| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
| | | | |
| | I don't see any "joke on quantum superposition". Either explain what the jokes are or remove that claim? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.162|141.101.98.162]] 12:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC) | | I don't see any "joke on quantum superposition". Either explain what the jokes are or remove that claim? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.162|141.101.98.162]] 12:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
| − | : That was a "correction" of "quantum supposition" which made more sense. Chad Orzel makes an ''actual'' joke about quantum superposition: "Most physicists I know have reacted to this with some linear combination of “heavy sigh” and “eye roll.”" Anyway, I have edited away the superposition by rewriting the description of the last panel. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.118|199.27.128.118]] 16:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − | :: I don't see any joke about quantum uncertainty, just regular uncertainty and the scientific method in the last panel. The claim of thrust without exhaust or other momentum transfer is a claim of new physics, but the evidence of this claim is weak because the device was not tested in isolation and vacuum and the reported thrust was not in line with the claimed mechanisms. But Megan points out that new physics isn't created but only discovered, so she is just as likely to interact with the newly claimed physics as the Q-drive if enough power is applied. The Uncertainty Principle applies to systems not what model of physics applies so the claims of the Q-drive mechanism can't be in a superposition of true and false. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.118|199.27.128.118]] 17:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I see a sex joke in "If you pumped 20 kw into me, I'd twitch a lot" and "I do a lot of things". {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.43}}
| |
| − | :1. Sign your posts
| |
| − | :2. Remind me never to have sex with you
| |
| − | [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.209|173.245.54.209]] 14:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ;Not "a violation of conservation of momentum"
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Please can someone senior in this community update this as I don't want to get I to an edit war. Unfortunately the media has been conflating the idea between the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive |EmDrive]] and a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_plasma_thruster |Quantum vacuum plasma thruster]] as Roger Shawyer has been talking about both. NASA tested the idea of a Quantum vacuum plasma thruster which does not violate conservation of momentum
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.213|173.245.56.213]] 15:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | : NASA did not test "the idea of a Quantum vacuum plasma thruster" -- In 2013, a very small group of researchers at NASA tested a pair of RF devices supplied to them for 2 days (and 6 days of setting up the tests). One was supposed to produce thrust in empty space while the other wasn't. But both devices were tested in air and very similar results recorded for both. Therefore either the test was flawed or the devices did not operate sufficiently different from each other to measure. Thus the "idea" was not tested, only the supplied devices and the testing protocol. In that the devices were allegedly designed to demonstrate designs to take advantage/not take advantage of the so-called "quantum vacuum virtual plasma," then to the extent where NASA might have tested a new physics principle, they certainly did not validate it. They also tested (in 2014) a much different Shawyer-type microwaves-in-a-can RF load, and got similar results. The details of the testing (and a misleading section on the vacuum capabilities of the chamber and a weird part on interplanetary trajectories) are in the pre-print.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | : But as for conservation of momentum, the principle claim is that the "Quantum vacuum plasma thruster" imparts momentum on the microwave cavity while balancing opposite momentum goes where? Since the vacuum has no state of motion and no momentum, not here. Since no microwaves or other particles are emitted, not here. Thus the claim violates conservation of momentum. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.118|199.27.128.118]] 15:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :After reading both [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_plasma_thruster Quantum vacuum plasma thruster] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive EmDrive], it seems that they're the same type of device. In particular, scroll down near the bottom of the EmDrive article, and you can see that they're using "interacting with virtual particles" as one of the justifications for it working. Both articles also cite several of the same experiments in their introductions. The physical description of both devices was similar (resonant microwave cavities), differing only in specific cavity geometry.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :And yes, they would have had to be tested in vacuum for a serious test. If you have strong electric fields in air, the air will move (because you'll bleed charge into it, and it'll then be accelerated by the electric field; that's how those tinfoil "lifter" devices work). You'd also have to put it in an RF-absorbing chamber, to avoid resonant interactions with the chamber walls (which can cause your device to be displaced from what you think its neutral position should be; force only costs power while you're moving, so this would look like deflection with no net power applied after the system stabilizes). -[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.221|108.162.246.221]] 20:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ; Revision weirdness
| |
| − |
| |
| − | (For [[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]]) Not meaning to start an edit war, but how is [http://nasawatch.com/archives/2014/08/jscs-stealthy-s.html NASAWatch] a better source for the breaking news than the earlier and glossier [http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Wired UK]. Also, Johnson Space Center and NASA are under no obligation to comment on the work of the Eagleworks lab under Sonny White. That's just one of the many points that Hambling and NASAWatch get wrong: "NASA" didn't validate anything, a small group of researchers employed by NASA claimed verification in a non-peer-reviewed presentation at a conference. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.99|199.27.128.99]] 20:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − | :First thanks for not doing an edit war. My reasons were:
| |
| − | :*NASAWatch is still the most serious site to document but also criticise NASA's activities.
| |
| − | :*The "wired.co.uk" article is available at that NASAWatch article. I decided to remove that "wired" link here because it uses a hell of external sites blocked at my browser by default (NoScript on Firefox). The site is not "wired.com", one of my favorite pages is there: [http://www.wired.com/category/beyondapollo/ Beyond Apollo].
| |
| − | :*NASA did NOT release any official statements, only a small external publication did refer to an NASA employer.
| |
| − | :*NASA keeps silent on this matter because they know there is no prove.
| |
| − | :--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − | : "'NASA' didn't validate anything, a small group of researchers employed by NASA claimed verification" -- This is (a) needlessly splitting hairs and (b) incorrect. When an organization employs individuals to take actions, those actions are, ''de facto,'' the actions of the organization. If the researchers were employed by NASA to verify or validate a claim, and they did so successfully, then it is said that NASA verified or validated the claim. The only way your assertion would be true is if the researchers, which ''just happened'' to be otherwise employed by NASA, conducted the validation / verification outside of their normal work hours, without any NASA facilities or equipment. This does not appear to be the case here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.252.197|162.158.252.197]] 22:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | (for [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.118|199.27.128.118]]) Your edit of <blockquote>But while they hooked it up to a measurement apparatus, applied RF input and measured changes in the apparatus, their interpretation of the experiment conducted in an air-filled stainless-steel chamber as a tiny ''thrust'' only explainable in terms of new (undefined) physics under the moniker of "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" is an extraordinary claim on very weak data. This may fall under the category of "[http://www.skepdic.com/toothfairyscience.html Tooth-Fairy (Pseudo-) science]", trying to quantify a phenomenon before one has confirmed it exists.</blockquote> to <blockquote>But while they hooked it up to a measurement apparatus, applied RF input and measured changes in the apparatus, their interpretation of the experiment conducted in an air-filled stainless-steel chamber as a tiny ''thrust'' explainable under the moniker of "quantum vacuum virtual plasma".</blockquote> isn't a sentence anymore. There is considerable tension between your justification "citation needed for any comment on the validity of the experiment)" and [[User:Lcarsos|Lcarsos']] justification of "For the love of all that is good and holy just link to the damn link. No need to go all research paper on us with footnote labyrinths." where Wikipedia-like references were removed. The remaining links to the XKCD comic itself, [https://plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts/WfFtJ8bYVya John Baez], and [http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2014/08/04/impossible-thruster-probably-impossible/ Chad Orzel] all support the wording of the original. There's also [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/08/06/nasa-validate-imposible-space-drive-word/ Corey S. Powell @ Discover Blogs] and [https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6 Ethan Siegel @ Medium] as well as other links in this Talk page. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.99|199.27.128.99]] 20:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − | Did the box contain a hair dryer?--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.183|108.162.215.183]] 17:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − | :It ''might'' have - it contained a lot of things [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 05:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | :: It contained a bobcat. Would not buy again. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.213|172.69.54.213]] 19:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
| |
