Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

My question here is how is it circumventing the law of conservation of momentum, if in fact the fuel source in and of itself is electromagnetic microwaves? That's a force in physics in its own right. Or am I wrong here?

The thrust exhibited is orders of magnitude greater than "light pressure." (The momentum conserved by emitting photons).  Eg, bouncing the photons around inside the cavity creates thrust that exceeds what you would get from venting those photons out the back of the ship.  This is an over unity situation, and that needs to be taken up SOMEWHERE, or physics is being broken.  In this, conservation of momentum.

some of the suggested reasons involve constraints on the pilot wave from other fields being saturated. eg, because there are lots of photons trapped inside the cavity, they are eating up capacity for other particles to ride in that region of space, creating assymetries. 

again, big ifs involved here.

the experiment requires replication.  maybe since this was now published in a real journal, other labs will test and publish.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

TL;DR: Science builds on top of itself. The foundation will never be thrown away; some speculative scaffolding on the top may. Also, I'm preaching to the choir and tilting at windmills.

This I do not agree with. While the foundations of physics will never be suddenly eliminated, our advancements are not limited to the speculative and uncertain. The issue is that we do not necessarily know that our understanding of the "foundation" is complete, and in fact it probably isn't. Higgs boson, Special relativity, dark matter, how gravity functions, etc. The context of these discoveries can alter our context all the way down to the most basic assumptions, and change all of them as a result.

Ah, perhaps I was unclear. The "foundations" of physics, as I use the term, are the older, more easily testable models; theories about that which underlies all matter would not be "foundational" in my analogy.

My point is essentially that modern physics will still be valid except for in corner cases. We won't "throw anything out."

For example, if the EM Drive were to function properly, you might end up with "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, except for resonance carried through radiation of energy". Which would fundamentally alter damn near everything else that follows it, but in a way we were able to miss up until now due to existing presumption and lack of good experiments because of Earth's gravity.

Not that I have changed my bet that the EM Drive won't work.

Well yes, it would fundamentally change what comes after it, but the existing foundations, as a special case, will remain relatively unchanged.


The "foundations" of physics, that is, our understanding of the very very small things and how they interact, are most definitely going to be modified or perhaps even thrown out. My point was really just windmill-tilting, as I have been speaking with UTTER IDIOTS who think that "science has been wrong before" so of course N3L and T3L wouldn't apply. Which is how they built a UFO in their backyard. Yeah, no.

(Newton's Three Laws and the Thermodynamic Three Laws, that is)

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

The virtual particle theory is also implicated in other theoretical phenomena, like hawking radiation, where the antimassed virtual particle falls into the event horizon, and the massed one does not, resulting in mass zipping away from the black hole's horizon in the form of radiation, while the mass of the singularity is reduced, as it absorbs the antimass of the particles streaming in, causing annihilation

Okay, everything's making sense, this is a good explanation

and turning the mass into spacetime to satisfy the field equations.

WHAT THE HELL

WHAT IS THAT EVEN SUPPOSED TO MEAN

[Il Palazzo]

I want to know exactly what those criticisms are.

If you're by any chance an SA on physics forums, there's a thread in the SA lounge (otherwise hidden).
Here are some highlights from that thread regarding the paper:
- no discussion of statistical methods
- reporting numbers many times as precise as the capabilities of the instrument
- measurements excluding each other to high significance (no consistency)
- fitting the data without intercept (at least that how it looks like, since no discussion of statistics is given)
- the slope fitted for force vs power (fig 19) is wishful thinking - you can just as well fit a flat line with these data
- discussion of pilot waves and virtual particles is pure informal speculation and outside the journal's narrow specialisation.

[wierd]

The virtual particle theory is also implicated in other theoretical phenomena, like hawking radiation, where the antimassed virtual particle falls into the event horizon, and the massed one does not, resulting in mass zipping away from the black hole's horizon in the form of radiation, while the mass of the singularity is reduced, as it absorbs the antimass of the particles streaming in, causing annihilation

Okay, everything's making sense, this is a good explanation

and turning the mass into spacetime to satisfy the field equations.

WHAT THE HELL

WHAT IS THAT EVEN SUPPOSED TO MEAN

The virtual particle pair erupts spontaneously from empty space. This happens all the time. Normally, this pair annihilates basically instantly, and all is well. The energy of the particles returns to being spacetime.

However, when part of the pair falls into the horizon, it cannot self annihilate, and the energy does not get returned. To satisfy the requirement of returning that energy, part of the singularity gets annihilated instead.

[Il Palazzo]

The virtual particle theory is also implicated in other theoretical phenomena, like hawking radiation, where the antimassed virtual particle falls into the event horizon, and the massed one does not, resulting in mass zipping away from the black hole's horizon in the form of radiation, while the mass of the singularity is reduced, as it absorbs the antimass of the particles streaming in, causing annihilation

Okay, everything's making sense, this is a good explanation

and turning the mass into spacetime to satisfy the field equations.

