Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What we know about the EmDrive and Cannae Drive

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 180 posts

Re: What we know about the EmDrive and Cannae Drive

#11

Post by waterlesscloud »

Steuard wrote: post #4

This is not worth getting excited about. Really. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. These drives would violate conservation of momentum.[0] Conservation of momentum is built in to the known laws of physics at an extraordinarily deep level. It is obviously not impossible that our known laws are wrong, but the alternative would be to somehow produce a radically different set of physical laws that neve…

"But I also wish that I could cure cancer with a single magical kiss, and that I had my very own pet dragon"

This kind of condescending response doesn't do science or scientists any good. It's actually actively harmful. Don't do it.

Re: What we know about the EmDrive and Cannae Drive

#12

Post by InclinedPlane »

creamyhorror wrote: post #9
Steuard wrote: post #4

This is not worth getting excited about. Really. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. These drives would violate conservation of momentum.[0] Conservation of momentum is built in to the known laws of physics at an extraordinarily deep level. It is obviously not impossible that our known laws are wrong, but the alternative would be to somehow produce a radically different set of physical laws that neve…

According to physicist Harold White, leader of the NASA Eagleworks team, it can't simply be a "photon rocket": The NASASpaceflight.com group has given consideration to whether the experimental measurements of thrust force were the result of an artifact. Despite considerable effort within the NASASpaceflight.com forum to dismiss the reported thrust as an artifact, the EM Drive results have yet to be falsified. After c…

Realize that this is the exact same level of verification as superliminal neutrinos, except at a vastly decreased level of rigor. At this point the overwhelmingly likely explanation is that there is some phenomenon at work which we don't understand or haven't properly accounted for, not that there is new physics afoot.

Re: What we know about the EmDrive and Cannae Drive

#15

Post by digitalzombie »

Sweet.

Best case, we get a new awesome thrusters.

Worst case, we get the learn new things. So far these drives have pass tests and stumped experts and researchers. So even if it doesn't violate the current laws of physic, it'll paint a better picture of the current laws of physic and better testing method in the future.

Re: What we know about the EmDrive and Cannae Drive

#16

Post by pavlov »

Steuard wrote: post #10
yohui wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And don't send these folks money that could do real good elsewhere until they give at least some small reason to expect that it's not a wild goose chase. Is it even possible to give them money? I wasn't aware that NASA accepts earmarked donations, or contributions from private individuals in general.

In the back of my mind, I suppose I'm hoping that some administrator involved with the NASA budget is reading my comment. (Just for instance, I would say that the possibility that we could find life on Europa or the other outer moons is many, many orders of magnitude higher than the possibility that these drives turn out to be even a little bit worthwhile.)

Are you serious? If you had the power, you would actively prevent NASA from doing these experiments and trying to falsify the claims?

I could somehow understand that if the experiments cost a billion dollars. But they don't. Any Europa mission is in no way related to nor threatened by these drive tests.

Re: What we know about the EmDrive and Cannae Drive

#17

Post by Steuard »

creamyhorror wrote: post #9
Steuard wrote: post #4

This is not worth getting excited about. Really. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. These drives would violate conservation of momentum.[0] Conservation of momentum is built in to the known laws of physics at an extraordinarily deep level. It is obviously not impossible that our known laws are wrong, but the alternative would be to somehow produce a radically different set of physical laws that neve…

According to physicist Harold White, leader of the NASA Eagleworks team, it can't simply be a "photon rocket": The NASASpaceflight.com group has given consideration to whether the experimental measurements of thrust force were the result of an artifact. Despite considerable effort within the NASASpaceflight.com forum to dismiss the reported thrust as an artifact, the EM Drive results have yet to be falsified. After c…

Yes, sure, they've measured something surprising. I have no reason to doubt that.

A few years ago, the enormously more respected folks at the OPERA experiment were willing to announce that they had seemingly detected neutrinos moving faster than light. Despite this coming from a large group of scientists with top-notch credentials, that was immediately doubted by almost the entire physics community, and sure enough, the observed effect turned out to have been caused by a bad cable connection.

If anything, conservation of momentum is more deeply embedded in the structure of known physical principles than the speed of light limit. And this little group within NASA doesn't have remotely the level of credibility that OPERA had. So it's even easier for me to believe that this measurement is due to some loose cable or improper calibration or failure to isolate the test environment, too.

Re: What we know about the EmDrive and Cannae Drive

#18

Post by SeanLuke »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #11
Steuard wrote: post #4

This is not worth getting excited about. Really. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. These drives would violate conservation of momentum.[0] Conservation of momentum is built in to the known laws of physics at an extraordinarily deep level. It is obviously not impossible that our known laws are wrong, but the alternative would be to somehow produce a radically different set of physical laws that neve…

"But I also wish that I could cure cancer with a single magical kiss, and that I had my very own pet dragon" This kind of condescending response doesn't do science or scientists any good. It's actually actively harmful. Don't do it.

Nonsense. These devices are on the far extreme end of the "requires extraordinary evidence" spectrum. Until this extraordinary evidence is provided, they are well within the prior probability category of providing pet dragons.

Re: What we know about the EmDrive and Cannae Drive

#19

Post by XorNot »

Glyptodon wrote: post #8
Steuard wrote: post #4

This is not worth getting excited about. Really. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. These drives would violate conservation of momentum.[0] Conservation of momentum is built in to the known laws of physics at an extraordinarily deep level. It is obviously not impossible that our known laws are wrong, but the alternative would be to somehow produce a radically different set of physical laws that neve…

Even if something disproves the functionality of these things it's still likely to be quite interesting. I think there's room to be excited either way.

The FTL neutrino was a fiber-optic cable from a frequency generator that was slightly loose. So no, it could still be something really stupid, and not exciting. Beyond the fact I wish someone from that team had sent a video into FailArmy on YouTube.

Re: What we know about the EmDrive and Cannae Drive

#20

Post by dandelany »

yohui wrote: post #6
Steuard wrote: post #4

This is not worth getting excited about. Really. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. These drives would violate conservation of momentum.[0] Conservation of momentum is built in to the known laws of physics at an extraordinarily deep level. It is obviously not impossible that our known laws are wrong, but the alternative would be to somehow produce a radically different set of physical laws that neve…

> And don't send these folks money that could do real good elsewhere until they give at least some small reason to expect that it's not a wild goose chase. Is it even possible to give them money? I wasn't aware that NASA accepts earmarked donations, or contributions from private individuals in general.

They don't accept earmarked donations, but they do accept unsolicited and unconditional private contributions. http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PD_...
Post reply on HN