5 ms·

Or, it's a scientific breakthrough. That won't happen often, but it also can't be ruled out completely.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
At the very least, if we can't figure out why it doesn't really work, we're likely to learn something new proving it doesn't.
Certhas 10y ago
If it's free energy or free momentum, using only physics that has been perfectly described in hundreds of millions of contexts and experiments, for one and a half centuries, using mathematics that don't allow for either, you can rule out this alternative. The likelihood that free momentum and free energy are possible is indistinguishable from 0. They are empirically impossible in the strongest reasonable sense the word can have.
- HCIdivision17 10y ago
  The critical detail here is that this is neither free energy nor free momentum in this setup. Energy is pumped in, and some momentum is generated - that's incredibly boring and not at all something that should raise any skepticism. The question of what in the hell was being pushed against to convert that energy to momentum, on the other hand, is a really interesting question, but not one to deeply pursue until we're actually sure it's happening. Which seems like the cavity wasn't the interesting bit in the end. A shame and a bit boring after so much careful testing, but nothing to get worked up over. And the experiments didn't make it obvious that the setup didn't work. I mean, I don't think anyone took the inventor's theoretical claims seriously, but the device did generate some small thrust in a difficult to explain way. Besides, we know that space isn't nothing, so being able to tractor against whatever is there would be a rather intersting engineering find; physicists would then likely take the experiment and go "oh, there's a neat edge case in this system of equations that explains it". There are a lot of interesting edge cases left to find and engineer.
  - Certhas 10y ago
    Free momentum WAS claimed. Hence the space engine applications talked about everywhere. Momentum is conserved independently, it can not be created from energy without spilling some the other way (into whatever you're pushing against). The vacuum is a translation invariant state so you can't push against it to get momentum either, but you can create particles out of it and then push against those. That's what electro magnetic thrusters do. They generate photons. The effect is just super tiny.
  - Roboprog 10y ago
    Sure, something that worked like a Bussard ramjet, but without necessarily funneling all the particles through the craft itself, would still be useful. Grab all the hydrogen (and any bonus dust) within a few kiloclicks and throw it backwards at relativistic speed. Well, if one know how to create such an effect...
- davesque 10y ago
  I feel like you're suggesting that the universe springs forth from scientific theory and not the other way around.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting. The universe and the science that describe it are the same thing. Much as I am the same thing as the chemicals and reactions that describe me. However, our understanding of the science may be flawed, and perhaps that's what you're really meaning to say.
    - cgriswald 10y ago
      That seems a bit like saying a CAD file describing a roller coaster is the roller coaster. We have a model of our perception of the universe
      - aminorex 10y ago
        In that model, our model is the universe.
      - jdmichal 10y ago
        A roller coaster is a physical object. A CAD drawing of it is a model. I could make a roller coaster from the model, but the model is not the roller coaster. On the other hand, the universe is nothing more than the set of constraints that we call "science". The universe is the model, and science is an effort to duplicate that model.
    - davesque 10y ago
      I'm confused. Was your response to me or Certhas? If it was to me, I don't agree. Science is a collection of human ideas that exist in the minds of humans. As another commenter said, it's our model of the universe. There is no difference between science and our understanding of science unless you're talking about differences in understanding between individual people.

At the very least, if we can't figure out why it doesn't really work, we're likely to learn something new proving it doesn't.

Certhas 10y ago

If it's free energy or free momentum, using only physics that has been perfectly described in hundreds of millions of contexts and experiments, for one and a half centuries, using mathematics that don't allow for either, you can rule out this alternative. The likelihood that free momentum and free energy are possible is indistinguishable from 0. They are empirically impossible in the strongest reasonable sense the word can have.

HCIdivision17 10y ago
The critical detail here is that this is neither free energy nor free momentum in this setup. Energy is pumped in, and some momentum is generated - that's incredibly boring and not at all something that should raise any skepticism. The question of what in the hell was being pushed against to convert that energy to momentum, on the other hand, is a really interesting question, but not one to deeply pursue until we're actually sure it's happening. Which seems like the cavity wasn't the interesting bit in the end. A shame and a bit boring after so much careful testing, but nothing to get worked up over. And the experiments didn't make it obvious that the setup didn't work. I mean, I don't think anyone took the inventor's theoretical claims seriously, but the device did generate some small thrust in a difficult to explain way. Besides, we know that space isn't nothing, so being able to tractor against whatever is there would be a rather intersting engineering find; physicists would then likely take the experiment and go "oh, there's a neat edge case in this system of equations that explains it". There are a lot of interesting edge cases left to find and engineer.
- Certhas 10y ago
  Free momentum WAS claimed. Hence the space engine applications talked about everywhere. Momentum is conserved independently, it can not be created from energy without spilling some the other way (into whatever you're pushing against). The vacuum is a translation invariant state so you can't push against it to get momentum either, but you can create particles out of it and then push against those. That's what electro magnetic thrusters do. They generate photons. The effect is just super tiny.
- Roboprog 10y ago
  Sure, something that worked like a Bussard ramjet, but without necessarily funneling all the particles through the craft itself, would still be useful. Grab all the hydrogen (and any bonus dust) within a few kiloclicks and throw it backwards at relativistic speed. Well, if one know how to create such an effect...
davesque 10y ago
I feel like you're suggesting that the universe springs forth from scientific theory and not the other way around.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting. The universe and the science that describe it are the same thing. Much as I am the same thing as the chemicals and reactions that describe me. However, our understanding of the science may be flawed, and perhaps that's what you're really meaning to say.
  - cgriswald 10y ago
    That seems a bit like saying a CAD file describing a roller coaster is the roller coaster. We have a model of our perception of the universe
    - aminorex 10y ago
      In that model, our model is the universe.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      A roller coaster is a physical object. A CAD drawing of it is a model. I could make a roller coaster from the model, but the model is not the roller coaster. On the other hand, the universe is nothing more than the set of constraints that we call "science". The universe is the model, and science is an effort to duplicate that model.
  - davesque 10y ago
    I'm confused. Was your response to me or Certhas? If it was to me, I don't agree. Science is a collection of human ideas that exist in the minds of humans. As another commenter said, it's our model of the universe. There is no difference between science and our understanding of science unless you're talking about differences in understanding between individual people.