-
#1440 by Mulletron on 11 Sep, 2017 15:20
-
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.
Pics included for research purposes.
May I suggest that the rubber pad allowed room for the copper block to move back and forth, thus allowed more intense vibration? If so, it can be replaced with a compressed spring.
It looks to me like the rubber pad is the dissipative element, serving the same function as the dielectric disc in an EMdrive. They're both lowering the amount of reflected energy by turning it into heat. They both serve to facilitate a partial standing wave.
If you really think about it, it's immediately obvious why a fully superconducting EMdrive is a BAD idea. You better have a load on it. -
#1441 by PotomacNeuron on 11 Sep, 2017 17:34
-
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.
Pics included for research purposes.
May I suggest that the rubber pad allowed room for the copper block to move back and forth, thus allowed more intense vibration? If so, it can be replaced with a compressed spring.
It looks to me like the rubber pad is the dissipative element, serving the same function as the dielectric disc in an EMdrive. They're both lowering the amount of reflected energy by turning it into heat. They both serve to facilitate a partial standing wave.
If you really think about it, it's immediately obvious why a fully superconducting EMdrive is a BAD idea. You better have a load on it.
Do you predict the "thrust" to change direction, if the rubber washer is installed on the other side (on the nut side, not on the bolt side)? From my understanding of how it worked, the "thrust" will likely change direction. -
#1442 by Bob012345 on 11 Sep, 2017 18:16
-
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.
That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.
Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?
If it works I think it works without such complications. I think that's just a function of the Shawyer theory which I'm not endorsing.
I agree. I believe in the end it is going to be Dr. White's theory that is going to be the correct one in which the drive is basically interacting with the interstellar medium at the quantum level essentially making it an open system.
Sorry, but I feel that relying on the vacuum and virtual photons is no better than resorting to mysticism. -
#1443 by Bob012345 on 11 Sep, 2017 18:22
-
...
That's perfectly consistent with M-theory since electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all well confined within this brane! Ultimately the best possible physical evidence would have to do with gravitons, and the limit for this can be well beyond any physical collider, not possible for several generations. That's why many physicists are concentrating on black hole thermodynamics-information issues, etc.
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
To use such arguments against M-theory would be like Aristotle against the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C. Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom. Aristotle was wrong. But of course there was no possible way for physical experiments in the 5th century B.C. to prove the existence of the atoms. Similarly there is no possible way to prove or falsify string theory at this moment in time, as it was not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the atoms in the 5th century BC. That didn't make Democritus wrong for thinking of the atom centuries before it was possible to prove its experimental existence. Fortunately we had people that thought about that, way before it was possible to experimentally prove it
No need make arguments against M-theory. It's proponents must make arguments it exists and so far, there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective. -
#1444 by Rodal on 11 Sep, 2017 18:28
-
<<there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.>>...
That's perfectly consistent with M-theory since electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all well confined within this brane! Ultimately the best possible physical evidence would have to do with gravitons, and the limit for this can be well beyond any physical collider, not possible for several generations. That's why many physicists are concentrating on black hole thermodynamics-information issues, etc.
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
To use such arguments against M-theory would be like Aristotle against the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C. Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom. Aristotle was wrong. But of course there was no possible way for physical experiments in the 5th century B.C. to prove the existence of the atoms. Similarly there is no possible way to prove or falsify string theory at this moment in time, as it was not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the atoms in the 5th century BC. That didn't make Democritus wrong for thinking of the atom centuries before it was possible to prove its experimental existence. Fortunately we had people that thought about that, way before it was possible to experimentally prove it
No need make arguments against M-theory. It's proponents must make arguments it exists and so far, there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.
. M-theory nowadays is based on the AdS/CFT correspondence (or in matrix theory).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence
which is not vague, by objective standards.
For someone who has asked others to be humble, please notice the outstanding people behind AdS/CFT correspondence: Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Edward Witten (both at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton), Alexander Markovich Polyakov, and agreed to by Stephen Hawkings.
If you disagree, please let us know what quantum gravity version is less "vague" or what is your preferred alternative to the AdS/CFT correspondence, that in your words is not <<completely subjective.>>.
Also as to being <<completely subjective>>, by 2015, Maldacena's article had over 10,000 citations, becoming the most highly cited article in the field of high energy physics.
Please let us know what article you can cite that has a greater number of citations in the field of high energy physics, since number of citations is one of the most acknowledged ways to objectively assess the importance of a publication. -
#1445 by flux_capacitor on 11 Sep, 2017 18:49
-
<<there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.>>...
That's perfectly consistent with M-theory since electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all well confined within this brane! Ultimately the best possible physical evidence would have to do with gravitons, and the limit for this can be well beyond any physical collider, not possible for several generations. That's why many physicists are concentrating on black hole thermodynamics-information issues, etc.
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
To use such arguments against M-theory would be like Aristotle against the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C. Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom. Aristotle was wrong. But of course there was no possible way for physical experiments in the 5th century B.C. to prove the existence of the atoms. Similarly there is no possible way to prove or falsify string theory at this moment in time, as it was not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the atoms in the 5th century BC. That didn't make Democritus wrong for thinking of the atom centuries before it was possible to prove its experimental existence. Fortunately we had people that thought about that, way before it was possible to experimentally prove it
No need make arguments against M-theory. It's proponents must make arguments it exists and so far, there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective. reveals either lack of awareness or only a vague understanding of the AdS/CFT correspondence. M-theory nowadays is based on the AdS/CFT correspondence (or in matrix theory).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence
which is not vague, by objective standards.
For someone who has asked others to be humble, please notice the outstanding people behind AdS/CFT correspondence: Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Edward Witten (both at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton), Alexander Markovich Polyakov, and agreed to by Stephen Hawkings.
If you disagree, please let us know what quantum gravity version is less "vague" or what is your preferred alternative to the AdS/CFT correspondence, that in your words is not <<completely subjective.>>.
Also as to being <<completely subjective>>, by 2015, Maldacena's article had over 10,000 citations, becoming the most highly cited article in the field of high energy physics.
Please let us know what article you can cite that has a greater number of citations in the field of high energy physics, since number of citations is one of the most acknowledged ways to objectively assess the importance of a publication.
This is a really high number of citations indeed, and the finest quantum bigwigs supporting it. Reminds me of the incredible large numbers of publications devoted to string theory over the past decades.
I'm curious about one thing: what does Jim Woodward, a true GR specialist who you work with, think of such things as "quantum gravity" theories? That is to say, the effective marriage of general relativity with quantum mechanics?
I am only interested in the practical aspects of these theories, that is to say: how to concretely build propellantless thrusters and enable spacetime engineering.
-
#1446 by Rodal on 11 Sep, 2017 19:05
-
...
This is a really high number of citations indeed, and the finest quantum bigwigs supporting it. Reminds me of the incredible large numbers of publications devoted to string theory over the past decades.
I'm curious about one thing: what does Jim Woodward, a true GR specialist who you work with, think of such things as "quantum gravity" theories? That is to say, the effective marriage of general relativity with quantum mechanics?
I am only interested in the practical aspects of these theories, that is to say: how to concretely build propellantless thrusters and enable spacetime engineering.
Sorry, it would be inappropriate for me to write or say anything on behalf of anyone else's opinions on any subject including quantum gravity. They can speak and write for themselves and do not need me to convey their opinions
My opinions are my own. -
#1447 by flux_capacitor on 11 Sep, 2017 19:21
-
...
This is a really high number of citations indeed, and the finest quantum bigwigs supporting it. Reminds me of the incredible large numbers of publications devoted to string theory over the past decades.
I'm curious about one thing: what does Jim Woodward, a true GR specialist who you work with, think of such things as "quantum gravity" theories? That is to say, the effective marriage of general relativity with quantum mechanics?
I am only interested in the practical aspects of these theories, that is to say: how to concretely build propellantless thrusters and enable spacetime engineering.
