you're all morons here, it's plain to see. i pity you all planet wide. you see ONE DESIGN, and claim....OH EM DOESNT WORK. well that's on you MAMMALS as you CARBON up your ATMOSPHERE and ruin earths EM fields. they use carbon to block em in mag shielding, so imagine what all ur car waste is doing to earth's em field. (GRINDING THE GEARS OF HER "EM DRIVE" OH YES!)
This is like putting small wheels on the front and big tires on the back of a race car-- a dragster! The forward tilt makes it think it's rolling downhill. The snarling motors are just to impress the crowd.
You seem to be operating under the illusion that scientists can't be fanatical, or that fanatics can't be scientific. We're all human Dan, even the scientists. Incidentally I thought Scott was perfectly reasonable, I just thought it's worth bearing in mind not everyone is the same.
Scientist 2019: afraid to jeopardize career and funding, refuses to investigate something that violates belief system. Doesn't investigate the unexplained but explains the uninvestigated.
@@lillyanneserrelio2187 More likely to be Government funded study ended early due to preliminary results of tests resulting in cancellation of continued funding.... Pretty much most research is done in the taxpool nowadays. Especially "climate science".
that's a real thing though. at the quantum level, tons of particles constantly pop into existence and annihilate with each other they are saying the EMdrive generates thrust by propelling those virtual particles away from the drive. not exactly sure if that's possible. i thought the whole point of virtual particles is you can't observe them (so no giving them momentum, either)
Here's the problem with using the quantum vacuum that way. The difference between the quantum vacuum and the old luminiferous aether is that the quantum vacuum, at least according to the best theories we've got, is Lorentz invariant. It should look the same in any inertial frame of reference. Which means it can't carry any momentum, so there's nothing to push against and have it remain vacuum. The only way to "push against" it is to transform it into a state that does carry momentum--and that's not vacuum any more, that's a state with some real particles in it. So the best you've got is still just a photon rocket.
By the way, if you're _really_ clever you might be thinking of a secondary objection here: "Well, suppose we 'borrow' some momentum temporarily from the vacuum, in the manner of a virtual particle in a Feynman diagram, move over a little and give it back? That doesn't violate conservation of momentum over the whole interaction. Suppose we start out in a frame where you have zero momentum. One minute you're here, the next minute you're over there, but your momentum is still zero when it's all over." That actually doesn't work either, and it's again because of Lorentz invariance. In fundamental physics, every symmetry is associated with a conservation law, via Noether's Theorem. Conservation of momentum is the conservation law associated with translation invariance--the laws of physics being the same in all places. But if you instead take Noether's theorem and plug in invariance under a change of inertial reference frame, what you get out is a tricky-to-state conservation law that basically says the center of mass (technically, center of energy) of a system MUST move at a velocity corresponding in the usual way to its momentum. The interesting thing is that there is no corresponding law for *rotational* motion--there's rotational symmetry, which gives conservation of angular momentum, but there's no "center of energy motion" restriction--which is why a non-rigid body in free fall can reorient itself in space, by messing with its moment of inertia, without violating conservation of angular momentum. This is how cats land on their feet (classically--no quantum shenanigans needed). But for linear motion this trick doesn't work.
Ghosts in the machine, I believe it creates dark energy. The strange motions of the universe which need dark energy to explain, are all caused by resonance energy thrust, going back in time and getting stronger. It's where the energy for the big bang came from - some scientist in the future with a "wired" copper bucket. Now look what you did!
Being skeptical doesn't mean you're rooting against it. It just means that you are not convinced that the claim is true. As he explains in the video, if this works... We have solved the energy problem, we can easily stop and reverse global warming, we can colonize the entire galaxy if we want to. It would be the biggest breakthrough in human history... He just doesn't think it will pan out. But he will also be the first to celebrate if it does pan out.
how does this working = solved energy problem and revearse global warming? also we can colonize the entire galaxy now if we want to, having this would speed that up but it would still take well over a thousand years lol.
It literally says in the video that the NASA experiment used 1 W that and produced a (very small) sustained force. The question is whether the force is explainable by an unaccounted error or if it actually implies new physics.
Musky Elon it is not "perperual motion" as it still require and use energy. and for the ineficient part, yes it is not as efficient as other techs energy wise. but it make up for it by an absurd amount of delta v, wich only depend on time. and we didn't tested the supderconductor variant...
Well, if it worked, it would be kind of the only thing seriously proposed with efficiency above 1 in certain conditions. What is an inefficient perpetual motion machine?
Well, in this case, you kind of do know. The very definition of a perpetual motion machine is to have an efficiency of over 1. So, there is no such thing as an inefficient perpetual motion machine.
Correction: the shape is a _frustum_ not a _frustrum._ The latter is related to the word "frustrate." A frustum is the portion of a generalized cone (the set of lines passing through a given point and a given Jordan curve) which is between two parallel planes, each on the same side of the given point as the given curve. In other words, it's a cone or pyramid with the top cut off.
I agree with your sentiment, but I would modify it slightly. We probably cannot know what we don't know. However, everything we know screams that the EM drive is impossible. For this reason, healthy skepticism is rational.
transcendentape the thing is that humans are inconfortable when they learn that their vision of "the truth" is false. the problem with the EM DRIVE is that every friking law of phisics say that this thing shoudn't work, yet it seems to do at least something that make it work. a huge part of our understanding of physics is based about the newtons laws. if the EM drive works, then the law is flawled. and so is everything above it. the consequences are scary and this is why we feel do reserved about this thing. because it is opening a new era for space Travel, but also because it will debunk half of the physics model in the first place.
transcendentape the thing is that humans are inconfortable when they learn that their vision of "the truth" is false. the problem with the EM DRIVE is that every friking law of phisics say that this thing shoudn't work, yet it seems to do at least something that make it work. a huge part of our understanding of physics is based about the newtons laws. if the EM drive works, then the law is flawled. and so is everything above it. the consequences are scary and this is why we feel do reserved about this thing. because it is opening a new era for space Travel, but also because it will debunk half of the physics model in the first place.
My feeling to the EM Drive is basically like that of SETI: it's probably not going to work, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try (though I do acknowledge that in comparison, SETI is far more likely to succeed). If I were to bet, I'd say the thrust effect is real, but there's something subtle going on that's still entirely within the realm of current physics. Like with the Pioneer anomaly that turned out to be thermal disequilibrium, or faster-than-light neutrinos that turned out to be a loose cable.
I guess if you define SETI success as simply searching and cataloging, then SETI will always be a success. I meant succeeding as in actually finding aliens.
***** When you test a rocket you simply account for the existing G force. There's no unknown forces at work. It will act exactly as you calculate. Newtonian physics
Thanks, Scott, for being the voice of reason on the EM drive. I've really been a bit disgusted at how the so-called science media has been fawning over a device where even the inventors can make no explanation of how it works. And as a spacecraft designer I concur that, even if it does work, it wouldn't be that useful.
We still don’t know how bicycles work. Just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Hell, do you have any idea how long it took us to figure out magnets? That took centuries. People thought that magnets shot out tiny invisible screw-shaped particles that pulled things together. Science is a work in process and will remain that way until we start doing things like creating our own universes. Throughout the history of science we have been wrong a lot more often than we’ve been right, and I don’t see any reason to think that the trend will change anytime soon.
@@GusCraft460 Really? We don't have an understanding of how bicycles work?! Are you screwing with me right now?... Not to mention that this video is 4 years old and the concept has been tested multiple more times since, with negligible thrust detected, usually attributed to measurement devices or interference.....
@@ryanpauloneeyed9669 look it up, we legitimately do not understand bicycles. Specifically, why do bicycles lean into a turn even without a person on them. It’s one of the unsolved mysteries of physics.
The way this year has been going, we might as well end it by chucking all of our physics books into bonfires in worship of our new conical god, the EM Drive.
Wait, Im confused. Blowing on my own sail? What about that leaf blower gardeners use. If I held that up to my sail instead of exhaling forcefully like I'm at a DUI checkpoint, would that propel my boat? I don't see how that breaks physics because we're converting gasoline in the leaf blower into wind/ force, just not very efficiently.
@@nevyen149 Execpt they moved in the oposite direction. You can just blow the oposite direction you would like to move instead of blowing at the sail, since you get the entire recoil in that case. ;)
maybe not. as he pointed out.. .photon engine works. known science. functional, testable, demonstrable. but a photon engine is EXTREMELY inefficient. if ions DO work.. and it appears from the nasa experiment they do.. .they still have no idea WHY they work.. just that they do.
How to get movement out of energy only: Get some batteries Use the batteries to charge a robotic arm Make the robotic arm throw the batteries really fast Thrust
I dearly hope the scientific community is approaching this with a healthy balance of skepticism and curiosity. We understand the "laws" of physics as well as we are willing to test their boundaries. We don't need the sci-comm stonewalling development of new ideas just to hold on to established dogma. Can we get around general relativity? Can we generate unlimited energy? The correct answer is "not under our current understanding of physics, *but*..."
"I dearly hope the scientific community is approaching this with a healthy balance of skepticism and curiosity." Don't worry, science is very competitive - especially in STEM fields. Any verdict on the EM drive will be checked and triple checked with all sorts of hopes for results. This would be too big to leave up to a particular person's bias. This would be a total paradigm shift if real. It's probably not real, but you'd be hard pressed to find a consensus in any scientific community saying it's impossible.
Nikhil Menda Yes. Work is Force times the distance travelled in the same direction(W=F*s) Performance is the amount of work done in a second: P=W/t and if you express the W its P=F*s/t and "s/t" is velocity so it's P=F*v. The way I explained is basicly the same but "delta time near zero" means that we are having a true momentary speed. That is a bit more mathssy stuff. The result is the same, I just emphasized that momentary speed is avarage speed in a really small interval. (Taking dt as a a very small number which is almost zero) [same reason why we cant make out speed from a single photo] "P(t)" meaning P is a function of time.
Hikmet Melih Özdemir If the drive is intereacting to something we don't yet understand, then that law is not invalid. As the paper theorizes/postulates, there could be some forces going on that have yet to be discovered in the fields of science as yet explored by man. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there...
10:50 It would be a hilarious idea if the advancement of spaceflight technology is being held back only because "physicists don't like it." Some shadow coven of scientists hunting down people who discover inconsistencies in various Laws and working to cover it up.
It is however the opposite to how scientist works. If you manage to break the laws of physics then you get a Nobel Prize. ;) (In a PnP roleplaying game called Mage: The Ascension a group of Scientist Technocrats called the Technocracy pretty much do this however. Haunt down Mages that breaks the laws of Nature as well as fringe scientist that challenge established science. In the setting Magic and Science are just two sides of the same coin.)
The laws are not usually broken. No, they are found to be limited. Einstein didn't disprove Newton's Laws, he just showed their limitations. Bohr didn't say that Maxwell's ED is pointless crap. He just said it works on a certain scale. Physisists find limitations of old theories and expand them, but don't disprove them. That's why people are so scaptical of the EM drive. Becuase it basically just breaks the laws, but doesn't show any limitations.
Reminder that the first doctor who found out that washing hands by medical professionals reduces patient's death by large margin and presented his findings, was stripped of his licence and left for dead in an asylum. Scientists are not immune to orthodoxy.
Technically the laws are descriptive not prescriptive like human laws. Meaning that there there to describe how things work. Not how they ought to work. So "breaking the laws of physics" would ether be impossible or just mean you have found out that the description we to describe the world is incorrect. It is very likely that there are a lot of assumptions we do that are wrong. Simplified models that are just close enough to for them to be useful, but do not tell the whole truth. Newtons theory of gravity is a example of this. It makes predictions that are very close to what we can observe. But... It is not 100% correct. And so if your need to be more accurate you use General Relativity to describe the motions of planets. (And when you do find this better model that describes reality even better. Then you likely to win a Nobel prize. Though that being said, Einstein never won the prize for Relativity, but he did win it for photoelectric effect. At the time Relativity was so controversial that in the end he never got the prize for that.)
That's because it is. The quote is in reference to the fact that any reaction-less drive is also a planet killing relativistic weapon, given enough time to accelerate.
Michael Halpern That's true in real life but not fiction. Sci-fi authors tend to get bored with engines that have very slow acceleration because flights from place to place take too long. To speed up the pace of the plot they upgrade them into something that allows quick interplanetary transfers and high-G space combat, the kind of thing that's exciting for the reader. If the drive has infinite delta-V this automatically transforms every spaceship in the setting into a planet killing super-missile.
1.2 µN per Watt would suggest that it is expelling a mass of 7.2e-13 kg per second at a speed of 1.67e6 m/s. Could it be that it is simply dislodging enough particles at the end of the cavities to do just that?
that is an interesting thing dude, it may explain how this thing don't fuck over Newtown third law, tho i don't have the math skills yet to do the math.
mytube001 no as is the waves inside could be dislodging particles on the outise of the containar due to small vibrations or whatever. as the area of the back end is larger than that of the small end, more particles would be dislodged from that side than the other
as a person who's a little more hopeful than some... i still don't think we're at the point where any skeptics 'need to face facts.' This is very, very, very early stages. Skepticism is good. What NASA's done, though, IMO illustrates we should be investing further resources into investigating the possibility.
i hope there is some merit to this or similar ideas as, lets face it, the movie version of space ships is much more exciting and practical than having a massive rocket of which the vast majority is fuel
that's really only to escape Earths gravity. Once you're in space, when we get to a point we are building ships in space, they can get a bit closer to the images we see in movies. I'm not the person to ask but I always thought solar sails were the future of early space travel with no fuel, just using the sun. As described in some detail by Arthur C. Clarke.
John P I thought it went along the lines of, solar sail generates electricity for an engine. Like an electric car. You accelerate for half your journey turn the ship around, I mean rotate it 180 degreea, then spend the other half of the journey slowing down. It just sounded so elegant to my young ears when I first read it in a novel. Totally useless to fly around on a whim but from A to B, no fuel costs. I imagined we'd have like shipping lanes of these solar ships coming and going like we have with ships in our oceans. I got that idea wrong heh
Actually, tacking with solar sails is completely possible, and works just the same as sailing. There are even designs for statites, which are satellites which 'hover' using the solar pressure to maintain position without orbiting.
that sounds like an array of solar panels ... solar sails are a thing too though .. for capturing the solar wind i just really hope that something like the em drive becomes a reality in my lifetime .. the future will be so much more exciting if new areas of physics are discovered .. and as mentioned if you can jump in something closer to a private jet and go zipping off somewhere - and come back - rather than sitting in a tiny capsule on top of a vast quantity of propellant .. this whole attitude of "it goes against the laws of physics so it cant be real" is a little irritating because, well, at some point everyone thought the earth was flat
The Expanse (well barring the big plot McGuffin) is a fairly plausible show that doesn't play too hard and fast with the laws of physics much like the books. The depiction of nukes managing to reduce a very massive spacecraft to nothing but a debris cloud was the most egregious physics error I noted. Nukes in space are basically gigantic flashbulbs of gamma and infrared radiation, amongst other things. This is certainly damaging, especially to unshielded biological lifeforms, but it is never going to obliterate a ship down to a fine debris cloud like you see in the Expanse. One of the reasons why most theorists, be they amateurs or professional physicists/military theorists, expect weapons such as railguns or possibly lasers to be as if not more important to space combat than the nuke. Fusion drives of various types have been proposed. It's unclear whether we will ever produce a drive quite like the ones in the Expanse (I also do not know whether they were implausibly powerful from travel times shown in books/series) and certainly the reactors wouldn't look much like the ones in the show.
I built one of these on my garage. It currently powers my s10 & produces 97,000lbs of thrust. The electronics interfere with my flux capacitor tho and the drivers behind me get upset...
Well, my wife's MSU went down hard, and we (leaders and victors, apparently) can only put a 10-spot on Iowa, so, I'm planning on hiding under the covers when we are once again on the menu of the the scarlet and grey. #97 grad never lost. 😖
5:10 There is a July 2015 interview with Prof. Dr. Martin Tajmer from Dresden University of Technology in German where he clarifies the intent of his research and cited paper regarding the EMDrive testing: www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/prof-korrigiert-berichte-zu-emdrive-tests20150730/ Here is my ad-hoc translation: _ Q: Dear Prof. Tajmer, is it true that you have successfully reproduced and thus proved the effect of the EMDrive in your experiments? A: No. Such an interpretation of my results is truthfully a mystery to me. Already in the abstract of my technical paper I write clearly and precisely that I cannot confirm nor disprove the effect of the EMDrive. It is true: We indeed measured thrusts similar to the predictions of the EMDrive, but also in directions that should be null. I also write that I presume that magnetic forces from the cabling cause this effect. This is why I did recommend in the article that further testing be done to sort out these (and other) possible causes. Q: How do you fundamentally view the concept of the EMDrive? A: From a theoretical standpoint, the EMDrive makes absolutely no sense. Because, in essence, it would contradict the conservation of momentum. Time and again I've been asked by my students and colleagues for my opinion, especially after some experimental data from NASA became available. That is why I wanted to conduct testing myself, to see if I could come to similar results and whether I could delete the effect through better shielding against thermic/electromagnetic effects (what most critical scientists expect). Since I have always been interested in new thrusters, I was naturally very eager to see the results myself. Q: And was this shielding successful? A: Our tests have shown that we can indeed produce similar results -- except this time we had more sensors (e.g. temperature measurements) -- and the possibility to implement some shielding. In doing so we found that there can be significant interference by the magnetic field of the cabling, which we could not completely shield against, and that the same thrusts are observed when the thruster was firing into a direction that should not have shown thrust on the thrust meter. Q: And what does that mean for the experiments so far that supposedly prove the effect of the EMDrive? A: Our testing shows that in both the apparatus of NASA and that of the inventor not all sources of error have been identified yet, and that within the scope of our accuracy of measurement we have had a baseline measurement -- with the accuracy of measurement matching the claimed effect. Hence with our apparatus we cannot comfirm or disprove the EMDrive thrusts. Further testing is necessary. Q: How do you then explain the many news items that state that you have successfully and independently confirmed the effect of the EMDrive? A: Truthfully, it is a mystery to me that these websites claim I have validated the EMDrive. At least there were also a few differing news items. I believe that everyone want and hope that we find something new. Unfortunately, the time hasn't come yet -- hopefully, though, the future will have one or the other surprise in store for us regarding this. All I have set out to do is to scientifically look at a number of effects that lead to a wrong interpretation of test data. Q: Do you yourself plan to conduct further experiments regarding the EMDrive to, say, check more sources of error? A: I am convinced we now have an apparatus with which to continue -- the interest of the students is certainly there. I think that specifically the topic of EMDrive is an excellent educational project where you can learn to identify sources of error that may not seem readily obvious. _
What's wrong with making that assumption? When you say hi to someone on the street you assume their language. If you're wrong then they'll probably let you know and there's no harm done.
