6 ms·

Interesting what are the fundamental reasons for the thrust. It's certainly not throwing photons. Hypotheses: * Flawed study. It actually throws something (lik

Interesting what are the fundamental reasons for the thrust. It's certainly not throwing photons. Hypotheses: * Flawed study. It actually throws something (like, cavity material slowly ablating) or repels of Eddy currents in surroundings; * It repels of Earth (and the force has either gravitational or magnetic nature); then it's not suitable for deep space propulsion * A sort of ether actually exists, and it throws that. Though, then there would be some anisotropy showing ether wind; in this case it is suitable to be used in deep space

politician 10y ago
If you read through their conclusions, they suggest that there may be a quantum vacuum capable of transmitting oscillations and this vacuum is what this this device pushes off of leaving a wake behind.
- ribble 10y ago
  pilot wave theory, the force is able to push upon itself despite lack of medium to otherwise push upon.
- gus_massa 10y ago
  [Disclaimer: I think it's a measurement error.] Just ignore the theoretical explanations. Just imagine that it's something they wrote to avoid the crackpot tag. That explanation doesn't make any sense. Also avoid all the other theoretical explanations, they are also very sloppy. Just concentrate in the experiments, that is the less sloppy part of these reports. If they discovered something new, then they can make a working prototype and improve it until it's clear that they are measuring something really new and it's not an experimental error or a misattributed force. They can make foolproof instructions so anyone can make a version in a good enough lab and reproduce the experiment, or sell an experimental setup in Ebay. Then it will "confirmed". There has been a many famous experiments that were later debunked, like: * cold fussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion , they had also some kind of theoretical excuse, but it was wrong and it was impossible to reproduce the experiment. * arsenic in DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1 , they had also some kind of theoretical excuse, but it was wrong and it was impossible to reproduce the experiment. If you want success cases, my favorites are: * the asymmetric disintegration of cobalt in a magnetic field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_experiment , I guess they had some wrong explanation, but the correct explanation was discovered like 20 years later * high temperature superconductivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconducti... IIRC they have some explanation or practical rules, but the correct explanation was discovered like 20 years later Just concentrate in the experiments, and wait 20 years for a good explanation.
  - 542458 10y ago
    > They can make foolproof instructions so anyone can make a version in a good enough lab and reproduce the experiment, Is that not what this is? Roger Shawyer invented it, but NASA, NWPU and the Dresden University of Technology have all built and verified their own versions to work.
    - beevai142 10y ago
      The TU Dresden people did not "verify" that the device works --- instead, they identified many spurious error sources, and recognized that the final results were essentially null on the level of measurement accuracy, and unable to say whether there's thrust or not. http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2015-4083 http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2015-4083 https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/dateien/forschung/folder-2007-08-21-5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC---Direct-Thrust-Measurements-of-an-EM-Drive-and-Evaluation-of-Possible-Side-Effects.pdf?lang=en https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/...
      - 542458 10y ago
        Oops, you're right. Thanks for the correction!
  - XorNot 10y ago
    AFAIK we still don't really have an explanation for high-temperature superconductivity. The state-of-the-art is several competing ones.
    - gus_massa 10y ago
      A few years ago I talked with someone that make and test high temperature superconductors in a lab (at very high pressure), and my impression was that the research community had a good understanding of what was happening, something related to flux pinning. I just read the Wikipedia article about this, and it's clear that the explanation is still not clear :(, so you are right.
464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
I think regardless of if this ends up working or not, it makes some serious changes to how science perceives the universe.
lisivka 10y ago
If it repels of Earth, then it can be used to keep orbit. If there is an anisotropy in the ether, Sagnac interferometer should catch it.
tslug 10y ago
Ya, I was wondering the same thing. It seems like uneven ablating on the outside surface is the most obvious reason for the thrust. Why didn't they do a careful analysis of the cavity mass before and afterwards? Or electron microscope analyses of a few points of the outer surface before and afterwards to see if the microscopic topology changed? Did they rule these out some other way?
golergka 10y ago
* It exploits some kind of bug in our matrix-like simulation that is supposed to have conservation of energy and momentum by design
- flukus 10y ago
  This is the most terrifying. If we're part of an experiment then being aware of the experiment might cause it to be shutdown, like patients discovering if they're taking the placebo or not.
  - spyder 10y ago
    Placebo "works" even if the patient knows it's a placebo :).

politician 10y ago

If you read through their conclusions, they suggest that there may be a quantum vacuum capable of transmitting oscillations and this vacuum is what this this device pushes off of leaving a wake behind.

ribble 10y ago
pilot wave theory, the force is able to push upon itself despite lack of medium to otherwise push upon.
gus_massa 10y ago
[Disclaimer: I think it's a measurement error.] Just ignore the theoretical explanations. Just imagine that it's something they wrote to avoid the crackpot tag. That explanation doesn't make any sense. Also avoid all the other theoretical explanations, they are also very sloppy. Just concentrate in the experiments, that is the less sloppy part of these reports. If they discovered something new, then they can make a working prototype and improve it until it's clear that they are measuring something really new and it's not an experimental error or a misattributed force. They can make foolproof instructions so anyone can make a version in a good enough lab and reproduce the experiment, or sell an experimental setup in Ebay. Then it will "confirmed". There has been a many famous experiments that were later debunked, like: * cold fussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion , they had also some kind of theoretical excuse, but it was wrong and it was impossible to reproduce the experiment. * arsenic in DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1 , they had also some kind of theoretical excuse, but it was wrong and it was impossible to reproduce the experiment. If you want success cases, my favorites are: * the asymmetric disintegration of cobalt in a magnetic field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_experiment , I guess they had some wrong explanation, but the correct explanation was discovered like 20 years later * high temperature superconductivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconducti... IIRC they have some explanation or practical rules, but the correct explanation was discovered like 20 years later Just concentrate in the experiments, and wait 20 years for a good explanation.
- 542458 10y ago
  > They can make foolproof instructions so anyone can make a version in a good enough lab and reproduce the experiment, Is that not what this is? Roger Shawyer invented it, but NASA, NWPU and the Dresden University of Technology have all built and verified their own versions to work.
  - beevai142 10y ago
    The TU Dresden people did not "verify" that the device works --- instead, they identified many spurious error sources, and recognized that the final results were essentially null on the level of measurement accuracy, and unable to say whether there's thrust or not. http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2015-4083 http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2015-4083 https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/dateien/forschung/folder-2007-08-21-5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC---Direct-Thrust-Measurements-of-an-EM-Drive-and-Evaluation-of-Possible-Side-Effects.pdf?lang=en https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/...
    - 542458 10y ago
      Oops, you're right. Thanks for the correction!
- XorNot 10y ago
  AFAIK we still don't really have an explanation for high-temperature superconductivity. The state-of-the-art is several competing ones.
  - gus_massa 10y ago
    A few years ago I talked with someone that make and test high temperature superconductors in a lab (at very high pressure), and my impression was that the research community had a good understanding of what was happening, something related to flux pinning. I just read the Wikipedia article about this, and it's clear that the explanation is still not clear :(, so you are right.

464192002d7fe1c 10y ago

I think regardless of if this ends up working or not, it makes some serious changes to how science perceives the universe.

lisivka 10y ago

If it repels of Earth, then it can be used to keep orbit. If there is an anisotropy in the ether, Sagnac interferometer should catch it.

tslug 10y ago

Ya, I was wondering the same thing. It seems like uneven ablating on the outside surface is the most obvious reason for the thrust. Why didn't they do a careful analysis of the cavity mass before and afterwards? Or electron microscope analyses of a few points of the outer surface before and afterwards to see if the microscopic topology changed? Did they rule these out some other way?

golergka 10y ago

* It exploits some kind of bug in our matrix-like simulation that is supposed to have conservation of energy and momentum by design

flukus 10y ago
This is the most terrifying. If we're part of an experiment then being aware of the experiment might cause it to be shutdown, like patients discovering if they're taking the placebo or not.
- spyder 10y ago
  Placebo "works" even if the patient knows it's a placebo :).