Jan 3, 2021
If you reject Einstein’s general relativity, I consider you to be not a serious theoretical physicist.
It’s clear to me that your understanding of Newton’s third law is superficial.
You do not seem to know about Noether’s theorem?
Newton’s third law is that total linear momentum of an isolated system is a constant of the motion if the total dynamical action is space-translation invariant.
You cannot apply Newton’s gravity theory to the Bondi mechanism because in Newton’s picture TEST particles move through RIGID space in a “force”field created by a SOURCE mass. That picture breaks down in Bondi’s case.
The Bondi mechanism is a primitive warp drive. The masses do not move through space like in Newton’s picture. The two source masses warp the space and time they are in and like in the Alcubierre case they each remain on their local zero G Force timelike geodesics that they self-consistently mutually create.
The “runaway solution” is a mirage because the masses are not moving through space at all in the Bondi mechanism.
Just as the fabric of space can move faster than light in the de Sitter /\ > 0 cosmological solution, so too in this case.
The restrictions on no FTL only applies to TEST PARTICLES remaining inside their local light cones in the classical limit. Similarly, in the Bondi gedankenexperiment.
Bondi case has to be solved with Einstein’s field equations because the two masses are sources and the emergent metric is non-trivial and needs to be solved with the algorithms developed by Kip Thorne’s group. This has never been done yet as far as I know.
But the main point is that this problem
Has been solved with elementary Einstein physics. No need for the kind of excess baggage you propose. Masses remain positive. Only a single metric is required as in Einstein 1916.
The anti-gravity arises from the dissipative inelastic photon-electron/ion phase shifts between the input EM field’s Tuv and the output Guv. The low power comes from resonances in the meta-material fuselage susceptibility response function. It’s basically that simple - conceptually.
Jan 2, 2021
There is no evidence for a double metric that has any relevance to metric engineering of Tic Tac UFOS.
The basic physics there is elementary mainstream no Rube Goldberg excess baggage like you suggest is needed to solve the problem.
You cannot apply alleged cosmological models (large scale) down at the nanometer scale relevant to metric engineering physics.
When geometry is based on a single metric, solution of a single field equation, then only one set of geodesics is available. This means that test particles, whatever they are positive or negative, will behave in the same way if they are subjected to a gravitational field. Then we have the runaway effect, which is difficult to include in physics. A phenomenon that violates the principle of action-reaction.
Jack: What you say is not true. There is no violation of action-reaction in the Bondi mechanism where negative masses universally repel and positive masses universally attract. That behavior is not in violation of Einstein’s field equations. The negative mass -M and the positive mass +m are considered as Tuv active sources not as passive test particles. You have failed to make this distinction leading to a false conclusion. There is nothing wrong with runaway solutions in general relativity. The accelerating universe /\ > 0 cosmological model is a runaway solution. The two sources -M and m move along zero G-Force timelike geodesics that they have mutually created and the metric is not space-translation invariant therefore their total linear momentum considered as a closed system need not be conserved because of Noether’s theorem connecting continuous symmetries to conservation laws, so there is no contradiction with Newton’s third law when properly understood. The Bondi mechanism is a primitive Alcubierre warp drive.
Actually no one has yet calculated the Bondi mechanism correctly. It requires the algorithms developed by Kip Thorne for colliding black holes et-al. The simple Newtonian “force” picture is not adequate.
If we reason in terms of inertial mass and gravitational mass.
Gravity mass is the way a species contributes to the field of action.
Inertial mass determines how a mass reacts when placed in a given field.
In the classical scheme that gives the runaway, the gravitational mass of the negative species is negative: it produces a field that repels positive masses.
But as this field also repels these negative masses, we can deduce that the inertial mass of these "negative masses" is positive. So this violates the principle of equivalence.
If we decide that these negative masses must react differently in a gravitational field we must admit that they follow different geodesics. So another metric tensor is needed for this species, solution of a second field equation.
The Janus equations bring this and then the inertial mass of these negative masses becomes negative. The principle of equivalence is re-established, as well as the principle of action-reaction.
Do you agree with this? It seems to me that you are trying to placate the Janus model with arguments from the single metric model.
I know that this concept of a bimetric universe is new and disconcerting. Only three of us have published papers on it. The first is the academician T. Damour (Physical Review D, 2002), who could not come up with a workable result. He imagines two branches interacting with gravitons endowed with masses.
The German S.Hossenfelder (Physical Review D 2008) has produced something more constructed. But in trying to include the population of negative masses in a general scheme, with the same evolutionary equations, she has constructed something that violates the principle of equivalence.
Only the Janus model is a mathematically and physically coherent bimetric representation. But this is quite disconcerting for someone who discovers this, I agree.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
What you don’t seem to understand is that there is no need at all for your Janus model in either cosmology or Tic Tac Tech.
It’s excess baggage, violates Occam’s Razor and Wheeler’s Principle of Radical Conservatism. In particular “negative mass” in your sense, plays no role whatsoever in understanding Tic Tac propulsion.
In science if two competing theories, the simplest one is the one to use.
All we need for Tic Tac Tech
1) Maxwell’s 1865 unification of light, electricity and magnetism.
2) Einstein’s 1916 metric theory of gravity - no torsion, no non-metricity.
3) Basic quantum field theory.
4) Soft condensed matter physics - Frohlich effect
5) Susceptibility response of artificial meta-materials to applied pump electromagnetic non-propagating near fields.
That said - Shipov’s torsion may contribute both to cosmology and to Tic Tac Tech as additional effects beyond those of the basic metric connection of Levi-Civita. That remains to be seen.
About Janus I will turn Wheeler's sentence around and say that it is actually today's cosmology and theoretical physics that suffer from an « excess baggage », which are the so-called dark matter and dark energy.
Hypothetical components can be introduced into the cosmos, provided they are described. But nobody can say what this dark matter and this black are. All the expensive experiments to capture the neutralino, which was presented as the possible component of dark matter, have been failures for 30 years.
What about this dark energy which has the disconcerting property of remaining constant during an exponential cosmic expansion? What about this extension of the standard model, introducing super-partners to all particles, which could not be observed in large particle gas accelerators?
The Janus model is based on only one hypothesis: that these components of the universe possess negative mass, self-attracting and repelling (confining) our own matter and accelerating cosmic expansion. This leads to an extension of the geometry of space-time which is operated in a mathematically rigorous way (satisfying Bianchi's identities), by moving from Einstein's equation to two coupled field equations, whose solution is then a pair of metrics, giving the trajectories of positive masses and those of negative masses. The first equation being Einstein's equation.
Moreover, the theory of dynamic groups perfectly defines its identity: it is a form of antimatter of negative mass, formed from antiquarks of negative energy. This model gives substance to the idea of the Russian Andrei Sakharov and explains the non-observation of primordial antimatter.
This model, which has been the subject of six publications in high level main stream journals (Astrophysics and Space Science, Modern Physics Letters A) accounts for all the observations which, in cosmology, call for recourse to this excess of baggage that are dark matter and dark energy. Although this model has not aroused the interest of other scientists, with the exception of the Belgian mathematician Nathalie Debergh, who has developed in Quantum Mechanics the concept of the negative energy states (also published in a high-level journal); no scientist has produced any criticism or even comments on it.
Although also very busy, I will look at your own work. What are the references of your publications that I should read?
I am too busy with my own work that has pressing implications for US National Security and beyond as shown in the BESA White Paper
I certainly encourage others if they have time to comment in more detail on your work.
I am not talking about your earlier MHD propulsion ideas, but your later “Janus” “negative mass” ideas that to put the best shine on it are “excess baggage” (John A Wheeler) since elementary mainstream battle-tested theoretical physics of Maxwell, Einstein and the fathers of quantum theory suffice. Indeed, the essential conceptual physics of UFOs/Tic Tacs/UAVs is really so obvious that it should be given as a problem for the written exam on PhD qualifying exams at Cal Tech, MIT, Princeton, OxBridge et-al - given a few hints of course.
In other words “I have no need of your hypothesis.”
The problem in this field of UFOS is that, by an large, the top guns in theoretical physics are afraid to study the evidence for fear of being labeled a crank as is well known.
You are right when you say that General Relativity only deals with the gravitational field in vacuum or in very schematic, neutral masses with constant density (Schwarzschid inner metric). It is then relevant to raise the question of the field in masses and to consider that one could alter the geometry of space-time inside masses. Moreover, general relativity does not succeed in mixing gravitation and electromagnetism, except by adding a fifth dimension.
Finally the marriage between general relativity and quantum mechanics is not made. So it is lawful to ask all these questions. The question is open and it would be stupid to deny these facts.
I saw that you had formulated a very negative opinion concerning our work and our Janus model. Do not hesitate to address these criticisms to me, I will answer you. It is not a question of believing in a model or not believing. The right question is: "is it mathematically and geometrically correctly structured? »
The answer is positive. But this model is not part of general relativity because it is managed by two coupled field equations, each producing its own metric (with which one builds its Ricci tensor). Enstein's equation is one of the two. These equations satisfy Bianchi's identities. It is therefore a model with a single mayfold M4, with two metrics. Everything is "clean".
The interest is that it provides a lot of things that fit with many observations.
If you find serious flaws in this model, please write an article and publish it, anywhere. Same thing for a cosmologist of your knowledge who would have the same negative opinion on the Janus model. Theories are made to be criticized in broad daylight.
I know that it may seem very strange to see a Frenchman and a Belgian woman producing this. There are so many works that are not serious! Right now I have to give my referee report on an article like this. Instead of answering negatively, with a simple sentence, I will send the author a detailed report, showing him where it's not going.
About our work, if you have that opinion, you should put it in writing. Same thing if a fellow cosmologist reacts with a shrug. You have to make things clear.
The Janus model is quite complex and disconcerting. There are two antimatter. One that we know of, with a positive mass, is another, T-symmetric. This is because this time we manage T-symmetry, which inverts energy and mass.
Look at the article by Nathalie Debergh. The arguments invoked to reject negative energy states are based on an ad hoc hypothesis, concerning the time reversal operator. It is arbitrarily chosen to be anti-unitary so that these states do not appear. The answer is therefore introduced in the question :
- These negative energy states do not appear because I have made sure that it is so.
But if one chooses a unitary operator, then these states exist.
Your conference paper reached 300 reads
Achieved on December 28, 2020