There is a good story about how Kodak discovered the first nuclear tests back in the mid 40's, from nearly 2000 miles away 🙂
Probability to avoid detection by a modern radar by going vertical is basically zero.
Jan
Can the metaphysics of today become physics tomorrow?
Here's an email I sent to the physicist Brian Greene. I also sent similar ones to several Physics Nobel Laureates and even to Elon Musk. One hopes that emails such as this to important people don't just come off as messages from cranks. One can only hope.
"
Dear Professor Greene,
I know that you have an interest in space travel. I also know you are working hard to make advancements in physics.. I'm writing this to tell you that quantum physics principles can be applied to space propulsion. There is undoubtedly information I'm presenting here about quantum physics that is broadly accepted but hasn't been combined in the way I am conceptualizing it. I expect that element will be unknown to you. I'm confident though that you can understand the overall concept given the resources you possess. I only ask that you allow the ideas I'm presenting to percolate after reading this and that you then do your own research to verify them.
I have learned from Professor Roger Penrose and from Professor Nima Arkani-Hamed that photons, alone among the force carrying particles, have only two degrees of freedom in their spin orientations. I don't know if those two individuals were the first to understand that fact or if they learned that from others, but regardless it's important information that I'm grateful to understand. All other bosons and all fermions do not have this two dimensional restriction. This is the important point: photons, alone among all known particles, can only have a spin that has a right or left twist along the axis of a photon's propagation direction. There is no part of its spin that can have a component that is in the direction of propagation.
Everyone knows a photon is the only validated fundamental particle without mass. Is it just a coincidence that the only particle without mass does not have three degrees of freedom of its spin direction? I suspect not. It is also the only particle that can attain the velocity of c without requiring infinite energy. They attain it automatically after emission from an object. Photons do not exhibit inertia. They are either emitted or absorbed on their path from home to destination and exhibit no inertia in reaching the speed of light between those two spatially separated points.
The scientific method requires one to ask if that third dimension of spin orientation that is in the direction of travel is what creates the mass and inertia in massive particles. Roger Penrose has investigated the mathematics of the behavior of photons in Twistor Theory but for some reason has never asked that question. Fermions are what we are all made of and because they have mass and exhibit inertia we also have mass and inertia; extreme acceleration is fatal to us. A fermion particle acquires mass in its constituent quarks via the Higgs mechanism. But after acquiring that fixed mass fermions can still increase or decrease their energy via a change in the scalar magnitude of angular momentum of their constituent quarks during acceleration.
Because of this massive particles carry a record of their accelerations in their DNA and their energy can change. It's information that is always with them. Is it possible this occurs because their quark spin orientation can become aligned with the vector acceleration of the object the quarks are a part of? If you think about it, that extra degree of movement must be the reason fermions change energy. It would be as if a paddlewheel boat was in a stream of water. The quarks in a nucleon will feel more energy in the portion of the spin orbit that is moving in the direction of any acceleration. It seems almost too classically simple to take seriously yet it completes a picture of why that third spin dimension is so important for carrying a record of its accelerations and why its energy can change. Never underestimate the power of a simple idea.
There is another equally good way to understand and analyze the situation. Whenever one travels a distance in space we normally use spacetime analytics of the entire object that is traveling. However it is also possible to analyze using the distance that the constituent particles in atoms within the object travel over the given distance. If we rely on that method we use the "spin distance" that each quark travels in each nucleon. We then integrate over all the particles' spin distances instead of that distance traveled by the object as a whole. Normally each quark in a massive particle spins in an orbit that is parallel with the direction of any acceleration and that spin tracks each acceleration.
Now we can compare that to how photons work. Because their spin planes are orthogonal to any acceleration there can be no change in a photon's magnitude of angular momentum. It feels the same force in all parts of its spin orbit. The distance traveled in terms of spin distance is much smaller for a photon than for a massive particle. It also explains how quantum entanglement of photons is differentiated from entanglement of massive particles. It's best explained in terms of quantum information theory. The quantum vacuum exchanges energy dynamically with all particles. This is essentially the reason gravity exists and that acceleration is equivalent to mass. For each change in magnitude of angular momentum there is a similar effect on the quantum vacuum. The massive particle borrows, and can also return, energy from the vacuum. The normal shape of the gravitational influence of mass is spherical. This is not true of a photon. Because a photon does not change energy in its path through the quantum vacuum the quantum vacuum must adjust to the constant spin path of the photon. This creates the effect of a wormhole which Einstein described. When a photon splits into two while going through a partially silvered mirror the two photons become entangled through a quantum wormhole connecting the two. This is entirely different from what happens in QCD when quarks move apart and become entangled at the boundary of a nucleon during confinement.
Finally I get to the point of why I am writing this message to you. There is a physics loophole that should allow a spaceship to act as if it's massless and to attain velocities that are inconceivable with present technology. It seems apparent (assuming my analysis is right) that restricting the degrees of freedom of spin in massive particles to just two dimensions might have strange consequences. It would allow massive particles to act like they are massless during acceleration! If you surrounded a vehicle with a strong enough magnetic field you could create an artificial photon that aligned its spin to just a single two dimensional plane. The magnetic field would "lock" the spin plane in one direction. It would act like a nuclear magnetic resonance imaging machine that aligns all spins on human body parts using an extremely strong magnetic field. If you held the magnetic field steady one could then implement a conventional vector thrust on that object that is orthogonal to the object's spin plane. It should then act like a photon and allow no change in the magnitude of angular momentum of its constituent quarks regardless of the thust causing the object's acceleration. It should then dart off at very high speeds and exhibit no inertial mass.
There is no free lunch in performing this trick though. Because you are "skidding" a quantum object without allowing it to change angular momentum a powerful and large wormhole in the quantum vacuum between its origin and destination points will be created. There would be no need to use "exotic" or "negative" energy to create this wormhole. (Negative energy is not a real thing.) The stability and duration of that wormhole would likely be for a very short time. That stability under varying cicumstances could only be determined by experiment.
Obviously this idea is radically different from the way we normally think of mass. Usually mass is just input into equations as a given and not equated with spin distance. It will seem like metaphysics to non-scientists and also to many scientists. But I've thought about this for almost twenty years and I can't find a reason for it to be inconsistent with what we already know about quantum physics and general relativity. It would be unusual if the scalar magnitude of spin angular momentum of massive particles didn't change automatically during accelerations, whether those particles were individual particles or part of an ensemble. If that was disrupted from happening in a spaceship with a strong internally generated magnetic field that envelops the ship then the consequences of that would be mighty. Any commonly used thrust device for the spaceship would then create a skidding effect of the spaceship in space. That vehicle would behave dynamically like UFOs are seen to behave and would probably exhibit the same magnetic field anomalies that are often reported in UFO close encounters. Accelerations that would normally be fatal for humans would not be so for humans inside such a vehicle.
If you decide to take this idea seriously please be careful, not only for yourself but also for the world in general. If it could be successfully implemented it would be world changing technology and would alter the understanding of our place in the universe.
Best,
"
Here's an email I sent to the physicist Brian Greene. I also sent similar ones to several Physics Nobel Laureates and even to Elon Musk. One hopes that emails such as this to important people don't just come off as messages from cranks. One can only hope.
"
Dear Professor Greene,
I know that you have an interest in space travel. I also know you are working hard to make advancements in physics.. I'm writing this to tell you that quantum physics principles can be applied to space propulsion. There is undoubtedly information I'm presenting here about quantum physics that is broadly accepted but hasn't been combined in the way I am conceptualizing it. I expect that element will be unknown to you. I'm confident though that you can understand the overall concept given the resources you possess. I only ask that you allow the ideas I'm presenting to percolate after reading this and that you then do your own research to verify them.
I have learned from Professor Roger Penrose and from Professor Nima Arkani-Hamed that photons, alone among the force carrying particles, have only two degrees of freedom in their spin orientations. I don't know if those two individuals were the first to understand that fact or if they learned that from others, but regardless it's important information that I'm grateful to understand. All other bosons and all fermions do not have this two dimensional restriction. This is the important point: photons, alone among all known particles, can only have a spin that has a right or left twist along the axis of a photon's propagation direction. There is no part of its spin that can have a component that is in the direction of propagation.
Everyone knows a photon is the only validated fundamental particle without mass. Is it just a coincidence that the only particle without mass does not have three degrees of freedom of its spin direction? I suspect not. It is also the only particle that can attain the velocity of c without requiring infinite energy. They attain it automatically after emission from an object. Photons do not exhibit inertia. They are either emitted or absorbed on their path from home to destination and exhibit no inertia in reaching the speed of light between those two spatially separated points.
The scientific method requires one to ask if that third dimension of spin orientation that is in the direction of travel is what creates the mass and inertia in massive particles. Roger Penrose has investigated the mathematics of the behavior of photons in Twistor Theory but for some reason has never asked that question. Fermions are what we are all made of and because they have mass and exhibit inertia we also have mass and inertia; extreme acceleration is fatal to us. A fermion particle acquires mass in its constituent quarks via the Higgs mechanism. But after acquiring that fixed mass fermions can still increase or decrease their energy via a change in the scalar magnitude of angular momentum of their constituent quarks during acceleration.
Because of this massive particles carry a record of their accelerations in their DNA and their energy can change. It's information that is always with them. Is it possible this occurs because their quark spin orientation can become aligned with the vector acceleration of the object the quarks are a part of? If you think about it, that extra degree of movement must be the reason fermions change energy. It would be as if a paddlewheel boat was in a stream of water. The quarks in a nucleon will feel more energy in the portion of the spin orbit that is moving in the direction of any acceleration. It seems almost too classically simple to take seriously yet it completes a picture of why that third spin dimension is so important for carrying a record of its accelerations and why its energy can change. Never underestimate the power of a simple idea.
There is another equally good way to understand and analyze the situation. Whenever one travels a distance in space we normally use spacetime analytics of the entire object that is traveling. However it is also possible to analyze using the distance that the constituent particles in atoms within the object travel over the given distance. If we rely on that method we use the "spin distance" that each quark travels in each nucleon. We then integrate over all the particles' spin distances instead of that distance traveled by the object as a whole. Normally each quark in a massive particle spins in an orbit that is parallel with the direction of any acceleration and that spin tracks each acceleration.
Now we can compare that to how photons work. Because their spin planes are orthogonal to any acceleration there can be no change in a photon's magnitude of angular momentum. It feels the same force in all parts of its spin orbit. The distance traveled in terms of spin distance is much smaller for a photon than for a massive particle. It also explains how quantum entanglement of photons is differentiated from entanglement of massive particles. It's best explained in terms of quantum information theory. The quantum vacuum exchanges energy dynamically with all particles. This is essentially the reason gravity exists and that acceleration is equivalent to mass. For each change in magnitude of angular momentum there is a similar effect on the quantum vacuum. The massive particle borrows, and can also return, energy from the vacuum. The normal shape of the gravitational influence of mass is spherical. This is not true of a photon. Because a photon does not change energy in its path through the quantum vacuum the quantum vacuum must adjust to the constant spin path of the photon. This creates the effect of a wormhole which Einstein described. When a photon splits into two while going through a partially silvered mirror the two photons become entangled through a quantum wormhole connecting the two. This is entirely different from what happens in QCD when quarks move apart and become entangled at the boundary of a nucleon during confinement.
Finally I get to the point of why I am writing this message to you. There is a physics loophole that should allow a spaceship to act as if it's massless and to attain velocities that are inconceivable with present technology. It seems apparent (assuming my analysis is right) that restricting the degrees of freedom of spin in massive particles to just two dimensions might have strange consequences. It would allow massive particles to act like they are massless during acceleration! If you surrounded a vehicle with a strong enough magnetic field you could create an artificial photon that aligned its spin to just a single two dimensional plane. The magnetic field would "lock" the spin plane in one direction. It would act like a nuclear magnetic resonance imaging machine that aligns all spins on human body parts using an extremely strong magnetic field. If you held the magnetic field steady one could then implement a conventional vector thrust on that object that is orthogonal to the object's spin plane. It should then act like a photon and allow no change in the magnitude of angular momentum of its constituent quarks regardless of the thust causing the object's acceleration. It should then dart off at very high speeds and exhibit no inertial mass.
There is no free lunch in performing this trick though. Because you are "skidding" a quantum object without allowing it to change angular momentum a powerful and large wormhole in the quantum vacuum between its origin and destination points will be created. There would be no need to use "exotic" or "negative" energy to create this wormhole. (Negative energy is not a real thing.) The stability and duration of that wormhole would likely be for a very short time. That stability under varying cicumstances could only be determined by experiment.
Obviously this idea is radically different from the way we normally think of mass. Usually mass is just input into equations as a given and not equated with spin distance. It will seem like metaphysics to non-scientists and also to many scientists. But I've thought about this for almost twenty years and I can't find a reason for it to be inconsistent with what we already know about quantum physics and general relativity. It would be unusual if the scalar magnitude of spin angular momentum of massive particles didn't change automatically during accelerations, whether those particles were individual particles or part of an ensemble. If that was disrupted from happening in a spaceship with a strong internally generated magnetic field that envelops the ship then the consequences of that would be mighty. Any commonly used thrust device for the spaceship would then create a skidding effect of the spaceship in space. That vehicle would behave dynamically like UFOs are seen to behave and would probably exhibit the same magnetic field anomalies that are often reported in UFO close encounters. Accelerations that would normally be fatal for humans would not be so for humans inside such a vehicle.
If you decide to take this idea seriously please be careful, not only for yourself but also for the world in general. If it could be successfully implemented it would be world changing technology and would alter the understanding of our place in the universe.
Best,
"
Having been in involved in similar exercises. I expect Prof Greene to sign off after this 1st para. First telling him he doesn't know, then saying you assume he's smart enough to understand.
That's not the way, independent of the contents.
Begin by saying something about yourself so he can 'place' you, then spend a few lines telling him how great you think he is and how much you learned from him.
Then go into your message.
Just a few tips from someone who's been there, more than once.
Jan
One of the (many) annoying aspects of object sightings, is the lack of definition from the observers. Small pieces of information are filtering out, but no one is saying 'it looks like this'. At least now there are multiple corroborations of an almost transparent sphere housing a grey cube for some of the objects.
In the Nimitz encounter., the tic-tac object was poorly described. Another report says the object was an elongated egg (similar to a tic tac shape). It would help if the Navy would get its s**t together and provide a proper report.
In the Nimitz encounter., the tic-tac object was poorly described. Another report says the object was an elongated egg (similar to a tic tac shape). It would help if the Navy would get its s**t together and provide a proper report.
i wouldn't hold my breath. I recently watched one of Luis Elizondo's latest updates in which he said the administration seized all of his personal communications as well as all the supposed "high" resolution images and destroyed them. He went on to say the four Navy videos were among the least interesting things that they had. I see no sense of openness or desire to investigate anything.
So nothing new just a rehash of a rehash. 🙄
I was surprised that the F16 Pilot's comrade's radar was so good he hit a cassena.
The emphasis of safety was in contrast to an earlier statement that the OHS issue was only a method of raising the issue to higher command. This things can apparently stop mid air and reverse, you are not going to hit them.
We need information from the radar and IR designers not the operators.
How does Elizondo know what was done with them after they were seized?
Off we go into the wild blue yawner.
Off we go into the wild blue yawner.
I understand what you're saying but one has to be true to yourself while still not being offensive. I found over many years that advanced physics has become a field that's overrun with hype and important people within the field are not immune. In fact some of them are the worst at doing it. I can't tell you how many times I've rolled my eyes at rank speculation by many of them. That includes Professor Greene talking about string theory.
But I think he is a likeable guy and intelligent despite exploiting some hype. So I was happy to take a middle ground and give him the benefit of the doubt he could understand what I was saying. Beside, if someone actually is smart then they can tell when you are sucking up, so I don't want to make that mistake and then have the double whammy that I disrespected myself and then didn't even get any benefit from selling myself out.
That would be sort of like an actress trying out for a part and succumbing to the casting couch and STILL not getting the part. I'll only go so far in being insincere.
Nobody suggests to be insincere. It's a matter of knowing which buttons to push in what order for max chance of success.
It's something that can be learned.
Jan
I did a couple of web searches attempting to find any transcripts of the mid-60s Vallee-Sagan conversations.
While doing so, I ran across mention of a space travel theory that, as best I can recall, is known as the "Butler effect/phenomenon." Unfortunately I couldn't refind it later. Does it ring a bell with anyone?
While doing so, I ran across mention of a space travel theory that, as best I can recall, is known as the "Butler effect/phenomenon." Unfortunately I couldn't refind it later. Does it ring a bell with anyone?