New Approach to Anti-gravity [Split from: A New Area Law in General Relativity, questions.]

[Wulphstein]

Let us say we have a wave function with a frequency that is linear with position on the x-axis, that we could write the frequency as [latex] \omega  (x) = \frac{\Delta \omega}{\Delta x} x + \omega_0 [/latex].  So the wave function would look like,

[latex] \psi = A e^{i  \omega (x) t} = Ae^{i ( \frac{\Delta \omega}{\Delta x} x + \omega_0) t} [/latex],

Next, the quantum mechanics momentum operator in the x-direction is [latex] \vec{p} = -i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x} [/latex].  So if we apply the momentum operator to the wave function, we get something like [latex] \vec{p} = -i \hbar \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} = \hbar \frac{\Delta \omega}{\Delta x} t [/latex].  This is a momentum that is a linear function of time.

When we calculate the force, [latex] \vec {F} = \frac {d \vec {p}}{dt} [/latex], we get a constant force that is equal to,

[latex] \vec {F} = \hbar \frac {\Delta \omega}{\Delta x} [/latex]

The centrifuging of entangled photons is intended to cause a wave function with a frequency term that is linear with x.  If that could be tested successfully, then we might be able to create entangled photon pairs, what I call threads, that carry a force, [latex] \vec {F} = m \vec {a} = \hbar \frac {\Delta \omega}{\Delta x} [/latex].  I think this is all we could hope for from an anti-gravity quantum field theory.  Please feel free to comment and ask questions.

Wow!  It's a derivation of anti-gravity!!!

Edited August 5, 2019 by Wulphstein

[Mordred]

First off you don't have antigravity in those equations nor entangled pairs. The formulas  you have will be useful but your not there  yet.

QM position  and momentum operators aren't particularly  suited for modelling spacetime. Hint QFT and GR both apply the four momentum...

Second hint QM applies primarily Schrodinger, for spacetime metrics you will need Kaluzu Klein

Edited August 5, 2019 by Mordred

[Wulphstein]

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

First off you don't have antigravity in those equations nor entangled pairs. The formulas  you have will be useful but your not there  yet.

QM position  and momentum operators aren't particularly  suited for modelling spacetime.

Thank you for your feedback.  The concept that I'm trying to articulate (at the science standard) is that the empty/vacant frequency/energy quantum states have something to do with gravity (acceleration) fields.  While gravity and curvature are an equilibrium of those states, the centrifuge (blueshift/redshift) of something that has those states in them (like an entanglement between two photons) can be centrifuged into a linear distribution.  The entanglement would last until it mixes with the entropy of the rest of spacetime, but in doing so, you get an F=ma along the way.  I'm trying to figure out how to state these concepts more precisely.  I'll take a look at ARXIV.  See if I can find something.  Again, thank you.

Find this interesting.  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.07497.pdf

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Wulphstein said:

The least efficient (easiest to understand) way to build this is to start with a monodisk.  A monodisk is a disk of radius 1 meter.  There is an optic fiber that runs from the outer radius r₂ = 1m of side A, to the inner radius, r₁=1cm on side B.  You will need a long crank shaft, enough to put, let's say 3 million monodisks on the crank shaft.  This configuration will redshift it.  How it works is that you shine the split beam into r₂ while it's spinning at 6000 rpms (preferably faster).  The photon burst has to hit a core (optical fiber entrance) that is about 1.5mm across and traveling at hundreds of meters per second, [latex] v = r \omega \[latex]. 

That's the problem. If you're going to entangle the photons, you need single-mode, polarization-maintaining fiber. therwise you lose the polarization entanglement. It's not a 1.5 mm core. It's closer to a micron. Hard enough to couple light in with reasonable efficiency when everything is stationary.

You still need to explain how a red- and blue-shift will cause antigravity, and why the entanglement is important.

2 hours ago, Wulphstein said:

Let us say we have a wave function with a frequency that is linear with position on the x-axis, that we could write the frequency as ω(x)=ΔωΔxx+ω0 .  So the wave function would look like,

ψ=Aeiω(x)t=Aei(ΔωΔxx+ω0)t ,

Next, the quantum mechanics momentum operator in the x-direction is p⃗ =−iℏ∂∂x .  So if we apply the momentum operator to the wave function, we get something like p⃗ =−iℏ∂ψ∂x=ℏΔωΔxt .  This is a momentum that is a linear function of time.

When we calculate the force, F⃗ =dp⃗ dt , we get a constant force that is equal to,

F⃗ =ℏΔωΔx

The centrifuging of entangled photons is intended to cause a wave function with a frequency term that is linear with x.  If that could be tested successfully, then we might be able to create entangled photon pairs, what I call threads, that carry a force, F⃗ =ma⃗ =ℏΔωΔx .  I think this is all we could hope for from an anti-gravity quantum field theory.  Please feel free to comment and ask questions.

Wow!  It's a derivation of anti-gravity!!!

One issue I can see is that the photon is continually interacting with the fiber. Any force you might think is there has to take that into account (it's a long-standing issue in the Abraham-Minkowski controversy, for example)

Also, you have a circular system, so integrated over a loop any effect that might be there tends to vanish.

[Wulphstein]

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's the problem. If you're going to entangle the photons, you need single-mode, polarization-maintaining fiber. therwise you lose the polarization entanglement. It's not a 1.5 mm core. It's closer to a micron. Hard enough to couple light in with reasonable efficiency when everything is stationary.

You still need to explain how a red- and blue-shift will cause antigravity, and why the entanglement is important.

There are certainly technical issues that make design difficult.  If you know of a text book of quantum entanglement for neophytes, let me know.

Just photons by themselves have the problem that if you redshift or blueshift them, there are no vacant quantum frequency states that can do the... "this part is hard to explain".  I think it's the vacant states, the non excited states of the quantum vacuum that are secretly and mysteriously trading information with each other.  I don't know exactly how.  It's not that unusual to say that physics information can only move at the speed of light.  What is unusual is when you think specific types, like frequency (time), wavelength (spacial geometry), energy (frequency), and momentum (wavelength) are all mixing together.  Sorry, I don't mean to add confusion to the answer.  But a quantum entanglement, between two photons, has some of those same empty states available.  Centrifuging is intended to put those frequency states in order, from smallest to largest. Then we can use those [latex] F = ma =\hbar \frac { \Delta \omega}{\Delta x}[/latex].

Another way to look at is is the entanglement is still a virtual photon that obeys [latex] c = \lambda_1 \nu_1 = \lambda_2 \nu_2 [/latex], where [latex] \lambda [/latex] is related to the geometry and frequency is related to time. 

Another way to think of it is that the potential energy stored by gravitational blue shift/redshift is [latex] \Delta U + h(\nu_2 - \nu_1) = 0 [/latex].

If I think of a clearer way to argue it, I'll post it.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Wulphstein

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

Just photons by themselves have the problem that if you redshift or blueshift them, there are no vacant quantum frequency states that can do the... "this part is hard to explain". 

What are "vacant quantum frequency states"?

8 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

If you know of a text book of quantum entanglement for neophytes, let me know.

You don't think it might be sensible to be intimately familiar with the subject before launching out with a new theory?

9 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

I think it's the vacant states, the non excited states of the quantum vacuum

What are "non excited states of the quantum vacuum"?

 

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

There are certainly technical issues that make design difficult.  If you know of a text book of quantum entanglement for neophytes, let me know.

Just photons by themselves have the problem that if you redshift or blueshift them, there are no vacant quantum frequency states that can do the... "this part is hard to explain".  I think it's the vacant states, the non excited states of the quantum vacuum that are secretly and mysteriously trading information with each other.  I don't know exactly how. 

Two issues that pop up are that 1) this is a massive hand-wave, and is precisely the part you need to explain and 2) the photons are in a fiber, not a vacuum, so the states of the vacuum (whatever they are) are irrelevant

 

14 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

It's not that unusual to say that physics information can only move at the speed of light.  What is unusual is when you think specific types, like frequency (time), wavelength (spacial geometry), energy (frequency), and momentum (wavelength) are all mixing together.

They're all related for photons, and don't represent different bits of information. There's no "mixing"

14 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

  Sorry, I don't mean to add confusion to the answer.  But a quantum entanglement, between two photons, has some of those same empty states available.

Again, you have done zero to explain what these "empty states" are or presented any independent confirmation that they exist.

14 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

 Another way to think of it is that the potential energy stored by gravitational blue shift/redshift is ΔU+h(ν2−ν1)=0.

If I think of a clearer way to argue it, I'll post it.

That says nothing about antigravity

[Wulphstein]

In the paper I posted, I described the basics of what it would take to create anti-gravity.  You take entangled photons, p1 and p2 photons.  You use centrifuges to blueshift the p1 photons, and redshift the p2 photons.   When you're finished centrifuging them however millions of times it takes to establish a good strong gravitational potential energy along the entanglement between the p1 and p2 photons, you put (store) the p1 photons at position x = -x₀ and p2 photons at position x = +x₀.  These are two positions along the x-axis.  If the experiment is successful, then there will exist a gravitational potential energy between -x₀ and +x₀ equal to the number of p1/p2 entanglements (threads) = n_f (the f stands for final number of surviving threads).  The total potential energy will be [latex]\Delta U_T = - n_f h\Delta \nu[/latex], where [latex] \Delta \nu = (\nu_2 - \nu_1)[/latex].  The p2 photons are redshifted to [latex]\nu_2[/latex] and the p1 photons are blueshifted to frequency [latex]\nu_1 [/latex].

The potential energy lets you set up a simple mechanics equation [latex]\Delta U = mg \Delta x[/latex]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Two issues that pop up are that 1) this is a massive hand-wave, and is precisely the part you need to explain and 2) the photons are in a fiber, not a vacuum, so the states of the vacuum (whatever they are) are irrelevant 

I would love to be able to get deep into the data analysis of such an experiment.  I would love to explain the handwaving better to you.  But this is what I can do is explain some of the basics and hope you get the idea, and see that this would be a good experiment to perform.  The fact that it hasn't been performed gives you nothing to stand on as far as declaring it won't work.  You haven't tried.  If I can think of anything else that might make this easier to understand, I'll let you know.  You should go and look at the PDF I posted.  It explains how the experiment would be performed, as much as possible.

Incidentally, there is a derivation that I borrowed from gravitational redshift.  It's in section 2.3 Graviational redshift.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Wulphstein

[beecee]

On 8/4/2019 at 2:26 PM, Wulphstein said:

We can perform an experiment that can prove antigravity is possible.  Exotic matter is unnecessary. 

First you need to go back to the fundamentals of the scientific methodology and understand that a scientific theory is as good as it gets...it is always open for improvement, modification or scrapping. Proof does not come into it.

On your claim....no you can't.

[Wulphstein]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

First you need to go back to the fundamentals of the scientific methodology and understand that a scientific theory is as good as it gets...it is always open for improvement, modification or scrapping. Proof does not come into it.

On your claim....no you can't.

What makes you believe that antigravity is not possible?

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

What makes you believe that antigravity is not possible?

Science?

[Wulphstein]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Science?

Step 1, develop a hypothesis 

Step 2, perform an experiment 

Step 3, analyze the results

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

Step 1, develop a hypothesis 

A hypothesis should have a sound basis. Not just be concepts that you don’t really understand thrown together at random. 

[Wulphstein]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

A hypothesis should have a sound basis. Not just be concepts that you don’t really understand thrown together at random. 

You should study the history of science.  It took centuries to figure stuff out.  

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

You should study the history of science.  It took centuries to figure stuff out.  

But that was never done on the basis of just making stuff up. 

[Wulphstein]

Antigravity is a prerequisite to interstellar travel. I wish the physics community would pursue it. But since they can't come up with a good hypothesis or an experiment,  what choice do  I have? Ill help you. 

DID you notice how I derived a force from a linear frequency term? That is worth looking at.

I got the idea from gravitational redshift, gravity's effect on light. It won't work in reverse, unless you figure out what is causing gravity.

[Mordred]

 It's not a prerequisite to space travel. Regardless of propulvise method you still have time to deal with. The worse being time dilation.  

 Look let's keep this straight fotward. You need far more than anything you have written in your article and on this forum.

 All forms of known energy/mass systems generate spacetime curvature but never to an antigravity effect. As you always have a positive energy density.

Entanglement definitely does nothing to change that truth.

 

[Wulphstein]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

 It's not a prerequisite to space travel. Regardless of propulvise method you still have time to deal with. The worse being time dilation.  

 Look let's keep this straight fotward. You need far more than anything you have written in your article and on this forum.

 All forms of known energy/mass systems generate spacetime curvature but never to an antigravity effect. As you always have a positive energy density.

Entanglement definitely does nothing to change that truth.

 

Can you explain the mechanism that causes the invariance of the speed of light? If you can't,  you're looking at it wrong.

If you know how time and space are mechanistically implemented by nature,  you can figure out antigravity. 

If you don't. Then ...

[Mordred]

Invariance of c is covered in the to first few chapters of any GR textbook.

 You can't learn GR without first learning  that lesson.

[Wulphstein]

If you know how time and space are mechanistically implemented by nature,  you can figure it out antigravity. 

If you get good at anti gravity,  you can design and build an alcubierre warp drive. 

Then you can ... travel superluminally. 

[Mordred]

Claiming isn't the same as proving.

[Wulphstein]

Once you can duplicate gravity, then you can experiment with shapes,  black hole curvature.  

I was concerned that I was not being articulate. I am prepared to explain my hypothesis.  

But maybe your belief system prevents you from listening.  I can't fix that.

[Mordred]

Has literally nothing to do with belief. I know the mathematics involved and the physics.

[Wulphstein]

Would it make more sense if I showed a picture of the the derivation of special relativity,  and showed how time and distance are intimately related to the speed of light. The mechanism of time and distance has c, the speed of light as one of its properties.  I can only think of two things that always travel at c: photons and virtual photons. 

Can we agree on this?

The invariance of the speed of light is a postulate of special relativity,  a mathematical tool.  I think we should tie it to the virtual photon,  as the physical mechanism that makes time and distance physical things, measurable things.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Wulphstein

[Mordred]

Look I know how to mathematically describe Spacetime curvature both positive and negative. I also know how to describe mathematically spin 1 or spin 2 gravitons in a path integral.

 We suspect spin 2 but haven't confirmed spin two.

 I also know how other fields affect spacetime as well as what is really involved in entangled states beyond pop media.

 Pictures don't count for much.

Trust me even if you generate negative curvature or even  anti gravitons. It's stil not antigravity.

In antigravity Newton's laws literally reverse. 

The good news is you don't require antigravity to use spacetime to generate thrust. Google Alcubierre drive.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Mordred