Comments on: When I See An Elephant Fly

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:32:40 +0000

Feel free to donate about $50 million to do the experiment then. It’s easy to criticize scientists for “wasting money” when you don’t understand the implications of the research. But it’s ironic when in the same statement you argue in favor of spending money on a project that would violate basic known physics.

The proponents of the EMDrive are looking into sending an experiment into space, but it won’t happen overnight, and they’ll have to spend millions to do it.

By: Mark Sedwick

Mark Sedwick — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 03:56:26 +0000

I’m no physicist, and thus obviously have no practical understanding of the math involved here. But one solution that seems blindingly obvious here, even as an observer, to the question of whether or not it works is to simply build the thing and test it in space.

Scientists have built and tested numerous seemingly pointless experiments with less potential for possibly profound results and with far less motivation, so why the hesitation to do so now? What are they afraid of?

Build and test it under the practical conditions it’s intended to operate under, and it’ll either prove or disprove this debate once and for all. No more need for wordy scientific smack-downs or pseudo-scientific debates.

If scientists can waste money and time building an experiment that studies the mating practices of earthworms in a zero-G environment then they can certainly build a practical experiment that studies and tests whether or not this EMDrive works in space or doesn’t…

By: Siderite

Siderite — Mon, 25 May 2015 08:09:01 +0000

I just wanted to get out of the way the idea that any energy based engine would automatically be wrong because of the third law of thermodynamics.

Not being a physicist, it is difficult to carry an argument in this. There are a lot of things that I don’t get, for example why a laser would push a craft if hit by the beam, but it wouldn’t push it if fired from the craft itself. Or how the Yarkovsky effect is producing thrust when heated by the sun, but there is no thrust if you heat the body with an internal source. Or how something that is defined as the product of mass and velocity – momentum – can exist for a particle with no mass. Or how if two metal plates can be pulled together by the Casimir force due to a difference of density in virtual particles a drive cannot harness the same idea to move around. You see, it’s idiots like me you have to convince, you have to use primary school physics 🙂 Anything could happen if you combine a microwave oven and non-dairy creamer. Maybe they used some in the EmDrive.

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Sun, 24 May 2015 16:40:48 +0000

Something doesn’t need mass to have momentum. Photons, for example, have no mass but do have momentum. So any thrust produced by created mass would create a counter thrust of energy. So it wouldn’t violate Newton’s third law. That’s not what this device is claiming to do.

By: Siderite

Siderite — Sun, 24 May 2015 14:37:01 +0000

Just a thought experiment. Einstein says that there is a direct connection between mass and energy. In fact, if you take two particles that are “anti” of each other, you get the energy back and destroy the mass. It’s what virtual particles are supposed to do, but I won’t get into that. Now, I don’t know of any system that takes energy and creates mass, but assuming that it is not aberrant (one could take the Big Bang as a real life example, I suppose), one can imagine a “drive” that would use insane amounts of energy to create mass, then push it away from the vehicle, thus creating thrust.
I have just described a system that uses energy to generate trust, without using any spooky quantum theory. Does it violate Newton’s third and, if so, how?

By: John Takolander

John Takolander — Tue, 12 May 2015 07:17:31 +0000

This kind of experiments should actually be done in highly shielded laboratory: magnetism, high vacuum, heat shielding and em radiation shielding.

By: Andy Norman

Andy Norman — Thu, 07 May 2015 02:54:14 +0000

Dr. Koberlein

Thanks for this well reasoned and appropriately skeptical write-up. I appreciate that you didn’t resort to personal attacks against the NASA group behind this work, as some physicists have. Apparently the NASA group is planning on testing the device at higher powers later this year, and if the measured thrust is found to be a function of the power, to have the results replicated by Johns Hopkins Applied Physics and JPL. I think you’d agree that these are the appropriate next steps.

I assume that if all that pans out (unlikely) we’ll see a peer reviewed paper. In the meantime, I haven’t seen any evidence that these guys are bad scientists, although leaking primary data to a public discussion board on a website is a little sketchy…but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they needed fresh eyes to help sort things out.

By the way, I always enjoy your appearances on Weekly Space Hangout. Keep up the good work!

-Andy

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Mon, 04 May 2015 22:02:40 +0000

Most of the models are proposing a reaction with the quantum vacuum or some such. Light doesn’t interact strongly with dark matter, so that isn’t likely to save Newton’s third law in this case.

By: steve13565

steve13565 — Mon, 04 May 2015 20:20:04 +0000

So what about the possibility that there is an interaction with dark matter/dark energy? That interaction might be what preserves Newton’s third law.

By: joh

joh — Sat, 02 May 2015 10:56:54 +0000

Thank you for accepting that language should not be a wall.

I still do not agree with the logic. I still strongly agree with the conclusion. Let my try to explain.

I do not beleive that any device smaller then the planet Earth can develop a force that warps space more than the planet does in the act of frame dragging. Common sense. That would be like beleiving that someone can barehanded pull the Moon. The thing is, you have the whole universe against you, as stated in Mach’s Principle. Its is not about conservation of energy and/or momentum. It is about trying to develop a force that moves the whole (counter acting) univers.

Yes, that is not a very scientific way of handling this whole warp engine idea. But, looking deeper into warp engines wil break my own conservation of energy laws.

But then again. Who am i. I also know (you will state that i beleive) that a perfect understanding of frame dragging is needed to really explain the falling apple. I know that a perfect understanding of how the apple falls also will map the tidal forces of frame dragging. I know that perfectly mapped tidal forces due frame dragging wil eliminate the need for mathematical dark matter. And now you and i live in differend universes, because you beleive in dark matter. So again, who am i.

I sincerly hope that (minor) critisisme from a minor person (like me) does not make you dislike blogging (against the mass of disbeleivers). Keep up the good work. You are a hero by writing this blog.

By: Rossen Kolarov

Rossen Kolarov — Fri, 01 May 2015 19:26:53 +0000

Brian, as far as I remember, this notorious EmDrive works at 935 MHz. This frequency is used in GSM. The GSM emisions often produce noise in measuring devices. So that I am very sceptical. The experiment must be made in EM shield room. Only in this case we can be sure.

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Fri, 01 May 2015 14:04:08 +0000

There is no appeal to authority here. While we call it Newton’s third law, the conservation of momentum has been rigorously supported by experimental evidence. This is an appeal to evidence if anything. No one denies that warping of space occurs, but it doesn’t violate conservation of momentum. The question is whether this device warps space in a way consistent to “warp drive,” which would violate conservation of momentum.

Je hebt gelijk, ik heb geen Nederlands spreken.