-
#1820 by Eusa on 23 Sep, 2017 14:41
-
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001
A correction: Please cite experimental evidence for your assertion above that "Gravitation is apparently instantaneous"
A correction: information of the changes in the distribution of masses trvavels at speed c. Gravitation is apparently instantaneous. Similarly inertia seems to get space contact at its position, hence in respect of surrounding masses inertia seems to be instantaneous too. Naturally, those phenomena are common....
Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption. Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle.
Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. GR assumes that mass resists acceleration because it is mass, which is a circular argument based on faith. This could be wrong, if no other explanation for emdrive thrust is found, while it continues to be verified, then GR is an incomplete description of mechanics.
"we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding
acceleration of the reference system."
Not a circular argument.
Please let us know what experiments do you know of that have found a difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/180301/meta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principle
Please let us know what experiments you know of that have revealed a Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity.
You also state: "mass resists acceleration instantly" please let us know what experiments do you know of that prove that mass resists acceleration instantly (superluminally : much faster than the speed of light) while gravitation travels at the speed of light (not instantly)
That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime. -
#1821 by Rodal on 23 Sep, 2017 14:47
-
...
Thanks, I need some time to carefully read his paper. Extended bodies (as opposed to particles) should not exactly follow geodesics as shown in a remarkable series of papers by Dixon in the 1970's (for example http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/314/1519/499.short , http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/319/1539/509.short
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001
That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short). Only point particles follow geodesics. -
#1822 by SeeShells on 23 Sep, 2017 15:04
-
Another theory of gravity.Quote
Tilloy has modified this model to show how it can lead to a theory of gravity. In his model, when a flash collapses a wave function and causes a particle to be in one place, it creates a gravitational field at that instant in space-time. A massive quantum system with a large number of particles is subject to numerous flashes, and the result is a fluctuating gravitational field.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531444-600-spontaneous-collapses-may-show-how-to-unite-quantum-theory-and-gravity/
https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.03809 -
#1823 by Eusa on 23 Sep, 2017 15:36
-
True. Considering gravitational force equivalent with centripetal force at orbit the tidal effects i.e. mass distribution changes travelling speed c are negligible....
Thanks, I need some time to carefully read his paper. Extended bodies (as opposed to particles) should not exactly follow geodesics as shown in a remarkable series of papers by Dixon in the 1970's (for example http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/314/1519/499.short , http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/319/1539/509.short
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001
That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short). Only point particles follow geodesics. -
#1824 by Rodal on 23 Sep, 2017 16:14
-
1. considering speed of effects acting locally at an idealized point the problem is mathematically not well-posed because there is no distance to travel so there is no well-posed speed dx/dt as a derivative. Yes the time of propagation dt is zero, hence instantaneous instead of infinitesimal, but dx/dt is undefinable because dx is also zero (not infinitesimal). I think that since the speed of propagation problem is not mathematically well-posed or physically well posed (can something be much smaller than a Planck length? can something be just a point) then the idealization to a point is not subject to experimental analysis.
True. Considering gravitational force equivalent with centripetal force at orbit the tidal effects i.e. mass distribution changes travelling speed c are negligible....
Thanks, I need some time to carefully read his paper. Extended bodies (as opposed to particles) should not exactly follow geodesics as shown in a remarkable series of papers by Dixon in the 1970's (for example http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/314/1519/499.short , http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/319/1539/509.short
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001
That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short). Only point particles follow geodesics.
2. for finite bodies, the speed of propagation of gravitational field disturbances from one material point to another material point (or from one point in space to another point in space) is c (or less than c when involving particles having mass). Never instantaneous between different points [except entanglement]. This applies to mass distribution changes. As confirmed by experiments [nothing instantaneous except entanglement]. I like the term "mass distribution changes"
Thanks
-
#1825 by meberbs on 23 Sep, 2017 16:25
-
What expirement with null results are you referring to? Please be specific and provide citation.
I haven't been keeping a list, but there are multiple at:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
Of course that list isn't exhaustive, I feel like there have been experiments reported here that aren't on that list, and there is also the unfortunate trend in science where people tend not to publish null results, which still applies here. One that appears missing from the list is rfmwguy's results, which is reasonable since he didn't have enough data for a solid conclusion before his RF equipment broke, but the last data he reported was an accidental control test which pointed to his data being null.
I really don't think there would be any value in me doing that. For starters, if you go back to when EW's papers were released, you will find others who went into much more detail than me proposing potential error sources.I for one would like to see meberbs publish his assertions on his interpretation of Dr. Harold White's papers. I'm guessing getting past the peer review process would be a better way to be vindicated than getting into endless argument loops here. Maybe he could score a position at EW.
Before peer-review (a difficult task for things the author thinks may be fundamentally trivial) a simpler refuting paper uploaded on arXiv or viXra would be a good start.
As a side note, I really like my current job, and would have no interest in moving to EW. -
#1826 by Eusa on 23 Sep, 2017 16:41
-
Engtanglement isn't instantaneous, definitely. That's misintepretation. It's local. Only the orientation of meter to measure have opposite options which opposition between entangled particles is preserved by spacetime.
1. considering speed of effects acting locally at an idealized point the problem is mathematically not well-posed because there is no distance to travel so there is no well-posed speed dx/dt as a derivative. Yes the time of propagation dt is zero, hence instantaneous instead of infinitesimal, but dx/dt is undefinable because dx is also zero (not infinitesimal). I think that since the speed of propagation problem is not mathematically well-posed or physically well posed (can something be much smaller than a Planck length? can something be just a point) then the idealization to a point is not subject to experimental analysis.
True. Considering gravitational force equivalent with centripetal force at orbit the tidal effects i.e. mass distribution changes travelling speed c are negligible....
Thanks, I need some time to carefully read his paper. Extended bodies (as opposed to particles) should not exactly follow geodesics as shown in a remarkable series of papers by Dixon in the 1970's (for example http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/314/1519/499.short , http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/319/1539/509.short
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001
That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short). Only point particles follow geodesics.
2. for finite bodies, the speed of propagation of gravitational field disturbances from one material point to another material point (or from one point in space to another point in space) is c (or less than c when involving particles having mass). Never instantaneous between different points [except entanglement]. This applies to mass distribution changes. As confirmed by experiments [nothing instantaneous except entanglement]. I like the term "mass distribution changes" Thanks -
#1827 by Rodal on 23 Sep, 2017 17:20
-
...
OK that gets us here:
Engtanglement isn't instantaneous, definitely. That's misintepretation. It's local. Only the orientation of meter to measure have opposite options which opposition between entangled particles is preserved by spacetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experimentsQuoteTo date, Bell tests have found that the hypothesis of local hidden variables is inconsistent with the way that physical systems behave.
That inconsistency would apply to Bohm's pilot wave theory as well -
#1828 by Bob012345 on 23 Sep, 2017 17:41
-
While I may want stronger evidence, I'm not as down on the current evidence as you seem to be. I think it's valid. Both EMDrive data and Mach effect data.
Can you please clarify what makes the current evidence "valid" in your view? Is there a single peer-reviewed paper describing an EmDrive experiment that has all the obvious error sources quantified? Or are you satisfied with experiments that do not account for such errors simply because they originate from "respectable" laboratories (argument of authority?) From what I know (and I welcome others to correct me), the EW paper is currently the most rigorous paper on this subject, and it has many flaws (https://github.com/eric1600/eagleworks/blob/master/Numerical-Results.pdf).
Some people may claim the EW paper "has many flaws" but that's their judgment. Raising questions about this or that isn't proof flaws exist or had any impact on the results. I place more weight on the people doing the work and writing the papers than I do other people criticizing the work yet criticism does certainly have it's proper place. Are you asking me to justify not having your level of skepticism like I'm supposed to? I really don't have to at all. Please note I'm not saying I have zero skepticism.
-
#1829 by Eusa on 23 Sep, 2017 17:43
-
A(particle/meter) 0 1 - 1 0 - 0 1 - ......
OK that gets us here:
Engtanglement isn't instantaneous, definitely. That's misintepretation. It's local. Only the orientation of meter to measure have opposite options which opposition between entangled particles is preserved by spacetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experimentsQuoteTo date, Bell tests have found that the hypothesis of local hidden variables is inconsistent with the way that physical systems behave.
That inconsistency would apply to pilot wave theory as well
B(particle/meter) 1 0 - 0 1 - 1 0 - ...
That is a description of dual-phased spacetime. Outer perturbation can register either even or odd phase. Once collapsed locally spacetime preserves global interaction "distance parity" and when checked out side by side the partner particle revealed being in opposite state - the spacetime between measuring events preserves phase parity.
Not more complicated "hidden variable".
-
#1830 by Monomorphic on 23 Sep, 2017 19:05
-
I'm working on automating the testing process using LabView. The WindFreak signal generator already works with LabView natively. What I am looking at now is a 2 channel USB solid state relay module with 4 analog input channels. This would be mounted on the torsional pendulum and allow me to control the logic level enable pin on the amplifier, which can be used for PTT/KEY control, and for monitoring the direct temperature output pin close to the 30W RF output GaAs FET.
I found this 2 Channel USB Solid State Relay Module for $60 that looks like it will be a good solution: https://numato.com/product/2-channel-usb-solid-state-relay-module
If anyone with experience in LabView knows of any compatible hardware that may be better, please let me know.
-
#1831 by WarpTech on 23 Sep, 2017 19:23
-
Good concept to understand.
https://gizmodo.com/scientists-resolve-mysterious-violation-to-einsteins-re-1818655617
There is a velocity dependent frictional force in QED. See Milonni Appendix B, which I posted earlier in this thread. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721433#msg1721433
It vanishes when the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3, such as the EM ZPF of the quantum vacuum. I do not know how exactly to generate a spectral energy density that is not, but if I could, it would create friction per this equation. -
#1832 by SteveD on 23 Sep, 2017 19:44
-
What expirement with null results are you referring to? Please be specific and provide citation.
I haven't been keeping a list, but there are multiple at:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
Do one null result from EW from a null device. One from Paul, where it was later found that any thrust would be below the sensetivity of his measuring device (is reporting further results at a conference, but may well be null with new info on the devices thermal behavior). Also one symmetrical cavity that produced no thrust but had a maybe something is going on but it is occurring randomly enough we cannot rule out the HVAC system provision. Oh and one paper that go bumped to Vixara for issues.
Dave is interesting as he ended up heating a powerful magnet and injecting stray fields into the can. While the most likely interpretation is that the power feed line introduced an errorsource that swamped the data. I hope we can come back to this if there are higher quality confirmations. -
#1833 by Rodal on 23 Sep, 2017 19:52
-
Would appreciate knowing how do you go from Milonni Appendix B to the conclusion thatGood concept to understand.
https://gizmodo.com/scientists-resolve-mysterious-violation-to-einsteins-re-1818655617
There is a velocity dependent frictional force in QED. See Milonni Appendix B, which I posted earlier in this thread. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721433#msg1721433
It vanishes when the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3, such as the EM ZPF of the quantum vacuum. I do not know how exactly to generate a spectral energy density that is not, but if I could, it would create friction per this equation.QuoteIt vanishes when the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3
the force on an atom in thermal field vanishes? under what conditions? how does that follow from Milonni?
The integration is over the aberration angle. Why does the power of the spectral energy ρ(ω) ~ ω3 lead to cancellation? Did I misunderstand what you wrote?
Thanks -
#1834 by PotomacNeuron on 23 Sep, 2017 19:54
-
What expirement with null results are you referring to? Please be specific and provide citation.
I haven't been keeping a list, but there are multiple at:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
Do one null result from EW from a null device. One from Paul, where it was later found that any thrust would be below the sensetivity of his measuring device (is reporting further results at a conference, but may well be null with new info on the devices thermal behavior). Also one symmetrical cavity that produced no thrust but had a maybe something is going on but it is occurring randomly enough we cannot rule out the HVAC system provision. Oh and one paper that go bumped to Vixara for issues.
Dave is interesting as he ended up heating a powerful magnet and injecting stray fields into the can. While the most likely interpretation is that the power feed line introduced an errorsource that swamped the data. I hope we can come back to this if there are higher quality confirmations.
There are at least two 0 force experiments carried out by IDs on this forum not listed on that wiki: Emmett Brown and RFplumber
[update] Those were according to my memory. Actually RFplumber had his result listed with his real name on the wiki. -
#1835 by Rodal on 23 Sep, 2017 19:59
-
Incorrect. RFPlumber is listed two times in the wiki list (with the real name under which he published), and the listing in wiki was done under his approval while he was active on this forum. I don't quite recall Emmett Brown's experiments, and whether he wanted to be listed in the wiki as a null experiment, but I recall experimenters that did not approve to list their experiments as a null result because they were not yet convinced. Also there was at least one experimenter that first posted their experiments (as a positive result) and then decided to take out the information (which is their prerogative). I stopped curating that list a long time ago, but while I was active I clearly recall corresponding with RFPlumber and very much motivating him to include his experiments in the list and publishing, so I am surprised to see you saying that he is not listed without even qualifying it with "according to [your] memory". Perhaps you forgot to identify him by his real name ?What expirement with null results are you referring to? Please be specific and provide citation.
I haven't been keeping a list, but there are multiple at:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
Do one null result from EW from a null device. One from Paul, where it was later found that any thrust would be below the sensetivity of his measuring device (is reporting further results at a conference, but may well be null with new info on the devices thermal behavior). Also one symmetrical cavity that produced no thrust but had a maybe something is going on but it is occurring randomly enough we cannot rule out the HVAC system provision. Oh and one paper that go bumped to Vixara for issues.
Dave is interesting as he ended up heating a powerful magnet and injecting stray fields into the can. While the most likely interpretation is that the power feed line introduced an errorsource that swamped the data. I hope we can come back to this if there are higher quality confirmations.
There are at least two 0 force experiments carried out by IDs on this forum not listed on that wiki: Emmett Brown and RFplumber
RFPlumber's experiments are noteworthy for being the only DIY in the list (to my recollection) having all the electronics in the balance's arm. The list also includes Yang's 2016 results which she claims are null within her noise error bands (which experiments were her first where she used all electronics in the balance's arm).
Looking forward to Monomorphic adding his great experiments to the list
-
#1836 by SteveD on 23 Sep, 2017 20:33
-
It's a Mach effect.
Here's what I think is happening. A photon impacts or is released from the small end, creating a photon rocket effect.
KE=1/2MV^2. For simplicity let's say m = 1kg and velocity increases from 100m/s to 101 m/s.
KE of in the initial state = (.5)(1)(100)^2 = 5000
KE at 101 = (.5)(1)(101)^2 = 5100.5
The photons now travel to the large base in a straight line.
This causes a problem with relativity. The path the photons have taken in the shortest possible path between two points at speed c.
When the photon's arrive point D does not know if it should be accelerating or not. For point D to be accelerating, point A which connects it to point C would also need to be accelerating. Point A cannot know that it is accelerating any faster than light can travel from point A to point C. This is a longer distance than the direct path light took between point C and point D.
(If we stop to think about it for a minute, we realize that an outside observer setting up the experiment could setup a precisely timed device to separate the large end plate from the rest of the frustum prior to the time it takes light to travel from point A to point C but after light transited from point C to point D).
When photons from point C arrive at point D we must conclude that point D has not yet undergone acceleration and is still moving at 100 m/s.
The impacting light will slow the small end to 99 m/s.
KE of in the initial state = (.5)(1)(99)^2 = 4900.5
5100.5 (small end) - 4900.5 (big end) = 200 joule difference in KE between the two end plates.
E=MC^2 so there is a (small mass) fluctuation between the two end plates.
If I am understanding the Mach Effect correctly, it requires a system to be heavier when moving in one direction than the other. That is what we now have.
If you work this out over a couple of bounces the small endpates gets up quite a head of steam.
Such a solution would satisfy both CoM (Momentum being preserved through the Mach effect) and CoE (it should be immediately obvious that this system cannot go over unity).
Conclusion: The EMDrive is moving through a Mach effect caused by a Newtonian mechanic having a non-intuitive effect in an Einsteinian universe when the mechanism causing the Newtonian reaction is moving at c.
-
#1837 by moreno7798 on 23 Sep, 2017 20:39
-
What expirement with null results are you referring to? Please be specific and provide citation.
I haven't been keeping a list, but there are multiple at:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
Of course that list isn't exhaustive, I feel like there have been experiments reported here that aren't on that list, and there is also the unfortunate trend in science where people tend not to publish null results, which still applies here. One that appears missing from the list is rfmwguy's results, which is reasonable since he didn't have enough data for a solid conclusion before his RF equipment broke, but the last data he reported was an accidental control test which pointed to his data being null.
I really don't think there would be any value in me doing that. For starters, if you go back to when EW's papers were released, you will find others who went into much more detail than me proposing potential error sources.I for one would like to see meberbs publish his assertions on his interpretation of Dr. Harold White's papers. I'm guessing getting past the peer review process would be a better way to be vindicated than getting into endless argument loops here. Maybe he could score a position at EW.
Before peer-review (a difficult task for things the author thinks may be fundamentally trivial) a simpler refuting paper uploaded on arXiv or viXra would be a good start.
As a side note, I really like my current job, and would have no interest in moving to EW.
What value is there to peer review? That's funny. Cause I thought that is what you're doing with TT? Or could it be that you're cherry picking where you fight your battles? -
#1838 by meberbs on 23 Sep, 2017 21:15
-
How in the world did you get that take away (value of peer review) from my post?
I really don't think there would be any value in me doing that. For starters, if you go back to when EW's papers were released, you will find others who went into much more detail than me proposing potential error sources.I for one would like to see meberbs publish his assertions on his interpretation of Dr. Harold White's papers. I'm guessing getting past the peer review process would be a better way to be vindicated than getting into endless argument loops here. Maybe he could score a position at EW.
Before peer-review (a difficult task for things the author thinks may be fundamentally trivial) a simpler refuting paper uploaded on arXiv or viXra would be a good start.
As a side note, I really like my current job, and would have no interest in moving to EW.
What value is there to peer review? That's funny. Cause I thought that is what you're doing with TT? Or could it be that you're cherry picking where you fight your battles?
The issue is the value in me specifically writing such a paper, particularly when others have already done more thorough critiques.
And yes, I pick my battles to be ones where I know I have data to support my points. Especially in this section of the forum, I try to stick to things where I thoroughly know what I am talking about, because there are too many people in this section who try to engage in discussions about things they don't have the background for. (Note I am referring to people who act as if they know what they are talking about when they clearly don't. People who admit they don't have the background and want someone to review their ideas are different i.e. they are trying to learn.) -
#1839 by WarpTech on 23 Sep, 2017 21:45
-
Would appreciate knowing how do you go from Milonni Appendix B to the conclusion thatGood concept to understand.
https://gizmodo.com/scientists-resolve-mysterious-violation-to-einsteins-re-1818655617
There is a velocity dependent frictional force in QED. See Milonni Appendix B, which I posted earlier in this thread. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721433#msg1721433
It vanishes when the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3, such as the EM ZPF of the quantum vacuum. I do not know how exactly to generate a spectral energy density that is not, but if I could, it would create friction per this equation.QuoteIt vanishes when the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3
the force on an atom in thermal field vanishes? under what conditions? how does that follow from Milonni?
The integration is over the aberration angle. Why does the power of the spectral energy ρ(ω) ~ ω3 lead to cancellation? Did I misunderstand what you wrote?
Thanks
Look at equation (B.11), the part in the square brackets.
[ρ(ω) - (ω/3)*dρ(ω)/dω] = 0 if ρ(ω) ~ ω3
This is equation (1.93) and (2.112) in the book, section 2.9 on Zero-Point Spectrum Invariance.
"..That is, the condition that ρ0(ω) (the ZPF) be the same in all inertial frames requires it to be proportional to ω3. This conforms with our expectation that an observer moving with constant velocity in the electromagnetic vacuum cannot tell that he is moving!"
Edit: This is what I mean when I say the EM vacuum is degenerate and conformal. "Any" spectral energy density where ρ(ω) ~ ω3 is a solution. As such, there are an infinite number of possible EM vacuum states. The vacuum state is not unique in QED.
Thanks
RFPlumber's experiments are noteworthy for being the only 