Nobel Prize Betting Pool 2011

I have been sufficiently out of it that I didn’t realize the Nobel Prizes were due to be announced this coming week. Which means there’s only a small amount of time to get my traditional betting pool set up…

So, here are the rules:

1) To enter, leave a comment to this post specifying the Prize category and the winner(s). For example, you might write “Physics, to Lee Smolin and Lubos Motl,” or “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, to Larry Summers and John Lott.”

2) One entry per person per prize. That is, you can pick one and only one winner for the Physics prize, but you are allowed to pick winners for both Physics and Chemistry. You can’t hedge your bets by making multiple entries for the Physics prize.

3) Nominations close at midnight Eastern (US) time of the day before the official announcement date on the Nobel website, so, for example, bets on the Physiology or Medicine prize have to be in by midnight Sunday. The exception is the Literature prize, because the people who award it are too artsy to commit to a date; bets on the Literature prize thus have to be in by midnight Wednesday, October 5.

4) If you correctly predict the winner of a Nobel, you are entitled to your choice of either one guest post on this blog (subject to restrictions below the fold), one post written by me on a topic of your choosing (subject to restrictions below the fold), or a copy of How to Teach Physics to Your Dog in the language of your choice (provided you choice is one of Chinese, Czech, US English, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, or Turkish). One book per winning commenter, though if you correctly guess multiple nominees, you can claim one blog post per correctly predicted winner.

5) In the event that two or more people choose the correct winner for a given prize category, the tie will be broken based on the time stamp of the comments, so get your guesses in early.

Betting opens, well, now. Go to it.

Restrictions: This contest is not open to members of the Swedish academies that choose the winners, nor their employees or immediately relatives. (As if that’s likely to come up…)

Winners of guest posts will be asked to send an article suitable for posting to me. If I deem the content of the post to be problematic in some way, I will ask for revisions or a new article on a different topic. I will not post anything excessively inflammatory, insensitive, or impolitic in ways that might get me in trouble.

Winners of specific topic requests will be asked to send me the topic on which they would like a post. I will commit to writing a response of some sort within one week of receiving the question; however, I reserve the right to write a flippant, blow-off answer should I deem the topic problematic in some way.

Decisions on what is suitable for posting, as always, are mine and mine alone. If you don’t like it, well, there are lots of other blogs out there, or you could start your own.

Comments

  1. #1 Matt Leifer
    October 1, 2011

    Physics, to Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger

    I am not especially optimistic that this is likely, but they are going to have to award a prize for something related to Bell’s theorem and entanglement eventually. If John Bell were still alive then it would be a no brainer. As it is, there are too many people associated with this area to make an easy choice. Thompson are predicting that Clauser would win the prize alongside these two, but I am not so confident of that because his work is less well known and the Nobels tend to reward people who have a high profile. I am sure there would be a third recipient, but I don’t know who it would be.

  2. #2 Chad Orzel
    October 1, 2011

    I hear Clauser’s name associated with this often enough now that I think he might really get it. If I had to pick a third non-Clauser person, I’d probably go with Wineland, making it a more general quantum information sort of prize, not just Bell’s inequality.

  3. #3 Evan Berkowitz
    October 1, 2011

    Last year: grapheme
    2 years ago: CCDs/fiber optics
    3 years ago: CKM + symmetry breaking
    4 years ago: giant magnetoresistance
    5 years ago: CMB.

    I’ll say it’s going to be an astro prize this year. Therefore, I think it will be split between
    (Vera Rubin for galactic rotation curves and its implications for dark matter) and (shared between Suntzeff and Perlmutter for the accelerating expansion of the universe). For my “official entry” of one name, I’ll say Vera Rubin.

  4. #4 Alan DeWeerd
    October 1, 2011

    Physics Prize to Alain Aspect, John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger

    I agree with Chad on who the third person might be for a prize for experiment’s related to Bell’s theorem. A prize for this field seems overdo.

  5. #5 CCPhysicist
    October 1, 2011

    My real reason for posting was to observe that I remembered it was Nobel Prize season because the Ig Nobel Prize was awarded this past week.

    I don’t know if astro is really overdue. What I have noticed is a trend back towards the recognition of discoveries with practical applications. Would the discovery of lithium ion batteries in the 80s reach the same level as the potential of quantum information research to show up as quantum computing?

  6. #6 Thomas
    October 1, 2011

    Physiology of medicine: Jane Goodall shared with some other primatologists. I don’t really believe she’ll get it, but she deserves it for the way she changed our perception of ourselves in relation to other species.

  7. #7 mjn
    October 1, 2011

    I agree with comment 3 – it might be astro. Seeing the success of missions like Kepler, maybe it’s time for a physics prize for extrasolar planets. In that case Wolszczan and Frail have a good chance.

  8. #8 Ned Wright
    October 1, 2011

    Physics: Mayor & Marcy for extrasolar planets

  9. #9 Michael Eisen
    October 1, 2011

    Physiology or Medicine: Craig Venter for whole-genome shotgun sequencing. Probably won’t happen because he’s not widely liked, and because lots of other politically powerful people think they should win for sequencing the human genome. But Craig was an innovator several times over in a field that has radically reshaped both physiology AND medicine.

  10. #10 Lucilia Cuprina
    October 1, 2011

    Science Citation Index, etc. Science Laureates lead the pack for citations in each category. Nobel Prizes for Peace, Economics, and Literature are grotesque.

    One presumes “Physics, to Lee Smolin and Lubos Motl” was sarcasm. Lubos is one of few theorists whose conclusions cannot be purchased. We disagree over founding postulates and neither side will yield – Lubos who rigorously cannot be wrong and Uncle Al demanding a parity experiment to fundamentally test theory. He’s still an honorable man.

  11. #11 phil
    October 1, 2011

    The accelerating expansion of the Universe will surely merit a Nobel in the end, but probably not while relevant experiments (Planck, SPT…) are still taking data. Also, it would be odd to give a prize for Lambda, while ignoring CDM. The problem with Cold Dark Matter is that there are too many authors on the key papers… so lots of people would have to be left out. Still…

    Physics: Vera Rubin, Marc Davis and Joel Primack – for observational and theoretical work that led to the development of the Cold Dark Matter theory for structure formation in the Universe.

    Personally, I’d like Aspect et al to win.

  12. #12 Gigantor
    October 1, 2011

    Medicine to Brian Druker, Nicholas Lydon and Charles Sawyers.
    Chemistry to Allen Bard.
    Economics to Douglas Diamond.

  13. #13 Pseudonym
    October 1, 2011

    Peace: Something to do with the Congolese human rights campaign. Sticking my neck out: joint prize to Chouchou Namegabe Dubuisson, Annie Chebeya and Julienne Lusenge.

  14. #14 HI
    October 2, 2011

    I would really love to get the Japanese version of How to Teach Physics to Your Dog. (Seriously, do any other readers of you want the Japanese version?) But, after some success in 2008 and 2009, I don’t have much confidence for this year.

    Anyway, here are my bets:
    Physics: Clauser, Aspect, and Zeilinger
    Physiology/Medicine: Gurdon and Yamanaka
    Chemistry: Stuart Schreiber (I really don’t have any idea about the Chemistry Prize. At least I know a little about Schreiber’s chemical biology work.)

  15. #15 ponderingfool
    October 2, 2011

    Physiology or Medicine: Craig Venter for whole-genome shotgun sequencing. Probably won’t happen because he’s not widely liked, and because lots of other politically powerful people think they should win for sequencing the human genome. But Craig was an innovator several times over in a field that has radically reshaped both physiology AND medicine.
    ********************************************************
    Doesn’t shotgun sequencing really derive from other awarded techniques? Breaking up DNA into small overlapping pieces and putting it back together is really Sanger’s approach to sequencing proteins (Nobel 1958). The amplification of DNA that makes the sequencing possible was awarded for PCR (Nobel 1983). The sequencing of DNA basically used the method derived from Sanger (Nobel 1980). You add on top of that Venter’s group had and did access the public databases to aid really complicates the issue.

    I say the Nobel for physiology/medicine should go to the inventors of BLAST, which gives incredible power to all the sequencing data. It won’t happen.

  16. #16 MRW
    October 2, 2011

    I’ll go with Whitesides for chemistry.

  17. #17 Cusp
    October 3, 2011

    Physics: Accelerating expansion to Saul Perlmutter and Brian Schmidt.

    Possibly split with Guth for inflation

  18. #18 Simon W
    October 3, 2011

    If the physics prize is going to an atomic physics achievement then as many have already predicted it’s likely to be for Bell inequality measurements (although the ‘problem’ of the 3rd recipient may be solved if they wait a few years for the first loophole-free measurement). It’s too early for a prize for ion-based frequency standards, as the second will need to be re-defined before it is awarded, nevertheless I’ll go for that anyway – maybe consider this an advance entry for the 2021 prize pool. I don’t know enough about any of the other subjects, but I’ll make a few guesses anyway, so:

    Wineland, Bergquist & Gill for the physics prize
    Atwood for literature
    Food & Agriculture Organization for the peace prize (for the eradication of rinderpest)

  19. #19 FX
    October 3, 2011

    Chemistry: Moerner, Orrit, and Zare

    Physics: no one’s said it, so I’ll bet on Yablonovitch and Sajeev John. Not taking a chance here, I know!

  20. #20 Mike
    October 3, 2011

    Thomas Ebbesen for his work on extraordinary optical transmission

  21. #21 Chuk
    October 3, 2011

    BLAST would be awesome, but yeah, that’s not going to happen. I’d love to see a Goodall prize, too.

    Predictions later.

  22. #22 Compounded
    October 3, 2011

    Physics: Charles Bennett, Lyman Page, Dave Spergel
    Chemistry: Patrick Brown
    Literature: Stephanie Meyer
    Peace: Paul Farmer
    Economics: Alan Blinder

  23. #23 J.J.S. Boyce
    October 3, 2011

    Sure, let’s give it a shot. Might as well maximize my chances.

    Chemistry: Donald Tomalia for dendritic polymers.
    Physics: Hideo Ohno for work on magnetism in semiconductors.
    Economics: Anne Kreuger for work on rent-seeking behaviour (something of personal interest to me lately).
    Physiology or Medicine: Vacanti and Langer for work on tissue regeneration.
    Literature: Haruki Murakami, for being my favourite international author, and a great documenter of culture in both fiction and non-fiction.

  24. #24 Elizabeth Hurley
    October 3, 2011

    Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, to Larry Summers and John Lott is my answer

  25. #25 sankaravelayudhan nandakumar
    October 3, 2011

    2011 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE: Should Prof.Victor Voslego Sir John Pendry along with Professor David R.Smith get it?
    In the 1960s, a Russian physicist Voslego considered the properties of a material that didn’t yet exist. Now researchers appear to have fulfilled his predictions-but are everything as it seems?
    Readers, for sometime now the bookmakers have been advancing the name of solid state physics theorist Professor Sir John Pendry FRS of the Imperial College, London, as a strong candidate for the Nobel Prize in physics. Sir John – in case you do not know – promises to revolutionize modern warfare with his discovery. He will make entire columns of advancing battle tanks invisible. I kid you not!
    This year’s Nobel Prize rumors were rife with the name of Professor Sir John Pendry, FRS of the Imperial College, London. The guy probably waited for that fateful call that would change his life forever. But it never came. Not this year.
    John Pendry is a Brit who did some stuff on propagation of light (electromagnetic waves) in structured medium. He came up with “metamaterials” that display unexpected optical behavior. Basically, what he did was to force light to follow certain paths – perfectly within the laws of high school physics when you get down to it – in the geometric structures he designed. Interesting engineering-wise, but there is hardly any physics contribution here. Speaking of structures, one of his British physicist colleagues designs some patterns to go on TP!

    But a tremendous promotional campaign was organized behind Pendry – the kind of campaign that generates sufficient momentum to propel you to Arlanda Airport. The campaign goes like this: The person being groomed is showered with one accolade after another. He is made very visible on the world stage. He is in the media. The activities reach a crescendo. Subliminal suggestions are conveyed to the Nobel folks. Here is one: This item posted on 28 July 2009 in an Imperial College web page is the latest twist in that campaign, and it suggests that the final momentum has been achieved, and the next step should be the Nobel Prize. It even seems to suggest (symbolically) that Pendry will be in Copenhagen in November, and could easily pop over to Stockholm in December to pick up the package from the King of Sweden.
    Will Sir John nobel this year? Who knows. I imagine by now the Nobel folks have already chosen – and, given the strength and the relentlessness of the Nobel-for-Pendry campaign, it may well be Sir John. But I will give you my two-cents’ worth anyway. Sir John should rest assured that the Nobel Prize givers would no more read my posts than they would seek out the opinion of Cosmo Kramer.
    The best way to understand Pendry’s contribution – past all the hype and all the promotion of all the peddlers and all the touts – is to simply compare it with someone else’s. Let’s confine this discussion to Britain. Right in their midst the Brits have the example of a man infinitely more deserving of the Nobel Prize in the very field of physics for which Sir John would be considered. as he has quite possibly advanced an idea that is game-changing for physics. However, he himself has never advanced it as such – preferring to think of his idea as an innovation in antenna technology. A most humble, unassuming man – quite an antithesis to the self-inflated and colleagues-inflated and media-inflated and Government-inflated situation at present.
    Let us stop pure chemotherapy and play the trick of possible
    invisibility techniques in cancerous growth – that could be used to
    hide the adjacent healthy cells using John Pendry’s cloaking that may
    applied in tricky chemotherapy along with umbilical blood cells from
    the new born baby by killing the unhealthy cells targeted to correct
    the hybridized encoded protein division and multiplication of encoded
    protein by spring back corrections using magneticfield levitated
    corrections says Sankarvelayudhan Nandakumar Assistant Professor from MET college who has envisioned a new cancerous cell erasing by segregating the healthy cells .
    Citation:A Combination of both invisible cloaking and illuminating magneticfield interference thus illuminated can be use in targeting a cancerous cell which could be use to protect a healthy cell in future

    Phase Conjugate Mirror :
    Citation:The purpose of this paper is to produce cloaking and uncloaking doping Qubit of complex nature using Barium Titante mixture on parallel and perpendicular modulations with magnetic flux –light rays gold silver cloaking material doping the system becomes a complex Self adaptive Phase Conjugate Mirror out of cloaking and uncloaking Pendry method.
    This application could be better utilize in cocavo-convex cassimir force combinations to produce a new sytem dynamics with reference to quantum mechanical collisions to produce light out of nothing.
    Future Mglev –invisible cloaking dynamics will revolutionize electronic and computer world along new Jet propulsion system controlling.
    Citation:
    Neutrino Blackhole with vortex velocity amplification:
    Astrogenetic foundation that has been laid by Hon.Victor Vosleve,;later by Sir John Pendry ,Hon.David R. followed by some contributions by Sankaravelayudhan Nandakumar who formulated further theory of NRI imaginary plane phase conjugated to give a feed back to human Embryo genes as planetary wave emissions with sun as source of hologram spliup between John Pendry darkness NRI as well as abosbing sector that really act along the plane of Turbulence blackholes at the centre as feedback system is yet to be proved. However Hubble telescope research committee is interested in Neutrino vortex amplified turbulence as vortex center contributing a centripetal converging nozzle contributing a Bernoulli increase velocity with corresponding decrease in pressure thanks to Hawking-John Pendry’s blackhole pumping NRI strips that act as inverted centrifugal pump.
    Astrogenetic contributions: Illumination from Casmir force out of super conductive magneticfield interference out of invisible cloaking may be another mile stone Hubble research committee may investigate in future using John Hendry’s invisible cloaking dynamics and we may find such a space domain as lighting out of darkness as postulated early by the laser cooling investigating team. Quantum theory predicts an actuation of typical magneticfield involved in Aries as th sun moves into between March –April could be a proper investigation that could be compared in any space domain says Sankaravelayudhan Nandakumar,Oxford astrogeneticist..In fact the graphical representation of convex –concave configuration a observed in Pisces indicates such a possibility of focusing points thus creating a Cassimir force strong enough to carry out such a phase conjugation as multi-optic reflections producing intensities that really illuminate a space out of darkness that may be illuminate automatically. A very important supportive theory of phase conjugated feedback system of planetary boundary simulations with reference to NRI hologram plane was formulated by Sankravelayudhan nandakumar base on NRI Phase conjugation and all the papers are with news@nature.com
    Vortex amplification at the center of a Neutrino blackhole named after future Nobel Laureate John Pendry-reg [Incident: 111002-000074] news@nature.com

    Negative refractive index materials contributing equivalent Coanda effective Flip-flopdesigns.
    When a beam of light enters a material at an angle, it is bent by an amount determined by the index-of-refraction of the material. All known materials have a positive index-of-refraction; however, it is possible to make an artificial metamaterial that has a negative index-of-refraction. A beam of light will be bent the opposite way in this metamaterial. Learn more about negative refraction here. Coanda Effect is a wall attachment effect having 1500 Reynolds number steam of fluid or air emitted into confined orifice will continue in a given direction will be attached towards the wall due to a small vortex area of low pressure.
    This principle of attachment towards left or right direction is controlled by two stream of fluid interfere with the main jet shifting the steam towards left or right .Thus the supply is always present and the output is dependent on the control jets. The left side control jet will shift the stream towards left and right side control steam will deflect the out put jet towards right. When both the jets are operative the swing will be towards right. Thus a AND and OR –NOR gate can be implemented using a piezo electric electron flow with such combinations.
    The logic function of or gate is defined as an assembly of one or more logic elements which produce a desire effect on satisfying certain conditions. That is if we apply correct input signals, we will get the required out put.
    Input signal is the pressure of the flow is directed into input part to control the logic news@nature.comfunction or element that forms the output signal has is a directional logic function or an element that produces piezo electric effect on the wall attachment.
    Output signal is the pressure or flow which is leaving the output part of logic which also produces piezoelectric effect on the wall attachment.

    The digital logic is under no-control conditions the output is zero for”0” logic and the left control jet deflect towards left as “1” logic and both jet operative deflect towards right for AND logic.

    What more can I say.
    Sankarvelayudhan Nandakumar,Retired Chief Engineer ,Assistant Professor ,Hubble Research Team member,JILA,N.I.S.T nobel prize feedback member at internet feedback archive.
    2011 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE: Should John Pendry get it? [Incident: 111002-000012 news@nature.com

  26. #26 Badumna
    October 3, 2011

    There are a lot of people picking teams to win in a category. The rules are a bit uncertain here. Must pickers of two or more people for a particular Nobel category get all of them right? If not, is that not a violation of the rule requiring a single entry per category?

  27. #27 Chad Orzel
    October 3, 2011

    It is not necessary to get all of the laureates correct– you can name a “team” if you like, but you win for each name that matches an actual awardee. Thus, if the Physics prize were to go to Aspect, Clauser and Zeilinger, Matt Leifer would win for predicting Aspect and Zeilinger in comment #1, while Alan DeWeerd would win for predicting Clauser in comment #4.

