Star Trek impulse drive has been developed

[TangoWhiskey]

Better ramp up the dilithium crystal production.

I'm holding out on the new diesel GA aircraft... you just know dilithium powered aircraft are just around the corner, and just like Beta > VHS > LaserDisc > DVD > BluRay, they're just waiting for us to bite and then have to upgrade again!

 

[azure]

Exactly, the concept of "settled science" is a non sequitor. Science is a *process* for experimentation and hypothesis based on results, it's not a goal where we say "Ah, we know now, we can stop testing."

True, but you have to have a feel for where the frontier is. I would put money on it not being in an asymmetrically-shaped microwave resonant cavity. This thing is no closer to the limits of known physics than Pons and Fleischmann's electrolysis apparatus.

If it's producing thrust, it's much likelier via a known mechanism that people don't realize yet is operating. Escaping gases, convection from the heat generated, even radiation reaction. All well-understood in terms of classical physics.

 

[Anthony]

Are Tribbles involved?

 

[Greebo]

Then scale up. The engine that's going to go into a space ship is going to be light and small. Should be able to build one on the ground and test it. Micronewtons will not fly a space ship.

Wrong.

In a friction-less environment you could BREATHE on a spaceship and it will move, at least a little, and it'll keep moving too.

(Note: Attempting to breathe in space is not recommended.)

 

[MAKG1]

There is nothing settled in physics, it's all incomplete.

Nothing?

Really?

That's funny, I thought we had gravity pretty nailed down on solar system scales. So much so that we can fling a small spacecraft through billions of miles of free-fall and have it nail its target after several years.

We also have local conservation of momentum settled, so this device is only physically possible if it has an input of momentum from something.

It's VERY fundamental. Noether's theorem ties momentum conservation to space invariance.

 

[bullwinkle]

True, but you have to have a feel for where the frontier is. I would put money on it not being in an asymmetrically-shaped microwave resonant cavity. This thing is no closer to the limits of known physics than Pons and Fleischmann's electrolysis apparatus.

If it's producing thrust, it's much likelier via a known mechanism that people don't realize yet is operating. Escaping gases, convection from the heat generated, even radiation reaction. All well-understood in terms of classical physics.

Read my above post. The designer claims the device relies on known laws of physics, the special sauce being Einstein's special relativity for the microwaves involved.

 

[Greebo]

Exactly, the concept of "settled science" is a non sequitor. Science is a *process* for experimentation and hypothesis based on results, it's not a goal where we say "Ah, we know now, we can stop testing."

Yes but we also don't need to re-discover Newtonian Physics. It's not correct to say that NOTHING in physics is ever settled - the rules we know now aren't going to change per se, but their ranges of applicability may be limited.

 

[bullwinkle]

Nothing?

Really?

That's funny, I thought we had gravity pretty nailed down on solar system scales. So much so that we can fling a small spacecraft through billions of miles of free-fall and have it nail its target after several years.

We only have anything nailed down as far as we know. There could be aspects of gravity, or exceptions, that we have not found yet. Last I checked, there was a LOT of debate about what even causes gravity.

We have a large number of observations on how gravity behaves in normal circumstances, that's a very long way from understanding gravitation and all its possibilities.

This would be like saying "Oh yeah, light. It's bright, everybody can see that. Happens every time you turn on a bulb. We've got that one nailed down."

 

[MAKG1]

Read my above post. The designer claims the device relies on known laws of physics, the special sauce being Einstein's special relativity for the microwaves involved.

SR for EM radiation is nothing special. You can derive SR from Maxwell's Equations, with the assumption that the speed of light is constant (consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment). It's a red herring.

 

[Henning]

Nothing?

Really?

That's funny, I thought we had gravity pretty nailed down on solar system scales. So much so that we can fling a small spacecraft through billions of miles of free-fall and have it nail its target after several years.

Gravity settled? What creates Gravity? We can measure and understand the effects of gravity, but why or how it exists are hardly settled. When it is settled, we will understand the quantum physics of creation; how quanta pop in and out of existence, or move instantly and communicate instantly across vast distances. Then we will understand the nature of time as a force, and gravity the byproduct of exciting quanta into existence.

Until then, gravity is all but settled.

 

[MAKG1]

Someday we will do something that we say is impossible by the laws of physics. Mostly because we don't know everything, and to say we do it pretty egotistical. All through time we have routinely done the impossible - or at least what we erroneously declared to be impossible.

