I just wanted to pass the word that registration is now open to attend SPESIF 2010, at the following link:

http://www.ias-spes.org/SPESIF2010/Registration/SPESIF2010_Registration.html

I will be presenting my paper Non-Gaussian Photon Probability Distribution at this conference.

Space Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum, SPESIF 2010 details are:

Venue: Applied Physics Lab, John Hopkins University

Schedule: February 23-26, 2010

Link to SPESIF:

Link to Registration

Link to Conference Poster.

Hope to see you there.

I am very glad to announce that my paper “Non-Gaussian Photon Probability Distribution” has been accepted by the AIP conference Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences, International Forum (SPESIF) 2010, to be held at John Hopkins in late February 2010.

For those of you who have been following my work for sometime, will recognize that my work is heavily based on experimental data. Therefore, I do expect this paper to substantially increase the rate of change of other scientific discoveries and the development of the technologies of tomorrow.

More details to follow, and abstract below:

This paper investigates the axiom that the photon’s probability distribution is a Gaussian distribution. The Airy disc empirical evidence shows that the best fit, if not exact, distribution is a modified Gamma distribution (whose parameters are α = r, β = r/√u) in the plane orthogonal to the motion of the photon. This modified Gamma distribution is then used to reconstruct the probability distributions along the hypotenuse from the pinhole, arc from the pinhole, and a line parallel to photon motion. This reconstruction shows that the photon’s probability distribution is not a Gaussian function. However, under certain conditions, the distribution can appear to be Normal, thereby accounting for the success of quantum mechanics. This modified Gamma distribution changes with the shape of objects around it and thus explains how the observer alters the observation. This property therefore places additional constraints to quantum entanglement experiments. This paper shows that photon interaction is a multi-phenomena effect consisting of the probability to interact Pi, the probabilistic function and the ability to interact Ai, the electromagnetic function. Splitting the probability function Pi from the electromagnetic function Ai enables the investigation of the photon behavior from a purely probabilistic Pi perspective. The Probabilistic Interaction Hypothesis is proposed as a consistent method for handling the two different phenomena, the probability function Pi and the ability to interact Ai, thus redefining radiation shielding, stealth or cloaking, and invisibility as different effects of a single phenomenon Pi of the photon probability distribution. Sub wavelength photon behavior is successfully modeled as a multi-phenomena behavior. The Probabilistic Interaction Hypothesis provides a good fit to Otoshi’s (1972) microwave shielding, Schurig et al. (2006) microwave cloaking, and Oulton et al. (2008) sub wavelength confinement; thereby providing a strong case that the photon probability distribution is a modified Gamma distribution and not a Gaussian distribution.

I will post a copy of this paper to my website iSETI some time before the conference as soon as everything is finalized.

A friend of mine sent me an email with this comment,

“Single photon physics provides secure communication. If I do coding with photons, eavesdropping is not possible. A person who tries to eavesdrop, destroys the photon in the process” Dr. Steve Harris, Stanford University, 2008.

Got me thinking. In a photonics world based on quantum theory this is a correct statement, I would be the last person on Earth to disagree with an esteemed professor such as Steve Harris.

However, given that the photon probability distribution is a modified Gamma distribution and not a Gaussian distribution I was able to construct a different model of the photon that agrees reasonably well with Oulton et al, 2008 results. Caution: this model does need futher testing. This new model suggest that it is not possible to have secure communications with single photon physics.

Ben Solomon
Twitter: @solo_iseti

I have partially completed my work on the photon probability distribution being a modified Gamma distribution and not a Gaussian distribution. To this end I have been testing microwave, light & subwavelength models using this modified Gamma distribution.

The subwavelength modified Gamma model provides a reasonably close fit with R. F. Oulton, V. J. Sorger, D. A. Genov, D. F. P. Pile and X. Zhang paper A hybrid plasmonic waveguide for subwavelength confinement and long-range propagation. The fit is close but note that there are areas where the models disagree.

nanowireSource: Nature Photonics

Figure 1: GaAs nano wire in SiO2 on a metallic plane (100nm<d<500nm, 2nm<h<100nm)

The Oulton et al paper shows the energy distribution for d=200nm & h=100nm, Figure 2.

Qd200h100nmSource: Nature Photonics

Figure 2: Energy distribution (d=200nm, h=100nm)

My model shows a similar result, Figure 3.

Ed200h100nm

Figure 3: Modified Gamma model (d=200nm, h=100nm)

The Oulton et al paper shows the energy distribution for d=200nm & h=100nm, Figure 4.

Qd200h002nmSource: Nature Photonics

Figure 4: Energy distribution (d=200nm, h=2nm)

My model shows a similar result, Figure 5.

Ed200h002nm

Figure 5: Modified Gamma model (d=200nm, h=2nm)

The energy in the gap area for Oulton et al model is 15% for h=2nm & up to 20% for h-100nm. The modified Gamma model’s energy in the gap area is about 10% and 15% respectively, about 5% consistently less than Outlon et al. However, the modified Gamma model is sensitive to the dimensions of the SiO2 layer, and I have assumed this to be 800nm across and 400 nm high.

I think this is a great fit for subwavelength, coming out of nowhere, while at the same time giving good assurances at the microwave and optical frequencies.

If you know what the internal dimensions of the WR 430 microwave waveguide are, do contact me and let me know.

Ben Solomon

The units don’t match in g=τc^2. 

I get this question a lot and I am beginning to understand that there is a vast difference in most people’s understanding of analytical methods and numerical methods. This is a question I will have to address in my next revision of the book. Allow me to explain by way of examples. I found that if I jump straight into regression some people don’t get it.

 The standard distance traveled formula is

 s = ut + (1/2) at^2                            (1)

 It shows that all the individual terms on the RHS must have the same units as the LHS. If this were a regression equation one would write it in the form:

 s = p.(u.t) + q.(a.t^2) + r                (2)

 where p, q & r are some coefficients of constant value. Noting that r would also have the same units as s. This is a non-linear relationship in t, and to adapt this equation for multiple-linear regression, one would combine the first & second term variables into a ‘meta’ (if that is the right word) variables say x1 (=u.t) & x2 (=a.t^2), giving

 s = p.(x1) + q.(x2) + r                      (3)

 Regressing for p, q and r using the known values of u, t and a, in the form of x1 and x2, would give the following solution

 p = 1       p has the numerical value of 1, and p does not have any units
q = 1/2   q has the numerical value of 1/2 and q does not have any units
r = 0        r has the numerical value of zero and r has the units m (meters)

When we compare equation (3) with equation (1), we note 2 points,
(a)    That you don’t write p is 1 in equation (1) even though the coefficient p still exists, and it is dimensionless.
(b)   That you don’t write the r term because r is zero, and even if its units is m.

If we were to insists on writing everything out then equation (1) would always be written as,

s m = 1.u.t m + (1/2).a.t^2 m + 0 m           (4)

this is technically correct, but not helpful.

Let’s take another example. In the RMBS* & CMBS* sub-industries, the regression loan default model would take the form,

P(d) = a + b.t + c.t^2 + d.t^3 + e.t^4 + f.t^5          (5)

where t is the loan age in months and P(d) the probability of default is dimensionless. Again the units of each term on the RHS must be the same as the units on the LHS which in this case must be dimensionless. Therefore, the units for each constant, a, b, c, d, e & f would take on the following units,

a              would be dimensionless
b             would have the units month^-1
c              would have the units month^-2
d             would have the units month^-3
e             would have the units month^-4
f              would have the units month^-5

In equation (1) the coefficients were dimensionless. Here is an example where the constant term is not dimensionless.

g = GM/r^2                                         (6)

A regression version of this equation would take the form,

g = a.M/r^2 +b                                  (7)

Since the every term in the RHS must have the same units as on the LHS, this tells us that,

i. a has the numerical value of 6.67428 x 10^-11 and the units of a would be m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
ii. b has the numerical value of zero and the units of  b would be m/s^2

since b=0 equation (7) is simply written as.

g = a.M/r^2                                        (8)

That is we observe 3 points,

  1. That the coefficients have compensating units.
  2. That when the coefficients are unity, it is not written into the formula even though these coefficients are not dimensionless; they are ‘silent’ and do not appear in the formula.
  3. The units of the coefficients do not have to be the same as those of the other coefficients or the LHS.

Returning to g=τc^2. This equation was derived using multiple-linear regression, so the unsolved regression equation took the form,

g = a.(t1-t2)/(r1-r2) + b                  (9)

where a and b are regression coefficients. Since, the units of each term on the RHS must be the same as on the LHS,

a .(t1-t2)/(r1-r2)               would have the units m/s^2

b                                             would also have the units m/s^2

Since the time dilations t1 and t2 have the units of seconds, s and contracted distances r1 and r2 have the units of meters, m, this informs us that

a              would have the units of m^2/s^3

b             would have the units m/s^2

to solve for a and b using multiple-linear regression, equation (9) would take the form

g = a.(x1) + b                      (10)

where x1 = (t1-t2)/(r1-r2). The regression solution shows that

a              has the numerical value of c^2, the square of the velocity of light

b             has the numerical value of zero

and the regression takes the form

g m/s^2 = c^2.(x1) m/s^2 + 0 m/s^2                        (11)

since b is zero and can be ignored as with (3) and (1), equation (11) can now be rewritten as

g m/s^2 = (x1).c^2 m/s^2                             (12)

or to write it more elegantly

g=τc^2                                  (13)

Hope this clears all confusions.

Just a reminder for those who are interested. I’ll be talking about my SPESIF 2009 paper on Saturday July 18, 2009.

Subject: An Approach to Gravity Modification as a Propulsion Technology

Publication: SPESIF 2009, American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings

Location: WorldNPA.org (Internet webinar using dimdim.com)

Time: 7:00-9:00 AM US Pacific Time

Abstract: Gravity modification as a portable non-mass effect is feasible. Contemporary experiments such as HFGW and LIGO require mass to model gravitational acceleration and gravitational waves. A different approach to gravitational acceleration, and thus space propulsion technologies is presented here. This paper proposes that gravitational acceleration on any particle is the effect of the deformation of the shape and mass of the particle due to non-inertia transformations present in that local region of the gravitational field. The analytical formulation and numerical integration has led to the discovery of a new formula for gravitational acceleration, g = τc2, that is neither a function of the mass of the gravitational source nor a function of gravitational waves; where τ is a function of the time dilation present in the local gravitational field. This formula has been tested and verified to be correct in the gravitational fields of the nine planetary bodies in our Solar System, and the Sun; mechanical acceleration, and electromagnetic fields. Thus leading to the inference that g = τc2 is the generic formula for all non-nuclear force fields. The true power of this definition of gravitational acceleration lies in the fact that it now lends itself to a portable technology, as mass is no longer required to derive acceleration. This new relationship for acceleration, describes how an electron moving in a magnetic field causes a force on the electron, and explains why the electron velocity, magnetic field and resulting force relationship is orthogonal. This electron model would be the basis for future propulsion technologies.

I have inserted below a message from Glen A Robertson, President of the Institute for Advanced Studies, Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences.

 The pdf file poster for SPESFI 2010 is here.

===================================================

 

Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum

February 23-26, 2010

Applied Physics Laboratory – JHU

 http://www.ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html

 All,

 Hope everyone is having a wonderful summer.

 SPESIF-2010 is coming together and abstracts have been coming in as expected, but more is needed.

 I would like to remind you that the initial abstract deadline of 15 July is next week. 

 As this is an initial deadline:

  • For papers: the deadline is extended until 15 August, but I must remind you that your full manuscript must be finalized through our review process by 15 November to be placed in the AIP proceedings.
  • For presentations, there is no deadline as long as room exist in a session. However, for planning purposes, we ask that at least a title be sent in over the next two months to be logged in and assigned to a session.
  • Government employees or contractors under long approval times may also sent in a title to be logged in and assigned to a session.

Additional, plenary speakers are sought for our two Plenary session (30 min presentations):

New Directions in Space Science and Technology


Chair: Glen A. Robertson, President – Institute for Advanced Studies in the Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences 

For more information contact: Glen A. Robertson

 &

 
Reflections on the First Fifty Years of the Space Age and Prospects
for the Next Fifty: An Astrosociological Assessment

Chair: Roger Launius, Curator – National Air and Space Museum Smithsonian Institution 

For more information contact:Jim Pass

We are also looking for quest lectures (one to two hour lectures) covering any topic related to the Space, Propulsion or Energy Sciences.

These are limited slots, so act quickly.

The Meeting on Future Directions in Space Science and Technology would like to invite (US & Foreign) Universities, College, Institutes, Government Agencies and Industry personnel working in these areas to assemble a session(s) related to their activities. If interested, please contact one of the chairs:

 Program Chair

AAM Delil

AATCS consultant

Kaspischestraat 13

Emmeloord, Netherlands

+31 527617576

adelil@xs4all.nl

 

Program Co-Chair

Michael T Pauken

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Pasadena, CA

818-354-4242

michael.t.pauken@jpl.nasa.gov

 

Program Co-Chair

Glen A. Robertson

IASSPES

Madison, AL

256-694-7941

gar@ias-spes.org

 

 Attached is the SPESIF 2010 Poster done in MS Publisher 2003 (Please do not modify).

If interested in a 18” X 24” hard copy please respond to this email with your address.

 

More information can be found at http://www.ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html

Or calling the organizing chair at 256-694-7941

 As always your assistance in passing this message is greatly appreciated,

 

Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum

Organizing Committee

The June 18 2009 Badlands Radio Show interview is now available at iSETI LLC

Or directly on the blog:

Part 1, Badlands Interview 06/18/2009 (Duration 01:30:23)

Part 2, Badlands Interview 06/18/2009 (Duration 01:21:02)

Note that the interview proper starts 33 mins & 25 secs into Part 1. It is easier to jump straight to the interview at the iSETI LLC site.

(A) Radio Show on Thursday, June 18

I’ll be talking about gravity modification, my experiments, papers, my vision for the future, conferences and responding to listeners questions. So call in and let us have your questions.

Venue: Badlands Radio
Date: Thursday, June 18, 2009
Time: 9:00PM - 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time (New York time). My segment will be about 1 hr somewhere in that time slot.
Toll free call in #: 877-246-7808

Web link:

http://www.talkstreamlive.com/listen.aspx?showid=3263

http://www.badlandsradio.net

http://www.wprtradio.com

 

(B) Webcast on Saturday, July 18

I’ll be presenting my SPESIF 2009 paper “An Approach to Gravity Modification as a Propulsion Technology” as a live webcast so call in and ask questions.

Venue: Natural Philosophy Alliance, http://www.worldnpa.org/main/
Date: Saturday, July 18, 2009
Time: 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (New York time)

Web Link: http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=174

I’m was very pleased with ISDC 2009. It was well organized and there were a lot of very good talks by various presenters at the different tracks during the conference. The kids space station design contest (NSS-NASA-and I forget the 3rd organization)  inspired a lot of grade school teams from around the world!

My presentation, “Stealth, Invisibility and Deep Space Radiation Shielding” was very well attended. There were more than 40 in the audience, and many, many questions. I’ve posted the presentation and video at iSETI LLC’s white papers.