Comments on: Questioning the Foundations of Physics to Achieve Interstellar Travel: Part 2 https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/09/questioning-the-foundations-of-physics-to-achieve-interstellar-travel-part-2 Safeguarding Humanity Mon, 17 Apr 2017 05:27:36 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.1 By: Benjamin T. Solomon https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/09/questioning-the-foundations-of-physics-to-achieve-interstellar-travel-part-2#comment-153532 Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:53:01 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=4737#comment-153532 Francis Higgins, you are probably right in your opinion that “Mathematicians have hi-jacked the philosophical consideration of Physics”, but in some ways that is not their fault as mathematics is the best tool we have for investigating the Universe.

If you have developed a mathematical model of your concepts you could submit it to SPSISW, Space Propulsion Sciences International Symposium/Workshop if it fits their agenda. Their web page is:
http://ias-spes.org/SPSISW2013/

]]> By: Francis Higgins https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/09/questioning-the-foundations-of-physics-to-achieve-interstellar-travel-part-2#comment-153465 Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:15:09 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=4737#comment-153465 No Sir, I accept we don’t have exactly the same views and that is why I specifically referred to us being in ‘adjacent’ ball parks. Certainly my belief is that the Mathematicians have hi-jacked the philosophical consideration of Physics. Since Einstein admitted he was poor at maths, yet has not yet been proven to be in error when explaining Gravity as a spacetime warping (refraction), my confidence in the belief that Gravity is the refraction of the particle/matter-wave has not been shaken.
We must agree to disagree until more research dictates otherwise.
Regards, Frank.
p.s. my comment re the uncertainty principle maybe I should clarify just a little. That energy may be exchanged during any observation, as per Eisenberg I can understand but, as a firmly mounted bell has several modes of oscillation without changing its physical position, I can envisage that particles etc. may superficially ‘ring’ without this causing measurement difficulties. Energy below a certain level acceptable.
Only thoughts, not cast in concrete.
Frank.

]]> By: Benjamin T. Solomon https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/09/questioning-the-foundations-of-physics-to-achieve-interstellar-travel-part-2#comment-153453 Wed, 12 Sep 2012 02:08:07 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=4737#comment-153453 Francis Higgins, let us back up a little.

I think it is safe to say that we both agree to disagree with contemporary physics. And at least in my case, not because contemporary physics is wrong — it cannot be because of the phenomenal number of answers it provides — but because it cannot answer some very specific question relating to gravity modification and interstellar travel.

But we don’t agree with each other. You propose ‘matter waves’ I don’t.
Best, Ben

]]> By: Francis Higgins https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/09/questioning-the-foundations-of-physics-to-achieve-interstellar-travel-part-2#comment-153364 Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:21:30 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=4737#comment-153364 Dear B.T. Soloman, In fact I agree with you. My reference to the Electron being a wave I did not expand since I thought this would be too much of a jump to my re-interpretation of the Michelson Morley experiment. This experiment told us much more than its original purpose. It underlined the fact that light/ photons ars totally dependent on adjacent Mass/Matter; the speed of light etc.
Therefore, my suggestion is that photons travel, for want of a better way of putting it, on the back of the ‘matter wave’. The substance of the Matter wave being the old concept of the Aether. A non viscous ‘fluid’ of no mass and perfectly elastic. The ‘photon’ being in effect a ripple or perturbation on an existing oscillatory field. Since the refraction of a ‘photon’ occurs due to the ‘wave’ suffering a velocity change across its front, your spacetime distortion,and Einstein’s explanation of the Gravitational ‘pull’ on matter, which has a wave function, (even if he didn’t exactly mean that) is the common denominator.
Maybe not exactly as you envisage, but hopefully in an adjacent Ball Park.
Off the cuff, I believe a research team now say that Eisenberg’s uncertainty principle does not hold good. My interpretation is that observations using, or involving, very low energy do not effect an event or particle. This makes sense if the mistake made has been to assume that the energy transferred during an observation causes deviation as per billiard-balls in classical Physics, whereas very small amounts of energy, below some ‘Quantum’ level perhaps, only cause, say, oscillatory deviations. The norm/mean not effected.
My thoughts only.
Please excuse the assumption I make re Matter Waves——I cannot yet begin to envisage the medium in which they could exist—–another Aether conundrum? However, spacetime may have a lot to answer for. :-)
Best regards, Frank.

]]> By: Benjamin T. Solomon https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/09/questioning-the-foundations-of-physics-to-achieve-interstellar-travel-part-2#comment-153264 Sun, 09 Sep 2012 15:25:20 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=4737#comment-153264 Francis Higgins, thanks for your comments.

It is very good to know that even then there were disagreements. We need serious dissent because that is part of the process of innovation and progress, i.e. there is something to work against, to channel the creative thought process.

How much more dissent am I going to stir? In my book I proposed an even more radical idea that will probably upset quite a few, and we need to. Here it is:

The wave function is not the photon. The wave function is not a description of the photon. The wave function is the effect of the photon disturbing spacetime.

So we detect the photon’s presence by detecting it signature wave function. Just as we observe a contrail and know that a fighter jet is present, yet we don’t mistake the contrail for the fighter jet.

This signature is unique to the type of particle, and therefore, we easily mistake the wave function for the actual ‘particle’.

Next question, how do we experimentally prove or disprove this? At this point I’m not sure. But rest assured one day we will.

]]> By: Francis Higgins https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/09/questioning-the-foundations-of-physics-to-achieve-interstellar-travel-part-2#comment-153259 Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:21:43 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=4737#comment-153259 I am compelled by conscience to add further comment with a view to supporting your disquiet re the existing understanding of the laws of Physics. (carefully chosen words)
Schroedinger and Neils Bohr disagreed strongly re Quantum Physics. Schroedinger evolved his ‘Cat’ thought experiment in order to dispute Quantum Theory, not to prove it, as many appear to be under this impression. He himself suspected that matter was the effect of ‘standing’ or superimposed waves. Maxwell also had suspicions in a similar vein, in as much he suggested that matter was the result of vortices in the Aether.
Perhaps to save much space here, you will allow me to refer you to a remarkable publication by Manjit Kumar entitled ‘Quantum’. Page 195 onwards. In the 1920’s there was serious dissent between leading physicists regarding the nature of ‘particles’. Whilst Manjit Kumar struggles somewhat to break away from pre-ordained Quantum Theory, there is enough meat for those proposing the Wave Theory of Matter to get their teeth into.
Kind regards to you sir.

]]> By: Benjamin T. Solomon https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/09/questioning-the-foundations-of-physics-to-achieve-interstellar-travel-part-2#comment-148953 Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:05:39 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=4737#comment-148953 Andrew Palfreyman, I’m not going to give you a free lesson on Securities Law. Please consult legal counsel or attend some classes.

]]> By: Andrew Palfreyman https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/09/questioning-the-foundations-of-physics-to-achieve-interstellar-travel-part-2#comment-148932 Mon, 03 Sep 2012 21:27:56 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=4737#comment-148932 If you have done as you claim, and altered mass with an electrical circuit, then you already have the core of a propellantless propulsion system. Just add a periodic force, phased to the periodic mass changes (“push heavy, pull light”) and the thing will move unidirectionally. I presume you would not like to talk about momentum conservation? What really is a key question is why you haven’t built such a machine? You would be stinking rich if it worked. I therefore conclude that it doesn’t.

If you like, I’ll build it for you.

]]> By: Benjamin T. Solomon https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/09/questioning-the-foundations-of-physics-to-achieve-interstellar-travel-part-2#comment-148851 Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:54:02 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=4737#comment-148851 Francis Higgins, this post is not about “beating the drum”.

A 100 years ago that would be like saying we don’t need quantum mechanics or relativity because classical physics can explain a lot, and given enough time, money and resources classical physics will solve all problems.

]]> By: Francis Higgins https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/09/questioning-the-foundations-of-physics-to-achieve-interstellar-travel-part-2#comment-148798 Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:16:15 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=4737#comment-148798 I’m sorry but I cannot help beating the drum that all ‘particles’ will exhibit gravitational effect if they are considered closed waves. Refraction of the wave producing an apparent pull. If the Electron is considered to be a closed wave at low velocities then, when in orbit around the nucleus, I suggest it ‘spreads’ into the form of an Helical wave. This consideration is strengthened by Dirac’s now proven hypothesis that a high energy photon translates into an electron and a positron. Clockwise and anti-clockwise Helices. (This may also suggests a route to explain electron pairing in orbit) The electron ‘cloud’ analogy would fit with distributed waves of indeterminate radii.

]]>