electromagnetism

Son Goku

Perhaps science hasn't devised a way of detecting them and to describe them as being too low for communication doesn't subscribe to the laws of quantum mechanics, perhaps they just appear invisible

Explain how it doesn't subscribe to the laws of Quantum Mechanics.

solas

Why?
I'm dealing with fundamental EM first. The brain is a large and complex material whose physical properties are largely the domain of condensed matter physics. In this sense it is difficult to single out any specific phenomena and what its effects on it are.

Please point out what in my posts there is personal opinion?

san goku conjecture wrote:

I'd have to say the idea of hidden EM channels is pretty unlikely.
If they existed you would be able to detect them in transit. If their energy was too low for detection then it would be too low for communication.

Basically there is little room in EM for the unexplained.

You've already stated that the current theory of electromagnetism is based on observed phenomena, what about unobserved electromagnetic phenomena? This is the ground from which the original subject of discussion came about.
The idea that there is little room in em for the unexplained also seems like personal opinion as some previous experiments have shown. Science is still discovering the much about the effects of electromagnetism.

san goku wrote:

A lot, in fact I would say our knowledge of it is perhaps the most complete of phenomena in science. Our current theory of electromagnetism, called Quantum Electrodynamics explains all observed electromagnetic phenomena to with at least a trillionth of a percent.

what comes after a trillion?

solas

san goku wrote:

Explain how it doesn't subscribe to the laws of Quantum Mechanics

I'll have to withdraw that statement:o
I don't have a great deal of knowledge of quantum mechanics but I understand that quantum anything refers to the value system by which these fundemetal properties are measured.
I do acknowledge the scientific value of electromagnetism I just have little faith in how much it's worth

I appreciate your scientific understanding on the issue but I'm also skeptical, not of your knowledge but of scientific values in general. Science is not conclusive, as it continually demonstrates over and over again.

Son Goku

Now first of all man, I would like to discuss this and I'm not anti-paranormal.
In fact I'd a huge interest in this stuff during my mid-teens and still do.
It's a huge area for investigation, no matter what it turns out to be.

solas wrote:

You've already stated that the current theory of electromagnetism is based on observed phenomena, what about unobserved electromagnetic phenomena? This is the ground from which the original subject of discussion came about.

Unobserved electromagnetic phenomena would be material case specific. For example the effects of EM on a Zinc alloy, e.t.c.
The brain is one such material. I'm starting with EM on its own first to show that the effects would be more how something is effected by EM, rather than a property inherent to EM itself.

solas wrote:

what comes after a trillion?

What is that supposed to mean?
The regime where Quantum Electrofynamics has been tested is equivalent to length scales on the order of 10^-18 meters. That is pretty accurate and I doubt anything lower will offer corrections significant at our level.

I do acknowledge the scientific value of electromagnetism I just have little faith in how much it's worth

Why specifically?
I want to know because I feel I might be approaching this from the wrong angle.

solas

and I'm not anti scientific. The case specific unobserved electromagnetic phenomena is the topic for dicussion, the original question is in relation to a linked unconfirmed experiment. I was interested in discussing the theory behind it and weather it has any validity. Consider it case specific.
Why do I not accept science as unquestionable fact? Because science is prone to having to correct theory as technology develops and we discover and learn more about the world around us.

Son Goku

solas wrote:

and I'm not anti scientific. The case specific unobserved electromagnetic phenomena is the topic for dicussion, the original question is in relation to a linked unconfirmed experiment. I was interested in discussing the theory behind it and weather it has any validity. Consider it case specific.
Why do I not accept science as unquestionable fact? Because science is prone to having to correct theory as technology develops and we discover and learn more about the world around us.

Science itself says it isn't unquestionable fact.
However that still doesn't allow one to dismiss it because things might one day change.
Science has updated its theories, but that doesn't leave the old ones incorrect. Classical mechanics is still true up the atomic level, so even though we know have Quantum Mechanics, we still have to accept classical mechanics' results.

