Photon in an acceleration field

[arfa brane]

First, matter, energy, the laws of physics exist; there needs to be an ontological reason why.

Why does the reason need to be ontological?

In QM, entanglement exists, there is a mathematical reason for this; in GR and Newtonian mechanics, mass and gravity exist for the same kind of reason.
We still don't know what gravity is or how to deal with the prediction of singularities where the concept of mass loses its utility. We still can't explain why particles can be entangled, or "share quantum information" although it appears to be as universal as gravity.

Why introduce extra concepts if they aren't needed to explain things? How does an aether explain any of the other questions? What kind of insights does it help with?
So far it's a pretty vague concept of yours, you haven't defined it rigorously enough to make it mean anything. So how can it help with understanding quantum entanglement, or gravity?

 

[Mazulu]

Why does the reason need to be ontological?

From wiki, the definition of ontology is: Ontology (from onto-, from the Greek ὤν, ὄντος "being; that which is", present participle of the verb εἰμί "be", and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.

If something exists physically, then it becomes possible to isolate its mechanisms.

In QM, entanglement exists, there is a mathematical reason for this; in GR and Newtonian mechanics, mass and gravity exist for the same kind of reason.

Mathematics describes relationships in nature, but it doesn't cause things to exist. Maybe most physicists are ok with this; but there is a problem. We are dependent upon the mathematics. If the mathematics doesn't say we can do X, then we won't look for X. However, if we say that the mathematics describes an ontological phenomena, then we can always speculate that the mathematica description is incomplete. If mathematics is an incomplete description, then we don't have to give up looking for X, we merely have to prove it by experiment.

We still don't know what gravity is or how to deal with the prediction of singularities where the concept of mass loses its utility. We still can't explain why particles can be entangled, or "share quantum information" although it appears to be as universal as gravity.

Why introduce extra concepts if they aren't needed to explain things? How does an aether explain any of the other questions? What kind of insights does it help with?
So far it's a pretty vague concept of yours, you haven't defined it rigorously enough to make it mean anything. So how can it help with understanding quantum entanglement, or gravity?

I want to describe what the aether is really like, but I keep getting attacked for not putting forth a mathematical model. Gotta go!

 

[arfa brane]

If mathematics is an incomplete description, then we don't have to give up looking for X, we merely have to prove it by experiment.

Every theory is incomplete, however. None of the theories science has developed is complete by itself, nor is any combination of theories, so far.
So we have a set of partially 'true' explanations, and still no theory of everything. There could be an ontological reason for this . . .

 

[Cheezle]

From wiki, the definition of ontology is: Ontology (from onto-, from the Greek ὤν, ὄντος "being; that which is", present participle of the verb εἰμί "be", and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.

I have noticed that when ever you talk about your ontologies, there is always a hint of teleology embedded in it. You believe that there is a purpose, a why behind the physics. I won't look up the quote from you about GR, but you asked something like, "Why would nature do that?" As if nature is a sentient being. When you talk about ontology, you really want to find a purpose. Life without an ultimate purpose makes insecure people even more insecure. These kind of questions can never be answered by science. Nor should they. The main reason for this is that there are no answers. There is no experiment that can tell you why something is (or how it came into existence). Of course the aliens have told you that the teleology behind the ontology is that wave aether exists for humans and aliens to develop FTL drives with. In your brain, the universe can not not have provided a loophole for this purpose. Your goal here is really a religious one, and unfortunately for you, there can never be any proof delivered. Insecurity will only grow as your experiment fails.

 

[Cheezle]

I talked with my boss. I told him that I had an idea for a gravity drive/acceleration field generator. I told him I had an idea for an experiment that involves frequency shifting (perhaps I should call it frequency sweeping) from 1GHz to 2GHz 1000 times per second. I asked if I could borrow/use the AWG7K function generator. He was very positive about it and said that when I was ready, we would go see the equipment guy. I explained that the theory of my idea involves my interpretation of the luminiferous aether medium, but that it was as simple as: acceleration of gravity causes gravitational redshift, let's try it in reverse. My boss said it was fine; he said that (paraphrasing): only the brave go where angels fear to tread.

Instead of a proposal, I'm going to write a description of the experiment. I also have to find my scale which is packed away, somewhere. I will have to figure out how to program the AWG7K. I'm excited and releived. I may yet get a chance to perform my frequency sweep experiment.

Now the fun begins. You need to design the apparatus and you have no idea how to do that. For instance. Does the entire chirp have to exist as a whole inside the experiment? That will mean that your experiment will need a large open field to operate in. And does that mean that you will need an equally large weighing scale to measure it with? I know that you will say no, but when the experiment fails to deliver, these ideas are going to start multiplying in your head.

Also you have no idea what is the expected magnitude of the force to be generated. So you have no idea if your scale will detect it. So a failure can always just be a failure of the measurement device. ANd the dog begins to chase its tail at this stage. And as the expectation of the magnitude of the force shrinks, so will the imagined usefulness of the gravity beam. A gravity beam that only provides a very tiny force is not going to be that useful for your spaceship. The zip will turn out to be almost imperceivable even by lab equipment. Or it could be the equivalent of trillions of g's. LOL. You just don't know.

There is the question of the basic digital nature of your signal. The sampling frequency will always be in your signal unless you filter it out. Can you build such a filter? I mean it can be built, but the question is can YOU build it. There will be lots of harmonics in the signal. Do you want these? Think carefully.

Then there is the problem of the beam itself. You want it to be a plane wave but know nothing about antennas. You could contain the signal inside a transmission line. The energy would be confined and the force would still have to be present, but how to measure inside the cable or circuit board will be difficult.

What I am saying here is that you should be prepared for a long line of failures. Cycles of failure, rethink, redesign, etc. If you are smart you will put some kind of limit on your experiments. You need a definition of what a failure really is. Any experiment needs a definition of total failure. Without that you are not doing science, you are a crank. Unfortunately for you, you are very highly emotionally invested in the success of your gravity beams. You will never give up, and so you will struggle your whole life. And by definition you will be a crank.

 

[Mazulu]

Every theory is incomplete, however. None of the theories science has developed is complete by itself, nor is any combination of theories, so far. So we have a set of partially 'true' explanations, and still no theory of everything. There could be an ontological reason for this . . .

Personally, I don't think a theory of everything is possible. I think the laws of physics are going to be very uncooperative with respect to predictability. This won't make sense to you, but to a certain extent, the phenomena of nature is akin to smoke and mirrors, a trick of aether.

The good news is that we can play those same tricks too. Gravity is a trick of aether, an image of mass-energy. I hope to be able to reproduce the same image of gravity with an experiment. When I use the word "image", don't take it too literally. The image of mass-energy is an acceleration field.

 

[Mazulu]

Now the fun begins. You need to design the apparatus and you have no idea how to do that. For instance. Does the entire chirp have to exist as a whole inside the experiment?

Good question. The chirp has a duration of one millisecond, which means it has a length of 300km. So the answer is: no.

That will mean that your experiment will need a large open field to operate in. And does that mean that you will need an equally large weighing scale to measure it with? I know that you will say no, but when the experiment fails to deliver, these ideas are going to start multiplying in your head.

Presently, I have a jewerly scale that can measure a 100 gram weight down to 100.000 grams. If something more sensitive comes along, I'll try that. Gotta go!

 

[Cheezle]

Good question. The chirp has a duration of one millisecond, which means it has a length of 300km. So the answer is: no.

So the answer is no based on theory, or based on impracticality? Your science is slipping further into crankdom.

Presently, I have a jewerly scale that can measure a 100 gram weight down to 100.000 grams. If something more sensitive comes along, I'll try that. Gotta go!

Here is another question: if you plan to use any appreciable power in your experiment, you will need a license and you will probably have to apply to the FCC for specific permission for the experiment. Your experiment, if performed outside of a faraday cage will probably crash ever cell phone conversation in the area, not to mention other communication systems. There are sizable fines for failure to comply and if your employer has given you permission they might be at fault too. You can rent time in a copper faraday room but it can be pretty expensive and those rooms are always in demand. And doing it in a faraday room can be a opening a whole new can of worms.

What will you do?

 

[Mazulu]

So the answer is no based on theory, or based on impracticality? Your science is slipping further into crankdom.

Here is another question: if you plan to use any appreciable power in your experiment, you will need a license and you will probably have to apply to the FCC for specific permission for the experiment. Your experiment, if performed outside of a faraday cage will probably crash ever cell phone conversation in the area, not to mention other communication systems. There are sizable fines for failure to comply and if your employer has given you permission they might be at fault too. You can rent time in a copper faraday room but it can be pretty expensive and those rooms are always in demand. And doing it in a faraday room can be a opening a whole new can of worms.
What will you do?

Cheezle,
You ask a lot of good questions. I just answer all of them. Even though the experiment is conceived to be very simple (AWG,amplifier,antenna), there are just an enormous number of complicating details.

 

[Mazulu]

Every theory is incomplete, however. None of the theories science has developed is complete by itself, nor is any combination of theories, so far.
So we have a set of partially 'true' explanations, and still no theory of everything. There could be an ontological reason for this . . .

