Mach Effect progress

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:17 pm

Anyone who approaches anything concerning advanced propulsion who is not "highly suspicious" is a fool. This does not however justify making judgements apart from the details. It is the hasty generalizations people most often make in order to avoid the time spent in real investigation, that causes people, myself included at times; to make these errors in judgement about complex emergent technologies. So while I can sympathize with Baez that he is speaking on an issue he hasn't investigated, I don't have sympathy for the notion that anyone can "demolish" a theory they know nothing about. I think if he knew M-E theory has been peer reviewed for 20 years, he would not have made such a boast.

C'est dommage.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby TallDave » Fri Jan 09, 2015 5:44 pm

Hope you're right about getting more data this year, GIThruster. I really hoped 2014 would be the year we saw more replication, a little disappointed on that front. Anyways, I'm sufficiently intrigued by your comments (and his emails to the group) to read Woodward's book (anyways I need some light reading until Correia, Cook, or Stephenson publish something new).

93143, good to see you're still around. I still scratch my head as to where exactly the entropy increase from M-E generators would come from, but maybe starting to come into focus.

Link to the book, in case that's useful to anyone.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

kurt9
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby kurt9 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:54 am

I am wading my way through Heidi Fern's paper. Its a bit over my head although the parts I can grasp are quite interesting. It does prompt a question for you guys. Some time ago, David Bohm came up with what he called "pilot wave" theory to explain the phenomenon of quantum effects. Could "pilot wave" theory be simply Mach effects expressed in quantum theory "language"?

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:56 pm

While I'm not a physicist and hate to ever answer questions of this caliber, I would just note a couple things. Pilot Wave or De Broglie-Bohm theory, is a non-local theory of Quantum Mechanics. For this reason many physicists don't like it. There are whole classes of physicists who don't like spooky action at a distance nor any explanation that uses fields rather than particles. Pilot Theory is no exception. While I don't know the theory well enough to comment much on its contents, I would note that there is another quantum theory that deals with these issues similarly to Woodward's theory, and that is referenced in his book, and authored by the physicist who wrote the Foreward in Woodward's book--John Cramer. He invented his Transactional Interpretation of QM, that like Woodward's theory, uses this Wheeler-Feynman advanced and retarded waves symmetry to get instantaneous action at a distance. And I think that given Wheeler-Feynman, Cramer and Woodward have all found this symmetry to answer important questions about the nature of seemingly spooky actions, there's strong warrant for belief these are all tapping the same mechanism.

What is more important for me to note on this issue is, that this predisposition of many--and we should say the less creative--physicists to require particle explanations is the only reason we have this notion of virtual particles. They were created as an accounting measure and no one who understands the theory behind them, thinks they can mediate momentum exchange. They are a form of cheesy pandering to people who decided everything needs to be explained with particles. And this is what these non-local theories avoid. It's why many physicists don't like them because by their nature, as "nonlocal" theories, they don't use particle exchanges for explanation. They use fields. Same as what Einstein did. And I'd note to you, we've had this notion of the graviton for 80 years, and still no one has found one. There probably are no gravitons and there don't need to be. Gravitons are not required for field theory to be correct. They are only required for the less creative physicists to feel comfortable they've described every phenomena as a particle exchange of one sort or another.

So just saying, I have nothing against nonlocal theories. While it is true that the Principle of Locality defines theories as "physical" based upon whether all interactions can be seen as local, GR is a physical theory because the gravitational field is local, and this is true of Cramer's TIQM and Woodward's M-E Theory as well. I am more and more suspicious as to what actually qualifies as a "physical" theory the more I understand field theory. Certainly the phenomena of entanglement seems to violate locality and superluminal communication, but it is easily understood when you accept the notions of retarded and advanced waves. That seems more the big issue to me.

If you want to investigate locality, the thing to do is read about Bell's theorum, Bell's inequalities and the EPR paradox. Expect to invest several weeks just to understand the issues. Bell believed in Pilot Theory. Once upon a time I wanted to do my PhD at Notre Dame to study this, but like any decent club they would not have me as a member.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

kurt9
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby kurt9 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:06 pm

Your comment:

He invented his Transactional Interpretation of QM, that like Woodward's theory, uses this Wheeler-Feynman advanced and retarded waves symmetry to get instantaneous action at a distance. And I think that given Wheeler-Feynman, Cramer and Woodward have all found this symmetry to answer important questions about the nature of seemingly spooky actions, there's strong warrant for belief these are all tapping the same mechanism.


answers my question.

I was going to say that Cramer's Transaction Interpretation was the other theory that seems to tie into Mach effects as well as Pilot wave theory.

You mention the ooga-booga surrounding virtual particles and QVF, which has unfortunately dominated breakthrough propulsion research for too long. There is even more ooga-booga surrounding quantum theories that is even more ridiculous than that of QVF. This might be one of the reasons why many physicists avoid it. Perhaps it is also the complex math as well.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:14 pm

I think the math in field theory and GR are more complex than QM. But yeah, there is ooga-booga. The popularity of the nonsensical Tao of Physics is proof enough that people are willing to suspend use of all their cognitive faculties in order to posit the strange thing of the week. That whole book is garbage pseudoscience and I had to read it for physics at PSU. It's nothing but a series of circular arguments that assume the consequent. How they teach that stuff at college is beyond me but I got to rip it good in class.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby djolds1 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:05 pm

GIThruster wrote:While I'm not a physicist and hate to ever answer questions of this caliber, I would just note a couple things. Pilot Wave or De Broglie-Bohm theory, is a non-local theory of Quantum Mechanics. For this reason many physicists don't like it. There are whole classes of physicists who don't like spooky action at a distance nor any explanation that uses fields rather than particles. Pilot Theory is no exception. While I don't know the theory well enough to comment much on its contents, I would note that there is another quantum theory that deals with these issues similarly to Woodward's theory, and that is referenced in his book, and authored by the physicist who wrote the Foreward in Woodward's book--John Cramer. He invented his Transactional Interpretation of QM, that like Woodward's theory, uses this Wheeler-Feynman advanced and retarded waves symmetry to get instantaneous action at a distance. And I think that given Wheeler-Feynman, Cramer and Woodward have all found this symmetry to answer important questions about the nature of seemingly spooky actions, there's strong warrant for belief these are all tapping the same mechanism.

What is more important for me to note on this issue is, that this predisposition of many--and we should say the less creative--physicists to require particle explanations is the only reason we have this notion of virtual particles. They were created as an accounting measure and no one who understands the theory behind them, thinks they can mediate momentum exchange. They are a form of cheesy pandering to people who decided everything needs to be explained with particles. And this is what these non-local theories avoid. It's why many physicists don't like them because by their nature, as "nonlocal" theories, they don't use particle exchanges for explanation. They use fields. Same as what Einstein did. And I'd note to you, we've had this notion of the graviton for 80 years, and still no one has found one. There probably are no gravitons and there don't need to be. Gravitons are not required for field theory to be correct. They are only required for the less creative physicists to feel comfortable they've described every phenomena as a particle exchange of one sort or another.
Sounds like a powerful implicit criticism of the Higgs mechanism and perhaps the Standard Model is lurking in here.

GIThruster wrote:I think the math in field theory and GR are more complex than QM. But yeah, there is ooga-booga. The popularity of the nonsensical Tao of Physics is proof enough that people are willing to suspend use of all their cognitive faculties in order to posit the strange thing of the week. That whole book is garbage pseudoscience and I had to read it for physics at PSU. It's nothing but a series of circular arguments that assume the consequent. How they teach that stuff at college is beyond me but I got to rip it good in class.
Care to share the details of your refutation? Apparently you had fun with it. :)
Vae Victis

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:52 pm

Sounds like a powerful implicit criticism of the Higgs mechanism and perhaps the Standard Model is lurking in here.

I'm not a critic of Higgs. I think they'll find it even if it's not there. They did already, just wasn't what they'd hoped. I'm sure they'll be sure to take years before they make any definite claims about it.

Care to share the details of your refutation? Apparently you had fun with it. :)

It was more than 2 decades ago, but the biggest issue is that all of the arguments that Fritjaf Capra is making, drive for a Hindu monist world view, which is BTW, the same as the far eastern mystic view, and the presocratic Greek view we find in people like Zeno in his famous paradoxes. These are all arguments for monism--that there is no distinction between this and that, and that everything is an illusion. The trouble with Capra is that he makes monist assumptions in his arguments for monist interpretations, while pretending to be making rational arguments. IMHO, the only person to ever make a truly rational argument for monism, is Zeno, and his arguments are all thwarted by denying the premise that space is infinitely divisible (which is a consequence of modern Quantum Loop theory.)

