5 ms·

> This is pretty good news if only that we will get more research into this phenomenon. Or maybe it's just a waste of time/money? (I'm not being facetious for

> This is pretty good news if only that we will get more research into this phenomenon. Or maybe it's just a waste of time/money? (I'm not being facetious for the sake of it. See cjensen's comment[1]) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12995341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12995341

lJ9Ni044GH3z 10y ago
What similar research is the time and money better spent on?
sonium 10y ago
Speaking as a experimental physicist: The research shown is relatively inexpensive, and can be pulled off with what many labs probably have lying around anyways. I'm sure it's more a work of love anyways and the guys doing this are probably facing serious headwind for trying 'crazy stuff'.
- lifeisstillgood 10y ago
  Shouldn't crazy stuff be exactly why we fund tenured positions? I would like to think tenure still produces crazy scientists
  - lutusp 10y ago
    > Shouldn't crazy stuff be exactly why we fund tenured positions? Crazy stuff becomes an option after one is granted tenure, it doesn't necessarily make one more likely to achieve tenure. On the other hand, theoretical physicists aren't very expensive -- they only need a blackboard and an eraser. Compare that to a philosopher -- much the same but without the eraser.
    - lifeisstillgood 10y ago
      Badah dum tish!
      - oceanswave 10y ago
        Classic, textbook example of lifeisgood-oceanswave syndrome.
  - lomnakkus 10y ago
    I think you misunderstand. Tenure is usually granted to people with a (sometimes minor) track record of their ideas working out. Essentially it amounts to a bet on things to come, or IOW of "is person X a crank or not?". This, of course, is also tied to the field in which they are working, etc. (Sure, some good researchers turn into cranks later in life[1], but usually in a different -- often unrelated -- field.) [1] Nobel prize winners often succumb to this, sadly.
    - MPSimmons 10y ago
      Seems like having the preeminent researchers in a field be the ones to do the weirdest research while teaching students on the foundations and established research is a pretty solid decision.
    - grkvlt 10y ago
      I guess you're referring to Brian Josephson, who went from superconductors (Nobel prize) to things like telepathy etc. but I'm interested if there are other examples. A quick search turns up Kary Mullis as a possible other example, but I don't know too much about him, and it's a difficult topic to research.
      - cschmidt 10y ago
        Linus Pauling (two Nobel prizes!) jumps to mind with his Vitamin C work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research_and_vitamin_C_advocacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research...
- officialjunk 10y ago
  This paper that investigates how the EM propulsion drives might generate thrust, and as a side effect, the theory explains certain phenomena that we attribute to dark matter and dark energy. i only have undergrad physics degree, but it sounds interesting. anyone with more experience have any thoughts about this? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf >McCulloch (2007) has proposed a new model for inertia (MiHsC) that assumes that the inertia of an object is due to the Unruh radiation it sees when it accelerates, radiation which is also subject to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect. In this model only Unruh wavelengths that fit exactly into twice the Hubble diameter are allowed, so that a greater proportion of the waves are disallowed for low accelerations (which see longer Unruh waves) leading to a gradual new loss of inertia as accelerations become tiny. MiHsC modifies the standard inertial mass (m) to a modified one (m_i) as follows: m_i = m (1-(2c^2)/(|a|Θ)) = m (1 - λ/4Θ) (1) where c is the speed of light, Θ is twice the Hubble distance, ’|a|’ is the mag- nitude of the relative acceleration of the object relative to surrounding matter and λ is the peak wavelength of the Unruh radiation it sees. Eq. 1 predicts that for terrestrial accelerations (eg: 9.8m/s2) the second term in the bracket is tiny and standard inertia is recovered, but in low acceleration environments, for example at the edges of galaxies (when a is small and λ is large) the sec- ond term in the bracket becomes larger and the inertial mass decreases in a new way so that MiHsC can explain galaxy rotation without the need for dark matter (McCulloch, 2012) and cosmic acceleration without the need for dark energy (McCulloch, 2007, 2010).
  - caconym_ 10y ago
    I mentioned this elsewhere in this thread. I'm really interested to hear some context around it from someone who knows what they're talking about; to me, it's a more appealing explanation than "conservation of momentum is wrong" or "we're using the quantum vacuum as a tractive medium which is supposed to be impossible but whatever".
    - jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
      IANAP, just someone with a lay understanding that's been following a lot of these topics for a while now. As I understand it McCulloch's requirement that wavelengths fit within the cosmic horizon is an assumption, not a proven logical implication. Additionally I think a lot of physicists are dismissive because they expect someone who desires to upend mainline theory to at least demonstrate fluency with the mathematics of mainline theory. McCulloch falls short of this. All that said, I think he's genuine in his pursuit and I've really enjoyed reading his blog over the years.
caconym_ 10y ago
Nothing in that comment is news, but if we've reached a point where we're completely unwilling to accept that experiments could show us something new before theorists predict and explain it, then we should hang up our science hats and go home. Skepticism is warranted, but the team behind this study seems to be proceeding with a healthy dose of it, and AFAIK they have not made any inappropriate claims. The results so far are interesting, the experiments do not seem terribly expensive, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be followed to their conclusion (which will probably be the discovery of a mundane explanation for the phenomenon that's been observed).
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  > Nothing in that comment is news, but if we've reached a point where we're completely unwilling to accept that experiments could show us something new before theorists predict and explain it, then we should hang up our science hats and go home. Yes, but nobody's ACTUALLY saying that -- that's just the typical narrative of people-selling-perpetual-motion-machines. (Who, you'll note, have a slightly different agenda.). What's actually going on is that everybody's saying "this would require New Physics -- hold your horses!"... and the response seems to be "YEAH, BUT WHAT IF?!??!". Pithy answer to the "what if" challenge: Not good enough.
  - caconym_ 10y ago
    But the question of how the scientific community should be reacting to this, and whether more time and money should be thrown at these experiments, seems wholly separate from the question of how the public should be reacting. You asked "Or maybe it's just a waste of time/money?", which is a question for the scientific community, but most of the "WHAT IF?!??!" reactions seem to be coming from the public. edit: I replied before you edited your post fairly heavily; I think what I said still applies, though.
    - lomnakkus 10y ago
      Apologies for the ninja edit! I tend to leave fairly heavy markers around, but didn't this time[1] -- just didn't expect that someone would respond so quickly! > You asked "Or maybe it's just a waste of time/money?", which is a question for the scientific community, but most of the "WHAT IF?!??!" reactions seem to be coming from the public. I really don't understand this. Is this some sort of PoMo response to my original challenge, or...? My contention is that the public interest may not necessarily have much to do with what the public is interested in. I don't think this a particularly controversial PoV...? (Though I do have reservations about it, but -- personally -- I've just about given up on even basic scientific literacy. You may be less jaded.) [1] Readability suffers, but DFW approves "from heaven". I must admit I'm quite DFW-like in that I cannot halt the loop before I write something, so here we are... with massive edits and such.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
StanislavPetrov 10y ago
>Or maybe it's just a waste of time/money? We are currently shooting missiles that cost $800,000 each at people in caves on the other side of the world from boats that cost $4.4 billion dollars each. If anyone can justify that expenditure, I think we can find a small fraction of that money to investigate this further. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/at-800000-per-round-ammo-on-americas-billion-dollar-uss-zumwalt-is-too-pricey-to-fire http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/at-800000-per-round-...
- grkvlt 10y ago
  Well, for one thing, that srticle describes a future warship and ammunition that is not yet in service, so it is incorrect to suggest anyone is 'currently shooting [...] at people in caves' with it. However, the justification (OK, a justification) for that action, as part of the war on terror (I believe this is your implication, based on the 'caves' reference) would be that the insured costs of 9/11 were around USD 40 billion [1] (ignoring the unknown intangible additional cost in human life) so spending USD 800000 to kill a terrorist who is planning to perform a similar event is something of a bargain. But, this sort of logic is flawed to begin with: We spend X on Y, which I disapprove of, therefore we should spend epsilon on Z instead. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_arising_from_...
  - StanislavPetrov 10y ago
    It not a "future" warship. Its an existing warship that keeps breaking down, despite the fact that its new and cost $4.4 billion to make. It just broke down again in the Panama Canal. That's a picture of the actual, existing-in-the-present ship. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/new-zumwalt-breaks-down-pacific-transit.html http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/new-zumwalt-br... >However, the justification (OK, a justification) for that action, as part of the war on terror (I believe this is your implication, based on the 'caves' reference) would be that the insured costs of 9/11 were around USD 40 billion [1] (ignoring the unknown intangible additional cost in human life) so spending USD 800000 to kill a terrorist who is planning to perform a similar event is something of a bargain. Except for the fact that that justification is false. We've spent over $5 Trillion fighting the fictional "war on terror" in the 15 years since 9/11 and by every measurable metric there are more "terrorists" (people who would like to attack us) today then there were on 9/11. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/13/report-nearly-5-trillion-spent-on-iraq-afghanistan-wars-so-far.html http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/13/report-nearly-... This dwarfs by many orders of magnitudes the total science funding spent by the government since the government was formed. Its absurd to discuss "waste" or "inefficiency" in any context, let alone a tiny expenditure for investigating the EM drive, while ignoring the elephant in the room. The phrase "penny wise pound foolish" applies to that line of thought.

lJ9Ni044GH3z 10y ago

What similar research is the time and money better spent on?

sonium 10y ago

Speaking as a experimental physicist: The research shown is relatively inexpensive, and can be pulled off with what many labs probably have lying around anyways. I'm sure it's more a work of love anyways and the guys doing this are probably facing serious headwind for trying 'crazy stuff'.

lifeisstillgood 10y ago
Shouldn't crazy stuff be exactly why we fund tenured positions? I would like to think tenure still produces crazy scientists
- lutusp 10y ago
  > Shouldn't crazy stuff be exactly why we fund tenured positions? Crazy stuff becomes an option after one is granted tenure, it doesn't necessarily make one more likely to achieve tenure. On the other hand, theoretical physicists aren't very expensive -- they only need a blackboard and an eraser. Compare that to a philosopher -- much the same but without the eraser.
  - lifeisstillgood 10y ago
    Badah dum tish!
    - oceanswave 10y ago
      Classic, textbook example of lifeisgood-oceanswave syndrome.
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  I think you misunderstand. Tenure is usually granted to people with a (sometimes minor) track record of their ideas working out. Essentially it amounts to a bet on things to come, or IOW of "is person X a crank or not?". This, of course, is also tied to the field in which they are working, etc. (Sure, some good researchers turn into cranks later in life[1], but usually in a different -- often unrelated -- field.) [1] Nobel prize winners often succumb to this, sadly.
  - MPSimmons 10y ago
    Seems like having the preeminent researchers in a field be the ones to do the weirdest research while teaching students on the foundations and established research is a pretty solid decision.
  - grkvlt 10y ago
    I guess you're referring to Brian Josephson, who went from superconductors (Nobel prize) to things like telepathy etc. but I'm interested if there are other examples. A quick search turns up Kary Mullis as a possible other example, but I don't know too much about him, and it's a difficult topic to research.
    - cschmidt 10y ago
      Linus Pauling (two Nobel prizes!) jumps to mind with his Vitamin C work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research_and_vitamin_C_advocacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research...
officialjunk 10y ago
This paper that investigates how the EM propulsion drives might generate thrust, and as a side effect, the theory explains certain phenomena that we attribute to dark matter and dark energy. i only have undergrad physics degree, but it sounds interesting. anyone with more experience have any thoughts about this? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf >McCulloch (2007) has proposed a new model for inertia (MiHsC) that assumes that the inertia of an object is due to the Unruh radiation it sees when it accelerates, radiation which is also subject to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect. In this model only Unruh wavelengths that fit exactly into twice the Hubble diameter are allowed, so that a greater proportion of the waves are disallowed for low accelerations (which see longer Unruh waves) leading to a gradual new loss of inertia as accelerations become tiny. MiHsC modifies the standard inertial mass (m) to a modified one (m_i) as follows: m_i = m (1-(2c^2)/(|a|Θ)) = m (1 - λ/4Θ) (1) where c is the speed of light, Θ is twice the Hubble distance, ’|a|’ is the mag- nitude of the relative acceleration of the object relative to surrounding matter and λ is the peak wavelength of the Unruh radiation it sees. Eq. 1 predicts that for terrestrial accelerations (eg: 9.8m/s2) the second term in the bracket is tiny and standard inertia is recovered, but in low acceleration environments, for example at the edges of galaxies (when a is small and λ is large) the sec- ond term in the bracket becomes larger and the inertial mass decreases in a new way so that MiHsC can explain galaxy rotation without the need for dark matter (McCulloch, 2012) and cosmic acceleration without the need for dark energy (McCulloch, 2007, 2010).
- caconym_ 10y ago
  I mentioned this elsewhere in this thread. I'm really interested to hear some context around it from someone who knows what they're talking about; to me, it's a more appealing explanation than "conservation of momentum is wrong" or "we're using the quantum vacuum as a tractive medium which is supposed to be impossible but whatever".
  - jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
    IANAP, just someone with a lay understanding that's been following a lot of these topics for a while now. As I understand it McCulloch's requirement that wavelengths fit within the cosmic horizon is an assumption, not a proven logical implication. Additionally I think a lot of physicists are dismissive because they expect someone who desires to upend mainline theory to at least demonstrate fluency with the mathematics of mainline theory. McCulloch falls short of this. All that said, I think he's genuine in his pursuit and I've really enjoyed reading his blog over the years.

caconym_ 10y ago

Nothing in that comment is news, but if we've reached a point where we're completely unwilling to accept that experiments could show us something new before theorists predict and explain it, then we should hang up our science hats and go home. Skepticism is warranted, but the team behind this study seems to be proceeding with a healthy dose of it, and AFAIK they have not made any inappropriate claims. The results so far are interesting, the experiments do not seem terribly expensive, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be followed to their conclusion (which will probably be the discovery of a mundane explanation for the phenomenon that's been observed).

lomnakkus 10y ago
> Nothing in that comment is news, but if we've reached a point where we're completely unwilling to accept that experiments could show us something new before theorists predict and explain it, then we should hang up our science hats and go home. Yes, but nobody's ACTUALLY saying that -- that's just the typical narrative of people-selling-perpetual-motion-machines. (Who, you'll note, have a slightly different agenda.). What's actually going on is that everybody's saying "this would require New Physics -- hold your horses!"... and the response seems to be "YEAH, BUT WHAT IF?!??!". Pithy answer to the "what if" challenge: Not good enough.
- caconym_ 10y ago
  But the question of how the scientific community should be reacting to this, and whether more time and money should be thrown at these experiments, seems wholly separate from the question of how the public should be reacting. You asked "Or maybe it's just a waste of time/money?", which is a question for the scientific community, but most of the "WHAT IF?!??!" reactions seem to be coming from the public. edit: I replied before you edited your post fairly heavily; I think what I said still applies, though.
  - lomnakkus 10y ago
    Apologies for the ninja edit! I tend to leave fairly heavy markers around, but didn't this time[1] -- just didn't expect that someone would respond so quickly! > You asked "Or maybe it's just a waste of time/money?", which is a question for the scientific community, but most of the "WHAT IF?!??!" reactions seem to be coming from the public. I really don't understand this. Is this some sort of PoMo response to my original challenge, or...? My contention is that the public interest may not necessarily have much to do with what the public is interested in. I don't think this a particularly controversial PoV...? (Though I do have reservations about it, but -- personally -- I've just about given up on even basic scientific literacy. You may be less jaded.) [1] Readability suffers, but DFW approves "from heaven". I must admit I'm quite DFW-like in that I cannot halt the loop before I write something, so here we are... with massive edits and such.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

StanislavPetrov 10y ago

>Or maybe it's just a waste of time/money? We are currently shooting missiles that cost $800,000 each at people in caves on the other side of the world from boats that cost $4.4 billion dollars each. If anyone can justify that expenditure, I think we can find a small fraction of that money to investigate this further. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/at-800000-per-round-ammo-on-americas-billion-dollar-uss-zumwalt-is-too-pricey-to-fire http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/at-800000-per-round-...

grkvlt 10y ago
Well, for one thing, that srticle describes a future warship and ammunition that is not yet in service, so it is incorrect to suggest anyone is 'currently shooting [...] at people in caves' with it. However, the justification (OK, a justification) for that action, as part of the war on terror (I believe this is your implication, based on the 'caves' reference) would be that the insured costs of 9/11 were around USD 40 billion [1] (ignoring the unknown intangible additional cost in human life) so spending USD 800000 to kill a terrorist who is planning to perform a similar event is something of a bargain. But, this sort of logic is flawed to begin with: We spend X on Y, which I disapprove of, therefore we should spend epsilon on Z instead. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_arising_from_...
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago
  It not a "future" warship. Its an existing warship that keeps breaking down, despite the fact that its new and cost $4.4 billion to make. It just broke down again in the Panama Canal. That's a picture of the actual, existing-in-the-present ship. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/new-zumwalt-breaks-down-pacific-transit.html http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/new-zumwalt-br... >However, the justification (OK, a justification) for that action, as part of the war on terror (I believe this is your implication, based on the 'caves' reference) would be that the insured costs of 9/11 were around USD 40 billion [1] (ignoring the unknown intangible additional cost in human life) so spending USD 800000 to kill a terrorist who is planning to perform a similar event is something of a bargain. Except for the fact that that justification is false. We've spent over $5 Trillion fighting the fictional "war on terror" in the 15 years since 9/11 and by every measurable metric there are more "terrorists" (people who would like to attack us) today then there were on 9/11. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/13/report-nearly-5-trillion-spent-on-iraq-afghanistan-wars-so-far.html http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/13/report-nearly-... This dwarfs by many orders of magnitudes the total science funding spent by the government since the government was formed. Its absurd to discuss "waste" or "inefficiency" in any context, let alone a tiny expenditure for investigating the EM drive, while ignoring the elephant in the room. The phrase "penny wise pound foolish" applies to that line of thought.