OMG, reading the actual papers, getting competent people to analyze them, taking the latest hype with a grain of salt, and involving the viewers in clever ways... That's science journalism done *right*! Honestly, I've been a science enthusiast my whole life (and a scientist now), and I've *never* seen journalists report on it so seriously and professionally! (yup, not even Tony Darnell!). Keep up the great work!
"The first rule of Spacetime Journal Club is... we talk over our thoughts and remain open to all possible ideas and contributions from others before forming any solid conclusions." Hmmmm, that wasn't nearly quite as dramatic as the first rule of Fight Club.
+TokyoTraveller That's very democratic of you! "Now that the theoretical physics is done, calculate the mass-energy equivalence of my fist hitting your face!" A bit much for my taste, personally :p
Update: since this video was filmed, the EM drive is believed to not actually work. The measured thrust is from interference from the Earth’s magnetic field, according to an experiment by Technische Universität Dresden in Germany, May 2018.
But since the hyperbolimerjiggy of flat Earth gravitonomagneticyerwordsaladerzidation only pulls down, that proves you're statement is a NASA conspiracy. Really though, that's unfortunate. A means to extract propulsion from quantum fields is going to be badly needed one day.... There probably is a way though, perhaps with the incredible precision so close to the door of the quantum universe which nanoscale machinery will allow, we could weasel that thrust outta there using completely novel methods. ....although if that Omuamua [forgive spelling] turns out to actually be interstellar, then all the space junk it's apperence implies may keep us locked up here anyway....
Since the earth's magnetic field is directional, you would expect the interaction to be dependent on that directionality. Thus, some sort of change should be expected as the device is reoriented. Either the apparent thrust would be in a different direction, the magnitude would be different, etc. The next obvious test would be to construct a room and/or magnet to shield/counteract the earth's magnetic field and then test it.
If anyone is still watching this video, the effect observed from the EM drive was shown to be an effect of turning on the electrical system, because it interacted with earth's magnetism, or something like that. So the drive does not work...
Could you cite a source for this research? I am asking because if true, I can stop looking for information on the EM Drive, but if this is not a scientifically confirmed cause for the EM Drive's thrust it may still give useful space technologies. (The creators of the early EM drives DID NOT know how their invention worked and their explanations were not something I cared about only the claim of non-propulsion-driven thrust)
sh4d0wfl4re, here is an article describing it: mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/05/german-scientists-disprove-nasas-emdrive/ they also link to the actual paper if you prefer reading scientific jargon 😉
I suspect the source of this was from The Three Body Problem. Interestingly related is ruclips.net/video/hqoo_4wSkdg/видео.html "Could leave a wake of degraded vacuum". Anyone who's read all 3 books should recognize that. Such an odd coincidence that the core concept of the series(broadcasting danger) is mentioned seemingly without knowing, and the EmDrive potentially resulting in a sort of degraded vacuum wake..I'd be very curious to know if the speed of light is different in the wake..
I LOVE the way you approached this topic. It really showed qualities any science communicator should have: carefulness, skepticism, courage to admit what does not know nor understand, and honesty. It also showed how discussions should be made. Thank you.
Could you only imagine the quality of society we would live in if every high profile 3rd wave feminist or other leftist dipshit held themselves to even remotely comparable standards? Just think about what would have been accomplished already.
feh So you're not disagreeing with the content of said communicators' message, just their tone. Curious that you focus only on them and not the other side of the political spectrum. Is that because at least with feminists and leftists, if they delivered their message better, we would in fact be in a better place while meninists and rightists (?) have no message that would result in progress?
Same here, electrical engineering is what I'm going for, but astrophysics is undoubtedly an area that I will keep looking forward to. In fact, I even considered (standard) physics before electrical engineering, but I decided that I prefer practical applications rather than the theoretical field.
This is what I like the most about PBS Space Time. Their approach isn't too technical and is definitely layman-friendly but isn't too misrepresentative or too misleading like contemporary "pop sci" institutions (I'm looking at you IFLS). Kudos to everyone involved!
Similar to this idea: put small wheels on the front of a car, large ones on the back. The car will think it's on a hill, and start to accelerate. You've made a dragster! The big noisy engines are to impress the chicks.
This is similar to putting butter on the back of a cat, dropping it from a height and harnessing the rotational energy as it spins in the air endlessly trying to land both on its feet and with the buttered side down. I use this to power my entire house now.
You're easily the channel with the highest scientific standard on RUclips. You're so accurate; I wish other creators would discuss such high level subjects in such an entertaining way. Long story short: Great work, you do! Keep it up!
Is there a reason the EM drive hasn't been replicated more? It seems fairly simple and inexpensive for a university that has the right equipment (vacuum chambers and whatnot), so seems like it would be a handy experiment for publishing a paper in a few weeks, or as an assignment for later year undergrads.
While it may be relatively simple to build, I think measuring the effects to high precision becomes difficult. We see that even the Eagle Works team has to incorporate even more constraints to gain an accurate picture of what's happening.
The reason it hasn't been replicated is that nearly everyone doing physics professionally at a university has no reason to believe this device could work. It's based on faulty physics and none of the positive tests done so far pass a smell test.
Vacuum Diagrams if there was a department that didnt have to worry so much about budget constraints and the need to write grant worth projects, I would do it just because it pissed me off. One of those things that at this point I'd just have to say "phooey, I'm gunna get to the bottom of this."
not believing in something as a reason to not attempt a replication is poor science. Negative results on replication thus showing that there is no effect is what should be happening. Replicating an experiment to build consensus is one of the cornerstones of good science and getting more rare these days.
ok, but this guy is literally saying the exact same thing as Dr Mason, so wtf? I don't particularly like Tf00t and unsubbed during his brexit meltdown but his debunking stuff is still pretty bang on
Here's my hypothesis: This is the highest quality chanel on youtube. Observable evidence: - open to all possible ideas and contributions - intellectual honesty - usage of scientific methodology - grain of salt toward not conclusive novelty - every single topic well researched... - and even better explained... - ... without distorting simplifications - engaged community built around chanel (e.g +TheGamingg33k just officially changed his major from Electrical Engineering to Physics (Astrophysics)) Although other potential explanation has to be ruled out (below), I dare you to disprove my hypothesis! Alternative explanations: - I've slept 3 today and my cognitive abilities are altered - I am secretly homosexual and therefore possibly biased - I've eaten my favourite meal during this episode and in reality this post is about superiority of braised shrimp in garlic sauce over other meals Keep up great work!
Hey Space Time! I'm so glad there are teams like yours out there educating and debunking sensationalist press regarding any scientific experiment. Please never stop doing the amazing job you do! The world needs you. 💞
I'm glad that their were resources available to write a paper like this. I know it would have been great to see them test all the different possibilities for a false positive but just getting the time to run an experiment like this is awesome. With the world of science being so much about getting published it seems like it is hard for people to take a chance on things that would fly in the face of established physics. Coming up with crazy ideas and figuring out you are wrong is just as worthwhile for science as to follow the predictable path.
Can people stop saying that produces insignificant thrust to be worth anything? You are forgetting the big picture. 1. If this actually works, it may open a new field of study which may lead to even greater discoveries. 2. (Again, assuming that this actually works) The one used in the Eagle Works experiment was just for proof of concept. They admitted themselves that it was not engineered to be optimized. It was also very small compared to what would be used in a real space ship. 3. This a completely foreign type of technology. Once we figure out how it is actually making thrust then we may be able to make it actually efficient. Compare it to the first computers. They took 10s of seconds just to multiply TWO numbers. In other words, they were actually good for nothing. Fast forward decades of research and investment and we have technology that changed human civilization forever.
Sometimes I often wonder, what are we missing? I've heard a blind individual (since birth) talk about colors, he said "How can a pen and the sky both be blue? I don't get it." When I heard that, I thought about what we could potentially be missing. Not being able to sense things has a huge impact on how we see/make sense of it. We have our senses and are comfortable with them, confident they give us all the information required to piece our environment together, but if we were a species that had no vision - using a different sense to "see" the world (Sonar for example), would we still be just as confident? Our brain is limited and one day our science will hit a wall - anything past that point won't make any sense and I would blame that on our brains capability to comprehend or sense information. So what if we're potentially missing something entirely? For example, a blind guy knows the object exists, he can feel it and imagine a shape in his brain, but he can't imagine what it visually looks like, colors, etc. What if thats the same with us? Like Dark Matter for example, something is affecting the galaxies and we can see the effect, but thats it. What if its something huge that would be very obvious to us if we had the senses to detect it? We do have instruments to detect things we can't sense, but thats due to us being able to sense some of it to begin with - like light. We can't see Infrared, Ultraviolet, Xrays, etc, but because we can see Visible light it made us curious and we had a lead, we were able to find out that this frequency can be increased/decreased, etc. Hey, call me crazy, call me wrong, disagree, its just a thought. There may be something we're missing entirely at the moment because its outside our comprehension and maybe we're starting to get a peak at it via these crazy experiments like the EM Drive. Then again, maybe not. We're all hopeful to discover brand new physics which could potentially open up a whole new can of worms, but its unlikely at this point it seems. I truly believe our next advancement in science will not derive from a human being, but from Artificial Intelligence - and the scary thing is, that discovery may be beyond what we can ever understand. Another great video! Its always exciting to see one of these videos pop up on my subscription list!
Well on the other hand we've discovered and can now visualize the entire EM spectrum, colors we cannot see over a range far, far broader than the tiny window our eyes perceive. You can argue that's only because we can sense them via our instruments but that's equivalent to saying 'We can only tell these things exist because they do something.' If we're missing something because it does nothing... is it anything at all? One of the great strengths of science is that if something has ANY effect we can work on discovering it. Dark matter is one such thing, it's hardly as if we're stuck going 'Well this is a mystery, nothing we can do here.' we're actively working to try and solve its mystery.
