SPESIF 2010

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.

Non-Gaussian Photon Probability Distribution

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 mΓ 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 P_i, the probabilistic function and the ability to interact A_i, the electromagnetic function. Splitting the probability function P_i from the electromagnetic function A_i enables the investigation of the photon behavior from a purely probabilistic P_i perspective. The Probabilistic Interaction Hypothesis is proposed as a consistent method for handling the two different phenomena, the probability function P_i and the ability to interact A_i, thus redefining radiation shielding, stealth or cloaking, and invisibility as different effects of a single phenomenon P_i 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 mΓ 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.

Eavesdropping Is Not Possible

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

Modified Gamma and the Subwavelength

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.

Source: 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.

Source: Nature Photonics

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

My model shows a similar result, Figure 3.

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.

Source: Nature Photonics

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

My model shows a similar result, Figure 5.

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

A Working Understanding of Regression

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.

June 18 2009 Badlands Interview

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.

Radio Talk Show (June 18) and Webcast (July 18)

(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

ISDC 2009 went very well

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.

Speaking of the Future of Science, Economy & Innovation

In the next 20 years radical innovation will completely change the face of our economy. Completely.

 This last 10 years I have been conducting experiments, testing hypotheses, and building numerical models to figure out how gravity works. I discovered a new formula for gravitational acceleration, g=tau.c^2, that has no mass in the equation. And much more.

 This is a very major breakthrough in physics and technology as this is the first formula of its kind since before Newton. Even more so as this has been a one-man effort working out of his “garage” as opposed to a nationally funded institutional effort. Yes, there is still hope for the little guy.

 This year, 2009, I accepted the honor of Session Co-Chairman, A03.1. Theories, Models and Concepts at Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum (SPESIF), a peer reviewed conference whose papers are published by the American Institute of Physics (AIP) as AIP Conference Proceedings.

 SPESIF link: http://www.ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html

 My research can be viewed at http://www.iSETI.us/

 I am interested in speaking about this new physics and technology to organizations and institutions interested in how to manage research and development, universities who would like to expose their students to radical ideas and processes, and radio shows to the lay public, and focused audiences. I apologize but right now physical locations are restricted to the US.

 My contact information is:

Benjamin T Solomon, BSc(Eng), Dip OR, MAOR, MBS

email: benjamin.t.solomon@iseti.us

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ben7solomon

Collaboration to Test Non Quantum Mechanical Approach to Designing Materials

Progress (1):
I have used my numerical modeling expertise to derive a formula for gravitational acceleration that does not have mass in the formula, g=tau.c^2, where tau is the ratio of the change in time dilation to the change in distance.

Progress (2):
In the process I discovered non-inertia, Ni, fields, a shared property of gravitational, mechanical and electromagnetic forces.

Progress (3):
That work also showed that gravitational acceleration is independent of the internal structure of a particle, i.e. need not be quantum, string or anything else – gravity does not care.

Progress (4):
Therefore, I sought to find out what was the true probability distribution of a photon. Well, it is not a Gaussian distribution. It is a modified Gamma distribution.

The first three finding have been published as an American Institute of Physics Conference Proceeding, 2009.

Collaboration Sought:
I have almost completed developing elegantly simple photon behavior based on modified Gamma probability distribution that is not related to quantum theory. I’m looking for practitioners (scientist or engineers) who will collaborate with me to prove or disprove these formulae.  They need to have free access to lab, materials and their own sources of funding.

Example Testing:
(1) Quantum entanglement- there are additional restrictions that need to be tested.
(2) Shielding – There is a method to reducing the shielding effectiveness.
(3) Cloaking – This is a little more difficult but I think that cloaking is not the same as invisibility.

Please do contact me if you are interested in the possibility of collaboration. In particular I am interested in talking to materials manufactures who could, if we are successful, manufacture very light weight radiation shielding materials for future space exploration, etc.

I need to have some background info and how you would like to collaborate.

If there are enough responses I will set up a collaboration group on LinkedIn or Google Groups