Cannae/EmDrive

[0111narwhalz]

From what I've read of K^2's comments regarding the "virtual particle" hypothesis, it seems that semi-virtual particles carry energy to another particle only if that other particle is within range. If there's no particle in range, would they still carry energy? If so, does the semi-virtual particle continue onwards until it hits something real? And if not, how do they "know" not to take energy? Would that not imply either a communication between the source and destination, or a (mild) violation of causality?

I'm sorry, I probably sound like an imbecile to those who know the subject.

[Rakaydos]

From what I've read of K^2's comments regarding the "virtual particle" hypothesis, it seems that semi-virtual particles carry energy to another particle only if that other particle is within range. If there's no particle in range, would they still carry energy? If so, does the semi-virtual particle continue onwards until it hits something real? And if not, how do they "know" not to take energy? Would that not imply either a communication between the source and destination, or a (mild) violation of causality?

I'm sorry, I probably sound like an imbecile to those who know the subject.

I'm guessing it's something like an Electrical short- a spark wont leap between two wires unless it can make the whole leap between the wires.

[K^2]

I'm guessing it's something like an Electrical short- a spark wont leap between two wires unless it can make the whole leap between the wires.

Excellent analogy. And the underlying physics isn't so far off.

[PB666]

I'm guessing it's something like an Electrical short- a spark wont leap between two wires unless it can make the whole leap between the wires.

Go stand next to a teslacoil and don't touch it and watch what happens. An number of people have gotten in trouble by basically placing a metal plate close to a power transmission line, a wire connected to a transformer and then to ground. No 'sparks' but they stole power none the less. I think we are getting away from the basic point because this is either electrostatic degassing and the drive is an artifact, or the so called virtual particles are interacting through a field undetected.

I can give a cogent counter example. Take an atom smasher. We take a proton and accelerate the proton in a magnetic field (using electromagnetism). Once the proton is going really fast it collides with other proton and this gives rise to virtual particles that transition to many different things, but ultimately what we see is electromagnetism indirectly. So the Cannae drive may be generating a resonance starting with a microwave, but then that could be converted to something else which then gives off a VP that transitions to something else and reverses itself once it finds a suitably similar target. Fields can act at great distance and VP interact with fields, it not a proof of anything.

The base question is if mass is behind the drive, and you apply the unit, there is a chance that some known or unknown force is interacting with that mass, which means its useless as a drive. Alternatively its not interacting with that mass but the whole universe, which means its useful as a drive. But you cannot really distinguish the two in the lab because in a lab and particularly a vacuum chamber there is mass in every direction that can be pushed off of. There is no earthly place to perform this experiment. To confirm that this really is a drive, not a degassing equipment, throw it into space.

I should point out that science is coming up with a hypothesis and finding a way to test it, not of creating a forgone conclusion.

[Darnok]

If there is an aether used by EMDrive as a reaction mass, I would expect a very similar behavior. There are, however, some caveats here that make it unlikely. First, aether cannot have sufficient EM cross section for EMDrive to grab onto it directly. Such aether would be very obvious in other experiments. We would have found it two hundred years ago, at least. Especially, since people have been actively looking.

But if you considering existence of aether you can't use experiments that assumed it doesn't exist to explain its properties.

Aether denies existence of mass, because aether would explain "gravity" without mass, so using it to explain any movement would imply that all particles are massless.

Like I said in one post, instead of thinking that two bodies are pulling each other we should think that they are pushed towards each other by aether (space pressure).

This still leaves an outside margin of probability that EMDrive does have some sort of a Q Thruster type of interaction with some exotic virtual particle, which in turn passes momentum to aether.

If aether is particle it shouldn't be moved easily. It would be more or less locked to its position, like in quantum locking experiment, each particle should move a little but entire "grid of aether particles" can't move and "grid should be elastic", so you can change distance between aether particles using different forces, but if that forces are gone particles will go back on its previous location.

Aether particles should generate unipolar field on its own and repel each other and some particles like electrons.

This still raises a lot of questions, however. First, why haven't we seen this in particle accelerators, where we use far more powerful resonant chambers to accelerate particles? This ought to have been detected.

Because accelerators are measuring energies from collisions and particles we know doesn't collide with aether?

Second, if this aether is weakly interacting, it can't possibly be "sticking" to Earth's surface. So we ought to be able to detect thrust variations depending on a) Orientation of the EMDrive, Orientation of Earth (time of day), and potentially c) Time of year.

What do you mean by "sticking"?

Using water waves in a resonant chamber to simulate the EM Drive.

Would be nice if he flipped it and ran it the other way. Oh well. I assume you have a bathtub.

Now imagine that water particles can't be moved (since we can't move space-time, a different name for aether), but your device can repel from them

EDIT: Also if aether exists you can put in trash entire quantum physics, because particle behavior wouldn't be random every move or change in movement direction or "speed" would be caused by different density/pressure of aether.

When you consider this experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment and add aether into...

You will receive interesting results like particles that are used to measure "time" are vibrating in different way on ground level, where aehter has different density, than on high altitude during flight.

And flight or any movement itself changes the frequency of vibration of atoms, because around these atoms flows aether.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Darnok

[K^2]

I can give a cogent counter example. Take an atom smasher. We take a proton and accelerate the proton in a magnetic field (using electromagnetism). Once the proton is going really fast it collides with other proton and this gives rise to virtual particles that transition to many different things, but ultimately what we see is electromagnetism indirectly. So the Cannae drive may be generating a resonance starting with a microwave, but then that could be converted to something else which then gives off a VP that transitions to something else and reverses itself once it finds a suitably similar target. Fields can act at great distance and VP interact with fields, it not a proof of anything.

Eh, no. Your best case is that VPs themselves are massless. In which case, that interaction follows an inverse square law. So the range would be comparable to the same electromagnetic interaction. If you go with massive VPs, then the law becomes exponential decay, and you range drops to atomic scales. No long-range interactions possible here. Try again.

What do you mean by "sticking"?

It's something that proponents of aether theory of light came up with following Michelson-Morley experiment. They needed a way to explain that speed of light is the same in all directions. So they decided that aether must be viscous, and it "sticks" to Earth, so it's static with respect to Earth regardless of place on Earth, time of day, or time of year.

But they had no problems with aether interacting with matter. They were dealing with something that interacts with matter rather strongly, electromagnetism. We are looking for something that cannot interact with matter strongly and does have mass. Therefore, Earth has to be moving through it as it revolves around the Sun. Which means that we have relative velocity with respect to it, at least some of the time. And that means that we ought to be able to measure differences in thrust of EMDrive based on orientation of the drive. Simply because it's easier to push from medium moving with you than one that's moving against you.

Edited August 21, 2015 by K^2

[Rakaydos]

It's something that proponents of aether theory of light came up with following Michelson-Morley experiment. They needed a way to explain that speed of light is the same in all directions. So they decided that aether must be viscous, and it "sticks" to Earth, so it's static with respect to Earth regardless of place on Earth, time of day, or time of year.

But they had no problems with aether interacting with matter. They were dealing with something that interacts with matter rather strongly, electromagnetism. We are looking for something that cannot interact with matter strongly and does have mass. Therefore, Earth has to be moving through it as it revolves around the Sun. Which means that we have relative velocity with respect to it, at least some of the time. And that means that we ought to be able to measure differences in thrust of EMDrive based on orientation of the drive. Simply because it's easier to push from medium moving with you than one that's moving against you.

Hmm... But hypothetically, if the aether is weakly interacting massive particles ("dark matter") there might be some edge cases. In this hypothetical, the EM drive would work because when the microwaves bounce around the ends of the resonance chanber, they are somehow stickier (energy density, whatever to the weakly interacting particles (thous transfering momentum easier) on one than on the other end.

[Sean Mirrsen]

It's something that proponents of aether theory of light came up with following Michelson-Morley experiment. They needed a way to explain that speed of light is the same in all directions. So they decided that aether must be viscous, and it "sticks" to Earth, so it's static with respect to Earth regardless of place on Earth, time of day, or time of year.

But they had no problems with aether interacting with matter. They were dealing with something that interacts with matter rather strongly, electromagnetism. We are looking for something that cannot interact with matter strongly and does have mass. Therefore, Earth has to be moving through it as it revolves around the Sun. Which means that we have relative velocity with respect to it, at least some of the time. And that means that we ought to be able to measure differences in thrust of EMDrive based on orientation of the drive. Simply because it's easier to push from medium moving with you than one that's moving against you.

Well, there's the gravitons, if they are a thing. It's about the only thing that exists everywhere and uniformly moves along with the Earth, and is capable of interacting with matter - its gravity well. Unfortunately the only means of testing against it directly is sending the thing into interplanetary space.

[Rakaydos]

Well, there's the gravitons, if they are a thing. It's about the only thing that exists everywhere and uniformly moves along with the Earth, and is capable of interacting with matter - its gravity well. Unfortunately the only means of testing against it directly is sending the thing into interplanetary space.

Except gravatons are exactly as efficent as photons, and we all know that this is magnitudes more efficient than a photon drive.

[PB666]

Hmm... But hypothetically, if the aether is weakly interacting massive particles ("dark matter") there might be some edge cases. In this hypothetical, the EM drive would work because when the microwaves bounce around the ends of the resonance chanber, they are somehow stickier (energy density, whatever to the weakly interacting particles (thous transfering momentum easier) on one than on the other end.

See other thread on dark matter. the XEXON100 experiment failed to pick up any interaction with dark matter. This device would have to be doing something really bizarrely different to interact with Dark Matter or WIMPs (though I am more reluctant to merge the two concepts). I don't think that there is enough energy in the MW part of the spectrum, even under extreme resonance to cause Dark Matter to interact where it would not with a huge container of Xenon after several months. There is also space-time, the issue of dark energy results show that the energy does not interact directly with matter as chameleon type particles, which means if it is pushing galaxies out, it is either interacting with exotic matter such as in a black hole, or inflating space-time itself.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Except gravatons are exactly as efficent as photons, and we all know that this is magnitudes more efficient than a photon drive.

Well, we don't exactly have experimental data on that, do we? If gravitons alter the curvature of space-time, or however gravity works, they may have different efficiency simply by working perpendicular to the three dimensions.

However, I meant more along the lines of a "massive aether". I don't know how gravitons are theoretically supposed to work (so feel free to provide exposition, I am actually rather curious ), but if they are particles, and they (evidently) interact with matter somehow, could they not, then, provide the reaction mass for the drive if it somehow interacts with them? We could notice the difference in thrust with direction if there was a difference to be noticed, but here on Earth, this close to Earth especially, gravity points down, and the influence of stellar bodies around Earth is so minute as to be barely noticeable on a regular scale, let alone a thruster that achieves so little thrust as to be potentially confused with measurement error.

[PB666]

A 2010 study suggested that both equations are correct, with the Abraham version being the kinetic momentum and the Minkowski version being the canonical momentum, and claims to explain the contradictory experimental results using this interpretation.^[9] However, a recent study showed that in the principle-of-relativity frame the Abraham momentum would break the global momentum–energy conservation law in the medium Einstein-box thought experiment (also known as the "Balazs thought experiment"), and it claims that the justification of Minkowski momentum as the correct light momentum is completely required by the principle of relativity and the momentum–energy conservation law, which are both fundamental postulates of physics.^-Wikipedia

Momentum is stated as G_A = E/C² x H where E is the electric field and H is the magnetic field. So if relativity disallows perpetuation of the force beyond the local, and a force is being carried beyond the local we can look at three things

1. There is a artifactual magnetic field being created outside the local that is pushing off (just like a rail gun).

2. QM is transferring the momentum over and beyond.

3. There is another layer of physics on top of QM that goes unrealized.

Here is the facts.

1. One set of classic physics posits there is the potential for thrust creation of EM in a dielectric

2. Relativity claims that the thrust does not net beyond the local environment, the apparatus one-end is only pushing off the other end.

3. And quantum mechanics as of yet does not provide an explanation

4. And a force is observed.

I don't think we can get away from two possibilities. Either quantum mechanics/standard model is incomplete or there is another layer of physics on top of QM that we have no idea that exists. The third possibility is that the device is directionly degassing copper. So it looks to me like they have a 1/8th inch piece of copper plate, dubious that anything within the cavity is going to get through the copper barrier, of course electrons can travel to the other side, but they also lack momentum and they would build charge.

Here's the thing, a theory predicts an outcome, you observe the outcome but it is inconsistent with one more fundamentally operating theory and based on precedent is inconsistent with another.

[K^2]

Well, there's the gravitons, if they are a thing.

Gravity is a massless field. A graviton/gravity wave drive would have the same efficiency as a photon drive. 300MW/N. We are seeing efficiency at least an order of magnitude higher. So we can safely exclude any masless fields. And for massive fields, orientation matters.

[Aethon]

A walk around of NASA Space Flight Forum user rfmwguys' device/test apparatus, in advance of his test tomorrow.

[Scotius]

I'm very thrilled to see it But i don't expect anything earlier experiments didn't show us already. There will be some thrust, resulting in a round of head-scratching and speculations about magnetic interference with nearby obiects, jets of heated air etc.

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm very thrilled to see it But i don't expect anything earlier experiments didn't show us already. There will be some thrust, resulting in a round of head-scratching and speculations about magnetic interference with nearby obiects, jets of heated air etc.

^This. Doing the same test repeatedly over and over may show that the result is consistent, but it doesn't bring us any closer to understanding what's going on and whether it is actually producing thrust.

[PB666]

A walk around of NASA Space Flight Forum user rfmwguys' device/test apparatus, in advance of his test tomorrow.

I was hoping he was going to put the microwave under the end and open the door facing the rod.....turn it on for a few seconds. lol.

So is this now space outsourcing, J Q Citizen now builds the next generation of thruster with used household appliances in their garage. [Face palm]

[sgt_flyer]

I've checked some comments from rfmwguy about his experiment:

His objective is to see if a wiremesh copper version of the drive can produce thrust - because a wiremeh version would be able to be cooled down more easily (Aka, more surface avaible for increased convection cooling) from the magnetrons emissions while doing atmospheric tests.

he'll stream the demonstration for his copper wiremesh drive at 2PM EST today . He'll do a 5mn test with the magnetron active for only 30% of the time and a 1mn test with the magnetron active for the full duration.

Now, wonder how it would play out if such a device is fully in vacuum - no more convection cooling feasible. (And if the wiremesh is enough instead of a fully closed version)

Edited August 25, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[Aethon]

There is some speculation that rfmwguys' device won't work.

From a post by Dr. Rodal. "This confirms the analysis based on the Meep results post-processed with Wolfram Mathematica: NO thrust when the antenna is located at the small end because when the antenna is located at the small end, the force on the big base is compressive and it is cancelled out by the force on the lateral conical surfaces "

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the test.

[Scotius]

Yep, no thrust in current configuration - which according to math savvy guys at NSF wouldn't work anyway due to antenna being in wrong place. Next step - relocating the antenna to the optimal place and running another test.

....................................................................................................................................................................................................

Edited to avoid double posting

As it turns out, some eagle-eyed observators noticed the device producing a small, but noticeable amount of force.

Of course it's too early to tell what exactly causes the movement - force produced by the frustum, or the rig heating and causing air movement.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Scotius

[Aethon]

Let's just say there is some debate about whether the balance arm moved during the test, not necessarily thrust.

rfmwguy has reconfigured his device for test #2. No anouncement on when to expect the test yet.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Aethon

[PB666]

Yep, no thrust in current configuration - which according to math savvy guys at NSF wouldn't work anyway due to antenna being in wrong place. Next step - relocating the antenna to the optimal place and running another test.

....................................................................................................................................................................................................

Edited to avoid double posting

As it turns out, some eagle-eyed observators noticed the device producing a small, but noticeable amount of force.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=38203.0,3Battach=1059981,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.xhiaiyvekv.jpg

Of course it's too early to tell what exactly causes the movement - force produced by the frustum, or the rig heating and causing air movement.

Yep i saw it deflect 3 difraction lines when the transformer engaged. Have no idea what it means.

[Aethon]

rfmwguy test 2. The only difference is the magnetron has been moved tot the top.

[Scotius]

So. Like i wrote earlier - some movement, caused by who know what. Still more tests needed.

[PB666]

So. Like i wrote earlier - some movement, caused by who know what. Still more tests needed.

I think we need to have a competition, instead of trying to launch a rocket into a SOT, we should have a competition to see who can come up with the most powerful violation of the laws of physics, and then a competition between groups to see if another group can create a set of equations to explain how its not a violation of the laws of physics.

[well need something to do since the moderator locked then - cough - mass thread - jk]