Unpacking the Controversial EmDrive: Explanations and Implications

  • Thread starter Thread starter newjerseyrunner
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Thoughts
AI Thread Summary
The EmDrive has garnered attention due to its controversial claims of producing thrust without propellant, raising skepticism among physicists. Despite multiple experiments reportedly replicating results, no consensus on a valid explanation exists, leading to speculation about potential flaws in experimental design or unrecognized physical forces. Many participants express concern that the results may stem from faulty hypotheses, experimental errors, or even fraud. The discussion reflects a cautious interest in the implications of such technology, while emphasizing the need for rigorous scientific validation. Overall, the EmDrive remains a topic of intrigue and skepticism within the scientific community.
newjerseyrunner
Messages
1,532
Reaction score
637
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive
I've seen a lot in my news recently about it. Mostly written by people who obviously don't understand the physics (not that I do) but I'm curious about it. I'm always weary about weird research like this, but when three different experiments replicate the results it's something to notice I think.

As far as I've read, no one has come up with a satisfactory explanation yet, so what are the most likely explanations as to how thrust was created seemingly in violation of physical laws? So what do you all think is really going on? Faulty experiments / sensors, some known physical force we haven't figured out yet, or physics yet beyond our understanding?

I'm banking more on all of the experiments having a variable yet identified that's causing the experiments to be faulty, but it's a nice thought that we might be able to zoom around our solar system in months rather than years soon.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Most have been a combination of:
-Faulty hypotheses/predictions.
-Faulty experiments/interpretation.
-Fraud.

In any case, we don't discuss crackpottery even to debunk it, so this thread is locked.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top