Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2105925 times)

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
excuse me but isn't the laser thing is an accomplished fact now? A few years ago there was a couple of related articles on a desktop accelerator that generated electrons and positrons then separated them with magnets.

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-physicists-tabletop-antimatter-gun.html

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-particle-tabletop-chapter-science.html


here is one of them and then there were two more. the third talks about (the rapidly approaching future ability)  using colliding laser beams to create matter out of photons.

http://phys.org/news/2014-05-scientists-year-quest.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19327-lasers-could-make-virtual-particles-real.html
Good to hear that, if making real positrons out of "virtual" positrons has already been accomplished, so much the better for my point that virtual particles are indistinguishable from real particles.  They don't have tags or any other features identifying them as "virtual", they are exactly the same as any other real particle except for their ephemeral life if (as they must do unless one intervenes) annihilate each other  :)
« Last Edit: 04/11/2015 01:46 AM by Rodal »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 239
excuse me but isn't the laser thing is an accomplished fact now? A few years ago there was a couple of related articles on a desktop accelerator that generated electrons and positrons then separated them with magnets.

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-physicists-tabletop-antimatter-gun.html

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-particle-tabletop-chapter-science.html


here is one of them and then there were two more. the third talks about (the rapidly approaching future ability)  using colliding laser beams to create matter out of photons.

http://phys.org/news/2014-05-scientists-year-quest.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19327-lasers-could-make-virtual-particles-real.html

Very interesting. And I found another paper interesting, speaking of symmetry breaking in dielectric materials. I'm not sure how it relates to EM thrusters but it does focus on a couple of keys that we have discussed in detail.

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-electromagnetism-enable-antennas-chip.html
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
There's one thing that has bothered me about virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence:

When besaid pairs, for instance, pop into existence in a gravitational field like the Earth's, they do exist for a minute time span. During that time span, they are 'real' due to borrowed energy from the quantum vacuum. But real particles with mass experience an acceleration in a gravitational field and thus gain momentum. There are two cases to consider, of which only one should be correct:

1) The pair's particles react to gravity the same way and experience a momentum gain in the same direction. When they pop out of existence again, the gained momentum 'magically' disappears with the pair and CoM is broken. Momentum must not simply 'disappear' (in lack for a better word). I read somewhere that CoM is not applicable to virtual particles (can't find the link), but still this doesn't seem right.
2) The anti-particle gains a momentum opposite to the particle's momentum due to repulsive forces on an anti-particle within a gravitational field, and so the force and momentum vectors add up to Zero at any instance in time. CoM is maintained.

What do you think?
« Last Edit: 04/11/2015 07:07 AM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Dr. Rodal:

As promised, find attached a few related papers from work.  As to the rest of your and Mulletron's concerns over the Eagleworks evolving theoretical musings on the EM-Drive propulsion topic, I leave you with Boyd Bushman's, (was senior scientist at LM/FW, now retired and passed-on), admonition to me when I first met him back in 2000 when discussing Jim Woodward's Mach-Effect work with Boyd's boss, "Follow the data, theory be dammed!"  We intend to do just that, no matter where it might take us.

Best,  Paul M.

Paul,

Thanks so much for taking the time to dig and post these papers.  The new paper by Bush (2015) from MIT, showing that one can model quantum statistics hydrodynamically,  is outstanding, very clearly written.  :)

...

Great YouTube video by Harris and Bush at MIT.

Watch that droplet ride its own guiding pilot wave, "magically" hovering over the fluid (can you describe what's responsible for its motion ? : instability due to nonlinear standing waves):



The great (7th duc) de Broglie, Noble Prize in Physics, recognized 90 years after his Solvay presentation: a triumph of creative imagination

« Last Edit: 04/11/2015 02:23 PM by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
Tried to search for answer, could not find...my apologies if already discussed:

Has there been an accurate mass comparison on the dielectric (PTFE et al) prior to and after RF excitation?

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Tried to search for answer, could not find...my apologies if already discussed:

Has there been an accurate mass comparison on the dielectric (PTFE et al) prior to and after RF excitation?
Welcome to the forum. 

I don't recall seeing such a comparison reported yet.