Sorry, it would be inappropriate for me to write or say anything about anyone else's opinions on any subject including quantum gravity. They can speak and write for themselves and do not need me to convey their opinions
Too bad then, since Dr Woodward doesn't write on any public forum like NSF, only privately or semi-privately. Not anyone –including physicists– is fond of brane collisions, information firewalls against evaporating black holes, ZPF, QVF, multiverse and all that kind of cosmic quantum things (to prevent any explanation of all the terms in the short list of examples I have just cited: they are not directly related together, I know). That's how I read Bob012345's last comments. -
#1448 by Bob012345 on 11 Sep, 2017 19:22
-
<<there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.>>...
That's perfectly consistent with M-theory since electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all well confined within this brane! Ultimately the best possible physical evidence would have to do with gravitons, and the limit for this can be well beyond any physical collider, not possible for several generations. That's why many physicists are concentrating on black hole thermodynamics-information issues, etc.
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
To use such arguments against M-theory would be like Aristotle against the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C. Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom. Aristotle was wrong. But of course there was no possible way for physical experiments in the 5th century B.C. to prove the existence of the atoms. Similarly there is no possible way to prove or falsify string theory at this moment in time, as it was not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the atoms in the 5th century BC. That didn't make Democritus wrong for thinking of the atom centuries before it was possible to prove its experimental existence. Fortunately we had people that thought about that, way before it was possible to experimentally prove it
No need make arguments against M-theory. It's proponents must make arguments it exists and so far, there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective. . M-theory nowadays is based on the AdS/CFT correspondence (or in matrix theory).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence
which is not vague, by objective standards.
For someone who has asked others to be humble, please notice the outstanding people behind AdS/CFT correspondence: Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Edward Witten (both at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton), Alexander Markovich Polyakov, and agreed to by Stephen Hawkings.
If you disagree, please let us know what quantum gravity version is less "vague" or what is your preferred alternative to the AdS/CFT correspondence, that in your words is not <<completely subjective.>>.
Also as to being <<completely subjective>>, by 2015, Maldacena's article had over 10,000 citations, becoming the most highly cited article in the field of high energy physics.
Please let us know what article you can cite that has a greater number of citations in the field of high energy physics, since number of citations is one of the most acknowledged ways to objectively assess the importance of a publication.
I'm sorry if I offended you sensibilities. But all you're telling me is that the community is excited by certain mathematical techniques regarding a conjectured relationship between two kinds of physical theories. Then, you're making an argument from authority that I should just shut up and accept its significance unless I prepared to argue on their level which I admit I not. So, I'll shut up on M-theory.
What I will say is this, what you are doing regarding your work on the Mach effect with professors Woodward and Fearn and the rest of the team is where the important physics is. You and the team are doing significant work of far more importance than even Hawking, t' Hooft or Witten have ever done in my mind.
-
#1449 by SeeShells on 11 Sep, 2017 19:28
-
It's all mystic Bob. You think somehow particles are real, a physical hunk of something? It's all just energy, in a different form.When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.
That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.
Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?
If it works I think it works without such complications. I think that's just a function of the Shawyer theory which I'm not endorsing.
I agree. I believe in the end it is going to be Dr. White's theory that is going to be the correct one in which the drive is basically interacting with the interstellar medium at the quantum level essentially making it an open system.
Sorry, but I feel that relying on the vacuum and virtual photons is no better than resorting to mysticism.
Shell
-
#1450 by RERT on 11 Sep, 2017 19:28
-
As a lay observer, I'm not impressed by citation counts or famous names. 97% of scientists and the Pope can say they believe something, that doesn't make it a good theory. What may do that is an inevitable prediction of some observations, preferably in advance of their measurement, which turns out to be correct where earlier theories are wrong. My 2 cents.
-
#1451 by Bob012345 on 11 Sep, 2017 19:36
-
It's all mystic Bob. You think somehow particles are real, a physical hunk of something? It's all just energy, in a different form.When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.
That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.
Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?
If it works I think it works without such complications. I think that's just a function of the Shawyer theory which I'm not endorsing.
I agree. I believe in the end it is going to be Dr. White's theory that is going to be the correct one in which the drive is basically interacting with the interstellar medium at the quantum level essentially making it an open system.
Sorry, but I feel that relying on the vacuum and virtual photons is no better than resorting to mysticism.
Shell
At least we can measure particles and energy so energy is real. I'd be happy with a purely experimental and empirical version of physics but that's just my subjective opinion. People built great electrical machines before they knew about electrons. I hope people build great propellent-less thruster technology even if they don't understand why it works yet. -
#1452 by tchernik on 11 Sep, 2017 20:08
-
As a lay observer, I'm not impressed by citation counts or famous names. 97% of scientists and the Pope can say they believe something, that doesn't make it a good theory. What may do that is an inevitable prediction of some observations, preferably in advance of their measurement, which turns out to be correct where earlier theories are wrong. My 2 cents.
It's human to give more credence to the opinions of the wise and powerful. It's bad science to settle the truth or falsehood of things on that alone.
Not all things under the Sun have been discovered. Not everything that happens around us has an explanation. There probably is a universe of unknown phenomena (just physics, nothing paranormal) we don't know because we haven't found the way to express and witness them. And some of them may be within the reach of a humble DIY experimenter.
While admitting some people do know a lot, way more than me or any other average citizen, I still side more with any modern Galileo checking if it moves, regardless, than with the Popes and Bishops. -
#1453 by OnlyMe on 11 Sep, 2017 21:22
-
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.
That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.
Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?
If it works I think it works without such complications. I think that's just a function of the Shawyer theory which I'm not endorsing.
I agree. I believe in the end it is going to be Dr. White's theory that is going to be the correct one in which the drive is basically interacting with the interstellar medium at the quantum level essentially making it an open system.
Sorry, but I feel that relying on the vacuum and virtual photons is no better than resorting to mysticism.
There are very few clear descriptions of exactly what the quantum vacuum is and of what is imagined from what is predicted. Not all versions are mutually inclusive.
The idea that there is a quantum vacuum that exists fully independently with virtual photons, particles and a variety of fields, popping in and out of existence continuously, is a bit difficult to accept and reconcile with observable reality, other than as a function of mathematical models, generally because it is limited to a construct of the mind and beyond any ability to observe and confirm.
On the other hand, if by the quantum vacuum, one refers to the existence of, to varying degrees, strong, weak and electromagnetic field potentials that interact with material objects.., matter.., as a function of the boundary conditions of the fundamental particles, atoms and perhaps even perhaps the molecules an object is composed of, it becomes difficult to believe otherwise... Do those boundary condition interactions result in interactions between the quantum vacuum and matter that can be described as interactions with virtual photons or even virtual fundamental particles? There are mathematical models that suggests the answer is yes and may even be some indirect supporting evidence.
Can we learn to manipulate those interactions in a functionally useable manner? Maybe, maybe not.., we will see!
There are so many fundamental assumptions in physics as we understand it today, that might one day be described by just those sorts of interactions, that an open mind on this issue would seem best practice.
-
#1454 by Mulletron on 11 Sep, 2017 21:29
-
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.
Pics included for research purposes.
May I suggest that the rubber pad allowed room for the copper block to move back and forth, thus allowed more intense vibration? If so, it can be replaced with a compressed spring.
It looks to me like the rubber pad is the dissipative element, serving the same function as the dielectric disc in an EMdrive. They're both lowering the amount of reflected energy by turning it into heat. They both serve to facilitate a partial standing wave.
If you really think about it, it's immediately obvious why a fully superconducting EMdrive is a BAD idea. You better have a load on it.
Do you predict the "thrust" to change direction, if the rubber washer is installed on the other side (on the nut side, not on the bolt side)? From my understanding of how it worked, the "thrust" will likely change direction.
It looks like there's long bolts entering the aluminum end and going all the way through to the brass end and the mount and fastened with nuts on the back. It makes sense that if one were to reverse the bolts and attach the aluminum end to the mount with the rubber separator in between, that the thrust would follow the direction of the rubber gasket.
-
#1455 by OnlyMe on 11 Sep, 2017 21:44
-
<<there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.>>...
That's perfectly consistent with M-theory since electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all well confined within this brane! Ultimately the best possible physical evidence would have to do with gravitons, and the limit for this can be well beyond any physical collider, not possible for several generations. That's why many physicists are concentrating on black hole thermodynamics-information issues, etc.
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
To use such arguments against M-theory would be like Aristotle against the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C. Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom. Aristotle was wrong. But of course there was no possible way for physical experiments in the 5th century B.C. to prove the existence of the atoms. Similarly there is no possible way to prove or falsify string theory at this moment in time, as it was not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the atoms in the 5th century BC. That didn't make Democritus wrong for thinking of the atom centuries before it was possible to prove its experimental existence. Fortunately we had people that thought about that, way before it was possible to experimentally prove it
No need make arguments against M-theory. It's proponents must make arguments it exists and so far, there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective. . M-theory nowadays is based on the AdS/CFT correspondence (or in matrix theory).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence
which is not vague, by objective standards.
For someone who has asked others to be humble, please notice the outstanding people behind AdS/CFT correspondence: Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Edward Witten (both at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton), Alexander Markovich Polyakov, and agreed to by Stephen Hawkings.
If you disagree, please let us know what quantum gravity version is less "vague" or what is your preferred alternative to the AdS/CFT correspondence, that in your words is not <<completely subjective.>>.
Also as to being <<completely subjective>>, by 2015, Maldacena's article had over 10,000 citations, becoming the most highly cited article in the field of high energy physics.
Please let us know what article you can cite that has a greater number of citations in the field of high energy physics, since number of citations is one of the most acknowledged ways to objectively assess the importance of a publication.
Dr. Rodal,
I agree this seems like an argument from authority. Especially where the list of names you invoke all seem to be either involved with the origins or developement of string theory to varying extents. I haven't followed Hawlkings as it relates to this issue, but tagging his name on the end, is in many respects akin to invoking Einstein's name in other discussions.
As I believe someone else attempted to mention, in different words.., there are almost certainly many authorities working on gravitation both from the context of general relativity and quantum gravity (not associated with string theory) that are less enthusiastic with the viability of string theory, as representing the future, of any real understanding, of real world observations.
-
#1456 by Mulletron on 11 Sep, 2017 22:00
-
I don't understand why people can simultaneously say that gravity isn't a force (it isn't) and at the same time gravitation is a member of the fundamental force club. Probably why it hasn't been quantized yet.
-
#1457 by ThereIWas3 on 11 Sep, 2017 22:03
-
Now if the string-therorists can propose an explanation as to how the Em-drive works, which can then be supported by experiments involving this so-far mysterious effect, that would advance their popularity among other physicists as well as helping to refine Em-drive efficiency. XKCD on the scientific method
-
#1458 by TheTraveller on 11 Sep, 2017 22:03
-
Patent GB 2493361 entitled High Q Microwave Radiation Thruster has now been granted to SPR by the UK Intellectual Property Office.
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2493361
The EmDrive design guidelines are also now online:
http://www.emdrive.com/GeneralPrinciples.pdf
Enjoy.
-
#1459 by Rodal on 11 Sep, 2017 22:10
-
....
If you follow the "string" you will see that this whole thing started by me answering someone's honest question about the issue that gravitation travels at the speed of light. Somehow this devolved into a free-for-all about the fashionable bashing of M-theory. How does any of this bashing against M-theory, Witten, Susskind, Maldacena, etc. relate to the EM Drive, I have no idea.
I agree this seems like an argument from authority. Especially where the list of names you invoke all seem to be either involved with the origins or developement of string theory to varying extents. I haven't followed Hawlkings as it relates to this issue, but tagging his name on the end, is in many respects akin to invoking Einstein's name in other discussions.
As I believe someone else attempted to mention, in different words.., there are almost certainly many authorities working on gravitation both from the context of general relativity and quantum gravity (not associated with string theory) that are less enthusiastic with the viability of string theory, as representing the future, of any real understanding, of real world observations.
Keep on bashing M-theory it it makes you feel good Perhaps this should be done in a new thread to be titled "Let's bash string theory because I'm mad as hell against strings and branes and multiverses and I'm not going to take it anymore" 
. M-theory nowadays is based on the AdS/CFT correspondence (or in matrix theory).
