My intuition of the functioning principle of the woodward thruster is the intrusion of mass into a region that has begun the appearance of virtual particle pairs. This remaining component of the duty cycle of the particle pairs are necessarily changed, and by this, a partial violation of the Pauli exclusion principle causes certain novel conditions. Since the pairs need symmetry in their outcome, that is denied, and the final annialation behaves differently, or is distorted. This releases energy to the degree of the percentage of violation of the Pauli exclusion principle.

Edited July 5, 20205 yr by hoola

The above makes little sense. Fermions which are antisymmetric  relations still obey the conservation laws in application to the mass terms. 

How does one violate the Pauli exclusion principle?

14 hours ago, hoola said:

My intuition of the functioning principle of the woodward thruster is the intrusion of mass into a region that has begun the appearance of virtual particle pairs. This remaining component of the duty cycle of the particle pairs are necessarily changed, and by this, a partial violation of the Pauli exclusion principle causes certain novel conditions. Since the pairs need symmetry in their outcome, that is denied, and the final annialation behaves differently, or is distorted. This releases energy to the degree of the percentage of violation of the Pauli exclusion principle.

Intuition is very dangerous when dealing with QM. How can the Pauli exclusion principle be partially violated? It's a discrete symmetry. As Mordred referred to (+1), particle pairs in QM must be either symmetric or anti-symmetric by exchange of their identity. There's no way to be "a little anti-symmetric."

STATE(1,2) = - STATE(2,1) (fermions)

If, on the other hand, your assumption is that some particles become symmetric, while others don't, that's not consistent with the principle that particles are indistinguishable from any identical other. We can partially violate C (charge conjugation), P (parity or "inversion of space"), and T (time inversion), but not spin-statistic character. Unless you come up with pretty strong experimental evidence, and then; and that would be most interesting; with a serious alternative to relativistic quantum field theory, because spin-statistics connection is too deeply ingrained in it. The whole machine would go down.

Edited July 6, 20205 yr by joigus