Speaking of virtual particles, have there been any attempts to quantify the radiation spewing out of the apparatus? Something like harmonics of 0.511MeV would be a dead giveaway to solving how this thing works (though I highly doubt it is this simple)...
Quote from: CW on 05/01/2015 01:18 pmRegarding 1):Virtual particle pairs only exist for an extremely short time and then vanish again. One question I already asked elsewhere is: If virtual particle pairs gained momentum and they afterwards 'disappeared' again, where would the momentum go?I just answered your question in the post you replied to...let me try explaining it again...under White's theory, if a virtual particle absorbs the momentum, then it must transfer the momentum to a different particle before it disappears. In the vacuum of empty space, that means it propagates from one virtual particle to the next creating a wave, until the wave reaches a non-virtual particle to absorb the momentum.
Regarding 1):Virtual particle pairs only exist for an extremely short time and then vanish again. One question I already asked elsewhere is: If virtual particle pairs gained momentum and they afterwards 'disappeared' again, where would the momentum go?
Also, if you use the wrong solution method or too large of a timestep (or too small, sometimes!) but the equations are right, you can easily have a simulation which does not conserve energy.Heck, if you've ever written an orbital mechanics simulation using the simple Euler's method, you often end up with your planets flung out to the stars or changing in orbits unless you use a really, really small step size (but then you get into problems with rounding!).tl;dr: Computer simulations are no way to prove this thing works. It's easy to glitch them (by accident) into screwing up the physics. And, of course, they are no better than their underlying assumptions (and often are worse...).
Quote from: SH on 05/01/2015 02:32 pmQuote from: CW on 05/01/2015 01:18 pmRegarding 1):Virtual particle pairs only exist for an extremely short time and then vanish again. One question I already asked elsewhere is: If virtual particle pairs gained momentum and they afterwards 'disappeared' again, where would the momentum go?I just answered your question in the post you replied to...let me try explaining it again...under White's theory, if a virtual particle absorbs the momentum, then it must transfer the momentum to a different particle before it disappears. In the vacuum of empty space, that means it propagates from one virtual particle to the next creating a wave, until the wave reaches a non-virtual particle to absorb the momentum.Or maybe they don't disappear again at all? Hawking radiation is one known example where the addition of energy to a virtual particle pair can promote them into real particles; and that concept's been pretty rigorously analyzed. Maybe that's what's happening here: the energy is promoting virtual particles into real particles and the drive is exchanging momentum between the spacecraft and real particle pairs.
Or maybe they don't disappear again at all? Hawking radiation is one known example where the addition of energy to a virtual particle pair can promote them into real particles; and that concept's been pretty rigorously analyzed. Maybe that's what's happening here: the energy is promoting virtual particles into real particles and the drive is exchanging momentum between the spacecraft and real particle pairs.
Quote from: wes_wilson on 05/01/2015 04:59 pmQuote from: SH on 05/01/2015 02:32 pmQuote from: CW on 05/01/2015 01:18 pmRegarding 1):Virtual particle pairs only exist for an extremely short time and then vanish again. One question I already asked elsewhere is: If virtual particle pairs gained momentum and they afterwards 'disappeared' again, where would the momentum go?I just answered your question in the post you replied to...let me try explaining it again...under White's theory, if a virtual particle absorbs the momentum, then it must transfer the momentum to a different particle before it disappears. In the vacuum of empty space, that means it propagates from one virtual particle to the next creating a wave, until the wave reaches a non-virtual particle to absorb the momentum.Or maybe they don't disappear again at all? Hawking radiation is one known example where the addition of energy to a virtual particle pair can promote them into real particles; and that concept's been pretty rigorously analyzed. Maybe that's what's happening here: the energy is promoting virtual particles into real particles and the drive is exchanging momentum between the spacecraft and real particle pairs.That's also a problem. If virtual particles do appear, gain momentum then disappear, momentum conservation seems to be violated. If the virtual particles are promoted as real particles as you suggest and don't disappear, they gain momentum and conservation is preserved, but since they don't escape the cavity (which is hermetically closed) all the momentum sums to zero and there is no thrust, i.e. no EmDrive. [EDIT: it's even worse than that since in a pair production, one particle is an antiparticle, see SH answer just below]
Hawking radiation is only present at the event horizon of a black hole because, in order for it to occur, one of the virtual particles in the pair must be sucked into the black hole while the other managed to escape. This essentially prevents the one that escaped from disappearing back into the vacuum, and energy is conserved because the positive energy of the escaped particle is cancelled out by the negative energy of the particle that got sucked into the black hole, which effectively reduces the black hole's externally measurable mass.
Let us not forget:Kepler’s laws gave us a beautiful and powerfully predictive description of the Solar System: planets orbiting in ellipses with the Sun at its center. Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity gave us the physics that explained Kepler’s laws but also showed that they weren’t perfect. Centuries later, Einstein’s General Relativity gave us our modern picture of gravity, showing that Newton’s gravity isn’t quite right. Science progresses by overthrowing old theories and showing that they are wrong… only, very often, the term “wrong” is over-simplistic, hiding subtleties in how science really progresses.First presented in Second Life on June 6, 2008.There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.DJ
Quote from: SH on 05/01/2015 05:30 pmHawking radiation is only present at the event horizon of a black hole because, in order for it to occur, one of the virtual particles in the pair must be sucked into the black hole while the other managed to escape. This essentially prevents the one that escaped from disappearing back into the vacuum, and energy is conserved because the positive energy of the escaped particle is cancelled out by the negative energy of the particle that got sucked into the black hole, which effectively reduces the black hole's externally measurable mass.What you've just said assumes that antiparticles have a negative energy, which has not been proven, and it would rather be the opposite as the various papers and experiments on that subject seems to tell us that antimatter has a positive mass. Thus positive energy.Antimatter (as per Dirac) is C-symmetry. But charge conjugation does not reverse energy. T-symmetry does. Feynman imagined another type of antiparticles, with PT-Symmetry. Those beasts would have a negative energy, and negative mass (if they have one). But they have never been observed.
if momentum is being anomalously generated by a particular configuration of electric and magnetic fields, all fields must create some momentum as Maxwell's equations are linear[/b]
Hello, I have been following Dr. White's publications with interest since he revived the Alcubierre concept in 2003. I have a few comments and questions below....(3) Evidence in support of the QVP being mutable. a) the force measurements of the EM-drive, b) the Casimir effect, c) as explained here (http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/02/more-emdrive-experiment-information.html), apparently Dr. White was able to show that the electron shell radii of all atoms up to atomic number 7 can be predicted based on the asumption that QVP is mutable. I haven't read the details of that and would be curious to read where this is published if anyone knows. d) A generic property of inflationary cosmology (as written about by Hawking, Alan Guth, Hartle, Turok, Pasachoff, Filippenko, Stenger, Vilenkin and others) is that the universe began from a small quantum fluctuation from the ground state, as stated by Vilenkin "small amount of energy was contained in that [initial] curvature, somewhat like the energy stored in a strung bow. This ostensible violation of energy conservation is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for sufficiently small time intervals. The bubble then inflated exponentially and the universe grew by many orders of magnitude in a tiny fraction of a second". Thus, it seems that inflationary cosmology is founded on a principle of mutable QVP as well....
Quote from: wes_wilson on 05/01/2015 04:59 pmQuote from: SH on 05/01/2015 02:32 pmQuote from: CW on 05/01/2015 01:18 pmRegarding 1):Virtual particle pairs only exist for an extremely short time and then vanish again. One question I already asked elsewhere is: If virtual particle pairs gained momentum and they afterwards 'disappeared' again, where would the momentum go?I just answered your question in the post you replied to...let me try explaining it again...under White's theory, if a virtual particle absorbs the momentum, then it must transfer the momentum to a different particle before it disappears. In the vacuum of empty space, that means it propagates from one virtual particle to the next creating a wave, until the wave reaches a non-virtual particle to absorb the momentum.Or maybe they don't disappear again at all? Hawking radiation is one known example where the addition of energy to a virtual particle pair can promote them into real particles; and that concept's been pretty rigorously analyzed. Maybe that's what's happening here: the energy is promoting virtual particles into real particles and the drive is exchanging momentum between the spacecraft and real particle pairs.That's also a problem. If virtual particles do appear, gain momentum then disappear, momentum conservation seems to be violated. If the virtual particles are promoted as real particles as you suggest and don't disappear, they gain momentum and conservation is preserved, but since they don't escape the cavity (which is hermetically closed) all the momentum sums to zero and there is no thrust, i.e. no EmDrive.
Hi Everyone,I am an RF engineer in the Microwave Instrument Technology Branch at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. I had seen a few articles here and there about the EM drive and today it caught my eye on IO9.com. While I have only spent the last hour or so reviewing what has been done to eliminated external factors to explain the phenomenon I would like to offer my two-cents. If what I'm suggesting as an explanation has already been eliminated, I apologize.Have you considered the effects of breakdown, and in particular multipaction and corona generation? Multipaction breakdown events are known phenomenon on the RF radar and communication systems community. Essentially, at high RF powers you see an effect similar to arcing within your components. This arcing can occur between conductors and dielectrics or even between conductors in vacuum. Sharp edges such as welds and fasteners - particularly in a cavity resonator such as this - can cause these events. This result is damage to the interior conductor and particle generation (even in metal-only situations) as material is "burned." In this case, the metal walls and / or contaminants of your cavity would serve as the propellant. Corona / plasma can then develop from this particle release and exacerbate the situation.Better descriptions can be found here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipactor_effecthttp://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/multipaction As a real world example, I am the lead engineer for the Radiometer Front End on the recently launched Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) Mission. (http://smap.jpl.nasa.gov/) We had a terrible problem with multipaction in our RF diplexer which was a cavity resonator - similar to your setup. These devices are essentially three-port band-pass filters whose resonant frequencies are set by the physical dimensions of the (mostly) empty cavity. Picture an empty aluminum box about 10'' x 5'' x 5''. We saw damaging breakdown events beginning around 350W at 1.2GHz which is the nominal operating point of our radar. It took several design iterations and many months to totally eliminate various sources of breakdown including sharp edges, gas trapped by resonator pucks, tuning screws, etc. While your cavity and ours arn't exactly the same one could say the situations are quite similar. The NASA Eagleworks system operated at 935MHz at (?)W, Roger Shawyer 2.45GHz at 850W, and Dr Yang at (?)MHz at 2.5KW (apologize if these missing values have been published, I didn't immediately see them). In a nutshell, at these power levels I would be surprised if your systems were not multipacting to some degree as designing a cavity that does not have breakdown at these levels takes a good deal of expertise on the nuances of the issue. So as multipaction events are particle generators these could produce the force you are seeing. What order of magnitude force we would see I havn't the foggiest. But if I were an independent reviewer of your technology I would first ask that you prove this cannot be explained by multipaction. Or show that even if multipaction were occuring the magnitude of the forces involved cannot be explained. These events can be observed by monitoring the RF power level passing through, or in your case reflecting, from a system. An ideal setup would be to add an RF coupler between your magnetron and the cavity and observe the return loss into the system as power is slowly ramped up. You will see a reflected power loss as the energy is converted into the events described. A further test would be to have your resonator opened and carefully inspected by an expert as burn marks and other evidence can be detected optically. Good luck, I can pass you some names off-line if that is of interest. If you havn't already, it would be useful to consult a high-power RF engineer, not necessarily and EM physicist (sorry guys! ). As stated, I am not an expert on this phenomenon but if there are further questions I can perhaps pass them along.-Joseph Knuble(Also, I hope I'm wrong!)
The existence of multipaction is dependent on the following four conditions being met:The mean free path of the electrons should be (much) greater then the spacing between the opposing surfaces, which is normally only the case in good vacuum and without any further obstruction in the way (no other di-electricum).The average number of electrons released is greater than one which is dependent on the secondary electron yield of the surface, which in turn is dependent on the field strength (RF power) between the surfaces.The time taken by the electron to travel from the surface from which it was released to the surface it impacts with, is to be an integer multiple of one half of the RF period (resonance).The availability of free electrons to start of the release of secondary electrons.(In space, free electrons are released from the surfaces by high energy particles, while during on-ground testing they are provided by a radioactive source (strontium 90) or an electron gun)