Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1797728 times)

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 46
I think it is great that people like you, Notsosureofit and Paul Kocyla/Jo Hinchliffe are looking/working on miniaturizing the EM Drive.  There is higher risk that it won't work of course (as compared to a replication), but if it does you will have opened a very exciting future to this technology, and the next step (up in a CubeSat) will be all the much easier to accomplish!   :)

Although I do agree that miniaturization is the end objective, I think it might be the wrong approach to help understand the engineering parameters of the EMdrive.

When looking at the current size of devices and how great an impact of differences of 10th of millimeters can have on frequency shifting, making it smaller will only make it a lot harder to keep the engineering aspects under control...(needing a manufacturing accuracy of a 100th or a 1000th of a millimeter)

I think we should do the opposite.. make the devices larger in size (and consequently also lower frequencies) so that tiny imperfections have less of an impact. Once we learn all about the needed engineering requirements, then you can focus on making it smaller...

apart from that, we still need evidence the EMdrive produce thrust... hopefully, soon...

« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 11:27 AM by Flyby »

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
Yes
Then, if the fellows in Aachen, Germany, have scaled all their cavity dimensions for Baby EM Drive such that

bigdiameterAACHEN = bigdiameterNASA / (frequencyAACHEN/frequencyNASA)

smalldiameterAACHEN =smalldiameterNASA / (frequencyAACHEN/frequencyNASA)

lengthAACHEN = lengthdiameterNASA / (frequencyAACHEN/frequencyNASA)

they don't have to worry about operating at frequencyAACHEN = 24 GHz, since the number of cycles needed for the photons in the cavity to accelerate to c (if they were free to do so), the coupling, would be what your curve shows at around frequencyNASA = 2 GHz, the NASA frequency ?

Photons don't accelerate. No reference required. It is basic. Any theory requiring such condition needs to go.

Eh- it might just be my peanut gallery prowess speaking here but... what happens when photons or other particles are in one medium and cross the boundary to another medium? Fer instance... particles in the water bath of a nuclear pile (they produce blue glowey stuff known as Cherenkov radiation) because they exceed the speed of light for that medium and shed energy. Bear with me...

So now they leave the water for open air or a vacuum. what happens then?  The speed limit is now faster than they are traveling...could they ( here I mean photons not massive particles) accelerate to the new limit?

EDIT:  And what of experiments with "slow light?" That's where photons are slowed down below their natural speed in recent high tech experiments. Does a slow or trapped photon mean a photon that can be accelerated?
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 11:58 AM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 256
Yes
Then, if the fellows in Aachen, Germany, have scaled all their cavity dimensions for Baby EM Drive such that

bigdiameterAACHEN = bigdiameterNASA / (frequencyAACHEN/frequencyNASA)

smalldiameterAACHEN =smalldiameterNASA / (frequencyAACHEN/frequencyNASA)

lengthAACHEN = lengthdiameterNASA / (frequencyAACHEN/frequencyNASA)

they don't have to worry about operating at frequencyAACHEN = 24 GHz, since the number of cycles needed for the photons in the cavity to accelerate to c (if they were free to do so), the coupling, would be what your curve shows at around frequencyNASA = 2 GHz, the NASA frequency ?

Photons don't accelerate. No reference required. It is basic. Any theory requiring such condition needs to go.

I can't say I am exactly following them but there is this article here, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html .  They seem to suggest acceleration of the beam. 

I always thought of photons more of as waves though considering the path followed by them from a double slit experiment has them emanating not from the holes but from between the holes and then they follow curved paths near the holes then straight paths later on.  On the other hand there is quantum physics. 

I also thought light slowed down when entering a gravitational well but one being in that gravitational well still measures speed c from inside due space time distortion but still I think light should slow down in the well with respect to the rest of space.  I am not sure I would call the change in speed acceleration, though maybe it is. 

I noticed their equation f*c/g is unit-less.  Again, I can't say I understand it but I thought maybe it was in context of the article above? 

Offline Vix

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Hi there! This is my first post here, so please excuse me for any mishaps :) Admins, feel free to delete if you consider it rubbish...
By the wsy, electronics is my hobby, albeit I've been mostly oriented toward audio applications (amplifiers and loudspeaker cabinets).
I don't have much to say here, except that I agree that an experiment should also be carried in other direction: i.e. very large EM drive with very high power input. Not DIY for sure. I just wonder what would happen if such a thing could be built in some lab, and powered by a very powerful Klystron?!

(As I like to read history of science, sometimes it appears to me that this may have been tried in the past. What if Nazi Secret weapon known as "the bell" was in fact a large conical device powered by a klystron? What if they observed a lift a called that "anti-gravity" :) )

Regards, Vix

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1361
:o Are you guys seriously talking about accelerating photons?  ???

No

That's a relation between inertial and accelerating frames of reference. 
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 12:02 PM by Notsosureofit »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
We are looking at the cavity's dispersion curve intersections of constant wave number instead of constant frequency.

« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 12:22 PM by Rodal »

Offline OttO

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • France
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 11
I think the following papers could be of interest:

"The mechanism responsible for the conversion of evanescent waves into propagating waves is explained and a general formula for the conversion of evanescent waves into propagating waves is derived."
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00340-006-2220-3

"when the cavity gets closer to the horizon of a blackhole, square inverse law is recovered and the repulsive force due to negative energy/mass of the cavity now has an observable strength.
More importantly the force changes from being repulsive to attractive when the cavity crosses the event horizon"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6068


Giant vacuum forces via transmission lines.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2028

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249

...I have serious doubts this theory of thrust generated from evanescent waves interacting with the standing wave at the short end of the cavity has any basis in physics.    Evanescent waves are synonomous with near field radiation in the RF world; at least this is what the Wikipedia page says:
"In electrical engineering, evanescent waves are found in the near-field region within one third of a wavelength of any radio antenna...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave
There are no evanescent waves inside the cavity because the Poynting vector = 0.   An antenna or feed horn does have evanescent waves, although RF engineers refer to that as the near field radiation.   There are also evanescent waves inside the copper but those are contained in a very small thickness due to the skin effect.   There are no standing waves inside the copper to interact with those evanescent waves.
...

There is no law of physics that says that the Poynting vector inside a cavity is zero. 

The Poynting vector (averaged over an integer number of periods) inside a cavity is zero when there are no sources or sinks in the cavity. Even in a cavity with no sinks or sources, the Poynting vector is not zero when averaged over any amount of time that is not an integer number of periods.

As long as the RF feed of microwaves is on, there is a source inside the cavity, therefore the Poynting vector (averaged over an integer number of periods) is not zero.

If there are losses (for example dielectric losses due to tan delta not being zero and resistive losses) then there is a sink inside the cavity and therefore the Poynting vector  (averaged over an integer number of periods)  is not zero.

As to the presence of evanescent waves inside a cavity, we are discussing Physics and not constitutional law.  For constitutional law you go to the book of law, read what the law is and you have your answer.

To find out whether there are evanescent waves and other solutions of Maxwell's equations (besides standing waves) like whispering-gallery modes, etc. (any possible solution of Maxwell's equations), one doesn't go to Wikipedia. One has to solve Maxwell's equations.  Greg Egan's solution does not take into account the source due to the RF feed, and only considered simple harmonic standing wave solutions to Maxwell's equations.  Egan did not consider any other possible solution to Maxwell's equations.  @aero took a cut by using MEEP and found evanescent waves inside the EM Drive.  Cavities as used at CERN and other accelerators have standing waves inside them and travelling waves going through the open holes that go through the cavity.  Here we have an open hole through which the RF field is fed to the cavity, so there are  travelling waves coming into the cavity and there is a source (non-zero Poynting vector) as long as the RF Feed is on, with standing waves and travelling waves co-existing.

As you admit, there are evanescent waves due to the RF feed and there are evanescent waves at the walls.  In addition it appears that there are evanescent waves due to geometrical attenuation. This geometrical attenuation is only present in cavities with a geometrical gradient.  There is no geometrical attenuation and hence no evanescent waves due to geometrical attenuation in cylindrical cavities.  But the EM Drive is a truncated conical cavity, not a cylindrical cavity.  What happens inside the EM Drive is governed by all the solutions that are possible within Maxwell's equations, the boundary conditions and the RF feed.

_____

Quote
Even if evanescent waves and the standing wave did coexist in the same space there would be no magical effect as claimed.   That superposition of RF voltages and currents is resolved as just another humdrum vector by the use of the Superpositioning Theorem

The Superpositioning Theorem only applies to linear equations!

Even considering linear equations, not clear as to how you are applying superposition when you have asymmetric directionality: a source (the RF feed), dielectric and resistive losses, and a gradient imposed by the conical walls of the truncated cone. 

_____

@notsosureofit hypothesis is here:

http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 01:26 PM by Rodal »

Offline OttO

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • France
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 11
I love this one  ;D:

Shape-Preserving Accelerating Electromagnetic Wave Packets in Curved Space

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6153

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2325
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2953
  • Likes Given: 2587
We are looking at the cavity's dispersion curve intersections of constant wave number instead of constant frequency.
I found this representation of standing waves quite interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#/media/File:QuantumHarmonicOscillatorAnimation.gif

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1290
  • Likes Given: 1740
...
Photons don't accelerate. No reference required. It is basic. Any theory requiring such condition needs to go.

....

I also thought light slowed down when entering a gravitational well but one being in that gravitational well still measures speed c from inside due space time distortion but still I think light should slow down in the well with respect to the rest of space.  I am not sure I would call the change in speed acceleration, though maybe it is. 

I noticed their equation f*c/g is unit-less.  Again, I can't say I understand it but I thought maybe it was in context of the article above?

You are correct. Anyone who thinks photons do not accelerate needs to study General Relativity. A gravitational field "Is" an accelerated reference frame and photons in a g field "do" accelerate relative to a distant observer who is not in the g field. It is called the "coordinate speed of light". To someone observing from inside the g field, c appears to be constant on their relative tangent plane, but that is only because gravitational length contraction and time dilation conspire to make it so in that coordinate system. From the respective coordinate system of a distant observer, c/K in a gravitational field slower than c in free space!

This is a fact, if you don't believe it please study GR and the PV Model of GR. The  speed of light is ONLY constant in an inertial reference frame. As soon as you introduce acceleration or gravity, it is not constant.


Thank you.
Todd

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1361
...
Photons don't accelerate. No reference required. It is basic. Any theory requiring such condition needs to go.

....

I also thought light slowed down when entering a gravitational well but one being in that gravitational well still measures speed c from inside due space time distortion but still I think light should slow down in the well with respect to the rest of space.  I am not sure I would call the change in speed acceleration, though maybe it is. 

I noticed their equation f*c/g is unit-less.  Again, I can't say I understand it but I thought maybe it was in context of the article above?

You are correct. Anyone who thinks photons do not accelerate needs to study General Relativity. A gravitational field "Is" an accelerated reference frame and photons in a g field "do" accelerate relative to a distant observer who is not in the g field. It is called the "coordinate speed of light". To someone observing from inside the g field, c appears to be constant on their relative tangent plane, but that is only because gravitational length contraction and time dilation conspire to make it so in that coordinate system. From the respective coordinate system of a distant observer, c/K in a gravitational field slower than c in free space!

This is a fact, if you don't believe it please study GR and the PV Model of GR. The  speed of light is ONLY constant in an inertial reference frame. As soon as you introduce acceleration or gravity, it is not constant.


Thank you.
Todd

Right on Todd!  The point taken here is that there exists an accelerated frame such that the variation due to dispersion in the cavity can be canceled by the "gravitational" variation.  That's the g in my calculation.

Notice that this is only a "static" case, momentum still needs to be considered.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 01:52 PM by Notsosureofit »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
I think it is great that people like you, Notsosureofit and Paul Kocyla/Jo Hinchliffe are looking/working on miniaturizing the EM Drive.  There is higher risk that it won't work of course (as compared to a replication), but if it does you will have opened a very exciting future to this technology, and the next step (up in a CubeSat) will be all the much easier to accomplish!   :)

Although I do agree that miniaturization is the end objective, I think it might be the wrong approach to help understand the engineering parameters of the EMdrive.

When looking at the current size of devices and how great an impact of differences of 10th of millimeters can have on frequency shifting, making it smaller will only make it a lot harder to keep the engineering aspects under control...(needing a manufacturing accuracy of a 100th or a 1000th of a millimeter)

I think we should do the opposite.. make the devices larger in size (and consequently also lower frequencies) so that tiny imperfections have less of an impact. Once we learn all about the needed engineering requirements, then you can focus on making it smaller...

apart from that, we still need evidence the EMdrive produce thrust... hopefully, soon...

Agreed...I plan on miniaturizing the rf source only, keeping the frustum @ 11.01 x 6.25 end dimensions with no dielectric to lower Q. When I get further along, will write up proposal and upload here for serious critique. Will keep it open source, have no commercial interests...kinda the way I am...if it works, all I ask is to mention my name....Dave  :)

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
...
Photons don't accelerate. No reference required. It is basic. Any theory requiring such condition needs to go.

....

I also thought light slowed down when entering a gravitational well but one being in that gravitational well still measures speed c from inside due space time distortion but still I think light should slow down in the well with respect to the rest of space.  I am not sure I would call the change in speed acceleration, though maybe it is. 

I noticed their equation f*c/g is unit-less.  Again, I can't say I understand it but I thought maybe it was in context of the article above?

You are correct. Anyone who thinks photons do not accelerate needs to study General Relativity. A gravitational field "Is" an accelerated reference frame and photons in a g field "do" accelerate relative to a distant observer who is not in the g field. It is called the "coordinate speed of light". To someone observing from inside the g field, c appears to be constant on their relative tangent plane, but that is only because gravitational length contraction and time dilation conspire to make it so in that coordinate system. From the respective coordinate system of a distant observer, c/K in a gravitational field slower than c in free space!

This is a fact, if you don't believe it please study GR and the PV Model of GR. The  speed of light is ONLY constant in an inertial reference frame. As soon as you introduce acceleration or gravity, it is not constant.


Thank you.
Todd
Perhaps the communication problem comes from being uncomfortable with the process of deriving macro equations and understanding how macro equations describe a micro reality.  Instead, people can take the photon as a particle point of view, traveling at speed c.  Then, they reconcile the fact that the speed of light is slower in different media than in the vacuum by saying that the photons travel at c in the vacuum between particles and when they meet a particle a new photon is produced.  I am not clear as to how they resolve in their mind the issue that light can be slowed to practically a standstill at temperatures close to absolute zero. 

They themselves (obviously) don't use quantum mechanics to solve any macro problem dealing with solid objects with dimensions that fit in your hands and weights that you can measure in a scale.

Engineers solve daily problems in solid and fluid mechanics using Continuum Mechanics (which is perfectly applicable) without having to consider the fact that solid matter and fluid is really not continuous.

Similarly here, there is a mathematical model which may be applicable without having to account in detail for all the photon interactions that take place at a quantum physics level.

Since very few macro problems can be dealt with using quantum mechanics, when it comes to solve actual macro problems, they use handbook equations that make the same approximations and much more.  They use chemical equations, continuum mechanics equations, etc., without batting an eye.  When they solve practical problems themselves they are not accounting for photon interactions on a one to one basis.  They use macro properties like magnetic permeability of different media, electric permittivity of different media, tan delta, resistivity, etc.

I think that another big problem for people to understand intuitively what happens in an EM Drive is that the number of photons in a photon gas increases with the cube of the temperature. This, I think, is very counter-intuitive.  This is very different from shooting billiard balls into a cavity.

If it is shown that the EM Drive experiments are not an artifact, and that they can be replicated, and there is a macro theory that accounts for the behavior observed in the experiments, people will become comfortable both with the theory and the reality of the EM Drive. 

If the EM Drive experiments are an artifact, then all theoretical attempts to explain it are moot of course.
Hopefully we enjoyed the mental exercise of trying to explain it  :)
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 03:27 PM by Rodal »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Quote
From the respective coordinate system of a distant observer, c/K in a gravitational field slower than c in free space!
What does this mean? (you have not defined 'K' for your readers). c is a local invariant in any situation.

In the general relativistic sense, light rays do not accelerate in the absence of materials, because they always follow null geodesics. A distant observer may see these geodesics as curved, but nevertheless when a particle follows a null geodesic, it is not accelerating in the GR sense.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20289/do-photons-have-acceleration/20296#20296
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 02:59 PM by deltaMass »

Offline zen-in

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

...I have serious doubts this theory of thrust generated from evanescent waves interacting with the standing wave at the short end of the cavity has any basis in physics.    Evanescent waves are synonomous with near field radiation in the RF world; at least this is what the Wikipedia page says:
"In electrical engineering, evanescent waves are found in the near-field region within one third of a wavelength of any radio antenna...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave
There are no evanescent waves inside the cavity because the Poynting vector = 0.   An antenna or feed horn does have evanescent waves, although RF engineers refer to that as the near field radiation.   There are also evanescent waves inside the copper but those are contained in a very small thickness due to the skin effect.   There are no standing waves inside the copper to interact with those evanescent waves.
...

There is no law of physics that says that the Poynting vector inside a cavity is zero. 

I didn't say there was a law of physics that says that the Poynting vector inside a cavity is zero.  You stated the Poynting vector inside a cavity is zero in thread 2.   I don't have the time to search for your posts on that subject but this gentleman from Yale states the same thing:
http://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_show_the_Poynting_vector_of_a_standing_electromagnetic_wave_integrated_over_the_volume_of_a_cavity_in_a_perfect_conductor_is_zero

The Poynting vector (averaged over an integer number of periods) inside a cavity is zero when there are no sources or sinks in the cavity. Even in a cavity with no sinks or sources, the Poynting vector is not zero when averaged over any amount of time that is not an integer number of periods.

As long as the RF feed of microwaves is on, there is a source inside the cavity, therefore the Poynting vector (averaged over an integer number of periods) is not zero.

If there are losses (for example dielectric losses due to tan delta not being zero and resistive losses) then there is a sink inside the cavity and therefore the Poynting vector  (averaged over an integer number of periods)  is not zero.

As to the presence of evanescent waves inside a cavity, we are discussing Physics and not constitutional law.  For constitutional law you go to the book of law, read what the law is and you have your answer.
A cavity is not a feed horn.   A cavity has standing waves inside it.   It is you who is proclaiming a constitutional law for cavities.


To find out whether there are evanescent waves and other solutions of Maxwell's equations (besides standing waves) like whispering-gallery modes, etc. (any possible solution of Maxwell's equations), one doesn't go to Wikipedia. One has to solve Maxwell's equations.  Greg Egan's solution does not take into account the source due to the RF feed, and only considered simple harmonic standing wave solutions to Maxwell's equations.  Egan did not consider any other possible solution to Maxwell's equations.  @aero took a cut by using MEEP and found evanescent waves inside the EM Drive.  Cavities as used at CERN and other accelerators have standing waves inside them and travelling waves going through the open holes that go through the cavity.  Here we have an open hole through which the RF field is fed to the cavity, so there are  travelling waves coming into the cavity and there is a source (non-zero Poynting vector) as long as the RF Feed is on, with standing waves and travelling waves co-existing.
There are no adjoining cavities inside the em-drive and therefore no travelling waves.


As you admit, there are evanescent waves due to the RF feed and there are evanescent waves at the walls.  In addition it appears that there are evanescent waves due to geometrical attenuation. This geometrical attenuation is only present in cavities with a geometrical gradient.  There is no geometrical attenuation and hence no evanescent waves due to geometrical attenuation in cylindrical cavities.  But the EM Drive is a truncated conical cavity, not a cylindrical cavity.  What happens inside the EM Drive is governed by all the solutions that are possible within Maxwell's equations, the boundary conditions and the RF feed.

_____

Quote
Even if evanescent waves and the standing wave did coexist in the same space there would be no magical effect as claimed.   That superposition of RF voltages and currents is resolved as just another humdrum vector by the use of the Superpositioning Theorem

The Superpositioning Theorem only applies to linear equations!

Even considering linear equations, not clear as to how you are applying superposition when you have asymmetric directionality: a source (the RF feed), dielectric and resistive losses, and a gradient imposed by the conical walls of the truncated cone. 

The failure of this theory of evanescent waves pushing against standing waves to produce thrust is that what you really have is just a standing wave inside the cavity.   If you decide to call some parts of that standing wave evanescent waves you are stating that in this closed system one thing (RF power) is pushing against itself.   


_____

@notsosureofit hypothesis is here:

http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 02:48 PM by zen-in »

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 46
Isn't part of the problem also that we don't really know what an electromagnetic wave/photon is?

 We try to understand it by partially describing it as a wave, whenever it is fitting, but also as a photon (particle) when ever it fits into the mathematical models we make.

I've learned to accept it as a given fact because we can observe both properties, but, i'll admit,  I always found it extremely hard to visualize something to be a dualistic wave (composed electric/magnetic wave) and at the same time a particle.

The same thing applies for all the sub atomic particle models. They are mathematical entities that function within an established scientific model (the Standard Model), yet i have it difficult to visualize not less then 61 different elementary particles. Often described as a " particle zoo", it gives me an uncomfortable feeling that, although we have a working mathematical/scientific model, we're only observing the symptoms/manifestations of nature, rather then truly understand why those 61 elementary particles exist.

Isn't this the fundamental reason to why it is way more convenient to use those generalizing engineering approximations?
Because in the end, when we average all individual interactions, it does give us a "good enough" prediction, usable for science, engineering, architecture, etc...

After Notsosurofit post, it would be interesting to know if the tapered cavity could work in purely optical mode (with a laser feeding it) :P

For DIY let's build areas of 10*10 blue ray diodes...

That will pose some true challenges to tune into resonance, I believe. Microwave have about 10 mm wavelength, blue light has 500 nm.

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Germany
  • Liked: 993
  • Likes Given: 2141
quote author=WarpTech link=topic=37642.msg1383429#msg1383429 date=1433252162]
...
Photons don't accelerate. No reference required. It is basic. Any theory requiring such condition needs to go.

....

I also thought light slowed down when entering a gravitational well but one being in that gravitational well still measures speed c from inside due space time distortion but still I think light should slow down in the well with respect to the rest of space.  I am not sure I would call the change in speed acceleration, though maybe it is. 

I noticed their equation f*c/g is unit-less.  Again, I can't say I understand it but I thought maybe it was in context of the article above?

You are correct. Anyone who thinks photons do not accelerate needs to study General Relativity. A gravitational field "Is" an accelerated reference frame and photons in a g field "do" accelerate relative to a distant observer who is not in the g field. It is called the "coordinate speed of light". To someone observing from inside the g field, c appears to be constant on their relative tangent plane, but that is only because gravitational length contraction and time dilation conspire to make it so in that coordinate system. From the respective coordinate system of a distant observer, c/K in a gravitational field slower than c in free space!

This is a fact, if you don't believe it please study GR and the PV Model of GR. The  speed of light is ONLY constant in an inertial reference frame. As soon as you introduce acceleration or gravity, it is not constant.


Thank you.
Todd

[/quote]

Please restudy the GR! The planklenght is dependent on the strength of G The light have to travel a longer way. So it is not faster or slower! Inside a Material the permittivity and permabillity is higher than in vacuum

Got anybody a other universal meter in the toolbox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 06:06 PM by X_RaY »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2737
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Quote
Isn't part of the problem also that we don't really know what an electromagnetic wave/photon is?

A question about Dr. White's QV conjecture. Just a partially formed thought.

If his analogy of the electrons-positrons at a square dance with dancers changing partners by popping into and out of the QV, then wouldn't this same idea result in a particle electron idea of quantum tunneling? That is, electrons approach a barrier and dive into the QV. Another electron pops out of the QV nearby, but it has a probability of being on the wrong side of the barrier sence the barrier does not penetrate the QV.

This mechanism might be an excuse for the near instantaneous transit of the barrier, currently measured to be on the scale of attoseconds (10-18 seconds). In that short interval of time even light speed only moves a tenth of a nanometer and barriers are much thicker than that.

Of course I know that the wave theory of tunneling has the electron wave already partially on the other side of the barrier as it reaches the barrier so the wave tunnels through to fully re-form with the part that was already on the other side. That is reasonable for photons, but electrons have rest mass and that causes confusion to me.

I've been noodling this a little. If Dr. White's conjecture (and mine) were correct, shouldn't we be able to discover something about the QV by using the known probabilities of an electron tunneling through a barrier? The problem I run into immediately is modeling the shape of the QV. How many dimensions does it have? If it is only one dimension then the probability of an electron reaching the other side of the barrier is simply a matter of distance. If it is two dimensional that makes the probability curve look like the area of a segment of a circle which isn't the right curve to match the probability. Similarly for a 3 dimensional QV, probability becomes a segment of a sphere. That might fit.

Oh well, I guess pursuing this idea doesn't really belong on this thread although there is the connection to Dr. White's conjecture.

Edit Add: Rather than worry about the dimensions of the QV, I'm just going to guess it's a parallel universe and be done with it. Surely that's no further beyond my poor math/physics skills than most of this stuff we've been discussing.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 09:20 PM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Tags: