The mathematics and experimental data of QM and GR is sound and reliable. However, without a succinct and simple interpretation that unifies QM & GR, scientific and technological advancement has no where to go, which inevitably results in technological stagnation. The interpretation of the Michelson&Morley experiment was hasty and lacked wisdom. M&M only proved that the aether-medium is not a point-particle medium that the earth can travel through. But M&M failed to disprove the existence of other kinds of mediums; for example, a relativistic medium or a quantum-wave medium.

I will grant you that an aether-medium, by its very terminology, sounds metaphysical; I acknowledge that physicists don't like to deal with such open ended terminology. But there is an Occam's razor way to interpret QM and GR that simplifies everything. Allow me two assumptions.

1. An aether medium has to reproduce ALL experimental results (which seems reasonable).
2. Gravity, GR, the Standard Model (and whatever else exists) must be explainable with ONLY the aether medium interpretation.

What evidence is there that an aether medium exists at all? Answer: nature exists; that's easy to prove: punch a tree and see what happens. It takes more than a mathematical model to make particles and energy exist. Something has to transmit light and to make forces exist. Something has to transmit action-at-a-distance forces such as gravity and E&M.

An aether-medium has characteristics. First of all, it is a light bearing medium. GR and SR are derived from the observation that the speed of light is invariant for ALL observers. If the laws of motion were Galilean up to unlimited speeds, then the light (speed of light) would have no special significance. In fact, relativity should raise suspicions that some kind of medium exists; otherwise, Galilean motion would be observed.

Light is transmitted as waves of various frequencies. Coincidentally, quantum mechanics has waves (wave-functions) just as light has waves (electromagnetic energy). A quantum aether should be made out of waves.

Any takers?

The mathematics and experimental data of QM and GR is sound and reliable. However, without a succinct and simple interpretation that unifies QM & GR, scientific and technological advancement has no where to go, which inevitably results in technological stagnation.We've had quantum mechanics and GR for a century now, despite being unable to unite them properly and yet the rate of technological advancement is ever increasing!

The unification is only an issue for technology if we were trying to build machines which work in regimes where they need to be united, such as micro black hole mechanics. Even if we don't ever understand that there'll always be other directions for technology to develop.


What evidence is there that an aether medium exists at all? Answer: nature exists; that's easy to prove: punch a tree and see what happens. It takes more than a mathematical model to make particles and energy exist. Something has to transmit light and to make forces exist. Something has to transmit action-at-a-distance forces such as gravity and E&M. By that logic the argument "God exists because existence exists and existence is only possible with God" would be sound. Which it isn't. Other than trying to define aether into existence can you actually provide a replacement for mainstream models which works?

We've had quantum mechanics and GR for a century now, despite being unable to unite them properly and yet the rate of technological advancement is ever increasing!

The unification is only an issue for technology if we were trying to build machines which work in regimes where they need to be united, such as micro black hole mechanics. Even if we don't ever understand that there'll always be other directions for technology to develop.

By that logic the argument "God exists because existence exists and existence is only possible with God" would be sound. Which it isn't. Other than trying to define aether into existence can you actually provide a replacement for mainstream models which works?

I don't want to talk about God or metaphysics. I want to talk about the building blocks of space and time. Speed of light is the same for photon emitters and detectors (observers) alike. It looks like the building blocks of space-time are a set of waves between emitter and observer, which can produce both photon/light/E&M transmission AND time dilation/length contraction effects.

I work on some of the fastest/most accurate oscilloscopes in the world. Intel will buy some of them to make the fastest IC chips in the world. Moore's law will apply until the challenges of quantum mechanics become technically insurmountable. What I'm trying to get to is gravitational redshift can be duplicated with opto-electronics in a way that reproduces a gravity field. That is my idea of technological advancement.

My interpretation of the aether-medium is that it MUST reproduce quantum mechanics, GR, and Maxwell's equations (light/virtual photons/etc). So I say, let the building blocks look like quantum waves (wave amplitudes) with length contraction/time dilation properties. Let these waves interconnect with all quantum systems, all particles. Let the wave amplitudes be waves of the aether medium. So excitations of the aether-medium look like photons, light even virtual particles. Particles, which are described as quantum systems, are kinks in the aether-medium with some amount of trapped energy (rest mass). In a particle-anti-particle annihilation event, the kink and anti-kink cancel out, and release waves in the aether-medium (called gamma rays or photons).

Important point. Using this interpretation, all the experimental work that physicists have done, to date, remains. This interpretation adds value. It allows you to think up experiments to test it. Without this interpretation of a QM/relativistic aether medium, there is no reason to think up any possible experiments.

One experiment: the gravitational blueshift of a photon as it falls along the radii into a black hole can be decomposed into a Fourier series. You can reproduce that Fourier series, with many different frequencies of light to try to get back the gravity field that caused it.

Potentially, you can have the benefits of gravity field generators now. Or you can have the benefits in a thousand years. Questions?

I work on some of the fastest/most accurate oscilloscopes in the world. Intel will buy some of them to make the fastest IC chips in the world. Moore's law will apply until the challenges of quantum mechanics become technically insurmountable. To be able to make such things you'd have to be an expert in quantum mechanics already and access to some serious lab equipment, as well as having considerable research to your name. Do you? It's just such people rarely then put forth the sort of arm waving you are, they realise the vital importance of being clear and precise when it comes to such things.


What I'm trying to get to is gravitational redshift can be duplicated with opto-electronics in a way that reproduces a gravity field. That is my idea of technological advancement.Unless you have a reason to think you can do that, either a working model of related phenomena you've come up with and which suggests you can make gravitational fields or you have experimental justification. Do you? If you don't then you're essentially stabbing in the dark.


My interpretation of the aether-medium is that it MUST reproduce quantum mechanics, GR, and Maxwell's equations (light/virtual photons/etc).Simply saying that doesn't make your notions true. Have you any models? Presently you're just asserting that some hypothetical model you haven't provided can do anything you require of it.


So I say, let the building blocks look like quantum waves (wave amplitudes) with length contraction/time dilation properties. Let these waves interconnect with all quantum systems, all particles. Let the wave amplitudes be waves of the aether medium. So excitations of the aether-medium look like photons, light even virtual particles. Particles, which are described as quantum systems, are kinks in the aether-medium with some amount of trapped energy (rest mass). In a particle-anti-particle annihilation event, the kink and anti-kink cancel out, and release waves in the aether-medium (called gamma rays or photons).Beyond wishful thinking and assumption piles on a mound of assumption do you have anything to actually say?


One experiment: the gravitational blueshift of a photon as it falls along the radii into a black hole can be decomposed into a Fourier series. You can reproduce that Fourier series, with many different frequencies of light to try to get back the gravity field that caused it.That's like saying that because I can pick up a brick, in counter to gravity, then I have antigravity. You're claiming that using a laser to modify the behaviour of light then you'll be altering the gravitational field.

Firstly that obviously isn't a certainty or even justified. Secondly your approach is flawed. Fourier series indeed add together waves to form any sort of function one can want (given certain restrictions about continuity and differentiability) but light doesn't work like that. If you have a photon of some particular frequency and fire another one at it (ie you time it so they will meet) they don't add in the manner of a Fourier series. Photons don't interact with one another except in highly rare loop processes (the U(1) gauge field is non-self interacting) and even then they don't combine as a sum, as in a Fourier series. Besides, you don't control the amplitude of a photon, the energy determines the frequency. Of course if you view the EM field classically then you can consider linear superpositions to make complex wave forms but that is only an effective theory for the underlying particle interactions. This is something I'd have thought someone well versed in transistor technology would know, because transistors require good quantum mechanics understanding to design, as they rely on quantum level processes.

You're right, a Fourier series is not the right way to reproduce a gravitational frequency shift. Nevertheless, you would have to generate a frequency shift of the form: f(t) = [df/dt]t + f_0, to get back a gravity field.

You may call it: "a stab in the dark", I call it: "solve the puzzle". Galilean motion doesn't work at high velocities, so relativity had to be invented. But relativity is about what happens when particles approach the speed of light. Likewise, the simplest wave function that can be derived from the Schrodinger equation is: Psi = e^{i*omega*t}, which is a plane wave of light.

I wish you could see what I see. I wish I could articulate it better. Many have tried to find a connection between quantum mechanics & relativity. Some theorists thought the connection was string theory, but string theory is untestable. But the answer is much simpler than that. The answer to "the puzzle" is light. Photons.

If light is what connects QM to GR, then what does light have to do with gravity? Answer: frequency shift. If you generate a frequency shift similar to the equation above, you should get back gravity.

Once again, I am sorry that I can't articulate it any better. I am sorry that you don't see the connection between frequency shift and gravity. Yes, I admit that I have made more than a few assumptions. But I stand by my convictions that this is how you create a gravity drive propulsion system.

As I recall, you claimed on physforum that god had told you how to create a 'gravity drive'. You also stated that the alien's knew but wouldn't reveal their knowledge.

You're right, a Fourier series is not the right way to reproduce a gravitational frequency shift. Nevertheless, you would have to generate a frequency shift of the form: f(t) = [df/dt]t + f_0, to get back a gravity field.Firstly, what makes you think that formula is valid? Where did you get it? Secondly how does altering a photon generate a gravitational field?

The fact two different phemomena can produce similar changes in a photon doesn't mean one produces the other. The equivalence principle in GR says you cannot tell the difference between the accelerating effect a rocket has on an astronaut in deep space and the accelerating effect a gravitational field has on another astronaut. If you're in a window-less rocket and experiencing 9.8m/s^2 you cannot tell whether the rocket is stationary on the launch pad or you're in deep space firing the thrusters at a particular level. In the latter case there's no gravitational field but there's no way for the astronaut to tell the difference.


You may call it: "a stab in the dark", I call it: "solve the puzzle". Galilean motion doesn't work at high velocities, so relativity had to be invented.Actually no one had any evidence against high velocity Galilean transforms when Fitzgerald transforms, Lorentz transforms, Poincare transforms and SR were developed. They were, however, all motivated by things like electromagnetism, which does have Lorentz symmetry within it. This was their motivation and guide. You, on the other hand, don't have anything. Hence you're just picking something at random, something you find intellectually appealing, rather than objectively justified.


But relativity is about what happens when particles approach the speed of light.Actually it's about everything, it just happens to only be really obvious, when compared to Galilean transforms, at high speeds.


Likewise, the simplest wave function that can be derived from the Schrodinger equation is: Psi = e^{i*omega*t}, which is a plane wave of light. Actually you'd need to include a spatial component in there in order to get a moving wave, ie \psi = \psi(x-ct,x+ct).


I wish you could see what I see. I wish I could articulate it better.I've asked you to provide some equations, but you seem unable to do so. If you haven't got anything concrete then I don't need to see what you see, as you see nothing.


Many have tried to find a connection between quantum mechanics & relativity. Some theorists thought the connection was string theory, but string theory is untestable. No, it's predictions can be tested in a few instances. For example, it predicts the behaviour of gravity, giving the Einstein field equations plus string corrections. If gravity didn't behave like GR says it does on large scales then string theory would be falsified.


But the answer is much simpler than that. The answer to "the puzzle" is light. Photons.I really hope you can expand on that because if you think that counts as somehow an answer to the problem of modelling quantum gravity processes you're extremely naive about physics and the requirements models must meet.


If light is what connects QM to GR, then what does light have to do with gravity? Answer: frequency shift. If you generate a frequency shift similar to the equation above, you should get back gravity.No, you don't.

Consider 2 objects in space, each with an identical laser, a camera and some thrusters. Each shines the laser at the other. Each knows the frequency of the laser light which it leaving it's emitter. If they are stationary with respect to one another they will see the light from the other as having the same frequency as their laser's light. If they fire their thrusts for a few seconds to move away from one another, along their line of sight, then they will see a frequency shift and that shift will remain even after they turn their thrusters off. No gravity is in existence or even any accelerating forces once they turn the thrusters off. The relative motion induces a Doppler shift.


Once again, I am sorry that I can't articulate it any better. I am sorry that you don't see the connection between frequency shift and gravity. I know that there can be a connection but it isn't always there. Frequency shifts can occur when gravitational fields are involved but they can also occur when they aren't. This isn't some lack of knowledge or understanding on my part, it's an obvious and demonstrable fact.


But I stand by my convictions that this is how you create a gravity drive propulsion system.And I stand by my convictions that invisible elves sneak into my room at night and steal my dreams, use my toothbrush and paint my walls with invisible pink paint.

It's easy to assert vapid and false things. What if I were to say that the answer isn't photons but neutrinos? That photon frequency shifts are neutrino flavour oscillations? Thus far I've presented just as rational and justified argument as you have.

And is Alex correct, did you say those things? If you did then I can now see why you think your 'answer' of 'It's light' is somehow viable, you have absolutely no comprehension of what a rational, evidence based argument is. I suggest you get a firm grip on reality before trying to tell people how it works.

AlphaNumeric,
You asked where I got the equation: f(t) = [df/dt]t + f_0. The is a frequency shift equation. It is an equation for a line, Y = mx + b, where Y = f(t), m = df/dt and b = f_0. This is the electromagnetic frequency shift that you have to generate for a gravity drive experiment.

I know what a linear equation is, I have some experience with maths. My point, which I've said numerous times and which you still don't get, is that you haven't shown a derivation of that. Why would a photon frequency linear in time be needed for a gravity drive? Why isn't it f(t) = f_{0} + f_{1}t - f_{2}\sin \omega t + \ln(\sqrt{t^{2}+1})? You've just pulling equations out of your backside without any justification. Throwing out an equation so basic 14 year olds can understand might seem elaborate to you but physicists and mathematicians expect a bit more than remedial maths assertions.

Besides, why does it have anything to do with gravity? I've already explained to you how a photon can shift in frequency and gravity have nothing to do with it.

I know what a linear equation is, I have some experience with maths. My point, which I've said numerous times and which you still don't get, is that you haven't shown a derivation of that. Why would a photon frequency linear in time be needed for a gravity drive? Why isn't it f(t) = f_{0} + f_{1}t - f_{2}\sin \omega t + \ln(\sqrt{t^{2}+1})? You've just pulling equations out of your backside without any justification. Throwing out an equation so basic 14 year olds can understand might seem elaborate to you but physicists and mathematicians expect a bit more than remedial maths assertions.

Besides, why does it have anything to do with gravity? I've already explained to you how a photon can shift in frequency and gravity have nothing to do with it.

From wiki, the Einstein Equivalence Principle,

In the physics of general relativity, the equivalence principle is any of several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
The equivalence principle tells us that the mechanism for gravity is the same as the mechanism for the pseud force of an accelerated frame. The wave functions that create the geometry of space-time are also the same wave functions that create the difference in velocity between two inertial reference frames. Between two inertial frames with different velocities, there are wave-functions between them that cause light to frequency shift. So I ask, if I emit that linear frequency shift that I told you about, can I energize/activate those same wave-functions, along with the gravity (and/or acceleration field) that comes with it. I only expect to be able to recover a tiny fraction (0.000000001) of the gravity/acceleration through frequency shift because we cannot duplicate the wave-function perfectly. Doppler shift is caused by both gravity (acceleration) and difference in velocity. A generated frequency shift should recover a small fraction of both acceleration and velocity. Do you understand now? The whole point of this exercise is to determine if this could lead to a opto-electronic acceleration field generators. The linear equation that I used is a starting point, a way to test proof of concept. If it works, then the linear frequency shift equation will inevitably have other frequency shift terms that make the field the field stronger. It will also have to include geometry in the designs as well.

I'm sorry I have to go finish cleaning the apartment I'm moving out of. I have to move a heavy desk. Want to come along and help?:D

There are articles that prove that wave-functions are real.

And I will show you those links as soon as I have posted 20 times.

And I hate to have to post one sentence comments.

And I apologize to the moderator for reaching 20 posts one sentence at a time.

But I do have links that show that wave-functions are being measured by physicists.

And if wave -functions are a real phenomena of nature, then new breakthroughs can be made in physics.

The honest answer you should have given is "No, I cannot justify what I said.". Your replies are nothing but attempts at smoke screens to avoid admitting that,

The honest answer you should have given is "No, I cannot justify what I said.". Your replies are nothing but attempts at smoke screens to avoid admitting that,

These are the two articles I found that support the opinion that wave-functions exist as a natural phenomena.

[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf
[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3575v1.pdf

There are articles that prove that wave-functions are real.

So all we need are articles to prove things are real? Think how much money will be saved since we don't need to run anymore experiments. We can just write an article.

I doubt he read either article. I suspect he simply looked at the titles.

What are you talking about? I would like to see more research into the question of whether or not wave-functions are real. Would you?

The wave functions that create the geometry of space-time are also the same wave functions that create the difference in velocity between two inertial reference frames. General relativity is a non-quantum construct, so you cannot use it to make statements about quantum phenomena. It's like using Newtonian mechanics to make claims about relativity, it's not going to be fully right.


So I ask, if I emit that linear frequency shift that I told you about, can I energize/activate those same wave-functions, along with the gravity (and/or acceleration field) that comes with it. You haven't justified anything like that. Firstly, you still haven't been able to justify that changing frequency means creating a gravity field, that is not supported by any mainstream theory or experiment. Secondly, you haven't justify the formula you give. Frequency changes in relativity are not necessarily linear. For example the change in frequency of a photon moving in to or out of a gravity well is a non-linear function of height.


Doppler shift is caused by both gravity (acceleration) and difference in velocity. A generated frequency shift should recover a small fraction of both acceleration and velocity. Do you understand now? The problem is I understand too much, I actually understand what relativity has to say about photon frequency shifts and time dilation, such as that experienced by the GPS network. Compare that to you, who obviously haven't ever actually done any physics. Have you ever actually done any quantum mechanics, worked with wave functions?

In your other thread you said "Looking that up on Wikipedia..." and basically admitted you don't know any of this stuff on a working level, you're just trying to make sense of pages on Wikipedia which you don't understand. You ignored all my comments about that, so clearly you have realised you don't have any real understanding but you're unwilling to admit it.


The whole point of this exercise is to determine if this could lead to a opto-electronic acceleration field generators. The linear equation that I used is a starting point, a way to test proof of concept. If it works, then the linear frequency shift equation will inevitably have other frequency shift terms that make the field the field stronger. It will also have to include geometry in the designs as well. You're clutching at straws. The behaviour of photons in general relativity is actually quite complicated, you have to compute null geodesics in the geometry. But since you obviously don't know any mathematical physics you can only grasp at linear equations, everything else is beyond you.


I'm sorry I have to go finish cleaning the apartment I'm moving out of. I have to move a heavy desk. Want to come along and help?:DSorry, I have real physics to do.

I doubt he read either article. I suspect he simply looked at the titles.

You mean the papers rpenner linked for Mazulu? The ones Mazulu found in the post by rpenner.?

General relativity is a non-quantum construct, so you cannot use it to make statements about quantum phenomena. It's like using Newtonian mechanics to make claims about relativity, it's not going to be fully right.

You haven't justified anything like that. Firstly, you still haven't been able to justify that changing frequency means creating a gravity field, that is not supported by any mainstream theory or experiment. Secondly, you haven't justify the formula you give. Frequency changes in relativity are not necessarily linear. For example the change in frequency of a photon moving in to or out of a gravity well is a non-linear function of height.

The problem is I understand too much, I actually understand what relativity has to say about photon frequency shifts and time dilation, such as that experienced by the GPS network. Compare that to you, who obviously haven't ever actually done any physics. Have you ever actually done any quantum mechanics, worked with wave functions?

In your other thread you said "Looking that up on Wikipedia..." and basically admitted you don't know any of this stuff on a working level, you're just trying to make sense of pages on Wikipedia which you don't understand. You ignored all my comments about that, so clearly you have realised you don't have any real understanding but you're unwilling to admit it.

You're clutching at straws. The behaviour of photons in general relativity is actually quite complicated, you have to compute null geodesics in the geometry. But since you obviously don't know any mathematical physics you can only grasp at linear equations, everything else is beyond you.

Sorry, I have real physics to do.

You understand too much about frequency shift? When the physics community abandoned ALL aether mediums because the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved motion through a point-particle medium, the physics community made a mistake. There is an aether medium; it is extremely strange, but it exists as a naturally occurring phenomena. Some people think that math causes nature to behave the way it does. But the math is just an accounting system to keep track of how nature behaves when certain experiments are performed.

Yes I know all about FM radio. So why don't FM transmitters make wormholes? When light frequency shifts, it transitions from one reference frame to the next to the next. The very vibrations of that photon are interlaced with the medium of space-time.

The formula I gave you: f(t)= [df/dt]t + f_0, is the frequency shift that you have to generate, as quickly and accurately as you can, with as large a df/dt as you can, in order to create a frame shift, or frame slide, in front of your emitters. The phase, from one frequency to the next, has to be as unbroken as possible. This experiment has never been done. If you think it has, then I recommend a smooth frequency shift from 400 to 800THz, every microsecond. There is no tunable laser in the world that can achieve this kind of performance. You will probably have to do it in frequency steps. The better the performance of your frequency shift experiment, the stronger your gravity field will be.

I have a BS in physics, a BS in electronics, and I have taken some graduate level classes in electrical engineering, semiconductor physics. So how do I know that this experiment will induce a measurable gravity field? I don't know for sure without performing the experiment.

Do with this information what you will.

Mazulu believes that if he can make colored lights blink fast enough, he can trick the universe into accepting that the frequency is changing.

Mazulu believes that if he can make colored lights blink fast enough, he can trick the universe into accepting that the frequency is changing.

Why not? I can synthesize a perfectly good sine wave using a digital to analog converter. Why can't I synthesize a frequency shift using a range of frequencies? Then we can perform an experiment to see if gravity fields are coupled to frequency shifts.

You understand too much about frequency shift? I understand too much physics to be taken in by the completely vapid and nonsense postings you have made. I understand too much physics to be blinded by buzzwords and technical terminology, because I work with that technical stuff everyday. You might sucker others in by throwing out lots of big words but it doesn't work with me.


When the physics community abandoned ALL aether mediums because the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved motion through a point-particle medium, the physics community made a mistake. There is an aether medium; it is extremely strange, but it exists as a naturally occurring phenomena.There are occasional ideas about aether but none of them get even close to matching current ideas in terms of descriptive ability. Aether always seems to address one specific phenomenon and fails in regards to everything else. The crank community always try to resurrect it because they struggle to accept that light behaves in a way counter to their extremely ignorant intuition. Intuition is short for "I expect this new thing to behave like old things". It might have served humans well 50,000 years ago scratching a living out in the middle of Africa but it doesn't work well when you're exploring far flung corners of physics.


Some people think that math causes nature to behave the way it does. But the math is just an accounting system to keep track of how nature behaves when certain experiments are performed. Who says that? I'm a mathematical physicist in the research community and I don't know anyone who thinks that. Maths is an abstract logical construct independent of reality. Physicists attempt to make associations between structures within that artificial construct and phenomena observed in the universe but maths no more causes nature to have as it does than English causes reality to behave as it does.


Yes I know all about FM radio. So why don't FM transmitters make wormholes? When light frequency shifts, it transitions from one reference frame to the next to the next. The very vibrations of that photon are interlaced with the medium of space-time. I seriously doubt you know all about radio, particularly the associated electromagnetic models.


The formula I gave you: f(t)= [df/dt]t + f_0, is the frequency shift that you have to generate, as quickly and accurately as you can, with as large a df/dt as you can, in order to create a frame shift, or frame slide, in front of your emitters. You still don't get it, do you? You haven't provided a single nano-iota of justification for that formula or anything you're claiming in regards to it. You're just making stuff up without any evidence.


The better the performance of your frequency shift experiment, the stronger your gravity field will be.You have no evidence for that.


I have a BS in physics, a BS in electronics, and I have taken some graduate level classes in electrical engineering, semiconductor physics.Really? I find that extremely hard to believe given your complete dereliction of the scientific method in your posts. You haven't shown you understand anything about the need for evidence, derivations, justification, sound arguments, experiments etc. You don't even know the level of detail in the models required. Someone with a BSc in physics I'd expect to know a bit more details. I've taught 1st year physics undergrads more maths than you've displayed!


So how do I know that this experiment will induce a measurable gravity field? I don't know for sure without performing the experiment. You don't know at all.


Do with this information what you will.I'll file it under "BS" and I'm not referring to your supposed physics degree.

A minor opinion; and speaking from experience...:
A Bachelors in Physics is respectable. It can get a person a nice job, but not at a University, not conducting research in Relativity or QM.

A B.S. says one basic thing: "I am capable of learning."
It does not say, "I've learned what I need to know."

This is why many pursue their Masters and The PHD. To show, "I can learn more!" and get those jobs working with Relativity and QM so that they can finally, after years of education- buckle down to the task with appropriate tools to LEARN about physics.

A minor opinion; and speaking from experience...:
A Bachelors in Physics is respectable. It can get a person a nice job, but not at a University, not conducting research in Relativity or QM.Even a PhD doesn't make that certain. I could go on an enormous rant about the number of maths and physics PhDs I see during employment interviews which are useless at undergrad stuff which doesn't relate to their thesis area. It's a real problem and says something about the way science is taught (and that's not just about here in the UK, it includes examples from all over Europe and the US).


A B.S. says one basic thing: "I am capable of learning."
It does not say, "I've learned what I need to know."

This is why many pursue their Masters and The PHD. To show, "I can learn more!" and get those jobs working with Relativity and QM so that they can finally, after years of education- buckle down to the task with appropriate tools to LEARN about physics.Definitely. I didn't really get my act together in terms of really being a motivated and competent mathematician until I was perhaps 2 years into my PhD! If I hadn't carried on in mathematical physics past Masters level I'd be a much less competent mathematician, even allowing for the obvious difference in how much information I'd gathered. I started to get competent when I stopped viewing the learning as "Someone puts the relevant information in front of me and I consume it" to "I want to find out about and understand this, so I'm going to go and look at it". Rather than reading other people's derivations or ideas once I got the basics from a book I try to see what I can do with it myself, before looking at other people's results. It might result in a reinvention of the wheel a few times but it helps so much in understanding. Just a shame it took that long for me to get into the right frame of mind :rolleyes:

But even so, someone doing a physics degree will see the role mathematics and formalisation takes in physics. The complete dearth of it from the original poster's posts suggests he either didn't understand that when he did his degree or never did it in the first place.

You understand too much about frequency shift? When the physics community abandoned ALL aether mediums because the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved motion through a point-particle medium, the physics community made a mistake. There is an aether medium; it is extremely strange, but it exists as a naturally occurring phenomena. Some people think that math causes nature to behave the way it does. But the math is just an accounting system to keep track of how nature behaves when certain experiments are performed.

Yes I know all about FM radio. So why don't FM transmitters make wormholes? When light frequency shifts, it transitions from one reference frame to the next to the next. The very vibrations of that photon are interlaced with the medium of space-time.

The formula I gave you: f(t)= [df/dt]t + f_0, is the frequency shift that you have to generate, as quickly and accurately as you can, with as large a df/dt as you can, in order to create a frame shift, or frame slide, in front of your emitters. The phase, from one frequency to the next, has to be as unbroken as possible. This experiment has never been done. If you think it has, then I recommend a smooth frequency shift from 400 to 800THz, every microsecond. There is no tunable laser in the world that can achieve this kind of performance. You will probably have to do it in frequency steps. The better the performance of your frequency shift experiment, the stronger your gravity field will be.

I have a BS in physics, a BS in electronics, and I have taken some graduate level classes in electrical engineering, semiconductor physics. So how do I know that this experiment will induce a measurable gravity field? I don't know for sure without performing the experiment.

Do with this information what you will.

You are whacked. After two years of incessant nonsense now you tell these folks you have a BS in physics and electrical engineering. You have a BS in BS. You work on an electrical assembly line. That's what you said last year at physforum.

There is an Einstein aether theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory



In physics the Einstein æther theory, also called æ-theory, is a controversial generally covariant generalization of general relativity which describes a spacetime endowed with both a metric and a unit timelike vector field named the æther. In particular such theory has a preferred reference frame and so is not Lorentz invariant.


I don't fully understand what you mean by there being a connection between frequency shift and gravity but there is the interesting idea of "graviphotons", yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviphoton



In gravity theories with extended supersymmetry (extended supergravities), a graviphoton is normally a superpartner of the graviton that behaves like a photon, and is prone to couple with gravitational strength, as was appreciated in the late 1970s. Unlike the graviton, however, it may provide a repulsive (as well as an attractive) force, and thus, in some technical sense, a type of anti-gravity. Under special circumstances, then, in several natural models, often descending from five-dimensional theories mentioned, it may actually cancel the gravitational attraction in the static limit. Joël Scherk investigated semirealistic aspects of this phenomenon, thereby opening up an ongoing search for physical manifestations of the mechanism.

There is an Einstein aether theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory


The Einstein aether theory, was and is not Einstein's baby. It is a name given to an attempt to resurrect the aether with an air of credibility.

There are and continue to be explorations of an ether like relationship between space and matter. The credible attempts are likely the result of remaining inconsistencies in GR and QM and a fundamental tendency to want to find some way to explain matter energy-relationships in a manner consistent with classical experience.

There are some better references to ether interpretations of both GR and Newtonian gravity than WiKi. However, this is getting away from the subject currently under discussion.

Note: Einstein did liken spacetime to the ether of GR in his Leyden address, but one must keep in mind, at the time he was speaking to an audience whose education had been heavily influenced by an understanding of reality, that included the luminiferous aether. You speak to an audience in a language and with analogy they can understand or you speak to yourself.

Definitely. I didn't really get my act together in terms of really being a motivated and competent mathematician until I was perhaps 2 years into my PhD! If I hadn't carried on in mathematical physics past Masters level I'd be a much less competent mathematician, even allowing for the obvious difference in how much information I'd gathered. I started to get competent when I stopped viewing the learning as "Someone puts the relevant information in front of me and I consume it" to "I want to find out about and understand this, so I'm going to go and look at it". Rather than reading other people's derivations or ideas once I got the basics from a book I try to see what I can do with it myself, before looking at other people's results. It might result in a reinvention of the wheel a few times but it helps so much in understanding. Just a shame it took that long for me to get into the right frame of mind :rolleyes:
Speaking of people putting the work in front of you... the past year, the trouble I had is in getting proper guidance.
My instructor was primarily absent and questioning his absence and offering to contact the administration to resolve his unresponsiveness got you a better grade in the course. I'm sure you can figure out how that worked. So, I got an "A." I neither earned it nor deserved it and it really messed me up badly going into the next set ignorant of what I should have learned and understood from the previous year. Side note- I contacted the administration, anyway. And yes, they were emphatic in looking into it.
I have a better instructor now and hell... Yes I know what you mean about it finally clicking in place when you realize that if you understand the fundamentals, you can build the mathematics without 'memorizing.'
Having said that... I do not post on the math - my knowledge is pathetically weak. But I am trying to learn... I fear it always will be my weakest point, in spite of a love for it.