The biggest trouble with monism is that if all reality is not real, and is as late Hinduism and Buddhism say, only an illusion, then the entire scientific venture is misguided and cannot ever lead to the truth. If we live in an illusory world, no investigation of it can yield fact or truth. And in fact, it is because the Greeks rejected this philosophy and embraced folks like Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, that the West has advanced significantly beyond all other cultures. We are a people of scientific means and ideals, and Capra is arguing that this is all wrong, when in fact he is all wrong.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

kurt9
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby kurt9 » Sun Jan 11, 2015 6:12 pm

It has always seemed to me that the true test of scientific theories is if they result in technological innovations. Woodward's interpretations of Mach's principle seems to be doing just that. All of the ooga booga surrounding QVF, not to mention all the "Tao of Physics" and its derivative non-sense has not lead to any technological innovation, whatsoever.

On the related subject, I fail to see how Jack Sarfatti and his hippies did anything to "save" physics. Nearly all technical innovation that derived from physics was developed in the 1950's and before, mostly the first half of the 20th century. The only significant innovation that came after was semiconductor devices and lasers, and these were invented in the 1960's and early 1970's by people who had nothing to do with hippiedom at all. If the hippies had, indeed, "saved" physics, should it not have resulted in a wave of fundamental technological innovation over the past 50 years?

JoeP
Posts: 519
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby JoeP » Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:30 pm

GIThruster wrote:
...And in fact, it is because the Greeks rejected this philosophy and embraced folks like Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, that the West has advanced significantly beyond all other cultures. We are a people of scientific means and ideals, and Capra is arguing that this is all wrong, when in fact he is all wrong.


Agree -- I think the Western, Greek/Roman tradition, and the embrace of science and reason has lead to all the dramatic advances we have seen over the past few centuries.

Things are changing though. Sometimes I think maybe 1% of the general population of the "West" is truly still like that, and a great deal of even the supposed educated elite thinkers in universities go along with political narratives.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:26 pm

JoeP wrote:Things are changing though. Sometimes I think maybe 1% of the general population of the "West" is truly still like that, and a great deal of even the supposed educated elite thinkers in universities go along with political narratives.

I'm not sure what the percent is but I agree. I'm also not sure things have ever been any different. I think some things you can say seem obvious changes from one generation to the next. The Great Generation that served in WWII obviously knew some things about sacrifice that no generation since has. We have no idea what rationing is all about because we've not really been scared of losing a war since WWII. I would note to you though, Socrates was not popular. He had only a small following and it was his peers who executed him. Lucky his followers included Plato, Aristotle and Xenophon. These are the guys who immortalized Socrates' contributions, without whom the West might never have emerged as the leader in rational discourse.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:30 pm

kurt9 wrote:. . .I fail to see how Jack Sarfatti and his hippies did anything to "save" physics.

I haven't read the book but it seemed like a lot of self-agrandizing tripe to me. If they saved physics how did they miss Mach's Principle and why have we still not answered the questions and issues Einstein spent the last decades of his life on?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

raelik
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:10 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby raelik » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:56 pm

After reading a bit more about Mach's principle and the Woodward effect, I'm wondering if there might be some relation between this and the role of "dark energy" in the expansion of the universe. Namely, could mass fluctuations happening at a cosmic scale between stars and possibly entire galaxies be the source of what is being called dark energy? Gravity is accelerating various celestial objects, and energy exchange in the form of charged particles is occurring on a continuous (albeit probably minimal) basis. But, taken as a whole, could this be responsible for the increased expansion of the universe that started about 7.5 billion years ago?

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:04 pm

Yes.

So far as I'm aware, heavy use of Mach-Effect technology at anytime during the lifetime of the universe, could theoretically explain the acceleration in expansion of the universe, since it reduces entropy locally at the expense of entropy of the entire system, which entails pushing the arrow of time toward it's end. So yeah, it might explain dark energy, and might make the concept kinda trivial at the same time.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby stefanbanev » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:08 pm

raelik wrote:After reading a bit more about Mach's principle and the Woodward effect, I'm wondering if there might be some relation between this and the role of "dark energy" in the expansion of the universe. Namely, could mass fluctuations happening at a cosmic scale between stars and possibly entire galaxies be the source of what is being called dark energy? Gravity is accelerating various celestial objects, and energy exchange in the form of charged particles is occurring on a continuous (albeit probably minimal) basis. But, taken as a whole, could this be responsible for the increased expansion of the universe that started about 7.5 billion years ago?


Apparently it might be in the ~same way as Plank' constant relates to chemistry of carbon; the specific technicalities how it relates and how to derive an useful tech from this is more relevant from my POV... It seems this development (if the effect indeed takes place) may have a quite dramatic practical consequences... anyway, once it gets to level it may have a practical $$ application the progress should be quite swift...


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests