It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exotic Energy/Matter: The Current State of The Art

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: stormbringer1701


I think you are mistaken that negative energy shown so far is not cosmic.

You may be right, but I prefer a much more literal approach to negative energy because I think bimetric cosmology explains more than any other theory in cosmology. According to general relativity real negative energy should possess a negative mass and it should therefore be possible to detect negative matter particles which repel positive matter particles. None of the phenomena you mentioned actually exhibit signs of real negative mass, they are all approximations/emulations of negative energy. We have never actually detected negative matter with repulsive gravity, but if it exists we should never expect to find any since it will all be repelled away from our huge positive mass galaxy.
This will go into your threads area a bit but you can look up hidden sectors. it is possible for these different forms of matter an energy to be in the same area physically but be isolated from most or even all of each other's influence. for an example search "neutrons disappearing into a parallel universe"




posted on May, 2 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So, in your opinion, acceleration constitutes a fifth Force?

Surely you realize how absurd this sounds to a physicist's ears.



I didn't claim that. there may be additional forces. the only fifth force i have ever heard of in mainstream literature was a sort of repulsive gravity at cosmic scales. i have read of other forces in the fringe literature though.



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: stormbringer1701


I think you are mistaken that negative energy shown so far is not cosmic.

You may be right, but I prefer a much more literal approach to negative energy because I think bimetric cosmology explains more than any other theory in cosmology. Real negative energy should possess a negative mass and it should therefore be possible to detect negative matter particles which repel positive matter particles. None of the phenomena you mentioned actually exhibit signs of real negative mass, they are all approximations of negative energy. We have never actually detected negative matter with repulsive gravity, but if it exists we should never expect to find any since it will all be repelled away from our huge positive mass galaxy.
It is literal. if you are bending space into an unatural curvature that is a cosmic level effect no matter the magnitude.

I disagree. None of the phenomena you mentioned actually appear to curve space-time in the same way it would be curved by a negative mass. The Casimir effect certainly doesn't curve space-time, and negative index refraction isn't caused by curved space-time either, and the squeezed light example doesn't appear to be a real example either. The closest thing in all of your examples is the warp-field interferometer experiment, but even that experiment doesn't haven't any conclusive results yet and it's been running for several years. The wiki for that experiment says they're trying to create a negative pressure region without using any exotic matter (aka negative matter). So basically trying to use positive matter to warp space-time the same way it would be warped by negative matter, but I would say their idea is fundamentally flawed at the point where they assume positive energy can produce a negative pressure the same way they think dark energy does it.
edit on 2/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

I didn't claim that.

But don't you see?
That is the implication of your proposition!


Just saying.

*tip-toes out*


edit on 2-5-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: stormbringer1701


I think you are mistaken that negative energy shown so far is not cosmic.

You may be right, but I prefer a much more literal approach to negative energy because I think bimetric cosmology explains more than any other theory in cosmology. Real negative energy should possess a negative mass and it should therefore be possible to detect negative matter particles which repel positive matter particles. None of the phenomena you mentioned actually exhibit signs of real negative mass, they are all approximations of negative energy. We have never actually detected negative matter with repulsive gravity, but if it exists we should never expect to find any since it will all be repelled away from our huge positive mass galaxy.
It is literal. if you are bending space into an unatural curvature that is a cosmic level effect no matter the magnitude.

I disagree. None of the phenomena you mentioned actually appear to curve space-time in the same way it would be curved by a negative mass. The Casimir effect certainly doesn't curve space-time, and negative index refraction isn't caused by curved space-time either, and the squeezed light example doesn't appear to be a real example either. The closest thing in all of your examples is the warp-field interferometer experiment, but if that experiment doesn't haven't any conclusive results yet and it's been running for several years. They wiki for that experiment says they're trying to create a negative pressure region without using any exotic matter (aka negative matter). So basically trying to use positive matter to warp space-time the same way it would be warped by negative matter, but I would say their idea is fundamentally flawed at the point where they assume positive energy can produce a negative pressure the same way they think dark matter does it.
it does have positive results. the signal the y got is slightly above the S/N ratio. but it is not as far above it as it needs to be to defeat counterclaims that will inevitably be made. Mr Paul March made the announcement to the EM thread participants last week or the week before. he also posted a copy of the data with graphs showing the signal above the S/N plot and made a pre-publication paper abstract available.



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

I didn't claim that.

But don't you see? That is the implication of your proposition.


Just saying.

*tip-toes out*

perhaps. but if so it is not my claim. it is the real physicists and engineers working it in real experiments and in real peer publications.



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: stormbringer1701


I think you are mistaken that negative energy shown so far is not cosmic.

You may be right, but I prefer a much more literal approach to negative energy because I think bimetric cosmology explains more than any other theory in cosmology. Real negative energy should possess a negative mass and it should therefore be possible to detect negative matter particles which repel positive matter particles. None of the phenomena you mentioned actually exhibit signs of real negative mass, they are all approximations of negative energy. We have never actually detected negative matter with repulsive gravity, but if it exists we should never expect to find any since it will all be repelled away from our huge positive mass galaxy.
It is literal. if you are bending space into an unatural curvature that is a cosmic level effect no matter the magnitude.

I disagree. None of the phenomena you mentioned actually appear to curve space-time in the same way it would be curved by a negative mass. The Casimir effect certainly doesn't curve space-time, and negative index refraction isn't caused by curved space-time either, and the squeezed light example doesn't appear to be a real example either. The closest thing in all of your examples is the warp-field interferometer experiment, but even that experiment doesn't haven't any conclusive results yet and it's been running for several years. The wiki for that experiment says they're trying to create a negative pressure region without using any exotic matter (aka negative matter). So basically trying to use positive matter to warp space-time the same way it would be warped by negative matter, but I would say their idea is fundamentally flawed at the point where they assume positive energy can produce a negative pressure the same way they think dark energy does it.
Dr white has made via posts by Paul March the contention that the negative energy is present in the QV and his torus causes the effects thereof to manifest inside his toroid. his contention as such is that he does not need to provide the negative energy density himself.



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701


it does have positive results. the signal the y got is slightly above the S/N ratio. but it is not as far above it as it needs to be to defeat counterclaims that will inevitably be made.


I'm not buying it. Look at this article from last year:


Arvix paper contends the spacetime distortions resulting from the experimentally obtainable electric field of a parallel plate capacitor configuration cannot be detected by the White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer. Any post-processing results indicating a vanishing, non-zero difference between the charged and uncharged states of the capacitor are due to local effects rather than spacetime perturbations.

Conclusion

The WJWFI is totally incapable of detecting the minute distortions of spacetime produced by a 4.4 J·m-3 electric field. The static electric field of equivalent radius required to achieve the microlensing detection threshold would be ~10^12 V·m-1. Therefore, any vanishing non-zero difference between the charged and uncharged states of the plates is clearly due other factors.

Paper suggests NASA Warping space time experiments needs about 1 million times better detection or to alter the design to increase the possible effect

edit on 2/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: stormbringer1701


it does have positive results. the signal the y got is slightly above the S/N ratio. but it is not as far above it as it needs to be to defeat counterclaims that will inevitably be made.


I'm not buying it. Look at this article from last year:


Arvix paper contends the spacetime distortions resulting from the experimentally obtainable electric field of a parallel plate capacitor configuration cannot be detected by the White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer. Any post-processing results indicating a vanishing, non-zero difference between the charged and uncharged states of the capacitor are due to local effects rather than spacetime perturbations.

Conclusion

The WJWFI is totally incapable of detecting the minute distortions of spacetime produced by a 4.4 J·m-3 electric field. The static electric field of equivalent radius required to achieve the microlensing detection threshold would be ~10^12 V·m-1. Therefore, any vanishing non-zero difference between the charged and uncharged states of the plates is clearly due other factors.

Paper suggests NASA Warping space time experiments needs about 1 million times better detection or to alter the design to increase the possible effect


Dr white gave up on the white juday interferometer for that very reason last year. he has since been using a more sensitive interferometer plus the interferometry is not the only way they are trying to prove warp has occurred

edit on 2-5-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)


in fact i find reference to the new interferometer as far back as late 2013 in videos of his public presentations on the topic at various conferences. also that he went to a different test article that was more powerful.
edit on 2-5-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Well good luck to them, but I'm not getting my hopes up. I'm sure they will be able to warp space if they put enough energy into it, but I'm almost certain they will not be able to warp space the way they need it to warp without real negative matter / exotic matter.



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

I didn't claim that.

But don't you see?
That is the implication of your proposition!


Just saying.

*tip-toes out*



That gravitational example was actually a quote from Dr James Woodward's book. He is far more qualified to defend it than I.



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: stormbringer1701


plus it has to be said that if the states have the same effects or properties as the real article then there is no point in quibbling over it as it makes no difference.

It does make a difference when it comes to Cosmology, you need to know what is actually negative energy and what just behaves like negative energy. Also it may make a difference when it comes to building actual warp drives because we will probably need real negative energy to actually warp space-time, emulations of negative energy most likely wont work in practice.


on top of that the bare mass thing has to be real.

What you are talking about is a renormalization process used to deal with infinities, and depending on the theory you use the bare mass may also be positive or negative, so it seems anything but clear to me.


I think you are mistaken that negative energy shown so far is not cosmic. if it produces even a tiny effect that is also present in the ideal cosmological negative mass or energy such as a negative index of refraction or a negative curvature of space as is the case in Dr White's toroid test article in the warp interferometry experiment then there is nothing to gainsay it's cosmic nature. it's only a matter of degree not of kind.

Would you happen to have a link to the article you mentioned here?



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: stormbringer1701


plus it has to be said that if the states have the same effects or properties as the real article then there is no point in quibbling over it as it makes no difference.

It does make a difference when it comes to Cosmology, you need to know what is actually negative energy and what just behaves like negative energy. Also it may make a difference when it comes to building actual warp drives because we will probably need real negative energy to actually warp space-time, emulations of negative energy most likely wont work in practice.


on top of that the bare mass thing has to be real.



What you are talking about is a renormalization process used to deal with infinities, and depending on the theory you use the bare mass may also be positive or negative, so it seems anything but clear to me.


I think you are mistaken that negative energy shown so far is not cosmic. if it produces even a tiny effect that is also present in the ideal cosmological negative mass or energy such as a negative index of refraction or a negative curvature of space as is the case in Dr White's toroid test article in the warp interferometry experiment then there is nothing to gainsay it's cosmic nature. it's only a matter of degree not of kind.

Would you happen to have a link to the article you mentioned here?


In the sense I used an article just means the device they were testing; not a printed article. but I think Dr White or Mr March has published a picture of it somewhere.


edit on 2-5-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join