Cannae/EmDrive

[Northstar1989]

You haven't thought that trough. If you use a lower exhaust velocity (than c), you have to put more energy into it because of all the invariant mass you have to create.

I *HAVE* thought that through. I was *VERY CLEAR*, you do NOT *CREATE* the mass with a Cannae/EmDrive. You may increase the appearance of virtual particles simply by virtue of having a lot of energy passing through a small space, but that energy is not EXPENDED to create the virtual particles in any way, shape, or form...

To give momentum to those virtual particles you have to invest so much energy into them, that it is identical to you creating real particles out of energy. When I say "creating", I don't mean "creating virtual particles" but just "creating particles".

No, you don't expend *ANY* energy to create the virtual particles. They appear due to energy being present, but energy is not consumed in their creation. As I've pointed out quite clearly, the more mass you divide up your energy over, the more Thrust/MW you will achieve. When you don't have to create the mass, it's like the difference between a Thermal Turbojet and an Electric Propeller (both accelerate air to generate thrust, but the propeller has much lower Exhaust Velocity, and thus generates much more Thrust/MW at low speeds...)

Think about hawking radiation: it is commonly explained with virtual particles in the proximity of the even horizont. You have a pair of virtual particles. One will fall into the event horizont, the other will become hawking radiation. But why? Why can't both particles just be hawking radiation. Because if you wan't virtual particles to actually do anything useful (like being hawking radiation), you have to invest energy into it. The energy-invest-mechanism at the event horizont is the virtual particle falling into the event horizont. The black hole loses the energy in the process in the exact same quantity as if it just would have created the hawking radiation out of energy.

That's accurate- you have to invest energy into virtual particles to get them to do anything useful- but once again, the Canna/EmDrive or a black hole DOES NOT INVEST ENERGY TO *CREATE* THE VIRTUAL PARTICLES. And, you're comparing apples and oranges here- the Cannae/EmDrive also loses energy, just like if you had used a photon-drive instead, but what we're measuring is not the AMOUNT of energy lost, it's how much useful work (Thrust) we derive from those particles before sending them off. Because the Exhaust Velocity is lower, you get more useful work out of accelerating virtual particles to speeds less than the speed of light than out of creating photons. You could still design a photon-drive that would consume Energy at the exact same rate as the Cannae/EmDrive, but it would produce less USEFUL work. In essence, the Cannae/EmDrive is more efficient than a photon-drive.

The same is true for any other case: To actually interact with the virtual particle "in a meaningful way" (in this example to impart net momentum onto them) you will have to invest a big amout of energy, exactly as much as if you would create matter out of energy. Virtual particles "poping in and out of existens" doesn't mean you don't have to pay your bill at the end of the night.

I NEVER SAID you don't have to "pay your bill" in the end, in the form of investing energy. What I said is, the Cannae/EmDrive is more EFFICIENT than a photon-drive. It is a known fact that the most energy-efficient propulsion method (from a given frame of reference) is one that has an Exhaust velocity equal to your vehicle velocity. However, in your frame of reference, the spacecraft using the Cannae/EmDrive would not be moving at NEARLY the speed of light. So, it's more energy-efficient to create an exhaust-stream of slower-moving particles.

The mass of a photon is non-existant outside of the mass imparted by its energy, and thus the photon-drive expends negligible energy creating the actual photon outside of the energy required for the photon's energy (this is why it costs less energy to create infrared light than X-rays: the entire energy-cost is invested in the energy/velocity of the photon, and none of it in the mass...) In the same way, a Cannae/EmDrive does NOT consume any energy creating the actual virtual particles, only in giving them momentum (which causes the particles to become longer-lived). Producing/exciting a stream of slower-moving particles with negligible energy-requirements to create the mass of (neither the photon-drive nor the Cannae/EmDrive expends significant energy creating particle mass- only in giving the particles energy, which in turn gives the particles some amount of mass) will be more EFFICIENT at speeds greatly less than the speed of light, as your Exhaust Velocity is closer to your spacecraft velocity. It should follow, however, that once your spacecraft accelerates a certain amount past the Exhaust Velocity of a Cannae/EmDrive, a photon-drive would become the more energy-efficient of the two (we're talking at relativistic speeds here...)

No, if you do the actual math, the poton drive will give the upper efficency:

Energy you have to invest (into virtual particles) to give momentum to them: E = sqrt((m_rest c^2)^2 + (pc)^2)

To get the maximum momentum per invested energy you wan't to use particles without rest mass, hence photons.

Momentum per invested Energy is exactly the same as Force per invested Power.

No. You don't expend any energy to give the Virtual Particles rest-mass. They already had that when they appeared. Perhaps that statement is true from the standpoint of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE (if the energy to create the Virtual Particles in the first place came from somewhere else), but the spacecraft expends no actual energy creating the virtual particles, and thus is not penalized for the rest-mass of the virtual particles in any way...

I think the closest analogy to what we're talking about here is ACTUALLY an electric propeller vs. a photon-drive. IF the electric-propeller had to invest the energy to create its working mass, it would be the less efficient of the two propulsion methods due to the rest-mass of its exhaust. However the electric propeller does NOT expend energy to create the rest-mass of its exhaust, and thus is far more energy-efficient at low speeds...

Or, you could just use real particles in the first place. Since you don't have to pay the heavy bill of their rest mass, you will get amazing amounts of momentum per invested energy (hence the usefulness of ion drives in comparison to photon drives)

I've said this once, I'm going to say it again. And again if necessary until you actually listen. The Cannae/EmDrive *DOES NOT, AND CANNOT* pay the bill of creating the rest-mass of the virtual particles. The Vritual Particles had rest-mass BEFORE the Cannae/EmDrive ever started acting on them, and would exist even if the Cannae/EmDrive were not there.

That is why Virtual Particles are so weird- they come into existence with mass and energy WITHOUT you having to invest any energy to create them. However they then normally spontaneously pop back out of existence. The very existence of virtual particles technically, for an infinitesimally small amount of time, may violate Conservation of Energy. What a Cannae/EmDrive does is take advantage of these particles that ALREADY EXIST, and gives them momentum. Even if the particles then pop back out of existence, the reaction force has already been exerted on the Cannae/EmDrive.

Who knows? Maybe the Virtual Particles pop into existence SOMEWHERE ELSE in the universe with the momentum that the Cannae/EmDrive gave them (thus preventing the Cannae/EmDrive from actually violating Conservation of Momentum). But, what a Cannae/EmDrive *REALLY* does is take advantage of the fact that VACUUM IS NOT TRULY EMPTY, not create particles to act as its propellant. Thus, it is more similar to a propeller (which acts on working mass which already exists around it) than a photon-drive (which creates the working mass it needs for its propellent).

Yes, thats why I brought up the example. If you do the actual math you will see that the standart solar sail will be incredibly more powerful than the "solar power photon drive", because photovoltaics are so much heavier per area than a thin sail foil.

I don't argue that point. However a nuclear reactor coupled with a photon-drive... (or better yet, a Cannae/EmDrive...)

Yes, this is just another version of the battery example I stated earlier. So the conversation went from: "You could use an energy source on the ship" over "but an alternative would be to use solar power" back to "another alternative could be to use an energy source on the ship".

Yeah, I don't disagree. A nuclear reactor is, from a certain perspective, just like a battery with incredibly high energy-density. And, if you're using an internal power-source like that, you're going to want to get the most Thrust/MW, which means YOU'RE GOING TO WANT YOUR EXHAUST VELOCITY TO MATCH YOUR SPACECRAFT VELOCITY. A photon-drive creates an exhaust-stream moving at the speed of light (with no rest-mass), and thus is much less efficient at non-relativistic speeds than a Cannae/EmDrive which acts of particles that have rest-mass but the Cannae/EmDrive imparted no energy to in order to give rest-mass to in the first place (much like a propeller does NOT expend energy to give air its rest-mass), and accelerates those particles to speeds only a fraction a speed of light.

Bottom Line: ANY propulsion-system invests energy in order to achieve usable work (Thrust). The more energy is imparted to each particle of the exhaust-stream, the less of that energy is converted into usable work and the more of it remains in the exhaust. Photon-drives achieve the WORST possible ratio of usable work to energy-consumption (at non-relativistic speeds), due to their VERY high Exhaust Velocity. A Cannae/EmDrive, on the other hand, produces an exhaust stream of lower velocity, and thus harvests more usable work from it. It does NOT invest any energy to create the propellant, just like a photon-drive doesn't (the energy it invests actually all goes into the energy of the photons, NOT into creating any rest-mass) and a rocket engine doesn't. A Cannae/EmDrive actually produces LESS Thrust/MW than any chemical or thermal propulsion system, due to its much higher Exhaust Velocity- but unlike these systems it does not have to carry its propellant-mass with it, but rather utilizes Virtual Particles, that already appeared and disappeared before the Cannae/EmDrive entered that space, and will continue to appear and disappear there after the Cannae/EmDrive leaves that space...

Regards,

Northstar

[ZetaX]

I'm not familiar with the god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps .

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.

"Used" is a strong word, because no one working in actual engineering or physics will use that pseudo-argument. It is only used in layman level "science". Also, I find this argument horirbly flawed in itself; why exactly is using nonsense better than admitting that we don't know what causes it¿ The latter is keeping an open mind, the former is insisting to know the answer despite actually having no evidence whatsoever.