I want to make sure I get this point across to you. An aether medium is useful because it gives you a set of mechanisms, some of which control gravity. If you know the mechanisms, you can manipulate them locally. An example of this is that your brain and nervous system control your muscular functions. By passing electricity through an individual muscle group, you can manipulate that muscle group without the brain controlling it. In the same way, you can pass EM frequency (linear) chirping through a local region of space-time and create a gravity field without the presence of a graviting body. A medium lets you do this; mathematics (alone) does not let you do this.

 

[Cheezle]

I wish I could be there when the engineers read your proposal. That would be a lot of fun. Esp if you mention the space aliens. It is the best part. I hope you did mention that. But gravity beams and wave aether tech is probably good enough for a real hoot.

I would say good luck but I am afraid that luck can't help you. Nothing can help you or your experiment.

And lets hope the tech news media does not catch wind that a certain oscilloscope manufacturer is doing gravity control experiments! LOL. Would not do much for their reputation.

 

[Cheezle]

An aether medium is useful because it gives you a set of mechanisms, some of which control gravity.

There it is again. You imply that something must be true because it has purpose. This is the stuff of "scientific" creationism. It implies that someone or something designed the universe with a purpose in mind. In your theory's case the purpose is to give humans and aliens the means to zip around the universe in FTL spaceships. It makes for good stories in UFO magazines and bible study circles but has no place in science. You really should try and curb that talk if you want to be taken seriously. But I guess after revealing you have telepathic communication with space aliens, the horses have already left the barn.

 

[Mazulu]

There it is again. You imply that something must be true because it has purpose. This is the stuff of "scientific" creationism. It implies that someone or something designed the universe with a purpose in mind. In your theory's case the purpose is to give humans and aliens the means to zip around the universe in FTL spaceships. It makes for good stories in UFO magazines and bible study circles but has no place in science. You really should try and curb that talk if you want to be taken seriously. But I guess after revealing you have telepathic communication with space aliens, the horses have already left the barn.

please justify your opinion that mechanisms imply creationism.

 

[Cheezle]

please justify your opinion that mechanisms imply creationism.

I didn't imply that. It is you that is the creationist. In the religion forum you talked about how photons are "important" because god used them to create the universe. "Let there be light" and all of that. So it is you that is the creationist. I was just pointing out how you tend to anthropomorphize nature. Your justification for the aether is that it is "useful", as if that has any bearing on anything. As if it was a justification for aether. The usefulness of a mechanism (real or imagined) has no bearing on its existence.

All your talk about ontology is really about creation. The fact that there are conservation laws for matter and energy, implies that nothing is ever created. It only changes form through an evolution we call physics. Ontology and physics don't mix. Neither does teleology.

 

[Mazulu]

I didn't imply that. It is you that is the creationist. In the religion forum you talked about how photons are "important" because god used them to create the universe.

The laws of physics look like they are implemented by a support system for light/electromagnetic frequencies. The luminiferous aether and the quote from genesis "Let there be light" appear to be hints. That is different from saying that God used light to create the unvierse.

"Let there be light" and all of that. So it is you that is the creationist. I was just pointing out how you tend to anthropomorphize nature. Your justification for the aether is that it is "useful", as if that has any bearing on anything. As if it was a justification for aether. The usefulness of a mechanism (real or imagined) has no bearing on its existence.

Why wouldn't I use something useful? Are you in the habit of using things that are not useful? Do you brush your teeth with rocks? Of course not. You really must introduce yourself to the concept of using things that are "useful".

All your talk about ontology is really about creation. The fact that there are conservation laws for matter and energy, implies that nothing is ever created. It only changes form through an evolution we call physics.

It? What "it" are you talking about? Please be more specific.

Ontology and physics don't mix.

Apparently they do. Ontology helped me come up with an acceleration field generator experiment.

There are some subtle distinctions here. Mathematics is a useful way to describe nature; but mathematics is a very limited view. Ontology is a whole other way of looking at nature; ontology helps you identify "mechanisms" in nature. Mathematics is good for making very accurate predictions, but an understanding of "mechanisms" is useful to finding new processes and new phenomena. Anyway, I don't associate mechanisms with Creationism. If you do, then you need to look up the definitions.

Neither does teleology.

If teleology helps you see a problem from another point of view, then why wouldn't it be useful? My job requires me to troubleshoot; troubleshooting is another word for "solve the problem". If you're ever going to develop strong problem solving skills, then you need to learn to see the problem from other points of view.

 

[Mazulu]

So far it's a pretty vague concept of yours, you haven't defined it rigorously enough to make it mean anything. So how can it help with understanding quantum entanglement, or gravity?

An aether can be any ontological medium. Start with the assumption that things that you can't explain (yet) are just inherent characteristics of the medium. Think about it for a while. Eventually, you will see that many characteristics are just consequences of other more basic characteristics. You're just trying to explain more things with fewer characteristics, fewer assumptions. Eventually, you come down to a minimum number of characteristics that explain everything else. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Then it becomes like pieces of a puzzle; you're trying to fit the pieces. Gotta go.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric,
I can only type so fast. But I would use the following equations.
(1) $$1+z = \frac{f_e}{f_o}$$
(2) $$1+z = \sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{2GM}{c^2r_o}}{1-\frac{2GM}{c^2 r_e}}}$$

Before I waste a lot of time, is this what you had in mind?

So you've basically looked up what some other proper physics says and just stolen that then? That isn't presenting a justification for your claims. I know what GR says, I know what QFT says, I know what physics says. I also know how they derive their results. For example, I know how to go from the Einstein Field Equations to the Schwarzchild metric and then to the relevant gravitational frequency change expressions. If I had a slightly better memory I'd even know how to derive the Einstein Field Equations. Can you provide how you would derive those equations you've just given? Just pulling them out of your backside doesn't count. It's like when religious people say "Look, look, my holy book is pointing to some piece of science! Surely it's a sign it was inspired by a god!", yet they always manage to 'extract' this scientific result after science has done all the hard work. It's easy point at someone else's work, which is rigorous, predictive, quantitative and tested, and say "Yeah, I say the same". Watch :

Gravity is invisible fairies pushing everything around. And light is just fairy dust blown about by their wings. I know this is true because they predict all the same results as GR and QFT in those instances where GR or QFT have been experimentally validated!

So can I now assume you're a believer in my fairy theory? I doubt it, I haven't given any justification for my claims and simply stealing results from proper science doesn't mean my idea really leads to such results. You have provided just as much evidence. Sure, you've been yammering on about god and aliens but I no more believe your Christian claims than I do those of Muslims who claim that there's relativity in the Qu'ran or Hindus who claim their religious text includes an accurate description of cosmology. Reasserting your claims time and again doesn't justify them. Borrowing.... sorry, stealing.... proper results from proper scientific models can't count for jack ****.

You missed the point. It's about electromagnetic field frequency (photons, Poynting vectors, light). It's about phase and frequency of electromagnetic fields. Lot's of things have frequency: clocks, tires on cars (rpm), seasons (4/year), AC voltage, AC current, etc. But the frequency and phase of Electromagnetic fields (photons, light, Poynting vector) have a close relationship to gravity and the acceleration of gravity. Ontologically speaking, EM frequency and acceleration of gravity have a very close relationship. That is why we should look for dual causality. Obviously gravity causes light to frequency shift. Because the relationship between EM frequency and gravity is so close, we should consider that causality goes the other way, that frequency shift can cause a gravity field (even if it's very small).

I've explained why no one is going to listen to you when other people can at least provide working models derived clearly and just give some justification why a ton of funding should be dumped on an experiment. Either you didn't read it or you didn't comprehend it. Either way it's just plain ignorance on your part.

Cheezle, I know what AlphaNumeric asked for; but like I've said before, string theory mathematics is not necessary.

No, you obviously don't know. The fact I've already explained it shows you're just throwing out strawmen. For Pete sake, I said it on this very page!!

Actually I test and troubleshoot oscilloscope boards (mostly). I test and troubleshoot other product lines too. I just thought you should have all the facts before you offer your biased opinion.

That hasn't given me reason to change my minds. There are factories in China filled with hundreds of thousands of people putting together very complicated circuit boards to go into computers. They built them, test them and even trouble shoot them. Does that mean they understand the underling quantum mechanical and electromagnetic principles which go into such technology? Nope.

How would you know? You never asked.

I didn't have to ask. Your claims are inconsistent, often mistaken and generally show a complete lack of understanding of the underlying principles involved. You have neither the practical experience nor the theoretical background and yes, I am taking your 'I twiddle with oscilloscope boards' into account.

You're style of argument is to criticize others based upon your ignorance (lack of knowledge) about what that person knows. It's also called misrepresentation, lying, etc...

I'm sorry, would you prefer if I said I'd communed with god and he'd told me all about you? Would that make you feel better? Like I said, nothing you've presented makes me think you have any sort of familiarity with the scientific method and in fact a great deal of what you've presented is evidence for the contrary. Besides, I hardly think you're in a position to talk about misrepresentation when you just misrepresented what I've been asking of you, despite me already having corrected you on that particularly misunderstanding you have.

Given your repeated inability to provide a justification/derivation of any of the models you've stolen from proper science actually coming from your claims it's safe to conclude you have no such derivations. Thus presenting such results as if they somehow fit into your claims is itself lying. What's the matter, can't your god provide you with what I ask? Of course he can't, he's in your head. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Mazulu]

Given your repeated inability to provide a justification/derivation of any of the models you've stolen from proper science actually coming from your claims it's safe to conclude you have no such derivations. Thus presenting such results as if they somehow fit into your claims is itself lying. What's the matter, can't your god provide you with what I ask? Of course he can't, he's in your head. Feel free to prove me wrong.

My God did better than that. My god gave me access to an AWG7K, an arbitrary waveform generator. Now I can perform the experiment. I don't need to derive anything.

Not only does God exist, but God says "Hello".

 

[arfa brane]

An aether can be any ontological medium. Start with the assumption that things that you can't explain (yet) are just inherent characteristics of the medium.

I don't agree. In Physics any concept has to be useful, it has to be part of an explanation and the explanation has to explain reality. Of course, we know an explanation (an abstract theory) isn't 'real', but the point is that it's useful, mainly because it predicts what will happen if some variable or set of variables changes.
If you "make shit up" it might be useful, but really you need to do what you're now intending to do: test it with a real-world example.

Think about it for a while. Eventually, you will see that many characteristics are just consequences of other more basic characteristics.

Yes, but it's the working theories that tie the consequences together. For instance, the fact that you have a job calibrating oscilloscope timebases is a consequence of certain theories.
As mentioned, you don't need to understand all the theories that lead to that consequence, and the physics involved doesn't need ontology to work, it works because it works, right? Think about it, we know a lot about building clocks and how to 'work' with them, but we don't need a deep understanding or ontological reason for the existence of time, or why we can't move in time the way we can in space; none of the ontological aspects of clock-building is relevant.
We just accept that time exists, that we can build clocks to 'track' our local passage through it (whatever it 'really' is), and that the model (i.e. the theory of time and timekeeping) is a working model. There isn't much dispute about this one.

 

[Mazulu]

I don't agree. In Physics any concept has to be useful,

Yes.

it has to be part of an explanation and the explanation has to explain reality.

Not necessarily. Which is worth more money: another explanation? or a new capability? The world is drowning in an ocean of useless explanations. Sorry to say this, but explanations of reality are a dime a dozen. In contrast, how much do you thing gravity drive capability is worth? How much money do you think the US military would spend on gravity drive capability?

Of course, we know an explanation (an abstract theory) isn't 'real', but the point is that it's useful, mainly because it predicts what will happen if some variable or set of variables changes.
If you "make shit up" it might be useful, but really you need to do what you're now intending to do: test it with a real-world example.

Step 1: get proof of concept. Step 2: Allow other labs to duplicate results. Step 3: Decades of experiments and testing. Step 4: Let physicists come up with mathematics that describes the experimental results.

Yes, but it's the working theories that tie the consequences together. For instance, the fact that you have a job calibrating oscilloscope timebases is a consequence of certain theories.

I have a job because I work hard to meet the needs of the company. Oscilloscopes exist because innovative engineers combined mathematical physics with electronics to create world class products.

As mentioned, you don't need to understand all the theories that lead to that consequence, and the physics involved doesn't need ontology to work, it works because it works, right? Think about it, we know a lot about building clocks and how to 'work' with them, but we don't need a deep understanding or ontological reason for the existence of time, or why we can't move in time the way we can in space; none of the ontological aspects of clock-building is relevant.
We just accept that time exists, that we can build clocks to 'track' our local passage through it (whatever it 'really' is), and that the model (i.e. the theory of time and timekeeping) is a working model. There isn't much dispute about this one.

You need ontology to come up with a new breakthrough technology (e.g. gravity drive). AlphaNumeric has already told us that based upon known experimental results and mathematics, the gravity drive just isn't there. Without an ontology, all you have is mathematics. Mathematical physics is an incomplete description of nature. An ontology allows you to use intuition, creativity and imagination to come up with new experiments and new ways of looking at nature. Adding ontology to the mathematics gives you a new and more powerful paradigm with which to pursue new capabilities allowed by nature. I don't know what percentage of the brain is used to perform mathematics. Whatever that percentage is, I guarantee that if you use mathematics and intuition/creativity/imagination, you'll use a larger percentage of brain.

Physicists have made good progress with an atheist bias. It is my personal opinion that if the scientific community were to heal and transmute its aversion to God, to spirituality, it would open the door to achievements so stunning, so innovative, that we would discover the gravity drive, the warp drive, travel to other solar systems, and achieve an era of unprecedented prosperity. The sky is the limit.