RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Russ George]

The best thing about Hotson’s EPOS are that they come from outside of our box. 
As such it appears they have access to plenty of exotic properties. That they 
might be accelerated in proportion to ‘Q’ seems a near perfect bit of magic, 
dark magic. In that the environment of an EM drive is transparent to a 
limitless population of EPOS it seems perfectly reasonable that the local 
environment inside the EM Drive has access to as many EPOS as needed to provide 
the observed thrust. The frustum is immaterial to EPOS but very much involved 
with the environment of the bouncing microwaves. That frustum is rather like a 
beach with big waves where the rip tide is a powerful vector. I think Occam 
would approve.

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 1:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

 

BTW – Ron Clark reminds me of the theory of inertia and Unruh radiation which 
appeared a few months ago, and fits into a broader possibility. Actually there 
are two varieties as well as the “flyby anomaly”. Either of them opens up the 
scenario where several tiny asymmetrical forces and effects are at work in 
Emdrive, instead of one. 

If there were just one anomaly, the argument goes that abnormal thrust should 
have been noticed before now at NASA, since even a force as small as seen in 
the truncated cone would have been problematic for Apollo. In fact, the answer 
to that is that there could be two, three or more contributors to anomalous 
thrust - all of them tiny. In most geometries they will cancel but Shawyer 
found a way to make them additive.

For instance, the cone can allow Unruh radiation of a certain wl at the large 
end but only a smaller wavelength at the other end. The inertia of photons 
inside the cavity must change as they bounce back and forth from end to end. 
This is where they can become entangled in scattering, so as to activate the 
epo field. To conserve momentum, the net effect can be to generate a tiny 
thrust, or it can cancel. A further prediction is that the thrust vector can be 
reversed 180 degrees by tailoring the radiation profile. 

 
<http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227146-a-new-theory-of-inertia-could-explain-the-em-drives-anomalous-thrust>
 
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227146-a-new-theory-of-inertia-could-explain-the-em-drives-anomalous-thrust

 
<https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601299/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/>
 
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601299/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/

Here are some parameters, or new understandings - which may interact to define 
a net thrust vector where there should be none.

1)  A better understanding of a polarizable aether

2)  A better understanding of inertia

3)  Unruh (Hawking) radiation

4)  Photon multiplication

5)  Entangled photons

6)  EPO (aether) polarization providing the displaceable element needed in 
Maxwell's equations…

7)  Parametric scattering.

I would emphasize the last one is full of possibilities. Wiki lists many known 
photon parametric nonlinear processes, most of which can arguably be involved 
with microwaves as well as light. They are overlooked in the Emdrive analysis.

1)  Second harmonic generation or frequency doubling

2)  Third harmonic generation and High harmonic generation 

3)  Nuclear Overhauser effect

4)  Optical parametric amplification (OPA), pump wave and idler wave 

5)  Spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC)

6)  Kerr effect - magneto-optic Kerr effect, or the surface magneto-optic 
Kerr effect (SMOKE)

7)  Microwave solitons

The last item – “microwave solitons” was reportedly investigated by NASA in the 
1950s (if you believe Paul LaViolette) but not much accurate information is 
available online … leaving open the curious possibility that the Sawyer effect 
may have been a “black project” under a different name for the last 60 years… 
:)  Maybe that reputed history is why it has special appeal to the LENR crowd…

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Jones Beene]

BTW – Ron Clark reminds me of the theory of inertia and Unruh radiation which 
appeared a few months ago, and fits into a broader possibility. Actually there 
are two varieties as well as the “flyby anomaly”. Either of them opens up the 
scenario where several tiny asymmetrical forces and effects are at work in 
Emdrive, instead of one. 

If there were just one anomaly, the argument goes that abnormal thrust should 
have been noticed before now at NASA, since even a force as small as seen in 
the truncated cone would have been problematic for Apollo. In fact, the answer 
to that is that there could be two, three or more contributors to anomalous 
thrust - all of them tiny. In most geometries they will cancel but Shawyer 
found a way to make them additive.

For instance, the cone can allow Unruh radiation of a certain wl at the large 
end but only a smaller wavelength at the other end. The inertia of photons 
inside the cavity must change as they bounce back and forth from end to end. 
This is where they can become entangled in scattering, so as to activate the 
epo field. To conserve momentum, the net effect can be to generate a tiny 
thrust, or it can cancel. A further prediction is that the thrust vector can be 
reversed 180 degrees by tailoring the radiation profile. 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227146-a-new-theory-of-inertia-could-explain-the-em-drives-anomalous-thrust

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601299/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/
Here are some parameters, or new understandings - which may interact to define 
a net thrust vector where there should be none.
1)  A better understanding of a polarizable aether
2)  A better understanding of inertia
3)  Unruh (Hawking) radiation
4)  Photon multiplication
5)  Entangled photons
6)  EPO (aether) polarization providing the displaceable element needed in 
Maxwell's equations…

7)  Parametric scattering.

I would emphasize the last one is full of possibilities. Wiki lists many known 
photon parametric nonlinear processes, most of which can arguably be involved 
with microwaves as well as light. They are overlooked in the Emdrive analysis.

1)  Second harmonic generation or frequency doubling
2)  Third harmonic generation and High harmonic generation 
3)  Nuclear Overhauser effect
4)  Optical parametric amplification (OPA), pump wave and idler wave 
5)  Spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC)
6)  Kerr effect - magneto-optic Kerr effect, or the surface magneto-optic 
Kerr effect (SMOKE)
7)  Microwave solitons

The last item – “microwave solitons” was reportedly investigated by NASA in the 
1950s (if you believe Paul LaViolette) but not much accurate information is 
available online … leaving open the curious possibility that the Sawyer effect 
may have been a “black project” under a different name for the last 60 years… 
:-)  Maybe that reputed history is why it has special appeal to the LENR crowd…

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[ROGER ANDERTON]

ether is Boscovichian particles known a long time; as part of ignored/forgotten 
history when attention of physics community diverted onto Einstein

will be in my talk based on abstract

http://www.noeticadvancedstudies.us/AndertonX.pdf
Boscovich theory 1758
Vigier conferenceVigier 9

|   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
| Vigier 9Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD USA Sunday 16 November - 
Wednesday 19 November, 2014 Student Center - BALLROOM 1700 East Cold Spring 
Lane, Baltimore, MD 21251 USA  |
|  |
| View on www.noeticadvancedstudies.us | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


others are now going to incorporate Boscovich into their work on Unified field 
theory 

On Sunday, 19 June 2016, 17:33, Jones Beene  wrote:
 

 RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photonsFrom: Bob Higgins Ø   
According to Don Hotson… the ether is composed of epos (shrunken, neutral, 
electron-positron orbital pairs) that can be polarized.  This provides the 
displaceable element needed in Maxwell's equations…This could be interpreted as 
consistent with the proposition that entangled photons couple to the epo field 
(the vacuum) to provide “traction” of a sort, but un-entangled photons meet 
little resistance, since they do not displace epos and thus there is no 
traction, no thrust. I’m a fan of Hotson too but his theory has multiple 
interpretations.Consequently, this may also mean that all the net thrust seen 
with the EMdrive occurs inside the cone, not outside. Specifically, entangled 
photons would polarize the epo field, which may be related to parametric 
scattering.Jones

  

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

*   According to Don Hotson… the ether is composed of epos (shrunken, 
neutral, electron-positron orbital pairs) that can be polarized.  This provides 
the displaceable element needed in Maxwell's equations…

This could be interpreted as consistent with the proposition that entangled 
photons couple to the epo field (the vacuum) to provide “traction” of a sort, 
but un-entangled photons meet little resistance, since they do not displace 
epos and thus there is no traction, no thrust. I’m a fan of Hotson too but his 
theory has multiple interpretations.

Consequently, this may also mean that all the net thrust seen with the EMdrive 
occurs inside the cone, not outside. Specifically, entangled photons would 
polarize the epo field, which may be related to parametric scattering.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Russ George]

The momentum of Higgin’s electron/positron pair would be large by comparison!

 

From: Frank Znidarsic [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 9:13 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

 

The momentum of an emitted photon is very small 

 

Momentum = energy / c



Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Frank Znidarsic]

The momentum of an emitted photon is very small


Momentum = energy / c





Frank Znidarsic

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Russ George]

That’s a cool concept

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 7:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

 

I previously observed the coincidental similarity between the difference in 
photonic thrust and Shawyer thrust and the Q of the cavity - let me propose how 
a connection might exist.

According to Don Hotson (deceased), the ether is composed of epos (shrunken, 
neutral, electron-positron orbital pairs) that can be polarized.  This provides 
the displace-able element needed in Maxwell's equations (without something to 
displace, Maxwell's assumptions fail).  They also resolve the wave particle 
duality that stimulated all of the wasted formulation in quantum mechanics (I 
say wasted because, while it works, it is an unnecessarily painful formulation 
of the problem).  So, if the vacuum is not empty, then there is something there 
that may be affected by the field enhanced by the Q of the resonator.  Epos are 
tiny and neutral, but polarizable.  They would pass easily through the metal 
resonator.  Could there be some acceleration of epos caused by the device?  If 
that were possible, then it could provide an effect proportional to the field 
and hence Q-proportional due to the field enhancement by Q.

Bob

 

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

From: Eric Walker 

Bob Higgins wrote:

But, photonic leakage still doesn't explain the measured Shawyer EM drive 
thrust.

If this is true, then I like the anisotropic neutrino explanation that has been 
floated here sometime back.  Presumably the neutrinos would come from electron 
capture (or possibly beta decay).

Eric,

A simpler explanation could be this: entangled photons couple better (to the 
vacuum) than does the same flux of un-entangled photons.

The analogy would be this: ice-treads couple better to ice than ice-skates. The 
ratio probably exceeds the 100,000:1 shortfall of the Shawyer.

 

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Bob Higgins]

I previously observed the coincidental similarity between the difference in
photonic thrust and Shawyer thrust and the Q of the cavity - let me propose
how a connection might exist.

According to Don Hotson (deceased), the ether is composed of epos
(shrunken, neutral, electron-positron orbital pairs) that can be
polarized.  This provides the displace-able element needed in Maxwell's
equations (without something to displace, Maxwell's assumptions fail).
They also resolve the wave particle duality that stimulated all of the
wasted formulation in quantum mechanics (I say wasted because, while it
works, it is an unnecessarily painful formulation of the problem).  So, if
the vacuum is not empty, then there is something there that may be affected
by the field enhanced by the Q of the resonator.  Epos are tiny and
neutral, but polarizable.  They would pass easily through the metal
resonator.  Could there be some acceleration of epos caused by the device?
If that were possible, then it could provide an effect proportional to the
field and hence Q-proportional due to the field enhancement by Q.

Bob

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Eric Walker
>
> Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> But, photonic leakage still doesn't explain the measured Shawyer EM drive
> thrust.
>
> If this is true, then I like the anisotropic neutrino explanation that has
> been floated here sometime back.  Presumably the neutrinos would come from
> electron capture (or possibly beta decay).
>
> Eric,
>
> A simpler explanation could be this: entangled photons couple better (to
> the vacuum) than does the same flux of un-entangled photons.
>
> The analogy would be this: ice-treads couple better to ice than ice-skates.
> The ratio probably exceeds the 100,000:1 shortfall of the Shawyer.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

Bob Higgins wrote:

But, photonic leakage still doesn't explain the measured Shawyer EM drive 
thrust.

If this is true, then I like the anisotropic neutrino explanation that has been 
floated here sometime back.  Presumably the neutrinos would come from electron 
capture (or possibly beta decay).

