McCulloch says there is observational evidence for this in the form of the famous fly by anomalies. These are the strange jumps in momentum observed in some spacecraft as they fly past Earth toward other planets. That’s exactly what his theory predicts.
The idea is that if photons have an inertial mass, they must experience inertia when they reflect. But the Unruh radiation in this case is tiny. So small in fact that it can interact with its immediate environment. In the case of the EmDrive, this is the truncated cone.
The cone allows Unruh radiation of a certain size at the large end but only a smaller wavelength at the other end. So the inertia of photons inside the cavity must change as they bounce back and forth. And to conserve momentum, this must generate a thrust.
Crucially, McCulloch’s theory makes two testable predictions. The first is that placing a dielectric inside the cavity should enhance the effectiveness of the thruster.
The second is that changing the dimensions of the cavity can reverse the direction of the thrust. That would happen when the Unruh radiation better matches the size of the narrow end than the large end. Changing the frequency of the photons inside the cavity could achieve a similar effect.
>/sci/ btfo
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601299/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/
Holy shit this is it, we were born at the RIGHT time! The explanation seems legit.
All the bitter contrarians and skeptics on /sci/ are going to attack this like rabid dogs so is there a Reddit thread where I can discuss this in more detail?
if the thrust involved is tiny, why are people predicting flying cars and shit from this experiment?
>throws terms like 'unruh radiation' out there like it's fact
>professor of marine science
seems legit
>>8018810
Or maybe your just fucking retarded like the subhuman piece of shit you are?
Just a thought. Just putting that out there.
The time has fcking come. See you in saturn mining with ma fcking spaceshiep
>>8018827
Godspeed, you magnificent bastard.
>>8018826
he makes a good point and all you can do is name call
>>8018810
He has 19 pure physics publications since 1993. Most of them on the subject of inertia, starting with theorizing about the pioneer and flyby anomalies. Also, most of his marine publications are based on mathematical thermodynamics models.
And then there's this...
>McCulloch, M.E., 2015. Energy from swastika-shaped rotors. Progress in Physics, 11, 2, 139-140
>>8018826
you're*
>>8018883
What's your point?
>>8018910
my point is that your mom is a whore
>>8018916
>my point is that your mom is a whore
ooooh, burn
>>8018810
Wasn't Newton a maths professor? Just throwing that out there
>>8018827
Mythbuster proven and working design.
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/
See second entry, "Predictions of MiHsC", his quantized inertia theory. We need some physics people to comment on this stuff.
>The first is that placing a dielectric inside the cavity should enhance the effectiveness of the thruster.
>So the inertia of photons inside the cavity must change as they bounce back and forth. And to conserve momentum, this must generate a thrust.
This is neat. It's kinda like a reverse LED.
why does /sci/ want em drive to fail? em drive is the best thing to happen for a thousand years
>>8018982
>reverse LED
how?
>>8018695
Holy fuck, is the memedrive thing still alive?
>>8018774
Because they're idiots.
>>8018985
/sci/ is mainly studying fields that would never create this kind of cool shit, that's why Machine Learning, Quantum computing and so on are nothing but a pipe dream according to sci.
It's simple self validation, "This shit can't work because my life choices aren't close to that direction."
>>8018695
>Explained
Alright, finally I can get in on this whole EM Drive thing that I've been ignoring for the past year.
What is EM drive and why should I care, OP?
>>8018996
EMdrive is just a fucking metal can with a microwave oven tossed inside (seriously, I could build this crap in my backyard with some scrap)
And yet, something so simple, almost Ork-like, works and unravels a phenomena never observed before.
It must be quite triggering for a /sci/entist.
>>8018695
> 2016
> falling for memedrive
>>8019005
The theory that microwaves oven have the powa to bring us the solar empire that we deserve
Search it m8, you're 2 clicks from wikipedia
>>8018990
No. This is old "news" from 2015 that no physicist takes seriously.
>>8018988
Do you know how LEDs eject photons? The electrons are at a higher energy level than the holes and when they recombine, the excess energy is released as a photon. If I'm understanding this correctly, they are essentially doing something similar but releasing phonons.
I should add that I have no idea how that would be done or if it's even possible.
>>8019008
>works and unravels a phenomena never observed before
Yes, I get that it's something you can build in your backyard from scraps, now tell me what it actually *IS*.
>>8018996
I thought as much.
>>8019005
>some guy says he made a magic engine that needs no propellant
>just juice it up and accelerate forever and ever and ever
>get to mars in 5 mins
>but his explanation for why it works is total bs
>so far it looks like yet another quack scam
>however
>unlike all other quacks he released it for testing
>some neckbeard on reddit tested it, it werked
>people say store bought scale, done in basement by a nobody, not rigorous at all
>chinese test it with serious equipment, it werks
>people say gooks are crafty just looking for publicity
>nasa tests it, it werks
>people say it wasn't in a vacuum, could have been heating air and moving it
>germans test it in vacuum, it werks
>people say they won't accept it even though it has now been proven to work by three separate academic teams because they have no explanation as to why it works
>that's right, the academic community is rejecting dresden university's paper on the positive results purely because it's not supposed to work
>just like how we burned copernicus at the stake because he wasn't supposed to see earth orbiting the sun but he did
So there you have it, a revolutionary new technology being held back because of narrow-mindedness and dogmatism within the scientific community.
>>8019057
Idunno if I would fully support that explanation. I truly hope that it works but you're entirely leaving out the fact that even though these teams have measured thrust, we've put in kilonewtons and gotten out millinewtons.
>>8019070
Read the article and it will make more sense.
>>8019070
Like an ion drive only without the bulky, limited propellant, what's your point?
>>8019015
>you're 2 clicks from wikipedia
And that is literally more effort than I care to take.
I'm the one guy you want to redpill. Make it worth your time to be worth my time.
>>8019026
>no physicist takes seriously
Luckily I'm not a physicist and I don't have to care what physicists think.
I only care because OP says there's an explanation now. Dubious claims mean nothing to me, but explanations are things I can take apart. It becomes worth my time the moment someone thinks they understand it and not a moment sooner.
>I think Wikipedia understands it
Is the opposite of giving me confidence that it's worth my time to learn about or discuss.
>>8019106
You're part of the problem. As I said it was proven to work long ago but assholes like you stayed in your ivory towers scoffing at it. Whatever happened to hypotheses non fingo? Would you have ignored Newton because he gave no explanation as to why gravity worked?
>>8019106
>worth my time
look at you acting all high and mighty, if the EM Drive isn't "worth your time" then what the fuck are you doing on /sci/? Don't you have important papers to publish? Oh wait, you're a freshman.
>>8019121
>assholes like you stayed in your ivory towers scoffing at it
I'm not part of the problem, I *AM* the problem. If you want me to think this is worth mine or anyone else's time, you'll need to be able to explain more than "IT WORKS!" I don't care if it works. I don't even know what it is yet and I've literally been too lazy/busy shitposting to care what it is. It could be a device that makes pencils from empty space and it would STILL be useless IF WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS WELL ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PRODUCE NON-PENCILS. If it can make pencils, fucking great, but until you explain HOW it makes them so we can redesign and repurpose it for something more INTERESTING, it won't be WORTH DISCUSSING.
>holy shit it makes pencils
>how does it fucking do that?
>nobodyknows.jpg
>one eternity of silence
>still nobody knows
>a forever or eternities of silence
It can be interesting for a moment and to that end it's more than enough for a thread or two. It's neat if it works. It's cool. It's interesting. But it won't be a /sci/ quality topic until it actually has a /sci/ angle for /sci/ to /sci/entifically discuss. It's only as much worth my time as it is discussable. I'm not some magic superviral /biz/ associate that's going to revolutionize production of EM drives, I'm just a curious /sci/ anon with nothing better to do right now.
If I'm the problem, solve me.
>>8019126
My time is actually worth shit. I'm just saying that there's nothing to discuss if Wikipedia captures all the things worth saying. I don't want to learn what it is from Wikipedia, I want to learn what it is from someone who actually cares about it. Redpill me.
