-
#2000 by spupeng7 on 06 Oct, 2017 03:59
-
(...)
photons are said to be mediators between charge interactions.
Thankyou All, good discussion.
The speed of light is well established, you can measure it like Foucault did if you want to, but it is essential to your comprehension that this velocity is relative. From the photons perspective its velocity is infinite.
Master physicist Richard Feynman is said to have been of the opinion that quantum mechanics could not really be understood. To me that is a nonsense, especially from someone who once proposed that photons are a direct interparticle action.
The solution I propose is that for the traverse of a photon between emission and absorption,
t + ict = 0
there being then, no contradiction between our measurement of a lapse of clock time between emission and absorption, and the lack of any such lapse from the photons perspective. The clock time t for the traverse, is relative to the observer, as described by Special Relativity. The term ict is the speed of light, times t, as a complex conjugate of t. Complex conjugates have been around for hundreds of years but we have resisted incorporating them into our definitions of reality due to a lack of confidence.
We cannot have it both ways, however, if time be complex then the clock is only relevant to one aspect of it. The clock may be correct for us but it is just a component of what we must measure in order to chart the development of circumstance. This is why photon behaviour appeared to have paradox, because in linear time alone energy cannot be in two places at the same time whereas, in complex time an instant is a moment where that does occur, without paradox.
That this leaves much else to be redefined, is understood. For example, charges everywhere must constantly interact, their inertia and gravity being the consequence of the sum over time of accelerations due of their attractions and repulsions. Photons are a special case of interaction between charges involving the exchange of a quantum of energy some of which is momentum. Photons make shadows, they will interact with the closest thing they can interact with, which is distinctly different from the constant interaction of all charges. The mechanism is the same though, immediate proximity within complex time.
The huge difference between electrical force and gravity is then due to the opposition of attractive and repulsive forces between masses with an approximate balance of positive and negative charges. Gravity being the residual force between masses in an environment where everything everywhere interacts, inertia being the sum over time of the same, and electrical force being that due to an imbalance of charge between masses.
Why then do photon interactions occur when they do. The frequency of the emitted energy being relative to the frequency of the absorbed energy and proportionate to the relative rate of passage of clock time at their respective locations. The polarity of the exchange being due to the alignment of the charges within the atoms which are interacting, maybe due to the co-linearity of the motions of the emitting and absorbing electrons. Photons may occur whenever there is energy to be radiated and the circumstances are amenable.
How do I know this is true, I do not, but I do know that time cannot be linear for several reasons, first; because it has a different rate in different depths of gravitational fields, and second; because it has a different rate for charges which have a different level of acceleration even when they reside in the same depth of a gravitational field.
What does this mean for electromagnetic theory. It allows a mechanism for electrical attraction and repulsion which requires no fields at all. These electrical interactions, not composed of photons but simply consequent upon the distribution of charges, fully account for the behaviours we currently attribute to magnetic fields. This does nothing to undermine Maxwell's brilliant work on the nature of light but only provides a resolution for it in terms of Special Relativity.
Why is complex time necessary, because quantum mechanics as it stands is a mass of self-contradictions and misunderstandings. If we want to comprehend how the emdrive works so that we can develop it, then we must begin by admitting that physics in its present form is incapable of forming the self-consistent set of equations which demystify the mechanisms fundamental to the universe around us. Physics could not incorporate Machian inertia into linear time, even when Einstein had the pen.
To progress the subject we must improve upon Wikipedia’s description of complex time as being something which flows on a plane somehow normal to the flow of clock time. Clock time cannot be a flow because it is a development of circumstances everywhere, and complex time cannot be a flow for the same reason. Complex time must be that structure, within the development of circumstance, where a single moment encompasses all that occurs at displacements ict from an event, in all directions and at all distances.
Complex time is not then a stable structure from a remote perspective but a structure which is only ever specific to a single event in spacetime. Its advantage is that the moment belonging to that event is then a stable structure from the covariant perspective, which may be considered by the brave to be a hard reality from all perspectives. This constitutes a frame in which there is no quantum uncertainty and no paradox inherent in its description between differing mathematical systems.
No-one has a right to mystic knowledge of the physical realm. Such things belong to the Druids. In my opinion, paradox is no longer acceptable. I am yet to hear a well developed argument as to why complex time cannot be its resolution.
-
#2001 by spupeng7 on 06 Oct, 2017 04:14
-
Bob,sanman,
Is that correct? When you say weight I assume you mean mass. Mass captured in a gravitational field does not gain additional mass merely as a result of the gravitational field itself, does it? Isn't more an increase in the density of the material, rather than gaining of additional mass?
gravity and inertia are inextricably linked by the principle of equivalence and by their common dependence upon the depth of the gravitational field within which their mechanism acts. By this I mean that gravitational and inertial mass are phenomena whose weight varies with depth into the gravitational field.
Isn't the accretion of mass more due to acceleration at relativistic speeds, or boson interactions enabling energy conversion to mass?
mass is conserved. Weight is dependent upon the local acceleration due to gravity, non? -
#2002 by Mulletron on 06 Oct, 2017 17:24
-
So we know that a box of photons is massive even though each individual photon is massless.
I was reading this today and it dawned on me that there must also be a mass defect in an EMdrive, as there is in any bound system.
https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-detected-a-friction-like-force-in-a-perfect-vacuum
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.053601 -
#2003 by OnlyMe on 06 Oct, 2017 19:01
-
So we know that a box of photons is massive even though each individual photon is massless.
I was reading this today and it dawned on me that there must also be a mass defect in an EMdrive, as there is in any bound system.
https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-detected-a-friction-like-force-in-a-perfect-vacuum
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.053601
Again I wind up with knee jerk reactions to statements made as absolutes, like beginning with things like So we know....
The paper referenced above is also available at, https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02264 . I read the linked article, but have only skimmed the paper at present. While I tend to agree with what I have seen, it is a theoretical work, not the result of direct observation, experience and/or experimental results. It represents something we can believe to be, rather than something we know.
Again from what I have read I agree with the general conclusions and intent. I just caution against the idea that it represents a certainty of some fundamental knowledge.
The concept of trapped photons and mass falls into a similar theoretical box. One I am less certain of than the general idea that the QV or empty space, a vacuum.., imparts some friction force to the motion of objects. Photons can carry/transfer momentum, but that is expressed as a change in mass only when the photon interacts with matter.
Photons theirselves have no mass. Even if they did that mass could not be "weighed" or contribute to the weight/mass of the box until they interact with the atoms in the walls of the box.
-
#2004 by Mark7777777 on 06 Oct, 2017 20:08
-
FWIW, the unscientific straw poll has come to an end, being responded to by 59 people.
The majority (~66%) believe the Emdrive produces thrust with Mach Effect being the favourite single reason.
-
#2005 by R.W. Keyes on 06 Oct, 2017 21:44
-
FWIW, the unscientific straw poll has come to an end, being responded to by 59 people.
The majority (~66%) believe the Emdrive produces thrust with Mach Effect being the favourite single reason.
I should log in more often. I would have put one more in the Quantized Inertia column.
Sometimes I am completely overcome by the volume of posts here, and have to take some time off to get my head straight. This isn't to say I don't appreciate all of your comments, and this place is far more civilized than the Reddit on the same topic. If I could, somehow, make a living on emdrive research, you can bet I'd be here all day, every day, and I'd try to keep the S/N high. -
#2006 by Mulletron on 07 Oct, 2017 04:45
-
Must be an accident or an error in some way.
-
#2007 by Monomorphic on 07 Oct, 2017 13:39
-
I had an issue with the linear actuator leaking RF. So I redesigned the small end to be better sealed, while maintaining the ability to move the antenna up and down inside the cavity for impedance matching. I was able to design, print, assemble, and tune a new small end within a single 24 hour period.
-
#2008 by RERT on 07 Oct, 2017 14:42
-
Wow. Suggest take some measurements before you become distracted by offers of employment.
-
#2009 by sanman on 07 Oct, 2017 18:27
-
FWIW, the unscientific straw poll has come to an end, being responded to by 59 people.
The majority (~66%) believe the Emdrive produces thrust with Mach Effect being the favourite single reason.
Gee, just my opinion, but I can't see any connection to the principles behind the Mach Effect at all. EMdrive seems best described as what the Eagleworks people have called a "Q-thruster", by exploiting a geometry that creates an asymmetric Casimir Effect. -
#2010 by ThatOtherGuy on 07 Oct, 2017 21:53
-
I had an issue with the linear actuator leaking RF. So I redesigned the small end to be better sealed, while maintaining the ability to move the antenna up and down inside the cavity for impedance matching. I was able to design, print, assemble, and tune a new small end within a single 24 hour period.
Just a side note (maybe OT, not sure); I was reading this
https://www.rtl-sdr.com/tuning-an-hf-antenna-with-an-airspy-swr-bridge-and-noise-source/
and, while the frequencies used for the EMdrive are higher than the ones used (at the above link) I wonder if, something similar may be used to help tuning the cavity RF injector to achieve better resonance
-
#2011 by spupeng7 on 08 Oct, 2017 00:48
-
All,
on 10/6/2017 I posted, that for the photon in its traverse,
t + ict = 0
t being clock time,
c being light speed &
i being the square root of minus one.
This assumes units of, c = 1, where c is included for the purpose of expressing clock time as a distance,
t x s/t = s
where s is distance and for light, time = distance.
Comments welcome
-
#2012 by Bob Woods on 08 Oct, 2017 03:56
-
Then your comments on "weight" were what you intended. Unfortunately they are a meaningless portion of your comment, not adding anything of import.
Bob,sanman,
Is that correct? When you say weight I assume you mean mass. Mass captured in a gravitational field does not gain additional mass merely as a result of the gravitational field itself, does it? Isn't more an increase in the density of the material, rather than gaining of additional mass?
gravity and inertia are inextricably linked by the principle of equivalence and by their common dependence upon the depth of the gravitational field within which their mechanism acts. By this I mean that gravitational and inertial mass are phenomena whose weight varies with depth into the gravitational field.
Isn't the accretion of mass more due to acceleration at relativistic speeds, or boson interactions enabling energy conversion to mass?
mass is conserved. Weight is dependent upon the local acceleration due to gravity, non?
Back 47 years ago as a college freshman, my physics professor was adamant: "Don't talk about weight. It's meaningless except when you step on a scale. Physics is all about mass, not weight." -
#2013 by giulioprisco on 08 Oct, 2017 06:55
-
I'm sure this must have been discussed to death here and perhaps in detailed papers, I would appreciate pointers.
The EmDrive setup doesn't seem very quantum to me so, assuming EmDrive thrust is real, I have the impression there should be a classical (non-quantum) explanation.
Classical (4+1)-dimensional Kaluza-Klein jumps immediately to mind. Einstein's and Maxwell's equations are derived from very restrictive approximations to the full 5-dimensional equations, which essentially amount to neglecting most gravitational-electromagnetic feedback. I believe this is the best pre-war maths could do, and then classical Kaluza-Klein was abandoned by most theorists in favor of sexier quantum string theories.
I learn from the Estes Park proceedings that now full 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein can be treated mathematically (Lance Williams talk). Has the EmDrive configuration been analyzed? Perhaps standing electromagnetic waves are converted to traveling gravitational waves that push the EmDrive? Or something like that? -
#2014 by Left Field on 08 Oct, 2017 07:37
-
New article on the EMDrive about modelling using pilot-wave theory and it claims the results are compatible with thrust generation:
https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust
The paper referenced in the article is behind a paywall. -
#2015 by sanman on 08 Oct, 2017 08:07
-
From the article:Quote
If a pilot wave does explain the thrust behind the device, then it could also lead to a way to make the propulsion system even more powerful in future, and it's as simple as tweaking the shape.
"We have seen that the effect could be enhanced using a different shape for the frustum," said Castro. "In fact a trumpet exponential form is expected to increase the thrust."
What the heck is a trumpet exponential form? What does it look like?
Would it be where the frustum walls curve inward, like near the mouth of a trumpet?
Technically, the mouth of a trumpet is called the "bell" - an ironically appropriate name - and one with a better ring to it than "frustum".
Heh - so even a propellantless rocket still needs a bell, huh? Especially when it uses non-local hidden variables to satisfy Bell's theorem?
Hey Monomorphic, TheTraveler, or whoever - is it possible to run this shape through your analytical software and produce a graphical render from it? -
#2016 by Chrochne on 08 Oct, 2017 09:44
-
New article on the EMDrive about modelling using pilot-wave theory and it claims the results are compatible with thrust generation:
https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust
The paper referenced in the article is behind a paywall.
Thank you for the link. I always love to see new groups and people do the research on the EmDrive. The more people work on it the sooner we will get more answers.
So far article is behind paywall
-
#2017 by Mark7777777 on 08 Oct, 2017 10:03
-
From the article:
QuoteIf a pilot wave does explain the thrust behind the device, then it could also lead to a way to make the propulsion system even more powerful in future, and it's as simple as tweaking the shape.
"We have seen that the effect could be enhanced using a different shape for the frustum," said Castro. "In fact a trumpet exponential form is expected to increase the thrust."
What the heck is a trumpet exponential form? What does it look like?
Would it be where the frustum walls curve inward, like near the mouth of a trumpet?
Technically, the mouth of a trumpet is called the "bell" - an ironically appropriate name - and one with a better ring to it than "frustum".
Heh - so even a propellantless rocket still needs a bell, huh? Especially when it uses non-local hidden variables to satisfy Bell's theorem?
Hey Monomorphic, TheTraveler, or whoever - is it possible to run this shape through your analytical software and produce a graphical render from it?
From http://www.krynaglobal.com/product/eprop.html :
-
#2018 by Monomorphic on 08 Oct, 2017 12:01
-
Hey Monomorphic, TheTraveler, or whoever - is it possible to run this shape through your analytical software and produce a graphical render from it?
I know a trumpet shape has been looked at before due to the geometry being highly asymmetric. Most recently user "Kenjee" posted some images of COMSOL runs using this geometry. I couldn't locate them but perhaps he will be kind enough to repost.
Here is one I did a long time ago that used stacks of dialectrics with different relative permittivity.
-
#2019 by Dagger on 08 Oct, 2017 12:49
-
Hey Monomorphic, TheTraveler, or whoever - is it possible to run this shape through your analytical software and produce a graphical render from it?
I know a trumpet shape has been looked at before due to the geometry being highly asymmetric. Most recently user "Kenjee" posted some images of COMSOL runs using this geometry. I couldn't locate them but perhaps he will be kind enough to repost.
Maybe this?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1655575#msg1655575
