I don't think I would want to be on record stating that it's impossible. There are a lot more papers than these that support the concept. One device built demonstrates the concept of effective negative mass. http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html Were also not talking photon drives here. Were talking that information can't travel faster than light and that can be manipulated to violate conservation of momentum. @ laszlo This thread was started to encourage those who would like to build one. Are you interested?
Is there any way that the multiple threads on reactionless thrusters could be somehow merged or thinned out somehow? There are now four threads on the first page that discuss crackpot propulsion, which is starting to get on my nerves.
You can't get a propellantless drive with known physics. It's true that known physics might be wrong in places and that might allow propellantless propulsion. But not with known physics.
QuoteYou can't get a propellantless drive with known physics. It's true that known physics might be wrong in places and that might allow propellantless propulsion. But not with known physics.I did not read much of this thread and I'm totally not knowledgeable in physics at all, but to me it always looks funny when inventions or concepts first need to be proven on the drawing boards (or heads) of the mathematicians and physicists first to receive remote attention and even then it's hard, like the Higgs idea. However if it's the other way around they always tell you that it's impossible and deserves no further thought etc. In the end if the idea worked out, the physicists are dumbfounded and desperate the "bend" the math around until convinced they actually knew how it worked all along.
@ laszlo This thread was started to encourage those who would like to build one. Are you interested?
Quote from: Nilof on 05/10/2015 09:09 pmIs there any way that the multiple threads on reactionless thrusters could be somehow merged or thinned out somehow? There are now four threads on the first page that discuss crackpot propulsion, which is starting to get on my nerves.I think the problem is that some of the people who believe the crackpot propulsion stuff are very prolific posters, so these threads tend to stay high on the recent activity list.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/10/2015 09:43 pmQuote from: Nilof on 05/10/2015 09:09 pmIs there any way that the multiple threads on reactionless thrusters could be somehow merged or thinned out somehow? There are now four threads on the first page that discuss crackpot propulsion, which is starting to get on my nerves.I think the problem is that some of the people who believe the crackpot propulsion stuff are very prolific posters, so these threads tend to stay high on the recent activity list.Replying to them keeps them at the top as well. That is assuming you think this is one of them [crackpot threads]. I admit it doesn't necessarily violate conservation of momentum but there are plenty of people who will claim it does if they feel its not pushing off propellant and the force seems greater than simply light based propulsion. [if you don't know what it's pushing off exactly than it might appear that way]. Apparently the drive would be classified by in this document as either a "diametric drive" or a "dis-junction drive". The Challenge To Create The Space Drive Marc G. Millis NASA Glenn Research Center http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/SPACEDRIVE.HTMQuote: "Disjunction DriveThe fourth type of hypothetical field drive, as illustrated in Fig. 7, entertains the possibility that the source of a field and that which reacts to a field can be separated. By displacing them in space, the reactant is shifted to a point where the field has a slope, thus producing reaction forces between the source and the reactant. It is assumed that the source and reactant are held apart by some sort of rigid device.Obviously, a critical issue of this scheme is whether the field’s source is a separate entity from that which reacts to a field. This perspective is similar to that used in the analysis of the properties of negative mass. [12] In the course of examining the nature of hypothesized negative mass, three different masses can be distinguished: the "source mass," "reactant mass," and "inertial mass." Although these distinctions were made to classically analyze the behavior of negative mass, they do invite speculation. Could either a "source" or "reactant" mass be mimicked through some coupling between gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime? If so, the propulsive effect suggested above may be possible. This is unknown at this time."Quote: "Diametric DriveThis is directly analogous to the "negative mass" propulsion suggested by Bondi 12, Winterberg 13 and Forward. 14 The diametric drive can also be considered analogous to creating a pressure source and sink in a space medium as suggested previously with the Induction Sail.Negative mass propulsion is not a new concept. It has already been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass 12 and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. 14"This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html .
Quote from: dustinthewind on 05/11/2015 01:42 amThe drive would be classified by in this document as either a "diametric drive" or a "dis-junction drive". The Challenge To Create The Space Drive Marc G. Millis NASA Glenn Research Center http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/SPACEDRIVE.HTMQuote: "Disjunction DriveThe fourth type of hypothetical field drive, as illustrated in Fig. 7, entertains the possibility that the source of a field and that which reacts to a field can be separated. By displacing them in space, the reactant is shifted to a point where the field has a slope, thus producing reaction forces between the source and the reactant. It is assumed that the source and reactant are held apart by some sort of rigid device.Obviously, a critical issue of this scheme is whether the field’s source is a separate entity from that which reacts to a field. This perspective is similar to that used in the analysis of the properties of negative mass. [12] In the course of examining the nature of hypothesized negative mass, three different masses can be distinguished: the "source mass," "reactant mass," and "inertial mass." Although these distinctions were made to classically analyze the behavior of negative mass, they do invite speculation. Could either a "source" or "reactant" mass be mimicked through some coupling between gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime? If so, the propulsive effect suggested above may be possible. This is unknown at this time."Quote: "Diametric DriveThis is directly analogous to the "negative mass" propulsion suggested by Bondi 12, Winterberg 13 and Forward. 14 The diametric drive can also be considered analogous to creating a pressure source and sink in a space medium as suggested previously with the Induction Sail.Negative mass propulsion is not a new concept. It has already been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass 12 and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. 14"This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html . You're just misunderstanding the paper. They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space. They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass. It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics. It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.
The drive would be classified by in this document as either a "diametric drive" or a "dis-junction drive". The Challenge To Create The Space Drive Marc G. Millis NASA Glenn Research Center http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/SPACEDRIVE.HTMQuote: "Disjunction DriveThe fourth type of hypothetical field drive, as illustrated in Fig. 7, entertains the possibility that the source of a field and that which reacts to a field can be separated. By displacing them in space, the reactant is shifted to a point where the field has a slope, thus producing reaction forces between the source and the reactant. It is assumed that the source and reactant are held apart by some sort of rigid device.Obviously, a critical issue of this scheme is whether the field’s source is a separate entity from that which reacts to a field. This perspective is similar to that used in the analysis of the properties of negative mass. [12] In the course of examining the nature of hypothesized negative mass, three different masses can be distinguished: the "source mass," "reactant mass," and "inertial mass." Although these distinctions were made to classically analyze the behavior of negative mass, they do invite speculation. Could either a "source" or "reactant" mass be mimicked through some coupling between gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime? If so, the propulsive effect suggested above may be possible. This is unknown at this time."Quote: "Diametric DriveThis is directly analogous to the "negative mass" propulsion suggested by Bondi 12, Winterberg 13 and Forward. 14 The diametric drive can also be considered analogous to creating a pressure source and sink in a space medium as suggested previously with the Induction Sail.Negative mass propulsion is not a new concept. It has already been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass 12 and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. 14"This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html .
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/12/2015 06:13 amQuote from: dustinthewind on 05/11/2015 01:42 amThe drive would be classified by in this document as either a "diametric drive" or a "dis-junction drive". The Challenge To Create The Space Drive Marc G. Millis NASA Glenn Research Center http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/SPACEDRIVE.HTMQuote: "Disjunction DriveThe fourth type of hypothetical field drive, as illustrated in Fig. 7, entertains the possibility that the source of a field and that which reacts to a field can be separated. By displacing them in space, the reactant is shifted to a point where the field has a slope, thus producing reaction forces between the source and the reactant. It is assumed that the source and reactant are held apart by some sort of rigid device.Obviously, a critical issue of this scheme is whether the field’s source is a separate entity from that which reacts to a field. This perspective is similar to that used in the analysis of the properties of negative mass. [12] In the course of examining the nature of hypothesized negative mass, three different masses can be distinguished: the "source mass," "reactant mass," and "inertial mass." Although these distinctions were made to classically analyze the behavior of negative mass, they do invite speculation. Could either a "source" or "reactant" mass be mimicked through some coupling between gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime? If so, the propulsive effect suggested above may be possible. This is unknown at this time."Quote: "Diametric DriveThis is directly analogous to the "negative mass" propulsion suggested by Bondi 12, Winterberg 13 and Forward. 14 The diametric drive can also be considered analogous to creating a pressure source and sink in a space medium as suggested previously with the Induction Sail.Negative mass propulsion is not a new concept. It has already been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass 12 and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. 14"This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html . You're just misunderstanding the paper. They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space. They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass. It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics. It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.While the paper does deal with light in a mesh, still they are dealing with acceleration. Quote of title: "Optical diametric drive acceleration through action–reaction symmetry breaking". They use the same concept to accelerate by using phase modulation. Further the drive doesn't use "real negative mass" but rather effective negative mass. The light doing negative work doesn't have negative mass but rather "effective negative mass" and seems to attract rather than push [eg. when 2 currents move in the same direction or when working against the electric field of light]. I am willing to bet another example might be optical tweezers. quote from the abstract: "Newton’s third law of motion is one of the pillars of classical physics. This fundamental principle states that the forces two bodies exert on each other are equal and opposite. Had the resulting accelerations been oriented in the same direction, this would have instead led to a counterintuitive phenomenon, that of diametric drive1. In such a hypothetical arrangement, two interacting particles constantly accelerate each other in the same direction through a violation of the action–reaction symmetry. Although in classical mechanics any realization of this process requires one of the two particles to have a negative mass and hence is strictly forbidden, it could nevertheless be feasible in periodic structures where the effective mass can also attain a negative sign"They are not the exact same concept but are related like cousins.
The demonstrated reversal of action–reaction symmetry could enable altogether new possibilities for frequency conversion and pulse-steering applications.
well the wave forms in which these apparent negative conditions exist travel the negative bit and the much larger positive bit move along but are followed by more negative bits and of course more positive bits. effectively overtime you have a ribbon of negative and positive energy. in regular things of this nature you can make a flat motor or in the case of a ring a regular motor. I have already commented elsewhere on the optical diametric drive article on this perhaps being a way to create that negative mass energy shell needed for a warp effect or a wormhole effect; in duration and geometry if not in quantity. but it should be possible to "play with" (meaning to experiment with) some of the ideas inherent in alcubiere like space systems and wormhole apertures using the diametric drive rings. I don't think you could open up a full alcubierre metric or a real wormhole. but maybe you could measure a deflection of photons or maybe tiny pellets with a unambigous positive signal so we aren't perpetually fighting arguments about spurious measurements.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 05/13/2015 02:50 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/12/2015 06:13 amQuote from: dustinthewind on 05/11/2015 01:42 am...This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html . You're just misunderstanding the paper. They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space. They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass. It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics. It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.While the paper does deal with light in a mesh, still they are dealing with acceleration. Quote of title: "Optical diametric drive acceleration through action–reaction symmetry breaking". They use the same concept to accelerate by using phase modulation. Further the drive doesn't use "real negative mass" but rather effective negative mass. The light doing negative work doesn't have negative mass but rather "effective negative mass" and seems to attract rather than push [eg. when 2 currents move in the same direction or when working against the electric field of light]. I am willing to bet another example might be optical tweezers. quote from the abstract: "...this process requires one of the two particles to have a negative mass and hence is strictly forbidden, it could nevertheless be feasible in periodic structures where the effective mass can also attain a negative sign"They are not the exact same concept but are related like cousins. You're still missing the main point -- that an "effective" negative mass in a mesh doesn't help you get a real negative mass in free space.Dustinthewind: Think of action and reaction. If two magnets pull together for example. Symmetry breaking on the other hand messes that up. How do you do that? Do magnetic fields travel faster than light? no. Do changes in the magnetic field always push? Not if the current of the observer does work against the electric field of light. If you get the phase relation just right between two observers currents you get Symmetry breaking.Really, the "effective negative mass" they're talking about just means "lower mass than the surrounding medium". It's fundamentally no different than saying a ship has negative mass in water and that's a way to get anti-gravity. It's true, relative to the medium of water, the ship does have negative mass, and it does get pushed away from the center of the Earth because of that. But it is not a path forward for making a space drive. It's a fundamental property of the medium -- water, in this case -- and the effect cannot exist outside that medium.Dustinthewind: The medium is space and time [information delay] and electromagnetism. You quote most of the abstract of the Nature paper, but you leave out the most important part, the last sentence of the abstract, which tells you why the authors think this is important. Here is that last sentence of the abstract:QuoteThe demonstrated reversal of action–reaction symmetry could enable altogether new possibilities for frequency conversion and pulse-steering applications.In other words, the paper's authors think it's an interesting result because it might be useful for steering photons and doing other operations on photons. There's no mention of a space drive. If that paper really did have implications for propellantless propulsion, why wouldn't the authors of the paper mention that? It would certainly be far, far more significant than the mundane applications they do mention about steering photons.The reason the paper's authors don't mention space drives is that they know full well this has nothing to do with propulsion in free space.Dustinthewind: Maybe they didn't give it much thought in particular, maybe they don't think it does, or maybe they didn't wan't to open up that can of worms just yet.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/12/2015 06:13 amQuote from: dustinthewind on 05/11/2015 01:42 am...This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html . You're just misunderstanding the paper. They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space. They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass. It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics. It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.While the paper does deal with light in a mesh, still they are dealing with acceleration. Quote of title: "Optical diametric drive acceleration through action–reaction symmetry breaking". They use the same concept to accelerate by using phase modulation. Further the drive doesn't use "real negative mass" but rather effective negative mass. The light doing negative work doesn't have negative mass but rather "effective negative mass" and seems to attract rather than push [eg. when 2 currents move in the same direction or when working against the electric field of light]. I am willing to bet another example might be optical tweezers. quote from the abstract: "...this process requires one of the two particles to have a negative mass and hence is strictly forbidden, it could nevertheless be feasible in periodic structures where the effective mass can also attain a negative sign"They are not the exact same concept but are related like cousins.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 05/11/2015 01:42 am...This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html . You're just misunderstanding the paper. They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space. They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass. It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics. It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.
...This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html .
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/13/2015 03:54 amYou're still missing the main point -- that an "effective" negative mass in a mesh doesn't help you get a real negative mass in free space.Think of action and reaction. If two magnets pull together for example. Symmetry breaking on the other hand messes that up. How do you do that? Do magnetic fields travel faster than light? no. Do changes in the magnetic field always push? Not if the current of the observer does work against the electric field of light. If you get the phase relation just right between two observers currents you get Symmetry breaking.
You're still missing the main point -- that an "effective" negative mass in a mesh doesn't help you get a real negative mass in free space.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/13/2015 03:54 amReally, the "effective negative mass" they're talking about just means "lower mass than the surrounding medium". It's fundamentally no different than saying a ship has negative mass in water and that's a way to get anti-gravity. It's true, relative to the medium of water, the ship does have negative mass, and it does get pushed away from the center of the Earth because of that. But it is not a path forward for making a space drive. It's a fundamental property of the medium -- water, in this case -- and the effect cannot exist outside that medium.The medium is space and time [information delay] and electromagnetism.
Really, the "effective negative mass" they're talking about just means "lower mass than the surrounding medium". It's fundamentally no different than saying a ship has negative mass in water and that's a way to get anti-gravity. It's true, relative to the medium of water, the ship does have negative mass, and it does get pushed away from the center of the Earth because of that. But it is not a path forward for making a space drive. It's a fundamental property of the medium -- water, in this case -- and the effect cannot exist outside that medium.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/13/2015 03:54 amYou quote most of the abstract of the Nature paper, but you leave out the most important part, the last sentence of the abstract, which tells you why the authors think this is important. Here is that last sentence of the abstract:QuoteThe demonstrated reversal of action–reaction symmetry could enable altogether new possibilities for frequency conversion and pulse-steering applications.In other words, the paper's authors think it's an interesting result because it might be useful for steering photons and doing other operations on photons. There's no mention of a space drive. If that paper really did have implications for propellantless propulsion, why wouldn't the authors of the paper mention that? It would certainly be far, far more significant than the mundane applications they do mention about steering photons.The reason the paper's authors don't mention space drives is that they know full well this has nothing to do with propulsion in free space.Maybe they didn't give it much thought in particular, maybe they don't think it does, or maybe they didn't wan't to open up that can of worms just yet. :-\
You quote most of the abstract of the Nature paper, but you leave out the most important part, the last sentence of the abstract, which tells you why the authors think this is important. Here is that last sentence of the abstract:QuoteThe demonstrated reversal of action–reaction symmetry could enable altogether new possibilities for frequency conversion and pulse-steering applications.In other words, the paper's authors think it's an interesting result because it might be useful for steering photons and doing other operations on photons. There's no mention of a space drive. If that paper really did have implications for propellantless propulsion, why wouldn't the authors of the paper mention that? It would certainly be far, far more significant than the mundane applications they do mention about steering photons.The reason the paper's authors don't mention space drives is that they know full well this has nothing to do with propulsion in free space.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 05/13/2015 06:57 amMaybe they didn't give it much thought in particular, maybe they don't think it does, or maybe they didn't wan't to open up that can of worms just yet. Seriously, you should realize how delusional that sounds. You think you see revolutionary implications in a paper that never occurred to the authors. Or you have some sort of conspiratorial world view that scientists can't tell the truth out of fear. If they feared pointing out the implications for space travel, why would they publish in the first place? You think that somehow they're publishing and yet somehow hoping the people they fear don't notice the implications you think are obvious?
Maybe they didn't give it much thought in particular, maybe they don't think it does, or maybe they didn't wan't to open up that can of worms just yet.