It's very rare that something is entriely replaced, usually it is expanded to cover something new.
Maxwell's EM is still valid for almost everything even though we now have QED.

stevenmu

Of course, we (and when I say 'we' I mean other people ) can understand almost everything about the nature of electromagnetism, without fully understanding all it's possible effects and consequences. Lifter technology is a great example of this. It's been discovered that passing strong electrical currents (tens of thousands of volts) around a triangle shaped frame can cause the frame to levitate. Nobody understands how or why this happens (at least last time I checked on it anyway). Not to mention some of the things claimed to have been discovered by Nikola Tesla (I can't believe this topic has gone this far without him being mentioned ).

Even that is assuming we do know almost everything about the nature of electromagnetism. It's impossible really to claim that because we can't measure what we do know against what we don't. It's quite possible there are many aspects to electromagnetism which we do not have any understanding of, simply because the effects of these aspects have not been observed or documented yet.

Son Goku

stevenmu wrote:

Even that is assuming we do know almost everything about the nature of electromagnetism. It's impossible really to claim that because we can't measure what we do know against what we don't. It's quite possible there are many aspects to electromagnetism which we do not have any understanding of, simply because the effects of these aspects have not been observed or documented yet.

It would take too long to explain (unless you're up for some quantum mechanics), but essentially it is very unlikely (to within 0.000005%) that there is an aspect of electromagnetism that we don't understand.
(It has to do with EM been seen to fall out of something else)

Electromagnetism is the only thing in physics for which this is true, which why QED is called the "Jewel of physics".
So while there is an element of gravity which may come along and surprise, it is very unlikely that the same will happen for EM.

SkepticOne

stevenmu wrote:

Lifter technology is a great example of this. It's been discovered that passing strong electrical currents (tens of thousands of volts) around a triangle shaped frame can cause the frame to levitate. Nobody understands how or why this happens (at least last time I checked on it anyway).

What is not understood? The main explanation seems to be that the lift is due to an "ion wind" causing a downward flow of air and a consequent lift of the 'lifter', much like a helicopter produces lift by forcing air downward. I don't think there's much dispute about this. There is a bit of dispute, however, about the practical applications of this.

pH

What is not understood? The main explanation seems to be that the lift is due to an "ion wind" causing a downward flow of air and a consequent lift of the 'lifter', much like a helicopter produces lift by forcing air downward. I don't think there's much dispute about this. There is a bit of dispute, however, about the practical applications of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EHD_thruster
And here's a 1964 article
http://www.rexresearch.com/desev/desev.htm

SkepticOne

pH wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EHD_thruster
And here's a 1964 article
http://www.rexresearch.com/desev/desev.htm

Thank you. Those links would back up my point that these lifters are based on fairly well understood physics.

stevenmu

Sorry, meant to come back to this one much sooner.

While ion wind does provide lift it does not seem to provide all the lift, altough figures as to what percentage of lift it does provide seem vary pretty wildly. The rest of the lift is generally thought to come from some form of biefeld-brown effect, creating a force in a high-voltage asymmetrical capacitor system. I was hoping to find some better links to back up some of this, but it seems that all the people with the really cool gear aren't that interested.

Lifter Test With Wires Unlinked:
http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/unlinked/index.htm

Unlinked Lifter fully enclosed in a box
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/lifters/inthebox/index.htm

Lifter Inertial Anomalies
http://www.americanantigravity.com/lifter-inertial-anomalies-2004.shtml

Several Tests, 1 insulating thin wires with plastic, 2 seperating elements with cardboard, 3 enlosing lifter in a bag, 4 wind speed measurement
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifteriw.htm

pH

I know that we're not meant to be at all critical of anything or suggest anything remotely scientific, but suffice to say if any of these people could show any lift in a vacuum (thus discounting ion wind) then they could publish and they would receive worldwide acclaim, and probably a Nobel prize (such would the enormity of their discovery be).

This would be a relatively simple thing to do, a person capable of building these things would be well capable of testing them in a small vacuum vessel.

However they don't/won't and all it continues to be is clever applications of a reasonably well understood principle, yet claiming to be so much more ...

stevenmu wrote:

The rest of the lift is generally thought to come from some form of biefeld-brown effect,

From your wikipedia link ...
An article by M. Tajmar (see below, or a summary) describes an experiment designed to test the possibility that this effect may need some other effect than ion winds for its explanation. No such effect was found, to the limit of experimental accuracy.

Zillah

Stevenmu, am I right in saying that if you get a large "aircraft", put a nuclear reactor in it, and run a massive charge through some large central triangle, we can have a UFO/Flying saucer?

stevenmu

pH wrote:

I know that we're not meant to be at all critical of anything or suggest anything remotely scientific, but suffice to say if any of these people could show any lift in a vacuum (thus discounting ion wind) then they could publish and they would receive worldwide acclaim, and probably a Nobel prize (such would the enormity of their discovery be).

This would be a relatively simple thing to do, a person capable of building these things would be well capable of testing them in a small vacuum vessel.

Most of the people researching these seem to be regular people building them in their tool sheds. All that's really needed is a high voltage transformer which is fairly easy to get your hands on, and from what I've seen the currents involved are fairly safe. Creating a perfect vacumn, or close to one, is very difficult in these conditions. While I can't find the link now, I have seen mention of tests in low air pressure which gave the same amount of lift, altough I don't know if that means anything, I'd imagine that as air pressure drops the ions in an ion wind effect would be accelerated faster keeping lift constant ?

This Page does mention too near perfect vacumn tests one of which did find measurable lift, the other did not.

Vacuum-chamber testing for Lifters and Biefeld-Brown technologies have been difficult to conduct, because a hard vacuum is required to eliminate all trace-gasses from the chamber prior to testing. Nonetheless, a number of organizations have been able to achieve hard vacuum at 10–7 Torr or lower pressure, and have run experiments with varying results.

The suggestion of variance in vacuum-chamber results has been claimed to be the product of experimental error because of the conflict in overall results. Purdue University research Hector Serrano was able to create hard vacuum during testing, and yet still observed measurable thrust in his asymmetrical capacitor apparatus. Other testing, such as that by Dr. Jonathan Campell at NASA, indicate quite the opposite – without the presence of an atmosphere, Campbell saw no propulsive motion, which led him to the conclusion that ion-wind was the key to producing propulsive force in Lifters.

Zillah wrote:

Stevenmu, am I right in saying that if you get a large "aircraft", put a nuclear reactor in it, and run a massive charge through some large central triangle, we can have a UFO/Flying saucer?

Yes, that seems to be entirely possible. Students in Japan have built a craft 5 meters wide. With the resources available to US military contractors for example, it should be quite possible for them to build a larger craft. Thinking about it I'd be quite surprised if one of them hadn't at some stage, altough I can only guess at what form it might have taken. I think a nuclear reactor might be overkill though (and I think relative to their weight nuclear reactors produce very little power ?, probably because of the shielding needed). They operate with efficiency in the same order of magitude as that of a helicopter, americanantigravity's lifter 4 can lift approx 3lbs per horsepower, a typical helicopter can lift maybe 4.5lbs per horsepower. Efficiency also improves with larger designs.


(fyi, the triangle shape generally used in lifters, which is similar to the shape of many reported UFOs, is just for easy structural integrity. Because weight is at a premium, the triangle shape allows them to have a stable structure without the need for any reinforcements)

pH

This Page does mention too near perfect vacumn tests one of which did find measurable lift, the other did not.

As you point out one man Hector Serrano has claimed he's seeing a force in a vacuum and is going to publish. If he's right he's going to be very famous and lauded with the highest accolades a scientist can have, because as your own link points out:

If the Biefeld-Brown effect is indeed a non ion-wind force on an asymmetrical capacitor, then it means we have finally witnessed the discovery of the world’s first reactionless-drive system.

On a deeper level, definitive proof of the Biefeld-Brown Effect is a confirmation that conventional physics has made some incorrect assumptions about the nature of time and space

I'm sure that we're all familiar here with Newton's 3rd law, which is pretty much out the window in a 'reactionless-drive system'. Standard rockets have to chuck mass out the back in order to go forward, but this magical force doesn't seem to have a pair.

However, even if Serrano's right, and does publish and rewrites the physics textbooks, the force he actually observed was miniscule. Yes the laws of physics say it shouldn't be there at all, but what's there if it exists doesn't seem to have any spaceship applications.

Anyway, while I am hesitant to call Serrano's work wrong, we've recently seen major instances of reputable scientists getting ahead of themselves (Utah's cold fusion announcemeny) or what appears to be plain fraud (Korean cloning), so until it's published, peer-reviewed and replicated in someone else's lab it's not science.

solas

I had a feeling I was going to come back to this at some stage.
Following the original discussion on the topic which seems to remain inconclusive, I was reading this recently which highlights the interaction of "subtle energies".

http://www.lightworks.com/monthlyaspectarian/1998/May/0598-05.htm

"Subtle energy" refers to the medium through which consciousness acts on the realm of matter and energy. According to a National Institutes of Health study, at least 52 terms are used for "subtle energy": chi, prana, holy spirit, manna, ether, orgone, biomagnetism and zeropoint, among many others in our current vocabulary. Regardless of the label, it appears to contribute to many phenomena not currently explained by conventional science: telekinesis, remote sensing, telepathy, gut or heartbased intuition, healing by prayer or other psychic means, biocommunication between species, etc.

Since these phenomena have tangible effects that can be documented but not explained by the known principles of the electromagnetic (E/M) field of matter/energy, they require that we hypothesize another force through which conscious intent acts on the affected objects, senses and cells.

Some researchers believe a fuzzy part of the electromagnetic spectrum, beyond gamma rays, constitutes this force but that it has not yet been discovered due to the lack of refined instrumentation. Just as the harnessing of radio waves and Xrays had to await the development of new technologies, say these researchers, the development of more advanced machines will enable humans to make use of this fuzzy E/M field.

The article contains some information on experiments performed by a Clive Backster and brings us back to the original concept of a "paranormal channel" which has yet to be defined by science...and it sort of ties in with the energy/ emotion theme doing the rounds at the minute. Makes for interesting reading.

Son Goku

Article wrote:

Some researchers believe a fuzzy part of the electromagnetic spectrum, beyond gamma rays, constitutes this force but that it has not yet been discovered due to the lack of refined instrumentation. Just as the harnessing of radio waves and Xrays had to await the development of new technologies, say these researchers, the development of more advanced machines will enable humans to make use of this fuzzy E/M field.

First of all, where does this even come out of?
Why would we suddenly postulate that the human mind can transmit or recieve in the cosmic-ray range(which is the name for frequencies beyond the gamma ray band)?

Since these phenomena have tangible effects that can be documented but not explained by the known principles of the electromagnetic (E/M) field of matter/energy, they require that we hypothesize another force through which conscious intent acts on the affected objects, senses and cells.

Again, where does this come out of?
Why a new force?
Why does electromagnetism have to explain them?
Electromagnetism isn't supposed to tackle these things.

telekinesis, remote sensing, telepathy, gut or heartbased intuition, healing by prayer or other psychic means, biocommunication between species, etc.

None of these things have ever been shown to definitely exist.
(With the possible and limited exception of Qi/Ki.)
None of them are definitively demonstrated phenomena, so science doesn't have to explain them.

solas

ahh..cosmic rays, it all makes sense now
The article is part of a transcript from a metaphysical website I grant you, but this is the paranormal forum and thats the beauty of it all, we can discuss these theories here in comparitive safety.
As for the relationship to em, this goes back to the original topic. I'm still not sure if you've read it or if you have shared your findings, this article touches on the issue too.

Others, including myself, work on the hypothesis that this force/field exists in correspondence but parallel to the E/M spectrum and may not have the constraints of that spectrum, such as the speed of light. Here we focus on the work of one subtle energy researcher: Cleve Backster.

edit:the whole concept of discussing telekenesis, remote sensing, telepathy ect here in general at the paranormal forum is because science doesn't explain them and from what I can gather is why they are considered paranormal. It doesn't imply that they don't exist, just maybe science hasn't found a way to define it all yet.

Son Goku

solas wrote:

It doesn't imply that they don't exist, just maybe science hasn't found a way to define it all yet.

