-
#2660
by
Rodal
on 26 Oct, 2014 20:47
-
You asked for an example. I gave you an example where momentum = groupvelocity *mass, exactly.
The Wikipedia article defines the group velocity in exactly the same way that I defined it...
I was noticing the similarity between your explanation and that of the oracle, which caused a bit of head scratching at your seeming dismissal of the oracle. I need to study a bit more, my good troglodite.
As always, appreciate your pedagology. That chart is most excellent!
Perhaps the problem you are confronting is that Newton's corpuscular theory of light is wrong.
Experiments show, that
single photons travel through glass at the group velocity of light.John, we must come to grips with this fact:
classical (Newtonian) mechanics demands that the momentum of the photons be greater in water than in air, even though the measurements show that the opposite relationship holds for their velocity.
EDIT:
So the best way out of your conundrum, is to
think (in a Rodalian way) of photons as particles that have a different relativistic mass in different media, according to the media's refractive index. Think of the photons
as experiencing a greater increase of relativistic mass with refractive index than does their momentum, hence resulting in the experimentally-observed decrease in light (group) velocity.
Or, if you don't like thinking that way, stop thinking of photons as particles !.
Yes that chart, repeated here again, focuses on what matters: energy and momentum (in the vertical and horizontal axis), with mass as being the contours on the chart. Nice to see "humans" there. I couldn't find the troglodites contour, though.
-
#2661
by
ThinkerX
on 26 Oct, 2014 22:22
-
If they get a "net imbalance of Lorentz forces" it means that they get thrust, yes, but it also means to me that the Finite Element problem was not well posed if they are dealing with classical physics (Maxwell's equations and equations or equations of motion from a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian).
Hmmm...So, there is either
1) An error of some sort with the experiment (Finite Element and/or boundary conditions);
2) They are mucking around with exotic physics where the problems with point one are modified or don't apply;
3) Classical physics has a here-to-for unknown problem or loophole this drive takes advantage of.
I can see how a classically educated scientist would really, really want the answer to be point 1. Point 2 means a scientific revolution of a sort not seen in decades, maybe centuries. But if a classically educated scientist can't find the answer in point 1, and can't accept point 2...then point 3 might be acceptable...on alternate Tuesdays, with maybe the occasional Saturday afternoon thrown in.
-
#2662
by
aero
on 26 Oct, 2014 23:50
-
Very interesting. So how much thrust would be calculated for a right circular cylinder filled half way with a dielectric?
Choose your own dielectric constant and don't worry about can length. The can has a Q value of 50,000 which seems easy.
-
#2663
by
Rodal
on 27 Oct, 2014 00:35
-
I received this message from Robert Ludwick, that I reproduce in its entirety:
From: Robert Ludwick
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 9:04 AM
To: Dr. J. Rodal
Subject: Testing the EmDrive
Hello Dr. Rodal,
In reference to:
the NASA Eagleworks tests show a pulse response rapidly rising in 2 seconds which coincides with the inertial response of the inverted torsional pendulum
If the pendulum response time is 2 seconds for every frequency step, this means
we need really big batteries or revising the test plan to include external power through the liquid metal low friction contacts as done in the original tests, since the drive amplifier is powered up for the entire test.
I still think that the fixed power/swept frequency approach is better than the fixed frequency/pulsed power approach.
The fixed power/swept frequency approach guarantees that at least one and probably several measurements will be made at the peak thrust frequency and that the measured thrust (if any) is not an artifact of current pulses, air convection, or anything similar, as test current and power dissipation remain constant for the entire test and the only test variable is frequency. It will also demonstrate that the thrust is a function of cavity Q, since Q is the only "Device Under Test characteristic" that is frequency dependent.
Bob Ludwick
-
#2664
by
aero
on 27 Oct, 2014 01:14
-
Very interesting. So how much thrust would be calculated for a right circular cylinder filled half way with a dielectric?
Choose your own dielectric constant and don't worry about can length. The can has a Q value of 50,000 which seems easy.
Is this in reference to Thinker X's last message?
Yes, but I'm not to proud to read a reasonable answer from anyone.
-
#2665
by
zen-in
on 27 Oct, 2014 12:22
-
-
#2666
by
Ron Stahl
on 27 Oct, 2014 14:42
-
The trouble is, it doesn't make any sense. First of all, even those who admit virtual particles as something other than a cheezy accounting measure (the vast minority of real physicists) know that virtual particles have to be exceedingly short lived, so positing them traversing between an accelerated frame and the horizon is pretty silly on the face of it. It would be good to look at that in more detail, but certainly the bigger problem with this is that if it is correct, General Relativity and Einstein's Equivalence Principle that GR relies upon, indeed the entire principle of relativity are all incorrect! We have so much data, that these three are correct that it is on its face, silly to entertain physics like this. One has to ask, "where do you draw the line" between what is a plausible explanation and what is not?
Does this "theory", explain to us how we have the findings of GR over the decades? Does it answer how we can have so much experimental validation of Einstein's theories and yet they are wrong?
-
#2667
by
JohnFornaro
on 27 Oct, 2014 14:49
-
-
#2668
by
RonM
on 27 Oct, 2014 15:03
-
The trouble is, it doesn't make any sense. First of all, even those who admit virtual particles as something other than a cheezy accounting measure (the vast minority of real physicists) know that virtual particles have to be exceedingly short lived, so positing them traversing between an accelerated frame and the horizon is pretty silly on the face of it. It would be good to look at that in more detail, but certainly the bigger problem with this is that if it is correct, General Relativity and Einstein's Equivalence Principle that GR relies upon, indeed the entire principle of relativity are all incorrect! We have so much data, that these three are correct that it is on its face, silly to entertain physics like this. One has to ask, "where do you draw the line" between what is a plausible explanation and what is not?
Does this "theory", explain to us how we have the findings of GR over the decades? Does it answer how we can have so much experimental validation of Einstein's theories and yet they are wrong?
That's been my issue with this.
We know that General Relativity and Quantum Theory don't play well with each other, so there must be some new physics or math that we have yet to discover. However, any new physics theory has to incorporate the decades of experimentation that shows the regimes where current theory works. There are scales where GR has not been tested, but may I remind everyone that GR has never failed where it has been tested.
Any new physics will not over turn our very successful modern theories. It will add to them.
-
#2669
by
aceshigh
on 27 Oct, 2014 15:27
-
The trouble is, it doesn't make any sense. First of all, even those who admit virtual particles as something other than a cheezy accounting measure (the vast minority of real physicists) know that virtual particles have to be exceedingly short lived, so positing them traversing between an accelerated frame and the horizon is pretty silly on the face of it. It would be good to look at that in more detail, but certainly the bigger problem with this is that if it is correct, General Relativity and Einstein's Equivalence Principle that GR relies upon, indeed the entire principle of relativity are all incorrect! We have so much data, that these three are correct that it is on its face, silly to entertain physics like this. One has to ask, "where do you draw the line" between what is a plausible explanation and what is not?
Does this "theory", explain to us how we have the findings of GR over the decades? Does it answer how we can have so much experimental validation of Einstein's theories and yet they are wrong?
Ron, I have no idea what I am talking about here, so please, correct me (because I know there will be reasoning errors here, but I am posting anyway exactly to see your answer so I can better understand whatīs going on):
"know that virtual particles have to be exceedingly short lived, so positing them traversing between an accelerated frame and the horizon is pretty silly on the face of it"
doesnīt ME/Woodward Theory posit gravity waves or particles, whatever, flying backwards in time, so as to answer the question of inertia being caused by the mass of the distant universe acting instantly on anything?
if that's the case with gravity waves (or whatever else you are going to correct me), canīt a similar principle go on with these virtual particles?
-
#2670
by
RonM
on 27 Oct, 2014 16:04
-
doesnīt ME/Woodward Theory posit gravity waves or particles, whatever, flying backwards in time, so as to answer the question of inertia being caused by the mass of the distant universe acting instantly on anything?
That's a pretty bold concept. I'm not saying it's wrong, but where is the experimental evidence that they are correct?
Causality is very important to physics. Basically, the cause comes before the effect. Weak causality would include information traveling backwards in time at the speed of light resulting in the effect at the same time as the cause. It's an interesting concept, but there is no evidence that the universe works that way. Basically, there is no evidence ME works.
I'm not picking on ME or Woodward. String Theory is tossed about as if it was true, even though it also has no experimental evidence to back it up. I guess it is just more popular.
-
#2671
by
Ron Stahl
on 27 Oct, 2014 16:42
-
The trouble is, it doesn't make any sense. First of all, even those who admit virtual particles as something other than a cheezy accounting measure (the vast minority of real physicists) know that virtual particles have to be exceedingly short lived, so positing them traversing between an accelerated frame and the horizon is pretty silly on the face of it. It would be good to look at that in more detail, but certainly the bigger problem with this is that if it is correct, General Relativity and Einstein's Equivalence Principle that GR relies upon, indeed the entire principle of relativity are all incorrect! We have so much data, that these three are correct that it is on its face, silly to entertain physics like this. One has to ask, "where do you draw the line" between what is a plausible explanation and what is not?
Does this "theory", explain to us how we have the findings of GR over the decades? Does it answer how we can have so much experimental validation of Einstein's theories and yet they are wrong?
Ron, I have no idea what I am talking about here, so please, correct me (because I know there will be reasoning errors here, but I am posting anyway exactly to see your answer so I can better understand whatīs going on):
"know that virtual particles have to be exceedingly short lived, so positing them traversing between an accelerated frame and the horizon is pretty silly on the face of it"
doesnīt ME/Woodward Theory posit gravity waves or particles, whatever, flying backwards in time, so as to answer the question of inertia being caused by the mass of the distant universe acting instantly on anything?
if that's the case with gravity waves (or whatever else you are going to correct me), canīt a similar principle go on with these virtual particles?
You're here referring to Woodward's use of the Wheeler Feynman Absorber theory in his M-E theory. There's no virtual particle that mediates the transfer in either Absorber theory nor in Woodward's theory. It's a field phenomena that usually is taken only in its forward in time sense, but Wheeler and Feynman noted that this is an arbitrary choice, and used both in the absorber theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory(Note too how this relates to Cramer's Transactional Interpretation in Quantum Mechanics, noted in the wiki link; which relies similarly. Both are following Wheeler and Feynman.)
Woodward merely adopted it for inertia. This is completely different than referring to any virtual particles.
Virtual particles are not real particles. They are an accounting mechanism that was created (by Feynman I believe--who did not believe any of this silly nonsense of today about them) quite apart from any proposal that they should actually exist. In the case of this theory above, in order to exist for the duration necessary to reach the horizon, they would have to have very long lifespans and the theory posits they cannot be so long lived and yet be virtual. They would have to be real. Likewise the real trouble--virtual particles cannot have gravitational mass, or their mass added to the universe would not only cause it to immediately collapse, but it would never have expanded to begin with. However, to make virtual particles useful in any sense, people want to pretend they have
inertial mass. All of the ZPF, QVF and now this scheme, promote this view that the inertial and gravitational mass of virtual particles can be different. Yet Einstein clearly shows us they cannot be different--EVER. This is what EEP is all about. If it is wrong, GR is wrong and all of modern gravity physics with it.
I'm betting on Einstein.
-
#2672
by
Ron Stahl
on 27 Oct, 2014 16:48
-
doesnīt ME/Woodward Theory posit gravity waves or particles, whatever, flying backwards in time, so as to answer the question of inertia being caused by the mass of the distant universe acting instantly on anything?
That's a pretty bold concept. I'm not saying it's wrong, but where is the experimental evidence that they are correct?
That's precisely the kind of question we philosophers of science like to see. :-)
The only evidence comes from the lab at Fullerton. If one can look at Woodward's setup and posit another explanation for the thrusts he's had there for many years, then you can say there is no evidence. However, lacking an explanation for the thrusts other than M-E theory, then all that thrust data is evidence for his proposed use of absorber theory. M-E theory is not contingent upon absorber theory, but it is the most viable explanation for how the pieces of the puzzle fit together at this time. If you're curious, I highly recommend the book in which you'll find the most comprehensive treatment of theory, access to all the peer reviewed and conference papers of about 20 years and details of the experimental setup at Fullerton upon which surely this stuff all rests. Science starts with observation.
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/1461456223
-
#2673
by
Notsosureofit
on 27 Oct, 2014 17:06
-
-
#2674
by
aceshigh
on 27 Oct, 2014 17:10
-
so the basic difference is that one is a field phenomena and the other would be a particle phenomena, and while we can accept travelling back in time for field phenomena, we canīt accept it for particles, which would disprove these virtual particles as anything other than what they really are: virtual, to make mathematical analysis simpler?
am I on track? Thanks
-
#2675
by
Ron Stahl
on 27 Oct, 2014 17:19
-
That's a little off. I suggest try to read the English bits on the wiki page linked above. The essential difference is that Woodward never even makes reference to virtual particles. His theory does not require them at all. In fact, in his book he explains that we don't really need them for anything. Contrary to popular notions floating around in the advanced propulsion ZPF and QVF camps (and now this new one) virtual particles are not required to explain things like Casimir Effect. There are perfectly reasonable explanations for CA that do not require virtual particles, but you would never get that listening to anyone who believes this wonky physics. And I would just note to you, the percent of people who believe in treating virtual particles this way is vanishingly small. That's why Sean Carroll at Cal Tech called this stuff "BuII$hit".
-
#2676
by
Rodal
on 27 Oct, 2014 17:46
-
Table comparing Shawyer and McCulloch's predictions with measurements
c= 299705000 m/s (speed of light in air)
lengths in meter
rfFrequency in 1/second (microwave frequency during test)
power in watts
force in milliNewtons
force per PowerInput in milliNewtons/kW
Note: SmallDiameter for Shawyer's EM Drives obtained from his reported ShawyerDesignFactor .
predicted force (either Shawyer or McCulloch) followed (in parenthesis) by ratio of prediction divided by measurement
ShawyerForce = (2 * PowerInput * Q / c ) * ShawyerDesignFactor
McCullochForce1 = ( PowerInput * Q / rfFrequency ) * ((1/smallDiameter) - (1/bigDiameter))
McCullochForce2 = ( PowerInput * Q / c ) * ((cavityLength/smallDiameter) - (cavityLength/bigDiameter))
ShawyerForcePerPowerInput = (2 * Q / c ) * ShawyerDesignFactor
McCullochForce1PerPowerInput = (Q / rfFrequency ) * ((1/smallDiameter) - (1/bigDiameter))
McCullochForce2PerPowerInput = (Q / c ) * ((cavityLength/smallDiameter) - (cavityLength/bigDiameter))
Force/PowerInput of a Photon Rocket = 1 / c
Force/PowerInput ratios divided by the Force/PowerInput of a Photon Rocket, divided by Q are:
Shawyer/PhtnRckt/Q = 2 * ShawyerDesignFactor
McCulloch1/PhtnRckt/Q = (c / rfFrequency ) * ((1/smallDiameter) - (1/bigDiameter))
McCulloch2/PhtnRckt/Q = ((cavityLength/smallDiameter) - (cavityLength/bigDiameter))
(* Shawyer Experimental *)
rfFrequency=2.45*10^9;
cavityLength=0.156;
bigDiameter=0.16;
smallDiameter=0.127546;
ShawyerDesignFactor = 0.497
power = 850
Q = 5900
measured force = 16
ShawyerForce = 16.63
McCullochForce1 = 3.26
McCullochForce2 = 4.15
measured ForcePerPowerInput = 18.82
ShawyerForcePerPowerInput = 19.57
McCullochForce1PerPowerInput = 3.83
McCullochForce2PerPowerInput =4.88
Shawyer/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.9940
McCulloch1/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.1945
McCulloch2/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.2481
(* Shawyer Demo *)
rfFrequency=2.45*10^9;
cavityLength=0.345;
bigDiameter=0.28;
smallDiameter= 0.128853
ShawyerDesignFactor = 0.844
power = 421 to 1200
Q = 45000
(measured force = 102.30 milliNewtons only reported for 421 watts, 243 milliNewtons/kW )
measured ForcePerPowerInput = 80 to 243
ShawyerForcePerPowerInput = 253.4
McCullochForce1PerPowerInput = 76.95
McCullochForce2PerPowerInput = 217.0
Shawyer/PhtnRckt/Q = 1.688
McCulloch1/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.5125
McCulloch2/PhtnRckt/Q = 1.445
All Brady cases have the following dimensions:
cavityLength=0.332;
bigDiameter=0.397;
smallDiameter=0.244;
(* Brady a *)
rfFrequency=1.9326*10^9;
ShawyerDesignFactor =0.311969
power = 16.9
Q = 7320
measured force = 0.0912
ShawyerForce = 0.2575
McCullochForce1 = 0.1011
McCullochForce2 =0.2164
measured ForcePerPowerInput = 5.396
ShawyerForcePerPowerInput = 15.24
McCullochForce1PerPowerInput = 5.982
McCullochForce2PerPowerInput =12.81
Shawyer/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.6239
McCulloch1/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.2449
McCulloch2/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.524384
(* Brady b *) STATISTICAL OUTLIER
rfFrequency=1.9367*10^9;
ShawyerDesignFactor = 0.310959
power = 16.7
Q = 18100
measured force = 0.0501
ShawyerForce = 0.6272
McCullochForce1 = 0.2465
McCullochForce2 =0.5289
measured ForcePerPowerInput = 3.000
ShawyerForcePerPowerInput = 37.56
McCullochForce1PerPowerInput = 14.76
McCullochForce2PerPowerInput =31.67
Shawyer/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.6219
McCulloch1/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.2444
McCulloch2/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.5244
(* Brady c *)
rfFrequency = 1.8804*10^9;
ShawyerDesignFactor = 0.325498
power = 2.6
Q = 22000
measured force = 0.05541
ShawyerForce = 0.1242
McCullochForce1 = 0.04805
McCullochForce2 = 0.1001
measured ForcePerPowerInput = 21.31
ShawyerForcePerPowerInput = 47.79
McCullochForce1PerPowerInput = 18.48
McCullochForce2PerPowerInput = 38.49
Shawyer/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.6510
McCulloch1/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.2517
McCulloch2/PhtnRckt/Q = 0.5244
-
#2677
by
Rodal
on 27 Oct, 2014 19:34
-
**** Re-posting since people are writing comments about the quantum vacuum plasma again **** Shawyer gave us his equations to predict force .
I have not found
the actual equation that Dr. White at NASA
uses to predict forces.
I have seen Dr. White's derivation for the electron mass, Bohr radius, gravitational coupling constant, his MHD plasma analogy, and Microsoft Excel spreadsheet predictions (see attached). But I don't know what actual equations he used in that Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to make the prediction.
Can anyone please provide Dr. White's equation to predict the thrust force from his electron-positron virtual particle quantum vacuum theory?Seriously, we have numerical comparisons of Shawyer's and McCulloch's predictions with experiments (see :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1277322#msg1277322 ).
Some people have even spent time writing a Wikipedia article on "Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_plasma_thruster but have failed to provide
an equation to calculate the thrust force from such a "Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster."
This is an appeal to also include Dr. White's quantum-vacuum-plasma thrust-force-prediction equations.
-
#2678
by
Ron Stahl
on 27 Oct, 2014 19:45
-
Seriously, we have numerical comparisons of Shawyer's and McCulloch's predictions with experiments. . .
I'm sure you're well meaning in this line of reasoning, but I would just point out to you, as I have to Dr. White on a dozen similar occasions, that this is mere rhetoric and is unhelpful in the extreme in doing science. Which supposed "prediction" is closest to the claims is irrelevant when it comes to which is likely correct, and thinking this way leads people into thinking errors that endure over time. This is pure fallacy. It is however worse, as it is fallacy mixed with lack of integrity, when people are claiming to be making "predictions' when in fact these come AFTER THE DATA. When these calculations come after the data, they are most assuredly NOT predictions, which is just precisely what we have here.
We are straining hard on the edge of pathological science here, especially when I have made this correction to Dr. White on so many occasions and he continues to mislead his audience through false claims of prediction. Likewise, Dr. McCulloch did not make any predictions so far as I'm aware. Were there some numbers published by him before the actual work at NASA was taken to conference?
-
#2679
by
Rodal
on 27 Oct, 2014 20:02
-
The equations of Quantum Mechanics were developed mathematically (mainly by Heisenberg and Schrodinger) after the quantum mechanics experiments could not be explained by classical physics. Ditto for the formalization of Quantum Mechanics by John von Neuman. Ditto for Maxwell's equations. Ditto for Newton's equations to explain the orbits of celestial bodies. Ditto for countless other examples.
Neither John von Neuman nor Feynman (quoted above concerning virtual particles) engaged in the philosophy of science (actually John von Neuman warned against it, so did Bohr, and so did Victor Weisskopf as I recall from his lectures).
I'm sure you are well meaning as well, but this is not a philosophy of science forum (and by this I do not state any opinion on the philosophy of science), it is mainly a practical applications forum.
