-
#2240 by Mulletron on 18 Oct, 2014 16:57
-
On one hand "gravitational attraction" is a force (never mind explaining why it is a force) and reaction from jet exhaust is also a force (using circular arguments based on action and reaction).
The concept of force intuitive remains and since it was explained in elementary physics it is comforting, but Unruh radiation cannot lead to a force, well just because Unruh radiation is not familiar, unlike the already assimilated concepts of gravitational attraction (which drops apples on people's heads to wake them up) or a jet exhaust (which ejects water on people's faces from a water hose).
Every unexplained force that drops things on people's faces to wake them up and were discussed in elementary physics qualify as a force.
Forces that do not drop things on people faces and were not learnt in elementary physics must not be forces, well ... because they are just not familiar.
Seems like we're starting to converge again here. Now we can have forces from Unruh radiation all day until the cows come home, but if that Unruh radiation derived force is happening inside the device, it ain't gonna move it. Unruh radiation derived force happening outside the copper can? Sure sign me up. The trouble is though, for you to experience that Unruh radiation outside the copper can, you have to be accelerating your butt off SR style. If we can do that, who needs hypothetical Unruh radiation.
I just want to add that the whole reason I got so hyped up on modified inertia in the first place was just to give spacetime an asymmetry inside the cavity, nothing more, so I could give a particle (or anything else) more inertia heading aft, vs heading forward. Just trying to bend but not break those pesky conservation laws. I was keen on knowing that EM radiation is rapidly oscillating electrical and magnetic energy collapsing into itself and I couldn't get a push or pull out of that, nor could I exploit the poynting vector because of the closed system. My whole assumption is that since inertia is the net aggregate of all interactions emanating from all corners of our infinite cosmos, I could create a different cosmos inside a copper can by blocking some of those interactions from getting inside. I surmised that the net shape of those interactions would be less spherical inside vs outside, inducing a small inertial bias. Sounds stupid I know. I wasn't trying to get it to fly that way. Just a small perturbation that can be exploited, and improved upon with better technology, like those neato meta materials that make rf bend right around them. The net effect was to get a game of pool where it was easier to hit the balls one way vs another, instead of equal in all directions. -
#2241 by aero on 18 Oct, 2014 17:13
-
One thing I note about some of the theory papers linked here is that they insist on using inverse square laws to describe things. That normally is correct but the inside of the resonate cavity is not a normal situation.
The far field only reaches the length of the cavity and the near field lines are parallel. Things from the cavity ends cannot be considered as points (1/r^2) but rather should be treated as planar sources (1/r). -
#2242 by Rodal on 18 Oct, 2014 17:13
-
It is elementary Mr. Watson. If (and this is a big if that remains a long distance from being shown) the inertia gets modified differentially fore and aft by Unruh radiation, in order for momentum to be conserved there must be acceleration. Conservation of momentum is a paramount principle in Physics reigning supreme in all known Physics from General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics.
-
#2243 by Mulletron on 18 Oct, 2014 17:17
-
It is elementary Mr. Watson. If (and this is a big if that remains a long distance from being shown) the inertia of the cupric walls gets modified differentially fore and aft by Unruh radiation, in order for momentum to be conserved the cupric walls must be accelerated. Conservation of momentum is a paramount principle in Physics reigning supreme in all known Physics from General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics.
Yes you are exactly right Inspector, but those cupric walls are all connected to each other by side walls. No net force. -
#2244 by Rodal on 18 Oct, 2014 17:24
-
Mr. Watson, these are the primordial assumptions that should be analyzed:
1) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons?
2) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation?
3) even if accelerations present in massive black holes could modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation, is it possible for the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity to be modified?
4) what change in momentum could be responsible for modifying the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity? Is it the change in direction of photons hitting the walls? Or is the "acceleration" resulting from Energy-Mass equivalence of the photon, c^2/wavelength or c^2/(wavelength/2) an applicable concept for inertia modification?
5) if the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity could be modified fore and after in a microwave cavity, due to Unruh radiation, will conservation of momentum lead to a movement of the cupric walls or would it instead lead to a frequency shifting of the photons or to an expansion-compression movement of the photons inside the cupric walls without any rigid body movement of the cupric walls? -
#2245 by Mulletron on 18 Oct, 2014 17:51
-
Mr. Watson, these are the primordial assumptions that should be analyzed:
1) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons?
2) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation?