I'm not saying they don't exist, just that it has never been shown that they do. Since they are not a confirmed phenomena, science doesn't have to define them.

You can only say science doesn't explain something if you have a concrete phenomena it doesn't account for.

solas

san goku wrote:

You can only say science doesn't explain something if you have a concrete phenomena it doesn't account for.

I'll take you back to the very first post on the subject, hopefully it will explain what the object of the topic was in the first instance.

oh..and out of my own curiosity, as a scientist psi, can you explain a little about electromagnetism, can it generate power that is observable or take form (become visible)? (question asked in paranormal context in relation to telekenesis)

psi wrote:

]the answer is possibly - the human brain contains biogenic material such as magnite (a black mineral form of crystaline iron oxide) and there is a growing field of study in biomagnetism and electromagnetic therapies (that is if electromagnetic impulses in general disrupt our own electrophysiology sufficiently to cause disease, is there an energy signature that might heal or renew cells (hence the star trek quote).

Most of our neurological pathways are based on a loosely termed "electric system" and bone is being shown to be electrical in nature. The bone matrix is a biphasic (two-part) semiconductor.

Whether we can conciously or unconciously project such electrical signatures is another matter, but many established scientists have proposed that the biomagnetic properties of the brain may be sufficient to generate an signal, especially in times of distress but the exact science of this would be the realm of a neurophysicist, which I am not.


There was also work in the 70's, in Russia claiming that cell cultures could transmit disease by electromagnic means by way of a quartz medium.

this is where the relationship between "paranormal" and em was first discussed.

this experiment allegedly demonstrates similar findings, but almost rules out em as the paranormal channel, suggesting there is some form of medium for transmission but hesitates to define it as anything other than the "backster effect".

Experiments with leukocytes (white cells) indicated that a bond of communication exists between an individual's thoughts/emotions and his cells after they are removed from the donor's body. Backster collects cells from the mouth of a donor through a standard clinical procedure, connects them to the electrodes/meter apparatus, and measures their reactivity to the donor's emotional shifts. These shifts can be caused by the donor's voluntary initiatives or their involuntary reactions to events or images such as observed in photographs or movies. Splitscreen videography of the donor's behaviors and the metered responses of the cell cultures, when other causal or random influences are ruled out, demonstrates some form of communication.

Using a Faraday cage and lead containers to shield the plant, eggs or yogurt used to sense the biocommunication, his experiments appear to rule out the E/M spectrum as the medium of transmission. Tests done with a distance of over three hundred miles between a donor of white cells and the lab indicates the communication bond is not affected by distance. The action and reaction appear to be simultaneous, like the splitpair photon experiments by physicists that show one half of the pair reacts instantaneously to actions taken on the other.

It could be fair to say from a scientific point of view that these experiments are unfounded and need to be repeated and verified but I haven't found anyone willing to do so yet, but if genuine they demonstrate a phenomena "unaccounted for" by science.

solas

son goku wrote:

None of these things have ever been shown to definitely exist.
(With the possible and limited exception of Qi/Ki.)

btw, I thought this was an interesting statement. Has qi/ki been shown to exist and if so do you have documentation or evidence to show that it does?

Son Goku

solas wrote:

btw, I thought this was an interesting statement. Has qi/ki been shown to exist and if so do you have documentation or evidence to show that it does?

I wouldn't say shown to exist, but there is at least something odd going on.
Particularly in the case of Shaolin Monks, there have been tests showing they can withstand impacts and physical damage that surpasses standard biological expectations of the human body's thresholds.
Or more specifically the human bodies ability to increase its endurance.

For instance the common exercise of hanging by the neck from a noose, starting at the age of five, allows the monks to (by adulthood) be practically invincible to hanging.
However there neck muscles show no abnormalities from a standard adult Asian male.

I'll try to dig up what I can. There was a set of studies done in the 80's by a professor of anatomy and compiled in a single book. It shouldn't take me too long to find it.

The studies weren't entirely conclusive as analysis of their bodies was external.
(i.e. nobody cut the monks open to check out everything)