New Field Theory Could Explain EM Drives

axj

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
[size=18pt]Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive[/size]
April 29, 2015 by José Rodal, Ph.D, Jeremiah Mullikin and Noel Munson - subedited by Chris Gebhardt

A group at NASA’s Johnson Space Center has successfully tested an electromagnetic (EM) propulsion drive in a vacuum – a major breakthrough for a multi-year international effort comprising several competing research teams. Thrust measurements of the EM Drive defy classical physics’ expectations that such a closed (microwave) cavity should be unusable for space propulsion because of the law of conservation of momentum.

EM Drive:

Last summer, NASA Eagleworks – an advanced propulsion research group led by Dr. Harold “Sonny” White at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) – made waves throughout the scientific and technical communities when the group presented their test results on July 28-30, 2014, at the 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio.

Those results related to experimental testing of an EM Drive – a concept that originated around 2001 when a small UK company, Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd (SPR), under Roger J. Shawyer, started a Research and Development (R&D) program.

The concept of an EM Drive as put forth by SPR was that electromagnetic microwave cavities might provide for the direct conversion of electrical energy to thrust without the need to expel any propellant.

This lack of expulsion of propellant from the drive was met with initial skepticism within the scientific community because this lack of propellant expulsion would leave nothing to balance the change in the spacecraft’s momentum if it were able to accelerate.

However, in 2010, Prof. Juan Yang in China began publishing about her research into EM Drive technology, culminating in her 2012 paper reporting higher input power (2.5kW) and tested thrust (720mN) levels of an EM Drive.

In 2014, Prof. Yang’s papers reported extensive tests involving internal temperature measurements with embedded thermocouples.

It was reported (in SPR Ltd.’s website) that if the Chinese EM Drive were to be installed in the International Space Station (ISS) and work as reported, it could provide the necessary delta-V (change in velocity needed to perform an on-orbit maneuver) to compensate for the Station’s orbital decay and thus eliminate the requirement of re-boosts from visiting vehicles. Despite these reports, Prof. Yang offered no scientifically-accepted explanation as to how the EM Drive can produce propulsion in space.

Dr. White proposed that the EM Drive’s thrust was due to the Quantum Vacuum (the quantum state with the lowest possible energy) behaving like propellant ions behave in a MagnetoHydroDynamics drive (a method electrifying propellant and then directing it with magnetic fields to push a spacecraft in the opposite direction) for spacecraft propulsion.

In Dr. White’s model, the propellant ions of the MagnetoHydroDynamics drive are replaced as the fuel source by the virtual particles of the Quantum Vacuum, eliminating the need to carry propellant.

This model was also met with criticism in the scientific community because the Quantum Vacuum cannot be ionized and is understood to be “frame-less” – meaning you cannot “push” against it, as required for momentum.

The tests reported by Dr. White’s team in July 2014 were not conducted in a vacuum, and none of the tests reported by Prof. Yang in China or Mr. Shawyer in the UK were conducted in a vacuum either.

The scientific community met these NASA tests with skepticism and a number of physicists proposed that the measured thrust force in the US, UK, and China tests was more likely due to (external to the EM Drive cavity) natural thermal convection currents arising from microwave heating (internal to the EM Drive cavity).

However, Paul March, an engineer at NASA Eagleworks, recently reported in NASASpaceFlight.com’s forum (on a thread now over 500,000 views) that NASA has successfully tested their EM Drive in a hard vacuum – the first time any organization has reported such a successful test.

To this end, NASA Eagleworks has now nullified the prevailing hypothesis that thrust measurements were due to thermal convection.

2015-04-26-182409A community of enthusiasts, engineers, and scientists on several continents joined forces on the NASASpaceflight.com EM Drive forum to thoroughly examine the experiments and discuss theories of operation of the EM Drive.

The quality of forum discussions attracted the attention of EagleWorks team member Paul March at NASA, who has shared testing and background information with the group in order to fill in information gaps and further the dialogue.

This synergy between NASASpaceflight.com contributors and NASA has resulted in several contributions to the body of knowledge about the EM Drive.

The NASASpaceflight.com group has given consideration to whether the experimental measurements of thrust force were the result of an artifact. Despite considerable effort within the NASASpaceflight.com forum to dismiss the reported thrust as an artifact, the EM Drive results have yet to be falsified.

After consistent reports of thrust measurements from EM Drive experiments in the US, UK, and China – at thrust levels several thousand times in excess of a photon rocket, and now under hard vacuum conditions – the question of where the thrust is coming from deserves serious inquiry.

Applications:

The applications of such a propulsion drive are multi-fold, ranging from low Earth orbit (LEO) operations, to transit missions to the Moon, Mars, and the outer solar system, to multi-generation spaceships for interstellar travel.

Under these application considerations, the closest-to-home potential use of EM Drive technology would be for LEO space stations – such as the International Space Station.

In terms of the Station, propellant-less propulsion could amount to significant savings by drastically reducing fuel resupply missions to the Station and eliminate the need for visiting-vehicle re-boost maneuvers.

The elimination of these currently necessary re-boost maneuvers would potentially reduce stress on the Station’s structure and allow for a pro-longed operational period for the ISS and future LEO space stations.

Likewise, EM drive technology could also be applied to geostationary orbit (GEO) satellites around Earth.

For a typical geostationary communications satellite with a 6kW (kilowatt) solar power capacity, replacing the conventional apogee engine, attitude thrusters, and propellant volume with an EM Drive would result in a reduction of the launch mass from 3 tons to 1.3 tons.

The satellite would be launched into LEO, where its solar arrays and antennas would be deployed. The EM-drive would then propel the satellite in a spiral trajectory up to GEO in 36 days.

Moving out from LEO, Mr. March, from NASA EagleWorks, noted that a spacecraft equipped with EM drive technology could surpass the performance expectations of the WarpStar-I concept vehicle.

If such a similar vehicle were equipped with an EM Drive, it could enable travel from the surface of Earth to the surface of the moon within four hours.

Such a vehicle would be capable of carrying two to six passengers and luggage and would be able to return to Earth in the same four-hour interval using one load of hydrogen and oxygen for fuel cell-derived electrical power, assuming a 500 to 1,000 Newton/kW efficiency EM Drive system.

While the current maximum reported efficiency is close to only 1 Newton/kW (Prof. Yang’s experiments in China), Mr. March noted that such an increase in efficiency is most likely achievable within the next 50 years provided that current EM Drive propulsion conjectures are close to accurate.

Far more ambitious applications for the EM Drive were presented by Dr. White and include crewed missions to Mars as well as to the outer planets.

Specifically, these two proposed missions (to Mars and the outer planets) would use a 2 MegaWatt Nuclear Electric Propulsion spacecraft equipped with an EM Drive with a thrust/powerInput of 0.4 Newton/kW.

With this design, a mission to Mars would result in a 70-day transit from Earth to the red planet, a 90-day stay at Mars, and then another 70-day return transit to Earth.

According to Dr. White, “A 90 metric ton, 2 MegaWatt nuclear electric propulsion mission to Mars [would have] considerable reduction in transit times due to having a thrust-to-mass ratio greater than the gravitational acceleration of the Sun (0.6 milli-g’s at 1 Astronomical Unit).”

Furthermore, this type of mission would have the added benefit of requiring only a “single heavy lift launch vehicle” as compared to “a current conjunction-class Mars mission using chemical propulsion systems, which would require multiple heavy lift launch vehicles.”

Presenting at the “Human Outer Solar System Exploration via Q-Thruster Technology” panel at IEEE, 2014, Mr. Joosten and Dr. White explained that “only 12 days would be utilized spiraling up from a 400 km low Earth orbit to achieve escape velocity and only 5 days spiraling down to a 400 km low Mars orbit.”

While these spiral trajectories around Earth would have to be carefully designed to avoid or minimize time in the most problematic regions of the Van Allen radiation belts that could expose crewmembers to undesirable levels of radiation, Mr. Joosten and Dr. White note that “These relatively rapid transits would argue for mission strategies where the ‘Q-Ship’ (EM Drive ship) operates between the lowest orbits possible to minimize the launch requirements of crew and supplies from Earth and lander complexity at Mars.”

Moreover, this type of EM Drive-enabled mission could negate the need to bring along, for the duration of the mission, a high-speed reentry vehicle to return a Mars crew back to the Earth’s surface because “By quickly spiraling into Earth orbit at the end of the mission, the crew could readily be retrieved via a ‘ground-up’ launch.

“While the fast Mars transits that Q-Thruster technology [EM drive] could enable would be revolutionary, the independence from the limitations of departure and arrival windows may ultimately be more so,” added Mr. Joosten and Dr. White.

This means that an EM drive ship mission could be designed without consideration of the every-two-year interplanetary conjunction launch windows that currently govern Earth-Mars transit missions and could help stabilize and provide more routine Mars crew rotation timetables.

This same elimination of inter-planetary conjunction-enabled launch windows would be applied to crewed missions to the outer planets as well.

For such a mission, such as a crewed flight to the outer planets – specifically, a Titan/Enceladus mission at Saturn – an EM Drive would allow for a 9-month transit period from Earth to Saturn, a 6-month in-situ mission at Titan, another 6-month in-situ mission at Enceladus, and a 9-month return trip to Earth. This would result in a total mission duration of just 32 months.

However, EM drive applications are not limited to Mars or outer solar system targets.

Applications of this technology in deep space missions have already received conceptual outlines.

In particular, the Alpha Centauri system, the closest star system to our solar system at just 4.3 lights year’s distance, received specific mention as a potential mission destination.

Mr. Joosten and Dr. White stated that “a one-way, non-decelerating trip to Alpha Centauri under a constant one milli-g acceleration” from an EM drive would result in an arrival speed of 9.4 percent the speed of light and result in a total transit time from Earth to Alpha Centauri of just 92 years.

However, if the intentions of such a mission were to perform in-situ observations and experiments in the Alpha Centauri system, then deceleration would be needed.

This added component would result in a 130-year transit time from Earth to Alpha Centauri – which is still a significant improvement over the multi-thousand year timetable such a mission would take using current chemical propulsion technology.

The speeds discussed in the Alpha Centauri mission proposal are sufficiently low that relativity effects are negligible.

Bringing EM Drives to reality:

While such mission proposals are important to consider, equally as important are the considerations toward development of the needed technology and procurement long-lead items necessary to make this power technology a reality.

Specifically, a useful EM Drive for space travel would need a nuclear power plant of 1.0 MWe (Megawatts-electric) to 100 MWe.

While that sounds significant, the U.S. Navy currently builds 220 MW-thermal reactors for its “Boomer” Ohio class ICBM vehicles.

Thus, the technology to build such reactors is available, and the technology needed to build such a device for space-based operations has been around since the 1980s.

The limiting factors for further testing and development of this potentially revolutionary space exploration technology are funding to verify and characterize its operations, and the political will to develop nuclear power for space applications.

Progress Update:

On April 5, 2015, Paul March reported at NASAspaceflight.com’s Forum that Dr. White and Dr. Jerry Vera at NASA Eagleworks have just created a new computational code that models the EM Drive’s thrust as a three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic flow of electron-positron virtual particles.

These simulations explain why in NASA’s experiments it was necessary to insert a high density polyethylene (HDPE) dielectric into the EM Drive, while the experiments in the UK and China were able to measure thrust without a dielectric insert.

The code shows two reasons for this: 1) the experiments in the UK and China used (unlike the ones in the US) a magnetron to generate the microwaves and 2) the experiments in the UK and China were performed with much higher input power: up to 2.5 kiloWatts, compared to less than 100 Watts in the US experiments.

In the US tests, microwave frequency generation was controlled via a voltage-controlled oscillator whose signal was passed to a variable voltage attenuator. The tests performed in the UK and China used, instead, magnetron microwave sources (as used in home-use microwave ovens) for their experiments.

The magnetron generates amplitude, frequency and phase modulation of the carrier wave (FM modulation bandwidth on the order of +/-20 MHz, at tested natural frequencies of ~2.5 GHz). Dr. White’s computer simulation shows that the modulation generated by the magnetron results in greater thrust force.

2015-04-19-010503Dr. White’s computer analysis also shows that increasing the input power focuses the virtual particle flow from near omnidirectional at the low powers used in the NASA experiments, to a much more focused jet like beam at the higher power (kilowatts as compared to less than 100 Watts) used in the UK and China experiments.

The simulation for the 100 Watts input power (as used in the latest tests at NASA) predicted only ~50 microNewtons (in agreement with the experiments) using the HDPE dielectric insert, while the 10 kiloWatts simulation (without a dielectric) predicted a thrust level of ~6.0 Newtons. At 100 kiloWatts the prediction is ~1300 Newton thrust.

The computer code also shows that the efficiency, as measured by the thrust to input power ratio, decreases at input powers exceeding 50 kiloWatts.

A note of caution is that Dr. White’s simulations do not assume that the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable. The mainstream physics community assumes the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable because of the experimental observation that a fundamental particle like an electron (or a positron) has the same properties (e.g. mass, charge or spin), regardless of when or where the particle was created, whether now or in the early universe, through astrophysical processes or in a laboratory.

Another reason is that the Quantum Vacuum is assumed to be the lowest possible (time-averaged) energy that a quantum physical system may have, and therefore it should not be possible to extract momentum or energy from the Quantum Vacuum.

Due to these predictions by Dr. White’s computer simulations NASA Eagleworks has started to build a 100 Watt to 1,200 Watt waveguide magnetron microwave power system that will drive an aluminum EM Drive shaped like a truncated cone.

Initially a teeter-totter balance system will be used in ambient conditions to see if similar thrust levels (0.016 to 0.3 Newton) as reported in the US and China can be reproduced at NASA with this approach.

For the last three years, Dr. White’s team has been conducting experiments to find out whether it is possible to measure, with an interferometer, a distortion of spacetime produced by time-varying electromagnetic fields.

The ultimate goal is to find out whether it is possible for a spacecraft traveling at conventional speeds to achieve effective superluminal speed by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it. The experimental results so far had been inconclusive.

During the first two weeks of April of this year, NASA Eagleworks may have finally obtained conclusive results. This time they used a short, cylindrical, aluminum resonant cavity excited at a natural frequency of 1.48 GHz with an input power of 30 Watts.

This is essentially a pill-box shaped EM Drive, with much higher electric-field intensity, aligned in the axial direction. The interferometer’s laser light goes through small holes in the EM Drive.

Over 27,000 cycles of data (each 1.5 sec cycle energizing the system for 0.75 sec and de-energizing it for 0.75 sec) were averaged to obtain a power spectrum that revealed a signal frequency of 0.65 Hz with amplitude clearly above system noise. Four additional tests were successfully conducted that demonstrated repeatability.

One possible explanation for the optical path length change is that it is due to refraction of the air. The NASA team examined this possibility and concluded that it is not likely that the measured change is due to transient air heating because the experiment’s visibility threshold is forty times larger than the calculated effect from air considering atmospheric heating.

Encouraged by these results, NASA Eagleworks plans to next conduct these interferometer tests in a vacuum.

_http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/
 
NASA tested an "impossible" engine that travels faster than the speed of light:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3063082/Has-Nasa-built-WARP-DRIVE-Engineers-claim-tested-impossible-engine-travel-faster-speed-light.html
 
I already started a thread on this today:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,38128.0.html

The Daily Mail article is probably more accessible and the article I posted has more background information on it.

It seems that the real breakthrough is that this engine would not need a propellant of any kind - only energy. This goes against the currently accepted physics that the momentum needs to be passed on to something. Apparently in this case this happens on the quantum level in some way. Nobody really knows how this EM engine works.

And from what I understand, the engine would not allow faster-than-light travel, though it would be capable of reaching much higher speeds than the current chemical rockets.
 
Well it's interesting-but NOT a "warp" drive as it doesn't "bend" space as a true warp drive is supposed to do (provided they "existed") and it's a far cry from traveling faster than light speed. And even if it could you are still going to have to deal with all the physics involved.
 
By way of an update, this article states that the vacuum test was successful. I'd love to see some real-world application.

_http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/
 
Came across this interesting article by Paul LaVoilette written in April this year, supposedly explaining his theory behind how one of these reactionless drives would work. I searched on the forum but couldn't find anything related to it.

Link is here:
_http://etheric.com/new-field-theory-could-explain-reactionless-propulsion-thrusters/

I have a passing interest in this area but am not qualified to validate the science behind it. Reading the article, Dr. LaVoilette seems to be providing a slightly deeper explanation than some of the mass media websites. Or maybe he is just plugging his book "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion" :D

Does anyone have background in this to see if the theory makes sense? It involves something called 'subquantum kinetics '

The science behind some of these cutting-edge propulsion tech seems to be surfacing a lot more these days and is being taken seriously by more mainstream scientists...I wonder if they are leading the world into another blind alley or if this is part of some sort of 'controlled information release schedule' by certain secret gov factions.

Blurb from the article:

So far, six teams around the world have verified that the EM Drive indeed produces a reactionless thrust. These findings have caused much consternation among physicists since reactionless drives by definition produce an action force, without a corresponding reaction force, hence they violate Newton’s third law. Recently, however, many physicists felt a sigh of relief when Michael McCulloch of Plymouth University published a new theory of inertia which purports to explain the reactionless thrust effect on the basis of a quantum physics concept called Unruh radiation which is theorized to be radiated by an accelerating body; see above cited links.

This Unruh radiation theory has made some predictions which are yet to be tested. It was developed specifically to explain the EMDrive anomaly, hence has not ventured to explain any other reactionless thruster technologies. In this posting I wish to propose a theory that should be much easier to understand and that is applicable in general to several reactionless thruster technologies: Townsend Brown’s asymmetrical capacitors, the EMDrive, and the Nassikas thruster. It incorporates two novel concepts that differ from those of standard physics: a) the existence of an ether, b) a new theory of force advanced by the physics methodology of subquantum kinetics which departs from the mechanistic force concepts of the past. With this new concept, a field potential gradient is able to exert a force on the propelled object without itself communicating any back reaction. Let us begin by applying this to Townsend Brown’s asymmetrical capacitor.
 
This technology sounds viable -- unlike the "zero point energy" nonsense which can be found all over the internet.

Another name for this technology is "RF Resonant Cavity Thruster." The Wikipedia entry is well worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster said:
Independent teams of scientists, notably a team at Xi'an's Northwestern Polytechnical University (NWPU),[5] one at NASA's Eagleworks laboratories[6] and another at the Dresden University of Technology in Germany,[7] built prototypes of these designs. The NWPU team reported a small but significant thrust; NASA Eagleworks reported a much smaller thrust than the NWPU team; and the Dresden team reported a small thrust, but within experimental error.
 
Thanks Data for merging the threads.

I've been trying to wrap my brain around Subquantum Kinetics. Initially I thought it was highly specific to EM drives, but now I see that it is more general and picks up where traditional theories have left off.

For those interested, he has some predictions based on Subquantum Kinetics which were apparently verified (_http://etheric.com/predictions-part-ii-physics-and-astronomy/)

Subquantum Kinetics Predictions and their Subsequent Verification

Nucleon Core Field – prevailing concept (1978): The electric field in the core of a nucleon is assumed to be aperiodic and to rise to a sharp cusp at the particle’s center.

Prediction No. 1 (1973 – 1978): Subquantum Kinetics predicted that the electric potential field in the core of a subatomic particle should be Gaussian-shaped and should continue outward as a periodic field pattern of diminishing amplitude having a radial wavelength equal to the particle’s Compton wavelength, further that this field pattern should be positively biased in positively charged particles. Prediction published in: 1985 (IJGS), 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics), and 1995 (Beyond the Big Bang).

Verification (2002): Particle scattering form factor data for the proton and neutron is found to be best fit by a model in which the nucleon core electric charge density distribution has characteristics similar to those that subquantum kinetics had predicted. Energy boosting during collision, however, did cause the target nucleons to exhibit a wavelength slightly shorter than had been predicted.

---------------------------------------------

Energy Conservation and Photon Redshifting – prevailing concept (1978): At the time of this prediction, physicists and astronomers generally assume that photon energy is perfectly conserved and that the cosmological redshift is an effect arising from an assumed expansion of space.

Prediction No. 2 (1978): As a basic requirement of its methodology, subquantum kinetics predicted that photons passing through regions of more positive gravitational field potential where the reaction system is subcritical, e.g., intergalactic space, should progressively redshift with the passage of time, that is, undergo a “tired-light effect.” The spectra of distant galaxies should then redshift even in the absence of any net recessional motion.

Verification (1979 – 1986): Dr. LaViolette checks this photon redshifting prediction by comparing the tired-light non-expanding universe model and the expanding universe model (standard Freidman cosmology) to observational data on four different cosmology tests. He demonstrates that the tired-light model consistently makes a closer fit to observational data on all tests. His findings, which were published in the Astrophysical Journal (1986), confirm the subquantum kinetics tired light prediction and the notion that the universe is cosmologically stationary. These findings undermine a key support of the big bang theory. An update of this evidence is presented in Chapter 7 of Subquantum Kinetics.

------------------------------------------

Energy Conservation and Energy Generation – prevailing concept (1978): At the time of this prediction, physicists and astronomers adhered to the idea that energy is perfectly conserved. Stars are assumed to generate their energy either through nuclear fusion or from heat released from gravitational accretion. Planets are instead thought to acquire their luminosity from stored heat. There is no reason to believe that planets should conform to the stellar mass-luminosity relation.

Prediction No. 3 (1978 – 1979): As a basic requirement of its methodology, subquantum kinetics predicted that photons should progressively blueshift in regions of more negative gravitational field potential where the reaction system is supercritical, e.g., within stars and planets and in interplanetary and interstellar space. It predicted that “genic energy” should be continuously created within all celestial bodies.

Verification (1979 – 1992): Dr. LaViolette tested this genic energy prediction by plotting the mass-luminosity coordinates of the jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus) to compare them with the mass-luminosity relation for red dwarf stars and found that both planets and stars conformed to the same relation. Other astronomers had not previously done this because doing so didn’t make sense in the context of the conventional astrophysical paradigm. This conformance suggests that the heat coming from the interiors of planets is produced in the same way as that radiating from the interiors of red dwarf stars, just as subquantum kinetics predicts. He also showed that the genic energy hypothesis predicts a slope for the “planetary stellar M-L relation” similar to the observed slope. In addition, he showed that the upward extension of the M-L relation predicts that about 16% of the Sun’s luminosity should be of genic energy origin, an amount consistent with recent SNO solar neutrino measurements. The required violation of energy conservation is 10 orders of magnitude smaller than what could be observed in laboratory experiments.

Verification (January 1995): Astronomers observing with the Hubble Space Telescope discovered that the star VB10 has a dynamic core, as indicated by the presence of explosive, magnetic-field-driven flares on its surface. VB10 has a mass of about 0.09 solar masses, which indicates that it borders between being a red dwarf and brown dwarf. Conventional theory predicts that this star should be on the border of being dead and hence should not have a strong magnetic field. Subquantum Kinetics, which predicts that its interior should be dynamic and actively evolving genic energy, anticipates these results.

-------------------------------------------------------

Brown Dwarf Stars – prevailing concept (1985): At the time of this prediction, astronomers do not expect that brown dwarf stars to have any particular mass-luminosity ratio. They are assumed to be stars that are not massive enough to ignite nuclear fusion and hence are merely dead stars that are cooling off.

Prediction No. 4 (1985 – August 1995): Subquantum Kinetics predicted that brown dwarfs should also generate genic energy and hence, like the jovian planets, should lie along the lower main-sequence mass-luminosity relation for red dwarf stars. Paul LaViolette published this prediction on four occasions: 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, p. 339), 1992 (LaViolette, Physics Essays), 1994 (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, p. 125), and 1995 (LaViolette, Beyond the Big Bang, p. 304).

Verification (November 1995, 1998): Astronomers determine the masses and luminosities of two brown dwarfs GL 229B and G 196-3B. Dr. LaViolette demonstrates that the M-L data points for these brown dwarfs lies along the planetary-stellar M-L relation as he predicted. This indicates that brown dwarfs are not dead stars as previously supposed, but stars that are actively producing genic energy in their interiors.

---------------------------------------

Interplanetary maser signals – prevailing concept (1985): Maser signals are believed to maintain constant frequencies over interplanetary distances since photon energy is assumed to be perfectly conserved.

Prediction No. 5 (1980): Dr. LaViolette determines the expected magnitude of the hypothesized genic energy photon blueshifting rate by modeling the intrinsic luminosities of the planets. He then predicts that if a maser signal were transponded between two spacecraft separated by 5 AU, the signal should be found to blueshift at the rate of about 1.3 ± 0.65 X 10-18 per second (equivalent to a blueshift rate of 1.1 ± 0.6 X 10-18 per second for signals traveling a 65 AU roundtrip journey. This prediction was published on two occasions: 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, p. 340) and 1994 (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, p. 135).

Verification (October 1998): A group of scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) publish their discovery that maser signals transponded between the Earth and the Pioneer spacecraft blueshift at a rate of ~ 2.9 ± 0.4 X 10-18 per second. Their value reduces to 2.3 ± 0.4 X 10-18 per second when the propulsive effects of waste heat from the spacecraft power source is taken into account. The predicted blueshift rate is within 2 sigma of the observed rate. LaViolette had discussed his prediction with one member of the JPL group as early as 1980. Although, the JPL team had apparently forgotten about the conversation and chose their own a posteriori interpretation of the phenomenon, conceiving the blueshift to be produced by a mysterious force continually pushing the spacecraft toward the Sun. Their observations nevertheless provide close confirmation of the a priori subquantum kinetics prediction; see paper posted at pioneer.html. For a detailed discussion see the Pioneer effect press release. A chronology of events of the Pioneer effect prediction and subsequent JPL verification is graphically depicted at the end of the press release.

--------------------------------------------

Galactic Evolution – prevailing concept (1979): At the time of this prediction, astronomers believed that galaxies form in various sizes as galactic-sized gas clouds gravitationally condense to form stars. They assume that the size of these galaxies does not change over time except through galaxy mergers. Galaxies in the immediate neighborhood of the Milky Way are assumed to have the same size ratio as young galaxies at cosmological distances.

Prediction No. 6 (1979 – 1994): Subquantum Kinetics predicts that matter is continuously created throughout the universe, with the matter creation rate being highest in the vicinity of already existing matter. Furthermore it predicts that galaxies should progressively grow in size with the passage of time since they are formed by matter being created primarily in their central nucleus and being propelled outward by galactic core explosions. Dr. LaViolette published this prediction on two occasions, in 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, p. 335) and in 1994 (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, p. 118). Also see LaViolette, Beyond the Big Bang, p. 94.

Verification (July 1995): Observations with the Hubble Space Telescope show that younger, more distant galaxy clusters are dominated by fainter, more compact galaxies and have much fewer of the larger spiral galaxies, as compared with nearby older galaxy clusters.

------------------------------------------

Galactic Core Energy Source – prevailing concept (1985): At the time of this prediction, the nuclei of active galaxies and quasars are known to contain central masses ranging from millions to billions of solar masses, and astronomers assume that these core masses exist in a collapsed state as black holes. They further assume that the prodigious energy output from these cores is powered from matter being swallowed by these hypothesized black holes. No other means of generating energy is known to explain the immense amount of energy observed to come from these locations.

Prediction No. 7 (1985): Subquantum Kinetics predicts that matter-accreting black holes do not exist. Instead, it predicts the existence of highly massive, very dense celestial bodies of finite size called “mother stars” which continuously and spontaneously produce matter and genic energy in their interiors. LaViolette published his ideas on this on two occasions: 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, p. 342) and 1994 (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, pp. 143-144).

Verification (January 1995): A group of astronomers led by John Bahcall, observing with the Hubble Space Telescope, discover that 11 out of 15 quasars are devoid of any surrounding material and hence have no matter available to power a black hole hypothetically located at their centers. This supports the subquantum kinetics prediction that such energetic sources are instead powered by energy spontaneously created in their interiors.

Verification (September 1997): Hubble Space Telescope observations of the heart of active galaxy NGC 6251 provide further confirmation of the earlier January 1995 verification. These observations show that this galaxy’s core is swept clear and hence that there should be no matter available to be accreted by a hypothetical central black hole.

----------------------

Supernova Precursor Stars – prevailing concept (1985): At the time of this prediction, astronomers believe that supernova are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. They presume that the once the red giant’s nuclear reactions subside, it collapses and subsequently rebounds in a supernova explosion.

Prediction No. 8 (1985): Subquantum Kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced, not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. LaViolette published this prediction in 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, pp. 342-343).

Verification (1987): Supernova 1987A explodes in the Large Magellenic Cloud. This is the closest supernova observed in the history of modern astronomy. Astronomers locate its precursor star on old photographic plates and determine for the first time what sort of star produced this explosion. Surprisingly, they find that it had been a blue supergiant star, just as subquantum kinetics had predicted.

--------------------

Galactic Core Energy Source – prevailing concept (1985): At the time of this prediction, astronomers had not imaged stars in the vicinity of the Galactic center since the observational techniques had not yet been developed. Based on their conventional theories, they expected that most stars in the vicinity of the Galactic center should be low mass stars, which they theorized should be very old stars, at least as old the the Galaxy, e.g., billions of years.

Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum Kinetics predicts that massive stars residing in the vicinity of the Galactic center should instead be massive. It proposes the theory that matter is continuously created, that stars grow in size and grow most rapidly in the vicinity of the Galactic center where the gravity potential and matter creation rate is highest. Furthermore subquantum kinetics predicts that massive stars, such as blue supergiants are among the oldest stars and are not young stars as conventional theory predicts. LaViolette published this prediction in 1985 (LaViolette, IJGS, pp. 341-342) and again in 1994 (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, pp. 157 – 158). Also see pp. 234 and 242 (last paragraph) of the second edition of Subquantum Kinetics which describes the expectation that older, more massive stars should reside near a galaxy’s core.

Verification (1995): A group of astronomers (Krabbe et al.) publish observations of the Galactic center stellar cluster which indicate that the region within 1-1/2 light-years of the Galactic center is populated with about two dozen luminous helium-rich blue supergiants having masses of up to 100 solar masses. This finding confirms the subquantum kinetics prediction. Unaware of the subquantum kinetics prediction, they have difficulty in accounting for this finding. They speculate that these are young stars which must have formed between 3 and 7 million years ago from gas residing in this region. But they are unable to explain how this would occur since the large tidal shear in this region should have disrupted such a star formation process.

Verification (2003): UCLA astronomer Andrea Ghez reports on observations she has made of the Galactic center using infrared speckle interferometry and adaptive optics. She was able to plot the trajectories of these stars. Based on these observations, she confirms that the stars in the immediate vicinity of the Galactic center, within 0.01 light years, are very massive, but that they have spectra typical of “young” stars (young by the conventional definition). She finds this puzzling since the tidal forces in the vicinity of the Galactic center would be much too strong to allow stars to form through a gravitational accretion process, this being especially true of the eight stars found closest to the Galactic center. She suggests that these massive stars may in fact be old stars whose proximity to the Galactic center has altered their appearance to make them masquerade as young stars. However, she is unable to offer any mechanism by which this could happen. Here we find her coming close to the subquantum kinetics prediction that these stars near the Galactic center should be very massive. However, by following conventional theory, she must resort to proposing mysterious stellar masquerading effects since conventional theory erroneously interprets massive stars to be young stars, instead of old stars. But with subquantum kinetics these massive stars appear exactly as they should, namely as blue supergiants which in this paradigm are very old stars.

-----------------------------------------------

Gravitational Repulsion – prevailing concept (1985): Electrons are assumed to produce matter-attracting fields just like protons. Gravitational repulsion is considered a speculative idea. Gravity waves are theorized to produce transverse forces on masses, not longitudinal forces.

Prediction No. 10 (1985): Subquantum Kinetics predicted that gravity should have two polarities correlated with charge and that the electron should produce a matter-repelling gravity field. Furthermore it predicted that electric shock discharges should produce both electric and gravity potential wave components capable of exerting longitudinal forces on charges and masses. Published in: 1985 (IJGS), 1990 (Intl. Soc. Systems Sci.), and 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics).

Verification (2001): Drs. Evgeny Podkletnov and Giovanni Modanese discover that an axial high-voltage electron discharge produces a matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the discharge exerting a longitudinal repulsive gravitational force on a distant test mass.

---------------------------------------

Gravity wave and Coulomb wave speed and gravity wave force (2003): At the time of this prediction, most physicists and astronomers believed that gravity waves and Coulomb waves should always travel at the speed of light. They also concurred that the force exerted by such waves should scale in proportion to the field gradient.

Prediction No. 11 (2003): Subquantum Kinetics predicts that an electron shock discharge should produce coinciding electric and gravity potential waves that travel faster than the speed of light and that the speed of these superluminal waves at any given point in time should depend on the electric potential gradient of the discharge (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, p. 130). This is predicted to be due to the movement of the ether wind created by the shocks, the velocity of the pulses being increased by the additional forward velocity of the ether wind reference frame relative to which they propagate. Furthermore subquantum kinetics also predicts that the gravitational force exerted by such shock waves should increase as the pulse’s electric potential gradient increases.

Verification (2005 – 2006): LaViolette worked with research scientist Guy Obolensky to test this prediction with respect to the speed of electric potential waves. Earlier Obolensky had reported that he had measured the speed of electric shock fronts (Coulomb waves) propagating away from a Dome antenna and found that they traveled at a superluminal speed. Based on prediction 11, LaViolette theorized that since the shock front expanded radially outward from its emitting dome antenna, its electric field gradient should decrease inversely with increasing distance from the dome and that the superluminal speed of these shocks should correspondingly decrease inversely with distance from the dome. This prediction was confirmed. They made measurements of the time of flight of the shock pulse to six locations of progressively greater distance from the dome and found that the excess velocity of the shock (v – c) declined inversely with distance just as had been predicted. This experiment is summarized in chapter 6 of the book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion by Paul LaViolette. It should be mentioned that Tesla also reported that the speed of his pulses began at a near infinite speed at the dome of his antenna and progressively declined toward c as they traveled further away.

Verification (2008): The prediction with respect to the force exerted by the gravity potential component of such waves was verified qualitatively. Paul LaViolette contacted Dr. Eugene Podkletnov and inquired about the performance of his gravity impulse beam generator. Previously Drs. Podkletnov and Modanese had reported in a published paper that the impulse beam was able to deflect a test mass up to 14 centimeters when 2 million volts were discharged through the generator’s superconducting cathode disc (Podkletnov and Modanese, 2002). Podkletnov had subsequently told LaViolette that the beam was able to punch 4 inch holes through concrete blocks when 10 million volt pulses were discharged through the disk. In January 2008, LaViolette asked Podkletnov if his team used a different electric pulse generator to produce the gravity pulses that punched holes through concrete blocks as compared with the ones that produced the 14 centimeter pendulum deflections and whether the former used a different Marx capacitor bank that was able to create a pulse with a steeper gradient. Dr. Podkletnov concurred that was indeed the case, the concrete smashing pulses were created with an electric discharge that had a much more rapid voltage rise-time.

Verification (2008): The prediction with respect to the superluminal speed of gravity potential component of such waves was verified qualitatively. Previously, Dr. Podkletnov had told LaViolette that he and Dr. Modanese had measured the speed of the pulses to be between 63 and 64 times the speed of light. In January of 2008, LaViolette asked Podkletnov whether the concrete smashing pulses produced by the steeper electric field gradients traveled much faster than the pendulum deflecting pulses. Podkletnov concurred and said that they had determined that these stronger pulses traveled at least several thousand times the speed of light.

----------------------------------------

Dissipative Solitons in Reaction-Diffusion Systems (1978 – 80): At this time when Model G was developed, no reaction-diffusion systems were known that were capable of producing autonomous self-stabilizing localized dissipative structures.

Prediction No. 12 (1978 – 80): LaViolette develops a Brusselator-like reaction-diffusion system called “Model G” as the main ether model for subquantum kinetics. Based on simulation work others had done on the Brusselator, he makes predictive extrapolations that Model G is capable of producing autonomous, self-stabilizing localized dissipative structures – dissipative solitons – that have a bell-shaped core surrounded by an asymptotically declining periodicity of precise wavelength. Also he predicts that these solitons should be able to bind to one another, spawn progeny particles in their immediate vicinity, and move when subjected to a concentration gradient. Published in: 1985 (IJGS).

Verification (2010): M. Pulver conducts computer simulations of the Model G reaction system and confirms that it does produce dissipative solitons and shows that the resulting solitons have the above predicted characteristics. Results to appear in Intl. J. General Systems in a paper by Pulver and LaViolette (2013). Other researchers in 1998 had published computer simulations of a nonlinear system of the FitzHugh-Nagumo type, showing that it could produce dissipative solitons capable of bonding, particle replication, and scattering. However, it is not clear that this system qualifies as a reaction-diffusion system. It is usually expressed as a set of partial differential equations instead of in a kinetic equation format, which leaves open the possibility that its variables might adopt negative values in the course of producing their dissipative solitons. Thus, besides being the first soliton-producing model to be proposed in the literature, Model G may also be the only true reaction-diffusion system to demonstrate the ability to produce dissipative solitons.
 
Back
Top Bottom