UPI: NASA scientists successfully test 'impossible' engine

[FloridaMike]

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/08 ... 407156386/

Microwave thrusters work but we do not know why.

[Chris Peterson]

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/08 ... 407156386/

Microwave thrusters work but we do not know why.

Definitely a hint of some very cool physics there.

While the engineering application is interesting and potentially useful, what I find most interesting is the possibility of this thing opening an observational window on the quantum vacuum, of its use as a probe to test some of our most fundamental theories about the nature of the Universe.

[geckzilla]

Sure it's not just another faster than light neutrino experiment?

[Ron-Astro Pharmacist]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/04 ... _in_weeks/
Pretty interesting! Thanks Mike

[neufer]

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

[Beyond]

Probably something as simple as 'organized' microwaves, interacting with the 'unorganized' microwave background.

[neufer]

Probably something as simple as 'organized' microwaves,
interacting with the 'unorganized' microwave background.

<<From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion–antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple. This fermion pair can be leptons or quarks. Thus, two-photon physics experiments can be used as ways to study the photon structure, or what is "inside" the photon.>>

Photon–photon scattering: a tutorial
Yi Liang, Andrzej Czarnecki
Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E1, Canada.
Published on the web 9 January 2012.

[b][color=#0000FF]Feynman diagram for photon–photon scattering.[/color][/b]

---

<<After Dirac proposed the theory of negative energy solutions to his equation, it was realized that photons can interact with other photons by polarizing the vacuum. Photon–photon scattering was qualitatively considered in this context by Halpern, and its cross section, for the case of photon energies that are low compared to the electron mass, was determined by Euler and Kockel in 1935. If the energy of each of the colliding photons is ω in the frame in which their total momentum vanishes, the low-energy differential cross section is:

• 

where α ≃ 1/137 is the fine structure constant and m is the electron mass.

[For visible light traveling through the CMBR we find a mean free path of:]

• λ ≃ 7 × 10⁵² ly.

In other words, the CMBR is a rather transparent medium at visible frequencies.>>

More at: http://nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10 ... -FCKkBgGSo

[Beyond]

The post above

I have no idea what neufer wrote, or why he wrote it.

[neufer]

The post above

I have no idea what neufer wrote, or why he wrote it.

So...what else is Neu

[Chris Peterson]

Probably something as simple as 'organized' microwaves, interacting with the 'unorganized' microwave background.

The nature of the resonant cavity is such that there can be no electromagnetic interaction between the inside and the outside. Assuming the effect is real, it presumably isn't electromagnetic in nature.

[Beyond]

The post above

I have no idea what neufer wrote, or why he wrote it.

So...what else is Neu

That's something that only you neu fer sure.

[FloridaMike]

... neu fer sure ...

[geckzilla]

I just wanted to write a post about how I've seen this repeatedly called "bad science" in a somewhat disturbing way. Stupid things make headlines and get misinterpreted and misreported by the media all the time, so it's understandable that this thing would be met with harsh incredulity. But looking at who did this work, it seems like the dismissal is coming too quickly. An inexplicable result does not necessarily mean it was bad science. Well, anyway, it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[Chris Peterson]

I just wanted to write a post about how I've seen this repeatedly called "bad science" in a somewhat disturbing way. Stupid things make headlines and get misinterpreted and misreported by the media all the time, so it's understandable that this thing would be met with harsh incredulity. But looking at who did this work, it seems like the dismissal is coming too quickly. An inexplicable result does not necessarily mean it was bad science. Well, anyway, it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

At this point I'd say it's simply an interesting observation that appears to have been substantiated by several respectable labs. How can an observation be "bad science"? Any actual scientific explanation largely still needs development.

[geckzilla]

I only know that I am having no difficulty finding rebukes of the research. I'm using Twitter to take a social pulse on the matter. That sounds stupid. Here, just have this link.
https://twitter.com/search?q=%22bad%20s ... e&src=typd

[geckzilla]

Interesting blog post by Corey Powell on the matter. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outth ... -agI2PG8uc