Thursday, December 21, 2017

Exoplanets

<-- (Previous 2T Physics) (Origin of Inertia) Next -->


Episode 19 - Exoplanets has been lost. We continue with our original numbering as we attempt to fix it.

Go to Episode 20 - Time Crystals for the next episode.

Please visit and comment on our subreddit, and if you can help us keep this going by contributing to our Patreon, we'd be grateful.

<-- (Previous 2T Physics) (Origin of Inertia) Next -->


Time Crystals



Jim talks to Randy about structures that are periodic in time like crystals are periodic in space. This idea came from Frank Wilczek in 2012, and was realized just recently, providing an extraordinary turn-around time from theory to observation.

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

Notes:

1. The papers we read for this program:

2. Our subreddit.

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

The following post was made to the arXiv_plus subreddit about these papers:

This was an interesting one. Frank Wilczek hypothesized, here, that there would be structures that were periodic in time the way crystals are periodic in space. The wave functions, in time, would be similar to the Bloch functions of condensed matter. The character of the wave functions would be a little like solitons, with an attractive nonlinearity balanced by uncertainty-related dispersion. His original model was to look at coupled superconducting rings. The coupling would repeatedly and periodically reproduce the same state.

In Discrete time crystals: rigidity, criticality, and realizations, Yao, et al., showed that the ground state wave function cannot have the periodicity required -- but an excited state could. What you would need to do is produce a Hamiltonian that did three things, successively: orient the system, order the system, and finally randomly disorder it.

Two groups wasted no time at all producing these excited "time crystals," simultaneously publishing in Nature about a year ago. One group looked at what I'd think of as a very artificial system, a few optically-trapped, ultra-cold atoms. In this case each of the effects was programmed by laser interactions. The other group used a real crystal: diamond with nitrogen vacancies at room temperature.

Both groups successfully reproduced the phenomena of Yao's paper. The nature of the Hamiltonians, if I'm free to interpret them, is a successive Zeeman interaction to align the spins of the atoms, an exchange term like the Heisenberg Hamiltonian, and a diffusion term.

There is some similarity to spin echos here, but the effects are much more coherent.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

The 2T Physics of Itzhak Bars

<-- Previous (Time Travel) (Exoplanets [Lost]) Next -->




Randy tells Jim about a theory that complements other theories of fundamental physics based upon a phase space symmetry between the 4-position and the 4-momentum of a particle. The upshot of the theory is that there should be a second time dimension and a fourth space dimension, both macroscopic in extent, and the physics we see are 4D projections from the larger 6D space-time.

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

Notes:

1. The papers we read for this program:
  • A two Time Universe?, by Tom Siegfried on phys.org. This is a popular article on the theory.
  • The Standard Model as a 2T Physics Theory, Itzhak Bars. AIP Conference Proceedings 903, 550 (2006) [arXiv]
  • Gravity in 2T Physics, Itzhak Bars, Physical Review D77, 125027 (2008) [arXiv]

2. Itzhak Bars lecture on 2T Physics.

3. Extra Dimensions in Space and Time, a book containing a longer, less technical (almost popular) description of 2T physics by Itzhak Bars. That takes up about half the book, the other half is John Terning discussing more traditional extra dimensions in string theory. My review on PhysicsFM is here.

4. Please visit and comment on our subreddit, and if you can help us keep this going by contributing to our Patreon, we'd be grateful.

<-- Previous (Time Travel) (Exoplanets [Lost]) Next -->


Friday, November 24, 2017

The Physics of Time Travel

← Prevous ( Energy Harvesting ) ( 2T Physics ) Next →


Recorded: 2017/04/02 Published: 2017/11/23
Randy and Jim try to get their heads around how time relates to relativity. Of particular interest is Kurt Goedel's 1949 solution to the field equations that shows closed time-like null geodesics (paths followed by massless particles moving at the speed of light). The subject focuses mainly of some implications of general relativity that obey our intuition locally, but not globally.

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

Notes:

1. The papers we read for this program:
  • An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations of Gravitation, Kurt Godel (Rev Mod Phys 21 447 (1949)
  • Cauchy Problem in Spacetimes with Closed Timelike Curves, Physical Review D 42, 1915 (1990)
  • Closed Timelike Curves, Bryan W. Roberts
  • Is Physics Consistent with Closed Timelike Curves? John L. Fiedman, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
  • Chronology Protection Conjecture, S. W. Hawking, Physical Review D 46, 603 (1992)
  • Time Travel and Time Machines, Chris Smeenk and Christian Wuthrich, Oxford Handbook of Time (Oxford)


2. Related episodes of Physics Frontiers:


3. Books related to this podcast:


4. James Gleick's Google talk on time travel, and Time Travel: A History, the book it's based on.

5. I dropped about 7 minutes of my recording, which from Randy's comments included a brief discussion of positive probability of backward causation in the Compton effect's path integral formulation. I did include his overview of "Time Travel and Time Machines," after the end of the show which is a philosopher's take on the issue.

6. Our subreddit.

← Prevous ( Energy Harvesting ) ( 2T Physics ) Next →

Monday, November 6, 2017

Stochastic Resonance Energy Harvesting

← Prevous ( Levitation ) ( Time Travel ) Next →


Recorded: 2017/03/05 Published: 2017/10/21

Randy tells Jim about ways in which external vibrations can be used to do useful work in large-scale devices. These processes look at have happens when bistable systems (e.g., a bent cantilever) are subjected to random forcing from the environment.

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

Notes:

1. The papers we read for this program:
  • A Piezomagnetoelastic Structure for Broadband Energy Harvesting (APL2009)
  • A Review of the Recent Research on Vibration Energy Harvesting via Bistable Systems (2013)
  • An Application of Stochastic Resonance for Energy harvesting (JSV2014)
  • An Experimental Study of Stochastic Resonance in a Bistable Mechancial Systems (2012)
  • Bistable Vibration Energy Harvesters (2012)
  • Feasibility of Energy harvesting Using Stocahstic Resonance (2014)
  • Towards Broadband Vibration-Based Energy Harvesting

2. Past and future shows:


3. Bing Crosby, Ac-cent-tchu-ate the Positive:

4. Our subreddit.

← Prevous ( Levitation ) ( Time Travel ) Next →

Saturday, October 21, 2017

Five Proven Methods of Levitation

← Prevous ( Stochastic Electrodynamics ) ( Energy Harvesting ) Next →


Recorded: 2017/03/05 Published: 20017/10/21
Randy shows Jim five different ways in which a body can be levitated: by magnetism, by superconductors, by Lenz' Law, by acoustics, and most recently by thermophoresis.

1. The particular magnetic levitation we talk about is diamagnetic.  A very, very large magnetic field induces a large magnetic moment in an object as a reaction.  If the diamagnetic component of the object's magnetic susceptibility is larger than its paramagnetic component, the resulting magnetic moment will oppose the field.
Superconductors also expel magnetic fields from their body by the Meissner effect, which makes a "perfect dielectric."  This allows the superconductor to levitate.
2. Using Lenz' Law, eddy currents that are induced by time-varying electric fields produce magnetic fields that react with their source, levitating the object.
3. Acoustic levitation occurs when standing sound waves are set up in a region, providing areas where particles can levitate.
4. Optical traps work in a similar way to acoustic levitation with electromagnetic fields instead of pressure fields.
5. Thermophoretic levitation occurs when temperature gradients produce a force that allows small object to float.

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

Notes:

1. The papers we read for this program:

2. Videos of levitating objects:

3. Our subreddit.

← Prevous ( Stochastic Electrodynamics ) ( Energy Harvesting ) Next →

Saturday, October 7, 2017

Stochastic Electrodynamics

← Prevous ( Photon Trajectories ) ( Levitation ) Next →


Recorded: 2017/02/11 Published: 2017/10/04

Is the entire cosmos awash in a sea of invisible energy? Nikola Tesla thought so. And today a few daring theoretical physicists are pioneering the effort to explain the most exotic characteristics of quantum theory by describing the nature of this universal field of energy and its physical consequences. If they’re right, their theory could revolutionize the energy and transportation sectors around the globe, and perhaps even throw open the door to new forms of spaceflight. On this episode of Physics Frontiers, we’ll investigate the theory of stochastic electrodynamics, one of the most intriguing concepts in modern physics and a rising contender to explain the quantum world.

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

Notes:

1. The main paper we read for this program: Contribution from Stochastic Electrodynamics to the Understanding of Quantum Mechanics by de la Peña and Cetto [arXiv]
2. The secondary paper we mentioned in program, predicting spontaneous parametric up-conversion: Non-Locality: The Party May Be Over by Marshall [arXiv]

3. Our subreddit.

← Prevous ( Photon Trajectories ) ( Levitation ) Next →

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Exotic Photon Trajectories in Quantum Mechanics

← Prevous ( Gravity's Time ) ( Stochastic Electrodynamics ) Next →



Jim and Randy discuss strange trajectories observed in triple slit experiments with metallic plates. Photons seem to pass through one slit, come back through the middle slit, and out the third due to their interactions with surface plasmons. There are implications in this experiment about the way in which wavefunctions need to be interpreted in non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

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

Notes:

1. The paper we read for this program: Exotic looped trajectories of photons in three-slit interference by Magaña-Loaiza, et al. [arXiv]

2. Our subreddit.

--------------------------------------------
← Prevous ( Gravity's Time ) ( Stochastic Electrodynamics ) Next →

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

The following post was made to the arXiv_plue subreddit about this paper:

This paper discusses deviations from the predictions of the Born rule (the interpretation of the probability of an observation being the norm of the convolution of the wave functions of the initial and final states) that are observed when the interference effects of a triple slit experiment are examined. By using a three slit experiment rather than a two slit experiment, the authors follow the procedure of Sinha, et al., that showed a null result in 2010. This procedure looks at all seven combinations of the three slits (in a random order), subtracting the three slit interference pattern from the interference patterns of the other six combinations. The combination of the six double and single slit interference patterns should exactly match the the triple slit interference pattern if the Born rule held.

In 2010, they found that the Born rule held, to one part in 100.

This paper (published in Nature Communications) uses surface plasmons on a gold barrier to "enhance the electromagnetic near-fields" near the slits in a way that increases the likelihood of trajectories that cause violations of the Born rule. These trajectories snake and backtrack through the triple slit apparatus.

The comparisons between the single, double, and triple slit interference patterns indicate evidence for these snaking trajectories. Whether this really indicates evidence that the Born rule fails, I'm not sure.

← Prevous ( Gravity's Time ) ( Stochastic Electrodynamics ) Next →

Sunday, August 20, 2017

A Gravitational Arrow of Time

← Prevous ( Photonic Molecules ) ( Exotic Photons ) Next →


Recorded: 2017/01/28 Published: 2017/07/16

Jim and Randy discuss a cosmological theory that purports to find an explanation for the arrow of time in gravitational theory based on the shape and distribution of matter and how it evolves.

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

Notes:

1. The paper we read for this program: Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time by Barbour, Kowslowski, and Mercati.

2. Mentioned in this episode: The Physical Basis for the Arrow of Time by H. Dieter Zeh.

3. Mentioned in this episode: Gravity From the Ground Up, B. Shutz.

4. [Update] It came to me in the shower: the word I was looking for is "eschatological."

5. Our subreddit.

← Prevous ( Photonic Molecules ) ( Exotic Photons ) Next →

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Photonic Molecules and Optical Circuits

← Prevous ( Requirements ) ( Gravity's Time ) Next →


Recorded: 2017/01/21 Published: 2017/07/16

Randy tells Jim about photonic molecules, pairs of photons that create bound states like molecules do through a force mediated through an ultracold gas and similar ideas in optical circuits. They also discuss application of the same for quantum computing.

