Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/04/2014 12:16 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 03:35 amTook a while to find this again. http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.htmlVERY nice and exhaustively done ! Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?There is a huge volume of information concerning Abraham Minkowski momentum and I've found it all to be contradictory and not helpful. They just gotta measure it and see.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 03:35 amTook a while to find this again. http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.htmlVERY nice and exhaustively done ! Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?
Took a while to find this again. http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Quote from: Rodal on 10/04/2014 12:14 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 11:53 amSilly question and may sound of topic but I assure you it is relevant. Are causality and information conjugate variable pairs?They are very much related as I think you know. Time travel to the past poses great paradoxes both with causality (killing your grandfather paradox) and information (sending present information to the past). Also both causality and information can be expressed in terms of entropy of course.And the reason you asked is ?................Rindler horizons. I'm trying to figure it out and prove it wrong. I'm torn if causality and information are really conjugate variable pairs in the spirit of symmetry in Noether's theorem/or are they thermodynamic. The internet isn't helping me much. This problem is related to a whole other obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe. My head hurts. Information/Matter/Energy keep coming back to haunt me and I'm certain they are unified and conserved together somehow. Like how and gates run hotter than or gates. These ideas come full circle.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 11:53 amSilly question and may sound of topic but I assure you it is relevant. Are causality and information conjugate variable pairs?They are very much related as I think you know. Time travel to the past poses great paradoxes both with causality (killing your grandfather paradox) and information (sending present information to the past). Also both causality and information can be expressed in terms of entropy of course.And the reason you asked is ?................
Silly question and may sound of topic but I assure you it is relevant. Are causality and information conjugate variable pairs?
Quote from: Rodal on 10/04/2014 12:14 pmAnd the reason you asked is ?................Rindler horizons. I'm trying to figure it out and prove it wrong...
And the reason you asked is ?................
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 12:35 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 10/04/2014 12:16 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 03:35 amTook a while to find this again. http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.htmlVERY nice and exhaustively done ! Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?There is a huge volume of information concerning Abraham Minkowski momentum and I've found it all to be contradictory and not helpful. They just gotta measure it and see.If you include "hidden momentum" as done by Shockley it all becomes clear. A theoretician cannot decide a constitutive law from an armchair, it needs to be measured. The most a theoretician can do is (using frame-indifference and thermodynamics) is to narrow done the choices for proper stress and stress rate measures, and conjugate measures of strain and strain rate.Similarly with the Abraham and Minkowski expressions. Abraham forced symmetry from the beginning because on purpose he chose a symmetric stress tensor.Minkowski uses an unsymmetric stress tensor.
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/03/2014 06:00 pmFor two positive masses, nothing changes and there is a pull on each other causing an attraction. Two negative masses would produce a pull on one another, but would repel because of their negative inertial masses. For different signs there is a push that repels the positive mass but attracts the negative mass.Bondi pointed out that two objects of equal and opposite mass would produce a constant acceleration of the system towards the positive-mass object.[citation needed] However, the total mass, momentum and energy of the system would remain 0.This behavior is completely inconsistent with a common-sense approach and the expected behaviour of 'normal' matter; but is completely mathematically consistent and introduces no violation of conservation of momentum or energy. If the masses are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign, then the momentum of the system remains zero if they both travel together and accelerate together, no matter what their speed:And equivalently for the kinetic energy :Forward extended Bondi's analysis to additional cases, and showed that even if the two masses m(-) and m(+) are not the same, the conservation laws remain unbroken. This is true even when relativistic effects are considered, so long as inertial mass, not rest mass, is equal to gravitational mass.This behaviour can produce bizarre results: for instance, a gas containing a mixture of positive and negative matter particles will have the positive matter portion increase in temperature without bound. However, the negative matter portion gains negative temperature at the same rate, again balancing out. Geoffrey A. Landis pointed out other implications of Forward's analysis,[2] including noting that although negative mass particles would repel each other gravitationally, the electrostatic force would be attractive for like-charges and repulsive for opposite charges.Forward used the properties of negative-mass matter to create the diametric drive, a design for spacecraft propulsion using negative mass that requires no energy input and no reaction mass to achieve arbitrarily high acceleration.mm, from your understanding (or maybe stated by Forward himself ?) such a diametric drive is a cheap energy generator ? Not free as total mass-energy would be kept constant at 0, but cheap as locally unlimited steady power source.If such arrangement can accelerate, surely it can push at no acceleration (no ?) : push at constant speed (relative to a massive ground) can create energy. Make it on a circular track around the earth for instance, store the recovered energy : this mass equivalent output of this generator must be compensated by an increase (in absolute value) of the negative mass that is chasing the positive one ? Or the positive mass decreased ? What that theory would have to say as to how mass is kept constant overall in this thought experiment ? I suspect this leads us to a possibility of a device that can forever radiate both negative and positive mass, the later could be converted to energy while the former would just be let free to escape far away. Getting unlimited energy source by just radiating away tons of negative mass as debt never to be paid. This is brilliant ! That should easily find some financial backer.
For two positive masses, nothing changes and there is a pull on each other causing an attraction. Two negative masses would produce a pull on one another, but would repel because of their negative inertial masses. For different signs there is a push that repels the positive mass but attracts the negative mass.Bondi pointed out that two objects of equal and opposite mass would produce a constant acceleration of the system towards the positive-mass object.[citation needed] However, the total mass, momentum and energy of the system would remain 0.This behavior is completely inconsistent with a common-sense approach and the expected behaviour of 'normal' matter; but is completely mathematically consistent and introduces no violation of conservation of momentum or energy. If the masses are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign, then the momentum of the system remains zero if they both travel together and accelerate together, no matter what their speed:And equivalently for the kinetic energy :Forward extended Bondi's analysis to additional cases, and showed that even if the two masses m(-) and m(+) are not the same, the conservation laws remain unbroken. This is true even when relativistic effects are considered, so long as inertial mass, not rest mass, is equal to gravitational mass.This behaviour can produce bizarre results: for instance, a gas containing a mixture of positive and negative matter particles will have the positive matter portion increase in temperature without bound. However, the negative matter portion gains negative temperature at the same rate, again balancing out. Geoffrey A. Landis pointed out other implications of Forward's analysis,[2] including noting that although negative mass particles would repel each other gravitationally, the electrostatic force would be attractive for like-charges and repulsive for opposite charges.Forward used the properties of negative-mass matter to create the diametric drive, a design for spacecraft propulsion using negative mass that requires no energy input and no reaction mass to achieve arbitrarily high acceleration.
.....This problem is related to a whole other obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe. ...
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 12:35 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 10/04/2014 12:16 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 03:35 amTook a while to find this again. http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.htmlVERY nice and exhaustively done ! Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?There is a huge volume of information concerning Abraham Minkowski momentum and I've found it all to be contradictory and not helpful. They just gotta measure it and see.If you include "hidden momentum" as done by Shockley (the inventor of the transistor) it may become clear. A theoretician cannot decide a constitutive law from an armchair, it needs to be measured. The most a theoretician can do is (using frame-indifference and thermodynamics) is to narrow done the choices for proper stress and stress rate measures, and conjugate measures of strain and strain rate.Similarly with the Abraham and Minkowski expressions. Abraham forced symmetry from the beginning because on purpose he chose a symmetric stress tensor.Minkowski uses an unsymmetric stress tensor.
Gravity is a how not a why.
I marked up the Nasa paper with a line showing where to lop off the bell pillbox because it makes no difference.
Maybe we'd be better off using sound instead of rf and use a sound room to create boundaries.
The internet isn't helping me much.This problem is related to a whole other nother obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe.
...why emdrive might have produced a small force really boils down the one fundamental problem, ... the problem being the origin of inertial mass.
