Nov 11, 2012

The Kline Directive: Technological Feasibility (2c) … continued

Posted by in categories: education, engineering, general relativity, nanotechnology, nuclear energy, particle physics, philosophy, physics, policy, scientific freedom, space

I was about to discuss the third of three concepts, but thought a look back would be appropriate at this time. In my earlier post I had shown that the photon/particle wave function could not be part of the photon/particle as this would violate the empirical Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations and therefore, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. The wave function is only the photon/particle’s disturbance of the spacetime it is in, and therefore explains why photons/particles have wave properties. They don’t. They disturb spacetime like a pebble dropped into a pond. The pond’s ripples are not the pebble.

In the recent findings, Dr. Alberto Peruzzo, University of Bristol (UK) the lead author of the paper and quoting “The measurement apparatus detected strong nonlocality, which certified that the photon behaved simultaneously as a wave and a particle in our experiment, … This represents a strong refutation of models in which the photon is either a wave or a particle.” This is a very important finding and another step in the progress of science towards a better understanding of our Universe.

Those of you who have been following my blog posts will recognize that this is empirical validation using single structure test that shows that both wave and particle properties occur together. What is required next, to be empirically rigorous, is to either confirm or deny that this wave function is a spacetime disturbance. For that we require a dual structure test.

If this wave function is a spacetime disturbance, then Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is upheld, and we would require a major rethink of quantum physics or the physics of elementary particles. If this wave function is a not spacetime disturbance but part of the particle structure, then there is an empirical exception to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation and we would require a rethink of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.

Here is a proposal for a dual structure test (to test two alternative hypotheses) which probably only an organization like CERN could execute. Is it possible to disturb spacetime in a manner as to exhibit the properties of a known particle but has no mass? That is the underlying elementary particle is not present. I suppose other research institutions could attempt this, too. If successful … it will be a bigger discovery that Dr. Alberto Peruzzo and his team.

My money is on Lorentz-Fitzgerald and Einstein being correct, and I infer that the physics community of quantum and string theorist would not be happy at the possibility of this dual structure test.

So I ask, in the spirit of the Kline Directive, can we as a community of physicists and engineers come together, to explore what others have not, to seek what others will not, to change what others dare not, to make interstellar travel a reality within our lifetimes?

Previous post in the Kline Directive series.


Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.

Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.


Comment — comments are now closed.

  1. Sabri says:

    Unfortunately, most tests of general rtvieality are plagued by noise. The effects are very small, and the best source of mass, and stretched spacetime, we have around (the Sun) is extremely loud . There are several, fairly small scale, experiments that verify the effects of curved spacetime and general rtvieality. They include:1) Keeping ridiculously accurate clocks on different floors of a building (they go out of sync because the higher floor experiences more time)2) (it has a greater distance to travel when its near the Sun, which makes its orbit disagree with Newton’s flat-space predictions)3) (the rotation of the Earth does interesting things to spacetime, like twirling a spoon in pudding)4) Bounce light up and down and show that it experiences red- and blue-shifting.5) when they’re almost right behind the Sun (the beams are slightly bent, and also delayed because of the spacetime curvature)#1, #4, and #5 may seem like strictly time experiments, but keep in mind that special rtvieality gives us a solid understanding of the relationship between space and time, so in these cases and experiment on one is an experiment on both.#3 is a direct, well known result, that is entirely due to spacetime being curved. None of this light bouncing around crap.The best experiment would be very, very expensive and probably impossible. Build perfectly straight, unimaginably strong, beams that are longer than the Earth is wide. Then build a triangle with them. You’ll find that far away from the solar system (in really, really deep space) the sum of the internal angles is 180b0, exactly like you’d expect. But if you build the same triangle near the Earth, the sum of the internal angles will actually add up to a tiny bit more than 180b0. This is for exactly the same reason that a triangle drawn on a sphere has more than 180b0: it’s on a curved surface.