I have a question regarding one unusual (thought) system.
Some years ago at one Russian forum we discussed one thought device that, as its author claimed, can provide one-directional motion and only due to the internal forces. The puzzle had been resolved by Kirk McDonald from Princeton Univ. I attach Kirk's solution. I wish to say that the author of the paradox is Georgy Ivanov but not me.
Anyway, Kirk found that there is no resulting directional force. But one puzzle of this device remains. The center-of-mass of the device should move (in the closed orbit) only due to the internal forces. I marked this result of McDonald in the file.
In this connection, two questions arise:
1. Why the center-of-mass moves despite the total momentum conserves?
2. If the center-of-mass can move and this motion is created by the internal forces, is it possible to change the design of the device to provide one-directional motion?
Formally there is no obstacles to realize it. The total momentum conserves... Could some one give the answers to them?
This thought device works not on the action-reaction principle and if similar device can be made as hardware, it could be a good prototype for the interstellar flight thruster.
I suggest that the only way to develop the thruster for interstellar flights is to find a solution how to avoid action-reaction principle.
The recoil effect in the existing thrusters is very ineffective in order to acquire sufficient speed of the spaceship if one intends to approach the nearest stars in comparatively short time (some years).
Possible thrusters where it is assumed to be used flow of ions isn't effective too because the mechanical momentum will be too small to acquire the needed speed of the spaceship. The reason is the same - the action-reaction principle.
The thought system of Georgy Ivanov deviates the action-reaction principle but the orbit of the center-of-mass is closed.
So if we don't understand why the center-of-mass moves, we could focus on improvement of Ivanov's system to arrange one-directional motion of the center-of-mass.
I wish to say that there are no solenoids in Ivanov's system. There are two fixed positive charges and two circulating negative charges.
About the hidden momentum. Since the calculation of the forces is made in the Darwin approximation, i.e. the EM interaction is treated as instantaneous, one doesn't need to consider the conservation of the total momentum. Motion of the center-of-mass is determined from the Newton's second law and the EM momentum doesn't enter into this equation.
In the other words, the law of motion of the center-of-mass and the law of conservation of the total momentum are not linked in this system.
Momentum is always conserved even if the reaction energy propagates as a stress wave in space. The dilemma of field effect propulsion is the thrust is small for large power.
F = P / c
Much thought is given how to improve efficiency.
F = P / v
This is the topic of Q-Thrusters and related technologies.
One proposal is to make electron and positron pairs then separate them and accelerate each separately allowing them to recombine in back of the moving vehicle at speed v much less than c, meaning a large current is required.
Another more speculative proposal is to make a virtual mass from EM interference patterns and discharge it at a speed v much less than c. Again a large stream is needed.
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary diligence
My 'extraordinary claim' is based on calculations made by other person. These calcualtions are based on well accepted laws of classical electrodynamics. Nothing mistique.
At every instant of time sum of the internal forces isn't equal to zero which means that the center-of-mass should moves in accordance to Newton's second law.
> Momentum is always conserved even if the reaction energy propagates as a stress wave in space.
Electromagnetic momentum has no properties of the mechanical momentum. When two rigid balls are colliding, the mechanical momentum of one ball transfers to the second ball because
dP1, mech/dt = F1-2
where F1-2 is the force of elasticity created in the material of the first ball. This force acts on the second ball and pushes the latter.
The time derivative of the EM momentum doesn't produce the force.
> The dilemma of field effect propulsion is the thrust is small for large power (because of the relations Force = Power/speed of light)
But in Ivanov's system there are no radiated fields. In Darwin's approach all the fields are treated as instantaneous. So
Force =/= Power/speed of light
It is big advantage of Ivanov's system comparatively to the devices operating with radiated EM fields.
> You have said that the effects are relativistic, of the order of v/c or (v/c)^2 so the calculations must be done to high order taking all factors into account.
Could you say what force factors of order (v/c)2 haven't been taking into account in the presented calculations?
