Electromagnetic Drive

[asechrest]

NASA recently announced another successful test of their EM Drive, which seems to "defy classical physics’ expectations". The drive apparently creates thrust without propellant.

It's early, and as far as I know there are no peer-reviewed papers or studies, but this seems...awesome. Also some rumblings of a "warp drive" if the technology actually works. Do we have any resident physicists (Azure?) who knows anything about it?

 

[docmirror]

According to the article, NASA is attempting to peer review work already published by teams in the UK and China.

I'm not a physicist, but I worked at a few nuclear plants as an engineer, and this is way out there in theoretical world. Right now, conversion efficiency is very low, but they are hoping for orders of magnitude improvement in the future, and that is often the case with classical physics models once they are better understood and can be tuned.

What's needed is for someone to crack the big glaring 'why' is it doing that? I like experimental activities where we don't know the why yet, but sadly many times it turns out the calorimitry is way off, or the measurement method has failed to take into account one of the natural forces that throws off the accuracy of the thrust/power measurements.

It would be best to build a free-standing, and fully isolated working body in space, and then account for all natural forces, including gravity, centrifugal, centripetal forces, etc and really see what they are getting for thrust. Pretty complicated stuff to be sure, but interesting.

 

[asechrest]

Thanks for the comments, Doc.

There's a huge forum discussion here on the NASAspaceflight.com forums. Way above my pay grade.

 

[MAKG1]

Beware claims of "nullifying conventional wisdom" that only appear on a self-serving website trying to appear to be something it is not. nasaspaceflight.com has absolutely nothing to do with NASA. There are several journals that would quite readily publish results that had some substance. Something tells me the Johnson group has somewhat different results than this website says it does.

I see no reason to doubt the "conventional" explanation that the anomalies are due to microwave heating of the air in the test facility, which would make this utterly useless as space propulsion, if you exclude the unpublished Johnson results. Even if you include it, a strong RF or microwave field can interact with nearby conductors to produce momentum and heat.

There is likely something interesting going on here, but jumping to the "it's spaceflight!" conclusion is a bit like flinging rubber bands and then assuming you can get to Mars that way. REALLY premature. Like, cold-fusion premature.

 

[Shepherd]

You can build a gadget in your basement. The plans are available on line.
essentially you have 2 wires running parallel to each other, one above the other, around the outside a very light frame (balsa works) You end up with something that looks like a mini farm enclosure. Now put a high DC voltage on the top and the opposite voltage on the bottom wire. It will float up off the table and hover.
The technology has been known since the 1920's.

I used to take one of these with me whenever a I did a "Visiting Scientist" talk at the local elementary and middle schools. It was always a hit with the kids.

 

[cgrab]

I remember working at Lewis (now Glenn) Research Center in Cleveland where they developed the electromagnetic mercury ion thruster for several spacecraft. I recall one of the engineers saying the output was measured in "mouse farts." Not a very high thrust level.

 

[docmirror]

I remember working at Lewis (now Glenn) Research Center in Cleveland where they developed the electromagnetic mercury ion thruster for several spacecraft. I recall one of the engineers saying the output was measured in "mouse farts." Not a very high thrust level.

Yeah, the Chinese measured ~7 in pounds of thrust with 2.5KW radiated power going in. It will take significant rocket propellant to get the nuke engine into space that produces 2500KW for 60 ft Lbs of thrust. The cool deal they are discussing is that once it's up there, since there's no actual propellant, it can be run for years on end without a refueling of the nuke pile, which takes the place of the expended rocket fuel. There is technically a propellant, in terms of the fuel rods, but it isn't expended in the classic sense of the word.

The physics are surely beyond my ken, but the engineering isn't. Right now the ROI on this gadget is well and truly 'mouse fart' territory. Maybe it'll get better.

 

[asechrest]

User Star-Drive at nasaspaceflight.com appears to be Paul March, who is on the NASA Eagleworks advanced propulsion team. He has contributed substantially to the massive EM Drive thread on that website.

A listing of his posts is here (probably requires registration at the site). Reading a few of his comments impresses upon me how hilariously out of my league I am even attempting to read them.

Example:

R.W. Keys:

"Regarding amplifiers: Magnetrons are cheap and dirty, microwave-oven equipment. But am I correct in saying that someone, Perhaps Paul March, said that the reason why the Chinese and Shawyer designs work, in spite of having no dielectric, is that their messy RF eliminated the need for one? Can someone explain how this might be?"

To tell you how one could create thrust without a dielectric all depends on what physical model is actually at work in producing the observed thrust effect in these frustum EM-Drives. As far as I know there are only two robust conjectures that can explain how these "propellant-less" EM-Drives work.

The first and earliest conjecture is Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect conjecture that assumes that the thruster directly interacts with cosmological gravitational field via local E&M induced transient inertial mass fluctuations in a dielectric predicted by special and general relativity (SRT & GRT), without stating what the cosmological gravitational field actually is at its lowest level, other than stating it is created by all the mass/energy in the causally connected universe. Some would say that this rules out the M-E in regards to the cause of the dielectric-less frustums generating thrust, but are any of them really dielectric free? Please remember that our copper frustum has a baked on silicone PCB anti-oxidation ~0.001" thick coating on its interior surfaces to keep the copper surfaces from oxidizing and thus lowering its Q-factor over time. Is that enough dielectric to keep the M-E in the running? TBD but perhaps it is at high enough power levels and/or modulation techniques.

The second conjecture by Dr. White that might explain these results also posits that these EM-Drives interact with the cosmological gravitational field to generate thrust via SRT & GRT based interactions, but goes one step further in stating that the cosmological gravitational field IS the Quantum-Vacuum (Q-V) pressure field that's also created by all the mass & energy in the causally connected universe. This is a subtle difference I know, but in doing so one can now treat gravity as an emergent force that can be manipulated with the application of local E&M fields using plasma physics' Magneto-Hydro-Dynamic (MHD) rules since the Q-V is consider to be a neutral electrical plasma made primarily from the transient e/p pairs in the Dirac sea. It also allows one to think of transient mass fluctuations as actually being density fluctuations in the Q-V that can be generated hydrodynamically via Bernoulli pressure effects, etc. Just as in a wing with air flowing over it can create lift via the Bernoulli effect, just by the SHAPE of the wing surfaces, a frustum can generate Q-V plasma flows under E&M excitations, AKA thrust, just by the shape of its topology with no need for dielectrics.
[...]
Best, Paul M.

Also, this from the Wikipedia Article:

Six months later, early 2015, Paul March from Eagleworks made new results public, claiming positive experimental force measurements with a torsional pendulum in a hard vacuum: about 50 µN with 50 W of input power at 5.0×10−6 torr, and new null-thrust tests.[30] The new RF power amplifiers were said to be made for hard vacuum, but still fail rapidly due to internal corona discharges, with not enough funding to replace or upgrade them, so measurements are still scarce and need improvement before a new report can be published.[31]

Glenn Research Center offered to replicate the experiment in a hard vacuum when Eagleworks manage to reach 100 µN of thrust, because the GRC thrust stand can only measure down to 50 µN.

 

[docmirror]

Far be it for me as an engineer to criticize the science of the latest experiment, but the measured 50uN of thrust could have been a residual stray movement from any number of electro-dynamic sources of flux. Where was the 50W generated microwave heat and electrodynamic discharge dissipated? Was the gen and associated power distribution in a Faraday cage? Not just vacuum needs to be taken into account here, but also all four natural forces; gravity, weak nuke, strong nuke, and most particularly electromagnetic.

They prolly got all that canceled out, but we surely don't know without the diagrams, setups, and some of the measuring effort. 50uN is down to amoeba fart level.

 

[MAKG1]

Yeah, I had the exact same thought.

It makes me quite nervous to trust data that has no journals at all involved. I was around and working in the field when the cold fusion fiasco occurred, and I learned a thing or two about unpublished results from that.

This experiment is at best extraordinarily difficult. That doesn't mean you can't come up with a number. It means it takes heroic effort to get a correct number. Failure looks like a positive measurement, that doesn't withstand closer scrutiny.

At the level of micro-G's, the gravitational attraction of that huge three-phase transformer in the next room may no longer be negligible...

 

[steingar]

I'd like to see it published in a peer-reviewed journal and repeated. I'm having flashbacks to Cold Fusion.

 

[asechrest]

Just used LegalZoom to create a new entity: cOldFusion LLC. Will be selling tickets to Andromeda. Ya'll want to put in some seed money? Couple mil should do. I figure we'll guarantee trip date coincident with the release of the Terrafugia.

 

[docmirror]

Just used LegalZoom to create a new entity: cOldFusion LLC. Will be selling tickets to Andromeda. Ya'll want to put in some seed money? Couple mil should do. I figure we'll guarantee trip date coincident with the release of the Terrafugia.

I'm sending seed money now. $3 mil.

You'll be receiving a napkin soon, with a hand-written, post-dated, three party check in chartreuse crayon drawn on the peoples Republik of Botswana bank. Hold it till Tuesday please.

 

[asechrest]

I'm sending seed money now. $3 mil.

You'll be receiving a napkin soon, with a hand-written, post-dated, three party check in chartreuse crayon drawn on the peoples Republik of Botswana bank. Hold it till Tuesday please.

I'll take it to Amscot on Tuesday.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Yeah, the Chinese measured ~7 in pounds of thrust with 2.5KW radiated power going in. It will take significant rocket propellant to get the nuke engine into space that produces 2500KW for 60 ft Lbs of thrust. The cool deal they are discussing is that once it's up there, since there's no actual propellant, it can be run for years on end without a refueling of the nuke pile, which takes the place of the expended rocket fuel. There is technically a propellant, in terms of the fuel rods, but it isn't expended in the classic sense of the word.

The physics are surely beyond my ken, but the engineering isn't. Right now the ROI on this gadget is well and truly 'mouse fart' territory. Maybe it'll get better.

Do any of you remember a few years back that airline captains were reporting pulse jet type contrails out west that were moving very very fast? Probably not Germaine to what your discussing , but don't you think there's a lot going on that is classified? Like maybe a very high speed vehicle? Fighter, bomber?

 

[Warlock]

This is interesting but the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket that former NASA astronaut Franklin Chang-Díaz, Ad Astra Rocket Co. is developing actually can get us to Mars.

 

[MAKG1]

Do any of you remember a few years back that airline captains were reporting pulse jet type contrails out west that were moving very very fast? Probably not Germaine to what your discussing , but don't you think there's a lot going on that is classified? Like maybe a very high speed vehicle? Fighter, bomber?

NASA does some classified work, but it's really poorly set up for it. If this really were a classified research project, the Air Force would be doing it at a far better secured site than JSC. And the blabber mouths on that website would be facing some serious time in Club Fed.

 

[Van Johnston]

Hope it pans out better than electrodynamic propulsion (EDP) did in the 90s. My graduate school thesis advisor was into that. Myself and another student did our theses (sp?) on EDP. The other student was doing the lab experiment to try to prove ithe concept. My part was to study potential applications (stationkeeping, rendezvous & docking, etc), assuming it really worked. After I graduated I turned my thesis into a paper for the AIAA propulsion conference, and my advisor was going to present it. About 3 weeks before the conference he called me up and said they figured out the other student had faked his results, and asked if I thought our paper should still be presented. I told him the work was still correct; it was just based on an invalid assumption. That was about a year of my life that went for naught.

 

[docmirror]

Anytime someone starts fudging with Newton's classical laws of physics, things get pretty iffy. I'm all for basic science on the premise of significant advancement, but Newton is pretty well supported laws.

 

[Mutts]

I'm putting this in the "cold fusion" bucket for now.

 

[asechrest]

There was some additional news out today about the EM Drive.

Engineer Roger Shawyer’s controversial EmDrive thruster jets back into relevancy this week, as a team of researchers at NASA’s Eagleworks Laboratories recently completed yet another round of testing on the seemingly impossible tech. Though no official peer-reviewed lab paper has been published yet, and NASA institutes strict press release restrictions on the Eagleworks lab these days, engineer Paul March took to the NASA Spaceflight forum to explain the group’s findings. In essence, by utilizing an improved experimental procedure, the team managed to mitigate some of the errors from prior tests — yet still found signals of unexplained thrust.

And this, from NASA engineer Paul March. Still not sure what to make of it all.:

I wish I could show you all the pictures I've taken on how we saluted and mitigated the issues raised by our EW Lab's Blue-Ribbon PhD panel and now Potomac-Neuron's paper, on the possible Lorentz force interactions. That being the Lorentz Interactions with the dc currents on the EW torque pendulum (TP) with the stray magnetic fields from the torque pendulum's first generation open-face magnetic damper and the Earth's geomagnetic field, but I can't due to the restrictive NASA press release rules now applied to the EW Lab.

However since I still can't show you this supporting data until the EW Lab gets our next peer-reviewed lab paper published, I will tell you that we first built and installed a 2nd generation, closed face magnetic damper that reduced the stray magnetic fields in the vacuum chamber by at least an order of magnitude and any Lorentz force interactions it could produce. I also changed up the torque pendulum's grounding wire scheme and single point ground location to minimize ground loop current interactions with the remaining stray magnetic fields and unbalanced dc currents from the RF amplifier when its turned on. This reduced the Lorentz force interaction to less than 2 micro-Newton (uN) for the dummy load test. Finally we rebuilt the copper frustum test article so that it is now fully integrated with the RF VCO, PLL, 100W RF amp, dual directional coupler, 3-stub tuner and connecting coax cables, then mounted this integrated test article at the opposite end of the torque pendulum, as far away as possible from the 2nd generation magnetic damper where only the required counterbalance weights now reside. Current null testing with both the 50 ohm dummy load and with the integrated test article rotated 90 degrees with respect to the TP sensitive axis now show less than one uN of Lorentz forces on the TP due to dc magnetic interactions with the local environment even when drawing the maximum RF amp dc current of 12 amps.

Given all of the above TP wiring and test article modifications with respect to our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper design baseline needed to address these Lorentz force magnetic interaction issues, we are still seeing over 100uN of force with 80W of RF power going into the frustum running in the TM212 resonant mode, now in both directions, dependent on the direction of the mounted integrated test article on the TP. However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other. (Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.) So we have now developed an analytical tool to help separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP. Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

 

[Henning]

According to the article, NASA is attempting to peer review work already published by teams in the UK and China.

I'm not a physicist, but I worked at a few nuclear plants as an engineer, and this is way out there in theoretical world. Right now, conversion efficiency is very low, but they are hoping for orders of magnitude improvement in the future, and that is often the case with classical physics models once they are better understood and can be tuned.

What's needed is for someone to crack the big glaring 'why' is it doing that? I like experimental activities where we don't know the why yet, but sadly many times it turns out the calorimitry is way off, or the measurement method has failed to take into account one of the natural forces that throws off the accuracy of the thrust/power measurements.

It would be best to build a free-standing, and fully isolated working body in space, and then account for all natural forces, including gravity, centrifugal, centripetal forces, etc and really see what they are getting for thrust. Pretty complicated stuff to be sure, but interesting.

Yep, that's what they need to do is play with one up at the ISS. Until people can see something work in its environment, they rate it as impossible.

 

[Henning]

Beware claims of "nullifying conventional wisdom" that only appear on a self-serving website trying to appear to be something it is not. nasaspaceflight.com has absolutely nothing to do with NASA. There are several journals that would quite readily publish results that had some substance. Something tells me the Johnson group has somewhat different results than this website says it does.

I see no reason to doubt the "conventional" explanation that the anomalies are due to microwave heating of the air in the test facility, which would make this utterly useless as space propulsion, if you exclude the unpublished Johnson results. Even if you include it, a strong RF or microwave field can interact with nearby conductors to produce momentum and heat.

There is likely something interesting going on here, but jumping to the "it's spaceflight!" conclusion is a bit like flinging rubber bands and then assuming you can get to Mars that way. REALLY premature. Like, cold-fusion premature.

Another thing it could be reacting with is Dark Matter. We understand next to nothing about the quantum realm, so "conventional wisdom" is created without understanding what the majority of what exists in space even is.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Haven't you guys watched Hunt for Red October? This thing has been done in submarines for years. Jeez.

 

[Henning]

Haven't you guys watched Hunt for Red October? This thing has been done in submarines for years. Jeez.

Yes, Mitsubishi actually built a ship with that drive, but it has a fluid to act as the propellant. The thing with this claim is that there is thrust being produced without a propellant to react against.

 

[MAKG1]

Another thing it could be reacting with is Dark Matter. We understand next to nothing about the quantum realm, so "conventional wisdom" is created without understanding what the majority of what exists in space even is.

If it interacts electromagnetically, it's not dark matter.

Henning, you seem to be confusing dark matter with midi-chlorians.

 

[Henning]

If it interacts electromagnetically, it's not dark matter.

Henning, you seem to be confusing dark matter with midi-chlorians.

Not necessarily, you can't really make that statement because we have zero evidence as to what Dark Matter is or exactly how or what it reacts to. I have a few interesting experiments I'd like to run with this rig though that may bring a bit of light to the room, but there is no chance in hell I'll ever have the opportunity to perform them, so I have to wait for others to try them. If Dark Matter is a proto matter that is in dead storage at Absolute Zero, then microwaves could impart enough energy it to create a reaction and gravity without the information to turn it into matter.

As for the other statement, try to quit being an insulting condescending prick, you're not particularly adept at it.

 

[MAKG1]

Not necessarily, you can't really make that statement because we have zero evidence as to what Dark Matter is or exactly how or what it reacts to. I have a few interesting experiments I'd like to run with this rig though that may bring a bit of light to the room, but there is no chance in hell I'll ever have the opportunity to perform them, so I have to wait for others to try them. If Dark Matter is a proto matter that is in dead storage at Absolute Zero, then microwaves could impart enough energy it to create a reaction and gravity without the information to turn it into matter.

As for the other statement, try to quit being an insulting condescending prick, you're not particularly adept at it.

ZERO evidence?

Wrong. There is plenty of observational evidence about what dark matter is not. If it has any electromagnetic interaction at all, it is far weaker than its gravitational interaction. Yes, that's known. Your made up model is excluded by observations.

If you don't like condescension, don't tell someone his dissertation is all wrong when you aren't even capable of parsing the title correctly.

What you think dark matter is bears no relation to what it actually is. Maybe study that if you don't want to be dismissed immediately as a crank.

And dismissing 50 years of observations just because you don't know it exists really doesn't help your credibility.

 

[Henning]

ZERO evidence?

Wrong. There is plenty of observational evidence about what dark matter is not. If it has any electromagnetic interaction at all, it is far weaker than its gravitational interaction. Yes, that's known. Your made up model is excluded by observations.

If you don't like condescension, don't tell someone his dissertation is all wrong when you aren't even capable of parsing the title correctly.

What you think dark matter is bears no relation to what it actually is. Maybe study that if you don't want to be dismissed immediately as a crank.

And dismissing 50 years of observations just because you don't know it exists really doesn't help your credibility.

You mean like the "weak force" in quantum physics? Dark Matter interacts with electromagnetism and gravity well enough to cause the distortions in light that we perceive it by. Most Doctoral Discertations on Physics written 100 years ago are now seen as incorrect. To challenge old assumptions and test new is what science is about. Academic science has almost become a religion of technology.

 

[Sleepingsquirrel]

Yeah, I had the exact same thought.

It makes me quite nervous to trust data that has no journals at all involved. I was around and working in the field when the cold fusion fiasco occurred, and I learned a thing or two about unpublished results from that.

This experiment is at best extraordinarily difficult. That doesn't mean you can't come up with a number. It means it takes heroic effort to get a correct number. Failure looks like a positive measurement, that doesn't withstand closer scrutiny.

At the level of micro-G's, the gravitational attraction of that huge three-phase transformer in the next room may no longer be negligible...

I like my BMI calculated with Solar masses rather than with pounds but not even the Unit converter I use was that dilligent or heroic in the effort.

 

[MAKG1]

You mean like the "weak force" in quantum physics? Dark Matter interacts with electromagnetism and gravity well enough to cause the distortions in light that we perceive it by. Most Doctoral Discertations on Physics written 100 years ago are now seen as incorrect. To challenge old assumptions and test new is what science is about. Academic science has almost become a religion of technology.

No, Henning. "Not even wrong."

It's one thing to challenge with reproducible data. It's quite another to pull it out of your posterior with no relation to reality and no idea what it really is that you're criticizing.

Most dissertations written 100 years ago are not wrong, but rather out of date. New data may change understanding, and does once in a great while. It does not usually make old data wrong, though it may make it more precise. Not wild speculations pulled out of the butt of some guy who doesn't even understand it.

Dark matter does not interact with electromagnetism. That's what makes it dark. If it did, it would emit light when yanked in a strong gravitational field, with a specific light spectrum that is not observed. This means any possible electromagnetic effect is much weaker than gravity. So, why do you think it's the explanation for the "drive" at hand? Gravity would be a much better target. Though the real answer is probably an experimental design flaw such as a thermal effect on the measuring device.

The lensing effect you seem to be using as "evidence" is a geometrical effect, not an electromagnetic effect. It's gravity. Just gravity.

People really do understand this stuff. There is much more to it than making it up.

 

[Sleepingsquirrel]

At the level of micro-G's, the gravitational attraction of that huge three-phase transformer in the next room may no longer be negligible...

Like mistaking the big bang background noise for pigeon droppings.

 

[172andyou]

we have zero evidence as to what Dark Matter is or exactly how or what it reacts to.

That's a fantastic overstatement. It's true we don't understand it well, but saying we have zero evidence as to what it reacts to is just wrong.

We know it is gravitationally interactive. So that's already more than zero.

But more importantly we have multi-billion dollar experiments like CERN or Fermilab that have observed trillions of collisions without seeing anything that dark matter is reacting with. That's tons more than zero.

We have hundreds of smaller experiments like LIGO dealing with gravitational waves, several dozen neutrino experiments of different flavors, in the olden days we had cloud chambers, space based detectors like Herschel Space Observatory.

None of these, of radically different approach, technology and study particles, have shown anything the looked like dark matter interactivity.

So, we actually have *tons* of evidence that dark matter doesn't react with normal matter except gravitationally.

 

[Henning]

That's a fantastic overstatement. It's true we don't understand it well, but saying we have zero evidence as to what it reacts to is just wrong.

We know it is gravitationally interactive. So that's already more than zero.

But more importantly we have multi-billion dollar experiments like CERN or Fermilab that have observed trillions of collisions without seeing anything that dark matter is reacting with. That's tons more than zero.

We have hundreds of smaller experiments like LIGO dealing with gravitational waves, several dozen neutrino experiments of different flavors, in the olden days we had cloud chambers, space based detectors like Herschel Space Observatory.

None of these, of radically different approach, technology and study particles, have shown anything the looked like dark matter interactivity.

So, we actually have *tons* of evidence that dark matter doesn't react with normal matter except gravitationally.

The "zero evidence" referred to "what it is". I have a theory, other people may have theories, but as of yet, I haven't seen an evidence of understanding what it is.

My theory is it is a proto matter, quantum particles in an unenergized state at absolute zero, not quite in our confluence in dimensions because it lacks both information to assign organization, and energy to move. The Dark Matter is not reacting to gravity, but rather gravity is the result of Dark Matter reacting with energy. Now this proto matter state is not fully within our universe when you consider the universe a dimensional confluence, so until you apply information to it, you will never be able to "see" the result of adding energy to it. It isn't matter, but electromagnetism being also partially composed of the energy field that carries quantum information, which I theorize is Dark Energy (and is also produced with thought as is information), electromagnetism will have the ability to energize the dark matter into a state which could provide a fluid that 'comes from nowhere' like quantum particles jumping in and out of existence. This transition between proto matter and matter creates gravity as a resultant energy. Conservation of matter rules apply to the quantum realm as well. Now you notice, none of this contradicts Schroedinger, Bohr, or Einstein, rather fills in the holes that create confusion. The scientific method would require testing of the theory before one calls it impossible.

That's what I like about this drive since it shouldn't work, it gives the opportunity to test this theory by using a super sensitive gravitometer and seeing if it creates gravity. If there is a gravitational result, I'm on the right track. Next experiment with the gravitometer is see if I can produce gravity with thought.

 

[172andyou]

My theory is it is a proto matter, quantum particles in an unenergized state at absolute zero

When were they created in your hypothesis? Cause the CMB suggests they've been around since the earliest moments of the universe and it was hot as hell then. No absolute zero stuff floating around in that soup.

I assume you also know your theory is at odds with somewhat popular (and weakly supported experimentally) WIMP theory?

 

[Henning]

When were they created in your hypothesis? Cause the CMB suggests they've been around since the earliest moments of the universe and it was hot as hell then. No absolute zero stuff floating around in that soup.

I assume you also know your theory is at odds with somewhat popular (and weakly supported experimentally) WIMP theory?

Correct, quantum particles are eternal because they exist outside of the influence of time in space. Consider this model of the universe as one of many within the multiverse. You begin a the singularity, the dimension of information embedded in Dark Energy formed under the same intelligence that we all, as well as all sentient life in the multiverse shares, this is the reality of 'God', and we act as both modems and processors of this quantum information, and as such serve as the 'tools of creation' both by creating new information by processing current information and adding observations to form new information which is added to the multiverse's data base and can be applied to the design of the next universe. Simultaneously we apply quantum information to our universe in the act of creation, this is the reason we are both curious and creative. We have not yet evolved to the point where we can innately create at the quantum level with our minds though, we are not ready for that until we evolve into a peaceful and cooperative species, because as we are, we would threaten the health of the entire multiverse, we are a cancer that would kill its host from the inside, we're a quarantined parasite species at this point producing nothing useful in our closed minded hatefulness, and likely we will go extinct on the planet, a species that committed suicide out of greed and fear of change.

From the singularity is released a pulse stream of energy spiraling out and expanding, each pulse a "Big Bang" carrying a pair of universes, matter and antimatter, separated by a Dark Energy plasma state which applies a force we know of as time. Now this wave carries with it the information/energy stream from the singularity and provides the 'trunk line' for the information from all the universes and are fed by the quantum strings that span between waves like the distribution networks we use.

As this wave pushes through Space which contains the quantum particles, information and energy are applied to them forming creation in the same manner as a CRT produces a picture, in a continuous repetitive stream of changing information. The reason we have persistent gravity is because gravity is a reaction to creation, and creation is constant process. It's also what allows for mutations in evolution.

So yes Dark Matter is eternal because it exists outside of the influence of time as well as within. The hardest thing for mankind to grasp is the notion of eternal, outside of time.

I can explain it at the theological level as well and still not violate the foundations of either physics or religion, just provide explanations for the persistent questions that plague either.

 

[MAKG1]

Umm, Henning, "quantum particles" are anything but eternal. And don't claim it "isn't known" because that isn't even close to correct. Even an electron can be destroyed by contact with an antielectron, and pairs can be created out of vacuum with a source of energy.

There are some things that are conserved, such as electric charge. But elementary particles (both matter and energy) are not.

I don't know how you manage to get every single "fact" in this context wildly wrong in the first sentence. That has to take effort.

And, for the record, you have no theories. Theories must be supported by evidence. It isn't even speculation because it's inconsistent with known data. Definitely a model, though not a valid one.

Maybe you can explain it at a "theological" level (since that can be anything at all), but you definitely cannot claim to do so without violating physics. You do that in spades.

 

[Henning]

Umm, Henning, "quantum particles" are anything but eternal. And don't claim it "isn't known" because that isn't even close to correct. Even an electron can be destroyed by contact with an antielectron, and pairs can be created out of vacuum with a source of energy.

There are some things that are conserved, such as electric charge. But elementary particles (both matter and energy) are not.

I don't know how you manage to get every single "fact" in this context wildly wrong in the first sentence. That has to take effort.

And, for the record, you have no theories. Theories must be supported by evidence. It isn't even speculation because it's inconsistent with known data. Definitely a model, though not a valid one.

Maybe you can explain it at a "theological" level (since that can be anything at all), but you definitely cannot claim to do so without violating physics. You do that in spades.

Look I know you are closed minded, but none of what you said prevents a quantum particles from being eternal, just that they can lose and gain their information and charge, and that is required in this model anyway.

Like I said before, quantum particles exist everywhere, it's just a matter of whether they are excited with energy and information, remove the energy and information by negating it with an anti counterpart and it vanishes from perceivable creation and falls back to the dormant state. We can energize a quantum particle in the lab by applying energy, but what we don't do is apply the information to get them to work together and become something greater than themselves, that's what we figure out how to do after our evolutionary advance off the planet which requires us to be peaceful and cooperative. That is the realm of teleportation and other 'miracles'. When we learn how to use the quantum capacities of our minds, then we evolve into 'gods'.

All of this sounds "impossible" to those steeped in the dogmas of academia, because academia dogmatically denies and refuses to consider an intelligence at the core of creation, and that life has purpose beyond it's own existence. There is not one popular or tested theory that is not based in a chaotic creation and a purpose to life beyond feeding ego, even though evidence in the natural order suggests that everything serves multiple symbiotic functions with the whole earth acting as one hybrid organism to support the creation of thought.

So far you have not provided one reasoned argument to disprove my thoughts, just presented dogma. Not one thing you say has any concrete evidence of disproof. I would love to have access to the equipment to test my theory, but that does not exist in our society where information and the ability to create new information and changes is a closely guarded because it could it could cut into someone's income, whether it be a church or a university, and those who rely on them for their wealth and comfort. Then there is the whole ego issue. You're so dogmatically afraid of being wrong you don't even bother to think about what I wrote to understand that your arguments are invalid, you just respond with dogma.

 

[MAKG1]

OK, I get it. Understanding = closed minded.

I hope you enjoy flying that airplane built by "closed minded" engineers.

Some of us are required to actually have evidence to support our models. Yours is indistinguishable from hallucination. Yes, testability is dogma, but it works extremely well. I can't say that your fictions have produced anything at all.

You can't go talking about "quantum particles" without understanding what that actually means.

You are STARTING with a fallacy, so there is no way to reason with you at all. Get a reasonable starting point, and maybe we can talk.

 

[Henning]

OK, I get it. Understanding = closed minded.

I hope you enjoy flying that airplane built by "closed minded" engineers.

Some of us are required to actually have evidence to support our models. Yours is indistinguishable from hallucination. Yes, testability is dogma, but it works extremely well. I can't say that your fictions have produced anything at all.

You can't go talking about "quantum particles" without understanding what that actually means.

You are STARTING with a fallacy, so there is no way to reason with you at all. Get a reasonable starting point, and maybe we can talk.

You didn't understand a thing I wrote, you didn't even think it over, that is what makes you closed minded. You performed no mental test, that is the reason you didn't realize that your points were already reasonably covered, that's closed minded. You didn't question, you refuted, that makes you closed minded. Believing you understand the nature of creation, the universe, and the multiverse, with the theories currently in play, without the ability to explain it in a manner that doesn't require vast issues of fundamental structure to just be accepted as 'we don't know why that is, but it is, just ignore these "funny little things like quantum entanglements, singularities, and gravity, you don't need to go there."', that's beyond closed minded, that's religious.

Read what I wrote with an open mind and think on it for a while, apply the results of the last centuries experiments in relative and quantum physics and then consider for just a moment that everything in creation springs from intelligence. Contemplate for a bit how nature is an over parity machine with the universe in constant expansion for no known reason. Find that starting point, then we can talk.