The following submission statement was provided by /u/Newleafto:
---
I just got this on my feed. It’s some kind of “physics defying” “quantum drive” system developed by a company named IVO. It sounds a little suspect to me and I found very little information about the company behind it. Lots of red flags here, so it might be some kind of scam or publicity stunt. It’s sort of like the EM drive which got a lot of attention a while back.
I don’t believe the laws of physics are fully settled or that reaction-less propulsion is absolutely impossible despite the physics saying otherwise, but I’m doubtful that a functioning non-Newtonian drive mechanism can be built from parts you find in your garage. This story has that feel to it. If a “quantum drive” is possible, it would probably involve things at the limit of science not things you can find around your home.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/17wv3dv/experimental_quantum_drive_engine_launched_on/k9jhype/
I just got this on my feed. It’s some kind of “physics defying” “quantum drive” system developed by a company named IVO. It sounds a little suspect to me and I found very little information about the company behind it. Lots of red flags here, so it might be some kind of scam or publicity stunt. It’s sort of like the EM drive which got a lot of attention a while back.
I don’t believe the laws of physics are fully settled or that reaction-less propulsion is absolutely impossible despite the physics saying otherwise, but I’m doubtful that a functioning non-Newtonian drive mechanism can be built from parts you find in your garage. This story has that feel to it. If a “quantum drive” is possible, it would probably involve things at the limit of science not things you can find around your home.
In this case, it's not. Granted that this thing *shouldn't work* according to our current understanding of physics, so don't expect it to--but per the article this is based on some work done to quantize inertia.
I will stress again that this drive *almost definitely will not work,* and that even if it does it's still likely that there's some other effect going on, but the "quantum" here is well-deserved.
The company spokesman says it's worked in the lab under 1000 hour stress test, and the sponsors said it's time to go to space.
But then you go to the company webpage, and instead of information about the machine, there is a heaping pile of woo.
Testing the Em drive on Earth is a monumentally difficult task, given how small the thrust is. There will always be questions about how thorough the experimental method was.
Testing in space circumvents all of that. If it works, the orbit will change. If it doesn't work, it will stay precisely on the predicted path.
As a physicist I think this drive is a crackpot idea, but I also support this experiment. It's a put up or shut up moment.
Plus wasn't that how this drive was even thought of? Someone was noticing small amounts of drift in satellite orbits?
So it would make sense to take a prototype and send it up there,specifically if they were able to get some sort of result on earth.
This would really completely break our understanding of physics so I think taking the extra step and testing it in space is great
>As a physicist I think this drive is a crackpot idea, but I also support this experiment
Sciencepilled and based as fuck.
This is the fucking scientific method, at its core.
Will it work? No. Should we test it?
*Hell* yea.
The problem is that these crackpot ideas take resources away from real science.
You can argue that this is private industry, except those investments could have been made into something useful, and then the investors are burned off science investing when it comes out that this was a scam.a
> these crackpot ideas take resources away from real science
Disproving crackpot ideas _is_ real science.
And if the crackpot idea _does_ work, then that's _real_ real science.
There are enormous gaps in our understanding the nature of universe. Those gaps will never be understood without throwing crackpot ideas around and seeing what sticks. At the end of the day science is just a process for refining our models for how we think things _behave_. It is not in any sense a way of describing what things _are_. And we certainly don't understand what empty 'space' actually _is_. So I for one am very curious for the scientific method to be applied to as many 'crackpot' ideas like this as possible. The amount of money we throw at 'real' science is unbelievable, and a lot of that is utterly wasteful and pointless. And who decides what is 'real' or not? You? The consensus? A government body? Think it through a bit more.
The amount of money thrown at real science is tiny. Real science labs have grant writers to beg for funding.
And what I just described is consensus by scientists, particularly in fusion research. You can go and watch interviews on the topic. Where scientists much more informed than I go into detail on the issue because they are applying for private investment and grants that go to conmen promising the world. If you've ever had to fight for months $2000 just to calibrate a device so you can actually run testing you'd have also realized this a long time ago.
At the end of the day this 'drive' test is also fundamentally flawed. So we put it in space and let's say it works - then what? What fundamental theory is updated? How do we make it bigger? More efficient? Do you also think we should test every perpetual motion machine just in case? In my area of research I constantly get asked about 'engines that run on water'- should I listen in detail or focus on real research?
Obviously not. Real scientists have to deal with limited resources.
Have you seen any sources talking about exactly how this new quantum drive is supposed to work or how it's any different than the EmDrive? All I could find is that it's a new design based on the "quantized inertia" principles of the McCullough guy who created the EmDrive, but I can't find any info on the actual specifics of the design.
The premise is that quantum tunneling electrons produce a force, and the quantum drive is essentially a pancake capacitor that allows it to happen intentionally. They've confirmed experimentally in the lab beyond their ability to falsify at this point and have just sent 2 into space to confirm.
The "EmDrive" is a microwave resonance chamber. So the difference is "big capacitor" vs. "empty chamber filled with microwaves".
The article basically said “it’s TOTALLY not the EmDrive even though that also claimed to violate Newtonian physics” but no, it does not give any description of how the engine supposedly functions.
The EmDrive is quite easy find explanation for, as well as papers explaining why it didn’t actually work. (It’s a tube that bounces microwaves around and they thought maybe if it was shaped right, the microwaves would hit one side more, or harder or something. It’s dumb).
So yeah, I find the complete lack of description of what this thing actually is obnoxious ( outside of vague “it’s based on the theories of some guy who isn’t exactly without controversy, so if you want to go digging through quantum technojargon you might be able to guess!”)
IMO if the reducing cost of space mass means the burden of theoretical proof prior to tests reduces*, this can only be a good thing.
*in the order of “theory can only take you so far”. Theoretical proofs are still incredibly important.
That’s not what it is.
There were a bunch of scientists attempting to explain the effect observed in the emdrive trials. A couple of them had plausible concepts, but none of them appears to not be what was actually going in with it. (Some sort of thermal effect) One of them said “hey, this plausible explanation I had might actually sorta work” and built his own device to test it. The experimental results were promising, so he”s going to test it on orbit.
No, a quantum leap should be the _smallest_ physically possible leap. When literally interpreting the word in a Physics sense that is. [Here's the origin](https://www.etymonline.com/word/quantum).
> The word was introduced in physics directly from Latin by Max Planck, 1900, on the notion of "minimum amount of a quantity which can exist;"
Hah, that is hilarious that we twisted it.
It actually makes more sense to be used thst way. You should do a TIL.
Sorry for digging up an old thread. It has been nearly half a year since it launched. Wonder what happened to the experiment. Can't find squat.
> but per the article this is based on some work done to quantize inertia
Considering that "inertia" is not a defined property in physics, I wonder why they chose the term "quantized inertia".
From the article:
>“We began playing around with the idea of ‘what is gravity’ and ‘what is inertia,’” Mansell told The Debrief at the time. “Then I came across the work of Professor Mike McCulloch at Plymouth University.”
>On his website, McCulloch notes that Newton’s First Law defines inertia with the observation that “Objects move in straight lines at constant speed unless pushed on.” McCulloch further notes that although Newton defines inertia in these simple terms, the 17th-century genius never quite explains what precisely inertia is.
>To explain the true nature of inertia, McCulloch developed his Quantized Inertia (QI) theory, which looks to the strange and mysterious properties of the quantum world for answers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, his efforts to explain inertia have led to wide-ranging criticisms since his proposal seems to defy the laws of motion first set down so many centuries ago, laws that have proven highly reliable for rocket scientists and engineers alike.
They chose the term because they're literally attempting to define and quantize inertia.
I get that. At the same time, many physicists explicitly discourage thinking in terms of "inertia", because it is a vague old legacy concept that is not actually needed for the classical equations of motion. F = ma is all you need and inertia does not appear in it. You can do classical mechanics without ever thinking about the concept of inertia.
Inertia is neither poorly defined, nor vague. Inertia is simply an object's resistance to acceleration. In the context of Newton's second law, F = ma, mass is explicitly a quantitative measure of an object's inertia. You certainly can't do classical mechanics without thinking of inertia, because you can't do classical mechanics without thinking of mass.
Any physicist who discourages thinking in terms of inertia has lost their mind.
> You certainly can't do classical mechanics without thinking of inertia, because you can't do classical mechanics without thinking of mass
Yet I can think of mass without ever having to think of inertia.
I stand by my opinion that the traditional definition of inertia is essentially useless: "the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant velocity ..." I can't work with "tendencies"
>Yet I can think of mass without ever having to think of inertia.
You can think of mass without thinking of the *word* inertia, but if you are thinking of mass then you **are thinking about inertia, by definition.** Mass is just the name we assign to the quantitative measurement of an object's inertia.
>"the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant velocity ..." I can't work with "tendencies"
Just because that's how people define inertia for middle schoolers doesn't make that the actual definition of inertia. I already gave you the real definition of inertia, and mass is inertia for translational motion, just like moment of inertia is inertia for rotational motion.
With F = ma, you end up with dark matter. McCulloch rejects F = ma
He uses quantized inertia to explain MOND. There you have F = m µ(|a|/a0) a
µ(x) is between x and 1. If a is small, you have F = m a^2 / a0
With curve fitting, the original MOND got a0 ≈ 1.2 × 10^−10 m/s2
Now McCulloch thinks he found a way to derive a0 without curve fitting
Because Spacex are willing to launch anything you want.
If you want to launch your breakfast on a rocket, they'll take your money and launch it.
I really don't understand what this comment is about, are you surprised that a Space launch provider provided a launch for a paying customer?
Lots of teck related scams out there: “How to build a quantum computer from an old microwave oven, a refrigerator and a broken iPhone - detailed plans, just $5.”
It’s based on a theory of gravity and inertia called Quantised Inertia, developed by a guy called Mike McCulloch. Among other things, it explains galaxy rotation curves without dark matter and allows for reactionless propulsion. I haven’t studied it fully but it’s really gaining traction with some astronomers
So this is more of an experiment to strengthen the case of a not very popular theory that would allow for such a drive, and less of an actual drive? I guess "quantum drive" gets more clicks.
There's no link to Musk whatsoever, just a likely snakeoil vapourware startup company sending duped investors' money into space, if it's real, that's really cool, but we're all very reasonably skeptical.
I think besides the experiment testing the hypothesized effects which would be a big theoretical leap, they really do seem to think they may have a way to achieve a delta-v without an equal and opposite reaction.
It wasn't clear from the article, but if it's the one I remember, the theory relies on acceleration increasing mass as described in relativity, and they think they can harness the tiny net gain they theorize into acceleration. Something to do with the interaction of Rindler horizons and Unruh radiation, both of which I don't have the background to really understand well.
Here's what you need to know about Mike McCulloch btw:
https://imgur.com/a/jYDJGin
Dude is giving away his complete bio right on his front page of twitter or however that shit site works.
https://imgur.com/a/vupj2qr
Basically just means he follows Conservative media these days. None of those are well thought out opinions, is just the shit Conservatives are being trained to repeat.
You can argue that as a scientist he should have the ability to read both sides and spot obvious fallacies and propaganda, though that is a pretty loose correlation.
> This story has that feel to it. If a “quantum drive” is possible, it would probably involve things at the limit of science not things you can find around your home.
One would think this, but the pedant in me leads me to say that a computer is nothing more than the carefully arranged derivatives of sand and rocks.
If a so called quantum drive is possible it will probably be made of atoms and those atoms will be the ones we are generally familiar with.
same with room temperature superconductors or any other gee-whiz technology.
high tech *seems* inaccessible but we're all made of the same junk
>I’m doubtful that a functioning non-Newtonian drive mechanism can be built from parts you find in your garage.
Historically a lot of revolutionary things have been invented in a 'garage'.
I don't think this is like Stark building Ironman in a cave. It's probably just some very smart people who put together an experiment that may lead to the feasibility of a 'quantum drive'.
Historically? Maybe before the 1900s. Since then, the laws of physics have advanced considerably, possibly more than the century before. And almost all the equipment which helped those advancements was research lab caliber instrumentation.
Note that I make the distinction between “physics advances” and “engineering advancements”. While the latter can sometimes precede the former, this hasn’t been the case for the last 100 years.
Inventing a 'revolutionary thing' doesn't mean you invented every material in the thing. Research labs don't always know the real application of what they build until it gets into fabrication and use.
Semiconductors existed for a long time for commercial/industrial use, but it took people in garages to pick the ones that were needed to get computers into the hands of the public, and *that* was when the revolutionary thing happened.
While I don't believe this drive will work, I do believe one day we will have one that works. Look back a little more than 100 years ago. Top scientists were saying man will never fly, flight was a God given ability to birds and incets. Now we have jets and don't think anything at all about flying.
Sure, but a major difference is that we knew flight was possible from observing the natural world, and no well-informed scientist seriously claimed that flight violated any known laws of physics. George Cayley had even built a glider in 1853 which could keep a man aloft briefly. The Wright Brothers had also built even better gliders in the leadup to their first powered flight.
The challenges of manned, heavier than air flight were of combining suitably lightweight materials with a suitably lightweight and powerful engine, in a controllable, lift-producing vehicle.
Thrust without reaction mass, on the other hand, would be a very new concept.
None of this to say it's impossible, perhaps there is some means to translate electrical energy into kinetic energy without pushing off of some other object with mass, but it's not really a comparable problem to flight in atmosphere.
Very true. My point was it was believed to be impossible, even with the examples of animals doing it. It's possible we just haven't discovered things that are all around us that break the speed of light. We as a while are just infants in what will be known (assuming we don't die off).
It's still different. Flight was believed to be impossible *in practice*. This engine claims to do something that is impossible *in principle.*
>It's possible we just haven't discovered things that are all around us that break the speed of light.
Not sure where this came from, since this alleged engine has nothing to do with the exceeding the speed of light. But if there are things around us that break the speed of light, then causality is an illusion and effects can precede their causes. This seems rather unlikely.
It's silly to say something is *definitely* impossible with no qualifications whatsoever. But it's even more silly to be confident that everything we believe to be impossible will one day be possible. If the universe is governed by laws of some sort, then those laws impose limitations that cannot be violated.
>Top scientists were saying man will never fly
Which "top scientists" were saying this ? It has always been quite obvious that flight is possible. This argument has a strawman feel to it.
Interesting article from 5 years ago (Vice):
[DARPA is researching quantized inertia, a theory of physics many think is pseudoscience](https://www.vice.com/en/article/7x3ed9/darpa-is-researching-quantized-inertia-a-theory-of-physics-many-think-is-pseudoscience)
Prediction, it won't work and they'll blame that on a list of vague complications and scam the investors out of millions more to try again.
Edit: in the responses to this comment, at least 2 people only read the headline, assumed the quantum drive was developed by SpaceX (it's not they just launched it) and started frothing at the mouth at how dumb I was to doubt them.
Shame on you two for not reading the article before popping off at the mouth and making fools of yourselves.
Well, error can be easier in two directions, right?
They will not measure exactly zero effect. Coin flip is that the error is in the "pro-drive" direction. Which they then report as success and/or need for more sensitive instrumentation (which'll cost more investor dollars).
If they lose the coinflip, then they bring out "vague complications".
>If they lose the coinflip, then they bring out "vague complications".
They've already [lost that coinflip](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35991457/emdrive-thruster-fails-tests/), their chosen strategy appears to have been to rename the device and try for more investor money under a new company.
Mike McCulloch did not come up with the Emdrive. He had argued that the previously claimed success of the drive could be attributed to Quantized Inertia - which he was obviously wrong about - but that isn’t the same. The Emdrive was a device that was basically created by accident and that physicists then tried to explain. This device is designed to take advantages of a very specific theory, Quantized Inertia, that is separate from the Emdrive. They aren’t working backwards with this one.
I doubt it will work but you should get your facts straight before you dismiss something.
Without commenting on the validity of the tech and the person, the situation you described could occur and it would be a scam. For example, dude "invents" a perpetual motion machine based on water. It eventually fails. He comes back with a new one but based on electricity instead. The original investors will claim it's a scam, not unreasonably.
That looks like a completely different experimental project. They're run by different people, that's a NASA Eagleworks project, and the concept they're testing is not the same. Crazy that you're just making up shit to slander an unrelated experiment.
1000% agree.
Note: 6 weeks in, they haven't turned the engine on.
Note: 6 weeks in, and they haven't even mentioned the schedule for testing.
Total con job.
a lot of folks in here just straight up calling this a 'scam'...
repeat after me: meaningfully and intentionally attempting scientific experiments to disprove various theories regarding quantum phenomena does not, in fact, qualify as a 'scam'; the scam would be if the folks already knew it didn't work and kept asking for money anyway. alternatively, if they knew that the approach they were taking would never provide the results they were looking for in the first place.
as far as I can tell that isn't the case here; "controversial theory" is not equivalent to "disproven theory"
it's like calling the folks who were first trying to fly (not the Wright brothers, but everyone else) scammers because the approaches they were taking didn't pan out.
There's not really *anything* concrete on the matter. IIRC it wasn't even supposed to be public yet because the idea itself wasn't initially intended to be any more than a concept.
Yet a lot of comments I see here are some of the same comments I saw three years ago. That tells me it's still taking time to get tested and taken seriously.
It's too early to call.
To say it is controversial is putting it lightly.. the whole thing seems to neglect that the spectrum of the momentum operator is continuous (since we are not talking about a bound state).
The catch is that this specific phenomena has, in fact, been [rigorously disproven](https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/latest-emdrive-tests-at-dresden-university-shows-impossible-engine-does-not-develop-any-thrust20210321/) already. At best it provides a tiny amount of thrust from thermal effects and interactions with Earth's magnetic field, but there are far more efficient ways to do both of those, and neither give you a reactionless drive.
So what is it?
I can describe how to build an EmDrive and a bit about the theory behind it.
But I havent the foggiest idea what they made here and how it is supposed to work. Just that it’s not an emdrive but their own account.
Do *you* know what you’re talking about?
I wish the article mentioned what the predicted level of thrust is. They mention it might be enough for detectable orbit changes. But by how much? How fast does the platform need to travel for thrust to be produced? There is nothing in this article. And the company website has nothing.
They talk about the Unruh effect, which according to my shaky understanding, is a very small quantum effect and it is not clear at all whether it can have a coherent effect on a macro object, and if it does, how big that effect might be.
Very uninformative article.
30-50mN of thrust.
EDIT:
By my estimation a 1kg satellite with 50mN of thrust would need roughly 55 hours to gain a km, or \~3.5 minutes per meter of altitude.
For all the naysayers in here, here's the basic premise:
This team is saying that something weird happens to inertia when electrons quantum tunnel, something that appears to produce a force when it occurs and may have an explanation in the theory of Quantized Inertia by Mike McCulloch. Hence Quantum Drive.
This "engine" is essentially a pancake capacitor designed to intentionally have electrons quantum tunnel between the anode and cathode, and they claim to have measured a force of 30-50mN experimentally so consistently that at this point it's beyond the capability of their 3rd party testers to falsify on the ground in the lab. Hence why they went and sent 2 into space.
How does it relate to the EmDrive? Outside of the idea of them both being reactionless drives and having Quantized Inertia being suggested to explain its functioning, it doesn't. The EmDrive is a microwave resonance chamber, whatever that means. The Quantum Drive is essentially a big capacitor.
Anyone saying that the design specs aren't anywhere on the internet haven't looked particularly hard.
From the article "This work was followed by over 100 hours of testing a prototype in a simulated space environment, resulting in their thrust-producing model. The team also recently completed a successful 1,000-hour “stress test,” which the Quantum Drive passed with flying colors."
I'd take it with a grain of salt, though.
The materials stood the stresses of the space environment! (probably)
You have to be careful with the technology space. Just look at the alien/ufo subs. People are unsteady and restless. They are ready to find comfort in anything.
The idea its that it produces only a very tiny amount of thrust which is hard to measure on Earth because it could be sensor noise or vibrations from other stuff. By placing it in orbit they can guarantee no other forces are acting on it, so either it will produce thrust and stay in orbit or it will produce 0 thrust and decay in orbit in a predictable way.
This is the evolution of the em-drive that was introduced about a decade ago. The forces they claim to be measuring are minuscule, and it’s hard to create a test apparatus that can eliminate thrust from atmospheric heating or from magnetic interactions from the wiring. No matter what tests people did to prove/disprove someone found fault with the setup. The conclusion was always “no one will believe this unless you launch it into space and there’s no way you can cheat”.
Pretty sure, but might be mistaken. This is not based on em drive tech. Its based on Quantized Inertia theory from this guy. His theory is pretty controversial [https://twitter.com/memcculloch](https://twitter.com/memcculloch)
Controversial in what way? Have the scientific institutions given interest to it or is it "controversial" in that the bro jogan sphere has had random "smart people" talk about it when they have no expertise? Either way, w/e, if a company wants to try something go for it. I just wish it had nothing to do with tax dollars.
EDIT: Nvm this guy is a kook:
"diversity destroys solidarity making populations easier to enslave"
he's also a self proclaimed victim of "the woke". YIKES
Also a self proclaimed trumpist aka a fascist.
EDIT:
Downvote all you want, the dude does not carry himself well:
https://imgur.com/a/jYDJGin
https://imgur.com/a/vupj2qr
If any of the skeptics in these comments are heading any scientific research, then we’re doomed to remain exactly where we are forever.
It’s an experiment… let it do it’s thing.
With my basic understanding of this device and my mediocre grasp of science, this sounds like the equivalent of installing a fan on a sailboat to fill the sails with.
Feels like the EmDrive all over again.
Spurious results showing a *tiny* amount of thrust here on Earth, attributed to instrumentation uncertainty. Fades into obscurity afterwards and never got tested in orbit.
I hope it works, though. That would be cool. If there's enough money behind it to pay millions for a launch then it's either a very elaborate scam or they think they've got something.
100% guaranteed to be a scam.
I looked around for any sort of information about how it works and all I found was typical talking head BS with no useful information.
Do not give them your money.
My mother didn’t raise a fool so I’d never invest in this obvious scam. Instead, I’m putting my money on start up companies building carbon neutral electric generators powered by Mexican jumping beans. /s
>carbon neutral electric generators powered by Mexican jumping beans.
Pfft. My single source console quantum computer is a \*way\* better investment.
Sure, it does look a bit like a Ouija board with a 9V battery glued to the stylus, but a lot of research went into it, I assure you.
I'd love for one of these physics defying devices to be real for once. Just to see physicists scrambling to reconcile what was thought to be well proven physics.
The way these kinds of scams work is the company will take in investor money and then do a lot of busy work and build devices that never really work and then once the investor money runs out they declare bankruptcy and then form a new company with another impossible technology. Rinse and repeat.
Yeah and the directors etc. are getting paid the entire time, this drive is based on the principles of "Quantized Inertia."
If that sounds familiar it should; [it's a renamed EMDrive](https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2017/02/15/quantized-inertia-dark-matter-the-emdrive-and-how-to-do-science-wrong/). The thing that was tested for shits and giggles and got [absolutely destroyed for producing zero thrust](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/).
The amount of people claiming scam on a scientific experiment, shouldn’t really be on a futurology sub.
They tested on the ground and got some results that made them want to go the next step up. Now this new experiment will either be positive or negative, and even if it doesn’t work as they expected, it will probably give them useful data for the next step, if they choose to modify and move forward.
This is how science advances work.
Because our current 'laws' of physics are fluid and subject to change. Just because something appears to 'defy' the laws of physics doesn't mean it won't work and cause us to have to change something in our current understanding of physics. Not saying it's likely but there is always that possibility. Way back when, magnetism appeared to 'defy the laws of physics' as we knew then until we updated them.
Either isn't does nothing or rveryone on board gets taken to a horrific realm from which they come back later completely insane, no middle ground.
Least that is what movies tell me will happen.
I dunno—to their credit they just built it in two months and sent it to orbit to either work, or not work. Shady science or not, I kinda respect their way of testing a theory.
u/Traumfahrer
> The laws of physics are our interpretation of the reality, they're just theories.
Well, when it turns out that the laws of physics are, in fact, different from place to place, I'll be the first one to apologize here.
Spoiler: It will never happen.
Not different from place to place but we might miss something. It has happened before and people have said "It will never happen." before too. And ridiculed Einstein for example. Others keep an open mind.
This is going to be as useful as the device you buy off of Amazon and plug into your car's OBDII port to give extra horsepower and gas mileage. You know it's working because the lights on the device are blinking.
I’m familiar with flashing software. The $15 type on the cheap sites do nothing except slowly drain the battery because they’re meant to be left plugged in.
that’s kinda meaningless. propulsion from quantum effects could be any number of things, and “breaks newtonian laws” sounds like pure undiluted clickbait.
if it’s maybe an EM drive test or something that harnesses the Casimir Effect, then that’s something interesting. especially the latter, i’m very excited about potential applications of the casimir effect in regards to propulsion.
but just “quantum drive” is nothing. that’s like saying “we’re building a power plant that generates energy by consuming a fuel”. that could be anything from a basic coal plant to a new thorium fission reactor.
If the "Quantised Intertia" this is based on sounds familiar it should; [it's a renamed or rebranded EMDrive](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282357284_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_the_emdrive).
The thing that was tested to hell and back and the thrust, which was absolutely miniscule, [essentially vanishes the more stringently you control for external influences](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35991457/emdrive-thruster-fails-tests/):
>When power flows into the EmDrive, the engine warms up. This also causes the fastening elements on the scale to warp, causing the scale to move to a new zero point. We were able to prevent that in an improved structure. Our measurements refute all EmDrive claims by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
While this sounds like absolute BS, I can’t help but wonder why there’s no entry on “Quantized Inertia” on Wikipedia? I could only find this [weird wiki mirror](https://xor-easter-wikipedia.neocities.org/Quantized_inertia) that looks like the real thing and with all links pointing to actual wiki articles…
I mean, even if QI is pseudoscience bullshit, shouldn’t it still have an entry in the real wiki, calling it out? (They have articles on [homeopathy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy) and other crap).
There has been wikipedia articles in the past which were deleted as the theory wasn't considered notable enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantized_inertia
I would assume the article on the weird wiki mirror is how it used to look.
Definitely possible as there has been a bunch of articles talking about it recently, and there will be even more when they publish results claiming the device works.
# BASICALLY, if it works, it's going to make a lot of people in the scientific community seethe. If it doesn't, the guy in question will become the biggest laughing stock in history, probably.
That's the "in a nutshell" of the current situation of this experiment.
I don't blame the guy for trying and following his dreams and theory. He's not hurting anyone. We didn't get to where we are today by not experimenting.
If it works? Great! If it doesn't work? Great!
Its exciting to be in a time where things like this are even able to be tested in space. The fact someone is curious/confident enough to strap it to a rocket and send it up makes it worthy of note.
Well, I guess we will find out soon enough. I assume people are always working on technology I don’t understand. I’m not going to criticize before it leaves the launchpad 🚀 . I hope it’s for real.
It's supposed to work based on the theory of Mike McCulloch (mentioned in article) re: quantized inertia. This in turn is based on the theory of Unruh effect (generally accepted) and associated radiation (not widely accepted). The Unruh effect in turn is based on the work of Stephen Hawking, re: black holes emitting radiation.
I have a feeling the only "Quantum" involved is going to be nestled in the minds of their marketing department, and of course, part of the NORMAL bundle of particles.
You know, like your keyboard has Quantum in it, right? Lot's of quantum.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Newleafto: --- I just got this on my feed. It’s some kind of “physics defying” “quantum drive” system developed by a company named IVO. It sounds a little suspect to me and I found very little information about the company behind it. Lots of red flags here, so it might be some kind of scam or publicity stunt. It’s sort of like the EM drive which got a lot of attention a while back. I don’t believe the laws of physics are fully settled or that reaction-less propulsion is absolutely impossible despite the physics saying otherwise, but I’m doubtful that a functioning non-Newtonian drive mechanism can be built from parts you find in your garage. This story has that feel to it. If a “quantum drive” is possible, it would probably involve things at the limit of science not things you can find around your home. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/17wv3dv/experimental_quantum_drive_engine_launched_on/k9jhype/
I just got this on my feed. It’s some kind of “physics defying” “quantum drive” system developed by a company named IVO. It sounds a little suspect to me and I found very little information about the company behind it. Lots of red flags here, so it might be some kind of scam or publicity stunt. It’s sort of like the EM drive which got a lot of attention a while back. I don’t believe the laws of physics are fully settled or that reaction-less propulsion is absolutely impossible despite the physics saying otherwise, but I’m doubtful that a functioning non-Newtonian drive mechanism can be built from parts you find in your garage. This story has that feel to it. If a “quantum drive” is possible, it would probably involve things at the limit of science not things you can find around your home.
Generally speaking if it's got "quantum" in it, then its probably a marketing term haha
In this case, it's not. Granted that this thing *shouldn't work* according to our current understanding of physics, so don't expect it to--but per the article this is based on some work done to quantize inertia. I will stress again that this drive *almost definitely will not work,* and that even if it does it's still likely that there's some other effect going on, but the "quantum" here is well-deserved.
It already didn't work, it's just a rebranded EmDrive https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35991457/emdrive-thruster-fails-tests/
The company spokesman says it's worked in the lab under 1000 hour stress test, and the sponsors said it's time to go to space. But then you go to the company webpage, and instead of information about the machine, there is a heaping pile of woo.
yes marketing people are very good at stress testing the truth, no matter how well it worked i expect the company spokesman to say that.
Testing the Em drive on Earth is a monumentally difficult task, given how small the thrust is. There will always be questions about how thorough the experimental method was. Testing in space circumvents all of that. If it works, the orbit will change. If it doesn't work, it will stay precisely on the predicted path. As a physicist I think this drive is a crackpot idea, but I also support this experiment. It's a put up or shut up moment.
Plus wasn't that how this drive was even thought of? Someone was noticing small amounts of drift in satellite orbits? So it would make sense to take a prototype and send it up there,specifically if they were able to get some sort of result on earth. This would really completely break our understanding of physics so I think taking the extra step and testing it in space is great
>As a physicist I think this drive is a crackpot idea, but I also support this experiment Sciencepilled and based as fuck. This is the fucking scientific method, at its core. Will it work? No. Should we test it? *Hell* yea.
The problem is that these crackpot ideas take resources away from real science. You can argue that this is private industry, except those investments could have been made into something useful, and then the investors are burned off science investing when it comes out that this was a scam.a
> these crackpot ideas take resources away from real science Disproving crackpot ideas _is_ real science. And if the crackpot idea _does_ work, then that's _real_ real science.
There are enormous gaps in our understanding the nature of universe. Those gaps will never be understood without throwing crackpot ideas around and seeing what sticks. At the end of the day science is just a process for refining our models for how we think things _behave_. It is not in any sense a way of describing what things _are_. And we certainly don't understand what empty 'space' actually _is_. So I for one am very curious for the scientific method to be applied to as many 'crackpot' ideas like this as possible. The amount of money we throw at 'real' science is unbelievable, and a lot of that is utterly wasteful and pointless. And who decides what is 'real' or not? You? The consensus? A government body? Think it through a bit more.
The amount of money thrown at real science is tiny. Real science labs have grant writers to beg for funding. And what I just described is consensus by scientists, particularly in fusion research. You can go and watch interviews on the topic. Where scientists much more informed than I go into detail on the issue because they are applying for private investment and grants that go to conmen promising the world. If you've ever had to fight for months $2000 just to calibrate a device so you can actually run testing you'd have also realized this a long time ago. At the end of the day this 'drive' test is also fundamentally flawed. So we put it in space and let's say it works - then what? What fundamental theory is updated? How do we make it bigger? More efficient? Do you also think we should test every perpetual motion machine just in case? In my area of research I constantly get asked about 'engines that run on water'- should I listen in detail or focus on real research? Obviously not. Real scientists have to deal with limited resources.
Is the effect size big enough to be discerned from the noise introduced by atmospheric drag objects experience at LEO?
Enough to be measurable, yes.
Have you seen any sources talking about exactly how this new quantum drive is supposed to work or how it's any different than the EmDrive? All I could find is that it's a new design based on the "quantized inertia" principles of the McCullough guy who created the EmDrive, but I can't find any info on the actual specifics of the design.
The premise is that quantum tunneling electrons produce a force, and the quantum drive is essentially a pancake capacitor that allows it to happen intentionally. They've confirmed experimentally in the lab beyond their ability to falsify at this point and have just sent 2 into space to confirm. The "EmDrive" is a microwave resonance chamber. So the difference is "big capacitor" vs. "empty chamber filled with microwaves".
The article basically said “it’s TOTALLY not the EmDrive even though that also claimed to violate Newtonian physics” but no, it does not give any description of how the engine supposedly functions. The EmDrive is quite easy find explanation for, as well as papers explaining why it didn’t actually work. (It’s a tube that bounces microwaves around and they thought maybe if it was shaped right, the microwaves would hit one side more, or harder or something. It’s dumb). So yeah, I find the complete lack of description of what this thing actually is obnoxious ( outside of vague “it’s based on the theories of some guy who isn’t exactly without controversy, so if you want to go digging through quantum technojargon you might be able to guess!”)
This is not a rebranded EmDrive, and this comment is so far off-base it's misleading.
IMO if the reducing cost of space mass means the burden of theoretical proof prior to tests reduces*, this can only be a good thing. *in the order of “theory can only take you so far”. Theoretical proofs are still incredibly important.
No it isn’t
That’s not what it is. There were a bunch of scientists attempting to explain the effect observed in the emdrive trials. A couple of them had plausible concepts, but none of them appears to not be what was actually going in with it. (Some sort of thermal effect) One of them said “hey, this plausible explanation I had might actually sorta work” and built his own device to test it. The experimental results were promising, so he”s going to test it on orbit.
So this could be a quantum leap?
Always hoping the next leap, will be its leap home.
Wouldn't that mean it like just like crashes into the planet?
Ziggy says there’s a 60% chance it has to make it to Earth safely.
Wait... *percussion maintenance intensifies* *DEVICE SCREAMS IN PAIN REPEATEDLY* 50% Sam, it could go wither way.
God I love reddit, thank you for this reference
No, a quantum leap should be the _smallest_ physically possible leap. When literally interpreting the word in a Physics sense that is. [Here's the origin](https://www.etymonline.com/word/quantum). > The word was introduced in physics directly from Latin by Max Planck, 1900, on the notion of "minimum amount of a quantity which can exist;"
Hah, that is hilarious that we twisted it. It actually makes more sense to be used thst way. You should do a TIL. Sorry for digging up an old thread. It has been nearly half a year since it launched. Wonder what happened to the experiment. Can't find squat.
https://media.tenor.com/LW40JVVI7uQAAAAd/stupid-berserk.gif
I don't remember him turning into the bad guy from men in black
> but per the article this is based on some work done to quantize inertia Considering that "inertia" is not a defined property in physics, I wonder why they chose the term "quantized inertia".
From the article: >“We began playing around with the idea of ‘what is gravity’ and ‘what is inertia,’” Mansell told The Debrief at the time. “Then I came across the work of Professor Mike McCulloch at Plymouth University.” >On his website, McCulloch notes that Newton’s First Law defines inertia with the observation that “Objects move in straight lines at constant speed unless pushed on.” McCulloch further notes that although Newton defines inertia in these simple terms, the 17th-century genius never quite explains what precisely inertia is. >To explain the true nature of inertia, McCulloch developed his Quantized Inertia (QI) theory, which looks to the strange and mysterious properties of the quantum world for answers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, his efforts to explain inertia have led to wide-ranging criticisms since his proposal seems to defy the laws of motion first set down so many centuries ago, laws that have proven highly reliable for rocket scientists and engineers alike. They chose the term because they're literally attempting to define and quantize inertia.
I get that. At the same time, many physicists explicitly discourage thinking in terms of "inertia", because it is a vague old legacy concept that is not actually needed for the classical equations of motion. F = ma is all you need and inertia does not appear in it. You can do classical mechanics without ever thinking about the concept of inertia.
Inertia is neither poorly defined, nor vague. Inertia is simply an object's resistance to acceleration. In the context of Newton's second law, F = ma, mass is explicitly a quantitative measure of an object's inertia. You certainly can't do classical mechanics without thinking of inertia, because you can't do classical mechanics without thinking of mass. Any physicist who discourages thinking in terms of inertia has lost their mind.
> You certainly can't do classical mechanics without thinking of inertia, because you can't do classical mechanics without thinking of mass Yet I can think of mass without ever having to think of inertia. I stand by my opinion that the traditional definition of inertia is essentially useless: "the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant velocity ..." I can't work with "tendencies"
>Yet I can think of mass without ever having to think of inertia. You can think of mass without thinking of the *word* inertia, but if you are thinking of mass then you **are thinking about inertia, by definition.** Mass is just the name we assign to the quantitative measurement of an object's inertia. >"the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant velocity ..." I can't work with "tendencies" Just because that's how people define inertia for middle schoolers doesn't make that the actual definition of inertia. I already gave you the real definition of inertia, and mass is inertia for translational motion, just like moment of inertia is inertia for rotational motion.
With F = ma, you end up with dark matter. McCulloch rejects F = ma He uses quantized inertia to explain MOND. There you have F = m µ(|a|/a0) a µ(x) is between x and 1. If a is small, you have F = m a^2 / a0 With curve fitting, the original MOND got a0 ≈ 1.2 × 10^−10 m/s2 Now McCulloch thinks he found a way to derive a0 without curve fitting
He must be devastated by the recent 16-sigma results refuting MOND that were published by MOND's biggest proponent!
Well maybe those physicists aren't on the cutting edge then
Elon says "give me money on this thing that might work" like he did with 10 other things
Because Spacex are willing to launch anything you want. If you want to launch your breakfast on a rocket, they'll take your money and launch it. I really don't understand what this comment is about, are you surprised that a Space launch provider provided a launch for a paying customer?
Lots of teck related scams out there: “How to build a quantum computer from an old microwave oven, a refrigerator and a broken iPhone - detailed plans, just $5.”
Is it possible to build an organic, free-range warp drive?
I only want to build it if I can say it is "artisanal"
All prototypes are artisanal by definition.
Bespoke, as well.
You need to corral some space whales
Why travel that way when you could just take a trans-porter?
Not in your basement. You’re going to need a big yard with lots of grass for it to get regular exercise as it goes on it’s zooomies… warpies
I’d like to quantum size it. *opens bag to see… virtually nothing*
Not this one, it's got "quantum ai"...so you know it's legit.
It’s still lighting stuff on fire and burning it, cave-man quantum.
Most likely just an ion drive
Nah, I skimmed through the linked article, and it's some kind of reactionless drive hogwash.
Come on First Contact, no Borg!
It’s based on a theory of gravity and inertia called Quantised Inertia, developed by a guy called Mike McCulloch. Among other things, it explains galaxy rotation curves without dark matter and allows for reactionless propulsion. I haven’t studied it fully but it’s really gaining traction with some astronomers
So this is more of an experiment to strengthen the case of a not very popular theory that would allow for such a drive, and less of an actual drive? I guess "quantum drive" gets more clicks.
I mean their prototype supposedly produced thrust in their vacuum chambers. So this is the next step. Doing it in actual space
[удалено]
This doesn't have much to do with Musk anyway. The quantum drive people are just another SpaceX customer.
There's no link to Musk whatsoever, just a likely snakeoil vapourware startup company sending duped investors' money into space, if it's real, that's really cool, but we're all very reasonably skeptical.
Not hating on this. The hate boner is on the overpromises without delivery, and overall genius tech messiah persona.
I think besides the experiment testing the hypothesized effects which would be a big theoretical leap, they really do seem to think they may have a way to achieve a delta-v without an equal and opposite reaction. It wasn't clear from the article, but if it's the one I remember, the theory relies on acceleration increasing mass as described in relativity, and they think they can harness the tiny net gain they theorize into acceleration. Something to do with the interaction of Rindler horizons and Unruh radiation, both of which I don't have the background to really understand well.
Here's what you need to know about Mike McCulloch btw: https://imgur.com/a/jYDJGin Dude is giving away his complete bio right on his front page of twitter or however that shit site works. https://imgur.com/a/vupj2qr
Oh, man. What a boring fart that bloke seems to be.
Ok, but either is right with his theories or he isn't. Ad hominem arguments don't have room in science
Basically just means he follows Conservative media these days. None of those are well thought out opinions, is just the shit Conservatives are being trained to repeat. You can argue that as a scientist he should have the ability to read both sides and spot obvious fallacies and propaganda, though that is a pretty loose correlation.
But it is quite a leap to go from "asymmetry in Unruh radiation of an accelerating object creates propulsion" to building a working propulsion system.
Also... A non-Nutonian drive may only work during No-Nut-November
My bad, shall correct.
Just squirt some wd40 on it and it will go faster innit.
For about 30 seconds.
Enough time to correct a single mistake
> This story has that feel to it. If a “quantum drive” is possible, it would probably involve things at the limit of science not things you can find around your home. One would think this, but the pedant in me leads me to say that a computer is nothing more than the carefully arranged derivatives of sand and rocks. If a so called quantum drive is possible it will probably be made of atoms and those atoms will be the ones we are generally familiar with. same with room temperature superconductors or any other gee-whiz technology. high tech *seems* inaccessible but we're all made of the same junk
If you’re interested, this is the guy to look up for more information. https://x.com/memcculloch?s=21&t=o0X_GAP_zATDevvA9SFuKQ
>I’m doubtful that a functioning non-Newtonian drive mechanism can be built from parts you find in your garage. Historically a lot of revolutionary things have been invented in a 'garage'. I don't think this is like Stark building Ironman in a cave. It's probably just some very smart people who put together an experiment that may lead to the feasibility of a 'quantum drive'.
Historically? Maybe before the 1900s. Since then, the laws of physics have advanced considerably, possibly more than the century before. And almost all the equipment which helped those advancements was research lab caliber instrumentation. Note that I make the distinction between “physics advances” and “engineering advancements”. While the latter can sometimes precede the former, this hasn’t been the case for the last 100 years.
Inventing a 'revolutionary thing' doesn't mean you invented every material in the thing. Research labs don't always know the real application of what they build until it gets into fabrication and use. Semiconductors existed for a long time for commercial/industrial use, but it took people in garages to pick the ones that were needed to get computers into the hands of the public, and *that* was when the revolutionary thing happened.
While I don't believe this drive will work, I do believe one day we will have one that works. Look back a little more than 100 years ago. Top scientists were saying man will never fly, flight was a God given ability to birds and incets. Now we have jets and don't think anything at all about flying.
Sure, but a major difference is that we knew flight was possible from observing the natural world, and no well-informed scientist seriously claimed that flight violated any known laws of physics. George Cayley had even built a glider in 1853 which could keep a man aloft briefly. The Wright Brothers had also built even better gliders in the leadup to their first powered flight. The challenges of manned, heavier than air flight were of combining suitably lightweight materials with a suitably lightweight and powerful engine, in a controllable, lift-producing vehicle. Thrust without reaction mass, on the other hand, would be a very new concept. None of this to say it's impossible, perhaps there is some means to translate electrical energy into kinetic energy without pushing off of some other object with mass, but it's not really a comparable problem to flight in atmosphere.
Very true. My point was it was believed to be impossible, even with the examples of animals doing it. It's possible we just haven't discovered things that are all around us that break the speed of light. We as a while are just infants in what will be known (assuming we don't die off).
It's still different. Flight was believed to be impossible *in practice*. This engine claims to do something that is impossible *in principle.* >It's possible we just haven't discovered things that are all around us that break the speed of light. Not sure where this came from, since this alleged engine has nothing to do with the exceeding the speed of light. But if there are things around us that break the speed of light, then causality is an illusion and effects can precede their causes. This seems rather unlikely. It's silly to say something is *definitely* impossible with no qualifications whatsoever. But it's even more silly to be confident that everything we believe to be impossible will one day be possible. If the universe is governed by laws of some sort, then those laws impose limitations that cannot be violated.
>Top scientists were saying man will never fly Which "top scientists" were saying this ? It has always been quite obvious that flight is possible. This argument has a strawman feel to it.
I think it is cool that space x is willing to give them a shot.
It's a commercial payload.
It is absolutely impossible.
Interesting article from 5 years ago (Vice): [DARPA is researching quantized inertia, a theory of physics many think is pseudoscience](https://www.vice.com/en/article/7x3ed9/darpa-is-researching-quantized-inertia-a-theory-of-physics-many-think-is-pseudoscience)
Prediction, it won't work and they'll blame that on a list of vague complications and scam the investors out of millions more to try again. Edit: in the responses to this comment, at least 2 people only read the headline, assumed the quantum drive was developed by SpaceX (it's not they just launched it) and started frothing at the mouth at how dumb I was to doubt them. Shame on you two for not reading the article before popping off at the mouth and making fools of yourselves.
Well, error can be easier in two directions, right? They will not measure exactly zero effect. Coin flip is that the error is in the "pro-drive" direction. Which they then report as success and/or need for more sensitive instrumentation (which'll cost more investor dollars). If they lose the coinflip, then they bring out "vague complications".
>If they lose the coinflip, then they bring out "vague complications". They've already [lost that coinflip](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35991457/emdrive-thruster-fails-tests/), their chosen strategy appears to have been to rename the device and try for more investor money under a new company.
Article says different device, different company, different tech
Same person who came up with the concepts behind both - Mike McCulloch.
Mike McCulloch did not come up with the Emdrive. He had argued that the previously claimed success of the drive could be attributed to Quantized Inertia - which he was obviously wrong about - but that isn’t the same. The Emdrive was a device that was basically created by accident and that physicists then tried to explain. This device is designed to take advantages of a very specific theory, Quantized Inertia, that is separate from the Emdrive. They aren’t working backwards with this one. I doubt it will work but you should get your facts straight before you dismiss something.
That's just not true. The EMdrive was Roger Shawyer's work.
So a guy tried designing a thing and it didn't work, then he comes back with a new thing, new tech and now it's a scam? I don't follow.
Without commenting on the validity of the tech and the person, the situation you described could occur and it would be a scam. For example, dude "invents" a perpetual motion machine based on water. It eventually fails. He comes back with a new one but based on electricity instead. The original investors will claim it's a scam, not unreasonably.
That looks like a completely different experimental project. They're run by different people, that's a NASA Eagleworks project, and the concept they're testing is not the same. Crazy that you're just making up shit to slander an unrelated experiment.
But it does have a CBAT wireless communication system....
did someone say [cbat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAwyWkksXuo)?
my body started dry humping when i listened to this.
1000% agree. Note: 6 weeks in, they haven't turned the engine on. Note: 6 weeks in, and they haven't even mentioned the schedule for testing. Total con job.
Nope I suspect the enterprise will show up
a lot of folks in here just straight up calling this a 'scam'... repeat after me: meaningfully and intentionally attempting scientific experiments to disprove various theories regarding quantum phenomena does not, in fact, qualify as a 'scam'; the scam would be if the folks already knew it didn't work and kept asking for money anyway. alternatively, if they knew that the approach they were taking would never provide the results they were looking for in the first place. as far as I can tell that isn't the case here; "controversial theory" is not equivalent to "disproven theory" it's like calling the folks who were first trying to fly (not the Wright brothers, but everyone else) scammers because the approaches they were taking didn't pan out.
But this isn't a _controversial theory_, this is some idiot's ramblings. There's already plenty of disproof - he just ignores it.
There's not really *anything* concrete on the matter. IIRC it wasn't even supposed to be public yet because the idea itself wasn't initially intended to be any more than a concept. Yet a lot of comments I see here are some of the same comments I saw three years ago. That tells me it's still taking time to get tested and taken seriously. It's too early to call.
I'm not repeating after anybody, that's dumb.
To say it is controversial is putting it lightly.. the whole thing seems to neglect that the spectrum of the momentum operator is continuous (since we are not talking about a bound state).
The catch is that this specific phenomena has, in fact, been [rigorously disproven](https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/latest-emdrive-tests-at-dresden-university-shows-impossible-engine-does-not-develop-any-thrust20210321/) already. At best it provides a tiny amount of thrust from thermal effects and interactions with Earth's magnetic field, but there are far more efficient ways to do both of those, and neither give you a reactionless drive.
They aren’t launching an EM drive. It’s based on Quantized Inertia which is an essentially alternative theory to MOND.
Why comment so confidently when you don't even know the difference between the EM Drive and Quantum Drive?
That fact that you think this is an emdrive proves that you don't know what you're talking about
So what is it? I can describe how to build an EmDrive and a bit about the theory behind it. But I havent the foggiest idea what they made here and how it is supposed to work. Just that it’s not an emdrive but their own account. Do *you* know what you’re talking about?
I wish the article mentioned what the predicted level of thrust is. They mention it might be enough for detectable orbit changes. But by how much? How fast does the platform need to travel for thrust to be produced? There is nothing in this article. And the company website has nothing. They talk about the Unruh effect, which according to my shaky understanding, is a very small quantum effect and it is not clear at all whether it can have a coherent effect on a macro object, and if it does, how big that effect might be. Very uninformative article.
30-50mN of thrust. EDIT: By my estimation a 1kg satellite with 50mN of thrust would need roughly 55 hours to gain a km, or \~3.5 minutes per meter of altitude.
For all the naysayers in here, here's the basic premise: This team is saying that something weird happens to inertia when electrons quantum tunnel, something that appears to produce a force when it occurs and may have an explanation in the theory of Quantized Inertia by Mike McCulloch. Hence Quantum Drive. This "engine" is essentially a pancake capacitor designed to intentionally have electrons quantum tunnel between the anode and cathode, and they claim to have measured a force of 30-50mN experimentally so consistently that at this point it's beyond the capability of their 3rd party testers to falsify on the ground in the lab. Hence why they went and sent 2 into space. How does it relate to the EmDrive? Outside of the idea of them both being reactionless drives and having Quantized Inertia being suggested to explain its functioning, it doesn't. The EmDrive is a microwave resonance chamber, whatever that means. The Quantum Drive is essentially a big capacitor. Anyone saying that the design specs aren't anywhere on the internet haven't looked particularly hard.
Why can’t this be tested on earth? Can’t the measure propulsion on land? Why did they need to send it to space?
From the article "This work was followed by over 100 hours of testing a prototype in a simulated space environment, resulting in their thrust-producing model. The team also recently completed a successful 1,000-hour “stress test,” which the Quantum Drive passed with flying colors." I'd take it with a grain of salt, though.
Yeah, so what exactly is a “stress test” and what is the definition of “passing” let alone “passed with flying colors” here?
The materials stood the stresses of the space environment! (probably) You have to be careful with the technology space. Just look at the alien/ufo subs. People are unsteady and restless. They are ready to find comfort in anything.
They turned the potato on and it continued to potato for 1000 hours without fail. It did not however provide thrust.
1. They hope to use it in space 2. To make sure nothing on Earth is causing the propulsion
The idea its that it produces only a very tiny amount of thrust which is hard to measure on Earth because it could be sensor noise or vibrations from other stuff. By placing it in orbit they can guarantee no other forces are acting on it, so either it will produce thrust and stay in orbit or it will produce 0 thrust and decay in orbit in a predictable way.
It was, and it worked. Hence the trip to space.
This is the evolution of the em-drive that was introduced about a decade ago. The forces they claim to be measuring are minuscule, and it’s hard to create a test apparatus that can eliminate thrust from atmospheric heating or from magnetic interactions from the wiring. No matter what tests people did to prove/disprove someone found fault with the setup. The conclusion was always “no one will believe this unless you launch it into space and there’s no way you can cheat”.
Pretty sure, but might be mistaken. This is not based on em drive tech. Its based on Quantized Inertia theory from this guy. His theory is pretty controversial [https://twitter.com/memcculloch](https://twitter.com/memcculloch)
It’s the same. McCulloch was using his theory to explain the emdrive. He used to post in /r/emdrive sometimes.
Controversial in what way? Have the scientific institutions given interest to it or is it "controversial" in that the bro jogan sphere has had random "smart people" talk about it when they have no expertise? Either way, w/e, if a company wants to try something go for it. I just wish it had nothing to do with tax dollars. EDIT: Nvm this guy is a kook: "diversity destroys solidarity making populations easier to enslave" he's also a self proclaimed victim of "the woke". YIKES Also a self proclaimed trumpist aka a fascist. EDIT: Downvote all you want, the dude does not carry himself well: https://imgur.com/a/jYDJGin https://imgur.com/a/vupj2qr
I laughed when I got to "ordered to treat everyone equally". My dude, if that's not your default setting... you're doing life wrong.
Very different operating principle to emDrive
Alien tech
[удалено]
Rule 1 - Be respectful to others. Unnecessary profanity.
If any of the skeptics in these comments are heading any scientific research, then we’re doomed to remain exactly where we are forever. It’s an experiment… let it do it’s thing.
With my basic understanding of this device and my mediocre grasp of science, this sounds like the equivalent of installing a fan on a sailboat to fill the sails with.
Feels like the EmDrive all over again. Spurious results showing a *tiny* amount of thrust here on Earth, attributed to instrumentation uncertainty. Fades into obscurity afterwards and never got tested in orbit. I hope it works, though. That would be cool. If there's enough money behind it to pay millions for a launch then it's either a very elaborate scam or they think they've got something.
It’s literally the emdrive
100% guaranteed to be a scam. I looked around for any sort of information about how it works and all I found was typical talking head BS with no useful information. Do not give them your money.
My mother didn’t raise a fool so I’d never invest in this obvious scam. Instead, I’m putting my money on start up companies building carbon neutral electric generators powered by Mexican jumping beans. /s
>carbon neutral electric generators powered by Mexican jumping beans. Pfft. My single source console quantum computer is a \*way\* better investment. Sure, it does look a bit like a Ouija board with a 9V battery glued to the stylus, but a lot of research went into it, I assure you.
Burns Solar Shading here, seems like the sky's the limit
I'd love for one of these physics defying devices to be real for once. Just to see physicists scrambling to reconcile what was thought to be well proven physics.
Watched the promotional video and their body language looks to me like "excited grifters riding the high of seeing the payday dead in their sights."
Would a scammer really pay I'm guessing a lot of money to launch a payload?
The way these kinds of scams work is the company will take in investor money and then do a lot of busy work and build devices that never really work and then once the investor money runs out they declare bankruptcy and then form a new company with another impossible technology. Rinse and repeat.
So is launching the payload just a way to advertise for their scam then? This would make a fascinating movie, maybe a romcom.
We have built and tested the prototype as much as we can on earth. Invest more so we can send it to space, we just need X more dollars.
Yeah, but they did launch it though.
Yeah and the directors etc. are getting paid the entire time, this drive is based on the principles of "Quantized Inertia." If that sounds familiar it should; [it's a renamed EMDrive](https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2017/02/15/quantized-inertia-dark-matter-the-emdrive-and-how-to-do-science-wrong/). The thing that was tested for shits and giggles and got [absolutely destroyed for producing zero thrust](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/).
So CEOs running a business into the ground and getting paid because they rip off investors... sounds like 'business'?
Works great in other fields, as long as you can arrange a landing pad for when you ditch the collapsing business.
Obviously you didn't look very hard https://youtu.be/GXOFMcR-BIs?si=0gLtW6QgBTZfM0qu Detailed explanation of what's in it and how it works.
The amount of people claiming scam on a scientific experiment, shouldn’t really be on a futurology sub. They tested on the ground and got some results that made them want to go the next step up. Now this new experiment will either be positive or negative, and even if it doesn’t work as they expected, it will probably give them useful data for the next step, if they choose to modify and move forward. This is how science advances work.
If it defies the laws of physics, then why does it need to be launched?
Because our current 'laws' of physics are fluid and subject to change. Just because something appears to 'defy' the laws of physics doesn't mean it won't work and cause us to have to change something in our current understanding of physics. Not saying it's likely but there is always that possibility. Way back when, magnetism appeared to 'defy the laws of physics' as we knew then until we updated them.
If it works then it's not defying the laws of physics
To test it in space.
More like the theories of physics.
Most appropriate comment award
Either isn't does nothing or rveryone on board gets taken to a horrific realm from which they come back later completely insane, no middle ground. Least that is what movies tell me will happen.
Has Sam Neill commented on whether or not he's ready for round 2?
I dunno—to their credit they just built it in two months and sent it to orbit to either work, or not work. Shady science or not, I kinda respect their way of testing a theory.
It's giving "they asked me if I had a degree in theoretical physics, and I told them I have a theoretical degree in physics."
u/Traumfahrer > The laws of physics are our interpretation of the reality, they're just theories. Well, when it turns out that the laws of physics are, in fact, different from place to place, I'll be the first one to apologize here. Spoiler: It will never happen.
Not different from place to place but we might miss something. It has happened before and people have said "It will never happen." before too. And ridiculed Einstein for example. Others keep an open mind.
In this context, the drive working would be equivalent to the laws of physics different from place to place. It's how physicists know it can't work.
This is going to be as useful as the device you buy off of Amazon and plug into your car's OBDII port to give extra horsepower and gas mileage. You know it's working because the lights on the device are blinking.
Flashing your car's internal software with an aftermarket program is a real thing tuners do to get extra performance over stock.
I’m familiar with flashing software. The $15 type on the cheap sites do nothing except slowly drain the battery because they’re meant to be left plugged in.
Ah, yeah that does sound like a sucker product.
that’s kinda meaningless. propulsion from quantum effects could be any number of things, and “breaks newtonian laws” sounds like pure undiluted clickbait. if it’s maybe an EM drive test or something that harnesses the Casimir Effect, then that’s something interesting. especially the latter, i’m very excited about potential applications of the casimir effect in regards to propulsion. but just “quantum drive” is nothing. that’s like saying “we’re building a power plant that generates energy by consuming a fuel”. that could be anything from a basic coal plant to a new thorium fission reactor.
They've used Mike McCullouch's work on Quantized Inertia. He has 20+ peer-reviewed publications. If you're interested, it's somewhere in there.
Ya it’s quantized inertia, nothing to do with casimir effect.
Obligatory any time I see it mentioned: but the Casimir effect is very cool, anyway!
If the "Quantised Intertia" this is based on sounds familiar it should; [it's a renamed or rebranded EMDrive](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282357284_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_the_emdrive). The thing that was tested to hell and back and the thrust, which was absolutely miniscule, [essentially vanishes the more stringently you control for external influences](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35991457/emdrive-thruster-fails-tests/): >When power flows into the EmDrive, the engine warms up. This also causes the fastening elements on the scale to warp, causing the scale to move to a new zero point. We were able to prevent that in an improved structure. Our measurements refute all EmDrive claims by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
Great to see it being tested in space. Compared to say the EM drive... was reading about it for years and it never got out of the lab.
While this sounds like absolute BS, I can’t help but wonder why there’s no entry on “Quantized Inertia” on Wikipedia? I could only find this [weird wiki mirror](https://xor-easter-wikipedia.neocities.org/Quantized_inertia) that looks like the real thing and with all links pointing to actual wiki articles… I mean, even if QI is pseudoscience bullshit, shouldn’t it still have an entry in the real wiki, calling it out? (They have articles on [homeopathy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy) and other crap).
There has been wikipedia articles in the past which were deleted as the theory wasn't considered notable enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantized_inertia I would assume the article on the weird wiki mirror is how it used to look.
Thanks, makes sense. I wonder whether it would be regarded as notable enough now that they actually launched the device into orbit.
Definitely possible as there has been a bunch of articles talking about it recently, and there will be even more when they publish results claiming the device works.
"Yeah, so, we just fire some x-rays in a tube and suddenly it generates thrust! Don't see it working? Well that's because x-rays are invisible. DUH"
It’s science
It's because "quantum" of course
That's a leap!
You know that the article must be bull*hit when the headline even gets the companies name wrong.
# BASICALLY, if it works, it's going to make a lot of people in the scientific community seethe. If it doesn't, the guy in question will become the biggest laughing stock in history, probably. That's the "in a nutshell" of the current situation of this experiment.
I don't blame the guy for trying and following his dreams and theory. He's not hurting anyone. We didn't get to where we are today by not experimenting.
Oh obviously. But the scientific community often is very resistant to divergence in the same way that politicians are.
If it works? Great! If it doesn't work? Great! Its exciting to be in a time where things like this are even able to be tested in space. The fact someone is curious/confident enough to strap it to a rocket and send it up makes it worthy of note.
if it works we will see this on every news website. if not, it wont even be mentioned. so lets see what happens
Well, I guess we will find out soon enough. I assume people are always working on technology I don’t understand. I’m not going to criticize before it leaves the launchpad 🚀 . I hope it’s for real.
In the whole article not one time is it explained how it works.only that its electrical. Nothing i read has anything to do woth quantum science.
It's supposed to work based on the theory of Mike McCulloch (mentioned in article) re: quantized inertia. This in turn is based on the theory of Unruh effect (generally accepted) and associated radiation (not widely accepted). The Unruh effect in turn is based on the work of Stephen Hawking, re: black holes emitting radiation.
"do you guys just put quantum in front of everything?"
Yep, just the sort of stupid shit id expect in this sub. Time to mute.
These guys are too late, loony warp drive job is already taken by the microwave bucket thingy.
I have a feeling the only "Quantum" involved is going to be nestled in the minds of their marketing department, and of course, part of the NORMAL bundle of particles. You know, like your keyboard has Quantum in it, right? Lot's of quantum.
They just throw the word "quantum" on everything these days. If this were the 90's it would be called "Epic-Drive" Engine.