-
#2620 by oliverio on 04 Feb, 2016 18:44
-
We must be rigorous and careful about our terminology, insofar as it can muddle up very distinctly different realms of science (different philosophies of science, you might say).
Namely I see something that has gone undiscussed in this discussion with regards to the phrase "negative," "virtual," and the prefix "anti." These phrases, applied to matter, mean complicated things, and digging into the linguistic implications is not a scientifically futile endeavor.
When a photon strikes the surface of a photoelectrode, an electron and an "negative-electron, [a positron you might say, from the fact that the electron's charge is negative]" is generated. When the "time-reversed" version of said action takes place [i.e. an electron and a positron collide], a photon will be emitted. Is the electron real? Is the positron real? In what way are these particles to be understood as entities or phenomena?
It is a question of the "ontology of holes." Which are you inclined to say is an existent feature of swiss cheese; the holes or the surface of the cheese that is exposed to empty space (or, of course, air)? On one model, the "hole" is a real thing that exists within the cheese. On the other model, the "hole" is virtual, and a product of the description of "cheese", i.e. the stuff between holes.
The "positron" and other such "antiparticles" should be thought of with the above dilemma in mind. To quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is an excellent reference for scientists and philosophers of all walks,Quote from: Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyHoles are an interesting case study for ontologists and epistemologists. Naive, untutored descriptions of the world treat holes as objects of reference, on a par with ordinary material objects. (‘There are as many holes in the cheese as there are cookies in the tin.’) And we often appeal to holes to account for causal interactions, or to explain the occurrence of certain events. (‘The water ran out because of the hole in the bucket.’) Hence there is prima facie evidence for the existence of such entities. Yet it might be argued that reference to holes is just a façon de parler, that holes are mere entia representationis, as-if entities, fictions.
For a description that ought to stump any good physicist (for it has no fact-of-the-matter answer) is: "is a cavity in water defined by the empty volume, or defined by the surface of the water that is not adjacent to more water molecules?" Each answer has clear counter-objections, and this is because there is a "unity" of bubbles and particles (expressed so elegantly, but mysteriously, in by wave-particle duality) and holes that human knowledge doesn't grasp so well yet.
There is almost no difference between asking the above and asking whether or not a photon is a particle, as the true answer is not "yes," "no," or even "both," but some superposition (no pun intended) of the assertion and rejection that is not perfectly explained by a more consistent theory yet. -
#2621 by Rodal on 04 Feb, 2016 18:47
-
We must be rigorous and careful about our terminology, insofar as it can muddle up very distinctly different realms of science (different philosophies of science, you might say).
The most rigorous "terminology" is mathematics, which is the language of physics, rather than words.
Namely I see something that has gone undiscussed in this discussion with regards to the phrase "negative," "virtual," and the prefix "anti." These phrases, applied to matter, mean complicated things, and digging into the linguistic implications is not a scientifically futile endeavor.
When a photon strikes the surface of a photoelectrode, an electron and an "negative-electron, [a positron you might say, from the fact that the electron's charge is negative]" is generated. When the "time-reversed" of said action takes place [i.e. an electron and a positron collide], a photon will be emitted. Is the electron real? Is the positron real? In what way are these particles to be understood as entities or phenomena?
It is a question of the "ontology of holes." Which are you inclined to say is an existent feature of swiss cheese; the holes or the surface of the cheese that is exposed to empty space (or, of course, air)? On one model, the "hole" is a real thing that exists within the cheese. On the other model, the "hole" is virtual, and a product of the description of "cheese", i.e. the stuff between holes.
The "positron" and other such "antiparticles" should be thought of with the above dilemma in mind. To quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is an excellent reference for scientists and philosophers of all walks,Quote from: Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyHoles are an interesting case study for ontologists and epistemologists. Naive, untutored descriptions of the world treat holes as objects of reference, on a par with ordinary material objects. (‘There are as many holes in the cheese as there are cookies in the tin.’) And we often appeal to holes to account for causal interactions, or to explain the occurrence of certain events. (‘The water ran out because of the hole in the bucket.’) Hence there is prima facie evidence for the existence of such entities. Yet it might be argued that reference to holes is just a façon de parler, that holes are mere entia representationis, as-if entities, fictions.
For a description that ought to stump any good physicist (for it has no fact-of-the-matter answer) is: "is a cavity in water defined by the empty volume, or defined by the surface of the water that is not adjacent to more water molecules?" Each answer has clear counter-objections, and this is because there is a "unity" of bubbles and particles (expressed so elegantly, but mysteriously, in by wave-particle duality) and holes that human knowledge doesn't grasp so well yet.
My derivation is mathematical, and thus much more rigorous than words can be.
Again, as to whether the equations can represent physical reality, that remains to be seen, it may be a mathematical solution that does not take place in reality. That is why the WEC (Weak Energy Condition) is a postulate, and it is not known whether it is a necessary condition in the Universe or not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_condition#Weak_energy_condition
where rho is the total mass-energy density (matter plus field energy of any nongravitational fields) measured by the observer at each event on his world line.
The assumption of negative mass creation in the equations runs contrary to the WEC, so does the Alcubierre drive, and Minotti's solution to the EM Drive, and Woodward's Mach Effect involving negative energy, and stabilization of wormholes in spacetime, etc. etc..
-
#2622 by oliverio on 04 Feb, 2016 18:52
-
We must be rigorous and careful about our terminology, insofar as it can muddle up very distinctly different realms of science (different philosophies of science, you might say).
The most rigorous "terminology" is mathematics, which is the language of physics, rather than words.
Namely I see something that has gone undiscussed in this discussion with regards to the phrase "negative," "virtual," and the prefix "anti." These phrases, applied to matter, mean complicated things, and digging into the linguistic implications is not a scientifically futile endeavor.
When a photon strikes the surface of a photoelectrode, an electron and an "negative-electron, [a positron you might say, from the fact that the electron's charge is negative]" is generated. When the "time-reversed" of said action takes place [i.e. an electron and a positron collide], a photon will be emitted. Is the electron real? Is the positron real? In what way are these particles to be understood as entities or phenomena?
It is a question of the "ontology of holes." Which are you inclined to say is an existent feature of swiss cheese; the holes or the surface of the cheese that is exposed to empty space (or, of course, air)? On one model, the "hole" is a real thing that exists within the cheese. On the other model, the "hole" is virtual, and a product of the description of "cheese", i.e. the stuff between holes.
The "positron" and other such "antiparticles" should be thought of with the above dilemma in mind. To quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is an excellent reference for scientists and philosophers of all walks,Quote from: Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyHoles are an interesting case study for ontologists and epistemologists. Naive, untutored descriptions of the world treat holes as objects of reference, on a par with ordinary material objects. (‘There are as many holes in the cheese as there are cookies in the tin.’) And we often appeal to holes to account for causal interactions, or to explain the occurrence of certain events. (‘The water ran out because of the hole in the bucket.’) Hence there is prima facie evidence for the existence of such entities. Yet it might be argued that reference to holes is just a façon de parler, that holes are mere entia representationis, as-if entities, fictions.
For a description that ought to stump any good physicist (for it has no fact-of-the-matter answer) is: "is a cavity in water defined by the empty volume, or defined by the surface of the water that is not adjacent to more water molecules?" Each answer has clear counter-objections, and this is because there is a "unity" of bubbles and particles (expressed so elegantly, but mysteriously, in by wave-particle duality) and holes that human knowledge doesn't grasp so well yet.
My derivation is mathematical, and thus much more rigorous than words can be.
I would have to strongly disagree. English, Spanish, Aristotelian Logic, and Mathematics speak the same language with different words. You can be just as rigorous with English as you can be with math, and can poorly express a mathematical idea just the same as a natural-language one.
Moreover, the centuries of esteemed academic traditions, including physics, that resort to analytical argumentation rather than pure mathematics would tend to lend credence to the view that we can get a great deal out of natural language argumentation.
Even pure mathematicians acknowledge this importance of mutual meaning between systems of description when they speak of the "physical significance" of an equation. The mathematics are simply terms that quantify the analytic elements, as no rigorous mathematics stands without a rigorous natural language theory behind it. -
#2623 by oliverio on 04 Feb, 2016 18:54
-
Not to double up on posts, but a quick game of "identify the excerpt" may be, here, quite fun.
Whosaidit?Quote from: ????????The positivist or pragmatist is strong as long as he battles against the opinion that there [are] concepts that are anchored in the “A priori.” When, in his enthusiasm, [he] forgets that all knowledge consists [in] concepts and judgments, then that is a weakness that lies not in the nature of things but in his personal disposition just as with the senseless battle against hypotheses, cf. the clear book by Duhem. In any case, the railing against atoms rests upon this weakness. Oh, how hard things are for man in this world; the path to originality leads through unreason (in the sciences), through ugliness (in the arts)-at least the path that many find passable.
-
#2624 by Rodal on 04 Feb, 2016 19:01
-
...
Well you can certainly disagree on whether Mathematics is the language of Physics rather than words.
I would have to strongly disagree. English, Spanish, Aristotelian Logic, and Mathematics speak the same language with different words. You can be just as rigorous with English as you can be with math, and can poorly express a mathematical idea just the same as a natural-language one.
Moreover, the centuries of esteemed academic traditions, including physics, that resort to analytical argumentation rather than pure mathematics would tend to lend credence to the view that we can get a great deal out of natural language argumentation.
Even pure mathematicians acknowledge this importance of mutual meaning between systems of description when they speak of the "physical significance" of an equation. The mathematics are simply terms that quantify the analytic elements, as no rigorous mathematics stands without a rigorous natural language theory behind it.
Those are our respective opinions on the subject.
But what we cannot disagree with is that my derivation is mathematical and not a word essay, and it stands or falls on its mathematical correctness or incorrectness, rather than on words. I have said numerous times from the beginning that I take no position on whether it corresponds to reality. -
#2625 by Rodal on 04 Feb, 2016 19:07
-
Not to double up on posts, but a quick game of "identify the excerpt" may be, here, quite fun.
Quoting Einstein's words in one of his personal letters to a German mathematician does not change the fact that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is mathematical
Whosaidit?Quote from: ????????The positivist or pragmatist is strong as long as he battles against the opinion that there [are] concepts that are anchored in the “A priori.” When, in his enthusiasm, [he] forgets that all knowledge consists [in] concepts and judgments, then that is a weakness that lies not in the nature of things but in his personal disposition just as with the senseless battle against hypotheses, cf. the clear book by Duhem. In any case, the railing against atoms rests upon this weakness. Oh, how hard things are for man in this world; the path to originality leads through unreason (in the sciences), through ugliness (in the arts)-at least the path that many find passable.
-
#2626 by tchernik on 04 Feb, 2016 19:39
-
Not to double up on posts, but a quick game of "identify the excerpt" may be, here, quite fun.
Quoting Einstein's words in one of his personal letters to a German mathematician does not change the fact that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is mathematical
Whosaidit?Quote from: ????????The positivist or pragmatist is strong as long as he battles against the opinion that there [are] concepts that are anchored in the “A priori.” When, in his enthusiasm, [he] forgets that all knowledge consists [in] concepts and judgments, then that is a weakness that lies not in the nature of things but in his personal disposition just as with the senseless battle against hypotheses, cf. the clear book by Duhem. In any case, the railing against atoms rests upon this weakness. Oh, how hard things are for man in this world; the path to originality leads through unreason (in the sciences), through ugliness (in the arts)-at least the path that many find passable.
Formal languages (like the mathematics used in physics) are rule-based and unambiguous in their meaning. The same as their application for physics. You can be either right or wrong while describing physical reality, but what you are stating about it has only one meaning.
Human language in exchange, is ambiguous and with multiple interpretations.
It's not that hard to see why human language isn't the language of physics. -
#2627 by Rodal on 04 Feb, 2016 19:39
-
MY PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING OF DR.WHITE'S QV NEGATIVE ENERGY IN THE EM DRIVE
It is my personal understanding that Dr. White thinks that just as in the Casimir effect, the EM Drive is producing a volumetric negative-energy state in the truncated cone cavity (relative to the spacetime located outside of the frustum cavity).
It is my understanding, that White proposes that the electromagnetic field in the EM Drive sets up a Poynting vector-driven flow in the Quantum Vacuum (QV) that lowers the average energy density in the Quantum Vacuum inside the EM Drive. And that White proposes that this creates a Bernoulli-like Quantum Vacuum low pressure zone that makes the frustum cavity then “fall” into, because of the higher Quantum Vacuum pressure outside.
It is my understanding that Desiato (NSF user "WarpTech") arrived at a similar conclusion (the EM Drive 'falling into" by gravitation) using a different Quantum Vacuum formulation.
Also Dr. Brandenburg (a physicist with controversial science-fiction ideas, which I don't share. Paper on EM Drive attached below) arrives at the same conclusion using a similar theoretical formulation.
It is my understanding that White thinks that this negative energy density can be viewed as gravitationally negative mass through Einstein’s E=m*c^2 equivalence equation.
For this to occur the Quantum Vacuum must be mutable and degradable, at least at very close ranges on the order of subatomic processes.
It is my understanding that Dr. White proposes that this QV compressibility constant is governed by the Casimir force equation’s r^4 separation sensitivity as described in the “Dynamics of the Vacuum” paper, attached below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is one of the many motivations (as well as Minotti's, Lobo's, Alcubierre, Woodward's, etc.) that drove me to formally consider and solve the relevant frame-indifferent relativistic momentum equation, to mathematically explore its consequences.
-
#2628 by RotoSequence on 04 Feb, 2016 19:55
-
Methinks it would be good to avoid the move tag; it's rather distracting.
-
#2629 by CW on 04 Feb, 2016 21:07
-
! Negative effective mass/energy! It means that these properties are not a feature of the standard model of the universe, they are emergent from technology (endless possibilities btw), aka artificially produced configurations, such as negative effective mass, hole flow, Cooper pairs, heavy fermions...it just keeps going and going.
I have come to understand technology as an extremely narrow band-pass filter, that removes all from the infinite spectrum of what could happen randomly or chaotically, except the events we explicitly want to happen - however mindblowingly weird or unlikely these things are otherwise. I have also reached the conclusion, that there is an objective / scientific rule to judge the levels of civilsations, wherever and whatever they are: Just look at how improbable the things and events are, that happen in that specific civilisation, compared to a 'natural' world. That improbability is a direct measure for civilisatory level. But that's a different topic altogether
.
-
#2630 by spupeng7 on 04 Feb, 2016 23:03
-
I think many feel that the link of em and gravity is probably the way through this. We know mass then gravity warps spacetime in a macro sense, but what about in a micro sense? EWs interferometer hints that em could be warping spacetime on a very small scale...increasing the laser path as they indicated, about 40x that of thermal heating IIRC.Just noting that we now have reports of possible evanescent waves exiting the small end of the device and potentially anomalous interferometer readings in relation to the large end (mini-EM drive). If both of these can be confirmed it would seen to hint at something, but I'm not sure what.
Sometimes I wonder if what we're seeing is space-time buoyancy, of sorts, and that EM drive is a constant-displacement (perhaps fixed maximum velocity?) device relative to its initial state, and that the evanescent waves are part of, or a consequence of the working mechanism. But I have no firm grounding in general relativity, quantum field theory, electrodynamics, or even plain old RF engineering, so I have no idea what I should be looking for to prove or disprove that back-of-the-mind idea (or even if it's already been disproven).
For the nondiyers with vacuum chambers, it seems clear that confined em in a cavity might well distort a laser interferometer. If I were a student or professor with access to the right equipment, I'd go after this hypothesis quickly.
Rfmwguy, does this shed any light on my hypothesis, that charges interact by time dilation. If you consider the presence of the em energy in the frustum from a covariant perspective, the warp could be a longitudional dilation of the reflection mechanisms rate. Shells comment that "the only thing that can pass through the walls of the frustum is gravity", is a reminder that there could be machian solutions to this apparent paradox...
as an alternative to...
-
#2631 by rfmwguy on 04 Feb, 2016 23:46
-
Well now, about as close to possibly explaining the emdrive as anything I've read lately...have to sit down with this and think some more. EXCELLENT find. Interesting that NASA sponsored this paper in 1998.
I think many feel that the link of em and gravity is probably the way through this. We know mass then gravity warps spacetime in a macro sense, but what about in a micro sense? EWs interferometer hints that em could be warping spacetime on a very small scale...increasing the laser path as they indicated, about 40x that of thermal heating IIRC.Just noting that we now have reports of possible evanescent waves exiting the small end of the device and potentially anomalous interferometer readings in relation to the large end (mini-EM drive). If both of these can be confirmed it would seen to hint at something, but I'm not sure what.
Sometimes I wonder if what we're seeing is space-time buoyancy, of sorts, and that EM drive is a constant-displacement (perhaps fixed maximum velocity?) device relative to its initial state, and that the evanescent waves are part of, or a consequence of the working mechanism. But I have no firm grounding in general relativity, quantum field theory, electrodynamics, or even plain old RF engineering, so I have no idea what I should be looking for to prove or disprove that back-of-the-mind idea (or even if it's already been disproven).
For the nondiyers with vacuum chambers, it seems clear that confined em in a cavity might well distort a laser interferometer. If I were a student or professor with access to the right equipment, I'd go after this hypothesis quickly.
Rfmwguy, does this shed any light on my hypothesis, that charges interact by time dilation. If you consider the presence of the em energy in the frustum from a covariant perspective, the warp could be a longitudional dilation of the reflection mechanisms rate. Shells comment that "the only thing that can pass through the walls of the frustum is gravity", is a reminder that there could be machian solutions to this apparent paradox...
as an alternative to... -
#2632 by Rodal on 05 Feb, 2016 00:16
-
... "the only thing that can pass through the walls of the frustum is gravity", is a reminder that there could be machian solutions to this apparent paradox...
There are several particles that may pass through the walls of the cavity: all weakly interacting particles that only interact through gravitational and weak forces: Dark Matter WIMPs, Dark Matter axions, neutrinos.
We have not found WIMPS or axions, but neither have we found gravitons
We certainly have found neutrinos.
There are experiments being conducted over the past few years looking for axions using microwave resonant cavities.QuoteThe Axion Dark Matter eXperiment (ADMX) uses a resonant microwave cavity within in a large superconducting magnet to search for cold dark matter axions in the local galactic dark matter halo. Sited at the Center for Experimental Physics and Astrophysics at the University of Washington, ADMX is a large collaborative effort with researchers from universities and laboratories around the world. ADMX will soon implement its dilution refrigerator and begin the Gen 2 data schedule. The experimental insert, seen below, within the magnet showing (top to bottom) the thermal shielding, liquid helium reservoir and microwave cavity.
-
#2633 by Rodal on 05 Feb, 2016 00:19
-
...
Well now, about as close to possibly explaining the emdrive as anything I've read lately...have to sit down with this and think some more. EXCELLENT find. Interesting that NASA sponsored this paper in 1998.
Rfmwguy, does this shed any light on my hypothesis, that charges interact by time dilation. If you consider the presence of the em energy in the frustum from a covariant perspective, the warp could be a longitudional dilation of the reflection mechanisms rate. Shells comment that "the only thing that can pass through the walls of the frustum is gravity", is a reminder that there could be machian solutions to this apparent paradox...
as an alternative to...
Inertia as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion
Alfonso Rueda
Bernhard HaischQuote from: Yefim S. Levinthis result is an error due to incorrect physical and mathematical assumptions associated with taking a nonrelativistic approach. At the core of HRP’s theory is a calculation of the so-called magnetic Lorentz force, which can be represented in terms of a correlation function of zero-point field (ZPF) radiation and a form factor of a small uniformly accelerated oscillator. To consider this force, the authors use a nonrelativistic approach based in fact on two main assumptions. (i) A nonrelativistic approximation of the correlation function exists. (ii) In the force integral expression, contributions of the integrand for large differences in time are damped and can be ignored. We show that their implicit nonrelativistic implementation of the correlation function is incorrect, and present as the correct expression a proper nonrelativistic limit of the exact correlation function offered earlier by Boyer. We also show that the second assumption is misguided, and the force exerted on even a slow moving accelerated oscillator “remembers” the entire history of the accelerated motion including times when its velocity could have any large value. A nonrelativistic approximation of the force leads to a contradiction. The force is fundamentally a relativistic one, which we show is equal to zero. Consequently, the interaction of the accelerated oscillator with ZPF radiation does not produce inertia, at least not for the component of the Lorentz force that HRP considered. Finally, several other calculation errors are discussed in our paper: the sign (which is of paramount importance for HRP’s theory) of HRP’s final force expression should be positive, not negative, and the high-frequency approximation used is not justified.
Yefim S. Levin
Phys. Rev. A 79, 012114 – Published 27 January 2009 -
#2634 by RERT on 05 Feb, 2016 07:22
-
The discussion around continuous creation of negative mass-energy triggers a thought: what about the continuous destruction of positive mass-energy?
It is only because we think the rest-mass of the frustrum does not fall sufficiently to compensate for its increasing velocity that there is a big physics problem. And yet there is no evidence whatsoever that its rest mass is constant, and therefore no evidence at all that it is in principle propellantless, operating as reported by Shawyer and Yang.
The relevant changes in rest mass could easily be too small to be seen, further I don't think anyone was even looking for them.
I accept that this requires a different sort of miracle from propellantless thrust, but I think that's the stage of the discussions at the moment.
R. -
#2635 by RERT on 05 Feb, 2016 08:01
-
There was an exchange a short while back between CuriousDreamer and Dr.Rodal on separating Centre-of-Mass and Centre-of-Gravity, which ended with a re-assurance that they were the same because little-g didn't vary across the frustrum.
I read CuriousDreamer's idea slightly differently, in that I didn't think he was using Centre-of-gravity in that way. I took the question to be, what happens if a mass acts as a source of graviational field in a different way to its reaction to that force via its inertial mass?
I tend to agree with CuriousDreamer that it could self-accelerate.
This probably counts as a Gedanken experiment in favour of the equivalence principle, which is well tested in any case. However, given we are exploring unlikely explanations, worth an airing.
I'd also ask if an unknown coupling which 'interfered' with the action of gravity might have this effect.
R. -
#2636 by Rodal on 05 Feb, 2016 11:45
-
The discussion around continuous creation of negative mass-energy triggers a thought: what about the continuous destruction of positive mass-energy?
It is only because we think the rest-mass of the frustrum does not fall sufficiently to compensate for its increasing velocity that there is a big physics problem. And yet there is no evidence whatsoever that its rest mass is constant, and therefore no evidence at all that it is in principle propellantless, operating as reported by Shawyer and Yang.
The relevant changes in rest mass could easily be too small to be seen, further I don't think anyone was even looking for them.
I accept that this requires a different sort of miracle from propellantless thrust, but I think that's the stage of the discussions at the moment.
R.
While the continuous creation of negative mass-energy is hard enough to contemplate on its own, it has been discussed in the literature (see previous references) sometimes explicitly and most times implicitly (through concepts that violate the Weak Energy Condition (*)). Albeit discussion has not been mathematically rigorous in many papers and verification remains to be agreed on, for example whether the Casimir effect is to be interpreted as negative energy was still a matter of arguments in 2005:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158
Phys.Rev. D72 (2005) 021301
Prof. Jaffe at MIT has stated:QuoteIn discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive evidence that the zero point energies of quantum fields are "real''. On the contrary, Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between parallel plates vanishes as \alpha, the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of \alpha, corresponds to the \alpha\to\infty limit.
On the other hand what process do you have in mind for <<continuous destruction of positive mass-energy>> ?
A black hole is one process of matter-energy continuous destruction that comes into mind. Are you suggesting that an asymmetric resonant microwave cavity at ~2 GHz, <1 kW can produce a small black hole? (**)
In other words:
1) can positive mass-energy be converted into negative mass-energy much more efficiently than creating a small black hole ?
2) Minotti has shown how a unified General Relativity-Electromagnetism coupled theory leads to solutions where transient electromagnetic fields as used in EM Drive asymmetric resonant cavity experiments can lead to negative energy densities at the power and frequency used in EM Drive experiments and explain the measured force.
___________
(*) Weak Energy Condition: hypothesis that mass-energy should be positive and that momentum and energy should be conserved
(**) We already addressed the fact that converting (positive) mass into (positive) energy is not an issue here, because of E=mc^2 they are equivalent and conserved, so matter-antimatter reaction, or a nuclear reaction would be of no help regarding conservation of momentum.
-
#2637 by Notsosureofit on 05 Feb, 2016 13:31
-
Just for fun:
Let's suppose that a photon is able to transfer all of its energy to a "dark" particle of mass 20,000 times that of the equivalent mass of the photon such that it's new kinetic energy results in a speed of 0.01c. Then the momentum exchange is 200 times that of a photon rocket.
As I said, just for fun. -
#2638 by StrongGR on 05 Feb, 2016 13:43
-
...
We have not found WIMPS or axions, but neither have we found gravitons
...
On 11 February there will be a public announcement by LIGO (following the gossip spread around by Lawrence Krauss). So, stay tuned and maybe gravitons will never be ghosts anymore. -
#2639 by glennfish on 05 Feb, 2016 13:45
-
Dr. Rodal,
For completeness sake here's a discussion of another EM related drive & test. This one requires a dielectric. Based on the "Abraham-Minkowski" controversy. Totally unrelated to the Shawyer "theory" and "design."
Presented here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApPhL.101c4104C .66mN/W
Critiqued here: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/105/14/10.1063/1.4897967
Author's video here:
The DIY requirements are far easier.
.