WHAT THE HELL

WHAT IS THAT EVEN SUPPOSED TO MEAN

The virtual particle pair erupts spontaneously from empty space. This happens all the time. Normally, this pair annihilates basically instantly, and all is well. The energy of the particles returns to being spacetime.

However, when part of the pair falls into the horizon, it cannot self annihilate, and the energy does not get returned. To satisfy the requirement of returning that energy, part of the singularity gets annihilated instead.

No, wierd - you're spreading misconceptions. See here:
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/hawking
and here
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuation-myth/

[Putnam]

"Antimass" almost definitely isn't a thing. All evidence points towards antimatter having mass and all that implies. I don't even know what "antimass" would mean?

[wierd]

Better is "negative energy gradient", or " inverted spacial curvature".

Antimatter and antimass are most definitely not the same thing.

Antimatter has opposite charge sign, but interacts with the higgs field in exactly the same way.

Antimass, is what you get when instead of tight coupling to the field, the field wants to exclude it.

The bad visual analogy, is if normal mass makes a "dent" on spacetime, antimass makes a "hill."

Now, the deal with prior talk:

You don't need actual antimassed exotic matter, if you can selectively reinforce a pilot wave that can only be ridden by "virtual" particles with that property.  A virtual particle is an excitation state, that is not self sustaining.

Bad visual analogy: when you wiggle a string, if forms a sinusoid wave. Part of the wave dips down, and part arches up. The combined dip and arch can be thought of as a pair of antiparticles. The excitation of the string manifests these artifacts.  The bohm interpretation says that particles ride such "pilot waves", following some rules, which exclude particles riding on certain parts of the wave. Since part of the wave is favorable to " antimass" type interaction (strongly excludes normal mass), and the other part is favorable to a normal mass type interaction (strongly excludes antimass),  and the wave is subject to self interference from reflections, etc, effective pockets of antimass terms can be herded together in one region, and the normal mass terms on the other, and you get something like the alcubiere metric without the need for real antimassed particles. Virtual ones will work fine.

It is important to realize that these are Not "real" though. They are just the manifestation of certain parts of the excitation. Real particles are persistent excitations, that don't need additional energy to stay around. (According to Copenhagen.) These antimass terms will collapse with the virtual mass terms when you stop jiggling the rope.

No real particle with an antimass term has been experimentally observed. I doubt that they would be stable excitations in our universe.

[Il Palazzo]

Somebody hold me, he's doing his thing again. It's gradient now is it?

[wierd]

What else do you call something that is only a manifestation of an external excitation.

I could well say the same thing, but with "riding his impossibly high horse again."

[Il Palazzo]

I don't know what you would call that, whatever that is supposed to mean. But I do know that my bicycle has wheels that have both negative and positive energy gradient across their diameter - as long as they're spinning. I guess they're half made of anti-mass.

[Max™]

Again, that the mechanism they claim is responsible kinda leads inexorably downuphill towards "WEEEE NEGATIVE ENERGY WARP WAVES FOR EVERYONE" land is a big problem.

I want them to be right, wormholes and warp drives and shit would be way more exciting toys to play with than a 1.2 mN/kW reactionless drive, but I expect there is a much more mundane explanation involved, maybe something interesting involving the nature of the vacuum might be learned in the process.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If there is anything about physics I was going to bank on to be the breaker, it'd be exotic forms of matter and energy. We're pretty clear on the actual, not theoretical, existence of at least some of it. I fully believe we're going to get access to some extreme practical effects not attainable otherwise once we get a method of production. Like, on the level of widespread chemical synthesis in terms of changing the world.

Even if we ended at monopoles and antimatter, that'd be revolutionary.

[wierd]

I don't know what you would call that, whatever that is supposed to mean. But I do know that my bicycle has wheels that have both negative and positive energy gradient across their diameter - as long as they're spinning. I guess they're half made of anti-mass.

More like the computed wave mechanics of the flowave experiment.

The solenoids that push the water in the pool have a positive, and a negative motion in relation to the waves they make, because they move forward, then retract again.

Does this balanced nature somehow prevent the operators from engaging both parts of the resulting waves in constructive and deconstructive reinforcement through clever reflections and timing?

No.

Can they make a momentary high peak excitation through reinforcement?

Yes they can.

Can they make a momentary deep depression on the water's surface using the same methods?

Yes they can.

Can they make standing wave gradients persist on the surface of the water using these methods?

Yes they can.

Does it all stop and seek to return to the ground state when they turn off the agitators?

Yes it does.

I must call "hyperbolic bullshit" on your bicycle analogy.

[Il Palazzo]

I think you've never calculated a gradient, is your problem.