**Need For New Experiments To Test Quantum Mechanics & Relativity**

We now have aÂ new physics, without adding additional dimensions, that challenge the foundations of contemporary theories. Note very carefully, this is not about the ability of quantum mechanics or relativity to provide exact answers. That they do extremely well. With Ni fields, can we test for which is better orÂ best?

A better nomenclature is a â€˜single-structure testâ€™, aÂ test to validate the structure proposed by aÂ hypothesis or theory. For example, Mercuryâ€™s precession is an excellent single-structure test for relativity, but it does not say how this compares to say, quantum gravity. On the other hand, a â€˜dual-structureâ€™ test would compare any two different competing theories. The recent three photon observation would be an example of aÂ dual-structure test. Relativity requires that spacetime is smooth and continuous but quantum gravity requires spacetime to be â€œcomprised of discrete, invisibly small building blocksâ€. This three photon observation showed that spacetime was smooth and continuous down to distances smaller than predicted by quantum gravity. Therefore, suggesting that quantum gravity maybe in part or whole invalidated, why upholding relativity.

Therefore, the new tests would authenticate or invalidate Ni fields as opposed to quantum mechanics or relativity. That is, it is about testing for structure or principles not for exactness. Of course both competing theories must first pass the single-structure test for exactness, before they can be considered for aÂ dual-structure test.

Is it possible to design aÂ single-structure test that will either prove or disprove that virtual particles are the carrier of force? Up to today that IÂ know of, this test has not been done. Maybe this is not possible. Things are different now. We have an alternate hypothesis, Ni fields, that force is expressed by the spatial gradient of time dilation. These are two very different principles. AÂ dual-structure test could be developed that considers these differences.

Except for the three photon observation, it does not make sense to conduct aÂ dual-structure test on relativity versus quantum mechanics as alternate hypotheses, because they operate in different domains, galactic versus Planck distances. Inserting aÂ third alternative, Ni fields, could provide aÂ means of developing more dual-structure tests for relativity and quantum mechanics with the Ni field as an alternate hypothesis.

Could we conduct aÂ single-structure test on Ni fields? On aÂ problem where all other physicist-engineers (i.e. quantum mechanics, relativity or classical) have failed to solve? Prof. Eric Laithwaiteâ€™s Big Wheel experiment would be such aÂ problem. Until now no one has solved it. Not with classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, relativity or string theories. The Big Wheel experiment is basically this. Pivot aÂ wheel to the end of aÂ 3-ft (1 m) rod. Spin this wheel to 3,000 rpm or more. Then rotate this rod with the spinning wheel at the other end. The technical description is, rotate the spin vector.

It turns out that the solution to the Big Wheel experiment is that acceleration a=Ï‰rÏ‰sâˆšh is governed by the rotation Ï‰r, spin Ï‰s, and the physical structure âˆšh, and produces weight loss and gain. This is the second big win for Ni fields. The first is the unification of gravitational, electromagnetic and mechanical forces.

How interesting. We have aÂ mechanical construction that does not change its mass, but is able to produce force. If the spin and rotation are of like sense to the observer, the force is toward the observer. If unlike then the force is away from the observer. Going back to the â„¦Â function, we note that in the â„¦Â function, mass has been replaced by spin and rotation, and more importantly the change in the rotation and spin appears to be equivalent to aÂ change in mass. Further work is required to develop an â„¦Â function into aÂ theoretical model.

The next step in challenging the foundations of physics is to replace the mass based â„¦Â function with an electromagnetic function. The contemporary work to unify electromagnetism with gravity is focused on the tensor side. This essay, however, suggests that this may not be the case. If we can do thisâ€‰â€"â€‰which we should be able to do, as Ni fields explain electron motion in aÂ magnetic fieldâ€‰â€"â€‰the new physics will enable us to use electrical circuits to create force, and will one day replace all combustion engines.

Imagine getting to Mars in 2Â hours.

* The How Of Interstellar Travel*But gravity modification is not the means for interstellar travel because mass cannot be accelerated past the velocity of light. To develop interstellar propulsion technology requires thinking outside the box. One possibility is, how do we â€˜arriveâ€™ without â€˜travellingâ€™. Surprisingly, Nature shows us that this is possible. Both photons and particles with mass (electrons, protons & neutrons) have probabilistic natures. If these particles pass through aÂ slit they â€˜arriveâ€™ at either sides of the slit, not just straight ahead! This â€˜arrivalâ€™ is governed by probabilities. Therefore, interstellar travel technology requires an understanding of how probability is implemented in Nature, and we need to figure out how to control the â€˜arrivalâ€™ event, somewhat like the Hitch Hikerâ€™s Guide to the Galaxyâ€™s â€˜infinite improbability driveâ€™.

Neither relativity nor quantum mechanics can or has attempted to explain probabilities. So what is probability? And, in the single slit experiment why does it decrease as one moves orthogonally away from the slit? IÂ proposed that probabilities are aÂ property of subspace and the way to interstellar travel. Subspace co-exists with spacetime but does not have the time dimension. So how do we test for subspace? If it is associated with probability, then can we determine tests that can confirm subspace? IÂ have suggested one in my book. More interestingly, for starters, can we alter the probability of arrivals in the single slit experiments?

To challenge the foundations of pshyics, there are other questions we can ask. Why is the Doppler Effect not aÂ special case of Gravitational Red/Blue shift? Why is the Hubble parameter not aÂ constant? Can we find the answers? Will seeking these answers keep us awake at night at the possibility of new unthinkable inventions that will take man where no man has gone before?

**References**

R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M. Kafatos, and Vigier, Gravitation and Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Plank Scale, Proceedings of aÂ Symposium in Honour of the 80th Birthday of Jean-Pierre Vigier, Edited by Amoroso, R.L., Hunter, G., Kafatos, M., and Vigier, J-P., (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA,Â 2002).

H. Bondi, Reviews of Modern Physics, 29â€‰â€"â€‰3, 423 (1957). G. Hooft, Found Phys 38, 733Â (2008).

B.T. Solomon, â€œAn Approach to Gravity Modification as aÂ Propulsion Technologyâ€, Space, Propulsion and Energy Sciences International Forum (SPESIF 2009), edited by Glen Robertson, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1103, 317Â (2009).

B.T. Solomon, Phys. Essays 24, 327Â (2011)

R. V. Wagoner, 26th SLAC Summer Institute on Particle Physics, SSI 98, 1Â (1998).

â€"â€‰â€"Â â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€‰â€"â€‰â€"

Benjamin TÂ Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.

Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.

## No comments:

## Post a Comment