What motivates your question? pyrolysis decomposition in nitrogen atmosphere determined by ThermoGravimetricAnalysis of high density polyethylene (HDPE, the main material used as a dielectric) starts at around 700 deg K (800 deg F): http://w3.gazi.edu.tr/~ikayacan/Part%20I.pdf

I expect that decomposition should be enhanced by oxygen, so it would start at around 700 deg F in an oxygen atmosphere.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2015 03:30 PM by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
Thanks for the welcome. I've been around high power RF for many years and have seen low temp PTFE issues at relatively low temps. Specifically, changes in capacitance, yeilding center frequency drift in tchebychev bandpass filters using PTFE tape and discs. Outgassing in hermetically sealed tubes were noticed. Could be totally unrelated but...maybe not.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Dr. Rodal:

As promised, find attached a few related papers from work.  As to the rest of your and Mulletron's concerns over the Eagleworks evolving theoretical musings on the EM-Drive propulsion topic, I leave you with Boyd Bushman's, (was senior scientist at LM/FW, now retired and passed-on), admonition to me when I first met him back in 2000 when discussing Jim Woodward's Mach-Effect work with Boyd's boss, "Follow the data, theory be dammed!"  We intend to do just that, no matter where it might take us.

Best,  Paul M.

Paul,

Thanks so much for taking the time to dig and post these papers.  The new paper by Bush (2015) from MIT, showing that one can model quantum statistics hydrodynamically,  is outstanding, very clearly written.  :)

...

Great YouTube video by Harris and Bush at MIT.

Watch that droplet ride its own guiding pilot wave, "magically" hovering over the fluid (can you describe what's responsible for its motion ? : instability due to nonlinear standing waves):



The great (7th duc) de Broglie, Noble Prize in Physics, recognized 90 years after his Solvay presentation: a triumph of creative imagination



Dr. Rodal:

Quote from Einstein:  "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world."

In other words, de Broglie got it right with his pilot-wave conjecture and QM really IS deterministic.  However that brings us back to what the universe's pilot-wave media actually is, and the Eagleworks position is that the Quantum Vacuum AKA Dirac Sea is that medium.  A medium that can make ALL subatomic particles for ANY length of time locally, and a media that can convey BOTH longitudinal and transverse wave action.  However if the Casimir effect has anything to say about this topic, and we think it does, then longitudinal Q-V waves have to fall off at not 1/r^2 as transverse waves do in E&M, but at 1/r^4.   That is why we think we have to live in a 5 spatial plus one time dimension universe, so we can explain the Casimir effect's 1/r^4  fall off, since it takes n+1 dimensions to account for this 1/r^4 Casimir effect scaling.

Best,  Paul M.
Star-Drive

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Thanks for the welcome. I've been around high power RF for many years and have seen low temp PTFE issues at relatively low temps. Specifically, changes in capacitance, yeilding center frequency drift in tchebychev bandpass filters using PTFE tape and discs. Outgassing in hermetically sealed tubes were noticed. Could be totally unrelated but...maybe not.
Agreed, outgassing (due to microwave heating of water vapor previously trapped in the HDPE or PTFE polymer dielectric) would be something to watch out for in a vacuum environment at significantly lower temperatures (near 200 deg F) than pyrolysis (>700 deg F). 


« Last Edit: 04/11/2015 06:12 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Thanks for the welcome. I've been around high power RF for many years and have seen low temp PTFE issues at relatively low temps. Specifically, changes in capacitance, yeilding center frequency drift in tchebychev bandpass filters using PTFE tape and discs. Outgassing in hermetically sealed tubes were noticed. Could be totally unrelated but...maybe not.
Agreed, outgassing (due to microwave heating of water vapor previously trapped in the HDPE or PTFE polymer dielectric) would be something to watch out for in a vacuum environment at significantly lower temperatures (near 200 deg F) than pyrolysis (>700 deg F). 



