Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativity

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativity

Postby DeltaV » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:26 pm

Found this while browsing the EM drive thread at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.1520

Newton's Third Law in the Framework of Special Relativity
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2537
Most locomotive systems of today are based on open systems. A rocket
sheds exhaust gas to propel itself, a speeding bullet generates recoil. A car
pushes the road with the same force that is used to accelerate it, the same is
true regarding the interaction of a plane with air and of a ship with water.
However, the above relativistic considerations suggest’s a new type of motor
which is not based on a open system but rather on a closed one.

In this paper we discuss the force between two current carrying coils.
Two mathematical treatments will be given, in one we consider an instan-
taneous action at a distance, here Newton’s third law hold and the total
electromagnetic force will be shown to be equal to zero. Then we consider
the dynamic, electro-magnetic condition where the reaction to an action can-
not occur before having the action-generated information reach the affected
object, thus bringing about a non-zero resultant.

...

We have shown in this paper that in general Newton’s third law is not
compatible with the principles of special relativity and the total force on a
two current loop system is not zero.

As a final remark we will address the problem of achieving constant force
which may be of interest for locomotive applications.

...


raelik
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:10 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby raelik » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:39 pm

Not sure where this paper is trying to go. It's already generally observed that radiation reaction forces (and their gravitational analogue of inertia reaction forces) occur instantaneously.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby GIThruster » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:27 pm

That was my thought as well. Looks like they're engineers with no training in Relativity, who think they've found an unbalanced force and exception to Conservation because they're assuming something the physicists do not. I would note though, that it is because we observe these reaction forces are instantaneous, that we are forced into something like the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory. Some people seem to think that reliance upon this theory is a weakness in Woodward's work, but the reverse is true. If you have to rely upon something that gives less than instantaneous reaction in these scenarios, you know you have something that is not supported by experiment.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

tokamac
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:50 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby tokamac » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:49 pm

That's what I think also. But still, have a look at Pr. Asher Yahalom's curriculum vitae: http://www.ariel.ac.il/sites/ayahalom/

And cross-posting Dr. Rodal's comment from NSF, about the authors and the academic journal EPJ where their paper has been published:
The European Physical Journal arose in 1998 as a merger and continuation of the very prestigious journals Zeitschrift für Physik, Journal de Physique, Il Nuovo Cimento, and other journals.

The authors are associated with the renowned Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, an international research institute for mathematics and theoretical physics adjoining the Cambridge University Centre for Mathematical Sciences. In 1993 the British mathematician Andrew Wiles announced at the Institute his proof of Fermat's last theorem. Its director as of May 2012 was Cambridge University Professor John Toland (who is famous for formally proving in 1978, Stokes' conjecture on the existence of gravity waves of maximum height on deep water, a previously open problem in mathematical hydrodynamics which dated back to the 19th century).

Maybe that paper should be further considered?

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby GIThruster » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:54 pm

I guess if it goes into a peer review journal there would be some warrant for that, but you know ARXIV is about the opposite of that. It;'s a great resource but lots of people publish there because you need almost no qualifications and people don't do much in the way of reviews of the work posted there.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

raelik
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:10 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby raelik » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:55 pm

Indeed, Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory (which is not mentioned at all in the paper) immediately sprang to my mind while reading it. That said, I wouldn't dismiss the paper completely out of hand, as this may point to an electromagnetic parallel to Mach effects hiding within SRT.

pbelter
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby pbelter » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:13 pm

Wheeler-Feynman is the most troubling aspect of Woodward effect. Which doesn't mean it is not true but rather counterintuitive and just "troubling"

From what I understood from reading Woodward's book the instantaneous gravitational force propagation that causes inertia is not really "instantaneous" but an effect of a wave travelling backward in time, or from the future from the perspective of an object observing the "instantaneous" inertial force. In order to reach the object experiencing inertia, the wave must have started before the object started accelerating in order to propagate with speed of light and reach the object at the time it started accelerating. The further a mass is from the accelerating object the sooner the wave must have started. Therefore in a galaxy a few billion lights away waves are already sent to cause inertia to objects that are not going to accelerate for a billion of years.

If a wave can travel from the future then, possibly a way might be found to detect it, making it an information carrier. If we can build a wormhole such as dr Woodward talks about and instantaneously travel, say 10 light years away, then detect such waves that are travelling our way and step back through the wormhole, we will know about movements of objects in our neighborhood, 10 years before they happen..

If that all holds up that means there is no free will... and that is most troubling.

tokamac
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:50 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby tokamac » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:35 pm

GIThruster wrote:I guess if it goes into a peer review journal there would be some warrant for that, but you know ARXIV is about the opposite of that. It;'s a great resource but lots of people publish there because you need almost no qualifications and people don't do much in the way of reviews of the work posted there.

Precisely. That what I said: the paper has been published in the peer-reviewed European Physical Journal:

  • Tuval, M.; Yahalom, A. (November 2014). "Newton's third law in the framework of special relativity". The European Physical Journal Plus 129 (11). doi:10.1140/epjp/i2014-14240-x.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby GIThruster » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:58 pm

pbelter wrote:If that all holds up that means there is no free will... and that is most troubling.


This is primarily a philosophical issue, and at times a theological one as well. I would just note that the emotionally disturbing portion of it is removed once one stipulates a difference between "free will" and a "free moral agent". Just because form the aspect of the future, the past is set, does not mean we do not face authentic choices, including moral ones. Augustine's Free Will Defense is useful in this regard. More physicists should read it. I haven't read it in 25 years so i can't say much more.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

hanelyp
Posts: 2253
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby hanelyp » Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:34 pm

My gut says the author made a goof somewhere. Of course if the imbalance amounts to performance no better than a photon rocket it's not that big of a deal.

...instantaneous gravitational force propagation...

That's inconsistent with my understanding of General Relativity.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby GIThruster » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:12 pm

hanelyp wrote:
...instantaneous gravitational force propagation...

That's inconsistent with my understanding of General Relativity.

See Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory. It is the sum of half the combined advanced and retarded waves that gives instantaneous effects, but the waves individually are not instantaneous. Wiki is pretty good on this.
Last edited by GIThruster on Sat Mar 28, 2015 4:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

pbelter
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby pbelter » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:11 pm

If we can open up a wormhole 10 light years away and measure the waves coming in then step back an know the future movements of objects in our neighborhood, then this creates a paradox, as what would stop us if we wanted o influence that movement?

I see couple of options to resolve it

1. We can't build wormholes or devise any other way to get information form a different point is space faster than the speed of light can deliver it to us

2. We can but there is really no free will and all of our future actions are already predetermined no matter what we do.

3. The wave travelling backward through time is a poor explanation of the phenomenon. Is the 3 billion years away galaxy gravitational interacting with locally accelerating object from the spot where it was 3 billion years ago or where it is now? It would make sense that the interaction is from where it was 3 billion years ago, when the wave was generated and this potentially may be measurable by very advanced tech, proving or disproving the hypothesis. This would be a way to distinguish the Wheeler–Feynman absorber from an instantaneous force propagation.

4. There is no way to measure that wave as any measurement would interact with it and therefore the wave could not be generated in the first place. Similar issue as in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. But if that it the case then we are looking at theory that predicts a phenomenon that cannot be measured and therefore it is not falsifiable

1 & 2 are depressing, 3 means that we really don't understand what is going on , or at least not in easily comprehensible terms. 4 means we have a non falsifiable hypothesis, which means that we can't prove anything except getting a working apparatus and even then we still cannot be sure whether it works the way we think it works.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby GIThruster » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:24 pm

pbelter wrote:4 means we have a non falsifiable hypothesis, which means that we can't prove anything except getting a working apparatus. . .

Falsification doesn't ever prove anything. It can only disprove. The fact you cannot disprove an hypothesis, is not an argument against it. No dictates of pure reason are falsifiable. Popper really wasn't all that clever. An hypothesis that is not falsifiable will be less useful, but it does not approach proof in either case. The point with an unfalsifiable hypothesis is, you have a working explanation for the concern you had, and until that explanation is shown not to work, it serves its purpose. That's all science ever does at its best. There's that and when we prove what is not the case which though most helpful, is not emotionally satisfying. Having an answer that works is satisfying, even though we can't ever prove it.

As per free will, the subject is far more complex than you make it out to be. From the point of view of the future, the past is set. From our point of view our past is set. You can look backward and say, "I chose to wear those plaid pants to the golf tournament" and from that perspective, your course is chosen and cannot be changed, so you would be inclined to believe there was no choice there, but there was. Just because there is no longer, does not mean the choice at the time was not authentic. It was and you bear all the moral responsibility for wearing plaid in public. It does not remove responsibility to say "the future is set--it is really out there." It is set and it is out there, but we ares till going to make it what it will be, and it is only our perspective locked in time that makes the antinomy seem a paradox. Augustine's chief contribution to the issue was, at least in my opinion; to recognize this distinction between antinomy and paradox, and note it is our temporal status that makes us think this is a paradox when it is actually not.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

paperburn1
Posts: 2449
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby paperburn1 » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:25 pm

This short video with V sauce and bill Nye explains it all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOwRb584r1c
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby AcesHigh » Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:36 am

Stormbringer wrote:Mr March; I assume you are far far far more familiar with Dr Woodward's nailing down spurious signals than I but I just got through that portion of his book. He basically nuked every potential source of spurious signal in his apparatus and because he is using a nearly identical set up until you get to the frustrum itself his analysis is germain to this project. He appears to have authoritatively disproved every thing we have considered here WRT spurious signals; leaving the problem of what the thrust signal really results from.

That does not give us the answer to what is going on but it does tell us what it is not.

I guess in replication everyone has to redo that work but I cannot help but feel that it is sort of a waste of time to do that all over again. likewise; since I am pretty sure Dr White and yourself know all about Dr Woodward's spurious signal source crushing that the Eagleworks team has also done the same.

I would therefore assume you guys are very confident you have something real and that it is not explained by mundane errors.



PaulMarch wrote:Stormbringer:

"Mr. March; I assume you are far far far more familiar with Dr Woodward's nailing down spurious signals than I but I just got through that portion of his book. He basically nuked every potential source of spurious signal in his apparatus and because he is using a nearly identical set up until you get to the frustrum itself his analysis is germain to this project."

As you probably know Dr. White and I would not be in this business if it were not for Dr. James F. Woodward's valiant efforts in first bringing to light in 1988 his Mach-Effect conjecture, gladly sharing his vision and knowledge with others like us, and then Jim's tireless efforts to experimentally prove his M-E conjecture while suffering through his stage-4 lung and other cancer treatments for the last nine years plus. And you are also correct in saying that Dr. Woodward has addressed and/or corrected every known error source in his toque pendulum setup over the last 15 years. In other words IMO Jim has a near bullet proof experimental test setup and Sonny and I have tried to use as much of Dr. Woodward's experimental insights on our test setup in the Eagleworks Lab's torque pendulum as was applicable.

"Likewise; since I am pretty sure Dr White and yourself know all about Dr. Woodward's spurious signal source crushing that the Eagleworks team has also done the same."

Jim Woodward and I have been talking through front and back channels since March of 1998 and continue to do so to this day as needed. In fact my wife and I stayed with Jim and his lovely wife Carole for a few days in his CO retreat during our summer break last August to be with good friends and to discuss his ongoing work and tell Jim about our project at Eagleworks Lab. And we've tried to incorporate as much of this corporate knowledge that Dr. Woodward has developed over the years that my poor brain can assimilate, for Dr. Woodward is one brilliant experimenter to which I can only aspire to emulate. However Dr. White and Dr. Woodward had a professional falling out back in 2007 when Sonny decided that the Mach-Effect was not the whole story and that the quantum mechanical aspects of this business had to be addressed as well, where Dr. Woodward was content to rely on just Special & General Relativity Theory and Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces for his explanation for the observed data.

"I would therefore assume you guys are very confident you have something real and that it is not explained by mundane errors."

As we say in the lab, WE think there IS a there, there and yes, we feel quite strongly about that point and continue to build a case for the reality of the effects we've been able to bring to light and to find ways to scale them up in magnitude. Of course whether the effects we are examining are just SRT/GRT based, or whether we have to also evoke known and obscure quantum effects and perhaps even new physics to explain these observed phenomenon is currently what's in play. But in my opinion we will end up coming to terms with what the thing we call gravity really is by the time this project is finally put into the history books.

Best, Paul M.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests