The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.

"What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length..." Why izzat different from asking, what if pigs had wings?

"What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length...

QuoteQuote"What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length... Why izzat different from asking, what if pigs had wings?The difference is that he goes ahead and predicts mathematically how well the "pigs" could fly. Then he compares his "flying pigs" to three cases where some strange flying thing was seen, and lo and behold, those strange flying things are flying just about the way the mathematics predicted that pigs with wings could! "Except for the one case where we could speculate that the pig was injured."

Quote"What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length... Why izzat different from asking, what if pigs had wings?

Quote from: aero on 10/14/2014 02:02 AMQuoteQuote"What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length... Why izzat different from asking, what if pigs had wings?The difference is that he goes ahead and predicts mathematically how well the "pigs" could fly. Then he compares his "flying pigs" to three cases where some strange flying thing was seen, and lo and behold, those strange flying things are flying just about the way the mathematics predicted that pigs with wings could! "Except for the one case where we could speculate that the pig was injured."It's enough to drive interest, that's for sure! Still, I really need to see the theory applied to new experiments to remove doubts about the physics of EM drives. Since those experiments are already being performed, I guess it's time to hurry up and wait.

Quote from: McCulloch"What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length... Quote from: JFWhy izzat different from asking, what if pigs had wings?The difference is that he goes ahead and predicts mathematically how well the "pigs" could fly. Then he compares his "flying pigs" to three cases where some strange flying thing was seen, and lo and behold, those strange flying things are flying just about the way the mathematics predicted that pigs with wings could!

Why izzat different from asking, what if pigs had wings?

Q = quality factor

Q is defined as:Q = stored energy/energy lost per cycle.

Just for fun, let's say the prediction curve is absolutely accurate and based on 70 years of experience w/ copper waveguides and resonators. Then the difference w/ these tapered chambers represent a loss of power which is going somewhere

Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/14/2014 02:42 PMJust for fun, let's say the prediction curve is absolutely accurate and based on 70 years of experience w/ copper waveguides and resonators. Then the difference w/ these tapered chambers represent a loss of power which is going somewhere Yes, good point. I also noticed that early on. My take on that is the following:The fact that the predicted curve (in red) is off by a factor of ~34%, as I have previously addressed in Prof. McCulloch's blog is expected, since McCulloch's formula is a 1 Dimensional simplification of the full 3-D Modified Inertia formulation: as the simplified formula neglects the Unruh wave contribution from the sides of the cone (the simplified formula only uses the flat areas into consideration).

Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/14/2014 02:42 PMJust for fun, let's say the prediction curve is absolutely accurate and based on 70 years of experience w/ copper waveguides and resonators. Then the difference w/ these tapered chambers represent a loss of power which is going somewhere Yes, good point. I also noticed that early on. My take on that is the following:The fact that the predicted curve (in red) is off by a factor of ~34%, as I have previously addressed in Prof. McCulloch's blog is expected, since McCulloch's formula is a 1 Dimensional simplification of the full 3-D Modified Inertia formulation: as the simplified formula neglects the Unruh wave contribution from the sides of the cone (the simplified formula only uses the flat areas into consideration).The simplified 1 Dimensional formula of McCulloch's full theory is obviously an approximation since it leads to an infinite predicted force for the diameter of the smaller flat surface going to zero. So the 1D formula overpredicts the force (because it does not take into account the Unruh wave contribution from the curved surface of the cone).

What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length (as they are in this case)? Then the inertial mass of the photons would increase towards the cavity's wide end, since more Unruh waves would fit there, since mi=m(1-L/2w), where w is the cavity width. The force carried by the photons then increases by this factor as they go from the narrow end (width w_small) towards the wide end (width w_big). The force difference between ends is dF = (PQ/c)*((L/w_big)-(L/w_small)) = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)).