Quote from: Rodal on 10/03/2014 12:16 amEDIT: Let's call the point at which constitutive statements are attached to Woodward's theory, a "W theory," such that "W theory" stands for the whole theory including any attached constitutive statement.So even if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, at the point that Woodward's theory becomes a constitutive theory, it does not follow that actual materials would have to behave as prescribed by "W theory" with a Buldrini factor >0. I think that Buldrini understood this and that's why he allowed his "fudge factors" to range all the way from zero (for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect).Only experiments would be able to show whether they do or do not. However, if one were to accept "W theory" on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey it, the interesting possibility could still be raised whether such a "W theory" material could be eventually be man-made (to allow propellant-less drives) as for example now we are able to make isotropic materials with very negative Poisson's ratio that don't exist in nature. (The experiments that are trying to verify Woodward's effect now are limiting themselves to materials that are presently available for other uses, not materials that have been engineered by man first at the nano level and eventually at the molecular level with the only intent to maximize such a "W theory" effect. )I think what you're saying is true, but it is not Woodward's theory that all bulk matter stores delta mass when deformed. That's undergrad physical chemistry. Woodward chose shape change materials since they have very large changes in internal energy--the largest I know of. So I don't think it's fair to say this is a constituative part of his theory. His theory only stipulates that if one changes the internal energy of a mass while accelerating it, you will get this 2w fluctuation, or Mach Effect.
EDIT: Let's call the point at which constitutive statements are attached to Woodward's theory, a "W theory," such that "W theory" stands for the whole theory including any attached constitutive statement.So even if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, at the point that Woodward's theory becomes a constitutive theory, it does not follow that actual materials would have to behave as prescribed by "W theory" with a Buldrini factor >0. I think that Buldrini understood this and that's why he allowed his "fudge factors" to range all the way from zero (for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect).Only experiments would be able to show whether they do or do not. However, if one were to accept "W theory" on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey it, the interesting possibility could still be raised whether such a "W theory" material could be eventually be man-made (to allow propellant-less drives) as for example now we are able to make isotropic materials with very negative Poisson's ratio that don't exist in nature. (The experiments that are trying to verify Woodward's effect now are limiting themselves to materials that are presently available for other uses, not materials that have been engineered by man first at the nano level and eventually at the molecular level with the only intent to maximize such a "W theory" effect. )
Quote from: raketa on 10/03/2014 08:12 am[Woodward] is not questioning mass that you can measure during low speeds. His theory try to explain mass increase during speed close to light speed and possibility manipulate increase mass/inertia at these moments.That's my understanding as well.I believe that he admits to not being able to accelerate an ion to these speeds, and is now attempting to accelerate the lattice at these speeds.Again, unless I'm confused, this paper claims that "Approximately 30-50 micro-Newtons of thrust were recorded from an electric propulsion test article consisting primarily of a radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity excited at approximately 935 megahertz". They offer this tentative explanation for how the device works: "Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma".This is a different operating principle than the one thought to be operative by Woddward.Again, unless I'm confused, bewildered, and a host of other terms, including un-read, the thread topic has included these two theories of operation on a propellantless drive.Nobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices covert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.
[Woodward] is not questioning mass that you can measure during low speeds. His theory try to explain mass increase during speed close to light speed and possibility manipulate increase mass/inertia at these moments.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/03/2014 12:44 pmNobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices covert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.in simple terms, Woodwards device works by using these mass fluctuations... pull when it´s light, push when it´s heavier. That is how I understand it.
Nobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices covert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.
Ok, likely an oversimplification on my part, but;If a solar sail can work via reflected photons, could not another drive, using a pure electron stream, (which has mass) also work?Pointing a basic idea out here, mass is being expended as a propellent whether that mass be of a chemical, nuclear, ionic or even an electron stream. You have to have SOMETHING to generate the power. be it a generator or solar panels. In the case of Solar panels, the electrons are being generated via the energy produced via capturing and converting photons into electrical power. (Not very effecient, granted, but mass is being exchanged, even is on an almost quantum level).Like I said, likely a vast oversimplification, but according to basic physics, it should work.In the case as presented, it sort of appears that the electron stream, may be being concentrated and accelerated to increse their effective mass.Assuming that you could either focus, or effectively "Laser" focus the electron stream, there should be some sort of thrust in the opposing direction, even if it were in the millinewtons of force. Basic Newtonian Physics, "Every Action has an equal and opposite reaction."
All theories are "built on the shoulders of giants". No recent (during the past few hundreds years) theory attached to a name has been built solely by the person whose name is attached to it. Einstein's General Relativity uses non-Euclidean geometry and the tools of Levi-Civita, Riemann, and many others. This line of complaining would be like somebody saying that Einstein's theory involves a particular kind of non-Euclidean geometry, and you saying, no that was part of previous knowledge.If the total theory to solve a problem contains a constitutive assumption, that's part of the total theory to analyze a problem, even if that part came from existing knowledge. Concerning the Mach effect, the theory uses Sciama's 1953 derivation as a foundation, so one may even call it Woodward/Sciama/Mach.Again, since there is so much concern in this thread about what a given total theory should be called, I will strive from now on to use the term "W theory".
No recent ... theory attached to a name has been built solely by the person whose name is attached to it.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/03/2014 12:57 pmI wanted to throw it out there that as I understand it, the casimir effect between the plates equates to a small negative mass energy by virtue of all other modes being excluded. This is the difference of potential, similar to volts. The sign of casimir energy doesn't denote positive/negative energy. It is negative with respect to the universe nomatter the sign. Another way to think of it is possible hole flow in electronics. Am I right?Well, count me with Jaffe at MIT: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422/Reading%20Material/Jaffe2005_Casimir.pdf<<In discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive evidencethat the zero-point energies of quantum fields are ‘‘real.’’ On the contrary, Casimir effects can beformulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. They arerelativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) betweenparallel plates vanishes as , the fine structure constant, goes to zero>>I do not think that the Casimir force is related to negative mass. The "all other modes being excluded" explanation is Casimir's. It works for flat plates but it doesn't work for several other geometries.
I wanted to throw it out there that as I understand it, the casimir effect between the plates equates to a small negative mass energy by virtue of all other modes being excluded. This is the difference of potential, similar to volts. The sign of casimir energy doesn't denote positive/negative energy. It is negative with respect to the universe nomatter the sign. Another way to think of it is possible hole flow in electronics. Am I right?
The vacuum fields/particles are exactly the same as the "real" ones, they interact the same, no difference whatsoever.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/03/2014 01:30 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/03/2014 12:57 pmI wanted to throw it out there that as I understand it, the casimir effect between the plates equates to a small negative mass energy by virtue of all other modes being excluded. This is the difference of potential, similar to volts. The sign of casimir energy doesn't denote positive/negative energy. It is negative with respect to the universe nomatter the sign. Another way to think of it is possible hole flow in electronics. Am I right?Well, count me with Jaffe at MIT: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422/Reading%20Material/Jaffe2005_Casimir.pdf<<In discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive evidencethat the zero-point energies of quantum fields are ‘‘real.’’ On the contrary, Casimir effects can beformulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. They arerelativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) betweenparallel plates vanishes as , the fine structure constant, goes to zero>>I do not think that the Casimir force is related to negative mass. The "all other modes being excluded" explanation is Casimir's. It works for flat plates but it doesn't work for several other geometries. Yeah I'm hearing you and I'm enjoying the discussion but I have to add that if the fine structure constant were to approach 0, electromagnetism itself would collapse. The fine structure constant is dependent of the permeability and permittivity of free space and C. C depends on vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability. Thus free space has its own impedance. The QED vacuum is diamagnetic. This:http://www.mpl.mpg.de/en/institute/news/news/article/a-link-between-particle-physics-and-maxwells-equations.htmlWhether speaking classically or quantumly, they are EXACTLY the same thing described in different ways. QM just adds probability and locality to the mix. And yes, quoting the paper "Casimir effects can beformulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. They arerelativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents," is exactly right. The vacuum fields/particles are exactly the same as the "real" ones, they interact the same, no difference whatsoever. The only difference is their probability and ubiquity because of that. The are near the ground state of the universe and consequently have a very low probability of being detected except by some of the modes like the ones near the compton wavelength of electrons which slightly influence their energy levels. Other effects too. A fleeting particle with a low probability is the same as saying a nano degree of a wave. The fine structure constant would never be 0 and the paper shows a dependence between Casimir and the fine structure constant. The fine structure constant is quantum anyway, so basically they are further marrying classical and quantum. Who is to say the casimir effect can't be the result of BOTH classical and quantum boundary conditions. It seems unwise to limit it in such a way described. I want to clarify that negative mass doesn't necessarily mean <0 mass, which would be <0 energy, which would be <absolute zero temperature. Just negative with respect to the established vacuum energy of the universe.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/03/2014 05:12 pmThe vacuum fields/particles are exactly the same as the "real" ones, they interact the same, no difference whatsoever.I'm sorry, but this is not true. Virtual particles do not gravitate. If the proposed virtual particles did gravitate, their mass added to our universe would have prevented its expansion from the start, and would currently cause it to collapse. This is why most physicists don't buy the ZPF and QVF conjectures, because they're based upon zero mass virtual particles but then expect those particles to transfer momentum, which is a violation of EEP as stated above.Virtual particles are just an accounting mechanism. There' no reason to suppose they exist at all and Casimir effect can be explained without them. Indeed it has been for decades.However, if you want the primary text for ZPF physics written by true believers, you want this:http://www.amazon.com/Frontiers-Propulsion-Progress-Astronautics-Aeronautics/dp/1563479567/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412356998&sr=8-1&keywords=AIAA+Davis+Millis
Bondi's arguments (see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1265704#msg1265704 ) persuade me that it is extremely unlikely for us to find (or contain if artificially produced) negative mass for the reasons given by Bondi (negative mass would quickly escape off into the universe).
This is surprisingly complex, but the best analysis came not from Herman Bondi but Robert Forward. You'll find a good treatment of it here, and note the link to Forward's "Diametric Drive":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/03/2014 06:00 pmThis is surprisingly complex, but the best analysis came not from Herman Bondi but Robert Forward. You'll find a good treatment of it here, and note the link to Forward's "Diametric Drive":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_massBondi's analysis is actually the correct one. Anybody can write stuff in Wikipedia. As an example, I wrote a whole article, including the mathematical analyses plots here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_distribution
really after that lengthy counter argument we get this short response???
Lower right hand corner of the first page here, you can see the primary source material for this dating back 1/4 century:http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.23219?journalCode=jppObviously the negative mass is chasing the positive mass. BTW, in case it escaped anyone's notice, for this to work, you need to connect the two masses rigidly, and the force exerted will be gravitic, so you need VERY large masses for this to be practical. Woodward's impulse engine seems to me much more viable in the practical sense and because it too takes advantage of the self-acceleration of negative mass, it can be fantastically efficient.MET's driven past dm=m tap into this negative mass contribution.