How Physics Falls Apart If the EMdrive Works
forbes.com
forbes.com
There are a variety of more plausible alternatives, precisely because conservation of momentum is so well-tested. Perhaps the most famous one is that the Emdrive is pushing against virtual particles that arise from a quantum vacuum.
If the EMDrive works as postulated, then physics doesn't fall apart, and conservation of momentum isn't violated - however it does mean that our statistical view of quantum mechanics is nothing but elegant mathematical shorthand ( which remains perfectly workable for much of QM), and reality is far more de Broglie-Bohmian than commonly believed.
So. The worst case (if it works as advertised) is that physics doesn't fall apart and rather a whole new field of physics opens up. Although if that field opens up it was always going to open up, so does the progression of time and therefore progress mean anything in a deterministic universe?
New metaphysics too, I guess.
About virtual particles: First of all, the virtual particle picture is a useful picture to build intuition, the math behind it is not as simple as the picture implies. Second, no, just pushing on the virtual particles is not a magical way to save conservation of momentum - where does that momentum go after those virtual particles re-annihilate for instance?
About Bohmian mechanics: How do you even reach that conclusion? This is a really wild claim, that can not be taken seriously without any argument. Bohmian mechanics already has philosophical problems (stemming from computation theory, c.f. some of Aaronson's writing) even if mathematically it is equivalent to QM in the case of a single particle. But look at how ugly its generalization to multiple particles looks like (I do concede, ugliness is not the best guide, but it is something to consider when searching for a good description of nature).
Ugliness is a proxy for complexity, and we should assign a lower prior probability to more complex theories. We should be (somewhat) more skeptical of theories that don't tickle our mathematical aesthetics.
As to whether I understand pilot wave qm - I wrote a masters reaearch project on it on it, I studied physics.
As to ugliness, you think schrodinger is beautiful?!
As I said, you might understand the topic, but here you just dropped a fancy term and a very big claim, without explaining the first or giving an argument for the second. My point was not to claim you do not know what you are talking about, rather that you are not helping us understand what you are talking about.
The Emdrive is an experiment that has so far provided an anomalous result. If that result holds up to replication and deeper investigation, only then will we proceed to the theory stage.
There is presently no theory to explain this result, but there are many speculations and hypotheses. Only the most extreme of these invoke a true violation of conservation laws, and these as a result would be considered last after others had been ruled out.
Less extreme hypotheses include interaction with dark matter or some other normally invisible or weakly interacting medium, unknown physics surrounding gravity or magnetic fields, etc.
Personally my favorite is dark matter. Could this be a weakly interacting particle thruster? Perhaps it is somehow accelerating ubiquitous but weakly interacting particles, essentially using dark matter as a propulsive medium.
That could have massive practical implications and would also lead to new physics, but would not violate conservation laws since momentum is being transferred.
A craft powered by such a thruster would have a "jet wash," just one that is harmless and largely undetectable through normal means. It might also only work in the vicinity of massive objects or in other places where a sufficiently rich concentration of propellant is found. Planets and stars have been hypothesized as being surrounded by dark matter clouds, but e.g. it may not work well in interstellar space.
Of course it would only be useful for propulsion if it could be made efficient.
Even if it is pushing against QM background I suspect that could only be part of the story. There has to be an "and then" unless we want to toss a conservation law.
Many physicists think there is likely dark matter and that it is actual matter with mass, so I've repeatedly seen that thrown out as a potential answer for where momentum might be going eventually. Maybe messing with the QM background is how that happens... somehow. Maybe weakly interacting dark matter particles interact with the microwave background or something.
I still reckon there's an experimental error somewhere - but if there isn't, it's undeniably a big deal.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/05/26/warp-dri...
- There is no reason to expect that it "works". Shawyer's original "theory" on which the design is based is wrong, the EW do not even mention it in the paper.
- Two other groups attempted to measure a similar device and published results. TU Dresden [1] people failed to get a signal, and the Chinese NWPU people reported failure (in the 2016 update [2], after debugging the first measurement). Both are consistent with null hypothesis that there's nothing to see here.
- Bringing up "quantum vacuum plasma" and Bohmian theory, but failing to give a working argument why they would explain anything in the experiment, or even be relevant for it. The likely reason for the failure to produce something intelligible likely is that quantum vacuum does not help here --- it's a well-understood concept (perhaps not to EW), as is momentum conservation.
[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-4083 [2] http://dx.doi.org/10.13675/j.cnki.tjjs.2016.02.022
The concepts in the article are pretty much consensus science.
Like the original cold fusion papers, the experiment is way too complex for what it is.
I've seen this thrown around a lot but no one has bothered to mention what the papers shortcomings were.
The impulse is larger than the same energy would generate using visible light frequency photons in photonic drive or solar sail - that is obvious too because they use radio frequencies in EM drive, ie. much lower frequency photons. The same basic math works here like the one for specific impulse, thrust and energy relations in the classic situation of high by-pass jet engine vs. low by-pass vs. rocket engine.
Btw, for current working example of IR frequency photonic drive look up the slowdown of Voyager by IR radiation from its RTG bouncing off the back of its antenna (which is pointed to Earth/Sun and the RTG is behind it thus that IR photons bounce slows the Voyager)
But we've known since the 1920s, when we started figuring out that spacetime changes, that energy is not conserved.
Sean Carroll has a good article explaining this [1]. Some quotes:
> It’s clear that cosmologists have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been well-understood since at least the 1920’s: energy is not conserved in general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)
> The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved, there was a reason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance. A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve, as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in particular that they can evolve with time. When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved.
(skipping some elaboration and examples he gives)
It is possible to interpret GR in a way that lets you still say that energy is conserved but it is kind of a hack:
> Having said all that, it would be irresponsible of me not to mention that plenty of experts in cosmology or GR would not put it in these terms. We all agree on the science; there are just divergent views on what words to attach to the science. In particular, a lot of folks would want to say “energy is conserved in general relativity, it’s just that you have to include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation and so on.” Which seems pretty sensible at face value.
> There’s nothing incorrect about that way of thinking about it; it’s a choice that one can make or not, as long as you’re clear on what your definitions are. I personally think it’s better to forget about the so-called “energy of the gravitational field” and just admit that energy is not conserved, for two reasons.
> First, unlike with ordinary matter fields, there is no such thing as the density of gravitational energy. The thing you would like to define as the energy associated with the curvature of spacetime is not uniquely defined at every point in space. So the best you can rigorously do is define the energy of the whole universe all at once, rather than talking about the energy of each separate piece. (You can sometimes talk approximately about the energy of different pieces, by imagining that they are isolated from the rest of the universe.) Even if you can define such a quantity, it’s much less useful than the notion of energy we have for matter fields.
> The second reason is that the entire point of this exercise is to explain what’s going on in GR to people who aren’t familiar with the mathematical details of the theory. All of the experts agree on what’s happening; this is an issue of translation, not of physics. And in my experience, saying “there’s energy in the gravitational field, but it’s negative, so it exactly cancels the energy you think is being gained in the matter fields” does not actually increase anyone’s understanding — it just quiets them down. Whereas if you say “in general relativity spacetime can give energy to matter, or absorb it from matter, so that the total energy simply isn’t conserved,” they might be surprised but I think most people do actually gain some understanding thereby.
> Energy isn’t conserved; it changes because spacetime does. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
So, getting back to the Emdrive, if it works it won't be it not obeying conservation laws that surprises me. It will be how simple it is.
From Noether's theorem, we know that conservation laws are equivalent to various symmetries in the laws of physics. Translation invariance gives conservation of linear momentum. Rotational invariance gives conservation of angular momentum. Time invariance gives conservation of energy.
The universe looks pretty much the same in every direction from our point of view, and when we look into the past (by looking at things farther away), it looks like the laws of physics are the same. If we do NOT have translation, rotation, or time invariance, the variation appears to be very small. Thus, I'd expect actually exploiting any such variation to require something very very big, probably galaxy cluster size at least.
[1] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-i...
The only way to disprove conservation of energy would be to show that measurable energy -- in _all_ forms combined, varies in quantity in unpredictable ways. And it would be hard to differentiate "non-conservation of energy" from "dark energy" we can't measure with current tools.
[1] November 2014 http://www.businessinsider.com/forbescom-was-infected-by-chi...
[2] Sept. 8 to Sept. 15 https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2015/09/malvert...
[3] Possible distinct incident before January 2016 http://www.businessinsider.com/forbescom-was-infected-by-chi...
And they refuse to allow any access through their paywall for folks with AdBlockers, even for Google referrals.
I don't think we should be sending them any traffic at all.
This whole thing about distributing malware, isn't that a widespread problem with any website that uses ad networks? Is it fair to single out Forbes in this regard?