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).

No, a theory does not have to fit this. Only considering theories that make it a "magical" device (thrust from nowhere, for example) is unscientific. You have to consider every theory equally unless some get evidence or counterevidence. A theory sounding awesome or cool does not give it any extra credibility.

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?

The Woodward effect was, if I remember correctly, even the initial explanation by some people. Anyway, I will not explain how it manifests within a device; that would be like actually and in all seriousity trying to argue for the existence of gnomes. I don't believe in that, and a lot of other people agree with me here. I just threw it in because it is at least not worse than the virtual particle one.

But if you think I am obliged to explain why some other theory might work: why do you (or someone else) not first explain how exactly this virtual particle drive should work¿ No hand-waving, explain it using actual physics; qualitative is enough, I don't care about a detailed explanation of why it has exactly that strength and not half.

[Northstar1989]

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

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

Well said. You summed this all up quite well. +1 REP for you!

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

First, I don't think you can induce an infinite number of virtual particles into spaces that will resonate with the system. I think the system becomes more efficient at corralling and accelerating particles that it can resonate with, that's all. Virtual particles according to uncertainty should come and go out of existence in complete spontaneity. Or lets just put it another way a 16W resonator is not likely to put enough strain on space time to alter the appearance of virtual particles, a quantum singularity that becomes unstable might

I don't think a Cannae/EmDrive is going to place a significant enough strain on space-time either. Which is why I expect that the system will actually start to lose efficiency as you scale it to higher power-levels: because the appearance of new virtual particles will not keep apace with the increases of power-level, and thus you'll end up giving a relatively larger amount of energy to the same working-mass (see my discussion of Exhaust Velocity vs. Thrust) eventually approaching (from higher efficiencies) the efficiency of a photon-drive, which has the absolute worst Thrust/MW theoretically possible...

Second, the accelerations are not via a nozzle, the particles are being accelerated by some sort of inductive resonator but if they approach the speed of light, they will gain virtual mass and slow down, which can also be push against since the push is EM in nature the reaction force can act over space.

Never said the acceleration was via a nozzle. This matches up with how I thought/said the acceleration occurs. The Cannae/EmDrive never actually comes in contact with most virtual particles (if it did, it would have a problem, since the entire process occurs in a closed space), rather it imparts force to them and then they disappear back out of existence before they can hit one of the walls of the resonator cavity and negate the net reaction-force placed on the Cannae/EmDrive entirely...

This is straying off the topic, bouncing photon's conserve most of their energy, although I did read somewhere that this does affect orbits and NASA takes this into consideration for plotting courses of interplanetary missions. The sun also produces a wind, which itself has momentum and charge this also can be used to accelerate.

Yeah, solar sails are a tricky subject because not all of their acceleration actually comes from bouncing photons. Some of it actually comes from interacting with the *particles* (ionized, high-temperature Hydrogen atoms which have mass) of the solar wind...

A solar panel takes ~40% of a photons energy and delivers it for whatever purpose, a mirror captures less than 5%. If a solar panel uses its energy efficiently in could convert up to 50% of the energy gained into acceleration of the space-craft. This means ~20% could end up in acceleration. As the other posters have stated, this is probably going to involve accelerating some mass (e.g. xenon).

I didn't realize that a solar sail harvested such a small percentage of the energy of the photons it bounces. Thanks for the information!

Regards,

Northstar

[perk]

Why do people with 0 knowledge of physics insist on being the most knowledgeable people on physics in the world?

And a close second for questions i really can't answer right now: Why should physical reality conform to your wishful thinking?

[Northstar1989]

The problem is that if the claimed explanation is correct, we very very likely would have found the errors in our theories much earlier.

How? Can you name one way we would have noticed an error in our theory of how virtual particles work (and whether it is possible to push off them without expending more energy than the actual change in momentum you impart to them) prior to this?

Remember, modern physics has only been around for a few hundred years. It's quite likely that there's a LOT we still don't know, and that many of our assumptions are still wrong. May I point you towards the link Rakaydos posted on materials with a negative index of refraction (I've heard of those before too, so it's not exactly new to me...)

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Why do people with 0 knowledge of physics insist on being the most knowledgeable people on physics in the world?

And a close second for questions i really can't answer right now: Why should physical reality conform to your wishful thinking?

That's just insulting. And you know NOTHING about our relative understanding of physics. I don't pretend to be a physicist, for instance, but I *am* a genius, and have taught myself a lot of physics for fun. I also have taken multiple courses in physics, and was talented enough it the subject that I was the *ONLY* student outside of physics that was recruited into a normally physics majors-only course my freshman year of college... The professor was rather hoping I would switch majors into physics, I think.

Regards,

Northstar

[perk]

Ok, thank you for your reply, now i am convinced that you are a troll, and can be safely ignored.

[ZetaX]

How? Can you name one way we would have noticed an error in our theory of how virtual particles work (and whether it is possible to push off them without expending more energy than the actual change in momentum you impart to them) prior to this?

If you would have read of all of what I said you would have seen how: the effect would be large enough to influence many other things. Or are you claiming that only exactly that metal box with exactly that frequency has any effect¿

And you know NOTHING about our relative understanding of physics.

Actually, we do. If I see a person claiming that cars are run by invisible horses before them, then I know that this person does not know how a car works. It's the same here.

I don't pretend to be a physicist, for instance, but I *am* a genius

Sorry, but self-appointed geniuses are not... well the most accepted people in science. If you really are good, you will be know for your works and results.

and have taught myself a lot of physics for fun.

Well, some of it still is hard work or studying complicated theories. Self-teaching often ends up with exactly the half-knowledge I mentioned earlier. Better get a serious (!) textbook on physics (not a pop science one), or take lectures. Or, after reading through the pop science version, look up and read the actual papers.

I also have taken multiple courses in physics, and was talented enough it the subject that I was the *ONLY* student outside of physics that was recruited into a normally physics majors-only course my freshman year of college...

Sorry, but this really is not that great a feat. I know many (read: 50 or more) people having done better (being an active member of three societies for mathematically gifted and interested students surely helps) that have done greater feats. Please try to have less self-confidence.

The professor was rather hoping I would switch majors into physics, I think.

May be. but it sounds like you didn't. So why do you think to understand quantum physics when you (form what I get from the above) only heard the basics of physics¿

My request by the way still stands: someone please explain how the virtual particle explanation actually works, using actual physics, not just hand-waving and mixing up theories.

Edited February 18, 2015 by ZetaX

[N_las]

No. You don't expend any energy to give the Virtual Particles rest-mass. They already had that when they appeared.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. In sum, virtual particles don't have any rest-mass. If you wan't to impart permanent momentum from the drive to virtual particles, you need to spend the amount of energy needed to create that rest mass. In the process, the virtual particles become real particles, that is why I am using the word "creation".

I used the hawking radiation just as an example: The hawking radiation carries momentum, but the black hole lost the amount of energy needed to create the rest-mass (and the momentum) of the (real, but former virtual) particle.

Your explanation why the optimal exhaust velocity is the ships velocity is flawed, because it only takes into consideration that energy is spend for the kinetic energy of the exhaust. If you would take into consideration that you must spend the energy to create the invariant mass your explanation doesn't work anymore and photon drive becomes the most "efficent".

You will still say: "BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO CREATE THE PARTICLES, YOU JUST USE THE VIRTUAL PARTICLES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE!!!" But you are simply wrong with that. The virtual particles are there, but they have no ability to impart net momentum.

You may invent a sort of zombi-virtual particle that is able to hold momentum like a real particle but will "pop" out of existence. But that is just fantasy! If the particle can hold momentum in that way, it has to become real, and someone had to bay the bill, someone had to spend the energy for that mass.

For example a virtual photon can hold momentum (that it took from an electron), but only if it gives that momentum "immediately" back to maybe another electron. From the outside it looks like the electrons were exchanging momentum directly (over the electromagnetic force). You don't need to spend the energy for that photon, because it keeps beeing virtual because it gives that momentum back immediately. And it can't vanish as long as it holds that momentum, because then one electron would feels a force and the other won't.

If you would use any clever mechanism to "trick" that photon into not giving that momentum to another electron, you do have to spend the amount of energy necessary for that photon to exist (E=hf), and the electron changes mometum without another immediate partner (the momentum is then "really" in the photon). That is a way to visualize accelerating charges sending out photons.

You can't have your cake and eat it to, you can't give net momentum to a bunch of virtual particles without giving them the necessary energy to "exist" as real particles (that is what I mean with "creation" of reaction mass). You are simply wrong about that.

How? Can you name one way we would have noticed an error in our theory of how virtual particles work (and whether it is possible to push off them without expending more energy than the actual change in momentum you impart to them) prior to this?

If that were how virtual particles could behave, you could have accelerated charges without them sending out photons. You could have particles giving of momentum in radom directions to nonexistent partners. You could have the opposite: Particles suddenly gaining momentum without any discernable reason. And that would be constantly happening, all around us, or what is it that makes those em-drive virtual particles more special than any other virtual particle?

The forces would work completely different. The reason the strong force has such a short range is, that the corresponding virtual particles will "pop out of existens" before they could reach another real particle, so they can't actually take any momentum from their source. But if virtual particles could take momentum and "pop out of existens" regardless, all particles would always change their momentum randomly because they will give it to random virtual particles that stop existing before they paid their momentum back.

Edited February 18, 2015 by N_las

[Aanker]

The result isn't that sensational, at least at face value. The experiments should have been carried out in vacuum conditions with many more controls than what were actually used. Because of the media attention however, and maybe the possible implications, we should keep evaluating the 'device' through tests to finally confirm or (more likely) dismiss it.

[Accelerando]

That's just insulting. And you know NOTHING about our relative understanding of physics. I don't pretend to be a physicist, for instance, but I *am* a genius, and have taught myself a lot of physics for fun. I also have taken multiple courses in physics, and was talented enough it the subject that I was the *ONLY* student outside of physics that was recruited into a normally physics majors-only course my freshman year of college... The professor was rather hoping I would switch majors into physics, I think.

Do tell us more.

[Rakaydos]

If you would have read of all of what I said you would have seen how: the effect would be large enough to influence many other things. Or are you claiming that only exactly that metal box with exactly that frequency has any effect¿

Perhaps not that exact metal box, but a standing wave energy gradient (resonator with uneven sides, resulting in greater energy desity on one end than the other without significant sustaining input) is not something that gets tested for often, and doesnt appear in nature much. If the effect is something that requires a standing energy gradient, what other expiriments do you know of that would have detected... whatever this effect would be if true?

[perk]

Perhaps not that exact metal box, but a standing wave energy gradient (resonator with uneven sides, resulting in greater energy desity on one end than the other without significant sustaining input) is not something that gets tested for often, and doesnt appear in nature much. If the effect is something that requires a standing energy gradient, what other expiriments do you know of that would have detected... whatever this effect would be if true?

every single particle accelerator experiment since the dawn of accelerator physics....

the amount of new physics you "propose" is so huge it just doesnt fit the data: https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CombinedSummaryPlots/SM/ATLAS_i_SMSummary_Table/ATLAS_i_SMSummary_Table.png

and no, one box that twitches when electrocuted in atmospheric conditions does not invalidate trillions upon trillions of precisely measured events in hundreds of accelerators in vacuum under precisely controlled gradiant fields, where energy momentum conservation holds true to such a certainty that this whole idea is totally ludicrous...

Edited February 18, 2015 by perk

[Rakaydos]

every single particle accelerator experiment since the dawn of accelerator physics....

the amount of new physics you "propose" is so huge it just doesnt fit the data: https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CombinedSummaryPlots/SM/ATLAS_i_SMSummary_Table/ATLAS_i_SMSummary_Table.png

Can you explain furthur? Specifically, the standing-wave aspect, as it applies to "Every single particle accelerator experiment (ever)"

And please dont have a unicorn in your explanation. I'm tired of unicorns.

[Northstar1989]

If you would have read of all of what I said you would have seen how: the effect would be large enough to influence many other things.

Such as? That's a hand-wave in itself. Provide an example or admit you cannot and are wrong.

If I see a person claiming that cars are run by invisible horses before them, then I know that this person does not know how a car works. It's the same here.

No, it's not. We know how a car works. We DO NOT know how a Cannae/EmDrive works. You have suggested NOTHING more interesting than the results merely being wrong. It would be like a flat-earther saying "we know the world is flat, so Magellan couldn't have possibly sailed around it" and therefore rejecting his achievement EVEN AS MAGELLAN WAS SITTING RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF HIM WITH ARTIFACTS AND FOSSILS FROM HIS VOYAGE.

The Cannae/EmDrive appears to work, and no amount of your saying it "shouldn't" work will change that. So, propose an actual alternative explanation that doesn't violate known principles of physics. But I'm sure you can't do that- otherwise you already would have, and would be published and probably quite famous by now...

Sorry, but self-appointed geniuses are not... well the most accepted people in science. If you really are good, you will be know for your works and results.

I'm not self-appointed. I've been IQ-tested (IQ over 160- which my mother likes to lord over me as hers is over 180). And if you don't believe the test, I *have* accomplished things IN MY FIELD (which is biology).

Not to mention, intelligence =/= results. I've struggled against poor success due to poor parental support (my father was abusive, and used to constantly try to make me think I would amount to nothing, for instance) and people often not liking me, for instance, which has nothing to do with my book-smarts and everything to do with my personality and luck/chance of who my parents were...

Well, some of it still is hard work or studying complicated theories. Self-teaching often ends up with exactly the half-knowledge I mentioned earlier. Better get a serious (!) textbook on physics (not a pop science one), or take lectures. Or, after reading through the pop science version, look up and read the actual papers.

I have other things I'd rather study. Like medical science- since my long-term plan is to become a surgeon.

Sorry, but this really is not that great a feat. I know many (read: 50 or more) people having done better (being an active member of three societies for mathematically gifted and interested students surely helps) that have done greater feats. Please try to have less self-confidence.

No. I will *NOT* try to have less self-confidence. Self-confidence is a good thing, and all I've EVER had to deal with my whole life is people putting me down and devaluing my accomplishments/achievements- even when (especially when) they greatly exceeded those of the people putting me down. Once again, intelligence does not equate to success. It helps, but there's also a strong element of chance and opportunity involved. Some of the smartest people ever born were born in rural India and undeveloped parts of Africa, and didn't accomplish anything until a colonialist Englishman came into their country, recognized their potential, and gave them opportunities. Obviously, my situation isn't quite as bad as their own- but it makes a point that you CANNOT judge a person's intellect purely by what they've accomplished in their life...

May be. but it sounds like you didn't. So why do you think to understand quantum physics when you (form what I get from the above) only heard the basics of physics¿

We actually DID cover some quantum physics- it was more than just a basic physics course.

That being said, much of my understanding comes from discussion/arguments (where I realize when I'm wrong, and go study the subject in more detail if so), independently teaching myself material, etc. I probably would go back and major in physics (or aerospace engineering) if I had a time-machine, since biology has not worked out well for me due to the incredibly desperate funding-situation most labs find themselves in...

I still remember one lab I was in that I was doing very well in, but had not yet reached the point where I had enough experience that I could start my own projects and in any way ensure the lab's success (although the PI in Biology is the only one responsible for/ allowed to write grant-applications most of the time anyways), that ended up running out of funding and had to shut down- leaving me with nothing but a single publication from my effort there. I also haven't done very well in the game of who gets credit for the results- there have been many times where I contributed significantly to another's success, or even did a large part of the work behind their project, but got *absolutely no* credit for it: not even my name in the Acknowledgements sections of the eventual publication... That comes down to social skills- which is a different kind of intelligence.

My request by the way still stands: someone please explain how the virtual particle explanation actually works, using actual physics, not just hand-waving and mixing up theories.

Why don't you suggest an actual theory that works, instead of simply insisting that the results MUST be wrong? One of the marks of a truly intelligent person is the ability to simultaneously entertain multiple possible explanations for a phenomenon- for instance I *do* entertain several theories where the results might simply be wrong, but also entertain this theory involving virtual-particles which is (thus far) the ONLY real explanation that has been made for how the device might actually work, even if I will concur there are some aspects of it that sound rather silly...

Regards,

Northstar

[ZetaX]

Perhaps not that exact metal box, but a standing wave energy gradient (resonator with uneven sides, resulting in greater energy desity on one end than the other without significant sustaining input) is not something that gets tested for often, and doesnt appear in nature much. If the effect is something that requires a standing energy gradient, what other expiriments do you know of that would have detected... whatever this effect would be if true?

Not in nature. In laboratories. You have an energy gradient essentially everywhere you have energy.

Anyway, you are somewhat dodging the problem: if you want to defend the virtual particle explanation, you will need to actually state how that explanation even looks like. "It pushes of virtual particles" is not an explanation by itself, a lot of (all!) details are missing. If those are given, then one can say where exctly we would have already encountered it.

[Northstar1989]

The result isn't that sensational, at least at face value. The experiments should have been carried out in vacuum conditions with many more controls than what were actually used. Because of the media attention however, and maybe the possible implications, we should keep evaluating the 'device' through tests to finally confirm or (more likely) dismiss it.

The results HAVE been replicated in vacuum. Initially they weren't, but they went back and recently (as in within the past 4 weeks) went back and replicated them in vacuum. Haven't you been following the progress/news on the subject?

Regards,

Northstar

[N_las]

Perhaps not that exact metal box, but a standing wave energy gradient (resonator with uneven sides, resulting in greater energy desity on one end than the other without significant sustaining input) is not something that gets tested for often, and doesnt appear in nature much. If the effect is something that requires a standing energy gradient, what other expiriments do you know of that would have detected... whatever this effect would be if true?

For example a laser resonator. You have a standing em-wave in them. The em-intensity in the middle of the resonator is in most cases much greater than to the edges of the resonator (near the mirrors). If that would create any thrust, like described for the em-drive, it would slightly squish or streach the resonator. We would have definetly be able to measure that, because the coherence length of the laser-light is easily measurable and dependent on the length of the resonator. We would always be wondering why the coherence length is always slightly different than expected. That question would come up in almost every single laser, so we would have surly noticed it.

Edited February 18, 2015 by N_las

[Mazon Del]

So I've been thinking about this quite a lot, tossing around the concepts I've been reading up on. One issue I've been having to try and circumvent is this.

For all intents and purposes, a cannae/em Drive is no different than just a random directional microwave radio. The only special thing it has going for it is the enclosed cavity.

So, unless we suddenly find out that directional microwave antennae have been found to have thrusts like this, whatever theory we are operating on needs to address the difference between an enclosed cavity and a freestanding emitter. If it was simply that the microwaves were pushing off of virtual particles, great! But then why is the boxed emitter gaining more thrust than a free emitter? If the microwaves push off the virtual particles, then we should be able to see this effect with a microwave emitter that is not enclosed.

It is quite possible that nobody has hooked up a microwave emitter in such a way as to test the thrust it generates and noticed the discrepancy between the thrust detected vs what a photon drive should be emitting. I find this a 'little' unlikely, but it isn't exactly outside the realm of reality.

Actually, if this turned out to be true (that a freestanding directional antenna observed the cannae/em Drive effect) then I would actually expect a freestanding directional antenna to work BETTER, simply because it doesn't have the 'counter thrust' of the microwaves impacting against it (the whole tossing a ball backwards inside your own ship thing) to slow you down. Unless of course, the effect is super minimal, but the reflections inside the drive itself causes a sort of macro-buildup. This could quite possibly be the case since they actually saw that the cannae drive (the one with slots) had a slightly worse output than the one without the slots in the technical documents I read. Very slightly worse, but consistently slightly worse. If this is the case then that might mean some interesting ways on how to design the drives for better performance, such as utilizing surfaces/materials designed to maximize reflections.

Just some mad ramblings. Thoughts?

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not trying to disprove the virtual particles thing, I'm just trying to figure out this discrepancy.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Mazon Del

[Sean Mirrsen]

I'd just like to point out that I've mentioned the "rule of exceptions" in the other thread, which the "this specific box at this specific frequency" idea applies to. The universe is full of variables we can't see and predict yet - trying to do something usual in a highly specific, unusual, or otherwise unique way may have unexpected results.

[perk]

Can you explain furthur? Specifically, the standing-wave aspect, as it applies to "Every single particle accelerator experiment (ever)"

And please dont have a unicorn in your explanation. I'm tired of unicorns.

Every single particle accelerator experiment ever shows that your idea that this drive breaks energy momentum conservation by the amount required to explain the anomalous thrust is bogus.

for your moving the goalposts again and again: read up how linear particle accelerators work, there are several types with resonant cavities which have exactly the standing wave and gradiant behaviour (to actually accelerate the particles, no gradiant no acceleration) you desire.. but i guess you will still close your eyes, quote some technobabble and belive that there lives a plesiosaur population in the trevi fountain in rome since its construction, that went unnoticed so far.

[Rakaydos]

Not in nature. In laboratories. You have an energy gradient essentially everywhere you have energy.

Anyway, you are somewhat dodging the problem: if you want to defend the virtual particle explanation, you will need to actually state how that explanation even looks like. "It pushes of virtual particles" is not an explanation by itself, a lot of (all!) details are missing. If those are given, then one can say where exctly we would have already encountered it.

Well, lets try this one: the virtual particles are created (virtual) on one end of the cavity. (because of the energy gradient, this is more likely to happen on one end of the cavity than the other) They interact with that end of the cavity, picking up a momentum debt as it pushes the craft foreward. It then travels to the other end of the cavity, interacts and pays off it's momentum debt, stopping the craft and becoming fully virtual again, vanishing in a puff of not-real. But because the particle had momentum energy as it traveled the length of the cavity (again, this is normally an omidirectional effect and thus self-canceling- only the energy gradient of the asymmetic resonator creates a directional bias) the cavity itself gaines an opposite momentum until the second interaction stopped it. Repeated for every virtual particle to spawn in the high energy end (minus the virtual particles that spawn in the low energy end, that convey reverse momentum) this becomes a measurable effect, despite relying on virtual intereactions.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Rakaydos

[technicalfool]

Can we continue this thread without public accusations of trollage and implications of idiocy?

Thankyou.

[ZetaX]

Such as? That's a hand-wave in itself. Provide an example or admit you cannot and are wrong.

How exactly do you expect me to disprove a "theory" that is lacking any statement beyond "the drive works that way"¿ Someone finally give an actual physics description of it, then we talk.

No, it's not. We know how a car works. We DO NOT know how a Cannae/EmDrive works.

But we know how the known parts of physics work (conservation of momentum; quantum physics, especially virtual particles; depending on how you look at it also conservation of energy). You have shown that you do not understand them. Therefore we conclude that you don't know physics. So this is not at all based on the EM-Drive.

The Cannae/EmDrive appears to work, and no amount of your saying it "shouldn't" work will change that.

If you would at least read what I write (because I have implied that at least three times) you would know that I am not debating the correctness of the measurements here. Whatever, assume it works. That still is zero evidence for the later-proposed technobabble with virtual particles.

So, propose an actual alternative explanation that doesn't violate known principles of physics. But I'm sure you can't do that- otherwise you already would have, and would be published and probably quite famous by now...

I already gave a few (really, read all my posts instead of picking out some).

I'm not self-appointed. I've been IQ-tested (IQ over 160- which my mother likes to lord over me as hers is over 180).

Yeah, right... Sorry, but this claim does not make it any more believable.

And if you don't believe the test, I *have* accomplished things IN MY FIELD (which is biology).

And I should take this at face value¿ And no, this is not a call for showing me them. It's just that I am talking to a random guy on the internet that claims to be a great genius; why exactly should I believe any of that¿

And why is this even relevant to your physics claims¿ I could point out several cases where really good scientists where horribly wrong (and stupid) when talking about other fields; just yesterday I read Kurt Gödel's statements on there being no way humans could have evolved (he says it is as likely as the atmosphere suddenly sorting itself), which are... not very correct.

Not to mention, intelligence =/= results. I've struggled against poor success due to poor parental support (my father was abusive, and used to constantly try to make me think I would amount to nothing, for instance) and people often not liking me, for instance, which has nothing to do with my book-smarts and everything to do with my personality and luck/chance of who my parents were...

It might not have to do with your "book-smarts", but it might (and this is meant seriously and as an advice, not as an insult) of you insisting on being correct due to how great a genius you are. It is really just sounding arrogant (and that's why I recommended less self-confidence, because yours looks way too high, regardless of your past).

We actually DID cover some quantum physics- it was more than just a basic physics course.

If it was a single course, heck even if it ws less than ten courses, I am doubtful that it could have dealt with all the details of quantum mechanics (no, I am not talking about very specialised knowledge, just about the stuff everyone actually using it should know).

That being said, much of my understanding comes from discussion/arguments (where I realize when I'm wrong, and go study the subject in more detail if so), independently teaching myself material, etc. I probably would go back and major in physics (or aerospace engineering) if I had a time-machine, since biology has not worked out well for me due to the incredibly desperate funding-situation most labs find themselves in...

That I can actually believe from what I've hear from biology/medicine. Same goes for someone not getting assigned credit for his work.

Why don't you suggest an actual theory that works, instead of simply insisting that the results MUST be wrong?

Again: I did not claim the results are wrong. The theory is. I also already explained to someone else why having no theory is better than just making one up.

One of the marks of a truly intelligent person is the ability to simultaneously entertain multiple possible explanations for a phenomenon- for instance I *do* entertain several theories where the results might simply be wrong, but also entertain this theory involving virtual-particles which is (thus far) the ONLY real explanation that has been made for how the device might actually work, even if I will concur there are some aspects of it that sound rather silly...

I don't dispute the first part, but you are entertaining a theory that is really not more than technobabble (to repeat myself: if you think otherwise, actually state the theory in full, because nobody has done so and searching on the web also only brings up layman level stuff).

[N_las]

Well, lets try this one: the virtual particles are created (virtual) on one end of the cavity. (because of the energy gradient, this is more likely to happen on one end of the cavity than the other) They interact with that end of the cavity, picking up a momentum debt as it pushes the craft foreward. It then travels to the other end of the cavity, interacts and pays off it's momentum debt, stopping the craft, becoming fully virtual again, and vanishes in a puff of not-real. But because the particle had momentum energy as it traveled the length of the cavity (again, this is normally an omidirectional effect and thus self-canceling- only the energy gradient of the asymmetic resonator creates a directional bias) the cavity itself gaines an opposite momentum until the second interaction stopped it. Repeated for every virtual particle to spawn in the high energy end (minus the virtual particles that spawn in the low energy end, that convey reverse momentum) this becomes a measurable effect, despite relying on virtual intereactions.

On a macroscopic level this wouldn't look like the box having momentum for a short time, then stopping, then having momentum, then stopping. The box isn't one big rigid object. It would look like the opposite walls imparting a force on each other, like a pressure inside the cavity. The forces on the opposite walls would be exactly identical.

Edited February 18, 2015 by N_las

[ZetaX]

Can we continue this thread without public accusations of trollage and implications of idiocy?

Thankyou.

I am sorry if I sounded that way (don't know if you meant me), thus:

@everyone: please take my posts as honestly meant advices and not as something else. If I really want to insult you, you will know. I am always trying to very direct in what I say; if I didn't directly call you an idiot, it was probably also not meant to mean that.