Talk:EmDrive/Archive 7

Photon Leakage and undue weight
I noticed we have a weight tag on the photon leakage hypothesis. I'd like to resolve this issue, and the discussion seems to be fragmented in amongst other sections. Perhaps the issue is resolved, but I'd like to have some people weigh in on what they think of the section as it stands now in terms of the sourcing and the weight. Pinging users that have edited the section in question or commented on it. .  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All is fine now IMHO. We have reached consensus in the previous discussions.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The authors found a clever way to game the Wikipedia guidelines. Step 1: Find an "author pays"-journal that claims to be peer-reviewed. They will "publish" everything (including "Get me off your fucking mailing list") because they get money for it. Step 2: Find an otherwise reputable website that might be unaware of the publishing standards of those journals, and will write an article about everything published in a "peer-reviewed" journal. So yes, technically we have a peer-reviewed publication with a news article in a relevant website. In practice, we have a text that was cleverly designed to avoid both review steps Wikipedia relies on.
 * My personal opinion: The claims in the paper are ridiculous, and it looks like the authors never visited an undergrad quantum mechanics or classical electrodynamics course. Annila, a biochemist, is an expert in everything, Kolehmainen is an organic chemist, Grahn seems to be an engineer. --mfb (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * All predatory access journals are open access peer-review journals, but not all open access journals are predatory. BTW AIP Advances has a Wikipedia page with no warning in it. Quick judgements en accusations with side examples are too easy in that field.
 * Musashi miyamoto, we can indeed remove the notice banner as it was added before the article was completed. — Tokamac (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Do we have any evidence that American Institute Physics is a predatory journal? I'm open minded here, but I couldn't immediately see anything bad about it after a quick search, they are the publishers of Physics Today, which is about as mainstream in physics as you can get... The basic premise of the paper that photons interfere constructively and destructively, but in an anisotropic vacuum there will be some net amount left over seems pretty sound. They note that this wouldn't happen in a cylindrical cavity, which matches precisely with previously published work detailing fields are homogenous in this cylindrical geometry but not for EM fields in truncated conical cavities. In undergrad physics course your taught that a quantised EM field is an ensemble of independent quantum harmonic oscillators, the net energy of which is defined by fiat as zero, this is a arbitrary choice (that they are independent of each other and that there is no net effect) that empirically can give accurate predictions for many observations, but as soon as you get into radiative corrections things begin to break down... Even today there are many issues with perturbation theory which remain unresolved. I would not be so quick to pass judgement that they don't know what they are talking about in the paper. As professors they no doubt know a bit more then you. --Sparkyscience (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I had a look at what they publish in this journal a while ago, and multiple articles there looked like nonsense.
 * Following the "destructive interference" description: (a) It is unclear why energy should cancel but momentum should not (Poynting vector linking the two...). (b) In a double-slit experiment, the same argument would mean there are photons at dark fringes - but there are not. (c) The energy loss in a moving cavity is the same independent of the direction of motion, but thrust (if present) is not - there are frames where you violate conservation of energy no matter how much energy the vacuum takes - unless you break Lorentz invariance. (d) It doesn't matter which energy density you assign to the vacuum (neglecting GR effects), if it is stable (or at least metastable) it is the lowest relevant energy state. --mfb (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry mfb to get back to you late on this. Some good points that do deserve a thorough response. Given the fact that the electromagnetic field does not relax homogeneously as it usually does in free space and is anisotropic due to the truncated conical geometry, this results in a nontrivial field potential.The Poynting vector, is only defined by fields and does not depend on the polarization, it is therefore an insufficient tool to describe what is going on. The effect would be more akin to the Aharonov–Bohm effect where the notion of "force" is shown to be inadequate and nonlocal gauge theories must be considered. The results double slit experiment are likewise also influenced by nonhomogeous fields. With respect to Lorentz invariance - this is the question. Bohmian mechanics and special relativity are not compatible: Bohmian mechanics is not Lorentz invariant. This difficulty with Lorentz invariance and the nonlocality in Bohmian mechanics are closely related. Special relativity is a linear theory, yet non-locality arrises from nonlinear local to global operators. Quoting from the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosphy: "Since quantum theory itself, by virtue merely of the character of its predictions concerning EPR-Bohm correlations, is irreducibly nonlocal there is also considerable difficulty with the Lorentz invariance of orthodox quantum theory as well with Bohmian mechanics. For example, the collapse rule of textbook quantum theory blatantly violates Lorentz invariance. As a matter of fact, the intrinsic nonlocality of quantum theory presents formidable difficulties for the development of any (many-particle) Lorentz invariant formulation that avoids the vagueness of orthodox quantum theory. The most common view on this issue is that a detailed description of microscopic quantum processes, such as would be provided by a putative extension of Bohmian mechanics to the relativistic domain, must violate Lorentz invariance. In this view Lorentz invariance is an emergent symmetry obeyed by our observations — for Bohmian mechanics a statistical consequence of quantum equilibrium that governs the results of quantum experiments." Given the posited emergent nature of quantum laws, it has been argued that they form a kind of "quantum equilibrium" that has an analogous status to that of thermal equilibrium in classical dynamics. In principle therefore, bohmian mechanics allows other "quantum non-equilibrium" distributions, for which the statistical predictions of quantum theory are violated. It is argued that quantum theory is merely a special case of a much wider nonlinear physics, a physics in which non-local (superluminal) signalling is possible, and in which the uncertainty principle can be violated. This is the opinion of Bohm and Hiley,(1993) of Holland (1993) and of Valentini (1997). The main point to emphasize here is that these questions and issues are legitimate open enquires at the frontier of science, not crackpot pseudoscience.--Sparkyscience (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * AIP Advance has a better IF (2015/2016 Impact Factor : 1.444) than the journal where the notable NASA paper was published (2015/2016 Impact Factor : 1.134), and in the past the difference was even greater. So, come on! I am removing the notice banner. There is no point in having it there anymore, because the consensus has been already achieved a few days ago.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Both impact factors are low, especially compared to the potential impact of the claims made in the experimental paper, if they are true. If the experimental paper would be sound, why didn't they go to Nature or Science? Anyway, see above: The authors of the theory paper found a clever way to avoid the external notability checks that Wikipedia relies on. Nothing we can do here, it is a much more fundamental issue that cannot be solved on this discussion page. --mfb (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They are the usual impact factors; most of journals in which most of papers are published have similar IFs. Nature or Science are fussy, they avoid publishing highly controversial and not mainstream content - because of such policy at least several papers, which later earned their authors the Nobel Prizes were rejected by those journals. Let's be realistic here: for a controversial theory or invention it is already a big win if they are published in a peer-reviewed journal with any IF. You are a 'conspiracy theorist' in a pejorative sense of the phrase, if you really think that the authors of that paper did anything special to "avoid the external notability checks that Wikipedia relies on". I believe they did not care at all about Wikipedia or at least did not think about it at the time of publishing. They probably still do not know that their paper is in Wikipedia.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the impact factor is not particularly low (also IF is notoriously controversial when it comes to deciding how it reflects on the published work, see the main article on the subject). However, it should be identified whether AIPA is a predatory open access journal (though its own article on the subject doesn't mention anything untoward). If it isn't, I don't think there is any argument in WP policy that disqualifies the source and unless anything else comes to light I will consider the issue of the reliability of the journal to be sorted.

However, we should also discuss the secondary sources, as they were the main point of contention with regard to WP:WEIGHT concerns. I personally think they are reputable enough to credibly establish weight, and haven't heard any strong arguments otherwise, though I am open to the idea and would like to hear some dissenting opinions if they are out there. InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For ibtimes, did you see the article I linked to near the beginning of the discussion, ? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Those papers are not "most papers". The topic here is either noise or the most important scientific discovery in the last decades.
 * I didn't suggest that the authors did that specifically for Wikipedia, or cared about that in particular. But it would surprise me if the authors are completely unaware of the Wikipedia article.
 * "for a controversial theory or invention it is already a big win if they are published in a peer-reviewed journal with any IF"? I would think that "Get me off your fucking mailing list" is harder to get published than a controversial theory or invention (the journal self-reports an IF of 1-2, this website quotes 0.5).
 * Probably my last comment in this thread, as I don't see how further discussion here would lead to a change of the article. Technically the requirements are satisfied by the paper. --mfb (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to try to publish "Get me off your fucking mailing list" in AIP Advance. Good luck with that. ;) Musashi miyamoto (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I understand your concerns. However, policy allows it as a source so long as we don't know anything untoward is going on at AIP. Any comment on the secondary sources?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, for ibtimes, did you see the article I linked to near the beginning of the discussion, [14]? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with that article. The journalist simply reports what some UFO enthusiasts are doing and thinking. It is in the section "Weird World", so they have to write on some unusual subjects, if they have such a section. Besides, I already wrote above: "Single mistakes of whatever journal cannot disqualify them, as all journals make them from time to time." IBTimes is a reputable journal, there is nothing untoward about this journal.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How many examples do you want? Here's another, in the "Technology" section: . If no number of strong examples will suffice, what would it take to convince you ibtimes lacks WP:WEIGHT for science topics?
 * Hey dude, you are grasping at straws here. There is again, nothing wrong with an article listing the highest profile claimed sightings of UFOs, the article even maintains a properly unbelieving POV, debunking each story in turn. Seriously?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We must be reading different articles. The article does not "debunk each story in turn". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There wasn't much detail in the Wikipedia article on ibtimes, so I did some research and added content to the article: . I'm afraid I'm moving ever further away from the opinion that ibtimes has WP:WEIGHT, as opinions of ibtimes' content quality seems fairly consistently negative, both in WP:RS and in the blogosphere. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can find similar opinions about any journal or magazine. IBTimes has not been the only secondary source. So even if IBTimes is excluded there is still no reason to remove those sections, which you are repeatedly removing against the consensus reached here already twice before you came. Have you got some personal interest to slander the IBTimes or the authors of the paper on Photon Leakage? Do you know them personally or the journalists from that journal or are you a former employee of that journal? It is weird that you are only against this particular section, because there is no difference between this section and the others. IBTimes reported also about hypotheses presented in other sections, and these other hypotheses (except the measurements errors section) are as controversial as this one.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The other sources are even worse than IBTimes. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet another groundless opinion. IBTimes has been awarded many times for their journalism.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW AIP Advances seems to be a rapid-publication journal :

"AIP Advances is a community-based journal, with a fast production cycle. The quick publication process and open-access model allows us to quickly distribute new scientific concepts. Our Editors, assisted by peer review, determine whether a manuscript is technically correct and original. After publication, the readership evaluates whether a manuscript is timely, relevant, or significant."

