-
#920 by flux_capacitor on 07 Apr, 2019 20:01
-
So where is this testable claim you mention?
{…}What is this "special material"? If it cannot be found, then it cannot be tested nor falsified.
If you don't mind explaining this "coupling" briefly that would be helpful to me and maybe a few others. Just because light is a mite slower in glass doesn't mean that the fundamental constant of c has changed.
Maybe you haven't read all the documents in my two previous posts? First, please have a look at Low Power Warp Drive for Dummies where all is very briefly explained. I think Notsosureofit has read it and has understood.
The index of refraction n given alone in my posts was indeed misleading, my apologies. It is the inner product of electric permittivity ε and magnetic permeability μ that enables Sarfatti to produce a local frame invariant 4D zero rank tensor. Then, appropriate tetrad transformations make his equations valid for any non-inertial proper accelerating frame of reference. It is how general covariance and background independence are satisfied in his equations. To give some physical effects noticeable in an experiment, high ε alone is not enough if μ is low at the same time. Both need to be large enough.
Strong spacetime stiffness usually requires large values of mass-energy to induce noticeable curvature, due to the c4 term to the denominator of Einstein's coupling constant.
Sarfatti does not propose to change the value of the constant c in the vacuum, but to include the 4D inner-product of permittivity and permeability in the field equations, which should be written according to him:
Gμν = 8πG(εγδ μγδ)2 Tμν
In this field equation, it is easy to see that when the value of the inner product ε×μ becomes large enough, the coupling between Gμν (how much spacetime is distorted) and Tμν (EM energy required for the "engine", i.e. the amount of "fuel" of the warp drive) becomes large also. In other words, the stiffness of spacetime is not so rigid anymore and it should be possible to induce large curvatures very locally, with little energy.
This is Sarfatti's Popper-falsifiable prediction, as an experiment that could show any deviation from standard general relativity. Indeed, one could test this conjecture using an appropriate optically-pumpable anisotropic material with giant ε and μ. In Sarfatti's mind, this should be a special metamaterial made of a pixelated 2D-layered quasicrystal, multi-layered like Russian dolls (lattices within lattices) and resonant from at least angstrom scale to roughly micro-wave frequencies. Such material, also high-Tc superconducting, would activate into weightless warp drive when resonantly pumped into Fröhlich macro-quantum coherent state, somewhat similarly to a Bose-Einstein condensate. I don't think such material has been produced yet.
If Sarfatti's conjecture is right, such material would obviously exhibit noticeable different physical responses to applied EM fields, with respect to what plain-vanilla GR predicts (that is, nothing special).
No such material has been produced yet, but up to now, physicists only considered the thermal equilibrium case for superconductors. The clue may be in lasers that are pumped open non-equilibrium complex systems. Herbert Fröhlich suggested that almost any many-particle system when properly pumped far off thermodynamic equilibrium can be put into a robust macro-quantum coherent state immune from environmental decoherence. Sarfatti has justly written some notes recently (Nov 2017) about Fröhlich coherent state room-temperature superconductors.
As a side note, it is worth noting that a high-Tc superconductor proposal has been reported here by Mulletron a few weeks ago, found in a recent US Navy patent application. Although quickly dismissed by meberbs, Sarfatti describes the device in the patent as follows:Quote from: Jack SarfattiThe pulsed current coil is the resonant Fröhlich pump.
The effective non-equilibrium temperature of the pulsed device is:
T’ = T / [1 + k(pulsed current power)]
T is the ambient thermodynamic equilibrium temperature when the pulse is switched off.
Applying the pulse lowers the effective temperature to the critical temperature Tc for the onset of superconductivity (macro-quantum coherence).
May I add finally (and again, this is written in the document I linked to, not my analysis) that in order to satisfy general covariance, one needs to take into account both real particles in matter (on-mass-shell) and virtual particles of the ZPF (off-mass-shell) when doing calculations, i.e.:
εγδμγδ = εγδ(ZPF)μγδ(ZPF) + εγδ(ZPF)μγδ(Matter) + εγδ(Matter)μγδ(ZPF) + εγδ(Matter)μγδ(Matter)
Then
εγδ μγδ → ∞ ⇒ Tμν → 0
for fixed Gμν
So low-power warp drive may be possible. -
#921 by meberbs on 07 Apr, 2019 20:37
-
Maybe you haven't read all the documents in my two previous posts? First, please have a look at Low Power Warp Drive for Dummies where all is very briefly explained. I think Notsosureofit has read it and has understood.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough: What is the supposed testable claim that is being made? This requires a specific replicable test description with actual predicted results.
The link you just provided does not answer that question, and neither does anything else in this post.The index of refraction n given alone in my posts was indeed misleading, my apologies. It is the inner product of electric permittivity Ɛ and magnetic permeability μ that enables Sarfatti to produce a local frame invariant 4D zero rank tensor. Then, appropriate tetrad transformations make his equations valid for any non-inertial proper accelerating frame of reference. It is how general covariance and background independence are satisfied in his equations, yet high Ɛ alone is not enough.
It doesn't matter if you write the permittivity as a tensor, which is only necessary for anisotropic materials. The math plainly states that after you do the inner product (or simple product for non-isotropic materials) then the result simply is the result. It does not matter if you get to 20 by multiplying 5 times 4 or 20 times 1. The prediction that results from the math will not change.Gμν = 8πG(εγδ μγδ)2 Tμν
It is easy to see from that equation that if you allow the permeability to be 1 (equivalent to an identity tensor) you can just make the permittivity larger to get the same conclusion.
It is easy to see, reading this equation, that when the value of the inner product Ɛ×μ becomes large enough, the coupling between Gμν (how much spacetime is distorted) and Tμν (EM energy required for the "engine", i.e. the amount of "fuel" of the warp drive) becomes large also. In other words, the stiffness of spacetime is not so rigid anymore and it should be possible to induce large curvatures very locally, with little energy.This is Sarfatti's Popper-falsifiable prediction, as an experiment that could show any deviation from standard general relativity. Indeed, one could test this conjecture using an appropriate optically-pumpable anisotropic material with giant ε and μ.
You are missing the part where you actually specify what exactly this deviation would be from general relativity.In Sarfatti's mind, this should be a special metamaterial made of a pixelated 2D-layered quasicrystal, multi-layered like Russian dolls (lattices within lattices) and resonant from at least angstrom scale to roughly micro-wave frequencies. Such material, also high-Tc superconducting, would activate into weightless warp drive when resonantly pumped into Fröhlich macro-quantum coherent state, somewhat similarly to a Bose-Einstein condensate. I don't think such material has been produced yet.
Lesson in spotting crackpots and con-artists in "new physics" research: They love proposing the need for fanciful materials without providing a solid reason why such would be needed. This lets them make all sorts of claims without anyone being able to run the experiment the suggest
It is plainly obvious in the equation above that a if you set permeability to 1, and use the permittivity of water, which has a relative permittivity of around 80 (depending on temperature, for low frequency) then you would be changing the effective gravitational constant in GR by a factor of about 6400. (I implicitly added in a normalization factor to make the inner product come out sensibly when converting between the scalar and tensor version.) GR has been tested way more accurately than that, so the hypothesis is not even remotely plausible. This would fail basic tests in the Newtonian limit such as: Do 3 objects fall at the same rate?If Sarfatti-s conjecture is right, such material would obviously exhibit noticeable different physical responses to applied EM fields, with respect to what plain-vanilla GR predicts (that is, nothing special).
No, the modification being made is not to the apparent propagation of electromagnetic fields in dielectrics, but a modification of the fundamental gravitational constant in GR. You don't need to do anything electrodynamic, except have a material with high permittivity.May I add (and again, this is written in the document I linked to) that one needs to take into account both real particles in matter (on-mass-shell) and virtual particles of the ZPF (off-mass-shell) when doing calculations, i.e.:
This constitutes yet more "look at this complicated math with lots of symbols and fancy terms and please don't notice the simple ways in which this theory is obviously broken." It doesn't work so well on people who know what they are talking about. Any virtual particle contribution is simply built into the vacuum permittivity (there are couple equivalent ways to look at it.) The numbers I gave above stand.As a side note, it is worth noting that a high-Tc superconductor proposal has been reported here by Mulletron a few weeks ago, found in a recent US Navy patent application. Although quickly dismissed by meberbs, Sarfatti describes the device in the patent as follows:
Oh, is this that same person again, I didn't remember the name. I dismissed the superconductor claim because it seems he doesn't understand the definition of a superconductor. This new stuff you are talking about is just more evidence that nothing stated by him should be taken at face value.
P.S. it looks like you accidentally duplicated most of your previous post. -
#922 by flux_capacitor on 07 Apr, 2019 21:54
-
meberbs, I cannot refute most of your claims; the author of the basic idea, Dr Sarfatti, should bring more explanation if they exist, because I think we do not have the whole clear picture. I'll try to email him and ask. If he doesn't answer, case closed.
-
#923 by as58 on 07 Apr, 2019 21:59
-
What is a "4D zero rank tensor"?
-
#924 by JackSarfatti on 07 Apr, 2019 22:03
-
Hal Puthoff allegedly has the retrieved layered meta-material from Tic Tac type crashed AAVs. They are testing the material. Consistent with my theory it allegedly develops anomalous gravity properties when pumped by electromagnetic fields at certain resonant frequencies. I have not seen the actual material and the data. They are, so far, secretive. It may be classified. Puthoff has the highest clearances I was told by CIA retired Christopher Green MD.
As to the anonymous trolls. Anyone who hides behind a false name loses credibility in technical discussions. I have physics degrees (PhD) from Cornell and University of California. David Kaiser (MIT physics) in his award-winning book "How the Hippies Saved Physics" credits me and Nick Herbert as the catalysts for the creation of the field of quantum information/scamgraphy.
-
#925 by flux_capacitor on 07 Apr, 2019 22:17
-
@as58: "4D"because Jack Sarfatti generalized space (3D) permittivity and permeability to 4D spacetime with tetrad transformations, whose inner product is a tensor of rank zero, i.e. an invariant scalar.
@JackSarfatti: Welcome to the forum Jack, and thank you for having positively answered so fast to my informal invitation. Could you perhaps answer some of meberbs' critics, for example about his simple example involving water, and maybe some quantitative prediction (deviation) between Einstein's untouched field equations and yours? -
#926 by JackSarfatti on 07 Apr, 2019 22:18
-
Of course I consider dispersion - that's key. Starting from
Guv(x) ~ G(epsilon(x)wlmu(x)^wl)^2Tuv(x)
Make a Wigner phase space type transform (Short time Fourier transform et-al)
Guv(x,k) ~ G(epsilon(x,k)*wlmu(x,k)^wl)^2*Tuv(x,k)
x, k are 4D positions, wave vectors
* denotes convolution integral
e.g. simple example
f(x,k)*g(x,k) = Integral f(x, K)g(k - K)dK
Tuv(x,k) is the stress-energy tensor for an applied EM field inside the meta-material.
The low power warp drive effect happens for resonant peaks
e.g. epsilon(x,k) gets large relative to vacuum value -
#927 by JackSarfatti on 08 Apr, 2019 02:13
-
I have not changed Einstein's field equation.
Guv ~ G(e*u)^2Tuv
is a tensor equation
Guv and Tuv are rank 2 tensors
Therefore, mathematical logic requires
G(e*u) is a zero rank tensor
Maxwell showed
c^2 = 1/eu
However, that was not relativistic.
I have made it relativistic for both special and general relativity.
Matt Visser provided the relevant math for this.
Of course we must use wavelet type transformation of Einstein's field equation (at least in weak field limit) to describe spatially inhomogeneous time varying spectral (dispersion) EM properties of the meta-material (x,k) phase space. Resonances in e(x,k) and mu(x,k) permit low power warp drive. That is for a desired fixed warp field Guv(x,k) as e.g. e(x,k) increases the amount of Tuv(x,k) required decreases. This is what is observed in the flight of the Tic Tac.
-
#928 by meberbs on 08 Apr, 2019 05:17
-
TLDR: the last couple paragraphs under the ----- are the actual important part of this post.
As to the anonymous trolls. Anyone who hides behind a false name loses credibility in technical discussions.
Namecalling loses credibility in technical discussions (and can get you moderated or banned on this site.) Multiple members on this site know who I am, and any mod would have the info. There is one post in a restricted section on this site with my name signed to it. Anyone who knows me in real life should be able to identify me based on my user name. Reasons for maintaining some level of privacy from passerby who aren't necessarily even members of this site really shouldn't need to be stated.I have physics degrees (PhD) from Cornell and University of California. David Kaiser (MIT physics) in his award-winning book "How the Hippies Saved Physics" credits me and Nick Herbert as the catalysts for the creation of the field of quantum information/scamgraphy.
The great thing about math is that you don't need to name drop, just show your work and anyone who knows what they are doing will recognize it. I don't generally advertise my credentials here because my statements should be able to stand on their own.Of course I consider dispersion - that's key. Starting from
I am not sure why you would decide to use a transform from quantum mechanics in this case rather than a standard Fourier transform. Anyway, the content of that post does not address any of the actual questions I brought up. It appears you are trying to address my comment about frequency dependence, but in doing so you miss the reason I mentioned it. My main point is much simpler than trying to address that part.
Guv(x) ~ G(epsilon(x)wlmu(x)^wl)^2Tuv(x)
Make a Wigner phase space type transform (Short time Fourier transform et-al)I have not changed Einstein's field equation.
If you have not changed Einstein's field equations, then you have done nothing and any result you claim different from standard GR is a mathematical error.
Guv ~ G(e*u)^2Tuv
is a tensor equation
Guv and Tuv are rank 2 tensors
Therefore, mathematical logic requires
G(e*u) is a zero rank tensor
In truth, you have changed the equation by taking the 8*pi*G/c^4 fundamental constant, and making it a function of both space and time, based on electrodynamic properties of materials.Maxwell showed
Maxwell's equations literally had special relativity built into them before special relativity was invented. Please don't waste anyone's time here with repeating such absurd claims. (See any good electrodynamics textbook.)
c^2 = 1/eu
However, that was not relativistic.I have made it relativistic for both special and general relativity.
For the case of light travelling through a medium (and assuming certain material properties such as linearity), using the material electric and dielectric constants avoids the need for detailed modelling of the charges inside the material. This does not change the fundamental constant of the speed of light, just provides a shortcut to calculate the fields produced by the charges in the material. For anisotropic materials, you can define this as a second rank tensor. You can perform relativistic transformations on tensors. This is not surprising or new, and unless done incorrectly, will result in the exactly equivalent predictions as in the rest frame. This is not the basis for anything new or interesting.Hal Puthoff allegedly has the retrieved layered meta-material from Tic Tac type crashed AAVs.
You seem to have made a mistake in your attachments, and included a bunch of UFO conspiracy theory fodder. The thread for that on this site got unsurprisingly got locked. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44496.0
There is a simple reason why it is obvious that your related statements are false: Leaking classified information at that level would rapidly get people in lots of trouble. I will say no more on the subject and suggest you do the same, because everything worthwhile to say on the subject seems to have been covered in the thread I just linked.
-----
Anyway, pretty much everything I just said in this post is basically irrelevant, I left out some details above just because they are irrelevant to more important and simple points. In my previous posts I asked for a couple specific things that have not been provided:
-A specific experiment that can be performed to test the claims that you have made. (One that is actually relevant to your claim, not something that is well known like the relationship between permittivity and refractive index.)
-Addressing the simple math I performed above. With the use of just a simple, common, dielectric material, using the material properties instead of the vacuum constants results in a large change to the "constant" in the general relativity equations, one that seems to obviously imply effects that would clearly have already been noticed. Basically either the gravitational attraction of materials, how much they are attracted by gravitational fields, or both would be strongly dependent on their dielectric constant in addition to their mass.
Please answer these last specific bullet points. And just to be clear, the claim I mention in the first bullet point is your use of the material properties in the Einstein field equations rather than the fundamental constant. Anything not related to that is a distraction. -
#929 by Chris Bergin on 08 Apr, 2019 17:51
-
Per people saying meberbs isn't being civil enough, think of him as a strict professor who's marking your work. At least that's how I see his posts.
There's enough crap on the new physics section that raising the bar to pass some sniff tests is required here. -
#930 by meberbs on 09 Apr, 2019 06:58
-
Per people saying meberbs isn't being civil enough, think of him as a strict professor who's marking your work. At least that's how I see his posts.
This is essentially my intent with my posts.
There's enough crap on the new physics section that raising the bar to pass some sniff tests is required here.
In this section I mostly post when I see something I believe is wrong and generally only if I have high confidence in what I am saying. I can see some people only looking at that seeing it as a negative attitude. It is never my intent to insult anyone, and if anyone thinks something I wrote is insulting, please let me know specifically, and I will edit and/or apologize as appropriate. (Straightforward statements that something is wrong and why are not insults though.)
Based on the existence of Chris's post there may have been some misunderstanding with my phrasing when I mentioned a rule of thumb related to a common behavior I have seen among people who either don't understand or refuse to deal with standard science (i.e. the scientific method). I mentioned it since it seems like it may be applicable to the work that was being discussed. This should not be taken to mean that the work necessarily falls into the categories I mentioned, and I apologize if it was taken that way. I was just noting a warning sign, and there are still a couple ways that what I said could become completely non-applicable. For example, a good explanation of exactly what special properties a material would have to have, why they are necessary, preferably accompanied by a plausible specific candidate material could negate it. Also, an acknowledgement of the way I pointed out that common materials should enable testing of the claim would completely negate the warning sign I mentioned. Since Jack Sarfatti has posted here, hopefully he can either do this, or explain exactly why my suggestion for testing would not work. -
#931 by flux_capacitor on 09 Apr, 2019 10:34
-
Indeed, I would love Jack to take more time to expose his model on this forum and answer meberbs' questions, without necessarily asking for credentials or publishing unverifiable UFO stuff as per the forum rule. Apparently he's about to fly to London and I don't know if he'll post here again, being jet-lagged and quite busy there.
It is my understanding though (reading his various documents) that any experiment conducted to detect the anomalous effect predicted by his model would need a high-refractive metamaterial that is by definition very dispersive and extremely anisotropic or no effect could be detected at all. Water and its relative permittivity of about 80 (or any other mundane material), not exhibiting such properties, would not be appropriate. -
#932 by Star One on 09 Apr, 2019 10:59
-
Indeed, I would love Jack to take more time to expose his model on this forum and answer meberbs' questions, without necessarily asking for credentials or publishing unverifiable UFO stuff as per the forum rule. Apparently he's about to fly to London and I don't know if he'll post here again, being jet-lagged and quite busy there.
It is my understanding though (reading his various documents) that any experiment conducted to detect the anomalous effect predicted by his model would need a high-refractive metamaterial that is by definition very dispersive and extremely anisotropic or no effect could be detected at all. Water and its relative permittivity of about 80 (or any other mundane material), not exhibiting such properties, would not be appropriate.
Could I ask who he is, you speak as if he is well known and respected personage? -
#933 by flux_capacitor on 09 Apr, 2019 12:34
-
Could I ask who he is, you speak as if he is well known and respected personage?
Sure. Jack Sarfatti began to present himself in a previous post, but I now see this post has been deleted by a mod (hence your legitimate question), surely because he was also asking for meberbs' credentials, publicly doubting them because of his anonymous pseudonym.
Early 1960, Sarfatti took his courses from Wolfgang Rindler at Cornell University, as well as with Hans Bethe, Phillip Morrison, Thomas Gold, etc. (a great era to learn GR with great minds admittedly) and then the University of California. This by no means implies all of their students are of the same calibre, but in his now deleted post he was saying that historian of science David Kaiser credits him in his book "How the Hippies saved Physics" for having basically laid the foundation (along Fred Alan Wolf) in the "Fundamental Fysiks Group" in the 1970s, of quantum scamgraphy and quantum computing.
Major media cited him, so he is not exactly unknown, e.g. the NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/books/review/book-review-how-the-hippies-saved-physics-by-david-kaiser.html
or the web journal of the San Francisco Chronicle where he was interviewed:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/SUNDAY-INTERVIEW-The-Universe-As-Seen-From-3774064.php
In the last decades, his main interest has shifted from initially (CIA-funded…) studies about quantum mechanics and its possible relation to consciousness, nonlocality, retrocausality and time travel; to warp drive physics and FTL travel.
As a side note, Sarfatti has been active on Jim Woodward's email list for years. Some of these messages have a direct connection with this thread and the Woodward one. Of course, as this email list is by definition sent to a limited number of registered persons (about 100-150) who are interested in the field of Mach effects and propellantless propulsion, few people may know who he really is. Maybe Wikipedia could help a bit more.
As for the comment about the fact I would talk of him as if he was a "respectable personnage"… well, I don't know him personally, but I respect everyone who posts on these boards, whether he is famous or not. I hope the quick historical background I've just give in this post is able to answer your question and show more context about who he is. -
#934 by Notsosureofit on 09 Apr, 2019 12:35
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti
see also: Chapter 2, "Imaginary Weapons" by Sharon Weinberger
-
#935 by JohnFornaro on 09 Apr, 2019 20:03
-
Maybe you haven't read all the documents in my two previous posts? First, please have a look at Low Power Warp Drive for Dummies where all is very briefly explained. I think Notsosureofit has read it and has understood.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough: What is the supposed testable claim that is being made? This requires a specific replicable test description with actual predicted results.
SNIP
Lesson in spotting crackpots and con-artists in "new physics" research: They love proposing the need for fanciful materials without providing a solid reason why such would be needed. This lets them make all sorts of claims without anyone being able to run the experiment the suggest.
"Warp Drives for Dummies" cannot teach one how to make a warp drive, right? There's no such thing unless all those dummies warped themselves and their drives out of this galaxy, which is conveniently unfalsifiable. In short, I'm afraid I haven't read all the documents in your previous post. But the gist of the above remarks is that there must be a new "metamaterial" in order to have warp drive. There is no such drive unless there is this speculated "metamaterial" can be produced, using either old fashioned or innovative chemical/metallurgical manufactureing processes.
As to the later comments about UFO's and their aeronautical manuevering abilities, seemingly made possible by metamaterials along the lines proposed above: Maybe they are around and maybe they aren't. If they had an embassy in DC, maybe we could negotiate a technology transfer. Until that time, we will have to make the metamaterials that have been proposed. -
#936 by Star One on 09 Apr, 2019 20:05
-
Could I ask who he is, you speak as if he is well known and respected personage?
Sure. Jack Sarfatti began to present himself in a previous post, but I now see this post has been deleted by a mod (hence your legitimate question), surely because he was also asking for meberbs' credentials, publicly doubting them because of his anonymous pseudonym.
Early 1960, Sarfatti took his courses from Wolfgang Rindler at Cornell University, as well as with Hans Bethe, Phillip Morrison, Thomas Gold, etc. (a great era to learn GR with great minds admittedly) and then the University of California. This by no means implies all of their students are of the same calibre, but in his now deleted post he was saying that historian of science David Kaiser credits him in his book "How the Hippies saved Physics" for having basically laid the foundation (along Fred Alan Wolf) in the "Fundamental Fysiks Group" in the 1970s, of quantum scamgraphy and quantum computing.
Major media cited him, so he is not exactly unknown, e.g. the NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/books/review/book-review-how-the-hippies-saved-physics-by-david-kaiser.html
or the web journal of the San Francisco Chronicle where he was interviewed:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/SUNDAY-INTERVIEW-The-Universe-As-Seen-From-3774064.php
In the last decades, his main interest has shifted from initially (CIA-funded…) studies about quantum mechanics and its possible relation to consciousness, nonlocality, retrocausality and time travel; to warp drive physics and FTL travel.
As a side note, Sarfatti has been active on Jim Woodward's email list for years. Some of these messages have a direct connection with this thread and the Woodward one. Of course, as this email list is by definition sent to a limited number of registered persons (about 100-150) who are interested in the field of Mach effects and propellantless propulsion, few people may know who he really is. Maybe Wikipedia could help a bit more.
As for the comment about the fact I would talk of him as if he was a "respectable personnage"… well, I don't know him personally, but I respect everyone who posts on these boards, whether he is famous or not. I hope the quick historical background I've just give in this post is able to answer your question and show more context about who he is.
Thank you for that comprehensive response. So there was another post that’s now gone. -
#937 by JohnFornaro on 09 Apr, 2019 20:46
-
Quite off topic, but FYI, the original story you speak of:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Light_of_Other_Days
Many thanks. As I read the synopsis you provided, the story came back to life for me in a rush. -
#938 by Ricvil on 12 Apr, 2019 13:31
-
Beautiful Seeshell work.
Appears some EMDrive cavity shapes are just nodal sites of electromagnetic fields under resonance with added noise.
It is like the recovery of the 3D object image from a piece of "hologram".
Would exist a "master" shape of EMDrive cavity?
I've searching for a cavity with a simultaneous spatial and momentum (reciprocal space) conformal symmetry, and to my surprise, it's cross section resembles the Mike McCulloch's fiber loop.
-
#939 by Ricvil on 12 Apr, 2019 14:21
-
Based on SeeShell's work.