I'm working some today on the RF system. I have around 28dB (0.631W) functioning now. That's about the most one is going to get out of the chinese signal generator, small pre-amp, and 8W (yeah right) wifi amplifier. I think I can boost that another watt or so by daisy chaining two of the pre-amps together. I've asked Dave if he still has his and have two more coming on the slow boat from china. One bonus, the new pre-amps have a convenient shield over the transistor to prevent RF leakage. If that doesn't work, then i'll purchase a 30W Spectran amplifier for $175.
Even at 0.63W, the frustum is calculated to produce 0.228mN force. That is within the detection range of my torsional pendulum. However, I will feel more comfortable running powered tests with more favorable margins. 
Please remember to take temperature readings of both ends of the frustum when you conduct the test. The best way would be to use thermal couples and a data logger with a rapid sampling time, 1 S/sec, but short of that a FLIR camera snapshots would still provide some data.
It would also be a great idea to put a receiving antenna in front and behind the frustum, and see if there is any output signal from either end, at the resonant frequency.
These things would help to answer a lot of open questions.
...Even at 0.63W, the frustum is calculated to produce 0.228mN force...
According to what theory ?
and how does that compare with other predictions (McCullough, Notsosureofit...)
According to Shawyer's theory and TheTraveler's spreadsheet. I'm not sure about McCullough or Notsosureofit. Perhaps others can chime in with regard to those.
Using my theory (roughly speaking), I get a mode independent geometrical factor;
F = 0.054 * (P
in*Q/(2*pi*f))
If you would be so kind as to plugin these unknown variables, you will have my ball park prediction. With the thrust having the big end
leading, small end trailing behind.
According to the data in the wiki, this is the largest geometric factor of any EmDrive other than Shawyer's data. It would be higher if the big end were a little larger.
However, I think that the thickness of the small end plate has a lot to do with it. My goal is to test this hypothesis with different end plate materials and thicknesses, at the small end. Whilst making the big end thick and solid, with a good heatsink.
I'm working some today on the RF system. I have around 28dB (0.631W) functioning now. That's about the most one is going to get out of the chinese signal generator, small pre-amp, and 8W (yeah right) wifi amplifier. I think I can boost that another watt or so by daisy chaining two of the pre-amps together. I've asked Dave if he still has his and have two more coming on the slow boat from china. One bonus, the new pre-amps have a convenient shield over the transistor to prevent RF leakage. If that doesn't work, then i'll purchase a 30W Spectran amplifier for $175.
Even at 0.63W, the frustum is calculated to produce 0.228mN force. That is within the detection range of my torsional pendulum. However, I will feel more comfortable running powered tests with more favorable margins.
Please remember to take temperature readings of both ends of the frustum when you conduct the test. The best way would be to use thermal couples and a data logger with a rapid sampling time, 1 S/sec, but short of that a FLIR camera snapshots would still provide some data.
It would also be a great idea to put a receiving antenna in front and behind the frustum, and see if there is any output signal from either end, at the resonant frequency.
These things would help to answer a lot of open questions.
For the 0.63W there's almost no chance to verify the mode shape using a cheap IR-cam. Not sure about the 30W but i guess it could be difficult due to the small resistance of copper.
What is the noise equivalent temperature difference(NETD) of the uncooled FLIR (bolometer?) array? (Some suppliers call this value "sensitivity" in mK)
*On the other hand there is a simple test to verify a TE0 mode! As discussed in the past there is no currents flow between the endlpate and the frustum sidewall.
Therefore the resonance don't will disturbed then shifting one of the plates against the frustum, maybe small frequency shift, but to spiks in the spectrum due to contact issuse which take place in such a situation for most other modes.(i.e. noise in the spectrum when moving the plate against the flange)
Alternatively take a pice of paper or something similar and place it between the flange, if the Q dont change much its the searched TE013 mode with high confidence. (Changing the coupling between endplate and frustum from galvanic to capacitive will lower the Q of most other modes especially TM-modes)
I addition all sims show all other modes are quite far away.
*backed by experiments
I'm working some today on the RF system. I have around 28dB (0.631W) functioning now. That's about the most one is going to get out of the chinese signal generator, small pre-amp, and 8W (yeah right) wifi amplifier. I think I can boost that another watt or so by daisy chaining two of the pre-amps together. I've asked Dave if he still has his and have two more coming on the slow boat from china. One bonus, the new pre-amps have a convenient shield over the transistor to prevent RF leakage. If that doesn't work, then i'll purchase a 30W Spectran amplifier for $175.
Even at 0.63W, the frustum is calculated to produce 0.228mN force. That is within the detection range of my torsional pendulum. However, I will feel more comfortable running powered tests with more favorable margins.
Please remember to take temperature readings of both ends of the frustum when you conduct the test. The best way would be to use thermal couples and a data logger with a rapid sampling time, 1 S/sec, but short of that a FLIR camera snapshots would still provide some data.
It would also be a great idea to put a receiving antenna in front and behind the frustum, and see if there is any output signal from either end, at the resonant frequency.
These things would help to answer a lot of open questions.
For the 0.63W there's almost no chance to verify the mode shape using a cheap IR-cam. Not sure about the 30W but i guess it could be difficult due to the small resistance of copper.
What is the noise equivalent temperature difference(NETD) of the uncooled FLIR (bolometer?) array? (Some suppliers call this value "sensitivity" in mK)
On the other hand there is a simple test to verify a TE0 mode! As discussed in the past there is no currents flow between the endlpate and the frustum sidewall.
Therefore the resonance don't will disturbed then shifting one of the plates against the frustum, maybe small frequency shift, but to spiks in the spectrum due to contact issuse which take place in such a situation for most other modes.(i.e. noise in the spectrum when moving the plate against the flange)
Alternatively take a pice of paper or something similar and place it between the flange, if the Q dont change much its the searched TE013 mode with high confidence.
I addition all sims show all other modes are quite far away.
I was more interested in showing asymmetrical power dissipation, but you're right. A FLIR should also be used to check mode shape. With his thin foil tape sidewalls, after a minute or two, it should be quite evident that there are 3 warmer rings around the frustum, when in TE013 mode.
New cover article reports further about NASA's EM Drive and Dr. White
First time that Dr. White talks to the press in ages !AIAA Aerospace American article February 2017
COVER STORY ADAM HADHAZY
http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/Aerospace_America_PDFs_2017/February2017/Feature1_FuelFree_AeroAmericaFeb2017.pdf...
Even the paper’s lead author isn’t sure whether the mysterious phenomenon is real.
...
White seems unfazed by the hubbub surrounding
his experiment and is planning his next
move. To further tackle the possible bugaboo of
EmDrive thermal expansion and contraction, he
and his team want to run similar tests on a type
of apparatus called a Cavendish balance. In such
a setup, the EmDrive could rotate out to much
larger angular displacements, such that the thrust
force would dominate over any thermal effects.
Additional findings also might help to define the
underlying physics. “Those are two major brushstrokes
that we’ll be applying to the canvas,”
White says. Beyond these next steps, White says
it is premature to consider, say, altering the shape
of the test article or the frequency of the microwaves
to try and squeeze out more oomph. “We
really don’t have a good sense yet of what particular
dials there are for us to be able to grab onto
and turn and be able to say you can do this, that
or the other,” he says. “We’re very much in the
early phases of trying to understand the engineering
and physics and how they interact with
one another.”
[The lead author of the NASA peer-reviewed paper is Dr. White]
...Even at 0.63W, the frustum is calculated to produce 0.228mN force...
According to what theory ?
and how does that compare with other predictions (McCullough, Notsosureofit...)
According to Shawyer's theory and TheTraveler's spreadsheet. I'm not sure about McCullough or Notsosureofit. Perhaps others can chime in with regard to those.
Using my theory (roughly speaking), I get a mode independent geometrical factor;
F = 0.054 * (Pin*Q/(2*pi*f))
If you would be so kind as to plugin these unknown variables, you will have my ball park prediction. With the thrust having the big end leading, small end trailing behind.
According to the data in the wiki, this is the largest geometric factor of any EmDrive other than Shawyer's data. It would be higher if the big end were a little larger.
However, I think that the thickness of the small end plate has a lot to do with it. My goal is to test this hypothesis with different end plate materials and thicknesses, at the small end. Whilst making the big end thick and solid, with a good heatsink.
That is not just "mode independent"
but geometry-independent, also it seems to have the wrong unitsAll 3 other theories (Shawyer, McCulloch and Notsosureofit) have
F/P
in = Q g/c
where c is the speed of light and g is a geometry dependent
dimensionless factor and the outperformance of the EM Drive to a perfectly collimated photon rocket is only due to the product of Q times the dimensionless geometric factor g:
(F/Pin)outperformanceOverPhotonRocket = Q g
For example, for McCulloch
g[McCulloch] =(L/Ds - L/Db)L=length, Ds=small diameter, Db=big diameter
while for Shawyer
g[Shawyer]=2 Dfwhere Df is Shawyer's Design Factor which is dimensionless
But for your theory
F/Pin = 0.054 *Q/(2*pi*f))
so that
g[WarpTech]= 0.054 *c/(2*pi*f))which appears to be dimensionally incorrect as it has the dimensions of length (since c/f has dimensions of length), rather than being dimensionless
It seems to me that you forgot to include some EM-Drive dimension (Length or Diameter) into the denominator of your equation...
Or perhaps F in your equation does not stand for the force (thrust) but the Work (force times distance), because Q is dimensionless, and f has dimension of 1/time
...Even at 0.63W, the frustum is calculated to produce 0.228mN force...
According to what theory ?
and how does that compare with other predictions (McCullough, Notsosureofit...)
According to Shawyer's theory and TheTraveler's spreadsheet. I'm not sure about McCullough or Notsosureofit. Perhaps others can chime in with regard to those.
Using my theory (roughly speaking), I get a mode independent geometrical factor;
F = 0.054 * (Pin*Q/(2*pi*f))
If you would be so kind as to plugin these unknown variables, you will have my ball park prediction. With the thrust having the big end leading, small end trailing behind.
According to the data in the wiki, this is the largest geometric factor of any EmDrive other than Shawyer's data. It would be higher if the big end were a little larger.
However, I think that the thickness of the small end plate has a lot to do with it. My goal is to test this hypothesis with different end plate materials and thicknesses, at the small end. Whilst making the big end thick and solid, with a good heatsink.
That is not just "mode independent" but geometry-independent, also it seems to have the wrong units
All 3 other theories (Shawyer, McCulloch and Notsosureofit) have
F/Pin = Q g/c
where c is the speed of light and g is a geometry dependent dimensionless factor and the outperformance of the EM Drive to a perfectly collimated photon rocket is only due to the product of Q times the dimensionless geometric factor g:
(F/Pin)outperformanceOverPhotonRocket = Q g
For example, for McCulloch
g[McCulloch] =(L/Ds - L/Db)
L=length, Ds=small diameter, Db=big diameter
while for Shawyer
g[Shawyer]=2 Df
where Df is Shawyer's Design Factor which is dimensionless
But for your theory
F/Pin = 0.054 *Q/(2*pi*f))
so that
g[WarpTech]= 0.054 *c/(2*pi*f))
which appears to be dimensionally incorrect as it has the dimensions of length (since c/f has dimensions of length), rather than being dimensionless
It seems to me that you forgot to include some EM-Drive dimension (Length or Diameter) into the denominator of your equation...
Or perhaps F in your equation does not stand for the force (thrust) but the Work (force times distance), because Q is dimensionless, and f has dimension of 1/time
Okay, I'll fix this when I get home tonight. The 0.054 is correct for the geometry, but you're right. I'm missing "something". I did it off the cuff on my lunch break. I may have missed a column in the spreadsheet. I should've waited. Thank you!
[The lead author of the NASA peer-reviewed paper is Dr. White]
That's a fine article you brought us here, thanks.
Good to know the EW saga continues.
My favorite bit was:
"and we know from physics that microwave ovens can’t fly"
by Eric Davis.
It's probably too early to say, but with all due respect to Dr. Davis, it sounds to me like other famously wrong quotes said before.
[The lead author of the NASA peer-reviewed paper is Dr. White]
That's a fine article you brought us here, thanks.
Good to know the EW saga continues.
My favorite bit was:
"and we know from physics that microwave ovens can’t fly"
by Eric Davis.
It's probably too early to say, but with all due respect to Dr. Davis, it sounds to me like other famously wrong quotes said before.
It would be funny if 50 years from now, everybody sees the EM Drive working and powering Space Travel and Davis is remembered for that quote
...
Or perhaps F in your equation does not stand for the force (thrust) but the Work (force times distance)
Okay, I'll fix this when I get home tonight. The 0.054 is correct for the geometry, but you're right. I'm missing "something". I did it off the cuff on my lunch break. I may have missed a column in the spreadsheet. I should've waited. Thank you!
Good.
I am glad that you did not answer by saying that your F stands for "displacement force"
, since unlike the other "displacement force" with units of force, your F does have units of displacement x force
But I notice that World Affairs American bimonthly website has an ".org" domain, while this journal that Shawyer published in has a ".com" domain and is instead published in India:
"a leading journal, printed and published in India. The journal seeks to provide the much needed Asian and the developing world's perspective on issues of global significance. It stimulates interaction and debate between developed and developing nations. ."
So, although it has an identical name as the American journal, this seems to be a different journal...
I am mainly interested in finding out, since this journal is published in India, whether this article by R. Shawyer has any factual information on experiments or theoretical work on the EM Drive being done in India.
Awhile back, I'd posted a youtube vid of a presentation by ISRO's Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre, and one of the later slides entitled "Advanced Propulsion Systems Concepts" included a picture of an EMdrive frustrum among other things. I wouldn't necessarily read much into that, other than it was probably an easy image to download off the NSF forum site to slap into a slide. On the other hand, I do feel that since the hardware is cheap to build, that the Indian science community should look into the idea.
As someone who occasionally scans through Indian journals, sometimes I'll come across topics like "Exploitation of Lunar Helium-3", or "SSTO Scramjet" and stuff like that - ideas which have been discarded by Western technologists, but which continue to retain popularity in India.
Since India launches various student cubesats/nanosats from around the world for free, on space-available basis, I was mulling the idea of whether a cubesat with an EMdrive could be launched by ISRO. Even if it doesn't work, it might somehow offer some lessons. If such a launch slot could be arranged, would any NSFers be able to somehow produce such an EMdrive-optimized cubesat? What would be required to obtain useful experimental data from such an opportunity? Paul March had once mentioned that 6U is a good cubesat size for an EMdrive test article.
Have had several reports, from the same Indian source, that India has engaged EmDrive and then recently cryo EmDrive development.
Also believe there are multiple (at least 4 that I know of) EmDrive development efforts in China. Apparently the EmDrive test onboard the Chinese space station was from one group and the test on the CAST GEO SJ-17 was from another group. From one source the SJ-17 test was not a success, while from another source the space station test was a success.
Hopefully Monophonic's copper foil tape thruster build will add useful data as to if that construction method is valid or not.
I would be surprised if the ISRO were not testing a cryo emdrive. There was some evidence a few years ago that they were ordering materials suitable for a large diameter SC frustum.
I'm working some today on the RF system. I have around 28dB (0.631W) functioning now. That's about the most one is going to get out of the chinese signal generator, small pre-amp, and 8W (yeah right) wifi amplifier. I think I can boost that another watt or so by daisy chaining two of the pre-amps together. I've asked Dave if he still has his and have two more coming on the slow boat from china. One bonus, the new pre-amps have a convenient shield over the transistor to prevent RF leakage. If that doesn't work, then i'll purchase a 30W Spectran amplifier for $175.
Even at 0.63W, the frustum is calculated to produce 0.228mN force. That is within the detection range of my torsional pendulum. However, I will feel more comfortable running powered tests with more favorable margins.
Monomorphic -
Just a note on amplifier availability-
I am building up my RF chain right now for some EMdrive testing - waiting on items from China as well. I am using the same pre-amps and the so-called "8 watt Wi-Fi amp" as a pre-amp to a Spectran. Here is a link to a Spectran that I have purchased which supposedly will produce about 75 to 40 watts RF at 2300 to 2450 Mhz or so when powered by 24 to 26 Vdc and with about a watt of drive. As soon as I can get the chain to a point where I can measure output with some degree of confidence and safety I will see how much it can drive into a dummy load. Price on this amp is $99.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/75W-Spectrian-Linear-RF-Amplifier-Board-2-3-2-35-GHz-18dBg-24-26V-/222376804835?hash=item33c6b0c1e3:g:4kEAAOSwZQRYePKiHopefully the attachment worked and there is a picture of the amp below.
Herman
graybeardsyseng
If there is a gravity gradient inside the frustum, how would that affect the stray air molecules within even a "hard" vacuum in the laboratory? Of course at atmospheric pressure the air molecules should also be effected but the mean free path would limit any acceleration of the molecules and so dense air in the frustum might not increase any resulting effect by that great an amount.
Please let's not forget the equivalence principle, where there is acceleration there is gravity, even if it is the consequence of an imposed force :-)
There is a difference between saying that "free fall in a gravitational field is indistinguishable from being at rest" and "accelerating produces a gravitational field"
In fact, there is no detectable acceleration when in free fall, but there obviously is when being accelerated.
Comparing free fall with rest or comparing acceleration by a constant force with support by ground in a gravitational field, all else being equal these things cannot be distinguished within the frustum.
This statement is true if by "at rest" you mean "at rest not in the presence of gravity."
This still in no way leads to the conclusion that accelerations generate gravity. If you think otherwise, I know of no better way to explain it than what I already said (with the clarification from WarpTech)
If you clarified how you think accelerations produce gravity, I could possibly explain it better for you.
If the gravitational field is non-uniform, spaghetti-fication will eventually occur due to tidal forces.
Tidal forces don't have to get to the level of causing spagettification in a non-uniform field. Even on Earth 2 balls dropped near each other would follow slightly-non parallel paths pointed at the center of the Earth. In theory a good enough instrument can detect this.
Not within the dimensions of a 2.45 GHz frustum but. The point I am attempting to make (not clearly enough) is that it would make as much sense to describe emdrive thrust as 'artificial gravity' as it would to describe it as an anomalous force.
Not within the dimensions of a 2.45 GHz frustum but. The point I am attempting to make (not clearly enough) is that it would make as much sense to describe emdrive thrust as 'artificial gravity' as it would to describe it as an anomalous force.
Disagree - There is to much in a name. Anomalous Force allows for ambiguity, it is ambiguous. Artificial gravity is very specific and rules out every other theory. At our current state of knowledge, Anomalous Force wins, hands down.
...Even at 0.63W, the frustum is calculated to produce 0.228mN force...
According to what theory ?
and how does that compare with other predictions (McCullough, Notsosureofit...)
According to Shawyer's theory and TheTraveler's spreadsheet. I'm not sure about McCullough or Notsosureofit. Perhaps others can chime in with regard to those.
Using my theory (roughly speaking), I get a mode independent geometrical factor;
F = 0.054 * (Pin*Q/(2*pi*f))
If you would be so kind as to plugin these unknown variables, you will have my ball park prediction. With the thrust having the big end leading, small end trailing behind.
According to the data in the wiki, this is the largest geometric factor of any EmDrive other than Shawyer's data. It would be higher if the big end were a little larger.
However, I think that the thickness of the small end plate has a lot to do with it. My goal is to test this hypothesis with different end plate materials and thicknesses, at the small end. Whilst making the big end thick and solid, with a good heatsink.
What I posted above is incorrect, per the current status of my theory. This was based on an older spreadsheet I had opened mistakenly, because I haven't used it in a while. What I said was true for that model, but that is not my current model.
Since I want this to be accurate, I need more characteristic data for the frustum. Can any of the modelers produce a plot of the the surface power dissipation in TE013 mode, at each end plate please? My model is not geometric, it's based on power dissipation. I don't know how to estimate it from the dimensions alone, without knowing the "H" field strength and distribution, over these two surfaces.
If that's not possible, a plot of the H field at each end would suffice.
Thank you.
This is what I have right now:
Indeed, extraordinary claims require extraordinary results/proof (I don't remember the exact quote). Nonetheless, I am still committed to a "big build" The $ account for this is just under $1,850.00. Fabricating a/the TE013 frustum is not an issue, however the build would most likely overwhelm Dave's testing equipment because of shear size. At this point in time X 2.5 larger is the goal which means the base of the frustum would equal +/- .75 meter. This is larger than what Dave said is rig would handle: (initially .666 meter LD). The frequency would be around.98 GHz were I to replicate Phil's simple design. There is still a great deal of discussion about antenna(s) design and location(s) as well as variations albeit minor changes in frustum dimensions.
I see Phil's simple design is predicted to produce 2.4 mN/force/8 Watts. I am waiting for a demonstration of any given design that would work this well, prior to building.
So, money is in hand for a big build, am now just waiting for some proven small scale specs/results.
It is important to mention that I do not have the resources to build a test rig, but will gladly provide $ for whatever RF equipment that is required. This would also include fabrication of the antenna(s). The size of the build is only going up as time goes on (Money goes into the account every two weeks). So many folks here at NSF have wanted to go for a big build, but I can't do it without your input and help. Please contact me and share your thoughts. FL
Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe
In recent decades, advances in telescopes and sensing equipment have allowed scientists to detect a vast amount of data hidden in the 'white noise' or microwaves (partly responsible for the random black and white dots you see on an un-tuned TV) left over from the moment the universe was created. Using this information, the team were able to make complex comparisons between networks of features in the data and quantum field theory. They found that some of the simplest quantum field theories could explain nearly all cosmological observations of the early universe.
Professor Skenderis comments: "Holography is a huge leap forward in the way we think about the structure and creation of the universe. Einstein's theory of general relativity explains almost everything large scale in the universe very well, but starts to unravel when examining its origins and mechanisms at quantum level. Scientists have been working for decades to combine Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum theory. Some believe the concept of a holographic universe has the potential to reconcile the two. I hope our research takes us another step towards this."
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html
And this comment underneath the article illustrates where I see this as being relevant to the theory of EM drive.
According to "What It Means to Live in a Holographic Universe" by Brian Koberlein, the holographic universe idea often is misrpresented. It actually means that all the information contained in the 3D universe can be found on the cosmological horizon, and gravity is an emergent property of the information on the horizon. I think that's what he is saying.
http://nautil.us/...universe
Here's the open access version of the paper.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04878v2.pdf
This piece of news about supposed substantial evidence for holographic universe is one of the worst examples of misleading university press releases that I can think of. The abstract of the actual article says:
We test a class of holographic models for the very early universe against cosmological observations and find that they are competitive to the standard ΛCDM model of cosmology. These models are based on three dimensional perturbative super-renormalizable Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and while they predict a different power spectrum from the standard power-law used in ΛCDM, they still provide an excellent fit to data (within their regime of validity). By comparing the Bayesian evidence for the models, we find that ΛCDM does a better job globally, while the holographic models provide a (marginally) better fit to data without very low multipoles (i.e. l≲30), where the dual QFT becomes non-perturbative. Observations can be used to exclude some QFT models, while we also find models satisfying all phenomenological constraints: the data rules out the dual theory being Yang-Mills theory coupled to fermions only, but allows for Yang-Mills theory coupled to non-minimal scalars with quartic interactions. Lattice simulations of 3d QFT's can provide non-perturbative predictions for large-angle statistics of the cosmic microwave background, and potentially explain its apparent anomalies.
Not exactly substantial (or any) evidence for holographic universe.
Indeed, extraordinary claims require extraordinary results/proof (I don't remember the exact quote). Nonetheless, I am still committed to a "big build" The $ account for this is just under $1,850.00. Fabricating a/the TE013 frustum is not an issue, however the build would most likely overwhelm Dave's testing equipment because of shear size. At this point in time X 2.5 larger is the goal which means the base of the frustum would equal +/- .75 meter. This is larger than what Dave said is rig would handle: (initially .666 meter LD). The frequency would be around.98 GHz were I to replicate Phil's simple design. There is still a great deal of discussion about antenna(s) design and location(s) as well as variations albeit minor changes in frustum dimensions.
I see Phil's simple design is predicted to produce 2.4 mN/force/8 Watts. I am waiting for a demonstration of any given design that would work this well, prior to building.
So, money is in hand for a big build, am now just waiting for some proven small scale specs/results.
It is important to mention that I do not have the resources to build a test rig, but will gladly provide $ for whatever RF equipment that is required. This would also include fabrication of the antenna(s). The size of the build is only going up as time goes on (Money goes into the account every two weeks). So many folks here at NSF have wanted to go for a big build, but I can't do it without your input and help. Please contact me and share your thoughts. FL
I would indeed wait for some more conformation, before beginning such a job. I myself don't belief this '2.4 mN/force/8 Watts' at all.
Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe
In recent decades, advances in telescopes and sensing equipment have allowed scientists to detect a vast amount of data hidden in the 'white noise' or microwaves (partly responsible for the random black and white dots you see on an un-tuned TV) left over from the moment the universe was created. Using this information, the team were able to make complex comparisons between networks of features in the data and quantum field theory. They found that some of the simplest quantum field theories could explain nearly all cosmological observations of the early universe.
Professor Skenderis comments: "Holography is a huge leap forward in the way we think about the structure and creation of the universe. Einstein's theory of general relativity explains almost everything large scale in the universe very well, but starts to unravel when examining its origins and mechanisms at quantum level. Scientists have been working for decades to combine Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum theory. Some believe the concept of a holographic universe has the potential to reconcile the two. I hope our research takes us another step towards this."
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html
And this comment underneath the article illustrates where I see this as being relevant to the theory of EM drive.
According to "What It Means to Live in a Holographic Universe" by Brian Koberlein, the holographic universe idea often is misrpresented. It actually means that all the information contained in the 3D universe can be found on the cosmological horizon, and gravity is an emergent property of the information on the horizon. I think that's what he is saying.
http://nautil.us/...universe
Here's the open access version of the paper.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04878v2.pdf
This piece of news about supposed substantial evidence for holographic universe is one of the worst examples of misleading university press releases that I can think of. The abstract of the actual article says:
We test a class of holographic models for the very early universe against cosmological observations and find that they are competitive to the standard ΛCDM model of cosmology. These models are based on three dimensional perturbative super-renormalizable Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and while they predict a different power spectrum from the standard power-law used in ΛCDM, they still provide an excellent fit to data (within their regime of validity). By comparing the Bayesian evidence for the models, we find that ΛCDM does a better job globally, while the holographic models provide a (marginally) better fit to data without very low multipoles (i.e. l≲30), where the dual QFT becomes non-perturbative. Observations can be used to exclude some QFT models, while we also find models satisfying all phenomenological constraints: the data rules out the dual theory being Yang-Mills theory coupled to fermions only, but allows for Yang-Mills theory coupled to non-minimal scalars with quartic interactions. Lattice simulations of 3d QFT's can provide non-perturbative predictions for large-angle statistics of the cosmic microwave background, and potentially explain its apparent anomalies.
Not exactly substantial (or any) evidence for holographic universe.
It still looks a better theory than inflation that is another ridiculous theoretical kludge people have come up with like dark matter to try and explain nature.
