-
#1740 by Bob012345 on 16 Oct, 2016 19:46
-
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.
To me, EM waves occupy a unique frame thus the cavity is always open wrt radiation. Shawyer is probably correct but even if not, they way they use it to undermine the EmDrive rather than look into it is disheartening -
#1741 by TheTraveller on 17 Oct, 2016 04:09
-
To me, EM waves occupy a unique frame thus the cavity is always open wrt radiation. Shawyer is probably correct but even if not, they way they use it to undermine the EmDrive rather than look into it is disheartening
The EmDrive internal EmWave and cavity are on 2 different reference planes as are the walls and internal EmWave of a Ring Laser Gyro.
As to disheartening:QuoteEarly in 1633, Galileo was summoned from his sickbed to defend his life’s work. Galileo was told to renounce his heresies in exchange for leniency. Galileo obliged. His book was burned and the sentence read in every university.
According to legend, as Galileo left the Inquisition hall after recanting his views, he supposedly muttered,
E pur se muove. (“Nevertheless, it moves.”) -
#1742 by Bob Woods on 17 Oct, 2016 05:56
-
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 Doc. Extremely satisfying to hear human voices make all this discussion real.
http://thespaceshow.com/show/14-oct-2016/broadcast-2793-gary-hudson
And thanks Shell, I often wondered why evanescent waves just disappeared from the discussion.
The last 18 months or so has been very exciting. I'm glad I could watch.
....Edited to add smiley so Shell doesn't lose her faith in my pun-tability. -
#1743 by meberbs on 17 Oct, 2016 06:09
-
To me, EM waves occupy a unique frame thus the cavity is always open wrt radiation. Shawyer is probably correct but even if not, they way they use it to undermine the EmDrive rather than look into it is disheartening
The entire motivation for special relativity is that EM waves don't have a special frame. Experiments showing that the ether didn't exist is the original evidence for special relativity (although it was originally motivated theoretically by the apparent frame independence in Maxwell's equations.)
There is zero chance that Shawyer's claims are correct within special relativity. When he makes these claims he immediately discredits himself. What is unfortunate is Shawyer's insistence on repeating claims that to experienced physicists are equivalent to 1+1 = 3. When presented with such a claim, it is completely reasonable to not look into it further.The EmDrive internal EmWave and cavity are on 2 different reference planes as are the walls and internal EmWave of a Ring Laser Gyro.
These words in that order have no meaning that I can discern. Please clarify what you are saying. (For example what is a "reference plane," do you mean reference frame? If so I have no idea what frames you are talking about.)
Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently. -
#1744 by SeeShells on 17 Oct, 2016 06:12
-
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 Doc. Extremely satisfying to hear human voices make all this discussion real.
http://thespaceshow.com/show/14-oct-2016/broadcast-2793-gary-hudson
And thanks Shell, I often wondered why evanescent waves just disappeared from the discussion.
The last 18 months or so has been very exciting. I'm glad I could watch.
That's a pun on evanescent waves... right? lol
Thanks Bob, you made me chuckle.
My Very Best,
Shell -
#1745 by Bob Woods on 17 Oct, 2016 07:36
-
Don't forget Shell, we're hungry for data:
-
#1746 by TheTraveller on 17 Oct, 2016 07:50
-
Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
Your description of how the momentum changes is not correct.
I'll try this one more time.
In a waveguide, guide wavelength is increased and momentum / radiation pressure is reduced.
This increase in guide wavelength is partly driven by waveguide diameter.
As diameter decreases, guide wavelength increases and momentum / radiation pressure decreases.
Neither effect is linear with wave guide diameter change as attached.
-
#1747 by meberbs on 17 Oct, 2016 14:06
-
That did not answer either question that I asked.Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
Your description of how the momentum changes is not correct.
I'll try this one more time.
In a waveguide, guide wavelength is increased and momentum / radiation pressure is reduced.
This increase in guide wavelength is partly driven by waveguide diameter.
As diameter decreases, guide wavelength increases and momentum / radiation pressure decreases.
Neither effect is linear with wave guide diameter change as attached.
I set up a mechanical system that has balls of different momentum hitting each of 2 plates in opposite directions, which imitates the behavior you and Shawyer claim photons have in an emDrive.
No one claims that the difference is linear with diameter, and that point is irrelevant. I have a device in the middle that can change the momentum to any value you want. The only thing I specified was that the momentum of the ones hitting the small end is less than those hitting the large end, which matches what you and Shawyer claim. -
#1748 by flux_capacitor on 17 Oct, 2016 14:40
-
That did not answer either question that I asked.Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
Your description of how the momentum changes is not correct.
I'll try this one more time.
In a waveguide, guide wavelength is increased and momentum / radiation pressure is reduced.
This increase in guide wavelength is partly driven by waveguide diameter.
As diameter decreases, guide wavelength increases and momentum / radiation pressure decreases.
Neither effect is linear with wave guide diameter change as attached.
I set up a mechanical system that has balls of different momentum hitting each of 2 plates in opposite directions, which imitates the behavior you and Shawyer claim photons have in an emDrive.
No one claims that the difference is linear with diameter, and that point is irrelevant. I have a device in the middle that can change the momentum to any value you want. The only thing I specified was that the momentum of the ones hitting the small end is less than those hitting the large end, which matches what you and Shawyer claim.
I agree. If, as Shawyer claims, the radiation pressure imbalance upon end plates is just what is needed to move the EmDrive (assuming no photon momentum recoil nor radiation pressure upon the side wall, hem…) then a greater radiation pressure upon the big end plate should move the drive according to a vector pointing from small end towards big end (i.e. big end leading). But in this scenario, Shawyer claims the thruster moves the other way. This is beyond understanding.
However if radiation pressure imbalance is NOT the source of thrust, and that the center of mass of the EM wave moves inside the EmDrive, for example according to Todd's idea or McCulloch's theory which posits that photon momentum increases while travelling towards big end and decreases while travelling towards small end in a tapered cavity, then the cavity has to move in reaction, small end leading, in order to satisfy conservation of momentum.
That is not what Shawyer claims when he focuses solely on the interaction of photons upon end plate surfaces, neglecting their behaviour while travelling in between.
May I add that when a thruster involving radiation pressure is at work as a true open system with no need for general relativity, for example firing a laser here on Earth aimed at a reflector at the back of a space probe, the increased radiation pressure upon the reflector plate pushes the space probe forward, it does not attract the probe towards the beam and the Earth.*
* Of course, I'm talking about a conventional laser and not the very trekky case of a tractor beam: https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2016/august/davidgrier.html
-
#1749 by RERT on 17 Oct, 2016 16:07
-
Conscious of the speculative nature of this post, one response out of politeness. Please PM me for further chat if required.Quote
If the mass density of the vacuum is near constant, the net gravitational force in any direction is nearly nil, at least compared to the force from the vacuum on one side.Quote1. The vacuum is not immutable
Why not ? I love theories.
2. It is like a frictionless fluid which has both a local mass density and velocity field
3. Its mass density is almost entirely uniform, because non-uniformity dissipates very quickly
4. Consequently the net gravitational effect of the vacuum on any object is almost entirely nil, and the mass of the vacuum is undetectable in the lab.
5. The EMdrive works by transferring momentum to the vacuum, creating a 'flow' of massive vacuum.
6. However, the vacuum is special: we cannot detect motion through the vacuum. Once it is moving, it has 'dark momentum' - actually I quite like that name. 'dark momentum' is inherent in 'dark matter' after all...
7. Similarly, variations in the local mass-density of the vacuum on astronomical scales might account for 'dark matter'.
8. The EMdrive is propellant-less much like an Ocean Liner: it finds its reaction mass in its path. It is indeed not a rocket.
9. Gradients in the local velocity field of the vacuum caused by the EMdrive might cause local gravitational effects, which would be expected to dissipate quickly, much like the wake of a ship. However, a ship is not limited in its thrust to power ratio by the energy to momentum ratio of the waves which dissipate its wake. Nature takes as long as it needs to do that.
But I am not sure I have understood all the implications of this theory. For example, I do not see the link between 3 and 4. The fact that the mass density is uniform should not justify that there is no gravity effect. (The vacuum catastrophe)
In fact, thinking about this later, the only way the vacuum gets to be self gravitating and nearly uniform is if it produces a repulsive force, at least on itself. Otherwise it would agglomerate like ordinary matter. Quite interesting in the context of the cosmological constant/dark energy. From the point of view of this idea, it doesn't matter what the sign of the force is.QuoteAlso, I am not sure than 3 and 6 are compatible. If any non uniformity of the quantuum vacuum dissipates quickly, it would be logical that the dark momentum also dissipates quickly.