  28. #28 FX
    October 4, 2011

    Congrats to Evan and Cusp for their Physics prediction!

  29. #29 Cusp
    October 4, 2011

    Yay ! I think I win?

  30. #30 Cusp
    October 4, 2011

    Oops – sorry, I see Evan got in there first :)

  31. #31 Evan Berkowitz
    October 4, 2011

    Schmidt was the way to go, Cusp. Not Suntzeff. Nice job.

  32. #32 sankaravelayudhan nandakumar
    October 4, 2011

    A feather in the cap of Albert Einstein:
    These startling observations sent the team back to the idea — first proposed by Albert Einstein but later rejected as his “biggest blunder” — that the so-called vacuum of space might produce a sort of “antigravity” energy that could act repulsively ,accelerating the expansion of the universe.
    Many cosmologists say that understanding dark energy is the biggest challenge in cosmology and physics. The matter must have two opposing inductive spirals as attractive and repulsive configuration. This is to say magnetic field flows in opposite direction produces a repulsion This means formation of North pole and south pole magneto spirals in dark matter region contribute a dark matter. This means a circulation current corresponding to flow in opposite directions repel each other. Even in case of inclined tan angle this happens. The meeting point as opposing force contributing a repulsive character. This gives a clue on different polarity of matter formed. Accordingly the inductive mass current circulation in the same direction produces an attractive force ,but in the opposite direction produces a repulsive force.
    Is is a strange thing that the matter mass could be differentiated as inductive mass of reversible polarity as contemplated by Albert Einstein contributing anti gravity. “Currently, physicists have to choose between those two theories when they calculate something. Dark energy is giving us a peek into how to make those two theories operate together. Nature somehow must know how to bring these both together, and it is giving us some important clues.
    The very mass –matter differentiation out of complex mass as m+im contributing strange behaviour at square root 2c velocity of spin shifting towards perpendicular vector as dis appearing mass ,now the present postulate another important line of thought by mass polarisation.
    Even a critical speed increased vibration initiated could be analysed based on this repulsive attractive polar phases during spin differentiation in between normal speed and critical speed.
    This is what you see in spiral galaxies, they immediately discovered something entirely unexpected. The stars far from the centers of galaxies, in the sparsely populated outer regions, were moving just as fast as those closer in. This was odd, because the visible mass of a galaxy does not have enough gravity to hold such rapidly moving stars in orbit. It followed that there had to be a tremendous amount of unseen matter in the outer regions of galaxies where the visible stars are relatively few. Rubin and Ford went on to study some sixty spiral galaxies and always found the same thing. “What you see in a spiral galaxy,” Rubin concluded, “is not what you get.

    Astrogenetic contributions: Illumination from Casmir force out of super conductive magneticfield interference out of invisible cloaking may be another mile stone Hubble research committee may investigate in future using John Hendry’s invisible cloaking dynamics and we may find such a space domain as lighting out of darkness as postulated early by the laser cooling investigating team. Quantum theory predicts says Sankaravelayudhan Nandakumar,Oxford astrogeneticist..
    In fact the graphical representation of convex –concave configuration a observed in Pisces indicates such a possibility of focusing points thus creating a Cassimir force strong enough to carry out such a phase conjugation as multi-optic reflections producing intensities that really illuminate a space out of darkness that may be illuminate automatically.
    Conclusion: A concave convex reversal with polarity reversal may contribute a repulsive polarity mass that may contribute typical antimatter as dark matter .There must be reversal possibility always as attractive and repulsive differentiation.
    1) Vortex amplification at the center of a Neutrino blackhole named after
    future Nobel Laureate John Pendry-reg [Incident: 111002-000074]
    news@nature.com news@nature.com
    2) villard@stsci.edu

  33. #33 Bengt Kriström
    October 9, 2011

    Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Paul Romer.

  34. #34 Sankaravelayudhan Nandakumar
    October 27, 2011

    A new Nyquist Toplogical boundary effect of Hall’s effect by positive and negative magneticfield drifts: Hall’s effect require a new pretreatment based on Nyquist boundary of closed loop in between magneticfield of theta variations of positive force and negative force controlled by square to cross configuration in understanding the new gravity theory with reference to circular current directional reversals inside and such an electron may become a invisible cloaking dynamics along the boundary in understanding the dark matter cloaking screen. Here the transporting charge is analogous to Nyquist curvature boundaries that really gain amplification. As fluctuating geometry is involved with reference to electron- electron interaction by the interactive function
    eia  a boundary in which the fluctuation produces reversible current and flux flow that converges to produce a new quantized Hall’s effect that requires further investigation.
    Sankravelayudhan Nandakumar
    A new Nyquist Toplogical boundary effect of Hall’s effect by positive and negative magneticfield drifts-reg [Incident: 111027-000118]news@nature.com

  35. #35 Sankaravelayudhan Nandakumar
    April 12, 2012

    Nyquist criterion in understanding a new propulsion system:
    MET Engineering college research team with research application has found out a new propulsion system using Nyquist criteria self amplification by analogy with Tsunamy wave amplification at critical frequency of resonance of amplification as per the guide line of GH Milley prof.Illinoise University,usa. A combinatorial maglev properties aligned wit self amplification.
    A necessary and sufficient condition for the stability of a linear closed-loop system formulated in terms of properties of the open-loop system.
    Consider the linear single input-linear single output system with the following transfer function:

    where it is assumed that the degree of the polynomial does not exceed that of the polynomial (i.e. is a proper rational function). The original Nyquist criterion gives necessary and sufficient conditions for the stability of the closed-loop system with unity feedback . This is done in terms of the complex-valued function of the real variable (the amplitude-phase characteristic of the open-loop system) which describes a curve in the complex -plane, known as the Nyquist diagram. Suppose that the characteristic polynomial of the open-loop system has , , roots with positive real part and roots with negative real part. The Nyquist criterion is as follows: The closed-loop system is stable if and only if the Nyquist diagram encircles the point in the counter-clockwise sense times. (An equivalent formulation is: The vector drawn from to the point describes an angle in the positive sense as goes from to .)
    Self generating resonance oscillation of Tsunami waves producing amplification at Nyquist infinity calls for a new resonance pump that may pump water at infinite force requiring an investigation. This gives an antigravity propulsion systems using Xenon diflouride
    To travel to our neighboring stars as practically as envisioned by science fiction, breakthroughs in science are required. One of these breakthroughs is to discover a self-contained means of propulsion that requires no propellant. To chart a path toward such a discovery, seven hypothetical space drives are presented to illustrate the specific unsolved challenges and associated research objectives toward this ambition. One research objective is to discover a means to asymmetrically interact with the electromagnetic fluctuations of the vacuum. Another is to develop a physics that describes inertia, gravity, or the properties of spacetime as a function of electromagnetics that leads to using electromagnetic technology for inducing propulsive forces. Another is to determine if negative mass exists or if its properties can be synthesized. An alternative approach that covers the possibility that negative mass might not exist is to develop a formalism of Mach’s Principle or reformulate ether concepts to lay a foundation for addressing reaction forces and conservation of momentum with space drives.
    Levitation is rising, rather than falling, of objects, the opposite of gravitation. It has been shown that gravitation is due to the spin of nucleons. If they spin in the opposite direction, with respect to the Earth, levitation will occur. Electrons, when they reach a nucleon after going through the electron barrier in an atom, can, at the right frequency, reverse the spin axis of the nucleon. If over fifty per cent of the nucleons in the object are reversed, the object will levitate away from the Earth’s surface. If it is less than fifty per cent, the object merely loses weight.”

