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

NASA's Peer-Reviewed EM Drive Paper Has Finally Been Published

sciencealert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: NASA's Peer-Reviewed EM Drive Paper Has Finally Been Published

#41

Post by flukus »

indolering wrote: post #27
boyhowdy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. studies consistently are showing that this seems to produce thrust without expelling any matter 2. we know that can't be possible I think most people are excited about this not because they think we just proved 2 to be wrong, but instead because we know 2 must be true, so what the hell is going on with 1??? Most likely we will find out that we are NOT violating the known laws of the universe, but we're "not violat…

>studies consistently are showing that this seems to produce thrust without expelling any matter Nope, others have been unable to reproduce their results. As for Eagle Works ... their data is crap. The paper consists of 18 data points and large amounts of variance. The largest thrust measurement comes from the middle power setting. Furthermore, they are measuring (at most!) 120 micro-newtons of thrust. Someone correc…

> The EM drive literally entails perpetual motion. We know that's impossible, yet someone always manages to sell a new version of it every few years.

Well the universe was created, so that seems to imply the energy can be created. We don't know that energy can't be created, just that the current laws of the universe don't allow for it, as far as we know.

Not that I believe this will violate that law in anyway. Even if the drive turns out to be real I suspect it will be something like photon entanglement, where it appears data is travelling faster than light but it's in no way helpful.

Re: NASA's Peer-Reviewed EM Drive Paper Has Finally Been Published

#42

Post by dnautics »

Jedd wrote: post #40

NASA has published this paper. These guys presumably know what they're talking about. Moon landing, space shuttle, Voyager, etc. They ran actual experiments on this drive. Why are half the comments here saying 'They must be wrong' - seemingly based on nothing more than a strong belief that NASA must be wrong.

I'm skeptically optimistic about the em drive (I think it probably doesn't work but the upside is so great it's worth tinkering with)... NASA has been spectacularly wrong in the past. Arsenic life, for example. In many ways the em drive stuff has the same hallmark "press release-driven" science feel to it.

Re: NASA's Peer-Reviewed EM Drive Paper Has Finally Been Published

#43

Post by f4rker »

Jedd wrote: post #40

NASA has published this paper. These guys presumably know what they're talking about. Moon landing, space shuttle, Voyager, etc. They ran actual experiments on this drive. Why are half the comments here saying 'They must be wrong' - seemingly based on nothing more than a strong belief that NASA must be wrong.

This is the worst part of the internet. Amateurs and 2nd year college students dismissing months/years of hard work by actual professionals​. They take all this work and "hand wave" it away in less time than it takes to make coffee.

The internet is full of amateurs and they are very very confident about their abilities.

Re: NASA's Peer-Reviewed EM Drive Paper Has Finally Been Published

#44

Post by flukus »

Jedd wrote: post #40

NASA has published this paper. These guys presumably know what they're talking about. Moon landing, space shuttle, Voyager, etc. They ran actual experiments on this drive. Why are half the comments here saying 'They must be wrong' - seemingly based on nothing more than a strong belief that NASA must be wrong.

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not extraordinary credentials.

I'm sure even NASA has there fair share of cranks.

Re: NASA's Peer-Reviewed EM Drive Paper Has Finally Been Published

#45

Post by akanet »

Jedd wrote: post #40

NASA has published this paper. These guys presumably know what they're talking about. Moon landing, space shuttle, Voyager, etc. They ran actual experiments on this drive. Why are half the comments here saying 'They must be wrong' - seemingly based on nothing more than a strong belief that NASA must be wrong.

I looked through the comments, but I don't think many commentators here are actually saying "I am 100% sure this is wrong". I am mostly hearing "there are a lot of reasons to remain skeptical". NASA certainly is an authority and I don't think most people here dispute their bona fides, but keep in mind the working models a working quantum vacuum thrust engine would disprove have even greater providence.

Re: NASA's Peer-Reviewed EM Drive Paper Has Finally Been Published

#46

Post by flukus »

phs318u wrote: post #38
the6threplicant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it that EM advocates always seem to be dark matter-deniers? There's observational evidence for DM, a lot more than for the EM drive.

> There's observational evidence for DM Um. Isn't that a contradiction in terms? By definition, DM is stuff whose existence is inferred by observations that contradict what we previously presumed to know. Hence postulate the existence of DM to close the gap between what we observe and what we "know".

There's observational evidence of something. Dark Matter is just the place holder for the something.

Re: NASA's Peer-Reviewed EM Drive Paper Has Finally Been Published

#47

Post by DanielBMarkham »

stevendhansen wrote: post #21

There has been some good discussion on Reddit about how the thrust results shown in the paper are still most likely measurement errors due to thermal effects. It is a shame that they haven't released their actual data for independent analysis. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em...

I've been following along on reddit on several subs, including the EMDrive sub.

This is a fascinating study about the politics and social aspect of science -- i.e., how it's actually done.

I'm just a layman, but so far it looks like this is experimental error. I never knew there were so many ways to screw something like this up!

Having said that, this is a win either way. It teaches all of us about rigorous science, it allows far-fetched ideas to be taken somewhat seriously as long as there is some sort of experimental evidence, and it provides a forum for practicing scientists and interested laymen to cross-pollinate. It's a really good thing. (Only probably no warp drive involved)

Re: NASA's Peer-Reviewed EM Drive Paper Has Finally Been Published

#48

Post by tscs37 »

Jedd wrote: post #40

NASA has published this paper. These guys presumably know what they're talking about. Moon landing, space shuttle, Voyager, etc. They ran actual experiments on this drive. Why are half the comments here saying 'They must be wrong' - seemingly based on nothing more than a strong belief that NASA must be wrong.

Except the Moon landing parts of NASA had nothing to do with it.

AFAIK it is research from their fringe science labs.

Re: NASA's Peer-Reviewed EM Drive Paper Has Finally Been Published

#49

Post by [deleted] »

flukus wrote: post #44
Jedd wrote: post #40

NASA has published this paper. These guys presumably know what they're talking about. Moon landing, space shuttle, Voyager, etc. They ran actual experiments on this drive. Why are half the comments here saying 'They must be wrong' - seemingly based on nothing more than a strong belief that NASA must be wrong.

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not extraordinary credentials. I'm sure even NASA has there fair share of cranks.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN