It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
When light is squeezed, the fluctuations of one parameter, such as the light wave's amplitude, can be reduced at the expense of increased fluctuations of another parameter, such as its phase. The amplitude is a measure of the number of photons in the light beam, while the phase describes its location in time. Quantities corresponding to amplitude and phase are called quadratures, and quantum mechanics allows the uncertainty in one quadrature to be reduced as long as the uncertainty in the complementary quadrature increases.
Collins, H. M. (2001) `Tacit Knowledge, Trust, and the Q of Sapphire', Social Studies of Science, 31, 1, 71-85 Russian measurements of the quality factor (Q) of sapphire, made twenty years ago were not repeated in the West until the summer of 1999. The measurements we are referring to were made by `driving up' the vibrations in a small cylinder of sapphire crystal and watching to see how long they took to die away. The longer the sapphire rings when left alone, the higher its quality factor. Part of the art is to find a support for the crystal that absorbs no energy. The best experiments done in the West could not reproduce the long `ringdown' time claimed by a group at Moscow State University. Shortfalls in tacit knowledge were partly responsible for the failure to repeat the Russian measurements in the West. The Russians had developed esoteric techniques including supporting the crystal from a Chinese silk thread lubricated with pig grease but the exact way to do it was too subtle to describe. Success was not achieved until a group from Glasgow visited Moscow and a member of the Moscow team visited Glasgow. The development of trust was an essential pre-requisite for the transfer of tacit knowledge.
Calibration of resonant bars with electrostatic pulses need not have resolved the experimenter's regress. This is because one could argue about whether the surrogate force mimics GW. Weber could have supported his case longer if he had refused to accept the value of electrostatic calibration. [Had the argument been made, he could also have refused to accept both the early gravitationally-coupled Sinsky calibration and the rotating dumbells constructed by Aplin and the Frascati group because both were near-field, dynamic Cavendish effects. Interestingly, Weber’s 1984 theory also seems to rule out such effects as calibration surrogates for gravitational waves.]
Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by Echtelion
Air particles can carry momentum. There really isn't anything anti'gravitic about this, any more than the way a helicopter works.
By anti gravity, I would assume most people expect a field that repels gravity or a device that modifies, amplifies or shields the field of gravity from a massive object like the earth.
If one insists on saying that acoustic levitation is antigravity, what's stopping me from calling a helicopter, a rocket, or even a table an antigravity device? Does "novelty" count?