This is true.

Many lecturers today teach but they don't teach about the work in great detail. They might spew equations without explaining them in the proper rigor they require.
Or... as I lament above^ Claim excuses about how the proper coursework had a glitch and he must assume full credit for work he's seen from me so far (Even gave me 100% on one assignment I never handed in!)

Then again, I don't post what little I know on here for fear of looking like you. Worse, probably.
I stick to just words.

The Einstein aether theory, was and is not Einstein's baby. It is a name given to an attempt to resurrect the aether with an air of credibility.

There are and continue to be explorations of an ether like relationship between space and matter. The credible attempts are likely the result of remaining inconsistencies in GR and QM and a fundamental tendency to want to find some way to explain matter energy-relationships in a manner consistent with classical experience.

There are some better references to ether interpretations of both GR and Newtonian gravity than WiKi. However, this is getting away from the subject currently under discussion.
At the very least, it does provide some insight into why aether is a concern at all.
Unlike Tesla's claim, <cough> space is not "nothing." Space is something and we do not yet know what it is. Personally, I believe the answer lies in research in the Quantum world and not the macro world.

I would like to see more research into the question of whether or not wave-functions are real.

What we call the aether is possibly related to the wave-function of the universe, in that finite branching natural number occurrences emerge from a continuum of real number possibilities. Once a theory can establish a causal connection between the parallel worlds, the theory should in principle, be testable.

Hypothetically speaking, atoms exist in multiple parallels simultaneously. Indeed, the double slit experiment even displays wave particle duality for some types of macromolecules.

The larger a particle, the smaller its DeBroglie wavelength. So bigger macroscopic beings perceive themselves as existing in one universe, while individual micro-particles can exists in multiple realities simultaneously.

Objects as large as dust-specks can briefly display wave particle duality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation_of_Quantum_Theory#Physical_ consequences



Penrose speculates that the transition between macroscopic and quantum states begins at the scale of dust particles (the mass of which is close to a planck mass). Dust particles could exist in more than one location for as long as one second, a time that is easily measurable with standard equipment.


While Penrose does not advocate the MWI[many worlds interpretation], if a dustpeck can disappear for up to a second it could be jumping to alternate realities during those brief moments, if, MWI is true.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/40723



We physicists believe, for example, that there is really a multiverse that exists even inside our living room. We are waves, vibrating waves given by the wave-function, and these waves vibrate and then split apart with time.

Steve Weinberg, winner of the Nobel Prize, compares it to the following. Think of radio. If you’re inside your living room listening to BBC radio, that radio is tuned to one frequency. But in your living room there are all frequencies - radio Cuba, radio Moscow, the Top 40 rock stations. All these radio frequencies are vibrating inside your living room, but your radio is only tuned to one frequency.

Now, in other words when two universes are in phase, they are coherent and you can move back and forth. But as time starts to evolve, these two universes decouple. They start to vibrate at different frequencies. They can no longer interfere with each other. So why is it that your radio cannot listen to Radio Moscow? Why isn’t it possible for your radio to listen to all frequencies? Because your radio is decohered. It is no longer vibrating in unison with these other frequencies.

And the same thing in quantum physics. We consist of atoms. Our atoms vibrate, but they no longer vibrate in unison with these other universes. We have decoupled from them, we have decohered from them. So in other words, deja vu is probably simply a fragment of our brain eliciting memories and fragments of previous situations. However, in quantum physics, there really are in some sense parallel universes surrounding us, the problem is, we can’t enter them because we have decohered from them. We’re no longer vibrating in unison with them. Sorry about that.


Many worlds interpretation appears to have overwhelming evidence in its favor...

http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_manyworlds/



Reading through the referenced posts will give you a very basic introduction to quantum mechanics - algebra is involved, but no calculus - by which you may nonetheless gain an understanding sufficient to see, and not just be told, that the modern case for many-worlds has become overwhelming. Not just plausible, not just strong, but overwhelming. Single-world versions of quantum mechanics just don't work, and all the legendary confusingness and mysteriousness of quantum mechanics stems from this essential fact.


General relativity and quantum mechanics might require more dimensions to be unified...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0801




...

What we call the aether is possibly related to the wave-function of the universe, in that finite branching natural number occurrences emerge from a continuum of real number possibilities. Once a theory can establish a causal connection between the parallel worlds, the theory should in principle, be testable.

Hypothetically speaking, atoms exist in multiple parallels simultaneously. Indeed, the double slit experiment even displays wave particle duality for some types of macromolecules.

The larger a particle, the smaller its DeBroglie wavelength. So bigger macroscopic beings perceive themselves as existing in one universe, while individual micro-particles can exists in multiple realities simultaneously.

Objects as large as dust-specks can briefly display wave particle duality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation_of_Quantum_Theory#Physical_ consequences

While Penrose does not advocate the MWI[many worlds interpretation], if a dustpeck can disappear for up to a second it could be jumping to alternate realities during those brief moments, if, MWI is true.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/40723

Many worlds interpretation appears to have overwhelming evidence in its favor...

http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_manyworlds/

General relativity and quantum mechanics might require more dimensions to be unified...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0801
...

Khan,
The many worlds interpretation has big problem. First, every time the universe splits in two, you have two universes, each with an energy content of "a big bang". Each of these universe exerts gravity. You would have two earths exerting gravity (or millions of earths exerting gravity). The model violates conservation of energy in absurd ways.

Khan,
The many worlds interpretation has big problem. First, every time the universe splits in two, you have two universes, each with an energy content of "a big bang". Each of these universe exerts gravity. You would have two earths exerting gravity (or millions of earths exerting gravity). The model violates conservation of energy in absurd ways.

Branching universes do not violate conservation of energy if the total energy of the universe is zero.

http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html



Stephen Hawking says:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.

"It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."

Branching universes do not violate conservation of energy if the total energy of the universe is zero.

:eek:Nice try.:D
If you want to sneak in a very light weight parallel universe, I guess we could do that. But if you want to an unlimited number of earth masses to coexist in some hyper-dimensional configuration, I'm going to ask you to round up all your parallel dimension doubles and show up for testing.


While Penrose does not advocate the MWI[many worlds interpretation], if a dustpeck can disappear for up to a second it could be jumping to alternate realities during those brief moments, if, MWI is true.
The only place dust ever disappears to is ... my vacuum cleaner.


I don't fully understand what you mean by there being a connection between frequency shift and gravity but there is the interesting idea of "graviphotons", yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviphoton
I'm thinking of gravitational redshift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

I am an electronics technician and I test and trouble shoot circuit boards on equipment like this. http://www.tek.com/oscilloscope/dpo70000-dsa70000-mso70000 It is very commonplace for this kind of equipment to synthesize sine waves (or any wave) by converting digital (data at a memory address) into an analog signal using DAC's (digital to analog converters). What I am proposing is to generate a frequency shift by creating it out of many different optical frequencies.

Think of the equation of a line. I want to generate a linear frequency shift of the form, f(t) = [df/dt]t+ f_0. I want to generate a frequency shift from 400 to 800THz, inside of a microsecond, repeatedly. Why? Look at Doppler redshift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_redshift Light frequency shifts due to Cosmological redshift (expansion of space), gravitational redshift (acceleration fields), and relativistic Doppler shifts (a change in velocity from one frame to another). Light frequency shifts when it travels from one frame to another (frames traveling at different velocities), it frequencies when it traverses an acceleration field (the radii of a black hole, e.g.), and when the space between galaxies is increasing (Cosmological redshift). There is an equation that ties together displacement, velocity and acceleration. It is the equation for displacement as a function of time. x-x_0 = v_0 t + a t^2.

Frequency shift typically occurs as a response to these three things (increasing displacement, transition between inertial frames, and traversing acceleration fields). But nobody has ever tried to generate a frequency shift to see if it can induce an acceleration field, a change in velocity of an inertial frame or increase the distance between two objects.

I gotta get ready for work.

Warp drive and gravity drive systems from an alien spacecraft have never been tested at a university physics department, therefore, alien spacecrafts do not exist.

The whole point of synthesizing and emitting a frequency shift is to see if it can warp space-time, induce a gravitational potential energy, create an acceleration field. It is not as easy as you might think. Some scientist might come along and generate a poor quality frequency shift, and it won't work. Then, the physics community will scoff: SEE! IT DOESN'T WORK!!! It's all about QUALITY.

By the way, I chose to make space out of wave-functions so that I could use light to energize the wave-functions that already exist.

But nobody has ever tried to generate a frequency shift to see if it can induce an acceleration field, a change in velocity of an inertial frame or increase the distance between two objects.



Ronald Mallett abandoned the idea of using light to warp space-time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett#Time_machine_project



For the strong gravitational field of a circulating cylinder of light, I have found new exact solutions of the Einstein field equations for the exterior and interior gravitational fields of the light cylinder. The exterior gravitational field is shown to contain closed timelike lines. The presence of closed timelike lines indicates the possibility of time travel into the past. This creates the foundation for a time machine based on a circulating cylinder of light.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett#Objections



Later, Mallett abandoned the idea of using slowed light to reduce the energy, writing that, "For a time, I considered the possibility that slowing down light might increase the gravitational frame dragging effect of the ring laser ... Slow light, however, turned out not to be helpful for my research."

Ronald Mallett abandoned the idea of using light to warp space-time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett#Time_machine_project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett#Objections
I have to applaud Ronald Mallett for trying to build a time machine via simulated frame dragging. It was certainly worth a shot. Personally, I don't see how a time machine is possible because it potentially violates causality. Do you know if Mallett used atomic clocks inside/outside his apparatus? Do you know if he measured the acceleration of gravity when his machine was on versus when it was off? One might hope to induce some gravitational time dilation which doesn't create any causality violations. I'm not well versed in frame dragging, so I don't know if ring lasers can induce time dilation.

In contrast, the idea of emitting frequency shift is intended to induce some time dilation. For a frequency shift from 400THz to 800THz every microsecond, the maximum amount of time dilation across a distance of one light microsecond, 300meters, would be T_d = 2. If time dilation is induced, then a gravity field should follow. As an example,

In an accelerated box, the equation with respect to an arbitrary base observer is T_d = e^{gh/c^2}, where
T_d is the total time dilation at a distant position,
g is the acceleration of the box as measured by the base observer, and
h is the "vertical" distance between the observers.

When gh is much smaller than c^2, the linear "weak field" approximation T_d = 1 + gh/c^2 may also be used.
Using the weak field approximation, T_d = 2 = 1+gh/c^2. If h = 300 meters, the length of one microsecond of frequency shift, then g = c^2/h = 9x10^16/300m= 3x10^14m/s^2.

I didn't expect to have to use the strong field calculation. The point I was trying to make was that if a time dilation occurs, then a gravity field, g will occur too. Time dilation fields lead to gravity fields, not time travel.

Warp drive and gravity drive systems from an alien spacecraft have never been tested at a university physics department, therefore, alien spacecrafts do not exist.No, you're making a common mistake of logic there. To give an example people are more familiar with consider atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the claim "A god exists". This is different from atheism saying "No god exists".

Disbelieving something due to lack of evidence is not only scientific practice but it's something people do all the time. Saying "I reject that claim you make on the grounds of insufficient evidence" is not the same as saying "That claim is false". The former asserts nothing, the latter does.

For your example, alien space craft, it is entirely reasonable to say "I do not believe the claim that aliens exist". It's the logical default until such time as sufficient evidence is presented. It's possible to simultaneously reject both a statement and it's negation because you can not believe either of them simultaneously. This is not the same as saying they are both false (which is a logical impossibility). I personally reject the claims of theists that gods exist and I reject the claims aliens exist. However, I believe it is highly likely aliens exist somewhere in the universe, I just don't believe it to be certain.

I, and anyone with half an ounce of rationality, reject your claims about photon frequency shifting forming gravitational fields. I reject your claims if wavefunctions are real then all sorts of crazy and wonderful pieces of technology certainly follow. I reject your claims about how the universe works. All of those I reject because you cannot provide any evidence for any of them.

However, in terms of your claims about frequency shifts forming gravitational fields I not only reject it, I state it to be false precisely because there is evidence to the contrary.


The whole point of synthesizing and emitting a frequency shift is to see if it can warp space-time, induce a gravitational potential energy, create an acceleration field. It is not as easy as you might think. Some scientist might come along and generate a poor quality frequency shift, and it won't work. Then, the physics community will scoff: SEE! IT DOESN'T WORK!!! It's all about QUALITY.


By the way, I chose to make space out of wave-functions so that I could use light to energize the wave-functions that already exist.You don't actually know anything about wavefunctions in physics do you? You're just throwing around buzzwords you think sound impressive and which you know get people's attention. You don't have any reasoned argument or logic to justify your position, you just have "Well it might be possible". Yes, it might but you're going further than that, saying if wavefunctions are real then necessarily a load of things follow from that. You have zero reason to make such claims, you have zero evidence. In some cases there's evidence against you. In those cases you've already started making excuses, like 'poor quality frequency shifts'. Tuning lasers and inducing frequency changes in tiny vibrating systems is the stuff of current research, this is an active area of work due to applications in telecommunications and high speed computing. Things don't behave as you claim.

I cannot believe you have formal science education at university level. If you really do then it's a horrible statement about the university you went to if you have managed to spend years studying science and end up with the terrible grasp of it's methodology you have shown here. You do your lecturers a great disservice.

However, in terms of your claims about frequency shifts forming gravitational fields I not only reject it, I state it to be false precisely because there is evidence to the contrary.
What evidence?


You don't actually know anything about wavefunctions in physics do you? You're just throwing around buzzwords you think sound impressive and which you know get people's attention.
The Schrodinger equation is a time dependent differential equation, the sum of kinetic + potential energy. Wave-functions are solutions to the Schrodinger equation; wave-function are the complete description, everything that can be known about that quantum system. Using operators, we can get the energy, momentum, spin and position eigenstates of the quantum system.



You don't have any reasoned argument or logic to justify your position, you just have "Well it might be possible". Yes, it might but you're going further than that, saying if wavefunctions are real then necessarily a load of things follow from that. You have zero reason to make such claims, you have zero evidence. In some cases there's evidence against you. In those cases you've already started making excuses, like 'poor quality frequency shifts'.
I didn't design the laws of physics. I am only acknowledging the observation that FM frequency towers don't produce wormholes. I also acknowledge that a real gravity field caused by a black hole, star or planet has to exert a frequency shift, or a change in momentum (light falls in a gravity field), for every possible frequency that may pass through that region of space. True gravity has to exert its gravitational pull on every photon, every photon's frequency (energy E= hf) and every photon's wavelength (momentum p = hk). By trying to run the process in reverse and trying to get back a gravity field by frequency shifting, I expect to get a very weak effect (even if the frequency shift wave quality is high).


Tuning lasers and inducing frequency changes in tiny vibrating systems is the stuff of current research, this is an active area of work due to applications in telecommunications and high speed computing. Things don't behave as you claim.
I looked at tuning lasers as a way to generate a frequency shift. But it takes a few minutes just to change from one frequency to the next. That is way to slow.

AlphaNumeric,
I think it was the double slit experiment that convinced me that space was made out of waves (wave-functions). When two slits are open, photons or electrons are fired at the slits and will land on a backwall, with an interference pattern. But when one photon or electron is fired at a time, they still land on the backwall with an interference pattern. So what is each particle interfering with? It just seemed obvious that the pathway that the particles take are the interfering waves. The pathway(s) to the slit and the back wall will always be there as long as the slits are open. Even if particles are fired at the slits, on particle every Saturday at noon, the pathways are what is interfering; two slits = two pathways that interfere.

Do you know what a time dilation field is? I can place an atomic clock, one at every point in my field. Doing this, I can measure the time dilation between any two points in my field.

What happens if I attach 10 atomic clocks at 1 meter intervals upon a tower? Clock 0 is at z=0 (ground level), clock 1 is at z=+1m, clock 2 is at z = +2 meters, etc... I should be able to measure the gravity of the earth as a time dilation field. In theory, I could have a tower that extends into space, very far from the earth's surface. I could attach atomic clocks all the way up. The clocks at the top of the tower, very far away from the earth's surface, would tick a little faster than the clocks at the surface. I can use the Schwartzhilde metric to calculate the gravitational time dilation of the earth. I could, in theory, measure the time dilation field as a function of elevation.

t_0 = t_f sqrt {1 - GM/rc^2}
t_0 is proper time,
t_f is the coord time,
G grav constant,
r is radial coord,
c is the speed of light.

The important thing to remember is that for a time dilation field measured by atomic clocks that don't move (relative to each other), then if there is a measureable time dilation present, I have a gravity field.

A synthesized frequency shift attempts to induce a time dilation which, in turn, should induce a gravity field.

Didn't you say that aliens had warp drive technology but wouldn't tell you how it worked?

Then there was another post on PhysForum where you claimed god told you how it worked.

Didn't you say that aliens had warp drive technology but wouldn't tell you how it worked?

Then there was another post on PhysForum where you claimed god told you how it worked.
If you wanted to know how to build a gravity field generator, it is perfectly reasonable to ask the Creator of the universe. The answer I got was: reproduce a time dilation field using frequency shifting. Once you induce time dilation, then acceleration fields will follow naturally. Perform an experiment to obtain proof of concept. If it works, refine your technique. To anyone with an ounce of common sense, this is a perfectly reasonable approach.

it is perfectly reasonable to ask the Creator of the universe. The answer I got was...

:m:

Wouldn't it be more productive to learn physics?

It's gonna take years to explain it using full physics formalism. But yes, alien spaceships use reverse frequency shifting of the form f(t) = [df/dt]t + f_0 to generate localized gravity fields around their spaceships.

If you don't see it, or even the possibility, then try pulling your head out of the dark place it's in.

Deleted

It's gonna take years to explain it using full physics formalism. But yes, alien spaceships use reverse frequency shifting of the form f(t) = [df/dt]t + f_0 to generate localized gravity fields around their spaceships.

If you don't see it, or even the possibility, then try pulling your head out of the dark place it's in.

So god and aliens are whispering in your ear.

Shouldn't this move over to UFOs?

Or maybe pseudoscience, but I don't think it rises to that standard.

In either case, the nonsense is becoming deep and thick.

It's gonna take years to explain it using full physics formalism. But yes, alien spaceships use reverse frequency shifting of the form f(t) = [df/dt]t + f_0 to generate localized gravity fields around their spaceships.

:bugeye:



Oh, I SOOOO want to get you in a darkroom with a single swinging lamp...

With very high end electronics, you could get a very precise frequency shift (400 to 800THz) with very little phase noise. If you could generate very precise frequency shifts, you would generate strong acceleration fields; as strong as a black hole, strong enough to implement an Alcubierre drive. However, such precise frequency shifts are only possible in the vacuum of space. Frequency shift propulsion suffers increasing phase noise in an atmosphere, where the speed of light is slower. In extreme weather, fog or dust, the frequency shift intensity can be blocked by particulates, leading to a loss of acceleration field intensity. If you don't know the exact speed of light for atmospheric conditions, then you can't reduce your phase noise below a certain level; as a result, warp drive propulsion is most likely not possible within a planet's atmosphere. In cases of very poor visibility, gravity propulsion is not reliable.

Conclusion: gravity drives are not a reliable form a propulsion for up close military encounters. What good is an armada of spacecrafts, if they can be prevented from flying with a simple cloud of dust.

:bugeye:

Oh, I SOOOO want to get you in a darkroom with a single swinging lamp...
Don't forget the cigarette smoke.

The double slit experiment is what convinces me that space is made out of wave-functions. When just one photon or one electron is fired at a time, at the slits, an interference pattern is produced. The idea that the particle goes through both slits sounds like a misinterpretation, at least to me.

Here is my interpretation. The pathways that the particle takes, as it travels from the emission point, through the slit(s), to the back plane, is itself a wave function. The particles just follow the wave function pathway wherever it leads. As long as we don't know which slit the particle goes through, the wave-function pathways can exist and can interfere with each other.

My interpretation is that the pathways are wave-functions. These wave-functions really do exist as a natural phenomena. These pathway wave-functions exist as if waiting for a particle, a photon or electron or some other quantum particle to travel along its pathway. By extrapolation, these wave-function pathways must exist everywhere in space. If that is true, then perhaps these wave-function pathways are a convenient mechanism for gravity.

I dropped my physics book on the floor, which is itself an experiment in gravity. The loud bang was a measurable result. But gravity can also be measured with atomic clocks. Most people are not aware that a gravity field is also a time dilation field. Using lots of atomic clocks, I can measure the flow or pace of time at several fixed points in space. By taking the ratio of a time interval between two points in space, I can obtain the time dilation between those two points. General relativity predicts, and GPS measurements confirm, that gravity fields produce gravitational time dilation. If there is a time dilation between two points, point A and point B, in a time dilation field, then we can calculate the time dilation between those two points. Let us say that the time dilation between points A and B is t_AB =2.

As an experiment, let us say that a one picosecond (10^-12 seconds) burst of 400THz (400x10^12 cycles per second) is emitted from point A and detected at point B. That means that, 400x10^12 cycles per second *10^-12 sec = 400 cycles are emitted from point A. It follows that 400 cycles will be detected at B. But at point B, all 400 cycles are detected in 0.5 picoseconds, because at point B, time is slower. So the detector detects 400 cycles/0.5x10^-12 sec = 800 THz.

The wave-function for a photon is Psi(x,t) = Ae^(kx -wt) = cos(kx-wt) + i sin(kx - wt). I said that wave-functions are a real phenomena of nature. I also said that I transmitted 400 cycles from A and received 400 cycles at B.

I am trying to get you to see that the wave-function pathways that exist everywhere in space are just ... cycles. Space is made of cycles of wave-functions. That is the whole reason for looking at frequency shift as a means to generate gravitational time dilation. By generating a frequency shift from 400 THz to 800 THz every microsecond, I am trying to induce a time dilation pathway, across a distance of 10^-6 sec *3x10^8 m/s = 300 meters. When done rapidly and repeatedly, the cycles that are the pathways that make up space, will begin to dominate, and time dilation will occur within the 300 meter span of the frequency shift. When time dilation is induced, a gravity field will occur.

That is how you build a gravity field propulsion generator.

AlphaNumeric,
I think it was the double slit experiment that convinced me that space was made out of waves (wave-functions). When two slits are open, photons or electrons are fired at the slits and will land on a backwall, with an interference pattern. But when one photon or electron is fired at a time, they still land on the backwall with an interference pattern. So what is each particle interfering with? It just seemed obvious that the pathway that the particles take are the interfering waves. The pathway(s) to the slit and the back wall will always be there as long as the slits are open. Even if particles are fired at the slits, on particle every Saturday at noon, the pathways are what is interfering; two slits = two pathways that interfere.You have flawed logic. It's possible to explain the double slit experiment without saying "Space is made of wave function", rather than there's a wave function associated to a quantum object and it obeys the behaviour described by quantum mechanics. As such the observed phenomenon doesn't necessarily imply what you claim it does as there is an alternative explanation.


Do you know what a time dilation field is? I can place an atomic clock, one at every point in my field. Doing this, I can measure the time dilation between any two points in my field.

What happens if I attach 10 atomic clocks at 1 meter intervals upon a tower? Clock 0 is at z=0 (ground level), clock 1 is at z=+1m, clock 2 is at z = +2 meters, etc... I should be able to measure the gravity of the earth as a time dilation field. In theory, I could have a tower that extends into space, very far from the earth's surface. I could attach atomic clocks all the way up. The clocks at the top of the tower, very far away from the earth's surface, would tick a little faster than the clocks at the surface. I can use the Schwartzhilde metric to calculate the gravitational time dilation of the earth. I could, in theory, measure the time dilation field as a function of elevation.

t_0 = t_f sqrt {1 - GM/rc^2}
t_0 is proper time,
t_f is the coord time,
G grav constant,
r is radial coord,
c is the speed of light.

The important thing to remember is that for a time dilation field measured by atomic clocks that don't move (relative to each other), then if there is a measureable time dilation present, I have a gravity field.

A synthesized frequency shift attempts to induce a time dilation which, in turn, should induce a gravity field.Your last sentence doesn't follow from the rest. Yes, time dilation effects manifest themselves in some instances as changes in frequency but not all changes in frequency are time dilation products. All humans are mammals but not all mammals are humans.

We can cause frequency shifts in photons without any gravitational field, illustrating the negation of your claim.


If you wanted to know how to build a gravity field generator, it is perfectly reasonable to ask the Creator of the universe. There's no evidence the universe has a creator and certainly that it would communicate with any human. Therefore it isn't 'perfectly reasonable' to 'ask the creator'. For millenia mankind prayed to a variety of creators for guidance and knowledge and we accomplished very little. Once The Enlightenment happened and people realsied the way to get answers to questions is to seek them out properly, through hard work and time, science took off.

I raise an eyebrow at anyone who gives such a reply and especially when they follow it with :


The answer I got was: reproduce a time dilation field using frequency shifting. Once you induce time dilation, then acceleration fields will follow naturally.So you haven't reached your conclusions through proper research, experiments, model development and effort, you've been told how the universe works by a voice in your head.

There's nothing to be gained by any rational scientific person discussing things with you. If you really hear a voice or get told things by 'the creator' then you're not rational, you're insane.


Perform an experiment to obtain proof of concept. If it works, refine your technique. To anyone with an ounce of common sense, this is a perfectly reasonable approach.Yes, that is a perfectly reasonable approach, shame you haven't followed it. You've been told something by a voice in your head and you've decided to accept it, ignoring evidence, logic and sanity.

Before I thought you were naive. Now I see it's much much worse.

You have flawed logic. It's possible to explain the double slit experiment without saying "Space is made of wave function", rather than there's a wave function associated to a quantum object and it obeys the behaviour described by quantum mechanics. As such the observed phenomenon doesn't necessarily imply what you claim it does as there is an alternative explanation.
Whoopdeedoo that you have an alternative interpretation. I have an explanation. I have an experiment to test it. And if the test works then we've discovered an amazing new phenomena that can revolutionize transportation technology.

Your last sentence doesn't follow from the rest. Yes, time dilation effects manifest themselves in some instances as changes in frequency but not all changes in frequency are time dilation products. All humans are mammals but not all mammals are humans.
You're right. It's not logical that frequency shift can induce a time dilation field and a gravity field. But do the experiment anyway! You would never be able to open a padlock without the right combination of three numbers. If there was a major scientific discovery locked up by a pad lock, and you only had two numbers, it wouldn't be logical to think you could open the padlock.

But common sense would tell you to start trying to guess the third number.

We can cause frequency shifts in photons without any gravitational field, illustrating the negation of your claim.
How was gravity measured in these frequency shift experiments? What was the frequency shift, and how fast was it shifted? How large was [df/dt], the frequency shift versus time? I doubt that you can back up your claim.


There's no evidence the universe has a creator and certainly that it would communicate with any human. Therefore it isn't 'perfectly reasonable' to 'ask the creator'.
Then shame on you for not using all of your mental resources and all of your creative instincts. Parts of your brain are trying to talk to you, but you ignore it because those parts of your mind don't conform to your limited world view. It's all about getting RESULTS! It's all about getting RESULTS! It's all about getting RESULTS!

It doesn't matter if your creativity displays itself as God, aliens or something else. If it can help you look at the physics in a new way, from a new perspective, then go along with it. I got you as close to gravity field generation technology as I could without performing any experiments. The experiment is: can a frequency shift induce a measurable time dilation? If a time dilation does occur, can it induce a measurable acceleration field?

It's a very simple test to explain.

I raise an eyebrow at anyone who gives such a reply and especially when they follow it with : So you haven't reached your conclusions through proper research, experiments, model development and effort, you've been told how the universe works by a voice in your head.
There's nothing to be gained by any rational scientific person discussing things with you. If you really hear a voice or get told things by 'the creator' then you're not rational, you're insane. Yes, that is a perfectly reasonable approach, shame you haven't followed it. You've been told something by a voice in your head and you've decided to accept it, ignoring evidence, logic and sanity. Before I thought you were naive. Now I see it's much much worse.
Laypersons talk about educated idiots all the time. I have conversations with regular people while pumping gasoline at the pump at $4.25/gallon. Some educated people have no common sense. They have no ability to judge risk versus benefit. They have no creative ideas. They live on tenure and don't understand that innovation and creativity are how you survive. I have the images, burned into my memory, of a man, a talented programmer, with tears in his eyes because he was being laid off, and there were no jobs anywhere. He looked afraid and it made me feel afraid for my job. The economy was sinking and people were being laid of everywhere. I survived five rounds of layoffs and watched my job responsibilities get packed up and move to China.

I knew that current physics was giving diminishing returns of technology, and the economy was starting cool off. So I asked whatever powers that be, whatever God, Creator, alien of other creative intelligence. Gravity field generation was the key to lowering transportation costs, and the key to a robust world economy. So I listened to and interacted with the creative parts of my mind, of my consciousness, and came up with a relationship between frequency shifting and time dilation(gravity). It was testable; unlike superstring theory which is still waiting for a 26 dimensional crystal to fall out of the sky from the mother ship.

AlphaNumeric, you're the expert on quantum mechanics and general relativity. If there remains even a dying ember of human feeling within you, then at least think about the experiment.

Whoopdeedoo that you have an alternative interpretation. I have an explanation. I have an experiment to test it. And if the test works then we've discovered an amazing new phenomena that can revolutionize transportation technology.
Then, conduct the experiment; publish the result.


But do the experiment anyway!
What is the experiment?

So I listened to and interacted with the creative parts of my mind, of my consciousness, and came up with a relationship between frequency shifting and time dilation(gravity). It was testable; unlike superstring theory which is still waiting for a 26 dimensional crystal to fall out of the sky from the mother ship.
In other words: Imagined.

This is where those previously mentioned, "RESULTS!" step in as a qualifier.

If there remains even a dying ember of human feeling within you, then at least think about the experiment.

An appeal to emotion is irrelevant. Consider the fist pounding on the table demanding results as implacable.

The square of the interval between two events is an invariant. It looks like,
(ds')^2=-(cdt')^2 + dx'^2 + dy'^2 + dz'^2 = -(cdt)^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = (ds)^2.

Let that interval be the wave-length of a frequency of light. In a frequency shift experiment, you also length shift the wavelength of light. Such an experiment would be an attempt to manipulate the curvature of space-time using frequency shifting light.

A million times a second, you are going to emit a linear frequency shift of the form f(t) = [df/dt]t + f_0. You must emit from a surface area differential dA, 400 to 800 THz every microsecond.

To perform the experiment, you would need to use groups of light emitting diodes, groups of 8 of them spaced periodically like a lattice. You would need to electrical engineers, ASIC designers and programmers to perform the experiment. It's not an experiment that I can design or build.

An appeal to emotion is irrelevant. Consider the fist pounding on the table demanding results as implacable.
You are a perfect example of someone who has had their common sense brainwashed away by the academic community. You didn't catch the tiny little detail known as: tenure. If you don't have tenure, then you are subject to the bear and bull market cycles of the economy. It doesn't matter how smart you are; if you don't have tenure: you can be laid off.

The economy is not doing well. There are very few job openings and dozens of qualified candidates for every job opening. Emotions are not irrelevant; you have to live fear of finding a job and fear of keeping your job.

If the experiment is not performed, then proof of concept will not happen. If the experiment is performed, then proof of concept might happen. If time dilation can be induced by frequency shift, guess what! Research jobs galore!!! Corporations will spring up that want to manufacture frequency shift propulsion devices. Manufacturing jobs will spring up, design jobs, testing jobs... Shipping companies will want to buy trucks with antigravity fixtures that can reduce the weight of their cargo. Less weight means less fuel is requires. Fuel costs go down. The costs of everything that is shipped will eventually go down. Lower costs means more money can be saved and spent on other things, other products, other services. In turn, this means more jobs all around.

I think this shows that in addition to having his 'theories' and information provided directly by both God and Aliens, Maz has no idea of how the academic community acts.

Every grad student, every PhD candidate would sell parts of his anatomy for a real breakthrough which would actually reveal something new.

Every grad student, every PhD candidate would sell parts of his anatomy for a real breakthrough which would actually reveal something new.

Not just any part...

The two slit experiment, one particle at a time, is still an excellent way to demonstrate that there are different opinions about what each individual particle is interfering with. Presently, science believes that the individual particles are interfering with themselves.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html


...so what are the individual particles interfering with? apparently, themselves.

Another interpretation, my interpretation, is that the wave-functions that describe the path through each slit, are waves that are interfering with each other. When one slit is blocked, that wave-function vanishes, and there is no interference.

Take a look at, Pilot-Wave Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave#The_Pilot_Wave_theory).

Take a look at, Pilot-Wave Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave#The_Pilot_Wave_theory).Empty wave-functions are interesting. But I'm not too keen on hidden variable theories.

I did want to make the comment that trying to get time dilation (and therefore a gravity field) by generating a rapid and repeated frequency shift might not seem very likely. But if ALL observed phenomena (light, gravity, particles, space-time intervals, etc...) are just manifestations of wave-functions, then expecting a generated frequency shift to result in time dilation is actually reasonable. Why? Because there is nothing else down there except wave-functions.

The physics community doesn't seem to be catching on that physics, space, time, energy, motion, gravity, and quantum mechanics are just different facets of, and interactions between wave-functions, and the phase angles of wave-functions. Emitting light of frequency f is the quickest way to generate a wave-function Psi = e^i[i(kx + ky + kz - wt)].

While theoretical physicists are creating mathematical mostrosities trying to get as far away from common sense as possible, everyone seems to have missed that which is easily testable. Gravitational time dilation is intimately related to gravity itself. We can't curve space-time without using unavailabe amounts of mass-energy. But we suspect that space-time itself is made of wave function phase angles. Perhaps it's not immediately obvious that gravitational redshift and gravitational time dilation are intimately related. From that vantage, one might propose a frequency shift experiment. Build an emitter that emits frequency shift: f(t) = [df/dt]t+f_0, from a planar emitter, 400 to 800THz every microsecond.

Question: time dilation causes frequency shift. Can a frequency shift experiment get back time dilation? If time dilation is observed, can it induce a gravity field.

The physics community doesn't seem to be catching on that physics, space, time, energy, motion, gravity, and quantum mechanics are just different facets of, and interactions between wave-functions, and the phase angles of wave-functions. Emitting light of frequency f is the quickest way to generate a wave-function Psi = e^i[i(kx + ky + kz - wt)].



They didn't have your advantage in being told by both God and Aliens.

They didn't have your advantage in being told by both God and Aliens.
Oh!:shrug:
No worries. I got to see what physics looks like far in the future. You'll get there, eventually. I figure it will take about 500 years before you have enough evidence to justify the frequency shift/time dilation experiment.

The physics community doesn't seem to be catching on that physics, space, time, energy, motion, gravity, and quantum mechanics are just different facets of, and interactions between wave-functions, and the phase angles of wave-functions. Emitting light of frequency f is the quickest way to generate a wave-function Psi = e^i[i(kx + ky + kz - wt)]. You clearly have no working understanding of wavefunctions, so you're not in a place to tell anyone, especially someone in the mathematical physics research community like myself, what we do or don't know.

If you honestly think you're getting your information from a god then you have absolutely no right to be telling people what is or isn't true because you demonstrably have lost touch with reality. Seriously, when you talk to god it's called praying, when he/she/it/they talk to you it's called schizophrenia.


While theoretical physicists are creating mathematical mostrosities trying to get as far away from common sense as possible, everyone seems to have missed that which is easily testable. No, theoretical physicists are trying to construct viable realistic models of reality from evidence and reason. Any person in the research community who used the argument "God told me" would be laughed out of their department for being crazy. Evidence and reason, they are the pillars which hold up the entire structure of science and you provide neither.


Gravitational time dilation is intimately related to gravity itself. We can't curve space-time without using unavailabe amounts of mass-energy. For which you have no evidence but the voice in your head.


But we suspect that space-time itself is made of wave function phase angles.Are you using the 'royal we' now or are you talking about the voices in your head?


Question: time dilation causes frequency shift. Can a frequency shift experiment get back time dilation? If time dilation is observed, can it induce a gravity field.Answer : No, as demonstrated by things like Doppler shifts. And no matter how loud the voices in your head shout, that isn't going to change.

You clearly have no working understanding of wavefunctions, so you're not in a place to tell anyone, especially someone in the mathematical physics research community like myself, what we do or don't know.

If you honestly think you're getting your information from a god then you have absolutely no right to be telling people what is or isn't true because you demonstrably have lost touch with reality. Seriously, when you talk to god it's called praying, when he/she/it/they talk to you it's called schizophrenia.
No, theoretical physicists are trying to construct viable realistic models of reality from evidence and reason. Any person in the research community who used the argument "God told me" would be laughed out of their department for being crazy. Evidence and reason, they are the pillars which hold up the entire structure of science and you provide neither.
For which you have no evidence but the voice in your head.
Are you using the 'royal we' now or are you talking about the voices in your head?
Answer : No, as demonstrated by things like Doppler shifts. And no matter how loud the voices in your head shout, that isn't going to change.
You are really invested in your god bashing strategy. Good luck with that.

One slit or two? Let's look at the double slit experiment. There exists equipment that can fire one electron or one photon at a time. When two slits are open, the particles, when they are fired at the two slits, they land on the back wall with an interference pattern. http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&biw=1024&bih=587&tbm=isch&tbnid=kJUanpSINh8pnM:&imgrefurl=http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2631.htm&docid=fvdemhx58WnMfM&imgurl=http://www.uh.edu/engines/two_slits-b.jpg&w=500&h=496&ei=u1DIT9y2ELTo2gX35cjgDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=522&vpy=198&dur=6286&hovh=224&hovw=225&tx=108&ty=108&sig=111231521396958214645&page=1&tbnh=108&tbnw=109&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0,i:107

If you fire a bunch of particles at the same time, it's no big surprise that they behave like a wave-front. But if you fire them individually, they also interfere as if they were a wave. Why is that? What does one photon have to interfere with? Itself? Then why does the interference pattern go away when there is only one slit?

My point: it makes more sense that the wave-function itself exists and passes through the slit(s) even when no particle is fired. As long as the slit(s) are open, the pathway exists as a wave-function. When two or more slits are open, the paths interfere like waves.

What is your interpretation?

You are really invested in your god bashing strategy

If you're claiming divine revelation,( and you are) this should be in a religion thread.:soapbox:

If you're claiming divine revelation,( and you are) this should be in a religion thread.:soapbox:
Like I was telling Aqueous ID, I'm not claiming divine authority. I just want to discuss these ideas. The list includes:

Wave function solutions to the Schrodinger equation represent a real phenomena of nature that behaves like wave-functions.
Wave functions are the building blocks of the luminiferous aether.
Space itself (a.k.a. the zero point energy quantum vacuum), is made out of wave-functions.
The energy of the big bang E_bb plus the negative energy of gravity, -E_bb are best described by the zero-energy universe hypothesis.
Particles of matter are quantum systems. All quantum systems are interconnected via the space-time continuum.
The space-time continuum is a negative energy image of the big bang. The positive image is a frequency spectrum of photons; the negative image is time dilation.
Gravity propulsion drives work by emitting a frequency shift. The emitted frequency shift induces a time dilation image in the local space-time continuum.
If I sound like I'm preaching, it's only because I'm very excited about these ideas. OK, maybe I am pushing the frequency shift idea really intensely. :shrug: You gotta run the experiment. Be prepared to measure an artificial gravity field induced by the frequency shift. Don't do it because I asked the aliens how their propulsion works. Do it because black holes frequency shift light described by gravitaitonal redshift; do it because natural phenomena is reversible, sometimes.

I have a question: how do you "emit" a frequency shift?
And how do you "dilate time" when time isn't made out of anything? I mean, time dilation is an artifact of transformations between coordinate systems which are in relative motion.

So how do you think "dilating time" can be achieved such that motion is the result, when it's the other way around?
And what experiment do you have in mind?

I have a question: how do you "emit" a frequency shift?
So how do you think "dilating time" can be achieved such that motion is the result, when it's the other way around?
And what experiment do you have in mind?

arfa brane,
Imagine an ordinary non spinning, uncharged black-hole. Now imagine, from a safe distance, pointing a 400THz laser directly at its center. As the laser light falls towards the event horizon, the gravity of the black hole blueshifts the photons of the laser. If the photons achieve a frequency of 800THz before reaching the event horizon, then we can use the information given below (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation).


A common equation used to determine gravitational time dilation is derived from the Schwarzschild metric, which describes spacetime in the vicinity of a non-rotating massive spherically-symmetric object. The equation is:

t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_0}{r}} , where

t_0 is the proper time between events A and B for a slow-ticking observer within the gravitational field,
t_f is the coordinate time between events A and B for a fast-ticking observer at an arbitrarily large distance from the massive object (this assumes the fast-ticking observer is using Schwarzschild coordinates, a coordinate system where a clock at infinite distance from the massive sphere would tick at one second per second of coordinate time, while closer clocks would tick at less than that rate),
G is the gravitational constant,
M is the mass of the object creating the gravitational field,
r is the radial coordinate of the observer (which is analogous to the classical distance from the center of the object, but is actually a Schwarzschild coordinate),
c is the speed of light, and
r_0 = 2GM/c^2 is the Schwarzschild radius of M. If a mass collapses so that its surface lies at less than this radial coordinate (or in other words covers an area of less than 4 \pi G^2 M^2 / c^4), then the object exists within a black hole.


Let's say the laser emitted laser light for t_f = 1 nanosecond in the fast ticking frame. (400x10^12 cycles/sec)*(10^-9sec) = 400,000 cycles of electromagnetic radiation that are headed down to some detector deep in the gravity well of the black hole.

400,000 cycles traverse the blackhole radii. They started at t_0/t_f = 1, fell to t_0/t_f = 1.1, 1.2, ...1.9,and 2.0 where 400,000 cycles were finally detected by a slower ticking frame; t_0/t_f = 2 which means that this proper frame ticks once for every two ticks of the proper time. The proper time detector detects 400,000 cycles/0.5ns = 800THz. It is true that every photon of that laser started with energy E = hf = Planck constant * 400THz, and ended with E = h(800THz). What caught my eye is that 400,000 cycles traveled from fast ticking frame to proper frame, without gaining or losing a single cycle.


And how do you "dilate time" when time isn't made out of anything? I mean, time dilation is an artifact of transformations between coordinate systems which are in relative motion.
I believe that an aether does exist. It's not made of nitrous oxide molecules or point-particles of any kind. It's not made of hyper-dimensional marbles stacked in 26 dimensions. It's simpler than that. This luminiferous light bearing aether looks like this (http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1260&bih=659&tbm=isch&tbnid=bhbNTKvXGyESrM:&imgrefurl=http://milesmathis.com/Coll2.html&docid=GGyMljCotLcR5M&imgurl=http://milesmathis.com/wavefunction.jpg&w=462&h=325&ei=iwTJT5_nAYGA2wXos_DaCw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=780&vpy=240&dur=4560&hovh=188&hovw=268&tx=150&ty=85&sig=112184263748701108938&page=2&tbnh=136&tbnw=193&start=16&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:16,i:145), and http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1260&bih=659&tbm=isch&tbnid=JSVddMvMW9npRM:&imgrefurl=http://h2oscience.blogspot.com/2009/02/magnetic-fields-and-wave-functions.html&docid=jJPdBFfHPHo7KM&imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Q4IQkhENWwQ/SY72f5g5LqI/AAAAAAAAAEI/B1W33SQApoo/s400/hydrogen321.jpg&w=389&h=400&ei=_BHJT8DVEeTq2QWT1vXZCw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=350&vpy=109&dur=2097&hovh=228&hovw=221&tx=137&ty=109&sig=112184263748701108938&page=3&tbnh=144&tbnw=134&start=40&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:40,i:166, and this (http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1260&bih=659&tbm=isch&tbnid=MuRW_h1HtPXMqM:&imgrefurl=http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/dslit.html&docid=Enxvbo1GM5TCwM&imgurl=http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/dslit.gif&w=393&h=339&ei=XwXJT-7oLano2QXnma3aCw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=172&vpy=175&dur=4186&hovh=208&hovw=242&tx=161&ty=110&sig=112184263748701108938&page=1&tbnh=128&tbnw=145&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:114). I think that the the four forces, yes even gravity/space-time curvature, is made of naturally occurring wave-functions. The Equivalence Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle) reinforces the notion that gravity, centrifugal and acceleration pseudo-forces all have a similar mechanism. It's bad enough that I ask for a luminiferous aether made of naturally occurring wave-functions; I will also ask that this wave-function aether be able to to length contract and time dilate the aether field between two massive objects, so as to uphold relativity.

If the aether exists, and is made of wave-functions/cycles/radians that obey c = 1/sqrt{epsilon*mu}, then I want to try to induce a gravity field generator experiment by emitting a wave-function that looks like gravity.

Gravity Generator Experiment using frequency shift
I know that black holes will frequency shift light, from f_i to f_f, because of their strong gravity. I want to try this in reverse. I want to emit a planar E&M wave with a frequency that changes linearly, from 400 to 800THz. The linear equation would be f(t) = [df/dt]t + f_0. Special care should be taken to minimize discontinuities in the phase.

Since this kind of frequency shift performance is not possible right now, then I would try it this way. I would break the linear frequency shift into 64 frequency steps. Each frequency "step" would be emitted by a GaAlAs LED (light emitting diode). Using a GaAs wafer (http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1260&bih=659&tbm=isch&tbnid=kJ_vcX4CwXDBnM:&imgrefurl=http://www.gct-gusset-ag.ch/grundsei.htm&docid=Grpr2_NIaHzrVM&imgurl=http://www.gct-gusset-ag.ch/images/WAFER.JPG&w=1000&h=960&ei=cA3JT7q3CYPs2QXizOjaCw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=178&vpy=173&dur=2208&hovh=220&hovw=229&tx=155&ty=118&sig=112184263748701108938&page=2&tbnh=150&tbnw=145&start=15&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:15,i:131), I would create groups of 64 LEDs, repeating horizontally and vertically across the die. There would have to be some circuitry to drive each LED so that all LED's of the same color would flash simultaneously, then the next color, then the next. When the wafer is completed, I would attach wires for clock/power, and then dip the wafer in an acrylic block, to protect it from mechanical stresses.

The finished product will emit planes waves that step through each of 64 frequencies. If it works, it will mimic the naturally occurring wave functions that implement gravity and gravitational time-dilation. Over several repetition cycles, a wave function will form that progressively increases the frequency (gravitational time dilation) and decreases the wavelength (curvature of space-time).

The finished product will emit planes waves that step through each of 64 frequencies. If it works, it will mimic the naturally occurring wave functions that implement gravity and gravitational time-dilation.Hmmm. So you think gravity is a function of plane EM waves, and you can "dilate time" somehow by emitting different frequencies at different times?

It's just that I learned that gravity is a function of (large amounts of) matter, which has "mass". Nothing to do with emitting light. I think you'll find that's more or less the consensus, here (and in most schools).
Over several repetition cycles, a wave function will form that progressively increases the frequency (gravitational time dilation) and decreases the wavelength (curvature of space-time). I would think that instead of a "wavefunction", you'll just have light at different frequencies. Matter is what curves space, so your wafer will curve the space around it by orders of magnitude more than the emitted light. This is because E = mc2.

Hmmm. So you think gravity is a function of plane EM waves, and you can "dilate time" somehow by emitting different frequencies at different times?
Not exactly. It's hard to explain, but here goes. Where did the energy of the big bang come from? E_bb is a lot of energy just to appear out of nothingness. I believe in the Zero Energy Universe hypothesis, which says that the negative energy of gravity plus the energy of the big bang add to zero. I go one step further. Big bang energy began as light, which is something very real. Light has properties of light such as frequency, permittivity and permeability of free space and wavelength. To use a metaphor, E_bb is a positive image of the full range of photon frequencies; the space-time continuum is the negative image of time dilation and curvature. I believe that the space-time continuum is a real object that obeys the Einstein equations. As a real object, my plan is to emit frequency shift, repeatedly. The frequency shift would induce a mirror image within the space-time continuum, and produce a gravity field.

Here is another metaphor. Curvature of space-time (http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1260&bih=659&tbm=isch&tbnid=tRq5zt2s8vcijM:&imgrefurl=http://onlinephys.com/weightblackholes.html&docid=V1Rz3myPf9A21M&imgurl=http://onlinephys.com/spacetime.GIF&w=268&h=267&ei=Ju3JT5vPJKaC2AX-8MTaCw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=833&vpy=307&dur=1511&hovh=213&hovw=214&tx=117&ty=109&sig=112184263748701108938&page=1&tbnh=145&tbnw=145&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0,i:93) is sometimes depicted with a bowling ball sitting on top of a blanket. What I want to do is induce a curvature in the blanket without the presence of a planet, star or black hole. I want to curve the "blanket" by using emitted frequency shift.



It's just that I learned that gravity is a function of (large amounts of) matter, which has "mass". Nothing to do with emitting light. I think you'll find that's more or less the consensus, here (and in most schools).I would think that instead of a "wavefunction", you'll just have light at different frequencies. Matter is what curves space, so your wafer will curve the space around it by orders of magnitude more than the emitted light. This is because E = mc2.

Where did the energy of the big bang come from? E_bb is a lot of energy just to appear out of nothingness.Then perhaps one is required to adjust one's notion of "nothingness".

Big bang energy began as light, which is something very real.I don't think that's accurate. Photons appeared at some stage, but so did quarks and gluons, maybe a whole zoo of exotic particles. I mean, if you're talking about the first few attoseconds say, QM allows for a lot of possibilities over a short amount of time.

But as the energy density decreased, everything 'decayed' into a more probable state. That's a very rough description.

The frequency shift would induce a mirror image within the space-time continuum, and produce a gravity field. That's a kind of meaningless statement. What's this "mirror image". How do you know spacetime is a continuum? Why isn't mass-energy the only thing that produces gravity?

If there was a genuine aether that matter operates in, then it would elude detection by anything made of matter. So added conventional testing and theorising will probably not turn up anything, as you already know.

There are some quirky bits in QM and other theories, which could be looked at, but these are the only likely clues.

The study of a background force such as aether has to be approached by thought experiments and verified by instruments later.