I read an interesting theory a while back about how there was no color "blue" until fairly recently. The way colors were explained in the past was weird, if I remember correctly Homer describes a "wine-dark sea" in the Odyssey and other strange color statements. Well, this guy wants to test this theory and so doesn't teach his daughter the color blue until she could fairly easily articulate what color the sky was, but she insisted that it didn't have a color at all. I don't know how true this is, but you can pretty easily find this theory through Google. I thought that was interesting just like you finding your blind friends comment about colors interesting. Thank you for sharing!
Darren Pope This is n interesting and tricky thing. Ancient cultures tended to have fewer words for colors but this is not the same as saying they were unable to perceive them. Ancient cultures tended to divide colors initially into light and dark then broad groups such as green-blue ('environmental colors'), red-orange-yellow ('hot colors') and so on. To this day many countries lack a proper differentiation between blue and green, Japan for example, until very recently when American influence became important. These cultures know blue and green are different and can tell the difference between a green tree and a blue sky. (There MAY be some sensitivity issues, where cultures with more color names can distinguish shades better, but this is not a major effect.) But the situation is akin to the various shades of blue the sky can be, to us they're all 'blue' even if they differ in brightness and hue. We and other cultures often use additional descriptors in this case (light blue, bright red, deep purple...) and indeed terms akin to 'leaf green' (Or 'plant colored') to separate blue from green in cultures where they are the same color are quite common. The child experiment is pretty much hogwash. For one thing, consider the answer; is the child saying the sky is invisible? They were apparently not taught the word 'blue' which you would think would simply mean they lump it in with another color such as green.(After all I can name the color my house is painted as 'green' even if I don't know it's *actually* 'forest shade'.) They also didn't answer 'I don't know'? Nor were they asked 'What you mean it has no color'? A study involving manipulating your own child in such an intensive manner and it ends with a single question and no followup? It's a nice story, but only a story.
5:30 I'm with you on that one, Matt. That's pretty lousy to assume a linear relationship between thrust and power from those data (a whopping _three_ data points, two of which are statistically the same?), and then proceed from there with claims about a thrust-to-power ratio of 1.2 mN per kW. If they really want to show that it follows a linear relationship, they should take more data at different power levels, and especially see if that supposed linear relationship remains true when extended to higher power levels.
+PBS Space Time A simple test you could do to see if it really works would be to simply "open" the "big end" of the EM drive up so it acts like a regular photon thruster. If the thrust levels stay the same as the "closed" EM drive, then you know that the drive doesn't actually work, and there is some other phenomenon at play. If you open it up and the thrust drops to just a photon thruster level of thrust, then you know that somehow the drive is creating actual thrust.
sci-fi uses real science It exstrapolates current scientific thought into the future and its possible applications. That is how it is different from fantasy, which doesnt use science. Star Wars is fantasy, 2001: A Space Odyssey is sci=fi.
Oni Raptor sadly, true scifi like that is rare. its all too easy for authors to fall into the deus ex machina trap where some poorly understood phenomenon takes the place of the divine interloper. that or the use of fake, poorly described break throughs to fall into the "its magic(or in this case, science), I ain't gotta explain shit" trap.
Good storytelling requires a very different skill set. It's possible to have both, but we have no evidence of any storytelling ability of his or lack thereof.
Real Talk: we've avoided the topic of the EM drive because most of the data coming out isn't reliable, and because it's become a topic for conspiracy theorists and r/futurology... Not sure which is worse.
Question about Quantum entanglement and the theory of relativity. What would happen if you take 2 entangled particles and place 1 in a lab on earth and shoot another towards a black hole. Would the entangled particle on earth change states faster as the other reaches the black hole or would it slow down as its partner reaches the black hole? Or does relativity even apply to entangled particles as maybe the particle heading towards the black hole would be affected by the particle on earth thus would match the speed of the particle on earth. Don't know why i'm thinking of this, it kinda just popped in my head.
@adam smith You wouldn't be able to measure if the particle changed states faster, because if you measure the entagled properties of either of the particles, the entaglement collapses.
Entangled particles will be non-entangled after the event-horizon. I think they will be an individual particle. You should check the Quantum Teleportation.
I have to say that I really appreciate how this channel simplifies things without completely dumbing it down. So glad to see something somewhat understandable and pretty informative without all the hype, voodoo, and click bait content.
actually the faster it goes the better energy conversion rate becomes, due to the squared velocity term in 0.5mv^2, at some point even exceeding unity. That's why you shouldn't put much trust in claims of systems breaking the law of conservation of momentum, as they would also break the law of conservation of energy.
spoonikle Its inefficient, but a good idea for long range probes or ships. You can stick a small nuclear reactor on there and take up minimal space and have a probe that can actually accelerate and make corrections for an extremely long time and in all conditions. You can generate the wattage needed for movement with way less weight than would be required for a propellant mass that gives the same amount of total acceleration.
sure but in space there is no friction (well it's very small) so you can accelerate to ridiculous speeds and with the ability to accelerate without needing a propellant for thrust the potential is only limited by the speed of light and your power source.
You say that like in 3000 years we won't be throwing out batteries for only having a few kilowatts left in them. Storage capacity and technology will get better. As will the technology, if they manage to conclude it IS actually working, and can fine tune it for more force.
Thank you for an excellent series, brilliantly presented. I've been looking for science that doesn't dumb things down. This is a challenging series of videos and very much appreciated. Cheers!
Can we just take one of the built EM Drives and stick some solar panels on it and toss it out the ISS airlock? If the thing goes zooming off into space constantly accelerating, we'll know it works!
I think the person saying that aliens wouldn't use radio was actually referring to its near uselessness as a means for interstellar communication. It is just way too slow for any civilization that might have achieved interstellar capabilities. Not that they wouldn't develop the technology at all. It is why sci-fi writers use the idea of subspace, tachyons, etc. for communication over interstellar distances. I've thought that possibly gravity waves or something like that might work, assuming that the fabric of space doesn't have the light speed limitation, which I'm guessing it doesn't. So if gravity waves could be modulated like radio waves, well then maybe that could transmit at interstellar distances faster than light, since only the fabric of space itself would be 'moving', and not photons or anything else on the electromagnetic spectrum. I just figure that if we can actually detect them, we should eventually be able to replicate them. Of course we should be getting closer to warp drive at that point, even if only sub-luminal at first. Or maybe it wouldn't work, but it sounds good.
Gravity waves move at the speed of light, so are no better for faster communication over large distances. Plus they would be much more difficult to produce, considering it took two black holes to collide to produce even the faintest detection of them.
My3dviews Oh well. At least it still sounded good. Still, how do we know they travel at light speed? I mean it is one thing to bounce a laser off the moon and measure the time of travel between a known distance from the moment the laser was turned on. So how do we know that gravity waves do in fact travel at light speed? I mean no one monitored the waves leaving the black hole to the sensor, so... it begs the question. Just say'n.
Seastallion Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicts gravity waves at the speed of light, just as all massless particles move at the speed of light. All tests of the theory have been proven correct, including observation of how gravity affects objects over long distances. The gravitational waves that were detected from the black hole collision were detected by two detectors in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington. They would have been able to measure the difference in time that each detector picked up the waves, based on the distances between them.
My3dviews Okay, I suppose I can understand that, although I get the feeling that there is a hole somewhere in that, and not the black holes. To the best of my knowledge, gravity waves WOULDN'T be particles at all, right? I mean why would they be, unless we're saying that gravitons exist, and that gravity ISN'T merely the bending of space-time due to mass? It was my understanding that gravity waves were literally ripples in the fabric of space, similar to waves in a puddle by analogy. If that is true, then I'm not getting the particles being detected. Unless you're saying that technically the gravity waves aren't being directly detected at all, but are being extrapolated from some sort of particle patterns that are supposedly riding those waves as though on a surf board? In which case, I get skeptical about them having been detected at all. How do we know it wasn't something else being detected? I have heard that claim, that it was actually an electromagnetic thing that Tesla predicted. I'm not saying that is so, but the whole gravity waves/particle thing is kind of throwing me off.
If superluminal communication is possible, then so is retro communication (i.e. communication back in time), which would produce feedback and violate conservation of energy among other things. I would not hold any hope for this being a real thing.
I must say, I have always enjoyed the videos from Space Time channel. Really interesting stuff especially to someone who likes space and everything related into it.
I like how everyone is so dismissive of the drive. It's always a snarky, head shaking explanation of why it won't work followed by why it could work. Everyone is always so entrenched in their views, regardless if they're arguing about politics or quantum field theory (especially so with the latter it seems).
Politics is a part of the human condition... It's been that way since we were living in tribes on the plains of Africa, throwing rocks at the next tribe in the other valley... But this is more than mere sociology. When someone starts talking about rewriting physics from the ground up, of course people are cautious and dismissive. If you begin saying that *_rigorously_* (and I mean to within _parts per billion_ in some cases) tested Newtonian, thermodynamic, Relativistic and Quantum Field theories are not at their root, correct - of course scientists are going shout, _"Nothing personal, but you're out of your f%&ing mind!"_ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and a few questionable margin of error tests aren't going to cut it. In any case, it can take decades to firmly establish new avenues of research, let alone putting the knowledge to practical use. Patience... The answers will come in time as always.
This isn't like finding a new particle, or offering a new explanation for something. This is a drive that breaks a fundamental law of physics. So to a physicist, this is like someone saying they've invented a perpetual motion machine. And it turns out, they were right in being skeptical.
