-
#300 by Ricvil on 17 Aug, 2018 18:08
-
I have interesting news.
I think I've "accidentally" discover a "new" composite spontaneus broken symmetry, involving one Poincare space-time symmetry , a geometric space-time duality, a conformal transformation, time reversal, and the know broken electromagnetic duality symmetry.
If I'm right, my first claim is:
The tapered conical cavity, with flat or spherical endplates may act, under some conditions, as a TE TM Topological Insulator, or in other words, a "TE TM Diode", with a "depletion zone" at some specific point between the endplates.
There are many other implications, but for now...That's all folks!!!
-
#301 by bad_astra on 17 Aug, 2018 19:30
-
At this point, the control loop is me. It is not difficult to maintain maximum return loss by manually tuning the frequency. The resonance drift is not too fast that I can't keep up with it. This is not ideal, and I would like to eventually create a custom interface for the signal generator. Unfortunately that requires somewhat advanced knowledge of LabView. Right now, I am a novice at best, but I haven't put much effort into it.
Really appreciate the effort you're both putting into this.
. -
#302 by Jim Davis on 17 Aug, 2018 20:16
-
I think I've "acidentally" discover a "new" composite expontaneus broken symmetry, envolving one Poincare space-time symmetry , a geometric space-time duality, a conformal transformation, and the know broken electromagnetic duality symmetry.
Do you think you'll win the Nobel Prize for Physics this year or next year? -
#303 by Pete on 17 Aug, 2018 20:44
-
I think I've "acidentally" discover a "new" composite expontaneus broken symmetry, envolving one Poincare space-time symmetry , a geometric space-time duality, a conformal transformation, and the know broken electromagnetic duality symmetry.
Wow, I have to admit I have difficulty even visualizing the implications what you are saying there.
.
.
.
.
Of course, That could be because I have never heard these words:
Acidentally
expontaneus
envolving
tappered
wow.
I have so much to learn -
#304 by Ricvil on 17 Aug, 2018 22:03
-
Sorry.
My english is very poor.
-
#305 by Bob Woods on 18 Aug, 2018 04:59
-
From Pete:"Acidentally
expontaneus
envolving
tappered"
Maybe it's:
Accidentally
Spontaneous
Involving
Tapered
Trying to be helpful in language issues is more productive, especially in a topic that has many people from around the world as members.
-
#306 by demofsky on 18 Aug, 2018 09:18
-
An interesting paper that may be relevant here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08771.pdf
The mass of sound
We show that the commonly accepted statement that sound waves do not transport mass is only true at linear order. Using effective field theory techniques, we confirm the result found in [1] for zero-temperature superfluids, and extend it to the case of solids and ordinary fluids. We show that, in fact, sound waves do carry mass—in particular, gravitational mass. This implies that a sound wave not only is affected by gravity but also generates a tiny gravitational field. Our findings are valid for non-relativistic media as well, and could have intriguing experimental implications. -
#307 by Ricvil on 19 Aug, 2018 14:45
-
An interesting paper that may be relevant here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08771.pdf
The mass of sound
We show that the commonly accepted statement that sound waves do not transport mass is only true at linear order. Using effective field theory techniques, we confirm the result found in [1] for zero-temperature superfluids, and extend it to the case of solids and ordinary fluids. We show that, in fact, sound waves do carry mass—in particular, gravitational mass. This implies that a sound wave not only is affected by gravity but also generates a tiny gravitational field. Our findings are valid for non-relativistic media as well, and could have intriguing experimental implications.
Amazing!!!
Thank you very much for the article. Many linking ideas!!!
The Nature is beautiful, Isn't it??
-
#308 by spupeng7 on 20 Aug, 2018 05:51
-
(...)
meberbs,
You aren't discussing new or different concepts here.
(...)
it is entirely possible that I have failed to make a clear mathematical argument, never having received comment on the mathematical structure I am attempting to create, beyond 'it all adds to zero' which is unhelpful because time and distance do add to zero at the speed of light. My work aims to specify a simpler, more productive perspective on the findings of special relativity, which is available to anyone who is not afraid to consider action at a distance without artificial constructs for the transport of energy necessitated only by the uniquely limited point perspective that all us humans share.
