The idea that experimental work performed under government contract somehow is subjected to a higher degree of proper scrutiny than private experimentation is supported by wishful faith in the benevolence of powerful people, which receives little support from history. Integrity and government are not mutually exclusive, but it seems that is a goal of so many in government.
Consider my dilemma. I was an FAA electronics engineer. My work was mostly involved with quality assurance of systems used in air traffic control. A final check done before a system was deemed certifiable involves use of an aircraft that is instrumented to check the proper operation of RADAR, navigational aids and communications. Flight check measurements were done on board of a twin-engine aircraft with a crew that flew out to my location, often consuming days.
It came to my attention that the function of the flight checking was much like what is done with cell phone coverage mapping. I contacted a company that made that specialized test equipment, Anritsu. The story is here.
FAA was mandated to make changes to the air traffic system to accommodate drone (UAV) traffic many years ago. A drone with a modified Anritsu instrument installed could perform flight checks at a small fraction of the cost of current methods. Flight check aircraft probe the limits of coverage of systems, which often means flying very close to the ground. This is dangerous. The danger is avoidable because a flight check drone would weigh a small fraction of a manned aircraft and would move much slower, so the energy imparted from a crash impact would be much less damaging, and there's no crew. The arbitrarily slow airspeed would allow for as fine of a resolution of signal coverage as desired.
Every technical person with whom I have discussed this (many) has had no problem agreeing that this is an obvious improvement, not to mention that it would be a natural and safe step toward modifying the control of air traffic in accommodating drones. There are no drawbacks, except the elimination of a lot of unnecessary jobs and very expensive equipment associated with the fleets of flight checking aircraft.
It was successfully tested. I won an award for developing this technology, and then informed that I must immediately cease all work on it. I tried working through every channel I could imagine to get this properly addressed, over many years. There are much higher priorities among the people running government than achieving efficiency and integrity, I can assure you.
In the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer single photon experiment, one of the two paths of the first beamsplitter can be blocked and thereby change the behavior of the second path with regard to its single photons when they arrive at the second beamsplitter that converges the two paths. In classical physics a single photon cannot be split into two photons of the same wavelength (let alone that that follow different paths). So this is inconsistent with classical physics. This isn't to say the GUTCP is isn't revolutionary in other ways that may predict lower energy states of hydrogen or that the reported coefficients of performance exceeding 2 for sustained periods are wrong -- but it is important to admit the difficulty presented to the GUTCP by this experiment.
And yet the Aspect 'proof of quantum' is clearly just classical physics conservation of momentum..
The idea that experimental work performed under government contract somehow is subjected to a higher degree of proper scrutiny than private experimentation is supported by wishful faith in the benevolence of powerful people, which receives little support from history. Integrity and government are not mutually exclusive, but it seems that is a goal of so many in government.
Consider my dilemma. I was an FAA electronics engineer. My work was mostly involved with quality assurance of systems used in air traffic control. A final check done before a system was deemed certifiable involves use of an aircraft that is instrumented to check the proper operation of RADAR, navigational aids and communications. Flight check measurements were done on board of a twin-engine aircraft with a crew that flew out to my location, often consuming days.
It came to my attention that the function of the flight checking was much like what is done with cell phone coverage mapping. I contacted a company that made that specialized test equipment, Anritsu. The story is here.
https://impendingchange.blogspot.com/2021/12/faa-flight-checks-and-drones.html?m=1
FAA was mandated to make changes to the air traffic system to accommodate drone (UAV) traffic many years ago. A drone with a modified Anritsu instrument installed could perform flight checks at a small fraction of the cost of current methods. Flight check aircraft probe the limits of coverage of systems, which often means flying very close to the ground. This is dangerous. The danger is avoidable because a flight check drone would weigh a small fraction of a manned aircraft and would move much slower, so the energy imparted from a crash impact would be much less damaging, and there's no crew. The arbitrarily slow airspeed would allow for as fine of a resolution of signal coverage as desired.
Every technical person with whom I have discussed this (many) has had no problem agreeing that this is an obvious improvement, not to mention that it would be a natural and safe step toward modifying the control of air traffic in accommodating drones. There are no drawbacks, except the elimination of a lot of unnecessary jobs and very expensive equipment associated with the fleets of flight checking aircraft.
It was successfully tested. I won an award for developing this technology, and then informed that I must immediately cease all work on it. I tried working through every channel I could imagine to get this properly addressed, over many years. There are much higher priorities among the people running government than achieving efficiency and integrity, I can assure you.
In the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer single photon experiment, one of the two paths of the first beamsplitter can be blocked and thereby change the behavior of the second path with regard to its single photons when they arrive at the second beamsplitter that converges the two paths. In classical physics a single photon cannot be split into two photons of the same wavelength (let alone that that follow different paths). So this is inconsistent with classical physics. This isn't to say the GUTCP is isn't revolutionary in other ways that may predict lower energy states of hydrogen or that the reported coefficients of performance exceeding 2 for sustained periods are wrong -- but it is important to admit the difficulty presented to the GUTCP by this experiment.