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

Notes:

1. The papers we read for this program:

Firstenberg, O., Peyronel, T., Liang, Q.-Y., Gorshkov, A., Lukin, M. and Vuletic, V., "Attractive Photons in a Quantum Nonlinear Medium." Nature 502, 71 (2013)

2. My reservations about this episode. Probably just above this one.

3. Our subreddit.

← Prevous ( Requirements ) ( Gravity's Time ) Next →

Friday, June 30, 2017

Requirements for Gravitational Theories

← Prevous ( f(R) Theories ) ( Photonic Molecules ) Next →


Recoded: 2017/01/15 Published: 2017/06/30

In this episode Jim and Randy talk about how to evaluate alternative gravity theories. What sort of things do we want them to explain, what experiments do they have to predict, and what theoretical requirements do they have to meet. This is in some ways a continuation of Episode 9 - f(R) Theories of Gravity, but the discussion is relevant to all attempts to amend gravitational theory.

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

Notes:

1. "f(R) Theories of Gravity, by Thomas Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni". The basis for this discussion and the last program's, as well.

2. The list Randy refers to in the episode. Probably just above this one. 3. Our subreddit.

← Prevous ( f(R) Theories ) ( Photonic Molecules ) Next →

List of Requirements for Gravitational Theories

Here it is without fanfare. If you have any questions about any part of it, please comment in the comments:


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

To be theoretically consistent and compatible with experiment, a theory of gravitation must:
(1) Predict correct cosmological dynamics
a. Big bang nucleosynthesis
(2) Produce the correct evolution of cosmological perturbations
a. Cosmic microwave background
b. Large scale structure
(3) Have the correct weak-field limits
a. Reproduces Newtonian Mechanics
b. Predicts post-Newtonian experiments in weak field
c. Produces stable solutions
i. Matter-side instabilities (Dolgov-Kawasaki)
1. Ground states should be highly symmetric
ii. Gravity-side instabilities
1. Stable de Sitter solutions
iii. Stability of the first loop in quantum gravity
iv. Stability in the face of inhomogeneous but isotropic perturbations
v. Black hole nucleation
(4) Not contain any ghost fields
(5) Admit a well-posed Cauchy problem
(6) Reasonable theory of gravity waves

Friday, June 2, 2017

f(R) Theories of Gravity

← Prevous ( Vacuum Fluctuations ) ( Gravitational Requirements ) Next →


Recorded: 2016/12/17 Published: 2017/06/02

Jim and Randy discuss gravitational theories that modify general relativity by changing the action using a polynomial dependence on the Ricci scalar. Although not physically motivated, some of these theories produce effects similar to those of dark matter, dark energy, and cosmological constants.

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

Notes:

1. "f(R) Theories of Gravity, by Thomas Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni". The basis for this discussion and the next program's, as well.

2. Our subreddit.

← Prevous ( Vacuum Fluctuations ) ( Gravitational Requirements ) Next →

Friday, May 5, 2017

Vacuum Fluctuations and the Casimir Effect

← Prevous ( Gravitational Dipoles ) ( f(R) Gravity ) Next →


Recorded: 2016/12/10 Published: 2017/04/27

What are the latest theoretical and experimental developments with the Casimir effect, and are vacuum fluctuations physical, or simply a convenient model for calculating the effects of quantum noise in the fields of matter? On this episode of Physics Frontiers, we explore some of the surprising discoveries that physicists have made unraveling the strange dynamics of mechanical components so small that they can’t even be seen through an optical microscope. And along the way we consider some of the fundamental mysteries of quantum field theory, as applied physics enters the realm of nanotechnology…and approaches exotic new possibilities like quantum levitation.

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

Notes:

(1) Materials Perspective on Casimir and van der Waals Interactions by Woods, et al., the basis for this discussion.

(2) Our Subreddit

← Prevous ( Gravitational Dipoles ) ( f(R) Gravity ) Next →

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Virtual Graviational Dipoles

← Prevous ( Experimentalist ) ( Casimir ) Next →


Recorded: 2016/11/26 Published: 2017/02/14

Randy discusses what the Cosmological implications of a negative gravitational mass would be with Jim. If there were a negative gravitational mass (as opposed to inertial mass), then every time that an electron-positron pair was created in the vacuum, that would create a gravitational dipole. This in turn would create effects similar to dark matter, dark energy, and a cosmological constant -- and this in turn would have an effect on the origin of the universe.

Links:

Virtual Gravitational Dipoles: The Key for the Understanding of the Universe? by Dragan Hajducovic. The paper we discuss in the podcast.

The reddit.

← Prevous ( Experimentalist ) ( Casimir ) Next →


Transcript (Rough Draft; added 2020/07/15)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
07:26:40 All right. Well then, let's get this started in the traditional map. Yeah, we're ready to rock. 07:26:45 All right, I guess this week on physics frontiers we're going to be talking about one of my favorite theoretical physics rock stars, a certain theoretical physicist named dragon. 07:26:57 I'm sorry dragon. 07:26:59 It looks like it's spelled dragon but it's dragon a dragon has Djokovic. 07:27:05 He's a physicist from Montenegro, and he has an amazing idea that defies a lot of our common sense notions of matter and gravity. But explains a huge range of current cosmological conundrums his idea. 07:27:26 Be, I guess, How I see if I can say this differently. 07:27:32 Dr hack Duke. Dr Hodge Duke of it because idea appears to explain. Dark Matter, dark energy. The unresolved cosmic inflation mechanism of the Big Bang, using a single postulate that antimatter falls up in a gravitational field. 07:27:52 So in any case, the idea is that if if matter has a positive gravitational charge. And anti-matter has a negative gravitational charge, then the quantum vacuum fluctuations that we know and love, which not which we're used to, because I believe quantum 07:28:09 electrodynamics depends on this idea is that there's a sea of virtual particles, and every cubic centimeter of space. You've got virtual photon pairs, appearing and then disappearing positron electron pairs, appearing and self annihilating, and even heavier 07:28:28 particles if I understand properly, like protons and anti-proton pairs, appearing and annihilating simultaneously, and has Duke avec is saying that. Another aspect of the quantum vacuum fluctuations, is a pair of gravitational charges gravitational dipole 07:28:47 that are constantly bubbling up into existence and then annihilating each other. 07:28:52 that are constantly bubbling up into existence and then annihilating each other. Now, the whole point of this is the idea that anti-matter may have an negative gravitational chart would still have a positive inertial mass, but the gravitational charge 07:29:03 would have the opposite side. Or at least that's that's the idea. And then you already have this idea about the quantum vacuum fluctuation right from QED I think, and others in the standard model, the standard model you have these vacuum fluctuations 07:29:17 which are basically short lived pairs of articles matter plus anti-matter that last for 10 to the minus 22 seconds or something like that. 07:29:26 You know they already have an electric dipole right if you have a positron and electron you have a positive and negative electric charge already, and then according to this you do the same thing with the mass. 07:29:38 This makes some sense at least if you're thinking about some sort of conservation of mass, for example, I don't think that's a really good argument for it I think that's just a reason why you might think it would occur. 07:29:49 So, the idea is that you simultaneously have dive holes. These gravitational dies, you create these two things. 07:29:58 They're, they're pretty close to each other for short time. Pretty close means around the order of the company wavelength or less, and then they fall back into each other, destroy each other and have a nice day. 07:30:09 And this will be happening all the time going up the vacuum, with the shortlist virtual parents. 07:30:18 And that's how you end up with your gravitational dive. 07:30:23 Yes, he's just saying that let's add on to in addition to the current laundry list of virtual particles popping into and out of existence constantly. 07:30:33 What's that gravitational pulls to the mix and see what happens. And well he's not adding anything in all he's doing is saying, the consequence of the hypothesis that antimatter has a negative gravitational charge is that you have these gravitational 07:30:50 diaper. Okay. There are associated with those particles there nothing new. 07:30:54 It's just, this is what would happen if and say particles have a negative mass, which is an open question. 07:31:02 That's right there and there's some experiments underway right now at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland and France, that we'll find out soon. Bye, they think is early as 2018. 07:31:13 The Alpha experiment, and there's also two others ages and G bar, which are competing to measure the influence of gravity on antimatter and alpha is going to do it by creating anti hydrogen atoms to dance I proton with the positron orbiting it, and then 07:31:31 cooling them down so that they're moving slowly enough that they can measure to see if they drop or rise in a gravitational field that any other influences. 07:31:42 Okay, and so soon we're going to find out if there's any basis in fact to this but this is a big What if paper. That's right. So he took the Vic is saying that. 07:31:56 If this is true, what's actually going to happen what is that going to mean, and he gets some really nice things out of it. Is there anything else at the beginning of that you think needs to be said, Well, I think that we should talk about a little bit 07:32:07 about the fact that we know that the quantum vacuum fluctuations are real, because we've got the QED model, basically, as I understand it defines the field, as the interaction of the virtual particles with charge, and so forth. 07:32:23 So the field the magnetic fields that we know the electrical fields that we know are all manifestations of this interaction with the vacuum. And then there's an even more direct measurement using the Casimir effect where you can actually place two mirrors 07:32:36 two uncharged mirrors very close to each other. And there's a pressure differential that pushes those mirrors closer together. And it's exactly the strength that we would expect. 07:32:47 If the virtual particles were actually physically real. 07:32:51 Okay, so I just wanted to go in to that a little bit and just to just describe that the vacuum fluctuation is do appear to be a real physical phenomenon. 07:32:59 And so if you, if you add in the additional association of gravitational dipole to this, then we can move forward with his predictions which are astonishing. 07:33:11 Okay, well, that's pretty good to start with, you want to move on to some of the specific cases, so he has. What was it, five separate cases or six cases I think 12345 cases that he was looking at five, or five implications that he was looking at that 07:33:29 I think we might want to talk about, well let's first. Let's first give the name of the papers that everybody can keep up with those if you want to check it out as we go through this. 07:33:38 The, the name of the paper that we're looking at right now is his 2014 paper called Virtual gravitational disciples. 07:33:51 The key for the understanding of the universe, or with a question mark, I should say. And then I'd also like to mention that there's a 2015 PowerPoint presentation online called, what if quantum vacuum fluctuations are virtual gravitation will die poles. 07:34:02 And there is also a little segment where he's interviewed in a BBC production, called Project green glow. The quest for gravity control, which I checked out this morning it was kind of fun. 07:34:16 So, the consequences of his Fs postulate. 07:34:20 You wanted to start with the cyclical universe model that's interesting let's start there. The whole point of this is that we start off, you know, we were just talking about these quantum vacuum fluctuation was right. 07:34:31 We're talking about pair production. And that's basically what we think created matter in the universe. 07:34:37 We only have one kind of issue with that, that issue is that creation would create equal amounts of matter and antimatter. That's right. They call this the barrier Genesis problem, and somehow we just have this problem where we don't see a lot of anti 07:34:50 matter running around, which is good for us, because if there was a lot of anti matter around it probably wouldn't be in US running around, but the theory says, and everything looks like it should be symmetric, but according to Duke of it, there should 07:35:05 be some sort of issue with. So, how does that work well in all of the lab experiments and all the phenomena that we see a nature like a showing our mechanism. 07:35:17 When particles are created, they're always created in pairs. 07:35:20 You've got your particle and your antiparticle. There is only. I think one case, in the standard model, where there is some kind of asymmetry in that and it's an extremely rare phenomenon I believe in involving the chaos, is that right. 07:35:36 That is correct. 07:35:38 And that mechanism isn't frequent or strong enough to account for the enormous abundance of matter that we see in the universe. And so we're stuck wondering well where would the where's the anti matter, and it first. 07:35:57 The theory is that there may be maybe there are entire galaxies, composed of antimatter because anti-matter would react with itself, just like matter, interacts with itself, and the light and the spectroscopy, we wouldn't know the difference. 07:36:08 But it doesn't appear that we see the annihilation events that we'd expect in the universe where matter and antimatter come together because it creates a very easily identifiable signature of gamma rays, and we don't see these big gamma ray bursts whenever, 07:36:22 say, a rogue planet or star goes flying into an antimatter galaxy and annihilate. 07:36:30 So, Another physicist in Italian physicist I believe his name is a lot of postulated that well maybe anti-matter repels other forms of anti rather anti matter and creates these diffuse regions in the voids between galaxies, and maybe those are filled 07:36:48 with anti-matter. 07:36:49 But again, we've got terrific experiment. 07:36:53 I believe it's the alpha to experiment in orbit right now. 07:36:57 What does that mean, let's say that satellite is detecting particles in orbit around the Earth right now. No, I have no idea. I'll have to look that up. 07:37:07 It's not important, but we're looking for this. We've been looking for antimatter and we were not seeing are not seeing the kind of anti malware that we'd expect. 07:37:15 We're not seeing anti hydrogen. We're not seeing anti-matter cosmic rays. 07:37:21 At least not in the, in the form that we'd need to Sweden, we'd expect if there was a bunch of anti-matter out there. And so, cosmologists have been stumped by this, how can we explain this abundance of matter in the universe, and how Djokovic is saying, 07:37:37 Well, actually, it could be that this universe is dominated by matter, and that it's going to go through a cyclical process where eventually the acceleration will slow down and come to a stop. 07:37:52 And it will re collapse. And in the collapsing of the universe and it reaches a very dense coalescence where the field gravitational field is extremely intense, that there's a showing or mechanism where all of the matter will be converted into anti-matter 07:38:13 and all of the anti-matter will be converted in the matter. So the next universe will have the opposite abundance of anti-matter over matter. So, over time, averages out to a conserved, Barry on number. 07:38:27 So you're saying he thinks that there's some over time. I mean what I recall, was he was talking about, like a black hole. Right. 07:38:37 And the black hole, sort of starts collapsing in on it, and eventually gets to the point where if there's anti-matter in that region. It just tries to go away from that region. 07:38:46 And so all the anti-matter gets pushed out from this sort of Big Crunch event for example for for the or it gets pushed out from the collapsing black hole and the same thing would happen with the Big Crunch. 07:38:57 So while the matter was all coalescing you'd get this spray out of all of this anti-matter that was being created through the vacuum fluctuations because in that actual position. 07:39:16 The gravitational field is so strong that it can actually tear these virtual died poles apart and turn them into real particles. That's right, except he, he, his theory eliminates the, the singularity of the big bad. 07:39:25 Well, I mean, that is a consequence and that's, that's one of the nice things about his theory is that this is a consequences that you no longer end up with the Big Bang. 07:39:33 Really you don't end up with a big crunch and a big bang, what you do is you get everything coming together. And then you have things coming out you no longer have the need for something that doesn't quite make sense, like a cosmic inflation model, which 07:39:46 is what we're stuck with right now. That's right right now. He's replacing the Big Bang I guess with a big bounce right because everything will get down to this extremely dense state, and then the gravitational repulsion will be so strong that it'll bounce 07:40:01 outward again. And then it'll keep doing this over and over again and who knows how long this has been going on. I was wondering if maybe the imbalance between the matter and antimatter maybe that's a result of this, that chaos process, adding up over 07:40:20 successive generations of universes, you know, maybe, I don't know where, like, Where did the, the imbalance come from in the first place. Yeah, that's the major issue with this is that in the paper always says, Well, if the last universe was an antimatter 07:40:33 universe in this universe is a matter universe and the next universe would be another entity matter universe, but it doesn't say how it starts up or anything like that so it becomes an explanation but it becomes one of these explanations pushes everything 07:40:46 back to look just a little bit farther, but it makes life a little nicer because you end up getting rid of things like singularities, which apparently this does over and over. 07:40:57 You know, but it's interesting to think about that, we do have this one phenomenon in the standard model that is not perfectly symmetric. And I wonder how many iterations of, I wonder if we could predict how many iterations of the universe to have to 07:41:11 have been further to build up this imbalance of matter and antimatter over time. You see what I'm saying. Yeah, you can think about something like that but I'm not sure how well I mean I think we need to think about that and a lot more detail. 07:41:25 more detail than I understand it. Yo me. Me too I think that it would be really hard to. But although not necessarily impossible to calculate what the conditions are would really be like in this super dense. 07:41:41 Big bounce kind of moment with each universal, you know, re, re expansion to try to do a mathematical prediction on how to how, how much power production would be associated with the chaos and what kind of imbalance you get over time. 07:41:59 So, let's see. 07:42:01 He gets he does cover the math pretty, pretty thoroughly on here, he doesn't do a lot of extensive derivations but in. He's been publishing papers about this idea since about 2011 and there's a series of papers about it. 07:42:15 And I think that, and different papers he covers different aspects of the idea. And this looks more like a summary of his findings. Yeah, I mean he talks a little bit about this stuff but I think the most interesting thing that I saw in there was the 07:42:28 whole there being particular shells inside of like that black hole, that would be radiating out these different things so there'd be like an electron positron show will be shooting out electronics, for example, and then there'd be a neutron shell, that 07:42:42 would be shooting out neutron or whatever. I think it was new crop made that was neutrinos, and the radio are different by fast for 43, so I mean it's fairly interesting to me but I mean you'd end up getting a spray electrons, right at the beginning well 07:43:03 I wonder how that I wonder how to explain, I didn't see that part where does he talk about how it explains the margin at the universe now. 07:43:11 Like how do they remix, they had such a, such a head start on each other well these guys wouldn't remix. Right. Well I mean the electrons would have to bond the protons later on. 07:43:22 Right. Well, they would sometimes yeah I mean and they would if you know they're really matter, and they're just wander around doing it whatever random things that they're doing. 07:43:31 The question just becomes, you know when they're going to do that. So, been a long time since people were trying to make anti anti hydrogen in the lab just to prove you could make that but you know these things will happen, you got billions of years to 07:43:44 make it happen. More than billions of years to make it happen. But yeah, and you'd have to explain the timeframe, and the cosmic microwave background radiation. 07:43:54 I guess a lot of these things be, you'd have to figure out how to do what he wouldn't have to do it. So right now, this is a fringe theory and it's a French theory because it has a really really strong. 07:44:09 reason to believe. And so you there's not a lot of work being done on what would the cosmic microwave background radiation be how can I make this fit every single thing that actually has been measured in the sky. 07:44:22 Right. 07:44:23 But if they do find, they do find there is a negative mass to this, and I had written they were talking about, then all of a sudden, there'll be lots of people for account exactly those sorts of issues. 07:44:34 Well, let's be careful that we were using the term negative mass because I think people are going to think that means negative inertial mass and that's a whole other theory, which Robert forward talked about, and Martin timer. 07:44:55 in Europe has been looking into. We're just talking about gravitational charge, positive and negative right. But the thing that I that I find really compelling and. 07:44:58 And I can see where a theoretical physicist would be intrigued by this and I think rightfully is that this one idea, you can explain and he shows the calculations to be within error bars on dark matter, dark energy, right. 07:45:14 The two biggest cosmological mysteries that we're up against right now. And I think when you've got one idea that can explain both of those. 07:45:24 Then you've got something that which really deserves a close look, because right now with dark matter. 07:45:29 We've extensively got 10 times as much dark matter in our galaxy and in countless other galaxies throughout the universe that and we've never detected a single particle to explain what this, what it is. 07:45:42 And we're looking really hard, and then dark energy, dark energy we seem to be stuck with a completely intractable model of negative pressure in the quantum vacuum, which I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation for and plus this theory abolishes the 07:45:59 inflate on the hypothetical particle that would have driven the Big Bang expansion in the first instance of expansion of the universe so that's pretty impressive set of predictions to make from one hypothesis. 07:46:14 And if he's right and the math holds up and the order of magnitude estimate city has here for the cosmic acceleration and dark matter, then there may be some kind of truth in it. 07:46:27 Well, if he's right. It's hard really to say I don't know how much traction this really gets it doesn't look like it's something that's getting a lot of citations. 07:46:36 You know this isn't stuff that he's publishing and in Physical Review a or anything like that. So it looks like something that people have a lot of issues with somewhere. 07:46:45 Do you know what those are us what I was kind of kind of hoping to face with those are. Yeah, I have no idea what those are, because I've never heard of this before you sent this to me and and I had a couple of days to read it and just figure out what 07:46:58 the guys doing, let alone try to figure out things about it and I wouldn't do that much work trying to figure that out either. 07:47:06 If he's been talking about it since 2011 It could just be because nobody's heard about it because he doesn't he doesn't talk about it, to the right people. 07:47:15 Well I've seen articles on fish. org and, And, and I saw him interviewed at Large Hadron Collider and he was talking with the guys working on the alpha experiment. 07:47:26 So, these yeah it seems like people on the experimental side, at least as far as trying to measure the, what happens with anti hydrogen new gravitational field, you know you got three different teams working on that right now and they seem to know his 07:47:40 work and. 07:47:52 And it's sort of, they seem to see it as a kind of lightning rod for their efforts, because there's a, that would be the most exciting outcome right is the thing that people expect least. And I've seen objections online of science sports. 07:47:58 People denying the idea that anti-matter could have a negative gravitational charge. But when you really look at them, and I hope we can do some of that tonight. 07:48:08 There really aren't any convincing arguments that against it. I think that it may just be one of these, the momentum of science culture things. I mean we're so used to thinking that positive inertia equals positive gravitation period that, because that's 07:48:25 what Einstein's theory said, but of course I don't think Einstein was even aware of that we weren't even aware of antimatter at the time that general relativity was created right. 07:48:35 No, I wouldn't think so. And we really didn't have any reason to think about it until well yeah definitely not so anti-matter actually was a sort of weird theoretical discovery, because it shows up in the direct equation, the positron shows up in the 07:48:41 Drake Equation just for no particular purpose, so it was a theoretical curiosity, just like this negative gravitational charge would be right because there was no reason to suppose it exists, except that it showed up in the first attempt at a relativistic 07:49:06 theories of quantum mechanics. 07:49:08 And then later on people found the positive promise. Yeah, yeah, that was like 1928 that we got our first indication of the positron I think so, that was so well. 07:49:21 What a decade decade and a half after general relativity was introduced. Yeah, 12, people I think are fairly open to the idea that there might be a negative mass for antiparticle, I just don't think a lot of people will give it a lot of weight because 07:49:33 there's again no positive reason to say it exists. So I mean, there have been people trying to do these experiments for years and I don't think anybody's been particularly upset about people trying to do these experiments I think doing experiments to 07:49:47 find out if something like this is actually true or good I think everybody believes we want to test, especially things that we think are most reliable, but we don't have any real evidence for, for example, but there is no such thing as negative gravitational 07:50:01 chart. You know, we believe that there's absolutely no reason to believe that's true, other than we've seen absolutely no evidence. So finding some way to test that in any situation at all really is a really interesting but even if it turns out that the 07:50:17 world is as boring as we thought it was right because we really need to know for sure. So, let us know for sure. Just tell us about antiparticles in general but do you know that doesn't mean, in the long run will find some other way to make a negative 07:50:39 gravitational trunk. Right now the only thing that I think anybody has any hope have seen the negative gravitational charging is an anti matter. Yeah, although I did love the idea that we saw on our last talk with the gravitational dipole generator in 07:50:47 forwards paper guidelines to anti gravity paper, where he showed a device that could at least ostensibly by the linear equations of general relativity which told that there, you could generate a gravitational dipole. 07:50:59 So there seems like there's a really strong theoretical basis to believe that it's possible to see that effect one way or the other. If you can make something as complicated and weird and go fast enough. 07:51:13 In that particular, I guess it's not that weird but it's just a pretty complicated thing that popped for putting that paper, to try to build with some sort of mass for sure. 07:51:21 Sure, yeah and it's it's certainly going to be outside that kind of devices, looks to be what far beyond our capabilities in the foreseeable future. But I think it's a proof of principle concept in a theoretical way that hey, you know, if we could arrange 07:51:34 matter to do this and this way, then we would see this effect. Yeah, but that's still wouldn't be a negative gravitational charge that would be a dipole. 07:51:42 That would be literally it that would be literally a dipole. And that would still be a completely different thing. But that's all that we need for this theory because that's all he's talking about here is a virtual gravitational dipole. 07:51:53 That is completely unrelated to this. This particular theory, you need something much stronger than what Robert forward was talking about in this theory you need a negative gravitational charge on anti matter, that's a very strong statement competitive 07:52:10 interest between those two ideas should be very, very large, especially because even though, Robert for words device looks weird. It's something that we should expect should exist based on the analogy between electricity and gravity. 07:52:28 Right. On the other hand, the negative gravitational charge opens up something completely new. 07:52:43 And that's really exciting. If that's the case that's really exciting. Yeah, it seemed like when they brought it up in this BBC production, that would be kind of a watershed moment in that we, we would suddenly, I guess, have least some theoretical opportunity 07:52:50 to start exploring. 07:52:52 Negative gravitational effects technologically, and you know if you think about it, if you had a some kind of confinement machine that could suspend anti-matter in a vacuum. 07:53:03 So that it wouldn't touch the matter that contains it. 07:53:08 And if you had more of that anti-matter inside the device than the mass of the regular mass of the device with matter, this guy's theory is true, the freakin thing should be able to fall up, just as naturally as a body of matter falls down right. 07:53:22 Yeah, that would be a blimp that made the Hindenburg. Look, look like a date to be true. 07:53:28 Well yeah, you wouldn't want to see a failure of that system without annihilating the planet. 07:53:34 But have you just conceptually, Suddenly, we will be going from. Here's Robert forwards idea that you would need an unimaginable technology in order to do in several millennia. 07:53:46 And here's something that we could do at a very small scale on a lab that would show us effects that we've never seen before. So that was that's the kind of thing that we could see happen within our lifetimes. 07:53:56 Yeah, I mean, we probably would soon as I figure this out. 07:54:01 If they know they can do it will do a lot of engineering to improve their yield on the anti hydrogen, but I'm sure they're working on that now, but still get a lot more money to do that, then just imagine if we could make anti iron, right, then you could 07:54:12 just spend it in a super conductive cylinder right so that it would just be good magnetically suspend it, it'd be solid, right, it would be almost safe. 07:54:22 I'm sure people are right now thinking about how to create heavier and heavier elements heavier and heavier anti elements I guess they do. Right, right yeah we're saying we can't even use regular matter very well right now, and we're going to try to do 07:54:35 with anti-matter. Well, yeah, but I mean you know as soon as they can get some, that's the next thing. And usually you don't really need to do that with regular matter that many things you really want to do that with, except for things that don't last 07:54:48 very long to begin with, like, you all the Unknown, Unknown out there I believe there is an actual unobtainium. 07:54:57 Something like that. 07:55:04 On unobtainium or something or there are a bunch of names like that that are really placeholder names. Okay, so these are placeholder names, while chemists get together and argue about what they should name, the women's next few elements that's been discovered. 07:55:14 I mean, used to be the discoverer got the name, but now they've decided that this is not the right way to do things. You should have an International Committee, so that, you know, the next, the next element I think will be plutonium. 07:55:29 And there'll be a Trump Ian pretty soon I'm sure it's going to be the greatest, the greatest data member. 07:55:38 Well I'm glad you brought that up because I hadn't even really, I'm so excited about the theoretical prospects for this guy's idea. I hadn't even really seriously consider what the technological and patients would be, because it's just such, we're just 07:55:53 cosmological we were banging our heads against the dark matter and dark energy and the inflation problem and barrier Genesis and all this stuff it to see one idea that could neatly wrapped them all up and tie them off with a bow, just it's just his work 07:56:08 is riveted me for years, because there's just nothing else like it i i scour these fringe theoretical papers, night and day for years on end, looking for ideas like this that could tie together and resolve some of the biggest mysteries in a really elegant 07:56:25 way. And although it's an unpopular idea on the science sports, you know, I'm glad that you've got a more broad mind about this kind of thing because you go into the chat boards and you get shredded if you mentioned the idea. 07:56:40 Any idea like this that oh maybe anti-matter has a negative gravitational charge. I mean, people will tear you apart they don't want to hear it. Yeah, but why are you on the chat board. 07:56:49 Well, just a lot of times you'll be, you'll be like reading an article and then there's a comment section. 07:56:55 You know, And so you'll read an interesting article and you'll have something relevant like to say about it that might tie in an idea to something else that you think people might find interesting. 07:57:05 And you know once in a while there's somebody who's like, oh cool I'll look into that but most of the time, and it's usually you know the members who have been there for years on end and have like a street cred to defend who will come at you like a frickin 07:57:18 Dobermans, if that's where you want to play. Right. 07:57:23 I don't I don't play there too much anymore I learned I learned my lesson. That's exactly what's going to happen I mean that's that's one the internet and to, you know, the message boards tend to get a little bit worse, especially if they're not really 07:57:36 really well and unless they're really really moderated but even in a place like this, it sounds like they're probably even attacking you in ways that wouldn't get them tick off the moderator. 07:57:49 I don't know, maybe they are attacking you will get you kicked off but you know they can be pretty vicious. Yeah, and still be perfectly within parameters for something like that. 07:57:59 I guess we've already talked about this, this, this idea of his gets rid of I said five. Five things but there are four things here and, and the fifth is just something that we have to understand to make two of them work. 07:58:11 There are four things that I really really liked about the implications of the steering. 07:58:16 The first one was that cyclic universe I like the way that worked out though, I have no idea if it's right or not but it looks very nice and it gets rid of the singularity anytime you get rid of the singularity, I'm with you. 07:58:28 The next one was it gets rid of, sort of the cosmological constant problem, because cosmological constant feels to me like Watson right yeah you know it's just, it's the soup, that's out there that has no particular reason to be there and doesn't even 07:58:43 have a real existence, it's just this weird negative pressure constant density fluid that we don't get to detect except that somehow it makes the math. 07:58:53 I want to point out that it would be the one thing in nature, I think that we've seen so far, that doesn't come from or have any direct relation to matter, like the matter if the universe is irrelevant in that model in the current dark energy model. 07:59:07 It's just a negative pressure in space time and that's it. But almost everywhere else we see that, you know, it's a product of the existence of matter, interacting with each other through some mechanism. 07:59:19 Yeah. So, as far as I can see that this is able to get rid of it right by saying that instead of having this indefinable soup we have this definable suit of, you know, this quick creation and annihilation of disciples, because, because you get that fluctuation. 07:59:33 I mean, it may sound like a little thing to some people but it's, it's actually a meaningful idea about why we have this whole cosmological constant thing, rather than the silly soup idea, and that he was able to get it within the realm of, I can't remember 07:59:51 exactly how close his prediction mathematically was to the actual observations we've seen, but they they line up pretty damn well yeah I think that was the one where he said you know the number was between one and two and his back the envelope calculation 08:00:06 was 1.5 so experiments in one or two times whatever. 