-
#2020
by
Rodal
on 12 Oct, 2014 14:27
-
By what logic are you assuming a photon would see unruh radiation when the speed of light is the same in all reference frames?
Are you asking that to me ?
I don't think a photon would see Unruh radiation, I think a moving "wall of electrons" (periodically) accelerating at great values could see Unruh radiation. I believe the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames. I don't believe in the claimed results so far, I think a number of more or less exotic effects could be used to get net forward thrust from power, but not at better than 1/c (as Newtons/Watts). But I'm not qualified to have any authority on the subject, just trying to follow.
Maybe your question was addressed to dr Rodal ?
If the question was directed to me, the presumptive assumption in the question is unfounded concerning me: as one can ascertain by the discussion in:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html.
-
#2021
by
JohnFornaro
on 12 Oct, 2014 14:29
-
Just read the oracle on the Pioneer Anomaly. It is thought to be caused by thermal effects, as of 2011-ish. Is this not the case?
-
#2022
by
IslandPlaya
on 12 Oct, 2014 14:31
-
Just read the oracle on the Pioneer Anomaly. It is thought to be caused by thermal effects, as of 2011-ish. Is this not the case?
What has that got to do with anything?
-
#2023
by
JohnFornaro
on 12 Oct, 2014 14:33
-
-
#2024
by
IslandPlaya
on 12 Oct, 2014 14:37
-
Just read the oracle on the Pioneer Anomaly. It is thought to be caused by thermal effects, as of 2011-ish. Is this not the case?
What has that got to do with anything?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612599
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3303
Basically everything.
The links you quote have nothing to do with thermal effects. I think you are confused.
-
#2025
by
Mulletron
on 12 Oct, 2014 14:38
-
By what logic are you assuming a photon would see unruh radiation when the speed of light is the same in all reference frames?
This accelerating photon seeing unruh radiation stuff is nonsense.
...
Non sequitur and unfounded.
Please go to http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
and follow the discussion on the comments section.
A photon starts off at C. They don't accelerate to C.
-
#2026
by
Rodal
on 12 Oct, 2014 14:40
-
-
#2027
by
JohnFornaro
on 12 Oct, 2014 14:41
-
Just read the oracle on the Pioneer Anomaly. It is thought to be caused by thermal effects, as of 2011-ish. Is this not the case?
What has that got to do with anything?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612599
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3303
Basically everything.
The links you quote have nothing to do with thermal effects. I think you are confused.
The links have everything to do with the Pioneer anomaly, which pertain to McCulloch's theory of MiHsC. Loook harder.
-
#2028
by
Rodal
on 12 Oct, 2014 14:43
-
Just read the oracle on the Pioneer Anomaly. It is thought to be caused by thermal effects, as of 2011-ish. Is this not the case?
What has that got to do with anything?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612599
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3303
Basically everything.
The links you quote have nothing to do with thermal effects. I think you are confused.
The links have everything to do with the Pioneer anomaly, which pertain to McCulloch's theory of MiHsC. Loook harder.
But the Pioneer anomaly, or the EMDrive explanation, and
any other anomaly of a man-made object is not a fair test of the quantised inertia Unruh theory.
A fair test would be the existence or non-existence of dark matter.
-
#2029
by
IslandPlaya
on 12 Oct, 2014 14:44
-
Just read the oracle on the Pioneer Anomaly. It is thought to be caused by thermal effects, as of 2011-ish. Is this not the case?
What has that got to do with anything?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612599
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3303
Basically everything.
The links you quote have nothing to do with thermal effects. I think you are confused.
The links have everything to do with the Pioneer anomaly, which pertain to McCulloch's theory of MiHsC. Loook harder.
No. Try reading harder. You state it is due to thermal effects. Which it may be.
However you then link to McCullochs papers. Not thermal, but MiHsC.
Which is it?
-
#2030
by
JohnFornaro
on 12 Oct, 2014 15:07
-
The links have everything to do with the Pioneer anomaly, which pertain to McCulloch's theory of MiHsC. Loook harder.
No. Try reading harder. You state it is due to thermal effects. Which it may be.
However you then link to McCullochs papers. Not thermal, but MiHsC.
Which is it?
Semantic check here, speaking of reading harder.
I only report that the Pioneer Anomaly is due to thermal effects. I do not state that is the case. Apparently McCulloch disagrees, and in the two papers linked, states that MiHsC could be an explanation for the Pioneer Anomaly.
The earlier paper is more obvious:
This paper proposes an explanation for the Pioneer anomaly:
And the later one, more incidental:
The Pioneer anomaly is similar to the galaxy rotation problem.
You certainly have a good reason to ask me "which is it?", but you would just be repeating my question, as I offer no answers.
-
#2031
by
IslandPlaya
on 12 Oct, 2014 15:09
-
All good then. I offer no solution either...
-
#2032
by
JohnFornaro
on 12 Oct, 2014 15:18
-
But the Pioneer anomaly, or the EMDrive explanation, and any other anomaly of a man-made object is not a fair test of the quantised inertia Unruh theory.
A fair test would be the existence or non-existence of dark matter.
No lo comprendo, kemosabe. Explica para nosotros, party favor?
Are you saying that DM is that which without which they ain't no swing?
That is, why wouldn't a man-made experiment be, in principle, disallowed as a test of a theory?
Me no unnerstand.
-
#2033
by
Rodal
on 12 Oct, 2014 15:25
-
But the Pioneer anomaly, or the EMDrive explanation, and any other anomaly of a man-made object is not a fair test of the quantised inertia Unruh theory.
A fair test would be the existence or non-existence of dark matter.
No lo comprendo, kemosabe. Explica para nosotros, party favor?
Are you saying that DM is that which without which they ain't no swing?
That is, why wouldn't a man-made experiment be, in principle, disallowed as a test of a theory?
Me no unnerstand.
McCulloch's quantised inertia based on Unruh radiation is a physical theory, not an engineering theory and not a theory-of-everything.
The Pioneer spacecraft and the EMDrives are man-made objects imperfectly known. Not even the fastest supercomputer in the world can predict its material properties based on Quantum Mechanics, for that one would used Continuum Mechanics, Finite Element analysis and so on. The Pioneer anomaly was explained by JPL based on thermal effects on the basis of a complex Finite Element computational analysis, that took a long-time to carry out, capisce?
The test of a physical theory should be effects that can be solely explained by a physical theory. For example the perihelion precesion of Mercury for General Relativity. But never man-made objects engineered by men that are imperfectly known, and for which Engineering (Continuum Mechanics, Heat Transfer, etc.) is needed.
Same for McCulloch's quantised inertia. A proper test would be the existence or non-existence of Dark Matter. Recall that McCulloch's theory explains the astrophysical measurements without the need for any Dark Matter. Capisce ?
Read:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.7007v1.pdf
-
#2034
by
aero
on 12 Oct, 2014 16:23
-
I don't know how this inters the discussion, but have we overlooked the part about the cavity being filled with air?
To what degree would the air ionize producing ions/electrons in the mix? Ions would be massive but the electrons should be free to move about.
-
#2035
by
Rodal
on 12 Oct, 2014 16:29
-
I don't know how this inters the discussion, but have we overlooked the part about the cavity being filled with air?
To what degree would the air ionize producing ions/electrons in the mix? Ions would be massive but the electrons should be free to move about.
Yes we discussed that several pages along. It was also brought regarding the fact that even with the device tested in a vacuum, how "leaky" would be the cavity and still contain air?
Please remind me of this issue when I summarize possible explanations, thanks
-
#2036
by
Rodal
on 12 Oct, 2014 16:42
-
Recapitulation. Examination of the simplified (we were warned initially
"It is a gamble" ) 1-Dimensional analysis of the EMDrive as per MiHsC quantised inertia based on Unruth radiation [
awaiting critical response from Prof. McCulloch]
What is accelerating? The only particles that can get close to the required acceleration
a=8 c^2 / (DiameterOfFlatSurface) (for MiHsC)
are the photons inside the EMDrive cavityWhere is it accelerating? Inside the EMDrive microwave cavity
Why is it accelerating? Due to the microwave RF operation
When is it accelerating? During microwave RF operation
What is the acceleration? a = 2 c^2 / (CavityLength) So the acceleration required for Unruh radiation waves for MiHsC quantised inertia is about 4 times greater than the actual photon acceleration in the cavity, because for the NASA Eagleworks truncated cone, using the radius of the larger flat surface:
(DiameterOfFlatSurface)/(CavityLength) ~ 1
EDIT: @aero is gratefully acknowledged for bringing to my attention a previous error ("Radius" should have read "Diameter).
-
#2037
by
Mulletron
on 12 Oct, 2014 17:27
-
-
#2038
by
Rodal
on 12 Oct, 2014 17:29
-
We must be sure to understand that emdrive doesn't need MiHsC to work if dielectric thrust holds true. MiHsC is an optimization factor. Here on earth in strong gravity MiHsC's effect is essentially zero. Once in microgravity is it helpful. The effect is pretty much nothing otherwise unless you have fancy meta materials.
OK, let's analyze the meaning of "dielectric thrust"
To analyze this concept we need to specify what it entails. Are you referring to the paper you quoted on chirality of the molecule and the quantum vacuum? or are you referring to something else?
Thanks
-
#2039
by
aero
on 12 Oct, 2014 17:31
-
I've attached a sketch of the Eagleworks cavity with the area ratios. Note that the base is 2.25 times larger than the throat. Does this mean that a particle oscillating between the base the throat at constant speed will impart 2.25 times the momentum on the throat as it does on the base?
Well and good, but if that particle has inertial mass of 1 unit as measured in the laboratory frame, what is it's inertial mass at the base? Of course it is 2.25 times that amount at the throat but what is the reference frame?
It is an important consideration because the answer will tell us how many oscillating particles are needed to produce the measured thrust.