Dear Vladimir,
this is another thruster:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282134734_The_Lorentz_Rocket
I am sure it is not going to work. Our description of electrodynamic interaction is incomplete. See also the Appendix of:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287209294_Is_a_plasma_diamagnetic
Best regards!
Wolfgang
Research The Lorentz Rocket
Data Is a plasma diamagnetic
Dear Wolfgang,
> I am sure it is not going to work. Our description of electrodynamic interaction is incomplete. See also the Appendix of:
Do you see errors in McDonald's calculation of the forces in Ivanov's system? For example, his calculations are made with higher accuracy than your calculations in the Appendix of your paper. If one makes the calculations with accuracy to (v/c)2, the vector potential should be written by the expression different to your Eq. (A4).
Dear Vladimir,
The problem arises in first order with the interaction energy eq. (A 12). It depends on the product v I, but Maxwell constructed his theory on the assumption that such products (Tme ) do not exist (see Treatise, vol 2, chapter VI). This neglection was based on "electricity" being a mass-less fluid which could be moved by the electromotive force against a resistance. When the massive electron was discovered, Lorentz multiplied the electromotive force by the charge q (now called Lorentz force), but the rest of electrodynamics was not altered.
Maxwell was aware that inclusion of Tme terms would alter his theory considerably. He warned "that we should attain the greatest amount of certitude within our reach on a point bearing so strongly on the true theory of electrivity." His warning was ignored after the "dogmatization" of his theory had taken place. No wonder that now we discover various inconsistencies in CED.
Best regards!
Wolfgang
Dear Wolfgang,
I suggest the factors you mention can be ignored in consideration of Ivanov's system.
There is a problem of conservation of the total momentum. Shockley and James (Phys. Rev. Lett. v. 18, p. 876, 1967) considered one thought system where this law seems to be broken. The authors explained why the total momentum conserves. Moreover, Coleman and Van Vleck (Phys. Rev. v. 171, p. 1370, 1968) explained why there is no motion of the center-of-mass of the system. But the system they analyzed contains permanent magnet and it looks like the authors 'hide' the problem into this magnet.
Ivanov's system is very transparent for the analysis, i.e. only four elementary charges. So the calculations with the same accuracy, as the authors mentioned above did, give disbalance between the internal forces.
Yes, the total momentum conserves. But for practical application we need in the forces and not in the momentum.
Best wishes!
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
Perhaps I don't understand your system, but it is physically impossible as it stands. It is no neutral and it has two electric charges making circular motion (accelerated motion) without any interaction on them. How is that possible?
Observably, the internal force(s) or CENTER of Mass has conically, smaller radii or space or volume than the total momentum conserved or than that of the overall Mass as a whole. Thus as a jellyfish (or a heart, etc.) propels itself through water, contracting (folding) its space smaller and expanding (unfolding) larger to jettison forward, a device or robot may be similarly designed, conically from a smaller center point to a maximum, inverted back again to repeat.
From Wikipedia-Zero point energy:
White, Harold; March, Paul; Lawrence, James; Vera, Jerry; Sylvester, Andre; Brady, David; Bailey, Paul (2016). "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum". Journal of Propulsion and Power: 1–12. doi:10.2514/1.B36120.
Drake, Nadia; Greshko, Michael (November 21, 2016). "NASA Team Claims 'Impossible' Space Engine Works—Get the Facts". National Geographic.
Dear Cj,
The electric configuration of the electric charges doesn't exist in a real configuration. Therefore due to such impossible situation you can find many others to follow it, but without any relation with paradoxes as you claim.
I suppose that this question is just a bad joke for fun of somebody or perhaps for showing that the people follow everything, even without any physical sense at all.
Please, don't follow with this procedure because this is a form to destroy a wonderful forum as it is Research Gate. Thanks.
Dear Daniel,
> Perhaps I don't understand your system, but it is physically impossible as it stands. It is no neutral and it has two electric charges making circular motion (accelerated motion) without any interaction on them. How is that possible?
