a bit short on time to watch 7 hours of video lolbut at 6:25:00, the man talking tells "it's a bit intimidating having Lawrence Krauss sitting right there, and I felt a little sorry for Dr Sonny White explaining his propulsion concept"I suppose Lawrence Krauss gave Dr Sonny White a hard time? Has anyone seen Dr Sonny White's talk?ok, watched it... apparently, Krauss basically grilled Dr Sonny White and said Sonny White should look for other things to do (rather than physics field, based on how grumpy he was, including saying Dr White was fooling himself)Zubrin was also on the conference and also gave some hard time to Dr Sonny White.It seems none of them addressed directly Dr Heidi Fern, although Krauss did argue a little at that panel at the end, basically saying people shouldnīt pay attention to anything that disagrees with what physics has already understood.7:07:00Krauss: "the difference is that when something disagrees with experiment, it's wrong"Jeff Greason from Tau Zero: "yes, when something disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. When something disagrees with our interpretation of the experiments, there is room for argument"But even Marc Millis, from Tau Zero Foundation (partner of Jeff Greason) had some flak to give to Dr Sonny White.Krauss doesnīt even look at the panelists, when he stops talking angrily, he turns kind of sideways, like a defensive posture "I donīt care to read your replies".
Krauss doesnt even look at the panelists, when he stops talking angrily, he turns kind of sideways, like a defensive posture "I donīt care to read your replies".
There was a time where many great minds were absolutely certain that the world was flat. It was flat from the reference frame that they lived their lives in, it just didn't hold when their perspective expanded.
"One is, that the quantum vacuum has no (rest) frame. There is nothing you can push against." The latter is NOT necessarily implied by the former statement. It would imply that conventional physics does not agree with experiment! IMO, it does but there is some exchange of momentum going on with the environment that we are not aware of yet.
Quote from: Bob Woods on 04/18/2018 03:48 pmThere was a time where many great minds were absolutely certain that the world was flat. It was flat from the reference frame that they lived their lives in, it just didn't hold when their perspective expanded.This is fascinating. Who were these great minds and when did they live?
The article cites both sides, and notes that the Chinese did not adopt a spherical view until the 17th century.
The article cites both sides, and notes that the Chinese did not adopt a spherical view until the 17th century. I think most of us grew up with the belief that certainty did not reign globally until after Columbus and Magellan.
Krauss was cranky and too dismissive. I hope it might be something like low blood sugar,
I watched the live stream as it happened
Quote from: WarpTech on 04/17/2018 09:25 pm "One is, that the quantum vacuum has no (rest) frame. There is nothing you can push against." The latter is NOT necessarily implied by the former statement. It would imply that conventional physics does not agree with experiment! IMO, it does but there is some exchange of momentum going on with the environment that we are not aware of yet.Yeah, I don't think you are thinking it through.Think of a propeller aircraft pushing against the air. How much power does it take to get a given acceleration? Well that depends on how fast the craft is traveling currently. The faster it is going the more power is needed to maintain the current acceleration. This is necessary for conservation of energy since energy goes with the square of velocity. And it is possible because there is a special frame in which the air is motionless.Now imagine a craft pushing against the quantum vacuum. The problem is that the QV has no frame in which it is motionless. The amount of power needed for a constant acceleration is a constant. This immediately causes a violation of conservation of energy. Exchanging momentum with parts of the environment does not help unless you can give that part a special frame where it is motionless. The QV does not allow this.Any attempt to get around this will necessarily involve physics beyond the conventional. And I would add that often the whole point of doing experiments is to find places where experiment disagrees with conventional physics. Finding such a thing is good because it may mean you just won the Nobel.
Quote from: sanman on 04/14/2018 09:02 pmQuote from: HMXHMX on 04/14/2018 02:34 amIn this video from today's meeting at Stanford, Prof. Heidi Fearn has two minutes or so beginning at ~2:43:43 where she talks about the Mach Effect drive and uses a simple analogy to describe it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3GiN-tWAV_kHere's a direct link for people to jump to the spot:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GiN-tWAV_k#t=2h43m44s(Btw, does her oil drop analogy sound similar to the one made for Pilot Wave theory? Interesting how that was also used for rationalizing EMdrive)Her oil drop (silicone) experiment is precisely what Couder et al did in France. it would seem she is laying the groundwork for connecting QM and GR with at least quasiparticles (QFT) and possibly negative vacuum.Couder Videohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theorySee alsoCouderhttps://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.154101https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0466
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/14/2018 02:34 amIn this video from today's meeting at Stanford, Prof. Heidi Fearn has two minutes or so beginning at ~2:43:43 where she talks about the Mach Effect drive and uses a simple analogy to describe it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3GiN-tWAV_kHere's a direct link for people to jump to the spot:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GiN-tWAV_k#t=2h43m44s(Btw, does her oil drop analogy sound similar to the one made for Pilot Wave theory? Interesting how that was also used for rationalizing EMdrive)
In this video from today's meeting at Stanford, Prof. Heidi Fearn has two minutes or so beginning at ~2:43:43 where she talks about the Mach Effect drive and uses a simple analogy to describe it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3GiN-tWAV_k
I don't think you realize what you just said. First, the propeller-driven aeroplane in the atmosphere is a poor example. Instead, think of a photon rocket. 1. The amount of power required for constant acceleration is not constant.
2. There is no violation of conservation of energy.
3. It exchanges momentum simply by emitting EM waves that carry momentum, which can be quantized as photons.
4. The QV allows this.
In the case of a MEGA drive, I conjecture that the electric charge on the PZT stack has asymmetrical radiation due to its asymmetrical acceleration.
Quote from: WarpTech on 04/19/2018 12:49 am3. It exchanges momentum simply by emitting EM waves that carry momentum, which can be quantized as photons.But how many photons? A photon rocket of any size would need to produce a laser beam more powerful than any laser ever produced on earth. Remember a megawatt for just three newtons. A photon rocket that could accelerate at one g would burn a hole deep into the Earth.
No. It. Does. Not.You still need to push against a massive amount of photons. Megawatts of them for barely measurable thrust. If the source of the photons is from energy stored on the ship then this is possible if impractical. And you would run out of photon fuel before getting very far.But you seem to want to push against the QV which is outside the ship. The power you need for a given acceleration then depends on your velocity with respect to the QV the same way the power a car needs for a given acceleration depends on how fast the car is going with respect to the road.The quantum vacuum has no preferred frame of reference. You cannot calculate your velocity with respect to it. If you could react against it you would either create a preferred frame of reference for the universe or violate conservation of energy. Or both. Depending on just what your engine did.
You cannot have asymmetrical acceleration. Ever. This is the very definition of violating conservation of momentum. For anything accelerating in one direction there must be something with equal acceleration in the other. Because they must push each other equally. And if that thing is photons then for any reasonable thrust you would need enough of them to burn down a city.Unless you introduce some very new physics.
Not true! If gravity is acting on a mass and it is accelerating relative to the Earth at 1g, there must be an exchange of momentum between the mass and the Earth. That exchange has to be either gravitons or photons, but either way it is the same amount of power we are talking about.
You contradicted yourself. The QV is Lorentz invariant, therefore there is no "drag" force dependent on velocity like you have with air, or wrt "the road".
Not true, relative to the center of mass. Take 2 unequal masses, M1 and M2...
Larmour radiation depends on the square of the acceleration and the square of the charge. So if the masses are charged equally, like a capacitor, then one end will radiate more than the other because the accelerations are not equal.
Quote from: Bob Woods on 04/18/2018 05:48 pmThe article cites both sides, and notes that the Chinese did not adopt a spherical view until the 17th century. I think most of us grew up with the belief that certainty did not reign globally until after Columbus and Magellan.Columbus had trouble convincing people to sponsor his trip exactly because he was wrong. He thought the Earth was smaller than it really was, and thus, that Japan was much nearer to western Europe than it really is.That's why Columbus thought he had reached the Indias when he landed in the Caribbean. No navigator would make such mistake, as they could already measure longitude at that time... unless said navigator thought the distance to east Asia was smaller.Columbus was incredibly lucky. If the Americas did not exist, everyone would die from thirst and starvation, 1/3 to 1/4 of the way to East Asia.
Quote from: WarpTech on 04/19/2018 05:09 am...You contradicted yourself. The QV is Lorentz invariant, therefore there is no "drag" force dependent on velocity like you have with air, or wrt "the road"....The problem isn't that there is no drag force with the QV. The problem is that there can be no process at all that lets you know how fast you are going with respect to the QV. This means that a drive reacting against the QV must produce constant acceleration with constant power or otherwise you can measure how fast you are going with respect to the QV. But constant acceleration with constant power is a violation of conservation of energy because energy goes with the square of velocity.
...You contradicted yourself. The QV is Lorentz invariant, therefore there is no "drag" force dependent on velocity like you have with air, or wrt "the road".
I'm ignoring your comments about gravity because you probably will not give any consideration to my Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, which is what I am using since it is based in QED, a well tested QFT.
ΔKe = (1/2)m*(Δv)2
Quote from: WarpTech on 04/19/2018 05:07 pmI'm ignoring your comments about gravity because you probably will not give any consideration to my Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, which is what I am using since it is based in QED, a well tested QFT.You should preface your comments with "Based on my Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity . . ."That way people will know to comment on your theory instead of thinking you don't understand accepted physics.
Quote from: WarpTech on 04/19/2018 05:07 pmΔKe = (1/2)m*(Δv)2Yes but this is just wrong. The problem is that by referencing only a change in velocity it ignores the fact that kinetic energy, like velocity, is frame dependent. Your equation allows you to violate conservation of energy at will by calculating it in two different frames and adding them together as if they were the same thing.To see how this works consider an electric car. Lets say it accelerates from 0 to 50mph and to do so it pulls one unit of electric energy from the battery. Now how much energy would be pulled from the battery if you accelerated from 50mph to 100mph? Well according to your equation the change in velocity is still just 50mph so again you just need one unit of energy from the battery. But that's just wrong. If you do the experiment you will find that it takes three units of energy to go from 50mph to 100mph. And you would need five more units to get to 150mph. You need ever increasing power to maintain constant acceleration. Your equation implies you only need constant power for constant acceleration. One unit to get to 50mph, another unit to get to 100mph, another unit to get to 150mph... This is what breaks conservation of energy.If your space drive only used the change in velocity to calculate energy then you could build up a massive amount of kinetic energy using very little power. This energy is extractable and you will have to explain where it comes from. You can say zero point energy or energy from a different dimension. You can say invisible blue fairies running on treadmills for all I care. But whatever it is is going to be new to physics.
Quote from: ppnl on 04/19/2018 06:59 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 04/19/2018 05:07 pmΔKe = (1/2)m*(Δv)2Yes but this is just wrong. The problem is that by referencing only a change in velocity it ignores the fact that kinetic energy, like velocity, is frame dependent. Your equation allows you to violate conservation of energy at will by calculating it in two different frames and adding them together as if they were the same thing.To see how this works consider an electric car. Lets say it accelerates from 0 to 50mph and to do so it pulls one unit of electric energy from the battery. Now how much energy would be pulled from the battery if you accelerated from 50mph to 100mph? Well according to your equation the change in velocity is still just 50mph so again you just need one unit of energy from the battery. But that's just wrong. If you do the experiment you will find that it takes three units of energy to go from 50mph to 100mph. And you would need five more units to get to 150mph. You need ever increasing power to maintain constant acceleration. Your equation implies you only need constant power for constant acceleration. One unit to get to 50mph, another unit to get to 100mph, another unit to get to 150mph... This is what breaks conservation of energy.If your space drive only used the change in velocity to calculate energy then you could build up a massive amount of kinetic energy using very little power. This energy is extractable and you will have to explain where it comes from. You can say zero point energy or energy from a different dimension. You can say invisible blue fairies running on treadmills for all I care. But whatever it is is going to be new to physics.Point taken, but you changed the problem. Nobody said anything about starting and stopping and adding up the pieces. That's not what I was thinking at all! You said we have to measure the speed relative to the QV. We don't. A photon rocket expends fuel and radiates momentum and energy. Calculating conservation of energy is simply adding up the photons in the exhaust, and then calculating what "v" would be; given the total exhausted energy and the remaining rest-mass, it is straightforward to calculate the Ke relativistically.