Don't think it really matters. If the EMDrive persuades a massive vacuum to move, and transfers momentum to it, the job is done. It doesn't really matter whether it takes micro-seconds or millenia for the vacuum to stop moving (since uniform motion through the vacuum is not detectable). (I'm voting for micro-seconds, because I think the metric stresses induced at the edge of the 'wake', as well as repulsive gravity, will soon even things out.)QuoteBy The Way, a general question about Quantuum Vacuum. Is there an experimental evidence that the density of Quantuum vacuum is the same in deep space than in laboratory on earth ?
Don't know. We know there is strong evidence for invisible stuff in galaxies with gravitational effects, which we've called dark matter. I would contend that could be variations in the mass-density of the vacuum. Again, whether effects are cause by a surfeit of attractive forces or a deficit of repulsive forces doesn't matter to the EMdrive. If the forces are repulsive, there is a better chance of explaining dark energy with the same paradigm as dark matter.
To throw in some numbers: Wiki says that the density of dark matter around the sun is 0.35GeV/cm^3. That's 0.56*10^-4 J/m^3. It also says that the vacuum energy is 10^-9 J/m^3, or 10^113 if you do the quantum calculation. Not as promising as one would like, but not conclusive, I think.QuoteShould it be compatible with known experiments that the density of Quantuum vacuum is lower in deep space ? I know it is not supposed to be the case, but is it also against experimental evidence ?
Again, don't know, and Wiki doesn't seem to know anything about the topic. -
#1750 by Bob012345 on 17 Oct, 2016 17:30
-
To me, EM waves occupy a unique frame thus the cavity is always open wrt radiation. Shawyer is probably correct but even if not, they way they use it to undermine the EmDrive rather than look into it is disheartening
The entire motivation for special relativity is that EM waves don't have a special frame. Experiments showing that the ether didn't exist is the original evidence for special relativity (although it was originally motivated theoretically by the apparent frame independence in Maxwell's equations.)
There is zero chance that Shawyer's claims are correct within special relativity. When he makes these claims he immediately discredits himself. What is unfortunate is Shawyer's insistence on repeating claims that to experienced physicists are equivalent to 1+1 = 3. When presented with such a claim, it is completely reasonable to not look into it further.
The fact that light propagates at c as observed in every frame defines a unique frame in my view for light and that has nothing to do with the concept of ether.
And exactly how are you so absolutely sure about Shawyer's claims having zero chance of being correct since no one knows exactly how the device works in the first place?
Experienced physicists sometimes are too quick to reject new ideas that don't immediately fit into their comfortable paradigms.
-
#1751 by Bob012345 on 17 Oct, 2016 17:42
-
There has been a lot of excitement and new ideas floating around here lately, especially since the Shawyer patent. It would be really useful if an expert could summarize the flow of though among the builders and theorists in just a few sentences. Thanks.
-
#1752 by rfmwguy on 17 Oct, 2016 18:21
-
There has been a lot of excitement and new ideas floating around here lately, especially since the Shawyer patent. It would be really useful if an expert could summarize the flow of though among the builders and theorists in just a few sentences. Thanks.
Each builder will have their own thoughts. Mine is not centered around a specific theory. There are many good and bad theories available to builders. For me, none have led me to a particular design concept or improvement modification...yet. But that could change.
edit - forgot the link to one of my favorite quotes:
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-today-s-scientists-have-substituted-mathematics-for-experiments-and-they-wander-off-through-nikola-tesla-183687.jpg -
#1753 by Rodal on 17 Oct, 2016 18:39
-
There has been a lot of excitement and new ideas floating around here lately, especially since the Shawyer patent. It would be really useful if an expert could summarize the flow of though among the builders and theorists in just a few sentences. Thanks.
The problem with such a summary is that such an "expert" would have to properly understand all the theories being summarized
-
#1754 by X_RaY on 17 Oct, 2016 20:09
-
At the moment I explore the Brady cone with dielectric insert around 2.4GHz. It seems that with little modification in thickness(little thinner/smaller) of the dielectric, the frustum would able to resonat in TE013 using standard kitchen magnetron frequencies. The most interesting thing is that the middle lobe contains the highest value regarding the field strength in this case. Seeing this in the field pattern it remember me to the elecrton/positron "e/p plasma mirror" as shown in the the pics below.
The mesh in this run was realy coarse, therefore it will need future calculations... It's still running
I will post the results for the original dimensions when it's done.
-
#1755 by SeeShells on 17 Oct, 2016 20:47
-
At the moment I explore the Brady cone with dielectric insert around 2.4GHz. It seems that with little modification in thickness(little thinner/smaller) of the dielectric, the frustum would able to resonat in TE013 using standard kitchen magnetron frequencies. The most interesting thing is that the middle lobe contains the highest value regarding the field strength in this case. Seeing this in the field pattern it remember me to the elecrton/positron "e/p plasma mirror" as shown in the the pics below.
I'm looking forward to seeing your TE013 mode as the TM modes are the preferred modes for particle accelerators.
The mesh in this run was realy coarse, therefore it will need future calculations... It's still running I will post the results for the original dimensions when it's done.
Shell -
#1756 by Monomorphic on 17 Oct, 2016 20:54
-
At the moment I explore the Brady cone with dielectric insert around 2.4GHz. It seems that with little modification in thickness(little thinner/smaller) of the dielectric, the frustum would able to resonat in TE013 using standard kitchen magnetron frequencies. The most interesting thing is that the middle lobe contains the highest value regarding the field strength in this case. Seeing this in the field pattern it remember me to the elecrton/positron "e/p plasma mirror" as shown in the the pics below.
The mesh in this run was realy coarse, therefore it will need future calculations... It's still running I will post the results for the original dimensions when it's done.
What are you using for an antenna? I've been working on modeling the magnetron antenna with cap. The size of a maggie antenna is enough to change resonance I am discovering.
-
#1757 by Stormbringer on 18 Oct, 2016 02:16
-
article on superconducting em drive patent by Shawyer.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/superconducting-emdrive-patented.html -
#1758 by dustinthewind on 18 Oct, 2016 02:52
-
...
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.
I found this paper Consequences of Dirac theory of the positron by W Heisenberg, H Euler 2006 where they consider the interaction of light with the vacuum and how it may modify the Maxwell equations. Following this article I came across the ones below.
Multiple colliding electromagnetic pulses: a way to lower the threshold of e+ e− pair production from vacuum by SS Bulanov et al. 2010 where they seem to have found a way to lower the electric field threshold to create pairs by using pulses.
Quantum fluids of light by I Carusotto, C Ciuti 2013 where I believe they are investigating light light interaction with the quantum vacuum. There is a lot of information following these links so this is just a jumping point probably. This article is also very large.QuoteCONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES: In this review we have summarized recent developments in the theoretical and experimental study of gases of interacting photons in solid-state systems. An effective photon mass appears as a result of spatial confinement along the growth axis, while the nonlinear optical susceptibility of the material medium induces sizable binary interactions between photons. Strong coupling of the photon with some long-lived electronic excitation in the medium is a succesful strategy to reinforce binary interaction between the dressed bosonic particles that arise from the mixing of light with the matter excitation, the so-called polaritons.
If I am correct here they are discussing the creation of pair production using pulses and achieving a much lower energy threshold. It seems like the pulses may be tuned to osculate the pairs in a non-linear way. It appears the pair changes in mass as they are created which if I am correct then seems similar to assuming the pair exist in the vacuum and as they separate the mass changes till full separation. Correct me here if I am wrong please. Finite size effects in stimulated laser pair production by Thomas Heinzl, Anton Ilderton, Mattias Marklund 2010
If I am correct the pairs are stimulated in the electric field regions but are pushed toward the magnetic field regions. -
#1759 by X_RaY on 18 Oct, 2016 05:20
-
The bigger field strength in the middle lobe seems due to the squeezing of the field an this section while inside the dielectric there is mode space to propagate from the viewpoint of the em field because of the higher dielectric constant x'=x*√εr. The weaker field in the dielectric has also to do with the tanδ of the material, but I think thats secound order since its only of the order of 0.00031.At the moment I explore the Brady cone with dielectric insert around 2.4GHz. It seems that with little modification in thickness(little thinner/smaller) of the dielectric, the frustum would able to resonat in TE013 using standard kitchen magnetron frequencies. The most interesting thing is that the middle lobe contains the highest value regarding the field strength in this case. Seeing this in the field pattern it remember me to the elecrton/positron "e/p plasma mirror" as shown in the the pics below.
I'm looking forward to seeing your TE013 mode as the TM modes are the preferred modes for particle accelerators.
The mesh in this run was realy coarse, therefore it will need future calculations... It's still running I will post the results for the original dimensions when it's done.
Shell
That's a pun on evanescent waves... right? lol 
I will post the results for the original dimensions when it's done.