Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive

[Beazy]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...le-space-drive

This is so sweet.

[Deleted]

so microwave propulsion? lol that is hilariously genius

[Fargus]

Aww I thought this was about warp drive.

[Beazy]

Aww I thought this was about warp drive.

Yeah me too, but still ~ its a pretty good/cool idea with some merit. One step closer to "ENGAGE"!

[Tradewind]

So it'll heat up the space around the outside but leave the center cold?

[Senathor]

No TL;DR? Goodbye.

[Sunseeker]

Aww I thought this was about warp drive.

Well, I don't see why the theory is limited to light forces only. You'd just need a device capable of producing highly charged microwaves in enough of a volume as to generate higher levels of thrust.

[Beazy]

Well, I don't see why the theory is limited to light forces only. You'd just need a device capable of producing highly charged microwaves in enough of a volume as to generate higher levels of thrust.

I dont understand why people have said this violates the law of conservation. Wouldnt you need to produce microwaves with electricity? What made this "impossible"?

[MerinPally]

No TL;DR? Good bye.

Clearly not that interested then.

Basically this guy did something and said "that works but it shouldn't" then some chinese people did it and got a good result out of it, quite a powerful one. Noone believed it because it was chinese science which is sketchy at the best of times. Some guy tried it in the west and persuaded NASA to try it and NASA got it to work, although they only made a tiny fraction of the reported power that the Chinese said. They've probably eliminated all cases of the machine interfering with the equipment and then a few other sources of error but it's going to take more work.

Such a piece of equipment could be fantastic as it eliminates fuel which is a major component, but so far the amount of power produced is tiny and not completely shown to be the case, it's going to be scrutinized a lot. If it can be shown that this generates anything though then it's fantastic.

- - - Updated - - -

I dont understand why people have said this violates the law of conservation. Wouldnt you need to produce microwaves with electricity? What made this "impossible"?

Breaks the laws of conserved momentum. Says that the total momentum on lack of applied outside forces will remain the same. To move something in space, you need to shoot something out the "back" which is the opposite of the direction you want to move in. This shoots out nothing. At least that's how I understand it, it traps these things in a box - no exhaust. Energy is conserved as you put in the outside force to generate the microwaves but momentum doesn't add up. They're being very cautious with this though, reading that NASA quote - incredibly so.

[Beazy]

Clearly not that interested then.

Basically this guy did something and said "that works but it shouldn't" then some chinese people did it and got a good result out of it, quite a powerful one. Noone believed it because it was chinese science which is sketchy at the best of times. Some guy tried it in the west and persuaded NASA to try it and NASA got it to work, although they only made a tiny fraction of the reported power that the Chinese said. They've probably eliminated all cases of the machine interfering with the equipment and then a few other sources of error but it's going to take more work.

Such a piece of equipment could be fantastic as it eliminates fuel which is a major component, but so far the amount of power produced is tiny and not completely shown to be the case, it's going to be scrutinized a lot. If it can be shown that this generates anything though then it's fantastic.

- - - Updated - - -



Breaks the laws of conserved momentum. Says that the total momentum on lack of applied outside forces will remain the same. To move something in space, you need to shoot something out the "back" which is the opposite of the direction you want to move in. This shoots out nothing. At least that's how I understand it, it traps these things in a box - no exhaust. Energy is conserved as you put in the outside force to generate the microwaves but momentum doesn't add up. They're being very cautious with this though, reading that NASA quote - incredibly so.

Ohhh ok, good. I was hoping this was NOT another one of those "Zero Point Energy" scams going around.

[Lothaeryn]

Ohhh ok, good. I was hoping this was NOT another one of those "Zero Point Energy" scams going around.

Hey! I'm still waiting for my Gravity Gun, don't crush my dreams T_T

[Deleted]

Well i can power a lightbulb with a potato...

Can i join NASA now?

[Aqueous]

I dont understand why people have said this violates the law of conservation. Wouldnt you need to produce microwaves with electricity? What made this "impossible"?

Because they believed momentum is being produced from nothing (since space is considered a vacuum).

That's why the part where NASA postulate about the microwaves "potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma" is important - they're saying it's possibly building momentum by interacting with the sea of temporary particles and anti-particles in space (the virtual plasma).

[MerinPally]

Because they believed momentum is being produced from nothing (since space is considered a vacuum).

That's why the part where NASA postulate about the microwaves "potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma" is important - they're saying it's possibly building momentum by interacting with the sea of temporary particles and anti-particles in space (the virtual plasma).

There's plenty of particles in space, they just aren't baryons so it's not what we would consider "matter" as such - there's plenty of mesons out there (quark being orbited by its own antiquark, held together by nuclear strong force (mediated by Gluons which are bosons (force carriers))) and then due to no atmosphere to contend with, huge amounts of stuff coming off the sun. If that is what is occurring with some form of quantum interaction, would the effect be magnified in space due to a greater number of these particles? In comparison to the lab? This is all making the assumption that A) this thing works B) it works how the article suggests. NASA are holding their cards very close to their chest though so they clearly have very little idea themselves.

[Tradewind]

Well i can power a lightbulb with a potato...

Can i join NASA now?

P-Puh-puhtayto Science Division

[Slant]

Yeah me too, but still ~ its a pretty good/cool idea with some merit. One step closer to "ENGAGE"!

That's the spirit! Never give up... I believe we can find the loophole eventually.

I got an ignorant question for the physics savy around here... did they check that the surrounding material diidn't react with those microwaves? It'd be a bummer if this theory really just used up the hull of the engine and in 3 years on a deep space mission that satelite is nothing but a free floating engine with a disintegrated hull

[zealo]

No TL;DR? Good bye.

They have invented a way for low-powered thrusters without any fuel to function based upon solar power, is how id summarise it in a TL;DR.

But really, that article is not terrible long and is worth a read if you have an interest in such things.

[MerinPally]

That's the spirit! Never give up... I believe we can find the loophole eventually.

I got an ignorant question for the physics savy around here... did they check that the surrounding material diidn't react with those microwaves? It'd be a bummer if this theory really just used up the hull of the engine and in 3 years on a deep space mission that satelite is nothing but a free floating engine with a disintegrated hull

Oooh, this is almost more of a chemistry question and I'm a chemistry student, win. Did some on this in my first year and had a module on it in January, Quantum Chemistry and Spectroscopy it was called.

Ok, before I get into what microwaves do to atoms, I'l just say that the hulls of everything in space are slowly disintegrating, we cannot stop it. Reason is that due to the incredibly low pressures, there is no liquid phase for the materials used - there is solid in the hull, and then gas due to no pressure pushing the atoms together. Due to the Maxwell Bolztmann distribution, some atoms will have enough energy to break free and then other energy sources will create more of these. If it has enough energy to break free then that atom removes itself from the surface and becomes gaseous. On earth, air pressure makes this not happen as the atoms do not have the required energy to break free (because the activation energy is far higher), they instead get attacked by other chemicals (such as oxygen). In short, everything we have ever put in space and continue to, is slowly evaporating.

Now, with regards to the effect of the microwaves - using E = hf (energy of a photon = plancks constant * frequency of said radiation) you can determine what effect the atoms will undergo. Energy at the atomic level is Quantised, meaning that it is not a smooth curve of varying energy levels - it has set marks, and it can only be those values, no intermediates. For example, they could be 1, 4, 8, 16 - so then for the atom to "react" to that kind of radiation, the photon it absorbs must have energy equal to that gap. It cannot absorb a photon that does not have sufficient energy to cause a promotion to the next energy level. So, in the above example it could only be at those levels, could never have a value of 3, or 5,6,7 for example.

Now, microwave radiation has a low frequency, so the energy of these photons is very low. As a result, it can only create a change in an atom that has a very small energy gap between the levels - there are numerous types of these energy gaps as there are a few types of "transition" from one energy state to another. First and lowest energy, is Translational which is the 3D movement in space of this atom/molecule/ion. The energy gaps between these levels are really incredibly low so very low energy photons can cause a difference in translational energy. A slightly more energetic photon may fit for a Rotational energy level, where the gaps are a bit bigger. Bigger still and we get Vibrational, and then finally Ionisation where the photon is so energetic that the atom/molecule releases an electron.

Microwaves are very low energy as stated, due to a low frequency. Microwaves cause a transition in the Rotational energy of the atom/molecule, so all that happens when these microwaves hit the atoms/molecules is that they begin to rotate. They are not of a high enough energy to cause any form of reaction or major change of the atoms rather than making it rotate faster. Should say that as you go up in these energy levels, the gap gets bigger - hence my quadratic series as the example. The gap between energy level 1->2 is not the same as 3->4.

I hope this helps somewhat And that it's all correct, sure someone will fix me if not.

Edit: On second thought, I'm not convinced when I say that Translational is the lowest energy type of transition, and I don't have access to my notes and trawling through google is not something I'm prepared to do right now. I can confirm that microwaves make transitions in the rotational levels though. NMR spectroscopy uses Radio Waves which are even lower energy photons than Microwaves as they have an even lower frequency, and all that does is flip the spin of the electrons and then you measure the energy gap created by when these electrons are aligned with the magnetic field, and then opposite to the magnetic field, as the energy is higher when they're opposite, you blast your sample with radio waves and then they flip to the other form and you can measure the energy released by your sample. The rest of the post should be good though!

Edit 2: No, I'm overcomplicating this and not thinking straight due to sleep deprivation, second guessing myself. I was right the first time, your molecule will always be moving even at 1 K, it's only at 0K that it stops because the energy gaps are that small and that's when you have residual entropy rather than any caused by motion of the molecule of any form - translation, vibrational, rotational. It just won't be moving much. Translational energy gaps are like the distance of the white bit on your fingernails at the lowest levels, whereas in comparison an ionising one would be huuuuge.

[Sunseeker]

Hey! I'm still waiting for my Gravity Gun, don't crush my dreams T_T

I see what you did there.

Man this thread is getting heavy.

[MerinPally]

I see what you did there.

Man this thread is getting heavy.

I will be the British Bill Nye. The Essex Science Guy.