Re: Podkletnov revisited?



Igor Khavkine wrote:
John Bell wrote:
Igor Khavkine wrote:

Except that violations, as well as non-violations, of Bell's inequalies
are consistent with relativity.

I definitely agree with you on that, but did not appreciate that this
was consistent with mainstream thinking, unless we make exotic
proposals about information travelling faster than c in extra
dimensions, or through wormholes. I would therefore appreciate your
elaboration on this.

You need nothing more than vanilla relativity. In either case,
causality is not violated, speed of light is not exceeded, and no
preferred frame is selected. There is nothing in these experiments that
shows incompatibility with relativity.

At the risk of oversimplification, I don't see how you can make this
assertion without reinterpreting the traditional meaning of QM
uncertainty. To clarify, the traditional meaning is like the
uncertainty outcome of a still spinning dice, whereas the
reinterpretation is like the outcome uncertainty of an already dealt
card before it is turned over by the player. However, this
reinterpretation simply does not work for some of the most basic
experiments at the foundations of QM. Perhaps the simplest example is
the Young's slits experiment performed with an incoherent light
source. The resultant probability distribution for photon detection
(which is demonstrated by the displayed interference pattern) confirms
that each photon travels through both slits (because the definition of
an incoherent source is that separate emitted photons do not have a
defined phase relationship). Consequently, we are forced to conclude
that the photon has a directional uncertainty analogous to the outcome
uncertainty of a still spinning dice, not a directional uncertainty
analogous to the outcome uncertainty of turning over an already dealt
card. The only way that the revisionist can get out of this problem is
by additionally hypothesising that incoherent photons mysteriously
group together temporally but not spatially into coherent packs, via an
unknown physical mechanism. That makes this additional hypothesis
highly speculative as well as ad hoc.

Further problems associated with this and related reinterpretations are
already adequately covered by rof@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

There is a third way. That is to start an experiment simply
to discover if we can find out anything new.

In my eyes this falls under the "tests of ..." category. Whenever you
find something new in experiment, you must first try to explain it
using known physics.

If you had experience in the disciplines of practical and private
sector physics research, you would know that the first things you must
do in such situations are
(A) Ensure consistent repeatability
(B) Perform an objective and careful examination of whether that
something new has potential physical and practical applications.

If the phenomenon can be explained more simply on the basis of direct
empirical observation, which then allows previously known physics to
also be explained more simply, attempting to construct a more
convoluted explanation out of material already documented in academic
tomes would, I suggest, be something of a waste of time, as any user of
Occam's razor should appreciate.

In our case we started out from the belief that classical GR was
completely reliable, and employed that knowledge for original practical
purposes (hence previously mentioned secrecy classification).
[...]

If your research is so highly classified, then it can't be meaningfully
discussed in a public forum such as s.p.r.

I don't know what you mean by "so highly classified", given that I
disclosed that State Secrecy Classification has been revoked, on April
2nd 2006. Consequently, we are now at liberty to distribute appropriate
details of our research via our websites, under any access terms we
choose. The subject can therefore already be discussed at s.p.r., to
the extent permitted by those access terms. Naturally however, such
discussions could be conducted more meaningfully at our websites,
because the contributors there will, by definition, have access to any
relevant new information under discussion at any given level.


John Bell
2nd discussion moderator at http://global.accelerators.co.uk
(Change John to Liberty to respond)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: One criticism stands out
    ... it is not compatible with relativity. ... it does not matter where the photon ... require that all of physics no longer works here on earth. ... You said observing the photon here is the same as observing a distant ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why does light do what it does?
    ... knowledge and understanding of math and physics grows things will become ... >> relativity was developed. ... >> which behave differently than electromagnetism and so it makes more ... >> why electromagnetism and the other forces end up such that the photon is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Need Help With c-Invariance
    ... The mass of a photon ... inertial rest frame, implying that c could not be the same in ALL ... in particle physics and in ... Special relativity always has been ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: The ducks backside
    ... This is the same argument that split physics a century ago. ... granularity such certainty was an illusion. ... Calculus) but for all intents and purposes uncertainty is the dominant ... If certainty is important you can apply all kinds of design ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: How to get envelope from AM signal without phase shift
    ... Once the photon is created, it is propagating in one direction away from ... the creation point with, lets assume, a possitive velocity. ... "Lets calculate the uncertainty of the velocity of a photon that ...
    (comp.dsp)