08:00:12 And he got 1.5 I think that was that one. Yeah, but a similar thing came up with the dark matter of calculations that he did, Yes, he was pretty close there too. 08:00:22 Yeah, yeah, he was close in the dark matter and so yeah and the dark matter and dark energy, were the other two things that I liked him getting rid of those with just this thing again, you have to understand one more weird thing about this theory, which 08:00:50 is that there ends up being a gravitational polarization of the bathroom. So, I mean a polarization is polarization is a field. So normally when we think about polarization we're thinking about a light beam and we're saying okay the light beam is polarized 08:00:52 and you know it's this way or that way. But what he's talking about when he says polarization is a completely different thing. 08:00:58 It's like the polarization of a material right it's like a pope the polarization of a dielectric material. And what happens in the dielectric material is that when you put a material inside of a electric field. 08:01:13 Well the atoms are made up of a positive partner negative. And they align yeah yeah the positive part wants to go with the field the negative part wants to go away from it. 08:01:23 So you get this sort of net displacement of the nucleus, to the electron cloud. 08:01:29 And you end up with dipole dipole. At that point, is what creates the polarization. So, so what you say is okay if I look at a larger group of these things, you know I end up with a look at a region that I can say this has a polarization that I can add 08:01:46 on to my field in direction because it creates sort of an extra field right there. And then if you add all that up for your entire material, you get your dipole moment for the material. 08:02:00 But these little polarization vectors that are all over the material, you know they're in all sorts of different directions so they cancel a little bit here the castle little bit there but if it's in a field, it has a polarization. 08:02:11 You can look at this microscopically on the inside of the material, and you see that there are little fluctuations all over the place for what direction the polarization is in, even though, has a net moment in one direction. 08:02:25 It's always different just a little bit. 08:02:28 And that's what he's saying happened to space, only with gravity, but it also must happen with electric charge as well because, you know, the things that are popping into and out of existence that are creating these cycles are also charged or mostly charge, 08:02:44 Oh yeah, I hadn't thought about that the fact that the same, the same virtual particles that create gravitational disciples in this theory also usually have a good electrical charge as well except for the photons. 08:02:56 So those are those are married together. 08:02:59 I wonder if that gives us an opportunity, and other like theoretical opportunity to use some kind of electromagnetic technology and in order to harness this polarization effect gravitationally yeah you might be able to force the gravitational polarization 08:03:15 using an electric field. Well that's really exciting. 08:03:19 I hadn't even thought about that. 08:03:21 Yeah, I was a little bit confused because it wasn't as clear in the PowerPoint that I was looking at today that the gravitational dipole CDs talking about where the product of the particles themselves the you know the electrons and positrons and the and 08:03:36 the protons and the anti protons, when we, when we look at the virtual particles in the vacuum, as I understand it, and let me clear me up if I'm wrong about this, but the heavier particles. 08:03:49 There's something like a proton anti-proton pair to those exists, less frequently in the quantum vacuum, or do they just exist for a smaller interval of time because seem to remember there was something there was a relationship between their mass and 08:04:04 their longevity in, and their momentum and things like that, the different amount of time that's inversely proportional to their energy. So, heavier ones, last for a shorter amount of time. 08:04:16 I'm not sure about the actual process but in most things when you're creating something, it requires exponentially less probable to create something normally that that has a higher energy, does that mean that the heavier ones occur, less frequently, I 08:04:32 would expect that they would both occur less frequently, and they would disappear more quickly. They would annihilate. 08:04:42 But the first one I'm not completely sure about just the way most things work in physics. 08:04:49 They would be produced less, but I don't have any particular knowledge about that. In this particular case, so I could be completely off. 08:04:58 But the second part I'm, I'm really sure. The second part I'm sure it would be fun to maybe we can do a program sometime about the quantum vacuum, because I'd like to study it more carefully and maybe we could get some into the nitty gritty of that because 08:05:12 it's it's a fascinating subject. Yeah it is. It is really interesting read about it. Let's see I guess one of the things I wanted to make sure we went over where the, where the objections there. 08:05:26 There's some possible evidence against the, the hypothesis that he's, he's posited here. 08:05:33 There's one example that, that, that I could probably the most compelling example that I could find was the observations in 1987, when the supernova a 1987 a exploded smear 167,000 light years away and large measure Magellanic Cloud. 08:05:55 We. 08:05:55 I think we observed the photons, and are in three different neutrino detectors on the earth detected the arrival of neutrinos simultaneously. And this is, this is cited as evidence that the neutrinos must have followed the same gravitational path is the 08:06:10 photons to arrive at the same time, but it also seems that our detectors can't distinguish between the interaction of anti-neutrinos in neutrinos, at least not very well, so they don't know if they were neutrinos or anti-neutrinos or both. 08:06:29 Now, in this in the Duke of x theory I imagine that neutrinos would be mass particles and so they'd follow the normal gravitational curve, just like photons would and anti-neutrinos that guess would be repelled by gravitational field so they take a different 08:06:44 path. 08:06:46 But, uh, but if the anti-neutrinos took a different path, then maybe all we detected was the neutrinos, and they said there was an estimate of like one to 10% chance that we only detected neutrinos and no anti anti-neutrinos I'm not sure how they do that 08:07:00 math, you know, especially in light of the, the idea that if Matt anti-neutrinos took a different path than maybe, maybe they would have been detected later or maybe they maybe that signal could have been lost against the cosmic background I'm not really 08:07:14 sure. 08:07:16 But that was the strongest experimental case that I could find and it seems like there's still a lot of questions about it. 08:07:21 One of the questions is, is the neutrino itself seems to be kind of a mysterious particle. It seems like we haven't quite figured out yet. If those are direct for romance, or margarine margarine of fermion and. 08:07:37 And if they're margarine fermion. Then there is the only thing that's different between the matter and antimatter version. I guess in a, in a similar way that photons of their own antiparticle Well, yeah, well I mean well they have an anti nuclear, I 08:07:54 think the. There's a lot that they don't know about neutrinos they do talk about these oscillations with the fields between the different the different levels of nicotine or whatever they are, but I mean if they were arriving at the same time with 1987 08:08:21 at least some proportion of them in whatever distance that was I'm not sure how far away was 1987. That was 100 I think 167,000 light years it was in the large mental attic cloud. Then if if these are showing up at that time given the, the material detectors 08:08:37 That makes massive, they have to slow down to less than the speed of what and so we would not see them at the same time, okay. That's okay. That's right, that's right, they'd be seriously delayed if they slowed down at all, because that's a huge interval. 08:08:44 Yeah, but the but the other thing is that it seems like every time we've measured neutrinos velocity the neutrino velocity said it's always been singing. 08:08:51 Yeah, like I don't think I've seen a measurement yet where they didn't travel it See, and that that just raises the whole question, how can they travel at the constancy just like light, it's still have a rest mass. 08:09:03 So right now, they think that at least one of those neutrino bits, and then the free lacerations has the men. Okay. That doesn't mean that all of them. 08:09:13 Oh, weird. The other two could still have no response that could include your electronic cleaner right, which would be your most common one. 08:09:24 So I guess in our lab experiments were not able to make the massive con song, or they don't have time to oscillate maybe between the limiter and the detector. 08:09:34 Yeah, you've done all sorts of issues they but yeah they wouldn't have time to ask me on a terrestrial experiment I don't think I'm not sure how well they create them but I don't think they'd have time to ask wait on top of being difficult to detect all 08:09:46 those other things, so they don't get that mass from terrestrial experiments they get them from the wheel oscillations, like the sun, right, because I think it was the missing, there was the missing missing neutrino problem back in the day, and they figured 08:09:58 that out because there was enough time from the oscillate between the Sun and the Earth, that if like a third of them became a different kind that we weren't detecting Is that right, I really know enough about it well so that so that seems like there's 08:10:09 so many questions about neutrinos and anti-neutrinos and oscillations and all that kind of businesses seems like that's pretty weak experimental evidence to refute the idea that antimatter would have a negative gravitational charge right and so the only 08:10:25 other thing that the other argument that I've seen is the theoretical one, which we've kind of talked about already, which is, you know, the general principle. 08:10:33 The general theory of general relativity and the week equivalents principle, where we assume that positive inertia equals positive gravitational charge. 08:10:43 But again, We can't be sure. 08:10:46 Right. I mean, until we have some kind of experimental evidence. We can't say that because the theory says that it must be true because theories evolve. 08:10:54 Yeah, that's not really a good argument at all. Are there any, are there any good arguments that you can think of that are like, well, this could be a showstopper. 08:11:03 Well if you'd like to. 08:11:06 There is a review article that he mentions here as well as the original article from physics reports, the arguments against anti gravity and the gravitational acceleration of anti-matter by Nieto and Goldman, I guess it's maybe it's Neato but it's an 08:11:21 iEq, and the ordinance of the he gives against antigravity are trying to show that anti gravity is somehow incompatible with the current with the conservation of energy. 08:11:34 And this is a technical argument. Another one is that different materials should contain different fractions of the virtual anti-matter so if it falls up, it should already have been detected by classical tests of the weekend equivalents principle that 08:11:48 one spaceship, who is a guy who's big in gr. And then there was one that was based on CTV violation that would say that there would be a very large charge parody violation. 08:12:10 Okay, off to look at these. I'm intrigued by ships argument because I've never heard that before that, that this phenomenal would lead to a violation of the week equivalents principle and laboratory experiments. 08:12:20 But do you understand that that ship argument. Not at all. 08:12:24 That's all right. All I could do it I like having more reading to do, because then you know where to look, you know, in order to see the disproves in the lab. 08:12:32 Okay, well. 08:12:34 We did a prediction that there's going to be a gravitational repulsion between matter and I met right so then you've got the guy on the other hand of the argument where he's saying that he would predict this effect. 08:12:59 be gravitational repulsive in inverse time. I like a lot. He's got a number of articles online but I think he was he was his idea that he thinks that anti that there's an equal amount of anti-matter in the universe but he's the one who thinks that it 08:13:20 exists in these large intergalactic voice actually like the discussion here about some of these gravitational charges or the gravitational charged density, and stuff. 08:13:36 But yeah, I don't know anything about antimatter in the cosmic voice. I don't know what it would look like I, I kind of suspected if it was there, there's enough going on, enough random things going on that you would see traces of it. 08:13:45 Yeah, you'd see those annihilation signals coming out of those voids right it's a piece of rock or something flew in there and blew apart. Yeah, that's what that's what I think what one. 08:13:56 Yeah, yeah, I guess if we won't know until we see it. I mean, I have no idea how often giant pieces of galaxies decided to fly off into the void two things, but you think would happen right because then stuff, blowing up all the time you got supernovas. 08:14:11 and things. Yeah, I'd expect it, but I have no idea what really happens in those events. I think I remember the name of that satellite or we think it was the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to that's in orbit right now and one of its missions is to look for 08:14:25 antimatter and the Nope, brilliant Nobel laureate who designed the thing, said that if we can detect just one atom of anti helium. 08:14:37 Then we've got proof that there's a anti-matter stars out there. And so we when we've got some indication that there may be entire galaxy is made out of anti matter. 08:14:47 are gravitationally repulsive, then maybe an antimatter galaxy would push away all of the incoming matter, so that it wouldn't actually penetrated. 08:15:02 Maybe after enough time anyway yeah i mean you know if you have. 08:15:08 If you do have large regions of anti-matter in between the galaxies that would definitely. And if the anti matter has. 08:15:34 And if the anti matter proposed matter, then that would keep everything inside of this silly galaxy thing. 08:15:28 Keep the anti-matter from getting into the galaxies. So you. 08:15:33 So you wouldn't get too many interesting events. 08:15:36 But then you probably should get some fairly large concentrations of it as well. 08:15:42 That's right, but unless it interacts with something you want to be able to detect it from looking at it, because I understand it, oh well yeah but you might end up back with anti-matter galaxy. 08:15:50 That's right. That's right. Maybe there wouldn't be enough of gravitational thing to do that but you think that if you have big things pushing you away from them towards things that you want to be attracted to. 08:16:02 Pretty soon you'd end up with bigger combinations of stuff. And then now you have all these things that we could actually. 08:16:08 Yeah. And we can see back, how many billions of light years into the universe and we were not seeing these gamma events, you know, just using isolation events anywhere. 08:16:18 Well, I really love a high Duke of x work and I'm glad that you found it interesting. It was fun reading this and it's something that I think I can cost me with on the street. 08:16:30 Will Be careful, don't cost any sides for people on the street because they'll have your head. 08:16:42 Oh yeah, I forget about that everybody's a big dog when they're using an anonymous avatar. 08:16:58 All right, Jen thanks for going over this with you today and, and it's good to learn some things about these about these arguments and look at them from a fresh perspective. And I'm glad we got to share that with our audience. I bet they're as excited as we are, somebody out there is I can feel 08:17:04 it. 08:17:06 I know all 10 of them and I know that they're saying, 08:17:10 Let's wrap this up and get to the beer Alright, sounds good. I think I'm gonna get myself one right now. All right. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
← Prevous ( Experimentalist ) ( Casimir ) Next →

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

General Relativity for the Experimentalist

← Previous ( Pilot Waves ) ( Virtual Dipoles ) Next →


Recorded: 2016/11/26 Published: 2017/02/14

Randy shares a couple of his favorite papers with Jim: discussion about general relativity by engineer and science fiction author Robert L. Forward on how general relativity could be used in a terrestrial environment, including proposals for devices and materials.

Show notes:
------------------------------

1. Papers we read for this program:
2. Related Episodes of Physics Frontiers:


← Previous ( Pilot Waves ) ( Virtual Dipoles ) Next →

Transcript (Rough Draft; added 2020/07/13)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
09:49:18 Hey Randy How's it going, Good. 09:49:20 Good to hear from you. 09:49:23 So I heard you wanted to talk about anti gravity or something like that. That's right. This week we're going to talk about probably the most exciting thing in horizon physics in this the thing that kept me interested in physics from a young age is the 09:49:37 prospect of a gravitational field technology synthesized man made artificial gravitational field, and you're looking at this from a particular perspective, you're looking at this from Bob forwards, ideas, as I understand. 09:49:51 That's right. The, it took a while for me to find this but turns out the back in 1961 1962 and absolutely brilliant physicist who was also a fiction writer named Robert L forward had published a couple of papers and, frankly, I found all of his papers 09:50:07 to be riveting, he wrote a number of technical memorandums for major defense contractors, one of the papers, we're going to look at tonight was a technical paper written for the US Research Corporation, which is one of the top, you know, black projects. 09:50:24 Top secret military science kind of facilities in the country, the similar probably Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works. 09:50:32 So he was writing papers for these people about cutting edge theoretical physics concepts, maybe as a cornerstone for them to start new research we really have no idea what's going on inside these facilities, but it wouldn't surprise me if they haven't 09:50:48 played around and extended this work, substantially in the last 50 years. All right, so we've got two papers here the main one we're going to look at is guidelines anti gravity, and that was published in the American Journal of physics, the American Journal 09:51:04 of physics is an educational journal. Okay. So, the main use of the American Journal of physics, I think, is to sort of propagate examples for students. 09:51:18 So, of course. 09:51:18 Well, that's where it got published but I believe that it was originally written for us research laboratories, you should see that at the top of the paper downloaded off the internet. 09:51:29 And you'll see at the top under says guidelines to anti gravity, Robert L forward, he was Research Laboratories Malibu, California received on the 12th of September 62, and then you can see that it was reprinted from the American Journal of physics. 09:51:44 From 1963, so I believe it was initially right written for them and then published, no okay so yeah when you're reading these things. Yeah, where it says user research laboratory Malibu Malibu, California, that's just as address. 09:51:55 Oh, so that's where he was employed at the time when he's, when he wrote this paper. Okay, yeah, yeah so this wasn't a top secret paper that he snuck out to a bunch of undergraduates. 09:52:05 Oh no, I'm not saying it was a top secret papers smuggled out but it was, I mean he was research laboratories, and he was Hughes Aircraft I believe it is today. 09:52:14 They do a lot of that really cutting edge black projects kind of research and science. 09:52:20 I met scientist to physicist, while I was studying USC, who said that, that he couldn't tell me what what he was working on, but but anything that I could imagine they had already done. 09:52:34 And I was like, Well, you know, I can imagine a lot. He's like, I know. Okay. 09:52:38 So, I mean, yeah, I mean Bob forward was working on a lot of things like that. Um, he was also. He also wrote this general relativity for the experimentalists, which was in the Proceedings of the I already know what it stands for. 09:52:51 Yeah, Institute of radio engineers to defunct journal, it was, that was part of the I triple E which is a large in electrical engineering. It is the Electrical Engineering Society. 09:53:03 So, you know, this is a reasonably good thing. So when I looked at when I looked this up, and I'm on I Tripoli explore it says, Stop being published in 1962. 09:53:14 Go to the proceedings of the I triple E. Well this is why I love this is why I love Robert forward so much is that he was writing about really on the fringe concepts. 09:53:24 I carry is talking about well how do you do experiments on general relativity, in a laboratory environment. 09:53:31 How do you, how do you create gravitational effects that you can measure, and he was in he was a very credible mainstream scientific thinker, being here he has his papers republished like you're like you say, and reputable places, and it's all about based 09:53:47 on very firm science, I'd like to get into the deep stuff into later time but I mean there are a lot of interesting things in this paper about, you know, different systems that he's looking at in these approximation that he has. 09:54:06 I think it's worthwhile to just talk about that approximation before we talk about the systems just say what the issues are right. Yeah, I'd like to. I want to do that too but first I want to mention that what we're talking about his, his very recently 09:54:11 come to the fore. In terms of viable experimental proposal. There's a paper called how current loops and Solon though it's curved space time in physics review de by an author named fuse, or whose know this was a 2015 paper, and in, in that paper he describes 09:54:34 a fairly challenging, but but attainable experimental setup involving to superconducting solenoids to be powered under constant current, I believe it's something like 10,000 amps or electrical current that could distort space time enough to shift to the 09:54:57 phase of light propagating through that space time and be detected. So here we've got a proposal that we could do that it looks like it's about maybe on the scale of San DSZ machine experiment where you've got like these 30 foot diameter of superconducting 09:55:16 magnets, and you've got a laser beam bouncing between along the access that joins them. 09:55:24 And it shifts the, the phase of the light enough that you could detect it with an interferometer and interferometer a similar to that in the, in the Lego experiment, the Lego gravitational wave detectors. 09:55:39 So I thought you were just talking about measuring the change of pace of light. That's right. That's exactly right. You would pass a beam, between them solenoids and then pass another beam. 09:55:50 That would go through the solenoid so you could detect the, the change in the geometry of space time, or the rather than the distance I guess between them. 09:55:59 Yeah, so that would be a standard interferometer setup there's no reason to talk about something that scale of Lego. Right. 09:56:06 Well, it wouldn't need to be as big, but it would use the exact same principle, and in the same high precision tuning that they've employed to to get their detection sensitivity down to like 10 to the minus 11th radians per second of shift. 09:56:21 So, using that that level of sensitivity on a much smaller scale, you don't need laser beams that are like a kilometer long or anything. I think you just need them a few meters in the case of this experiment that you could detect the shift of the phase 09:56:35 in the in the interference pattern. Okay, so we'll talk about that at some point after I've actually looked at it and, well, I just wanted to mention it because we're talking about these 1961 and 1962 papers. 09:56:47 And at that time, this kind of experiment was considered to be beyond the reach of our current technology and Robert forward a few cases mentioned things that we hadn't proven yet. 09:56:57 Like, he, he was talking about the magnetic field, he calls the rotational field, because I believe at that time the term Vito magnetic hadn't been invented yet. 09:57:09 And, and we've already proven, the veto magnetic field around the Earth. I believe he proposes a satellite experiment to test it, but he felt that it was beyond our ability to detect. 09:57:20 Well, 40 years 50 years later, we did that experiment, and after making some effort NASA made some breakthrough advances in in gyroscope technology, and we were able to verify that that the Greta magnetic coupling induces the type of shift in the gyroscopes 09:57:41 to within 10% of the prediction of general relativity. Okay, we'll put that on the list to. 09:57:47 So basically what you want to point out here is that even though these are old papers, they still have something to offer. Oh, there's not a lot to offer but it's fascinating that even in since they've republished we've already accumulated additional 09:58:00 experimental evidence to that really shows up the foundation of their basic assumptions and tenants, which is that, you know, if we if we put our thinking caps on we can move ahead with experimentation on artificial gravitational fields in the lab. 09:58:17 Alright so let's actually talk about these papers do we wanted to talk about sort of the assumptions that go into this because forwards just looking at things in an approximation. 09:58:26 So he wants to look at these things and approximation that will be viable for, you know, human experimentation. Yeah, in order to make the equations to give us equations which an engineer would be comfortable using to predict the magnitude of effects 09:58:42 to within the first order approximation. He went through a process in general relativity for the experimentalists where, if you go to the week field limit, and you use small masses using it non relativistic velocities etc etc. 09:58:56 You can arrive it. 09:58:59 It's some analytical equations which are pretty easy to work with, that are actually inform identical to Maxwell's equations. 09:59:14 Yeah, and I think it's important and I think this is one of these things where if you're talking about something like this, I think it's important to keep in mind everything that's in the approximation. 09:59:21 And, you know, we're talking about sort of low mass density, sort of normal mass density, right, we're talking about, much lower than the speed of light, the Connecticut potential energy is that we're using to describe the system should be much less than 09:59:35 the rest mass of any of the objects that we care about. 09:59:39 The fields are always weak enough to that sort of position is valid and basically what that means is that the you know the bending of space is such that, you can always use a sort of local linear approximation, and have a linear force to work with. 09:59:57 Okay. And the distance between two objects aren't really really really large, right. So, you're dealing with sizes of things that you could reasonably do it you've not just in the live record but possibly or something the size of the Earth, but you don't 10:00:10 really care about this approximation isn't going to work very well for anything where you know you're looking at the interaction between galaxies or something like that. 10:00:20 Right now there's no delay in the propagation, that you can measure, yet the way he's done this is you know you don't worry about that delay. That's what we do and electromagnetism all the time for undergraduates because for most of you graduate stuff 10:00:33 as well because doesn't really matter for most effects. So he had basically two parts to this paper guidelines for anti gravity, and some of these things are repeated in the other paper and a lot of the things that I'd like to bring in from the other 10:00:47 paper would be things that were, you know, would fit in the first part of this, you know when he talks about non Newtonian gravitational forces, but basically, he's looking at the effects. 10:01:01 You know the gravitational effects that don't look just like us lot of universal gravitational. 10:01:07 And the second part are devices, and what you need to have for those devices that actually might have some interesting little magnetic effects basically yeah what was great about general relativity for the experiment list is that he went through and showed 10:01:22 you the derivations and the full equations explored the expand even give you some, some numerical examples of the linear eyes equations that he was employing, and to show you the magnitude of results of different types of scenarios. 10:01:40 And that would be reasonably attainable in the lab. But in guidelines to anti gravity, he's focusing more on the types of effects that that can be observed, where you're looking at the inductive qualities of credo magnetism, or you've got moving masses, 10:01:59 interacting with both stationary and other moving test bodies. And then he gets into the experimental concepts, and that's where it really gets exciting, because he talks about at the very end, he brings in a generator. 10:02:13 What a generator might look like of a dipole gravitational field. Yeah, basically starts out and it gives you these different things to look at. Right, like first he shows you the rotating ring right yeah so I think he's just sort of building this up 10:02:26 because he's adding each one of these another effect. So, yeah, First he is has this rotating ring so that's a steady state effect. And it's a lot like having just a current which is what we do in electromagnetism, to generate a title field. 10:02:41 Right. But I think what you're showing us there's a counter intuitive effect that we want to really we don't conventionally think of when we think of gravity. 10:02:50 And in this case what he's talking about is that if you have a test body, it's inside a spinning ring of mass and the spinning ring acts like a mass current which is the analogy of an electrical current that the test body won't fall towards the center 10:03:07 of gravity like you might expect, but it'll actually be repelled from the center of gravity, and it'll move towards the ring. And that's a that's a counter intuitive thought because we're used to thinking of things falling towards the center of gravity. 10:03:20 Okay, so you're, you're certain that that's what he means because one of the issues that I had with reading this and it still here is that I'm not completely sure I guess I guess that is right. 10:03:31 It says he forces the test body away from the axis and an imitation of the centrifugal force, the force that he gave was an approximation. 10:03:40 And it wasn't completely sure what that approximation was. It should not be surprising that the effect is more or less the opposite of what you get with a. 10:03:51 And, and so it's kind of a little odd what it does, but yeah you're right it's it's pushing away in the plane. 10:04:02 So if it's not directly on that access what it's going to do is it's going to get pulled up towards that rotating right yeah and the plane of rotation it'll get attracted to that but it'll, it'll get sort of repelled from the center. 10:04:15 Yeah, to track it to the ring, the ring around it, and it gets pushed towards the center in the axial direction and then the directions perpendicular to that it gets pushed towards that ring, at least according this approximation and assuming that this 10:04:29 approximation is only good on the inside. 10:04:38 Yeah, I don't know what happens on the outside, I'd have to actually, we have to look at that in terms of some numbers for you yeah we actually work it out. 10:04:41 He doesn't have much of a guide here he just sort of gives three components of a course. 