Quantum vacuum plasma thruster

originally posted by: Aliensun
Why do we never hear about grants or funding for this type of craft, but news of other, far more inefficient methods abound? You almost would think it is a conspiracy.

Because the vast majority of times, these highly speculative fringe hypotheses don't pan out. You can't claim conspiracy or suppression when you can read about it in the mainstream media.

a reply to: Kashai

nextbigfuture.com...

Pretty inclusive, though designed for reading by physicists, perhaps.

Very interesting topic, Thanks OP! Well beyond my knowledge base to add anything except encouragement.

if you have any doubt at all whether science is taking this general class of thing seriously or not you should read the last two posts in the NASA NSF Advanced Concept forum EM device thread. i'd pull the whole thing here but probably shouldn't because of the intellectual property etiquette.

additionally (though it has been cited before) Eagleworks is going to send one of these QVPT devices to the ISS. Not talking about VASIMR plasma rockets. that's a separate project by Chang Diaz and Ad Astra.

oh and in those thrread posts i recommended. brief mention of yet another of these devices invented by yet another independent experimenter. They are multiplying like teh bunnehs.

Since a thought was requested. I always wondered if it would be possible to MacGyver Newton's law of motion. How would you do it? Using his law of energy of course. Considering that the action/reaction part of the law of motion is simply kinetic energy then wouldn't it be possible to convert or transform part or all of the reaction? Thereby your action/reaction process would become unbalanced and your closed system would generate motion.

Perhaps part of the process these torsion converters is undergoing is converting kinetic energy into electricity and causing an unbalanced action/reaction process? Perhaps it's just a simple energy loss?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Actually if you read through the thread you will note that I have simply been tutored in Physics. I find it a fascinating subject, especially in relation to my cultural background.

In so far as our Forum and in relation to this particular subject? This situation seems to me. To be an issue, that over the next 20 to 50 years, has the potential to be realized by mankind.

Furthermore as has been discussed. With this technology the human race will "own" this Solar System.


I feel this is a topic we all should look at very carefully.

I want to thank everyone for responding.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai

My first thought after reading the pdf's you posted, NASCAR is going to be awesome in the future.
I want a '33 Ford rat-rod with a Q-thruster under the hood.

I suspect there is something to these things as well, I'm curious in how they look thermodynamically. And if there's a hysteris chart associated with the field generation of the device, what does it look like? If the loading on the device shows that it should be generating more heat due to efficiency losses than it actually does, then you may actually have something.

I may be a bit odd or crazy in my thinking, but what if this device really isn't reactionless. What if it is generating a field effect that acts upon the so-called dark matter? Lots of theories on that stuff, apparently the domain set of dimensions of that supposed substance doesn't interact with the dimensions of regular matter. However some astronomical models require the effects of some fields generated by it to cross over. Now lets say we somehow create some kind of field that produces a net reaction on dark matter. You'd think that it wouldn't result in a thrust due to domain separation, but if the counter-reaction in Newton's 3rd law of motion is field-effect coupled, then you have something. Rather than the reaction mass pushing back, the push-back occurs across the field imparting the force to the reaction mass.

Yes, it sounds a bit like aether or phlogiston or whatever, which was disproven in some past analysis on speed of light and gravitational theories including those of relativity. However what if some fields require something like a charge carrier or more than one spin state to carry across dimension sets in two separate domains. Photons or light might not have the requisite properties to show such effects at relativistic speeds where other things just might. Then you just might have another way to explain frame dragging and braking forces, and perhaps an idea of how to squeak out of being normally affected by them. We just might have a way to get FTL if we know what actually causes problems with it vs. current theory.

Other than FTL, this may open up some other curious and useful applications. Since any losses via such effects would then be imparted to the dark matter, it'd be neat if theres some way to measure if things are heating up on that side. Having a separate domain set that could have a controlled field acting as an on-off switch for heat transfer in terms of what's going on with energy might make for some new thermodynamic rules that would be quite useful to exploit. We might have ways to put Maxwell's demon to work for cooling, and do things like push the clock even faster on stuff like CPUs and who knows what. And if heat is being stored over there, is there a means of getting it back? There could be a whole slew of applications for that.

originally posted by: pauljs75
What if it is generating a field effect that acts upon the so-called dark matter? Lots of theories on that stuff, apparently the domain set of dimensions of that supposed substance doesn't interact with the dimensions of regular matter. However some astronomical models require the effects of some fields generated by it to cross over.

Which astronomical models are those?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: pauljs75
What if it is generating a field effect that acts upon the so-called dark matter? Lots of theories on that stuff, apparently the domain set of dimensions of that supposed substance doesn't interact with the dimensions of regular matter. However some astronomical models require the effects of some fields generated by it to cross over.

Which astronomical models are those?

well an example would be the theory that neutrons that disappear after an absurdly short time (far shorter than their half life duration) do so by transitioning to a mirror sector of the universe. not sure how one could interact with mirror matter but that certainly qualifies as domain that does not normally interact with normal matter and energy.

www.sciencedaily.com...

In a new paper, researchers hypothesize the existence of mirror particles to explain the anomalous loss of neutrons observed experimentally. The existence of such mirror matter had been suggested in various scientific contexts some time ago, including the search for suitable dark matter candidates.

there is also a rather lengthy wikipedia article on it:

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: stormbringer1701

What about Virtual Particles and the matter of the Strange Quark as aspect to the Atom?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: stormbringer1701

What about Virtual Particles and the matter of the Strange Quark as aspect to the Atom?

well they did find strange quarks and even a couple of odd atoms with odd quark make up by their decay chains recently but i don't think either strange quarks or exotic quark make up nuclei are theorized to hide in extra dimensions. it could be; but i have never read anything to that effect.

and while i have heard of hidden sectors to the universe and even extra dimensions associated with string theory; the only articles i have read about an actual interaction with those is the mirror sector neutron ones. now theoretically there are all sorts of hidden sectors to the universe that have to do with switching reference frames to solve relativistic tensor and 4 vector and above equations; but these are taken to be mathematical constructs with no real world equivalent.

virtual particles don't require extra dimensions even though that is one way to explain where they come from.

No... your best place to look other than mirror sector is the dimension three dimensional space as we know it curves into in relativity theory or the "bulk" hypo dimension involved in brane theory.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

All possible choices in all possible Universe's could actually and in realty have a Perspective of its own.

Like facets' to a Diamond where each of us is one of those facets? and then there is the orientation to the whole.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: stormbringer1701

All possible choices in all possible Universe's could actually and in realty have a Perspective of its own.

Like facets' to a Diamond where each of us is one of those facets? and then there is the orientation to the whole.

Any thoughts?

unless and until we find some evidence for a multiverse or the many worlds of the many worlds interpretation anything we say is just superfluous nonsense. i had another pair of words in mind but restrained myself. it's not that i don't believe that there could be parallel universes. it would be pretty useful if there were. i would like for there to be parallel universes. it would solve a lot of nearly intractible problems.

my point is there is no evidence that supports let alone confirms parallel universes. the things i have mentioned so far are not necessarily parallel universes but hidden parts of this one.

that said there are people looking for evidence of colliding universes in Astronomical studies of the Cosmos. and in particle physics. so maybe there will be a point where it makes sense to comment on it. but until then...

It's rather like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or saying the earth is a past version in a parallel universe or squawking and burbling about someone's seemingly pot induced deep thoughts about hyper dimensional bunny rabbits controlling NASA. I. E. pointless mental glosollalia or tourettes babble.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Actually I am aware of the definition to the term theory as well as the differences between testing a Sample vs. a Population.

In so far as your rather aggressive response

Though the rest of your other responses were appreciated.

AS far as faith so is the conclusion that if science has not called it fact, it should be subject to ridicule by scientist's.

Often the reason why Scientist's are ridiculed as arrogant.

Any thoughts?

it's not ridicule. though; yes some including those that don't have appropriate credentials knowledge or intellect to warrant their smugness do ridicule anything like this.

What i am saying is beyond a certain point you cannot speculate then speculate on the speculating. there has to be some germ of evidence for the thing being discussed for the discussion to really have any meaning. QVPT and other EM drives do have this. But (other than vanishing neutrons ) parallel universes doesn't. you need more facts in order to intelligently discuss them. someone needs to point to the sky and say "See that void there? That can only be explained by two colliding branes!" failing that someone needs to grab a naturally occurring interdimensional portal and shove a few dozen skeptics through it while it is being filmed and metrics taken. before you have that all that can be done is say some theories suggest the existence of parallel dimensions.

other than the sky watch for brane collision evidence and the astronomers trying to see if some black holes are really wormholes, i guess the best experiment would be to try to induce mirror sector translation of ordinary matter. according to theory that should be possible.

But i don't see anyone trying to do that so far.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Actually Multiverse Theory resulted from a problem in Chemistry and in relation to the "Electron Cloud".

I understand where you are coming and would offer that some could interpret your position. As potentially being relatable to the rather liberal position that, fundamentally subjective reality is objective.

Surly you can understand how this could be way more controversial that discussing Multiverse theory

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: skunkape23

PDF Files....

Eagleworks Laboratories: Advanced Propulsion Physics Research
Dr. Harold “Sonny” White, Paul March, Nehemiah Williams, William O’Neill NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX
ABSTRACT

Source

Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space (2012) 3082

Source

Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device
Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum
David A. Brady, Harold G. White, Paul March, James T. Lawrence, and Frank J. Davies
NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058

Source

Any thoughts?


My only thought was why go to such lengths to propel a spacecraft. If space sails are supposed to work. Why not something like a giant torch. The acceleration would be slow at first, but cumulative. The fuel/ matter that turns into photons. Would last a long time, and theoretically given enough time, reach near light speeds.

in the last several days the EM thread has turned from leans true to fairly strong consensus that EM drives such as the QVPT Shawyer, Cannae and Chinese device do work and are not the result of false positives. That's pretty good for beginning at "this is all nonsense and experimental error" with a few lean positives.

the exact mechanism of operation has not been nailed down. currently evanescent waves are under discussion.