This Lawrence Livermore Lab report on outgassing of water vapor from HDPE is pertinent:

Vacuum Outgassing of High Density Polyethylene
L. N. Dinh*, J. Sze, M. A. Schildbach, S. C. Chinn, R. S. Maxwell, P. Raboin, W. McLean II
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Ca, USA

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/364291.pdf


It concludes that outgassing of H2O from HDPE can be significantly reduced by vacuum baking at 368 degres K
(203 deg F) for a few hours prior to device assembly.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2015 06:15 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Dr. Rodal:

As promised, find attached a few related papers from work.  As to the rest of your and Mulletron's concerns over the Eagleworks evolving theoretical musings on the EM-Drive propulsion topic, I leave you with Boyd Bushman's, (was senior scientist at LM/FW, now retired and passed-on), admonition to me when I first met him back in 2000 when discussing Jim Woodward's Mach-Effect work with Boyd's boss, "Follow the data, theory be dammed!"  We intend to do just that, no matter where it might take us.

Best,  Paul M.

Paul,

Thanks so much for taking the time to dig and post these papers.  The new paper by Bush (2015) from MIT, showing that one can model quantum statistics hydrodynamically,  is outstanding, very clearly written.  :)

...

Great YouTube video by Harris and Bush at MIT.

Watch that droplet ride its own guiding pilot wave, "magically" hovering over the fluid (can you describe what's responsible for its motion ? : instability due to nonlinear standing waves):


...
Note that @Notsosureofit mentioned that nonlinearity in the dielectric could be important and that some of the papers posted by @Mulletron rely on both nonlinearity and anisotropy of the dielectric to explain thrust force as an interaction with the quantum vacuum.

This would leave open to question whether Eagleworks will be able to measure thrust force (and hence reproduce the UK and Chinese results) in the upcoming test without a dielectric, using a magnetron with much higher power inputs...
« Last Edit: 04/12/2015 12:24 AM by Rodal »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 259
There's one thing that has bothered me about virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence:

When besaid pairs, for instance, pop into existence in a gravitational field like the Earth's, they do exist for a minute time span. During that time span, they are 'real' due to borrowed energy from the quantum vacuum. But real particles with mass experience an acceleration in a gravitational field and thus gain momentum. There are two cases to consider, of which only one should be correct:

1) The pair's particles react to gravity the same way and experience a momentum gain in the same direction. When they pop out of existence again, the gained momentum 'magically' disappears with the pair and CoM is broken. Momentum must not simply 'disappear' (in lack for a better word). I read somewhere that CoM is not applicable to virtual particles (can't find the link), but still this doesn't seem right.

Quote from: DustinTheWind

Interesting line of thought.  What if when imaginary particles become real we measure them in gravity having downward momentum, they accelerate, then go back to imaginary.  Later we do the same experiment lower in the gravity field and they become real but this time they have greater momentum, accelerate, then go imaginary again.  We might then suspect the quantum vacuum was already in motion and accelerating before they came into existence.  Maybe the rate they pop in and out of existence determines the drag they have on normal matter? 

In relation to the cavity then what if the particles become real, we give them a shove, then they become non-real and are allowed to exit the cavity by way of the quantum vacuum.  Could that momentum then be imparted to the vacuum?  Would we measure time space waves from it? 


2) The anti-particle gains a momentum opposite to the particle's momentum due to repulsive forces on an anti-particle within a gravitational field, and so the force and momentum vectors add up to Zero at any instance in time. CoM is maintained.

What do you think?

Quote from: DustinTheWind
Matter that was repelled from gravity would remind me of negative energy density.  I think that would be the stuff like the Alcubierre warp bubble where it shows negative energy density on one side and positive on the other to make the ship go forward by warp.  Maybe gravity propulsion?  Might be related to this, link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass, "Runaway motion"  top paragraph, "Although no particles are known to have negative mass..."  towards the bottom, "Hence Bondi pointed out ..."<-- is he talking about the warp bubble effect?

Under this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass under "Gravitational interaction of antimatter" it states, "The overwhelming consensus among physicists is that antimatter has positive mass and should be affected by gravity just like normal matter. Direct experiments on neutral antihydrogen have not detected any difference between the gravitational interaction of antimatter, compared to normal matter.[19]"

As far as I knew I thought imaginary particles were matter and anti-matter.  One big mystery is where did all the anti-mater in the universe go.  I guess I can't say that they have measured the gravitational attraction of anti-matter yet that I know of though wiki suggests in section, "Gravitational interaction of antimatter" the "Bubble chamber experiments" as an arrow that suggests they have positive mass though don't ask me how conclusive that is. 

« Last Edit: 04/12/2015 08:42 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
@dustinthewind:

Hmm.. so if we go by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass as referred by you and if we assume that the 'overwhelming consensus' is that antimatter shows the same gravitational behavior as does matter, then my case 1) should be correct and CoM be broken for matter-antimatter pairs popping in and out of existence within gravitational fields. Either this is true, or CoM does not apply for those pairs. Hmm..

About creating an ExB = S Poynting vector.. wouldn't it be much easier to do this if one takes a circular electromagnet with iron core that has a relatively big air gap, and puts a highly charged plate capacitor on opposite sides of the air gap? The resulting space should be 'filled' with Poynting vectors ExB that can interact with the theorized QV plasma, which is supposed to accelerate the QV plasma and in turn accelerate the contraption.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something relevant concerning how a QV thruster should work?


EDIT: I made a drawing of a contraption I call 'Poynting vector field generator' and attached it to this message. If there's something wrong with the drawing, please tell.

EDIT: Sorry for the mix of wire frame and solid view. I was a bit lazy to tinker with the drawing program for dotted lines to indicate hidden edges ;-) .
« Last Edit: 04/12/2015 03:19 PM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365
@dustinthewind:

About creating an ExB = S Poynting vector.. wouldn't it be much easier to do this if one takes a circular electromagnet with iron core that has a relatively big air gap, and puts a highly charged plate capacitor on opposite sides of the air gap? The resulting space should be 'filled' with Poynting vectors ExB that can interact with the theorized QV plasma, which is supposed to accelerate the QV plasma and in turn accelerate the contraption.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something relevant concerning how a QV thruster should work?


EDIT: I made a drawing of a contraption I call 'Poynting vector field generator' and attached it to this message. If there's something wrong with the drawing, please tell.

EDIT: Sorry for the mix of wire frame and solid view. I was a bit lazy to tinker with the drawing program for dotted lines to indicate hidden edges ;-) .

A Poynting vector is not a field.   In your drawing the Poynting vector is dispersed in all directions because the energy flow is entirely due to thermal loss. (DC case)   If there are AC drives to the capacitor and gap magnet then some energy is transferred to near field RF radiation.   Nothing exotic happens here.  The em fields just combine.

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
@dustinthewind:

About creating an ExB = S Poynting vector.. wouldn't it be much easier to do this if one takes a circular electromagnet with iron core that has a relatively big air gap, and puts a highly charged plate capacitor on opposite sides of the air gap? The resulting space should be 'filled' with Poynting vectors ExB that can interact with the theorized QV plasma, which is supposed to accelerate the QV plasma and in turn accelerate the contraption.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something relevant concerning how a QV thruster should work?


EDIT: I made a drawing of a contraption I call 'Poynting vector field generator' and attached it to this message. If there's something wrong with the drawing, please tell.

EDIT: Sorry for the mix of wire frame and solid view. I was a bit lazy to tinker with the drawing program for dotted lines to indicate hidden edges ;-) .

A Poynting vector is not a field.   In your drawing the Poynting vector is dispersed in all directions because the energy flow is entirely due to thermal loss. (DC case)   If there are AC drives to the capacitor and gap magnet then some energy is transferred to near field RF radiation.   Nothing exotic happens here.  The em fields just combine.

Of course a single Poynting vector is not a field. I meant that a spatial volume as depicted, that is filled with an E-field and a perpendicular B-field, formally creates a E&B perpendicular Poynting vector (vector = absolute value and direction) in each spacial point of that volume. So what you say is that this spatial region is then still no field? Since the discussion was about Q-thrusters that are supposed to use a virtual QV plasma as 'propellant', I thought that it is exactly the point that the Poynting vector is to be used to impart impulse on this virtual QV plasma and get an opposite reaction that drives the thruster forward. So, some Poynting energy flow should happen in this theory that is greater than Zero.

Best regards
« Last Edit: 04/12/2015 05:07 PM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • France
  • Liked: 654
  • Likes Given: 909
@dustinthewind:

Hmm.. so if we go by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass as referred by you and if we assume that the 'overwhelming consensus' is that antimatter shows the same gravitational behavior as does matter, then my case 1) should be correct and CoM be broken for matter-antimatter pairs popping in and out of existence within gravitational fields. Either this is true, or CoM does not apply for those pairs. Hmm..

About antimatter and negative mass: antiparticles are expected to fall in a gravity field exactly like ordinary matter, because both have a positive energy, hence positive mass m = E / c^2

If antimatter had a negative energy -E, the encounter between a particle ant its antiparticle would result in nothing, since E - E = 0
This is not the case. All their mass is converted into energy in this reaction. That's why antimatter could be considered as a powerful source for space propulsion, or bombs.

Do you know CPT symmetry? C-symmetry is for charge conjugation. P-symmetry is for parity transformation, and T-symmetry is for time reversal.

When the charge C of a particle is inverted (C-symmetry), it becomes its antiparticle. That's the classical antimatter as discovered by Paul Dirac.

But Richard Feynman envisioned another nonclassical type of antiparticles, PT-symmetric of ordinary matter.

It has been shown with dynamic group theory (coadjoint action of Lorentz and complete Poincaré groups on their moment space) that T-symmetry is the same as E-symmetry (Souriau, J.M. (1997), Structure of Dynamical Systems, Birkhäuser Boston Editions, ISBN 0817636951 - See Chapter III - part 14, page 189 "Inversions of space and time"). When you reverse the arrow of time of a particle, it means you get a particle with a negative energy, and a negative mass if it has one.

In this regard, Feynman's antimatter (PT-symmetry) would not fall in Earth gravitational field. But we have not observed that kind of special antiparticles yet. This would be "negative energy antimatter". By the way, CPT-symmetric particles would be negative energy matter, with negative mass. And Feynman's PT-symmetric particles would just be "the antiparticles of those CPT-symmetric particles", their charge-conjugated version).
« Last Edit: 04/12/2015 06:07 PM by flux_capacitor »

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • France
  • Liked: 654
  • Likes Given: 909
A Poynting vector is not a field.   In your drawing the Poynting vector is dispersed in all directions because the energy flow is entirely due to thermal loss. (DC case)   If there are AC drives to the capacitor and gap magnet then some energy is transferred to near field RF radiation.   Nothing exotic happens here.  The em fields just combine.

I don't get your point.

1. CW's drawing does not show a Poynting vector dispersed in all directions, but a very directional vector going from the left to the right in the picture.

2. That Poynting vector S = ExB actually gives a Lorentz force F = q(E + vxB) when electric charges are able to flow within the electric field. If the sum of those electric charges in movement are able to create an electric current in a continuous charge distribution, i.e. with a current density J due to the charge density ρ, the Lorentz Force is then a "3D volumetric force", accelerating all electric charges in the same direction whatever their sign, and also the neutral atoms in the plasma with them, through collisions. This is the basis of magnetohydrodynamics applied to propulsion (MHD accelerators), sometimes called magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thrusters when the accelerating fluid is a ionized gas.

Really I'm not sure if Harold White's idea of pushing upon virtual particles from the quantum vacuum with MHD (Lorentz forces) as if it was a real plasma is the answer. But I second CW's question about a setup like an MPD thruster, with crossed E and B fields. Applying an orthogonal magnetic field with an electromagnet would considerably enhance the propulsive Lorentz force. If I remember correctly, White's first Q-thruster (The DC version of Woodward's first Mach-Lorentz Thruster or MLT, that ran on AC) was based on that concept but was a failure -except while being powered on and off (so the DC current would transiently become AC, as per Woodward). White's Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation (QVF) conjecture does not need AC currents, only DC, contrary to Woodward's Mach Effect (ME) conjecture. Maybe Paul could clarify all this.
« Last Edit: 04/12/2015 06:13 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
Feynmans's species of antiparticle might be alice matter AKA Mirror matter? If so it is theoretically possible to get some. :)

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/426676/how-neutrons-might-escape-into-another-universe/



« Last Edit: 04/12/2015 06:35 PM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
A Poynting vector is not a field.   In your drawing the Poynting vector is dispersed in all directions because the energy flow is entirely due to thermal loss. (DC case)   If there are AC drives to the capacitor and gap magnet then some energy is transferred to near field RF radiation.   Nothing exotic happens here.  The em fields just combine.

I don't get your point.

1. CW's drawing does not show a Poynting vector dispersed in all directions, but a very directional vector going from the left to the right in the picture.

2. That Poynting vector S = ExB actually gives a Lorentz force F = q(E + vxB) when electric charges are able to flow within the electric field. If the sum of those electric charges in movement are able to create an electric current in a continuous charge distribution, i.e. with a current density J due to the charge density ρ, the Lorentz Force is then a "3D volumetric force", accelerating all electric charges in the same direction whatever their sign, and also the neutral atoms in the plasma with them, through collisions. This is the basis of magnetohydrodynamics applied to propulsion (MHD accelerators), sometimes called magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thrusters when the accelerating fluid is a ionized gas.

Really I'm not sure if Harold White's idea of pushing upon virtual particles from the quantum vacuum with MHD (Lorentz forces) as if it was a real plasma is the answer. But I second CW's question about a setup like an MPD thruster, with crossed E and B fields. Applying an orthogonal magnetic field with an electromagnet would considerably enhance the propulsive Lorentz force. If I remember correctly, White's first Q-thruster (The DC version of Woodward's first Mach-Lorentz Thruster or MLT, that ran on AC) was based on that concept but was a failure -except while being powered on and off (so the DC current would transiently become AC, as per Woodward). White's Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation (QVF) conjecture does not need AC currents, only DC, contrary to Woodward's Mach Effect (ME) conjecture. Maybe Paul could clarify all this.

I came up with this drawing because I had the impression that Dr. White's conjecture needs a strong Poynting vector field to do what it's supposed to do. And so I was wondering why they are shooting EM waves of varying center frequency and bandwidth into a closed hollow conductor and hope (rather: pray) that S = ExB becomes more or less unidirectional and can interact with the hypothesized virtual QV plasma in the desired way. I'm an electrical engineer (with some extra physics on the side..) by profession and so I sought a simpler and IMO more robust setup to create Poynting vectors. Oh well.. what do I know :) .
« Last Edit: 04/12/2015 07:04 PM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • France
  • Liked: 654
  • Likes Given: 909
Feynmans's species of antiparticle might be alice matter AKA Mirror matter? If so it is theoretically possible to get some. :)

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/426676/how-neutrons-might-escape-into-another-universe/

Exactly. As the experiments pointed out a probable feature of those T-symmetric "mirror particles" is the strangest: they would not follow our 3+1 dimensional spacetime. Because of the T-symmetry, those particles (negative energy photons and negative mass particles) would follow their own geodesics within their own metric, in a spacetime having an opposite arrow of time. Hence they could not be seen, nor be touched. Maybe they could interact (anti)gravitationally with our own matter. In this case they would be the perfect candidate for the invisible dark matter.

If you're interested in this topic about negative mass, not really (?) related to the EmDrive, here are attached to this message two full papers of a very recent work done after connecting A. Sakharov, R. Feynman, JM Souriau and H. Bondi ideas:
- Negative mass hypothesis in cosmology and the nature of dark energy (20 September 2014), Astrophysics and Space Science, 354:2106, doi 10.1007/s10509-014-2106-5
- Cosmological bimetric model with interacting positive and negative masses and two different speeds of light, in agreement with the observed acceleration of the Universe (10 November 2014), Modern Physics Letters A 29:1450182, doi 10.1142/S021773231450182X

Finally, count also this third VERY interesting paper by the same author about a natural process of mass inversion, alternate solution to the classical blackhole/wormhole, but still classical GR:
- Cancellation of the central singularity of the Schwarzschild solution with natural mass inversion process (21 March 2015), Modern Physics Letters A, 30:1550051, doi 10.1142/S0217732315500510
« Last Edit: 04/12/2015 07:27 PM by flux_capacitor »

Tags: