The warp drive will have to wait

Post by danharaj » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 6:01 PM UTC

cousin_it wrote: post #61

danharaj wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

John Baez and Terence Tao are as nice as they are smart and i think you're doing them a disservice by using them to be condescending.

Have you read Baez's post that I linked? It's way more harsh than my comment. "Mumbo jumbo", "Failed a course in quantum field theory and then smoked too much weed"... Also I'm getting seriously creeped out by the amount of EmDrive non-skeptics on HN. Maybe we should make a poll whether 0.999... = 1, and then say that anyone who insists on the correct answer is "condescending".

Post by neutronicus » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #9

aargh_aargh wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's basically the thinking behind the laser-propulsion plan. The rocket equation gets a lot less hostile when the engine is not mounted on the rocket, but that has its own practical issues. Less than trying to drag a literal cord, of course.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #74

cousin_it wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your position. The real question is how much you should weigh a single experiment vs. the abstract idea of conservation of momentum. It's tempting to trust the experiment all the way, and imagine that science demands such open-mindedness. But the more physics you study, the more likely you are to trust the abstract idea instead, because you realize just how incredibly well-supported it is. It's a kind of…

By one experiment, you mean one actual experiment, made once, by a single group? Or one single experimental setup, replicated by different groups? If it's the former, I don't trust it at all, but if it's well practiced and interesting, it ought to be replicated. If it's the second, well, if its results are against theoretical models, theory is wrong. No questions, no exceptions. Now, theory correction does not automa…

Post by ucaetano » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

api wrote: post #45

ucaetano wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds a bit like Fermi's quote: "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

I remember that quote too, and the key take aways always seemed like: in science you always learn something . Taking the EMDrive as an example -- we have measurements that contradict current theory, so we are either going to discover new physics or we are going to learn something about the art of making very precise measurements of force in complex mechanical systems. In no case do we learn nothing.

Post by aminorex » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 7:40 PM UTC

api wrote: post #45

ucaetano wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds a bit like Fermi's quote: "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

I remember that quote too, and the key take aways always seemed like: in science you always learn something . Taking the EMDrive as an example -- we have measurements that contradict current theory, so we are either going to discover new physics or we are going to learn something about the art of making very precise measurements of force in complex mechanical systems. In no case do we learn nothing.