New interpretations of physics that lead to experiments

[POVphysics]

I've been watching episodes of Star Trek NG, and I wonder why we can't do some of those things.  Technologies like the Alcubierre drive, tractor beams, and other forms of propulsion that seem to defy physics as we understand it, could be achieved if we understood the mechanisms that create spacetime, better.  There is talk about unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity; but in my opinion, we should be unifying those things with big bang cosmology as well.  I am an arch chair physics enthusiast who gets to think about these questions from a point of view of being very motivated to achieve the Star Trek kinds of technology.   It is my opinion that what holds us back is that our interpretations of the various kinds of physics phenomena are insufficient to reveal the deeper patterns.  So let me begin.

I look at quantum mechanics, special/general relativity/big bang cosmology and I see grey areas that are not well understood, questions like:

1. a need for a way to broadcast physics constants everywhere in space.
2. a mechanism to create spacetime geometry in a way that is related to particles themselves,
3. and a way to get a medium with the Invariance of Spacetime property so as to supercede the Michelson-Morley experiment with something reasonable to explain what spacetime is made of.

You need a particle to explain why they exist at all.  As a physics community, you have to address these question or you can claim no mastery of the subject of physics. 

My goals for this paper are to: 

1. Justify the need for a particle that creates spacetime,
2. Assign physics constants to the new particle.
3. Give this particle all the properties of physics that explain why the particle "generates" OUR universe.

Then, the particle is released by EVENTS, starting at a point and expanding at the speed of light in all directions, like a very fast balloon.  The balloon is the particle in question, and I call it the Expanding Graviton.  I have to call it a graviton because it has to be the "thing" that spacetime geometry is made of.  But it also has to be the "thing" that connects standard model particles to the fabric of spacetime.  Depending on the particle, it could take 10^30 or more Gravitons to create the Quantum field that creates the given particle.  These gravitons have to expand, at the speed of light, to some minimum radius (and time) to a maxium radius and ct time.  Each kind of lepton or baryon field has it's own minimum and maximum radius and ct time.  But the spacetime continuum itself is more than a particle field.  It's the field that connects all particles together and is involved with relative positions, velocities, momentum (relative between particles) that account for its kinetic energy of motion, and whether or not particles will collide or pass over each other without transmissions of energy between the lasers.  The layers are what separate bodies in motion from other bodies of motion.  Yes, they're the expanding gravitons.

The reason this interpretation is important is because it reveals a way to escape the laws of motion in ways that are more efficient for the broadcast universe to exist.  That's pretty much why this interpretation of physics is better than what you have now.  Because it leads to ways and methods for processing laws of motion that are more efficient, which means it's faster to go somewhere.  Speed of light, c,...  If you wanted to think of the universe as being a computer simulation, then the processors that process all physics information would be the expanding gravitons.  But we're not going to gallup down that road,... because we're here to create gravity field generators. 

Generating a new quantum gravity field

It is easy for you to generate a quantum entanglement field (two entangled photons) merely by taking a laser, shining it at a crystal that easy entangles photons.  This will create two beams of photons, P1 and P2.  In a very simple experiment, you will use mirrors, lenses and fiber optics to land P1 photons into BeamStop1 and P2 photons into beam stop 2.  Beamstop 1 and 2 will be 10cm apart, facing each other.  The situation looks very similar to a magnetic dipole.  THe difference is that the P1 photons are sharing their quantum entangled P2 mates about 10cm away.  Do I have to explain why there is a quantum entangled field between the 2 beam stops?  Well, it's because we don't don't the nature of all of the entanglements between P1s and P2's.  Quantum entanglement is sort of like rolling one six sided die, and knowing that if you roll a 5, there is a 2 on the other side, the bottom of the die.  Now, imagine tanking a giant truck and dumping dice all over the parking lot.  You know that whatever number is on top, the 7 minus whatever you see on the top, is what's on the bottom.  Dice are basically like entanglements.  But since gravitons can be quantum entanglements and wave functions, (and I'm rushing, I'll fill in later), then we can capture gravitons by creating entanglmeents, and we can describe gravitons by using the operators in quantum mechanics, and basically attributes of quantum mechanics are built into gravitons.

I will tell you how to store gravitational potential energy inside of this quantum entanglement field, another night.

I have pictures!

 

[POVphysics]

Is there anyone out there who still believes that gravity field propulsion is still achievable to us?  Is there anyone out there who still believes that we can travel to the stars, that we can one day invent the interstellar drive, and really travel out there?

Is there anybody out there? 

 

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, POVphysics said:

I see grey areas that are not well understood,

By whom?

[Bufofrog]

5 hours ago, POVphysics said:

I've been watching episodes of Star Trek NG, and I wonder why we can't do some of those things.

Because Star Trek is science fiction.

[joigus]

You seem to be under the impression that physics is about playing freely with words and concepts, re-arranging the semantics, and such. That's for poetry or for literary fantasy, not for physics.

The language that you find in popular-science books that you seem to be echoing here can be very misleading. Those are valiant  efforts, shall we say, to dumb down what really are mathematical ideas related to experiments in the laboratory.

Trying to do physics with words and, even worse, supersede the known physics with extrapolations from those words, is a recipe for disaster.

x-posted with Bufofrog.

[Bufofrog]

5 hours ago, POVphysics said:

I have pictures!

Pictures are nice, but some physics would be better.

x-x-posted with Joigus...

Edited November 28, 2020 by Bufofrog

[joigus]

What you say here --what sounds like you say-- has several misconceptions in it. Too numerous to itemize.

Alcubierre metric is not a technology.

Quantum entanglement cannot be understood with dice. It's a completely different kind of correlation...

Etc.

Edited November 28, 2020 by joigus

[POVphysics]

6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Because Star Trek is science fiction.

Going into space used to be science fiction.  Today, it's reality.

[joigus]

Just now, POVphysics said:

Going into space used to be science fiction.  Today, it's reality.

Coming back from death used to be fiction. It still is.

[POVphysics]

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Quantum entanglement cannot be understood with dice. It's a completely different kind of correlation...

The opposite faces of a die add to 7.  If I roll a die, the bottom number equals 7 minus the top number.  If I measure a spin down on one entangled particle, I know the other particle is the opposite, spin up.  If you thought about it, you would see the similarity between a die and a quantum entanglement.

[dimreepr]

Just now, POVphysics said:

Going into space used to be science fiction.  Today, it's reality.

Yet, Star Trek is still a fantasy...

Learn some basic physics and you'll understand why. 😉

 

2 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

If I roll a die, the bottom number equals 7 minus the top number.

Are you sure about that?

[POVphysics]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Yet, Star Trek is still a fantasy...

Learn some basic physics and you'll understand why. 😉

Open your mind just a crack, and we can have a more interesting conversation about what is possible in physics.

[joigus]

8 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

The opposite faces of a die add to 7.  If I roll a die, the bottom number equals 7 minus the top number.  If I measure a spin down on one entangled particle, I know the other particle is the opposite, spin up.  If you thought about it, you would see the similarity between a die and a quantum entanglement.

OK. You really must go to a QM book and learn the stuff. Dice have nothing like what elementary particles have. They have infinitely many possible observables, and they're perfectly correlated for every compatible pair. It's as if dice had also colours; and every time you measure a colour, the other die face of the die has the corresponding anti-colour. And also they had density, volume, haziness, etc. And every time you measure that property in the other face of the die die, it has the corresponding anti-property. As long as you measure compatible observables. But when you measure incompatible observables, they become completely uncorrelated.

Now, try to do that with dice.

Edited November 28, 2020 by joigus

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, POVphysics said:

Open your mind just a crack, and we can have a more interesting conversation about what is possible in physics.

But physics describes what is possible... 🙄

[joigus]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

But physics describes what is possible... 🙄

At least in this world. Star Trek is another matter.

[POVphysics]

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

OK. You really must go to a QM book and learn the stuff. Dice have nothing like what elementary particles have. They have infinitely many possible observables, and they're perfectly correlated for every compatible pair. It's as if dice had also colours; and every time you measure a colour, the other die has the corresponding anti-colour. And also they had density, volume, haziness, etc. And every time you measure that property in the other die, it has the corresponding anti-property. As long as you measure compatible observables. But when you measure incompatible observables, they become completely uncorrelated.

Now, try to do that with dice.

The top side of every 6 sided die equals 7 - the bottom side.  So the top side/bottom side pairs are 1,6; 2,5; 3,4.  If I can see the top side, I automatically know what the bottom side is.  That is sufficient a metaphor to describe entanglement.  And it very easy to understand because everyone has experience with dice.  Right?

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But physics describes what is possible... 🙄

Do you want interstellar drives?  Or are you not interested in such things.  Today it's science fiction.  But with the right research & development, it could be possible withing 50 years.

[joigus]

1 minute ago, POVphysics said:

The top side of every 6 sided die equals 7 - the bottom side.  So the top side/bottom side pairs are 1,6; 2,5; 3,4.  If I can see the top side, I automatically know what the bottom side is.  That is sufficient a metaphor to describe entanglement.  And it very easy to understand because everyone has experience with dice.  Right?

OK. At this point I see you either don't understand what I said, or else, you don't bother to read what I tell you. Any of those is enough for me to ponder that it's no longer worth maintaining a discussion with you.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, POVphysics said:

The top side of every 6 sided die equals 7 - the bottom side.  So the top side/bottom side pairs are 1,6; 2,5; 3,4.  If I can see the top side, I automatically know what the bottom side is.  That is sufficient a metaphor to describe entanglement.  And it very easy to understand because everyone has experience with dice.  Right?

Did you ever play dungeons and dragons?

[POVphysics]

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

At least in this world. Star Trek is another matter.

I came to a physics forum

 

Just now, dimreepr said:

Did you ever play dungeons and dragons?

Did you?  😉

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

OK. At this point I see you either don't understand what I said, or else, you don't bother to read what I tell you. Any of those is enough for me to ponder that it's no longer worth maintaining a discussion with you.

I wanted to talk about the idea of creating a quantum entanglement field using a laser, crystal, some mirrors, two beam stops that are close to each other.  But if you have some important information about quantum entanglement that is relevant to the conversation, than by all means, share you knowledge.

This topic is really meant for people who are interested in steering physics towards more advanced technology. 

I really hope there are people out there who share this interest. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, POVphysics said:

I came to a physics forum

An excellent place to learn some physics.

3 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

Did you?  😉

Nope, I just learned they play with a die of more than six sides...

[POVphysics]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Are you sure about that?

 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Nope, I just learned they play with a die of more than six sides...

Maybe I should have compared quantum entanglement to coin tosses.  If one side is heads, the other side must be tails, even if the other side is some distance away.

[dimreepr]

Just now, POVphysics said:

Maybe I should have compared quantum entanglement to coin tosses.  If one side is heads, the other side must be tails, even if the other side is some distance away.

What about the other side? Neither heads or tails?

[POVphysics]

This is the idea of how to make a quantum entanglement field.  I don't think the physics community has ever considered such an experiment.

[dimreepr]

Quantum entanglement is nothing special, it has no means to break the laws of physics. 

It's like finding a left shoe and assuming it's pair is the right shoe.

[POVphysics]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What about the other side? Neither heads or tails?

 

Just now, dimreepr said:

Quantum entanglement is nothing special, it has no means to break the laws of physics. 

It's like finding a left shoe and assuming it's pair is the right shoe.

If two particles have entangled spin, if one particle is measured to have spin up, then the other must have spin down.  If that is not the essence of quantum entanglement, then what is?

So I ask, can the experiment described above be performed easily?  If so, can we talk about a quantum entanglement field existing between the two beam stops?