/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9759713
where were you when you found out the em drive was a glorified compass

>>9759713
EM drive is nothing compared to pilot wave propuslion and electrogravitics(CLASSIFIED). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwOkzaqzog

>>9759966
>Pilot wave

JS Bell has some bad news for you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

>>9759966
Bell's theorem doesn't absolutely rule out Bohmian mechanics.
In fact, one of the reasons Bohm lost out to Copenhagan was that Bohm REQUIRED nonlocality and, at the time, that was too much to stomach.
Of course, Bell doesn't mean Bohm was right either. Both theories make the same predictions for all experiments tried thus far.

But I agree with you (what I suspect you believe, anyway) that the link in >>9759966 is outright nuttiness! Tin foil hat material.

>>9760074
Bell's theorem doesn't absolutely rule out Bohmian mechanics.
In fact, one of the reasons Bohm lost out to Copenhagan was that Bohm REQUIRED nonlocality and, at the time, that was too much to stomach.
Of course, Bell doesn't mean Bohm was right either. Both theories make the same predictions for all experiments tried thus far.

But I agree with you (what I suspect you believe, anyway) that the link in >>9759966 is outright nuttiness! Tin foil hat material.

>>9759966
> classified
> on youtube

>>9759966
>Pilot wave theory

That's just Copenhagen with extra steps, why bother?

>>9760104
>Tin foil hat material.

I'll break it down. Waves can be exploited to propel particles. Scaled up, a properly placed aetheric wave can be used to propel a whole structure (example: ship) at great velocities. This has been done before and it's the reason why UFOs use high voltage electricity for flight. Electricity at the subatomic scale is pure kinetic energy. Here is a liquid example, same principle - different medium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5TUneTiFWU

>>9760217
>I'll break it down

You really don't have to. The objection to this kind of trash has very little to do with others inability to understand it.

This shit amounts to scientific mysticism. Maybe pass a physics course before spouting off

>>9760228
>This shit amounts to scientific mysticism.

This is basic Bohmian mechanics applied to the aether. There is nothing mystical about it. Only a fool would see it as magic.

>>9760217
Show me a UFO with high voltage electrical engines
Show me a paper by Bohm himself (not by people citing Bohm to "prove" their crackpot theories) which mentions aether in any context other than as an analogy.

Don't bother explaining the exact configuration of your tin foil hat.
It's going to take more than handwaving on YouTube to lift so much as a milligram off the surface of the Earth.
If you're not just a troll, you're clueless.

>>9760134
Well, Bohm does introduce the additional complication of pilot waves.
On the other hand, he does away with the mysterious collapse of the wave function.
Physicists really don't like either concept, but it's those two, Everett, or just "shut up and calculate!"
Mathematically they all give the same answers.
Until someone comes up with a new idea or experiment, I think which you believe is "real" is philosophical.
Some famous physicist (sorry, I don't recall which) said he believed Copenhagen Mondays, Wednesdays, and Friday. Bohm on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Everett on alternate Sundays.

>>9760245
This is to actual physics what alchemy is to chemistry

>>9760302
Don't forget decoherence.

>>9759713
well, it was a fun ride

>>9760302
I'll tell you something actual physicists don't like in 2018: Theories that aren't lorentz-invariant. Judging by the whole bunch of [math]\nabla[/math]s in the theory's equations, I'm going to guess pilot wave doesn't play well with relativity.

>>9760287
>Show me a UFO with high voltage electrical engines
Stephen Michalak UFO incident. Pretty much every flying saucer uses high voltage electricity which is made evident by the surrounding plasma. There is a reason they glow brightly at night. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEgdmO7vVJU

>>9760217
The problem is that water exists and aether doesn't.

>>9760319
Atomic clock experiments are originally interpreted as proof of Einstein's spacetime model. What if I told you that they are actually measuring aetheric flux that affects electron charge. Aether and electrons share a very close relationship.

If the atomic clock interpretation is not enough, we can take a look at the common household magnet. What conventional models call "fields" are in actuality aetheric perturbations in the form of vortices. You see, space is never empty. Mix some nano iron particulate in oil and witness the fine structures for yourself. There is not enough kinetic energy for useful work but it is nonetheless there. To believe "fields" can be suspended in a void of nothingness, without a supporting structure, was a major mistake.

>>9760360
>Measuring aetheric flux that affects electron charge

So you've found a quantifiable effect of the aether. Neat! Show us the equation.

>>9760360
>supporting structure

supporting structure = supporting medium.

>>9760360
Physicists don't take fields as physical. They haven't since the 1900s. It's just useful to describe mathematically.

Why are your aether vortexes frame dependent, height dependent, and energy dependent when aether studies in the last few years put the bonds on aether flow to less than .05km/s?

>>9760371
citation?

>>9760360
The aether is photons.

>>9760371
Waiting for citation. I sincerely believe aether can best be described as a subatomic plasma made of neutrinos. It goes by other names such as quantum soup. Aetheric structures are governed by plasma dynamics. Waves can be self-propagating since energy is already present in the medium.

>>9760360
I would tell you that you have no experimental evidence that backs up your hypotheses and you should get some first.

>>9760384
>>9760413
Read literally any introductory EM text. Fields are not needed since aether is no longer needed to explain light propagation. Its literally been common knowledge since the early 1900s.

If you believe something else, great. Show us some math with specific predictions.

>>9760413
God I hate fucking cranks
Fuck off aether faggot, go scream in a desert

Christ I hate scientific dogmatism. This series of experiments was well with pursuing if only to quantify the null hypothesis. There was always the slight possibility of some discovery.

The irony is that dogmatists who shout down these things as woo would also take theories like dark matter as canon, despite all the holes.

>>9760557
>no experimental evidence that backs up your hypotheses

The hypothesis reflects the most recent work in quantum vacuum fluctuations. Not something one can just pull out of their ass.

>>9760674
>vacuum fluctuations
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143
https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.03291

>>9760674
And yet here you are, just pulling it right out of your ass.

>>9759736
Kek essentially

>>9760316
>cites "evidence"
>unsolved mysteries with dennis farina, a for entertainment TV show
W E W L A D
W
E
W
L
A
D

>fine tune experiment in the name of science
>learn several things in the process
>stupid cunts on internet: LOOOLL WOOO DEBUNK

>>9759713
wait, if it works under magnetic field of Earth, can we just create strong magnetic field on ship so it makes thrust without propulsion?

>>9762074
Jesus christ brainlets.

>>9760314
Gives the same mathematical results as Copenhagen.
Because Copenhagen is also non Lorentz-invariant.
I'm not taking sides.
GR and QM (all interpretations) don't play well together.
So we know they're only approximations of the TOE.

>>9760309
Right. But I figured that came under "collapse of the wave function"

>>9760413
You are an ignorant crank. There is no f***ing aether!!!

But it's fair to ask for a citation.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
"confirmed the absence of any aether wind at the 1E−17 level"
The wiki entry cites the specific paper.

>>9762074
It's thrusting AGAINST the field.
If you make your own field, you're thrusting against your own ship and forces cancel.


>>9760652 and >>9761361 are right.
The experiments were worth doing.
Quoting Asimov; "The most important phrase in science is not 'eureka!' but 'that's funny!'"
Advances are made when a theory, pushed to the limits, starts to break down.

Now, Shawyer's "theory" was whacko from the get-go. His own claims about operation were self-contradictory.
Woodward, on the other hand, is, at the very least, sane and understands physics. Win or lose, it's worth getting to the bottom of his device as well.

>>9762089
>Copenhagen isn't lorentz-invariant
>What is quantum field theory

>>9762107
> There is no f***ing aether!!!

Electron charge is dependent on the aether. Atomic clock experiments weren't measuring "spacetime". They were measuring electron flux caused by aether drag.

>>9762193
No matter how many times you repeat shit, it's still shit.
Experimental evidence (and not from YouTube or the "Journal of Ufology") is required if you expect to be taken seriously.

>>9762127
All forms of QM assume a "fixed background"

>>9762218
>, it's still shit.

I made the same statement because of its significance. A whole new world awaits those capable of understanding it. Enjoy your relativity anon.

>>9762221
They assume a flat metric, which is very different from not being lorentz invariant.

QFT is actually just QM with special relativity. The problem comes in with GENERAL relativity.

>>9760314
you’re right, you can’t get QFT out of pilot wave theory. Brainlets ignore this because dur hurr muh determinism

>>9762193
>aetherfag

Examine it further, make equations for it that model an actually observed phenomena, Deepak.
It will become apparent it doesn't work.

>>9759713
Give me the brainlet rundown

Seems like it does work, just not in the way we presumed

Given this, is it likely to make transport on earth easier in any way? Or is it just irrelevant

>>9763549
EM drives would be so low thrust, if they sid work, they'd only be plausible in deep space.
But as something of a surprise to no one, they don't work.

>>9760074
>Bell's theorem disproves pilot waves

>>9763549
The "thrust" people measured from the EM drive was always known to be weak, but now they realized it makes that weak thrust even when it's turned off.

That's because it's not making thrust at all, it's just being hit by the magnetic field.

>>9763549
Say you parked your car so that the passenger side door was against a pressure plate and then stuck it in neutral and revved the engine. If you observe a signal from the pressure plate, you would probably be hard pressed to explain how that was a result of motive force from the engine and not some weird side effect of the test setup.

Just swap EM Drive for your car.

>>9764203
Eh, no.
One experiment indicates that there are no thrust and that the measurements are due to magnetic field leakage influencing the measurements.

That is a plausible explanation and probably the real one, BUT, one experiment isn't proof. And there are problems even with this German experiment: They did their measurement at a very lower drive power and the wiring of their setup seem sub-optimal.

The first problem is the most important one, all EM drive tests indicate that they are exceptionally power consuming: the thrust per watt is very low so that measuring a setup in a very low power setting will exaggerate any error sources.

The German team first state that they have a larger thrust measurement at 2W compared to the NASA test at 60W - then they show that it isn't actually a measured thrust but induced noise from the electromagnetic leakage.

Why didn't they test their setup at a similar power as other experiments? As it is now they have only shown that their setup is bad and that electromagnetic leakage dwarfs any actual thrust produced by the drive.

>>9759713
>the EM Drive bullshit got debunked

anyone with enough sense to understand the question already knew the answer

>>9762364
>you’re right, you can’t get QFT out of pilot wave theory. Brainlets ignore this because dur hurr muh determinism

Oh, yes we can. Under Hydro-dynamics and plasma dynamics you can create the same dynamic structures such as vortices and toroids. Many of the interactions governing nuclear, gravity and electromagnetism can be replicated at various scales. Stripping away physical reality for mathematical perfection is madness. Magnetic fields for example, share many properties of a vortex. The real question we should be asking: a vortex of what? I propose it is an aetheric vortex. Staying with physical and deterministic reality opens up a whole new paradigm. You would be surprised at the amount of practical inventions people have created over this one simple concept.

>>9764323
Here is a hydrodynamic analog of when matter forms from the aether. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

Could nature be so elegant at the quantum scale? Funny how geniuses always expect something more complex and don't see the answers that are right in front of them.

>>9764323
I'd love to show the maths for this. Does it make any specific measurable predictions?

>>9764285
Their measurement apparatus was way better than eagleworks's setup. if an effect was real then they should be able to see it even at a lower power, even with the signal to noise problem.

>>9764346
*see the maths, obviously

>>9764346
>love to show the maths for this. Does it make any specific measurable predicti

Physical demonstration of pilot wave theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

>>9764323
Again: Show us the fucking equations. Pilot wave lacks lorentz invariance. QFT makes accurate predictions of collider experiments, pilot waves let brainlets wrongly feel like they're smarter than mainstream science.

>>9764350
I agree. But wouldn't it be better to try to optimize the chance of actually measuring thrust if there is any (not likely)?

Fully expect them to publish a more thorough report when they have fixed the problems with magnetic leakage, hopefully also trying at a higher drive power.

>>9764374
Sure, but if their setup isn't ideal, the optimal way to measure thrust might be at the low power settings, not the high power settings. If they suspect noise creeps in at the higher power settings from the experimental setup, then there has to be a sweet spot whether the signal to noise ratio is best even if the power isn't as high as it could be.

>>9764367

Why don't you calculate the energy contained in this half-toroid sustained in a liquid medium that allows it to propagate across the pool? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72LWr7BU8Ao

>>9764323
nope

>>9764403
Hmmm, gee, golly Wally, I wonder what practical use one could possibly have for high energy aetheric stable toroids? Aether science is not real! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwOkzaqzog

>>9764441
Yes, and the power of fucking friendship would probably be useful if it existed, too. Fields aren't fluids.

>>9764545

Fields are structures in a medium. What is that medium made of at the pico scale and smaller? Mathematical models strip out these fundamental questions. Fluid dynamics is extremely relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VL0M0jmu7k

>>9760652
Then I'm proud to be called Dogmatist. We already know almost everything there is to know and I feel very satisfied another tinfoiler nonsense has been utterly debunked by Science.

>>9764545
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig0ENGq7AZk

>>9764570
>We already know almost everything there is to know..

How old are you? like 16?

>>9764587
>The properties of fluids are an argument for things that are not fluids

>>9764323
Still waiting for any mathematics or any concrete prediction from this so-called "theory" of yours, buddy.

>>9764638
magnetohydrodynamics

>>9764673
The existence of electrically charged fluids does not make fundamental fields fluids.

>>9764645
There are plenty of predictions. I am not going to write a thesis here. However, here is my favorite observation: Imagine an aetheric toroid (magnetic "field") encountering a metal lattice. You get basic magnetohydrodynamics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rptRdPft1hs

>>9764703
>I am not going to write a thesis here

Write.

One.

Equation.

>>9764683
What is a field made of? The space between electron and nucleus, is it truly "empty"?

>>9764723
Theres no reason to think fields exist.
They can't be measured even.

>>9764734
>Theres no reason to think fields exist.
>They can't be measured even.

So the magnetic field and its lines are a delusion when viewed with iron fillings? hahaha

>>9764734
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9S3ikiL3Ow

>>9759713
Good riddance, can we get back to developing VASIMIR and a kick ass power system?