A human will never break a 4 minute mile.
Heavier that air craft will never fly.
We can never break the sound barrier.
Prior to the transistor/microchip all of today's electronics would be impossible.

The list goes on and on. Someday, everyone in this thread who says it's impossible will be proved wrong. It's been shown time and time again. The impossible suddenly becomes possible. We may not be around when it happens, but it will.

You're missing the difference that this guy is claiming fundamental physics is wrong. All your examples are implementation details that were known not to violate fundamentals -- for instance, heavier than air birds have been around for much longer than airplanes. Losing conservation of momentum is a huge deal, and for that reason, this engine will never produce thrust isolated from external inputs. Yes, it's impossible, and it's a wildly extraordinary claim with no evidence whatsoever that it isn't just a measurement error.

An example of a truly impossible system which people have been trying to make possible without any success whatsoever is the classical perpetual motion machine. And they will continue to be unsuccessful.

 

[azure]

Read my above post. The designer claims the device relies on known laws of physics, the special sauce being Einstein's special relativity for the microwaves involved.

We cross-posted. If the field is confined to the cavity plus the waveguide, then what he's claiming violates momentum conservation. Special relativity doesn't save you, Lorentz transformations don't let you view a closed system as an open one. If it's an open system in any physical sense, then it's radiating and the mechanism is radiation reaction.

 

[Greebo]

Until then, gravity is all but settled.

Let me know when F = G*((m sub 1*m sub 2)/r^2) stops being settled.

 

[azure]

Let me know when F = G*((m sub 1*m sub 2)/r^2) stops being settled.

Just to stir the pot a little, google MOND (Modification of Newtonian Dynamics).

 

[Henning]

Let me know when F = G*((m sub 1*m sub 2)/r^2) stops being settled.

That is the effect of gravity's creation. Now, what is the formula for the creation of gravity? Got one? If not, Gravity is far from being settled, the surface is just scratched enough so we can predict what it will do.

 

[Greebo]

That is the effect of gravity. Now, what is the formula for the creation of gravity? Got one? If not, Gravity is far from being settled, the surface is just scratched enough so we can predict what it will do.

Is the effect of gravity settled?

Yes?

Then something in physics is settled.

(until it isn't )

 

[Greebo]

Just to stir the pot a little, google MOND (Modification of Newtonian Dynamics).

Yeah Newtonian math doesn't work on very large and very small scales, I know, but for the scales where the formula DOES apply, it's settled.

 

[asechrest]

For our physics folks, I believe this is a link to the German study that got this back into the media.

 

[steingar]

Wrong.

In a friction-less environment you could BREATHE on a spaceship and it will move, at least a little, and it'll keep moving too.

(Note: Attempting to breathe in space is not recommended.)

The environment may be frictionless, but you still need significant thrust to accelerate a spaceship for flight to any extraterrestrial destinations. Ion engines deliver the same level of thrust, but their operation can be easily monitored.

Then again, if these guys are onto something (and we'll have to rewrite some of the laws of physics, wouldn't be the first time) the scenario should be easily duplicated. That said, I fail to see the advantage over an ion engine. The power loads and thrust seem similar, and ion engines use of vanishingly small amounts of propellant.

 

[MAKG1]

Just to stir the pot a little, google MOND (Modification of Newtonian Dynamics).

MOND isn't hard to exclude. It has trouble reproducing flat rotation curves of both large and small spiral galaxies, for instance. It can do one or the other, but not both without some extraordinary contortions.

 

[Greebo]

The environment may be frictionless, but you still need significant thrust to accelerate a spaceship for flight to any extraterrestrial destinations. Ion engines deliver the same level of thrust, but their operation can be easily monitored.

1) I'm not arguing the merits of ion over Em or vice versa.
2) Define "significant". We got a probe to Pluto in 9 years.

The 'impulse' drive however its developed isn't gonna get us to interstellar either way, but THIS solar system is in reach. The real hurdle isn't how to get there from Earth, it's getting manufacturing going off-planet.

 

[bullwinkle]

SR for EM radiation is nothing special. You can derive SR from Maxwell's Equations, with the assumption that the speed of light is constant (consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment). It's a red herring.

I only meant SR and its effects on the microwaves is the designer's explanation for why the device does not violate any existing known physics.

