This finding indicates that the photons all moved at the same speed, even though different photons had different energies. This is one of the best measurements ever of the independence of the speed of light from the energy of the light particles.Beyond confirming the general theory of relativity, the observation rules out one of the interesting ideas concerning the unification of general relativity and quantum theory. While these two theories are the pillars of physics today, they are still inconsistent, and there is an intrinsic contradiction between the two that is partially based on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that is at the heart of quantum theory.One of the attempts to reconcile the two theories is the idea of "space-time foam." According to this concept, on a microscopic scale space is not continuous, and instead it has a foam-like structure. The size of these foam elements is so tiny that it is difficult to imagine and is at present impossible to measure directly. However light particles that are traveling within this foam will be affected by the foamy structure, and this will cause them to propagate at slightly different speeds depending on their energy.Yet this experiment shows otherwise. The fact that all the photons with different energies arrived with no time delay relative to each other indicates that such a foamy structure, if it exists at all, has a much smaller size than previously expected.
Whatever, I second Dr Rodal: despite using advanced concepts, with only electricity and no fuel on board, and having an unusual odd shape, those conceptual flying saucers are not propellantless thrusters, since they have to accelerate ambient air for propulsion. This is leading-edge, but still classical physics.
....The copper frustum thrust reversal due to only its dielectric placement came when I was experimenting with the TM010 mode,...
Hey @Rodal, would you mind telling us more about what sources and methods you are using or have developed that allowed you to generate these original and colorful simulations in these posts:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1348295#msg1348295 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1340906#msg1340906 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1340909#msg1340909 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1341244#msg1341244 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1344664#msg1344664It is quite evident that over the course of this lengthy discussion, you have developed tools and methods which can be helpful to many others. Can you give us a summary of what you can do now?
If I'm understanding this right is there a kind of catch 22 at work here. To validate if this drive works or not you need a greater power input, but to obtain access to a greater power input it has to be proved that it works first?
Ok, here's a crazy idea; Is it not possible that what is being seen with the EM drive is not so much actual thrust, although the effect detects as such, but possibly an alteration of space itself? Perhaps compactifycation on an almost infitismal scale?
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 03/23/2015 05:28 pmOk, here's a crazy idea; Is it not possible that what is being seen with the EM drive is not so much actual thrust, although the effect detects as such, but possibly an alteration of space itself? Perhaps compactifycation on an almost infitismal scale?If that's the case, then it could be a good idea to stick fully enclosed accelerometers close to the Emdrive, at several distances, for finding out if there is any residual effect in its vicinity...Has anyone done such a thing?
Quote from: Mulletron on 03/23/2015 04:58 pmHey @Rodal, would you mind telling us more about what sources and methods you are using or have developed that allowed you to generate these original and colorful simulations in these posts:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1348295#msg1348295 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1340906#msg1340906 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1340909#msg1340909 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1341244#msg1341244 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1344664#msg1344664It is quite evident that over the course of this lengthy discussion, you have developed tools and methods which can be helpful to many others. Can you give us a summary of what you can do now?Yes, it would be a good idea to summarize them (when I have a chance to do it )My analysis is all based on exact solutions based on classical Electromagnetism (*), which I have discussed earlier in the thread. I think that @Notsosureofit may have followed some of my earlier discussions.I wrote Mathematica code to numerically solve the eigenvalue problems in the exact solutions and to plot the solutions.It is a work in progress: I started with contour plots for fields and later on I wrote the code for the vector plots.Since the natural coordinates of the exact solution are in spherical coordinates attached to the cone, to plot these fields in Mathematica one has to transform the coordinates and the vectors to a Cartesian field x, y, z. This transformation actually took more time to get just right (because of nonlinearities involving SquareRoots and ArcTan functions that have multiple values) than the time it took to get the exact solutions.In the course of one of our latest post discussions with @Frobnicat I started by showing the vector components of E and B to make a point about Poynting's vector (no pun intended) and I told myself: hey why don't I just calculate and plot Poynting's vector ? (NASA Eagleworks did not show us COMSOL plots of Poynting's vector: don't know whether COMSOL can do this easily ...)My next step was going to be to calculate more exact solutions (including the dielectric) but I am spending more time on these plots. For example, depending on the discussion it may be interesting to plot Maxwell stress tensors components and/or the components of the 3+1 spacetime relativistic energy-stress tensor ...And I'm immediately interested in examining Poynting's vector direction for a number of modes in NASA Eagleworks truncated cone to see whether there is any mode clearly pointing in the direction of the big base. So far all the modes I have examined have a Poyinting's vector very clearly directed towards the small base and other ones have a Poynting's vector that may be zero or very small in the opposite direction.Which means that I should also write Mathematica code to integrate Poynting's vector for the cases in which it is not visually clear which way the overall integral over the volume is pointing.______________(*) As discussed previously, for example the electromagnetic force depends on the derivative of Poynting's vector with respect to time and on the divergence of Maxwell's stress tensor. Poynting's vector goes like (Cos[omega*t])^2 so its derivative with respect to time (2 Cos[omega*t]*Sin[omega*t]) should average zero over each half 2Pi/omega cycle. The divergence of Maxwell's stress tensor should be zero if there are no electromagnetic sources inside the cavity. (Notice that Brandenburg assumes sources inside the cavity to arrive at his explanation).
Quote from: tchernik on 03/23/2015 05:44 pmQuote from: JasonAW3 on 03/23/2015 05:28 pmOk, here's a crazy idea; Is it not possible that what is being seen with the EM drive is not so much actual thrust, although the effect detects as such, but possibly an alteration of space itself? Perhaps compactifycation on an almost infitismal scale?If that's the case, then it could be a good idea to stick fully enclosed accelerometers close to the Emdrive, at several distances, for finding out if there is any residual effect in its vicinity...Has anyone done such a thing?I think it might be worth doing but i see a few problems. The current investigation at the device itself is attempting to detect micro-newton scale thrust signals. gravity effects fall of drastically at distance. so presumably any gravitic/spacetime distortion effect at distance would be all that much smaller and therefore that much harder to detect.Dr White's other experiment is based on just such an effect and it has not risen according to publicly disclosed reports comfortably above sigma and that laser interferometry is extremely sensitive.The current activity is under deadline pressure. I think they have until the end of the month to get a 100 micro-newton signal to justify independent replication efforts. This makes changing the protocol drastically perhaps a destructive course of action. Something does need to be done but probably on stuff like the power input or waveforms or the device itself rather than the detection protocol. Unless it can be done without delaying the work or invalidating the data.
Ok, here's a crazy idea; Is it not possible that what is being seen with the EM drive is not so much actual thrust, although the effect detects as such, but possibly an alteration of space itself? Perhaps compactifycation on an almost infitismal scale? From what I've been able to gather, it would detect as actual thrust due to movement of the test article, due to the tiny amount of actual distortion, it wouldn't even be visible optically, unless using an extremely sensitive spectrometer for light frequency shifting in the area of the device. I realize that the power calculated to create such a distortion are several orders of magnitude greater than what is being used here, but Einstien suggested that Gravity should be able to be manipulated in a fashion similar to electromagnetism. Is it possible that someone has stumbled onto just such a method USING electromagnetism? Or, it could be some form of enhancing of the Nuclear Strong or Nuclear Weak forces. However, I suspect that manipulation of a local EM field of sufficent local intesity, could alter space within the same volume, assuming the concept of Inflation is correct.
Quote from: Star One on 03/22/2015 04:17 pmIf I'm understanding this right is there a kind of catch 22 at work here. To validate if this drive works or not you need a greater power input, but to obtain access to a greater power input it has to be proved that it works first?I fear it is worse then that, because when you resort to more power input the thermal effects on the frustrum will also increase, with a dramatic negative effect on the Q.
However, if the effect is not gravitic in nature but simply a distortion of space, gravity itself may not be involved but the electromagnetic forces themselves may be causing a localized distortion of space, either compression in front or expansion in back. again, this assumes the theory of Spacial Inflation is accurate.
I've taken my own advice, and taken a gamble on using low power and using what I've learned from Cavendish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment), hopefully I can build a sensitive (and simple enough) balance.
Quote from: Mulletron on 03/23/2015 06:44 pmI've taken my own advice, and taken a gamble on using low power and using what I've learned from Cavendish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment), hopefully I can build a sensitive (and simple enough) balance. I was thinking earlier if you all might have designed a flexible beam and have a mirror mounted on the engine. You could then use interferometry to get very accurate changes in position when the beam flexes if there is a force acting on it. There might need to be a lot of dampening to reduce noise from vibrations though. Another thought hit me regarding why this drive would make a force. It strikes me as similar to the idea in the thread "E/M propellant-less propulsion using delayed information/dielectrics (patent)" in that there may be some time delay of information going on inside the cavity plates. It appears there are circulating currents in the device due the changing magnetic fields. However, that information doesn't travel instantaneously. Maybe what could be happening is that the circulating currents in the bottom plate observe the circulating current in the top plate as circulating in the same direction and so they are attracted to the top plate. However, the top plate may observe the bottom plate having current circulating in the opposite direction and so it is repelled from the bottom plate. The result is a unidirectional force. In other words the currents in the top and bottom plates are about 90 degrees out of phase? I don't know if the delay in propulsion fits with that but maybe it takes a bit for the cavity to reach its final resonant state and then a while for the radiation to die away inside. If not the top plate interacting with the bottom plate then maybe the top plate interacting some distance down the side walls such that the magnetic fields are 90 degrees out of phase in time.
And here's a sample of the spectrum analyzer test. All this test involves is injecting a calibrated 0dbm input signal to the frustum, then seeing what comes out the other side on the spectrum analyzer.*HP 83752B Sweep generator @0dbm*Agilent E4443A spectrum analyzer*Gigatronics 8542C power meter w/*80301A sensor(2) 6' high quality test cables*=Calibrated by a labCombine this with the VSWR data and the behavior of the unloaded frustum between 2400-2500mhz becomes apparent. The points where the VWSR is really poor is evident in the amplitude response, seen in the spectrum analyzer shots, so these two tests validate each other.Rest is here:https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoUEx5dzlVTG81a2c&usp=sharing&tid=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnMOther frequencies here:(disclaimer, my E field probe is not optimized for all these frequencies, still useful to see what other frequencies couple to the cavity with low VSWR using my 31mm probe/cavity combination)The best peaks of other frequencies are labeled similar to the bottom screen shot.https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoVkRzUGNuMVBLbVk&usp=sharing&tid=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM
@aeroIs there any way the community here can help by donating some computer time to run different simulation scenarios?
Can they be packaged up so that an inexperienced user can just run them and then email/post the results?
.... Maybe what could be happening is that the circulating currents in the bottom plate observe the circulating current in the top plate as circulating in the same direction and so they are attracted to the top plate. However, the top plate may observe the bottom plate having current circulating in the opposite direction and so it is repelled from the bottom plate. The result is a unidirectional force. In other words the currents in the top and bottom plates are about 90 degrees out of phase? I don't know if the delay in propulsion fits with that but maybe it takes a bit for the cavity to reach its final resonant state and then a while for the radiation to die away inside. If not the top plate interacting with the bottom plate then maybe the top plate interacting some distance down the side walls such that the magnetic fields are 90 degrees out of phase in time.
the circulating currents in the bottom plate observe the circulating current in the top plate as circulating in the same direction and so they are attracted to the top plate. However, the top plate may observe the bottom plate having current circulating in the opposite direction and so it is repelled from the bottom plate. The result is a unidirectional force.