That my logic is invisible to you surprises me not at all but I do encourage all of you to consider it further because there may be insight within it which inspires comprehension of relativity in general and there are arguments within it which in the last few decades of reading I have not encountered anywhere else. Please consider with an open mind because nothing less will resolve emdrive thrust if it does prove to be a reality. Indeed, it will be far more complicated to resolve if I am wrong than if I am right.
Thank you for your questions, I may be able to answer them better after some consideration
-
#309 by meberbs on 20 Aug, 2018 13:51
-
it is entirely possible that I have failed to make a clear mathematical argument,
Well that much is true.never having received comment on the mathematical structure I am attempting to create, beyond 'it all adds to zero' which is unhelpful because time and distance do add to zero at the speed of light.
Nope, try reading what I wrote again. 0/0 is an invalid mathematical structure. The technical term for it is "undefined." Your concept is what is unhelpful, because you cannot use it to make a single meaningful prediction. Something that is 1 m away and something that is 2 m away both would be 0m away in your frame. This means that according to your frame, they are the same, and 1=2. This is obviously untrue since those are different objects. (And they must be different, since things like electromagnetic force are proportional to 1/r^2)My work aims to specify a simpler, more productive perspective on the findings of special relativity, which is available to anyone who is not afraid to consider action at a distance without artificial constructs for the transport of energy necessitated only by the uniquely limited point perspective that all us humans share.
Honestly, This sentence just sounds like condescending insults to me. If I was afraid to consider other perspectives, I wouldn't be here, but you seem afraid to admit that you are wrong. The condescension comes from when you act like your simple concept is not one that has been independently come up with countless times in the last century, followed by the people who know what they are doing rapidly realizing that everything collapses, so you can't make useful predictions.Please consider with an open mind because nothing less will resolve emdrive thrust if it does prove to be a reality.
I did consider it with an open mind. It does not do anything that would explain a working emDrive.Thank you for your questions, I may be able to answer them better after some consideration
That may be the most insincere "thank you" I have ever seen, Since earlier in the very same post you denied that I even presented you with valid problems. (and you seem to have completely ignored the whole fact that complex time plugged into any equation would result in all answers being complex (and meaningless.))
If you have nothing to add other than insults, and refusals to actually consider the problems with your claims, please stop wasting everyone's time including your own. -
#310 by spupeng7 on 21 Aug, 2018 05:44
-
meberbs,it is entirely possible that I have failed to make a clear mathematical argument,
Well that much is true.never having received comment on the mathematical structure I am attempting to create, beyond 'it all adds to zero' which is unhelpful because time and distance do add to zero at the speed of light.
Nope, try reading what I wrote again. 0/0 is an invalid mathematical structure. The technical term for it is "undefined." Your concept is what is unhelpful, because you cannot use it to make a single meaningful prediction. Something that is 1 m away and something that is 2 m away both would be 0m away in your frame. This means that according to your frame, they are the same, and 1=2. This is obviously untrue since those are different objects. (And they must be different, since things like electromagnetic force are proportional to 1/r^2)My work aims to specify a simpler, more productive perspective on the findings of special relativity, which is available to anyone who is not afraid to consider action at a distance without artificial constructs for the transport of energy necessitated only by the uniquely limited point perspective that all us humans share.
Honestly, This sentence just sounds like condescending insults to me. If I was afraid to consider other perspectives, I wouldn't be here, but you seem afraid to admit that you are wrong. The condescension comes from when you act like your simple concept is not one that has been independently come up with countless times in the last century, followed by the people who know what they are doing rapidly realizing that everything collapses, so you can't make useful predictions.Please consider with an open mind because nothing less will resolve emdrive thrust if it does prove to be a reality.
I did consider it with an open mind. It does not do anything that would explain a working emDrive.Thank you for your questions, I may be able to answer them better after some consideration
That may be the most insincere "thank you" I have ever seen, Since earlier in the very same post you denied that I even presented you with valid problems. (and you seem to have completely ignored the whole fact that complex time plugged into any equation would result in all answers being complex (and meaningless.))
If you have nothing to add other than insults, and refusals to actually consider the problems with your claims, please stop wasting everyone's time including your own.
you ask what I bring to this discussion. All discussion of a mechanism of action for the emdrive must satisfy both relativity and quantum mechanics if it is to provide clarity but these subjects do not, despite your protestations, satisfy each other. The only way forward is to join the fray with a seamless alternative, and I believe I have one, though it may yet need to be explained more clearly.
By the equivalence principle it is established that gravity is the consequence of a dilation of time but we do not extend that mechanism to the electromagnetic forces. To do so would require us to approach the entire subject from the covariant perspective, which is horribly difficult and maybe impossible if we are to marry it with quantum mechanics. But, if we assume for the sake of argument that electromagnetic forces do act by dilation and divergence of time, then the covariant perspective requires to us recognize both the complex nature of time and the lack of orthoganality in the spatial dimensions.
Please forgive me for not specifying the fresh dynamical equations this suggests while unqualified and unassisted. It is more relevant to begin with why this is possible, which requires the reader to approach these concepts without prejudice. If time is complex then all charges act on each other directly, in the case of gravity and inertia their influence upon each other is proportional to the inverse square of their distance in their own individual proper time, and in the case of the exchange of a quantum their influence is the consequence of a hierarchy of proximity for resonance between charges without diminution of energy over distance in their own proper time. Not an easy set of concepts but seamless, I insist.
There is no place in this plan for photons. The impossibility of photons is established and they can be appreciated as illusion created by the reduction of dynamics to that apparent from a single perspective whose regular development through its own proper time gives it an infinity of universes to interact with depending upon its velocity vector. There is not even any need to continue to pursue such illusions except in order to define and so to understand the human, the animal, perspective. Time can then, as we have already begun, be appreciated as a dimension of location, its complex nature defining all interaction with the consequence that Schrodinger's cat is either alive or dead but never both at once.
Complex time describes a universe of charges all in constant interaction and all progressing through their own proper time at the same rate that I do, sitting here listening to my clock tick and tock. Forward because change is inevitable, interconnected by the very nature of existence. Forgive me if I see multiple universes and linear time as demented obsolete dreams. To comprehend complex time you must begin by understanding that the real component of time is only equal and opposite to its complex conjugate, at the speed of light.
To understand how this provides a mechanism of action for emdrive thrust it may help to distinguish between quanta which cannot escape the Faraday cage of its frustum, and the inertial interactions which act by dilation and divergence relative between the constant proper time of all individual charges without the charges which cause those imbalanced interactions leaving the confines of that frustum. Charges travelling within the conductor reflecting quanta of radiation, contain the energy of those quanta before it is re-emitted and while they do their momentum is a property of that conductor, so, conductors of different sizes have that momentum for differing durations. Is that not all we need to explain the extent of emdrive thrust.
Would it not help us improve the design of the emdrive if we knew its mechanism. Complex time is to my mind a simple explanation of physical reality if only because it raises no paradox, unless you see the immediate connection of all interaction as being a paradox which I do not. Everyone wants mathematical proof but the study of complex time must begin with a fresh conceptual resolution.
Referencing previously attached paper: 'Coincidence in Complex Time'
-
#311 by meberbs on 21 Aug, 2018 06:28
-
you ask what I bring to this discussion. All discussion of a mechanism of action for the emdrive must satisfy both relativity and quantum mechanics if it is to provide clarity but these subjects do not, despite your protestations, satisfy each other.
Go look up quantum electrodynamics on wikipedia. Special relativity, electrodynamics, and quantum mechanics are unified in a single consistent theory. You are claiming it is inconsistent, yet you haven't pointed to a single inconsistency.
