The Havana Syndrome mystery continues

I remain intrigued by the so-called ‘Havana Syndrome’, the strange affliction reported by some (mostly) US government and embassy officials when they are in other countries. Starting in 2016, these people reported hearing ringing or chirping sounds and headaches and the like. Since the first reports came from US embassy personnel in Havana, people jumped to the conclusion that the Cubans or Russians were trying out some new kind of weapon using targeted microwaves or ultrasound. But that theory always seemed implausible, both for technical and geopolitical reasons.

The US government has devoted considerable effort to try and identify the cause with little success. Now the CIA has issued yet another report that suggests that the ‘foreign power’ theory is not tenable.
[Read more…]

People have many reasons to not get vaccinated. Almost all of them are bad

Unless you have some kind of medical condition that makes the risk of vaccination greater than the risk of getting covid-19, you should get vaccinated. But there are people who decide, against the best scientific advice, that they know better alternatives. Not all of them are rabid anti-vaxxers or are opposing it because of some ideological fixation or because they believe in some bizarre conspiracy theory that it is a device for the government to gain control over one’s body. There are those who do not get it because they have folkloric beliefs, such as that healthy people have natural immunity or that the symptoms will not be serious or that certain practices such as wellness or Ayurveda or other folk remedies will stave off the infection.
[Read more…]

Radiation paradoxes 14: What others have said about this problem

(Previous posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13)

The history of analyses of the question “Does a charge falling freely in a gravitational field radiate energy?” is quite fascinating with experts being all over the place, even to this date. The biggest disagreement is over whether the answer to the above question is yes or no. But even among those who agree on the answer, there are disagreements as to the reasons. For example, among those who say that it radiates, some argue that it leads to a loss in kinetic energy and that the Principle of Equivalence may not even hold in the case of a charge falling freely in a uniform gravitational field. Others disagree on what the source of the radiation is.
[Read more…]

Djokovic and the French Open

After being kicked out of Australia for not meeting that country’s requirements for entry, tennis player Novak Djokovic now faces another hurdle. France has just passed a law saying that only vaccinated people will be allowed in public places. The French Open tournament is in May.

The world number one, however, faces more immediate hurdles in his bid to overtake Swiss Roger Federer and Spaniard Rafa Nadal, with whom he is tied on 20 major titles, as he could be barred from the French Open as things stand.

The French Sports Ministry said on Monday there would be no exemption from a new vaccine pass law approved on Sunday, which requires people to have vaccination certificates to enter public places such as restaurants, cafes and cinemas.

“This will apply to everyone who is a spectator or a professional sportsperson. And this until further notice,” the ministry said.

“As far as Roland Garros is concerned, it’s in May. The situation may change between now and then and we hope it’ll be more favourable. So we’ll see but clearly there’s no exemption.”

More and more countries are implementing restrictions on people entering the country and if he continues to refuse to get vaccinated, his participation at Wimbledon, the US Open, and other tournaments could be in doubt.

Given the Australian fiasco, each country will likely be very careful that he meets all their requirements and that there is not even the slightest suggestion that he is being given special treatment or exemptions.

Radiation paradoxes 13: The mysterious mass of the electron

(Previous posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12)

We seem to have arrived at a resolution to the paradox that this series started with that maintains our traditional expectations. Recall that it seemed like two postulates that were thought to be incontrovertible were incompatible when applied to a situation in which an electric charge and a neutral particle were dropped from the same height. It seemed like one or both had to be wrong. Those two postulates were:

Postulate #1: If we eliminate all other forces such as friction, all objects that are dropped from the same height in a gravitational field will fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time.

Postulate #2: An accelerating charge will radiate energy.

In the previous post, we arrived at a resolution in which the falling charge will radiate, in agreement with Postulate #2, but that this radiated energy does not result in a loss in the kinetic energy of the charge and thus it will fall at the same rate as the neutral particle, in agreement with Postulate #1.

The way this resolution was arrived at may not satisfy everyone. It involved invoking an aspect of the mass of a charged particle that we may not be familiar with. We looked at some aspects of the subtlety of mass back in Part 5. But there’s more, and this was the introduction of a mysterious source Q that provided the energy radiated by an electron that was accelerating under the influence of a uniform gravitational force. Recall that the rate of energy radiated by the charge was given by the familiar Larmor expression ℛ = 2e2g2/3c3 for a charge e having an acceleration g. Q = 2e2ao/3c2 where ao is the zeroth component of the covariant four-acceleration of the charge given by aμ = dvμ/d𝜏, such that ao = γv.a.
[Read more…]

Even a pandemic does not discourage cruise lovers

I am not the kind of person who chooses to go on cruise ships. I have been on long ocean voyages as a boy three times between Sri Lanka and England but that was back in the day when travel by ocean liner was the cheapest or only way to go to distant places. The idea of being on a ship for days and even weeks on end without any specific destination in mind that I could not reach any other way does not appeal to me. This is perhaps because I am not a very sociable person and these cruises seem designed, if the many advertisements I see are any indication, to be essentially floating holiday resorts that cater to people who enjoy spending most of the day in the company of others, many of whom they have never met before, and taking part in all manner of social gatherings and organized entertainments.

I am sure it must be great fun for those who enjoy such things and can afford them. I know people who go on them every year and I have discovered since coming to Monterey and playing the game of bridge more often that bridge players seem to be big fans of them. There are cruises catering to them, and I have started getting inundated with ads for bridge cruises where experts offer lessons. The people at the bridge club exchange information about the various cruises.
[Read more…]

Radiation paradoxes 12: Radiation from a falling charge and the conservation of energy

(Previous posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11)

In the previous post we arrived at conclusions that will enable us to address the basic paradox that started this series of posts, and is restated as Issue 3 below. I will be introducing some mathematics here is order to make the line of reasoning clearer for those who know something of this topic but for those readers for whom this is unfamiliar, I would encourage you to not sweat the details but simply read the text between the equations and I think (hope!) you will get the gist.

Issue 3: If a detector D on Earth detects radiation from a falling charge (Scenario 3), that implies that the charge loses some energy in the form of radiation and thus one would expect that it will fall more slowly than a neutral particle, thus violating Postulate #1 and the Principle of Equivalence that says that all objects falling freely in a gravitational field will fall at the same rate. If it still falls at the same time as the neutral particle and thus does not violate Postulate #1, that must mean that its kinetic energy is unaffected by the emission of radiation. Does that not violate the law of conservation of energy? We seem to have arrived at two irreconcilable and unpalatable options.
[Read more…]