Hey dude, I love your stuff. I do however have a little gripe with the idea that if there are no limits to intellectual growth, but at some point we can understand roughly what can and can't be done in the universe. I think looking back to before the 1920's, many thought physics was a done deal, then quantum opened up another big layer to the onion. thanks :)
Sometimes "charlatans" end up being right, mostly by mistake. My take is that all ideas, even the ridiculous, are analysed and weighted with a probability index and "placed on a large dependency / mind map". That way they can be seen in context for others to consider / discount. Let's make it objective, for one day, one of those inprobable ideas may fit and bolster a new theory.
I was thinking what would happen if you would put a spark from a high voltage generator (eg stun gun) in front of the magnetron in a vacuum... (my opinion: stun gun produces electrons and the magnetron pushes them out and giving thrust)...
As others have said Thunderf00t did a really solid takedown of this device. It's particularly good because the video shows the completely insane claims those behind it make: For example that we'll have flying cars using EM Drives...
Cyan Its good for something like a long range probe or some kind of deep sleep sci-fi space ship. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea and thinks anything can easily be scaled up.
As a person who works in the science field I wish to greatly thank you very much for such a thorough and grounded discussion. I really appreciate how well you focused on what we do know, the theories underlining the science. And perhaps most importantly giving a detailed brief on where errors could arise. Unfortunately in most scientific publications I sometimes feel that the discussion on the possibility of error and the Madrid ways they can crop up and effect the experiment isn't covered nearly enough. Especially covering a great deal of content targeted at the general public, who often misunderstand error in a scientific context. As error can. and often does arise with even the most experienced and competent researchers. Again great work, please keep it up.
He's not "busting it". He may not personally believe the EM drive is likely to pan out, but he's just giving us the facts, telling us what we'd need to do to find out whether it's real, and letting us make our own judgements.
at the start he said its probably going to be just an error in the data. Also the thrust data showed very little force for lots of power. How is that efficient?
FINALLY, I agree with this channel on fact vs. theory. PBS tends to release theory as fact, this new break down of possible errors in measurement is exactly how I feel/think about the EM drive phenomena. Please do MORE of this when it comes to origin of the universe theory, hyperinflation, and all other unproven but highly speculative theories! The CMB doesn't prove or dial in the 'actual' age of the universe, we don't know HOW the things at scale translate!
Love PBS and the new channel! First of all the EM drive looks backwards - the "force side" is bigger than the concentrate side. In classical analysis I would expect the wave pattern to concentrate waves directed through a smaller rather than larger orifice! Given the sparse info we have this would not appear to contravene any claims the EM drive makes! I'm a chemist not a physicist however I have had my head bent, hurt, twisted on the ozone layer. I survived then I was subjected to the twisted world of Einstein, Heisenburg, Bohr, Penrose et al. and Quantum mechanics I haven't given up as I did pursue X-ray-crystallography and to this day understand something of what you talk. X-ray-crystallography is an observed verses a model science; yes it is now a service product. However, the principle is the same record then model and model an agreement factor! I'm not good enough to suggest a thought experiment as the great 1! I only hope I am good enough to ask a question which is worthy of your consideration.
It's silly for people to draw a firm conclusion on inconclusive data. A few more tests will confirm it one way or another. If our curiosity was sated with "Everything we know tells us this is wrong" then we would still believe that gods controlled all aspects of the world... well okay bad example.
It's interesting that the narrator mentions Jim Woodward's criticism of Shawyer's theory. What's not mentioned is that Woodward also proposes a propellent-less drive based on the Mach effect. There is evidence for Woodward's device generating thrust also. Some scientists think that the EMDrive may be generating thrust also by the Mach effect.
Have I got this wrong, or is this patent applied for and granted to the U.S. Secretary of the Navy based around this? For, and I quote... "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device" patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
But we didn't broadcast that very long and they wouldn't be saying to stop broadcasting altogether but to broadcast something else. They could always ignore the signal if they don't like it.
It always seems strange to me when something as simple as heating the device and testing for false positives hasn't been tried yet. Like, I understand that there's a fair amount of preparation involved in any testing, but, why wait so long?
Heating the device externally, or even internally probably won't replicate the heating caused by its running, the effect is small and if due to heating would possibly be due to a very unique geometry or setup. Thermal effects can be hell to pin down.
The torsion balance cannot differentiate between thrust and a shift in the center of gravity. Both can cause the exact same deflection. Also, the balance has a lot of damping and inertia, so a sudden force or a gradual increasing force can look pretty much the same. They claim the measured deflection had two components, a step response due to the thrust and a ramp component due to thermal expansion of the heat sink of the RF amplifier shifting the center of gravity. However, what they have not considered is a sudden shift in the center of gravity when the power is applied, for example because a wire moves due to electromagnetic force when the current is applied. Also, when the heat sink cools down again, the balance returned to it's starting point in forward and reverse thrust, but not in "neutral thrust": the displacement stayed the same (which they called offset shift or something like that). They gave no explanation for that. An option would be to keep the RF amplifier at constant temperature, and only switch the "EM drive" on and off. But that's probably not possible in vacuum, because the heat sink isn't designed for vacuum, the steady state temperature would be too high for the amplifier.
Now that Vsauce is more or less dead, this is my favorite channel on youtube. I just liked Vsauce better because of the way the episodes were written, directed, and narrated, which was really genius and entertaining, like storytelling mixed with science. Vsauce was a uinique experience (not Vsauce2 or 3, only Michael's channel counts).
This is how science should be done. Put a claim to the test3. Rule out mundane explanations. Most of the time the claim will be found to be untenable. Every once in a while, we might make new science. What should be avoided is to decide the issue without testing it. The explanations given fot the EM drive do not agree with known physics. However, all current physical knowledge was once in conflict with the physics of the time. My guess is that this effort is a result of well-known laws of physics. But you just never know... And you won't ever know, if you aren't open to new ideas.
The problem with EM drive was that they started out with a tin can and then proceeded to invent nonsense hypothesizes to justify why it should work. Science is supposed to work the other way around, you invent a hypothesis that sounds half way decent, compute consequences if this hypothesis has any basis in reality and then build a test based on that if you can. You might still end up with a tin can that doesn't do what it says on the label, but at least you spent your time doing science, instead of wishing on magic woo to get you to stars.
You are very enlightning. I cant do all these calculations,but thanks to people like you,i Can follow the great Lines . Even explain some of it to my pals. So cary on. So thanks..
I just found this channel great presentation . While it would be great to state "look what we found" it is far better to think and respond than react nice work
Thank you for addressing this deeply interesting subject. I'm not a physicist, but can you elaborate more on second generation super conducting thrusters? And Shawyer explained the thrust only using general relativety, something to do with the frame of reference of the microwaves being different to that of the thruster if I understood correctly. Would like to hear your take on that.
Nicholas Hylton yes he did. Also, em drive seems to be more of a magnetic field interaction moreso than anything else, really stange that most poeple didn't pick up on the whole, weird how running current though wires makes an observable thrust, just like an electromagnet.
While the topic was EM Drives, it may as well have been "How to Construct and Criticize an Academic Paper." Kudos to the break down of each element that goes into the thorough examination of the practical application of an EM Drive, and all the potential confounding variables that may have impacted the results of the particular study analyzed.
Channels like PBS Space Time are better as they give us reliable and plausible explanation on sensitive topics like the one in the video above. We are all really great full of people who spend their time and energy to explain others and spread the topics aiding in the advancement of science and technology, inspiring young generation to research or study in the vast field of science.
thanks for doing this video. much more articulate critique than I could muster to the people who were supporting the results. A question I have though is what kind of power curve should be expected given their pilot wave hypothesis? is there any reason to believe they should expect a linear relationship?
As a graduate student in statistics, I love seeing how it gets used in other disciplines. I was especially excited that it was the focus of a critique of this study. I have two questions regarding the scatterplot of the data with the linear curve: 1) Is there a scientific/physical reason for expecting a linear relationship between thrust and power? 2) The error bars (if that's what they are) are throwing me off a little bit. They must not be standard error bars because averages ought to have smaller standard errors than individual data measurements. I'm just a bit at a loss for their purpose. I also want to echo the sentiments of many other people commenting on this video; it is wonderful to see science be communicated so clearly and without the sensationalist bent that seems to plague typical scientific news outlets.
Here's an unrelated *question.* Can relay stations situated between two points separated by a cosmological horizon enable information to be transferred between them? Since it will be yet a while before the relatively nearby relay points are themselves causally separated, could they form a bridge for information to travel, say, from the Pavo-Indus Supercluster to the Hydra Supercluster at some future time when those two superclusters are no longer in the same causal pocket?
No. The cosmological horizon isn't what you think it is. It's like the event horizon of a black hole, in that, if you were to try to reach it with a static piece of rope, you would need an infinite length of rope. Cut the rope and it would fall through the horizon in a finite amount of time from the rope's perspective, but only because it reaches the speed of light and at that point also reaches infinite time dilation as well. In a static reference frame, namely in ours, the cosmological horizon is an infinite distance away. This also means you could be 1 mile from the event horizon of a black hole, and have a million miles of rope, and lower it all the way down and the other end of the rope will never touch the event horizon, and you'll be able to pull it back up, provided the rope is strong enough (we're talking a tensile strength of on the order of the fundamental limit put in place by relativity, of its mass per unit length times the speed of light squared though), as strange as that sounds, because that is how compressed space gets near a black hole, there's an infinite amount of real estate there. Basically the rope that is being held by someone sitting at a safe distance and prevented from falling in, will disagree with the rope that is in freefall right next to it, about the measurements of distances, and the disagreement becomes a factor of infinity as the one in freefall actually reaches the horizon. The distance to the cosmological horizon is also infinity from the perspective of the reference frame that moves with the Earth. You could let out an infinite amount of rope and its tension would asymptotically reach its mass per unit length times c^2 as the cosmological constant tugs on it so the work it does for you in letting it out equals the energy cost of MAKING another unit of rope, but it will never reach the cosmological horizon and someone on the other end, moving with a static reference frame over THERE, will say that the end of the rope is rapidly being accelerated away from him at the same rate at which the Earth far off in the distance is rapidly accelerating away from him.