(They obviously dropped the ball on "technically correct" (though maybe that doesn't apply to "not even wrong" ideas), but it is succeeds at being original!) AIP Advances doesn't endorse that its own publications are significant. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You ignore again what has been already said here about that journal. This is a reputable peer-reviewed journal with good IF, published by a notable organization the American Institute of Physics, which publishes also many other journals[]. There is nothing untoward about this journal. You are simply prejudiced, and not being objective.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
We do not, and have never had, WP:CONSENSUS for the addition of the peer-reviewed but ignored and nonsensical AIP Advances paper: Guy and I have both objected on valid policy grounds to the addition. Consensus is not majority vote! In addition, the header stating that there is an NPOV dispute should not be removed yet. Continuing to add the AIP Advances paper is (possibly unintentional) disruptive editing IMHO. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You persistently ignore what has been said on this page and ignore the consensus already reached amongst the active editors. Because of that you force me to go in circles, but ok, especially for you again: This is a reputable peer-reviewed journal with good IF, published by a notable organization the American Institute of Physics, which publishes also many other journals[]. There is nothing untoward about this journal. All hypotheses in this article (except perhaps measurements errors) are controversial. So why would you challenge this one and not the other ones? There is no difference between the position of this hypothesis and all the others. All of them have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals with decent IFs and subsequently debated in popular press. This is not up to Wikipedia users to decide which one is correct one and which one is not. You have no qualification for that, unless you published a rebuttal in a scientific peer-reviewed paper - but even then the hypothesis should not be deleted, but merely an information about your rebuttal paper added. However, no such rebuttal paper has been published in this case. The peer-reviewers who reviewed the article obviously didn't think it was 'utter nonsense', or else they would not have approved it. "Your personal opinion of the validity of the paper's theoretical musings is very unimportant to establishing WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Rather this seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason for the deletion of the section." This hypothesis is as 'valid' and as sourced as any other hypotheses presented here. So there are no reasons to remove this hypothesis - if you remove this hypothesis then all the others would have to be removed as well, because they are all equal in a sense that they all have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with decent IFs, and all have been published in decent secondary sources. Common sense and objectivity is needed here, and this seems to be in deficiency amongst some of the less active editors of this article or this might a deliberate attempt to be disruptive and pushing your POV against all the objective evidence.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Except Guy hasn't bothered to show up after my rebuttal to his point, so you are essentially on your own here. IMO there is no valid policy argument to oppose the section, except by extreme torturing of WP policy.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." Also, other editors have since objected to inclusion, such as mfb. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Steady on. I have limited time at the moment due to a building project. My view hasn't changed, though. Yes there is a valid polocy argument: sound editorial judgment. Basically these are claims that require substantially better sources. Ones that have more than zero onward citations, for example... Guy (Help!) 08:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have no time then IMHO you should not participate in this discussion as long as you do not have the time, because otherwise your opinions are not helping, they can also be biased, because you ignore what has been already said here (I assume that that is so due to the lack of time to read the content of this page and not due to lack of objectivity). Thus, I believe that it would be helpful for everyone, if you restrain yourself from commenting on merit here until you would have the time to read everything what already has been said on this page. We have already discussed extensively and reached consensus amongst the active editors.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Musashi miyamoto fundamentally misunderstands how Wikipedia works if he believes that Wikipedia content decisions must be made at a time and pace that is set by Musashi miyamoto. It is not atypicial for the preponderance of highly-active editors on any fringe topic to be enthusiastic proponents of that topic or idea; volume of comments should not be mistaken, misunderstood, or misrepresented as less bias, greater understanding, or more authority to determine article content.  Telling editors who disagree with you to butt out isn't "helpful for everyone", it's just easier for you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that you misunderstand how Wikipedia editing works, and you also misunderstood my point of view. Editing cannot be held hostage of other users time constraints. If editors on the talk page reach consensus and then after they reached that consensus another user disagrees then that user should start another discussion (when he has a time for that) to reach a new consensus and not start multiple edit wars like Rolf H Nelson did, and to a lesser extent also JzG|Guy did - I also note that when reverting edits he did not explain why he does them (the most recent case: he removed twice a link to the source on china.com site, and when doing so he did not write why he did remove that source). It is quite clear from what JzG|Guy says here that he probably has not read the whole extensive discussion here, and that is probably why his views are distorted (due to lack of knowledge how and why the consensus has been reached). BTW, I meant distorted when I said biased before. Because of that his input in such case is being disruptive and does not help the discussion here and does not help to improve the article on Wikipedia. Therefore I still consider my suggestion to him to be reasonable and helpful to everyone. Also when someone attempted to add not well enough sourced new hypothesis (it was not published in a per review paper, but only in an article in a magazine) I and only I requested that it should be removed due to breaking WP:RS policy. Those users who are war editing now, and who you support, have not requested this, even though there was a good reason for that, which shows that they are not objective regarding using WP policies. In fact I pointed out their hypocrisy to them then: "Where are those editors eagerly reversing inputs now? What did happen that they allow a hypothesis without a scientific paper to be included in a Wikipedia article?"[] I reached a consensus with the author of that not well sourced input and he agreed with me that it should be deleted and he deleted it.[] So all this shows that I am objective and constructive, I can and do achieve consensus with reasonably behaving editors, and that I do follow all those Wikipedia polices, which I am aware of, in order to improve Wikipedia, but unfortunately that cannot be said about the users which you support. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What would it take to convince you that consensus had not been established at any point? You've argued that the arguments against inclusion don't count, which is a very high bar and does not seem to be getting traction outside the three most active pro-emdrive editors. I agree that if there were an unreasonable period of non-responsiveness, the onus would at some point be on the skeptics to establish a new consensus, but I believe I've been sufficiently and consistently been making my views clear. If you disagree, is there some particular interval where you found me insufficiently engaged in the page, and if so what are the dates of that interval? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What would it take to convince you that the consensus had been established? I have no time to check exactly how long and how often you were absent, but it seems like there were several days when there was no objection to the consensus - days in internet are like ages IRL. In this InsertCleverPhraseHere message you can clearly see that also he thinks that consensus seemed to have formed: "Still, none of this explains why you unilaterally removed the section under discussion here, citing the need to get consensus before inclusion. A huge discussion has been undertaken here regarding that section, and consensus seems to have formed that the material merits inclusion. I really don't understand why you decided that removal and more talk was the right option here. If you believe the material does not merit inclusion, perhaps you should say so here, as the points you have raised above don't really apply as we DO have reliable secondary sources reporting on this. InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)" So there was no reason to think that there was no consensus. But even if you thought otherwise, it was no reason to be belligerent and start a long editing war like you did (you were blanking many times the whole sections without a new consensus, you were repeatedly reverting edits of 4 different editors (and not 3 as you incorrectly claim)), and then trying to push your POV by accusing at AN/I editors like me of alleged wrongdoings I did not do, instead of going to DR or RS, as has been suggested to you multiple times by several editors. Why did you ignore their advice and instead devoted all your energy to AN/I entry wasting your and other editors precious time? I did not say "that the arguments against inclusion don't count". I said that they were successfully rebutted, so it is now your turn to rebut the rebuttals and answer all other arguments raised against your POV, if you still belive that it is really you who are right.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree with Rolf H Nelson, JzG, Mfb and others; at this point, the responses to their concerns have been voluminous but not been compelling. The robustness of the source offered has not been commensurate with the significance of the claims (extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence, and so forth).  In the absence of rigorous, independent, peer-reviewed, secondary sourcing, we are left to our editorial judgement to weigh whether or not this paper deserves Wikipedia coverage; in my opinion it is insufficiently strong on its own for reasons already thoroughly presented above.  Insertcleverphrasehere and Musashi miyamoto are welcome to personally disagree with that evaluation, but they are not welcome to simply dismiss the considered evaluations of other scientifically-literate, high-experienced Wikipedia editors out of hand. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made my reasons why any argument for exclusion perfectly clear above. Here we have peer reviewed literature backed up by secondary sources with editorial oversight. What possible argument is there for exclusion?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I see no evidence that ibtimes possesses meaningful editorial oversight on its science coverage, aside from "get more clicks on your articles or you'll be fired". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly would constitute evidence of "meaningful editorial oversight"? I've been following this thread for some time and I find it ironic that Rolf H Nelson began this section on "disruptive editing" but seems to be the perpetrator. Zedshort (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Zedshort Positive secondary WP:RS on the ibtimes or meaningful awards would help. The little WP:RS I can find on ibtimes is generally negative rather than positive. From my perspective, it also doesn't help that ibtimes publishes articles about ufo's in its engineering section that I classify as fluffy clickbait, and that they recently published an unsubstantiated and apparently incorrect rumor about the U.S. testing emdrive in space. As I've said before, also feel free to bring to the RS board for a second opinion, one that both sides are more likely to accept as neutral; in addition, the RS board has more experience than most editors in using wikipedia policies to judge reliability. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Rolf H Nelson As the one arguing that the source is not reliable, perhaps you should take it to the RS noticeboard. The fact that you haven't done so despite multiple suggestions indicate to me your lack of desire to edit constructively with others.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Rolf H Nelson Also I'll just point out now that the story about the Chinese tests in space was also broken by the IBTimes, and then reported very widely from there, so apparently all these other reliable sources (i.e. Popular Science) consider the IBTimes to be a RS, why wouldn't we?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Rolf H Nelson. I already provided you with a link to the list of awards of IBTimes, so why you are ignoring it, like virtually all other evidence which was presented to you, for example plenty of other secondary sources (particularly regarding sending Emdrive to space by the Chinese).Musashi miyamoto (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks; it's hard to see the list right away, it's so tiny at the bottom of the page. Won awards from only Online Media Awards, SABEW, and Izzy Awards. That's a pretty small list, I've never personally heard of those awards, two appear to have no wikipedia pages and the third wikipedia page looks like it should be a candidate for deletion. Something like National Magazine Awards would be more convincing to me. The awards list is consistent with its being similar to [The Daily Mail], and somewhat inconsistent with its being similar to something like Scientific American (or the Washington Post, which the pro-emdrive editors have argued against inclusion from.) I don't find the awards impressive; I don't think the RS board would either, although as always you're free to ask them. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These are your personal opinions not objective facts, so as such they are irrelevant for establishing weight. If you were to remove this hypothesis then you would also have to remove all other hypotheses (IBTimes also published them). So I ask you again: Why would you want to remove the whole Hypotheses section from the article? What would be the point of doing that? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * All Wikipedia polices have been met. So your arguments are pointless, really. Also why do you have something against this particular paper and not other papers (other hypotheses published and included in the Hypotheses section). All other hypotheses (perhaps except the measurement errors) are equally, if not more controversial - however, that does not matter, because Wikipedia users should not assess validity of peer-reviewed papers. If you were to remove this hypothesis then you would also have to remove all other hypotheses. Why would you want to remove the whole hypotheses section from the article? What would be the point of doing that? BTW, do you understand what hypothesis means?Musashi miyamoto (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Simply repeating, as you and ICPH seem wont to do ad nauseam, that you think your position is correct with respect to Wikipedia policy and everyone else is wrong does not constructively advance the discussion. (ICPH's misunderstanding above that Rolf H Nelson is required to go to WP:RSN to seek endorsement of the existing consensus on this talk page is unhelpful in a similar vein.  If ICPH believes that the existing consensus regarding the the reliability and proposed use of a particular source is incorrect, it is his responsibility to seek outside comment where necessary&mdash;or to better yet to accept that consensus lies against him at this time and to move on.  Rolf is not obliged to waste his own time to activate noticeboard processes to satisfy the whims of a couple of obstinate editors.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you say "everyone else is wrong" when we are in fact in the majority (at least 5 editors) that shows that you are not objective, therefore I doubt that it would make sense and be constructive talking further to you, because it seems that you have already made up your mind regardless of the facts, unfortunately. But feel free to correct me, if I am wrong in respect to these doubts. In that case I would like to hear how you did come to such conclusions contradicting the facts. Also you ignored all my relevant questions, which I asked you. Everything what you said can and should be said about Rolf H Nelson, because the existing consensus is against his POV. It is he who - instead of talking - started editing war, not we. 4 different editors were reversing his very disruptive editing - he alone was blanking multiple times the whole sections of the article without good reasons and against the existing consensus. Nobody else was doing that, just he. He is the perpetrator. So I wonder why you say that it was allegedly the other way around? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Creating/Destroying energy via thrusters of this nature
It seems that a thruster of this nature would also violate the conservation of energy the moment it was turned on (it would create or destroy energy depending on what it was used for) but I haven't seen any discussion of this. For example: strap it to a table (on earth) and point it to the west and it will slow the earth's rotation destroying the rotational kinetic energy of the earth, point it to the east and it will do the opposite. Use it to drive an appropriately configured generator and at a certain velocity (a bit over 10,000 mph for the purported numbers coming out of China) it will produce more energy than it is using and seriously threaten the traditional purveyors of energy. There are implications to other 'laws' but at a minimum it seems that any article regarding these devices should discuss the resulting violation of the first law.


 * I'm not sure whether you are correct but please see WP:FORUM and WP:OR. For statements in the article we need a reliable source, and talk page conversations should not be speculation about the topic of the article. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This ArXiv preprint might help. Quote: "Since applying a constant force results in a constant acceleration, the kinetic energy of a mass driven by such a device increases quadratically with time, while the energy input increases only linearly with time." -- The Anome (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It did get discussed here, but not much was resolved about how it should affect the article. Somebody berated me for suggesting that rate of change of kinetic energy will be thrust times speed. I was bitter at the time, but I have moved on. Spiel496 (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I do think there needs to be a deeper discourse on the the fundamentals to move things forward on the article, conservation laws go right to the heart of the controversy. To address your question: The conservation of energy cannot be violated arbitrarily, but it can be seen to be technically violated given certain constraints and conditions. I recently wrote the time crystal article that hopefully explains this a lot better, but conservation laws are directly related to the preservation of symmetries via the Noether theorem. Whenever a broken symmetry occurs in nature it can be thought of as a transfer to the vacuum state to restore the overall symmetry. Broken symmetries result in a preferred observable, meaning states of nature are not merely relative as Einstein thought. Broken symmetries are absolutely mainstream physics....but their implications are usually forgotten: Nobel prize winning physicists T.D.Lee's textbook and the review of his book in New Scientist give a great overview of the ramifications of broken symmetry.

Einstein insisted that all fundamental laws of nature could be understood in terms of geometry and symmetry, we know know that this is not the full picture: The 2016 Nobel prize in physics went to the discovery of topological order. We understand today that fundamental aspects of nature can be described not only in terms of geometry but also in terms of topology. Quantum field theory has been extended into topological field theory. The Casimir effect is an example of a topological effect that results in an instability of the vacuum. In the bag model of hadrons in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) the Casimir energy of quark and gluon fields makes essential contributions to the total energy of the nucleus (most mass does not come from the Higgs mechanism!) In Kaluza-Klein field theories the Casimir effect offers a mechanism for spontaneous compactification of extra dimensions, thought to exist in string theory and M-theory. When the vacuum is not in equilibrium it can have a non-zero vacuum expectation value, something which is ultimately dependant on the geometry and topology of the manifold.

The reason why physicists are only now discovering new, so called emergent, particles such as the magnetic monopole and Majorana fermion is because of previously unexplored topological effects of the electromagnetic field. The standard Maxwell's equations, even quantum electrodynamics (QED), are models that have U(1) symmetry which do not allow for the physics behind these particles - we must add extra topological terms to the equations to understand what reality allows. Electromagnetism must have at least U(2) symmetry in order for these topological effects to occur. The reason why we don't see magnetic monopoles in nature (and can only create them artificially in the lab) is because across most of the universe the electromagnetic field is in equilibrium with its environment: It is described by linear equations that can be solved exactly; in these areas of space energy is conserved, Einstein is correct, and we do not have broken symmetry. But if we peturb the electromagnetic field so that is not in equilibrium with the environment, the field topology is nontrivial and is said to be anisotropic, this is the case inside a truncated conical cavity or frustum (i.e. an EmDrive), we cannot solve the equations exactly as they are nonlinear and we must use numerical methods, the symmetry of the electromagnetic field is by definition broken in this area of space. New topological physics in the electromagnetic field (like momentum transfer from the vacuum similar to the Casimir effect) can occur: The NASA team have made numerous references to the dynamical Casimir effect (which is related to Unruh radiation and Hawking radiation) in their EmDrive documents...so they know exactly what they are trying to do and it is based on firm real science.

Nearly all of our science for the last 300 or so years has been linear, reductionist and deterministic - we are only scratching the surface of what is possible in nature beyond this paradigm. The implications of non-equilibrium science... nonlinearity, chaos, emergence etc....are as profound as quantum theory or relativity...I'd recommend James Gleick's book and Robert Sapolsky's lectures if you'd like to get a deeper handle on why. The most promising suggestion today is that space-time and quantum mechanics themselves are not fundamental but emergent. If spacetime is the result of an emergent equilibrium, then we can obviously change the conditions to take it out of equilibrium...

I've tried before to explain broken symmetries in the article, it really does need to included... it strikes me that the current article is just an unhappy hodgepodge. Does anyone have any issues for the article to include an explanation of the importance of symmetry and topology in physics and the implications for the validity of the EmDrive?

--Sparkyscience (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While all of the above is deeply fascinating, and very important, we need secondary sources that discuss the above concepts and specifically how they relate to the EMdrive or quantum vacuum thrusters. As far as I know we really don't have those sources (though I could be mistaken), and as such it is pretty difficult to add such a section without violating WP:SYNTH. In the absence of such secondary sources, I think policy is against such a section, however I could understand an application of WP:IAR as this is fairly important to the topic. Doing it without being overly technical would be very important, and I cant see much more than a short paragraph linking to other articles where further information can be found. Others may not see such justification for the section however. If you have relevant secondary sources, please post them here.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked a couple of the citations below, and would like to know which of them (if any) specifically mention the EMdrive. We need secondary sources which specifically mention the emdrive to avoid WP:SYNTH, if those sources then talk about magnetic monopoles (for example), then we can elaborate on that briefly with other sources that don't mention the emdrive specifically.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ICPH, Sparkyscience's essay above is not in fact important here. It is full of mistakes, despite the many citations, and is the latest in a series of efforts to derail this article with misguided almost-science.  As you note, none of these references have to do with the topic.  The central claim Sparky makes is that the shape of a truncated frustrum somehow allows a  "broken-symmetry electromagnetic field" (not true), with equations that "cannot be solved exactly" (not known; we just don't happen to know of a nice analytical solution for resonant modes), because something [unspecified] is "nonlinear" (not even wrong, not relevant).  "Non-equilibrium" effects do exist in the world, but they have nothing to do with non-linearity, chaos, or emergence.  No experimenter has suggested that any of {non-equilibrium effects, chaotic effects, emergent effects} are relevant to these drives.  (Sorry, SS, no patience right now to be more polite.  Please study those sources more carefully.)  Cheers, –  SJ  +  06:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input SJ, in the absence of secondary subject specifically referencing referencing RF resonant cavity thrusters and their relation to these concepts, I will oppose such a section and have struck my partial endorsement of the use of IAR above.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

While I have no doubt that you are genuinely concerned, in the politest possible way, I must take exception to your claim that I am trying to derail the article into "almost-science". I have to flag the statement "Non-equilibrium" effects do exist in the world, but they have nothing to do with non-linearity, chaos, or emergence." as completely wrong. I can assure you there are very deep mathematical connection between these concepts, and while it is besides the point you can get a very general understanding about why by reading the phase space, attractor and topological dynamics articles. It is also important to point out that there will never be an analytic expression for electromagnetic modes of a truncated cone - ever. It is like saying that the reason we have not found a square triangle stems from our mathematical ignorance. The mathematics of the electromagnetic field in a cone are very involved (See and  ) A Green's function is employed to describe the field, which would be pointless if the underlying field was topologically trivial...and even then the maths doesn't stack up...  describe say that the vacuum energy in a wedge appear to violate the expected relationship between torque and total energy, something also found in cones. In short... no scientist today understands the vacuum energy processes of what is happening in that cone.

Casimir effects and how they are influenced by topological boundaries is a huge area of active scientific research, it is not a closed book. The dynamical Casimir effect is mentioned in Emdrive papers, and an explanation of what this is the effects it has should be included.--Sparkyscience (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying CAST statement
Chen's statement was confused and exaggerated by IBT; now clarified in the article. It seems he said only that they had developed/refined a device that was ready to be tested in orbit, not that the test was underway or even scheduled. This thread highlights some of the reasons to triple-check any claims about the Chinese tests, given telephone-effect and the limited independence of state media: Verifiable details about the chinese emdrive

Chen also filed a patent for a design using a semicylindrical cavity, so the discussion of shapes can be made more general. An electromagnetic propulsion system and method –  SJ  +  10:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you read Chinese?--Sparkyscience (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 會. Takes a while, though.  Chen never specifies what "in orbit" means; the LEO detail, and the idea that he is director of anything, is inserted by the IBT: not the most reliable source.    –  SJ  +  06:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Chinese source clearly claims that Emdrive tests are currently taking place in orbit. There is no ambiguity in this claim. The caveat is that while CAST have claimed to perform successful tests it leaves it ambiguous as to whether there has yet been a successful test in orbit, only that they are currently taking place. Multiple reliable secondary sources (excluding the IBT for the sake of debate here) have also reiterated that this is what the CAST statement says. i.e. --Sparkyscience (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They claimed that in-orbit verification was underway. Lots of wiggle room there.  (Compare Cannae's announcement last year that space-based tests of his drive were happening.)  Chen's claims should be taken with plenty of salt until confirmed.  It's hard to overstate how empty of detail or data these announcements are compared to normal drive-test announcements.  –  SJ  +  18:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed
Removed: free-thought association about anisotropic EM fields. – SJ  +  11:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are other situations where the electromagnetic field is believed to be anisotropic for example, doped active centers in anisotropic glasses,[1][2][3] emission of active atoms in a waveguide,[4] spontaneous emission from atoms adsorbed on metallic or dielectric surfaces,[5] emission in a spatially dispersive medium[6] which allows the possibility of longitudinal electromagnetic fields (classically not found in free space but in substances like plasmas) and emission between two conducting plates,[7][8][9] which is a problem of great interest due to the Casimir effect.[10][11][12]


 * Sparkyscience reverted to he free-thought-association version. This leaves the "Device" section pretty useless to readers: dominated by and closed out with irrelevant facts, as though those irrelevancies had informed any of the drive designs.  (There is no indication that this has happened.)  The edit summary said something about the Casimir effect: again, irrelevant to device structure.  –  SJ  +  06:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sj I am perplexed. You seem like a intelligent guy, but you frequently dismiss scientific concepts as "irrelevant" or "wrong" without so much of a word of explanation as to your perspective of the underlying physics. Without passing judgement as to the quality of the proposed explanations, the dynamical Casmir effect is referenced by NASA Eagleworks and McCulloch's theory is called MiHsC "Modified inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect". Might leave you with the impression that, if the Emdrive works, the Casmir effect has something to do with it... As I'm sure you know, any apparent broken symmetry in nature can be accounted for as a transfer to the vacuum state, the Casimir effect is an example of such a vacuum instability. How much do you know about the Casimir effect? I would appreciate a detailed technical explanation of where you are struggling to make sense of things, and i'll see if I can help.--Sparkyscience (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Scientific concepts aren't right or wrong, they're concepts, relevant in some context. It's your interpretation of them that is wrong, and your use out of context. You don't seem to understand basic physics, and are seeking out unusual terms and concepts and trying to link them together; this is common enough that the term 'physics crank' was coined to describe it. My experience with others in your position suggests that nothing I can say will either help you or divert you from what for many becomes a lifelong pursuit. So for the most part, to save time, I am not responding to you directly; just communicating with other visitors to this page interested in the topic.

One thing I will say to you: don't plagiarize. I wondered why the above sentence seemed so random and out of place; now I see that you copied it verbatim from one of the cited papers. If you're using an entire long sentence of someone else's work, it should be marked as an explicit quote. – SJ  +  06:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"EmDrive" name
The names "EmDrive" and "Cannae Drive" are trademarks used by their inventors. Many, including the press, mistakenly use "EmDrive" to describe any resonant cavity thruster, but that's confusing. (It's not even a clear name for the physics of such thrusters: there are better-known electromagnetic drives – ion thrusters, &c.) Scientific papers and reports tend not to use that term. I think it should only be used when referring to Shawyer's own experiments and models. – SJ  +  08:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It, overwhelmingly, is the most common name; probably most-searched one for this entry, so I opted to add it as also known as. El_C 02:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. I was concerned that Shawyer had trademarked the name, but don't see any indication that this is the case. 11:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

IBT as questionable source
The International Business Times really likes writing off-the-cuff pieces about these thrusters for some reason. They're not the most reliable source, so I would be wary of any information from them that isn't confirmed elsewhere. For instance:

In November 2016 the International Business Times claimed the U.S. government was testing a version of the EmDrive on the Boeing X-37B and that the Chinese government has made plans to incorporate the EmDrive on its orbital space laboratory Tiangong-2.[1][2] However, prior to flight, the propulsion experiment aboard the X-37B was officially announced as a test of a Hall-effect thruster built by Aerojet Rocketdyne.[3]

This whole paragraph could really be dropped. The Boeing claim was wrong, and there is no confirmation that any testing is happening on Tiangong rather than on a[nother] satellite. IBT also modified and added to Chen's public statements about CAST's tests when they published a quick analysis of the article on him in STD, either because they misread the translation or because they have unsourced private communication with the scientist that noone else does. I'm betting on the former. – SJ  +  06:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * We don't know the Boeing claim to be wrong, it has not been directly addressed. We can only present claim and counterclaim with proper attribution. Corporate communications can be just as distortive of the facts as elements of the press. Nothing is said without an underlying agenda or strategy. The problem with stating that IBT is unreliable, regardless of what you think of their journalistic standards, is we know for a fact that IBT has direct access to Roger Shawyer, as he has done a number of interviews for them. Shawyer makes reference to the X-37B being capable of containing an Emdrive prototype in a paper he wrote in 2014 . Seems odd that he would mention that out of the blue. The IBT X-37B report that also claims the Chinese are testing on the Tiangong-2  was published on the 7th December 2016 and came before the CAST announcement  on the 11th December . This is either a very lucky coincidence that IBT published this days before the CAST announcement, or it partially corroborates the validity of the anonymous source which gave information about the X-37B. This coincidence has been noted by other reliable media outlets . I don't think its hard to guess who that anonymous source might be if there is one, and that person might be being fed (dis?)information by the Chinese...


 * Chinese propaganda is clearly stoking the rumour mill on the X-37B, see for example . This is quite intentional and there are a few possibilities: if the US really is secretly testing an Emdrive on the X-37B this would be China's way of saying "we know what you are doing" much to the annoyance of those in the US. On the other hand lets say the US is not conducting secret test. It could be disinformation/fake news from a Chinese sources, i.e. give the IBT a lead for a story, partly back it up in the next few days, and leave everyone believing the other half of the story. i.e. a psyop. My only problem with that is if the Emdrive really doesn't work what do the Chinese achieve by making themselves look like fools? Fake news on the Emdrive is hardly going to cause civil unrest in the West, most of the population will never care about this subject. Nothing really adds up in a way that makes sense on the information we have and I do not believe we are in a position to make a judgement about any of the claims.


 * The above cited text gives clear attribution and states it is only a claim. I think the average person is intelligent enough to decipher fact from claim and has a right to hear about these claims from a source which is known to be in contact with Roger Shawyer. I don't think we need to act as the thought police.--Sparkyscience (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @ just so that you know, per WP:CLAIM we are not actually allowed to use the word 'claim' in the manner you have described above. DOing so would be using loaded language to lead our readers to a conclusion of our choice. I have changed the wording to 'reported' but left it attributed.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @ For reference, there was a discussion on RSN revolving around the reliability of the IBTimes and this article. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_218, it seemed to peter out with a lack of clear evidence that the IBT is particularly unreliable. On this particular point, I disagree heavily with your assessment; as far as the sources stand at the moment we have one RS saying that the Emdrive is being tested aboard the X37B (which belongs in this article) and one RS saying that a Hall thruster is being tested aboard the X37B (this claim is not mutually exclusive to the one in the IBTimes, and has nothing to do with the EMdrive). In other words, why is it inconceivable that both thrusters were being tested on board? The second source seems seems to be someone's attempt to discredit the claim in the IBTimes article, with a source that doesn't actually say what is being claimed here. WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.", which is exactly what is being done here. It seems clear that the SpaceflightNow article should be removed unless we have another source which directly claims that the IBTimes was confusing the two thrusters (which is not stated in any of the sources above but nevertheless implied by the paragraph).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * One approach that might be useful here is to ask&mdash;how frequently are IBT stories on this topic later confirmed by better-quality outlets?
 * That is, if IBT has been publishing stories on this topic for a while now, we ought to be able to look at their coverage and actually assess their track record. If we find that stories in IBT frequently are not substantiated by later independent reports – or worse, that they are contradicted or refuted – that will strongly suggest that IBT isn't a robust source on this topic, and likely shouldn't be used as the sole source to support claims in this article.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This was all gone over in the post above at RSN. Per your point however, in this very instance, IBTimes was the first to break that the chinese govt was testing the drive, which was later picked up by numerous others, notably Popular Science, who seem to consider IBTimes to be a reliable source.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, the previous RSN discussion very much did not address that question. (And the unreliable, clickbaity nature of that one particular Pop Sci blogger's interests was also touched on in that discussion.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright then. I guess I don't know what you are trying to say then.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for the context! Re: a country stoking rumors, didn't we see this w/ cold fusion as well?  Many countries insisted for years their programs were successful (hoping to catch up with others), before finally admitting this was not true.  I can imagine lots of reasons for both US and Chinese sources to encourage rumors, and Shawyer is a natural channel to pass them on.  Whatever the cause, I expect this sort of fuzzing will continue, with no clear results, for another few years.
 * I hadn't seen the IBT issue on RS. It makes sense; I think they have a single person (who is not otherwise a science writer?) writing all of their articles on it & doing interviews with Shawyer, and they are willing to take Shawyer's claims at face value.  This September article for instance makes many statements of fact that get the physics wrong, or repeat Shawyer's claims as though they were confirmed, or are credulous of unlikely statements (this last happens in most science writing, however).
 * It's ok to say in the article "[Space-related source] reports X"; it would be undue weight to say "[local business journal] reports X" as there is no reason to expect reliability from them on this topic; and IBT is somewhere in-between. I trust IBT about their direct correspondence with Shawyer, but assume any other details may be repeating what he tells them verbatim, without fact-checking. –  SJ  +  17:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: Shawyer mentioning tests on the X-37B in his 2014 paper: a) It's in his interest to constantly promote any interest from governments as a way to garner investment.  Hence he claimed for years his engagement with Boeing was a "license" of his tech even though they never licensed, until they publicly confirmed they had abandoned the project that had been working wih him. And he has for years said "there is active US DOD and UK DOE interest", which is just puff and hard to disprove.  b) All of his requests for funding for the last decade have been to do space-based testing. I'm sure people mentioned X-37B as a possible test platform, if the prototype worked out; it was designed to support such tests w/out having to send drives up on a rocket/sat.  –  SJ  +  17:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources we can use for any of the above? While what you say may be true, WP:TRUTH applies, we need to follow what has been reported in reliable sources.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't, haven't seen any RS that cared enough about this to evaluate Shawyer's or Fetta's bias in self-reporting. You're right that IBT being early to report on Chinese interest in this drive gives them some currency, let's wait and see how their other claims and predictions turn out.   –  SJ  +  04:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The X-37B returned to Earth today, and that SpaceFlightNow article (which is one of most reputable specialized spaceflight news sources) states that the vehicle carried "an experimental electric propulsion thruster", adding "Made by Aerojet Rocketdyne, the enhanced five-kW Hall Thruster, called the XR-5A, was tested aboard the spaceplane for the Air Force Research Laboratory and Space and Missile Systems Center." Clearly the X-37B did not carry an EM Drive test article. I searched a bit to see if this was known beforehand, and indeed this has been reported by multiple news sources, including specialized spaceflight sites, even as far back as the time of launch of the mission in 2015: see.
 * So, can we follow what every other news site has been saying since 2015 about the payload of the X-37B instead of that one IBT article, and remove the suggestion that the spaceplane tested the EM Drive? Meithan (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I support removing it. Ideally together with all other claims only backed by IBT. They have an EM-Drive fan in their staff and report about everything that remotely looks like it could be related to the topic. Technically the test of a Hall thruster doesn't exclude the test of other propulsion methods, but the IBT claim gets very questionable as they probably misunderstood reports about the Hall thruster test. --mfb (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I support removing it as it does indeed seem reasonable to assume that IBT got this wrong. Is there even anything else that is only supported by the IBT? —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is still in the article (I don't find it right now), some nonsense attempt to explain the observed thrust was published in an obscure paper, picked up by IBT, and then added to this article. --mfb (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that's a different situation then. Republication is very different from speculation. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The publication was nonsense, not even proper speculation. Anyway, not the topic here. --mfb (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's safe to eliminate the mention of a test article being flown on the X-37B, as it's very clear this was false news. This much is dead clear to me.
 * Now, I'm not sure specifically what other mentions Insertcleverphrasehere was referring to, but the other supposed test in space, supposedly on Tiangong-2, is also questionable. The first two cited sources, and, are IBT articles from December 2016 that support the claim of tests on Tiangong-2 by self-referencing the November article, . The third reference to the Chinese in-orbit tests is from Science and Technology Daily, , an official government source. I can't read Chinese, but I used Google translate to get | an approximate English version and cannot find any mention of tests being conducted in space by the Chinese government. The fifth reference, , also cites the November IBT article as source. The only apparently independent source is the fourth, , a Chinese state-owned news site that doesn't mention any sources for the supposed in-space tests.
 * Can we find a separate, reputable source for that claim that does not lead back to IBT? Or, alternatively, evidence that the Chinese are not testing the Drive on Tiangong-2? If we can't find any additional sources either way I'd suggest we declare the November IBT article bogus (since half its content has been shown to be false, despite being ample information online on the X-37B's payload since even before launch) and stop considering it and any other article that references it as source as valid sources (thus removing them, and any text that can only be supported through them, from the article). Meithan (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Well we don't know that the X-37B claim was definitely bogus (not 'shown to be false) as the two test thrusters might have both been on board (not mutually exclusive). It is just that nothing else about this has surfaced, so we are assuming that IBT confused the two thrusters (which is plausible). I'll support removing the claim specifically about the X-37B claim based on this uncertainty. However, we had a massive discussion over at RSN about IBT, and I am wary of simply declaring the IBT as 'unreliable' on this topic, given that we are not actually certain that anything that they published is 'false'. The Tiangong-2 claim was widely cited elsewhere and presumably these other high profile news sources did some checking before they published. Or are you suggesting that we ignore all of that and throw it out simply because the IBT reported on it first and that we suspect that another of their stories might not be true? —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ICPH's point about the Hall-effect thruster and EmDrive onboard the X-37B not being mutually exclusive is very important. Nothing in the IBT article has yet been shown to be false, or directly addressed by another reliable source. We are merely speculating the IBT got it wrong but have no source to address the issue. I think it is important the report remains attributed and that we add info about the Hall-effect thruster for balance. It was there at one point, but seems to have been removed.


 * As a speculative side point, the Hall-effect is also called the topological Hall-effect and is a type of Berry phase. Its worth looking into how they increase the "performance" and "efficiency" of a Hall effect thruster.--Sparkyscience (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

One more "valid" (at this point) hypothesis of method of action
If anyone cares to dare to add it after familiarizing themselves with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarkovsky_effect Could be? Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.91.57 (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No. The reported force values are too large to be explained by radiation pressure. --mfb (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the more important issue... is there any source that says anything of the sort that the IP has proposed above (I have not seen any).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleaned up device structure
I removed a para of trivia from his section:
 * For instance, the electromagnetic waves associated with the geometry of a truncated cone create an anisotropic electromagnetic field where there are no analytical solutions for the resonant modes. This geometry intrinsically does not suffer from mode degeneration. A sharp distinction between the propagating and evanescent electromagnetic waves cannot be achieved and as a result a non-zero power flow runs through truncated cone focusing a portion of energy near the apex. There is no well-defined cutoff wavelength but rather a cutoff radius. Due to the absence of sharp cut off wavelengths this allows the interior of a truncated cone to support an inhomogeneous electromagnetic field. There are many situations where the electromagnetic field becomes anisotropic, for example emission between two conducting plates which relates to the Casimir effect. The dynamical Casimir effect has been given as means of explaining the apparent thrust by NASA Eagleworks.

This is a combination of false/misunderstood things (there are no waves 'associated' with a geometry, just resonant modes; almost all fields are 'anisotropic' – that just means they vary in some direction; &c.), random trivia about conical waveguides which don't seem to have informed device structure (for one thing, devices reported to have worked had a wide range of shapes), and a recurring inaccurate claim about White's reference to the Casimir effect. (White said that the dynamic Casimir effect may be a theoretical avenue to pursue: he never said this informed the design of current resonant cavity thrusters.) The sources were similarly confused: they were not related to these drives, just papers where someone mentioned the stray cited fact... other than two sources for the Eagleworks claim, which were two versions of a single source. – SJ  +  06:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree with the removal, but is there anything we can say except "its complicated"? I feel like we can do better than this, even with the sources that we have. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ICPH: We can say a bit more. (Though I seem to have been reverted, and don't plan to fight over this para.) For one thing, the very lack of motivation for the geometries used is unusual, even among 'exotic' engine designs, and makes claims about these devices harder to falsify.  At the moment, the vagueness in describing what could possibly make such a thruster work means any cavity you pump lots of RF into could be called one of these thrusters.
 * For the popular truncated-cone structure, experimenters (now) agree thrust is expected to "come out" of the larger end. That should be mentioned here, perhaps without synthesizing an explanation. There are few and inconsistent explanations as to why, mostly back-constructions to justify observations.  [The removed stream of consciousness above is synth, largely from non-EMdrive research. If we're making up our own synth, contrary explanations could include: 'if the engine observations are some placebo effect, it would be natural to see thrust in the same direction it would be for a classical engine of that shape' or: 'displacement due to heating & expansion, a major source of error in many setups, will bias away from the larger end.']  Regards, –  SJ  +  08:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Anisotropic" refers to the symmetry of the mathematical equations themselves not the value of those equations i.e. it is nothing to do with how the magnitude of how the field varies from place to place but everything to do with how the equations themselves vary (pp 147-150 ). For example take a pencil and lie it flat on the ground at the north pole of a globe, slide it along the surface in the direction it is pointing to the equator, keeping it perpendicular to the equator, slide it to another line of longitude and move the pencil back to the north pole: the pencil no longer points in the same direction. This is an example of the failure of a certain variable (i.e a vector) describing the system to return the original value - we need to include notions about topology to understand the system fully . Vectors describing electromagnetic fields for the most part are described by homogenous equations (i.e Maxwells equations) with no notion of topology - special relativity contains no notion of topologically varying fields whatsoever (unlike general relativity which is a nonlinear theory  ). The Casimir effect is a topological effect (i.e the parallel plates mentioned on p. 147 ) and is explanation of how the EMdrive might work given by White and by MMcCulloch's who's theory is called MiHsC "Modified inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect" The current article doesn't even mention the Casimir effect or how it might relate to the Emdrive.


 * All Emdrive formulas (Shawyers, MucCullochs, Whites) predict greater thrust with a large difference between the diameters of the big and small bases of a truncated cone - saying there is no evidence the EM-field associated with this geometry has informed the device structure flies in the face of the obvious. Wrong or right, how did they derive those equations in the first place?!


 * All too often SJ adopts a false voice of authority decrying things as wrong/false/misunderstood/misguided rarely addressing the underlying substance of the science and never with a citation. When he does attempt an explanation on the talk pages, like when he says "almost all fields are anisotropic'" or "Non-equilibrium" effects do exist in the world, but they have nothing to do with non-linearity" its clear he has no idea what he is talking about. All the more amusing because you can tell he is the type of person who prides himself on thinking he understands everything!--Sparkyscience (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Came here to say this paragraph reads to me like somewhere on the spectrum between pseudoscience and nonsense, and it is not helped by grammar errors ("power flow runs through truncated cone") and inconsistent use ("cutoff" vs. "cut off" for example). Found this paragraph is already under discussion. I would support its removal until someone can significantly improve it. 72.208.150.248 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The basic physics problems are all still there. The second paragraph of this section is nonsense after the first sentence. It includes trivia properly sourced about frustrum/conical waveguides, but no source tries to connect those stray facts with EM drive designs. Unfortuntately some science forums now point to this WP article as a primary source proving 'specialness' of the geometry. Can someone else review the section -- mfb? – SJ  +  02:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Some remarks by Shawyer:


 * "The equations used to calculate the guide wavelengths in the static thrust equation are very non-linear. This is exploited in the design of the resonator to maximise the ratio of end plate forces, while minimising the axial component of the side wall force. This results in a net force that produces motion in accordance with Newton’s laws."-Roger Shawyer


 * "The mathematical derivation of the theory behind the EmDrive propulsion system has been reviewed and verified by Dr Richard B Paris, a senior mathematics lecturer at University of Abertay Dundee."- Roger Shawyer
 * Richard Paris is an expert in MHD (magnetohydordynamics) . It appears work at Dundee was done as part of BAE systems "Project Greenglow"

The above statements make clear that Shawyer claims to exploit the geometry of the cavity due due to the nonlinear nature of the fields involved. Do external sources back up the Shawyer's claim the field equations are nonlinear for the geometry he talks about? Yes they do:


 * "There are no analytical solutions for the resonant modes of a truncated cone." - White et al.


 * "Hollow conical waveguides (horns) have got successful applications in many fields such as...laser-wakefield accelerators. A theoretical treatment of a tapered optical waveguide presents formidable mathematical difficulties. One can not but, therefore, have recourse to approximate methods."


 * "Chebyshev-Galerkin solution of the electric field integral equation for the surface current induced on a conducting frustum by an incident plane wave is presented."
 * Chebyshev-Galerkin formulation is used as an linear approximation to nonlinear electromagnetic problems.


 * "One way to make a resonator sensitive to this type of measurement is to excite [wave guide] travelling wave modes in an asymmetric resonator; some possible configurations are shown in figure 8....The only way to accurately calculate the sensitivity of such experiments is through numerical simulation, and we will pursue this path in the future."


 * "Fig. 18.24 Tilted-plate plasma reactor with polarized plasma wedge in unstable equilibrium...If the geometry is changed by tilting the two electrodes, an electric field gradient will exist horizontally...This can be understood as an imbalance in electrostatic pressure that provides a net paraelectric body force."


 * Also interesting are tests using resonant cavities for "light shining through walls" and axions, which are "very sensitive to the geometry used". There appears to be a whole "Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics" that resonant cavities can explore.

I'm all for completely rewriting a section to clarify and explain things, but I can't see the "nonsense" or "basic physics errors" to which you refer. Perhaps you'd like to use your extensive understanding of nonlinear field theory to point a specific issues out?--Sparkyscience (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll start with details:
 * "Mathematically speaking the variables describing the waves cannot be isolated from the description of the overall system" - what does that mean?
 * "a sharp distinction between the propagating and evanescent electromagnetic waves cannot be achieved" - the text is discussing resonant modes, there is nothing propagating.
 * "and as a result a non-zero power flow runs through a truncated cone focusing a portion of energy near the apex." - how does that follow, and what does "focusing the energy somewhere" mean? Just a region with higher energy density? And why should that be near the apex? And what is the relevance of that?
 * "There is no well-defined cutoff wavelength but rather a cutoff radius." - radius of what?
 * "Due to the absence of sharp cutoff wavelengths this allows the interior of a truncated cone to support an inhomogeneous electromagnetic field." - you can get inhomogeneous electromagnetic fields in every cavity, what does this have to do with cutoff wavelengths? 4 remarks, that all don't seem to explain that.
 * Remark a: "The new cavity is superior" - on which scale? Which new cavity, which old cavity?
 * "There are many situations where the electromagnetic field becomes anisotropic" - the electromagnetic field is a vector field. It has to be anisotropic (if non-zero).
 * Overall: What is this part telling us? "Resonant modes in complex structures are complicated and do not have nice symmetries." Okay, sure. Is that all? Because that could be summarized much shorter. In addition, the section seems to be written according to Maxwell's laws. But Maxwell's laws conserve momentum exactly. You can't explain thrust with laws that predict exactly zero thrust.
 * --mfb (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

These are excellent constructive comments that I think really get to some areas that need clearing up. I'll do my best and hopefully significant changes and clarifications can be made. Apologies in advance for the wall of text (particularly for answer to 1.)! I'll try to answer to the best of my understanding and to talk as simply as possible.


 * "Mathematically speaking the variables describing the waves cannot be isolated from the description of the overall system" - what does that mean?
 * Taking a step back, mathematics is all about expressions that describe objects together with the rules for manipulating them. Usually (certainly all the mathematics you learn at school, and unless you do MS in mathematics) the object (or variable) and the rules of the system that govern that variable can be separated, that is, generally speaking you can separate the variable to one side of an equality, for example $$y=ax^2 + bx +c$$ You isolate the variable $$y$$ from the description of the system. There are a whole class of systems, nonlinear expression or equations, where a variable cannot be separated to one side of the expression even in principle. The description of the variable or object and its environment are coupled. Certainly, in the expression we have just talked about $$x$$ is a nonlinear variable with respect to $$y$$ but that does not mean you cannot write a equation in terms of $$x$$, you can. It is easy to conflate nonlinear variables with nonlinear equations.
 * The separation of variables is intimately tied to the existence of symmetries in equations. Seperation of variables, in general, can only be done for sets of linear equations. Examples of nonlinear equations are a Lorenz system, the Mandlebrot set and the field equations of general relativity (except in special situations). Unlike linear equations where I can write an equality that equals something, in nonlinear expressions there is no expression, that is, there is no equality to equate a variable with the system. Nonlinear systems, can be thought of as not equations to be solved but processes to be followed, for example the Mandlebrot set is a shape not defined by the solution to an equation but defined by a process. In general relativity the same principle applies, only in very special situations we can solve for a centre of mass - in general a center of mass may never settle into equilibrium and it may dynamically change at any given time for non-stationary fields. See Mass in general relativity for details on nonlinear issues - indeed most of the mass in the universe arrises not from summing particles that have intrinsic mass (gluons have no mass) but as a result of a dynamical nonlinear process (see Quantum chromodynamics binding energy). The whole is as fundamental as the part. All nonlinear systems are open systems because the object and the environment cannot be separated. This is what makes nonlinear systems so difficult mathematically - we are used to assuming that I can derive some equation where I can plug in any value of $$x$$ and tell you what the state will be ahead of time - the seperation of a variable, which leads to a symmetry of an equation, leads to the power of prediction - in a nonlinear system I have to plug in $$x$$, see what the equation describing the environment or state is, plug in $$x$$ again, and iterate repeatedly to know the end state of the system is because the environment and object are coupled. A lot of physicists don't like nonlinear systems and assume them to be "ugly" because of this difficulty, they assume that there is some deep principle which we will one day discover that will allow us to find a solution exactly, but It is an inherent feature of the system not a fault in our understanding of the system that we need to resort to numerical methods or approximations. The assumption I can always derive an exact expression for a variable or part is the ideology of reductionism.
 * The standard set of Maxwell equations in the vacuum, or free space, are linear expressions. you can plug in a value for the E field or B field and know what the state is - this cannot be done for nonlinear systems. In QED you can have self-interactions of fields - but not all self-interactions are nonlinear - for example in QED there is something called perturbation theory or renormalisation, which is effectively deals with expressions that are like a Taylor series - the variable can still be isolated as an analytic expression. There are nonlinear effects that cannot be analyzed by perturbation theory, namely solitons. The Maxwell's equations become nonlinear in the presence of very strong magnetic fields, and nonpertebative effects dominate. This was first predicted by Heisenberg who states "One of the most important consequences is that, even in the vacuum, the Maxwell equation have to be exchanged by more complicated formulas. In general, it will be not possible to separate processes in the vacuum from those involving matter since electromagnetic fields can create matter if they are strong enough. Even if they are not strong enough to create matter they will, due to the virtual possibility of creating matter, polarize the vacuum and therefore change the Maxwell equations."  ....Does that mean that we don't need to worry about nonlinear effects in the vacuum unless we are at really high energies? Not necessarily..this prediction relies on the assumption that the potentials (from which vector fields are defined) are described by homogenous equations, that is they have trivial topology. For instance, we usally don't care about the absolute value of voltage, we only care about differences in value of voltage. It was not until much later with the development of Yang-Mills theory that Maxwell's equations were generalized for situations the potentials are not homogenous (i.e they exhibit nontrivial topology), in these instances potentials, not just differences in potentials, take on real physical meaning. If the potentials have nontrivial topology, as is the case for a host of topological effects such as Hall effect, quantum Hall effect, fractional quantum Hall effect, spin Hall effect, quantum spin Hall effect, Aharonov–Bohm effect, Sagnac effect etc. then the requirements for the EM vacuum to become a nonlinear may be radically different from that assumed in homogenous space.


 * "a sharp distinction between the propagating and evanescent electromagnetic waves cannot be achieved" - the text is discussing resonant modes, there is nothing propagating.
 * "The eigenfunctions/modes of a uniform transmission line, such as the circular tube, have sharp cut-off frequencies below which the field is evanescent and above which unattenuated propagation occurs... In contrast, the modes of a nonuniform transmission line, such as the conical waveguide...experience a gradual transition from propagation to evanescence, as a function of electrical distance $$kr$$."
 * "As $$kr$$ decreases all modes run continuously from a propagating through a transition to an evanescent region. We note that a strict distinction between pure propagating and pure evanescent modes can not be achieved."
 * Usually a wave will only propagate down the waveguide if the excitation frequency is larger than the cut-off frequency, if the frequency is less than the cut-off frequency, the wave is evanescent and will not propagate. In these instances the propagation constant becomes an imaginary number. A solution to the wave equation having an imaginary wave number does not propagate as a wave but falls off exponentially, so the field excited at that lower frequency is considered evanescent. In a cylinder we are able to define sharp cutoff frequencies where propagation will begin to occur but in a truncated cone we cannot do this. The presence of evanescent modes seems to be important in terms of the interaction of virtual particles and quantum tunneling   (this something I've only just come across).


 * "and as a result a non-zero power flow runs through a truncated cone focusing a portion of energy near the apex." - how does that follow, and what does "focusing the energy somewhere" mean? Just a region with higher energy density? And why should that be near the apex? And what is the relevance of that?
 * "Therefore, real nonzero time-average power flow does occur in a conical waveguide that is smaller in cross section than any cut-on circular waveguide at the same frequency of operation. This observation can also be qualitatively explained by considering the oppositely directed evanescent waves that are excited at the cascaded junctions of successively larger but still individually cut off circular waveguides that form a stepped approximation to the cone. Effectively, then, the conical scatterer tends to focus a portion of the energy of the incident radio wave, at least in comparison to the uniform tubular scatterer.
 * "In most respects, the scattering by the frustum is a distortion of that by the circular tube. One important difference is the internal focusing effect that is predominantly experienced when the exciting plane wave is incident from the wide end of the frustum."
 * I'm happy to stand corrected on this but it looks like there is a slight mistake in the current version of text. There is a non-zero power flow but it is smaller then that of the circular wave guide, thus unlike a cylinder waveguide energy builds up within an area of the field. The relevance of that is....does it gravitate? (see below)


 * "There is no well-defined cutoff wavelength but rather a cutoff radius." - radius of what?
 * "There is no well-defined cutoff wavelength but rather a cutoff radius $$(R_c)$$ I could be wrong, but I I think this basically saying is that evanescent waves do not decay exponentially.


 * "Due to the absence of sharp cutoff wavelengths this allows the interior of a truncated cone to support an inhomogeneous electromagnetic field." - you can get inhomogeneous electromagnetic fields in every cavity, what does this have to do with cutoff wavelengths? 4 remarks, that all don't seem to explain that.
 * No - Maxwells equations we are familiar with in a vacuum, or free space, are homogeneous. We are conflating values, magnitudes and variables with the equations themselves. The values certainly vary, but the expression that governs the values keep the same form and do not change regardless of the point in space we are talking about. "Due to the absence of sharp cut-off frequencies for the nonuniform conical waveguide, the interior of the frustum can support nontrivial field amplitudes" An amplitude would be trivial if i can translate its value, via a symmetry of an equation, to another position. But I cant do that here. For example take a pencil and lie it flat on the ground at the north pole of a globe, slide it along the surface in the direction it is pointing to the equator, keeping it perpendicular to the equator, slide it to another line of longitude and move the pencil back to the north pole: the pencil no longer points in the same direction.  This is an example of the failure of a certain variable (i.e a vector) describing the system to return the original value - we need to include notions about topology to understand the system fully. In particular the vector field contains incomplete information about the system - Maxwell's equations tell you that vectors fields alone describe the whole system!
 * It is interesting to note that if there is more energy contained in an area of space then another area, then gravitational effects should apply. This is certainly true of the Casimir effect, which again can be viewed as an effect of the topology of the fields.


 * Remark a: "The new cavity is superior" - on which scale? Which new cavity, which old cavity?
 * "The new cavity is superior to the often used cylindrical cavity, because it intrinsically does not suffer from mode degeneration." Cylinders can be solved analytically - they can be described by linear equations and they have resonant modes. Because they have resonant modes it suffers from degeneracy. Conical cavities don't have analytical expressions for resonant modes, and so no two modes can have the same resonant frequency, this is how it intrinsically does not suffer from mode degeneration.


 * "There are many situations where the electromagnetic field becomes anisotropic" - the electromagnetic field is a vector field. It has to be anisotropic (if non-zero).
 * Absolutely not. Anisotropic refers to the symmetry of the equations, not the value of the equations. Maxwells equations in free space are isotropic regardless of the values, magnitudes of the vector field. Thus anisotropic refers to the fact that Maxwells equations are modified to be directionally dependant. Simplistically this means that the speed of light is different in one direction when compared to another. This is common in laser physics and brings in the idea of group velocity discussed below.


 * Overall: What is this part telling us? "Resonant modes in complex structures are complicated and do not have nice symmetries." Okay, sure. Is that all? Because that could be summarized much shorter. In addition, the section seems to be written according to Maxwell's laws. But Maxwell's laws conserve momentum exactly. You can't explain thrust with laws that predict exactly zero thrust.
 * If the system could be described by a set of linear equations I'd completely agree. But it is nonlinear, so it cannot be described completely by a set of linear equations like Maxwell's equations. I think it important to separate that which we can be definitely sure of about the electromagnetics of the conical cavity and any effects this may lead to. Shawyers theory relies on the idea of group velocity  Something which the current article completely misses and it is this idea which Richard Paris seems to have endorsed. This allows the phase velocity vector and group velocity vector to be different. Wheres that in Maxwell's equations? This book  seems to talk about the group velocity idea with respect to the Emdrive in more detail so I'll see if I get a copy from a local library.--Sparkyscience (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is a reader expected to fill in all these explanations while reading? And some of them are wrong:
 * "But it is nonlinear, so it cannot be described completely by a set of linear equations like Maxwell's equations." - is this an experimental result? If yes, who measured it? That would be worth a Nobel Prize, because QED does not predict relevant nonlinear effects at that scale (light-by-light scattering has been measured, but with much stronger fields). It is clearly not a theoretical result - Maxwell's laws are linear and self-consistent. You can apply them to any shape you want. I don't see any reason to expect a difference for the particular shape discussed here.
 * I've given a long list of topological effects, plenty of which have won Nobel prizes (last year for example), that cannot be explained in the standard formulation of Maxwells equations or QED. Both contain no notion of topology - in both the spacetime is flat because the potentials are trivial. There are no solitons in U(1) Maxwell equations.Sparkyscience (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Topological effects in matter. Not in cavities.
 * Casimir effect.--Sparkyscience (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wheres that in Maxwell's equations?" - It is a typical consequence of propagation of electromagnetic signals if not in vacuum. Where is the problem?
 * We're talking about a vacuum. Sparkyscience (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a vacuum with conducting walls. That is not the same as a vacuum.
 * You can rewrite every equation to isolate any variable by defining suitable operators. That is not always useful, but always possible. I don't see how you relate this to words chosen in the article. You seem to use "system" in an unusual way, and I think you confuse "nonlinear" with "chaotic" in some cases.
 * Where did you get that from?! If there is a proof that states i can always separate a variable by changing operators I want to know about it! Whats the theorem called? I can't find it in either of these books  but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.Sparkyscience (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For every equation 0=f(x,y) (or any other shape, doesn't really matter), you can define a function F such that x=F(y) satisfies the first equation by definition of F. That does not always help you solve a problem, but mathematically it is possible. There is nothing to prove, it is a definition.
 * "in a nonlinear system I have to plug in $$x$$, see what the equation describing the environment or state is, plug in $$x$$ again, and iterate repeatedly to know the end state of the system is because the environment and object are coupled." - You gave a counterexample to that claim already! Here is an even easier one: y=x2 (x,y>0) is not linear, but it is trivial to solve for x: x=sqrt(y).
 * I'm pretty sure the above satisfies the conditions of homogeneity and superposition. Nonlinear_systemSparkyscience (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So what? It is a counterexample to your earlier claim.
 * I could go on, but I don't think this would be helpful. --mfb (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Apart from you as author, four users commented here (me included), and all are supporting a removal - I removed the section. --mfb (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

With respect, you've made a lot of errors in the above. Homogeneity, isotropy, symmetry etc. Its very clear theres a huge gulf in understanding of nonlinear systems. You've made the assumption you can set every function = 0. This sounds like the definition of an equilibrium system, not a nonequilbrium one. I'm really not sure where I've contradicted myself but I do understand the onus is on me to try and explain things. Clearly some of the removed material is factually correct; other parts clearly need review in light of the above.Sparkyscience (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, one last comment: For every equation a=b, you can rewrite it as 0=b-a. That is extremely elementary mathematics. --mfb (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything Mfb wrote above looks right to me – presented with unfailing graciousness. SS, you seem to be using your own private definitions of nonlinearity, homogeneity, isotropy, symmetry  (What is an 'isotropic equation'?), which makes it hard to discuss details with you.  Luckily, WP is not the place to discuss such details:  for discussions / explanations / debates about physics, and examples of clear explanations, try StackExchange.  Here we have the luxury of limiting discussion to something much simpler: what is said in reliable sources.  On that front, this paragraph was synthesis.    –  SJ  +  22:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Though it should not matter, my background is in mathematics (not specifically physics per say) and I'm using the same definitions any mathemicican would use, (and i think any mathematical physicist would use?). You are both very wrong on some key issues here, which is causing mass confusion. mfb - If I was to say that angles in a triangle add up to 167° you would insist it is "extremely elementary mathematics" that angles in a triangle always add up to 180°, when actually angles on a triangle can add up to below 180° in Hyperbolic geometry or more that 180° in Elliptic geometry by definition. Similarly here, I am telling you that there are systems where it is impossible to separate variables, by definition, and that these systems are nonlinear. There is a good introductory overview here . The assertion that you can always seperate variables is wrong. Nonlinear expressions are extremely hard to "solve" or form closed form expressions except in very special cases because they do not form analytic expressions. The field equations for a truncated cone are not analytic. Sj- An isotropic equation, in this context would be an isotropic field equation. Equations that describe eucleadean space, minkowski space, Maxwell's equations are all isotropic. It arrises as a consequence of the preservation of rotational symmetries. Similarly, homogeneous fields arrise from the preservation of translational symmetry. If a field is nonhomogeneous it is always anisotropic, but a field can be anisotropic while still being homogeneous. Both of you are wrong by saying this has something to do with variation in the values of the field, it has everything to do with do with field equations looking the same at each point in space regardless of direction or rotation. While wikipedia is not a forum, portions of this text have been removed because you don't understand the concepts. If the sources are not explained, the resulting text with regard to the field arising from a truncated cone will be utterly impenetrable to nearly every reader--Sparkyscience (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, one of the key tenets of wikipedia is to make articles understandable. See WP:TECHNICAL. This sort of highly technical explanation is not only not necessary but confusing to readers. Keep it simple, and the summary from reliable sources does that just fine. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it best to remove the device structure section entirely for now (current version has no references) until a clear english version can be made. With respect to the above debate, thankfully the NatGeo aticle links to this paper here  as a brief overview on conservation of momentum / homogeous fields / linear operators etc and how they might apply to the EmDrive.--Sparkyscience (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Resonant cavities to test Lorentz invariance
Modern physics seems to be in a transition at the moment from the Standard-Model (SM) of particle physics to the Standard-Model Extension (SME). The main difference is that the new SME allows Lorentz violations (i.e special relativity does not always hold in some cases of spontaneous symmetry breaking). There seems to be two big tests of Lorentz violations that would put the SME on course to being fully adopted and replace the Standard Model: Vacuum birefringence from neutron stars, for which there is now very strong evidence  ... and observations from optical or microwave resonant cavities. The scientists who came up with the SME expects to find Lorentz violations present in microwave resonant cavities. The Lorentz violating terms are usually very small and discarded from calculations (standard renormalizable QED throws it all away) but resonant cavities seem to be highly sensitive to any such effects. Lorentz violating terms are predicted to occur due to nonlinear self interactions between the fields and matter, under certain conditions (for instance very strong magnetic fields, or curved spacetime) these effects are amplified.

I have not had time to read anything in the literature thoroughly, but it struck me as an odd coincidence that the EmDrive, a resonant cavity, violates Lorentz invariance and that resonant cavities are indeed expected to be sensitive Lorentz violations in the SME. initial thoughts:


 * The geometry of the cavity affects the sensitivity to Lorentz violations (as is standard in CQED).


 * There seems to be a distinction in observing Lorentz violations between cavities that are degenerate and nondegenerate. We know that the geometry of the EmDrive does not suffer from degeneration.


 * Usually modes in two identical symmetric cavities are compared (as in Michelson–Morley experiment), but If the resonant cavity is asymmetric it leads to nonlinear chaotic "ray dynamics" []. two modes propagating in opposites directions in the same cavity can be compared instead (ring resonator).


 * there is something called stochastic resonance where background noise, say from Lorentz violating terms of the vacuum, can be amplified by nonlinear systems. This is why White et al proposed stochastic electrodynamics as theory to explain the EmDrive - it allows for such an amplification effect.

Even if turns out there is no support EmDrive physics in the SME, should be a good area to find out more about resonant cavity physics, because it seems to be current hot topic in the field.--Sparkyscience (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer.png Just to add to this... the NASA team do seem to have used a Fabry–Pérot interferometer to do a Michaelson-Morely type experiment with a single asymmetric cavity to do just the experiment mentioned in point three above. the cavity was a scaled down version of the EmDrive test article. An anisotropic vacuum will result in a relative phase shift in the observed diffraction pattern. They claim to have observed this, but have not mentioned it in their final paper. The light, if the effect was present, would be blueshifted.


 * In this video Harold White states that he spent years working an Hall-effect thrusters and that the principle with the EmDrive should be exactly the same. Hall thrusters emit blueshifted Cherenkov radiation . Light will be sped up in a Casimir cavity due to the Scharnhorst effect,, which is exactly analogous to blueshifted Cherenkov radiation. The "speed" difference in relative phase is ultimately due to topology of the field


 * This paper in Physical Review also mentioned in here,  is very interesting... fig. 8 looks just like an emdrive. this stucture is suggested as a way of improving sensitivity to Lorentz violations over current methods presumably because "This device naturally separates the injected and reflected wave in the same way as a ring cavity at optical frequencies, without degrading the frequency discrimination"...and "The only way to accurately calculate the sensitivity of such experiments is through numerical simulation, and we will pursue this path in the future." Cant find a follow up yet...--Sparkyscience (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless the literature makes specific reference to resonant cavity thrusters in relation to SME, it doesn't belong here (WP:SYNTH). Any sourced you have found that do so? —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Michaelson-Morely type experiment by White clearly connects the concepts.--Sparkyscience (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way does it connect the concepts? Could you quote the relevant section? —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone appears to have made a whole article on the topic - White–Juday warp-field interferometer. See  for details. "The figure depicts a modified Michelson-Morley Interferometer setup that makes use of a 1 cm diameter toroidal-ring of positive energy density on one leg of the interferometer. A He-Ne laser beam (O = 633 nm) is split allowing one part of the beam to pass through the center of the ring and hence the spherical warp field region. This warp field region will induce a relative phase shift between the split beams that could be detectable provided the magnitude of the phase shift is sufficient."

Quotes from the video

"We're trying to change the optical path length in a very small region of the interferometer by having the appropriate conditions that general relativity requires. It says that in a local region it changes the perceived path length of the photon line intergrals. That will manifest itself in a slight change in the interference pattern."

"If your pushing off the quantum vacuum you are establishing an anisotropic state in the quantum vacuum and so it is putting a wake out of the back of the thruster."

"You never locally exceed the speed of light so you can't time travel - I like doctor who as much as the next guy."

"The low fidelity test article is trying to create a blue-shifted frame relative to the lab. So we are just using a large potential energy with our low fidelity article. The higher fidelity test article that i showed you guys a picture of, that is based on the q-thruster physics and so thats where we go to work on using the negative vacuum energy to try and satisfy all the explicit requirements of the field equations. That test article is trying to establish more accurately the requirements as required by the mathematics - working with negative vacuum energy - the Casimir force."

Explanation: When he says change the path length or relative phase - he is talking about the hypothetical spontaneously symmetry breaking of lorentz invariance that will lead to a detectable difference in relative phase.

Translation: A gauge transformation is a symmetry transformation in physics that leads leads to the conservation of some local property known as a particle or quantum number (for instance the charge, spin, baryon number, lepton number etc.). One of the key ideas that helped Albert Einstein develop his theory of general relativity was the idea that the field equations should be the same in every co-ordinate system, Lorentz symmetry is preserved as a local property just like the symmetry principles of quantum numbers. From a modern point of view, this too is an example of a gauge symmetry. Every symmetry in nature leads to an unobservable - the unobservable for a gauge symmetry is relative phase. It is known that symmetries in nature can be broken, SME allows for the spontaneous symmetry breaking of lorentz symmetry and therefore relative phases can be detected. This is precisely what the referenced resonant cavity experiments in SME are designed to try and detect and what White is describing in the above.--Sparkyscience (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything here in the sources that directly links Lorenz symmetry to resonant cavity thrusters. Until someone publishes something linking the two directly, we have to sit on our hands (this is an encyclopedia, not a research journal). —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If I do a Michelson-Morley experiment what am I testing for?--Sparkyscience (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

If NASA does a Michaelson-Moreley experiment with an EmDrive EXPLAIN to me what law of physics this confirms or does not confirm? SYNTH is not explanation --Sparkyscience (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the point. The reference has to explain that, not users on talk pages. --mfb (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The source has to specifically make the connection not you. That's what WP:SYNTH explains in detail. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * SYNTH is not explanation doesn't apply here: that policy applies when you are explaining in detail one or more sources that do make the connection directly. What you are doing is combining different sources where no source makes the connection directly. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Well okay, I thought it was obvious common knowledge a that Michaelson-Morely type experiment tests Lorentz invariance; I'm sure if you insist on a source, one should be easy enough to come by to explain what White's Fabry–Pérot interferometer is actually trying to measure! Anyway...There is a very interesting sentence on Shawyer's webpage that I have just spotted. Never really bothered to read it before because I automatically assumed his "theory" to be "cranky" and "wrong". :

"Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of reference. A similar approach is necessary to explain the principle of the laser gyroscope, where open system attitude information is obtained from an apparently closed system device."

Whats a laser gyroscope? Its a type of optical ring resonator, already mentioned above. Used in Inertial navigation systems which apparently, rely on no external reference frame. No external reference?? How this can be correct? Sounds like "pseudoscience" that "breaks the laws of physics" ...were we not taught at school the idea of absolute space and time was removed by Einstien's special relativity? A ring resonator detects a difference in relative phase, the unobservable if we treat Lorentz invariance as a gauge symmetry. Moreover Shawyer uses "radiation pressure" to explain the effect. The Hall effect and radiation pressure are "different manifestations of the same basic phenomenon" just as White claimed in the video. Seems Shawyer probably understands a lot more then he lets on, but is giving an overly simple explanation to try and protect his secret sauce.

I think an EXPLAINATION of what radiation pressure is and what a laser gyroscope does should be added to Shawyer's claims. This isn't pseudoscience at all, its a very testable hypothesis that may or may not work --Sparkyscience (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you think there is anything mysterious or even Lorentz-violating about ring lasers in guidance systems, you misunderstand both. --mfb (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest looking into the debate over rotating frames of reference in general relativity has made my head hurt.--Sparkyscience (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Original research
The large bulk of this section violates our policy on original research. I'm bringing it here we can determine if any of it is usable in the article:


 * Conservation of momentum

The EmDrive purports to violate the conservation of momentum and its associated symmetry. Symmetries are mathematical transformations that leave the general form of equations unchanged and are of prime importance in physics: symmetries give rise to conservation laws and are closely connected with the hypothesis that certain physical properties cannot be detected and are unobservable. The relationship between symmetries and conservation rules can be It rigorously proven by the Noether theorem. For example, time translation symmetry gives rise to the conservation of energy and implies absolute time is unobservable, while invariance under an arbitrary spacial translation (i.e. translational symmetry) gives rise to the conservation of momentum and implies that absolute position in space is unobservable, or merely a relative quantity. In mathematics, a field, such as the vacuum field described by Maxwell's equations or by quantum electrodynamics (QED), which preserves momentum and is therefore invariant under arbitrary spacial translation is said to be homogenous. Symmetries give rise to the geometry or properties of spacetime.

Einstein believed all laws of nature could be described by symmetries but today broken symmetries are recognised to be common throughout nature and are observed at all energy scales; they explain diverse phenomena such as crystals, superconductivity, and the Higgs mechanism. Aside from the notion of symmetry breaking to characterize physical laws, also of increasing importance in modern physics is the concept of topology. In all verified cases where matter appears to violate conservation laws, the apparent non-conservation can be viewed as an interaction with the vacuum so that overall symmetry in the system is restored. It can be shown that based on the assumption of homogeneous electric and magnetic fields it is impossible to extract a net momentum transfer from the vacuum, but extraction of a net momentum "from nothing" has been postulated in an inhomogeneous vacuum. A famous example of this effect is the Casimir force the magnitude of which depends on the size, geometry and topology of the cavity and field. If the EmDrive were to able to induce an instability in the vacuum it may be able to produce a net force, However, if these vacuum forces are indeed present, they are expected to be exceptionally tiny based on our current understanding. In the unlikely event that the force is not an experimental error, the positive result would be indicative of novel new physics

- MrX 16:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What part do you think constitutes OR? The first two sources clearly state that conservation of momentum is based on a symmetry, specifically translation symmetry, and the EmDrive appears to violate this. Standard textbook sources (one of which is written by a Nobel prize winner who was awarded it due to his work on symmetry) are used to explain this in the first paragraph and table in more detailSYNTH is not explanation.


 * The latter paragraph is based on this document here which is all about the Emdrive, talks about the Casimir effect, homogeous fields etc, and which is linked to in this article here  which again is all about the emdrive. So there is no original research here. Just basic physics facts, which is covered anyway under Scientific citation guidelines--Sparkyscience (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In order for this to be classed as OR there must be claim here which from a primary source or a new synthesis of statements not included in the sources. How do you think this qualifies?


 * OK, let's break it down: The first sentence "The EmDrive purports to violate the conservation of momentum and its associated symmetry." is not supported in either source. Specifically, please indicate the sentence in a source that says that the EmDrive purport anything. I think you mean the EmDrive researchers purport, but even that is not in those sources.16:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure lets break it down:
 * "But if the EMdrive is truly reactionless, then Newton is wrong. Also, Einstein is wrong, Maxwell is wrong and all of quantum physics is wrong. There's a fundamental symmetry that causes momentum conservation: translational symmetry. It means that if my system is over here, at a certain point in space, it should obey the same laws as if it's over there, at a different point in space. But if momentum conservation isn't truly fundamental, then translational symmetry cannot be a good symmetry of the Universe. In other words, there must be a preferred location, where the laws of physics are different in one location than others. The laws of physics, all of a sudden, depend on position."
 * "The key claim to the EmDrive is that it breaks this symmetry, allowing a net force to exist."
 * "Because there is no preferred reference frame for the quantum vacuum (nor does it even have a rest frame), any force observed to be produced in O, must also be observed in O¯. However, relative to O¯, there is a symmetry about the parallel fields, and thus no net force is expected. The only way that such an observation can be reconciled with any apparent force observations made in O, is if the net force in O is also zero. In the next section we formally confirm this using a QFT calculation."
 * I don't think changing the word "purport" is going to be controversial, but its not a reason to remove a whole section.--Sparkyscience (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is not with the word choice; it's with the attribution. An EmDrive can purport, claim, assert, say, state, mention... The correct thing to do here is paraphrase the source: "If the EmDrive is reactionless,..."


 * By the way, it seems that Forbes and Ars Technica as discussing two different types of symmetry. We should either describe both, or just use one source.- MrX 17:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No they are discussing the same symmetry. "In our simple picture of two mirrors facing each other, the mirrors are subject to equal and opposite forces. Essentially, the photons reflect from each mirror, exerting a force in doing so. Because this is symmetric, the cavity cannot have a net force" No net force = conservation of momentum. equal and opposite force = newtons third law = consequence of conservation of momentum. --Sparkyscience (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please self-revert this and please thread your talk page replies.
 * I will accept that the article are discussing the same symmetry concept, as it seems more likely than not. I think we can salvage some of the second and third sentences of your proposed content, provided we write it so that it is a reasonable paraphrasing of the Forbes and Ars Technica sources.- MrX 17:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the assertion that this section is breaches the Wikipeda policy of original research does not stand up to any degree of scrutiny: It is an obvious, well known and uncontroversial basic scientific fact that translational invariance gives rise to the conservation of momentum and homogeneity. This fundamental and universal truth is already broadly mentioned across Wikipedia, for instance on the momentum page "It is ultimately an expression of one of the fundamental symmetries of space and time, that of translational symmetry.", translational symmetry page "According to Noether's theorem, space translational symmetry of a physical system is equivalent to the momentum conservation law." homogeneity (physics) page "In Lagrangian formalism, homogeneity in space implies conservation of momentum...this is shown, using variational calculus, in standard textbooks like the classical reference [Landau & Lifshitz] cited below. This is a particular application of Noether's theorem." etc Similar helpful tables of information like the one included here displaying relevant features of this symmetry can be found on pages like the Symmetry_(physics) and time translation page. These facts are easily covered by Scientific citation guidelines and does not require any citation. Nevertheless, 4 textbook citations have been given for this section of text (i.e The table is based on information from the provided reference on page 180 of Nobel laurette T. D. Lee's textbook along with table in this provided reference  and also corroborated in these references.

The cited National Geographic article about the EmDrive makes clear that the central issue at play is the apparent violation of the conservation of momentum "The trouble is, the EmDrive violates Newton’s third law, which states that for every action, there is an equal and opposing reaction...Weirdly, the EmDrive doesn’t expel anything at all, and that doesn’t make sense in light of Newton’s third law or another tenet of classical mechanics, the conservation of momentum." The Forbes and Ars Technica article just restate the obvious, that conservation of momentum is a consequence of a symmetry, namely translational symmetry. It is clearly an obscene and untenable position to try and contend that an article about the EmDrive cannot use physics textbooks to explain the conservation of momentum, unless those textbooks also include direct reference to the EmDrive. It is certainly not an idea based on any Wikipedia policy. If a reference about topic [A] contains a mention of concept [B]. then a separate reference [C] that explains topic [B] can be used. SYNTH is not explanation. SYNTH is when two sources are combined to create an original new thesis that is not directly addressed in either source. There is no statement in the above which is not factually correct, or not directly addressed by the cited source.

The cited National Geographic article also links to this overview paper to explain remarks by Sean Carrol that the quantum vacuums is not "available for pushing against". This is an excellent paper, which directly discusses the possible science behind the EmDrive, states that no net momentum transfer can occur where the symmetry of homogenous fields are preserved but that " This relies on the use of the assumption of homogeneous electric and magnetic fields. If there is a spatial variation, then this argument cannot be used so simply, because in this case there is no single reference frame in which the fields now appear co-linear everywhere. In the context of pair production, such situations have required numerical calculations to solve the resulting equations [19]. It seems unlikely though that spatial variations alone would produce a net force. Although the extraction of a net momentum has been postulated in inhomogeneous vacuums." The paper directly references the work of Feigel, which are discussed in more detail in the provided "from nothing" references here   both of which are from top tier reliable sources. The paper also disusses the Casimir effect, which has been used as the main mechanism of explanation by NASA team and by Mike Mcculloch.

In short, a section that explains the conservation of momentum is eminently reasonable on an article about a device that apparently violates it. It is the central issue. All of the concepts discussed in the draft are directly relevant to how the Emdrive does or does not work. i.e. in the likely case that the EM fields are homogenous it is impossible. It seems you have deleted this multiple times because you are unfamiliar with the basics, that somehow fundamental concepts in physics are "original research". and it does not appear you have reviewing the citations in any level of detail.--Sparkyscience (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have rewrote the section for clarity on Newtons laws, added more references relating to the emdrive and dialled back some of the broken symmetry stuff to avoid confusion.--Sparkyscience (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and last I checked, we build articles by CONSENSUS. The section adds WP:UNDUE emphasis to a single aspect of the subject, and still vilates WP:OR. Most of cited sources do not mention the EmDrive which is a huge red flag. I see that another editor has repeatedly warned you about using sources that have nothing to do with the subject, yet you persist, even edit warring to force your version into the article (you violated WP:3RR, a blockable offense). This is not a good path.- MrX 13:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Lets be clear - I have always maintained that the EmDrive is most likely explained by experimental error and my edits reflect that: In the edit that clarified the conservation of momentum, the section on experimental error was significantly expanded I've also edited the lede sentence to include the word "purported" in clear violation of WP:WEASEL to stress the point. It is right and proper that the experimental error section is given far more detail then the other theories. You need to look at WP:UNDUE in the context of the article as a whole, most of which is spent explaining why the device probably doesn't work. The conservation of momentum also deserves and demands a thorough explanation. Its very clear you've learnt something through our interaction - you simply didn't know the mathematical basis of conservation of momentum comes from translational symmetry, but I'm glad to see you now accept this. Plenty of other readers have the right to know this important fact and learn something too. CONSENSUS relies on what is contained in the sources not your opinion or lack of knowledge. The paragraph already contains sentences like "It can be shown based on....it is impossible for the EmDrive to extract a net momentum transfer from the quantum vacuum", "it is unlikely these can explain the observed thrust either" and "In the unlikely event that the observed force is not an experimental error," Those are very clear caveats - do you disagree with any of them? We can add additional caveats regarding that inhomogeous fields would lead to a lorentz violation etc.

Most of the cited sources do now directly mention the EmDrive. But you simply cannot claim that using a standard textbook definitions of conservation of momentum is WP:OR. A textbook will obviously give a more reliable definition then any newspaper on what consequences of conservation of momentum are. Unless, you are claiming that the standard mathematics of the conservation of momentum somehow doesn't apply to emdrive? or that a different symmetry other then translations symmetry governs conservation of momentum? Both of which would be incredable unsupported claims where you would need to provide a number of reliable sources to have a chance of justifying. You have not pinpointed any sentence which includes an original idea not contained in the source and easily verified in other sources which would be required for WP:OR. It is an important fact to stress that any attempt to explain the EmDrive using standard formulation of Maxwell's equations, special relativity, QED is mathematically inconsistent. No net force can ever arrise from homogenous equations. Because the definition of a homogenous equation is to "all unknowns=0". You don't dispute this do you?--Sparkyscience (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added more caveats to the possibility of net force from inhomogenous fields. I really don't think a reader draw any wrong conclusions from reading this text.--Sparkyscience (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I like the first paragraph of the new section and the table. I'm sceptical about the second paragraph. The Casimir effect is often misunderstood by pop-science articles. It is an attractive force between conducting plates. What is so special about it? We also have attractive forces between electrically charged objects, and between all objects with mass (not limited to massive particles, but that detail is irrelevant here) . In all these cases you can describe the attraction with virtual particles, but you do not have to.[1]|undefined It is simply a symmetric force between objects in space, and in the second and third case no one calls it "extracting energy from the vacuum" - so why do it for the first one? None of these phenomena violate energy or momentum conservation.
 * Suggestion for the article: Remove the Casimir effect confusion. Keep the statement that some authors suggest inhomogeneous laws of physics.
 * Personal comment: The suggestion that the laws of physics depend strongly on the position, i. e. change notably within a meter-sized apparatus, looks absurd. --mfb (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestions. But disagree on the Casimir effect. Jaffe's commentary on the Casimir effect is well known. His final paragraph is key:


 * "Certainly there is no experimental evidence for the “reality” of zero point energies in quantum field theory (without gravity). Perhaps there is a consistent formulation of relativistic quantum mechanics in which zero point energies never appear. I doubt it. Schwinger intended source theory to provide such a formulation. However, to my knowledge no one has shown that source theory or another S-matrix based approach can provide a complete description of QED to all orders. In QCD confinement would seem to present an insuperable challenge to an S-matrix based approach, since quarks and gluons do not appear in the physical S-matrix. Even if one could argue away quantum zero point contributions to the vacuum energy, the problem of spontaneous symmetry breaking remains: condensates that carry energy appear at many energy scales in the Standard Model. So there is good reason to be skeptical of attempts to avoid the standard formulation of quantum field theory and the zero point energies it brings with it. Still, no known phenomenon, including the Casimir effect, demonstrates that zero point energies are “real”."

This was written in 2005 before the experimental verification of the Dynamical Casimir Effect, where amplified vacuum fluctuations are observed. Direct observations of vacuum fluctuations both in the lab and in space. His analysis is now out of date and does not fit the data. It has also been criticised by Peter Milonni who argues this is just a rehash of Schwinger's work. 

The cited source on the Casimir effect has over 1000 citations and is based on the standard book in the subject. We have to go with what the source states rather then our own opinions:


 * "A slightly different situation arises however for the Casimir effect in spaces with a non-eucleadean topology....this kind of Casimir effect cannot be considered as a close relative of the van der waals force"

The Dynamical Casimir effect is a type of Unruh radiation. Remarkablly the particles you see are dependant as to what frame of reference you are in. All accelerating frames of reference have non-Euclidean topology. Also in the same source:


 * "In the bag model of hadrons in Quantum Chromodynamics the Casimir energy of quark and gluon fields makes essential contributions to the total nucleon energy. In Kaluza-Klein field theories Casimir effect offers one of the most effective mechanisms for spontaneous compactification of extra spatial dimensions. Moreover, measurements of the Casimir force provide opportunities to obtain more strong constraints for the parameters of long-range interactions and light elementary particles predicted by the unified gauge theories, supersymmetry, supergravity, and string theory"

i.e. Most mass in the universe arrises not from "fundamental particles' like the Higgs but as dynamical Casimir type field interaction (See Quantum chromodynamics binding energy) and this vid .--Sparkyscience (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Cannae pun
I don't know how to incorporate this in the article as this is original research, but want to mention it here. Cannae is Scots for "cannot". Thus, Cannae Drive may be a pun. Peaceray (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Reset
This article needs a complete reset. After examining not only the glaring biases of the article, but also taking time to note and consider the debate on the nature of science in terms of this Drive on the Talk section itself, it is required that the entirety of the article be vetted by those capable of making informative content containing no bias, ill will, or good will, towards this subject, without the traditional considerations of science or as scientists, without conflating the issue of properly recording and reporting the information in impersonal article format from all sides and viewpoints in the most intelligent, stable, accessible, and demure form possible. This article should contain as many new sources specifically cited, as per still the conditions of policy and plagiarism, presenting information representing and referring to those parties from whom the information or viewpoint was taken. If too many sources and points of view and alternative theories cannot be fully and harmoniously documented within this article, and enough sections cannot be sustained, then repeating the following statement may be most even handed; "There are continuous reasons beyond the currently available scope of this article to be fully integrated and shared for the fullest understanding of this debate." 2600:1700:BCE0:A230:49AD:964B:5606:567D (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 22:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please acquaint yourself with WP:NOTFORUM. The current article has been produced as a result os much painstaking consensus-building. Additionally I would like to note that your objection to scientists participating in writing a page about science is entirely unreasonable. 81.164.228.206 (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM doesn't apply to 2600:1700:BCE0:A230:49AD:964B:5606:567D's comment. That comment is about how to improve the articles, not a general discussion about the subject of the article. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK