Violation Protocol

Click here to edit subtitle

Energy Creation by Use of an EM Wave Preparation in a Gravitational Environment


© Thomas Alexander Meyer


  This protocol, the Gravitational Protocol, utilizes the existence of a gravitational potential in the region of an energy-mass conversion.  Because energy may be created from matter by the energy-mass relation, E = mc^2 if I remember correctly, into the form of high energy photons, then these photons may be redirected to a position which is at a greater gravitational potential and re-converted into matter by the same relation.  This would imply that the mass has moved against the gravitational field at no cost.  How you ask?  By conversion into photons that are not affected by the gravitational field in a significant manner.  We illustrate this in Figure 1 below.

  The protocol begins with an electron-positron annihilation reaction in the region of a gravitational field, with the reaction occurring at a point of low gravitational potential energy.  The annihilation of electron and positron results in the creation of a high energy photon (at least in principle it can be shown with a certain probability to happen) which may be redirected towards a position of greater gravitational potential (upwards in the figure).  The photon is then made incident upon a target nucleon which converts the photon back into an electron and positron pair (with identical energy as before). (Once again, at least in principle it may be shown that such a conversion is possible with a certain probability.)  Since the final product is now massive again, it is subject to an increased gravitational potential, so it has an increased gravitational potential energy.  So where does this energy come from?  Some might say that the photon which moves against the gravitational field loses energy (redshift), but is it the same amount of energy as that which may be gained?  It surely is, if we start from coherent material systems like an electron positron pair.  But what if we begin the experiment with decohered macroscopic matter rather than coherent mater?

  I argue that it may not have been accurately tested.  Has someone actually taken decohered macroscopic matter (not particles of coherent matter) and converted it to coherent particles and then redirected it to the higher potential and then converted back and taken all the measurements?  Probably not.  And the key argument here is that there may be a difference between coherent matter and decohered matter.

  In the figure below, the Decoherent Gravitational Protocol, we consider exactly this situation.  Decohered matter is converted to coherent particles (at a cost of conversion but in principle there is no cost) at a lower gravitational potential and then the particles are redirected to a position of increased gravitational potential.  The particles are then converted back to a decohered preparation (at pretty much no cost).  Is there meerly a difference in energy due to the redshift of the particles which is equal to the gain in energy of the new matter's gravitational potential?  Or is there a more substantial difference in the energy?  Specifically, does the change in gravitational potential energy of the masses exceed the redshift of the particles because the translation took place under conditions of coherence?  Does it cost the same to move decohered matter across a gravitational potential as it costs (in redshift) to translate particles across the same potential difference?

  The basic principle is the same in this thought experiment as in the other two, the violation protocols and the propagation protocol, it is the simple use of a photon's ability to redistribute energy at zero cost, no loss (unlike decohered material processes).  The photon is somehow miraculously created with an instantaneous speed of 3*10^8m/s.  No acceleration required.  Somehow the outgoing photon has light speed and at no cost.  Light is a means to the redistribution of energies at zero cost.


This page of the website was started on July 15, 2013.  It was last modified on July 17, 2013.