Quote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 07:19 pmQuote from: CW on 06/02/2015 07:11 pmI think that the issue with closed systems is the reason that Paul March proposed a higher-dimensional space mechanism. What looks like a closed system in our 3+1 dimensional everyday reality, could easily be an open system in 5D+ spacetime. And this is why the experimentational factor is so vital. We need a demonstrator with high enough unidirectional force outout that can be reliably reproduced by any random, sufficiently technically skilled person on this planet. As string theories predict, reality is actually a lot higher-dimensional than what we can perceive and conceive with these little brains of ours.There just doesn't seem to be any way around it in my mind. Perhaps this is the first experimental evidence of a 5D spacetime (or interacting with the QV) - otherwise the thrust is an experimental artifact. I just don't see how it can be any other way. I do 'believe' there is thrust and it's not an experimental artifact - I also believe the theories proposed by Shawyer and Yang are wrong and perhaps White is on the right track - Shawyer's and Yang's drives just happen to work based on entirely different principles than they proposed.White is definitely NOT on the right track. Yang is closer than anyone and simply didn't disclose the details, and used a poorly constructed example to explain it, but her force equation is correct "IFF" you plug in the correct field amplitudes AND phases. Simply put, it moves because inside there is an EM stress energy tensor that is skewed to one side by constructive and destructive interference with the source. It would have a lot more thrust if the balance were 50/50, but as it is, only a small percentage of the waves walk out of phase to cause the interference. So the standing waves dominate, and there is very little thrust. The percentage results in higher NET thrust for higher Q, but it would be a more efficient thruster if the percentage were higher and the Q were lower.Todd
Quote from: CW on 06/02/2015 07:11 pmI think that the issue with closed systems is the reason that Paul March proposed a higher-dimensional space mechanism. What looks like a closed system in our 3+1 dimensional everyday reality, could easily be an open system in 5D+ spacetime. And this is why the experimentational factor is so vital. We need a demonstrator with high enough unidirectional force outout that can be reliably reproduced by any random, sufficiently technically skilled person on this planet. As string theories predict, reality is actually a lot higher-dimensional than what we can perceive and conceive with these little brains of ours.There just doesn't seem to be any way around it in my mind. Perhaps this is the first experimental evidence of a 5D spacetime (or interacting with the QV) - otherwise the thrust is an experimental artifact. I just don't see how it can be any other way. I do 'believe' there is thrust and it's not an experimental artifact - I also believe the theories proposed by Shawyer and Yang are wrong and perhaps White is on the right track - Shawyer's and Yang's drives just happen to work based on entirely different principles than they proposed.
I think that the issue with closed systems is the reason that Paul March proposed a higher-dimensional space mechanism. What looks like a closed system in our 3+1 dimensional everyday reality, could easily be an open system in 5D+ spacetime. And this is why the experimentational factor is so vital. We need a demonstrator with high enough unidirectional force outout that can be reliably reproduced by any random, sufficiently technically skilled person on this planet. As string theories predict, reality is actually a lot higher-dimensional than what we can perceive and conceive with these little brains of ours.
Quote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 07:00 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 06/02/2015 06:50 pmIn conventional physics, it is clear that the momentum of the radiation injected into the cavity produces a back reaction upon the source of that radiation. Therefore if you put a box around [source + cavity], where the source includes a portable power supply (e.g. battery) - then the net momentum of the system is zero forever as viewed from outside the box.If there is a radiation leak, thrust no greater than P/c ("equivalent photon rocket") may result from such a system, including thermal effects originating from the input power P.Clearly here the claim being made is not conventional physics because:1. The claim is made that the box as a whole will moveand2. The claim is made that the magnitude of the thrust causing this movement exceeds the maximum expected thrust of the equivalent photon rocket by orders of magnitude.Thus any successful attempt at explanation will not use conventional physics.There is a corollary to all this:If you attempt to explain this effect with conventional physics alone, you have made an error.Thank you, thank you, thank you. Exactly.But we've covered all of this literally dozens of times up thread. Pretty please, don't rehash what we've already covered ad nauseum, and instead focus on what we haven't covered so that the thread doesn't loose meaning or focus. Every few weeks this thread has a collective breather when someone yells "Unicorns don't exist!" then the lurkers ask a bunch of newbie questions, and then we go back to researching while the audience listens quietly.
Quote from: deltaMass on 06/02/2015 06:50 pmIn conventional physics, it is clear that the momentum of the radiation injected into the cavity produces a back reaction upon the source of that radiation. Therefore if you put a box around [source + cavity], where the source includes a portable power supply (e.g. battery) - then the net momentum of the system is zero forever as viewed from outside the box.If there is a radiation leak, thrust no greater than P/c ("equivalent photon rocket") may result from such a system, including thermal effects originating from the input power P.Clearly here the claim being made is not conventional physics because:1. The claim is made that the box as a whole will moveand2. The claim is made that the magnitude of the thrust causing this movement exceeds the maximum expected thrust of the equivalent photon rocket by orders of magnitude.Thus any successful attempt at explanation will not use conventional physics.There is a corollary to all this:If you attempt to explain this effect with conventional physics alone, you have made an error.Thank you, thank you, thank you. Exactly.
In conventional physics, it is clear that the momentum of the radiation injected into the cavity produces a back reaction upon the source of that radiation. Therefore if you put a box around [source + cavity], where the source includes a portable power supply (e.g. battery) - then the net momentum of the system is zero forever as viewed from outside the box.If there is a radiation leak, thrust no greater than P/c ("equivalent photon rocket") may result from such a system, including thermal effects originating from the input power P.Clearly here the claim being made is not conventional physics because:1. The claim is made that the box as a whole will moveand2. The claim is made that the magnitude of the thrust causing this movement exceeds the maximum expected thrust of the equivalent photon rocket by orders of magnitude.Thus any successful attempt at explanation will not use conventional physics.There is a corollary to all this:If you attempt to explain this effect with conventional physics alone, you have made an error.
But is that a closed or open system.Face the unfortunate fact that until more data is received from experiments conducted at a high level this thread could be doomed to go in circles.
Quote from: WarpTech on 06/02/2015 07:47 pm...White is definitely NOT on the right track. Yang is closer than anyone and simply didn't disclose the details, and used a poorly constructed example to explain it, but her force equation is correct "IFF" you plug in the correct field amplitudes AND phases. Simply put, it moves because inside there is an EM stress energy tensor that is skewed to one side by constructive and destructive interference with the source. It would have a lot more thrust if the balance were 50/50, but as it is, only a small percentage of the waves walk out of phase to cause the interference. So the standing waves dominate, and there is very little thrust. The percentage results in higher NET thrust for higher Q, but it would be a more efficient thruster if the percentage were higher and the Q were lower.ToddTodd, to maybe help with my understanding of your theory, is there anyway that you could succinctly say what is it within your theory that causes COM to be obeyed? We know that the EMdrive has a net force, and subsequent gain in physical momentum, in one direction. What (matter, EM waves, etc.) is it that moves in the opposite direction such that COM holds? Simply put, for me at least, talking about a "skewed EM stress energy tensor" and constructive vs destructive interference doesn't offer any insight into the conservation of momentum issue because those words don't have any meaning for me in terms of momentum.
...White is definitely NOT on the right track. Yang is closer than anyone and simply didn't disclose the details, and used a poorly constructed example to explain it, but her force equation is correct "IFF" you plug in the correct field amplitudes AND phases. Simply put, it moves because inside there is an EM stress energy tensor that is skewed to one side by constructive and destructive interference with the source. It would have a lot more thrust if the balance were 50/50, but as it is, only a small percentage of the waves walk out of phase to cause the interference. So the standing waves dominate, and there is very little thrust. The percentage results in higher NET thrust for higher Q, but it would be a more efficient thruster if the percentage were higher and the Q were lower.Todd
Quote from: Star One on 06/02/2015 08:12 pmBut is that a closed or open system.Face the unfortunate fact that until more data is received from experiments conducted at a high level this thread could be doomed to go in circles.Yes, that can be a consequence, or you can jump in with the experimenters and focus on the experiments in the hope that more experimental results will break the rhetoric cycle.
I need to remind myself that this is a Tar Baby Frustum and really all anyone here wants is to see it work. I've read and understood more about one EM Frustum than about anything I've ever done. I try to understand everyones input no matter how off center it may be or simplistic (like. maybe. could. we fill it with jello?) questions.I love the passion and drive and creativity and so we rehash and rehash, explain a little differently. One day the light will go on and there will be an EUREKA moment "It works and we can make it better, or Damn it was just swamp gas all along".
Does anyone know, off the top of their head, the refractive index of jello? Perhaps this hypothesis is worth investigating... worst that happens is somebody gets scalded by molten sugar.
Quote from: deltaMass on 06/02/2015 07:07 pmQuote from: WarpTechK ~ exp[2GM/r*c^2]So K ~ 1. What use, then, is it?Uhmm.... (1/2)*Grad(K) = g/c^2 for example of using it to find the acceleration. What use is the metric tensor, g_uv?It is an engineering tool because it is much easier working with K than it is working with g_uv and Einstein's equations, and it can be expressed in a frequency & bandwidth dependent way very easily. I updated my previous post on this topic. Check it out.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1383566#msg1383566
Quote from: WarpTechK ~ exp[2GM/r*c^2]So K ~ 1. What use, then, is it?
K ~ exp[2GM/r*c^2]
Simply put, it moves because inside there is an EM stress energy tensor that is skewed to one side by constructive and destructive interference with the source. It would have a lot more thrust if the balance were 50/50, but as it is, only a small percentage of the waves walk out of phase to cause the interference. So the standing waves dominate, and there is very little thrust. The percentage results in higher NET thrust for higher Q, but it would be a more efficient thruster if the percentage were higher and the Q were lower.Todd
Quote from: WarpTech on 06/02/2015 07:32 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 06/02/2015 07:07 pmQuote from: WarpTechK ~ exp[2GM/r*c^2]So K ~ 1. What use, then, is it?Uhmm.... (1/2)*Grad(K) = g/c^2 for example of using it to find the acceleration. What use is the metric tensor, g_uv?It is an engineering tool because it is much easier working with K than it is working with g_uv and Einstein's equations, and it can be expressed in a frequency & bandwidth dependent way very easily. I updated my previous post on this topic. Check it out.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1383566#msg1383566I do believe you're missing my point, which is to point out that the magnitude of your 'K' is as close to unity as makes no difference.
Before I try to explain that, consider the following;Two separated bar magnets will accelerate toward one another due to the magnetic force, if there is no friction to keep them apart. If you draw a circle around either magnet alone;Where is an equal amount of momentum crossing that boundary, going in the "opposite" direction relative to the motion of each magnet?
The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, so;Why does this situation exert a force many orders of magnitude greater than a photon rocket?
The photons that are exchanged between the two magnets causes them to "attract" not repel, so conventional "logic" would say they are conveying the momentum in the wrong direction.To understand this, you must consider not only the Amplitude of the field, but also the Phase, North vs South. This is where everyone is missing the mark, like Greg Egan using time averaged sin and cos, ignores the relative instantaneous phase and resulting interference pattern of the superposition.Todd
You recall we were discussing whether c could change in the absence of a material medium. I came into this when you tossed a "c/K" out there. If K~1 (as we both agree), then this becomes a semantic null statement.
Quote...Where is an equal amount of momentum crossing that boundary, going in the "opposite" direction relative to the motion of each magnet? There is none, nor should there be. Momentum doesn't have to be conserved locally. You simply chose the wrong boundary for you circle to differentiate between local and global.
...Where is an equal amount of momentum crossing that boundary, going in the "opposite" direction relative to the motion of each magnet?
QuoteThe electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, so;Why does this situation exert a force many orders of magnitude greater than a photon rocket? Not all photons can contribute to force like a photon rocket, they must be radiative. The field emanating from a bar magnet is near field/reactive, there is no photon rocket effect whatsoever.
QuoteThe photons that are exchanged between the two magnets causes them to "attract" not repel, so conventional "logic" would say they are conveying the momentum in the wrong direction.To understand this, you must consider not only the Amplitude of the field, but also the Phase, North vs South. This is where everyone is missing the mark, like Greg Egan using time averaged sin and cos, ignores the relative instantaneous phase and resulting interference pattern of the superposition.ToddYou see, this is where I still don't understand where you are coming from. To use your two magnets pulling towards one another analogy, the apparent gain in momentum from one magnet was exactly cancelled when we chose a larger, more inclusive boundary with which to perform our momentum accounting. So with the emdrive moving forward, what is it in your theory that moves back? Our is it that the whole universe is not a large enough circle with which to account for momentum, and thus momentum is gained in another dimension/exotic field?At the end of the day, phase, superposition and interference are all classical effects. Nothing special there. So what circle do I need to draw around the EMdrive, and what fields do I need to consider, such that I end up with a momentum that is equal and opposite the physical momentum of the drive?
Quote from: deltaMass on 06/02/2015 09:47 pmYou recall we were discussing whether c could change in the absence of a material medium. I came into this when you tossed a "c/K" out there. If K~1 (as we both agree), then this becomes a semantic null statement.At the surface of the Earth, for the Earth's gravitational field;K = 1/(1 - 2GM/r*c^2) ~ 1Grad(K) = 2*g/c^2Inside the frustum,K_frustum = sqrt(1 + (a(z)/k)^2), where "a(z)" is the attenuation factor as a function of position along the "z" axis of the frustum, and "k" is the free space wave number. For the wavelength's inside the frustum;K_frustum > 1, and Grad(K_frustum) = (a/K)*(1/k^2)*da(z)/dzIt is only insignificant if the attenuation factor "a = 0" or if "a = constant". In a frustum it does not equal zero and it is not a constant.I think you just like to antagonize! This is not THAT difficult to understand. Todd
"Scientists have argued for more than a century about the momentum of light in materials," Leonhardt told Phys.org. "Is it Abraham's, is it Minkowski's? We discovered that momentum is not a fundamental quantity, but it is made in the interplay between light and matter, and it depends on the ability of the light to move the material. If the medium does not move, it is Minkowski's, and if it moves, Abraham's. This was not understood before."Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-physicists-pressure.html#jCp