Aspden effect (split from time dilation)

[studiot]

Here is the original report of the effect from Aspden himself.

 

 

I report an anomalous energy phenomenon found in my motor experiments.

Imagine an electric machine having no electrical input itself and which, when started on no load by a drive motor and brought up to speed (3250 rpm), thereafter runs steadily at that speed with the motor drawing a little extra input power with a time delay rate of about two minutes. The machine rotor has a mass of 800 gm and at that speed its kinetic energy together with that of the drive motor is no more than 15 joules, contrasting with the excess energy of 300 joules needed to satisfy the anomalous power surge [to spin up from rest].

Imagine further that when the motor, after running five minutes or more, is switched off and the machine is stopped, you can restart it in the same or opposite direction and find that it now has a memory in the sense that it will not now ask for that 300 joules of excess input. 30 joules will suffice provided that the time lapse between starting and restarting is no more than a minute or so.

 

No I am having trouble understanding what is said here or reconciling it with the description offered by handy andy.

 

Can anyone help here?

 

What is an electrical machine with no electrical input?

 

and what does the rest of it say in plain English?

 

https://www.haroldaspden.com/lectures/30.htm

Edited May 22, 2017 by studiot

[Strange]

 

From my point of view time dilation in GR and SR just proves space is a substance and affects the speed of clocks, and does not affect time. A Muon falling to earth is moving with space and presenting less drag and so lives longer. It is taught that actual time is slowing, I don't believe that.

 

 

There is a saying, "time is what clocks measure" (in the same way that space is what rulers measure). In that case, if everything measures the same change in time, then isn't that the same as saying that "time has slowed"?

 

And note that all SR says is that different people will measure space and time differently.

 

 

 

On one post in the speculations trash can I read some one believes time dilation is the cause of gravity which is complete nonsense.

 

They are both symptoms or consequences of the same thing.

 

 

 

One interpretation of Gravity is according to GR, as kindly pointed out by strange the contraction of space

 

I do not believe this is generally true. Which is why I was reluctant to share it wth you. I had a feeling you would grab onto it like a lifebelt to prop up your mistaken beliefs.

 

 

 

All electromagnetic waves move through space, space which is both expanding and contracting affecting their movement through space, ie photons.

 

This is patently nonsense.

 

 

Under string theory and the quantum theory of gravity, I understand Gravitons are assumed to be emitted by atoms and absorbed by them.

 

No more than magnets emit and absorb photons. In other words, not at all.

 

 

Can gravitons under these theories be viewed as contracting or expanding?

 

No.

 

 

 

Or is the graviton now assumed by all theorists not to exist.?

 

No.

[Handy andy]

 

 

There is a saying, "time is what clocks measure" (in the same way that space is what rulers measure). In that case, if everything measures the same change in time, then isn't that the same as saying that "time has slowed"?

 

And note that all SR says is that different people will measure space and time differently.

 

 

 

They are both symptoms or consequences of the same thing.

 

 

I do not believe this is generally true. Which is why I was reluctant to share it wth you. I had a feeling you would grab onto it like a lifebelt to prop up your mistaken beliefs.

 

 

This is patently nonsense.

 

 

 

No more than magnets emit and absorb photons. In other words, not at all.

 

 

No.

 

 

No.

 

Its good to see you agree with me ref gravitons, ie they don't exist . I think you are aware they are included in the quantum theory of gravity and string theory or at least the few versions I have skimmed through.

 

This however has little to do with the Aspden effect other than how all forces are transmitted through stretched or expanding space, the stretching of which transmits the gravitational forces. The mechanism by which space is stretched is not a mathematical equation, but Einsteins GR and SR seem to cover it extremely well.

 

Your reluctance to share you don't believe in Einsteins theories astound me Why don't you agree with Gullstrand Painleve.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand–Painlevé_coordinates

 

 

Accepting that it's a measurable effect is only part of the issue. SR says that time is relative as a consequence of c being invariant. If you reject that time changes according to your speed, and only because c is an invariant quantity (i.e. you have some other explanation for time dilation), you do not accept SR.

 

Stretching of space not a part of this.

 

C is constant as it moves through space, I am not arguing this. What I was arguing is that the curvature of space, gravity affects the movement of the particles inside atoms, and gives the appearance of time dilation. All things at all levels are affected by gravity, even fermions and bosons and every other atomic particle imagined or otherwise. Gravity is an effect which distorts space around all waves even light.

[studiot]

 

Its good to see you agree with me ref gravitons, ie they don't exist . I think you are aware they are included in the quantum theory of gravity and string theory or at least the few versions I have skimmed through.

 

This however has little to do with the Aspden effect other than how all forces are transmitted through stretched or expanding space, the stretching of which transmits the gravitational forces. The mechanism by which space is stretched is not a mathematical equation, but Einsteins GR and SR seem to cover it extremely well.

 

Your reluctance to share you don't believe in Einsteins theories astound me Why don't you agree with Gullstrand Painleve.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand–Painlevé_coordinates

 

C is constant as it moves through space, I am not arguing this. What I was arguing is that the curvature of space, gravity affects the movement of the particles inside atoms, and gives the appearance of time dilation. All things at all levels are affected by gravity, even fermions and bosons and every other atomic particle imagined or otherwise. Gravity is an effect which distorts space around all waves even light.

 

 

What on Earth do black holes have to do with electric motors on Earth?

 

Please can we get back to the subject of this thread, I would particularly like your take on my assessment of Aspden, as posted in my post#26

Edited May 23, 2017 by studiot

[swansont]

 

C is constant as it moves through space, I am not arguing this. What I was arguing is that the curvature of space, gravity affects the movement of the particles inside atoms, and gives the appearance of time dilation. All things at all levels are affected by gravity, even fermions and bosons and every other atomic particle imagined or otherwise. Gravity is an effect which distorts space around all waves even light.

 

 

Then argue it, i.e. formulate a model, so that the idea can be tested. Enough hand-waving. Put up or shut up, as they say.

[Handy andy]

Here is the original report of the effect from Aspden himself.

 

 

No I am having trouble understanding what is said here or reconciling it with the description offered by handy andy.

 

Can anyone help here?

 

What is an electrical machine with no electrical input?

 

and what does the rest of it say in plain English?

 

https://www.haroldaspden.com/lectures/30.htm

I am not sure I believe the Aspden effect is due to the "Aether" Space The reason it caught my eye was that I remember an experiment from many moons ago whereby the prof asked why a much larger machine took less power to run up on the second acceleration than the first. I put forward residual magnetism, warmer windings taken lesser current, some mentioned perhaps the bearings were affected. The prof just shook his head smiled and walked off, it stuck in my head.

[swansont]

No more than magnets emit and absorb photons. In other words, not at all.

 

Not sure where you were going with this. Virtual photons are the force carriers for the EM interaction.

I am not sure I believe the Aspden effect is due to the "Aether" Space The reason it caught my eye was that I remember an experiment from many moons ago whereby the prof asked why a much larger machine took less power to run up on the second acceleration than the first. I put forward residual magnetism, warmer windings taken lesser current, some mentioned perhaps the bearings were affected. The prof just shook his head smiled and walked off, it stuck in my head.

 

 

And you brought it up in the context of it being evidence of an aether, which you have not defended.

[Handy andy]

 

 

Then argue it, i.e. formulate a model, so that the idea can be tested. Enough hand-waving. Put up or shut up, as they say.

 

OK I will formulate a better argument, and start a new thread in a few weeks

 

I am going to restrict myself to asking questions for a while.

[studiot]

 

OK I will formulate a better argument, and start a new thread in a few weeks

 

I am going to restrict myself to asking questions for a while.

 

 

Your original description was more coherent than Aspden's, but consider this:

 

My car is much more difficult to start in the morning on my driveway than after I have driven a few miles to the petrol station and halted it to put some petrol in the tank.

 

This does not only apply to electric machines.

 

With your nautical background, you should be able to confirm this applies to outboards.

 

So I am still waiting to learn the need for any mumbo jumbo associated with this.

[Strange]

 

Its good to see you agree with me ref gravitons, ie they don't exist

 

 

I never said such a thing. It is dishonest and pretty offensive to say that I did. Is it deliberate, or are you incapable of understanding what you read?

 

 

Your reluctance to share you don't believe in Einsteins theories astound me Why don't you agree with Gullstrand Painleve.

 

And again. I never said such a thing. It is dishonest and pretty offensive to say that I did. Is it deliberate, or are you incapable of understanding what you read?

 

 

 

What I was arguing is that the curvature of space, gravity affects the movement of the particles inside atoms, and gives the appearance of time dilation.

 

There is nothing inside muons to be affected, so how does that work?

 

And, if every possible way of measuring time is affected in the same way, then that is all that relativity says. It is (like all science) about what we measure. If you want to invent some udetectable unchanging tine, then that is not science. It is just a fairy tale to keep you happy.

 

Not sure where you were going with this. Virtual photons are the force carriers for the EM interaction.

 

Indeed. But I think it is very misleading to describe this in terms of one object emitting photons/gravitons - after all, magnets don't glow in the dark.

[Handy andy]

 

 

I never said such a thing. It is dishonest and pretty offensive to say that I did. Is it deliberate, or are you incapable of understanding what you read?

 

 

And again. I never said such a thing. It is dishonest and pretty offensive to say that I did. Is it deliberate, or are you incapable of understanding what you read?

 

 

Apologies, it was not meant to be offensive.

 

 

Your original description was more coherent than Aspden's, but consider this:

 

My car is much more difficult to start in the morning on my driveway than after I have driven a few miles to the petrol station and halted it to put some petrol in the tank.

 

This does not only apply to electric machines.

 

With your nautical background, you should be able to confirm this applies to outboards.

 

So I am still waiting to learn the need for any mumbo jumbo associated with this.

 

I find it hard enough defending my own ideas, never mind some one elses. I do not wish to defend Harold Aspdens claims, I found reference to him when I was googling aether, and it stuck due to my lecturers comments.

 

Electric motors are not emersed in oil which needs to warm up, with any engine.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

@ anyone ref the double slit experiment, has it ever been done at absolute zero or different ranges of temperatures.

 

I ask this question because I have been made aware that if the experiment is performed at 100 different locations by firing just one photon, then compiling the results a wave effect still occurs. To me this implies waves existed before the experiment, and interact with the photons(waves), going through one slot or the other.

 

Ref an analogy for a photon would a pipe representing an electric field spinning through space produce the correct effect. Wavelength, frequency, and polarization.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

ref the concept of gravitons in string theory, if the gravitons were viewed as being absorbed by particles, would this then be inline with GR absorbing and stretching space. Could gravitons represent space in String theory, or does string theory not attribute properties to space also.

 

 

 

And you brought it up in the context of it being evidence of an aether, which you have not defended.

 

I have enough difficulty defending my own ideas never mind other peoples:) I saw Harold Aspdens claims on a search ref aether and brought it up as something interesting. I do not wish to defend Aspdens claims, false, true or otherwise.

 

My speculation up to present has been largely from memory, with little or no background work. I do not wish to get drawn into further speculation until I have done a little reading. I find arguing a point even if wrong or right, is an excellent way of learning. Annoying as it can be for some it is not meant to be offensive:)

[Strange]

I ask this question because I have been made aware that if the experiment is performed at 100 different locations by firing just one photon, then compiling the results a wave effect still occurs. To me this implies waves existed before the experiment, and interact with the photons(waves), going through one slot or the other.

 

 

To me, it just confirms that it is about probabilities.

[studiot]

 

 

To me, it just confirms that it is about probabilities.

 

 

 

handyandy

I ask this question because I have been made aware that if the experiment is performed at 100 different locations by firing just one photon, then compiling the results a wave effect still occurs. To me this implies waves existed before the experiment, and interact with the photons(waves), going through one slot or the other.

 

This is what Mordred and I were discussing here, posts 5 - 12

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106118-quantum-tunneling-and-timeenergy-conjugacy/

 

 

handyandy

I find it hard enough defending my own ideas, never mind some one elses. I do not wish to defend Harold Aspdens claims, I found reference to him when I was googling aether, and it stuck due to my lecturers comments.

 

Electric motors are not emersed in oil which needs to warm up, with any engine.

 

So can we all agree that Aspden was a blind alley and move on?

[swansont]

@ anyone ref the double slit experiment, has it ever been done at absolute zero or different ranges of temperatures.

Anyone arguing physics on a science discussion board should be aware that absolute zero is not a temperature one can attain.

 

I ask this question because I have been made aware that if the experiment is performed at 100 different locations by firing just one photon, then compiling the results a wave effect still occurs. To me this implies waves existed before the experiment, and interact with the photons(waves), going through one slot or the other.

 

If that is what implied to you, then you must be interpreting that through some model. You must present that model. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, then don't go there.

 

I have enough difficulty defending my own ideas never mind other peoples:) I saw Harold Aspdens claims on a search ref aether and brought it up as something interesting. I do not wish to defend Aspdens claims, false, true or otherwise.

 

My speculation up to present has been largely from memory, with little or no background work. I do not wish to get drawn into further speculation until I have done a little reading. I find arguing a point even if wrong or right, is an excellent way of learning. Annoying as it can be for some it is not meant to be offensive:)

 

As above, if you are not willing to defend a model or explanation, then don't bring it up. That only serves as a distraction, and looks to participants like willful misdirection.

[Handy andy]

Anyone arguing physics on a science discussion board should be aware that absolute zero is not a temperature one can attain.

 

.

 

Are these two links stating they have not gone below absolute zero, or is it some form of wordology I have missed.

 

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146

 

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-01/scientists-send-cloud-atoms-plunging-below-absolute-zero

 

The next is a Wikipedia link supporting what you are stating

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

 

Then the record is apparently 100pK

 

https://ltl.tkk.fi/wiki/LTL/World_record_in_low_temperatures

 

Has the double slit experiment been carried out at extremely low temperatures approaching 0K or tested at varying temperatures.

 

 

 

 

 

This is what Mordred and I were discussing here, posts 5 - 12

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106118-quantum-tunneling-and-timeenergy-conjugacy/

 

 

So can we all agree that Aspden was a blind alley and move on?

 

Blind alley or not, its better to keep moving forward, and forget the Aspden effect.

 

Yes move on.

 

Does anyone have an opinion ref the shape of a photon as it travels through space.

 

I suggested an analogy of a pipe spinning, to represent the electric field, polarization and wavelength or frequency of a photon or radio wave.

 

The pipe analogy partly comes from an idea in string theory, and partly wondering what a photon might look like as it escapes or breaks from an atom, when an electron drops to a lower energy level. ?

 

Is there a link to what different particles might look like? electrons outside an atom are perhaps donuts with spin and polarity etc. Inside an atom in the electron cloud they seem to merge like a fog, around the nucleus at set energy levels.

[KipIngram]

This paper says that quanta are spatially distributed in the sense that they are associated with the excitation of a single mode of the field that spans all of space.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf

 

It's explicitly stated that they have no position. I had the impression from the presentation that you had to consider multiple quanta in different modes to start to get a "shape," just like you have to add up numerous frequency components of a Fourier transform to get anything other than a uniform sinusoidal shape.

 

I'm putting that out there with a very large grain of salt - I'm just barely beginning to get my head around this stuff.

[DrP]

I'm not disputing that the article claims it has gone sub zero... Something about potassium atoms forced into a matrix... blah blah (at work - no time to fully read all of the articles), but I am not sure what being below 0K even means. By very definition at 0K there can be Zero energy, totally motionless atoms with no vibration, no excitation... so what does negative temperature even mean on an absolute scale?

 

(PS - Sorry - did not see Kip's post - this is in reply to post 40)

Edited May 24, 2017 by DrP

[Handy andy]

 

 

To me, it just confirms that it is about probabilities.

 

Yes probabilities or knowledge based systems are an excellent way of working out the likelihood of an event inside a block box, and predicting what will happen, especially if the mechanism inside the black box is not known, or is way too complicated to predict from first principles. I want to understand what is going on inside the black box, rather than just using a mathematical tool to predict a likely outcome.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Does anyone have an opinion ref the equivalence of the graviton being absorbed in string theory, and the concept of space being absorbed in GR by matter. I have only read a few popular physics books on string theory, and M theory. But find the concept of gravitons a bit bizarre in the sense, I have read they are emitted by matter and absorbed by matter when transmitting the gravitational force, if they were only absorbed, then they make some sense, and may have the effect of stretching space around matter. If they are emitted and absorbed they would cancel each other.

[Strange]

Does anyone have an opinion ref the shape of a photon as it travels through space.

 

Is there a link to what different particles might look like? electrons outside an atom are perhaps donuts with spin and polarity etc. Inside an atom in the electron cloud they seem to merge like a fog, around the nucleus at set energy levels.

 

 

Fundamental particles have (as far as we can tell) zero size. But, on the other hand, they are not localised until they interact with something. So the shapes of electron orbitals in an atom describe the probability of the electron being in that position.

 

So the question "what shape is a photon" is fairly meaningless. You can only describe the probability distribution (until it interacts). And, as there is a finite probability of it being at both slits, that is why you get interference patterns.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Strange

[DrP]

What does it even mean to go below absolute zero? Negative energy? I read the paper and it still doesn't make any sense to me because of what I learnt as a definition of absolute zero.

 

Seriously though handy andy, what is you level of Physics education? I have a degree in physics and I don't understand string theory - it also seems to change (probably because it is a work in progress because we have no way of testing it). It also involves a poop ton of maths. I wouldn't recommend trying to get your head around it if you have no physics background. There are a couple of people on the whole forum (Mordred might be one) who 'may' be able to explain it... but if you want to study it in more than layman's terms and try to pick holes in it then don't even bother imo.

[KipIngram]

I recently perused this (fairly thoroughly in the earlier chapters):

 

https://cquest-studygroup.wikispaces.com/file/view/A+First+Course+in+String+Theory.pdf

 

I thought it did a good job of "motivating" the whole business. Explained how things we're familiar with in 3D/4D translate to higher dimension, said some fairly understandable things about the "rolled up" dimensions, and so on. Won't make you an expert (at least it didn't make me one), but I thought it was "well pitched" for my particular starting point.

[Handy andy]

This paper says that quanta are spatially distributed in the sense that they are associated with the excitation of a single mode of the field that spans all of space.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf

 

It's explicitly stated that they have no position. I had the impression from the presentation that you had to consider multiple quanta in different modes to start to get a "shape," just like you have to add up numerous frequency components of a Fourier transform to get anything other than a uniform sinusoidal shape.

 

I'm putting that out there with a very large grain of salt - I'm just barely beginning to get my head around this stuff.

 

Thanks for the link, it is now downloaded to be read. I have a lot from that website, it is very useful place to find info.

 

I have a picture in my mind of a particle or field spinning through space, causing waves in space, which can in turn interact with other particles or fields like Feynman diagrams. The particle itself also being a wave, can merge with other waves and appear elsewhere giving a wave effect.

I recently perused this (fairly thoroughly in the earlier chapters):

 

https://cquest-studygroup.wikispaces.com/file/view/A+First+Course+in+String+Theory.pdf

 

I thought it did a good job of "motivating" the whole business. Explained how things we're familiar with in 3D/4D translate to higher dimension, said some fairly understandable things about the "rolled up" dimensions, and so on. Won't make you an expert (at least it didn't make me one), but I thought it was "well pitched" for my particular starting point.

 

Thanks for that also.

[Strange]

 

Yes probabilities or knowledge based systems are an excellent way of working out the likelihood of an event inside a block box, and predicting what will happen, especially if the mechanism inside the black box is not known, or is way too complicated to predict from first principles. I want to understand what is going on inside the black box, rather than just using a mathematical tool to predict a likely outcome.

 

 

 

As ar as we know that is what is going on inside the black box. The probabilities don't appear to just reflect our lack of knowledge (as they do in the classical world) but seem to be a fundamental result of the non-localised nature of reality. So if "particles" are disturbances in the field, then they are disturbances in the whole field and their behaviour is affected by everything in the field (e.g. both slits, in this case).

[KipIngram]

Yes, what Strange said. That is exactly the point of the Hobson paper - that the quanta are in fact absolutely not localized. Any attempt to regard them as localized comes into conflict with relativity - he has a section on that.

[swansont]

 

Blind alley or not, its better to keep moving forward, and forget the Aspden effect.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

This thread is for discussing the Aspden effect. You want to move forward on a different topic, start a new thread.

 

There seem to be a number of tangential discussions going on. They are best pursued in other threads.