-
#1140 by Ron Stahl on 29 Sep, 2014 20:19
-
I appreciate this too, and would note that if one were looking for that sort of debate, one could quibble about what you mean by "progress" instead of "process". And I would note to you, there is no universally agreed upon definition of what good scientific process looks like. the real point--the one you made well--is that for it to be considered science, one needs to avail themselves to reproducibility or some other form of validation to meet the veracity requirement. If you want your work to be accepted by the broader science community, you want to tell that community enough that they can take it upon themselves to reproduce your work. And just noting, this is what Woodward has always done. Anyone/everyone is invited to his lab at Cal Fullerton. He allows almost anyone onto his weekly distribution, and invites everyone to offer their insights how to make the process as open and transparent as possible. Woodward isn't bothering with NDA's and not worried about patents. He's just doing proof of science. It's the people doing proof of technology, who don't have patents (like SpaceX) who need to be worried about things like NDA's. Why Dr. White is supposedly under NDA is beyond me.
Ah! That's better.
I hereby update my poorly worded previous statement
:
If the experiments cannot be reproduced by other scientists, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This takes care of CERN, as there are hundreds of scientists involved from across academic institutions from across the world.
Thank you Dr. Rodal.
So how does your updated statement relate to the matter in hand?
I would rather discuss numbers, possible other effects (look at my recent postings on Axion dark matter) and engineering calculations than spend more time on this don't you think
Not interested in a thread on definitions of what is and what is not science. Maybe we should do that on a thread on Karl Poper -
#1141 by Rodal on 29 Sep, 2014 20:41
-
Notice again the importance of imposing a strong (several Tesla) external magnetic field to transfer axion field energy to the microwave cavity, using the Inverse Primakov conversion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primakoff_effect).
The Eagleworks Cannae and Frustrum experiments are missing the ADMX experiment 3 T to 7.6 T strong magnetic field. The only magnetic field in the Eagleworks experiments is the one produced by the three neodymium (NdFeB Grade N42) block magnets, which is there only by chance ( to dampen the swinging and torsional oscillations of the inverted pendulum). The magnetic damper is located about a foot away from the tested microwave device (Cannae or Frustum). For comparison, the magnetic field intensity at the surface of a neodymium magnet is 1.25 T
So, perhaps Eagleworks should explore what difference it makes to place additional neodymium magnets surrounding the tested device to impose the required external magnetic field for axion field energy conversion
If there was any transfer (which I doubt very much) of axion field energy in the previous Eagleworks experiments, there should be orders of magnitude more with the application of a 1.25 T magnetic field surrounding the microwave cavity.
Of course the (admitted by Eagleworks) coupling of the field from (the magnetic) damper with the power (cable's magnetic) field is an issue with the inverted pendulum. The inverted pendulum issue could be avoided by using an oil-damped Cavendish arrangement (as the one at John Hopkins ?) and as was used by Brito, Marini and Galian.
Status of the Axion Dark Matter Experiment (ADMX) L. Rosenberg Talk at the Patras Workshop at CERN (2014)
http://indico.cern.ch/event/300768/session/0/contribution/30/material/slides/1.pdf
-
#1142 by Rodal on 29 Sep, 2014 21:36
-
More from "Axion Dark Matter Experiments G.Rybka Talk at the Workshop on Frontiers of New Physics: Colliders and Beyond in Trieste, Italy (2014)", link to that presentation:
http://cdsagenda5.ictp.it//askArchive.php?categ=a13203&id=a13203s13t10&ifd=48107&nm=Rybka.pdf&down=1&type=Presentation_Rybka
-
#1143 by IslandPlaya on 29 Sep, 2014 21:52
-
Perhaps there should have been an effect under the >7 T mag fields at CERN. Maybe the whole machine is trying to take-off?!
-
#1144 by Rodal on 29 Sep, 2014 22:03
-
Perhaps there should have been an effect under the >7 T mag fields at CERN. Maybe the whole machine is trying to take-off?!
We should call them to tell them they should also be measuring thrust forces
-
#1145 by IslandPlaya on 29 Sep, 2014 22:07
-
They knew of this effect when they designed the accelerator. Why do you think it was built underground.Perhaps there should have been an effect under the >7 T mag fields at CERN. Maybe the whole machine is trying to take-off?!
We should call them to tell them they should also be measuring thrust forces
-
#1146 by IslandPlaya on 29 Sep, 2014 22:10
-
Seriously. No Axions discovered at CERN == No Axions with our devices.
Is this a reasonable stance?
-
#1147 by Rodal on 29 Sep, 2014 22:22
-
Seriously. No Axions discovered at CERN == No Axions with our devices.
You mean by the CERN Axion Solar Telescope ?
Is this a reasonable stance?
CERN with their Axion Solar Telescope have been looking at a completely different axion mass than the experiments I have been discussing at the University of Washington. So, no, I don't think that CERN not finding axions at that completely different mass invalidates axions interaction for these microwave devices.
The University of Washington ADMX search (for at least one year) is definitely concerning, unless somebody can show that measuring microNewton thrust is somewhat more sensitive that identifying photons, as ADMX is trying to do. -
#1148 by IslandPlaya on 29 Sep, 2014 22:28
-
I think all these experiments are looking for traces of things not predicted by theory.Seriously. No Axions discovered at CERN == No Axions with our devices.
You mean by the CERN Axion Solar Telescope ?
Is this a reasonable stance?
CERN with their Axion Solar Telescope have been looking at a completely different axion mass than the experiments I have been discussing at the University of Washington. So, no, I don't think that CERN not finding axions at that completely different mass invalidates axions interaction for these microwave devices.
The University of Washington ADMX search (for at least one year) is definitely concerning, unless somebody can show that measuring microNewton thrust is somewhat more sensitive that identifying photons, as ADMX is trying to do.
They all have very small signal/noise ratios.
Just like Woodward et al. -
#1149 by Rodal on 29 Sep, 2014 22:32
-
I think all these experiments are looking for traces of things not predicted by theory.Seriously. No Axions discovered at CERN == No Axions with our devices.
You mean by the CERN Axion Solar Telescope ?
Is this a reasonable stance?
CERN with their Axion Solar Telescope have been looking at a completely different axion mass than the experiments I have been discussing at the University of Washington. So, no, I don't think that CERN not finding axions at that completely different mass invalidates axions interaction for these microwave devices.
The University of Washington ADMX search (for at least one year) is definitely concerning, unless somebody can show that measuring microNewton thrust is somewhat more sensitive that identifying photons, as ADMX is trying to do.
They all have very small signal/noise ratios.
Just like Woodward et al.
I don't understand why you brought up the search for Axions at CERN's telescope as an example. CERN's telescope is looking at masses that differ by several orders of magnitude from the axion mass that you would find interacting in a microwave cavity. -
#1150 by aceshigh on 29 Sep, 2014 22:33
-
The LHC and the discovery of the Higgs Boson also relied on tens of trillions of data points. Before they started looking for new science, they made sure they rediscovered every other standard model particle to verify that their instruments were accurately calibrated. The discovery of the Higgs Boson relied on the legacy of many other scientific instruments, rather than just the Large Hadron Collider's detectors. Even then, it's accepted scientific literature, in large part, because reproduction steps are available to anyone willing to build another large particle accelerator.
The secret to the LHC's success is a long history of collaboration and openness about their scientific results. Secrecy is the enemy of progress.
another secret is the huge amount of money they have. Imagine a single guy trying to discover the Higgs Boson with an apparatus created with his own money. And other labs not interested in replicating the experiments unless you give yourself the machine you built (and they just use other methods to test).
and your signals are not that strong. You see only hints of the Higgs Boson in your machine. -
#1151 by RotoSequence on 29 Sep, 2014 22:38
-
The LHC and the discovery of the Higgs Boson also relied on tens of trillions of data points. Before they started looking for new science, they made sure they rediscovered every other standard model particle to verify that their instruments were accurately calibrated. The discovery of the Higgs Boson relied on the legacy of many other scientific instruments, rather than just the Large Hadron Collider's detectors. Even then, it's accepted scientific literature, in large part, because reproduction steps are available to anyone willing to build another large particle accelerator.
The secret to the LHC's success is a long history of collaboration and openness about their scientific results. Secrecy is the enemy of progress.
another secret is the huge amount of money they have. Imagine a single guy trying to discover the Higgs Boson with an apparatus created with his own money. And other labs not interested in replicating the experiments unless you give yourself the machine you built (and they just use other methods to test).
and your signals are not that strong. You see only hints of the Higgs Boson in your machine.
When you look at it this way, it looks even less okay for EM drive proponents to withhold data from the scientific research community. Major research institutions have the resources to find more signal amidst noise than hobbyists could ever hope for. EM drive researchers should be reaching out to the broader scientific community, to give scientists, researchers, and engineers some evidence, and good faith, that there is something worth investigating in that direction. -
#1152 by IslandPlaya on 29 Sep, 2014 22:42
-
That is your assertion. Who knows the existence or interaction cross-sections of the proposed axons? They must be different in many ways otherwise we would already be sure of their existence.
I think all these experiments are looking for traces of things not predicted by theory.Seriously. No Axions discovered at CERN == No Axions with our devices.
You mean by the CERN Axion Solar Telescope ?
Is this a reasonable stance?
CERN with their Axion Solar Telescope have been looking at a completely different axion mass than the experiments I have been discussing at the University of Washington. So, no, I don't think that CERN not finding axions at that completely different mass invalidates axions interaction for these microwave devices.
The University of Washington ADMX search (for at least one year) is definitely concerning, unless somebody can show that measuring microNewton thrust is somewhat more sensitive that identifying photons, as ADMX is trying to do.
They all have very small signal/noise ratios.
Just like Woodward et al.
I don't understand why you brought up the search for Axions at CERN's telescope as an example. CERN's telescope is looking at masses that differ by several orders of magnitude from the axion mass that you would find interacting in a microwave cavity. -
#1153 by Rodal on 29 Sep, 2014 23:37
-
What we know very well is the CERN's (X ray) telescope instrument and Axion experiment.
That is your assertion. Who knows the existence or interaction cross-sections of the proposed axons? They must be different in many ways otherwise we would already be sure of their existence.
I think all these experiments are looking for traces of things not predicted by theory.Seriously. No Axions discovered at CERN == No Axions with our devices.
You mean by the CERN Axion Solar Telescope ?
Is this a reasonable stance?
CERN with their Axion Solar Telescope have been looking at a completely different axion mass than the experiments I have been discussing at the University of Washington. So, no, I don't think that CERN not finding axions at that completely different mass invalidates axions interaction for these microwave devices.
The University of Washington ADMX search (for at least one year) is definitely concerning, unless somebody can show that measuring microNewton thrust is somewhat more sensitive that identifying photons, as ADMX is trying to do.
They all have very small signal/noise ratios.
Just like Woodward et al.
I don't understand why you brought up the search for Axions at CERN's telescope as an example. CERN's telescope is looking at masses that differ by several orders of magnitude from the axion mass that you would find interacting in a microwave cavity.
The following plot shows the axion-photon coupling versus axion mass plane. The limit achieved by the CAST experiment (combined result of the CAST phase I and 4He part of phase II) is compared with constraints obtained from the Tokyo helioscope and HB stars. The yellow band represents typical theoretical models.
The intersection between the Axion theoretical models and CERN's (X ray) telescope search is in the mass range ~ >0.01 ev to 1 ev range.
This mass range is several orders of magnitude higher than the (microwave) ADMX experiment searching for Axion masses in the 10^(-6)ev to 10^(-5) ev range.
You cannot find an axion in the yellow band with a mass of 10^(-6)ev if you are capable of searching only in the yellow band (CERN telescope range of) >0.01 ev to 1 ev range.
http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/CAST.php
-
#1154 by JohnFornaro on 29 Sep, 2014 23:51
-
Yes. Close enough though "all" seems to open a crazy box of nonsense. Does the good Doctor pay you to edit his posts online?If the experiments cannot be
easilyreproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This is certainly not true.
Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?
Nahhhh. I can't even get him to buy me a martini. He sends me a picture of a virtual one. You call that payment? Sheesh. -
#1155 by Rodal on 29 Sep, 2014 23:58
-
Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven
Yes. Close enough though "all" seems to open a crazy box of nonsense. Does the good Doctor pay you to edit his posts online?If the experiments cannot be
easilyreproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This is certainly not true.
Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?
Nahhhh. I can't even get him to buy me a martini. He sends me a picture of a virtual one. You call that payment? Sheesh. -
#1156 by JohnFornaro on 30 Sep, 2014 00:07
-
Another secret is the huge amount of money they have. Imagine a single guy trying to discover the Higgs Boson with an apparatus created with his own money. And other labs not interested in replicating the experiments unless you give yourself the machine you built (and they just use other methods to test).
And your signals are not that strong. You see only hints of the Higgs Boson in your machine.
And imagine that you don't seek grant money, or DARPA money, or NASA money, or a private investor with deep pockets. -
#1157 by JohnFornaro on 30 Sep, 2014 00:11
-
Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven...
Yeah sure. That's what they told Osama Bin Laden:
When OBL died, George Washington met him at the Pearly Gates. He slapped him across the face and yelled, "How dare you try to destroy the Nation I helped conceive?"
Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."
James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"
Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Osama with a long cane and snarled, "It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence. "
The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the radical, socialist, leader.
As Osama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Osama wept and Said, "This is not what you promised me."
The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 VIRGINIANS waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?" -
#1158 by Rodal on 30 Sep, 2014 00:39
-
Sheeesh. I thought that this was the EM Drive Developments thread.
-
#1159 by JohnFornaro on 30 Sep, 2014 01:13
-
SheeeshHardy har har. I thought that this was the EM Drive Developments thread.
Fixed that for ya. But you're right. Back to regular programming.
[Got more where that one came from. Just sayin'.]
:
