-
#2720 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2017 17:55
-
Magnets certainly can do work but what people really mean is if a magnet can be the energy source doing that work of which the answer classically is no. We can invest potential energy into a classical system involving magnets raising the potential energy which is reduced by the magnets then doing work. The myth than magnets call no work comes from the fact that a charged particle traveling in a constant magnetic field only has it's direction changed but not its momentum.
If I understand you, basically you are saying I'm correct regarding all that flux pouring out of a magnet or an electron charge or any EM field source but simply put, that energy can't be measured or used for any gain. If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.
Electrons don't spiral into the nucleus and disappear. The necessity of the vacuum ZPF is that it preserves the Commutation relations between position and momentum. Without it, atoms would be unstable. So the fact that atoms are not unstable in general, is proof enough for me. However, what your question boils down to is, does the ZPF of minimum energy state really exist or is there an absolute zero energy. All experiments up to now show that we cannot reach absolute zero temperature and that the ZPF is real. See Milonni's book for the complete picture.
-
#2721 by jmossman on 15 Nov, 2017 17:58
-
Thanks. It seems a static magnetic field say from a bar magnet is ultimately due to ZPF sustaining the electron motion which causes the currents that produce the field and that field continually propagates and is refreshed.
If we considered that the energy contained in the field of typical bar magnet can be on the order of a Joule and most of that is contained within the volume of a sphere around the magnet of one light nanosecond or 30cm, which has to be refreshed each nanosecond or the field disappears, then the power emanating from the magnet is on the order of a GW. That seems untenable.
Ferromagnetism is due to the spin of the electron AND the fact that they can align with the same N-S axis, across large domains within the iron. The amount of reactive power the vacuum contributes to electron spin doesn't change simply because it's part of a magnet. The electron is still in equilibrium with the vacuum, so there is no way to extract work from it. In the end, the magnetic field of a bar magnet doesn't oscillate at observable frequencies, so it can't do any work either.
...
If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.
I should probably stay out of this discussion, but I'm confused why @WarpTech's theory doesn't better equate to a "spring" that effectively prevents/retards the electron decay. A classical mechanical spring when compressed (and steady state) does not perform work, so why can't ZPF be crudely modeled as a spring for this stabilizing scenario?
In other words, I don't see where @WarpTech's ZPF theory would need to be performing any work to remain compatible with this bar magnet thought experiment.
Thanks,
James -
#2722 by Bob012345 on 15 Nov, 2017 18:06
-
Thanks. It seems a static magnetic field say from a bar magnet is ultimately due to ZPF sustaining the electron motion which causes the currents that produce the field and that field continually propagates and is refreshed.
If we considered that the energy contained in the field of typical bar magnet can be on the order of a Joule and most of that is contained within the volume of a sphere around the magnet of one light nanosecond or 30cm, which has to be refreshed each nanosecond or the field disappears, then the power emanating from the magnet is on the order of a GW. That seems untenable.
Ferromagnetism is due to the spin of the electron AND the fact that they can align with the same N-S axis, across large domains within the iron. The amount of reactive power the vacuum contributes to electron spin doesn't change simply because it's part of a magnet. The electron is still in equilibrium with the vacuum, so there is no way to extract work from it. In the end, the magnetic field of a bar magnet doesn't oscillate at observable frequencies, so it can't do any work either.
...
If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.
I should probably stay out of this discussion, but I'm confused why @WarpTech's theory doesn't better equate to a "spring" that effectively prevents/retards the electron decay. A classical mechanical spring when compressed (and steady state) does not perform work, so why can't ZPF be crudely modeled as a spring for this stabilizing scenario?
In other words, I don't see where @WarpTech's ZPF theory would need to be performing any work to remain compatible with this bar magnet thought experiment.
Thanks,
James
You seem to be suggesting the ZPF prevents electron decay by radiation of photons rather than WarpTech's concept that the ZPF restores radiated photons. How is that better than the old QM postulate that electrons in their ground state wavefunctions "simply don't radiate"? -
#2723 by Bob012345 on 15 Nov, 2017 18:17
-
Magnets certainly can do work but what people really mean is if a magnet can be the energy source doing that work of which the answer classically is no. We can invest potential energy into a classical system involving magnets raising the potential energy which is reduced by the magnets then doing work. The myth than magnets call no work comes from the fact that a charged particle traveling in a constant magnetic field only has it's direction changed but not its momentum.
If I understand you, basically you are saying I'm correct regarding all that flux pouring out of a magnet or an electron charge or any EM field source but simply put, that energy can't be measured or used for any gain. If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.
