impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

Void · 2014-08-01 17:44:54

http://www.space.com/26713-impossible-s … -test.html

I have wondered if you could push on virtual particles between the time they wink in and out of existance.
The virtual particles would provide the mass, but you would have to supply the energy.
However I wonder if the inertia of dark matter could some day be harnessed? But then it has gravity and I presume mass as well also.

I am not a scientist and have no need for credentials. So, I will bite on the rumors.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-08-02 06:36:44

Void wrote:

http://www.space.com/26713-impossible-s … -test.html
I have wondered if you could push on virtual particles between the time they wink in and out of existance.
The virtual particles would provide the mass, but you would have to supply the energy.
However I wonder if the inertia of dark matter could some day be harnessed? But then it has gravity and I presume mass as well also.
I am not a scientist and have no need for credentials. So, I will bite on the rumors.

If this drive works, this would open a path to the stars, and I mean this literally. You wouldn't need propellant, you would just need energy, so you would save on the energy and propellant you would need to accelerate the propellant needed in the future. So long as you had a supply of energy, you could keep on accelerating. I suspect it would work similar to a laser sail, but without the laser. So see there is no absolute velocity, so no matter what velocity you are traveling at, there would always be virtual particles you could push on, since all velocity except the speed of light is relative. this would make it much easier t build a starship, and if we could scale it up, we might be able to visit Alpha Centauri before the end of his century, by accelerating halfway there and decelerating the rest of the way.

Void · 2014-08-02 09:51:59

It seems that our sciences are beginning to delve into items that are not on the periodic list more or less. It may offer doors to entirely new possibilities.

When I went to school, none of this was considered. They already knew everything that there was to know. Now they don't know so much

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-08-02 12:50:56

Be careful here, I am reminded of the Cold Fusion experiment by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. We'll have to see whether this stands the test of time. What would it mean however if for a constant input of energy, you got a constant output of acceleration for as long as the energy source persists? The closest thing I can think of is a Solar Sail. The photons hit the sail at the speed of light and no matter how has the sail moves, the photons always hit the sail at the speed of light, but with two limiting factors, one is the source of the photons diminishes with distance and the faster the sail goes the more red-shifted the incoming photons become, thus having less momentum for pushing the sail.

Void · 2014-08-03 09:02:47

Scientific American "Secrets of the UNIVERSE Past, Present, Future".

Anyway, I risk very little. Not planning to advance to anything that matters.

I am comfortable thinking that if a particle exists even only for a instant, and it has mass, and you can push on it an opposite reaction will occur. The words significant, and useful apply though.

The effect may be insignificant related to the usage of resources to cause it.

But the truth is that Dark Matter and Dark Energy have not been sufficiently defined to even hope to develop machines around them, but discovery so far hints that there is a whole different reality that we have not been aware of. It's kind of funny. Might aliens, angels, and God be found in these other realities? Certainly if Dark Matter and Dark Energy do exist, then they contain information about themselves, and perhaps an aware presence.

Many persons have looked at baryonic matter, and said "Man is all that we see as aware". Therefore they have begun to think in terms of masters and slaves and have begun to frantically try to justify such a selfish attitude. Horrible wars based on calculations based on insufficient information. Practices of domination justified, thinking that a human can play God.

Vague understandings are now filtering down to the general population, which they can become aware of if they wish. At that point, with more people who actually deal with non-theoretical science learning, the material and spiritual culture have an opportunity to change. Inventions, perhaps, and perhaps a new awareness of the infinite, or what to us is the infinite.

Last edited by Void (2014-08-03 09:10:13)

Terraformer · 2014-08-04 08:45:44

Well, *something* seems to be going on. The trouble is, it appears to violate conservation of momentum (and, also, of energy - kinetic energy rises as the square of the velocity, but this would give a linear relation between energy input and velocity). I don't see how invoking virtual particles deals with this problem, because they would destroy their momentum and energy away when they annihilate. If they're given enough energy to come into existence... I don't think you'd be able to be more efficient than a photon drive.

A Mach effect thruster doesn't have these problems, though, and nor does one based on using dark matter for propellent. Though how the latter would operate, considering that the interaction with currently proposed dark matter particles would have to be through the weak interaction... some kind of low energy electroweak unification?

I've seen results that suggest a potential power/thrust of 3kW/N. That's 100,000x better than a solar sail or photon thruster. Even if you beamed the power, you'd be talking about beaming stations on the order of tens of gigawatts, rather than hundreds of terawatts, for starships in the 1000s of tonnes range. You could afford to keep the beam going for a year and boost the ships to 0.7-0.8c (use a magsail to slow down?). That puts interstellar colonisation within our reach, perhaps even limited trade.

So, just as with Ceres, I hereby claim Luhman 16.

RobertDyck · 2014-08-04 09:48:57

Also remember that photons impart momentum. Albert Einstein got his Nobel prize for the photovoltaic effect, not Relativity. The photovoltaic effect explained how photovoltaic cells (solar cells) work. It said when a photon hits an electron, that electron gains momentum. If a cue ball hits a billiard ball, it also gains momentum. The momentum is the mass of the cue ball multiplied by the change in speed. Momentum from a photon is the speed of light multiplied by a factor. That factor is the energy of the photon converted to mass by Einstein's famous equation E=Mc^2. This tells me photons actually do have mass. Not a lot, but they do.

So this thruster emits microwaves. That's a wavelength of photons. Calculate the momentum of the microwave photons emitted. How does that compare to the force of thrust of this thruster? I suspect they're the same. So this isn't anything magical. The reason scientists don't understand is the continuing misconception that photons do not have mass. That's wrong, they do. So propellant is the photons of microwaves.

This is my hypothesis. It means the laws of physics are not violated. To check if it's true, I would need more detail about the thruster. How much power does it emit. And I don't mean how much power does it consume, I mean how much microwave power. And exactly what frequency of microwaves. That would allow me to calculate thrust using Einstein's photovoltaic effect. We could compare that to what Dr. White measured experimentally.

Also realize solar sails use this same effect for their thrust.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-08-04 14:17:24)

Void · 2014-08-04 10:03:26

I can't go very far in this conversation without displaying extreme ignorance. But I will ask a further question.

Taraformer.

If a small collection of virtual particles existed at the same tiny moment in this device and the microwaves heated them a bit before they winked out and they gave momentum to a spacecraft by that heating, did you intend to say that that momentum would be pulled back when the particles winked out? (When the virtual plasma winked out).

And I agree this is probabbly NASA saying they don't have it defined enough and someone wanted to publish a news article about it for sensationalism.

However many people think Dark Energy exists (Very tenuous amount in out whole solar system). I don't see that anything is being violated if you supply the energy. It just might not actually work. And will then be another "Cold Fusion".

But there is apparently lots of Dark Matter and even more Dark Energy. I have to be attracted to speculations about it.

Terraformer · 2014-08-04 13:22:03

Robert,

The measured thrust is far greater than that imparted by a photon thruster. We know photons impart momentum, but the momentum they impart is a lot less than the device is gaining.

Void,

The trouble is, if the virtual particles gain momentum, that momentum disappears when they disappear, and so there is a net increase in the amount of momentum in the universe. Same with the kinetic energy gained by it. The energy and momentum of a photon are linked through E = pc, and since c is a constant, it's not going to be possible to lose the excess that way. Though perhaps a neutrino could be produced to carry away the excess energy and momentum...

Void · 2014-08-04 17:46:06

That's baryonic of you?

Perhaps it expands dark energy when the virtual particles vanish and might carry extra energy with them?

Do hot planet cores, stars, black holes, radiate energy into dark energy, so causing it to expand and the universe to expand? It might explain how energy stored in baryonic matter goes into black holes and perhaps exits as dark energy, and causes the universe to expand at an increased rate? Maybe dark energy is a "White Hole".

Quack! Quack! I really don't have the capacity to argue against your points, but I am inclined to bet my money that there is more than baryonic matter.

Just a speculation. Maybe I did not understand your reply well enough. No offense was intended.

Last edited by Void (2014-08-04 18:01:19)

Mark Friedenbach · 2014-08-05 09:38:49

Why would the particle disappear? They normally annihilate each other because they come into existence as a matter / anti-matter pair. Obviously under normal circumstances it's only a very short matter of time before one bumps into the other.

I am a physicist, but I haven't read the papers yet... It sounds from the popular descriptions like one of these particles is being accelerated via interaction with the microwave before it has a chance to run into its reversed matter pairing. This is a bit like Hawking radiation bleeding energy from a black hole via the momentum of these virtual particles. Qualitatively, I see no reason why this couldn't work with conservation of energy and momentum... unless you are forgetting to include the virtual particles in your momentum calculations.

EDIT: By the way, does anyone have links to the original articles?

Last edited by Mark Friedenbach (2014-08-05 09:41:01)

Void · 2014-08-05 10:12:25

This is all I have.
http://www.space.com/26713-impossible-s … -test.html

I am ignorant on this topic, so I will not try your patience any further. Perhaps when I have more time in the near future I may try to get some education on the matter.

Terraformer · 2014-08-05 16:48:06

The problem is, their annihilation is required to ensure that the total amount of energy remains zero - they are essentially borrowing the energy from the universe for the time of their existence. If they escape this, the energy has to be put in in order to create the particle. With Hawking radiation, this energy comes from the mass of the black hole, hence it's evaporation. If something similar was happening in a thruster, the thruster would need to be putting in enough energy to create the particles, which means the power drain will be no better than a photon thruster...

Well, I think, I haven't worked it out yet. The (non-relativistic) equation would be E = 0.5m(2c^2 + v^2) = mc^2 + 0.5mv^2 and p = mv. Or, in a cleaner was, E = 9e16(m) + 0.5pv -> 9e16m + 0.5pv - E = 0. Can you find a value for m and v that will satisfy any given values of p and E? Possibly. That might allow the energy and momentum to be carried away by elementary particles such as neutrinos and their antiparticles... except P is still subject to the limit of c.

Sticking in the performance of a photon thruster - by the way, I have no idea if this is correct at all, I'm hoping someone will come along and pick it apart - E = 3e8 and p = 1. That means 9e16m + 0.5v - 3e8 = 0. Setting m = 0, which is what would be expected from a photon thruster, gives v = 6e8, twice the speed of light. Hmmm. I have clearly made an error somewhere, but I think it's along the right track, considering that it's an error in getting the wrong coefficient. Though, if the ship was moving at the speed of light too, it *would* be 6e8 relative to the ship...

JoshNH4H · 2014-08-05 23:42:48

Terraformer wrote:

I have no idea if this is correct at all, I'm hoping someone will come along and pick it apart

You called?

I haven't been following this story until recently, because I typically ignore any sensationalist science reporting for being just that-- sensationalist. Space.com is better than most but does still have to get viewers!

The abstract has been made available on the NASA Technical Reports Servers.

They do not deign to discuss the physics but rather focus on the experimental results. I cannot obtain access to the full paper, most unfortunately. I will stop by my university library as soon as possible to see if I can obtain access by other means.

Now, Terraformer: You have proposed the relation:

Terraformer wrote:

E = m*c^2+pv/2

However, there is a term you've missed which is the potential energy term. A more complete picture would therefore be given by:

E=m*c^2+pv/2+V

Where V is the potential energy of the particle. This is a statement of the energy of any particle at any time, more or less. Taking the time derivative:

P=c^2*d/dt(m)+1/2*(Fv+pa)+d/dt(V)

where P is power, F is Force, and a is acceleration. The second term on the right was obtained by the chain rule.

It's important to note that while force, acceleration, potential, (classically) mass, and in this case the known power imparted to the particle are frame independent, the velocity and momentum (itself closely related to the particle) are not frame independent. Plugging in p=mv, we see:

P=c^2*d/dt(m)+1/2*(Fv+vma)+d/dt(V)

F=ma (Newton's second law), so:

P=c^2*d/dt(m)+1/2*(Fv+Fv)+d/dt(V)

and

P=c^2*d/dt(m)+Fv+d/dt(V)

So we're given a known power and a known force. But what about the potential energy term? How could the potential energy be changing? Well, as a matter of fact light is classically modeled as electric and magnetic fields oscillating in phase. I don't know how to calculate E or B but they do vary sinusoidally with respect to both space and time.

Implicit in the term "d/dt(V)" is the notion of the speed of light. All observers will agree that this is constant, so perhaps a linear increase in the potential energy of charged virtual particles can counter the change in relative velocity.

If the above holds true, then a deterministic value for the rate of mass creation inherent in the usage of this device could be calculated given a known value for the absorbed radiation power, the force, and the radiation frequency (Intensity?).

It's also worth considering that the force measured may represent a rapidly oscillating average rather than a continuous value.

It's worth remembering that v, here, is the velocity of the particle, F the force acting on the particle, and m the mass of the particle. What's disconcerting to me about this equation is that it takes mass as a continuum when we know that at small scales it isn't. So I will divide everything by a volume (u=volume) and use Einstein's relations to turn mass into an energy:

P/u=d/dt(E/u)+Fv/u+d/dt(V/u)

And if E/u is taken to be some kind of zero point energy, with Fv/u taken to be the result of some kind of current of virtual particles, my math is suggesting that we might have something: This drive is creating a force by using electromagnetic fields to pump up the zero point energy of the local vacuum. One could say that this increase in energy is generating an outward pressure, perhaps.

Terraformer · 2014-08-06 03:37:00

Well, at the moment I just want to know whether it is theoretically possible for the drive to be more efficient than a photon drive.

Though, if this drive is interacting with dark matter, then it's a lot more momentous than just a hyper-efficient starship drive - it would allow us to generate power by annihilating dark matter. Given the density that it's supposed to have, then only a small reactor would be able to generate terawatts of power... even if it's not usable as a drive, then the cheap availability of such a dense power source would allow for cheap starships... and cheap terraforming with comets... and make it easy to live in the depths of interstellar space...

JoshNH4H · 2014-08-06 07:29:42

Experimentally it does seem to have been validated, so the answer is possibly yes. As you can tell I'm rather out of my league here, but I'd like to see confirmation by three or four more groups before I say I'm comfortable with the results.

Terraformer · 2014-08-06 08:11:49

Well, so far it's been validated in the same way FTL neutrinos were - there's an anomalous signal, but it's by no means certain that it's a reactionless drive.

I'm very much out of my league here. Perhaps I'll do an Open University course on dark matter...

If the axion theory (model? hypothesis?) is correct, though, it's supposed to be possible to make them decay into microwave photons within an appropriate cavity. That would explain these and the Chinese results, given that we're apparently moving through the dark matter at 300km/s - if the device is trapping them, that momentum has to go somewhere. But what I'm more interested in is using that to extract energy... since there's supposed to be 0.1-10kg of dark matter per square meter moving through us, then a 1m^2 cavity decaying 1g/s, 1% of the minimum, of dark matter into photons would produce 9e13W. Yes, 90TW of power, in a reactor that can fit in an electrical substation. Thus leading to a major environmental catastrophe, as our waste heat destroys the planet. Or as improperly maintained or sabotaged reactors blow up, with 20kt explosions...

However, we probably wouldn't have such reactors, preferring instead to distribute local kilowatt scale reactors throughout homes. Plus, the damage would be limited, since most people would choose to put a lot of distance between them and terrorists with WMDs. With cheap starships, this wouldn't be particularly difficult...

Terraformer · 2014-08-06 12:12:46

Actually, that thought is terrifying, because it means giving a civilisation that hasn't reached Type I yet, Type III levels of power. We're talking about being able to throw large comets around - great for terraforming, but also dangerous (though the ability to divert a comet towards a planet also means you can divert one away from a planet). That would get Mercury, Mars, Luna and the Gallileans proteroformed in decades, plus Venus becoming a lot more hospitable with water and perhaps free oxygen from photolysis - if we don't crash metal into it to remove the atmosphere before then. We're talking about having access to relativistic starships than can slag planets.

On the plus side, it allows the colonisation of interstellar space. Find a decent sized comet 2ly out, and you can build yourself a large Bernal sphere and keep it going for trillions of years.

Mark Friedenbach · 2014-08-06 15:55:05

No, so far it has been confirmed by five independent groups, which is the only reason I'm giving it any credence at all...

JoshNH4H · 2014-08-06 22:47:30

Although these groups have been getting wildly different values for the amount of force generated, right?

Terraformer · 2014-08-07 04:14:37

Though that's to be expected, since they're not all using the same design.

I'm hoping for the dark matter explanation, and not just because it avoids violating the conservation of momentum - it also opens up the possibility of extracting incredible amounts of energy, putting us straight into K2 territory, and with solar system development, K3...

Though, given the predicted efficiency of the quantum vacuum thruster, and others, that alone would allow us to move mountains - or rather, asteroids and comets that are that size, as well as have access to relativistic starships. Which would still move us straight to K2, having mastery of our solar system (moving giant comets = rapid proteroforming).

Exciting, if terrifying, stuff.

Terraformer · 2014-08-08 08:02:11

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 … ible-drive

I'm not prepared to give it a >50% probability of actually being something special - it remains an extraordinary claim - but definitely >5%...

If it works, I suspect it will be due to interacting with dark matter - I don't know much about the dark matter suggestions, but axions are supposed to interact with microwave photons...

Exciting times.

Void · 2014-08-08 10:19:02

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo … rk-energy/

One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe.

If I had make a speculation, I would say that more space is created by injecting energy into it. But that is only guessing. I am very poorly equipt for this subject.

If this were somehow true, then I would be looking for evidence that energy from hot baryonic objects is creating more space/dark energy. Black Holes, Stars, hot planet cores?

Last edited by Void (2014-08-08 10:23:14)

JoshNH4H · 2014-08-08 20:57:38

I don't think anyone knows what the reason for this device working is (And I suppose it's looking more or less like it does), so perhaps we ought to hold off on claims that we're about to become a Kardashev II or Kardashev III civilization (Or for that matter, Kardashev I).

I sure hope nobody has me on record saying that the EmDrive is BS...

Terraformer · 2014-08-09 04:36:03

However it works, it's still a propellentless (*not* reactionless) drive with an efficiency at least of 3kW/N (if the Chinese results are reliable). If we can beam 3MW to a ship, then, we can accelerate a 10 tonne ship at 0.1m/s^2 - not as rapid as I'd like, but ~35km/s over 4 days is... still quite good. Using a 30GW beam (assuming we can figure out how to couple the power beam to the ship, so as to access the energy), we could accelerate a 1000 tonne starship at 10m/s^2, reaching 0.7c within a year. Considering that Starwisp requires a 240GW microwave beam to accelerate 16g... it would be an improvement of, ooh, 6 orders of magnitude? Starflight about a million times easier?

Attach such an engine to a comet, and you can move them to impact whatever planets you like. Hello, Venus clouds. Welcome to the plains of Io, we hope you enjoy your stay and check out our shallow seas, teaming with life. Mars is now open to homesteading...

Of course, if it's intercepting dark matter and being pushed, rather than accelerating the dark matter (though, given that reversing the device reversed the thrust, that's less likely), then we can make dark matter windmills, and thus generate... a lot of power. As in, enough to easily use microwave sails (probably as a Macron beam).

So, in the event that this is a real effect, I'm quite confident calling it as being the moment we start to really become a solid Type 2. If we can annihilate dark matter to generate power, then we're firmly in Type III territory, even without leaving our solar system...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2014-08-01 17:44:54

impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#2 2014-08-02 06:36:44

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#3 2014-08-02 09:51:59

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#4 2014-08-02 12:50:56

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#5 2014-08-03 09:02:47

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#6 2014-08-04 08:45:44

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#7 2014-08-04 09:48:57

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#8 2014-08-04 10:03:26

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#9 2014-08-04 13:22:03

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#10 2014-08-04 17:46:06

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#11 2014-08-05 09:38:49

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#12 2014-08-05 10:12:25

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#13 2014-08-05 16:48:06

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#14 2014-08-05 23:42:48

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#15 2014-08-06 03:37:00

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#16 2014-08-06 07:29:42

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#17 2014-08-06 08:11:49

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#18 2014-08-06 12:12:46

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#19 2014-08-06 15:55:05

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#20 2014-08-06 22:47:30

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#21 2014-08-07 04:14:37

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#22 2014-08-08 08:02:11

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#23 2014-08-08 10:19:02

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#24 2014-08-08 20:57:38

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#25 2014-08-09 04:36:03

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

Board footer