4 ms·

There was no theory saying that the horn antenna should have no hiss. It was a classic example of being the first measurement of a thing. It happens all the tim

There was no theory saying that the horn antenna should have no hiss. It was a classic example of being the first measurement of a thing. It happens all the time in astronomy. Since this measurement people have been much more open to whatever the data says when they observe in a new frequency band. If anything, the surprise in this particular case was mainly because the people doing the experiment weren't astronomers, and had never considered what they might see if they looked up. Excellent discovery, and easy and inexpensive to replicate.

snowwrestler 10y ago
> There was no theory saying that the horn antenna should have no hiss. Then why did they go to such extraordinary lengths to find the source of it? Why didn't they just shrug and work around it? Keep in mind they initially had no knowledge of the theoretical prediction of CMB, which was fairly recent and controversial. They just had a weird observation and busted their butts trying to figure out what it was. > It was a classic example of being the first measurement of a thing. Yes, now we know that. At the time it was not clear that it was a phenomenon worth measuring at all. I mean, they thought it was pigeons. It looked like a dumb error at first. > Excellent discovery, and easy and inexpensive to replicate. The "emdrive" is also easy and cheap to replicate. I'm not saying that the emdrive works, I'm saying that experimental results matter. They should not be dismissed just becaus me they seem to violate theory. Violating theory is why people experiment in the first place.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Well, they were mostly weirded out that it was the same hiss no matter where in the sky they pointed the horn, and indeed, that's pretty weird. It was non-obvious, and now we know why. For the emdrive, the effect is so small that it's suggested that the next step is to launch a powerful satellite costing $100mm or more. Uh, really? From your comment, you seem to be tangled up in results being "dismissed". That's not what's going on, when people make comments about extraordinary claims and extraordinary results. A tiny, hard to measure result is not an OH MY GOD THE THEORY IS WRONG result. It is likely an experimental error.
  - StanislavPetrov 10y ago
    Its ironic that skeptics of the EM drive not only refuse to consider the actual, empirical evidence, but also oppose testing it in the only way that is beyond dispute.
    - beevai142 10y ago
      It has already been independently tested (TU Dresden, NWPU). They saw only noise.
    - dzdt 10y ago
      A tiny satellite in low earth orbit is a stunt, not a platform for high precision physics measurements. For the satellite, there is atmosphere drag, magnetic fields, outgassing, etc, all probably bigger effects than the claimed drive effect! Earth bound labs have much greater control of variables, reproducability, possibility to measure related quantities, possibility to run variations on experiments. The reasons to do the satellite are (1) PR (2) wanting to NOT disprove the effect.
coldtea 10y ago
>There was no theory saying that the horn antenna should have no hiss. So? What if there was such a theory? It could still be false or incomplete, like Newtonian physics.

snowwrestler 10y ago

> There was no theory saying that the horn antenna should have no hiss. Then why did they go to such extraordinary lengths to find the source of it? Why didn't they just shrug and work around it? Keep in mind they initially had no knowledge of the theoretical prediction of CMB, which was fairly recent and controversial. They just had a weird observation and busted their butts trying to figure out what it was. > It was a classic example of being the first measurement of a thing. Yes, now we know that. At the time it was not clear that it was a phenomenon worth measuring at all. I mean, they thought it was pigeons. It looked like a dumb error at first. > Excellent discovery, and easy and inexpensive to replicate. The "emdrive" is also easy and cheap to replicate. I'm not saying that the emdrive works, I'm saying that experimental results matter. They should not be dismissed just becaus me they seem to violate theory. Violating theory is why people experiment in the first place.

greglindahl 10y ago
Well, they were mostly weirded out that it was the same hiss no matter where in the sky they pointed the horn, and indeed, that's pretty weird. It was non-obvious, and now we know why. For the emdrive, the effect is so small that it's suggested that the next step is to launch a powerful satellite costing $100mm or more. Uh, really? From your comment, you seem to be tangled up in results being "dismissed". That's not what's going on, when people make comments about extraordinary claims and extraordinary results. A tiny, hard to measure result is not an OH MY GOD THE THEORY IS WRONG result. It is likely an experimental error.
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago
  Its ironic that skeptics of the EM drive not only refuse to consider the actual, empirical evidence, but also oppose testing it in the only way that is beyond dispute.
  - beevai142 10y ago
    It has already been independently tested (TU Dresden, NWPU). They saw only noise.
  - dzdt 10y ago
    A tiny satellite in low earth orbit is a stunt, not a platform for high precision physics measurements. For the satellite, there is atmosphere drag, magnetic fields, outgassing, etc, all probably bigger effects than the claimed drive effect! Earth bound labs have much greater control of variables, reproducability, possibility to measure related quantities, possibility to run variations on experiments. The reasons to do the satellite are (1) PR (2) wanting to NOT disprove the effect.

coldtea 10y ago

>There was no theory saying that the horn antenna should have no hiss. So? What if there was such a theory? It could still be false or incomplete, like Newtonian physics.