http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9805003v2.pdf

"The present theorem rules out the existence, rather than construction, of superluminal travel, unless there is weak energy condition violation. "

My question would be how can you extract momentum or energy from the lowest possible energy state (Quantum Vacuum)?

Well, I started this thread to explore the possibility of space travel using a technology that did not require the use of the mass-momentum action-reaction principle (that's my description of a fuel-based rocket), that is, a technology that would use pure energy to produce momentum instead of having to expel mass to accomplish it.
I very, very much doubt we're anywhere near accomplishing superluminal motion, if that were even possible... although the two dominant theories (Alcubierre's and Krasnikov's) proceed from people serious enough for their peers to at least consider them for case studies, even if they're only trying to prove them wrong.... which is ok by me, since the foundation scientific method is based on skepticism and experimentation.
Superluminal motion was not the intention of my post, but rather to take a closer look at this proposed fuel-less propulsion technology.

 

Quite possibly... but what if... and most importantly, how much does figuring out that "what if" costs?
Usually, money is the measure of the seriousness with which any research is taken.

I see two paths: 1) A strong theoretical argument is developed from known physics that predicts a phenomenon. Example - Higg's field. Money flows like water for decades, to prove or disprove the notion. 2) A claim is made for the discovery of previously unknown physics. This is properly met with great skepticism and further funding will require extraordinary data. Positive example - Theory of General Relativity predicts light bending by gravity, and a bunch of other things. Experiments bear that out. Negative example - cold fusion.

I read this particular claim as a case (2) situation, without the data to support it. I feel quite safe not investing my money in it.

 

I see two paths: 1) A strong theoretical argument is developed from known physics that predicts a phenomenon. Example - Higg's field. Money flows like water for decades, to prove or disprove the notion. 2) A claim is made for the discovery of previously unknown physics. This is properly met with great skepticism and further funding will require extraordinary data. Positive example - Theory of General Relativity predicts light bending by gravity, and a bunch of other things. Experiments bear that out. Negative example - cold fusion.

I read this particular claim as a case (2) situation, without the data to support it. I feel quite safe not investing my money in it.

Well, my money will remain safely in my pockets for this one too... and yes, this could prove to be the next cold fusion hoax... was it really a hoax, or just badly understood physics?, as this might be the case... I definitely won't give it any money, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt... and as with any good drama, I'd like to know what happens next.

 

Well, I started this thread to explore the possibility of space travel using a technology that did not require the use of the mass-momentum action-reaction principle (that's my description of a fuel-based rocket), that is, a technology that would use pure energy to produce momentum instead of having to expel mass to accomplish it.
I very, very much doubt we're anywhere near accomplishing superluminal motion, if that were even possible... although the two dominant theories (Alcubierre's and Krasnikov's) proceed from people serious enough for their peers to at least consider them for case studies, even if they're only trying to prove them wrong.... which is ok by me, since the foundation scientific method is based on skepticism and experimentation.
Superluminal motion was not the intention of my post, but rather to take a closer look at this proposed fuel-less propulsion technology.

As things go it sort of zigged to FTL (warp fields) but the last part about Quantum Vacuum and the EM drive seems to your point. If the Quantum Vacuum (on average) is the lowest possible energy state is it possible that the energy inside a practical Emdrive can change that to yield momentum for thrust from something current physics believes (backed by experimental data) is indestructible and immutable without knowing in advance random changes in that zero energy state.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.1251

 

As things go it sort of zigged to FTL (warp fields) but the last part about Quantum Vacuum and the EM drive seems to your point. If the Quantum Vacuum (on average) is the lowest possible energy state is it possible that the energy inside a practical Emdrive can change that to yield momentum for thrust from something current physics believes is indestructible and immutable.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.1251

Good point... but no one is trying to destruct or change spacetime... there is such thing as a quantum foam, and the existence of virtual particles is real (see Casimir Effect)... could a technology be developed that produced thrust by somehow pushing against one of these fields?
Haven't read your pdf yet, but I promise I will, and see if it's not beyond my understanding.

 

The only "quantum vacuum" is the one you feel near your wallet as your money is mysteriously disappearing from your wallet.

Every time I see a statement like "The present theorem rules out the existence, rather than construction, of superluminal travel, unless there is weak energy condition violation. "; it reminds me of the article from 1888 titled "Man's Credulity, the ending paragraph states:

All has been quiet since till now, when Keely comes forward and says that new “phenomena have been unfolded” to him, opening a new field of discovery, and that he shall abandon the “etheric force” the “Liberator” and all other former forces, and shall conduct all his experiments with a new force, for which he has not an exact name, but the “basis of which is vibratory sympathy.” He proposed the
formation of a new company with a capital of $15,000,000. The old company has sunk many thousands of dollars in the “etheric force,” and we presume that their “vibratory sympathy” is exhausted. Keely has at last hit upon the right name for his force. Its sole power consists of the amount of “vibratory sympathy” his experiments can arouse in the pockets of gullible capitalists.
- N.Y. Evening Post, Dec. 15.

 

Good point... but no one is trying to destruct or change spacetime... there is such thing as a quantum foam, and the existence of virtual particles is real (see Casimir Effect)... could a technology be developed that produced thrust by somehow pushing against one of these fields?
Haven't read your pdf yet, but I promise I will, and see if it's not beyond my understanding.

First you need to understand the true meaning of 'virtual particle' in a simple way as a layperson (me).
http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...ysics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

The problem with 'pushing' is its not a one way street, it requires reaction, something to push on. If they can prove the QV state is not what we think it is, great but so far the calculations I have seen just assume that fact with no real basis for it with the Emdrive.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/04/eagleworks-nasa-updated-emdrive-models.html

If one envisions the quantum vacuum (Q-V) as a semi-virtual electrical plasma as Dr. White does, that would imply that the Poynting power flow vector would entrain the Q-V plasma and send it on its way toward the pillbox end of the cavity and then out of the cavity, the back-reaction on the cavity should be in the opposite direction towards the RF feed end of the Cannae test article, but the observed thrust vector is opposite to that surmise, i.e. toward the shorter RF sense antenna end of the cavity per the attached slide.
...
Of course these Q-V plasma thrust predictions are based on the Q-V not being immutable and non-degradable, a feature we admit is not widely accepted by the mainstream physics community, at least at the moment.

If I could just make stuff up writing a simulation for it is easy. The more I read about it the more I think this is entering the 'Free Energy' zone.

 

Propulsion is un-natural movement. It's gonna cost.

When you exert a force on a mass...there will be a delay in time before the mass moves.

The exerted force must over come inertia. As soon as the exerted force is greater than inertia, the mass will move at CONSTANT velocity.

Now the mass has a higher velocity and thus it now has higher inertia.

So a portion of the exerted force went to overcoming and then adding to the mass's inertia and not into increased velocity of the mass.

As we increase the exerted force......more of this force goes to increasing the inertia(mass) than to increasing velocity.

Thus an inherent speed limit.

Why does this happen? Why does mass absorb more and more energy?

If we knew that process and could prevent the increase in the mass inertia, all of the force could go to velocity.

This will be very dangerous. Without this inherent safety, rates of acceleration will be magnitudes faster, all new formulas will be needed.

We will not be eliminating inertial mass, only the added velocity inertia(mass).

This way we can still coast. If we removed all the inertia.....when we removed the exerted force, the mass would stop immediately.

Removing or cancelling all inertia could be handy at times.

A variable inertia controller is what's needed.

 

Shades of EE Doc Smith! Nice trick, but ain't been done yet.

Rocket propulsion is pretty instantaneous. Thrust goes to motion in both directions, for the expelled mass and for the rocket motor expelling it.

 

"fuel less thrust"? how would you generate the microwave energy without any fuel? and the latest on "yehoo science" about this is if you shine lasers into the "resonator" you go FTL. how much fuel to power the lasers? in my work with microwaves and lasers, the efficiency isnt very good.

 

Shades of EE Doc Smith! Nice trick, but ain't been done yet.

Rocket propulsion is pretty instantaneous. Thrust goes to motion in both directions, for the expelled mass and for the rocket motor expelling it.

Smith expressed a preference for inventing fictional technologies that were not strictly impossible (so far as the science of the day was aware) but highly unlikely: "the more highly improbable a concept is—short of being contrary to mathematics whose fundamental operations involve no neglect of infinitesimals—the better I like it" was his phrase.[72]

 

I hadn't heard of Doc Smith.

Ampere, Weber and many other classical scientists thought that Ampere's current elements were very small current loops.

I believe this has been proven a fact.

Mass = angular momentum of charge.

Inertia = electrical rotational resonance.

Magnetic Moment = caused by and perpendicular to the rotation of charge.

A helical charge loop synthesizing a current loop(like Ampere suspected) shows the physical cause for matter.

Not only that, it shows how these characteristics physically relate to one another just as the experiments bear out. Nothing ever came close to this.

Calling this pseudo science is like a child denying it's father.

One might think rocket propulsion is fast, but that's only because no one has ever seen matter move without the effects of inertia.

All of our measurements and formulas are results of objects with inertia.

If we can vary inertia, all that will change. What's so hard or far out about that?

A lot of people were convinced that electricity was just a fade. It's everyday life now.

fuel less thrust...?......

I believe my comments show that is damn near impossible, unless you happen to be going or can take advantage of a natural potential of some kind.

That being realized....let's see if we can reduce the load that thrust works against.

Since we are always going to need thrust(power supply), we can concentrate on efficiency.

Of course my talk is cheap. We at present can't even begin to study this.

The frequencies are very high. We will need magnitudes higher switching rates.

And we need to measure the rpm of the particle. We can figure it out with math......but we need to be able to vibrate with it........in order to interact with it.

I don't believe that we can take advantage of quantum foam, vacuum energy, or the curvature of space.

I believe that what happens in a lab, happens everywhere and that's all that happens.

I also believe that like we use electronics to control electricity, I believe we can manipulate matter with a very similar technology.

Because nature is electric.

 

if the drive worked, tghen boats with radar would rock with the push of the antenna, so would airplanes. what is the mass of electromagnetic radiation? how much push would you get from sending a megawatt or so of microwaves out an antenna? lab experaments are fine, unless like a well known anti gravity experament, you dont take vibration into account and the "stiction" of the measureing equipment. other than from heating effects, I have never seen an antenna move because of the inertia of the electromagnetic radiation

 

EM has no inertia. That's why it travels so fast, so fast.

 

with no inertia, how does it push anything like a rocket?

 

I don't think it can. That's why I suggested a solution from the other end or term if you will.

I have not looked recently, but the pressure measured from such experiments could be because of other effects.

Adding angular momentum to an object is not the same as adding linear momentum.

And our understanding converting linear M to angular M (and vice versa) is incomplete.

 

Maybe it's really an anti-gravity device caused by the EM energy inside a copper bucket warping space-time so what they think is thrust is really the entire universe rotating due to a Tesla longitudinal ether wave compressing Q-V into the front and out the back somewhere near Uranus.

 

In the end, everything revolves around Uranus.

 

In the end, everything revolves around Uranus.

Maybe, and this is just a suggestion. We should upgrade Pluto to full planet status, and rename it Ouranus... and fight back against this slandering campaign against our much maligned 8th planet...

 

If I still have the same number of fingers, it seems that the 8th planet is Neptune.