• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

EM Drive To Receive Peer Review

Asbo Zaprudder said:
I cannae change the laws of physics, Captain!
Click to expand...

The laws of physics that you are referring to reside in a Universe comprised of celestial bodies exhibiting a force on each other.
The laws of physics change greatly without any celestial objects affecting a force upon each other.
 
The "laws" of physics don't change - only our understanding of them. So we create "laws" while physics laughs at our impudence, as if we govern physics.

Also, it's hard to take seriously a serious reply to what was just a clever pun, which itself followed a post that referred twice to "negatively charged electrons." So, positrons?
 
Last edited:
 
Lol. I think I'd trust being shot into space aboard a nuke-powered spacecraft more than one powered by metallic hydrogen, which would be inherently unstable at STP not to mention the high temperature released by molecular recombination but I'm risk averse. In any case, the additional weight of the containment for the metallic hydrogen fuel might well negate the benefit of the enhanced Isp. It does seem that NASA is looking at injecting electrons to lower the pressure required to convert solid hydrogen to metallic hydrogen so perhaps this concept has some validity.

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/silvera_metallic_hydrogen.html
 
Last edited:
http://www.space.com/34672-impossible-space-engine-emdrive-test.html?utm_source=notification

The article discusses the difference between a non-chemical reaction that produces exhaust, the EM Drive and conventional engines that produce an explosive exhaust.

The article also discusses how the EM Drive provides 100 more times propellant exhaust than a solar sail does.

The fact is before the Big Bang there wasn't any chemical processes present that created the exhaust of the Big Bang. If the Big Bang didn't result from an explosive interaction similar to that of a conventional rocket process then there would had to have been microwaves of some sort moving through the Universe that excited atoms into combining together to release tremendous amounts of energy as well combining chemicals to create elements such as iron and calcium.

The EM Drive sounds as if it is a drive that will operate on microwaves that were present before the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang particles coming into and out of existence would occupy a space where another particle was located. If the interaction did not result in an explosive force then the result would have been that both particles repelled off of each other in different directions.

The problem is how do you get enough particle reactions taking place that do not cause an explosive reaction or chemical thrust to react in a chamber where the particles are directed in a forward direction that would generate an exhaust less thrust?
 
Dryson said:
The fact is before the Big Bang...
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Your interest in science is appreciated, but claiming anything along these lines as fact is unscientific and is placing yourself as a higher authority on the subject than all the brilliant physicists who have yet to conclusively agree which, if any, theory is correct. Continued study is strongly encouraged before you publish.
 
It seems that reading science books and articles does not result in comprehension. At least, conspiracy theories and more usual pseudo-scientific nonsense were not invoked. All the notes were being played but in nothing like the correct order.
 
The age and experience of the writers of posts here can be a factor in how well things are researched, informed, and expressed. What is apparent is that there's an interest in things. I wouldn't want to turn away anyone who wants to be enlightened by science and perhaps needs guidance from mentors.
 
JWPlatt said:
The age and experience of the writers of posts here can be a factor in how well things are researched, informed, and expressed. What is apparent is that there's an interest in things. I wouldn't want to turn away anyone who wants to be enlightened by science and perhaps needs guidance from mentors.
Click to expand...
You obviously haven't read many of Dryson's posts.
 
Now, now. I've seen enough to write what I did, and we aren't in TNZ. But it's true, I don't exactly scour the forums.
 
Fortunately, solid science is double checked 1000 times before the textbooks are updated. Science fraud is really hard to do outside the media - where things get reported more for dramas sake sometimes. Self refilling water bottles make for a get article. Problem is most people gloss over the difference.
 
If the EM drive works, it breaks spatial symmetry and doesn't conserve linear momentum (Noether's First Theorem) -- the exact mechanism has yet to be determined. What are the physical consequences the EM drive breaking spatial symmetry other than non-conservation of linear momentum? I have no idea. Let's hope, whatever they are that they're not weaponisable.

However, I suspect there are several possible causes of the measured minuscule thrust that have not been definitively eliminated -- thermal ablation from the outer surface of the resonant cavity, electromagnetic interaction with the Earth's magnetic field, or other electromagnetic interaction between the apparatus and its immediate environment.

Off topic: My view is that the dimension of time became intrinsically asymmetric when the spontaneous symmetry of the Higgs field was broken. As cognition and memory are entropic in nature -- deletion of memory states result in an increase in entropy (Landauer's principle) -- we experience time passing in one direction. The maximum entropy of the Universe increases in proportion to the area of its horizon (Bekenstein bound) so the expansion is correlated with our perception of the arrow of time. However, arguments such as this are usually full of logical holes, circular reasoning, and similar missteps so I am probably incorrect and deluded to boot.
 
Last edited:
It does seem likely that information theory is more fundamental than the laws of Physics ("it from bit"). For example, the Einstein field equations of GR and the Wheeler-DeWitt equation can supposedly be derived from Fisher information theory and error-correction codes appear to be implicit in supersymmetric string theory (both are controversial claims). That the laws of physics can evolve is something I've heard about with regard to multiverse theories where universes can bud off from existing universes, acquiring small errors that either do or do not allow them to propagate themselves successfully. No interchange of fundamental parameters is involved so it would seem to be what is usually considered an inefficient asexual mechanism -- much as existed in as the Earth's biosphere before real sex developed. Smolin's notion (as presented in Time Reborn) that the laws can evolve within a universe is a very radical suggestion and seemingly has numerous flaws as it appears to reject quantum field theory and even accept hidden variables in quantum mechanics.
 
And then there is the power output involved. I seem to remember you need something like five and a half megawatts per pound of force IIRC.

Some scuttlebutt that both the new Chinese mini-station and the X-37 maybe testing this:
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/controversial-propellentless-emdrive-is.html

Darn if the aft boat-tail (if not the connecting adapter) doesn't look like a frustrum--but no--that likely has hypergolic tankage only. The payload? Anybody's guess.

We've seen this before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yubileiny

A lot of hopes for LENR--what cold fusion is called now. Cold Fission, on the other hand, actually seems to be a thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fission

I have hopes for fission fragment rockets myself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission-fragment_rocket
With exhaust velocities of 3% - 5% the speed of light and efficiencies up to 90%, the rocket should be able to achieve over 1,000,000 sec Isp.

I can't help but wonder--with the so called EM drive--if they are actually spalling off some material and don't know it...
 
JWPlatt said:
No it isn't. Your interest in science is appreciated, but claiming anything along these lines as fact is unscientific and is placing yourself as a higher authority on the subject than all the brilliant physicists who have yet to conclusively agree which, if any, theory is correct. Continued study is strongly encouraged before you publish.
Click to expand...

The fact is before the Big Bang there wasn't any chemical processes present that created the exhaust of the Big Bang.

This statement is in fact correct JWPlatt.

Chemicals need to have mass. Mass did not exist before the Big Bang otherwise we would not be able to calculate an age for the Universe based on suns and the decay of particles because the age of suns and particles would come back as an infinite time. Since chemicals also decay over time and the Universe is thought to be 13.772 billion years based on chemical analysis, then 15 billion years ago chemicals did not exist to create the exhaust of the Big Bang that drove the expanding Universe in all direction. Otherwise the age of the Universe would be 15 billion years old.

A force of nature did however exist before the Big Bang and most likely resides within the Higgs-Boson. The force of nature present within the Higgs-Boson could be seen as an exhaust-less form of propulsion.
 
Source for any of that?
  • "Mass did not exist before the Big Bang": It has not even been concluded tha the BIg Bang theory is correct. Provide conclusive source to the contrary.
  • "Mass did not exist before the Big Bang": If the Big Bang theory is correct, we don't know mass did not exist before it. There are other theories of prexisting universes, for example, which would cause rings to appear in the CMB. Provide conclusive source to the contrary.
  • "Universe is thought to be 13.772 billion years based on chemical analysis": It is not based upon chemical analysis. It is based upon Type 1A supernova analysis - a nuclear reaction. That information is received via electomagnetic waves which are a force - not chemistry. Provide conclusive source to the contrary.
  • "...exhaust of the Big Bang": LOL. Please provide ANY link that provides an exhaustive analysis of this "exhaust" and which specifically uses that term.
  • "A force of nature did however exist before the Big Bang": No conclusive determination has been made as to the nature of physics prior to the Big Bang, if the Big Bang is, in fact, the correct theory. Provide conclusive source to the contrary.
You're biggest problem here is stating that the Big Bang theory is fact when it is not. It is one theory.

Your invocation of the Higgs particle as a magical solution to everything would have been called something else before the Higgs was conceived. The latest thing is often thought of as the final answer to everything. It isn't. It's like the Woo-Woo Masters such as Depak Chopra calling everything "quantum" to prove anything metaphysical has reality. It's just a magical incantation for the uneducated. The extent of the Higgs particle itself remains under scientific debate and experimentation.
 
Last edited:
More:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak

Some comments:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1609528#msg1609528
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1609480#msg1609480

Dang if this thing doesn't look like a linear warp nacelle:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1609843#msg1609843

Now, how would you power this thing in deep space. We hear of anti-matter--usually for photon rockets....

Now positronium can form compounds--get this--"Positronium can also form a cyanide and can form bonds with halogens or lithium"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium#Exotic_compounds

More:
http://phys.org/news/2007-09-matter-antimatter-molecules-positronium-lab.html

“'Silica acts in effect like a useful cage, trapping positronium atoms,' said David Cassidy, the lead author of the research paper....The research paves the way for studying multi-positronium interactions – useful for generating coherent gamma radiation – and could one day help develop fusion power generation as well as directed energy weapons such as gamma-ray lasers"

lithium, silica..shades of STAR TREK's dilithium crystals
 
Last edited:
JWPlatt said:
Source for any of that?
  • "Mass did not exist before the Big Bang": It has not even been concluded tha the BIg Bang theory is correct. Provide conclusive source to the contrary.
  • "Mass did not exist before the Big Bang": If the Big Bang theory is correct, we don't know mass did not exist before it. There are other theories of prexisting universes, for example, which would cause rings to appear in the CMB. Provide conclusive source to the contrary.
  • "Universe is thought to be 13.772 billion years based on chemical analysis": It is not based upon chemical analysis. It is based upon Type 1A supernova analysis - a nuclear reaction. That information is received via electomagnetic waves which are a force - not chemistry. Provide conclusive source to the contrary.
  • "...exhaust of the Big Bang": LOL. Please provide ANY link that provides an exhaustive analysis of this "exhaust" and which specifically uses that term.
  • "A force of nature did however exist before the Big Bang": No conclusive determination has been made as to the nature of physics prior to the Big Bang, if the Big Bang is, in fact, the correct theory. Provide conclusive source to the contrary.
You're biggest problem here is stating that the Big Bang theory is fact when it is not. It is one theory.

Your invocation of the Higgs particle as a magical solution to everything would have been called something else before the Higgs was conceived. The latest thing is often thought of as the final answer to everything. It isn't. It's like the Woo-Woo Masters such as Depak Chopra calling everything "quantum" to prove anything metaphysical has reality. It's just a magical incantation for the uneducated. The extent of the Higgs particle itself remains under scientific debate and experimentation.
Click to expand...

Like I mentioned before. The Universe is roughly 13 billion years old. The age of the Universe is based off of the chemicals in the Universe being able to tested for their lifetime as well as radiation being able to be tested to determine the age of an element such as uranium.

If the age dating of chemicals and elements was infinite then the calculation of the chemicals and radiation found in the elements would be similar to 3.14 that would simply continue into the realm of infinity.

Since chemicals and radiation do not have a life based on 3.14 then at one point neither chemical or elements existed in the Universe. This means that prior to the Big Bang, which involved chemical processes that release energy, that another type of energy was present that similar to the EM Drive produced a thrust but was not a chemically created thrust like the chemically based rocket propellants of this day and age.

"Universe is thought to be 13.772 billion years based on chemical analysis": It is not based upon chemical analysis. It is based upon Type 1A supernova analysis - a nuclear reaction. That information is received via

...this is because chemical reactions involve the rearrangement of electrons

The elements inside of the sun need chemical reactions to take place in order for the element to exist. Other the elements would be similar to vegetables and dressing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top