3 ms·
As far as i understand it, there no free energy being claimed i.e. they still need to power the drive. What's being claimed is a drive that creates thrust with
by lucozade 10y ago
As far as i understand it, there no free energy being claimed i.e. they still need to power the drive.
What's being claimed is a drive that creates thrust without a reaction (in the Newtonian sense). If true, from a physics point of view, this is huge. Less clear about its immediate practical implications other than it may make a useful thruster for spacecraft.
To put it in its historical context, its hardly unprecedented that we pass the bounds where Newtonian physics is an adequate model. It's definitely not the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.
- leephillips 10y agoEnergy-momentum conservation is more fundamental than Newtonian physics. It's part of the structure of spacetime. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/the-female-mathematician-who-changed-the-course-of-physics-but-couldnt-get-a-job/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/the-female-mathematic...
- lucozade 10y agoThere's possibly another, more subtle, interpretation. It may be that the structure of spacetime does not necessarily exhibit this conservation. However, all scientifically observable phenomenon must, by definition, exhibit space, time and rotational invariants. Otherwise they can't be scientifically observable i.e. by repeatable experiments. From Noether's theorem, this means that the scientifically observable phenomena must exhibit at least energy, momentum and angular momentum conservation. Either in the laws that govern the phenomena or the consequences of a, potentially violating, law that do conserve. It's an interesting take on the duality, at least it is to me.
- leephillips 10y agoI think there are some interesting ideas here, thanks.