That's seriously the only valid method of discussing this.
>>8019212
Fuck you, if you don't like this thread then feel free to leave anytime
>>8019212
>If you want me to think this is worth mine or anyone else's time, you'll need to be able to explain more than "IT WORKS!"
That is literally the whole point of this thread you retard. It operates based on the Unruh Effect, which is a result of relativity.
>>8019228
About unruh radiation, can someone explain it over ? I can not find an explanation according to my knowledge of physics near the basics
>>8019238
Unruh effect is big-boy physics.
>>8019057
except that those "confirmations" have almost as much noise as signal. There's a reason why NASA keeps working on it. Unruh radiation might be an actual explanation, but in any case, more tests are required, and skepticism is always welcome in science.
/sci/, we need to test this
Let's throw some.copper together, attach it to a magnetron from a microwave oven, and measure the thrust with and without a dielectric filling the cavity.
>>8019386
You can fill my cavity any time ;3
>>8018695
Found the actual paper for anyone who's interested:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449#
>>8019064
What are you talking about tard? The "explanation" posted in OP is not based on any valid physics.
>>8019445
Read the paper faggot.
>>8019466
I read it when it was published. Retard.
oh boy, the memedrive returns
Let's say this works.
IIRC, there is fuck all thrust being produced by these test beds.
How big would one of these have to be to produce a practical level of thrust?
And am I correct in assuming it could get damn close to light speed, given enough time?
>>8019567
if it works the way OP claims it does, the thrust to weight ratio will never be anything near what would be required for real planetary use.
It would have real application for any long term slow going mission like placing satellites in solar orbits, but nothing we'd really NEED it for.
Of course, it's way cheaper than ion drives so who knows, it could end up actually being used on small craft.
So to answer your question, yeah I guess it COULD reach near light speeds after millennia of space flight, sure.
>>8019567
Now that we supposedly understand the physical basis for its operation, there are a bunch of hypothesized methods for improving its performance and I'm sure people will come up with many more. Example: the very first jet engines were absolutely nothing like the modern ultra high bypass turbofans we have now. Also it's interesting because people scoffed at the idea of jet engine much like they're scoffing at the EM Drive right now.
>>8019601
Well thats assuming that we are somewhat close to its peak performance, which I'm 50-50 on.
>>8019440
>http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449#
here's the real source:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/111/60005/
>single author
>no peer review
>no citations
>assumes that unruh radiation exists
>marine science professor
>>8019026
The article has only just been published in MIT Tech Review. And NASA is still testing it so somebody must be taking it seriously.
>>8019621
He teaches geomatics.
I just read the paper, seems like mostly simple algebra but he doesn't explain what he's even using so I have to look up what Quality Factor is in another paper or even where the other equations he starts off with come from. Kinda not sure if I should keep wasting my time on this or not though.
>>8018752
>needs help to find the discussion
>wants to go reddit for it
why bother, you obviously have no fucking idea about the actual physics either way.
>>8019028
>phonons
phonons require a solid state carrier, you fucking twat
>>8018695
>The idea is that if photons have an inertial mass, they must experience inertia when they reflect
Except that they don't, and so they don't, and all of this is experimentally non-observable to a degree of precision that is well and beyond the amount needed to produce EM-drive thrust.
>>8018695
>The idea is that if photons have an inertial mass
This would be evident by now, looks like we can throw this trash out.
Pretty interesting
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2015/10/explaining-mihsc-with-schematics.html
as long as companies are willing to invest in this, it's most likely not 'trash' as you anons are saying
What else should money go to? Saving shitty Africans?
>inb4 pol
nah
>>8020014
>eliminates need for both dark matter and dark energy
/sci/ should be eating this shit up
The guy is a crank. He also claims his hypothesis explains dark matter but is terrible at testing it. His cosmological model is just a rehash of MOND just without the honestly of admitting you're just assuming the empirical Tully-Fisher relation holds.
He doesn't understand the claims he is making. I've seen him claim his model can explain why there is little power in the CMB at large scales. However, his model doesn't have any dark matter so cannot fit the rest of the powerspectrum. He claimed at high-l it was just LambdaCDM, which is fucking nonsense. You cannot set Omega matter to Omega Baryon and fit the power spectrum. I challenged him on this and he never replied after this handwavy answer.
I also questioned him on some claims he made about colliding clusters like the bullet cluster. He seemed completely ignorant of basic physics suggesting that two bodies passing though each other with no acceleration beyond gravity was evidence of a repulsive force.
Half of the shit he claims has not been demonstrated and he does not have a firm grasp of the astronomical tests he is so fond of.
>>8020035
But it is shit, that's the problem. It's only slightly more advanced than MOND but McCulloch is no Milgrom, he doesn't understand cosmology. It has all the problems of MOND too in that it cannot do explain galaxy clustering, clusters or the CMB to name a few things.
I want to believe we sidestepped this magic while progressing, but I don't think we did.
>>8020039
I could believe this. The explanations he gives in the paper are pretty pathetic and it feels like he just made up the equations after taking a freshman physics course and it fits the data.
But if there really are 4 labs producing the data, crank or not, there could be some other explanation.
Have any of these guys tried weighing the device after doing the test in a vacuum? I bet they're somehow shooting particles off the object.
>>8020066
Fair call
Solid metallic fuel propulsion is a thing.
http://www.neumannspace.com/2015/12/fuel-of-week-aluminium.html?m=1
Using aluminium yields a specific impulse of 14,000 sec.
>>8020071
Magnesium*
>>8019228
No, the theory requires Unruh *radiation*, not simply the Unruh effect. Unruh radiation doesn't exist.
>>8019955
The article is just by some guy who blogs about arxiv stuff. And NASA is not testing it, there's just a small group studying it on their off time led by Sonny White, who looks at anything just because some crank said it can be a drive.
>>8020071
real thing or scam?
>>8019976
>he doesn't know what the quality factor is
>he's never worked with oscillatory systems
Get a load of this pleb
>>8020066
There has been one test in a vacuum by nasa, and they observed thrust no matter the direction the emdrive. I think they did another test. I haven't read the paper, but I'd imagine they would check this. This and radiation are the two obvious sources.
>>8020135
Nbody physics that didn't account for nibiru.
>>8020135
There was already an empirical fitting function before he started his work. All his model does is try to reproduce that function. It doesn't even do that well, his predictions are in tension with the Messenger data by over 6 sigma[1]!
Personally I don't put much merit in models which were designed from the offset to try to match empirical results. But then to claim the model is physical? No, that's bullshit.
His model hasn't faced a single true test, it doesn't work with cosmology and it doesn’t work in the solar system.
[1]:http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4159
>>8018695
> if the axial length is equal to the diameter of the small end of the cavity, the thrust should be reversed.
At least he makes a prediction.
Im reading his paper on 'Modified Inertia due to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect' now, to see if its legit.
>>8018695
Im seriously trying to read this guys work, but he writes like a retard.
Does anyone have a goop paper that explains MiHsC concisely?
>>8020174
He is the only person who writes about. Another red flag.
>>8020174
Just read his first paper, which is a pretty good explanation.
If give his idea a rating of 'plausible'. Plus it would makes a lot of predictions that can be tested.
>>8018883
>Energy from swastika-shaped rotors.
Finally a generator that produces WHITE POWER!
this thread is a bit unruhly tbqh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUHK1FK4fdc
>>8019567
>IIRC, there is fuck all thrust being produced by these test beds.
They're testing it with like a 1kW microwave. Of course if we scaled it up to run on a nuclear generator we'd have a lot more thrust.
>>8020251
Lel
>>8019212
I cringed
>>8020015
>injecting unrelated pol shit
>not /pol/
Nah
>>8019057
>>just like how we burned copernicus at the stake
Copernicus wasn't burned at the stake or otherwise persecuted. He was a church minister.
>>8020066
>>But if there really are 4 labs producing the data, crank or not, there could be some other explanation.
there are four labs that have tested the device, each in turn reducing the potential outside error sources, and every time they reduce outside influence the observed thrust shrinks
>"it is probably this, it just needs to be tested by someone, who knows about this stuff, other than myself"
>it r FACT, /sci/ BTFO, /sci/ on suicide watch!!!
You are as bad as media outlets, OP.
>>8020363
Whatsup nkuka?
>>8020401
Only because he died soon after publishing
>>8018695
Whaaaat.
It's still ridiculous.
>>8020156
>Personally I don't put much merit in models which were designed from the offset to try to match empirical results. But then to claim the model is physical? No, that's bullshit.
I guess we can safely throw out that Einstein guy's work on the photoelectric effect. :^)
>>8020556
Einstein's model predicted the linear relation between stopping potential and frequency of the light. That wasn't known at the time.
It made a prediction which was confirmed. This bullshit hasn't.
>>8020593
he has made a prediction.
> if the axial length is equal to the diameter of the small end of the cavity, the thrust should be reversed.
its not bad as a hypothesis, because it is falsifiable, and fits current observations.
>>8018883
...pure energy!
>>8020000
Don't forget about the fact that the speed of light has to change too! NICE QUADS
>>8020251
prrffftttt
>>8020612
But it hasn't been tested. You model gets a mention after it is tested not before. Until then it is a data fitting model, an extrapolation which is not unique.
Another point is that just that this guy claims this is all one theory does not make it monolithic, without demonstrating both results fall out of the same assumption then validating his hypothesis about EMDrive wouldn't validate his other claims.
I disagree with the statement it fits current observation. It has severe problems in fitting just the flyby data (which it was modeled on in the first place).
>>8018695
I've not looked into this, but how could the Unruh effect predict inertial mass when its existence relies on inertia?
Unruh radiation is a consequence of general relativity and quantum physics but general relativity proves (and explains, despite what this guy says) that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass.
I suppose technically Unruh radiation is just a semi-classical effect and relies more on QFT in curved spacetime and not general relativity proper, but that just makes his theory more suspect!
>>8018695
Can't believe that someone in 2016 can fall for this em drive meme. I was wrong lol
>>8020459
>and every time they reduce outside influence the observed thrust shrinks
Pretty damning.
>>8018695
No one here has the capability to do actual research on this subject, so all we can do is speculate. Saying "I am sure it works" makes you retarded. Saying "I know it doesn't work" makes you an edgy retard. Saying "It probably doesn't work because it violates what we know about physics" makes you a reasonable skeptic. Saying "I hope it works even though we don't understand why" makes you a naive idealist but there's nothing wrong with that. So pick one of those options and then go back to browsing /d/ because you have nothing to contribute to the actual science other than a thread full of aids.
>>8020669
>current year
>lol
Reddit, I...
>>8020128
>I know something you don't know
you're superior, clearly
>>8018954
Why wouldn't it?
Its just a matter of generating enough force to fight the wheel friction.
fucking dumb shit
>>8019041
it "IS" working and that's all that really matters.
science has no use whatsoever except applied technology.
>>8019212
>>i don't care if it works
nothing else matters.
asking "why" something works is a pointless exercise unless you're going to make something ELSE that works BETTER with that.
all that matters is technology.
>>8019212
>It could be a device that makes pencils from empty space and it would STILL be useless
You're saying that a device that produces energy in a form that humans can easily transform into other forms is useless? I would guess that such a machine would end world hunger and bring about a utopia.
>>8021124
If I came into a room with a box made from shit in my basement when I was shitfaced and whenever someone presses a button a pencil appears on top of it, 9 out of ten people would shit their pants or at the very least see it as something to look into. Then this motherfucket stands up and says "Nope, impossible, tell me how it works or leave"
I stammer and say I was shitfaced and I don't know, that's why I brought it to you. He dismisses me as a cranks. Meanwhile everyone else in the room is repeatedly conjuring pencils out of fucking nothing.
It's an absurd viewpoint.
