If doppler caused space to warp then the measured distance to a closing target (such as an aircraft on approach to an airfield) wouldn't work. But it works. The fact that your GPS works is a testament to the stability of space (lat/long position) versus doppler (your velocity relative to the satellites). If you're concerned that that velocity is too low (which makes no sense) then consider all the high velocity cases that folks like NASA or the Air Force would commonly encounter. Yet there's no space bending there either, they manage to stay in orbit.

This is why it's very hard to unseat established principles. They aren't there just for someone's good health. They're founded in hard evidence. Something as fundamental as the stability of space under variables like the frequency of a source, especially in this day and age, would have cropped up long ago and it would be common knowledge today.

Your idea that two different things are the same because they share a common property is flawed. The fact that you can generate some spectrum artificially that matches the spectrum of a high velocity object, has no bearing on nature. If it were true, you could simply record the image and every time you played it back, the cat would levitate.

Space does not bend because the spectrum of the source shifts. The spectrum appears to the observer to shift because the emitter has a high relative velocity. These are two completely different phenomena. They do not have the same cause.

You are also flawed in thinking that there is some magic frequency at which the cat floats. That makes no sense. Space is not a filter - all frequencies get through. So how can there be a magic frequency? You seem to think there is a connection between relativity and the optical band. There's not. An EM wave of any frequency will exhibit red or blue shift whether it's light or some other emission in some other band.

You are thinking of FM (of what baseband signal I have no idea). But an object in relativistic motion emits a constant spectrum unless it's accelerating (or decelerating). So modulation of any type doesn't even play into this.

The only reason stars are known to be in redshift is because the spectral fingerprint (e.g. hydrogen) is shifted. If they were monochromatic sources, there would be no way to know they were in red shift. There would be no base frequency to compare them to, to know what to think. Unless of course it was known that all stars emit the same frequency. Then we'd have their redshift and their egress velocities. Then, by your idea, any time anyone produced light at any of those frequencies a worm hole would open and the cat would come flying out of it.

The spectral content has nothing to do with red shift. A monochromatic source will red shift under high velocity of egress. Apparently, according to your idea, the universe is established based on the signature of the hydrogen spectrum. Then, any light source that emits the same spectrum at some offset, floats the cat. But that premise makes no sense. Why would the emission spectrum for hydrogen be more special than anything else? But if you say no, it simply has to be a shifted spectrum, then I would say pick any monochromatic frequency and emit it. It can represent the red or blue shift of any other source. So cats should be flying all over the place every time any signal whatsoever is emitted.

 

[Aqueous Id]

There exists no DAC that operates in Angstroms which is why I said you would need to do all your processing in the X-ray band which requires alien intervention or 7.5 MY of progress

I'm not sure. But this sounds about right. The fastest D/A Converter I ever used was in the range of 900-1000 ns.

Or about 1MHz. The visible spectrum is 8-9 orders of magnitude higher in frequency. Then, he needs to go even higher to get a frequency he can sample and play DSP games with. Higher than that is the X-ray band. In any case it's so far out of reach of a DAC (or any electronic device) ... well, hence my remarks.

It won't. You don't have to do anything elaborate to prove it. Just get a light source with a color wheel and measure away. The frequency will change, but not the velocity. Do you understand why?

This is correct. The amplitude will change, but the propagation speed will remain at its constant. That way the total energy is conserved.

You're explaining that for a given power level amplitude decreases as frequency increases. It's not clear what power levels he may think are neessary. I'm almost afraid to ask.

What's to test? Frame dragging, doppler/red shift/blue shift are passe. How do you think radar works? ....I have no idea what you mean. Modulation index is irrelevant. Doppler is proportional to velocity (which is how the radar gun nails you). Modulation is irrelevant. All you need is a CW carrier, and velocity. Without relative velocity there is no relativity.

Yes, this is straight forward. The modulation schemes will effect the power output, but not the velocity of the signal. The velocity of the signal has to remain constant if the time-distance calculations are to work.

And it has to remain constant because modulation doesn't alter spacetime. He can alter his spectrum, but spectral content doesn't affect spacetime. No source affects spacetime, only by its velocity and/or high mass is space apparently bent.

No, the vacuum is what stays constant, and the source (such as the light with a color wheel) is what changes - in spectral content - when you are playing with a synthesizer. You can generate any kind of wave under any modulation scheme you want, but if the transmitter and receiver are in the same inertial reference frame there is no space bending.

