It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
First, there are natural laws of physics that are never violated, so of course those aren't broken, ever, as far as we know.
originally posted by: rogerstigers
My gut is telling me that there is nothing involved in these drives that violates the laws of physics. The law of momentum is not being broken. They simply haven't tested the contraption fully or correctly as yet to identify where the loss is coming from to yield the thrust.
So, there appears to be nobody questioning any laws of physics about this concept. Photons have momentum.
The total force exerted on an 800 by 800 meter solar sail, for example, is about 5 newtons (1.1 lbf) at Earth's distance from Sol,[2] making it a low-thrust propulsion system,
originally posted by: rogerstigers
Howdy,
I have to write an article for a children's literature course I am taking. This is one of my last assignments and has to be publication ready. I am taking my time and holding myself to a pretty high standard (higher than some of the popular news sources at least). To this end, I wanted to write about the Cannae Drive, but not with all of the hyperbolic and misleading technobabble we have been seeing in related articles.
This is where I am running into a bit of a block. I want the end result of the article to be exciting and hopeful. Promise for the future and all that. But I also want to caution that this particular technology might not pan out. I remember as a child being excited about one article or another in Omni and then finding out later that it was mumbo jumbo crap science.
Here is what I have pieced together so far:
- The EM Drive and the Cannae Drive have been tested in multiple labs by multiple teams and have produced thrust. The question is how is that thrust being produced. The jury is still out on this and more testing approaches are needed.
- NASA Results being lauded as "verified" are not anything of the sort. It was best explained as a "WTF? HMO" type paper, not a scientific submission to the community.
- There are lots of questionable physics being thrown around in trying to explain this technology.
- There is some plausible physics albeit cutting edge being thrown around as well.
My gut is telling me that there is nothing involved in these drives that violates the laws of physics. The law of momentum is not being broken. They simply haven't tested the contraption fully or correctly as yet to identify where the loss is coming from to yield the thrust.
So now how do I simplify this to a teen audience without misleading scientific technobabble and without being a cynical sceptic who calls the whole thing sham/junk science?
Thanks in advance.
originally posted by: Larryman
You can say that if Einstein were still alive... he would call it "Spooky" propulsion.
originally posted by: rogerstigers how do I simplify this to a teen audience without misleading scientific technobabble and without being a cynical sceptic who calls the whole thing sham/junk science?)
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
originally posted by: Larryman
You can say that if Einstein were still alive... he would call it "Spooky" propulsion.
Nah. Woodward's Mach Effect drive might be called that because it simultaneously touches the entire universe but the Shayer-Cannae device acts locally; specifically within the volume of the microwave cavity of the device. and while there are Quantum Vacuum explanation proposals for what is going on there are less exotic proposals for the physics of what is going on in the device.
Trying to ascribe inertia to some origin other than gravity, we see, gets us into rather deep water. We are left with the fact that the least implausible explanation of the origin of inertia is gravitational disturbances that propagate to and from the distant future out there. Support for this view of reality can be found in Wheeler and Feynman's absorber theory that accounts for electromagnetic radiation reaction forces in essentially the same way. All this suggests that radiation reaction is likely to be an important aspect of gravity and inertia, and that it is worth exploring radiation reaction a bit.
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
originally posted by: Larryman
You can say that if Einstein were still alive... he would call it "Spooky" propulsion.
Nah. Woodward's Mach Effect drive might be called that because it simultaneously touches the entire universe but the Shayer-Cannae device acts locally; specifically within the volume of the microwave cavity of the device. and while there are Quantum Vacuum explanation proposals for what is going on there are less exotic proposals for the physics of what is going on in the device.
Now this is getting into fringe physics, but Woodward made an assertion that effectively these are two sides of the same effect. That through the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, you have an equivalence between the Mach-ian idea (dissipate/absorb through interactions on the end of the unviverse in space & time) and fluctuations (local quantum field theory fluctuations).
I don't know enough to tell if this is nonsense or not.
www.otherhand.org...
Woodward is very negative on any use of vacuum fluctuation for inertia modification and doesn't think the Haisch & Rueda scheme is plausible.
physics.fullerton.edu...
Trying to ascribe inertia to some origin other than gravity, we see, gets us into rather deep water. We are left with the fact that the least implausible explanation of the origin of inertia is gravitational disturbances that propagate to and from the distant future out there. Support for this view of reality can be found in Wheeler and Feynman's absorber theory that accounts for electromagnetic radiation reaction forces in essentially the same way. All this suggests that radiation reaction is likely to be an important aspect of gravity and inertia, and that it is worth exploring radiation reaction a bit.