-
#1720 by jay343 on 15 Oct, 2016 19:50
-
If the thrust mechanism is magnetic field "shedding", and I see no reason that that would be impossible, I would still think it would increase with Q. Power in would still equal the total dissipation and the coherence length of the surrounding field should increase with Q. I would think the "effective coherent volume" might represent a degree of coupling to the vacuum.
Todd forgot the negative signs multiplying the rate of change of Log[Q] with r.
Todd's formula should show thrust proportional to the negative rate of change of Log[Q] with r.
In an ordinary tuned circuit, there is a positive relationship between Q and performance; higher Q means better performance. But, when you add a load, the measured Q drops as energy is transferred to the load, a negative relationship, by definition because energy is "lost" to the load. Wouldn't the same thing happen here as energy is coupled to momentum? All other variables held constant, the more efficient the coupling, the lower the instantaneous Q is... It's the coupling mechanism you're looking for, yes? -
#1721 by WarpTech on 15 Oct, 2016 20:17
-
If the thrust mechanism is magnetic field "shedding", and I see no reason that that would be impossible, I would still think it would increase with Q. Power in would still equal the total dissipation and the coherence length of the surrounding field should increase with Q. I would think the "effective coherent volume" might represent a degree of coupling to the vacuum.
Thank you. I do too. I'm still trying to make heads or tails of it myself. If I write the gradient as;
-ΔQ/L,
Then what we want is a high Q at the small end and large difference from small to big end. Or, a large time constant, tau at the small end and a short time constant at the big end, whilst still minimizing the length, L.
Shawyer's latest design seems to maximize the Q at the small end, but the superconducting big end would seem like a bad idea to me.
-
#1722 by dustinthewind on 15 Oct, 2016 20:25
-
...
How the cavity could possibly be modifying the index of the vacuum may be because of the energy density near the narrow end, which may some how increase the coupling of the light in its vicinity with the vacuum by excitation of the vacuum (there by changing the local index.) I am unsure of this.
Previous experiments have shown a greater impulse of light off a mirror inside water than air. See URL Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium by Mikko Partanen,1 Teppo H¨ayrynen,1,2 Jani Oksanen,1 and Jukka Tulkki1 Water has a larger index of refraction, which to me indicates an apparent change in the mass of light inside water. A back reaction was detected on the water when the light entered, so there was a back reaction on the water. It isn't a big leap to compare the water to the the polarizable vacuum theory by Puthoff, where the index of the vacuum can also change, which changes the local mass of objects. (The vacuum coupling with local matter or light coupling with the vacuum.)
Other experiments have shown the vacuum is seething with what appears to be electrons and positrons that boil out of the vacuum when excited with large enough electric fields so one can surmise there is something there to be interacted with. See this link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1591517#msg1591517
Another paper that suggest something unusual about the vacuum.
DOES THE QUANTUM VACUUM FALL NEAR THE EARTH? by Tom Ostoma, Mike TrushykQuote"This resolves the problems and paradoxes of accelerated motion introduced in Mach’s principle, by suggesting that the acceleration of the charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum (with respect to a mass) serves as Newton’s universal reference"
Also: What are the Hidden Quantum Processes In Einstein's Weak Principle of Equivalence? Tom Ostoma, Mike TrushykQuoteEMQG is manifestly compatible with Cellular Automata (CA) theory (ref. 2 and 4), and is also based on a new theory of inertia (ref. 5) proposed by R. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. Puthoff (which we modified and called Quantum Inertia, QI). QI states that classical Newtonian Inertia is a property of matter due to the strictly local electrical force interactions contributed by each of the (electrically charged) elementary particles of the mass with the surrounding (electrically charged) virtual particles (virtual masseons) of the quantum vacuum
I have been further kicking around an idea about how the quantum vacuum may be being stirred up near the apex of the cone. On the paper about anti-matter lasers http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/23/9/10.1063/1.4962567
1.) "Production and dynamics of positrons in ultrahigh intensity laser-foil interactions by I. Yu. Kostyukov1,a) and E. N. Nerush1"
they suggest that the matter and anti-matter vacuum particles are stirred up in the standing wave magnetic component. The standing wave magnetic component is allowed to be in close proximity to the currents in the cavity which is important because that is where light strikes the cavity. In Greg Egan's website the image of the energy density for transverse magnetic fields appears to have large energy density near the skin of the frustum. This large magnetic field from co-propagating waves seems a prime candidate to disturb the quantum vacuum virtual particles. As stated in 1.) (the paper) once the vacuum pairs were created in the magnetic field region they experience a push toward the standing electric field. This is exactly what I predicted would happen to an antenna put into the cavity. If the antenna is not centered exactly on the standing E-field max the antenna experiences push toward standing wave E_max.
Now we may not need to necessarily create pairs from the vacuum to modify its index but rather let me read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuumQuoteFluctuations
It seems stimulation of the vacuum to become more real (not full pairs but more stimulated) may reduce the local energy density of the vacuum it self causing increased mass and slowing of time effects. I'm saying that the local magnetic energy density may modify the index of the vacuum. Now with that being near the metal plate where light is reflected then the light upon impact appears to have greater impact or mass transferring more energy per impulse. A back reaction on the vacuum is the stimulation of the vacuum upon the entry of the light to move toward the standing electric field. The vacuum around the cavity fills in the void by a flow from outside the cavity. As the vacuum moves toward standing electric field the field reduces in intensity, so the vacuum begins to become less excited, moving more toward its vacuum state. The momentum the vacuum carries is not lost, so as the mass of the excited pairs that appears as virtual particles reduces back to its original state their, their mass decreasing, velocity increases via conservation of momentum, and shoots them past the stability point electric field and the further reduced magnetic field that would push them in the other direction. As a result we have escaping virtual particles at high velocity that are carrying away energy lost by the effect of the change in index of the vacuum which increased the mass of light inside.
Main article: Quantum fluctuation
File:Vacuum fluctuations revealed through spontaneous parametric down-conversion.ogv
The video of an experiment showing vacuum fluctuations (in the red ring) amplified by spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
The QED vacuum is subject to fluctuations about a dormant zero average-field condition:[4] Here is a description of the quantum vacuum:[5]
“The quantum theory asserts that a vacuum, even the most perfect vacuum devoid of any matter, is not really empty. Rather the quantum vacuum can be depicted as a sea of continuously appearing and disappearing [pairs of] particles that manifest themselves in the apparent jostling of particles that is quite distinct from their thermal motions. These particles are ‘virtual’, as opposed to real, particles. ...At any given instant, the vacuum is full of such virtual pairs, which leave their signature behind, by affecting the energy levels of atoms.”
-Joseph Silk On the shores of the unknown, p. 62
This flow of virtual particles is the back reaction on the rest of the universe which is later felt as gravitational waves.
Now I was contemplating this. Does a dielectric insert lower or increase the local magnetic field intensity near the top plate?
It seems there may be some drag of the flow of virtual particles through the cavity material but maybe not enough to be of consequence.
Ok I had backwards. Matter and Anti-matter seems to pop into existence at the magnetic nodes which should be E_max instead. So the electric fields seem to make them and I believe unlike an antenna inducing current in a cavity they are out of phase with the light. As a result they are instead pushed toward the magnetic field maximum. Sorry for the confusionQuotehttp://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/23/9/10.1063/1.4962567 The calculated trajectories are used to analyze the positron density distribution in the standing wave. It follows from the model that the positron density peaks at the nodes and the anti-nodes of the standing wave because the electron-positron pairs are mainly produced at the magnetic nodes as the cascade growth rate peaks there and the produced pairs drift to the electric nodes as the magnetic nodes are unstable for them.
-
#1723 by WarpTech on 15 Oct, 2016 20:37
-
The point being that there are fields outside of the frustum and as to the field strengths they need to be derived from meep, this one was a TM mode. I'd recommend to aero that's another meep run he should do with his current TE013 frustum, so we can keep the current playing field....
Fields outside of a frustum.
Shell
What is the magnitude of:
1) the calculated fields outside the frustum of a cone
2) the calculated field inside the frustum of a cone
Need to understand the numerical accuracy of these calculations to understand what is being plotted for "outside fields"
Shell
I think that those fields outside the frustum are due to well-known numerical lack of precision in the Finite Difference method (which cannot satisfy the Neumann boundary conditions all along the boundary, but only at the nodes). Take a look at their numerical magnitude in comparison with the fields inside the frustum.
Also should compare FDTD domain results with exact solutions to ascertain the veracity of the numerical output.
I think this could be simulated in COMSOL if it is capable of simulating power loss in conductors, and if it can solve the voltage drop around the loops of eddy currents to compute the Volt-sec being lost. Anywhere there are eddy currents dissipating power, there are voltage drops where magnetic flux is being "shed" from inside the frustum. The divergence in this gradient from small end to big end is what provides thrust. (I think.) -
#1724 by dustinthewind on 15 Oct, 2016 20:38
-
...
I have been further kicking around an idea about how the quantum vacuum may be being stirred up near the apex of the cone. On the paper about anti-matter lasers http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/23/9/10.1063/1.4962567
1.) "Production and dynamics of positrons in ultrahigh intensity laser-foil interactions by I. Yu. Kostyukov1,a) and E. N. Nerush1"
they suggest that the matter and anti-matter vacuum particles are stirred up in the standing wave magnetic component. The standing wave magnetic component is allowed to be in close proximity to the currents in the cavity which is important because that is where light strikes the cavity. In Greg Egan's website the image of the energy density for transverse magnetic fields appears to have large energy density near the skin of the frustum. This large magnetic field from co-propagating waves seems a prime candidate to disturb the quantum vacuum virtual particles. As stated in 1.) (the paper) once the vacuum pairs were created in the magnetic field region they experience a push toward the standing electric field. This is exactly what I predicted would happen to an antenna put into the cavity. If the antenna is not centered exactly on the standing E-field max the antenna experiences push toward standing wave E_max.
Now we may not need to necessarily create pairs from the vacuum to modify its index but rather let me read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuumQuoteFluctuations
It seems stimulation of the vacuum to become more real (not full pairs but more stimulated) may reduce the local energy density of the vacuum it self causing increased mass and slowing of time effects. I'm saying that the local magnetic energy density may modify the index of the vacuum. Now with that being near the metal plate where light is reflected then the light upon impact appears to have greater impact or mass transferring more energy per impulse. A back reaction on the vacuum is the stimulation of the vacuum upon the entry of the light to move toward the standing electric field. The vacuum around the cavity fills in the void by a flow from outside the cavity. As the vacuum moves toward standing electric field the field reduces in intensity, so the vacuum begins to become less excited, moving more toward its vacuum state. The momentum the vacuum carries is not lost, so as the mass of the excited pairs that appears as virtual particles reduces back to its original state their, their mass decreasing, velocity increases via conservation of momentum, and shoots them past the stability point electric field and the further reduced magnetic field that would push them in the other direction. As a result we have escaping virtual particles at high velocity that are carrying away energy lost by the effect of the change in index of the vacuum which increased the mass of light inside.
Main article: Quantum fluctuation
File:Vacuum fluctuations revealed through spontaneous parametric down-conversion.ogv
The video of an experiment showing vacuum fluctuations (in the red ring) amplified by spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
The QED vacuum is subject to fluctuations about a dormant zero average-field condition:[4] Here is a description of the quantum vacuum:[5]
“The quantum theory asserts that a vacuum, even the most perfect vacuum devoid of any matter, is not really empty. Rather the quantum vacuum can be depicted as a sea of continuously appearing and disappearing [pairs of] particles that manifest themselves in the apparent jostling of particles that is quite distinct from their thermal motions. These particles are ‘virtual’, as opposed to real, particles. ...At any given instant, the vacuum is full of such virtual pairs, which leave their signature behind, by affecting the energy levels of atoms.”
-Joseph Silk On the shores of the unknown, p. 62
This flow of virtual particles is the back reaction on the rest of the universe which is later felt as gravitational waves.
Now I was contemplating this. Does a dielectric insert lower or increase the local magnetic field intensity near the top plate?
Please comment on the fact that none of these EM Drive experiments come anywhere near the Schwinger electric eld strengths ( 10^18 V/m), needed to induce vacuum breakdown and hence introduce electron-positron pair creation!
Ok, I am speculating the pairs being electrons and positrons which are overlapping in the vacuum. To fully separate them requires immense energy. However, their separation may be analogue in increments of the plank length. So stimulating some extra separation of the virtual particles (not to full fledged matter/anti-matter but that they exist more with greater mass). Assuming creation of full pairs causes an increase in the index of the vacuum then suggest that maybe the increased separation of said pairs not to full separation can increase the index of the vacuum but not as much as full separation.
I'm looking for something that suggest other experiments that test the impulse of light in very large electric/magnetic fields from standing waves but I am not sure I'll be able to find anything. -
#1725 by SeeShells on 15 Oct, 2016 21:10
-
Let's postulate something that I've been thinking about for some time now....
I have been further kicking around an idea about how the quantum vacuum may be being stirred up near the apex of the cone. On the paper about anti-matter lasers http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/23/9/10.1063/1.4962567
1.) "Production and dynamics of positrons in ultrahigh intensity laser-foil interactions by I. Yu. Kostyukov1,a) and E. N. Nerush1"
they suggest that the matter and anti-matter vacuum particles are stirred up in the standing wave magnetic component. The standing wave magnetic component is allowed to be in close proximity to the currents in the cavity which is important because that is where light strikes the cavity. In Greg Egan's website the image of the energy density for transverse magnetic fields appears to have large energy density near the skin of the frustum. This large magnetic field from co-propagating waves seems a prime candidate to disturb the quantum vacuum virtual particles. As stated in 1.) (the paper) once the vacuum pairs were created in the magnetic field region they experience a push toward the standing electric field. This is exactly what I predicted would happen to an antenna put into the cavity. If the antenna is not centered exactly on the standing E-field max the antenna experiences push toward standing wave E_max.
Now we may not need to necessarily create pairs from the vacuum to modify its index but rather let me read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuumQuoteFluctuations
It seems stimulation of the vacuum to become more real (not full pairs but more stimulated) may reduce the local energy density of the vacuum it self causing increased mass and slowing of time effects. I'm saying that the local magnetic energy density may modify the index of the vacuum. Now with that being near the metal plate where light is reflected then the light upon impact appears to have greater impact or mass transferring more energy per impulse. A back reaction on the vacuum is the stimulation of the vacuum upon the entry of the light to move toward the standing electric field. The vacuum around the cavity fills in the void by a flow from outside the cavity. As the vacuum moves toward standing electric field the field reduces in intensity, so the vacuum begins to become less excited, moving more toward its vacuum state. The momentum the vacuum carries is not lost, so as the mass of the excited pairs that appears as virtual particles reduces back to its original state their, their mass decreasing, velocity increases via conservation of momentum, and shoots them past the stability point electric field and the further reduced magnetic field that would push them in the other direction. As a result we have escaping virtual particles at high velocity that are carrying away energy lost by the effect of the change in index of the vacuum which increased the mass of light inside.
Main article: Quantum fluctuation
File:Vacuum fluctuations revealed through spontaneous parametric down-conversion.ogv
The video of an experiment showing vacuum fluctuations (in the red ring) amplified by spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
The QED vacuum is subject to fluctuations about a dormant zero average-field condition:[4] Here is a description of the quantum vacuum:[5]
“The quantum theory asserts that a vacuum, even the most perfect vacuum devoid of any matter, is not really empty. Rather the quantum vacuum can be depicted as a sea of continuously appearing and disappearing [pairs of] particles that manifest themselves in the apparent jostling of particles that is quite distinct from their thermal motions. These particles are ‘virtual’, as opposed to real, particles. ...At any given instant, the vacuum is full of such virtual pairs, which leave their signature behind, by affecting the energy levels of atoms.”
-Joseph Silk On the shores of the unknown, p. 62
This flow of virtual particles is the back reaction on the rest of the universe which is later felt as gravitational waves.
Now I was contemplating this. Does a dielectric insert lower or increase the local magnetic field intensity near the top plate?
Please comment on the fact that none of these EM Drive experiments come anywhere near the Schwinger electric eld strengths ( 10^18 V/m), needed to induce vacuum breakdown and hence introduce electron-positron pair creation!
Ok, I am speculating the pairs being electrons and positrons which are overlapping in the vacuum. To fully separate them requires immense energy. However, their separation may be analogue in increments of the plank length. So stimulating some extra separation of the virtual particles (not to full fledged matter/anti-matter but that they exist more with greater mass). Assuming creation of full pairs causes an increase in the index of the vacuum then suggest that maybe the increased separation of said pairs not to full separation can increase the index of the vacuum but not as much as full separation.
I'm looking for something that suggest other experiments that test the impulse of light in very large magnetic fields from standing waves but I am not sure I'll be able to find anything.
Evanescent waves are virtual particles.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4300?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20140312 -
#1726 by aero on 15 Oct, 2016 21:43
-
...
The image that I attached, linked here, was the Maxwell Stress Tensor integrated over a detector 0.0354 square meep units. It was my consideration that I could recover the average stress on the detector by dividing the integral by the detector area. The cavity is resonating in the TE013 mode at high Q ~ 100,000. I'm using a meep built-in function to generate the curve above and to "not integrate" would require that I calculate the stresses from the fields as I know you have done, but doing so would result in so many data points that they would be difficult to deal with as I am looking for the internal values, not the values at the boundary.
I'm not sure what causes the curve to go negative though. Negative values aren't really at the ends, particularly the one at -1.5. The internal surface of the ends are at exactly -0.4 and +0.4 while the two end detectors are one grid point inside the ends.
What about this MEEP function that apparently is meant to output the total electric and magnetic energy density ?
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#Output_functions
output-tot-pwr
Output the total electric and magnetic energy density. Note that you might want to wrap this step function in synchronized-magnetic to compute it more accurately; see Synchronizing the magnetic and electric fields.
I forgot about that one, having just the other day came to the understanding that force and energy density are directly related.
Thanks. -
#1727 by aero on 15 Oct, 2016 22:05
-
Just a random thought - noise on the forum.
I understand that there is no such thing discovered as a magnetic monopole. Maybe there is no such thing as an electric monopole either, rather the other end of the electric dipole is embedded in the QV, so rather than create electron/positron pairs, we only need an amount of energy under the right conditions to pull the complete electric dipole out of the QV.
As I said, just noise. -
#1728 by dustinthewind on 16 Oct, 2016 00:06
-
Just a random thought - noise on the forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay
I understand that there is no such thing discovered as a magnetic monopole. Maybe there is no such thing as an electric monopole either, rather the other end of the electric dipole is embedded in the QV, so rather than create electron/positron pairs, we only need an amount of energy under the right conditions to pull the complete electric dipole out of the QV.
As I said, just noise.
Here is something on proton decay which doesn't happen but I noticed if it did they suspect it might decay into a pion and positron. Maybe all the positrons fell into a lower state as being protons and stayed that way? Don't know really. -
#1729 by aero on 16 Oct, 2016 02:02
-
...I forgot about that one, having just the other day came to the understanding that force and energy density are directly related.
Are you planning to run that command to calculate the energy density and plot and compare for TE013 ?
Thanks.
Thanks
I'm thinking about it. It might lead in the direction I'm investigating. Or at least confirm the shape of the axial energy density profile. I'll do it if it doesn't turn out to be to hard. It shouldn't be. -
#1730 by tleach on 16 Oct, 2016 07:44
-
Let's postulate something that I've been thinking about for some time now.
Evanescent waves are virtual particles.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4300?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20140312
I can't believe it took me this long to actually look up evanescent waves. I really wish I'd looked them up sooner because...
I love it! It’s starting to feel like all of the pieces are coming together :-)QuoteThis allows the observation of ‘impossible’ properties of light and of a fundamental field-theory quantity, which was previously considered as ‘virtual’.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4300?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20140312Quote“The evanescent wave couples two media in which traveling waves are allowed, and hence permits the transfer of energy or a particle between the media (depending on the wave equation in use)”
“Depending on the nature of the source element, the evanescent field involved is either predominantly electric (capacitive) or magnetic (inductive)”
“The evanescent wave coupling takes place in the non-radiative field near each medium and as such is always associated with matter; i.e., with the induced currents and charges within a partially reflecting surface. Other commonplace examples are the coupling between the primary and secondary coils of a transformer, or between the two plates of a capacitor.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
So, lets see, we should be trying to excite a TE mode with a circular antenna that needs to be placed at least 2/3 of a wavelength from the interior wall of the frustum so that the antenna can transfer energy to the partially reflecting copper surface while assuring that the resulting near-field effects of evanescent fields from the frustum wall are decoupled from the antenna. Right? At least I think we want the source decoupled from the walls…
The evanescent waves seem to tie together the capacitor based MET, Todd’s Theory, and maybe even a polarizable quantum vacuum. And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate? -
#1731 by X_RaY on 16 Oct, 2016 08:25
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth -
#1732 by SeeShells on 16 Oct, 2016 14:56
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
Contributions to the mass of a system[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Contributions_to_the_mass_of_a_system
See also: Mass in special relativity and General relativity
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy {\displaystyle E} E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2}. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the form {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2} for the gamma photons (and for other relevant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).[99]
This concept is applied in key predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED, see above). In that theory, the mass of electrons (or, more generally, leptons) is modified by including the mass contributions of virtual photons, in a technique known as renormalization. Such "radiative corrections" contribute to a number of predictions of QED, such as the magnetic dipole moment of leptons, the Lamb shift, and the hyperfine structure of bound lepton pairs, such as muonium and positronium.[100]
Since photons contribute to the stress–energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound–Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[101]
Current reads....
Enhancement of Resonant Energy Transfer Due to Evanescent-wave from the Metal
Amrit Poudel,1 Xin Chen,2 and Mark A. Ratner1
1601.04338v1.pdf
My Very Best,
Shell
-
#1733 by dustinthewind on 16 Oct, 2016 15:01
-
If the thrust mechanism is magnetic field "shedding", and I see no reason that that would be impossible, I would still think it would increase with Q. Power in would still equal the total dissipation and the coherence length of the surrounding field should increase with Q. I would think the "effective coherent volume" might represent a degree of coupling to the vacuum.
Thank you. I do too. I'm still trying to make heads or tails of it myself. If I write the gradient as;
-ΔQ/L,
Then what we want is a high Q at the small end and large difference from small to big end. Or, a large time constant, tau at the small end and a short time constant at the big end, whilst still minimizing the length, L.
Shawyer's latest design seems to maximize the Q at the small end, but the superconducting big end would seem like a bad idea to me.
I was thinking about you contemplating d(tau)/dr and thought that tau usually represents (seconds/cycle). I was thinking that (Tau)=1/f where f=cycles/second. But then that makes it a double derivative, 1/df 1/dr and omega should be 2*pi*f Not sure that makes sense. -
#1734 by Rodal on 16 Oct, 2016 15:15
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
Contributions to the mass of a system[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Contributions_to_the_mass_of_a_system
See also: Mass in special relativity and General relativity
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy {\displaystyle E} E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2}. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the form {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2} for the gamma photons (and for other relevant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).[99]
This concept is applied in key predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED, see above). In that theory, the mass of electrons (or, more generally, leptons) is modified by including the mass contributions of virtual photons, in a technique known as renormalization. Such "radiative corrections" contribute to a number of predictions of QED, such as the magnetic dipole moment of leptons, the Lamb shift, and the hyperfine structure of bound lepton pairs, such as muonium and positronium.[100]
Since photons contribute to the stress–energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound–Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[101]
Current reads....
Enhancement of Resonant Energy Transfer Due to Evanescent-wave from the Metal
Amrit Poudel,1 Xin Chen,2 and Mark A. Ratner1
1601.04338v1.pdf
My Very Best,
Shell
As this is likely to stir some debate, we should have discussions that start by making it clear as to whether they are considering General Relativity or just Special Relativity.
One of the reasons it would be helpful to make this clear is that the EM Drive's inventor (Shawyer) continues to claim that the EM Drive can be explained just by using Special Relativity (instead of General Relativity), Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that according to Special Relativity (*):
<< in special relativity, the rest mass of a system is not required to be equal to the sum of the rest masses of the parts (a situation which would be analogous to gross mass-conservation in chemistry). For example, a massive particle can decay into photons which individually have no mass, but which (as a system) preserve the invariant mass of the particle which produced them. Also a box of moving non-interacting particles (e.g., photons, or an ideal gas) will have a larger invariant mass than the sum of the rest masses of the particles which compose it. This is because the total energy of all particles and fields in a system must be summed, and this quantity, as seen in the center of momentum frame, and divided by c2, is the system's invariant mass.
In special relativity, mass is not "converted" to energy, for all types of energy still retain their associated mass. Neither energy nor invariant mass can be destroyed in special relativity, and each is separately conserved over time in closed systems. Thus, a system's invariant mass may change only because invariant mass is allowed to escape, perhaps as light or heat. Thus, when reactions (whether chemical or nuclear) release energy in the form of heat and light, if the heat and light is not allowed to escape (the system is closed and isolated), the energy will continue to contribute to the system rest mass, and the system mass will not change. Only if the energy is released to the environment will the mass be lost; this is because the associated mass has been allowed out of the system, where it contributes to the mass of the surroundings>>
E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
-------------------
(*) Shawyer's insistence that all that is required is Special Relativity, instead of General Relativity, even nowadays, after all the controversy from his New Scientist article a decade ago, is part of the reason why the EM Drive is so controversial with scientists, because they associate the EM Drive with Shawyer's theory.
Also, many discussions at NSF-EM Drive regarding conservation of energy, implicitly have assumed Special Relativity, and implicitly ignored General Relativity. This assumption needs to be made explicit.
-
#1735 by SeeShells on 16 Oct, 2016 16:01
-
I'm just trying to follow the data Jose' and will not gladly debate CoM or CoE or GR or SR simply because it has proven to be a endless debating mobius strip going nowhere and the truth is getting lost in the noise. Follow the data has become my mantra.And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
Contributions to the mass of a system[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Contributions_to_the_mass_of_a_system
See also: Mass in special relativity and General relativity
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy {\displaystyle E} E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2}. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the form {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2} for the gamma photons (and for other relevant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).[99]
This concept is applied in key predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED, see above). In that theory, the mass of electrons (or, more generally, leptons) is modified by including the mass contributions of virtual photons, in a technique known as renormalization. Such "radiative corrections" contribute to a number of predictions of QED, such as the magnetic dipole moment of leptons, the Lamb shift, and the hyperfine structure of bound lepton pairs, such as muonium and positronium.[100]
Since photons contribute to the stress–energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound–Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[101]
Current reads....
Enhancement of Resonant Energy Transfer Due to Evanescent-wave from the Metal
Amrit Poudel,1 Xin Chen,2 and Mark A. Ratner1
1601.04338v1.pdf
My Very Best,
Shell
As this is likely to stir some debate, we should have discussions that start by making it clear as to whether they are considering General Relativity or just Special Relativity.
One of the reasons it would be helpful to make this clear is that the EM Drive's inventor (Shawyer) continues to claim that the EM Drive can be explained just by using Special Relativity (instead of General Relativity), Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that according to Special Relativity (*):
<< in special relativity, the rest mass of a system is not required to be equal to the sum of the rest masses of the parts (a situation which would be analogous to gross mass-conservation in chemistry). For example, a massive particle can decay into photons which individually have no mass, but which (as a system) preserve the invariant mass of the particle which produced them. Also a box of moving non-interacting particles (e.g., photons, or an ideal gas) will have a larger invariant mass than the sum of the rest masses of the particles which compose it. This is because the total energy of all particles and fields in a system must be summed, and this quantity, as seen in the center of momentum frame, and divided by c2, is the system's invariant mass.
In special relativity, mass is not "converted" to energy, for all types of energy still retain their associated mass. Neither energy nor invariant mass can be destroyed in special relativity, and each is separately conserved over time in closed systems. Thus, a system's invariant mass may change only because invariant mass is allowed to escape, perhaps as light or heat. Thus, when reactions (whether chemical or nuclear) release energy in the form of heat and light, if the heat and light is not allowed to escape (the system is closed and isolated), the energy will continue to contribute to the system rest mass, and the system mass will not change. Only if the energy is released to the environment will the mass be lost; this is because the associated mass has been allowed out of the system, where it contributes to the mass of the surroundings>>
E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
-------------------
(*) Shawyer's insistence that all that is required is Special Relativity, instead of General Relativity, even nowadays, after all the controversy from his New Scientist article a decade ago, is part of the reason why the EM Drive is so controversial with scientists, because they associate the EM Drive with Shawyer's theory.
Also, many discussions at NSF-EM Drive regarding conservation of energy, implicitly have assumed Special Relativity, and implicitly ignored General Relativity. This assumption needs to be made explicit.
Just like with the Mach Mega effect. So many poo poo it and say it doesn't work although slowly the data is saying otherwise. And it is true the Mach effect is based on controversial theories which have been debated for a century. The only thing solid so far is data.
My Very Best,
Shell
Shell -
#1736 by Rodal on 16 Oct, 2016 16:19
-
...
I'm just trying to follow the data Jose' and will not gladly debate CoM or CoE or GR or SR simply because it has proven to be a endless debating mobius strip going nowhere and the truth is getting lost in the noise. Follow the data has become my mantra.
Just like with the Mach Mega effect. So many poo poo it and say it doesn't work although slowly the data is saying otherwise. And it is true the Mach effect is based on controversial theories which have been debated for a century. The only thing solid so far is data.
My Very Best,
Shell
Shell
Well just to make it clear, the Mach effect as in J. Woodward, or as based in Hoyle-Narlikar, is clearly a General Relativity effect, so that any discussion of this effect concerning Conservation of Energy that ignores gravitation (as some have attempted) is incorrect and necessarily leads to absurd results, just as a discussion of a Gravity Assist swing-by maneuver would wrongly conclude that conservation of energy is violently violated by a Gravity Assist if the effect of gravitation would be ignored in a Conservation of Energy discussion of a swing-by maneuver. -
#1737 by WarpTech on 16 Oct, 2016 16:47
-
...
I'm just trying to follow the data Jose' and will not gladly debate CoM or CoE or GR or SR simply because it has proven to be a endless debating mobius strip going nowhere and the truth is getting lost in the noise. Follow the data has become my mantra.
Just like with the Mach Mega effect. So many poo poo it and say it doesn't work although slowly the data is saying otherwise. And it is true the Mach effect is based on controversial theories which have been debated for a century. The only thing solid so far is data.
My Very Best,
Shell
Shell
Well just to make it clear, the Mach effect as in J. Woodward, or as based in Hoyle-Narlikar, is clearly a General Relativity effect, so that any discussion of this effect concerning Conservation of Energy that ignores gravitation (as some have attempted) is incorrect and necessarily leads to absurd results, just as a discussion of a Gravity Assist swing-by maneuver would wrongly conclude that conservation of energy is violently violated by a Gravity Assist if the effect of gravitation would be ignored in a Conservation of Energy discussion of a swing-by maneuver.
To me, General Relativity is clearly the effect of Damping. The only difference between what is going in inside the frustum and a gravitational field is that; when the Damping Factor increases inside the frustum, it isn't affecting the rulers and clocks being used to measure frequency and dimensions. It's only affecting the EM waves and the frustum.
In a gravitational field, when the Damping Factor acting on matter increases, it affects the rulers and clocks, and so frequency and wavelength do change, giving us gravitational time dilation and length contraction, but it is still just a change in the variable, tau for the harmonic oscillators that make up matter. Wow!
-
#1738 by Rodal on 16 Oct, 2016 17:43
-
The president of the Space Studies Institute, Gary Hudson, discusses, for 1 hour, the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, including the EM Drive, and answers questions from the audience: for example when the presentations are going to be available:
http://thespaceshow.com/show/14-oct-2016/broadcast-2793-gary-hudson
Friday Oct 14 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Show -
#1739 by X_RaY on 16 Oct, 2016 18:34
-
The president of the Space Studies Institute, Gary Hudson, discusses, for 1 hour, the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, including the EM Drive, and answers questions from the audience: for example when the presentations are going to be available:
Thanks for the link Dr.Rodal. December is coming soon and it seems it will be very interesting due to multiple reasons
http://thespaceshow.com/show/14-oct-2016/broadcast-2793-gary-hudson
Friday Oct 14 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Show
