[opportunity]

Apologies.

The point I am making, briefly, is that an impulse engine can be made, yet we need to think outside the square, and that means sacrificing a few long held "beliefs", one of which is central to "negative energy", namely the idea of "anti-matter", the other is the BBT. The BBT sets an incorrect stage I think that requires more faith and less science, and thus sacrifices scientific thought which could otherwise be spent on outside the square projects/research.

Impulse engine proposals, like warp drive, depend on "negative energy" so the problem is "anti-particles" being used as a theory to explain away "negative energy":

The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles with negative energy. It was first postulated by the British physicist Paul Dirac in 1930[1] to explain the anomalous negative-energy quantum states predicted by the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons.[2] The positron, the antimatter counterpart of the electron, was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its experimental discovery in 1932.[nb 1]
Upon solving the free Dirac equation,
i ℏ ∂ Ψ ∂ t = ( c α ^ ⋅ p ^ + m c 2 β ^ ) Ψ , {\displaystyle i\hbar {\frac {\partial \Psi }{\partial t}}=(c{\hat {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}}\cdot {\hat {\boldsymbol {p}}}+mc^{2}{\hat {\beta }})\Psi ,}

one finds[3]
Ψ p λ = N ( U ( c σ ^ ⋅ p ) m c 2 + λ E p U ) exp ⁡ [ i ( p ⋅ x − ε t ) / ℏ ] 2 π ℏ 3 , {\displaystyle \Psi _{\mathbf {p} \lambda }=N\left({\begin{matrix}U\\{\frac {(c{\hat {\boldsymbol {\sigma }}}\cdot {\boldsymbol {p}})}{mc^{2}+\lambda E_{p}}}U\end{matrix}}\right){\frac {\exp[i(\mathbf {p} \cdot \mathbf {x} -\varepsilon t)/\hbar ]}{{\sqrt {2\pi \hbar }}^{3}}},}

where
ε = ± E p , E p = + c p 2 + m 2 c 2 , λ = sgn ⁡ ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon =\pm E_{p},\quad E_{p}=+c{\sqrt {\mathbf {p} ^{2}+m^{2}c^{2}}},\quad \lambda =\operatorname {sgn} \varepsilon }

for plane wave solutions with 3-momentum p. This is a direct consequence of the relativistic energy-momentum relation
E 2 = p 2 c 2 + m 2 c 4 {\displaystyle E^{2}=p^{2}c^{2}+m^{2}c^{4}}

upon which the Dirac equation is built. The quantity U is a constant 2 × 1 column vector and N is a normalization constant. The quantity ε is called the time evolution factor, and its interpretation in similar roles in, for example, the plane wave solutions of the Schrödinger equation, is the energy of the wave (particle). This interpretation is not immediately available here since it may acquire negative values. A similar situation prevails for the Klein–Gordon equation. In that case, the absolute value of ε can be interpreted as the energy of the wave since in the canonical formalism, waves with negative ε actually have positive energy Ep.[4] But this is not the case with the Dirac equation. The energy in the canonical formalism associated with negative ε is –Ep.[5]
In hole theory, the solutions with negative time evolution factors are reinterpreted as representing the positron, discovered by Carl Anderson. The interpretation of this result requires a Dirac sea, showing that the Dirac equation is not merely a combination of special relativity and quantum mechanics, but it also implies that the number of particles cannot be conserved.[6]

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea)

If warp-drive, impulse-drive, can work, there needs to be a re-evaluation of theory.

If you go to research conducted by "Eagleworks", they suffered much embarrassment owing to their supposition of contradicting the idea of conservation of momentum, and thus ignoring the idea of anti-particle theory to explain the Dirac sea. So, their research "stopped", officially it seems. Mmm.


Eagleworks links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Propulsion_Physics_Laboratory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

In another post, (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75294.80) I explained how I am also researching the idea of resonant cavity thrusters, with interesting results. I have the magnetron, I have the magnetron launcher, I have the coaxial cable, I have the resonant cavity tube, and all of my work is based on a new theory for time. "Key" to my work though is by-passing how negative energy / Dirac sea was explained off/away with anti-particles.

[Bored chemist]

The point I am making, briefly, is that an impulse engine can be made, yet we need to think outside the square, and that means sacrificing a few long held "beliefs", one of which is central to "negative energy", namely the idea of "anti-matter",

Antimatter is real.
https://home.cern/news/news/physics/still-making-tracks-eighty-years-positron
We have pictures
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95918/why-does-the-spiral-of-a-positron-have-a-larger-radius-than-that-of-an-electron
So your idea is wrong.

You should now stop posting about it.
Continuing to post about something which you know to be wrong is trolling.

[opportunity]

The point I am making, briefly, is that an impulse engine can be made, yet we need to think outside the square, and that means sacrificing a few long held "beliefs", one of which is central to "negative energy", namely the idea of "anti-matter",

Antimatter is real.
https://home.cern/news/news/physics/still-making-tracks-eighty-years-positron
We have pictures
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95918/why-does-the-spiral-of-a-positron-have-a-larger-radius-than-that-of-an-electron
So your idea is wrong.

You should now stop posting about it.
Continuing to post about something which you know to be wrong is trolling.

Thank you for those two links. I whole-heartedly agree with those two links, and my work supports the findings of both:
paper 7, p8:

3.2   Negative energy and anti-particles

When the idea of negative energy is discussed, the idea of anti-particles cannot be ignored, as it is embedded in the current idea of negative energy. In regard to anti-particles, more specifically the positron, Dirac associated his Dirac sea full of negative energy with “anti-particles” as a theoretical model of the vacuum containing an infinite sea of particles with negative energy [12]. It was first postulated to explain the anomalous negative-energy quantum states predicted by the Dirac equation [13] for relativistic electrons The positron [14], the antimatter [15] counterpart of the electron, was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its experimental discovery in 1932.This idea was revised; although quantum field theory replaced the idea of the Dirac sea owing to the notion of anti-particles representing “real” matter, the theory presented here more accurately presents the idea of the positron as an electron that has undergone a magnetic field “flip”, the case in point regarding the relationship here between positron and electron and negative energy is a new explanation for a relativistic electron that when becoming super-massive would undergo a magnetic flip according to the phi-quantum wave-function, as according to the theory here, an idea though previously unbeknown to contemporary physics theory. The question though with this theory, as per the phi-quantum wave-function, is why would there be a magnetic flip in the electron? The thinking is that electron in reaching relativistic speeds would undergo a magnetic flip according to the phi-quantum wave-function where the wavefunction would track back on itself as though mirroring the magnetic moment of the proton in taking on the signature of a massive particle at such a relativistic speed. It’s not a remarkable concept in this phi-quantum wave-function golden ratio theory, just a part of a newly-defined process, yet a theoretical and research-based possibility to be examined in this paper. It was though a remarkable concept during the early stages of “negative energy” theory last century, albeit in the context of relativistic and quantum physics, which here in this paper has taken a different route owing to the new a-priori (golden ratio for time) put into effect. Note therefore, the “idea” of anti-particles will not be used here in the process of “negative energy gravity”.

The second link is particularly interesting, as the ratio between the movement of the electron and positron are in a golden ratio proportion. That's interesting, I think, yet its not mentioned in the article link provided.

I don't disgaree with the idea of the positron, as my quote clearly highlights, its just the idea of the entire "gambit" of anti-particles that would need to exist somehow with their particle opposite. The positron I am fine with; a relativistic electron undergone a magnetic flip, fine. No problem there.

[Bored chemist]

This could be a slow process...
Anti protons also clearly exist We have pictures
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiO6rnfvufeAhXt4IUKHbBRDJ4Qjxx6BAgBEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencesource.com%2Farchive%2FProton-Antiproton-Collision-in-Bubble-Chamber-SS2405191.html&psig=AOvVaw0-tyrA_evmQ5hxiQ9HvwHt&ust=1542958564061025
Antimatter is real.
Your idea is wrong.


Are we going to have to run through the entire gamut of antiparticles one at a time, before you accept the very simple fact that you are wrong?

[opportunity]

This could be a slow process...
Anti protons also clearly exist We have pictures
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiO6rnfvufeAhXt4IUKHbBRDJ4Qjxx6BAgBEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencesource.com%2Farchive%2FProton-Antiproton-Collision-in-Bubble-Chamber-SS2405191.html&psig=AOvVaw0-tyrA_evmQ5hxiQ9HvwHt&ust=1542958564061025
Antimatter is real.
Your idea is wrong.


Are we going to have to run through the entire gamut of antiparticles one at a time, before you accept the very simple fact that you are wrong?

No you don't have to and no I am not wrong. I present in my 5th paper the very "inference" of antiparticles the link you posted infers to, key word being "inference" of anti-protons. Have you read that article?

Here in my fifth paper, page 13:

The complicated feature here though is that on the one hand we have the “anti-particles” of the proton/neutron domain, but on the other hand the electron in occupying the “0” domain would express itself as a distinct feature “through” those antiparticle domains; the electron thus in being the central particle feature would have associated to it “6” types of generations of itself (perhaps as the “neutrino” [22] set of particles), and beyond that another “8” features, indicative of the “weak nuclear force”, once again noting that within this domain as “1/2” a quantum we would have a situation in all experimental fact of not being able to measure the exact location of any of these particles using “light” without interfering with their states of both spin and position, and perhaps even energy. Nonetheless, we end up with the following (Figure 14):



I do not ignore the idea of anti-particles, and thus the idea of the anti-proton, as my theory also states that the "inference" of their existence must exist, yet on further development of my theory the practicality of anti-particles across the entire spectrum of standard elementary particles become problematic. For instance the evidence of these anti-particles fails to present themselves in the stars.

Solutions though exist for such asymmetry: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-physicists-offer-a-solution-to-the-puzzle-of-the-origin-of-matter-in-the-universe

My second paper though deals with the Higgs boson correctly, calculates it.

This is a "new theories" section.

[opportunity]

I would prefer to start a new thread on this topic, as the OP here perhaps wasn't expecting this train of thought, if that's OK with you?

If I may, the abstract of the link you last sent is as follows:

Bubble Chamber Event. Resonances last typically for a mere 10 (-23 power) s and therefore leave no discernible track in a bubble chamber. But by calculating back from the energies and angles of the particles that are detected, physicists can infer that a resonance has existed. In this picture from a bubble chamber at Berkley, an antiproton, coming from below, annihilates with a proton to produces two negative pions, a neutral pion and two positive pions. The negative pions move off to the left, the positive pions to the right, while the pi-zero is undetected. The lower pi-plus decays to a muon, the short piece of track, and then to a positron, which curls out of the picture. The information in the picture ins consistent with the lower-energy pions, the lower tracks on left and right-being the decay products of a resonance state known as the omega.


I then sent you another link about the fact these particles are not "expressed" in our reality, an article that says these particles were annihilated shortly after the theorised big bang. The "inference" there is that "they don't exist anymore, yet the idea of anti-particles "can" be constructed in a lab re. the positron by creating a relativistic electron, yet all other theoretical "anti-particles" can only be "inferred" to exist. Are we on the same page?

[opportunity]

Staying relevant to the topic of impulse engines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_drive

It's pie in the sky. Using "anti-matter" that lasts I quote typically for a mere 10 (-23 power) s is not floating the boat any time soon.

I'm happy to explain how to by-pass the hope of using anti-matter to event a more realistic possibility of for instance warp-drive. The BBT is a good way to explain relativistic electrons in experimental conditions to support the "inferrence" of "other" anti-particles, below a mere 10 (-23 power) s, yet "that's not a realistic solution of theory" despite how crafty it is. Any ideas on how a new thread title should be worded?

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

I am just looking for fundamental rocketry/mechanical answers , and theories/analysis .  The brain-twisters are better off in a theoretical physics thread , not confusing the issue here .
'Nuff said !
P.M.

[opportunity]

That's what I thought also. No worries 

[Bored chemist]

the practicality of anti-particles across the entire spectrum of standard elementary particles become problematic.

And, since, in every case where we have looked, they do actually exist, your idea is, as you put it "problematic".
Or, as I put it; your idea is wrong.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

Perhaps Word-Salad , with a heap of Spaghetti-Logic , is a better description !
P.M.

[opportunity]

the practicality of anti-particles across the entire spectrum of standard elementary particles become problematic.

And, since, in every case where we have looked, they do actually exist, your idea is, as you put it "problematic".
Or, as I put it; your idea is wrong.

Excuse me. My goodness. You're not even a physicist, right?


My quoted statement is valid.


Positrons are a natural decay process in the field of the weak nuclear force, but all other anti-particles are "very" problematic. "In other words" (and is English you're first language or science you're first field) these particles "do not predominate in reality".

Who are you to twist my words?

[Bored chemist]

I am a scientist and have been paid to do science for long enough to pay off the mortgage.
English is my first language. My mother was an English teacher.
So there's no credible claim that I can't understand science or English. (And, the correct spelling is "your")

On the other hand, let's see what you wrote:

the practicality of anti-particles across the entire spectrum of standard elementary particles become problematic.

And, since, in every case where we have looked, they do actually exist, your idea is, as you put it "problematic".
Or, as I put it; your idea is wrong.

Excuse me. My goodness. You're not even a physicist, right?


My quoted statement is valid.


Positrons are a natural decay process in the field of the weak nuclear force, but all other anti-particles are "very" problematic. "In other words" (and is English you're first language or science you're first field) these particles "do not predominate in reality".

Who are you to twist my words?

"My goodness. You're not even a physicist, right?"
There's a hint in my pseudonym.
"My quoted statement is valid."

We can look into that...
"Positrons are a natural decay process in the field of the weak nuclear force,"
Yes, they are (so are their antiparticles- the electrons).
Nobody disputed that. You seem to have forgotten that you were the one saying that antiparticles didn't exist.

an impulse engine can be made, yet we need to think outside the square, and that means sacrificing a few long held "beliefs", one of which is central to "negative energy", namely the idea of "anti-matter"

We can't sacrifice the idea of reality (unless we abandon science + write fiction).

But let's get back to  your latest post .
You say ", but all other anti-particles are "very" problematic. "In other words" (and is English you're first language or science you're first field) these particles "do not predominate in reality"."

You are claiming that "do not  predominate in reality" somehow means the same as ""very" problematic."

OK, people who try to stop axe wielding murderers do not predominate in reality (not least through lack of opportunity).

If you are right then people who try to stop axe wielding murderers are very problematic.

Do you have any idea how stupid that looks?

It's true that we are not sure why there's such a huge imbalance between matter and antimatter in the universe, but antimatter clearly exists (and for more than 10^-23 seconds, since we can get pictures of macroscopic travel), s we can't abandon it.

[opportunity]

Bored Chemist, no, these particles are "inferred" to exist, and no not last more (as you quote) than 10^-23 seconds, yet "less than".....read the abstract. Have you read the article btw? They are problematic. Anything that lasts less than 10^-23 seconds is problematic. Read the abstract again 

[Bored chemist]

Bored Chemist, no, these particles are "inferred" to exist, and no not last more (as you quote) than 10^-23 seconds, yet "less than".....read the abstract. Have you read the article btw? They are problematic. Anything that lasts less than 10^-23 seconds is problematic. Read the abstract again 

Something that short lived is a problem.
However the actual physical evidence shows pictures of antiparticles.
Those pictures show the tracks of particles.
Even if the particles are travelling practically at the speed of light, the few centimetres of track show that the particles existed (at least) for a time equal to the time taken for light to traverse a few cm.

That's about 10^-10 seconds.
OK, that's not long.
But, for you to "mistake" 10^-10 seconds for 10^-23 seconds is equivalent to losing 13 orders of magnitude.
It's like muddling the distance across town, with the distance across a (small) molecule.

[opportunity]

Bored Chemist, no, these particles are "inferred" to exist, and no not last more (as you quote) than 10^-23 seconds, yet "less than".....read the abstract. Have you read the article btw? They are problematic. Anything that lasts less than 10^-23 seconds is problematic. Read the abstract again 

Something that short lived is a problem.
However the actual physical evidence shows pictures of antiparticles.
Those pictures show the tracks of particles.
Even if the particles are travelling practically at the speed of light, the few centimetres of track show that the particles existed (at least) for a time equal to the time taken for light to traverse a few cm.

That's about 10^-10 seconds.
OK, that's not long.
But, for you to "mistake" 10^-10 seconds for 10^-23 seconds is equivalent to losing 13 orders of magnitude.
It's like muddling the distance across town, with the distance across a (small) molecule.

This is the abstract of the link you posted:

Bubble Chamber Event. Resonances last typically for a mere 10 (-23 power) s and therefore leave no discernible track in a bubble chamber. But by calculating back from the energies and angles of the particles that are detected, physicists can infer that a resonance has existed. In this picture from a bubble chamber at Berkley, an antiproton, coming from below, annihilates with a proton to produces two negative pions, a neutral pion and two positive pions. The negative pions move off to the left, the positive pions to the right, while the pi-zero is undetected. The lower pi-plus decays to a muon, the short piece of track, and then to a positron, which curls out of the picture. The information in the picture ins consistent with the lower-energy pions, the lower tracks on left and right-being the decay products of a resonance state known as the omega.

[Kryptid]

This is the abstract of the link you posted:

Bubble Chamber Event. Resonances last typically for a mere 10 (-23 power) s and therefore leave no discernible track in a bubble chamber. But by calculating back from the energies and angles of the particles that are detected, physicists can infer that a resonance has existed. In this picture from a bubble chamber at Berkley, an antiproton, coming from below, annihilates with a proton to produces two negative pions, a neutral pion and two positive pions. The negative pions move off to the left, the positive pions to the right, while the pi-zero is undetected. The lower pi-plus decays to a muon, the short piece of track, and then to a positron, which curls out of the picture. The information in the picture ins consistent with the lower-energy pions, the lower tracks on left and right-being the decay products of a resonance state known as the omega.

The resonance lasting for 10^-23 seconds being referred to is the omega baryon, which isn't even antimatter. The omega baryon was the result of the proton-antiproton collision. The 10^-23 seconds does not refer to the antiproton life time.

[Bored chemist]

This is the abstract of the link you posted:

Bubble Chamber Event. Resonances last typically for a mere 10 (-23 power) s and therefore leave no discernible track in a bubble chamber. But by calculating back from the energies and angles of the particles that are detected, physicists can infer that a resonance has existed. In this picture from a bubble chamber at Berkley, an antiproton, coming from below, annihilates with a proton to produces two negative pions, a neutral pion and two positive pions. The negative pions move off to the left, the positive pions to the right, while the pi-zero is undetected. The lower pi-plus decays to a muon, the short piece of track, and then to a positron, which curls out of the picture. The information in the picture ins consistent with the lower-energy pions, the lower tracks on left and right-being the decay products of a resonance state known as the omega.

Yes, it's a quote from the stuff I cited.
And it's not the relevant bit, is it?
So, why did you keep banging on about it?
Could it be because you have no idea what you are talking about?

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

Gentlemen (except the BS artist) , 
Let's return the focus here to relativistic accelerator-type engines , if you don't mind !
P.M.

[Bored chemist]

Gentlemen ( except the BS artist ) ,

Are you talking to yourself?

Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 20/11/2018 14:08:34
What's an Impulse Engine ?  If it is a rocket with an ISP of a billion , I will call it that !

Everyone else is calling it BS.[/quote]