Jim,

Does string theory propose any 10 dimensional technology? I can justify why shift photons should be a candidate for:

a. gravity propulsion drive/tractor beam technology;

b. part of a theory of quantum gravity.

I can even explain why conservation of energy is not the obstacle to gravity field generation. I can explain how an Alcubierre drive might be possible without the need to use huge quantities of energy. Shift photons are testable and falsifiable.

If string theory can offer the mechanisms necessary for an advanced new technology, then I must have missed it. Please provide a link.

Hi Alan,

I actually thought of a corkscrew force that could created from a modified shift photon. The idea would be to get the polarizations of each frequency to line up; they would trace out the pattern of a slinky.

I'm not sure what the practical application of such a force might be. As a means to pick up someone of the ground, spinning them around might be funny to watch. But when they're aboard your flying vessel, and they get sick and puke on you, it's not funny anymore.

But yes, I think corkscrew/Archimedes type gravity forces are theoretically possible.

Jason

I'm missed your post way above..

If you're listening on Concord on the runway, then take off and do mach2 the waves will arrive either red or blue shifted, so Frank Sinatra may have had lungs full of Helium! or Nancy sound like Lee Hazelwood.

In theory the crystal oscillates in an FM radio oscillate at the original transmitted frequency (Wave/Particle interaction) and modulate the frequency so you get it perfect as transmitted. (actually we'd really need to get into aerials as well but let's not complicate it).

Now think about what we've just said logically. Using 'c' as a constant, LOCALLY the f and lambda have been set back to original whatever the observer speed!! Actually the plasma fine structure of the aerial changes the wave speed to 'c' wrt the aerial, if the windscreen of concord hasn't already changed it by making it go through the glass at the c/n of glass and change to the air at c/n. If you lie in bed for an hour and think about that, using ALL your brain, you may get the Eureka moment.

It explains determinism, Locality reality, and relativity with the quantum mechanism of oscillating plasma. either physicists have refused to see it as they think it may put them out of a job (which it wouldn't) or they don't have the logical brainpower so don't really deserve to be IN the job!

Let me know if and when the penny drops.

best regards

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #56

Dear Peter,

You said, "LOCALLY the f and lambda have been set back to original whatever the observer speed!!"

That's the part I'm not comfortable with. It's like you're saying that any particle that absorbs a photon (becomes the observer), has now "reset" the speed of light to its own reference frame. But it seems as if that would present a real problem for the Lortentz transform.

If a photon emits from particle A and is absorbed at particle B, where A and B have radically diffeent veloicities and are two particles in a vacuum, the only thing we can say is that the freqeuncy might change between particle A and B. Both particles A and B interacted with the photon as an object that travels at the speed of light.

Jason

Yes, It seems to keep appearing to you then going again! It does indeed reduce the LT to the curve of acceleration power required approaching 'c'.

Imagine particle A as in space and particle B as in the glass of a spaceship windscreen. Both re-emitt the photon energy at 'c' with respect to their own reference frames. (I asked each of them, and neither gave a damn about who or what else was moving anywhere else or at what speed. They were each under strict instructions to emit photons at 'c' and that's what they do!)

Yes, if the spacecraft is going forward the arrival frequency of photons will be higher, if going backwards it is lower! How simple can it be!

When B's mate on the other face of the glass passes the photon on into the spaceship the air particle also sends it on at 'c'. (Nobody told him how fast the ship was going or in which direction - and he doesn't give a damn either!).

If my 8 year old nephew can hold it in his brain it must be possible for anyone (unless you've been indoctrinated with rubbish of course!).

Is it sticking yet? look at my post under Tome essay if you'd like the train version.

Once you have it, and start thinking consequences, it the paradoxes of physics start melting away! A few seem to be getting it in my string now.

Peter

Peter,

So we'll chalk this up to the infinite many reference frames moving through space idea. Within each frame, the speed of light is always c. For photons that transition between reference frames, there is a time dilation/frequency shift/Doppler shift for each photon. For M87 jets with clock speeds in excess of 7c, we won't worry about why we can see the jet. We'll wait until we can build FTL drives, and then we'll run experiments.

If I forget it again, just say the words ""infinite many frames of reference".

Hi Jason

The same explains M87 etc. Just envisage an ant sized train moving on a toy train on a moving pavement, within a bigger train, within a bigger train, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy going by you. From your frame you add them all up so may even measure the ants trains speed at 10c! - Infinitely many 'spaces' again. And nothing breaches 'c' locally.

(Ahe light from the ants train keeps changing to local 'c' all the way to you).

As I say, once you get your head round it it actually seems to solve ALL problems. Throw one at me, ..the shortage of Lithium 7 in the universe?, the re-ionisation problem?..Dark Flow?, Superluminal travel?, Where all the odd socks end up?

Best wishes

Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #60

    Hi Peter,

    From the

    a) ant sized train to the

    b) toy train to the

    c) moving pavement to the

    d) bigger train to the

    e) second bigger train to the

    f) planet to the

    g) solar system to the

    h) galaxy,

    your saying that the beacon/tiny LED on a) can potentially be observed by an observer in the frame of h) faster than the speed of light?

    To put this another way, your saying that I can propel mass-energy using a series of cylindrical energy jet flows labeled

    a) inner

    b) 2nd inner,

    c) 3rd inner,

    d) 3rd outer,

    e) 2nd outer,

    f) and first outer cylindrical mass-energy jet.

    You're saying that I can do all this by relying upon the index of refraction of the energy alone. I don't see how. The M87 jet was propelling gravitationally significant amounts of mass energy. But let's take a closer look.

    M87 spits out first outer f), f) spits out e), e) spits out d), ... b) spits out a). Is that the idea?

    I don't agree that index of refraction will let you do this.

    I do agree that gravitationally significant energy jets CAN overcome the speed of light barrier.

    What say you?

    Dear Jason,

    I wanted to say hello and let you know I enjoyed reading your essay. Your thoughts about all particles being made of photons give a lot to ponder. I have been very interested in analyzing possible internal motion of photons and the similarities with the motion of other particles, so that is partly why your essay struck a chord. I believe considering an internal motion as driven by a single sustaining potential allows several things to come together at a fairly deep level. Your essay gives me encouragement to continue looking at the similarities.

    Your essay is very interesting and also satisfying in your use of math with accurate units. Overall, a very enjoyable and thought provoking essay! It gets a high mark from me and I hope it does well.

    Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

    Hi Russell,

    Thank you very much for reading my essay. I am glad that you enjoyed it.

    You mentioned the idea of internal motion of photons. What I find interesting about photons is that the mathematics for photons, and many other areas of physics, presumes an absense of internal parts. That is actually a good thing. If you had internal parts, it means you have to consider all of the interactions between internal parts. With photons, the absense of internal parts (or internal motion) frees us to come up with creative interactions between physics equations. In other words, the absense of internal parts or motion means that the universe isn't concerned about those details. If it's not concerned, then we could get away with such things as frequency shift photons.

      You do have a creative ability to define equations with accurate units that describe unusual possibilities. I suspect that if internal motion was discovered, you would still find creative applications in working with it. I tend to lean towards photons and other particles being made out of the same thing and they have similar rules of internal motion. I think that is why I find your essay quite interesting.

      Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

      Hi Russell,

      R:"I tend to lean towards photons and other particles being made out of the same thing and they have similar rules of internal motion. "

      I think you're right. I think that photons are more fundamental than any other particle. With all of the telecommunications and data modulations of lasers, I am truly surprised that nobody has bothered to ask if we could use light/lasers/RF frequencies to construct the profile of a graviton/gravity field. In the mean time, I'm looking at lasers, optics and electronics, trying to figure out if I can build it myself.

      There is no way I could achieve a repetition rate of 1GHz or even 1MHz. However, I might be able to get 4 or 5 lasers to pulse for the same duration, in ascending/descending order, like a stairway of frequencies, with a repetition rate of 1000 times per second. I'll probably have to salvage some of the parts I need.

      Won't this be fun!

      Hi Jason,

      That sounds like great fun! It will probably be quite a sensitive experiment since any kind of gravity experiment is very delicate.

      By the way, have you seen any of the optics work by Robert Boyd? He has some fascinating data on fast and slow light. One article in Photonics Spectra, Jan 2007 discusses group speed faster than c (although the pulse front is not faster c). I have kept his observations in mind while analyzing equations. It does seem like this kind of optics research gives us a tool to test against theories.

      I would like to encourage you and I'll be interested to hear the results of your observations.

      Kind regards, Russell

      Jason

      In response to above. You have it quite well but must consider this;

      It's not that 'Index of refraction can DO it', the diffractive process can do very little, it's all about the fact that the index of refraction CAN'T STOP it!

      A super massive toroid black hole spits the galactic matter back out as plasma at unbelievably high energies. Remember, the jet itself is quite big, many light years wide, and it ends up millions of light years long.

      The first ejections are soon decelerated to 'c'.

      The next ejections go quicker (to the outside observer) as the bit they're injected IN TO is already doing nearly 'c'!, but when the reach the jet 'head' they too are slowed down by the speed limit.

      The next ejections find a nice 'moving pavement' and manage to avoid the 'n' until they too reach the jet head and the speed trap! and so on.. and on.. and on.

      The outer edges of the 'tubes' are being slowed down progressively by 'n' all the time, but as you say, the power of n is limited and 'spread out' compared to a smbh. It always wins in the end, but obviously can't even 'get at' the sneaky central globules to slow them down till some time after ejection.

      I've just returned to the UK from the Caribb, and we found a 150mph jet stream in our favour. It was very bumpy near the edges, but we got back around an HOUR earlier. That was because we did what those crafty central globules do!!

      Look at my recent post on my essay string explaining the logic of the solution. And I've just realised I haven't rated you yet - top mark coming - I hope you have for me too!

      Visualise some pictures and think it through a few times and it should stick. Then you can build the hyperexpressway. Actually there is one very central to us already, but we need to get there, and ride it safely!

      How does it sound now?

      Best wishes

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #67

      Hello Jason,

      This contest postings have my head spinning. Sorry that I did not get to yours and comment. But since we have had long and sustained discussion before, I feel I know a bit of your Photon Theory. But Jason, I have some astonishing new results that have some relevance to your photons! I have mathematically proven that 'photons do not exist'! Seriously! Read my very short paper that I posted just last night!

      "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave"

      I hope you can still support my efforts to get my essay (38) to the 'church' on time!

      Best Wishes,

      Constantinos

      Hi Russell,

      Well I found this article,

      http://www.livescience.com/790-light-travels-faster-light.html

      No, I don't believe a word of it. However, I would like to watch and wait just to see what happens. They need to experimentally verify these results. If you think it's worth watching, then by all means keep an eye on it.

      Well, I just got my second laser. The box says green laser, but I already have a green laser. Uh oh! Once the battery charges up, I'll check the color.

      Anyway, I have a 68HC11 from 5 years ago. If it still works, I'll have to get back into the habit of programming it.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #69

      Dear Constantinos,

      I am reading your paper. Your approach seems to offer a simplicity that would help make physics more accessible. But I didn't see an approach to gravity. Do you have any thoughts about that?

        • [deleted]

        • Post #70

        Hi Jason,

        Just like old times! Good to talk with you again. Have you also checked my very simple and elegant proof that "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave" ? You may need to revise just a little your Photon Theory. I doubt if you really need photons to be particles in any of your theory.

        About gravity and my essay. I do indeed have some ideas about gravity. But I am not prepared to intelligently discuss them yet. Still in the formative stage. I'll give you a sneak preview, however! I don't believe in gravity! In fact, I don't believe in any 'Universal Law'! In my humble opinion, all we can do a 'describe' Nature but not 'explain' it through Universal Law! Too often in Physics we mistake 'description' for 'explanation'. We inherently cannot explain anything. Only describe what we observe and measure. Anyway, my still very green idea about gravity revolves around such philosophic principles.

        Jason, I need your support! As you have mine ...

        best wishes,

        Constantinos

        For these reason, while digital might be helpful, reality is observably analog.

        Jason,

        I enjoyed your discussion.

        While I agree with characterization of the nature of reality, I didn't follow how you posit it "observably" analog. What did I miss?

        Jim Hoover

          Hi Jim,

          There are lots of measurements that have to be converted into digital voltage before the measurement can be processed digitally. There are voltage ranges for digital, CMOS, TTL, etc. The advantage of converting physical world measurements into digital is that digital is quicker and much easier to calculate. Analog to digital converters are used to convert measurements in the real world into digital. When digital to analog converters are used to synthesize a signal, there is still a "digital" appearance to the output signal; at least until the signal has spent some time in the enviroment where it begins to lose this digital appearance.

          Light is said to obey particle-wave duality. We know from experiments with lenses that light has wave behavior. The fact that an atom might absorb or emit one photon is presented as the argument for particle behavior of light. Yet it is impossible to isolate a photon down to a point. If we try, we merely increase our odds of missing the photon.

          Does that answer your question sufficiently?