Musings about Physics [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

silvanelf

1st June 2019, 19:27

What is your opinion on Paul LaViolette's Subquantum Kinetics?
Are you discarding M-theory (a superset of SUSY)?
What about Quantum Field Theory?

Here is a quote about Paul LaViolette's Subquantum Kinetics:

The Transmuting Ether

Subquantum kinetics proposes the existence of a primordial transmuting ether composed of subtle “etheron” particles. These continually react with one another in prescribed manners and also diffuse through space.

Potentially, there may be many subquantum reactions taking place in the transmuting ether, but only a few of these may be important for describing the origin of the fields composing the matter and energy of our universe. This relevant subset of ether reactions (Model G) is described by just five kinetic equations. These describe the recursive conversion of X etherons into Y etherons and Y etherons back into X etherons.

https://etheric.com/subquantum-kinetics-nontechnical-summary/2/

In my opinion, Paul LaViolette's is just high octane speculation. I don't see any experimental experiments which justify these assumptions. If he goes on in this way, he can "explain", whenever necessary, any experiments by adding further assumptions. Another user on the web expressed this in more radical terms:

No evidence supporting it, no useful predictions that it makes. (His "predictions" are simply reanalyses of existing well-understood phenomena -- e.g., he "predicts" the Hubble red shift.)
[...]
This could just as well be written "Fairie chromodynamics proposes the existence of a primordial philosopher's stone composed of the multicolored wings of pixies."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199951

johnf

1st June 2019, 20:48

I posted a link to a pdf discussing the physics of David Bohm.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?9462-Interesting-Free-Books-in-PDF&p=1289647&viewfull=1#post1289647

David Bohm discussed many ideas including the holographic universe, as well as the implicate order and the explicate order.
I am not well versed in physics, and I have my doubts about the reality of the commonly held ideas of physics. I would be interested in hearing others thoughts about this paper.

John

Jayke

1st June 2019, 21:23

silvanelf

2nd June 2019, 10:03

David Bohm discussed many ideas including the holographic universe, as well as the implicate order and the explicate order.
I am not well versed in physics, and I have my doubts about the reality of the commonly held ideas of physics. I would be interested in hearing others thoughts about this paper.

John

I recommend the conversation between Rupert Sheldrake and David Bohm -- it was published here on the forum:

Morphic fields and the implicate order (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?67637-Morphic-fields-and-the-impliate-order)

The book linked in post #4 contains a collections of physics articles which are somehow related to David Bohm's ideas. Please note the wording "somehow related" ... For example it's sufficient to mention the words "Contextuality" or "Hidden Variables" in relation to quantum physics and you are opening a can of worms. ;)

Many physicists have a strong tendency to translate an intuitive idea into a mathematical concept. But in this way most physicists seem to lose track of the original idea. In this regard David Bohm is an exception, because he had strong intuitive abilities. While reading the book mentioned above in #4, it is really difficult to see the forest for the trees.

Bohm's concept about implicate order is similar to the idea "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." I think Rupert Sheldrake's "morphogenetic field" has a more encompassing view in this regard, but they are closely related.

Bohm's papers about quantum mechanics were very important, they were brilliant and very simple at the same time. Many people would say "it's a simple idea, therefore anybody can do it." But that's not true. Often we need a genius to find the most simple, but brilliant idea. In short, Bohm discovered a realistic model of quantum mechanics, despite all claims from leading physicists like von Neumann who "proved" that a realistic model of quantum mechanics cannot exist. The solution of the conundrum is simple: von Neumann's "proof" was a blunder. You should consider the reputation of von Neumann:

From Eugene Wigner, about John von Neumann vs. Einstein:

(John von Neumann — fascinating Wiki page here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann) — is considered by some to have been the most extraordinarily intelligent and quick-thinking human who has ever lived.)

Nevertheless, Bohm disproved von Neumann's claim -- or more accurately: von Neumann's claim was very misleading. Bohm refuted von Neumann's claim in the most convincing way: he provided a counterexample. That's the most striking argument in mathematics.

Baby Steps

2nd June 2019, 11:29

It would be great if you could lay out your ideas on the Cosmic microwave flux in very plain language- thanks!

Pam

2nd June 2019, 12:06

Jad

2nd June 2019, 15:40

johnf

2nd June 2019, 18:04

Silvanelf, thank you for your reply, that gives me some homework along with the other videos here.

John

Bubu

3rd June 2019, 11:12

If his theories are correct he should be able to prove it , and create something useful out of it. I've have created many new and useful devices not one of them is anchored in theories. whenever I come up with some theory ,I prove or disprove it by conducting my own experiment. making theories and broadcasting it tells a lot to me.

silvanelf

3rd June 2019, 12:34

Bubu

3rd June 2019, 15:32

I've have created many new and useful devices not one of them is anchored in theories. whenever I come up with some theory ,I prove or disprove it by conducting my own experiment. making theories and broadcasting it tells a lot to me.

Why don't you share your ideas somewhere on the forum? I want to hear about your stagering discoveries.

there is a find all post feature on this forum you can use it to find some of what
i shared. of course I kept some for myself. and perhaps also share useful things you came up with by musing with physics.

silvanelf

3rd June 2019, 20:52

Ken Wheeler kicks Einstein’s ass with his Electromagnetism theories. He does lots of interesting videos using super magnets and ferro fluids to show the structure of hyperspace. A quick mind and a smart wit (from the Walter Russell/Eric Dollard school of physics). Always entertaining to hear his views.

Ken Wheeler's videos may be very entertaining, but are his claims true? According to Wheeler, "there are no electrons, negative charges, ..." What a crap. Look at how a cathode tube works or look at cosmic radiation, then you will realize that electrons are real beyond any doubt.

There are no negatively "charged" particles in this universe. Negative electricity discharges while positive electricity charges. The negative depolarizing force functions in the opposite manner and direction to the positive polarizing force. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, only discharges, nor are there negatively charged particles, further still not one iota of proof for same. Charge and discharge are antinomies, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are mutual and co-eternal principle conditions. The commonly held belief in nonsense such as the notion that electricity is a stream of rolling electron beads thru a conductor is one of the most insane conceptual reifications of the definition of discharge as held by so-called intelligent minds.

There are no electrons, negative charges, special-dimensions, warped space (resoundingly denied by Tesla and others), and no photons; only charge, induction and radiation/discharges and their relational spins, all as mediated thru the Ether. Quantum and Relativity is a quack religion of mathematical physics based upon the absurd premise that the universe is a giant sea of interactive massless tiny invisible beads and that space itself, nothing, mediates interactions and can be genuinely ‘warped’. Such conceptual Atomistic reifications as amplified by GR (Relativity) cannot be enjoined, and the only genuine warping occurring is not out in the cosmos of space, but in the empty spaces between the ears of those who reify such absurdities; warped minds rationally would invent warped space; its purely logical in its insanity that the former produce the later.

source: Ken L Wheeler, "Uncovering the missing Secrets of Magnetism"

Jayke

3rd June 2019, 21:30

Ken Wheeler's videos may be very entertaining, but are his claims true? According to Wheeler, "there are no electrons, negative charges, ..." What a crap. Look at how a cathode tube works or look at cosmic radiation, then you will realize that electrons are real beyond any doubt.

Ken comes from the CP Steinmetz, Tesla, Eric Dollard school of aether physics. No doubt these guys had different explanations for how cathode tubes and cosmic radiation works — as compared to modern explanations based on atomistic theories. Ken just synthesises the work of the greats who gave us our entire electrical grid. Might be worth investigating alternative paradigms before writing him off completely.

MJT9ZNGe6cU
I’m still interested in hearing more about the theories you’ve been working on anyway silvanelf, see how it compares to Eric Dollards material, who I’ve been following closely. You guys might actually have similar understandings but just be using different terminology to describe similar phenomena.

I tend to trust Dollards work because he’s one of the few people alive who knows how to recreate Teslas magnifying transmitter. What would the best theories you propose enable us to do? and how do you know they’d work? Have the theories been tested and validated through the creation of new technologies?

Jayke

4th June 2019, 10:12

Found one of Ken’s videos where he shares the quotes of people like J.J Thompson, Tesla, Steinmetz etc rebutting the concept of electron theory. Surprisingly, one of the most logical rebuttals of electron theory comes from Einstein himself. which can be found at the 6 minute mark of Ken’s talk.

“Theoretical treatment of these electrons will face the difficulty of electrodynamic theory by itself unable to account for their natures of its electrical masses constituting an electron will necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsion” - Einstein (might not be a perfect quote as ken talks quick and I subscribe slow, but he does cite the publication where this quote is to be found)

He also touches on cathode rays and electron microscopes and explains how they work using the field theory of the pioneers of our electrical infrastructure.

lJXKX937jUM

silvanelf

4th June 2019, 11:35

Ken comes from the CP Steinmetz, Tesla, Eric Dollard school of aether physics. No doubt these guys had different explanations for how cathode tubes and cosmic radiation works — as compared to modern explanations based on atomistic theories. Ken just synthesises the work of the greats who gave us our entire electrical grid. Might be worth investigating alternative paradigms before writing him off completely.

There is not much common ground among Steinmetz, Tesla, Dollard and Wheeler. At least Tesla disagrees with all others on a fundamental level, furthermore Wheeler contradicts Steinmetz -- but Wheeler doesn't get it as it seems. I didn't compare the views of Dollard and Steinmetz in detail, but I doubt it that they actually agree.

Therefore I will talk about them one by one in summary form.

Tesla

Tesla's views seem to be in flux all the time, it is quite easy to misrepresent Tesla by cherry picking one specific quote from him. It is important to note the year when Tesla made a specific statement. Here Tesla disagreed about the specific nature of the electron, but he agreed with the current mainstream opinion of his time that the electron is a real particle. Emphasis mine.

Prepared Statement of Tesla (For interview with press on 81st birthday observance) [July 1937]

My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large body carrying a surface charge and not an elementary unit. When such an electron leaves an electrode of extremely high potential and in very high vacuum, it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than the normal. This may astonish some of those who think that the particle has the same charge in the tube and outside of it in the air.

A beautiful and instructive experiment has been contrived by me showing that such is not the case, for as soon as the particle gets out into the atmosphere it becomes a blazing star owing to the escape of the excess charge. The great quantity of electricity stored on the particle is responsible for the difficulties encountered in the operation of certain tubes and the rapid deterioration of the same.

https://teslaresearch.jimdo.com/articles-interviews/prepared-statement-of-tesla-for-interview-with-press-on-81st-birthday-observance/

Tesla about cosmic rays

Here is the crucial sentence which I've emphasized below:

Tesla: "The cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges — ions and electrons."

First of all, Tesla talks about 'free charges' -- therefore he disagrees with Steinmetz (and Dollard! ) who claimed that electrostatic charges don't exist. Furthermore Tesla talks about "electrons and ions" -- which means that he agrees with the atomistic view about matter at least in general.

Tesla Cosmic Ray Motor May Transmit Power 'Round Earth - Brooklyn Eagle - July 10, 1932, John J. A. O'Neill

"The attractive features of the Cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight."

"All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light.

"More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them."

"I will tell you in the most general way," he said. "The cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges—ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor."

https://teslaresearch.jimdo.com/radiant-energy/

You should compare Tesla's view with Ken Wheeler's video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnEx3JjeGGg

Jayke

4th June 2019, 12:34

Awesome! Just testing to make sure your field theories incorporate the work of Steinmetz, Tesla and Co. (a lot of mainstream physicists haven’t even heard of Steinmetz, for example). Glad to see your well versed in these areas. :)

As a side note, I had a crazy dream several years ago, where a man in his mid 60’s was showing me how to build a free energy device in my garden. As the dream was playing out, a number kept rolling around in my mind (I can’t remember the number now), and upon awakening I typed the number into google and the first thing that came back was the same Tesla patent as the one in your link below.

https://teslaresearch.jimdo.com/radiant-energy/
https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/none/path/s40c423127565d23a/image/i8e0badd3ce1b6cc7/version/1385839358/image.gif

That was the instance that got me researching the different field theories of Tesla’s physics. I do find Ken Wheeler summarises these theories better than most, but you’ve also got my attention to see how you interpret the work of these great minds differently. I look forward to hearing more of your research on the matter. :cheers:

silvanelf

5th June 2019, 08:34

Awesome! Just testing to make sure your field theories incorporate the work of Steinmetz, Tesla and Co. (a lot of mainstream physicists haven’t even heard of Steinmetz, for example). Glad to see your well versed in these areas. :)

Long ago, I went off on a tangent after reading the Feynman Lectures about "Electromagnetism and Matter" -- here is why:

When you follow any of our physics too far, you find that it always gets into some kind of trouble. Now we want to discuss a serious trouble—the failure of the classical electromagnetic theory. You can appreciate that there is a failure of all classical physics because of the quantum-mechanical effects. Classical mechanics is a mathematically consistent theory; it just doesn’t agree with experience. It is interesting, though, that the classical theory of electromagnetism is an unsatisfactory theory all by itself. There are difficulties associated with the ideas of Maxwell’s theory which are not solved by and not directly associated with quantum mechanics. You may say, “Perhaps there’s no use worrying about these difficulties. Since the quantum mechanics is going to change the laws of electrodynamics, we should wait to see what difficulties there are after the modification.” However, when electromagnetism is joined to quantum mechanics, the difficulties remain. So it will not be a waste of our time now to look at what these difficulties are. Also, they are of great historical importance. Furthermore, you may get some feeling of accomplishment from being able to go far enough with the theory to see everything—including all of its troubles.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html

On one hand the theory of electrodynamics is even today not entirely correct, on the other hand this topic seems closely related to many issues about free energy research.

In that lecture linked above, Feynman talked about the problem of infinite electromagnetic self-energy of a particle. In my view, somehow all these attempts to modify the laws of electrodynamics lead to a dead end. My own idea: let us broaden the search, maybe there are other 'glitches' within classical electrodynamics. What a surprise, I found a handful of inconsistencies. Feynman is right: "When you follow any of our physics too far, you find that it always gets into some kind of trouble."

First of all, there are experiments which seem to contradict the standard textbook theory -- or some experiments look like a mystery, even while nobody can put the finger on it. You know, standard physics says: "this phenomenon is well understood, nothing to see here, move along." while some well-known physicists said: "there is still a mytery." In a following post, I will present a series of links about one of these experiments.

Another can of worms: Gauge Invariance in Classical Electrodynamics. Just saying.

What about the relation between 'ether physics' and electrodynamics? In other word, how would a theory of Galilean electrodynamics look like?

If one drops the Faraday induction term from Maxwell’s equations, they become exactly Galilei invariant. This suggests that if Maxwell had worked between Ampère and Faraday, he could have developed this Galilei‐invariant electromagnetic theory so that Faraday’s discovery would have confronted physicists with the dilemma: give up the Galileian relativity principle for electromagnetism (ether hypothesis), or modify it (special relativity). This suggests a new pedagogical approach to electromagnetic theory, in which the displacement current and the Galileian relativity principle are introduced before the induction term is discussed.

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.12239

Unfortunately, the whole article is not available for free, but you get the idea. By the way, there are better articles available -- the article quoted above has overlooked an important point. More about it in another post.

Star Tsar

5th June 2019, 09:22

This is a theory that has appealed to me ever since learning of Black & White holes...

PhysicsWorld.com

Our Universe Has Antimatter Partner on the Other Side of the Big Bang, Say Physicists

Published 3rd June 2019

https://physicsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CPT-universe.png

Our universe could be the mirror image of an antimatter universe extending backwards in time before the Big Bang. So claim physicists in Canada, who have devised a new cosmological model positing the existence of an “antiuniverse” which, paired to our own, preserves a fundamental rule of physics called CPT symmetry. The researchers still need to work out many details of their theory, but they say it naturally explains the existence of dark matter.

Standard cosmological models tell us that the universe – space, time and mass/energy – exploded into existence some 14 billion years ago and has since expanded and cooled, leading to the progressive formation of subatomic particles, atoms, stars and planets.

Read all about it here: https://physicsworld.com/a/our-universe-has-antimatter-partner-on-the-other-side-of-the-big-bang-say-physicists/

Scientific papers here: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.251301 & http://journals.andromedapublisher.com/index.php/LHEP/article/view/67/31

silvanelf

5th June 2019, 12:29

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/col9.jpg

Some food for thought:

conspiracy of light (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/welcome.html)

This website examines historical and modern experiments on the nature of space and light, and possible new interpretations based on an alternative approach to the scientific evidence at hand. Fred Hoyle once said "anytime you point a new telescope at the sky now you are only going to find what you already know is up there." Has modern physics become complacent? New science is where the real opportunities lie, so we're focusing on the holes in physics theory instead.

Paradoxes
Historical Papers
Theory
Experiments
Cosmology

Fellow Aspirant

5th June 2019, 17:28

Thanks for starting this thread, silvanelf. It is a very rich area for investigation, and fits perfectly with the aims of this forum.

Brian

silvanelf

6th June 2019, 10:08

Faraday homopolar generator -- also known as unipolar generator

It's not a free energy device, but there seems to be a clue towards free energy.

http://bourabai.kz/faraday/img/unimotor.jpg

A homopolar generator is a DC electrical generator comprising an electrically conductive disc or cylinder rotating in a plane perpendicular to a uniform static magnetic field. A potential difference is created between the center of the disc and the rim (or ends of the cylinder) with an electrical polarity that depends on the direction of rotation and the orientation of the field. It is also known as a unipolar generator, acyclic generator, disk dynamo, or Faraday disc. The voltage is typically low, on the order of a few volts in the case of small demonstration models, but large research generators can produce hundreds of volts, and some systems have multiple generators in series to produce an even larger voltage. They are unusual in that they can source tremendous electric current, some more than a million amperes, because the homopolar generator can be made to have very low internal resistance. Also, the homopolar generator is unique in that no other rotary electric machine can produce DC without using rectifiers or commutators.

-- snip --

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

We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate general principle requires for its real understanding an analysis in terms of two different phenomena. Usually such a beautiful generalization is found to stem from a single deep underlying principle. Nevertheless, in this case there does not appear to be any such profound implication. We have to understand the “rule” as the combined effects of two quite separate phenomena.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html

see also: Reading Feynman (https://readingfeynman.org/tag/homopolar-generator/)

Its because one of the postulates of special relativity, that the laws of physics are not necessarily the same between non-inertial frames of reference. A rotating frame such as that of the magnet or the circular disk is not an inertial frame. When we do the experiment you describe in the OP, supplying current to the disc and watching the magnet rotating, an observer in the rotating frame of the magnet will see the disc rotating and hence he will measure voltage on the disc and everything will be fine. But an observer on the frame of the stationary disc will measure no induced voltage. Different non inertial frame of references, different results, absoletuly normal for SR.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/magnetic-field-rotation-or-not.805357/page-2

Nikola Tesla, The Electrical Engineer, N.Y., Sept. 2, 1891.

It is characteristic of fundamental discoveries, of great achievements of intellect, that they retain an undiminished power upon the imagination of the thinker. The memorable experiment of Faraday with a disc rotating between the two poles of a magnet, which has borne such magnificent fruit, has long passed into every-day experience; yet there are certain features about this embryo of the present dynamos and motors which even to-day appear to us striking, and are worthy of the most careful study.

http://www.andrijar.com/teslahom/index.html

William J. Beaty: Untried Homopolar Generator Experiments (http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/n-mach.html)

In 1992-94 I messed around with homopolar generators, ("HPGs" or "N-machines",) tried a simple test, and drew some GIFs of possible devices. Check out the above links for these diagrams.

Bruce E. DePalma, free energy researcher (https://depalma.pairsite.com/)

The Problem of Free Energy (https://depalma.pairsite.com/Absurdity/Absurdity07/ProblemOfFreeEnergy.html)
Notes on the Faraday Disc (https://depalma.pairsite.com/Absurdity/Absurdity08/FaradayDisc.html)
On the Nature of Electrical Induction (https://depalma.pairsite.com/Absurdity/Absurdity09/NatureOfElectricalInduction.html)
Where Electrical Science Went Wrong (https://depalma.pairsite.com/Absurdity/Absurdity10/ElectricalScienceWrong.html)
On the Nature of Electricity (https://depalma.pairsite.com/Absurdity/Absurdity11/NatureOfElectricity.html)

"Tewari has investigated the co-rotating Faraday homopolar motor. He calls it the Space Power Motor or SPM. The increased torque available when rotating is mitigated by a "slippage" which increases with rotational speed. Over a certain speed range the product of the two effects can result in a superior machine."
-- De Palma
see: Tewari homepage (https://www.tewari.org)

silvanelf

14th June 2019, 19:50

Stefan Marinov

Stefan Marinov was a Bulgarian physicist, researcher, writer and lecturer who promoted anti-relativistic theoretical viewpoints, and later in his life defended the ideas of perpetual motion and free energy. He committed suicide in Graz, Austria on July 15, 1997.

more at link, including a list of articles written by S. Marinov;
https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Stefan_Marinov

About his alleged suicide:

On July 15, 1997, Marinov fell to his death from a staircase at a library at the University of Graz. He was 66 years old and was survived by his son Marin Marinov, who at the time was a vice-Minister of Industry of Bulgaria.

Word has been received of the tragic, apparent suicide of new energy researcher, Stefan Marinov. The police explanation is that Dr. Stefan Marinov killed himself, on July 15, 1997, jumping from the University of Graz (Austria) Library building (Bibliotheque).

https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Stefan_Marinov

Siberian Coliu -- a free energy device?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTuDrJVzCpo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwZXhUZyroA

There are some disagreements about the Siberian Coliu device:

In 1997 in the last issue 21 of Deutsche Physik, Marinov self-published experimental results that disprove that the Siberian Coliu, constructed by Marinov himself, is a perpetual motion machine, and where Marinov concluded that Ampere's law in electromagnetism is correct.

http://everything.explained.today/Stefan_Marinov/

Demonstration of the Marinov Motor Principle

Robert B. Driscoll

Working models of the Marinov motor have been built and run by others. (1-3) This model will demonstrate, in this session, the motors principle.

-- snip --

(1) R. Angulo, O. Rodriquez, and G. Spavieri. Hadronic Journal 20 (1997) 621.
(2) T. E. Phipps, Jr. Apeiron 5 (1998) 193, 209.
(3) J. P. Wesley, Apeiron 5 (1998) 219.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252836024_Demonstration_of_the_Marinov_Motor_Princ iple

silvanelf

15th June 2019, 12:25

Angular Momentum of Light -- Beth's experiment (1936)

A famous experiment, which was nearly ignored for a long time ...

Mechanical Detection and Measurement of the Angular Momentum of Light
Richard A. Beth
Phys. Rev. 50, 115 – Published 15 July 1936

The electromagnetic theory of the torque exerted by a beam of polarized light on a doubly refracting plate which alters its state of polarization is summarized. The same quantitative result is obtained by assigning an angular momentum of ℏ (−ℏ) to each quantum of left (right) circularly polarized light in a vacuum, and assuming the conservation of angular momentum holds at the face of the plate.

-- snip --

Abstract: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.50.115
Full paper (pdf): http://www.df.uba.ar/users/schmiegelow/materias/FT2_2010_1C/extra/PhysRev.50.115.pdf

An explanation of the experiment -- emphasis mine:

Does somebody understand the Beth experiment?

-- snip --

The description that you quote is correct. It is important to note that the quartz plate used in the original experiment is birefringent.
More recent related work (from the Leiden quantum optics group) can be found in
http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.584515
or using microwaves:
https://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/77/64/94/PDF/AES_Final.pdf

The purpose of the experiment is to show that light contains spin angular momentum. If light indeed carries angular momentum it should be possible to transfer this to matter, which results in a torque. The transfer of angular momentum is done by the birefringent plate, because the polarization of the incoming and outgoing light is different. This difference corresponds to a change in the spin angular momentum of the photons. The change in angular momentum should generate a torque on the birefringent plate that could, in principle, be measured using a torsion balance.

In practice this is very difficult to measure because you need to measure a small rotation of the birefringent plate. This is hard because you will need a very high sensitivity of the setup even if you have access to large optical powers. There are several systematic errors you need to deal with before drawing conclusions from the experiment.

-- snip --

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_somebody_understand_the_Beth_experiment

Measuring the Angular Momentum of Light

What does the paper describe? The paper reports on a series of experiments looking for angular momentum in light. Angular momentum, as the name suggests, is related to the rotational motion of objects, and circularly polarized light is predicted to have angular momentum. The experiments in the paper looked for, and found, evidence of this angular momentum by measuring the twisting of a quartz plate when circularly polarized light was sent through it. The apparatus is shown at right.

Back up a minute-- circular polarization? Yeah, circular polarization. Normally, when people talk about the polarization, they refer to the direction of the electric field associated with the classical light wave. The electric field oscillates up and down along some direction, changing its magnitude all the time.

There's another way to make polarized light, though, which is to keep the magnitude of the electric field constant, and make the direction change all the time. In this case, the electric field starts out pointing up (say), then some time later points to the left, then down, then to the right, then up again. It completes one full revolution in the same time that it takes the light wave to complete an oscillation. There are two different circular polarization states, corresponding to the two different directions of rotation.

And this is real? Absolutely. You can make circularly polarized light using properly cut calcite, or a variety of other materials. It's even got technological applications-- some 3-d projection systems use circular polarizers as the lenses of the glasses, because they look less dorky than colored filters, and don't require you to hold your head at a particualr angle to get the 3-d effect.

https://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/04/13/measuring-the-angular-momentum

Jayke

24th August 2019, 10:15

Primer fields by David Lapoint. Very significant experiments showing how bowl magnets modelled on a dome at CERN create fascinating plasma structures that look very similar to galactic star formations.

In this video series the currently accepted theories of physics and astrophysics are shaken to the core by a radical new theory of the fundamental forces in all matter.

You will be amazed as a magnetic model of the dome at CERN is used to create a 100 mm diameter plasma Sun with a 300 mm diameter equatorial disc of plasma around it!

All the plasma videos are actual footage with no enhancement or manipulation other than speed. In other words, this is real thing. Hard to believe, but it is all true.

9EPlyiW-xGI

silvanelf

28th August 2019, 12:16

Why the multiverse is religion, not science

@ 00:30
You can postulate the existence of things that are not useful to describe observations, such as gods, but this is no longer science. Universes besides our own are logically equivalent to gods. They are unobservable by assumption, therefore they can exist only in a religious sense. You can believe in them if you want to, but they are not part of science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dSua_PUyfM

Ron Mauer Sr

29th August 2019, 01:28

Perhaps magic is simply misunderstood science.

Chester

29th August 2019, 04:00

Perhaps magic is simply misunderstood science.

Or yet to be understood science. [if ever it can be scientifically understood]

Magic is very real in my life. Magic expresses itself in my life constantly. It also does so for my wife. And when we are both together and in the "magic zone," the manifestations of magic are prolific and profound.

Much of what is considered settled science today began as theories, yet it seems possible that consciousness has primacy and that consciousness may be immeasurable. If immeasurable, how can science ever explain it as long as science is required to use measurement (math) for everything it has to explain.

Currently, there are few scientists that share the metaphysical, cosmological world view of idealism. One who does is Bernardo Kastrup. Some might be interested in his works. His Site (https://www.bernardokastrup.com/)

It might appear my post is disconnected but I am attempting to state things with more than just words... in the spaces between the words.

Those who experience magic to the degree a few of us here do, don't need to know what "the science" is behind it (if it can ever be known) to validate these experiences. I say that from experience as to the complexity of conditions (constantly fluid) that seem to be required in place for magic to arise. The world view of idealism may be required just to open one's mind to magic. I am content that consciousness may never be measurable. What's fascinating is living an ever expanding life whereby one becomes intimate with the conditions of which magic arises and then learns how, more and more, to bring forth these conditions.

Example, my wife and I have just recently experienced three dramatic events. Cristina (my wife) likes to play with a Tarot deck. Just three days ago, she told me how she had picked Card 13 (Death) three times in a row over the course of the last three days. She shared with me her interpretation that this card suggested to her she was experiencing significant transformational opportunities. I shared her interpretation in conversation with her. I then felt compelled to grab the phone and say into the Google Voice, pick a number between 0 and 71 (Tarot has 72 cards that starts with the number 0). 13 was the result.

41457

Then today is our 17th wedding anniversary. Before Cristina awoke, I ran to the Florist shop. I hand wrote the little card as follows...

41458

Soon after I arrived, Cristina awoke. After a few great hugs and kisses inspired by the flowers and our celebration, we sat together and reminisced and while sitting there I grabbed my favorite "cards" (The Crop Circle Cards) and after my normal five cuts, drew out a card and sure enough it was...

41459

This is just the experience of magic Cristina and I share with one type of divination device, cards. The fuller experience often emulates a constant conversation with all the reality as it arises. Keys to experience a magical life appear to be 1.) a love for meaningful life 2.) Living a life where symbols of archetypal representations become a code system for reading the reality as it arises 3.) an openness that "things can and do arise" which correspond with your inner journey/inner dialogue in the present moment 4.) that you allow yourself to experience waves of enthusiasm as to this form of experience.

Note: I don't participate in intentional magic (casting). I don't because I don't trust my judgement that what I might think is best for another is actually indeed the best for that other. I prefer to allow the Universe to do that sort of job (if it so does).

...and oh, I am not retired... at least not fully.

Chester

7th September 2019, 12:31

I once posted this over at Flatlandia... perhaps this may be appreciated here as well.

DLjobqkoKYo

RogeRio

7th September 2019, 15:21

I posted this comment in another thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?108524-Special-Feature-SAFIRE-PROJECT-2019-UPDATE&p=1312973&viewfull=1#post1312973), but maybe here can be more appropriated

---

briefly, a great scientific area was improperly divided into three, as follows -- Gravity, Magnetism and Electricity. They should have been studied as a single scientific area.

Then, a ironic example, even today, no one knows how electricity really works (not kidding). The symbology of electric flux are represented unlike (from + to -), albeit are knowed it works like to Ground (-) pole to Potencial (+) pole (by electrons moves)

The little irony is -- nobody knows how or why the Ground pole really works -- but even so, we can produce, conduct and consume electricity, working with devices on Positive side of the "scientific equation".

The great irony is -- The scientific equations are " Polarized " -- Why ? for What ?

Chester

8th September 2019, 15:11

Perhaps the answer you seek could be pointed to in this 38:00 minute video -

oadgHhdgRkI

I would love to hear Sabine's response to the premise of this video.

Here's an interesting quote Donald Hoffman posted around 18:30 -

Spacetime is doomed. There is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally in the actual underlying description of the laws of physics. That's very startling, because what physics is supposed to be about is describing things as they happen in space and time. So if there's no spacetime, it's not clear what physics is about."
Nima Arkani-Hamed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Arkani-Hamed)

silvanelf

9th September 2019, 21:03

Here's an interesting quote Donald Hoffman posted around 18:30 -

Spacetime is doomed. There is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally in the actual underlying description of the laws of physics. That's very startling, because what physics is supposed to be about is describing things as they happen in space and time. So if there's no spacetime, it's not clear what physics is about."
Nima Arkani-Hamed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Arkani-Hamed)

Nima Arkani-Hamed works mainly in the fields of quantum field theory and string theory -- just take a look at the list of 'selected works' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Arkani-Hamed#Selected_works). This means that ""spacetime is doomed" under the assumption that his favorite theory is correct. But Donald Hoffman ignores the context, he presents Arkani-Hamed's view as a fact, not just a speculative idea.

A user comment on reddit:

After watching many lectures, especially by Nima, I am getting the just that spacetime is basically an approximation or emergent phenomenon from something more fundamental. Nima has even said that he thinks there might be a more fundamental theory that gives rise to quantum mechanics and relativity.
...

Reply from another user:

First of all, what Nima is talking about is essentially hopeful speculation and a potential research program. Not truth.

However, he appears to be excited that it appears, at least in his toy field theory, that a simple "geometric" object (in the sense of mathematics, not physical geometry) can be used to develop the same predictions as string theory/QFT without the assumptions of spacetime structure that they usually involve.

The basic hope then would be that you can describe all the interactions in string theory or QFT using a more abstract mathematical object. And, finally, if that includes the parts of string theory that describe gravity, all the behavior of spacetime would be a result of the same kind of abstract mathematics.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/6mkk0d/why_are_physicists_like_nima_arkanihamed_and/

Donald Hoffman says, after quoting Einstein: "We create objects on the fly, they are not symbols of truth, ..." But @16;07 he turned Einstein's statement into its opposite -- Einstein lampooned, “Is the moon only there when we look at it?”

Here is the actual quote from the paper by Pais:

“We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.” Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 863–914 (1979), p. 907

In asking the question, Einstein was challenging the dominant view that quantum mechanical systems lack definite objective properties (e.g., position), independent of observation. He used the moon to emphasize the apparently absurd consequences of this view. Erwin Schrödinger's famous cat paradox makes the same point.

https://www.quora.com/What-did-Einstein-mean-when-he-asked-Abraham-Pais-whether-he-really-believed-that-the-moon-only-exists-when-you-look-at-it

silvanelf

10th September 2019, 16:13

oadgHhdgRkI

I would love to hear Sabine's response to the premise of this video.

I don't know Sabine Hossenfelder's opinion, but I'm sure nearly all physicists would agree with this:

First, let's clarify the physics details.

The article says all observation, all science, all attempts at objectivity is belied by a major flaw: “Physics tells us that there are no public objects.”

No, it doesn’t.

Public objects is a made-up term, not a physics one if you're wondering; implying that we all essentially live in our own private universe with our own private objects -- that is, you and I cannot perceive the same 'public' object. If you assume objects are 'public' -- that is, if you assume you and I can both perceive the same thing -- we will fail. He says that this dramatic personally-exclusive reality is implied by physics.

Classical physics describes 'public objects' all the time with great precision. You and I can both use our own telescopes, even be on different sides of the planet, observe the same comet, and use gravity equations to know where it will go next and when. We will observe the same thing, arrive at the same prediction.

The more modern physics of enormous objects ('theory of relativity') can successfully describe momentums, energies, velocities, and masses from any vantage point you pick in a system. Yes, counter to our initially-limited intuition, if one vantage point is travelling close to the speed of light, it will observe different masses, velocities, and even passages of time. But, all these vantage points within this system are consistent with each other.

In fact, using the theory, you can pick any vantage point ("observer"), and then proceed to describe the rest of the public objects.

Successfully, even.

https://www.psychologyinaction.org/psychology-in-action-1/2016/04/26/the-case-for-reality

silvanelf

11th September 2019, 19:15

Unconventional research in USSR and Russia

Summary: Unconventional research embraces physics, artificial intelligence and the paranormal.

Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Sott.net
Sun, 22 Dec 2013 03:24 UTC

The title of this article comes from a recent paper by Serge Kernbach:

'Unconventional research in USSR and Russia: short overview', Serge Kernbach (Submitted on 4 Dec 2013 (v1), last revised 5 Dec 2013 (this version, v2))

This work briefly surveys unconventional research in Russia from the end of the 19th until the beginning of the 21th centuries in areas related to generation and detection of a 'high-penetrating' emission of non-biological origin. The overview is based on open scientific and journalistic materials. The unique character of this research and its history, originating from governmental programs of the USSR, is shown. Relations to modern studies on biological effects of weak electromagnetic emission, several areas of bioinformatics and theories of physical vacuum are discussed.

[...]

It follows from this article that Kernbach is interested in "highly penetrating radiation". In fact he is an inventor of some of the devices that produce such a "radiation". The physical nature of this radiation is not clear. It may act both on physical devices and on biological systems as well. It can penetrate walls and act at a distance, even 'faster than light".

Yet, until now, it belongs to the "fringe science", "pseudo-science" or "false science". In fact, sometimes publications dealing with this subject find their way to the mainstream physics journals, but always under disguise.

We can ask now again: why is it that Serge Kernbach, an expert in artificial intelligence and swarms of robots, is also interested in "paranormal phenomena" (or in "psychotronics", as it was called in Russia)?

[...]

To quote from the last paper 3):

Long and Super-Long Range device-device and operator-device Interactions
Serge Kernbach, Vitaliy Zamsha, Yuri Kravchenko

Abstract - This work describes performed device-device and operator-device experiments at long and super-long distances of >1 km, >100 km and >10000 km. Experimental setup uses two types of sensors, based on electric double layers and IGA-1 device, and two types of LED and laser generators. We analyzed the construction of the setup, establishing a connection between receiver and emitter, and multiple effects appeared. A common character of operator- and device- interactions is assumed. This approach can be considered as a novel communication system as well as a system for operator training with an objective feedback from devices.

https://www.sott.net/article/270676-Unconventional-research-in-USSR-and-Russia

silvanelf

30th November 2019, 17:33

As it seems, the hypothesis of "Dark Energy" -- see the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 -- was based on a reasonable, but untested assumption ... and now there is clear evidence that their untested assumption was wrong. Quoting Sabine Hossenfelder: "you do not need further redshift to explain the observations." That means, you do not need Dark Energy.

The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess, "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae".

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2131

Quote from Sabine Hossenfelder's blog, emphasis is mine:

What they found is that the best fit to the data is that the redshift of supernovae is not the same in all directions, but that it depends on the direction. This direction is aligned with the direction in which we move through the cosmic microwave background. And – most importantly – you do not need further redshift to explain the observations.

If what they say is correct, then it is unnecessary to postulate dark energy which means that the expansion of the universe might not speed up after all.

[,,,]

This paper, I have to emphasize, has been peer reviewed, is published in a high quality journal, and the analysis meets the current scientific standard of the field. It is not a result that can be easily dismissed and it deserves to be taken very seriously, especially because it calls into question a Nobel Prize winning discovery. This analysis has of course to be checked by other groups and I am sure we will hear about this again, so stay tuned.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/11/dark-energy-might-not-exist-after-all.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqgKXQM8FpU