10:04:53 He gives it as acceleration but it's basically just the force on, on the object. Well, that's not entirely true because it doesn't matter what the mass of the test body is so it wouldn't really be for us as much as acceleration Right. 10:05:00 Well what he's produced is really grabbed the gravitational field the gravitational field is an acceleration. That's right. 10:05:07 So, the electric field is not, but because the charge and the inertia are the same, because of the equivalence between gravitational charge and mercial mass, just turns it directly into a on acceleration. 10:05:22 And so, and so that's why it gives these accelerations, but obviously you can just look at it as force, because, again, they're the same thing. 10:05:29 Okay. 10:05:32 Because, I mean one of the interesting things is that he calls these non Newtonian forces, but he doesn't say why they're non Newtonian I think for the most part, he's just saying these are pseudo forces, these are like centrifugal force because it's 10:05:45 you know it's a it's a false force it's just there because you've when your eyes the coordinate system in some way. So centrifugal force you just pretending like you're, you're rotating thing is that rotating. 10:05:57 And then you have to have a fake force that's pushing everything out from the center right in this case obviously you're taking you know the full general relativity, which says everything's twisty and funny looking in, and then you're planning it out 10:06:12 and saying what what happens if I pretend it's not twisting funny looking and you say, well, you have this additional, sort of, you have that, then you have to have this additional force, which does these strange things. 10:06:24 That's what I think he means it right when when first he said non Newtonian forces what I thought he meant was, they did not follow one of one of the three Newton's laws, but instead of all it is is a way of accounting for for nonlinear effects in a linear 10:06:37 environment. Okay, yeah, we're looking at Maxwell style behaviors with induction and everything instead of like the basic laws of motion. 10:06:47 Newton came up with. 10:06:49 Well, Maxwell's equations are perfectly fine for all these things as far as Newton's laws are concerned, so I don't see that there's an issue there. 10:06:58 Well, I mean the Newton doesn't have anything like induction right. There's no such thing as you wouldn't have a. He didn't know anything about the magnetic field or anything like that right no he didn't know anything about the magnetic field. 10:07:10 But that doesn't mean that Newton's laws on the pot. Yeah, that's another issue, but Newton's laws still apply in electrostatic so and they need us. So this is why you're thinking that when he said non Newtonian and you might be referring to the equivalents 10:07:22 principle and how, there wasn't a difference between charge and inertial mass, no no I don't think that at all. Okay. What I think is that when he says non Newtonian forces all he means is that we're pretending like space time is flat and even in our 10:07:37 approximation we have, we have these small deviations from a flat space time and we're just going to pretend that those small deviations are forces, rather than God. 10:07:49 Okay, that makes sense because yeah but although I do struggle with this at this point because now after, after checking out g for VI, so strongly favoring that as an assumption that I'm not even thinking in terms of curve space time anymore I'm just 10:08:05 looking at that as an interpretation of the forces and effects. 10:08:09 Well I guess that could be another way of looking at things. Obviously if you can look at current space time as if it was horses. 10:08:17 Then you could look at forces if there are curved space. Okay. So, but, but what forward doesn't this paper is then he goes on the ads, right. So, first he has the rotating ring. 10:08:27 Then he decides okay what I want to do is I want to have a moving test particle on the inside of hollow rotating sphere. I think that's important because the hollow sphere, there's no force on that object on the inside, because the static gravitational 10:08:42 component is zero everywhere inside as a hollow sphere. And so any forces that you see are the purely a vector potential generated forces Right. Well yeah, anything that you see on the inside is purely due to the rotation. 10:08:56 And what he ends up with is basically two forces on that Max, right, that, that he adds together one is basically a stationary force right which is almost identical within a factor to the rotating ring so the rotating ring has a nasty factor of, lots 10:09:21 of little constants that aren't really important. But it's proportional to the square of the rotation rate, and it has a factor of one half on the station reports for the routine routine sphere has that same omega squared factor, and it has a factor of 10:09:36 415, so instead of one half, for whatever reason, I'm not sure why the fact report. I think it might be four fifths and I think that has something to do with, it's it's for 15, because I'm, I've separated out these two things way forward hasn't written. 10:09:50 He's got both effects combined and each direction so what I did was because I recognize the similarities, because I just separated out the stationary part, which is the part that looks like the result from the routine ring. 10:10:05 Oh, I see. And the dynamic part you combined the bind the denominators, and. 10:10:12 And so, for whatever this one half factor is for the rotating ring that's a 415 factor to look like I'm, it's not exactly like but it's a lot like say a moment of inertia. 10:10:23 It might be a lot closer than I think it is, but it's not exactly what you get for with a moment of inertia as far as I know, as far as I know, but it's similar enough that it's that it's interesting. 10:10:35 Especially that you get these differences that are like a moment of inertia. So inside this inside this rotating sphere I didn't quite see where these different forces breakdown there's two different equations one for the xy plane. 10:10:47 And I guess that's the deck material rotation. Then there's a z component. Okay so, so yeah. Now remember, remember what's happening here is the spheres rotating around the z axis. 10:10:58 Okay, just like the ring was working around the z axis in the previous example. So, if you look at each one of these terms right you have this forfeits omega squared x right and you have this four fifths, omega squared Y, and you have this, you have something 10:11:14 very, very similar if you go down to the zz you have this 815 omega squared z. 10:11:21 All these things are the same force basically, they have the same position dependence, as that force where the rotating ring, which is the force for the rotating ring is proportional to the distance in the xy plane from that axis, minus twice the distance 10:11:41 in the z direction in this direction. So from the center of the is the center of mass of the object that same dependence is in both these examples, and that's the stationary that that says that says my particle is not moving the additional part that he 10:11:59 actually puts in here is that at omega vy, it will make a VX, and that's actually a cross product basically of omega and. 10:12:09 So, the rotation of the body which is around the z axis and the velocity in whatever direction is going, the velocity, the rotation of the sphere, and the velocity of the test particle. 10:12:26 Okay, so what would happen if you had a test particle placed above the plane of rotation in this spinning scenario is it going to fall towards the plane of rotation, and towards the, the shell of the equator. 10:12:41 So if you have if you just placed it in here it's not moving in that spherical show, it will have almost the exact dependence, as the test body and the retainer, the only difference will be it will feel a smaller worse then with the rotating ring. 10:12:56 Given that rotating ring in the end the shooting shall have the same mass, and the same radius and moving at the same speed and stuff like that. 10:13:06 Okay. 10:13:08 And then, then he moves on to the effect of accelerating accelerated masses on stationary bodies. Yeah, this was kind of interesting oh this is, is this frame dragging. 10:13:18 Yes. So in that case, he breaks it down into three cases. Right. 10:13:23 And these cases are the normal gravitational force that first term is a normal gravitational force. 10:13:32 So the force on the test body from a big moving thing going by. Is there a gravitational force that it would normally feel, then basically the acceleration of that giant moving body, times the scalar potential and and constant factor. 10:13:51 So the scalar potential between these two the skirt scalar potential. 10:13:57 Basically it's the potential energy of situation times acceleration of a big thing divided by the square of the speed of light. So based on how these two things are interacting with each other. 10:14:07 The interaction strength is basically the scalar potential, that's the regular gravitational force that we all know and love. And then it gets pulled, also with the acceleration that this other body has tangentially that the tangential component right. 10:14:24 It does not say, according to this that's not the tangential component. Now, there's a, there's another component that third component i think is so it has a projection of the acceleration, the correction between the big object and the small object. 10:14:40 I think that's what you just met the deal will be sort of a combination of both the scalar, and the vector components right. Okay, so let's see I've got four things that I go here I have a constant. 10:14:54 I have this scalar potential again. 10:14:58 The gravitational potential energy. 10:16:36 And a concept that. 10:16:38 So the scalar potential between these two the skirt scalar potential. 10:16:43 Basically it's the potential energy of situation times the acceleration of a big thing divided by the square for the speed of light. So based on how these two things are interacting with each other. 10:16:52 The interaction strength is basically the scalar potential, that's the regular gravitational force that we all know and love. And then it gets pulled all also with the acceleration of that this other body has tangentially that the tangential component 10:17:08 right. 10:17:10 It does not say, according to this that's not the tangential component. Now, there's a, there's another component that third component i think is so it has a projection of the acceleration. 10:17:23 The direction between the big object and the small object. I think that's what you just met that he will, but sort of a combination of both of the scalar, and vector components right. 10:17:35 Okay, so let's see I've got four things that I go here I have a constant. 10:17:40 I have this scalar potential again. 10:17:44 The gravitational potential energy. 10:17:46 I've got the projection of the acceleration in the direction of the vector connecting the center of mass of the two objects. And then I have the velocity of the big object and and so that I think is what you were talking about in that previous one, the 10:18:01 tangential component. That's one way to talk about the tangential component normally I talked about the tangential component component in the direction of the velocity. 10:18:10 Yeah, that's what I was thinking of that is that is that it's going to be parallel to the surface velocity at the equator, on the equatorial plane. Right. 10:18:19 Well this is the is the velocity of the large body what direction it's moving. Right, so. 10:18:25 Oh, I see he's he doesn't have the, he doesn't have the test mass in the equatorial plane he's got it off at some funny angle. Yeah, it's doing whatever it wants to do so that's why you've got this kind of got this lesson. 10:18:37 He shows you the vector math to show you the final trajectory. Yeah, so I mean that's sort of useful because he's got these got three different courses and this one's going this way, this one's going that way and so forth and so on. 10:18:50 One's completely radial right which is going to be our normal one, the one that's kind of in the direction of the velocity is the last one that I was just talking about and there's one in terms of the acceleration of the large object. 10:19:05 So basically you have three forces on the small object that are based on the motion of the large optic emotion and the position of the larger. Okay, so what's the what's the final result in that case, it looks like the result in vector is directly towards 10:19:19 the center of gravity so how would you even notice that I don't think that's true. I think that he doesn't have anything for the results and so that, so that are is the distance from the center of mass of the small object to the center of mass of a big 10:19:33 object that is not the result. Oh, I see. And he has a very in that particular figure figure three in this guidelines to anti gravity that will link to in the show notes that figure he has a very special configuration to make it as clear as possible. 10:19:49 What's going on with each one of these terms that he's labeled f1 f2 and f3, which are those three components that I talked about earlier, I see the regular, the regular force, the force from the acceleration in the forest from the velocity and or, these 10:20:05 are the forces in those directions and and yeah anyways. 10:20:10 This is simple as you can get it but he hasn't put an actual resultant direction in there, I'm not sure if he really can. 10:20:19 considering you don't know what B and A are comparatively, right, you'd have to actually plug in some numbers and that, in this particular case that direction can probably be anywhere from completely perpendicular to the direction of motion of the large 10:20:34 body to directly parallel to it, it probably can be anywhere in the, depending on the relative values of our A and B. 10:20:43 But if this, but as we since we know what gravity magnetism does and we know that if test body is near rotating massive body like the earth that to somebody, or even more dramatically to like rotating neutron star, instead of falling straight in, it would 10:21:00 actually fall in and kind of a spiral trajectory. 10:21:03 Yeah, actually that's a little more like the previous example but the sphere. Yeah so so this one the effect of the accelerated masses on the stationary bodies that has a long way to go to start talking about to start talking about what happens with a 10:21:18 rotation, we're taking things. 10:21:21 But the dynamical effect in the rotating hollow sphere is just that the dynamical effect is basically a rotation effect. So, the interaction with the stationary particle is just like with the ring, where it's trying to go towards the center of mass and 10:21:37 the z direction but towards the edge in the x and y directions. 10:21:42 Whereas, the effect of the rotation is to make the particle spin around, and I didn't look at the signs so I don't know what the signs are going the same direction as the rotation, or not I think it's in the same direction as the rotation. 10:21:57 Yeah, so it gets dragged along with it so it's got to be the same direction. So, that's where that effect actually shows up so this is not the effect that we think it is this is just a big object that's accelerating in some direction is going to pull 10:22:11 this other object along with oh no wonder I'm getting all mixed up i thought that i thought that the the acceleration the news talking about was the rotational was the acceleration at the surface, and I thought it was rotating body and not an actual. 10:22:24 This is a linearly moving solid body and, yeah, you know, in that case, when you have an object it's, you know, accelerating and given direction than any test body nearby it will sort of get pulled along in that direction with it. 10:22:38 Yeah. And this is showing exactly how it gets attracted towards the center, and in and how much is along is along the direction of its movement, and how much is towards the flight path. 10:22:51 Yeah, exactly. So, yeah. Now, I would like to get this moving along because you know we have time constraints. 10:23:01 And you were really interested in talking about these devices. Yeah, because you would hit this, he did go through in these both of these papers a couple examples, one where this was a fluid, moving through a couple of pipes and you get a pinch effect, 10:23:16 which is analogous to ampere as law where you get an attraction repulsion from currents moving in parallel wires. 10:23:23 There was a see another example that he gave. 10:23:31 Let's see I can't remember what it was, he did so okay. The other thing that. 10:23:35 So the two things I needed in this paper was was opposed to the pipes. Right. 10:23:41 And the other one were rotating gyroscopes, and the rotating gyroscopes act like magnetic moments. Yeah and you know what's fascinating about that is that you have, if you have two rotating gyroscopes you said that, that the grabiner magnetic effect could 10:23:55 cause them to repel each other. Yes, so the he's so he's saying that, that the gradient magnetic effect can be stronger than the static, the scalar potential between them. 10:24:06 And that's exciting. Well, I'm not. Well, I'm not sure if he's. 10:24:11 I'm not sure if he's saying that but I use say that the when you're in. He's saying that it's. Is he is he saying that or is he saying that the net effect of the rotation is is in the opposite direction. 10:24:25 No, he said that they would you could actually get them to repel yeah he says repel each other, according to properly I'm still not completely sure if it says he doesn't have an actual number here. 10:24:40 I'm not sure if he's, he's saying that the object will actually go the opposite direction. 10:24:48 I'd love to do that to do a calculation on that because it's really critical for a lot of things, um, but I mean it is interesting I mean that is one way to model a magnetic moment, like a magnet. 10:24:59 What's one way to model a magnetic moment, like the spin of an electron in in an object, and, and, and if that's possible. I mean, that would be interesting. 10:25:14 I don't know in one of these cases, one of these papers he talked about, you know, he didn't talk about the speeds you cried about. 10:25:22 He talked about the density. Right. 10:25:26 of things how and stresses. So the issue. One of the issues here was that, to really see a lot of these effects you need things going really really fast and material stress limits are are somewhere around the speed of sound. 10:25:42 So, that means that if you're spending something right and you have this centrifugal force. 10:25:52 If you have this out we're pressing force on the ring, or whatever. The narrow scope. 10:25:59 And it goes past the speed of sound, then it's going to break apart you need something to keep them together and he said that, you know, if you've got really really massive things, right, then the massive things can provide that that attraction to keep 10:26:14 things together gravitationally gravitationally but something in the laboratory if you want it to look something like this in the lab record just to keep something together. 10:26:23 Wow, spins fast enough that you might actually be able to see it you'll have to use magnets for an electric field. Right. And that's a good idea. 10:26:35 I suppose that that was something like that would have to come into play in the senate scenario where he's describing this gravitational dipole generator. 10:26:46 That looks like a, like a choke for in electronics where you have a tour royal core with an unwinding of electrical current around it, except in this case, the elect the winding is replaced by pipes that have a flowing fluid through them. 10:27:04 So you have a mass current flowing in it in this spiral around a ring a donut shape ring. 10:27:12 And in this case, all of the flow is happening in the same direction through the center, and in the same direction on the outside edges. And this, in this if you accelerate that flow, then you create a gravitational dipole. 10:27:27 Yeah, so that means this constantly linearly accelerating flow rate, which is a little bit i mean you know you've got a limit to that. 10:27:40 And, but I mean he needs this the way he's set this up is that he has a linearly increasing flow rate. 10:27:47 But, you know, he's got he's. 10:27:51 But on top of that, you have some issues where you have all sorts of different parameters and they're all going to change a little bit when you're doing this, so it's not that it's not quite as easy as just as likely to. 10:28:08 It's not quite as easy as if you're doing this electronically and trying to create an electric field so. 10:28:13 So yeah, I mean the in the way that this is set up is basically in an hour. In analogy to creating an electric electric dipole. 10:28:24 Using a wound. 10:28:28 You know, using a winding over a Taurus. Well, if we look at it, just in pure theoretical terms, when it in ordinary total conductor, have an nonzero, but a measurable. 10:28:43 Gravitational dipole. When it's charging up, because the electrons are moving in that, in that spiral around the core, and they have mass, and they'd be accelerating like if we used his super like a superconducting wire, like he like Carver meet talked 10:29:02 about when you put a potential on it. The current continually increases Right. Yeah. 10:29:10 So, it's so we would never be able to measure it but but an ordinary Toral the doctor and doctor may already be a very very weak dipole gravitational field generator. 10:29:20 Well I mean it would have to be I was thinking about that a little bit here. 10:29:25 You know, because even though, you know, we even though we normally think of. 10:29:30 A lot of times when we're talking about electromagnetism, we're just talking about the flow of charge. 10:29:35 We have that charge flow, we have a charge flow you have a mass flow as well. Right. And, and so you have to have the same sort of effects occurring as well although, you know, the charge, that's actually increasing as the charges moving very slowly, 10:29:53 on average, and so is the. 10:30:06 And, you know, the amount the actual amount of matter the actual mass is very small as well. But the same ideas would apply. So, if you could create this electric dipole. 10:30:15 And you can then you should be creating this gravitational dipole. At the same time, although it's in the opposite direction, but other than that there's Toshi by that's really fascinating. 10:30:21 I would love to see an experiment like this done he talks about some of the limitations that we'd have to overcome in order to make observable effects in the laboratory. 10:30:31 And have you got any ideas on those he's, he spelled out some, the need for much much higher density materials. 10:30:40 And I thought was it he brought up degenerate matter. I'm not sure what degenerate matter is. And then he also talked about. 10:30:49 Super positions of to tetra neutrons, and other cold buzz on condensates. 10:30:55 So you could get particles superimposed upon each other and overcome these density limitations. Yeah, I mean, he said he needs something like that I'm not really sure how many places you have anything like that. 10:31:08 Right. and I think that was part of his issue. 10:31:12 But, you know, I don't really know what the densities they have gotten with the condensates dude he was very very far away from seen any condensates at that point. 10:31:24 Although I don't think they're anywhere near this. So, you know, in standard SI units. 10:31:31 He's talking about 10 to the 11th to attend the 18 kilograms per cubic meter. 10:31:37 And that is really really dense. So, the density of lead is 11,300. 10:31:50 So, one times 10 to the fourth. 10:31:53 kilograms per cubic meter. 10:31:56 So it's so long way from wherever we want to be, what now what is degenerate matter is that when, when like in. 10:32:08 I guess it would be like neutron stars, where there are no longer distinguishable protons and neutrons but there's just kind of like a core glue on plasma is that what he's talking about. 10:32:19 Um, yeah, I think, I think in general it's, you know, this weird mixture of particles and, and that you can like works, and it's, it's not something that you really have on earth right so I'm not sure people, people know how to make it. 10:32:34 I don't think so. Well we've, we've created Quark gluon on plasma is by colliding a heavy, heavy nuclei like gold nuclei together, but of course that's only a fraction of a moment that we create that extremely high pressures and temperatures, but I think 10:32:52 we have created that micro instantaneous scale. 10:32:57 I think they've studied cork glue on jets and that kind of thing coming out of this, this plasma. 10:33:04 It's not really nuclear material anymore it's, yeah I'm yeah i mean but all those things are things that you know we can't. 10:33:14 we can't conform. I mean I can't, I can't really find anything that tells me about, you know, what's the largest density that you can have with with a real thing is, you know, I can find, you know what, the largest element is. 10:33:31 But I, but you know I can't find you sort of things that we can barely create what those are. I didn't do that research. 10:33:51 I, but, you know, it looks like it looks like 10 to the fourth is where we are and we tend the 11th. 10:33:50 According to him, although, you know, some of these things Ted for neutrons. Maybe you can make them I don't know. 10:34:06 Um, but, but really what he wants to do is he wants to get some sort of matter that has, has some nonlinear property right and and deep well right now you're talking about the idea that he was talking about like the gravitational analog of electrical 10:34:19 transformer. 10:34:20 He was saying that in order to amplify these fields that we'd need material that had a very high and nonlinear like Vito magnetic permeability. Yeah so so basically we need something like a thorough magnetic materials, he needs some. 10:34:37 He needs feral gravitation. Right. 10:34:43 And possibly that means he needs something like paragraph. Before that he needs something that would have this polarized magnetic field already sort of coming from it. 10:34:53 That's basically what a feral magnet is. That's what this whole nonlinear density is in a thorough manner, right or this is what the nonlinear permeability in a feral magnet is it's basically the existing magnetic field in the atoms, the arrangement of 10:35:06 atoms. Yeah, it's basically that the magnetic field is already there because each one of these atoms has its own spin angular momentum and that's a magnetic moment that creates a little old field, and those fields have to align themselves. 10:35:21 So, you need two things really to make something like a feral magnet one you need a paragraph annotation right, of all things, which would be for each atom would have to have its own sort of gravitational dipole moment. 10:35:37 On top of that you'd want pair of gravitational. I can't believe I'm saying that you'd want these pair of gravitational atoms to actually want to align themselves the way of thermal magnet does with some sort of exchange interaction, so you need two things 10:35:53 to make that actually work. And I'm not sure how that's going to work well he mentioned that he mentioned in this paper that the magnetic moment and the inertial moment are combined and Adams, and that provides a direct coupling between time varying electromagnetic 10:36:07 fields and time during reveal magnetic fields. 10:36:10 So and I was thinking about how in Mr eyes. 10:36:14 When they set up the high magnetic field, they actually align the magnetic moments of the atoms of the hydrogen atoms, and then they use a map in the radiation field and em field. 10:36:32 That works at the same frequency as the procession of that axis along the magnetic field in order to spin them out along the equator, so we can already control, to some extent, the rotational axis of the, of the nuclei. 10:36:51 So maybe we could do that with other materials, you know, I was thinking about how uranium, and maybe the super heavy elements that we haven't been able to find yet on the island of stability, have an asymmetrical core. 10:37:05 The they're, they're sort of overplayed steroids. And some people think that the super heavy elements will have like a dumbbell shaped nucleus. And so, if you get those babies rotating, then you should be able to generate, not just a gravitational magnetic 10:37:25 field but gravitational waves. Right, so that would be interesting. 10:37:30 Depending on it but I mean, how long would they actually last. Well, I know that you with a, with an MRI machine, they can align the axis of rotation indefinitely as long as they keep the field on. 10:37:44 And then they stay spin them up to do an equatorial rotation with radio waves, when that before they turn it off and then detect the energy when they restore back to their axial orientation. 10:37:59 So, we can already do some of this kind of thing was, you know, indefinitely using a magnetic field. 10:38:08 I think that that's that was this was a direction that a NASA scientist named namely was take was going in, she was doing something different though she was taking a superconducting material and spinning it and believe that she was using the spin of this 10:38:26 disk to align the spin of the atoms in the material. I'm not sure how that works. It's something that has to do with gyro magnetic or gyroscope forces, but I'm. 10:38:40 She was. 10:38:41 But then she disappeared. 10:38:42 There was a little bit of talk about her work in that direction and then people think that she got to work on a military project because nobody's heard anything since. 10:38:54 Um, But so scary. So scary sciences so scary. 10:38:59 Well, I guess when you get into the really good stuff the military wants to classify it and use it to make weapons or something. 10:39:08 Okay. 10:39:09 All right. Um Is there anything else you want to talk about with these guys I know you've got something to go to. 10:39:14 Oh that's right yeah I got to go Say goodbye to somebody, so I'll say goodbye to you first. And thank you for your time. Thanks for this Randy will get together. 10:39:22 Another time to talk about gr for the experimentalists and more detail possibly talk about it with respect to that g4 v. And we had two other things we wanted to get to what was that first one you wanted to talk about. 10:39:34 I'm not sure what you're talking about the recent paper from 2013. 10:39:39 Oh, the one that I mentioned in the beginning, is that was the experimental setup, it's probably more of a footnote than a than a podcast is called how current current loops and solenoids curb spaced on. 10:39:51 And that's the experiment where he set up to superconducting magnets in anti handholds configuration where they're in opposition. And then bounces a laser beam between the two of them. 10:40:05 Because the distance should be in general relativity terms should be. 10:40:13 I believe shortened in that would put the photons out of phase every time. As they spent more time in there the problem that I see with that experiment is how he would is that you would need that the photons to bounce back and forth along the axis, where 10:40:29 these two magnets are in opposition, for something like six months. Well, how do you get a laser beam to bounce back off of two mirrors for six months without dissipating. 10:40:39 That's a good question. I mean, is there really 100% efficient mirror, no problem. Unlikely, let's see the other thing that we wanted to talk about, or that I wanted to talk about was. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
← Previous ( Pilot Waves ) ( Virtual Dipoles ) Next →