Don't be so literal. I guess there's nothing "special" about the special olympics, either. It's just a word.

 

[bullwinkle]

You're missing the difference that this guy is claiming fundamental physics is wrong.

No, he's not. I posted his explanation that this device fits all existing physics. YOU are claiming that he's claiming fundamental physics is wrong.

 

[MAKG1]

I only meant SR and its effects on the microwaves is the designer's explanation for why the device does not violate any existing known physics.

Don't be so literal. I guess there's nothing "special" about the special olympics, either. It's just a word.

Literal?

SR's effects on microwaves are exactly the same as classical electrodynamics' effect on microwaves.

It has nothing to do with parsing a new more literal meaning for "special."

 

[MAKG1]

No, he's not. I posted his explanation that this device fits all existing physics. YOU are claiming that he's claiming fundamental physics is wrong.

No, I'm claiming his explanation is.

A device that creates work from nothing is a perpetual motion machine. Period.

Trying to make everyone turn their brains off by claiming some nonexistent special Relativistic effect is disingenuous at best.

Conservation of momentum still works in SR.

 

[bullwinkle]

Is the effect of gravity settled?

Yes?

Then something in physics is settled.

(until it isn't )

No, the effect of gravity is not "settled"...it's predictable as far as we can tell based on current observation. The minute something moves in a gravity field at 0.00001m/s outside this prediction, the "settled" physics will have to be revised to account for it.

Past observations do not guarantee future performance, to paraphrase financial disclaimers.

 

[bullwinkle]

No, I'm claiming his explanation is.

A device that creates work from nothing is a perpetual motion machine. Period.

Trying to make everyone turn their brains off by claiming some nonexistent special Relativistic effect is disingenuous at best.

Conservation of momentum still works in SR.

Nobody is trying to turn anybody's brain off, they are trying something new, multiple sources (including NASA) have received experimental data that shows it works. Screaming "but that's impossible!" doesn't invalidate the data.

Science proceeds forward from observation, NOT from theory. The guy's SR theories might be totally wrong. But that is irrelevant, because the observations show the effect. Observe first, then theorize. Gravity still works in spite of us having no great theory to account for it.

A good scientist accepts the data unless/until it's proven to be in error and tries to reason out WHY. He does not proceed backward from the conclusion that the data from multiple independent experimenters must be in error, simply because it doesn't fit his concept of how things OUGHT to be.

The latter is not science, it's what religious zealots do when they burn folks at the stake for "heretical" observations.

 

[steingar]

1) I'm not arguing the merits of ion over Em or vice versa.
2) Define "significant". We got a probe to Pluto in 9 years.

The 'impulse' drive however its developed isn't gonna get us to interstellar either way, but THIS solar system is in reach. The real hurdle isn't how to get there from Earth, it's getting manufacturing going off-planet.

Dunno, so far ion engines have driven probes to the asteroids Itokawa and Vesta, and to the moon. Missions are planned to Mars and Mercury.

I'm not at all concerned with interstellar space, since the folks who launch the probe to Alpha Centauri won't be the ones who receive the data.

 

[MAKG1]

Nobody is trying to turn anybody's brain off, they are trying something new, multiple sources (including NASA) have received experimental data that shows it works. Screaming "but that's impossible!" doesn't invalidate the data.

Science proceeds forward from observation, NOT from theory. The guy's SR theories might be totally wrong. But that is irrelevant, because the observations show the effect. Observe first, then theorize. Gravity still works in spite of us having no great theory to account for it.

A good scientist accepts the data unless/until it's proven to be in error and tries to reason out WHY. He does not proceed backward from the conclusion that the data from multiple independent experimenters must be in error, simply because it doesn't fit his concept of how things OUGHT to be.

The latter is not science, it's what religious zealots do when they burn folks at the stake for "heretical" observations.

Did you read the article?

He's measuring measurement error. It's rather obvious.

He has a null result and is publicizing it as though it is a detection.

A real scientist takes measurement error into account before drawing very strong conclusions. Not all data is good data.

A significant detection does indeed warrant modification of models, especially after reproduction. A sloppy "detection" that conflicts with proven models and doesn't take normal error into account falls very far short of that.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Not some Star Trek BS about nonexistent SR effects. He might as well have called it a warp core breach. Making up explanations that don't actually work is an attempt to turn off brains. That makes this beyond a mistake, into fraud.

 

[Anthony]

Does he include the drain of the Romulan Cloaking Device?

 

[Henning]

1) I'm not arguing the merits of ion over Em or vice versa.
2) Define "significant". We got a probe to Pluto in 9 years.

The 'impulse' drive however its developed isn't gonna get us to interstellar either way, but THIS solar system is in reach. The real hurdle isn't how to get there from Earth, it's getting manufacturing going off-planet.

Exactly, and that requires a large mining and processing facility at the asteroid belt to send back metal dust for 3D printers to sinter into larger population bearing spacecraft to harvest other resources from within the solar system from bodies with much lower gravity fields. The trick to getting into space is to not have to launch resources out of Earth's gravity well, but rather import them.

 

[bullwinkle]

Why are you limiting your investigation to one article to 'prove' it's BS? Again, I guess you have a predetermined outcome, meaning you are not interested in science.

---
"Test results indicate that the RF [radio frequency] resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and, therefore, is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma," the NASA team wrote in their study, which they presented Wednesday (July 30) at the 50th Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland.

http://www.space.com/26713-impossible-space-engine-nasa-test.html

---
"Obviously, the entire thing sounded preposterous to everyone,” says Jesus Diaz at SPLOID. "In theory, this thing shouldn't work at all. So people laughed and laughed and ignored him. Everyone except a team of Chinese scientists. They built one in 2009 and it worked: they were able to produce 720 millinewton, which is reportedly enough to build a satellite thruster. And still, nobody else believed it.”

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-impossible-space-engine-could-revolutionise-space-travel?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Website&utm_campaign=InArticleReadMore

---
Hacked Magazine reported on Monday that a group of German scientists believe that they have confirmed that the EM Drive, the propulsion device that uses microwaves rather than rocket fuel, provides thrust. The experimental results are being presented at the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics' Propulsion and Energy Forum in Orlando by Martin Tajmar, a professor and chair for Space Systems at the Dresden University of Technology.

http://www.examiner.com/article/german-scientists-confirm-nasa-results-of-propellentless-impossible-em-drive

---

And the list of existing test results:

http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

How many reputable scientists and organizations have to get positive experimental results before you admit there *might* be something to it? Oh yeah, it doesn't matter if every physicist on Earth says it's valid, it's still not...because "it's impossible."

Open your mind a little to the possibility that you (and all of humanity) don't know everything there is to know yet.

 

[azure]

MOND isn't hard to exclude. It has trouble reproducing flat rotation curves of both large and small spiral galaxies, for instance. It can do one or the other, but not both without some extraordinary contortions.

I only brought up MOND as an example of an idea that, while probably wrong, at least isn't a crackpot idea. Ideas that turn out to be wrong aren't bad science, in fact science needs them. Shawyer's proposal is just bad science, and as such, little more than a distraction.

That said, I thought Milgrom had come up with a solution that reproduced all known rotation curves, but was struggling to explain the Bullet Cluster. Admittedly, that was over a year ago that I last looked at what he was doing.

 

[MAKG1]

Why are you limiting your investigation to one article to 'prove' it's BS? Again, I guess you have a predetermined outcome, meaning you are not interested in science.

---
"Test results indicate that the RF [radio frequency] resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and, therefore, is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma," the NASA team wrote in their study, which they presented Wednesday (July 30) at the 50th Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland.

http://www.space.com/26713-impossible-space-engine-nasa-test.html

---
"Obviously, the entire thing sounded preposterous to everyone,” says Jesus Diaz at SPLOID. "In theory, this thing shouldn't work at all. So people laughed and laughed and ignored him. Everyone except a team of Chinese scientists. They built one in 2009 and it worked: they were able to produce 720 millinewton, which is reportedly enough to build a satellite thruster. And still, nobody else believed it.”

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-impossible-space-engine-could-revolutionise-space-travel?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Website&utm_campaign=InArticleReadMore

---
Hacked Magazine reported on Monday that a group of German scientists believe that they have confirmed that the EM Drive, the propulsion device that uses microwaves rather than rocket fuel, provides thrust. The experimental results are being presented at the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics' Propulsion and Energy Forum in Orlando by Martin Tajmar, a professor and chair for Space Systems at the Dresden University of Technology.

http://www.examiner.com/article/german-scientists-confirm-nasa-results-of-propellentless-impossible-em-drive

---

And the list of existing test results:

http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

How many reputable scientists and organizations have to get positive experimental results before you admit there *might* be something to it? Oh yeah, it doesn't matter if every physicist on Earth says it's valid, it's still not...because "it's impossible."

Open your mind a little to the possibility that you (and all of humanity) don't know everything there is to know yet.

Ooh, battling websites!

And all of them irrelevant!

How many peer reviewed journal articles were you able to find in your search?

Answer: NONE. They don't exist, despite years of work. That doesn't happen when something actually works. You get a letter into PRL and it gets out very quickly.

All you can find is a bunch of PopSci speculation and UNreviewed conference talks. Irrelevant, self serving, noise.

The Cold Fusion thing was mentioned earlier. This is EXACTLY how it came out. All the same arguments from people who have no idea how the physics actually works.

I'm quite interested in science. Real science that makes real measurements and real error analysis with explanations that hold water. This is none of the above. Measurement errors matter.

When these guys actually manage to get real, measurable and repeatable results, I'll take them seriously. But that AIAA report? Garbage and speculation.

 

[azure]

Science proceeds forward from observation, NOT from theory. The guy's SR theories might be totally wrong. But that is irrelevant, because the observations show the effect. Observe first, then theorize. Gravity still works in spite of us having no great theory to account for it.

Actually that's the Science 101 version but it's not quite true - science today proceeds as much from theory as observation. Without theory you would be wasting your time investigating ideas that have zero probability of being correct - and Shawyer's EM drive is a perfect example of that.

The likeliest explanations for the apparent measured thrust from his device are measurement error and experimental artifact. We can be 100% certain that Shawyer's explanation is wrong. If the device turns out to generate thrust in some non-trivial way, it will be a serendipitous discovery, and will no more vindicate Shawyer than the discovery of Pluto vindicated Percival Lowell's prediction of "Planet X" based on purported irregularities in Uranus's orbit not explained by Neptune's gravity.

 

[Henning]

What great discoveries have not been serendipitous?

 

[N801BH]

Ooh, battling websites!

And all of them irrelevant!

How many peer reviewed journal articles were you able to find in your search?

Answer: NONE. They don't exist, despite years of work. That doesn't happen when something actually works. You get a letter into PRL and it gets out very quickly.

All you can find is a bunch of PopSci speculation and UNreviewed conference talks. Irrelevant, self serving, noise.

The Cold Fusion thing was mentioned earlier. This is EXACTLY how it came out. All the same arguments from people who have no idea how the physics actually works.

I'm quite interested in science. Real science that makes real measurements and real error analysis with explanations that hold water. This is none of the above. Measurement errors matter.

When these guys actually manage to get real, measurable and repeatable results, I'll take them seriously. But that AIAA report? Garbage and speculation.

My feeling exactly.......

The originator of this concept needs to accurately demonstrate a functioning prototype with proven thrust.. Or it is vaporware......

 

[EdFred]

It really sounds like people are hoping he's a failure declaring him to be a liar because they weren't involved with the project.

 

[MAKG1]

What great discoveries have not been serendipitous?

Quite a number.

Dark energy would be one close to your heart.

It came out of a paper written by Einstein in 1917, to make a stationary universe possible (and it was wrong). By the 70s, it was realized that it looked a lot like vacuum energy, though there was no evidence at the time it actually existed. It was detected in the 90s by the Supernova Cosmology Project, who had been looking for it for several years.

The top quark and Higgs boson were also the end result of long searches.

Universal gravitation was probably not serendipitous, though Newton claimed it was many decades after it happened. There are no accounts of the apple falling on his head contemporaneous with the Principia, and the chain of reasoning in the Principia is pretty straightforward.

Relativity came in a rather straightforward manner from taking the Michelson-Morley experiment (already almost 20 years old at the time) literally.

Serendipitous discovery happens, but it's not the only way discovery happens. Not by a longshot.

BS "discoveries" that supposedly happen and then turn out to be totally and completely wrong happen on a very regular basis.

 

[MAKG1]

It really sounds like people are hoping he's a failure declaring him to be a liar because they weren't involved with the project.

Nope. Some people just don't believe everything they read on PopSci or British tabloids.

I don't know if he's a liar, but he's wrong.