    The following movie demonstrates the loss of weight of an object on a balance scale. A plastic case containing brass screws rises when the switch is on and falls when it is shut off. It will repeat as many times as the switch is turned on and off and instantly reacts. The second picture shows a block of wood doing the same thing. These are placed close to the electron source while the opposite side of the scale is further away and any effect on it is minimized by the inverse square law. This, of course, goes down when the target goes up. Note that the two pointers are even when balanced and when the target gets lighter its pointer goes up while its opposite goes down. This reverses when the switch is shut off and they come to balance again.[They can be seen on each side of the center scale]

    This is all done without the solid state power supply, special coil and other equipment needed to lift heavier weights. The only power used was for a small two and one half inch diameter electric motor. The electron generator in this demonstration is not powerful enough to drive the electrons farther than just shallow penetration, but it is enough to show that levitation can be accomplished on demand which is necessary to be able to harness it. Once equipment is used to drive the electrons further so that they penetrate deeply enough into the atom, weight will have no limit since the force comes from the angular momentum of the nucleon, itself, [just as gravitation causes objects to drive themselves down] and so the more weight, the more nucleons there are and thus the more force to lift the extra weight, a minute fraction of which is enough to maintain the spin orientation of the nucleon
    This is as if entering a space spinning of square root c to enter into i mass resonance and backwards by a reversal spinning.
    Sankaravelayudahn Nandakumar of behalf of MET Engineering College R&D Wing.

    Pulsating protection against missiles by Pendry’s magneticfield invisibility cloaking dynamics.

    So, the picture certainly gets more complex regarding just how geometries of electromagnetic fields may cause changes in the overall forces of nature that are modulated from higher dimensional time domains. This higher dimensional interaction makes for greater amounts of information to be compacted into tight strings of extreme frequencies that may enable all sorts of break throughs in FTL technological innovations in the future. Just how time domains interact can be glimpsed in the bizarre experiments by John Hutchison:
    Sankaravelayudahn Nandakumar of behalf of MET Engineering College R&D Wing.

    [1] L. V. AHLFORS, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill (New York), 1966.
    [2] B. BENNET, A History of Control Engineering 1800-1930, Peter Peregrinus
    (London), 1979.
    [3] B. BENNET, A History of Control Engineering 1930-1955, Peter Peregrinus
    (London), 1993.
    [4] H. W. BODE, “Feedback—The history of an idea,” In Proceedings of the
    Symposium on Active Networks and Feedback Systems, Polytechnic Institute
    of Brooklyn, New York, 1960.
    [5] R. KOCHENBURGER, “Frequency response method for analysis of a relay
    servomechanism,” Trans. AIEE, 69:270-283, 1950.
    [6] L. A. MACCOLL, Fundamental theory of servomechanisms, Van Nostrand
    (Princeton, NJ), 1945.
    [7] A. G. J. MACFARLANE AND I. POSTLETHWAITE, “The generalized Nyquist
    stability criterion and multivariable root loci,” Internal. J. Contr, 25:81-
    127,1977.
    [8] J. C. MAXWELL, “On governors,” Proc. Royal Society of London, 16:270-
    283, 1868. Also published in “Mathematical Trends in Control Theory”
    edited by R. Bellman and R. Kalaba, Dover Publications, New York, 1964,
    pp. 3-17.
    [9] N. MINORSKY, “Directional stability of automatically steered bodies,” / .
    Amer. Soc. of Naval Engineers, 34(2):280-309, 1922.
    [10] A. B. STODOLA, “IJber die Regulierung von Turbinen,” Schweitzer Bauzeitung,
    22:113-117, 121-122, 126-128, 134-135, 1893.
    [11] M. TOLLE, Die Regulung der Kraftmaschinen, Springer (Berlin), 1905.
    [12] A. TUSTIN, “The effects of backlash and of speed-dependent friction on
    the stability of closed-cycle control systems,” / . Inst. Elec. Engrs. Pt. HA,
    94:143-151, 1947.
    KJ.A

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.