I have to correct you the "Conservation of Momentum" is an out of date theory that we have know to be wrong since the 1880's. The correct theory to use is the "Conservation of Energy", of which this device does not violate. I repeat there is no violation of physics with this device, all it does is convert electrical energy to mechanical energy in a way that hasn't been done before. Time will tell if a steam powered turbine will be more efficient then burning fuel. Or more correctly would the engine of a nuclear power aircraft carrier/ submarine, (replace the propeller with a generator), be better suited to space travel then that of a slow burning bullet, i.e. current rockets.
Physics-Defying Space Drive Confirmed by NASA, May Revolutionize Spaceflight
- Thread starter Rhykker
- Start date
QFT.theluckyjosh said:
The control group (the null target) and the sample both showed positive, so the result isn't statistically significant. The way I read that abstract, the authors are fully aware of that and are proposing improvements to the experiment to increase accuracy.
it was designed to not produce thrust in a working fashion. So any thrust generated would be from environmental influences(heated metal).Lightknight said:
That's the point of the null, you eliminate influences that can change the data.
I think the idea behind the quote is not that the null drive was designed so that it could not produce thrust, but that the designers didn't think it would produce thrust. It's not that it was modified not to product thrust, it was more like following the directions to make it and thinking, "this will never work" but then it did.Lightknight said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-momentum_tensor#Conservation_lawJeremy Robison said:
Conservation of the energy momentum tensor is a cornerstone of just about every relativistc theory I can think of (be in quantum field theory or general relativity). It is NOT an outdated concept. I'm not even going to MENTION the rest of that crazy post.
That is most definitely not what "designed with expectation" means. It means, in every scientific context, "designed with a goal in mind".COMaestro said:
I would keep my pants on until this is accurately confirmed 20 times over by different parties.
This thing could have easily affected the result by sheer magnetic forces, heat difference or plainly manipulating the instruments.
Yes I could see an electron cannon working in the proposed way, but at that point electrons become the propellant that is lost so we are back to square one.
This thing could have easily affected the result by sheer magnetic forces, heat difference or plainly manipulating the instruments.
Yes I could see an electron cannon working in the proposed way, but at that point electrons become the propellant that is lost so we are back to square one.
Exactly.lacktheknack said:
What we really need to know is the difference in thrust performance between the null thruster and the thruster in question. Big difference and it doesn't matter, same or similar number and the environment is causative or flawed somehow.
The wording of the abstract is that they made it not to produce thrust and were actually surprised when it did.direkiller said:
That's why the abstract says both produced thrust "EVEN THOUGH". Implying that the null one should not have produced thrust. I'm unsure why you disagree. It may not have provided thrust in amounts similar to the other article.
As far as heated metal producing significant thrust, I'm not convinced it would ever produce significant thrust or anything along those lines. Maybe if you pass propellants across a heated metal grid or something, but that's a traditional thrust generation technique.
Wait, the law persists at quantum levels? I was pretty sure this one broke down and was inconsistent in quantum mechanics. Is that not the case?giles said:
Even at the quantum level energy is conserved... ultimately. It at least has to be conserved "on average" at the quantum level, otherwise it wouldn't be true for the rest of physics right?Lightknight said:
Hm, I don't think I'm smart enough to explain quantum field theory to a non-physicist without writing a book about it... err.. but the basics structure one would motivate it from is classical field theory, which knows an energy-momentum tensor that is a scalar (gives number at every space-time point). Examples of a classical field theory are electromagnetism and hydrodynamics. In such theories the energy-momentum tensor comes from "translational symmetry", which is just a complicated way of saying "we think the laws of physics should be the same everywhere". Through some cute maths this results in a conserved current which we call the energy momentum tensor.
Now, in a quantum field theory one can do the same (because it's formulated in the same way as classical field theory), but the "fields" are now "operators", which act on particle and vacuum "states" (vacuum = "there is no particle", "particle"="something is there with momentum p and mass m" etc.). One would thus have an energy-momentum "operator". This is basically the reason why you would get confused about the energy-momentum tensor in the first place - it's now tied to some weird operator which can only measured through his statistical properties.
I'm not sure how interested you are in the fine print, but quantum field theory (QFT) is actually rather complex when you try to entangle it and I've already deleted quite a bit of half-true junk I had written down... err... well the gist of it is:
If we look to deeply we will probably trip over our own feet. At large times (for example at scattering experiments) we will always find energy to be conserved. I've actually seen a talk (http://pirsa.org/11010111/ warning: super advanced) about a group of physicists working on a "unifying" theory with the idea that all QFT needs to do is give "large time results" (scattering amplitudes), so we should be happy with that statement... I guess
edit: Seems like it ended up being longish and nonsensical regardless. I can only attribute this to my inadequacy. I have only taught physics students so far and it doesn't seem to translate well to a more general audience. Sorry.
I thought it was a relatively simple thing to work out how this fits with our existing laws of physics.
Thrust = Release of energy
Microwaves = energy carrier
The drive takes the energy carrier and releases the energy from it.
Release of energy = Thrust
Thrust = Release of energy
Microwaves = energy carrier
The drive takes the energy carrier and releases the energy from it.
Release of energy = Thrust
So yeah RADAR imparts physical energy onto the cone that pushes the ship forward. Based on the angle of impact on the cone. they might get a better thrust if they use a proper feed horn into the cone. Theory is based on knowledge of RADAR gained from electronics training, standing under an antenna feeling the prickly's when getting pulsed, and figure 1 from this abstract [link]http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf [/link]page 3. I would really need to see a better schematic of their antenna to prove my theory, and find the exact wave guide dimensions they used. The thrust wouldn't be all that much though and probably has been happening since we invented RADAR. We just couldn't measure the effects till now. Could eventually build up to something great in a vacuum.
Wow, the author needs to learn some basic physics before writing articles that claim laws of physics are broken. First and foremost, every law we know is technically wrong at some level of scale, all laws of physics as we know doesn't work at the moment of the big bang or in the center of a black hole. We're still missing a unified theory of everything.
Having said that, this device does NOT violate the law of conservation of momentum. Most devices we build today requires more than classical physics to explain. Momentum is NOT the same as mass! That's what the author seems to imply. Rocket fuel is heavy, aka mass. No rocket fuel, no mass. The classical definition of momentum is mass times velocity, so no mass, no momentum. But as I said, modern day devices requires more than classical physics, enter relativity and quantum mechanics. Microwave is EM radiation, like light, just longer wavelength. Light has no mass, but it most definitely has momentum. Therefore this device propels a ship in the same way a conventional rocket engine does, exchange of momentum. (This is sometimes known as radiation pressure, the idea of using giant solar panels as "sails" in space is based on radiation pressure from the sun's light.) So in reality, the conservation of momentum is NOT violated in anyway.
Having said that, this device does NOT violate the law of conservation of momentum. Most devices we build today requires more than classical physics to explain. Momentum is NOT the same as mass! That's what the author seems to imply. Rocket fuel is heavy, aka mass. No rocket fuel, no mass. The classical definition of momentum is mass times velocity, so no mass, no momentum. But as I said, modern day devices requires more than classical physics, enter relativity and quantum mechanics. Microwave is EM radiation, like light, just longer wavelength. Light has no mass, but it most definitely has momentum. Therefore this device propels a ship in the same way a conventional rocket engine does, exchange of momentum. (This is sometimes known as radiation pressure, the idea of using giant solar panels as "sails" in space is based on radiation pressure from the sun's light.) So in reality, the conservation of momentum is NOT violated in anyway.
yes but you can pluck an atomic reactor there and be set for hundreds of years of travel. no refills either.Kevin Cross said:
sorry but i cant take any person seriously who will ignore science for some imagined nicer style (latex isnt as beatiful as its called upon and nowadays is pretty much useless to begin with)giles said:
Except that NASA has constantly delivered on the promises for decades and Peter Molyneux hasnt even once. so i would not consider it a good comparison.BigTuk said:
also your second pragraph is why were not actually sending people out there but instead searching for a way to do it faster.