3) even if accelerations present in massive black holes could modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation, is it possible for the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity to be modified?
4) what change in momentum could be responsible for modifying the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity? Is it the change in direction of photons hitting the walls? Or is the "acceleration" resulting from Energy-Mass equivalence of the photon, c^2/wavelength or c^2/(wavelength/2) an applicable concept for inertia modification?
5) if the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity could be modified fore and after in a microwave cavity, due to Unruh radiation, will conservation of momentum lead to a movement of the cupric walls or would it instead lead to a frequency shifting of the photons or to an expansion-compression movement of the photons inside the cupric walls without any rigid body movement of the cupric walls?
1) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons?
If MiHsC is correct, then yes. By my method? Probably not.
2) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation?
Doesn't make sense to me, no.
3) even if accelerations present in massive black holes could modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation, is it possible for the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity to be modified?
I don't know. Unruh radiation doesn't apply here to photons. Space ships or (insert object here) accelerating experience Unruh radiation, not photons. Photons go at C because of the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum.
4) what change in momentum could be responsible for modifying the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity? Is it the change in direction of photons hitting the walls? Or is the "acceleration" resulting from Energy-Mass equivalence of the photon, c^2/wavelength or c^2/(wavelength/2) an applicable concept for inertia modification?
Don't get the question again. It doesn't compute. Change in momentum doesn't equal mean inertia was modified. Inertia can change but not be modified. Well everyone agrees that inertia is rooted in distant interactions with cosmos. Some say some interactions, others say just gravity. I say all, near and far. Why play favorites?
5) if the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity could be modified fore and after in a microwave cavity, due to Unruh radiation, will conservation of momentum lead to a movement of the cupric walls or would it instead lead to a frequency shifting of the photons or to an expansion-compression movement of the photons inside the cupric walls without any rigid body movement of the cupric walls?
If the unit is flying through space, the doppler shift is where that whole conservation thing is happening. The walls can't move. I'm gonna get a nosebleed here if I see Unruh radiation one more time.
The whole point of bringing MiHsC into the picture was because I knew that I was forced to both push and pull on the QV equally (via the mysterious dielectric thrust method). What got me so excited was the inertial bias that could result allowing me to push more on the QV, but pull less.
-
#2246 by aero on 18 Oct, 2014 18:30
-
Mr. Watson, these are the primordial assumptions that should be analyzed:
If Prof. M's theory is correct, then yes - In MiHsC the inertial mass (mi) is modified as mi=m(1-L/4T)
1) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons?Quote
2) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation?
3) even if accelerations present in massive black holes could modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation, is it possible for the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity to be modified?
4) what change in momentum could be responsible for modifying the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity? Is it the change in direction of photons hitting the walls? Or is the "acceleration" resulting from Energy-Mass equivalence of the photon, c^2/wavelength or c^2/(wavelength/2) an applicable concept for inertia modification?
5) if the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity could be modified fore and after in a microwave cavity, due to Unruh radiation, will conservation of momentum lead to a movement of the cupric walls or would it instead lead to a frequency shifting of the photons or to an expansion-compression movement of the photons inside the cupric walls without any rigid body movement of the cupric walls?
I'll try to extend my blind cat/hot stove analogy. But the photons approaching the cavity ends are not really blind even though they are moving with velocity c, what they see is the wall as it appeared some delta time earlier, the time required for the Unruh waves to travel from the wall to the photons current distance from the wall. I don't know that that pertains.
When the photons strike the wall they are absorbed and re-emitted with mi=m(1-L/4T), that is, a lower inertial mass. But they are photons so their velocity remains fixed at c. Therefore their energy and momentum is reduced. But Energy of a photon, E = hc/lamda and momentum = hf/c . The photons are no longer seeing the Unruh waves so normal physics must hold, the Energy mass of the photon must revert to hc/lamda but E is less than it was before it was reflected so lamda increases to conserve energy.
Now the photon travels to the other end of the cavity where the Unruh field is stronger so it is absorbed and re-emitted with less momentum with the momentum difference being greater than the momentum difference at the weak field end (the big end). Again the wavelength increases to conserve energy. The momentum differences are absorbed by the cavity ends but the bigger momentum difference pulls the whole cavity in that direction. Note that there would be a Doppler effect in this explanation. Problem - This does not seem to violate the 1/c condition.
Now, if you don't like that explanation, try this one.
The photon smashes into the wall is absorbed and re-emitted. But due to some unknown effect, the photon is re-emitted with more rotational momentum and less linear momentum. Momentum and energy are conserved but rotational momentum does not contribute to force. Now, why would momentum transfer from linear to rotational in the process of being absorbed and re-emitted? And would that result in a force? -
#2247 by Mulletron on 18 Oct, 2014 19:03
-
Mr. Watson, these are the primordial assumptions that should be analyzed:
If Prof. M's theory is correct, then yes - In MiHsC the inertial mass (mi) is modified as mi=m(1-L/4T)
1) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons?Quote
2) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation?
3) even if accelerations present in massive black holes could modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation, is it possible for the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity to be modified?
4) what change in momentum could be responsible for modifying the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity? Is it the change in direction of photons hitting the walls? Or is the "acceleration" resulting from Energy-Mass equivalence of the photon, c^2/wavelength or c^2/(wavelength/2) an applicable concept for inertia modification?
5) if the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity could be modified fore and after in a microwave cavity, due to Unruh radiation, will conservation of momentum lead to a movement of the cupric walls or would it instead lead to a frequency shifting of the photons or to an expansion-compression movement of the photons inside the cupric walls without any rigid body movement of the cupric walls?
I'll try to extend my blind cat/hot stove analogy. But the photons approaching the cavity ends are not really blind even though they are moving with velocity c, what they see is the wall as it appeared some delta time earlier, the time required for the Unruh waves to travel from the wall to the photons current distance from the wall. I don't know that that pertains.
When the photons strike the wall they are absorbed and re-emitted with mi=m(1-L/4T), that is, a lower inertial mass. But they are photons so their velocity remains fixed at c. Therefore their energy and momentum is reduced. But Energy of a photon, E = hc/lamda and momentum = hf/c . The photons are no longer seeing the Unruh waves so normal physics must hold, the Energy mass of the photon must revert to hc/lamda but E is less than it was before it was reflected so lamda increases to conserve energy.
Now the photon travels to the other end of the cavity where the Unruh field is stronger so it is absorbed and re-emitted with less momentum with the momentum difference being greater than the momentum difference at the weak field end (the big end). Again the wavelength increases to conserve energy. The momentum differences are absorbed by the cavity ends but the bigger momentum difference pulls the whole cavity in that direction. Note that there would be a Doppler effect in this explanation. Problem - This does not seem to violate the 1/c condition.
Now, if you don't like that explanation, try this one.
The photon smashes into the wall is absorbed and re-emitted. But due to some unknown effect, the photon is re-emitted with more rotational momentum and less linear momentum. Momentum and energy are conserved but rotational momentum does not contribute to force. Now, why would momentum transfer from linear to rotational in the process of being absorbed and re-emitted? And would that result in a force?
Given what I've recently learned about momentum wrt EM radiation, there isn't a way to get linear momentum in a closed system. We're stuck with angular momentum. (Much to my dismay) In addition to that, I realized I couldn't use the poynting vector to do work either because of the whole system being an enclosed can. Even if I was pushing on the QV in some kind of Star Trek way, I'd have to push and pull equally. So I started resorting to finding asymmetries, like modified inertia and chiral molecules. I even postulated pulsing the rf on and off, more time on than off. That hidden momentum thing was the final nail in my coffin until I got back on board with why I went nuts for modified inertia in the first place. I gotta push more than I pull if I want to move. The only way to do that is modified inertia (that I can think of). -
#2248 by aero on 18 Oct, 2014 19:26
-
Quote
Given what I've recently learned about momentum wrt EM radiation, there isn't a way to get linear momentum in a closed system.
Could you explain that or give a reference? -
#2249 by Rodal on 18 Oct, 2014 19:54
-
Quote
Given what I've recently learned about momentum wrt EM radiation, there isn't a way to get linear momentum in a closed system.
Could you explain that or give a reference?
Sounds to me like there was a confusion regarding the Abraham-Minkowski paradox, and not taking into account hidden momentum properly. Shockley (the inventor of the transistor) showed this a long time ago (and even Einstein himself). No definition of the electromagnetic stress tensor (Minkowski uses an unsymmetric definition that leads people astray) can get away from the fact that the center of mass cannot accelerate if it is a closed system. Glad to see at least this is not longer a source of controversy here.
The proper question is whether it is a closed system. -
#2250 by Mulletron on 18 Oct, 2014 19:59
-
Quote
Given what I've recently learned about momentum wrt EM radiation, there isn't a way to get linear momentum in a closed system.
Could you explain that or give a reference?
Unrelated to Abraham-Minkowski controversy. Most recently here: I posted about this a lot. Not getting through.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1272847#msg1272847
-
#2251 by aero on 18 Oct, 2014 20:00
-
Most recently here: I posted about this a lot. Not getting through.QuoteGiven what I've recently learned about momentum wrt EM radiation, there isn't a way to get linear momentum in a closed system.
Could you explain that or give a reference?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1272847#msg1272847
Thanks. You now have my attention, for what its worth. -
#2252 by Rodal on 18 Oct, 2014 20:03
-
What have the Professors in Raleigh shown in 2009 that Shockley didn't show before?
And Poincare wrote about hidden momentum precisely in this context even before Einstein's theory of relativity... -
#2253 by aero on 18 Oct, 2014 20:06
-
I have a question. Because these thruster cavities have very high Q don't they ring for a long time after the power is switched off? How long, because if the ringing is long enough shouldn't we see a tail off on the thrust trace shown in the various reports on the experiments?
What is the rule for diminishing stored power in the cavity once the power is switched off?
Of course if the thrust is due to Unruh waves, then thrust would stop instantly once the stored power dropped below a threshold. -
#2254 by Rodal on 18 Oct, 2014 20:09
-
I have a question. Because these thruster cavities have very high Q don't they ring for a long time after the power is switched off? How long, because if the ringing is long enough shouldn't we see a tail off on the thrust trace shown in the various reports on the experiments?
What is the rule for diminishing stored power in the cavity once the power is switched off?
Of course if the thrust is due to Unruh waves, then thrust would stop instantly once the stored power dropped below a threshold.
Take a look at Shawyer's results.
There is thrust even after the power stops.
-
#2255 by aero on 18 Oct, 2014 20:44
-
I have a question. Because these thruster cavities have very high Q don't they ring for a long time after the power is switched off? How long, because if the ringing is long enough shouldn't we see a tail off on the thrust trace shown in the various reports on the experiments?
What is the rule for diminishing stored power in the cavity once the power is switched off?
Of course if the thrust is due to Unruh waves, then thrust would stop instantly once the stored power dropped below a threshold.
Take a look at Shawyer's results.
There is thrust even after the power stops.
I see that. Doesn't that tell us something?
Anyway - Its Saturday afternoon and I'm going to take a break from NSF. -
#2256 by Rodal on 18 Oct, 2014 21:05
-
I have a question. Because these thruster cavities have very high Q don't they ring for a long time after the power is switched off? How long, because if the ringing is long enough shouldn't we see a tail off on the thrust trace shown in the various reports on the experiments?
What is the rule for diminishing stored power in the cavity once the power is switched off?
Of course if the thrust is due to Unruh waves, then thrust would stop instantly once the stored power dropped below a threshold.
Take a look at Shawyer's results.
There is thrust even after the power stops.
I see that. Doesn't that tell us something?
Anyway - Its Saturday afternoon and I'm going to take a break from NSF.
Yes, excellent point. It shows the importance of Q and resonance, and something that the deniers of the importance of Q and resonance have to contend with in order to explain the thrust response.
Now, putting on my denier hat, one possible alternative for the delayed response is thermal but it would have to be shown that it is compatible with Fourier's time due to thermal diffusivity, for example. Also, if it is a thermal artifact one would expect an approximately exponentially decaying rise and a symmetrical exponentially decaying fall, but it is evident from the graph that the fall is not symmetric, on the contrary, it is much faster than the rise.
-
#2257 by RotoSequence on 18 Oct, 2014 22:54
-
The Shawyer chart reminds me of a Tracy-Widom distribution.
-
#2258 by Rodal on 18 Oct, 2014 23:07
-
The Shawyer chart reminds me of a Tracy-Widom distribution.
Thank you, I learned something new today. I didn't know about this distribution.
<<Whereas “uncorrelated” random variables such as test scores splay out into the bell-shaped Gaussian distribution, interacting species and other “correlated” variables give rise to a more complicated statistical curve. Steeper on the left than the right (or viceversa), the curve has a shape that depends on N, the number of variables.>>
-
#2259 by JohnFornaro on 18 Oct, 2014 23:12
-
8, 12, 16
You give them the material before the test and they still get the answer wrong.
Mass # 1 illustrated first.
Mass #2 Illustrated second.
So.... what's the latest on NSF?