I'll keep an edit on this thing til we have it nailed down.
A circular stream of tachyons... my brain hurts, any contradictions with causality?
...negative mass is not likely to exist in reality.
You have your own mixologist?
People going to Mass.
I use information theory for my business in the stock market. ... There are no conservation laws in finance. People make irrational decisions.
Mathematica
Quote from: Rodal on 10/04/2014 12:41 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 12:35 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 10/04/2014 12:16 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 03:35 amTook a while to find this again. http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.htmlVERY nice and exhaustively done ! Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?There is a huge volume of information concerning Abraham Minkowski momentum and I've found it all to be contradictory and not helpful. They just gotta measure it and see.If you include "hidden momentum" as done by Shockley (the inventor of the transistor) it may become clear. A theoretician cannot decide a constitutive law from an armchair, it needs to be measured. The most a theoretician can do is (using frame-indifference and thermodynamics) is to narrow done the choices for proper stress and stress rate measures, and conjugate measures of strain and strain rate.Similarly with the Abraham and Minkowski expressions. Abraham forced symmetry from the beginning because on purpose he chose a symmetric stress tensor.Minkowski uses an unsymmetric stress tensor.I didn't want to quibble with Dr. Rodel when he made this kind of statement the other day, but I would point out this seems to confuse the differences between a constitutive equation, which describes properties of a specific material for instance, and a constitutive relation, which can before general. The statement that solid bulk mass stores energy in its interatomic bonds that changes under deformation is to the best of my knowledge true of all solids. It is in fact a property of solids. And there is no onus on a theoretician to measure this in order to form a proper generalization or induction. Once one understands the mechanism, one can be perfectly justified in inferring that mechanism operates for every member of its class, namely solids. What one can't do, is form an actual equation with specific quantities, because these are unique to the materials themselves. But it's quite fair game to say solids experience delta internal energy during deformation. That or you'd have to throw out inductive reasoning from science, which I for one am not willing to do.
http://space.gotnewswire.com/news/particle-antiparticle-scientists-make-strange-discovery-capitalberg
Well quibble you do, because it is all contained in the arbitrary definition of what is a solid. Is glass a solid?How about polymers? are polymers solid?Aren't the dielectric materials we are discussing here (for the NASA Eagleworks tests) polymers like PTFE ? These are not perfect crystals.What is a glass transition?How about rubber? is rubber a solid?How about non-newtonian liquids with elastic properties? They are not really liquids nor solids, yet they exist.Even in metals, what if it is easier (as it often is) for energy to pile up dislocations, than for the energy to go into elastic deformation?Is anything that is not a perfect crystal out of consideration ? Certainly not.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/04/2014 03:03 pmWell quibble you do, because it is all contained in the arbitrary definition of what is a solid. Is glass a solid?How about polymers? are polymers solid?Aren't the dielectric materials we are discussing here (for the NASA Eagleworks tests) polymers like PTFE ? These are not perfect crystals.What is a glass transition?How about rubber? is rubber a solid?How about non-newtonian liquids with elastic properties? They are not really liquids nor solids, yet they exist.Even in metals, what if it is easier (as it often is) for energy to pile up dislocations, than for the energy to go into elastic deformation?Is anything that is not a perfect crystal out of consideration ? Certainly not.All definitions are arbitrary. They are mere conventions. According to the convention in English usage today. Solids are firm and stable in shape, do not include fluids and liquids and thus undergo internal energy changes under deformation. You may call this arbitrary to stipulate, but stipulate we do. Please let me know of you discover some exception to this convention.
Last thought before I take a break and sleep is that there is no way that dumping energy into a dielectric, be it a cap or piezoelectric electroactive polymer or whatever, the qed vacuum even, will contribute to the mass energy of that system.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/04/2014 04:38 pmhttp://space.gotnewswire.com/news/particle-antiparticle-scientists-make-strange-discovery-capitalbergWow !The Majorana fermion may have been finally found, after 77 years !