Well, I'm not sure I understand. In general if an RF signal traverses mediums it can alter the signal through refraction, or alter the fixed modulation. It is how a Time Domain Reflectometer (TDR) works. Its what makes spear fishing difficult. But again, I'm not getting the connection.

He was talking about modulating his light source, as if it bends the spacetime itself. I'm saying no, that's the one thing that remains constant unless there is relativistic motion (or high mass). The only way to get relativity is to put the emitter and detector in two different inertial frames and move one frame against the other.

Changing the color of a light has no effect on anything except the light.

At a fixed output power, a change in color is a change in frequency. Only the amplitude will change.

Yeah, I'm ignoring that. Obviously he could strive for a fixed amplitude result, bit why bother.

What does that mean? You mean like a megawatt radio tower? You think the space around it is bent?

Space does not bend around an energy radiator, except for the mass of the radiator that bends space-time whether it radiates or not. However, it is theoretically possible for energy to couple (intermodulation) which could change the overall energy of a lasar or other information carrier in proximity. There are a number of factors involved.

For the radiator to bend space-time (the fabric of space), it has to shed enough energy to alter the mass of the radiator. That would impact the power source; not the radiator itself.

In other words he would either need to achieve relativistic velocity or acquire phenomenal mass. Or just escape gravity, which is what he's striving for in the first place.

Space, as you conceive it, is relative, but only in the presence of frame dragging. Space is transparent to frequency. Changing frequency of a light source does not change the velocity of the wave. It still travels at c.

In general, I agree. However, gravitation can impact this.

I was trying to get doppler shift across. Ironically since he's trying to overcome gravity, some extra gravitation (in the opposite sense) would cure his problem, as you note. Now all he needs is a negative gravity generator.

You don't know that synthesized frequency shift won't cause frame dragging (basically an acceleration field). You don't know unless you perform an experiment.

No, that's wrong. Frame dragging requires a relative velocity between source and observer. There's no getting around that. And yes, the normalcy of space under all kinds of intentional emissions is well known.

Synthesized frequency shift will increase the local cosmological constant to a very large positive or negative value (if you do it right). If you perform the experiment, you will change , you will increase the intrinsic energy of the vacuum, space-time will expand (or contract) and you will observe an acceleration field.

No, synthesizing a frequency doesn't affect the cosmos in any way whatsoever other than it adds another wave that wasn't there before. And the cosmos doesn't care whether the frequency is shifted or not. AM propagates equally in free space as does FM.

It would be a mistake not to experimentally verify that synthesized frequency shift does nothing.

It does nothing for the reasons I already gave - such as the fact that doppler radar wouldn't work if it bent the space it was measuring.

 

[origin]

Mazulu, There is no need to write (question) and (comment) in your posts. Most of the people here understand that a sentence that ends in a question mark is a question and sentences that end with a period is a comment. Those individuals who did not know what these punctuations marks meant, now do.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

:bugeye: Plane waves are a simple example of wave functions. Here is a picture of a wave function for the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom wave function has an ethereal, almost ghostly quality to it.
....
Is this one of your friends?

I know all about the Hydrogen wave function solution for the Schrodinger equation. Like I said, some of us work on it for a living. And no, I wasn't referring to a friend, I was referring to me. The research team I head currently has a contract to address some aspects of the Schrodinger equation for particular engineering problems. Real world problems which require actual results, not your laughably ridiculous 'The voices in my head told me' clap trap.

You have lost sight of the forest for the trees. That etheric looking atom wave-function represents all of the information that can be measured.

No, I haven't lost sight of the forest for the trees, I'm speaking from personal experience on what quantum mechanics actually involves and what science requires to make viable justified claims. I work with the Schrodinger equation. I did a quantum field theoretic PhD. Unlike you I get my understanding from reality, not voices in my head.

Lets talk about gravity propulsion drives, experiments and mathematics. I propose that we try a frequency shift experiment to see if we can induce an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum. Take a look at the Einstein equations.

$$R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu\nu}$$

There are two driving terms that result in curvature of space-time, the stress energy tensor and the cosmological constant. If we want to build a gravity propulsion drive, then we really can't depend upon the stress energy tensor because it tells us we need to manipulate solar masses of mass-energy in order to generate gravity.

No, that isn't what it tells us. It provides us with a way of seeing how particular matter/energy configurations will warp space-time. Micro black holes can have masses of less than a single cell in your body but can still warp space-time enough to form event horizons.

Curvature terms are on the left and a Cosmological driving term is on the right. I don't see the gravitational constant anywhere, do you? All I see is the Cosmological constant as a driving term for acceleration fields. The next step is harder than anything you've ever done before. You have to use your imagination to come up with a way to physically manipulate the Cosmological constant, locally; you have to think up an experiment to see if your idea works.

You think that's the hardest thing some of us have done before? Seriously? I actually did research into varying warped space-time configurations in such a way to get a time varying cosmological 'constant' in an early expanding universe. And what I did was not anywhere close to the level of complexity some physicists consider. Upgrading things traditionally considered 'constant' to time varying interacting dynamical variables isn't anything new. Hell, in string theory it's a practical necessity as that's precisely how string theory says they all behave, as time varying parameters with their own equations of motion.

Your claims not only lack anything quantitatively viable but even your concepts are old hat. You aren't the novel seer you think you are.

Remember that the Cosmological constant is different from gravity; it's not obligated to obey the Stress-energy tensor.

That sentence isn't even coherent, it demonstrates you don't know how the Einstein field equations actually work. Variables obey equations, not other variables. In y=mx+c does x obey y? No, such a statement is gibberish. The equation links x and y so x and y obey the equation.

It's too hard and impractical to curve space-time by changing the stress-energy tensor. However, it might be possible to curve space-time by changing the local energy density of the vacuum. Can we figure out a way to do that?

You would do it by altering the mass-energy nature of the space-time, which amounts to altering T. Your argument for why you can just ignore T is invalid. But then that isn't surprising, you're obviously trying to talk about concepts you have no working experience with.

Where ever I got my ideas from doesn't matter.

Yes, it does. Science isn't about making random, unjustified assertions. It's as much about explaining your conclusions as making the conclusions.

I just wanted to contribute something that would help ease human suffering. My motives were honorable.

No matter how 'honourable' your motives that doesn't make random supposition science.

I asked for help from God, from aliens, and from anything else among that might exist, that was also good, and something gave me answers, and ideas, lots of them.

No, you think you have answers. That isn't the same as actual answers. Taping together buzzwords you don't understand and equations you haven't got any working grasp of does not an answer make.

Let's talk about physics.

We can, the problem is you can't.

Can a frequency shift (made of 64 individual frequencies) increase or decrease the intrinsic energy of the vacuum?

Except by introducing photons into space-time you make T non-zero, counter to your assertions. Having T=0 is to say "This space-time is empty of all particles". Your experiment involves you introducing something to try and alter space-time warping. Of course putting photons into space-time alters its curvature, as is the case by introducing anything else.

If it could, then I would have a way to make the Cosmological constant of the universe deviate from its naturally occurring value.

No, you wouldn't. The equations even tell you that. Pumping photons into a region of space-time will indeed alter the curvature but because you've altered T, not $$\Lambda$$.

If I could cause the Cosmological constant $$\Lambda$$ to get very large and positive, then I could make space expand much faster than it does naturally. If I could make $$\Lambda$$ large and negative, I could make space contract.

Is there a good reason not to try the experiment?

Yes, there is a good reason, your experiment is inconsistent with your statements.

This may take time to articulate clearly. But let's start with something easy. You can choose any point in space within the physical universe, and that point will have an available bandwidth of electromagnetic frequencies from DC (0Hz) to 10^{25} Hertz (cycles per second). This is available bandwidth, most of which is not used. But occasionally, a photon of some frequency will be emitted, absorbed or will pass through this point in space. Since any frequency can pass through a given point in space-time, then it should have an available wave-function: $$\psi(1Hz)+\psi(2Hz)+...\psi(10^{25}Hz)+...$$. We can't forget all of the irrational frequencies like $$\psi(1.12345Hz)$$.

You have just demonstrated you don't know how quantum mechanics works. That is a completely nonsensical series of statements.

Here is where it gets very complicated.

You have no idea what 'complicated' really is to a mathematical physicist.

Here is where I add something new, something that the physics community should consider.

You not only don't offer anything anyone should consider, you provide reasons not to consider it.

The inertial frame's set of frequency wave functions is bundled together. For an inertial reference frame, frequency wave function $$\psi(925MHz)$$ is like your arm, $$\psi(10MHz)$$ is like your leg; they are connected to the whole inertial frame the way your arm and leg are connected to your body. If I tug on one frequency by emitting frequency shift, then I tug on the whole inertial frame.

For which you can offer no evidence or reasoning. You haven't given anything formal or demonstrated it's possible to even construct a hypothetical system like that, you're just asserting vague things, pertaining to physical concepts you don't understand.

 

[Mazulu]

No, that isn't what it tells us. It provides us with a way of seeing how particular matter/energy configurations will warp space-time. Micro black holes can have masses of less than a single cell in your body but can still warp space-time enough to form event horizons.

Micro black holes are not observed in nature. There is no mechanism that creates them. Worse, there is no practical application for them. When you look at the Einstein equations, you fail to notice the cosmological term. You have preconceived notions about what it means, about what Hubble's law really means. When the cobblestone path of knowledge ends, and there is only pristine frontier ahead of you, use some imagination, and some vision; then perform an experiment to see where it leads. You are too burdened with your endless preconceptions about nature. I want an experiment that will let nature speak for itself.

Zero Energy Technology
Where did the energy of the big bang come from? The only explanation that makes any sense is the Zero-Energy Universe hypothesis. Energy, added to its negative energy reflection (gravity), equals zero. It happened at the birth of the universe, in the first instant of the big bang. What was the mechanism? Was it God? Or was it an expression of some aspect of nature that we have never seen before? Are there Zero Energy mechanisms that can appear to create energy out of nowhere? But do not violate conservation of energy, or other conserved quantities. What are these mysterious mechanisms, and how would we discover them? What experiment must we perform to reveal these zero-energy mechanisms?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Micro black holes are not observed in nature.

When Dirac predicted the positron we hadn't observed it, that doesn't make his prediction moot. Unlike your claims such people as Dirac were able to provide a clear, robust, predictive working model of phenomena which could then be developed by others and tested. A year latter the positron was found.

There is no mechanism that creates them.

This your divine knowledge again?

Worse, there is no practical application for them.

What does that have to do with anything? Does Nature care whether we make use of anything? We currently don't have any practical use for the tau particle, does that mean models involving tau particles are to be discarded?

Besides, not knowing of an application now doesn't mean there won't be one in the future. It's one of those wonderful cases of irony and hubris in science that after Thompson discovered the electron at Cambridge he stood up at a college dinner and made the toast "To the electron, may it be of no use to anyone" (or words to that effect). He couldn't see a use for the electron! Now electronics have done more to change human society than almost any other piece of technology.

When you look at the Einstein equations, you fail to notice the cosmological term.

No, I don't. Like I said, I did research into this stuff! Using string theoretic models to describe the time evolution of an inflating universe through inflaton fields, which included modelling the dynamics of the dark energy contribution and the Hubble 'constant'.

It might be the standard thing to state the field equations without the cosmological constant term but it's contribution is covered in any course teaching relativity and something anyone who works with GR knows about.

You have preconceived notions about what it means, about what Hubble's law really means.

You have no idea what notions I or any other physicist can conceive.

When the cobblestone path of knowledge ends, and there is only pristine frontier ahead of you, use some imagination, and some vision; then perform an experiment to see where it leads.

Real scientists do. Besides, you're trying to present yourself as knowing how research is done, how the scientific method should be followed, what it takes to come up with new ideas and solutions to problems as yet unsolved. You haven't managed to do anything like that yourself yet you think yourself in a position to tell those who have how to, literally, do their job?

You are too burdened with your endless preconceptions about nature. I want an experiment that will let nature speak for itself.

You're the one making flat out assertions about how Nature works. I'm asking you for justification and you can only do "The voice in my head". Just look at the assertions you made about micro black holes, I just commented on them!

Zero Energy Technology
Where did the energy of the big bang come from? The only explanation that makes any sense is the Zero-Energy Universe hypothesis. Energy, added to its negative energy reflection (gravity), equals zero. It happened at the birth of the universe, in the first instant of the big bang.

What was the mechanism? Was it God? Or was it an expression of some aspect of nature that we have never seen before? Are there Zero Energy mechanisms that can appear to create energy out of nowhere? But do not violate conservation of energy, or other conserved quantities. What are these mysterious mechanisms, and how would we discover them? What experiment must we perform to reveal these zero-energy mechanisms?

None of those questions can be answered by your method of "I'll assert whatever the voice in my head says". You obviously don't understand the field equations, a point I think you realise since you skipped over replying to my explanation of your mistakes about T=0. Not willing to admit you were mistaken? Isn't there some rule in the bible about not lying? But then the bible says pi=3 (Kings 7:23) and can't even make it's mind up about the origin of the Earth (Genesis 1 and 2) so perhaps you're just going to ignore it. After all, you have a direct line to your god, right? Why read his words in a book when you can hear them in your head!