Eric,

A simpler explanation could be this: entangled photons couple better (to the 
vacuum) than does the same flux of un-entangled photons.

The analogy would be this: ice-treads couple better to ice than ice-skates. The 
ratio probably exceeds the 100,000:1 shortfall of the Shawyer.

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Russ George]

Clearly all of the ‘inside the box’ ideas cannot possibly explain the EM Drive 
thrust, that’s the interesting bit, oh no ‘bits’ are inside the dang box as 
well… now what?

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 7:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

 

As I mentioned in my previous post, if you want to see how the photons can leak 
out, just have a look at the Fabry-Perot etalon.  At resonance it is a high Q 
filter, even though the boundaries are highly reflecting.

But, photonic leakage still doesn't explain the measured Shawyer EM drive 
thrust.  The Shawyer tests are showing 0.3-0.9 mN/W of thrust, but photonic 
thrust is only 3E-6 mN/W, a ratio of >100,000!  Interestingly, Shawyer is also 
quoting present device Q's of about 50,000 which makes his thrust on the same 
order as Q x photonic thrust.

 

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 8:12 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com 
<mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Well, particles (electrons, protons, atoms, bucky balls, ignored cats) fired at 
a screen still produce an interference...

 

So maybe protons could tunnel through a barrier if there is a wave from another 
proton that interferes?

 

Could this be how tunneling works?

 

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

Oops… obviously, that should read “photon” instead of “proton”:

If photons [not protons] can become paired and out-of-phase due to some kind of 
cavity resonance effect, such that one result of the pairing is that they can 
escape metal confinement, then almost every citizen is at risk from microwave 
ovens. 

If you are old enough to remember Ralph Nader and the Corvair, another low 
point from that era was the microwave oven scare. Supposedly, this was 
debunked, but now … who knows. There certainly could be oven configurations 
which unknowingly promote photon-pairing more than others. Recently, there are 
reports of ovens with plastic windows, instead of glass windows, melting. This 
could be due to the spacing in the see-thru metal grids… who knows?

 

 

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

But, photonic leakage still doesn't explain the measured Shawyer EM drive
> thrust.
>

If this is true, then I like the anisotropic neutrino explanation that has
been floated here sometime back.  Presumably the neutrinos would come from
electron capture (or possibly beta decay).

Eric

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

As I mentioned in my previous post, if you want to see how the photons can leak 
out, just have a look at the Fabry-Perot etalon.  At resonance it is a high Q 
filter, even though the boundaries are highly reflecting…. But, photonic 
leakage still doesn't explain the measured Shawyer EM drive thrust….
Good observation, Bob - and it has a familiar ring to it. 
There is a small effect, which the inventor wants to promote as a large effect. 
That is the best description of what Rossi-gate is all about….
In the case of the EM drive, the one detail which is missing to explain how it 
“could work” is some kind of “photon multiplication”. The Mills’ effect would 
offer an explanation for that. I have little doubt that someone has suggested 
this fringe-marriage before, but it is not worth the effort to google.

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[John Berry]

No Jones, I was proposing that IF photons for make their way through a
barrier due to a cancelled waveform, then maybe protons as per your typo,
or other particles could also do so if their quantum wave functions
cancelled, and just MAYBE this is related to quantum tunneling.

And even then I'm not sure I was being serious, but then again I'm not
certain that I'm not being either.

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* John Berry
>
> Well, particles (electrons, protons, atoms, bucky balls, ignored cats)
> fired at a screen still produce an interference... So maybe protons could
> tunnel through a barrier if there is a wave from another proton that
> interferes?
>
> John,
>
> Are you suggesting that the cone be filled with hydrogen in order to
> promote tunneling which then promotes photon pairing? That would be
> unlikely, since protons would then be lost to the continued operation of
> the device making it difficult to control. BTW - Here is the paper:
>
> http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
>
> Note that if the pairing hypothesis is correct, then the cone angle could
> be important as well as the gas fill or vacuum, and other dimensions, as
> well as the geometric ratios which would favor phase conjugation. One
> would think a parabola would be favored over a cone. These parameters can
> be calculated based on the frequency of 2.45 MHz, the wavelength of about
> 12 cm. This explains why some designs work and others do not.
>
> The quantum energy of a microwave photon (using standard commercial
> magnetron) is only in the micro-eV range (10^-5 eV) which is well below
> ionizing. The interaction of photons at such low energy is limited to
> molecular rotation and torsion if there is a gaseous medium in the device, 
> instead
> of vacuum.
>
> A dilute gas fill, such that the mean free path of the atoms (or
> molecules) was kept at wavelength resonance with the photons, could help
> (or hurt) depending on the design.
>
>
> *http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/06/new-paper-claims-that-em-drive-doesnt.html#.V2LfsvkrKVM*
> 
>
> If protons can become paired and out-of-phase due to some kind of cavity
> resonance effect, such that one result of the pairing is that they can
> escape metal confinement, then almost every citizen is at risk from
> microwave
>
>

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Jones Beene]

From: John Berry 

Well, particles (electrons, protons, atoms, bucky balls, ignored cats) fired at 
a screen still produce an interference... So maybe protons could tunnel through 
a barrier if there is a wave from another proton that interferes?

John,
Are you suggesting that the cone be filled with hydrogen in order to promote 
tunneling which then promotes photon pairing? That would be unlikely, since 
protons would then be lost to the continued operation of the device making it 
difficult to control. BTW - Here is the paper:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Note that if the pairing hypothesis is correct, then the cone angle could be 
important as well as the gas fill or vacuum, and other dimensions, as well as 
the geometric ratios which would favor phase conjugation. One would think a 
parabola would be favored over a cone. These parameters can be calculated based 
on the frequency of 2.45 MHz, the wavelength of about 12 cm. This explains why 
some designs work and others do not.
The quantum energy of a microwave photon (using standard commercial magnetron) 
is only in the micro-eV range (10^-5 eV) which is well below ionizing. The 
interaction of photons at such low energy is limited to molecular rotation and 
torsion if there is a gaseous medium in the device, instead of vacuum.
A dilute gas fill, such that the mean free path of the atoms (or molecules) was 
kept at wavelength resonance with the photons, could help (or hurt) depending 
on the design. 
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/06/new-paper-claims-that-em-drive-doesnt.html#.V2LfsvkrKVM
 

 
If protons can become paired and out-of-phase due to some kind of cavity 
resonance effect, such that one result of the pairing is that they can escape 
metal confinement, then almost every citizen is at risk from microwave 

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Bob Higgins]

As I mentioned in my previous post, if you want to see how the photons can
leak out, just have a look at the Fabry-Perot etalon.  At resonance it is a
high Q filter, even though the boundaries are highly reflecting.

But, photonic leakage still doesn't explain the measured Shawyer EM drive
thrust.  The Shawyer tests are showing 0.3-0.9 mN/W of thrust, but photonic
thrust is only 3E-6 mN/W, a ratio of >100,000!  Interestingly, Shawyer is
also quoting present device Q's of about 50,000 which makes his thrust on
the same order as Q x photonic thrust.

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 8:12 AM, John Berry  wrote:

> Well, particles (electrons, protons, atoms, bucky balls, ignored cats)
> fired at a screen still produce an interference...
>
> So maybe protons could tunnel through a barrier if there is a wave from
> another proton that interferes?
>
> Could this be how tunneling works?
>
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Oops… obviously, that should read “photon” instead of “proton”:
>>
>> If photons [not protons] can become paired and out-of-phase due to some
>> kind of cavity resonance effect, such that one result of the pairing is
>> that they can escape metal confinement, then almost every citizen is at
>> risk from microwave ovens.
>>
>> If you are old enough to remember Ralph Nader and the Corvair, another
>> low point from that era was the microwave oven scare. Supposedly, this
>> was debunked, but now … who knows. There certainly could be oven
>> configurations which unknowingly promote photon-pairing more than
>> others. Recently, there are reports of ovens with plastic windows, instead
>> of glass windows, melting. This could be due to the spacing in the see-thru
>> metal grids… who knows?
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[John Berry]

Well, particles (electrons, protons, atoms, bucky balls, ignored cats)
fired at a screen still produce an interference...

So maybe protons could tunnel through a barrier if there is a wave from
another proton that interferes?

Could this be how tunneling works?

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Oops… obviously, that should read “photon” instead of “proton”:
>
> If photons [not protons] can become paired and out-of-phase due to some
> kind of cavity resonance effect, such that one result of the pairing is
> that they can escape metal confinement, then almost every citizen is at
> risk from microwave ovens.
>
> If you are old enough to remember Ralph Nader and the Corvair, another
> low point from that era was the microwave oven scare. Supposedly, this
> was debunked, but now … who knows. There certainly could be oven
> configurations which unknowingly promote photon-pairing more than others.
> Recently, there are reports of ovens with plastic windows, instead of glass
> windows, melting. This could be due to the spacing in the see-thru metal
> grids… who knows?
>

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Jones Beene]

Oops… obviously, that should read “photon” instead of “proton”:

If photons [not protons] can become paired and out-of-phase due to some kind of 
cavity resonance effect, such that one result of the pairing is that they can 
escape metal confinement, then almost every citizen is at risk from microwave 
ovens. 

If you are old enough to remember Ralph Nader and the Corvair, another low 
point from that era was the microwave oven scare. Supposedly, this was 
debunked, but now … who knows. There certainly could be oven configurations 
which unknowingly promote photon-pairing more than others. Recently, there are 
reports of ovens with plastic windows, instead of glass windows, melting. This 
could be due to the spacing in the see-thru metal grids… who knows?

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Jones Beene]

From: Russ George 

OK Dr. Photon just how do we like this news on the EM Drive and the paired out 
of phase photons? 
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/06/new-paper-claims-that-em-drive-doesnt.html#.V2LfsvkrKVM
 

 


This is most interesting – and also relevant to many of us in a more 
down-to-earth way.

If protons can become paired and out-of-phase due to some kind of cavity 
resonance effect, such that one result of the pairing is that they can escape 
metal confinement, then almost every citizen is at risk from microwave ovens. 

If you are old enough to remember Ralph Nader and the Corvair, another low 
point from that era was the microwave oven scare. Supposedly, this was 
debunked, but now … who knows. There certainly could be oven configurations 
which unknowingly promote photon-pairing more than others. Recently, there are 
reports of ovens with plastic windows, instead of glass windows, melting. This 
could be due to the spacing in the see-thru metal grids… who knows?

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[John Berry]

This reminds me of a question I have had.

Imaging we have 2 lasers putting out 2 coherent light beams along the same
path, one frequency is very slightly higher than the other.

Constrictive/destructive interference between the 2 beams mean that along
the path at time they double in strength, but at other points cancel.

So if you has thin lead shield, far far thinner than the length of the
interference wavelength, and you place this where they cancel

Surely the light would pass through this shield!

Indeed, could the light not be on slightly different paths just that they
only intersect and cancel at that one spot, and once through the shield
they no longer need to interfere!

Could some kind of diamagnetic opposite field creating energy that is
localized help to create invisibility?  Sort of a near field
superconducting anti-field that because it doesn't transmit with the light
allows an object to become invisible?

And is light ever absorbed anyway?  Or does it just result in an opposite
photon that reduces the energy to zero, both moving on forever in utter
undetectable insignificance?

John




On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:11 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:44:29
> -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >The author says:
> >
> >"photons must become paired up in order to discharge the fuel
> >cavity, so that the two photons in those pairs are essentially out
> >of phase, which means they entirely cancel each other out and have
> >no net electromagnetic field"
> >
> They also suggest that if it works the way they think it works, this will
> ensure
> a future for the technology. This is of course nonsense. If it works by
> ejecting
> photons, then you don' need the cavity at all. Just radiate the microwaves
> directly into space, or for that matter don't bother even creating
> microwaves,
> since heat would work just as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[mixent]

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:44:29 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>The author says:
>
>"photons must become paired up in order to discharge the fuel
>cavity, so that the two photons in those pairs are essentially out
>of phase, which means they entirely cancel each other out and have
>no net electromagnetic field"
>
They also suggest that if it works the way they think it works, this will ensure
a future for the technology. This is of course nonsense. If it works by ejecting
photons, then you don' need the cavity at all. Just radiate the microwaves
directly into space, or for that matter don't bother even creating microwaves,
since heat would work just as well.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

The idea that it's leaking fits well with the observation that the 
thrust involved is "incredibly small".


When you're chasing effects at the margin of what you can detect, 
totally marginal errors can totally mess up the results.


On 06/16/2016 01:36 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I don't quite understand why people think photons don't leak out of 
the Shawyer apparatus.  If you look at a Fabry-Perot resonator - two 
parallel mirrors (an etalon).  The reflectivity for each of the 
mirrors can be 99.999%, and the etalon Q will be quite high, but at 
the resonance, light will pass through the etalon with relatively 
little attenuation. This is because the energy inside the resonance is 
related to Q which is related to reflectivity.  When the reflectivity 
is high, the Q is high, so the field intensity inside the etalon is 
very high (multiplied by Q).  Then when you take that internal field 
intensity and multiply it by the reflectivity, most of the input comes 
out (at resonance).


Bob

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Russ George > wrote:


OK Dr. Photon just how do we like this news on the EM Drive and
the paired out of phase photons?

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/06/new-paper-claims-that-em-drive-doesnt.html#.V2LfsvkrKVM

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

The author says:

   "photons must become paired up in order to discharge the fuel
   cavity, so that the two photons in those pairs are essentially out
   of phase, which means they entirely cancel each other out and have
   no net electromagnetic field"


If it shoots out a pair of /out of phase/ photons whose fields "entirely 
cancel", their energy cancels as well (energy density of EM radiation 
goes as the field strength), as does their momentum (proportional to 
energy for a photon, as I recall), and the result is nothing coming out.


Nope, nope, nope.  This goes nowhere in "explaining" the drive.

And, no, you can't say "It doesn't break Newton's third law, /because/ 
it produces thrust".  That's totally backwards reasoning.


[And no, by the way, peer review doesn't == solid. /Replication/, that's 
what it takes for a result to be "solid".  The peer reviewers can catch 
arithmetic mistakes and totally bogus theory but they can't spot every 
error in lab technique, and, of course, peer review can't generally 
catch fraud.]



On 06/16/2016 01:21 PM, Russ George wrote:


OK Dr. Photon just how do we like this news on the EM Drive and the 
paired out of phase photons? 
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/06/new-paper-claims-that-em-drive-doesnt.html#.V2LfsvkrKVM

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Bob Higgins]

I don't quite understand why people think photons don't leak out of the
Shawyer apparatus.  If you look at a Fabry-Perot resonator - two parallel
mirrors (an etalon).  The reflectivity for each of the mirrors can be
99.999%, and the etalon Q will be quite high, but at the resonance, light
will pass through the etalon with relatively little attenuation.  This is
because the energy inside the resonance is related to Q which is related to
reflectivity.  When the reflectivity is high, the Q is high, so the field
intensity inside the etalon is very high (multiplied by Q).  Then when you
take that internal field intensity and multiply it by the reflectivity,
most of the input comes out (at resonance).

Bob

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Russ George  wrote:

> OK Dr. Photon just how do we like this news on the EM Drive and the paired
> out of phase photons?
> http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/06/new-paper-claims-that-em-drive-doesnt.html#.V2LfsvkrKVM
>
>
>