Electrons don't spiral into the nucleus and disappear. The necessity of the vacuum ZPF is that it preserves the Commutation relations between position and momentum. Without it, atoms would be unstable. So the fact that atoms are not unstable in general, is proof enough for me. However, what your question boils down to is, does the ZPF of minimum energy state really exist or is there an absolute zero energy. All experiments up to now show that we cannot reach absolute zero temperature and that the ZPF is real. See Milonni's book for the complete picture.
Please put the sentence "The necessity of the vacuum ZPF is that it preserves the Commutation relations between position and momentum." into some form of physicality as the term 'Commutation relations' refers to a abstract mathematical concept regarding wavefunctions, themselves an abstract concept, not physical entities. As it turns out, recent work seems to show something different;
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/11/01/science.aao7043
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171113104709.htm
"The new measuring technique circumvents the limitation formulated by the father of quantum physics, Werner Heisenberg, in 1927. According to "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle," it is not possible to determine the position and the speed of an electron at the same instant. However, now, the Swedish researchers have shown that it can, in fact, be done: through superposition (i.e. interference) of two short pulses of light with different wavelengths."
What are the implications?
-
#2724 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2017 19:25
-
You seem to be suggesting the ZPF prevents electron decay by radiation of photons rather than WarpTech's concept that the ZPF restores radiated photons. How is that better than the old QM postulate that electrons in their ground state wavefunctions "simply don't radiate"?
Charges do radiate when accelerated, but the force on the particle is zero....
-
#2725 by Rodal on 15 Nov, 2017 19:45
-
This interpretation, that this technique circumvects Heisenberg's uncertainty principle should be contemplated taking into account the fact that the experimenters appear to be using Wigner's time delay (the asymptotic time difference between the quasiclassical and the Wigner trajectories. The Wigner trajectory is derived from the derivative of the phase of the electron steady-state wave function with respect to energy).
Magnets certainly can do work but what people really mean is if a magnet can be the energy source doing that work of which the answer classically is no. We can invest potential energy into a classical system involving magnets raising the potential energy which is reduced by the magnets then doing work. The myth than magnets call no work comes from the fact that a charged particle traveling in a constant magnetic field only has it's direction changed but not its momentum.
If I understand you, basically you are saying I'm correct regarding all that flux pouring out of a magnet or an electron charge or any EM field source but simply put, that energy can't be measured or used for any gain. If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.
Electrons don't spiral into the nucleus and disappear. The necessity of the vacuum ZPF is that it preserves the Commutation relations between position and momentum. Without it, atoms would be unstable. So the fact that atoms are not unstable in general, is proof enough for me. However, what your question boils down to is, does the ZPF of minimum energy state really exist or is there an absolute zero energy. All experiments up to now show that we cannot reach absolute zero temperature and that the ZPF is real. See Milonni's book for the complete picture.
Please put the sentence "The necessity of the vacuum ZPF is that it preserves the Commutation relations between position and momentum." into some form of physicality as the term 'Commutation relations' refers to a abstract mathematical concept regarding wavefunctions, themselves an abstract concept, not physical entities. As it turns out, recent work seems to show something different;
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/11/01/science.aao7043
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171113104709.htm
"The new measuring technique circumvents the limitation formulated by the father of quantum physics, Werner Heisenberg, in 1927. According to "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle," it is not possible to determine the position and the speed of an electron at the same instant. However, now, the Swedish researchers have shown that it can, in fact, be done: through superposition (i.e. interference) of two short pulses of light with different wavelengths."
What are the implications?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.01780.pdf
To measure speed in Quantum Mechanics, one has to agree on what measuring time in Quantum Mechanics means. Agreeing as to what measuring time precisely means in Quantum Mechanics is an issue, since there is no such thing as a time operator in Quantum Mechanics. (Sorry Spupeng7 and your imaginary time). See for example the following concerning efforts to define a time operator, with at least 3 different ways to do it: https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609211.pdf
I would not jump to such conclusion (regarding Heisenberg's principle), as this interpretation is based on group delay and the derivative of the scattering phase. There is a connection to Heisenberg's principle in that the scattering matrix is a fast function of energy if the particle spends a long time in the scattering region, and it is a slow function of energy if the particle spends only a short time in the scattering region. However, contemplate the various ways that the speed and the position of an electron can be calculated, when one is dealing with Quantum Mechanics instead of dealing with a particle subject to Newton's classical laws.
Also, I see no application of these intricate measurements of spatial and temporal effects to the EM Drive as designed and tested in the experiments reported by Shawyer and NASA. If others do, please let us know what are the implications... -
#2726 by spupeng7 on 16 Nov, 2017 02:00
-
(...)
There is no NET charge dipole across a bar magnet.
WarpTech,
how would you measure that? If there were, then the only measurable consequence would be a magnetic field, would it not? -
#2727 by WarpTech on 16 Nov, 2017 02:04
-
(...)
There is no NET charge dipole across a bar magnet.
WarpTech,
how would you measure that? If there were, then the only measurable consequence would be a magnetic field, would it not?
With a voltmeter. If there is a NET charge displacement, there is an electric field and a voltage difference from one end to the other. I can assure you, because I've worked with transformers and magnetic fields for decades, that there is no voltage across a bar magnet at rest relative to the observer.
-
#2728 by spupeng7 on 16 Nov, 2017 02:39
-
(...)
To measure speed in Quantum Mechanics, one has to agree on what measuring time in Quantum Mechanics means. Agreeing as to what measuring time precisely means in Quantum Mechanics is an issue, since there is no such thing as a time operator in Quantum Mechanics. (Sorry Spupeng7 and your imaginary time). See for example the following concerning efforts to define a time operator, with at least 3 different ways to do it: https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609211.pdf
I would not jump to such conclusion (regarding Heisenberg's principle), as this interpretation is based on group delay and the derivative of the scattering phase. There is a connection to Heisenberg's principle in that the scattering matrix is a fast function of energy if the particle spends a long time in the scattering region, and it is a slow function of energy if the particle spends only a short time in the scattering region. However, contemplate the various ways that the speed and the position of an electron can be calculated, when one is dealing with Quantum Mechanics instead of dealing with a particle subject to Newton's classical laws.
Also, I see no application of these intricate measurements of spatial and temporal effects to the EM Drive as designed and tested in the experiments reported by Shawyer and NASA. If others do, please let us know what are the implications...
Rodal,
there may not be a time operator in Quantum Mechanics, but what Quantum Mechanics is analyzing exists across time and one of the reasons why the equations of wave mechanics use complex powers is because the relationships of relative velocity and momentum require, in my opinion, complex conjugates for their simplest resolution.
I suggest complex time because it allows the possibility of a tenable explanation for a Machian interconnection between all charges. That would then have direct relevance to the mechanism of interaction enabling any EM Drive thrust.
If you want to resolve relative motion any other way you are going to need to master the General Relativistic mechanics which have so far eluded me. The concept of time dilation is simple enough though, all you need to know is that the clock in your hand always runs at the same rate as the chemistry in your head.
Is there a simpler analysis of relative rates of time, than assigning a complex conjugate to clock time? If you then recognize the presence of charge as the influence dilating time then I think you arrive at a simpler explanation for mechanics in general. -
#2729 by spupeng7 on 16 Nov, 2017 02:45
-
Ya,
(...)
There is no NET charge dipole across a bar magnet.
WarpTech,
how would you measure that? If there were, then the only measurable consequence would be a magnetic field, would it not?
With a voltmeter. If there is a NET charge displacement, there is an electric field and a voltage difference from one end to the other. I can assure you, because I've worked with transformers and magnetic fields for decades, that there is no voltage across a bar magnet at rest relative to the observer.
that volt meter is only going to measure a voltage if the charges creating the magnetic field are free to be conducted away from the circumstance holding them at that differentiated longitudinal displacement. The fact that those circumstances are stable, at least in the short term, suggest that they do not have that freedom. -
#2730 by WarpTech on 16 Nov, 2017 04:24
-
With a voltmeter. If there is a NET charge displacement, there is an electric field and a voltage difference from one end to the other. I can assure you, because I've worked with transformers and magnetic fields for decades, that there is no voltage across a bar magnet at rest relative to the observer.
Ya,
that volt meter is only going to measure a voltage if the charges creating the magnetic field are free to be conducted away from the circumstance holding them at that differentiated longitudinal displacement. The fact that those circumstances are stable, at least in the short term, suggest that they do not have that freedom.
If the electrons are not free from the atoms to be conducted by the voltmeter, then they are also not free to be displaced along the length of the bar magnet. Seriously man, why do you insist on reinventing the wheel? Quantum Electrodynamics is THE most well tested theory EVER! Just learn it the way everybody else knows it, and then you can realize all your good ideas using the same physics and terminology as everyone else. It makes conversation much easier.
Thanks!
-
#2731 by Peter Svancarek on 16 Nov, 2017 11:04
-
This topics goes for looong time.
So, I wanted to ask- is there any proof that EMDrive functions? A proof without any doubt?
What I read, chinese scientists retracted their claims, since they measured thermal effects on power lines. -
#2732 by bunjatec on 16 Nov, 2017 12:46
-
This topics goes for looong time.
So, I wanted to ask- is there any proof that EMDrive functions? A proof without any doubt?
What I read, chinese scientists retracted their claims, since they measured thermal effects on power lines.
This is the million dollar question.
So far we have some mildly positive results and indications close to the noise floor for the experiments, but as yet nothing unequivocally proven (although possibly close in a couple of cases), neither do we have an agreed mechanism so to how it would work.
What we do have is a lot of interesting theoretical discussion and tantalising glimpses of what could be..
I personally hope that as time and experiments go by this resolves into something increasingly interesting. -
#2733 by JonathanD on 16 Nov, 2017 14:56
-
What we do have is a lot of interesting theoretical discussion and tantalising glimpses of what could be..
We also have some incredibly dedicated builders who are pouring incredible amounts of time and money into trying to prove or disprove this thing once and for all. And not to disparage any of the rest of the thread participants because most of your discussions are over my head anyway, but it's the builders that keep me coming back and refreshing this thread every day!
-
#2734 by Stormbringer on 16 Nov, 2017 18:06
-
I'll drop this here since it appears to me that it might be pertinent to the discussion that was going on a while back about skin depth effects on electrons and photons interacting with the boundary layers of the frustrum interior:
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-scientists-technique-energy-momentum-electrons.html
(finally I get to contribute again) -
#2735 by racevedo88 on 17 Nov, 2017 00:11
-
This topics goes for looong time.
So, I wanted to ask- is there any proof that EMDrive functions? A proof without any doubt?
What I read, chinese scientists retracted their claims, since they measured thermal effects on power lines.
I have been following this topic for a while, and to be honest most of the discussion is well above my head. Truth in advertisement I am a hoper “as in I hope it works” and some of the things I know are that while many test seems to show that thrust is being produced, they have not been able to account for experimental errors or other variables such as thermal effects.
The beauty here is that you have some dedicated and knowledgeable experimenters such as Shells, monomorphic and others that are discussing their experiments and settings online. In essence they are getting peer reviewed at every step from both believers and sceptics alike, and implementing suggestions from both sides into their setups.
This is important because the results of these experiments would be a lot harder to refute by the community. So although I personally believe that the question won’t be settled until it is tested in space, what happenswith this experiments will make it more likely to secure funding for such an endeavor.
It also has the beauty that a positive report has the capacity to turn current physics understanding on its head and spur a new age of theoretical science and kickstart a golden age of space exploration.
So I will continue to follow this even thought the discussion really go over my head. -
#2736 by spupeng7 on 17 Nov, 2017 00:51
-
With a voltmeter. If there is a NET charge displacement, there is an electric field and a voltage difference from one end to the other. I can assure you, because I've worked with transformers and magnetic fields for decades, that there is no voltage across a bar magnet at rest relative to the observer.
Ya,
that volt meter is only going to measure a voltage if the charges creating the magnetic field are free to be conducted away from the circumstance holding them at that differentiated longitudinal displacement. The fact that those circumstances are stable, at least in the short term, suggest that they do not have that freedom.
If the electrons are not free from the atoms to be conducted by the voltmeter, then they are also not free to be displaced along the length of the bar magnet. Seriously man, why do you insist on reinventing the wheel? Quantum Electrodynamics is THE most well tested theory EVER! Just learn it the way everybody else knows it, and then you can realize all your good ideas using the same physics and terminology as everyone else. It makes conversation much easier.
Thanks!
You thank me too quickly WT,
electrons can be in a sustained displacement without even leaving a molecule, as in London forces. Electrons can be in a sustained displacement due to insulating grain boundaries in a crystalline material and possibly within dendrite structures as well, maybe even when they are nominally part of the electron gas within a metal. So far as I know, and there being a lot I don't know and much that I know I don't know.
Am not much interested in restricting myself to learning it 'the way everybody else knows it' because the conclusions inevitable from those constructs forbid emdrive thrust and are crawling with paradox. There are enough physics students doing that sad rubbish, you don't need me to do it as well.
If emdrive is confirmed it will be a moment of opportunity to unshackle ourselves from assumption, especially the tattered remnants of the Newtonian assumption that everything remains in strictly conserved relationships because they are locked into an imaginary grid of some sort.
In my opinion, conservation is the consequence of balance in an interconnected universe where time is rigid only within relativistic limits. But those relativistic limits are exceeded at every level of interaction and time progresses differently for every charge, to some extent.
But when it comes to photons, the paradox accepted by academic physics is absurd, embarrassing. The wheel needs to be re-invented because there are better ways to get around. I insist upon it because arguments from authority are not convincing to me. -
#2737 by WarpTech on 17 Nov, 2017 01:17
-
...
But when it comes to photons, the paradox accepted by academic physics is absurd, embarrassing. The wheel needs to be re-invented because there are better ways to get around. I insist upon it because arguments from authority are not convincing to me.
What paradox?
Well, I find going by the book provides everything I need, including solutions to the EmDrive. I'd prefer to wait and see if one actually violates physical laws before I would attempt to rewrite the book.
-
#2738 by meberbs on 17 Nov, 2017 14:36
-
You thank me too quickly WT,
Electric and magnetic fields can be measured in multiple ways (To start with electrons in the metal contacts of a voltmeter can move and would do so in the presence of the field even if the electrons in the object don't move). Displaced charges produce electric fields, and not magnetic fields. This has been measured.
electrons can be in a sustained displacement without even leaving a molecule, as in London forces. Electrons can be in a sustained displacement due to insulating grain boundaries in a crystalline material and possibly within dendrite structures as well, maybe even when they are nominally part of the electron gas within a metal. So far as I know, and there being a lot I don't know and much that I know I don't know.Am not much interested in restricting myself to learning it 'the way everybody else knows it' because the conclusions inevitable from those constructs forbid emdrive thrust and are crawling with paradox. There are enough physics students doing that sad rubbish, you don't need me to do it as well.
As WarpTech said, what paradox?
Also, calling the results of the work of every scientist for the last 300 years "rubbish" is a massive insult.If emdrive is confirmed it will be a moment of opportunity to unshackle ourselves from assumption, especially the tattered remnants of the Newtonian assumption that everything remains in strictly conserved relationships because they are locked into an imaginary grid of some sort.
First, what do you mean "tattered remnants." Second, things that Newton observed to be conserved are not just "assumed" to be conserved. We have Noether's theorem now which is a basis for conservation laws. The actual assumptions involved do not involve "an imaginary grid of some sort."In my opinion, conservation is the consequence of balance in an interconnected universe where time is rigid only within relativistic limits. But those relativistic limits are exceeded at every level of interaction and time progresses differently for every charge, to some extent.
Your assumption is wrong, again see Noether's theorem.But when it comes to photons, the paradox accepted by academic physics is absurd, embarrassing. The wheel needs to be re-invented because there are better ways to get around. I insist upon it because arguments from authority are not convincing to me.
Again, what paradox?
There aren't arguments of authority being used, there are arguments based on countless simple experiments and on solid math. Your refusal to actually look up any real information and learn something about what your talking about does not make other's statements an "argument from authority." We aren't going to be able to teach you an entire course in electrodynamics through this forum, and even less so if you continue simply denying experimentally measured relationships. -
#2739 by Slyver on 17 Nov, 2017 16:57
-
Am not much interested in restricting myself to learning it 'the way everybody else knows it' because the conclusions inevitable from those constructs forbid emdrive thrust and are crawling with paradox...
When I was young, for quite a few years, I indulged in art, drawing primarily. I wasn't amazingly good, I wasn't terribly bad, the point is, I understood, at least on some level, what it took to create art. Sometime in high school I remember looking at a piece from Picasso's cubist period, and thinking to myself, "How can this guy be so popular? I see no evidence here that this guy even knows how to draw." I then looked up more of his work, and the sentiment remained. I had no appreciation for his cubism.
Eventually I ran across some less popular realistic pieces. I realized that Picasso was an amazing realist. An epiphany ensued, and all of his other artwork took on new meaning to me. Beyond the "in your face" of cubism, I was able to appreciate the nuance of what he was saying.
In my prejudice against what I didn't understand, I assumed the fault lay with the artist. The fault lay with my prejudice. I still don't like cubism, but I have a deep appreciation for it now, because of that lesson.
I had another epiphany at the same time (it was a "moment" for me). This one was, you can't push the boundaries in a field that has so much work done in it, without gaining mastery of the work that has gone before.
If you want to look at a new way of doing things, you must understand, on an intimate level, why so many others are proponents of the "old way". Yes, you will find dogma, but there will be logical reasons and a body of evidence as well. Mastering the old way also allows you to see where the logic might have failed, in some subtle nuance, and what the axioms really are, and where the holes may be.
Everyone who has pushed the boundaries in established fields has been a master of what came before. It can be difficult to ignore the dogma in your education; nevertheless, you must become educated before you can teach, especially if what you end up teaching is a paradigm shift.