Ivanov's system is electrically neutral. It contains two positive (fixed) charges and two negative (circulating) charges.
Some more explanation. The problem of motion of the center-of-mass only due to internal forces has two aspects.
1. Practical aspect. In Ivanov's system, the magnetic forces are compensated by the electric forces. But it is possible to elimiate one type of the forces to provide one-directional motion. But on current level of technology, the force is too weak about 10^(-14) Newton (my estimate). My collaborator and me try to find a way to obtain the force at least about 10^(-9) Newton. But there are some physical limitations.
2. Scientific aspect. There are some (thought) systems where the law of the total momentum conservation seems to deviate (Shockley and James system, the Cullwick paradox and others). A physical reason of deviation from this law is 'assymetry of the magnetic force'.
But in all these systems there is no motion of the center-of-mass despite the authors had to attract the concept of the 'hidden momentum' to save the law.
Meanwhile in Ivanov's system, such a motion is possible despite the calculation of McDonald is based on solid ground: the expressions for the magnetic forces and the Darwin potentials. The forces derived from the Darwin potentials had been verified experimentally and the Darwin potential is used in many applications.
But maybe there is unknown factor which is missed in calculations. So I asked my question because I don't understand how is it possible if the total momentum conserves and at the same time the center-of-mass moves.
Dear Vladimir,
Let me to explain point to point:
1. This is the first time that I know that you have a neutral system, that is the whole electric charge is zero. Without this condition you cannot have the circular motion of the electric charge using an electromagnetic force.
2. If you have to have circles then the mass of the positive charges must be much higher than the negative charges. Thus the mass of the charges and their masses plays a fundamental role in the stability of such system.
3. The circles must be given in opposite direction for trying to compensate the magnetic fields, but in any case you are going to have a whole angular momentum due to them. If they turn in the same direction, as you have in your graph, thus they don't compensate never ,as you claim, with one electric component.
4. Depending of the value of the electric charges and the distance that they have each other, you are also having radiation and therefore a Poynting vector associated to the Lienarard-Wiechert potentials. This values are also hidden in your question.
5. The distance between the two circles makes the interaction of them to be important or not (in any case always exists). It is also necessary to know this distance to know if we can neglect or compensate it with other forces.
6. The circles are fictitious if you don´t explain it because the charge interact by Coulomb force and they try to be together, only quantum mechanics can allow a kind of hydrogen atom. But in such a case the things can must be explained and notice that in such a case magnetism doesn't play any role because motion is in three dimensions and in a Bohr state( 1s1).
7. There is no any paradox here and everything works quite well if you put the values and you define an actual eletromagnetic system. This is not the case that you present in your question where nothing is defined.
8. The calculations made by McDonald are good but not for a realistic system where the center of mass is taking into account because he only uses basic electromagnetic equations without refering to the conditions that I have put you above.
NO PARADOX EXISTS WITHOUT A SERIOUS DEFINITION OF THE SYSTEM . YOU CAN HAVE A MOTION OF THE CENTER OF MASS OF THE SYSTEM IF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC CONFIGURATION HAS A NON COMPENSATE COMPONENT THAT YOU CAN CREATE WITH ITS DESIGN. OBVIOUSLY IN SUCH A CASE AN EXTERNAL ENERGY MUST BE SUPPLIED.
Dear Daniel,
I answer to your objections.
First, when I asked my question, I uploaded the file so your p.1 is omitted.
Regarding your p. 2
> Thus the mass of the charges and their masses plays a fundamental role in the stability of such system.
I said that Ivanov's system is the thought system. I uploaded the file with its description only to make my question to be more understandable.
Actually all mechanical obstacles can be removed by appropriate choice the experimental setup.
On your pp. 3-6.