Maybe the explanation is the Alcubierre-White warp drive acting on a much smaller scale than was originally proposed. The microwaves are setting up standing waves that must send the chamber cone walls into microscopic oscillations, thus also acting to warp spacetime at a very minute level.
The EM drive reminds me of something we'd do a couple decades ago in my friend's car. The car (a Chevy Nova) didn't have much power and had trouble accelerating when the car was full (4 big guys). As a joke, we started "rowing" (synchronously jerking our upper bodies forward) and surprisingly enough, the car would gain momentum each time we rowed. I never quite understood how this worked because we we're not interacting with the outside (windows were closed). My best guess was that our "rowing" reduced the friction for an instant but I'd be interested in reading your explanations.
If I'm not mistaken the thrust is produced at the ''thin'' end not the ''fat'' end of the cavity resonator. Introduction to Harold White paper, you cite, states on the very first page, as follows: ''It is shown here, that a dielectrically loaded, tapered RF article excited in the transverse magnetic 212 (TM212) mode .... at 1937 MHz is capable of consistently generating force directed to the narrow end under vacuum condition.'' Page 3 fig.2 also shows the net thrust as directly opposite, to the one you visualize at the beginning of the presentation (2:10). You then present this very diagram later at 4:02 without as much as a blink of an eye. Consistency and scrupulous approach to a scientific subject are of paramount importance here, I guess.
Please, I want to see a popular physics based or general science channel talk about turbulence and how do we ridiculously lack knowledge about understanding it. No channel in youtube seems to cover this topic. I mean, there are great channels with amazing styles on making videos about highly difficult science branches but not even one on turbulence? I know that even a brief introduction to turbulence requires many levels of math and physics knowledge. And I would like to assume that science channels deliberately avoid it due to its complexity. I remember some videos trying to explain it without all that difficult stuff, but they were not effective and couldn't invoke the excitement I was expecting out of them. But as far as I can tell, you guys deal here with seriously hard topics if not harder than turbulence. So I tend to think that you can pull this off. I'm just a new starting phd student on turbulence modeling and it is my passion to learn more about it. Even more so to see this brilliant subject being interpreted from scientist, experts etc. I don't know maybe I'm too childish with my expectation. But think about it, it is most probably our new door in science waiting to be opened. Turbulence being related to chaos, self similar behaviors, emerging patterns out of randomness, strange mathematical properties resulting from the simplest of equations etc. etc. I am no youtuber or a frequent video uploader or an expert to talk on this, but even I can see how an amazing video concept turbulence can be. Maybe doing a video directly about turbulence might not be in your schedule. But you can do for example small introductions to those fields, e.g. classical mechanics, fluid dynamics etc. Demanding it, is completely different than actually doing it, I am very well aware of that. And even if you take my suggestion seriously, I know it depends on many other factors. But right perturbation in right space and time may lead to much greater changes in the system, I just hope my perturbation would be enough to invoke bigger dynamics :) I almost become like a fan girl on this whole turbulence thing :D I hope you take my message seriously. Amazing channel by the way, I can hardly describe its beauty.
Classical Electrodynamics was improved: "In-Depth Development of Classical Electrodynamics (CED)", General Science Journal, Sep. 24, 2007, by Yuri Keilman. It is more apropriet to apply it to EM drive rather than Conventional CED because it is much closer to violating the energy-momentum law. Especially turn attention to p 12 of above paper.
In the video, the analogy was made to making the car go by pushing on the windshield. What if we change the analogy to "moving left or right by changing where you stand on the surf board"? Does that make it less a violation of the conservation of momentum? Are we measuring things 90degrees off, like a gyroscopic precession effect?
A little after the NASA group published their results, there was a paper published (can't find it now) explaining a possible mathematical theory behind it, also based on Pilot Wave Theory. One of the interesting things is that the theory lines up with all tests and results so far, which cover several different configurations and power levels, and suggest that most of the tests have been done at nearly the worst possible configuration for optimal power efficiency. IFF (notice the large letters and double F) this is correct, it would mean a simple re-configuration should produce comparatively much larger thrusts (thus harder to explain as a false positive). More testing is still needed, but for those of us in the science community willing to accept that maybe we don't understand QUANTUM PHYSICS quite as well as we thought (I mean, just look at the Higg's Bosom mass results), this is kind of exciting. P.S. Thanks for doing a good, fair, balanced analysis of this paper. Could you maybe do one covering the other various experiments and their results/possible errors/etc?
OMG, reading the actual papers, getting competent people to analyze them, taking the latest hype with a grain of salt, and involving the viewers in clever ways... That's science journalism done *right*!
Honestly, I've been a science enthusiast my whole life (and a scientist now), and I've *never* seen journalists report on it so seriously and professionally! (yup, not even Tony Darnell!). Keep up the great work!
piranha031091 +
Here Here! It's refreshing to see a real take on science, he doesn't dumb things down and keeps it fresh.
piranha031091 You must be new here =). You HAVE to check the other videos in the channel!
because he is not a journalist. He is a scientist and got his phd.
You can be both, it does not take a degree to be a journalist. Just the activity.
"The first rule of Spacetime Journal Club is... we talk over our thoughts and remain open to all possible ideas and contributions from others before forming any solid conclusions."
Hmmmm, that wasn't nearly quite as dramatic as the first rule of Fight Club.
Matthew Scatterty which you just broke
And the the second rule too
Matthew Scatterty Dammit Matthew!
We can always punch each other after we have formed our conclusions...
+TokyoTraveller That's very democratic of you!
"Now that the theoretical physics is done, calculate the mass-energy equivalence of my fist hitting your face!" A bit much for my taste, personally :p
Update: since this video was filmed, the EM drive is believed to not actually work. The measured thrust is from interference from the Earth’s magnetic field, according to an experiment by Technische Universität Dresden in Germany, May 2018.
But since the hyperbolimerjiggy of flat Earth gravitonomagneticyerwordsaladerzidation only pulls down, that proves you're statement is a NASA conspiracy.
Really though, that's unfortunate. A means to extract propulsion from quantum fields is going to be badly needed one day....
There probably is a way though, perhaps with the incredible precision so close to the door of the quantum universe which nanoscale machinery will allow, we could weasel that thrust outta there using completely novel methods.
....although if that Omuamua [forgive spelling] turns out to actually be interstellar, then all the space junk it's apperence implies may keep us locked up here anyway....
That very lab is actually re-doing the test now as well as other teams around the world. Not a sure thing yet.
Since the earth's magnetic field is directional, you would expect the interaction to be dependent on that directionality. Thus, some sort of change should be expected as the device is reoriented. Either the apparent thrust would be in a different direction, the magnitude would be different, etc.
The next obvious test would be to construct a room and/or magnet to shield/counteract the earth's magnetic field and then test it.
@@theevermind That was my take also...
This was obvious immediately. As a scientist I get the need/desire to rigorously show that. But seriously? Lol.
If anyone is still watching this video, the effect observed from the EM drive was shown to be an effect of turning on the electrical system, because it interacted with earth's magnetism, or something like that. So the drive does not work...
that sucks.... i was hoping it might actually be real! thanks for the update.
Could you cite a source for this research?
I am asking because if true, I can stop looking for information on the EM Drive, but if this is not a scientifically confirmed cause for the EM Drive's thrust it may still give useful space technologies.
(The creators of the early EM drives DID NOT know how their invention worked and their explanations were not something I cared about only the claim of non-propulsion-driven thrust)
sh4d0wfl4re, here is an article describing it: mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/05/german-scientists-disprove-nasas-emdrive/ they also link to the actual paper if you prefer reading scientific jargon 😉
Dumble Door but that was done by an independent company whose still doing test to see what to make of everything
"or something like that", very convincing. How can we take whatever your source is as reliable?
The "Stop broadcasting, you're in danger" ending actually gave me shivers and a brief shock of fear, so good
I suspect the source of this was from The Three Body Problem. Interestingly related is ruclips.net/video/hqoo_4wSkdg/видео.html "Could leave a wake of degraded vacuum". Anyone who's read all 3 books should recognize that. Such an odd coincidence that the core concept of the series(broadcasting danger) is mentioned seemingly without knowing, and the EmDrive potentially resulting in a sort of degraded vacuum wake..I'd be very curious to know if the speed of light is different in the wake..
I am NOT in danger Aramil4, I AM the danger!
This is literally the plot to The Three Body Problem, which was recently made into a TV series.
I LOVE the way you approached this topic. It really showed qualities any science communicator should have: carefulness, skepticism, courage to admit what does not know nor understand, and honesty. It also showed how discussions should be made. Thank you.
Was thinking the exact same thing. Well worded sir!
Could you only imagine the quality of society we would live in if every high profile 3rd wave feminist or other leftist dipshit held themselves to even remotely comparable standards? Just think about what would have been accomplished already.
feh So you're not disagreeing with the content of said communicators' message, just their tone. Curious that you focus only on them and not the other side of the political spectrum. Is that because at least with feminists and leftists, if they delivered their message better, we would in fact be in a better place while meninists and rightists (?) have no message that would result in progress?
Officially changed my major from Electrical Engineering to Physics (Astrophysics) I AM HYPE!
I'm still going for electronics engineering but I can't deny how epic astrophysics is!
Cool, bro. I hope you like endless math application.
Fuck yea! Math, bitch!
+TheGamingg33k just make sure there is a high enough demand in the job market for whatever you major in.
Same here, electrical engineering is what I'm going for, but astrophysics is undoubtedly an area that I will keep looking forward to. In fact, I even considered (standard) physics before electrical engineering, but I decided that I prefer practical applications rather than the theoretical field.
This is what I like the most about PBS Space Time. Their approach isn't too technical and is definitely layman-friendly but isn't too misrepresentative or too misleading like contemporary "pop sci" institutions (I'm looking at you IFLS). Kudos to everyone involved!
Similar to this idea: put small wheels on the front of a car, large ones on the back. The car will think it's on a hill, and start to accelerate. You've made a dragster! The big noisy engines are to impress the chicks.
lol
This is similar to putting butter on the back of a cat, dropping it from a height and harnessing the rotational energy as it spins in the air endlessly trying to land both on its feet and with the buttered side down. I use this to power my entire house now.
@@SubjagatorI just have been having trouble finding the cat.
@@Subjagator why does the buttered side go down?
@@ChadDidNothingWrong Murphy's law.
You're easily the channel with the highest scientific standard on RUclips. You're so accurate; I wish other creators would discuss such high level subjects in such an entertaining way.
Long story short: Great work, you do! Keep it up!
Is there a reason the EM drive hasn't been replicated more? It seems fairly simple and inexpensive for a university that has the right equipment (vacuum chambers and whatnot), so seems like it would be a handy experiment for publishing a paper in a few weeks, or as an assignment for later year undergrads.
While it may be relatively simple to build, I think measuring the effects to high precision becomes difficult. We see that even the Eagle Works team has to incorporate even more constraints to gain an accurate picture of what's happening.
The reason it hasn't been replicated is that nearly everyone doing physics professionally at a university has no reason to believe this device could work. It's based on faulty physics and none of the positive tests done so far pass a smell test.
Vacuum Diagrams
if there was a department that didnt have to worry so much about budget constraints and the need to write grant worth projects, I would do it just because it pissed me off. One of those things that at this point I'd just have to say "phooey, I'm gunna get to the bottom of this."
Mostly those who attempt to replicate the results dont get a replication which leads most to think it is just a fantasy.
not believing in something as a reason to not attempt a replication is poor science.
Negative results on replication thus showing that there is no effect is what should be happening.
Replicating an experiment to build consensus is one of the cornerstones of good science and getting more rare these days.
I trust this guy much more than Thunderf00t.
No wonder, Thunderf00t is a narrowminded idiot.
I don't think that he is an idiot but yeah I think he is narrow-minded and kind of arrogant.
ok, but this guy is literally saying the exact same thing as Dr Mason, so wtf? I don't particularly like Tf00t and unsubbed during his brexit meltdown but his debunking stuff is still pretty bang on
Relbl having different opinions isn't a meltdown
I thought his Brexit, er, "meltdown" was spot on, but I haven't subbed because I think he spends too much time arguing about SJW nonsense.
Here's my hypothesis: This is the highest quality chanel on youtube.
Observable evidence:
- open to all possible ideas and contributions
- intellectual honesty
- usage of scientific methodology
- grain of salt toward not conclusive novelty
- every single topic well researched...
- and even better explained...
- ... without distorting simplifications
- engaged community built around chanel (e.g +TheGamingg33k just officially changed his major from Electrical Engineering to Physics (Astrophysics))
Although other potential explanation has to be ruled out (below), I dare you to disprove my hypothesis!
Alternative explanations:
- I've slept 3 today and my cognitive abilities are altered
- I am secretly homosexual and therefore possibly biased
- I've eaten my favourite meal during this episode and in reality this post is about superiority of braised shrimp in garlic sauce over other meals
Keep up great work!
What about Isaac Arthur?
𝔹𝔸𝕄𝔹✪ memes
This does indeed sound like a plausible hypothesis. What experiments do you propose to test for the alternative explanations?
???
Hey Space Time! I'm so glad there are teams like yours out there educating and debunking sensationalist press regarding any scientific experiment. Please never stop doing the amazing job you do! The world needs you. 💞
I'm glad that their were resources available to write a paper like this. I know it would have been great to see them test all the different possibilities for a false positive but just getting the time to run an experiment like this is awesome. With the world of science being so much about getting published it seems like it is hard for people to take a chance on things that would fly in the face of established physics. Coming up with crazy ideas and figuring out you are wrong is just as worthwhile for science as to follow the predictable path.
Can we get more Journal Club? I loved it.
Can people stop saying that produces insignificant thrust to be worth anything? You are forgetting the big picture.
1. If this actually works, it may open a new field of study which may lead to even greater discoveries.
2. (Again, assuming that this actually works) The one used in the Eagle Works experiment was just for proof of concept. They admitted themselves that it was not engineered to be optimized. It was also very small compared to what would be used in a real space ship.
3. This a completely foreign type of technology. Once we figure out how it is actually making thrust then we may be able to make it actually efficient. Compare it to the first computers. They took 10s of seconds just to multiply TWO numbers. In other words, they were actually good for nothing. Fast forward decades of research and investment and we have technology that changed human civilization forever.
Aaron Schofield Exactly this. It would have huge implications beyond making a drive that may or may not ever be practical.
so true
Your point #1 is the one I keep on telling people... and get laughed at for.
Go with the response to why electricity mattes: There is every possibility that you will soon be able to tax it.
Babysteps
Sometimes I often wonder, what are we missing? I've heard a blind individual (since birth) talk about colors, he said "How can a pen and the sky both be blue? I don't get it."
When I heard that, I thought about what we could potentially be missing. Not being able to sense things has a huge impact on how we see/make sense of it. We have our senses and are comfortable with them, confident they give us all the information required to piece our environment together, but if we were a species that had no vision - using a different sense to "see" the world (Sonar for example), would we still be just as confident?
Our brain is limited and one day our science will hit a wall - anything past that point won't make any sense and I would blame that on our brains capability to comprehend or sense information.
So what if we're potentially missing something entirely? For example, a blind guy knows the object exists, he can feel it and imagine a shape in his brain, but he can't imagine what it visually looks like, colors, etc. What if thats the same with us? Like Dark Matter for example, something is affecting the galaxies and we can see the effect, but thats it. What if its something huge that would be very obvious to us if we had the senses to detect it?
We do have instruments to detect things we can't sense, but thats due to us being able to sense some of it to begin with - like light. We can't see Infrared, Ultraviolet, Xrays, etc, but because we can see Visible light it made us curious and we had a lead, we were able to find out that this frequency can be increased/decreased, etc.
Hey, call me crazy, call me wrong, disagree, its just a thought. There may be something we're missing entirely at the moment because its outside our comprehension and maybe we're starting to get a peak at it via these crazy experiments like the EM Drive.
Then again, maybe not. We're all hopeful to discover brand new physics which could potentially open up a whole new can of worms, but its unlikely at this point it seems.
I truly believe our next advancement in science will not derive from a human being, but from Artificial Intelligence - and the scary thing is, that discovery may be beyond what we can ever understand.
Another great video! Its always exciting to see one of these videos pop up on my subscription list!
I think we already hit two walls in the past century, but thanks to Einstein, we got further :)
Well on the other hand we've discovered and can now visualize the entire EM spectrum, colors we cannot see over a range far, far broader than the tiny window our eyes perceive. You can argue that's only because we can sense them via our instruments but that's equivalent to saying 'We can only tell these things exist because they do something.' If we're missing something because it does nothing... is it anything at all?
One of the great strengths of science is that if something has ANY effect we can work on discovering it. Dark matter is one such thing, it's hardly as if we're stuck going 'Well this is a mystery, nothing we can do here.' we're actively working to try and solve its mystery.
I read an interesting theory a while back about how there was no color "blue" until fairly recently. The way colors were explained in the past was weird, if I remember correctly Homer describes a "wine-dark sea" in the Odyssey and other strange color statements. Well, this guy wants to test this theory and so doesn't teach his daughter the color blue until she could fairly easily articulate what color the sky was, but she insisted that it didn't have a color at all. I don't know how true this is, but you can pretty easily find this theory through Google. I thought that was interesting just like you finding your blind friends comment about colors interesting. Thank you for sharing!
sacr3 I completely agree with your idea, except for the part of artificial intelligence. We'll break this wall ourselves in a few centuries I think.
Darren Pope
This is n interesting and tricky thing. Ancient cultures tended to have fewer words for colors but this is not the same as saying they were unable to perceive them. Ancient cultures tended to divide colors initially into light and dark then broad groups such as green-blue ('environmental colors'), red-orange-yellow ('hot colors') and so on.
To this day many countries lack a proper differentiation between blue and green, Japan for example, until very recently when American influence became important. These cultures know blue and green are different and can tell the difference between a green tree and a blue sky. (There MAY be some sensitivity issues, where cultures with more color names can distinguish shades better, but this is not a major effect.)
But the situation is akin to the various shades of blue the sky can be, to us they're all 'blue' even if they differ in brightness and hue. We and other cultures often use additional descriptors in this case (light blue, bright red, deep purple...) and indeed terms akin to 'leaf green' (Or 'plant colored') to separate blue from green in cultures where they are the same color are quite common.
The child experiment is pretty much hogwash. For one thing, consider the answer; is the child saying the sky is invisible? They were apparently not taught the word 'blue' which you would think would simply mean they lump it in with another color such as green.(After all I can name the color my house is painted as 'green' even if I don't know it's *actually* 'forest shade'.) They also didn't answer 'I don't know'? Nor were they asked 'What you mean it has no color'? A study involving manipulating your own child in such an intensive manner and it ends with a single question and no followup? It's a nice story, but only a story.
5:30 I'm with you on that one, Matt. That's pretty lousy to assume a linear relationship between thrust and power from those data (a whopping _three_ data points, two of which are statistically the same?), and then proceed from there with claims about a thrust-to-power ratio of 1.2 mN per kW.
If they really want to show that it follows a linear relationship, they should take more data at different power levels, and especially see if that supposed linear relationship remains true when extended to higher power levels.
+PBS Space Time A simple test you could do to see if it really works would be to simply "open" the "big end" of the EM drive up so it acts like a regular photon thruster. If the thrust levels stay the same as the "closed" EM drive, then you know that the drive doesn't actually work, and there is some other phenomenon at play. If you open it up and the thrust drops to just a photon thruster level of thrust, then you know that somehow the drive is creating actual thrust.
Or Gravitics (Magnetism+Gravity)
Matt I want you know if you ever wrote a Sci Fi book, we would all but it.
Edit: Buy
ewan hassall I would but it so hard.
Why would it need to be Sci Fi? He could just use real science!
sci-fi uses real science It exstrapolates current scientific thought into the future and its possible applications. That is how it is different from fantasy, which doesnt use science. Star Wars is fantasy, 2001: A Space Odyssey is sci=fi.
Oni Raptor sadly, true scifi like that is rare. its all too easy for authors to fall into the deus ex machina trap where some poorly understood phenomenon takes the place of the divine interloper. that or the use of fake, poorly described break throughs to fall into the "its magic(or in this case, science), I ain't gotta explain shit" trap.
Good storytelling requires a very different skill set. It's possible to have both, but we have no evidence of any storytelling ability of his or lack thereof.
Real Talk: we've avoided the topic of the EM drive because most of the data coming out isn't reliable, and because it's become a topic for conspiracy theorists and r/futurology... Not sure which is worse.
This episode took a very good approach to a contraversial topic.
Question about Quantum entanglement and the theory of relativity.
What would happen if you take 2 entangled particles and place 1 in a lab on earth and shoot another towards a black hole. Would the entangled particle on earth change states faster as the other reaches the black hole or would it slow down as its partner reaches the black hole? Or does relativity even apply to entangled particles as maybe the particle heading towards the black hole would be affected by the particle on earth thus would match the speed of the particle on earth. Don't know why i'm thinking of this, it kinda just popped in my head.
@goblin knight Btw, planck time is a constant that already exists, and it describes the smallest time measurable.
Its time to get shwifty
@adam smith
You wouldn't be able to measure if the particle changed states faster, because if you measure the entagled properties of either of the particles, the entaglement collapses.
Entangled particles will be non-entangled after the event-horizon. I think they will be an individual particle. You should check the Quantum Teleportation.
I have to say that I really appreciate how this channel simplifies things without completely dumbing it down. So glad to see something somewhat understandable and pretty informative without all the hype, voodoo, and click bait content.
"Stop broadcasting, you're in danger!" hahaha I like that, nice one Ryan :)
EM drives - burn up kilowatts of power for almost no thrust!!!! Woot!
actually the faster it goes the better energy conversion rate becomes, due to the squared velocity term in 0.5mv^2, at some point even exceeding unity. That's why you shouldn't put much trust in claims of systems breaking the law of conservation of momentum, as they would also break the law of conservation of energy.
spoonikle Its inefficient, but a good idea for long range probes or ships. You can stick a small nuclear reactor on there and take up minimal space and have a probe that can actually accelerate and make corrections for an extremely long time and in all conditions. You can generate the wattage needed for movement with way less weight than would be required for a propellant mass that gives the same amount of total acceleration.
sure but in space there is no friction (well it's very small) so you can accelerate to ridiculous speeds and with the ability to accelerate without needing a propellant for thrust the potential is only limited by the speed of light and your power source.
You say that like in 3000 years we won't be throwing out batteries for only having a few kilowatts left in them. Storage capacity and technology will get better. As will the technology, if they manage to conclude it IS actually working, and can fine tune it for more force.
spoonikle still thrust which could be amazing
Perhaps they should add a Flux Capacitor.
True. Maybe they should use a flying machine instead of rockets.
Thank you for an excellent series, brilliantly presented. I've been looking for science that doesn't dumb things down. This is a challenging series of videos and very much appreciated. Cheers!
Beautiful video. This is what journalism is. Real quality. This video could teach news students in school on how it's done.
Can we just take one of the built EM Drives and stick some solar panels on it and toss it out the ISS airlock? If the thing goes zooming off into space constantly accelerating, we'll know it works!
Apparently, China had one on their Tiangong space station. I wonder why no other space agency has done this?
@@tysonblah12345
Probably because it doesn't work. Every other paper done since has kinda debunked this drive.
I think the person saying that aliens wouldn't use radio was actually referring to its near uselessness as a means for interstellar communication. It is just way too slow for any civilization that might have achieved interstellar capabilities. Not that they wouldn't develop the technology at all. It is why sci-fi writers use the idea of subspace, tachyons, etc. for communication over interstellar distances.
I've thought that possibly gravity waves or something like that might work, assuming that the fabric of space doesn't have the light speed limitation, which I'm guessing it doesn't. So if gravity waves could be modulated like radio waves, well then maybe that could transmit at interstellar distances faster than light, since only the fabric of space itself would be 'moving', and not photons or anything else on the electromagnetic spectrum. I just figure that if we can actually detect them, we should eventually be able to replicate them. Of course we should be getting closer to warp drive at that point, even if only sub-luminal at first. Or maybe it wouldn't work, but it sounds good.
Gravity waves move at the speed of light, so are no better for faster communication over large distances. Plus they would be much more difficult to produce, considering it took two black holes to collide to produce even the faintest detection of them.
My3dviews
Oh well. At least it still sounded good.
Still, how do we know they travel at light speed? I mean it is one thing to bounce a laser off the moon and measure the time of travel between a known distance from the moment the laser was turned on. So how do we know that gravity waves do in fact travel at light speed? I mean no one monitored the waves leaving the black hole to the sensor, so... it begs the question. Just say'n.
Seastallion Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicts gravity waves at the speed of light, just as all massless particles move at the speed of light. All tests of the theory have been proven correct, including observation of how gravity affects objects over long distances. The gravitational waves that were detected from the black hole collision were detected by two detectors in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington. They would have been able to measure the difference in time that each detector picked up the waves, based on the distances between them.
My3dviews
Okay, I suppose I can understand that, although I get the feeling that there is a hole somewhere in that, and not the black holes. To the best of my knowledge, gravity waves WOULDN'T be particles at all, right? I mean why would they be, unless we're saying that gravitons exist, and that gravity ISN'T merely the bending of space-time due to mass? It was my understanding that gravity waves were literally ripples in the fabric of space, similar to waves in a puddle by analogy. If that is true, then I'm not getting the particles being detected. Unless you're saying that technically the gravity waves aren't being directly detected at all, but are being extrapolated from some sort of particle patterns that are supposedly riding those waves as though on a surf board? In which case, I get skeptical about them having been detected at all. How do we know it wasn't something else being detected? I have heard that claim, that it was actually an electromagnetic thing that Tesla predicted. I'm not saying that is so, but the whole gravity waves/particle thing is kind of throwing me off.
If superluminal communication is possible, then so is retro communication (i.e. communication back in time), which would produce feedback and violate conservation of energy among other things. I would not hold any hope for this being a real thing.
The EM drive will be capable of traveling through space at incredible speeds.
As soon as it can develop enough thrust to lift it's own research paper.
I must say, I have always enjoyed the videos from Space Time channel. Really interesting stuff especially to someone who likes space and everything related into it.
So refreshing to see intelligent comments and no arguing. This is just amazing. Go smart people.
I like how everyone is so dismissive of the drive. It's always a snarky, head shaking explanation of why it won't work followed by why it could work. Everyone is always so entrenched in their views, regardless if they're arguing about politics or quantum field theory (especially so with the latter it seems).
Politics is a part of the human condition... It's been that way since we were living in tribes on the plains of Africa, throwing rocks at the next tribe in the other valley... But this is more than mere sociology.
When someone starts talking about rewriting physics from the ground up, of course people are cautious and dismissive. If you begin saying that *_rigorously_* (and I mean to within _parts per billion_ in some cases) tested Newtonian, thermodynamic, Relativistic and Quantum Field theories are not at their root, correct - of course scientists are going shout, _"Nothing personal, but you're out of your f%&ing mind!"_
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and a few questionable margin of error tests aren't going to cut it.
In any case, it can take decades to firmly establish new avenues of research, let alone putting the knowledge to practical use. Patience... The answers will come in time as always.
This isn't like finding a new particle, or offering a new explanation for something. This is a drive that breaks a fundamental law of physics.
So to a physicist, this is like someone saying they've invented a perpetual motion machine.
And it turns out, they were right in being skeptical.
Hey dude, I love your stuff. I do however have a little gripe with the idea that if there are no limits to intellectual growth, but at some point we can understand roughly what can and can't be done in the universe. I think looking back to before the 1920's, many thought physics was a done deal, then quantum opened up another big layer to the onion. thanks :)
Sometimes "charlatans" end up being right, mostly by mistake. My take is that all ideas, even the ridiculous, are analysed and weighted with a probability index and "placed on a large dependency / mind map". That way they can be seen in context for others to consider / discount. Let's make it objective, for one day, one of those inprobable ideas may fit and bolster a new theory.
The EM Drive will work for one very important reason - because I so very badly want it to work. Otherwise, I can't see any way it ever could. ☹️
I was thinking what would happen if you would put a spark from a high voltage generator (eg stun gun) in front of the magnetron in a vacuum... (my opinion: stun gun produces electrons and the magnetron pushes them out and giving thrust)...
"Stop broadcasting you're in danger" comments gave me chills.. That sounds like a GREAT SciFi story.
I found your channel today and I just couldn't stop watching. Keep up the amazing work.
This notification squad tho...
oh, ffs.
As others have said Thunderf00t did a really solid takedown of this device. It's particularly good because the video shows the completely insane claims those behind it make: For example that we'll have flying cars using EM Drives...
No sane person claims this will make cars fly.
the thrust would be too minuscule for flying cars...
Cyan Its good for something like a long range probe or some kind of deep sleep sci-fi space ship. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea and thinks anything can easily be scaled up.
I wouldn't trust thunderfoot, he looks more like a sensationalist rather than a serious scientist.
@Cyan Umm... What do flying cars have to do with anything? What kind of faulty logic is that?
420 views and 42 likes i am the chosen one
You're gonna blaze it for centuries
420 gave you the answer to everything
42,0 is the answer to life the universe and everything
GG
berkcancosan I'm high rn
Kudos to the introduction of a journal club style RUclips presentation. I'm glad this channel produces the smart content it does.
As a person who works in the science field I wish to greatly thank you very much for such a thorough and grounded discussion. I really appreciate how well you focused on what we do know, the theories underlining the science. And perhaps most importantly giving a detailed brief on where errors could arise. Unfortunately in most scientific publications I sometimes feel that the discussion on the possibility of error and the Madrid ways they can crop up and effect the experiment isn't covered nearly enough. Especially covering a great deal of content targeted at the general public, who often misunderstand error in a scientific context. As error can. and often does arise with even the most experienced and competent researchers.
Again great work, please keep it up.
The Force confirmed, I am going to become a Jedi now.
Force not confirmed until what is nature of Force we know. Until you know nature of Force, a Jedi you may not become.
thunderf00t and pbs spacetime busted this. I can rest peacefully.
He's not "busting it". He may not personally believe the EM drive is likely to pan out, but he's just giving us the facts, telling us what we'd need to do to find out whether it's real, and letting us make our own judgements.
how did they bust it? all he said was that the other possibilities need to be checked first.
at the start he said its probably going to be just an error in the data. Also the thrust data showed very little force for lots of power. How is that efficient?
I agree that he didn't bust it. I can't say that I would've been as generous as he was, for that matter.
As a matter of fact, I wasn't.
holy fuck that ryan messed me up
Agustín leonardo Nice profile picture, Plini is great live.
Leonardo Gonzalez nice pic of AAL... I'm trying to fit their new cd in my head but it's gonna take a while... too many time signatures
Ryan, pls
FINALLY, I agree with this channel on fact vs. theory. PBS tends to release theory as fact, this new break down of possible errors in measurement is exactly how I feel/think about the EM drive phenomena. Please do MORE of this when it comes to origin of the universe theory, hyperinflation, and all other unproven but highly speculative theories! The CMB doesn't prove or dial in the 'actual' age of the universe, we don't know HOW the things at scale translate!
Love PBS and the new channel!
First of all the EM drive looks backwards - the "force side" is bigger than the concentrate side. In classical analysis I would expect the wave pattern to concentrate waves directed through a smaller rather than larger orifice! Given the sparse info we have this would not appear to contravene any claims the EM drive makes!
I'm a chemist not a physicist however I have had my head bent, hurt, twisted on the ozone layer. I survived then I was subjected to the twisted world of Einstein, Heisenburg, Bohr, Penrose et al. and Quantum mechanics
I haven't given up as I did pursue X-ray-crystallography and to this day understand something of what you talk.
X-ray-crystallography is an observed verses a model science; yes it is now a service product. However, the principle is the same record then model and model an agreement factor!
I'm not good enough to suggest a thought experiment as the great 1! I only hope I am good enough to ask a question which is worthy of your consideration.
The first rule of Spacetime Journal Club is...
Matthew Scatterty bring cake for everyone
The first rule of Spacetime Journal Club is... cake for everyone! An EM Drive shaped cake, in this instance ;)
+fatsamcastle With some "quantum foam" whip cream on top for good measure!
Matthew Scatterty with all the sugar in them you'll get more power from a EM cake than a EM drive
+fatsamcastle hahaha well played! Bonus points for it being a factual statement, at least at this point in EM Drive testing.
I'm still waiting for cold fusion, dang it! I want my flying DeLorean!
em drives are more important
By the time cold fusion becomes a reality there will be nobody to remember what a DeLorean was. Also, we would all be speaking Chinese.
It's silly for people to draw a firm conclusion on inconclusive data. A few more tests will confirm it one way or another. If our curiosity was sated with "Everything we know tells us this is wrong" then we would still believe that gods controlled all aspects of the world... well okay bad example.
The things is, errors happen all the time, that's why physics prefer to eliminate all the possible explanations until they get to the new physics.
It's interesting that the narrator mentions Jim Woodward's criticism of Shawyer's theory. What's not mentioned is that Woodward also proposes a propellent-less drive based on the Mach effect. There is evidence for Woodward's device generating thrust also. Some scientists think that the EMDrive may be generating thrust also by the Mach effect.
Holy crap. No crappy superior/dismissive/scoffing attitude. It's an actual serious treatment of a controversial topic. Bless you, Matt.
Is it real? Em... I don't think so.
It's a joke you garden gnome
No videos here I honestly want it to be real
Dat Boi Let's hope
No videos here I mean, it's probably not likely, but it would be really cool if it did work
BlueDiamond Yea that's what I hope for
"Stop broadcasting you're in danger" imagine getting THAT message from an alien civilization.
Mastikator thats chilling
I'm sure I've read a short story somewhere about that. The message received was "For god sake shut up! They'll hear you!"
it would take to long to decipher the meaning of it to be of any use
That'd be the greatest prank of all times.
Or "it's just a prank bro"
It’s nice to see someone who hasn’t been hoodwinked by some eggheads electric drum
𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗻𝘆
Bob is a nob
Have I got this wrong, or is this patent applied for and granted to the U.S. Secretary of the Navy based around this? For, and I quote... "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device"
patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
journal club is one of the best things to ever happen I wish more channels did journal clubs
Thanks to you, Matt (and team)! Keep up the amazing work. Really looking forward to the episodes on QFT.
The first message we get from aliens will be "Stop broadcasting! We're getting tired of I Love Lucy."
But we didn't broadcast that very long and they wouldn't be saying to stop broadcasting altogether but to broadcast something else. They could always ignore the signal if they don't like it.
We don't think Uncle Martin recieves channel 5.
It always seems strange to me when something as simple as heating the device and testing for false positives hasn't been tried yet. Like, I understand that there's a fair amount of preparation involved in any testing, but, why wait so long?
Heating the device externally, or even internally probably won't replicate the heating caused by its running, the effect is small and if due to heating would possibly be due to a very unique geometry or setup. Thermal effects can be hell to pin down.
The torsion balance cannot differentiate between thrust and a shift in the center of gravity. Both can cause the exact same deflection. Also, the balance has a lot of damping and inertia, so a sudden force or a gradual increasing force can look pretty much the same. They claim the measured deflection had two components, a step response due to the thrust and a ramp component due to thermal expansion of the heat sink of the RF amplifier shifting the center of gravity. However, what they have not considered is a sudden shift in the center of gravity when the power is applied, for example because a wire moves due to electromagnetic force when the current is applied.
Also, when the heat sink cools down again, the balance returned to it's starting point in forward and reverse thrust, but not in "neutral thrust": the displacement stayed the same (which they called offset shift or something like that). They gave no explanation for that.
An option would be to keep the RF amplifier at constant temperature, and only switch the "EM drive" on and off. But that's probably not possible in vacuum, because the heat sink isn't designed for vacuum, the steady state temperature would be too high for the amplifier.
it might be eaiser to launch a few into space and see
Now that Vsauce is more or less dead, this is my favorite channel on youtube. I just liked Vsauce better because of the way the episodes were written, directed, and narrated, which was really genius and entertaining, like storytelling mixed with science. Vsauce was a uinique experience (not Vsauce2 or 3, only Michael's channel counts).
I hope that you guys keep on doing this series. This video is an excellent lesson on scientific skepticism.
After 1 year still this is the best video about EM drive....kudos to you
WOO! Under 10 views!
I can answer this rather quickly.
After reading the paper: Fantasy
This is how science should be done. Put a claim to the test3. Rule out mundane explanations. Most of the time the claim will be found to be untenable. Every once in a while, we might make new science.
What should be avoided is to decide the issue without testing it. The explanations given fot the EM drive do not agree with known physics. However, all current physical knowledge was once in conflict with the physics of the time.
My guess is that this effort is a result of well-known laws of physics. But you just never know... And you won't ever know, if you aren't open to new ideas.
You're correct! The current being used to operate the drive was interacting with the earths magnetic field.
The problem with EM drive was that they started out with a tin can and then proceeded to invent nonsense hypothesizes to justify why it should work. Science is supposed to work the other way around, you invent a hypothesis that sounds half way decent, compute consequences if this hypothesis has any basis in reality and then build a test based on that if you can. You might still end up with a tin can that doesn't do what it says on the label, but at least you spent your time doing science, instead of wishing on magic woo to get you to stars.
You are very enlightning. I cant do all these calculations,but thanks to people like you,i Can follow the great Lines . Even explain some of it to my pals. So cary on. So thanks..
I just found this channel great presentation . While it would be great to state "look what we found" it is far better to think and respond than react nice work
Set the speed of the video to 1.25x and it sounds like he's talking normally
Or just hit the stop button and get blessed silence.
Shit, it really does! XD
Matt, what if EM drive is a trap!
How?
Hello?
It's tunneling of one of an entangled pair.
it wouldn't make enough thrust that way
Got to give it to you For the depth with which the subject matter was presented 🙏🙏🙏
first 20 secs and this guys got me hooked yet again. said it once and I'll say it again, he has the best body language I've seen
Turn playback speed to 1.25x --> Matt's voice sounds normal.
wtf?
YET! Not powerful enough for hoverboards YET! :-)
And it never will.
Because it doesn't work.
I always watch Matt sped up to 1.25 X. The lugubrious nature of his voice is much alleviated. (IMHO.)
Same
More Journal Club! That was very interesting. I like getting more insight into the structure of a scientific paper
Thank you for addressing this deeply interesting subject. I'm not a physicist, but can you elaborate more on second generation super conducting thrusters? And Shawyer explained the thrust only using general relativety, something to do with the frame of reference of the microwaves being different to that of the thruster if I understood correctly. Would like to hear your take on that.
The EM drive isn't moving. It is the rest of space that is being shifted.
Didn't I see that in an episode of Futurama?
Nicholas Hylton yes he did. Also, em drive seems to be more of a magnetic field interaction moreso than anything else, really stange that most poeple didn't pick up on the whole, weird how running current though wires makes an observable thrust, just like an electromagnet.
Ryan was talking about the Sci Fi book "The Three Body Problem" by Cixin Liu. It's a pretty amazing book.
While the topic was EM Drives, it may as well have been "How to Construct and Criticize an Academic Paper." Kudos to the break down of each element that goes into the thorough examination of the practical application of an EM Drive, and all the potential confounding variables that may have impacted the results of the particular study analyzed.
Channels like PBS Space Time are better as they give us reliable and plausible explanation on sensitive topics like the one in the video above. We are all really great full of people who spend their time and energy to explain others and spread the topics aiding in the advancement of science and technology, inspiring young generation to research or study in the vast field of science.
Very good video. Very good approach and not hyping things just because they sound good. You have my respect sir!
I was just thinking about you guys making a video about the EM Drive today.
thanks for doing this video. much more articulate critique than I could muster to the people who were supporting the results. A question I have though is what kind of power curve should be expected given their pilot wave hypothesis? is there any reason to believe they should expect a linear relationship?
As a graduate student in statistics, I love seeing how it gets used in other disciplines. I was especially excited that it was the focus of a critique of this study. I have two questions regarding the scatterplot of the data with the linear curve:
1) Is there a scientific/physical reason for expecting a linear relationship between thrust and power?
2) The error bars (if that's what they are) are throwing me off a little bit. They must not be standard error bars because averages ought to have smaller standard errors than individual data measurements. I'm just a bit at a loss for their purpose.
I also want to echo the sentiments of many other people commenting on this video; it is wonderful to see science be communicated so clearly and without the sensationalist bent that seems to plague typical scientific news outlets.
Here's an unrelated *question.* Can relay stations situated between two points separated by a cosmological horizon enable information to be transferred between them? Since it will be yet a while before the relatively nearby relay points are themselves causally separated, could they form a bridge for information to travel, say, from the Pavo-Indus Supercluster to the Hydra Supercluster at some future time when those two superclusters are no longer in the same causal pocket?
No. The cosmological horizon isn't what you think it is. It's like the event horizon of a black hole, in that, if you were to try to reach it with a static piece of rope, you would need an infinite length of rope. Cut the rope and it would fall through the horizon in a finite amount of time from the rope's perspective, but only because it reaches the speed of light and at that point also reaches infinite time dilation as well. In a static reference frame, namely in ours, the cosmological horizon is an infinite distance away. This also means you could be 1 mile from the event horizon of a black hole, and have a million miles of rope, and lower it all the way down and the other end of the rope will never touch the event horizon, and you'll be able to pull it back up, provided the rope is strong enough (we're talking a tensile strength of on the order of the fundamental limit put in place by relativity, of its mass per unit length times the speed of light squared though), as strange as that sounds, because that is how compressed space gets near a black hole, there's an infinite amount of real estate there. Basically the rope that is being held by someone sitting at a safe distance and prevented from falling in, will disagree with the rope that is in freefall right next to it, about the measurements of distances, and the disagreement becomes a factor of infinity as the one in freefall actually reaches the horizon. The distance to the cosmological horizon is also infinity from the perspective of the reference frame that moves with the Earth. You could let out an infinite amount of rope and its tension would asymptotically reach its mass per unit length times c^2 as the cosmological constant tugs on it so the work it does for you in letting it out equals the energy cost of MAKING another unit of rope, but it will never reach the cosmological horizon and someone on the other end, moving with a static reference frame over THERE, will say that the end of the rope is rapidly being accelerated away from him at the same rate at which the Earth far off in the distance is rapidly accelerating away from him.
Best explanation yet! Nice work. Nice work.
Maybe the explanation is the Alcubierre-White warp drive acting on a much smaller scale than was originally proposed. The microwaves are setting up standing waves that must send the chamber cone walls into microscopic oscillations, thus also acting to warp spacetime at a very minute level.
such a professional channel! Thank you! You make us loving physics more!
The EM drive reminds me of something we'd do a couple decades ago in my friend's car. The car (a Chevy Nova) didn't have much power and had trouble accelerating when the car was full (4 big guys). As a joke, we started "rowing" (synchronously jerking our upper bodies forward) and surprisingly enough, the car would gain momentum each time we rowed.
I never quite understood how this worked because we we're not interacting with the outside (windows were closed). My best guess was that our "rowing" reduced the friction for an instant but I'd be interested in reading your explanations.
If I'm not mistaken the thrust is produced at the ''thin'' end not the ''fat'' end of the cavity resonator. Introduction to Harold White paper, you cite, states on the very first page, as follows: ''It is shown here, that a dielectrically loaded, tapered RF article excited in the transverse magnetic 212 (TM212) mode .... at 1937 MHz is capable of consistently generating force directed to the narrow end under vacuum condition.'' Page 3 fig.2 also shows the net thrust as directly opposite, to the one you visualize at the beginning of the presentation (2:10). You then present this very diagram later at 4:02 without as much as a blink of an eye. Consistency and scrupulous approach to a scientific subject are of paramount importance here, I guess.
Please, I want to see a popular physics based or general science channel talk about turbulence and how do we ridiculously lack knowledge about understanding it. No channel in youtube seems to cover this topic. I mean, there are great channels with amazing styles on making videos about highly difficult science branches but not even one on turbulence?
I know that even a brief introduction to turbulence requires many levels of math and physics knowledge. And I would like to assume that science channels deliberately avoid it due to its complexity. I remember some videos trying to explain it without all that difficult stuff, but they were not effective and couldn't invoke the excitement I was expecting out of them.
But as far as I can tell, you guys deal here with seriously hard topics if not harder than turbulence. So I tend to think that you can pull this off. I'm just a new starting phd student on turbulence modeling and it is my passion to learn more about it. Even more so to see this brilliant subject being interpreted from scientist, experts etc.
I don't know maybe I'm too childish with my expectation. But think about it, it is most probably our new door in science waiting to be opened. Turbulence being related to chaos, self similar behaviors, emerging patterns out of randomness, strange mathematical properties resulting from the simplest of equations etc. etc. I am no youtuber or a frequent video uploader or an expert to talk on this, but even I can see how an amazing video concept turbulence can be.
Maybe doing a video directly about turbulence might not be in your schedule. But you can do for example small introductions to those fields, e.g. classical mechanics, fluid dynamics etc. Demanding it, is completely different than actually doing it, I am very well aware of that. And even if you take my suggestion seriously, I know it depends on many other factors. But right perturbation in right space and time may lead to much greater changes in the system, I just hope my perturbation would be enough to invoke bigger dynamics :)
I almost become like a fan girl on this whole turbulence thing :D I hope you take my message seriously.
Amazing channel by the way, I can hardly describe its beauty.
I'd really love to see a video discussing strange anomalies, such as the Boötes Void.
Classical Electrodynamics was improved: "In-Depth Development of Classical Electrodynamics (CED)", General Science Journal, Sep. 24, 2007, by Yuri Keilman. It is more apropriet to apply it to EM drive rather than Conventional CED because it is much closer to violating the energy-momentum law. Especially turn attention to p 12 of above paper.
The internet Cafe at the center of the galaxy. I can totally see Douglas Adams writing a wacky adventure about it, I bet it would have been great lol.
In the video, the analogy was made to making the car go by pushing on the windshield. What if we change the analogy to "moving left or right by changing where you stand on the surf board"? Does that make it less a violation of the conservation of momentum? Are we measuring things 90degrees off, like a gyroscopic precession effect?
A little after the NASA group published their results, there was a paper published (can't find it now) explaining a possible mathematical theory behind it, also based on Pilot Wave Theory. One of the interesting things is that the theory lines up with all tests and results so far, which cover several different configurations and power levels, and suggest that most of the tests have been done at nearly the worst possible configuration for optimal power efficiency.
IFF (notice the large letters and double F) this is correct, it would mean a simple re-configuration should produce comparatively much larger thrusts (thus harder to explain as a false positive).
More testing is still needed, but for those of us in the science community willing to accept that maybe we don't understand QUANTUM PHYSICS quite as well as we thought (I mean, just look at the Higg's Bosom mass results), this is kind of exciting.
P.S. Thanks for doing a good, fair, balanced analysis of this paper. Could you maybe do one covering the other various experiments and their results/possible errors/etc?