-
#3140 by kenny008 on 14 Jun, 2016 17:48
-
The Pioneer anomaly is one of those special cases. Although it is true that objects moving in space have few restrictions on Unruh radiation, there is one final restriction, and that is the Hubble Scale of the universe, beyond which information cannot be obtained. This ultimate restriction means that there is a longest-possible Unruh wavelength (the Hubble scale), which also means that there is a smallest-possible acceleration for an object moving in space. Pioneer is encroaching against that limit, which is the cause of the acceleration anomaly.
I'm not sure I understand the Pioneer Anomaly references. That was a thermal radiation anisotropy, verified by several different calculation methods. You're not attributing this to something else, are you?
I'm really trying to understand the relationship of Unruh radiation to anomalous thrust, but this Pioneer reference threw me for a loop. -
#3141 by Gilbertdrive on 14 Jun, 2016 18:11
-
The Pioneer anomaly is one of those special cases. Although it is true that objects moving in space have few restrictions on Unruh radiation, there is one final restriction, and that is the Hubble Scale of the universe, beyond which information cannot be obtained. This ultimate restriction means that there is a longest-possible Unruh wavelength (the Hubble scale), which also means that there is a smallest-possible acceleration for an object moving in space. Pioneer is encroaching against that limit, which is the cause of the acceleration anomaly.
I'm not sure I understand the Pioneer Anomaly references. That was a thermal radiation anisotropy, verified by several different calculation methods. You're not attributing this to something else, are you?
I'm really trying to understand the relationship of Unruh radiation to anomalous thrust, but this Pioneer reference threw me for a loop.
Mike McCulloch claims that MiHsC predicts the Pioneer anomaly. So, it seems that he does not adhere to the full thermal explanation.
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2016/01/ulysses-also-showed-pioneer-anomaly.htmlQuote from: Dr Mike McCullochThis supports my opinion that the Pioneer anomaly has been brushed under the carpet by a complex thermal model (that has 1000s of finite elements and two adjustable parameters) rather like the galaxy rotation anomaly has been brushed under the carpet using vague and complex dark matter models. Uncomfortable contrary data like the Ulysses data in the case of Pioneer, or dwarf galaxies in the case of dark matter, have been hidden away in a dark closet like a grumbling relative with a higher standard of cleanliness, but they are still there, muffled but more determined than ever to expose sloppy practices.
-
#3142 by Gilbertdrive on 14 Jun, 2016 18:23
-
It remains that the changes of Unruh Radiation make inertial mass to increase when the item is accelerating, and so that a massive item is slow down, and get a final speed lower than the speed calculated only taking into account it's imposed acceleration. That is why a massive item coming into our solar system, and accelerating because of the gravity of the sun and it's planets, should have, when it reach the sun, a speed lower than the speed that would have been calculated using only the Gravity formulas in General Relativity.
No, not really. Classical physics correctly predicts most motions and accelerations even though (according to MiHsC) the cause of inertia is misunderstood. Further, for objects moving in space the restrictions on Unruh radiation are quite small, and only noticeable under special circumstances.
I thought I was paraphrasing Dr. McCulloch
Quote from: Dr. Mike McCulloch4. The opposite case, for objects coming from deep space into the Solar system, or into galaxies, their acceleration is increasing so they should gain inertial mass by MiHsC and slow down anomalously, just like an inverted Pioneer anomaly, and of the same size (it will appear as though there's unseen mass at the outer edge of the system).
I do not see difference between my assertion, and these of McCulloch. Maybe there is an important and very subtile point that I miss. -
#3143 by Rodal on 14 Jun, 2016 18:39
-
You are correct, the Pioneer anomaly was shown by JPL to be due to thermal radiation anisotropy. The calculations done by JPL are very convincing in this regard.The Pioneer anomaly is one of those special cases. Although it is true that objects moving in space have few restrictions on Unruh radiation, there is one final restriction, and that is the Hubble Scale of the universe, beyond which information cannot be obtained. This ultimate restriction means that there is a longest-possible Unruh wavelength (the Hubble scale), which also means that there is a smallest-possible acceleration for an object moving in space. Pioneer is encroaching against that limit, which is the cause of the acceleration anomaly.
I'm not sure I understand the Pioneer Anomaly references. That was a thermal radiation anisotropy, verified by several different calculation methods. You're not attributing this to something else, are you?
I'm really trying to understand the relationship of Unruh radiation to anomalous thrust, but this Pioneer reference threw me for a loop. -
#3144 by Gilbertdrive on 14 Jun, 2016 18:47
-
You are correct, the Pioneer anomaly was shown by JPL to be due to thermal radiation anisotropy. The calculations done by JPL are very convincing in this regard.The Pioneer anomaly is one of those special cases. Although it is true that objects moving in space have few restrictions on Unruh radiation, there is one final restriction, and that is the Hubble Scale of the universe, beyond which information cannot be obtained. This ultimate restriction means that there is a longest-possible Unruh wavelength (the Hubble scale), which also means that there is a smallest-possible acceleration for an object moving in space. Pioneer is encroaching against that limit, which is the cause of the acceleration anomaly.
I'm not sure I understand the Pioneer Anomaly references. That was a thermal radiation anisotropy, verified by several different calculation methods. You're not attributing this to something else, are you?
I'm really trying to understand the relationship of Unruh radiation to anomalous thrust, but this Pioneer reference threw me for a loop.Quote from: Dr Mike McCullochThis supports my opinion that the Pioneer anomaly has been brushed under the carpet by a complex thermal model (that has 1000s of finite elements and two adjustable parameters) rather like the galaxy rotation anomaly has been brushed under the carpet using vague and complex dark matter models. Uncomfortable contrary data like the Ulysses data in the case of Pioneer, or dwarf galaxies in the case of dark matter, have been hidden away in a dark closet like a grumbling relative with a higher standard of cleanliness, but they are still there, muffled but more determined than ever to expose sloppy practices.
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2016/01/ulysses-also-showed-pioneer-anomaly.html
I am unable to verify the McCulloch Claim, and the JPL model and calculus, but the important point is that MiHsC predicts, according to his author, an anomaly for a probe sent in this direction. -
#3145 by keithpickering on 14 Jun, 2016 18:53
-
You are correct, the Pioneer anomaly was shown by JPL to be due to thermal radiation anisotropy. The calculations done by JPL are very convincing in this regard.The Pioneer anomaly is one of those special cases. Although it is true that objects moving in space have few restrictions on Unruh radiation, there is one final restriction, and that is the Hubble Scale of the universe, beyond which information cannot be obtained. This ultimate restriction means that there is a longest-possible Unruh wavelength (the Hubble scale), which also means that there is a smallest-possible acceleration for an object moving in space. Pioneer is encroaching against that limit, which is the cause of the acceleration anomaly.
I'm not sure I understand the Pioneer Anomaly references. That was a thermal radiation anisotropy, verified by several different calculation methods. You're not attributing this to something else, are you?
I'm really trying to understand the relationship of Unruh radiation to anomalous thrust, but this Pioneer reference threw me for a loop.
Not to me.
The thermal model of Turyshev et al. 2012 accounts for (currently) about 6 x 10-10 m sec-2 of acceleration, while the observed anomaly is about 2 x 10-10 m sec-2 higher than that. And in fact, while both the observed anomaly and the modeled thermal effect have been declining with time, the residual in acceleration has remained at about that value since the beginning.
Turyshev et al. claim that they've accounted for the entire anomaly, but they can only justify that by proposing an extremely high (and unlikely) 25% error in surface degradation of the RTG generators. Absent that fudge factor, there is still something unexplained.
See Figure 3 in the link below. The smaller error bars are without the RTG error, and the larger ones include the RTG error.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1.pdf
-
#3146 by X_RaY on 14 Jun, 2016 18:59
-
Stabilizing magnetron frequency
Is it the same book as in the pdf below this post:
I just picked up from my local library a copy of "Microwave Magnetrons" edited by George Collins (McGraw-Hill 1948) and it's a winner: 800 pages of theory and practice from the days when radar was just being declassified.
..snip
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1534941#msg1534941 (v6.pdf)
or another one? -
#3147 by Rodal on 14 Jun, 2016 19:07
-
and do you find the Unruh radiation proposal to be a competing explanation to JPL's study, on an equal standard of credibility to JPL's explanation?
You are correct, the Pioneer anomaly was shown by JPL to be due to thermal radiation anisotropy. The calculations done by JPL are very convincing in this regard.The Pioneer anomaly is one of those special cases. Although it is true that objects moving in space have few restrictions on Unruh radiation, there is one final restriction, and that is the Hubble Scale of the universe, beyond which information cannot be obtained. This ultimate restriction means that there is a longest-possible Unruh wavelength (the Hubble scale), which also means that there is a smallest-possible acceleration for an object moving in space. Pioneer is encroaching against that limit, which is the cause of the acceleration anomaly.
I'm not sure I understand the Pioneer Anomaly references. That was a thermal radiation anisotropy, verified by several different calculation methods. You're not attributing this to something else, are you?
I'm really trying to understand the relationship of Unruh radiation to anomalous thrust, but this Pioneer reference threw me for a loop.
Not to me.
The thermal model of Turyshev et al. 2012 accounts for (currently) about 6 x 10-10 m sec-2 of acceleration, while the observed anomaly is about 2 x 10-10 m sec-2 higher than that. And in fact, while both the observed anomaly and the modeled thermal effect have been declining with time, the residual in acceleration has remained at about that value since the beginning.
Turyshev et al. claim that they've accounted for the entire anomaly, but they can only justify that by proposing an extremely high (and unlikely) 25% error in surface degradation of the RTG generators. Absent that fudge factor, there is still something unexplained.
See Figure 3 in the link below. The smaller error bars are without the RTG error, and the larger ones include the RTG error.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1.pdf
QUESTION: What is the Unruh radiation wavelength necessary to explain the Pioneer anomaly ? -
#3148 by RERT on 14 Jun, 2016 19:33
-
Synchronicity - this linked elsewhere today on the pioneer and flyby anomalies, with rather startling conclusions regarding the speed of light. Above my pay grade to comment, save to observe that a new theory of Electrodynamics is probably relevant to the EM drive.
http://Http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.03921 -
#3149 by Gilbertdrive on 14 Jun, 2016 19:48
-
and do you find the Unruh radiation proposal to be a competing explanation to JPL's study, on an equal standard of credibility to JPL's explanation?
QUESTION: What is the Unruh radiation wavelength necessary to explain the Pioneer anomaly ?
Here is a paper about it from Dr McCulloch :
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612599
I do not see in it the wavelength predicted by MiHsC in his calculus. Maybe he can make direct calculus without expliciting this parameter.
But, in the same paper, he gives the calculus of the wavelength for the MOND theory, at around 2.7*10^26 m
It is sad he does not give it's own calculation of wavelenght in MiHsC.
Or I did not look enough.
-
#3150 by Rodal on 14 Jun, 2016 19:56
-
Given the fact that the wavelength of Unruh radiation associated with a 1 g (9.8 m/s2) acceleration is about one light-year, as recognized by McCulloch:
and do you find the Unruh radiation proposal to be a competing explanation to JPL's study, on an equal standard of credibility to JPL's explanation?
QUESTION: What is the Unruh radiation wavelength necessary to explain the Pioneer anomaly ?
Here is a paper about it from Dr McCulloch :
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612599
I do not see in it the wavelength predicted by MiHsC in his calculus. Maybe he can make direct calculus without expliciting this parameter.
But, in the same paper, he gives the calculus of the wavelength for the MOND theory, at around 2.7*10^26 m
It is sad he does not give it's own calculation of wavelenght in MiHsC.
Or I did not look enough.
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.htmlQuotefor normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as [McCulloch] assume(s) for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves
and the fact that the anomalous acceleration of the spacecraft in the Pioneer anomaly is extremely small (acceleration towards the Sun, of (8.74±1.33)×10−10 m/s2), a back of the envelope calculation shows that the wavelength of the associated Unruh radiation necessary to explain the Pioneer anomaly would need to be 11.2 billion light years: which is comparable to the diameter of the observable universe (93 billion light-years or 8.8×1026 metres).
-------
OK, let's go to the source for a better calculation:
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612599Quotewe assume that only wavelengths of the Unruh radiation that fit exactly into twice the Hubble distance ( = 2c/H) are allowed: those harmonics with nodes at the boundaries.
The Hubble distance is 14.4 billion light years. Twice the Hubble distance is then: 28.8 billion light years.
So, this is about twice our prior back of the envelope calculation of 11.2 billion light years.
Either way, one gets wavelengths of a dozen or a couple of dozen billion light years: wavelengths approaching the diameter of the observable universe....
--------
I look forward to others calculation of the required wavelength of Unruh radiation necessary to explain the Pioneer anomaly, in case I made a mistake in this rapid calculation.
Meanwhile, I cannot understand how an explanation that is based on Unruh wavelength comparable the diameter of the observable Universe can be compared on an equal basis to the explanation by JPL explaining the Pioneer anomaly as due to thermal radiation anisotropy. To quote kenny008:...I'm really trying to understand the relationship of Unruh radiation to anomalous thrust, but this Pioneer reference threw me for a loop.
-
#3151 by kenny008 on 14 Jun, 2016 20:24
-
You are correct, the Pioneer anomaly was shown by JPL to be due to thermal radiation anisotropy. The calculations done by JPL are very convincing in this regard.The Pioneer anomaly is one of those special cases. Although it is true that objects moving in space have few restrictions on Unruh radiation, there is one final restriction, and that is the Hubble Scale of the universe, beyond which information cannot be obtained. This ultimate restriction means that there is a longest-possible Unruh wavelength (the Hubble scale), which also means that there is a smallest-possible acceleration for an object moving in space. Pioneer is encroaching against that limit, which is the cause of the acceleration anomaly.
I'm not sure I understand the Pioneer Anomaly references. That was a thermal radiation anisotropy, verified by several different calculation methods. You're not attributing this to something else, are you?
I'm really trying to understand the relationship of Unruh radiation to anomalous thrust, but this Pioneer reference threw me for a loop.
Not to me.
The thermal model of Turyshev et al. 2012 accounts for (currently) about 6 x 10-10 m sec-2 of acceleration, while the observed anomaly is about 2 x 10-10 m sec-2 higher than that. And in fact, while both the observed anomaly and the modeled thermal effect have been declining with time, the residual in acceleration has remained at about that value since the beginning.
Turyshev et al. claim that they've accounted for the entire anomaly, but they can only justify that by proposing an extremely high (and unlikely) 25% error in surface degradation of the RTG generators. Absent that fudge factor, there is still something unexplained.
See Figure 3 in the link below. The smaller error bars are without the RTG error, and the larger ones include the RTG error.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1.pdf
OK. I have to admit that a bit of this is over my head, but I'm having a tough time working with the Unruh radiation theory when it is being used to explain a phenomenon that appears to be well-accounted for by thermal effects by JPL in 2012, and confirmed by additional papers in 2015. No one has gotten the EXACT answer, but the error bars in both papers overlap with the observed data. I guess maybe I'll ignore this for now (not sure if it's fully on topic), and I'll try not to question the validity of the theory based on this unusual application. -
#3152 by keithpickering on 14 Jun, 2016 20:53
-
and do you find the Unruh radiation proposal to be a competing explanation to JPL's study, on an equal standard of credibility to JPL's explanation?
Yes, it's competing; but I'll allow others to decide for themselves if it's on a par. I have no problem with the physics of the JPL study. I would be convinced if the thermal properties of the spacecraft had been measured before they left the ground. As it is, while the JPL's physics are fine, it's all based on a complex thermal model of the spacecraft with numerous free parameters; so they hunt around in parameter space until they find one they like, and that's the model. The logic here teeters way too close to circularity: the model must be right because it predicts (most of) the acceleration; and the acceleration has to be thermal, because the model predicts it. And what about all those other possibilities that are out there in parameter space? Go away and don't ask questions. We don't publish negative results.
In other words, if the model is wrong, we have no way to know that. And if the model is wrong, we might not have explained anything.QUESTION: What is the Unruh radiation wavelength necessary to explain the Pioneer anomaly ?
Unruh radiation, like blackbody radiation, occurs at all allowed wavelengths. MiHsC predicts that there will be an anomalous acceleration for Pioneer of 6.9±3.5 x 10-10 m sec-2. And there are no free parameters at all.
-
#3153 by Rodal on 14 Jun, 2016 21:04
-
1) I posted above back of the envelope calculations that the wavelength required for Unruh radiation to explain the Pioneer anomaly appears to be twice the Hubble length, or comparable to the diameter of the observable Universe. Is this what you are proposing? a wavelength of dozens of billions of light years long?
and do you find the Unruh radiation proposal to be a competing explanation to JPL's study, on an equal standard of credibility to JPL's explanation?
Yes, it's competing; but I'll allow others to decide for themselves if it's on a par. I have no problem with the physics of the JPL study. I would be convinced if the thermal properties of the spacecraft had been measured before they left the ground. As it is, while the JPL's physics are fine, it's all based on a complex thermal model of the spacecraft with numerous free parameters; so they hunt around in parameter space until they find one they like, and that's the model. The logic here teeters way too close to circularity: the model must be right because it predicts (most of) the acceleration; and the acceleration has to be thermal, because the model predicts it. And what about all those other possibilities that are out there in parameter space? Go away and don't ask questions. We don't publish negative results.
In other words, if the model is wrong, we have no way to know that. And if the model is wrong, we might not have explained anything.QUESTION: What is the Unruh radiation wavelength necessary to explain the Pioneer anomaly ?
Unruh radiation, like blackbody radiation, occurs at all allowed wavelengths. MiHsC predicts that there will be an anomalous acceleration for Pioneer of ≈6.9±3.5 x 10-10 m sec-2. And there are no free parameters at all.
2) a complex thermal model of the spacecraft with numerous free parameters ? It is just a finite element analysis to calculate thermal radiation. The computer program uses the Stefan–Boltzmann law, where the Boltzmann constant is well known and understood. Not a free parameter. JPL even used the actual flight telemetry as boundary conditions.
" they hunt around in parameter space until they find one they like, and that's the mode"
?
QUESTION: What "numerous free parameters" are you referring to?
-
#3154 by Gilbertdrive on 14 Jun, 2016 21:58
-
I look forward to others calculation of the required wavelength of Unruh radiation necessary to explain the Pioneer anomaly, in case I made a mistake in this rapid calculation.
Meanwhile, I cannot understand how an explanation that is based on Unruh wavelength comparable the diameter of the observable Universe can be compared on an equal basis to the explanation by JPL explaining the Pioneer anomaly as due to thermal radiation anisotropy. To quote kenny008:...I'm really trying to understand the relationship of Unruh radiation to anomalous thrust, but this Pioneer reference threw me for a loop.
The MiHsC Theory, as it's name indicates, uses the Hubble Horizon. So I do not find shocking to get, in this theory, large values that approach the universe scale.
I do not tell that the explanation of the JPL and the one of MiHsC are equivalent. Of course, an explanation with standard physics that has to use an arbitrary data because there is no possible observation of the parameter -here the RTG surface degradation- is, in the general case, more likely than new physics. My aim when I talked about the Pioneer effect was not to tell that the thermal effect were not the most probable option, it was to understand how the acceleration of a body was supposed, in MiHsC, to produce anomalous acceleration.
In fact, about the Emdrive, what is of interest is when the accelerations are very strong. When a photon bouces on a wall, or it enters a material with a different permittivity. how does MiHsC translates ? I did not find the answer on Dr McCulloch blog. There are calculus about an entire Emdrive, but I would like to follow a single photon, and see when it bounces or enter the dielectric, what anomalous acceleration by MiHsC is occuring at each stage. My aim is not to defend, or to attack the theory, it is to understand how it is supposed to be used.
I see 3 points :
1 : In MiHsC, the acceleration of an object comes with an anomalous supplementary acceleration (or slow down)
2 : In MiHsC, there is a minimal acceleration of a 2c^2/L, that makes the acceleration different at the two ends of an asymmetrical cavity. The more narrow it is, the bigger the minimal acceleration.
3 : MiHsC also applies to photons, but of course instead of an anomalous slow down or acceleration, it is redshifted of blueshifted.
Is my interpretation of MiHsC correct, or is it misunderstood ?
-
#3155 by Rodal on 14 Jun, 2016 22:56
-
I look forward to others calculation of the required wavelength of Unruh radiation necessary to explain the Pioneer anomaly, in case I made a mistake in this rapid calculation.
Meanwhile, I cannot understand how an explanation that is based on Unruh wavelength comparable the diameter of the observable Universe can be compared on an equal basis to the explanation by JPL explaining the Pioneer anomaly as due to thermal radiation anisotropy. To quote kenny008:...I'm really trying to understand the relationship of Unruh radiation to anomalous thrust, but this Pioneer reference threw me for a loop.
The MiHsC Theory, as it's name indicates, uses the Hubble Horizon. So I do not find shocking to get, in this theory, large values that approach the universe scale.
I do not tell that the explanation of the JPL and the one of MiHsC are equivalent. Of course, an explanation with standard physics that has to use an arbitrary data because there is no possible observation of the parameter -here the RTG surface degradation- is, in the general case, more likely than new physics. My aim when I talked about the Pioneer effect was not to tell that the thermal effect were not the most probable option, it was to understand how the acceleration of a body was supposed, in MiHsC, to produce anomalous acceleration.
In fact, about the Emdrive, what is of interest is when the accelerations are very strong. When a photon bouces on a wall, or it enters a material with a different permittivity. how does MiHsC translates ? I did not find the answer on Dr McCulloch blog. There are calculus about an entire Emdrive, but I would like to follow a single photon, and see when it bounces or enter the dielectric, what anomalous acceleration by MiHsC is occuring at each stage. My aim is not to defend, or to attack the theory, it is to understand how it is supposed to be used.
I see 3 points :
1 : In MiHsC, the acceleration of an object comes with an anomalous supplementary acceleration (or slow down)
2 : In MiHsC, there is a minimal acceleration of a 2c^2/L, that makes the acceleration different at the two ends of an asymmetrical cavity. The more narrow it is, the bigger the minimal acceleration.
3 : MiHsC also applies to photons, but of course instead of an anomalous slow down or acceleration, it is redshifted of blueshifted.
Is my interpretation of MiHsC correct, or is it misunderstood ?
For the Pioneer anomaly, one needs Unruh wavelengths of the order of the Hubble scale, comparable to the diameter of the observable Universe. But to justify the controversial topic of "inertial mass" of photons, the Unruh wavelengths for the EM Drive now have to be comparable to the (extremely small by comparison to the Universe) size of the EM Drive.
The difference in wavelengths needed to explain the EM Drive and the Pioneer anomaly is humongous...
And what "numerous number of free parameters" were used in JPL's study ?
-
#3156 by keithpickering on 15 Jun, 2016 01:58
-
1) I posted above back of the envelope calculations that the wavelength required for Unruh radiation to explain the Pioneer anomaly appears to be twice the Hubble length, or comparable to the diameter of the observable Universe. Is this what you are proposing? a wavelength of dozens of billions of light years long?
It's not my proposal, it's Mike's. But yes, your computations are correct.2) a complex thermal model of the spacecraft with numerous free parameters ? It is just a finite element analysis to calculate thermal radiation. The computer program uses the Stefan–Boltzmann law, where the Boltzmann constant is well known and understood. Not a free parameter. JPL even used the actual flight telemetry as boundary conditions.
" they hunt around in parameter space until they find one they like, and that's the mode" ?
QUESTION: What "numerous free parameters" are you referring to?
"Just" finite element analysis has many free parameters in setting up the elements. So those would be the same parameters the authors themselves tell us about.
"The model incorporated some parameters the values of which were less well known: e.g., the effective emissivities of multilayer insulation blankets or conductive couplings of certain structural elements."
When you're building a thermal model and you have to parameterize emissivities of thermal elements, yeah, that's a big deal.
I should also mention that in spite of the science-by-press-release blitz that JPL conducted on this paper (resulting in a blizzard of reports in the media, including the scientific media), not everyone is convinced -- and that includes Dr. John Anderson, who was lead author of the first reports of the Pioneer anomaly.
-
#3157 by tleach on 15 Jun, 2016 04:23
-
Please forgive me if something like this has been posted before...
I've always liked the idea that the momentum of the EM waves in the EM drive is somehow being directly converted into momentum of the frustum. Awhile back, I came across this use of acoustic waves to levitate and rotate small objects by manipulating standing waves.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/sonic-tractor-beam-moves-beads-with-sound
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would conclude that some portion of the the momentum of the sound wave is transferred to the object being manipulated. Enough to counter the pull of gravity. And isn't a sound wave uncoupled from a speaker the moment it leaves? So, the object is truly levitating, right? It's not exerting any force on the speaker array, right?
So, could the same principal be reversed (modified?) to create carefully controlled standing acoustic waves inside a specially shaped enclosed cavity? I guess it would be an Acoustic Wave Drive (AW Drive) instead of an EM Drive... If standing acoustic waves are able to transfer some of their momentum into the cavity to produce thrust, could this be an analogue of what might be happening in an EM Drive?
We've talked a lot on this forum about TE modes and TM modes and Dielectric inserts, but I don't know that we've ever talked about EM holograms
-
#3158 by chavv on 15 Jun, 2016 07:07
-
Something which may be interesting for those making theories about Em Drive:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120607105817.htm
I can't read the paper in detail, but the interesting part imo:QuoteWhat our study demonstrated was that light can have both an electric and a magnetic field, but not at the same time. We thus provide a simple proof that an experiment breaks the classical principles. That is to say, we showed light possesses quantum properties, and we can expand this to other systems as well
Perhaps this can give a clue why different TE/TM modes give different results? -
#3159 by Mulletron on 15 Jun, 2016 08:54
-
Something which may be interesting for those making theories about Em Drive:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120607105817.htm
I can't read the paper in detail, but the interesting part imo:QuoteWhat our study demonstrated was that light can have both an electric and a magnetic field, but not at the same time. We thus provide a simple proof that an experiment breaks the classical principles. That is to say, we showed light possesses quantum properties, and we can expand this to other systems as well
Perhaps this can give a clue why different TE/TM modes give different results?
The quote from the article:Quote"What our study demonstrated was that light can have both an electric and a magnetic field, but not at the same time. We thus provide a simple proof that an experiment breaks the classical principles. That is to say, we showed light possesses quantum properties, and we can expand this to other systems as well" says Eran Kot.
It's strange to me they didn't mention it in the paper though.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3060
Not in a cavity anyways.
?