Most of the rest of your post is simply gibberish. You put a bunch of words together, in sentences that are grammatically correct, but do not have any meaning whatsoever. For example:But, if we assume for the sake of argument that electromagnetic forces do act by dilation and divergence of time, then the covariant perspective requires to us recognize both the complex nature of time and the lack of orthoganality in the spatial dimensions.
None of that means anything.Please forgive me for not specifying the fresh dynamical equations this suggests while unqualified and unassisted.
See my last few posts where I point out various ways that your posts are insulting? Go apologize for that before asking for forgiveness.
After that you will need to provide a meaningful definition of "complex time" before you can expect anyone to assist you with it.You might as well be asking people to help you prove that invisible unicorns are pink. Even if unicorns existed, an invisible object does not have a color by definition. It is simply nonsensical to try to measure the color of an invisible object, let alone one that doesn't exist to begin with.There is no place in this plan for photons.
That makes this simple:
-photoelectric effect
-single photon experiments
-particle motions in particle colliders
-photon-photon scattering
Photons exist and their existence is measured in all sorts of ways. If your claims do not allow for photons, then they do not describe reality. -
#312 by OnlyMe on 21 Aug, 2018 17:40
-
.... All discussion of a mechanism of action for the emdrive must satisfy both relativity and quantum mechanics if it is to provide clarity ....
By the equivalence principle it is established that gravity is the consequence of a dilation of time ...
spupeng7,
The above quotes from your first two paragraphs encapsulate, the essence of two issues I have, with your introductory comments.
When you begin the second paragraph with a reference to the “equivalence principle”, it suggests that in the first paragraph, when you referenced “relativity” it must include not just special relativity, as address by meberbs, but also general relativity. The difficulty here is that, as yet we have no generally accepted theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics. Which leads to a conclusion that the intent/objective of the first quote, “All discussion of a mechanism of action for the emdrive must satisfy both..”, cannot be achieved. The two theories cannot as yet be fully reconciled.
Second, please provide some credible reference that supports your contention, “By the equivalence principle it is established that gravity is the consequence of a dilation of time...”.
While time dilation may be a consequence of gravitation, even uniform acceleration, the equivalence principle asserts only that one cannot distinguish the difference between uniform acceleration (in a flat spacetime) and being inertially at rest relative to a gravitational field.
Change is a matter of fact and fundamentally addressed in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. While “we” may describe change within both of those theoretical contexts by the introduction of “time”, time itself is a concept born out of our awareness of change. A concept we use to describe and communicate our observations and experience of change. How we describe change does not affect change. That does not mean that the concept of time is not useful even necessary, to the exchange of ideas, experience and even theory. It only means that just because it is an important concept for communication, does not mean it has any causative affect on the underlying reality. Again time — our awareness of change — does not itself cause change.
-
#313 by Ricvil on 22 Aug, 2018 18:10
-
TT,
There is no assumption that the forces sum to zero, it is a simple fact. It has been proven multiple ways.I never said the pressure was constant everywhere. In fact due to mode shape, it is variable over any surface you pick in the cavity. What hasn't changed is that the net axial force on the sidewalls plus the force on the small end together exactly cancel the force on the large end.
Yes the rad pressure varies as the mode varies and yes it is not constant over the surface. However you are incorrect in assuming all the rad pressure on the interior surfaces of an EmDrive sum to zero.
Have a look at this graphic of how a typical resonant photon impacts and emits itself off of the side walls and the end plates. Yes I know it is not what Roger has shared as the impact angle on the small end plate is larger than on the big end plate, so more rad pressure on the small end plate than the big end plate and the side wall rad pressure is basically very small.
Your diagram is not representative of a "typical" photon, because a "typical" photon acts like a wave not a particle in this situation. You can do a particle model if you want, and it will still conserve momentum if you actually do it right. Your first clue that something is wrong with your picture should be your obviously unphysical result of more pressure on the small plate than the large one. The issue is that you did not sketch a path consistent with incident and reflected angles equal to each other. Do that and things will start making more sense. Then you can do the math and add up the momentum from each transfer. With 6 reflections off the side wall per loop, and all of those reflections having the axial component of their momentum pointed in the same direction, you are not going to find the sidewall force contribution to be "small"
The emission angle alters as the diameter alters. That is why the guide wavelength at the small end is longer than at the big end. As the diameter drops, the emission angle increases. At cutoff diameter, the emission angle causes the emitted photon to hit the opposite wall at such an angle that the photon reverses it's big to small propogation. Image attached is of a resonant cavity that has no small end plate. Instead the proton propogation is reversed via the just described cutoff action. BTW this action is what caused the eddy current ring at the small end to become much greater than on the small end plate. 2nd image is cutoff and the 3rd image is boarderline cutoff. Ideally the small end side wall eddy current ring is much weaker than the small end plate eddy current ring at in the 4th image
If you search in a good microwave engineering book, you will find the equation that describes the relationship between mode, freq, waveguide diameter and emission angle.
Yes you are correct, the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate. This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward. The action/reaction occurs from the photons doing their impact and emit N3 events at each end plate with an overall N3 effect generation a net effect small end forward. There is some side wall force but it is small end directed and not big end directed. So the small side wall force actually adds to the overall small end forward action.
I did a few simulations on TE013 to compare the bandwidth of a truncated conical cavity and a equivalent cylindrical one at nearly the same frequency...
However, I notice that the result shows an interesting current pattern at the end plate as compared to the strength at the sidewall. The cut off frequency is well below the resonant frequency for the cylindrical cavity. Mesh size is chosen equal also in this simulations.
Ignore the tapered cavity for a moment please.
Can you explain why the current at the sidewall is much stronger as compared to the end plates while the diameters of the end plate(s) is much larger than the cut off diameter for TE01p in the case of the cylindrical resonator?
It should be stronger at the end plate when applying your theory due to the smaller current ring area at the end plate(s).
Thanks.
Consequence of my theory.
PS: R1 and R2 are mesured from apex.
-
#314 by X_RaY on 22 Aug, 2018 19:37
-
FYI
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05706-3
Regarding this work it seems the MEGA-Drive as the EM-Drive are two manifestations of the same underlying effect. There is a difference in the speed of vibration of the very ends of the frustum (especially the end plates) introduced by the EM field at the inner walls of such asymmetric cavity resonator.
What if one of the end plates is mechanically resonant at the speed of sound, introduced by the much faster varying EM field and therefore directly connected to the EM field component? This would imply a
mechanical<-->electromagnetic coupling
at only a single end plate while the other is out of mechanical resonance(or at a lower frequency also resonant)...
All whats needed would be a kick at the right time regarding the mechanical resonance/response introduced by the EM field.
Is there anyone having helpful thoughts about this kind of dynamical coupled situation, maybe related or based on the Mach/Woodward effect thruster? -
#315 by cvbn on 23 Aug, 2018 02:12
-
#316 by spupeng7 on 23 Aug, 2018 05:22
-
(...)
meberbs,
Most of the rest of your post is simply gibberish. You put a bunch of words together, in sentences that are grammatically correct, but do not have any meaning whatsoever.
(...)
See my last few posts where I point out various ways that your posts are insulting? Go apologize for that before asking for forgiveness.
(...)
After that you will need to provide a meaningful definition of "complex time" before you can expect anyone to assist you with it.
(...)
You might as well be asking people to help you prove that invisible unicorns are pink.
(...)
Photons exist and their existence is measured in all sorts of ways. If your claims do not allow for photons, then they do not describe reality.
nothing is less well defined than the equations of quantum mechanics and the last century of debate has not clarified them. We must widen the range of solutions considered in our attempts to explain the results of both the two slit experiments and emdrive experiments, because we are stalking deeper understanding. Understanding which will hopefully lead to technical development, a continuous process non?
It is unkind of you to question my sincerity or how I choose to spend my free time. The purpose of this forum is discovery, by whatever means are effective. Not everyone accepts QED, all the experimental evidence is misinterpreted if we have misunderstood time. If my failure to accept the existence of photons offends you then you are offended by one of the processes by which discovery is often pursued, the questioning of all base assumptions.
Besides, I love your questions because they inspire me to improve my ideas and their explanation. What I would like you to do is understand them better so that you can find deeper criticism of them. That would be far more amusing and might even help us both. The forward dimension of space does collapse at the speed of light, what I am attempting to offer is a conceptual frame in which that makes sense, which faces the fact of it.
Yes, I am wrong, of course I am, we are all found to be wrong in the fullness of time. Meantime let's crack this nut as best we can. It may only be a long century since we mastered powered flight but we should not delay the next steps in development for the sake of clinging onto the tormented knot of math which is little more than the detritus of that centuries desperate determination to comprehend time. -
#317 by meberbs on 23 Aug, 2018 08:57
-
nothing is less well defined than the equations of quantum mechanics and the last century of debate has not clarified them. We must widen the range of solutions considered in our attempts to explain the results of both the two slit experiments and emdrive experiments,
False on all counts.
-The equations of quantum mechanics are perfectly well defined.
-The most important question in quantum mechanics was settled by experiment, "local hidden variable" theories are wrong
-Any other differences in quantum mechanics are pure philosophy that has no effect on what actually happens
-Two slit experiments are explained perfectly by quantum mechanics
-The emDrive experiments to date are explained perfectly as well, since the original large thrusts claimed have been long since invalidated, and increasingly better experiments have still found no evidence of anything.It is unkind of you to question my sincerity or how I choose to spend my free time.
You are spending your free time by insulting physicists. THAT is what is unkind. Questioning you doing that is not something that even needs to be defended.
If someone gives you a gift and you thank them for it while smashing them in the face with it you are not being sincere, no matter what you might think.Not everyone accepts QED, all the experimental evidence is misinterpreted if we have misunderstood time.
I have never seen it questioned by anyone who actually knows what they are talking about.If my failure to accept the existence of photons offends you then you are offended by one of the processes by which discovery is often pursued, the questioning of all base assumptions.
You are simply ignoring the experimental evidence that contradicts you, therefore insisting that your assumption is correct. That is the exact opposite of "questioning of all base assumptions." It is also the exact opposite of the most basic principle underlying the scientific method: test your ideas against experiment. I have already questioned the assumption of "do photons exist" and found an array of evidence supporting that assumption, with nothing to contradict it (I already pointed out fundamental flaws in your claims).Besides, I love your questions because they inspire me to improve my ideas and their explanation.
Strange since you seem to have made no progress on doing that in more than half a year.What I would like you to do is understand them better so that you can find deeper criticism of them.
I already understand the consequences of the "special relativity from the perspective of a photon" better than you. I would try to help you understand it better, but I cannot do so as long as you continue to refuse to respond to what I have said about it.
Your "complex time" concept has never been described by you in any way that is not gibberish (i.e. could be actually used to predict the result of even the simplest of experiments.) -
#318 by Ricvil on 23 Aug, 2018 12:18
-
FYI
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05706-3
Regarding this work it seems the MEGA-Drive as the EM-Drive are two manifestations of the same underlying effect. There is a difference in the speed of vibration of the very ends of the frustum (especially the end plates) introduced by the EM field at the inner walls of such asymmetric cavity resonator.
What if one of the end plates is mechanically resonant at the speed of sound, introduced by the much faster varying EM field and therefore directly connected to the EM field component? This would imply a
mechanical<-->electromagnetic coupling
at only a single end plate while the other is out of mechanical resonance(or at a lower frequency also resonant)...
All whats needed would be a kick at the right time regarding the mechanical resonance/response introduced by the EM field.
Is there anyone having helpful thoughts about this kind of dynamical coupled situation, maybe related or based on the Mach/Woodward effect thruster?
Some thing like the "event horizon" of a "electromagnetic black hole" , converting TE/TM modes in Phonon waves?
Converting surface normal pressure into parallel shear?
A kind of "Phonon Hall effect? -
#319 by flux_capacitor on 23 Aug, 2018 14:42
-
BTW anyone has the Taylor paper?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators
I don't think you have read it: the link provides only the abstract…