Yeah the thing with Physics is that it's quite interconected and well-tested, so if you want to claim that you have new model that violates the laws of the established model, well, now you have to explain why all other experiments *didn't* reveal what you think you've revealed. Not impossible, but it's usually more likely that you made a mistake than that all the other physicists have been making the identical mistakes for the past 50 years or so. Of course, this does happen from time to time, but if you were gambling, it would always be a better bet to wager against it's new physics this time. And in Physics, it's less about whether you "believe in" a model and more about whether the new model can accurately and quantitatively predict your experimental observations better than the old one could. New observations are only the very beginning of that process.
@@tobigforyou The thing that separates real scientists from people like flat-earth "scientists" is that real scientists WANT to be proven wrong. If they made an error, they want to know before their opinion becomes widely accepted fact. Being skeptical is the right call. The laws of physics (especially mechanical physics) are sacred. They dictate everything in the universe around us. We know there is a high chance laws exist that we aren't aware of, but we can't just change our understood laws without being entirely sure. The review process is brutal, and everyone wants to prove you wrong, because if nobody can, then we can be overwhelmingly certain you didn't make a mistake. As far as arrogance, I don't see where you saw that. He didn't claim to be smarter than the man or state that any part of it was wrong. He simply said that it didn't make sense with the current understanding of conservation of energy and momentum (the foundation of everything in mechanical physics) and that history tells us that an error will likely be found. He also said he would be really happy if he was wrong. We all would, as this would be a breakthrough in much more than just rocket science. It could be the key to unlimited free energy, pacemakers without a battery, reliable artificial gravity, etc. Before anyone is going to start losing their mind over this, it will be put through the most challenging of gauntlets.
Scott Manley I have a quick question whenever I watch various sci-fi there's almost always that advanced alien race that claims humans don't know as much as they think they do what if we're just wrong about how some things work or if there's some kind of condition that makes them wrong in that moment it is possible we just know very little compared to what there is to know
Hey man, never commented on anything on the internet before (beside facebook and what not) but I just need to say I love you're channel and check it out daily. I'm a mechanical engineering student, physics fan, and casual gamer (incuding KSP of course). Just wanted to let you know I really appreciate what you're doing and please keep up the good work.
All the money used to kill humans has taken us to where we are. So not really a waste.. Also guess what, war is business we make a lot of money from it.
I mean no offense, but what I'm hearing is "shouldn't work because XXXX, shouldn't work because YYYYYY, shouldn't work because ZZZZZZ...." but don't the observations and data say it works?
Yes, but the reasons why it shouldn't work are so well know that it is easier to say that it probably doesn't work than to say some we are wrong about some of the fundamental laws of physics.
But we are ALL wrong about fundamental laws of physics. Thats why our gravity calculations break down when calculating the spin of galaxies, so we have to add the idea of dark matter. Thats why our consolidation of the quantum world and macroscale world still hasnt happened (a unified theory). Our theories about the laws of physics are NOT correct yet. So we can't simply say "this shouldnt work because of our current understanding" when observations clearly shows it DOES work.
What about using a working EM drive for station keeping? A satellite or space station could use solar power to power the drive and thus keep itself in orbit with less or no need for propellant refueling. It could drop the maintenance cost on the ISS a fair bit. Again, assuming this thing works.
Totally. However, the pop sci press announced it as some cheap manned spaceflight gizmo. (Because: More thrust than even the things that will sent things to Proxima Centauri!)
There are already other viable methods of stationkeeeping without using reaction mass. The Earth has handy things like an electric field and magnetic field which you can use to generate a net force.
if it can use em waves to propel itself. it should then be able to use the naturally created em waves of the universe too. like air for downforce or drag on a car. altering em atmospheres or pressures i want to say to increase its efficiency. or like getting a sail boat to sail into the wind.
For practical purposes though, the ISS uses reaction mass thrusters. Generating the kind of electromagnetic fields for stationkeeping tends to play hob with equipment... a bad thing.
It's not only lack of the heavy propellant. It's also lack of tanks and heavy plumbing that comes with the propellant. So weight saving would be actually even bigger.
Mass saving would be infinite. With an EM drive, as long as you can collect radiation (space is full of it) and convert it to work, you can keep thrusting. Essentially you now have infinite velocity change capability. Compare that to any non-infinite deltaV value and it's infinitely better. You would need infinite mass for a reaction drive to match it.
As far as the game mod goes. I made one huge with tweakscale. My ship cant power it but in intervals and its so freekin' soft that It would take hours of thrust to just get away from Kerbin orbit. At least I wont run out of 'gas'.
The power system needed to sustain these things would more than make up for the lack of heavy tanks and plumbing. It's the biggest limiter for ion thrusters right now. The weight of solar panels and batteries is just too great at the moment. Everyone in the electric propulsion field is basically twiddling their thumbs waiting for a breakthrough in power systems. Once that happens, you'll see ion thrusters on practically everything, including our ships to Mars. That is, unless nuclear thermal propulsion gets approved.
I hope that someday we can dispense with hyperbolic statements like "We'll have to forget everything we know about physics!" The discovery of quantum physics did not mean we had to forget everything we knew about Newtonian physics, it just explained a set of observations that didn't fit the Newtonian model. If the EM-Drive can be shown to work reliably, then a theory will have to be devised to explain it. Sounds to me like a great opportunity for learning. Even if it can be shown NOT to work, we'll probably learn something useful along the way.
I really don’t think you understand the level of contradiction this would mean. This isn’t just updating some of physics it’s quite literally contradicting one of the most fundamental laws of physics.
NikoKun if I remember correctly their figures indicate it could hover a car on just 1Kw of power. I don't know how that could be possible, even if they could increase the efficiency by approx 3*10^6
Mr. Reinterpret Cast I read the other day they were planning the other day to have a mk2 that would have 30kN/kW. I just don't see that happening, certainly not in one generation.
Exactly! Personally, I feel as though we should be funding research into this much much more. If it does do something weird, it could open up the doors to a whole new understanding of physics and thus new possibilities in technology. I find the possibility of this upsetting our current scientific understanding absolutely exciting! The problem is ego. People like to think they know it all. And if something comes along to upset that, well, we tend to shun it. Even the smartest among us.
they funded the research. From what research they did (it wasnt a large scale test)... the thrust generated can possibly be attributed to temperature differences. It MIGHT work. But the thrust generated will be TINY. So even if it does its probably not useful
@scott manley There are a few theories out there that suggest the EM drive doesn't break the laws of physics and that it also doesn't do anything funky with 'quantum vacuums' or other such nonsensical explanations. Maybe try to find those, might be an interesting read for someone like yourself with a far greater understanding of physics than me. Also, being afraid of "the laws of physics being changed right under you" might not be the best mentality. Being skeptical is, of course, expected and reasonable. However, being scared of change simply because it's "scary" is not so smart. The laws of physics allow us to model the universe and make accurate predictions based on what we have observed in the past. Throughout history these laws have been altered numerous times by new data, allowing us to more accurately predict and model whats going on around us. While I'm not defending the EM drive (though i do believe it will turn out to be bogus), I'm also not going to discount the research that has been done on it thus far. I've heard rumors that the EM drive is being tested aboard the USAF's X-37 and on board China's new orbital laboratory. Interestingly, amateur astronomers who track the location of the X-37 claim that it has changed its orbit far more than its, albeit assumed, delta V should allow, possibly hinting at some other form of propulsion being utilized. I say some group (probably NASA) send one of these into space (without it being shrouded in secrecy) and give it a whirl, put this debate to bed once and for all. On a side note, your videos are always great and provide an outstanding means of learning about space after a long day of work. Keep it up :)
Ever heard of the Alcubierre effect, Scott? I saw a paper by NASA investigating it's potential. All I know is, we are going to need new exotic physics if we are to truly explore the solar system and beyond. Solar sails may get tiny probes to alpha centauri but not manned colony ships.
No it doesn't. You don't move and so you don't dilate time, thus no time travel. Warp involves the movement of spacetime which isn't limited by c (having no inherent mass or energy).
The Alcubierre effect is how the "warp drive" he mentioned is supposed to work. It's the Alcubierre warp drive. And it's one of the other possible space travel solutions being looked at by the same NASA team who did this experiment.
Error Error What problems? We could build a warp drive today, we just lack the fuel to run it. There is nothing about it that poses a problem with physics, it's a technical issue as we don't know how to manufacture negative energy... Yet. There's no time dilation, no possible energy requirements, no unresolved engineering questions. Once we can manufacture negative energy, it'll be no more difficult than it was to put the Voyager probes in space. Maybe easier considering that we have more advanced manufacturing tech and experience with spacecraft.
David Kelly Read what I wrote please, warp drives both generate closed time like curves (causality violations), and require exotic matter (negative energy), both of which probably make them impossible. I even provided a peer reviewed source. Also no time dilation doesn't have anything to do with the existence of casual loops. TL;DR: Right now warp drives are theoretically impossible.
I want to believe SO BADLY. But ultimately, I'm an empiricist, and a rather cynical skeptic. This means that for me to trust the results 100%, the EM Drive has to work in an actual application, even if it's a "test" application such as a cubesat with some solar arrays, basic attitude control, and an EM Drive on the back. Basically, take off an Ion engine and swap in an EM Drive. Then see what happens. All I can say for certain at this point is that I know enough about it to say I don't know enough about it to make any declarative statements other than "I'm in the 'wait and see' camp".
according to the experiment it took as much energy as a human uses every day to lift less than the weight of a water drop. now we use up the same energy as a lightbulb......doing the math, modern rockets are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more efficient
herobrinext9 Wrong comparison, IMO. The whole reason to use the EM drive is that it uses zero propellant. Zero propellant for even the tiniest amount of thrust is a really big deal because it means you never run out of fuel, even if it takes a rather large amount of energy to get a pretty small amount of thrust. Imagine a space probe that can go from Mercury orbit to Pluto orbit. It may take 50 years to do it, but a space probe that has an EM Drive would be able to do it. Humans have not constructed anything capable of doing that yet, and IMO it's basically impossible with technology currently in use, even ion engines.
44R0Ndin zero proppelant but you still need a source of energy to power it and there is no infinite one and with this EM drivw we would take up so much battery power that it would still eb more efficient to use normal rockets
I don't think breaking science and theorems is bad. Disproving rational things is what drives science forward! I hope the EM Drive changes how we think of the Universe. This is what drives innovation.
Andrew Kovnat yeah I agree, I didn't like the way this guy discouraged the device just because it "broke" physics. If the results are true WE need to change physics not the device
WondrousHello It's just not very likely. He doesn't say, he'd be against it. Scott would love for it to work. Right now there's just more speaking against it.
After having read the article, I can see at least one potential source of unaccounted-for error. Most metals have a tendency to absorb significant amounts of atmospheric gasses on their surfaces. In high vacuum chamber experiments (CVD, electron microscopy, etc) the vacuum vessel has to be brought up to high temperature as basically every part in the system out-gasses. Due to the non-trivial amount of power being used and extremely asymmetrical nature of their apparatus, erroneous thrust might be generated from thermally induced out-gassing. They never ran the system for long enough to reach thermal equilibrium and re-introduced atmospheric pressure after only a few runs. Just a thought.
Also, why did they try to measure the temperature of a shiny metal cone with a thermal camera and/or a pyrometer? As anyone who's used a thermal camera can tell you (and as you can see for yourself in their thermal images), all you're going to see is the thermal reflection off the surface. Generally you have to paint an area of the surface black to get any meaningful measurement.
htomerif Certainly interesting. I don't remember that from the paper. I would be surprised they wouldn't have known about this because any experience with UHV systems would tell you that pretty quickly. I'm going to delve a bit more into the paper to check the vacuum setup.
I'd just like to add, that if it does work and is proven it doesn't mean all of the physics we've known till now are wrong. It means that there's something missing from the equation that was either too small or it was being cancelled out.
Can the microwaves just kick out some particles from one side? They have to test it for more time and check if the mass of the device doesn't get smaller.
Already know what and I really hope it actually works for two reasons 1. because a fuelless engine would be revolutionary 2. because it's nice to break a law or two now and then amirite???
Mighty Beast there's no such thing as a fueless engine. Thrust requires energy. some kind of "fuel" whether it be the suns light on panels or a Nuclear Reactor will power the EM drive assuming it actually works and we figure it out. But yes. If it does work. Then it will be the hypest thing ever. :P
You know what they mean. One that does not expel an expendable substance as a reaction mass. In this case, converting electricity into movement through some sort of wizardry doesn't count.
Well let me explain a theory that I have which is good and bad news for EM drive😪 I am going to do a thought experiment 🤓 but I will use a cylinder instead of a conical shape which make it easier to everyone. now make the cylinder static to in relation of space and time.then input green light into the container. you can say that both sides of the circle will only have green light bouncing off the wall in all directions.so no net force .🙄 let change the velocity of the cylinder to just below the speed of light. 🤔now the light bouncing off the one side Will be a radio waves while the opposite side it will be a gamma radiation . which generates a net force opposite to the direction of travel. which means the thrust generated by the em drive is only able to slow down the space ship in relation to space time.which is bad.😥 now for the good news it works😄 but in a certain direction.😒
Scott Manley welp😲 I am screwed. Well I would have done it if I understand all special relativity to a level of a theoretical scientist I would have published a paper debunking em drive but I don't.😬 however I understand the basics part of special relativity that time dilation occurred when an object or a man/woman travel close to the speed of light.😅 and dilation of time also occur when there are strong gravity. thanks to the interstellar movie which is the greatest movie that I have seen.😍 final point I learned these things as hobbies on RU-vid and TV when I was 16 year old which is three years ago not in a university. but I am in one studying in electrical engineering not theoretical physics😅 thanks for responding to my comments Scott Manley I have so much respect for you teaching me the in and out of KSP and Physics IRL😉
Scott Manley welp😲 I am screwed. Well I would have done it if I understand all special relativity to a level of a theoretical scientist I would have published a paper debunking em drive but I don't.😬 however I understand the basics part of special relativity that time dilation occurred when an object or a man/woman travel close to the speed of light.😅 and dilation of time also occur when there are strong gravity. thanks to the interstellar movie which is the greatest movie that I have seen.😍 final point I learned these things as hobbies on RU-vid and TV when I was 16 year old which is three years ago not in a university. but I am in one studying in electrical engineering not theoretical physics😅 thanks for responding to my comments and being my online teacher Scott Manley I have so much respect for you teaching me the in and out of KSP and Physics IRL😉
Like scott said, relativity my friend. The light inside the chamber isn't going to change wavelength if measured from within the chamber, only from an outside, stationary setting.
Jackson Gray ok thanks for the information which means I accidentally mixed up the stationary outside observer with an observer on both sides of the cylinder.😥 ok now that my thoughts experiment had a major flaw I will either try another thought experiment to explain or disprove EM Drive Or just wait until a more conclusive study is done.
First, I completely agree, except on homemade equipment to experiment. By way of for instance, one could take a look at the first cyclotron built by Lawrence back in the 30's. It is basically a coffee can sawed in half and wrapped in copper wire, and since many other first in experimental technologies got their start like that, I'd allow latitude for looks, so long as it functioned. That being said, yes, it does look rickety, perhaps, but you should never debase your argument like that.
I hope you're right in this particular case. If you think about the well-made resonant chambers, they're so precisely made, they must be thermally stabilized to keep their characteristics as designed. How would you thermally stabilize a resonant chamber in space which was big enough to push a vehicle? It could be done, but the drive will be a lot more practical if tolerances don't need to be so tight.
Presumably they have tested the apparatus at various orientations with respect to Earth's magnetic field lines. I would hate for this to simply be a rotational force induced by opposing magnetic fields.
LmOver I merely wonder if those conducting the tests have accounted for a possible interaction with Earth's magnetic field (i.e. rotational motion as opposed to transverse motion). I am not claiming the device actually works as its inventor claims. Like Scott Manley, I remain skeptical.
The tests from eagleworks and the repetition in the german lab did this (up, down, north, south orientations of the device) and they included the measurements in the papers they published. Dilation was also considered. The thing is, the thrust measured is still too small. If they want to prove something, they should build a bigger version and people should be patient until those results are published.
I'm a complete noob, but it sounds fascinating the idea of taking advantage of resonant frequencies. When it comes to petrol engines designs and general mechanical applications resonances are genreally tried to be reduced or avoided...
everything he says that explains why it wouldn't work just makes me want to see a success, think how far into the future this could put us and how many things would change
Nacalal. nothing would change, if it worked it would only be competitive for very long term missions, that means it would still take massive developments in conventional technology before we could even reasonably deploy these engines and they would still face competition from conventional propulsion.
Nacalal even more, this thing is SIMPLE AS FUCK! it's just a cone of conductive material with a magenic field emiter, the same you have in your microwave! and even if the normal version if weak, we don't know what kind of thrust we will be able to generate if we just cool the thing down into a super conductive state, then just power it with a butload of electricity, it may not be easy not practical, but it means you can give and theoretical infinite amount of thrust to the thing, with any exaust sise, as long as you give it enough power. remember that fusion or even fission is still a thing.
sorry...but you just don't know what you are talking about..take it from me and others..this is horse shit...a steaming pile of it, the numbers are there for you to read, read them, and then THINK....
Isn't this the same sort of principle as the Casimir force? On the face of it, the Casimir force breaks the laws of physics because you "get force from nothing," via 2 parallel plates in a vacuum. But then quantum mechanics comes along and states that in a vacuum exists virtual particles and the cutting off of wavelengths between the plates results in a lower pressure than outside the places, resulting in an inequal force pushing the plates together. Wouldn't the same kind of principle apply where due to one end of the cone being narrower than the other, a similar situation arises where there is a lower "pressure" at one end? I've always been very interested in ways to exploit zero point energy and it seems to be a part of physics where a lot of mystery still lies.
There is no 'force from nothing' in the quantum vacuum example. Quantum mechanics simply 'discovered' a new set of interactions on a micro scale. This is not a micro scale, and thus quantum vacuum effects would be largely irrelevant or non-existent (likely both).
"On the face of it, the Casimir force breaks the laws of physics " No, the Casimir force is a *prediction* of the laws of physics. It doesn't break them at all. "you "get force from nothing," via 2 parallel plates in a vacuum. " You do not. The Casimir effect 1. conserves energy and 2. conserves momentum. "Wouldn't the same kind of principle apply where due to one end of the cone being narrower than the other, a similar situation arises where there is a lower "pressure" at one end? " No, and even if it did, it wouldn't depend on input power. It would be a property of the geometry, just like the real Casimir effect.
Ath Athanasius Jaffe is a smart guy, but I can tell you that not that many people take this sort of explanation very seriously. This is because the Casimir effect, or related effects, show up in a variety of other contexts where there are no atoms and no van der waals forces. For example, the most common way to think about particle physics at finite temperature is to calculate a kind of Casimir effect in a space that looks like a torus. Or, if string theorists are to be believed and we live in a 10 dimensional space of which several dimensions are compactified, there would be a Casimir effect associated with this compactification. It is really the boundary conditions that are important, and those do not need atoms to arise.
Scott Manley also, time-contraction effects (from Special Relativity- you should know this!) as you approach the speed of light would deal with the issue of different observers seeing the drive accelerate at different rates. An observer moving in the same direction as the drive will appear to observe it accelerating more quickly than an observer not moving in the drive's direction, but time will also appear to pass more slowly for him relative to the other observer. Thus the two observers will always observe the drive moving at the same speed relative to some other point in space, even if they appear to observe it accelerating at different rates (if an obseever sees the drive accelerating twice as quickly, but time passes at half the rate for him as compared to other observer due to his own relativistic velocity, there is no conflict...)
As a 2nd year physics student (currently studying for a Electromagnetism test funny enough) this claim scares me, the idea that conservation of momentum might be thrown out of the window upsets me a lot...
Worry not, young sprat! The Scot with the maximally efficient hairstyle has your back, and will see to it your upset is unwarranted! ..just keep working on that "portable hole" doohickey that you fizziecists are so keen to get into production, as requested by the Defense Department.
JP It won't be. At least not from this device... Most of the concepts they've used to explain the apparent thrust are complete nonsense. There is one concept that uses special relativity that almost makes sense without breaking things, but results in a q factor that diminishes asymptotically with increased velocities.
Elias Overbosch Perhaps there's a wacky "momental loop" out into the 10th, or 11th, dimension into which, and from with, some energy is "flung" and then recovered? Perhaps the "ansible" is about to be discovered!? Who knows.... :)
+Elias Overbosch There IS a remarkable resemblance between the EM Drive shape, Gandalf's hat, and a moonshine still! I'm guessing alcohol was heavily involved in each of those things. yeah...
ChargedUP that's exactly what I thought!!!!!! and I thought that like a year ago. maybe it scoots or warps on the fabric of reality or the sort. any ones thoughts?
Gideon Felt if it does not fuck up Newtown third law, then it must exert some kind of presure to "something". we don't yet trully understand the nature of quantum fields, that span across all the visible universe. maybe this thing is able to push agaisnt the electromagnetic field? or giving it energy, wich in turn produce electrons, wich are then pushed back by the electromagnetic field, generating thrust? i don't know man, there is too much bloody MAGIC in play there.
@Scott Manley: Just an idea: using the *_'Frustrum'_* (they ought to call it the: *_Frustrator!_* ) as something you could add to an Ion-Engine, as an Accelerator, or *_'Turbocharger'_* ?
Radiation pressure inside a cavity works almost exactly like pressure from gases (the photons with random velocities are mathematically analogous to particles, they also carry momentum). So if the inventor's claim that simply tapering a microwave cavity should lead to thrust, a tapered box full of air should also propel itself! That's how ridiculous the claim is. If you know some basic calculus, it's a good exercise the vector integral of uniform normal field over an arbitrary surface is 0. In 2D this reduces to the obvious statement of how following the path of a closed curve leads you to back to where you started. Keep in mind this analysis isn't even needed because classical physics provably conserves momentum within it's axioms. That's why they had to come up with silly concepts like the "Quantum Virtual Plasma".
Gustavo - Let me ask you a simple physics question: In the "Law of Conservation of Momentum" are Virtual Particles part of the "Total System Momentum"? IN other words: If a device can PUSH on virtual particles and exchange momentum with them, then the virtual particles annihilate an LEAVE the physical presence of the device that pushed on them? IS IT a violation of physics? If a device can push on the virtual particles (exchanging momentum with them), then the particles disappear (taking that momentum with them) was there really any violation of basic physics? Or are the virtual particles part of the "Total System Momentum of the universe"
that's a photon drive, and they basically already exist. There is nothing strange on how they work: you use energy to generate photons. The photons are your propellent. The proposed EM drive, has no propellent..which mean that it's momentum variation is not zero.... it's like a gun having recoil without a bullet in the chamber. it just should not happen.
***** it was an example... and i'm not 100% convinced of that. The release of the bolt should be akin to me trhowing a ball on a railcar...as long as the ball does not leave the car, this will not move. You can hear and feel che "click" of the bolt, but that's not a recoil. (TL:DR internal forces cannot change the total momentum of a system.)
Salvor Hardin exactly, or else nase would have been using momentum from movement as thrust for ages already. pity really :( but at least we can make things spin using that method ^.^
EvilPlagueDoctor i know... my doubt was due to the fact that i'm not familiar with firearms. As for the physics, i'm more than familiar with basic newtonian mechanics :)
SPACKlick Yeah, thanks :P I already found and read it and commented about it. Other people will need it though. I didn't post a link since most YT channels auto-silence links.
Apparently he does. Someone responded to this comment with a valid link to the paper, and its been silenced. I can understand that its out of practicality, but in situations like this, it looks bad. Just above your comment there should be a comment visible with the link in it. Its not there.
SPACKlick Sucks, but your link was silenced. Log out and look at the video. Your comment isn't there. Now he didn't do it personally, its just a filter, but it happened nonetheless.
To believe we know everything about fundamental physics I think is flawed, at this point we are blindly calculating using mostly statistical structures without knowing how exactly the underlying physics is working. This method serves us well thus far. I believe it is possible to produce some amount of thrust from virtually any conversion of energy albeit a useless amount in most cases. There are examples of previously thought to be impossible effects, when electrodynamics was written down nobody envisioned current flow in wires with zero resistance, now we have superconductors. Einstein believed that E=MC^2 would never allow us to use the stored energy, and yet, a way was found to unleash these forces rather rapidly... never say never, stranger things have been thought up and explained within the framework of what’s real... I think perhaps it should be investigated with a more serious attempt because the technology we are currently using is less than useful in the grand scheme of space flight, reaching our nearest neighborhood stars can’t even be imagined at this point.
I prefer my alcubierre drive the propels my much faster than light, and my hyperspace...drive that warps me to a new system and then needing to fuel scoop, rather than a drive that accelerates incredibly slowly. Fuel scooping is easy. Fuel is cheap.
Everyone, including respected establishment, continues to perform ridiculous experiments ignoring the most basic requirements for demonstrating novel thrust. 1. Contain the power source within the device (outside power is a certain source of all kinds of errors) 2. Thoroughly monitor all external particles/waves emitted from device.
DFX2KX The Chinese, eventually, managed to contain the power within the device under test. I admit, however, it would be difficult to accurately measure all ion flux around the device, but this is of utmost importance.
Put the device under test and power supply inside a nicely symmetric conductive box on the force balance, and watch the box with an IR camera for hot spots, and a lot of potential sources for error are contained. And make sure the force being tested isn't vertical to be sure you aren't measuring simple convection.
While getting my degree in electronic engineering I got with this same idea independently but I actually thought that I was going crazy... And now I see that some guys actually built this and it does produce some thrust... hm...
QuantumBraced Scott explained it in the vid. kinetic energy rises with velocity squared. double vel. means four time kin. energy. when the change of vel. is constant, over some threshold you get more kin. energy out than you put in...
QuantumBraced there is a source of energy, the electromagnetic emiter. this make this drive somewhat viable to me, as the law of conservation of energy in a given system is respected. the main problem is how the element create thrust without dispacing material. if it does not displace matter, what is pushing the thing? it can not be earth magnetic field since the thrust can be orientated, and does not varry depending on the location. it cannot be pushing agains a material of the containement field, since i did the math and it is obvious that the possible generated thrust is way too low. however, i think it is possible that the magnetic field use the cone as it's propelant, as i think it is possible that the magnetic field simply catapult electrons and ionized particules out of the back. tho the problem is that the engine seems to work when completly embelded in stuff.
E1 = Pt (electrical energy in) E2 = 0.5mv^2 (kinetic energy out) Since we have constant acceleration, v = at Apply conservation: E1 => E2, or Pt => 0.5m(at)^2 Since P, m, and a are all constant, E2 grows quadratically with time while E1 only grows linearly. Eventually, E2 will be larger than E1. So the spacecraft now has more kinetic energy than the amount of electrical energy you put in.
aardvark445 Anything under constant acceleration that does not lose mass (i.e. a reactionless drive) _becomes_ a perpetual motion machine at some velocity. If that velocity is greater than the speed of light than it isn't a problem. If you crunch the numbers NASA Eagleworks gave then it does cross that threshold below the speed of light. I did not equate the instantaneous energy to the total energy. Pt is the total energy, as t is the *total time* it has been applied. The t on both sides of the equation represent the same thing. Think about it.
Energy is not the problem. For there to be a sudden local imbalance in impulses would mean that the space around the device is not homomorph. That contradicts all we have seen so far. The "evidence" for this is shit. So it probably isn't a thing.
+Floda Reltih in the 60's it was interesting, but as time has gone on more and more evidence has appeared that supports gravity driven cosmology and contradicts plasma cosmology. Given the preponderance of evidence I'd dismiss EU as fatally flawed.
Maybe having modern physics pulled out from under you could be the next major advancement in the understanding of the field. Rules are meant to be broken.
