Live data from Hacker News

The warp drive will have to wait

translate.google.com

21–30 of 88 posts

Re: The warp drive will have to wait

#21

EM drive is not an argument such that it might be refuted. It is a device. As such it has fitness for purpose, which depends entirely on the purpose at hand. Snarkiness << skepticism.

The OP may not be a native English speaker (located in Europe), so any perceived snarkiness is likely based on an overly literal reading of his word choice.

How about this alternative (which, btw, is how I interpreted the headline): "Principle behind EM Drive refuted" or "Experimental results of EM Drive refuted".

Re: The warp drive will have to wait

#22

If something sounds too good to be true, it usually isn't true.

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

If it's free energy or free momentum, using only physics that has been perfectly described in hundreds of millions of contexts and experiments, for one and a half centuries, using mathematics that don't allow for either, you can rule out this alternative.

The likelihood that free momentum and free energy are possible is indistinguishable from 0. They are empirically impossible in the strongest reasonable sense the word can have.

Re: The warp drive will have to wait

#24

EM drive is not an argument such that it might be refuted. It is a device. As such it has fitness for purpose, which depends entirely on the purpose at hand. Snarkiness << skepticism.

Sure, if you need a paperweight, it very well may be the device for you. But the question is it's fitness as a propulsion device.

Re: The warp drive will have to wait

#25

So was it a hoax or a mistake by its inventors?

That's sort of an unnecessary dichotomy. Enthusiasm doesn't mean hoax, and the mistake was propagated by more than just the inventors.

Everything suggests that it was just science in action. There was an experiment, and it failed to reject the null hypothesis of 'no thrust'. A few groups have repeated the experiment, but not to the experimental power needed to thoroughly reject it. This test seems to be a more definitive rejection of it, but we're still not sure why there was any thrust measured in the first place, though there are some pretty reasonable leads on that.

Re: The warp drive will have to wait

#26

EM drive is not an argument such that it might be refuted. It is a device. As such it has fitness for purpose, which depends entirely on the purpose at hand. Snarkiness << skepticism.

Sure, if you need a paperweight, it very well may be the device for you. But the question is it's fitness as a propulsion device.

or discharge a battery very fast

Re: The warp drive will have to wait

#27

EM drive is not an argument such that it might be refuted. It is a device. As such it has fitness for purpose, which depends entirely on the purpose at hand. Snarkiness << skepticism.

The OP may not be a native English speaker (located in Europe), so any perceived snarkiness is likely based on an overly literal reading of his word choice. How about this alternative (which, btw, is how I interpreted the headline): " Principle behind EM Drive refuted" or " Experimental results of EM Drive refuted".

I'm the author of the article.

The quote wasn't meant to be snarky. It was meant as an explanation why it is worthwhile to occasionally do experiments, even if you believe the device can't work the way it is supposed to. He also said it was excellent experiment for the purpose of teaching his students.

Re: The warp drive will have to wait

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... you're saying all we need to do is pull an extension cord behind our spacecraft? Unlimited powahhh!

Sort of like an electric mower with a power cord?

A mower has wheels against the ground that create the force for its propulsion, in space, there's no grass, man!

Re: The warp drive will have to wait

#30
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

The critical detail here is that this is neither free energy nor free momentum in this setup. Energy is pumped in, and some momentum is generated - that's incredibly boring and not at all something that should raise any skepticism. The question of what in the hell was being pushed against to convert that energy to momentum, on the other hand, is a really interesting question, but not one to deeply pursue until we're actually sure it's happening. Which seems like the cavity wasn't the interesting bit in the end. A shame and a bit boring after so much careful testing, but nothing to get worked up over.

And the experiments didn't make it obvious that the setup didn't work. I mean, I don't think anyone took the inventor's theoretical claims seriously, but the device did generate some small thrust in a difficult to explain way.

Besides, we know that space isn't nothing, so being able to tractor against whatever is there would be a rather intersting engineering find; physicists would then likely take the experiment and go "oh, there's a neat edge case in this system of equations that explains it". There are a lot of interesting edge cases left to find and engineer.

Post reply on HN