Quote from: Rodal on 11/04/2014 09:17 pmMomerathe, a warm welcome to this forum !Cheers. ...
Momerathe, a warm welcome to this forum !
You are pre-supposing.Who knows what energy actually is?
generations of scientists?The important thing to remember is that energy is a property of a system. It is not "stuff", even though we often talk about it as if it is. This is, IMO, a bad habit among science communicators.
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 11/05/2014 04:06 pmYou're muddling the issue by stipulating "rest". Rest mass is actually a thing. I'm not muddeling. Virtual particles have no mass at any time, of any kind. Where did you get your thorough understanding of the QV and virtual particles from? It is still a subject of intense research. You appear to be in the lead. Congratulations! If they did they would gravitate and collapse the universe. You are making a hasty assumption here. Did you consider their stochastic nature? The fact we distinguish between virtual and real photons should be explanation enough. No content here. Photons have mass unless they're virtual, and virtual particles cannot mediate momentum nor energy transfer. You know something the rest of the world doesn't. This is by definition, and it is when people redefine virtual particles to suit their pet theories (who? citation needed), that the folks like Sean Carroll get so upset. You're speaking on behalf of someone else. Would they appreciate that? Are you acknowledging that virtual particles exist but not the QV?Virtual particles are not necessary to do any physics. Virtual particles need not be material in order to be considered real. Their influence is seen in the material world, Zitterbewegung et al, and they are a useful mathematical accounting tool. You see them in Feynman diagrams. Their effects must also be adjusted for in calculations and also subtracted out by renormalization. They're an invention for people who like to see field phenomena in terms of particle exchange, but the fields are enough. Inventions are okay if they are useful and hold true. You don't need the particles for anything. Says you? They're really just a form of pandering to the need to see things in terms of particles which are really field phenomena. the graviton is another example of this. We have never found one, despite looking for 4 generations, but most people believe in gravitons anyway. I don't believe in gravitons either, however it is a popular theory that hasn't been ruled out. That's because particle theory is so emotionally satisfying. I don't get all emotional over particles. Beer is satisfying to me, not particles. It lends itself to the emotional need (see below) to feel we know what's going on when fields are the opposite--quite mysterious by nature. "Sometimes I just don't get it." Pretty much everything quoted above is either factually inaccurate, a logical fallacy, or a cognitive bias. The rest is weasel words. This is the last time I ftt. I value your inputs but when you go on these anti QV rants, it is just too much. My "word by word" comments are in blue. My thoughts are that if someone has issue with a theory that's fine. But they should have a constructive rebuttal too. What is your alternate theory? Do you have a personal stake in something else that makes you just not like anything to do with EMdrive? Is it because it isn't Woodward's theory? What gives? Should we just not give EMdrive any attention whatsoever?My apologies for any mistakes I may have made in my statements or vocabulary. Very respectfully,Mulletron
You're muddling the issue by stipulating "rest". Rest mass is actually a thing. I'm not muddeling. Virtual particles have no mass at any time, of any kind. Where did you get your thorough understanding of the QV and virtual particles from? It is still a subject of intense research. You appear to be in the lead. Congratulations! If they did they would gravitate and collapse the universe. You are making a hasty assumption here. Did you consider their stochastic nature? The fact we distinguish between virtual and real photons should be explanation enough. No content here. Photons have mass unless they're virtual, and virtual particles cannot mediate momentum nor energy transfer. You know something the rest of the world doesn't. This is by definition, and it is when people redefine virtual particles to suit their pet theories (who? citation needed), that the folks like Sean Carroll get so upset. You're speaking on behalf of someone else. Would they appreciate that? Are you acknowledging that virtual particles exist but not the QV?Virtual particles are not necessary to do any physics. Virtual particles need not be material in order to be considered real. Their influence is seen in the material world, Zitterbewegung et al, and they are a useful mathematical accounting tool. You see them in Feynman diagrams. Their effects must also be adjusted for in calculations and also subtracted out by renormalization. They're an invention for people who like to see field phenomena in terms of particle exchange, but the fields are enough. Inventions are okay if they are useful and hold true. You don't need the particles for anything. Says you? They're really just a form of pandering to the need to see things in terms of particles which are really field phenomena. the graviton is another example of this. We have never found one, despite looking for 4 generations, but most people believe in gravitons anyway. I don't believe in gravitons either, however it is a popular theory that hasn't been ruled out. That's because particle theory is so emotionally satisfying. I don't get all emotional over particles. Beer is satisfying to me, not particles. It lends itself to the emotional need (see below) to feel we know what's going on when fields are the opposite--quite mysterious by nature. "Sometimes I just don't get it."
Some of my own medicine actually. I complained a lot on here about precision of language. Oh well live and learn.
Signing "Very respectfully" a post that charges "Pretty much everything quoted above is either factually inaccurate, a logical fallacy, or a cognitive bias. The rest is weasel words. " does not make it respectful.The subject being discussed in this thread is EM Drives and Spaceflight.
... we know a novel principle of physics must exist, because we know QFT is incomplete. What we don't know is if this extension is one that allows the quantum vacuum to act as a momentum sink. To be honest, I'm not even sure how one would begin to speculate about it.
to be clear - when I say "work", I mean function as a form of propulsion.
I like what you're saying up there. This quote holds true, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." ~Feynman.I do think I have not been heard or was misunderstood. I stated that we're not pushing on the QV. The QV is pushing on us. The novel physics you speak of is allowing this to happen in a preferred direction. I postulate.I like the brand of precise tempered reason you bring to the table.
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/06/2014 03:44 pmI like what you're saying up there. This quote holds true, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." ~Feynman.I do think I have not been heard or was misunderstood. I stated that we're not pushing on the QV. The QV is pushing on us. The novel physics you speak of is allowing this to happen in a preferred direction. I postulate.I like the brand of precise tempered reason you bring to the table.IDK, but it sounds like, by "preferred direction", you end up meaning that we can indeed push on the QV.
It has been on my to do list to share this with the group. Dr. White lays out some math and a proof starting on slide 41 in the backup slides.
Most importantly, what I learned, is that this phenomena is described in a bunch of related ways that have different and imprecise terminology, and it is described classically and quantumly, leading to difficulty in finding clarity.
QuoteSigning "Very respectfully" a post that charges "Pretty much everything quoted above is either factually inaccurate, a logical fallacy, or a cognitive bias. The rest is weasel words. " does not make it respectful.The subject being discussed in this thread is EM Drives and Spaceflight.Well I am smart enough to recognize an agent provocateur on a forum whose mission is to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt. FUD. Because they have a conflict of interest (all things Woodward and his book). We've been here. I remember his treatment of Dr. M for example. So I calls em like I sees em. As I said, this is the last time I ftt. Giving in to the FUD creates distractions which is what they want. Back to the subject at hand, EMdrives and the science for or against them.Thank you for your patience.
Anybody here especially gifted at math?
Well that specific impulse example from slide 43 is 40625 years...