-
#3580 by Rodal on 08 Dec, 2014 14:50
-
I am not sure you can conflate the turbulence created in the soler wind with the proposed QVF wake can you? The solar wind is composed of elementary particles which are of quite a different scale from the Planck levels involved in virtual particle production. I understand conceptually where you are going but I don't understand how the scale of the fields are independent of the scale constraints that apply to virtual particle production. My obsession with scale has nothing to do with John's craving for Virginia scale peanuts, which are also virtual at this point.
Steve,
1) it is Dr. White, himself (at the NASA Ames conference in August 2014) who has proposed as his next step to use another EM Drive to measure the wake left by the EM Drive undergoing propulsion. So you have a disagreement with Dr, White in this regard. As I said, I am not defending the QV propulsion theory. But his proposal is consistent with his theory
2) I don't think that one can simultaneously argue that the QV virtual particles can simultaneously produce directional propulsion (either as a propeller per Dr. White or as a sail as per Mull) by interacting with real copper atoms to transfer directional momentum and at the same time deny the possibility of amplification of the QV virtual particle fluctuations in this interaction resulting in turbulence that could be measured through the power spectrum of the interacting field variables. One can either
A) deny QV directional momentum transfer to real particles (as done by most physicists at major institutions). Hence there is no way to measure such turbulence of the QV. (The QV having no frame of reference to establish directional momentum).
B) But if you admit a macroscopic directional momentum transfer from the QV to the EM Drive then you must accept that such turbulence due to amplification should be measurable in the interacting field variables. -
#3581 by SteveKelsey on 08 Dec, 2014 15:42
-
Thankyou Dr Rodal, I am going to opt for option A). as its a popular choice. I am with Ron on this one as I also understood the virtual particles had no inertial mass. However, if they carried a charge, then that would open up another direction to explore...
John do you want your Virginians positive or negatively charged?
I agree that Dr White is proposing a useful falsification method and should be applauded for the effort.
-
#3582 by Mulletron on 08 Dec, 2014 16:17
-
Rodal: Thanx for the English summary comparison of Mull & White's take on their QV models. It is not clear to me what the phrase "medium with intrinsic momentum" means. We all know that TV is called a medium because it is neither rare nor well done. This sense of the term "medium" does not apply.
However, if the QV (which sounds more and more like an aether, if ya ask me) has "intrinsic momentum" which can be selectively manipulated, then it must have a direction.
If this analogy has any applicability, then along with turbulent wake, theaetherQV must also feature "weather", "current", "tides", and what have you, all dependent on the anisotropic distribution of mass in the universe.
Since the QVF is "foam" in spacetime, then the currents and tides of it should be the local gravitational fields.
If there is anything that modifies the QVF's parameters, you're looking at some serious unexplored physics.
I wouldn't take the leap that the QV has anything to do with gravity. Also, the recent talk about currents, tides, wind and turbulence doesn't compute. We're talking about the ground state of scalar and vector fields and vacuum fluctuations here. Not space weather.
The Dr. White proposal to use another thruster to measure the wake is commendable of course, but doesn't make any sense. A vacuum fluctuation lives and dies at extremely small scales. They never leave the resonant cavity. So he's got the right spirit, but that doesn't falsify anything. I'm working on a way to falsify the sail approach that doesn't simultaneously falsify the "pushing against the qv" approach. Honestly the "pushing against the qv" approach can be falsified with just logic, as has been done on this forum by me and others, as well as a recent paper on Arxiv.
Nobody has suggested you can modify any QV parameters. Nothing beyond the established Casimir effect that's been around since the 40s and measured experimentally. In this context, we're/I'm not worried about measuring any attractive/repulsive forces on the cavity walls; rather just the negative vacuum energy wrt the rest of the universe.
The QV doesn't transfer momentum to anything in everyday experience. For example, every electron in your body is being interacted with around all axes at once by these vacuum fluctuations, the net effect is a zero momentum transfer. The Brady et al paper stated the importance of the dielectric to the measured thrust. In order to get any momentum transfer, you have to create asymmetries. Which I have posted about many times. -
#3583 by IslandPlaya on 08 Dec, 2014 16:25
-
My friend isn't too keen on my planned experiments with a copper frustum and magnetron...
.
-
#3584 by Mulletron on 08 Dec, 2014 16:27
-
Mach's principle states that the local inertial properies of matter are
determined by the global matter distribution in the universe.
Why did Woodward change it to flatness in his book? That isn't what Mach said at all. Is that moving the goal post after WMAP found things like the Eridanus Supervoid, and the Giant Void and other lumps, bumps and holes?
Seems if Mach's principle were right, I could drastically improve my golf game if I knew which constellation to aim at
I know his secret! I kid I kid.
-
#3585 by IslandPlaya on 08 Dec, 2014 16:32
-
I don't really see the difference. Woodward was just echoing the known observational evidence. The Universe is flat within a really small error bar. But it is anisotropic.
-
#3586 by Rodal on 08 Dec, 2014 16:59
-
Rodal: Thanx for the English summary comparison of Mull & White's take on their QV models. It is not clear to me what the phrase "medium with intrinsic momentum" means. We all know that TV is called a medium because it is neither rare nor well done. This sense of the term "medium" does not apply.
However, if the QV (which sounds more and more like an aether, if ya ask me) has "intrinsic momentum" which can be selectively manipulated, then it must have a direction.
If this analogy has any applicability, then along with turbulent wake, theaetherQV must also feature "weather", "current", "tides", and what have you, all dependent on the anisotropic distribution of mass in the universe.
Since the QVF is "foam" in spacetime, then the currents and tides of it should be the local gravitational fields.
If there is anything that modifies the QVF's parameters, you're looking at some serious unexplored physics.
I wouldn't take the leap that the QV has anything to do with gravity. Also, the recent talk about currents, tides, wind and turbulence doesn't compute. We're talking about the ground state of scalar and vector fields and vacuum fluctuations here. Not space weather.
The Dr. White proposal to use another thruster to measure the wake is commendable of course, but doesn't make any sense. A vacuum fluctuation lives and dies at extremely small scales. They never leave the resonant cavity. So he's got the right spirit, but that doesn't falsify anything. I'm working on a way to falsify the sail approach that doesn't simultaneously falsify the "pushing against the qv" approach. Honestly the "pushing against the qv" approach can be falsified with just logic, as has been done on this forum by me and others, as well as a recent paper on Arxiv.
Nobody has suggested you can modify any QV parameters. Nothing beyond the established Casimir effect that's been around since the 40s and measured experimentally. In this context, we're/I'm not worried about measuring any attractive/repulsive forces on the cavity walls; rather just the negative vacuum energy wrt the rest of the universe.
The QV doesn't transfer momentum to anything in everyday experience. For example, every electron in your body is being interacted with around all axes at once by these vacuum fluctuations, the net effect is a zero momentum transfer. The Brady et al paper stated the importance of the dielectric to the measured thrust. In order to get any momentum transfer, you have to create asymmetries. Which I have posted about many times.
Based on my work on non-stationary randomness both in physics and in finance, what I understand you are stating, Mull, does not follow. I understand that you are stating that the quantum vacuum which you have previously described as a random walk capable of being biased in a particular direction (by using a polymer with helical anisotropy for example) to transfer directional momentum to a macroscopic copper EM Drive such that it can be used for space propulsion yet you simultaneously state that the momentum transfer from the quantum vacuum to the EM drive would not produce any turbulent amplification of the quantum vacuum fluctuations.
I submit that the opposite is more likely: that (in the very unlikely event that) if there were any transfer of momentum from the quantum vacuum to a spacecraft through a EM Drive, such momentum transfer would not be flat in the power spectral density but that there should be a measurable power decay in the power spectral density of the measured "thrust". -
#3587 by Mulletron on 08 Dec, 2014 17:05
-
No the random walk of the electrons in the dielectric is biased. When you quote me, copy and paste my words. I have never even used the words "turbulent amplification."
Read the description too. -
#3588 by Notsosureofit on 08 Dec, 2014 17:05
-
Based on my work on non-stationary randomness both in physics and in finance, what I understand you are stating, Mull, does not follow. I understand that you are stating that the quantum vacuum which you have previously described as a random walk capable of being biased in a particular direction (by using a polymer with helical anisotropy for example) to transfer directional momentum to a macroscopic copper EM Drive such that it can be used for space propulsion yet you simultaneously state that the momentum transfer from the quantum vacuum to the EM drive would not produce any turbulent amplification of the quantum vacuum fluctuations.
I submit that the opposite is more likely: that (in the very unlikely event that) if there were any transfer of momentum from the quantum vacuum to a spacecraft through a EM Drive, such momentum transfer would not be flat in the power spectral density but that there should be a measurable power decay in the power spectral density of the measured "thrust".
Simply because you can't lower zero point energy, but you can add to it, you should expect some sort of "wake".
-
#3589 by Mulletron on 08 Dec, 2014 17:14
-
By wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.
-
#3590 by Mulletron on 08 Dec, 2014 17:16
-
That random walk doesn't seem to go anywhere
Exactly. That's why we're not being pushed around by the QV. Now put that scenario in the video in the Shawyer cavity. -
#3591 by Rodal on 08 Dec, 2014 17:17
-
Based on my work on non-stationary randomness both in physics and in finance, what I understand you are stating, Mull, does not follow. I understand that you are stating that the quantum vacuum which you have previously described as a random walk capable of being biased in a particular direction (by using a polymer with helical anisotropy for example) to transfer directional momentum to a macroscopic copper EM Drive such that it can be used for space propulsion yet you simultaneously state that the momentum transfer from the quantum vacuum to the EM drive would not produce any turbulent amplification of the quantum vacuum fluctuations.
I submit that the opposite is more likely: that (in the very unlikely event that) if there were any transfer of momentum from the quantum vacuum to a spacecraft through a EM Drive, such momentum transfer would not be flat in the power spectral density but that there should be a measurable power decay in the power spectral density of the measured "thrust".
Simply because you can't lower zero point energy, but you can add to it, you should expect some sort of "wake".
Excellently stated. Also, the "wake" should have "less disorder", "less randomness" than the absolute randomness (randomness at all time scales) of the zero point energy. This should be observable in the power spectral density. -
#3592 by Rodal on 08 Dec, 2014 17:20
-
By wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.
The power spectral density of "snow" in an old TV set is not flat !
Actually Mandelbrot used many types of noise found in electronics to describe the statistical order of different types of randomness. For example 1/f noise, shot noise, pink noise. -
#3593 by Ron Stahl on 08 Dec, 2014 17:22
-
If the Machian effect is most importantly due to the most distant masses, and those masses can only be observed in the distant past (due to the time that it has taken for their photons to reach us), how is the Woodward Machian theory capable of falsification if what would matter would be the instantaneous state of anisotropy of those distant masses? (that instantaneous state of anisotropy being unobservable because those distant masses can only be observed with the delay due to the speed of light and their very large distance) ?
If I understand your question, it is basically how do we falsify the reaction on the rest of the universe. I don't personally know how to do that save to note the accelerated expansion, which is the expected result of harvesting momentum. Since we don't have a proposed mechanism for dark energy, M-E seems to be the only viable candidate, but that is not the same as providing for falsification. So I'm not sure your question has an answer.
This is really akin to the whole "a closed universe cannot rotate" issue. How would you measure? We can and do measure the expansion rate and it is increasing, but if it were not we could not then say (hey there's no back reaction" since we don't know what the magnitude of the reaction ought to be, since we don't in fact know what the magnitude of M-E usage throughout the time of the universe will be. -
#3594 by IslandPlaya on 08 Dec, 2014 17:23
-
Indeed can you show me anything that is spectrally flat?
-
#3595 by Notsosureofit on 08 Dec, 2014 17:26
-
By wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.
By "wake" I'm assuming some sort of propagating residual field distribution. -
#3596 by IslandPlaya on 08 Dec, 2014 17:27
-
I thought the standard GR showed that the Universe is not rotating... Forgive me if I am wrong
-
#3597 by Rodal on 08 Dec, 2014 17:58
-
I thought the standard GR showed that the Universe is not rotating... Forgive me if I am wrong
Yes, it depends on how one defines rotation of the Universe. The rotating Godel universe model, for example, can be shown to not satisfy experiments but other types of "rotation" are still possible. Usually these types of "rotation" refer to quantities defined not by the overall space-time but by a local slicing of the space-time. Another issue is that while these types of rotation can be included and the model "improves" in some sense many physicists think that the great increase in complexity of including such rotation modeling is not justified by the meager increase in improvement. -
#3598 by IslandPlaya on 08 Dec, 2014 18:06
-
Thanks Rodal. So we are not rotating then. ME seems plausible to me, the universe is not isotropic.
-
#3599 by frobnicat on 08 Dec, 2014 18:07
-
I'm loosing feet with what is going on here with ME vs EM. Regarding the former, I understand Ron states it is not incompatible with GR, so not with SR, so not with Lorentz invariance. But it can predict the result of a situation that GR cannot predict, namely situation of a ME thruster thrusting. This "hole" in GR was never noticed because such prediction for such situation never needed, kind of, so possible Machian "extension" (?) to GR forgotten. How could it be that a mundane device like a ME thruster could leave classic frameworks GR + QFT voiceless ?
I think the answer here is to note that as I said, GR does not address the issue fo the origin of inertia. Eistein liked Mach's explantion here. He was in fact the one who coined the name, and it helped him form GR, but GR is not contingent upon Mach's Principle, so you would not expect to see GR extended to include inertia manipulation. It was actually Dennis Sciama back in the 50's who first started connecting GR with MP. Woodward merely followed Sciama's lead when he stumbled upon the surprise in the derivations that showed there was a way to manipulate inertia present. He talks about this in detail in his book.
Thank you for the answer, but as expected in the question I don't find it satisfying. I won't read the book, main reason being I feel I should study complete and solid GR course first (and no time nor priority so far), so if you are getting tired of playing the popularization game for not enough involved audience I would understand.
So, with all my (admitted) shortcomings in understanding GR, seems to me it hasn't to be "extended" to predict that the total mass-energy content of a bulk material wont vary by a iota while it's vibrating (under harmonic self oscillations) : energy is swapping between kinetic energy and elastic energy in the intermolecular bonds but is the same magnitude, has the same gravitational pull, has the same inertia. "Inertia manipulation" would be just a particular configuration of accelerations and energy swapping between different forms, in a locally quite flat space-time, how could this be beyond the scope of GR as far as inertia is concerned ? Say for instance we study a battery, from empty, charging it will add mass_energy to it. The gained mass (say gravitational, as measured by weight on a scale) will be quite low but is clearly not 0 and predicted by SR, delta_m=delta_E/c² (sorry for the triviality). Now make an internal short-circuit so that this chemical potential energy discharges quickly, and converts to thermal agitation. There is no net gain nor loss of energy to the outside, so the hot depleted battery will weigh exactly as much as when cold and charged.
What is the aspect of an experiment of "inertia manipulation" that escapes this aptitude of SR (we don't even need GR here) of simply predicting that inertial mass amounts just to mass_energy content, and that a closed bulk system wont see any change in inertial mass, whatever happens inside ? And that an open bulk system can see a change in mass_energy content but only as much as mass_energy flow it incurs, and such flow will bring/carry away an equivalent momentum than would allow to "push heavy pull light", so we are left with 0 net thrust in the end ?
I can understand such Machian physics could predict such inertia manipulation, different from what SR would predict, but not how SR would fail to predict anything at all ! I mean, just show ME thruster design (and its internal power dynamics...) to a good physicist who don't know what it's supposed to do, you really think he/she will scratch head for a few days and conclude "how strange, we need an extended theory of inertia to predict how it will behave, classical frameworks have nothing to tell !" Really ?QuoteQuoteAs for the higher order anisotropies... this looks like a nice playground, full of hills and hollows. What a GR compatible Machian physics would have to say different from what would say GR : local inertias don't care ? Anyway, it claims to predict an effect that is astounding for most people working with GR under the form of a ME thruster thrusting. Can't the theory devise one other type of experiment that is at least as astounding and that could lend itself to more convincing reproducible results ? Call it an experiment in fundamental science (à la Michelson and Morley). Better credibility to the theory if it can expose itself to experimental falsifiability on other grounds that notoriously capricious propellentless drives. Are there such other falsifiable grounds?
Woodward makes the argument in his book, which I chided him about for failing at the kinds of detail I would have liked, but basically his argument is that the flatness we observe with WMAP data, does indeed require that Mach's Principle be correct. He says the issue is settled since WMAP. It's a complex issue and again, I think he should have gone slower though the argument and would perhaps make a wonderful academic paper in and of itself, but I don't know if he took the jibe seriously. I think he was writing again last summer but I don't know the subject or contents.
"Loosing feet with" sounds like an idiom from outside the English speaking world. Can I ask where you're from?
Yes, not far off England coasts but still not native speaker for sure, I'm French actually. "Perdre pied" (loosing foot, rather than feet...) meaning you can no longer reach the bottom with feet when standing in water. It's used as a way to admit you don't swim well and are no longer in a zone of comfort, and likely not to follow a particular lead but rather to drown swiftly. Beyond swimming... you get the picture, metaphorically.
I'm sure a lot of people have other conclusions to draw than correctness of Mach principle from the apparent flatness on cosmological scales. The question was rather, what other lab experiments could be devised to check for the reality or falsify Machian theory ? Is a ME thruster the most simple arrangement where such effect would manifest ? Someone send me a life jacket please.