The paradoxes caused by asymmetry of the EM force have 100-years history. One paradox is connected with the hydrogen atom (the Bohr model). It was resolved on quantum level. Anyway, I wish to remind on it. Why? Because on classical level we should have motion of the center-of-mass in such a simplest electrodynamical system as the hydrogen atom (attached file).
> The calculations made by McDonald are good but not for a realistic system where the center of mass is taking into account because he only uses basic electromagnetic equations without refering to the conditions that I have put you above.
I don't need to know the specific values of the masses of all units of the system. If there is non-compensated internal force, the center-of-mass must move.
If the quantum mechanics resolves the problems of the hydrogen atom, it doesn't mean that the problem of appearance of non-compensated force is resolved on classical level. The problem isn't in description of motion of the center-of-mass but why the center-of-mass should move. In the other words, why the classical electrodynamics can lead to non-compensated internal force.
Dear Vladimir,
2.The masses play a fundamental role, over all the ones of the positive charges, if you want to have a stable circle motion. You follow without inform about this point.
3. Electrodynamics is without paradoxes and only they can arise if you don't define properly the system, as you do here and answering based in the authority of the work made in a McDonalds.
4. The hydrogen atom involves quantum mechanics and it is out of classical electrodynamics. For instance, Larmor's radiation equation doesn't works, but that is not a paradox in classical electrodynamics at all !.
5. Let me to repeat: you have not defined any kind of paradox without explaining more details and saying where is the problem that you have. You cannot tell that McDonnald has solved a problem of electrodynamics for claiming that you follow with the called "paradox".
Dear Daniel,
I cannot accept your arguments.
1. In the post from last Sunday, you state that we should consider motion of the masses in Ivanov's system. But it is well established fact that sum of internal forces of the mechanical origin cannot give the net non-compensated force. In this discussion Theophanes Raptis gave link to works of Prof. Provatidis who investigated this problem very carefully. Prof. Provatidis proved earnestly that there is no non-compensated forces only due to internal factors so I see no reason to consider these forces in Ivanov's system.
2. > The circles are fictitious if you don?t explain it because the charge interact by Coulomb force and they try to be together,
If McDonald omits the Coulomb forces in his calculations?
> The circles must be given in opposite direction for trying to compensate the magnetic fields, but in any case you are going to have a whole angular momentum due to them. If they turn in the same direction, as you have in your graph, thus they don't compensate never ,as you claim, with one electric component.
Do you disagree with McDonald's calculations? If you disagree, please, show where he makes errors.
I suggest that it is hard to follow McDonald's calculations. So I gave an example of very simplified system where the calculation of the non-compensated force is obvious.
I noted that on classical level this paradox has no solution. Instead of it, you write that
> The hydrogen atom involves quantum mechanics and it is out of classical electrodynamics. For instance, Larmor's radiation equation doesn't works, but that is not a paradox in classical electrodynamics at all !.
This paradox is resolved on quantum level because both mass and charge of the electron are not localized at the only point but distributed around the proton (in Bohm's interpretation) in such a way that they meet the principle of the minimum of the least action (the famous Schroedinger solution). But on classical level the mass and the charge must be localized at the only point.
So why it 'is not a paradox in classical electrodynamics at all'?
Yes, both examples belong to the 'thought' systems. But the thought systems are needed because their analysis allows to avoid possible mistakes in construction of the experimental model. Ivanov's system is such a system. Its analysis shows that despite all EM factors are considered the resulting EM force is not compensated. If you disagree, please, show what EM factor is missed in this consideration.
Dear Theophanes,
Classical Electrodynamics has an ambit of application and it cannot be applied to concepts as particle or mass of such particle. Such frame belongs to other fields as QED where the renormalization of the charge or mass are solved.
Dear Vladimir,
1. If you want to calculate momentum (angular or linear) then you need to consider masses obviously and also to give these data. This is very basic physics.
2. Coulomb must be used because it is the force between the charges which keep them in circle (provided the proportion of the masses allows it).
I don't disagree with McDonalds, I only has analysed the figure that you claim belongs to him. By the way, why do not ask you to him your doubts?
Dear Daniel,
I begin to don't understand you
>1. If you want to calculate momentum (angular or linear) then you need to consider masses obviously and also to give these data. This is very basic physics.
If I asked about the total momentum? I wrote in the introduction post that the total momentum conserves.
> 2. Coulomb must be used because it is the force between the charges which keep them in circle (provided the proportion of the masses allows it).
I asked you if the Coulomb field is missed in McDonald's calculations? You insist again that this field must be used. But it is used in Eq. (6) of McDonald and self-eliminated when the total EM force is calculated (Eq. (16)).
> By the way, why do not ask you to him your doubts?
It is written in onoochin.pdf file, after Eq. (29),
"The center-of-mass motion rCM(t) of the system can be obtained by integration of eq. (29), which yields...
...This motion is periodic but somewhat complicated, with an extremely small amplitude."
You can treat it as his answer to my doubts (because I gave some comments to his calculations)
Dear Vladimir,
I agree with you that we have misunderstanding between us. Let me go to simple things:
1. The whole momentum depends of the partial momenta due to each of the elements. And if you have a non realistic configuration this means that you can introduce fictitious partial momenta. Thus you have two circles made by electric charges which surrounds a positive one:
a. If you want to have such circles you assume that the mass center is on the positive charge or what is the same the difference of mass between positive and negative is very high.
b. If you want to have also a circle this means that negative charge must move with a certain velocity which induce an acceleration of the charges and therefore a radiation term. Thus if the circle must be stable you need to do that this term is small enough and at the same time to avoid the Coulombic interaction between the charges.
2. You have another circle of charges that you cannot have interaction between them.
3. The linear momentum of the system is the addition of two Pi=pi-eAi (i=1,2), pi is the mechanical momentum and Ai the vector potential (both respect to a system of coordinates attached to the plate which is sustaining them) and the Hamiltonian is
H= Sumatory i (Pi)2/2mi +V(ri)
being V(ri) the Coulombic potential related with the interaction of each pair of charged particles.
4. It is straightforward to calculate the conservation of energy and momentum of such system, if it is stationary (i.e. the constraints discussed in the point 1 follow) taking into account the translations symmetry of these equations.
5. If the center of mass of the system were moving, only taking into account this inner equations, this would mean that non conservation of energy would given by the system or that the Hamiltonian written is not true.
6. The only solution is that you have chosen the conditions non realistic in such a form that energetically is not stable. This is all that I have tried to tell you.
Dear Daniel,
Some comments to your post.
1. On the translational symmetry of the equations. The Darwin potentials are some approximation of the retarded EM potentials in the Coulomb gauge. Because of the approximation procedure, the translational symmetry is broken.
2. > or that the Hamiltonian written is not true.
The Darwin potentials are well established. Some paradoxes (of Page, Shockley, Cullwick) can be resolved only by means of these potentials. On quantum level, the Darwin potentials enter into well known Breit term. As you known, the Breit term correctly describes orbital-orbital interaction and there is no additional factors to describe the latter. So the Darwin potentials completely describe Ivanov's system.
3. > It is straightforward to calculate the conservation of energy and momentum of such system
At this stage, I am not concerned of conservation of the energy (the total momentum conserves). The main task is to understand if the non-compensated force exists and if yes (at least nobody can prove the opposite statement), how to increase its magnitude. Why?
Theophanes uploaded links to very interesting materials (of Prof. Provatidis).
Provatidis showed not impossibility to arrange one-directional motion only due to internal factors but how this type of motion can be arranged (if the link with external medium is established at certain instants of the internal periodical process). So formally the device is being in one-directional motion and at the same time the energy losses, if they present, are very small, much smaller than for other mechanical machines. Obviously Boeing is interested in the practical result but not in the problem of conservation of the physical laws. If the Boeing patent is under secret it means that they have some important results.
I suggest something can be realized by means of the EM forces.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Electromagnetism