Showing posts with label Inertia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inertia. Show all posts

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Levitation Energy: What is it?

You must know, that contrary to what is understood of levitation, I have a view on this that cannot be said less then in complete wonderment, knowing full well the aspects of what science is stating. "I know" with all of sciences tools, there "is" something we do not understand. It would then be assigned to a Metaphysical description here falls short of the scientific definition.

I preserver still, given the circumstance of my youth, and the direction it pushed my life in terms of scientific study and philosophical determinations. What are one's motivation underpinnings with self and we find the course of life can be set to a degree?

Marc G. Millis
NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field
21000 Brookpark Rd., MS 86-2
Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

Levitation is an excellent challenge to illustrate how contemplating breakthrough propulsion is different from contemplating rocketry. Rockets can hover, but not for very long before they run out of propellant. For an ideal breakthrough, some form of indefinite levitation is desirable, but there is no clear way how to represent the energy or power to perform this feat. Since physics defines work (energy) as the product of force acting over distance, no work is performed if there is no change in distance. Levitation means hovering with no change in height. Regardless, there are a variety of ways to toy with the notion of energy and power for indefinite levitation. A few of these approaches are listed in the next session. For now, only one approach is illustrated, specifically the nullification of gravitational potential.

An object in a gravitational field has the following defined value for its gravitational potential energy:

Equation 11


Usually this definition is used to compare energy differences between two relatively short differences in height ( r) but in our situation we are considering this potential energy in the more absolute sense. This same equation for potential energy can also be derived by calculating how much energy it would take to completely remove the object from the gravitational field, as if moving it to infinity. This is more in line with the analogy to nullify the effect of gravitational energy. This is also the same amount of energy that is required to stop an object at the levitation height ( r) if it were falling in from infinity with an initial velocity of zero.

Using this equation, it could conceivably require 62 mega-Joules to levitate 1-kg near the Earth's surface. This is roughly twice as much as putting 1-kg into low Earth orbit. Again, these assessments are strictly for illustrative purposes rather than suggesting that such breakthroughs are achievable or if they would even take this form if achievable. Some starting point for comparisons is needed, and this is just one version.

See: Breakthrough Propulsion Physics?

The elephant and the event horizon by Amanda Gefter

Hawking radiation owes its existence to the weirdness of the quantum world, in which pairs of virtual particles pop up out of empty space, annihilate each other and disappear. Around a black hole, virtual particles and anti-particles can be separated by the event horizon. Unable to annihilate, they become real. The properties of each pair are linked, or entangled. What happens to one affects the other, even if one is inside the black hole.
See here for article.

Given "thought experiments" sometimes it is necessary to understand the close relation with which entanglement issue, an elephant that falls into a blackhole, and a elephant that resides on the horizon, we look to explain what "measurement may mean" as we look at the entanglement.

All of physics as we know it is conditioned on the fact that information is conserved, even if it's badly scrambled," Susskind says.

So I ask, is there a way to see "mirror symmetry" as a viable aspect of the entanglement, while we look ever deeper into the blackhole for what can be expected/measured? Information, never lost?

How can one not look at space with such regard and understand that the geometrical tendencies while presenting them in coordinated space, can give a dynamical quality to what was never apparent before. Spacetime, takes on a whole new meaning. Moves the Gaussian coordinates to the realm of "abstract thinking in non euclidean , and presents new aspects for consideration that was previously dismissed and thought arrogant in relation to string theory.

Now, I am no way saying that what is being written here is to be compared, on the basis of the many mathematical insights portrayed in the development of string theory. I have hoped to touch this aspect of "dynamical thinking" at the microscopic level and at the same time, spoken to a macroscopic understandings well.

The Future of the Quantum Mechanical View

Gerard 't Hooft-Professor Theoretical Physics
Quantum gravity and black holes. Whenever particles are separated further than 10-33cm, the gravitational force between them is very adequately described by Einstein's theory of general relativity. But when they come closer, the gravitational force becomes strong, whereas gravity is more complicated than gauge theories. Finding a logically coherent theory telling us how particles behave at such small distance scales is a fundamental problem. The most dazzling problem is the question whether these particles will make microscopic black holes. Predicting the behavior of such tiny black holes is a deep theoretical challenge. Or maybe they can't form black holes? Formulating laws of physics that avoid black hole formation is even more difficult.

How fit and comparative the mind to think that it's journey in the imaginations could travel space as we know it on so many levels? Microscopic tendencies to see reality in it's makeup could have been compared to the "powers of ten."

Gravitational Mass for a Photon

The relativistic energy expression attributes a mass to any energetic particle, and for the photon

The gravitational potential energy is then

When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency

Since it is reduced in frequency, this is called the gravitational red shift or the Einstein red shift.

Escape Energy for Photon

If the gravitational potential energy of the photon is exactly equal to the photon energy then

Note that this condition is independent of the frequency, and for a given mass M establishes a critical radius. Actually, Schwarzchilds's calculated gravitational radius differs from this result by a factor of 2 and is coincidently equal to the non-relativistic escape velocity expression

A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it. This requires the idea of a gravitational mass for a photon, which then allows the calculation of an escape energy for an object of that mass. When the escape energy is equal to the photon energy, the implication is that the object is a "black hole."

For more see "Time as a measure.

Special Lagrangian geometry

Dr. Mark Haskins
Special Lagrangian geometry in particular was seen to be related to another String Theory inspired phenomenon, "Mirror Symmetry". Strominger, Yau and Zaslow conjectured that mirror symmetry could be explained by studying moduli spaces arising from special Lagrangian geometry.

How many of the good scientists can say this themself, that no matter what, with all the avenues of propulsion systems talked about, all the aspects of satellite deployment, where are there such places, that we set our sight on with the habitation of space(L5)? Does it hold to the thinking mind, that we would talk about such comparisons for consideration first? How is it then we should look at space?

So we understand not only the travels of satellites, but the place and tunnels through which they travel through in that space.


Entanglement and the New Physics

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Production of Gravitational Waves

"My heart leaps up when I behold A rainbow in the sky."
William Wordsworth-- My Heart Leaps Up

This post is based on "the production" and not the detection of gravitational waves.

It does serve it's purpose, that I explain what I have in terms of detection, that one moves from that process, to actual production of them.:) Now I am not talking about Taylor and Hulse and PSR 1913+16 either.

Dr. Kip Thorne, Caltech 01-Relativity-The First 20th Century Revolution

Weber developed an experiment using a large suspended bar of aluminum, with a high resonant Q at a frequency of about 1 kH; the oscillation of the bar after it had been excited could be measured by a series of piezoelectric crystals mounted on it. The output of the system was put on a chart recorder like those used to record earthquakes. Weber studied the excursions of the pen to look for the occasional tone of a gravitational wave passing through the bar...

  • Einstein@Home

  • LIGO:

  • Nor am I talking about Kip Thorne, Webber, or Ligo operation for that matter.

    I am actually talking about the creation of gravitational waves.

    Now imagine that you see this "slide of light," and you were to think that in front of you, this would help you see where the gravitational field would be falling away from you. You would be sliding "ahead" from where you pointed and created this effect.

    So now you get the idea here of what I propose in the production of gravitational waves versus the detection of them?:)

    Up until this point in time, I've used the term "generate" to describe the capability of producing a gravitational field, but since I'm not aware of any way of creating a gravitational field from nothing, a more accurate term might be to "access and amplify" a gravitational field. And this is what I mean when I use the term "generate". To understand how gravity is generated or "accessed and amplified", you must first know what gravity is.

    While watching a television program I listened to what he had to say. For people interested in gravity, Quantum or otherwise, this topic helped captured my change in thinking that is postulated, and one I am giving thought right now.

    The Problem

    Gravitational waves are produced when there is a change in the curvature of spacetime. Since the shape of spacetime depends only on how mass is distributed, events that change the distribution of mass cause gravitational waves. It takes events with a lot of energy to make gravitational waves that we can detect because spacetime is not very elastic. Remember the bowling ball analogy? Space-time is like a stiff trampoline, one that only sinks when you put something very heavy on it.

    So if we are to consider such a thing how would I go about it? Perhaps, "jumping up and down?":)

    “Every time you accelerate—say by jumping up and down—you’re generating gravitational waves,” says Rainer Weiss, Professor Emeritus of Physics at MIT. “There’s no doubt of it.” But just standing there won’t cut the mustard. To make a wave, your mass has to both move (have velocity) and have acceleration (change the rate of motion, direction, or both).

    Still, don’t get your hopes up. No matter how fast you jump, sprint, or cartwheel, the resulting warp your waves make on space is so weak that it’s utterly unmeasurable—perhaps 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times less so than the warp made by massive exploding space objects. And LIGO has a tough enough time measuring those.

    So there are questions on my mind, about gravity creation.

    Plato writes:


    I am interested as a lay person in the collider experiments and wondered about "gravitational wave production."

    Considering quark gluon levels reached I wondered about the strength and the weakness as a measure of gravitational waves within that collider action. If microscopic blackhole are created then would it be wrong to observe, variation of gravity within the domain of the collider itself?


    See following comment posted here.

    Dear Plato,

    quarks are microscopic bodies. The gravitational effects associated with the motion and interaction of masses that small are ridiculously small.

    In theories contemplating a low quantum gravity scale, black holes could in principle be created in high energy collisions, but if a chance of detecting their creation exists, it is not by gravitational effects, which remain billions of billions of billions of billions (and then some) of times smaller than those caused by strong interactions.

    Please check my post on Lisa Randall’s seminar (Sept. 29th), or the one on the seminar given by Steve Giddings last March. There is reading material that I tried to make accessible to most there.


    I will be loking at this in much more detail. Something that immediately came to mind is Gran Sasso. "Muon creation" from the particle collisions. See: Neutrino Mixing in Sixty Seconds.

    This summer, CERN gave the starting signal for the long-distance neutrino race to Italy. The CNGS facility (CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso), embedded in the laboratory's accelerator complex, produced its first neutrino beam. For the first time, billions of neutrinos were sent through the Earth's crust to the Gran Sasso laboratory, 732 kilometres away in Italy, a journey at almost the speed of light which they completed in less than 2.5 milliseconds. The OPERA experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory was then commissioned, recording the first neutrino tracks. See Strangelets and Strange Matter

    The Distorted Lense

    It would seem to me that if any lens could direct "the focus of our vision" then why not the focus of the gravitational waves? I mean if there is a "inverse calculation" to waves, it would seem t me that such a process could point to a heavy concentration in terms of blackhole production?

    As one of the fields which obey the general inverse square law, the gravity field can be put in the form shown above, showing that the acceleration of gravity, g, is an expression of the intensity of the gravity field.

    As I am reading different thoughts are manifesting and one of these has to do with the "escape velocity of the photon." Why I am not sure at the moment. This used as a measure of determination of whether a blackhole exists? How did we arrive at such a point?

    Albert Einstein (1879–1955)

    One part of the theory of Relativity was inspired when a painter fell off a roof. Einstein found out that while the painter was falling freely, he felt weightless. This led Einstein to realize that gravity was a form of inertia, a result of the way things moved through space - and General Relativity was born.

    It is important for me to recognize the collider process in context of what it is experimentally doing. For me this is demonstrating a "geometrical process" even if it is being taken down to the such "weak gravitational ranges" that I would point to what would manifest,if a tunnelling effect occurred from one location to the next.

    Time travel

    Plato:Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?Tunneling in Faster then Light

    Warp Drives", "Hyperspace Drives", or any other term for Faster-than-light travel is at the level of speculation, with some facets edging into the realm of science. We are at the point where we know what we do know and know what we don’t, but do not know for sure if faster than light travel is possible.

    The bad news is that the bulk of scientific knowledge that we have accumulated to date concludes that faster than light travel is impossible. This is an artifact of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Yes, there are some other perspectives; tachyons, wormholes, inflationary universe, spacetime warping, quantum paradoxes...ideas that are in credible scientific literature, but it is still too soon to know if such ideas are viable.

    One of the issues that is evoked by any faster-than-light transport is time paradoxes: causality violations and implications of time travel. As if the faster than light issue wasn’t tough enough, it is possible to construct elaborate scenarios where faster-than-light travel results in time travel. Time travel is considered far more impossible than light travel.

    It would be suspect to me that such travelling in space would allow for the manufacture of gravitational influences to be pointed in the "direction of travel" and allow such slippage away from that current position.

    Gravitational Mass for a Photon

    The relativistic energy expression attributes a mass to any energetic particle, and for the photon

    The gravitational potential energy is then

    When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency

    Since it is reduced in frequency, this is called the gravitational red shift or the Einstein red shift.

    Escape Energy for Photon

    If the gravitational potential energy of the photon is exactly equal to the photon energy then

    Note that this condition is independent of the frequency, and for a given mass M establishes a critical radius. Actually, Schwarzchilds's calculated gravitational radius differs from this result by a factor of 2 and is coincidently equal to the non-relativistic escape velocity expression

    A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it. This requires the idea of a gravitational mass for a photon, which then allows the calculation of an escape energy for an object of that mass. When the escape energy is equal to the photon energy, the implication is that the object is a "black hole."

    For more see "Time as a measure.

    By allowing new physics to emerge, what basis is being held relevant then to what is being created in the particle collisions that are indeed faster then light?

    As we know from Einstein’s theory of special relativity, nothing can travel faster than c, the velocity of light in a vacuum. The speed of the light that we see generally travels with a slower velocity c/n where n is the refractive index of the medium through which we view the light (in air at sea level, n is approximately 1.00029 whereas in water n is 1.33). Highly energetic, charged particles (which are only constrained to travel slower than c) tend to radiate photons when they pass through a medium and, consequently, can suddenly find themselves in the embarrassing position of actually travelling faster than the light they produce!

    The result of this can be illustrated by considering a moving particle which emits pulses of light that expand like ripples on a pond, as shown in the Figure (right). By the time the particle is at the position indicated by the purple spot, the spherical shell of light emitted when the particle was in the blue position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open blue circle. Likewise, the light emitted when the particle was in the green position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open green circle, and so on. Notice that these ripples overlap with each other to form an enhanced cone of light indicated by the dotted lines. This is analogous to the idea that leads to a sonic boom when planes such as Concorde travel faster than the speed of sound in air

    See also information on What is Cerenkov Radiation?

    Fifth Dimensional General Relativity

    It was a gradual process that using Grace to help me see the earth in new ways was paramount to the inclusion principle of electromagnetism contained within the move to GR.I may be mixed up here, and I have no one to say.

    "Color of gravity" assumes that you have seen the colour of gravity in relation to this slide of light. So seeing in such a way would seem relevant in the fifth dimensional perspective.

    In Kaku's preface of Hyperspace, page ix, we find a innocent enough statement that helps us orientate a view that previous to all understanding, is couched in the work of Kaluza.

    In para 3, he writes,

    Similarily, the laws of gravity and light seem totally dissimilar. They obey different physical assumptions and different mathematics. Attempts to splice these two forces have always failed. However, if we add one more dimension, a fifth dimension, to the previous four dimensions of space and time, then equations governing light and gravity appear to merge together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Light, in fact, can be explained in the fifth dimension. In this way, we see the laws of light and gravity become simpler in five dimensions.

    I would think such a thought here by Kaku would have stimulated the brains of people to see that a direct result is needed in our reality to which such thoughts I am giving would allow you to see gravity in new ways?

    Lagrangian views with regards to relations between the Earth, Moon and Sun would help one to see the general outlay of gravitational influences in space. That is also part of the work I have been following to understand the spacetime fabric and how we may see this in our dealings.

    Saturday, March 10, 2007

    Relativistic Fluid Dynamics

    The Navier-Stokes equations

    A bubble is a minimal-energy surface
    The Navier-Stokes equations, named after Claude-Louis Navier and George Gabriel Stokes, are a set of equations that describe the motion of fluid substances such as liquids and gases. These equations establish that changes in momentum in infinitesimal volumes of fluid are simply the product of changes in pressure and dissipative viscous forces (similar to friction) acting inside the fluid. These viscous forces originate in molecular interactions and dictate how viscous a fluid is. Thus, the Navier-Stokes equations are a dynamical statement of the balance of forces acting at any given region of the fluid.

    In educating myself I learnt to trust my intuition when it comes to defining the basis of "new physics" that was to emerge. As well as, the new particle manifestation that would arise from "specific points" on interaction. What was suppose to be our starting point. This is really difficult for me to put into words, yet, if you knew that there was a "change over/cross over point" and how was this defined? It seemed to me, we had to have a place that would do this.

    A more fundamental property than the disappearance of viscosity becomes visible if superfluid is placed in a rotating container. Instead of rotating uniformly with the container, the rotating state consists of quantized vortices. That is, when the container is rotated at speed below the first critical velocity (related to the quantum numbers for the element in question) the liquid remains perfectly stationary. Once the first critical velocity is reached, the superfluid will very quickly begin spinning at the critical speed. The speed is quantized - i.e. it can only spin at certain speeds.

    "Nothing" is difficult to talk about, and "empty space" is not really empty. So to think "nothing" is a very hard one for me to grasp. If one thinks about what "sprang into being" I of course had to find this "place of traversing" from "one state of being" to another. What things help us to define the nature of that point?

    Example of the viscosity of milk and water. Liquids with higher viscosities will not make such a splash.

    Viscosity is a measure of the resistance of a fluid to deform under shear stress. It is commonly perceived as "thickness", or resistance to flow. Viscosity describes a fluid's internal resistance to flow and may be thought of as a measure of fluid friction. Thus, water is "thin", having a lower viscosity, while vegetable oil is "thick" having a higher viscosity. All real fluids (except superfluids) have some resistance to shear stress, but a fluid which has no resistance to shear stress is known as an ideal fluid or inviscid fluid (Symon 1971).

    I used the question mark not to befuddle those that read here or sanction any post to some idea about what the title following with a question mark, is worth so many points on the "flowery scale."

    On the other hand, gravity in the form of curved space would permeate the whole bulk of the higher dimensional spacetime …. Stephen Hawking1

    I shall have to define "flowery scale" sometime, but I would rather not give any credit to those who hold a position in science who have categorize people according to that same point system. Oh and please, do not consider the flowers less then what I hold as of high value in these "maturations" to be thought less then either.

    While we had been witness to the collider experiments we were also quite aware that that such events had to be taking place with earth, from event sources released in space.

    Relativistic Fluid Dynamics: Physics for Many Different Scales-Nils Andersson

    In writing this review, we have tried to discuss the different building blocks that are needed if one wants to construct a relativistic theory for fluids. Although there are numerous alternatives, we opted to base our discussion of the fluid equations of motion on the variational approach pioneered by Taub [108] and in recent years developed considerably by Carter [17, 19, 21]. This is an appealing strategy because it leads to a natural formulation for multi-fluid problems. Having developed the variational framework, we discussed applications. Here we had to decide what to include and what to leave out. Our decisions were not based on any particular logic, we simply included topics that were either familiar to us, or interested us at the time. That may seem a little peculiar, but one should keep in mind that this is a “living” review. Our intention is to add further applications when the article is updated. On the formal side, we could consider how one accounts for elastic media and magnetic fields, as well as technical issues concerning relativistic vortices (and cosmic strings). On the application side, we may discuss many issues for astrophysical fluid flows (like supernova core collapse, jets, gamma-ray bursts, and cosmology).

    In updating this review we will obviously also correct the mistakes that are sure to be found by helpful colleagues. We look forward to receiving any comments on this review. After all, fluids describe physics at many different scales and we clearly have a lot of physics to learn. The only thing that is certain is that we will enjoy the learning process!

    Spacetime Curvatures

    Flat space time? The thought there are strong gravitational forces at work and where are these located? Can there "be" amidst this strong curvature, the idea that a super fluid born, would have a place where a state of inertia could exist? I thought quickly of what happens when the blackhole collapses and what could come of it?

    Of course this concept of inertia is strong in my mind but would need better clarifications as I am relaying it here in this circumstance.

    But looking for these locations in Lagrangian views of the Sun Earth relation, it seemed viable to me that such a state could have gone from a very strong gravitational inclination( our suns, increase temperatures of the collapsing blackhole) to one that is "very free" and "not flat" but would allow information both ways(from before to now) to be traversed, as if in a jet or cylinder. So that the space around it would be expression not only the earlier constituents of the universe before this translation but manifest into the new physics with which would motive this universe, new particle manifestation, from what did not exist before.

    1The Universe in a Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking. Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-80202-X-Chapter 7, Page 181

    Wednesday, March 07, 2007

    Gravity Experiments

    No matter how absurd? :)

    From a early age, young Albert showed great interest in the world around him. When he was five years old, his father gave him a compass, and the child was enchanted by the device and intrigued by the fact the needle followed a invisible field to point always in the direction of the north pole.Reminiscing in old age, Einstein mentioned this incident as one of the factors that perhaps motivated him years later to study the gravitational field. God's Equation, by Amir D. Aczel, Pg 14

    So you fast forward a few years and what have you got with regards to nature accompany the man who fell off his roof?

    Albert Einstein (1879–1955)

    One part of the theory of Relativity was inspired when a painter fell off a roof. Einstein found out that while the painter was falling freely, he felt weightless. This led Einstein to realize that gravity was a form of inertia, a result of the way things moved through space - and General Relativity was born.

    So it is "by accident" General Relativity was born? Having things happen within context of natures own timing leaves one with some impressions it seems? How often have you noticed the outside world while you are doing your abstract thinking? What is so conducive that the open doorway allowed this other information to flow quite freely into the mind's cavity? You happebn to be working woth natures and it's puzzles yet what use any of these geometrical forms?

    It is of course with some concern that any scientific mind, held to the established rules of his organizational, "motto of acceptance of the stringent rules of science" would allow such room, as to imbue the human being with qualities greater then, the value assigned to subjective valuations.

    So having faced the idea of the "gravitonic condensation" what use this idea(a painting) in terms of what we see as we spell out the differences between micro lensing and "gravitational lensing" how light travels from those distant points in the universe?

    This miniature drop tower is used by Microgravity man and others to demonstrate the effects of reduced gravity on physical and chemical phenomena that are normally masked by Earth's gravity.

    I know about people distancing themselves from what may indeed trouble them, as if, one presented some "anomaly in nature" that I/you may have never seen before. Do I take them on face value for what we had know of them? While reading their blog over the years, months, days, what conclusion had you reached?? Superman, Spiderman, and Captain Marvel comics which glorify the hero? Spheres, as bubbles in gravity free environment are always a nice thing to consider.

    A bubble is a minimal-energy surface of the type that is formed by soap film.

    I selected Kuhn because I was speaking directly to what was evident in my own life. What was presented to me "as the experience" may have likewise captivated a young child of 5, while another is trouble by symmetry in a "qualitative style."

    I began my own investigations, and this set the course for my life to understand what had happened. How ever absurd one may find my statement in the previous post, it is a fact that I do not know how it was accomplished, but I did indeed see the effect of the person free of what we know as gravity holding the individual to her bosom.

    So you have this statement. Q9 said,"the outer gravity which keeps our feet firmly on the ground."

    So how was I suppose to react given the circumstances I had mentioned? If I said the mind was involved in the process "what proof do I have" that the person could indeed do the things that defy, what a frog may do for one who likes to wear shoes that make them light on their feet?

    So any concept which had spoken about gravity, to one extent or another, has entered my research, for me to find some way that would allow such a thing to entertain the sceptic, as well as take the form of flowery pot comments. "Concepts" as foolish as the bulk?

    Of course I want to know what happen in the way that young Einstein wondered about the mystery of nature assigned to that needle. We know now don't we? Oh, gravity is weak here on earth? Weaker then the magnet that is attached itself to the fridge.

    So when gravity had ever been strong? How strong, that it could reach only so far?