Aspden effect (split from time dilation)

[Handy andy]

 

 

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).

 

Yes but I still aim to get inside that box, to me quantum effects suggests extra dimensions, which is why I like some aspects of string theory. Not the graviton however, having said that if the graviton were absorbed and appeared at the other side of the universe in an expanding space, I would be cool with that. I am just not happy with the concept of the graviton originating inside atoms.

 

 

 

In the sailing world waves are indicators of what is going on under the surface as well as on the surface.

 

 

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

 

Rather than starting a new thread is there one the thread can be moved to already existing.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Handy andy

[Strange]

 

Yes but I still aim to get inside that box, to me quantum effects suggests extra dimensions, which is why I like some aspects of string theory. Not the graviton however, having said that if the graviton were absorbed and appeared at the other side of the universe in an expanding space, I would be cool with that. I am just not happy with the concept of the gravity originating inside atoms.

 

 

 

In the sailing world waves are indicators of what is going on under the surface as well as on the surface.

 

Rather than starting a new thread is there one the thread can be moved to already.

 

 

Sounds like you are looking for "hidden variables"; i.e. some underlying (deterministic, local, "real") thing that somehow causes quantum effects so they appear probabilistic. Bell's Theorem tells us that can't be the case.

[swansont]

Rather than starting a new thread is there one the thread can be moved to already existing.

 

 

The search function is there to help you find an answer to questions such as these.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Thread almost Locked. Frankly there are about two or three arguments going on - none of which have anything to do with the Aspden Effect. You were asked nicely to put those arguments in their own (new) threads but everything continued here.

 

Guys - please a little discipline; this was a thread on the Aspden Effect split from a thread on Relativity - yet we are into QFT?

 

Any further posts not on the Aspden Effect will be zapped. Studiot and, I think, others had some relevant questions on the so-called effect so the thread will remain open for that discussion only.

 

[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

 

The link above, I think, was the last link studiot posted on Harold Aspden, it links into allsorts of fringe science ideas of free energy from the aether etc. I am sure many of the claims Harold Aspden makes are wrong especially around his understanding of an aether. He references Henry Murray in his papers who was a radio enthusiast who claims to have drawn free energy from the aether. If you investigate him Murray used a box of valves a transmission line an earth, some capacitors and what may have been a crystal diode. Little more is known on Murray except there are numerous affidavits signed by various judges around the area he lived and worked stipulating he was generating power from the aether. There is insufficient documentary evidence to replicate what he may or may not have done. He also references Stan Meyer another even less credible person, if you care to read up about him (he dissacoated water into hydrogen and oxygen to make a fuel which he claims to have ran his car on). If you investigate further he never documented his so called discoveries, ie he was most likely a fraud.

 

Aspden believed he had discovered a feature of the aether or space, in that his motor took less time to accelerate a second time in either direction than it did the first time it was run.

 

IF (big if) the inertia of the machine was being affected then perhaps the mass would also be affected and could be seen with scales, maybe a gravity meter could be placed near to the machine to see if space was distorted and remained distorted for a time after the machine was run up. If it was it would be mega interesting . If not it would be a damp squib .

 

The Aspden effect is fringe science, and badly documented, it may be complete fiction, unless anyone can repeat the tests and prove otherwise, it is pointless discussing it. It may be an idea to move on, unless anyone is particularly interested in looking into fringe sciences, most of which is 99.9% gold carrot nonsense (BS). (Except perhaps some, but not all of what Tesla did, and ideas related around some of his ideas ) Henry Murray is interesting because there are a number affidavits from judges stating his device actually worked, which is intriguing.

[DrP]

I don't see how it is 'fringe science' as you put it.... it is a real and measured effect (from what I read briefly - I could be wrong). The explanation for the effect may be clearly wrong and provably so - but that doesn't mean the effect doesn't happen. There is probably some perfectly reasonable explanation for it - like most things.

[studiot]

 

Fred Flintstone

You know, Barney, it's easier to haul rock up a slope the second time you do it.

 

 

 

 

Barney Rubble

Haven't you just worn a smoother path Fred?

 

[imatfaal]

I don't see how it is 'fringe science' as you put it.... it is a real and measured effect (from what I read briefly - I could be wrong). The explanation for the effect may be clearly wrong and provably so - but that doesn't mean the effect doesn't happen. There is probably some perfectly reasonable explanation for it - like most things.

 

But the "science" is not the effect - it is the explanation of the effect; it is the model which allows you to understand the effect in terms of simpler well-known causes.

[Handy andy]

 

 

Fred Flintstone

You know, Barney, it's easier to haul rock up a slope the second time you do it.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Barney Rubble

Haven't you just worn a smoother path Fred?

 

 

 

 

Stone age ideas huh if the effect exists an experiment to verify Aspdens claims as I mentioned above, would be a good starting point, without which we are on very stony ground.

 

Ref Barney and Fred, I think Fred would have to shout WILMAAAH to find out what to think, unless he could get experimental verification from THELMA in which case he might shout Yabadabado if he has a result proving the effect, is due to an effect of space or something like that.

 

But the "science" is not the effect - it is the explanation of the effect; it is the model which allows you to understand the effect in terms of simpler well-known causes.

 

The effect could be explained by friction reducing on bearings (doubtful). It could be explained by residual magnetism giving stronger magnets inside the motor(plausible) and reduced currents. It could be explained by increased resistance in the windings due to a heating effect (hum).

 

It could as Aspden claims be explained by a version of the aether which does not exist according to Mickelson Morley, who assumed various characteristics for the aether, and then tested for them.

 

An experiment to confirm the claims would be a good starting point, without which the thread is speculation, and I am trying to avoid speculating (thinking too much).

[swansont]

I don't see how it is 'fringe science' as you put it.... it is a real and measured effect (from what I read briefly - I could be wrong). The explanation for the effect may be clearly wrong and provably so - but that doesn't mean the effect doesn't happen. There is probably some perfectly reasonable explanation for it - like most things.

 

 

The discussion is focused on the effect Aspden says it's aether, I say that's bogus. But there are precious few details about how the alleged aether causes this to happen

 

It could as Aspden claims be explained by a version of the aether which does not exist according to Mickelson Morley, who assumed various characteristics for the aether, and then tested for them.

 

 

But you can't stop there, because this is indistinguishable from saying it's magic. You have to what people had done back then, and once again propose properties of the aether and test for them.

[DrP]

yea - I agree - it is clear not aether. (even the spellchecker doesn't like that idea) - there is 'probably' some mundane explanation like residual warmth or other things that have been mentioned. How about tiny amounts of corrosion on the moving parts which get blasted off during the running. You start it up again and it's fine... leave it laying a round for a week or 2 and you may get some fusing of the moving parts on a scale not noticeable beyond doing accurate measurements of the forces required to overcome the initial friction of the start up? Just speculation obviously.

 

Whatever it is, my point was that the 'real' explanation, whatever that turns out to be, can be/will probably be found through scientific study. I don't see that as 'fringe' science. Making stuff up about an un demonstrable aether isn't 'fringe' science either - it is just making stuff up or misunderstanding the phenomenon, imo.

[Handy andy]

I have another thoughts ref the possibilities of an explanation ref the apparent reduced inertia. How about Frame dragging of space, on a small scale. If the planet earth can drag space and it is only rotating slowly, a motor rotating much faster would have a greater effect.

 

Perhaps there is an equivalence M off earth x rotational speed of earth = Mass of rotor x rotational speed of rotor.

 

Something Swansont posted on Machs Principle looks interesting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle also https://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/43

 

"inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies", this too could be interpreted as true in the context of the effect.

of the inertia of the machine being affected, by some Coriolis effect in space dragging.

 

Is it possible to extend the above statement to all matter, with space being drawn into the centre, causing a gravitational effect.

 

In the case of the Aspden effect if it was something to do with a coriollis effect in space around the machine, that takes time to diminish after the machine stops it would state something about space. Space having inertia or something equivalent.

[swansont]

Frame dragging is much too small of an effect to be seen on this scale. If you could see it with a motor, there would have been no need to do much more elaborate experiments that needed really good sensitivity.

 

You can't be just throwing out science phrases here. In physics we quantify effects. Even if it were a mass * rotational speed (and you have given no justification for this), the earth is around 24 orders of magnitude bigger than a motor in mass. The earth rotates once every ~10^5 seconds. A motor would need to rotate 10^19 times a second, so a rotor bigger than a nanometer or so would violate the speed of light limit. And that's to see an effect that's really small. To see what Aspden observed is something orders of magnitude larger.

[Handy andy]

Frame dragging is much too small of an effect to be seen on this scale. If you could see it with a motor, there would have been no need to do much more elaborate experiments that needed really good sensitivity.

 

You can't be just throwing out science phrases here. In physics we quantify effects. Even if it were a mass * rotational speed (and you have given no justification for this), the earth is around 24 orders of magnitude bigger than a motor in mass. The earth rotates once every ~10^5 seconds. A motor would need to rotate 10^19 times a second, so a rotor bigger than a nanometer or so would violate the speed of light limit. And that's to see an effect that's really small. To see what Aspden observed is something orders of magnitude larger.

 

Yes I understand there has been some real problems with the gyros used in the experiments to measure the frame dragging effect.

 

The estimated Earth mass is M_⊕ = 7024597220000000000♠(5.9722±0.0006)×10²⁴ kg

 

Taking a moderately sized motor of 59.722kg

 

1x10^24 times bigger

 

You are correct I was speculating with a quick linear relationship to mass and speed, without thinking it through or considering square laws etc.

 

Am I wrong in thinking frame dragging on the scale of a atom or particle that is spinning is plausible with current theory. I state this with a picture of an electron fog around an atom. Or considering an electron to be a dipole vortex in space.

 

What frame dragging does demonstrate is that gyros are affected by the movement of space, as must other things

[swansont]

Yes, it's an effect. A very, very small effect, of rotating objects on spacetime, and not responsible for the Aspden observation.

[Handy andy]

Yes, it's an effect. A very, very small effect, of rotating objects on spacetime, and not responsible for the Aspden observation.

 

Frame Dragging is way more interesting than the alleged Aspden effect.

 

Just to be clear, are you saying that frame dragging will also occur on the atomic scale, with fundamental particles. Has anyone to your knowledge ever produced a paper on this.

 

[swansont]

Frame Dragging is way more interesting than the alleged Aspden effect.

I believe there's an active thread on the topic.

 

Just to be clear, are you saying that frame dragging will also occur on the atomic scale, with fundamental particles. Has anyone to your knowledge ever produced a paper on this.

Did I mention fundamental particles in the handful of posts on the subject?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Aspden effect only please.