Cannae/EmDrive

[N_las]

Then please stop. Nobody's talking about creating particles. we're talking about using the ones that are already statistically there.

There is no discernable difference in creating a particle or giving an virtual particle enough energy to "become" real. So I will keep using the word "creating" as it is much better in conveying information about the process happening. It conveys the informatin that you had to pay energy to "use" the particle.

There's not actually an energy transfer in the black hole.

Before the emission there is just the black hole, after the emission there is an emitted particle and the black hole has lost energy in exactly the amount necessary for the emission particle. There is nothing wrong with saying that that radiation particle was created with energy from the black hole. The details involving the virtual particle pair is just an way to explain the details of the process.

99+% of the time, both particles fall in or both particles escape. But if the aintparticle falls in first, the black hole is some immesurably tiny amount smaller and the particle escapes easier- conversely, if the particle falls in first, the black hole is more massive and more likely to absorb the antiparticle, canceling out the virtual particle growth. This tiny imbalance in favor of particles escaping over antiparticles is what causes hawking radiation, not "energy transfer" past an event horizon.

This is wrong. The virtual particles pair can be thought of as a particle/antiparticle-pair, but it is not like the particle would have positive mass an the antiparticle would have negative mass. After one particle falling in (you force the remaining particle to "be real", doesn't matter if particle or antiparticle), the remaining one simply has to have positiv mass, because real particles with negative mass can't exist. To explain where the energy for that is comming from you have to assume that the other particle simply had negative mass, so that the black hole payed the bill for the creation of the radiation. There is no situation in which a "negative-mass" particle is ejected as hawking radiation while the black hole is getting heavier.

If both particles don't fall into the horizont, you don't have two particles of hawking radiation, but none. They are just virtual particles, they can't be actual particles of radiation until somebody has paid their bill of existens.

There is no such thing as an imbalance of the particles or the antiparticles escaping.

Edited February 18, 2015 by N_las

[Rakaydos]

There is no discernable difference in creating a particle or giving an virtual particle enough energy to "become" real. So I will keep using the word "creating" as it is much better in conveying information about the process happening. It conveys the informatin that you had to pay energy to "use" the particle.

Can we accept that, if this drive really works at the reported power level, our understanding of physics is in error?

With that as a premice, a technique to interact with virtual mass without realzing it in certian statistically unlikely situations seems least likely to break everything else we "know."

[ZetaX]

Can we accept that, if this drive really works at the reported power level, our understanding of physics is in error?

With that as a premice, a technique to interact with virtual mass without realzing it in certian statistically unlikely situations seems least likely to break everything else we "know."

No, because the supposed way of how it works is simply wrong. As some already said, it is probably just using some already existing matter as reaction mass. It is almost definitely not acting magically on virtual particles.

If we assume that the drive works _and_ the alleged way of how it does is correct (note: at least the latter very likely is not; the drive may still work, but for entirely different reasons), our understanding of physics would not just be in error, but fundamentally wrong. The same level of wrong as if we suddenly realise that the stories from Harry Potter are real.

[Sean Mirrsen]

If we assume that the drive works _and_ the alleged way of how it does is correct (note: at least the latter very likely is not; the drive may still work, but for entirely different reasons), our understanding of physics would not just be in error, but fundamentally wrong. The same level of wrong as if we suddenly realise that the stories from Harry Potter are real.

You know, this keeps popping up as a simile, but I rather fail to grasp the extent of it. I mean, exactly how wrong are you talking about here? Can you use one of the similar events/rewrites from the history of science? How many laws would have to be rewritten entirely to account for it? How many would have to be rewritten more severely than, say, Newton's laws of motion were rewritten when relativity came along?

[sal_vager]

It's difficult to argue that these devices don't work, they clearly do, no amount of arguing is going to change that nor is arguing going to influence how these devices work

[ZetaX]

You know, this keeps popping up as a simile, but I rather fail to grasp the extent of it. I mean, exactly how wrong are you talking about here? Can you use one of the similar events/rewrites from the history of science? How many laws would have to be rewritten entirely to account for it? How many would have to be rewritten more severely than, say, Newton's laws of motion were rewritten when relativity came along?

Conservation of mass and energy. Conservation of momentum. I am not sure if there ever was such a rewrite since the beginning of physics (say: Newton), but your milage may vary. Relativity just "refined" Newton's laws for the more extreme cases of very fast objects (SRT) or huge, possibly rotating, masses (GRT); Newton's laws are/were still true for slower things up to very miniscule errors. But this drive, if the virtual particle explanation is correct, would violate Newton's laws even at that level.

The only "larger" change I am aware of was the change away from a geocentrical universe. But I would say that was before real physics was around.

[Frozen_Heart]

No, because the supposed way of how it works is simply wrong. As some already said, it is probably just using some already existing matter as reaction mass. It is almost definitely not acting magically on virtual particles.

If we assume that the drive works _and_ the alleged way of how it does is correct (note: at least the latter very likely is not; the drive may still work, but for entirely different reasons), our understanding of physics would not just be in error, but fundamentally wrong. The same level of wrong as if we suddenly realise that the stories from Harry Potter are real.

I don't think it really matters if there are some errors in our theories of physics. If we find problems we'll simply adjust our theories to account for the new evidence.

Its how science works.

[N_las]

Can we accept that, if this drive really works at the reported power level, our understanding of physics is in error?

With that as a premice, a technique to interact with virtual mass without realzing it in certian statistically unlikely situations seems least likely to break everything else we "know."

The thing is, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the measured thrust has anything to do with virtual particles. So if we assume that our physics is in error, why of all things should we change the way we think virtual particles work to build the explanation of the EM-drive? If we are allowed to "break" our physics to find an explanation, why not say that the maxwell-equations are fundamentaly wrong, and that explains the thrust. Why not say the whole thing is a complicated gravitational effect and our special relativity is wrong? Why not say it has something to do with the dark energy of the universe?

There is just no reason why everyone is so hooked on virtual particles. Why are they trying to shoehorn an explanation involving them?

Edited February 18, 2015 by N_las

[ZetaX]

I don't think it really matters if there are some errors in our theories of physics. If we find problems we'll simply adjust our theories to account for the new evidence.

Its how science works.

The problem is that if the claimed explanation is correct, we very very likely would have found the errors in our theories much earlier. It is like everyone missing that there were unicorns living in central park; not entirely imposisble, but really, really unlikely.

It is therefore much more likely that there is another reason than the proposed one for why it works.

[Rakaydos]

Conservation of mass and energy. Conservation of momentum. I am not sure if there ever was such a rewrite since the beginning of physics (say: Newton), but your milage may vary. Relativity just "refined" Newton's laws for the more extreme cases of very fast objects (SRT) or huge, possibly rotating, masses (GRT); Newton's laws are/were still true for slower things up to very miniscule errors. But this drive, if the virtual particle explanation is correct, would violate Newton's laws even at that level.

The only "larger" change I am aware of was the change away from a geocentrical universe. But I would say that was before real physics was around.

Wasnt northstar using those same equations you say would be wrong, to explain why it would be more efficent than a photon drive?

"Thrust = Mass Flow Rate * Exhaust Velocity

*AND*

E = 1/2 * m * v^2"

Given how specific the circomstances for this has to be, I'd rather compare it to the invention of a Negative Index of Refraction- An impossible material made possible.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Conservation of mass and energy. Conservation of momentum. I am not sure if there ever was such a rewrite since the beginning of physics (say: Newton), but your milage may vary. Relativity just "refined" Newton's laws for the more extreme cases of very fast objects (SRT) or huge, possibly rotating, masses (GRT); Newton's laws are/were still true for slower things up to very miniscule errors. But this drive, if the virtual particle explanation is correct, would violate Newton's laws even at that level.

In what ways? Conservation of mass and energy I can see, but given that the virtual particle effects are considered nonexistent (kinda like the relativity thing went unnoticed), wouldn't that be on the same order of magnitude as relativity? Old laws hold true, except specific circumstances? But how would it affect Newton's laws? It still does the equal and opposite reaction thing, as far as I can see, it just reacts off a thing that physics says either shouldn't be there or shouldn't react this way.

I mostly just have a hard time seeing it having that destructive an effect. Indeed it seems like it would be a constructive effect - old laws still hold true, otherwise they wouldn't hold true even without whatever it is the EMDrive works with, but you get a new layer added on top of them, like Newtonian physics are warped by relativity (i.e. acceleration taking the proximity to speed of light into account, etc.).

[ZetaX]

Wasnt northstar using those same equations you say would be wrong, to explain why it would be more efficent than a photon drive?

"Thrust = Mass Flow Rate * Exhaust Velocity

*AND*

E = 1/2 * m * v^2"

I think both K^2 and N_las already explained why this argument is faulty (and in much more detail than this post): you are creating your reaction mass (claiming you can use virtual particles instead _is_ violating those laws I mentioned), and if you spend that much energy creating it, making it as fast as possible is more optimal. Thus using photons is best.

[Rakaydos]

I think both K^2 and N_las already explained why this argument is faulty (and in much more detail than this post): you are creating your reaction mass (claiming you can use virtual particles instead _is_ violating those laws I mentioned), and if you spend that much energy creating it, making it as fast as possible is more optimal. Thus using photons is best.

And this is the disconnect. You, K2 and N-las keep shouting his at the top of your lungs, without showing the problem. I've seen the "unicorns are more likely" explanation at least twice. But what does that mean?

If the "impossible" theory was correct, what would happen to virtual particles around, say, a bar magnet?

[Sean Mirrsen]

There is just no reason why everyone is so hooked on virtual particles. Why are they trying to shoehorn an explanation involving them?

Because until somebody finds out what is actually making it work, conventional science is floundering in the dark and all bets are off? The virtual particle explanation gained momentum because it was the first and most realistic-sounding - if that gets proven wrong but no fault with the measurements in the experiments surfaces, I'm sure more exotic theories will start popping up like mushrooms.

Local gravity anomaly would probably be my pick because it's probably the most awesome one, in effect and implications, but it's sort of easy to test for. Then again, I doubt that with all the sensitive equipment and hard vacuum anyone thought to do something as stupidly simple as setting up some bendy hairs around the device, to monitor if there is any effect on the surroundings in general.

[ZetaX]

And this is the disconnect. You, K2 and N-las keep shouting his at the top of your lungs, without showing the problem. I've seen the "unicorns are more likely" explanation at least twice. But what does that mean?

If the "impossible" theory was correct, what would happen to virtual particles around, say, a bar magnet?

That's maybe one of those cases where we probably would have seen this effect earlier if it were real. Apart from that, the "theory" is just a very simple unfounded explanation and does not really say how exactly this would look like. But obviously, the effects would be measurable.

As N_las said: you can't just come up with a totally random explanation for something and then claim it is correct because the observed effect is real. Without _other_ evidence (and it contradicting everything we know is actually strong counterevidence), your theory is as good as "it accelerates otherwise undetectable pink unicorns".

- - - Updated - - -

Because until somebody finds out what is actually making it work, conventional science is floundering in the dark and all bets are off? The virtual particle explanation gained momentum because it was the first and most realistic-sounding - if that gets proven wrong but no fault with the measurements in the experiments surfaces, I'm sure more exotic theories will start popping up like mushrooms.

The problem is that actual theoretical physicists know that this explanation is almost definitely wrong and is more or less just technobabble. The virtual particle argument is really not more than that. It may sound nice, but only with a naive understanding of the topic. I would compare it to the many other errors of this kind where people that don't know all the details still know a bit and try to use their half-knowledge. For example people "disproving" e.g. SRT using the twin paradox because they have heard about time dilation, but don't know the details of SRT. I think there is this saying that half-assed knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge, and this might be an example of that.

It gained momentum in the less physically educated masses, yes, but that's not how good science is done. Either you come up with a theory and then test it, or you use the already well-established theories to explain it (then some testing is still a good idea). But this one is doing neither, it instead comes up with something violating known rules and (so far) no testing of the hypothesis.

[N_las]

The virtual particle explanation gained momentum because it was the first and most realistic-sounding.

Yes, and that is the only reason. And it is a very stupid reason. As ZetaX said in the previous post, this is a total random explanation. And many people knowing someting about quantum field theory said that from the beginning. To quote John Baez:

"Quantum vacuum virtual plasma" is something you'd say if you failed a course in quantum field theory and then smoked too much weed. There's no such thing as "virtual plasma". If you want to report experimental results that seem to violate the known laws of physics, fine. But it doesn't help your credibility to make up goofy pseudo-explanations

Or Sean Carroll:

The business about "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" (the physics of which they "won't address" in this paper) is complete ......... There is a quantum vacuum, but it's nothing like a plasma.

It may have sounded "realistic" for some people, but only because the bit of knowledge they have about virtual particles is from Stephen Hawkings "A brief history of time". For experts, it doesn't sound "realistic" at all.

If you watch an episode of star trek, the writers come up with realistic sounding explanations for so many things. But that is just that: Realistic sounding stuff that can satisfy an audience as plausible enough. It would never hold as actual explanation.

Edited February 18, 2015 by N_las

[Sean Mirrsen]

It gained momentum in the less physically educated masses, yes, but that's not how good science is done. Either you come up with a theory and then test it, or you use the already well-established theories to explain it (then some testing is still a good idea). But this one is doing neither, it instead comes up with something violating known rules and (so far) no testing of the hypothesis.

That probably has more to do with all testing focusing on finding and eliminating errors in testing, and finding potential conventional explanations. The theory (which I haven't so much as read, by the way) is at least an attempt, however half-assed it may actually be, to find some plausible explanation that at least kinda fits into some part of conventional physics. I honestly haven't heard of any other theories besides those that say that it works on entirely conventional principles (i.e. ablation of copper, Mach Effect whatever that is, interaction with surroundings, etc.).

Edit:

Yes, and that is the only reason. And it is a very stupid reason. As ZetaX said in the previous post, this is a total random explanation. And many people knowing someting about quantum field theory said that from the beginning.

And yet nobody offered anything better, to my knowledge. That is to say, if anyone did offer something better, they either kept it to themselves or didn't make a plausible enough argument for the theory to propagate and compete with the virtual particles.

In other words - it's the only explanation we (as the public) have that describes how the drive works. We have numerous explanations that describe how the drive doesn't work, but until one of those explanations is true and the drive indeed doesn't work, the virtual particles, as silly as they may be to a qualified scientist, are going to remain the explanation for EMDrive.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Sean Mirrsen

[N_las]

And yet nobody offered anything better, to my knowledge. That is to say, if anyone did offer something better, they either kept it to themselves or didn't make a plausible enough argument for the theory to propagate and compete with the virtual particles.

Random measurment artifact is a very good explanation. There is just something about the experiment that everybody has overlooked until now. Just like those ftl neutrinos a few years back. They had it easy, because the error was easy to find. Maybe this time the error is much more hidden. It is in any case a far more plausible explanation than virtual particles.

[ZetaX]

The theory (which I haven't so much as read, by the way) is at least an attempt, however half-assed it may actually be, to find some plausible explanation that at least kinda fits into some part of conventional physics.

It does not fit any part of conventional (what does this even mean¿) physics. If you think classical, there simply are no virtual particles. If you think modern/quantum, they don't act like claimed. Just picking what property you take from what theory is not how one does things. Take this example that is obviously wrong, but actually using the same pseudo-argument:

Theory one ("classical physics"): All we know are donkeys.

Theory two ("quantum physics"): [After seeing a pink flower] Some things are pink.

Conclusion by mixing the theories: there are pink donkeys.

I honestly haven't heard of any other theories besides those that say that it works on entirely conventional principles (i.e. ablation of copper, Mach Effect whatever that is, interaction with surroundings, etc.).

Edit:

And yet nobody offered anything better, to my knowledge. That is to say, if anyone did offer something better, they either kept it to themselves or didn't make a plausible enough argument for the theory to propagate and compete with the virtual particles.

Just because you think nobody offered anything better (why are the classical ones with ablation or by there being an error "worse"¿ Unless the technobabble, they use actual scientific results and don't assume things we know almost definitely to be wrong) does not justify making random claims. This is, essentially, just the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, but with this "theory" instead of god.

[Rakaydos]

(why are the classical ones with ablation or by there being an error "worse"¿ Unless the technobabble, they use actual scientific results and don't assume things we know almost definitely to be wrong)

It would require room temperature ablation, and they're running out of things to rule out as far as enviromental effects. Mach Effect generally IS considered technobabble- it's about as plausable as virtual plasma, but not as scientific sounding.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Just because you think nobody offered anything better (why are the classical ones with ablation or by there being an error "worse"¿ Unless the technobabble, they use actual scientific results and don't assume things we know almost definitely to be wrong) does not justify making random claims. This is, essentially, just the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, but with this "theory" instead of god.

Reposting that last paragraph I (thought I quickly enough) edited into my last post: It's the only explanation we (as the public) have that describes how the drive works. We have numerous explanations that describe how the drive doesn't work, but until one of those explanations is true and the drive indeed doesn't work, the virtual particles, as silly as they may be to a qualified scientist, are going to remain the explanation for EMDrive.

[ZetaX]

It would require room temperature ablation, and they're running out of things to rule out as far as enviromental effects. Mach Effect generally IS considered technobabble- it's about as plausable as virtual plasma, but not as scientific sounding.

I did not mention the Woodward effect there on purpose.

Room temperature ablation is not impossible (the question is if it is happening). I am also not saying it is a good theory to explain it, but it still is a better one than those beloved virtual particles. At the very least, it does not misinterpret physical laws.

Guys, be honest: are you believing the virtual particle stuff because you actually understand it, including the actual quantum physics behind it, or just because it sounds cool¿

- - - Updated - - -

Reposting that last paragraph I (thought I quickly enough) edited into my last post: It's the only explanation we (as the public) have that describes how the drive works. We have numerous explanations that describe how the drive doesn't work, but until one of those explanations is true and the drive indeed doesn't work, the virtual particles, as silly as they may be to a qualified scientist, are going to remain the explanation for EMDrive.

Your statment is exactly the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. if you think otehrwise, please explain.

Also, didn't we just mention several other explanations, be it ablation or the Woodward effect (not that this one is much better, but it still is another explanation).

[-Velocity-]

the virtual particles, as silly as they may be to a qualified scientist, are going to remain the explanation for EMDrive.

So your argument is that since there is only one explanation, then that one explanation must be the accepted explanation for how it works, irrelevant of how silly the explanation is?! HAHA. Ok. So, I propose that the EM drive works because there is an invisible pink unicorn hitched to the front of it that pulls it. The more electric current that flows, the stronger the unicorn is shocked and the harder it tries to get away.

There. Now with this unicorn drive hypothesis, you have a strong contender to the virtual particle quantum plasma mumbo-jumbo, because according to your rules, being stupid does not disqualify a hypothesis from consideration.

[ZetaX]

So your argument is that since there is only one explanation, then that one explanation must be the accepted explanation for how it works, irrelevant of how silly the explanation is?! HAHA. Ok. So, I propose that the EM drive works because there is an invisible pink unicorn hitched to the front of it that pulls it. The more electric current that flows, the stronger the unicorn is shocked and the harder it tries to get away.

There. Now with this unicorn drive hypothesis, you have a strong contender to the virtual particle quantum plasma mumbo-jumbo, because according to your rules, being stupid does not disqualify a hypothesis from consideration.

No! As I already said (something like ten posts ago) the drive obviously works by pushing invisible pink unicorns away. This is far more plausible, because, have you recently seen any invisible pink unicorn around the drive¿

[Sean Mirrsen]

Your statment is exactly the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. if you think otehrwise, please explain.

I'm not familiar with the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. I'm just saying that people should start providing more theories besides the one that's supposedly obviously wrong, if they don't want the obviously wrong theory to be used. The only caveat is that the new theory has to explain the EMDrive in a way that keeps it an interesting and useful device. I.e., allows it to keep its current and/or theoretical thrust-per-kilowatt, and does not involve expending any part of the thruster itself (as would be with copper ablation). The other theories are in abundance, and the new experiments are going to test for them since most involve just errors in testing that need to be eliminated anyway.

Also, didn't we just mention several other explanations, be it ablation or the Woodward effect (not that this one is much better, but it still is another explanation).

I think I heard of the Woodward effect. Something to do with charged capacitors... I think. Maybe misremembering. If it is the Woodward effect, how does it manifest within the device? That's really what I, personally, want to hear. A discussion of how this thing may work. Not a list of explanations of how it's all a mistake somewhere and nothing interesting is going on, but a discussion based in the premise that something interesting is going on, and existing to figure out what.

edit:

So your argument is that since there is only one explanation, then that one explanation must be the accepted explanation for how it works, irrelevant of how silly the explanation is?! HAHA. Ok. So, I propose that the EM drive works because there is an invisible pink unicorn hitched to the front of it that pulls it. The more electric current that flows, the stronger the unicorn is shocked and the harder it tries to get away.

There. Now with this unicorn drive hypothesis, you have a strong contender to the virtual particle quantum plasma mumbo-jumbo, because according to your rules, being stupid does not disqualify a hypothesis from consideration.

I shall add your hypothesis to the list. Personally I would prefer the pink unicorns.

I do not set rules, I just make observations. And I didn't say it must be accepted, indeed I said quite the opposite - that more theories must be provided so that it's not the only one in existence anymore. A silly theory is better than no theory as long as it fits the observations. If no better theory comes along, the silly theory will stay. That's how our ancestors got the flat earth and the geocentric worldview.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Sean Mirrsen