-
#2820 by X_RaY on 28 May, 2016 20:33
-
____________
Somewhat like that?
\ /
\ \ / \ / /
\ /
[ΠΠΠ]
Trying ascii graphics because I'm mobile right now.
Fine. It works. There is the idea. Waveguides fill the middle of the cavity, not from end to end.
Without any FEM calculations I guess this brings some chaos into the mode shape for sure!
-
#2821 by Eusa on 28 May, 2016 20:38
-
No. Please read more carefully my first idea post today. Key sample features:____________
Something like that?
\ /
\ \ / \ / /
\ /
[ΠΠΠ]
Trying ascii graphics because I'm mobile right now.
Fine. It works. There is the idea. Waveguides fill the middle of the cavity, not from end to end.
Without any FEM calculations I guess this brings some kind of chaos into the mode shape!
- 3/5 height
- fill tightly
- angles fan-formed
- whole cavity wave mode TE225
- inner waveguides mode TE113
- four of them in this sample case, in a huge frustum there is finetuned TE mode with high parameter values and proper amount of helping waveguides... -
#2822 by X_RaY on 28 May, 2016 20:49
-
No. Please read more carefully my first idea post today. Key sample features:____________
Something like that?
\ /
\ \ / \ / /
\ /
[ΠΠΠ]
Trying ascii graphics because I'm mobile right now.
Fine. It works. There is the idea. Waveguides fill the middle of the cavity, not from end to end.
Without any FEM calculations I guess this brings some kind of chaos into the mode shape!
- 3/5 height
- fill tightly
- angles fan-formed
- whole cavity wave mode TE225
- inner waveguides mode TE113
- four of them in this sample case, in a huge frustum there is finetuned TE mode with high parameter values and proper amount of helping waveguides...Quote- inner waveguides mode TE113
For a wave guide ther is no mode like TE113!
Without end plates, the mode inside a waveguide can called TE11, the "3" describes the number of half wave-patterns between the ends of the cavity.
Please show a simulation (maybe ask someone with a full version of Feko or experience in Meep) that satisfy your statements. At the moment I dont belive what you are saying about the possible mode shapes in such a cavity with this kind of inserts. -
#2823 by Eusa on 28 May, 2016 21:03
-
The whole cavity height must be 5 half wavelengths and "subcavities" 3 halves, with those sample values. I mean waveguides are 3 half wavelength mode TE11 but along their axis there exists TE115 at least as "virtual mode"...
-
#2824 by FattyLumpkin on 28 May, 2016 21:34
-
Does Dr. White's theory argue for or against the immutability of the QV?
-
#2825 by Monomorphic on 28 May, 2016 21:39
-
Does Dr. White's theory argue for or against the immutability of the QV?
Dr. White thinks the QV within a quantum vacuum thruster can be modeled like magnetohydrodynamics. My understanding is this is an argument against the immutability of the QV. -
#2826 by Rodal on 28 May, 2016 21:45
-
Does Dr. White's theory argue for or against the immutability of the QV?
Dr. White definitely argues FOR the mutability and degradability of the Quantum Vacuum. Star-Drive has made this clear, and they sort of discuss this in their latest paper, published about a year ago, on the Quantum Vacuum.
Dr. White's theory NEEDS the Quantum Vacuum to be degradable, otherwise his theory would not work, because an immutable Quantum Vacuum would be incompatible with his theory, the EM Drive would not be able to extract a force or energy from an immutable zero point Quantum Vacuum. (An immutable Quantum Vacuum is at the lowest possible point of energy, so nothing can be extracted from it).
The mutable Quantum Vacuum theories I am aware of concern the Multiverse, if you know of a mutable Quantum Vacuum paper that supports a mutable QV without invoking the Multiverse, please bring it to our attention. Dr. White also argues for extra dimensions as used in string theory and in Kaluza-Klein theories. -
#2827 by dustinthewind on 28 May, 2016 21:53
-
dustinthewind, I am confused about the concept/analogy you made re the laser photonic thruster or perhaps have missed your point entirely. As noted in the video and in the image (attached) there are two mirrors (both moving) one faster than the other: The "slower" moving (first) reflector which apparently is also producing energy for the laser appears to employ conventional propulsion (chemical) for thrust, and the "spacecraft" although moving faster acts entirely as a (second) reflector. Relative to one another the spacecraft is increasing in velocity more quickly than the "main laser/reflector chemical rocket". The spacecraft is being "pushed" by the main laser/mirror/chemical stage. Certainly this would be the red-shifting and decrease in thrust going on in this configuration/concept, yet there is no cavity. The questions of COE or COM do not arise here. Would you please explain where I'm wrong in this? I just don't see where/how this LPR can be compared with the close resonant cavity. Of course anyone please jump in to straiten me out. LOL FL
All I was really saying was if the light is pushing the cavity we might look for the light to be losing energy to the cavity. I was thinking of looking for the light to be losing energy in wavelength or frequency.
To elaborate on the other hypothesis I was speculating about just for conversation (not sure how serious it could be taken and yes it doesn't conserve momentum but neither does the polarizable vacuum equations in the paper I posted - I'm trying to think outside the box a bit.)... - click quote to see link to paper.
So the photon is in a stationary cavity and strikes one side and the cavity moves one way and the photon moves the other losing some energy that the cavity gained. All so far is in the realm of normal physics.
Now we transform the photon momentum as if it enters a high K region of a polarizable vacuum in the narrow region of the EM drive (which exists in the cavity for some unknown reason) but the cavities momentum does not transform. K goes from 1 to 4 in the example below.
This is new physics I suppose and is loosely based on the PV paper. I'm not really an expert on it. Now we collide the photon with the cavity and I solve the change in velocity and if I did it right I get about twice the push of the photon in the high K region. Eventually the photon will lose energy to the cavity in this scenario and is supposed to be hypothetically similar to the photonic thruster concept but is quite a bit more of a stretch. Consider at your own risk.
-
#2828 by Monomorphic on 28 May, 2016 22:12
-
Does anyone have Dave's latest live stream? I can't figure out which one is the official stream.
EDIT: I think this is it:
-
#2829 by demofsky on 28 May, 2016 22:18
-
BTW the far infrared photons of a warm to the touch dissipating EM drive frustum in deep space are much higher on the energy scale than the original photons of the microwaves that dissipated by losses in the copper. The thermodynamics unenlightened in me finds that aspect fascinating...
I personally find this a very astute observation. The key thing here is that this may be the "door" to opening the otherwise closed system of the fustrum. (It should be noted this may be another way of looking at mwvp's theory of the fustrum as a "an-isotropically dispersive and dissipative cavity".) -
#2830 by FattyLumpkin on 28 May, 2016 22:45
-
Dr. Rodal, Monomorphic, I asked the question about the QV because I thought that I recalled the argument that it was/is immutable...I just wasn't sure. I found this:
Dr. March: "Overall though the blue ribbon panel's experimentalists appeared to be pleased with our previous and upcoming lab work. However they ripped into Sonny's QVF/MHD conjecture because it relies on the quantum vacuum being mutable and engineer-able whereas the current physics mainstream thinks that the quantum vacuum is an immutable ground energy state of the universe that can-NOT be used to convey energy or momentum as proposed by Dr. White" and then just now Dr. Rodal chimed in to argue for immutability? (am not quite sure). What is the position of the "mainstream" re immutability?
Operating on the assumption that the QV is immutable, does it therefore follow that it cannot be acted upon by a (?) given force? My neophyte's brain is telling me "OK, so if I can't grab it and throw it, then I can exert force on it (somehow) and push off of it. (If indeed there is a "it" to be pushed-off of (albeit a transient "it"). Is by dint of the fact that the QV is considered a transient phenomenon the same reason for it's considered to be "there" and "not there" at the same time? This is difficult to convey!!!
-
#2831 by Monomorphic on 28 May, 2016 23:07
-
First image of NSF-1701A
-
#2832 by bmcgaffey20 on 28 May, 2016 23:09
-
Greetings from a lurker.
I have been leaning towards redshifted photons accumulating at the narrow end of the frustum. The higher Q, the more reflections of the photon eventually leading to almost all of the energy be redshifted to the narrow end, effectively making them heavier there than at their point of origin, causing an unbalanced center of "mass" which results in what looks like thrust to us. Effectively it is. Im going to go even further with this theory and say that if we could use higher energy photons, we would see more of this affect. Lower energy light should also do the same thing but if the waves of light do not have enough energy to absorb.... we already have trouble detecting this anomalous force using microwaves. Imagine an undiscovered element or method of shielding or deflecting gamma rays.
My take on it is probably completely flawed but anyways I love to lurk these forums and it gives me inspiration for the human race to see this.
Onward and outward friends. -
#2833 by Rodal on 28 May, 2016 23:13
-
Dr. Rodal, Monomorphic, I asked the question about the QV because I thought that I recalled the argument that it was/is immutable...I just wasn't sure. I found this:
No I did not argue for immutability. I stated that Dr. White's QV theory needs the vacuum to be mutable and degradable, otherwise it cannot extract any energy or momentum from it.
Dr. March: "Overall though the blue ribbon panel's experimentalists appeared to be pleased with our previous and upcoming lab work. However they ripped into Sonny's QVF/MHD conjecture because it relies on the quantum vacuum being mutable and engineer-able whereas the current physics mainstream thinks that the quantum vacuum is an immutable ground energy state of the universe that can-NOT be used to convey energy or momentum as proposed by Dr. White" and then just now Dr. Rodal chimed in to argue for immutability? (am not quite sure). What is the position of the "mainstream" re mobility or?
Operating on the assumption that the QV is immutable, does it therefore follow that it cannot be acted upon by a (?) given force? My neophyte's brain is telling me "OK, so if I can't grab it and throw it, then I can exert force on it (somehow) and push off of it. (If indeed there is a "it" to be pushed-off of (albeit a transient "it"). Is by dint of the fact that the QV is a transient phenomenon the same reason for it's being "there" and "not there" at the same time? This is difficult to convey!!!
---------
QUESTION: Operating on the assumption that the QV is immutable, does it therefore follow that it cannot be acted upon by a (?) given force?
ANSWER: if the QV is immutable Dr. White's theory is untenable as one cannot extract any force, momentum or energy from it.
QUESTION: "OK, so if I can't grab it and throw it, then I can exert force on it (somehow) and push off of it. (If indeed there is a "it" to be pushed-off of (albeit a transient "it"). Is by dint of the fact that the QV is a transient phenomenon the same reason for it's being "there" and "not there" at the same time? This is difficult to convey!!!
ANSWER: the immutable QV being virtual particles (electron-positron pairs) that can pop in and out of existence for ephimeral moments of time because of the uncertainty principle, and having the lowest state of energy possible according to Quantum Mechanics, I'm not sure on what you are going to be pushing on and for how long can you push on it. Also it is composed of virtual pairs so the end result will be ... no change. And you cannot extract any energy from something that is already at the lowest possible point of energy. This is why Dr. White needs a mutable QV for his theory to work. Problem being, if he is referring to a Multiverse QV (not sure) accessing other levels of the multiverse QV is not within the realm of present possibility...
Need to hear further details on his theory. Perhaps others can comment...
-
#2834 by Monomorphic on 28 May, 2016 23:16
-
I'm getting the worst frame-rate on Dave's live stream. Is the the case with others? Can someone call him and let him know?
-
#2835 by Rodal on 28 May, 2016 23:20
-
I'm getting the worst frame-rate on Dave's live stream. Is the the case with others? Can someone call him and let him know?
His frame rate is fine with my Time Warner cable Internet connection -
#2836 by Monomorphic on 28 May, 2016 23:22
-
I'm getting the worst frame-rate on Dave's live stream. Is the the case with others? Can someone call him and let him know?
His frame rate is fine with my Time Warner cable Internet connection
It's fine now that he's gone to screen cap. But the walk-around was bad for me. Hopefully I can rewatch later. Comcast here. -
#2837 by frobnicat on 29 May, 2016 00:06
-
Since there seems to be a mood toward theoretical speculations and musings lately, and before likely a flurry of experiments results, I'd like to share two links :
There have been discussion about "Feigel effect" (and sorry dr Rodal I can't tell how Feigel ideas relates to Bart van Tiggelen papers on similar topics). One of my favorite IMO no-nonsense top physicist blogger Lubos Motl has an interesting post about that (second post in the link, this is a short 2 posts thread) :
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3186/poynting-vectors-and-feigel-effects
Of particular saliency what I put in bold in those excerpts "The controversies about the stress-energy tensor were inevitable. Only the total energy and momentum are conserved as a consequence of Noether's theorem, and how they're distributed in space may often be a matter of conventions." and "None of these things changes that the total energy and the total momentum are exactly conserved, because of the symmetries. Whether the momentum is being extracted from the vacuum is a matter of interpretation. You may also say that it is extracted from a low-frequency electromagnetic wave that was emitted by another object."
I'm too illiterate in QM and QFT to exploit this view of the difficulties in terms of dual interpretations, wonder if this is related to the point that looks not settled yet between interpreting Casimir effect as "vacuum fluctuations wavelength exclusion" or rather some kind of "relativistic retarded van der Waals force" ? The former is always put forward when presenting the effect but the second explains (experimentally proven ?) repulsive Casimir forces when other geometries are used (spheres...). So the former should be abandoned as false, but this is apparently not the case... could it be a matter of interpretation (with equivalent consequences) ?
Second link, other subject entirely, and probably more related to "Woodward's effect" thread (Machian physics...) but I'm sure people here (at least Notsosureofit) will find it intriguing if not aware of it yet :
http://www.epj.org/images/stories/news/2016/10.1140--epjp--i2016-16091-9.pdfQuote from: An interesting consequence of the general principle of relativity,
Øyvind Grøna and Torkild Jemterud, Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2016) 131: 91Abstract. We show that Einstein’s general theory of relativity, together with the assumption that the principle
of relativity encompasses rotational motion, predicts that in a flat Friedmann-Lemaitre-RobertsonWalker
(FLRW) universe model with dust and Lorentz Invariant Vacuum Energy (LIVE), the density
parameter of vacuum energy must have the value ΩΛ0 = 0.737. The physical mechanism connecting the
relativity of rotational motion with the energy density of dark energy is the inertial dragging effect. The
predicted value is necessary in order to have perfect inertial dragging, which is required for rotational
motion to be relative. If one accepts that due to the impossibility of defining motion for a single particle
in an otherwise empty universe, the universe must be constructed so that all types of motion are relative,
then this solves the so-called cosmological constant problem.
Mmm, I don't see how this explains away determination of an absolute 0 rotational frame by centrifugal forces in a Universe devoid of dark energy and such referential frame dragging... I need a no-nonsense physicist to tell me if it's as interesting as it sounds or just numerology.
-
#2838 by Rodal on 29 May, 2016 00:22
-
I slapped together the live stream after focusing on getting the test setup right. Did it broadcast ok?
It did broadcast OK for me (Time Warner cable Turbo here) -
#2839 by Rodal on 29 May, 2016 00:42
-
Since there seems to be a mood toward theoretical speculations and musings lately, and before likely a flurry of experiments results, I'd like to share two links :
Just a couple of observations here (as people keep bringing up the Abraham/Minkowski controversy):
There have been discussion about "Feigel effect" (and sorry dr Rodal I can't tell how Feigel ideas relates to Bart van Tiggelen papers on similar topics). One of my favorite IMO no-nonsense top physicist blogger Lubos Motl has an interesting post about that (second post in the link, this is a short 2 posts thread) :
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3186/poynting-vectors-and-feigel-effects
Of particular saliency what I put in bold in those excerpts "The controversies about the stress-energy tensor were inevitable. Only the total energy and momentum are conserved as a consequence of Noether's theorem, and how they're distributed in space may often be a matter of conventions." and "None of these things changes that the total energy and the total momentum are exactly conserved, because of the symmetries. Whether the momentum is being extracted from the vacuum is a matter of interpretation. You may also say that it is extracted from a low-frequency electromagnetic wave that was emitted by another object."
I'm too illiterate in QM and QFT to exploit this view of the difficulties in terms of dual interpretations, wonder if this is related to the point that looks not settled yet between interpreting Casimir effect as "vacuum fluctuations wavelength exclusion" or rather some kind of "relativistic retarded van der Waals force" ? The former is always put forward when presenting the effect but the second explains (experimentally proven ?) repulsive Casimir forces when other geometries are used (spheres...). So the former should be abandoned as false, but this is apparently not the case... could it be a matter of interpretation (with equivalent consequences) ?
Second link, other subject entirely, and probably more related to "Woodward's effect" thread (Machian physics...) but I'm sure people here (at least Notsosureofit) will find it intriguing if not aware of it yet :
http://www.epj.org/images/stories/news/2016/10.1140--epjp--i2016-16091-9.pdfQuote from: An interesting consequence of the general principle of relativity,
Øyvind Grøna and Torkild Jemterud, Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2016) 131: 91Abstract. We show that Einstein’s general theory of relativity, together with the assumption that the principle
of relativity encompasses rotational motion, predicts that in a flat Friedmann-Lemaitre-RobertsonWalker
(FLRW) universe model with dust and Lorentz Invariant Vacuum Energy (LIVE), the density
parameter of vacuum energy must have the value ΩΛ0 = 0.737. The physical mechanism connecting the
relativity of rotational motion with the energy density of dark energy is the inertial dragging effect. The
predicted value is necessary in order to have perfect inertial dragging, which is required for rotational
motion to be relative. If one accepts that due to the impossibility of defining motion for a single particle
in an otherwise empty universe, the universe must be constructed so that all types of motion are relative,
then this solves the so-called cosmological constant problem.
Mmm, I don't see how this explains away determination of an absolute 0 rotational frame by centrifugal forces in a Universe devoid of dark energy and such referential frame dragging... I need a no-nonsense physicist to tell me if it's as interesting as it sounds or just numerology.
1) Maxwell's equations admit of an INFINITY (yes, infinite) number of definitions of momentum, and all these infinite number of definitions of momentum are conserved. The Infinity family of momenta that satisfy Maxwell's equations are linear combinations of the definitions of Abraham and Minkowski. So: Abraham's definition of electromagnetic momentum satisfies Maxwell's equations and is conserved, and so is Minkowski, and so is any linear combination of them
2) Therefore there is an infinite amount of indeterminacy concerning momentum
3) for the same reason there is an infinite number of ways in which one can decompose the momentum into an electromagnetic and a not electromagnetic part, into symmetric tensors and into unsymmetric tensors.
4) The choice of momentum should be a matter of:
A) satisfying Lorentz invariance: are you demanding Lorentz invariance? Minkowski momentum and energy is a Lorentz four-vector. Abraham's momentum and energy are not Lorentz four vectors. Does this close the issue? Not clear, because even initially isotropic materials behave anisotropically for electromagnetic purposes. The axes of principal material properties are privileged (at least in the sense of convenience: as you must keep track of them, so it is not just a question of space)
Also:
the expression for Energy Density "u" is not a Lorentz invariant
the Poynting vector S is not a Lorentz invariant
u2 - S · S/c2 is a Lorentz invariant
Although the value of u and S may be different for observers in different moving reference frames, the value of
u2 - S · S/c2 is the same for observers in different moving reference frames.
B) experiments: what expression of momentum and stress leads to the simplest constitutive relations? Experiments should rule how matter behave. One cannot completely deduce constitutive relations theoretically, one can only find certain restricitions: frame indifference, for example, and thermodynamic restrictions for example.
