Talk:EmDrive/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Rewriting the lede

User Forbes72, please discuss your changes here in the Talk page and introduce them one by one; your proposed version has severe problems in tone, undue weight and synthesis. Let's work together to solve any concerns with the old lede section and improve it. Diego (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for opening the discussion.

• A radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity thruster is a proposed type of electromagnetic thruster in which electromagnetic radiation is confined to a microwave cavity, and pushes the cavity in a particular direction as the radiation reflects off the cavity walls."

The idea is a one-sentence synopsis of how the device works. The current article states the drive is 1.) elecotromagnetic and 2.) rectionless, but fails to give details of how that would work. I think it's important to put the basic mechanism of action up front, rather than getting bogged down in the details early.

• Despite the inventor's claims to the contrary,[1] this mechanism is a clear violation of the conservation of momentum, and the scientific consensus is that the device's theory of operation directly contradicts mainstream understandings of physics.

The inventor of the drive apparently claims in several articles, (not just the one I cited) the device doesn't violate the laws of Newton. All the expert coverage I've come across disagrees with this assessment. (including the two I cited) "The design instantly violates the principle of conservation of momentum." from the Ars Technica article. "if the EmDrive actually works, it would violate known physics." from the Forbes article. Perhaps you have some questions of tone here, or you may wish to put the inventors claims and the response in separate sentences. Not sure of your exact concerns. but the basic claims are sound.

• "The device has been the subject of some coverage in the general media, often speculating on the possibilities if the inventors' claims are taken at face value."

This is a summary of what follows in the next two sentences. Writers in the popular press have written speculative articles concerning the applications/merits of the drive. This is a significant source of publicity around the drive, and popular knowledge of its existence.

• Claims made in these and similar articles that NASA has 'proved the drive works',[24] stand in contrast to NASA's official statement that the drive "has not yet shown any tangible results.”[25]

This is a fairly harsh criticism, but it's explicitly made in the source.(i.e. not WP:SYN) The title of the response "Did NASA Validate an "Impossible" Space Drive? In a Word, No." is clearly a direct response to the article "Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive". The article explicitly references several popular articles and criticizes their coverage. I did my best to summarize the basic point of this response.

Let me know what the specific issues words or phrase you have in mind here are.Forbes72 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

For the first listed change, I prefer the current way the lede paragraph is structured, and am not entirely sure if your 'synopsis' accurately represents all theories that have been used to describe the theoretical action of these drives, best to keep it brand broad in the lede IMO.

For the second one I feel like this wording is a too strong per WP:NPOV. Also, best to avoid the term 'scientific consensus' altogether, as this device has really seen only sporadic coverage and is far from being on the mainstream radar of most physics scientists.

For the third addition, I have no problem with it, but have a big problem with the other stuff that you had put in the lede right after it ("For example, David Hambling has written a number of articles highly charitable to the device's claims.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Mary-Ann Russon has also published many EM drive articles, including speculation about Em drive as a possible solution to the the world's energy needs and interstellar travel.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]" as singling out authors is not generally something that is done in the lede as it isn't really important to the topic. Though it could be added elsewhere in the article.

The fourth change may be out of context, as 'tangible results' could mean a lot of things, not necessarily what is being implied by this sentence. Also your quote doesn't use the full NASA quote from that article: “This is a small effort that has not yet shown any tangible results.” Which is a FURTHER cut down of the official statement: "While conceptual research into novel propulsion methods by a team at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston has created headlines, this is a small effort that has not yet shown any tangible results," NASA officials told Space.com in a statement. "NASA is not working on 'warp drive' technology." Also, this 'statement' by NASA was made quite a long time ago. Again, best to avoid this IMO, and is better the way it is. However, I don't have a particular problem with replacing the first half of your sentence with the current wording "Claims that the drive had been validated by NASA" if you want.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, you make some good points here. The two sentences about the writers in particular are probabTTsdfsdffly too much, as you imply. I've rewritten the lead, per you suggestions.

This should be a significant improvement to things. We should continue to improve this as needed. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "keep it brand", but surely we can do better than the opening sentence as it stood before my edit.Forbes72 (talk) 18:13, 8 SepttTYTember 2016 (UTC)

'brand' was an autocorrect typo (broad). Apologies, I have stuck it and fixed it.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Forbes72: I added a couple changes to the description sentence to improve the explanation, let me know if you agree with my changes.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  15:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Those that Insert described were largely my concerns, yes. Your latest edit is much, much improved with respect to your first try in terms of tone and neutrality, good work. Diego (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Eagleworks Passed Peer Review, article needs re-writing to trim fringe theories and incorporate this into article.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716 75.90.182.40 (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I though of adding this myself, but it's currently at the state of rumor. I'd wait until the peer-review is indeed published. Diego (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely wait until a secondary source reports on the peer reviewed published study. This article has enough speculation and primary sources as is. Curious Sargon (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait till publication for any large scale changes to the article would be my suggestion.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Passed peer review" means that it's published in a reputale scientific journal. {{citation needed}}. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, technically yes. but also if you happen to be a researcher, "passed peer review" can also mean that it has passed but is awaiting publication. (as a published author i know that the wait time after passing peer review can easily be many months depending on the frequency of the journal.) That being said, I think your point was that we should wait until publication, which I agree with.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, because the reputation of the journal is kind of important. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, It isn't a rumour any more. We could possibly comment on it as it has seen quite a bit of coverage, though from a scientific content point of view there is no news here, so all it could be used for is to say that there is a paper that has passed peer review that will be published in the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power. Though the AIAA refused to comment on the content of the paper (or even the title), they were 'confirming' the previous rumour, so presumably the other details were correct. Publication date should be December 2016. It probably deserves a brief mention at this point in the eagleworks section.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  16:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Another null result: Martin Tajmar and G. Fiedler

Direct Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects: "We therefore achieved a null measurement". They see thrust in various directions, not necessarily aligned with any axis where the EM-Drive enthusiasts would expect it. It is not just a null result, it also shows that systematic uncertainties are not well understood. --mfb (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems like it should be added to the article. Note however that they say in the abstract "Our test campaign cannot confirm or refute the claims of the EMdrive but intends to independently assess possible side-effects in the measurement methods so far." so it seems that their primary goal with this experiment is to investigate various forms of noise. And they aren't currently sure exactly where the noise is coming from (although they suspect magnetic interactions with the power feeding lines). We should be careful how this is added, as it is clearly a preliminary study, but I can already see some people putting on their 'debunking' hats, and that's not what this is.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

True, but the focus of most of the attempted changes over recent months has been rebunking... Guy (Help!) 12:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a fan of any kind of bunking, things can quickly turn out bad for you.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  16:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that this mainly highlights how large systematic uncertainties are. Yang's group discovered noise from their power source that was >10x their signal, and this group discovered noise >10x their signal whose source they couldn't even identify. It's kind to say that their goal was to investigate forms of noise; it wasn't their initial stated plan. They stopped an published a report on their work (which is good), because they weren't able to overcome the noise to study anything else. – SJ + 22:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Overall update

I took a pass at the lede and made the rest of the article consistent with recent results. Primarily: Yang's correction of their group's earlier work (finding no significant thrust in their latest and final test, and highlighting the excess force they were seeing thanks to external power sources), and Eagleworks getting a paper through peer review.

Possibly worth adding: Fetta's experiment, once details come out, but it's hard enough to run these experiments in a lab, not to mention remotely - it may just be good publicity. (Especially since they suggest that the next step after their experiment is making engines available for purchase; not usually how engine tech develops.) And I saw conflicting reports that Tajmar has published an experiment that avoided their initial errors, but they seem to just be misreadings of their one conference proceeding. – SJ + 20:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I have found your changes to be largely unsourced (or directly at odds with the sources), and gives an overall impression of attempting to slant the article toward a negative POV, rather than following the published sources. Please see my edit comments.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The Yang source is her 2016 paper and public analysis of it; I added refs. Some other replies:

many' is a stretch here. as the number of tests is limited in the first place, and most of the tests so far have detected at least small thrusts. The second half of this sentence (' any measured thrust has generally been within the margin of error.’ is patently false.)

True, the number of tests is small. The second half... "generally" here means "with one exception, and not a strong one". Not false, I would say, it's just that many tests did not effectively estimate error (initial claims by shawyer & fetta, the first 7 experiments shawyer claimed had observed thrust), and those that did tended to revise their error margins upwards over time (yang, tajmar). The only independent measurement that found thrust exceeding the margin of error is Eagleworks. In that case: it was within 2x the margin of error, and they found similar "thrust" for their control object, which tends to invalidate the result. If White's paper currently in publication addresses these issues & shows net thrust and a full error & noise analysis, it will be the first significant positive result.

Bear in mind that for this sort of experiment there is noise and stray signal everywhere; and running an experiment often means discarding every negative result until you get a positive one. it's rare to find an experimenter who then tries everything to make the positive signal vanish, assuming it is noise until proven otherwise; more often they are content to publish the results of that first positive experiment, and let other people disprove it. – SJ +

"Dozens of prototypes of such thrusters have been designed as of 2015." --> What source do you have for this statement?

Not worth arguing. Most of the experimenters writing about their work built a variety of models for their experiments. Lots of different design variants were talked about and photographed on the forums. They all boil down to a few variants on the same theme.

trying to say that the eagle works results were within main of error when they were not. Also what is 'close to' supposed to mean? Does their paper say it was 'close to' the margin?

—> I'm open to better ways to say this in a short sentence. They saw 30-55uN of force with an estimated margin of error of 15-30 uN from known sources of error. They recognized there were other potential sources of error that hadn't been estimated. And they observed similar force on their control setup, which if the experiment was set up properly, shouldn't have produced any thrust at all. So they did not get significant results matching any expected theory. They also didn't rule out the possibility of such a system producing thrust... but disproving a poorly understood phenomenon is hard.

The experimenters noted that the observed force may well be the result of a stray signal or measurement error from some unexpected source. (For instance, since they ran that experiment, the Dresden & Xi'an labs found much stronger stray force from power sources than expected, and the one strong result from the Xi'an lab, which had driven much of the international interest in the past 4 years, was invalidated as a result.) As other folks at NASA said in discussing the Eagleworks results, it's good to try blue-sky experiments like this, but you're looking for a signal that is way, way bigger than the errors you already know about. – SJ +

how does science fiction authors enter into it? The term 'science fiction' is not mentioned in the source.

You're right, that Wired piece didn't have a good reference to this history; if I find one I'll put it in. (You can find a through if unreliable discussion here) Reactionless drives are a compelling idea in the public mind, and in fiction, despite there being no known physical avenues to producing them. Resonant cavity thrusters and EM drives are successors to the Dean drive, which was actively promoted by sci-fi editors, and reactionless drives have been a staple of sci-fi since the 50s.

For comparison, see theoretical photon thrusters, where the physics underpinning is largely understood, inventors are merely trying to make something so efficient that it competes with the state of the art. Still chancy, with difficult experiments to run. Similar use cases, and they use a lot of the same promotional language to market their drives. But the prototypes work. – SJ + 23:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Fetta is going to send one to space on a cubesat

Popular mechanics just reported on an interesting development that is almost certainly worth coving somewhere in the article:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a22678/em-drive-cannae-cubesat-reactionless/

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  15:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen any details on the model they will send up or how they will run a test? Just straight thrust in one direction, on a cube with no other propulsion? – SJ + 20:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Just the source you see above that was published by popular mechanics. You can read it yourself if you like.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, mentioned in the section on prototypes & models. It may be a while before any more details come out; Fetta says little publicly about iterations on his designs. – SJ + 00:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Significant Thrust

The article and talk page frequently use the terms "significant thrust", or "significant positive results". What does this mean, exactly? Could someone add some kind of definition of "significant thrust" to the article, preferably understandable by lay-persons? The Northwestern Polytechnical University section seems to have the start of such a definition, but I have to assume that it only applies to that section/experiment. --2620:114:2012:3:1D69:6B5D:5B1B:40AD (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Think the problem here, is that those that are claiming to archive "significant thrust", or "significant positive results" have their patent lawyers busily submitting patents. It probably won't be until those patents are filed that anything will be released into the public domain that is worthy of being peer reviewed. Without that data and exact details of the force balances and other transducers used etc., we can’t define significant. I was hyper - sceptical at first to the point of absolute dismissive. Now, having skimmed though the math. Should this device work, as theorised, it will be significantly more efficient than shining a laser out of a space craft window because it involves the compression of a EM standing wave and since light can't travel faster than light, a asymmetrical force has to occur in order to agree which Einstein's special theory of relativity and thus doesn’t break any laws. However, until we get the peer review data we have no RS to refer to and no way to define significant; other than doing it ourselves of course -which is considered OR.--Aspro (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"doesn't break any laws"? Except conservation of linear momentum, right?

To answer the original question, I take "significant" to mean the measured thrust was larger than could be explained by the estimated measurement errors. Those errors include noise and systematic errors. Systematic errors are things like a cable gets some force on it proportional to the current. Those can be hard to predict. Spiel496 (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Significance makes sense in the context of an experiment. A "significant" observation means "significantly more than you'd expect to see if your hypothesis were wrong". For instance, "significantly more likely than the null hypothesis" means an effect many times the effect on a control group. And "significantly more than noise" often means a signal to noise ratio of at least 10. In these experiments, there is a huge potential noise source – experimenters are using hundreds of Watts + resonance, to get microNewtons of thrust – so one would hope for a better than usual S/N ratio.

Shawyer claimed 10+ years ago to have gotten significant thrust in his lab, but couldn't demonstrate it, and now claims a much weaker result. The NWPU group thought they observed a fairly large thrust, 300x what anyone else had observed. This revived interest in the topic. But noone could reproduce any such result, including the NWPU team themselves; when they redid their work more carefully, they discovered an even larger experimental error, which likely produced a false signal. White observed thrust with a signal-to-noise ratio of 2.5 (not very significant), and saw the same thrust on a control target (making the observation not significant at all).

Experiments informally written up so far have observed insignificant negative results (thrust in the opposite or orthogonal direction), null results (no measurable thrust), and insignificant positive results (thrust in the expected direction, but a low S/N ratio; or similar to the thrust observed on a control group; or less than measured experimental error). When the article says no published experiments have seen significant thrust, I think that means each according to its own measures of significance. This spread of results is what one would expect to see under the null hypothesis.

Separate from this is the idea of practical significance. To be practically useful, such a thruster would need to generate more thrust per unit of power than a pure laser or ion thruster. – SJ + 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

All positive claims are above the efficiency of a photon rocket, and if there would be an effect we would expect that future devices (superconducting cavities?) can increase it notably. But you highlighted the main point: the claimed thrust values scale with the experimental precision. A clear indication that this is not a real effect. It is just really hard to understand all systematic effects. --mfb (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A few new sources.

https://hacked.com/move-emdrive-comes-woodwards-mach-effect-drive/

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-controversial-space-propulsion-will-be-discussed-by-scientists-actual-conference-1582115

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/235566-can-the-impossible-space-drive-survive-falsification-in-orbit (there are several other articles about this 'launch' but this one seems to be the best RS).

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"now NASA is taking the testing to space" (from the third "source")

Wait, what? Who said NASA would do that? --mfb (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No idea, I haven't read them thoroughly yet, just bringing them to attention. Note though that the whole canna drive in space thing has been reported on previously, but it was little more than a rumour previously.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  14:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Circular reference

From the page "RF resonant cavity thruster", if one clicks on the link(s) to "Roger Shawyer" (there are two of them), it immediately redirects back to "RF resonant cavity thruster". This isn't right is it?

Unfortunately, I don't have the skills to fix this, could someone please have a look?

Many thanks CoeurDeHamster (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I'll fix it.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed NASA report in AIAA. And reviews of it

I am very busy today, but here are a couple links to the new NASA peer reviewed paper, which has been published online as an 'article in advance' in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)’s Journal of Propulsion and Power. (December in the print edition). Major development in this story, especially as they found a thrust-to-power ratio in a vacuum of 1.2±0.1mN/kW (two orders of magnitude higher than light sails, the current best propellent-less propulsion technology).

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Reputable news organizations are publishing articles about this study. Seems like WP ought to be able to mention it. WP:PRIMARY doesn't expressly disallow this use of a primary source: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." In this case, we're doing exactly as the policy states: making a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts. TimidGuy (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Nov 19, 2016 NASA's Physics-Defying EM Drive Passes Peer Review. By Brian Koberlein. Nov. 19, 2016 article in Forbes. At the end of the article is this info on the author (emphasis added): "Brian Koberlein is an astrophysicist, professor and author. You can find more of his writing at One Universe at a Time." At the beginning of the article is a link to the primary source: "One of the biggest criticisms has been that the work wasn’t submitted for peer review, and until that happens it shouldn’t be taken seriously. Well, this week that milestone was reached with a peer-reviewed paper. The EM Drive has officially passed peer review."

My reading of WP:PSTS, and some of the background discussion in its archives, is that peer review is a level beyond the primary experimental results. Peer review is secondary review. So a peer reviewed article is not just a report of an experiment. It is an early analysis that will evolve over time as more experiments and analysis occur. It is a combination of primary and secondary sourcing. In any case it can be reported in Wikipedia, as long as we don't do original analysis. We can also report the further analysis of others in WP:RS sources (such as Forbes) if the author has some expertise in the field. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Section: The first Peer-reviewed EM Drive paper

This was added by BernardZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

The first peer-reviewed paper titled "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" has been published online as an open access 'article in advance' in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)’s Journal of Propulsion and Power. It'll appear in the December print edition.

Its claim is that the drive did produce consistently 1.2 ± 0.1 mN/kW The team made it clear as they were not attempting to optimise the performance it's likely that the EM Drive could get a lot more efficient still.

The report states that further testing will be required to rule out other possible causes, e.g. center of gravity (CG) shifts and thermal expansion.

I think it should not be included because it is a WP:PRIMARY source for a WP:FRINGE claim and we should not report it until we have WP:RS that discuss the paper. As it stands the content is inconclusive and much of the discussion speculative, just like every other positive result. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, it was not all added by me and next Guy clearly you did not look at the source? It plainly states it is an advanced copy so WP:RS does not apply. I am not sure how you can say WP:FRINGE? Are both NASA and the Journal of Propulsion and Power fringe? Inconclusive and speculative is irrelevant as we are not allowed to deliberate here on the accuracy but report on peer based articles which this is?

RS always applies. WP:PRIMARY sources for WP:FRINGE claims are a Bad Idea™ Guy (Help!) 12:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, I find it hard to accept this drive, but I have to accept that these people did test it, and they did find this. Finally if it's not there it makes a mockery of this being an encyclopedia because right now its being talking about both in peer based journals and the popular press. BernardZ (talk)

I think it should be mentioned as a news item without comment as to its support or otherwise concerning the truth of the topic. eg "NASA has published a peer reviewed paper on xxx (with link to the paper)". A Wikipedia article should describe the current state of debate on a controversial subject. Not wait until the debate is settled in one direction or another. The publication on the subject by a respected organisation like NASA is a notable event. Lumos3 (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not a news item, it's a primary source with no analytical coverage to establish whether it's bullshit or not. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't pretend this new paper doesn't exist. We shouldn't rely on research papers alone, but there are reliable sources covering it with some commentary, e.g. Wired,[1] Brian Koberlein in Forbes,[2] Ethan Siegel in Forbes,[3] Motherboard.[4][5]. This is sufficient balanced coverage to make a mention of this work due weight. Fences&Windows 14:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

References

That they fail to consider a shift of the center of gravity as a possible explanation for the measured "thrust" doesn't inspire confidence. Especially since they do attribute the measured "thermal signal" to such a shift. (WP:OR, I know...) Prevalence 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

But the article clearly mentions shift in center of gravity as a possible, if unlikely, source for error: http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120. 192.249.3.132 (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Only as a result of thermal expansion, as far as I can see. I'm talking about sudden shifts in CG occuring when the power is applied, not shifts due to thermal expansion, which will happen gradually. Prevalence 22:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Previously pointed out that according to Paul March, when power was being dumped into the dummy load there was very little thrust production. So the thrust produced by heat + any EmDrive effect when dumping power into the dummy load was minimal. Yet, when in a resonant mode, the thrust was significant. This tends to rule out thermal effects as the primary cause.Quantanew (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not something for Wikipedia editors to assess. The coverage by reliable sources is there, which makes it significant enough to be mentioned. Let readers arrive to their own conclusions with respect to the theory behind the paper, by presenting it to them. That's what NPOV is about. Diego (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Is a peer-reviewed paper on a science journal you can't get more reliable then that. We need to add this. Wikipedia:FRINGE is not a blank check to censor if a proper source is available. Also a lot of independent sources like Forbes, Vice and others are reporting on this. Quantanew (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we vote on adding it already?. I believe the consensus is moving to adding this research to the article.

I vote to add Quantanew (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Vote to add. This paper has been mentioned in several reliable secondary sources already, including this National Geographic article that starts off stating "Scientists just published a paper saying that the controversial EmDrive produces thrust, even though that defies known laws of physics." This is a done deal, folks. It needs to go into the article. --Khgtcv (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to vote to add. This is a respected group of scientists publishing a peer reviewed paper on the topic which has been covered by multiple highly reputable secondary sources. if that doesn't represent a WP:RS then there is no such thing as a reliable source. There is no reasonable reason to not include this in the article, except based on a biased POV or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT basis, which is to say, there is no reason at all. This must be immediately covered by the article of course, and anyone to say otherwise betrays their bias. I am not surprised to see Guy arguing against inclusion; disappointed, but not surprised.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I brought together existing mentions of the paper, and put them at the end of the testing section for nasa (both a brief mention at the end of the intro section under testing by NASA and a more in-depth section at the end of the EmDrive section under NASA's testing). I also added a sentence to the lede about the findings of the publication.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the respected part of the scientists. And "peer-reviewed" alone doesn't say much, considering that [International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology|Get me off your fucking mailing list]] passed "peer-review". We have to mention it due to its media coverage, but we should be very careful - "X claims to ...", not "X found ...".

A personal comment: I don't understand how that paper got through peer-review. Their main fit combines clearly inconsistent individual measurements and the authors hack their R-value and significance claims by requiring the fit to go through (0,0). --mfb (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I am just a layman with no knowledge in this field, but Journal of Propulsion and Power sounds like a major publication from AIAA according to its Wikipedia article. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, to kind of is. I am confused mfb. Why would we use 'claim' instead of 'found'? Unless we are somehow implying that it is an unsupported statement which is probably false (which peer-review explicitly denies). WP:CLAIM seems completely counter to your statement, and indicates that your statement above is actually the opposite of wikipedia policy.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The "Journal of Propulsion and Power" is certainly better than the "International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology", but that is additional information already: we look at the credibility of the journal instead of just saying "it is peer-reviewed!". And to extend this look: I'm not sure how experienced the journal is with submissions discussing the vacuum of quantum field theory and different interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Statements in the paper are unsupported: Their only "support" are the statements in the paper themself. There is no repetition of this experiment backing the scientific results. I'm fine with "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to" - all those require the authors as subject. Just make sure that we don't describe the claims of the paper as (author-independent) facts. --mfb (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Well yes it is obviously important to attribute to the authors rather than write them as facts in the voice of wikipedia, i was not aware that we were discussing this. I assumed that by 'X' in your above statement you referred to the authors, in which case "X found ..." is actually preferable to "X claims to ..." per WP policy with regard to loaded language.

With regards to your discussion of the paper as not being experienced with 'submissions discussing vacuum of quantum field theory and different interpretations of quantum mechanics' I think I should point out that journals pick peer reviewers that have expertise in the topics presented in the articles, and the editorial board does not just peer-review the article themselves. Also, that the theory of operation put forward in the paper is not the major finding as it is not a theoretical paper, but rather an experimental one, and the theories to the operation of the device are presented as author conjecture in the discussion, rather than fact (i.e. not discussed in the abstract or conclusions), whereas the experimental results (something that this paper has a great deal of experience with) are the major findings of the study.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"Found" is not in the list of "said, stated, ..." and I think it is a much stronger (and undue) statement. It implies correctness.

I know how peer review works - to find the best reviewers you still need someone with experience.

Putting forward any sort of theory in an experimental paper is very odd. Compare this to the OPERA neutrino speed measurement, for example. The measurement result was similarly surprising, but OPERA said "this is what we measure, we don't understand it, please help us". --mfb (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, talking about the 'findings' of a peer-reviewed paper is common practice. In any case I said that it is preferable to "X claims to ..." which as a statement is a clear violation of WP policy. Experimental papers with unexplained results are often criticised for not containing any theoretical explanation so I don't find it 'odd' that they would present their current best-guess working theory for the scientific community to evaluate. However, we are getting off track, as none of this discussion seems particularly relevant to any specific inclusions in the article, unless you object to any of the recent changes or wording used in the article?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

InsertCleverPhraseHere, WP:CLAIM does list "found" among the terms that can imply factual truth of a statement, just as "claimed" implies falsehood. I think one of the other terms mfb listed is probably fine. I wouldn't worry overly much about this... so long as the paper is mentioned and referenced in the article, I think that's sufficient. I don't know anybody who treats Wikipedia as a legitimate source of information in and of itself.. at best, it's a place to find references to more reliable sources. Just a neutral reporting that there is a peer-reviewed article is enough, until more papers are published either supporting the findings or refuting them. --Khgtcv (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, I missed that. Seems odd to me as the conclusions of peer-reviewed information are generally referred to as 'findings', but I guess 'X's findings' is different from 'X found', anyway it isn't really relevant to the article at the moment. I suspect that saying that 'X found that he didn't like Y' sort of statements are the reason it is on that list, rather than when referring to the results of peer review (which after all are 'fact', at least with regard to what they reported), still, it is far easier to just say 'X reported' and sidestep the issue entirely.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Magnetic Propulsion

Your right on with your figures! We just need to tweek your Figures. Atomic electronic power and super Magnets , your right on . ! Molding the Magnets and produceing the controls is the step .to freedom from Gravity . Dennis Norkaitis (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What? --mfb (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please ask the two inventors what made them even think about looking for any level of thrust from their design? A hunch? Accidental discovery? Something must have triggered their initial efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.40.2 (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstood electromagnetism. A very early claim (the earliest as far as I know) was that applying Maxwell's laws to such a cavity would produce thrust. Which is nonsense, because Maxwell's laws conserve momentum exactly. --mfb (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed a lot of weird devices start this way, through misconceptions or bad math. Most disappear when the experimental results don't work out. This one has survived through a combination of having a very large amount of noise (obfuscating a clear negative) and tests actually coming up with positive thrust (which may or may not be genuine). This got others to test it, they also got some positive results, and made up some new theories to try to explain it. I still think it is best explained by noise + positive-result bias, but it remains to be seen and we shall follow the sources in any case.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  13:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Section: Zero-point field

This section was completely deleted due to disagreement over sourcing. I have added more references from textbooks and scientific papers. Please discuss here if you believe a reference is not strong enough or you believe something is not relevant before wholesale deletion of a section. The 2016 NASA paper does make clear that they believe a possible explanation to the thrust is the zero-point field. it is important this is explained to the reader how this might be true and that relevant criticism of these ZPF theories is also outlined in the article.Sparkyscience (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Be very careful not to fall into WP:SYNTH territory here. I would avoid talking about examples of unexplained Zero-Point field interactions that haven't been specifically brought up in the discussion of the most recent AIAA paper.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  13:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe all the content in this section to be relevant (if not yet fully sourced adequately at the moment): the NASA paper makes a clear speculation that the ZPF acts as a pilot wave, pilot waves are an example of dissipative system (i.e a non-equilibrium/nonlinear system) as per the cited Couder & Fort reference in the NASA paper. White has previously suggested the vacuum acts as a plasma - nonlinear behaviour is essential to understanding any "plasma-like" behaviour. Carrol states the vacuum does not act like a plasma - this is a constraint of the a mathematical model as per Lafleur's paper on extraction of thrust from the vacuum, nonlinear behaviour is not possible with homogeneous electric and magnetic potential fields (i.e. the standard U(1) gauge theory formulation of quantum electrodynamics). Lafleurs paper references a paper by Rikken & Tiggelen describing extraction of a momentum from inhomogeneous vacuums. In that paper Rikken & Tiggelen ask whether spontaneous symmetry breaking (anisotropy) can apply to the laws of mechanical momentum from the application of electromagnetic fields. Symmetry breaking is impossible, by definition, in linear theories.

We are at the disadvantage that most readers (and editors) won't understand what these concepts are, how they interrelate, and why it is all relevant to the proposed theory - it is therefore essential to explain them in the article. There is a difference between expanding and explaining the objective scientific concepts contained in peer-reviewed journals and the synthesising of subjective journalistic sources. There is far too much reliance in this article on citing articles containing the subjective opinions of journalists who take one-line quotes from famous physicists to make sensationalist claims about "breaking laws" (when these laws don't apply to the proposed theory anyway) and "pseudoscience" (science is not a set of facts that are right or wrong... but a method of discovery) and far too little reliance on actually reading real peer-reviewed science. I'd like to try and help improve this state of affairs.Sparkyscience (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well one issue that we have now is that the newest version of the section that you have put it still contains a lot of WP:SYNTH. However, a bigger issue is that it is so technical that I doubt many people understand it at all (where the earlier edit was understandable to a layman). We have like so that users can go to other articles to read more in depth information and this is an encyclopaedia, not a research paper. It is getting closer though, I'll remove some sections that i think are overly technical and/or SYNTH and we can move from there.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok I removed a bunch of stuff. The thing is, relevant or not to the reader, we have rules regarding synthesis of material from unrelated sources. If one of the publications discussing RF cavity devices cites and talks about another paper directly, then it is possible to go into that paper's findings briefly and how they apply, but it is important not to give undue weight to the argument. If no such link exists, then it doesn't belong, fascinating or not, relevant or not.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I completely agree with the above. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

SYNTH is not explanation: "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis." It is just as important not to delete things which might seem like SYNTH but are not. for example:

A is due to B[1]. B is C[2]. Therefore A is C. is SYNTH.

A is due to B[1]. B is C[2]. Is not SYNTH... it is explaining what B is.

The fact that concept A in source [1] is not contained in and has nothing to do with source [2] is irrelevant, as is the fact that source [1] does not explain fully all attributes of the concept B. Source [2] explains the concept contained in source [1]. As long as their is no inference that A implies C source [2] is fine. I cannot see any inference derived from the sources to reach a new conclusion. SYTH should not be conflated with explanation.Sparkyscience (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain by way of a couple recent examples of my citing WP:SYNTH:

In this edit I point out that it is WP:SYNTH to include these two sources, the reasoning here is that these two sources are simply 'other examples of physics breaking stuff'. by including them within that section you are implicitly implying "it isn't so outlandish to believe this might also break Newton's Third, look at these other examples!" That is SYNTH. this material also has exactly zero WP:WEIGHT so it needs to be deleted for that reason too.

As for this edit is synth because you are creating the implication that this source supports the possibility of the EmDrive breaking 3rd law, when this source only talks about this working for PARTICLES. This is not an 'explanation', it is a tangent meant to support the arguments made in the White et al paper by way of another unrelated paper. WP:WEIGHT also applies here.

This edit explicitly mentions pilot waves when the source does not. You are saying that the source says pilot waves can break 3rd law, but the source says nothing about pilot waves. WP:WEIGHT also applies here. WP:PRIMARY also applies here.

I hope this explains why you can't just look up obscure physics articles and chuck them in the section to make it seem like there are a ton of explanations as to how the operative theory works.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The section as it is doesn't seem to contain any synth any more, however it does contain a lot of stuff that applies to WP:PRIMARY and probably shouldn't be included without good secondary sources.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I tagged it as WP:UNDUE until we can resolve it; White's theory about how his own thruster design works are WP:FRINGE and points made in his paper need a strong secondary source for inclusion. The current text of this section is a series of weakly-sourced and unrebutted justifications for why conservation of momentum might be violated, even though the mainstream view is that conservation of momentum can't be violated. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think tagging was the right choice. Sparkyscience has done some incredible work here and i wouldn't want to throw it out without a really good reason. We might not be able to keep all of what he has provided in the long run, but lets see how the secondary sources surface in the next wee while (this is relatively recent and i expect we will soon see some rebuttal to White's theories).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Details about the zero-point field belongs in its own articles (where editors may still discuss SYNTH issues). The section here should be concise, stating how it has been proposed so far as an explanation. White's recent paper only devotes 1.5 paras to explaining qvpt physics; this should be shorter. – SJ + 07:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Rolf H Nelson conservation laws of momentum are linear equilibrium laws. It is not that the conservation laws are being "broken" it is that they simply do not apply for nonequilibrium systems. I have added references that should show beyond doubt that you can have momentum asymmetries from EM vacuum fields to matter, in particular a previous skeptic who published commentary of the work of Feigel (2004), B.A. van Tiggelen, later describes it as a "revolutionary prediction". The work was also featured as a focus article in the American Physical Society and is now regarded as accepted science. This is anything but WP:FRINGE. It is a testable mainstream scientific prediction.

Conservation laws, as far as we know, always apply to closed systems. If your environment is transferring momentum to your particles, the particles+environment still conserves momentum. – SJ + 17:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

As I have said before this article relies too much on editors who get all their ideas from what they read in an article by a journalist rather editors who actually take the time to look at the real published peer-reviewed science.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkyscience (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is lending far too much undue weight to the vacuum energy/zero point energy theories. I'd say the section (as it stands right now) needs to be pared down at least by half and the majority of the removed stuff needs to come from primary sources from which we have no secondary sources, and secondly from sources that don't have anything to do with RF cavity thrusters (make no mention of RF cavity thrusters/qVaucuum thrusters. Please note that I very much appreciate what you have written but this article is part of an encyclopaedia, not part of a research journal review article (which is how it reads). Review articles tend to provide an in-depth analysis of both the published material directly relating to the subject as well as an examination of various tangents relating to avenues of study nearby, encyclopaedia articles should generally focus on the main accepted arguing points, and leave out the tangental arguments. I'll personally give you a chance to pare it down yourself because having largely written it you may know best what isn't strictly necessary. Note that, if not reined in, I can see an edit war over the section in question continuing for some time.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well said. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: there were two sources with doi references starting 10.4236 - this is Scientific Research Publishing, a predatory open access journal] publisher. Now every single source will need to be checked for similar issues. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. It is times like this that I like having you around. Sparky probably was unaware of the journal's reputation, so it is good to assume good faith here. However, I still support a check over of the other sources.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Unaware and happy to go along with conclusion journal is an unreliable source. Will clean up interpretation shortly. Good spot.Sparkyscience (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The other problem is that this section's use of jargon and synth includes mistakes & points of confusion. I don't think this is the right talk page to get into those substantive details, but there should be a discussion about the substance on talk:Quantum vacuum thruster, where all of this detail belongs. I do think this section is better written than the current QVT page. – SJ + 17:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Please be more specific about jargon and points of confusion so they can be fixed. I agree that some issues will need trimming down soon, but i believe the article is best served by expanding the section on experimental error to address issues of weight rather than trying to silence a legitimate testable scientific theory that can explain how such a device might work.Sparkyscience (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think what Sj is suggesting is that most of this material is moved to the QTV article and a brief summary (1-2 paragraphs directly relating to the RF cavity thrusters) is all that is brought up here. If that is correct, I agree.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly this, thanks for restating so nicely. Errors can be discussed on talk:quantum vacuum thruster. (Debates about errors in novel interpretations of fringe theories can be wordy and never-ending. NOR, SYNTH, and limiting such debates to pages focused entirely on the fringe topics, helps keep this manageable.) QVT and vacuum energy theories are not currently testable; it's enough to note that they have been proposed as a mechanism by one of the active research groups.

Section: Vacuum energy

I do think this is a better section title.

Most of this belongs in the quantum vacuum thruster article:

Details that belong in quantum vacuum thruster

If QVT systems were to truly work they would eliminates the need to carry any propellant, as the system uses the quantum vacuum to assist with thrust. It would also allow for much higher specific impulses for QVT systems compared to other spacecraft as they would be limited only by their power supply’s energy storage densities. A vacuum can be viewed not as empty space but as the combination of all zero-point fields. According to quantum field theory the universe is made up of matter fields whose quanta are fermions (e.g. electrons and quarks) and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (i.e. photons and gluons). All these fields have some intrinsic zero-point energy. Describing the quantum vacuum, a Physics Today article cited by the NASA team describes this ensemble of fields as "a turbulent sea, roiling with waves associated with a panoply of force-mediating fields such as the photon and Higgs fields". Given the equivalence of mass and energy expressed by Einstein's E = mc2, any point in space that contains energy can be thought of as having mass to create particles. Virtual particles spontaneously flash into existence and annihilate each other at every point in space due to the energy of quantum fluctuations. Many real physical effects attributed to these vacuum fluctuations have been experimentally verified, such as spontaneous emission, Casimir force, Lamb shift, magnetic moment of the electron and Delbrück scattering, these effects are usually called "radiative corrections". Casimir forces on parallel plates due to vacuum fluctuations The Casimir effect is a weak force between two uncharged conductive plates caused by the zero-point energy of the vacuum. It was first observed experimentally by Lamoreaux (1997) and results showing the force have been repeatedly replicated. Several scientists including White have highlighted that a net thrust can indeed on be induced on a spacecraft via the related "dynamical Casimir effect". The dynamic Casimir effect was observed experimentally for the first time in 2011 by Wilson et al. In the dynamical Casimir effect electromagnetic radiation is emitted when a mirror is accelerated through space at relativistic speeds. When the speed of the mirror begins to match the the speed of the photons, some photons become separated from their virtual pair and so do not get annihilated. Virtual photons become real and the mirror begins to produce light. This is an example of Unruh radiation. A publication by Feigel (2004) raised the possibility of a Casimir-like effect that transfers momentum from zero-point quantum fluctuations to matter, controlled by applied electric and magnetic fields. These results were debated in a number of follow up papers in particular van Tiggelen et al. (2006) found no momentum transfer for homogeneous fields, but predict a very small transfer for a Casimir-like field geometry. This cumulated with Birkeland & Brevik (2007) who showed that electromagnetic vacuum fields can cause broken symmetries (anisotropy) in the transfer of momentum or, put another way, that is that the extraction of momentum from electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations is possible in an analogous way that the extraction of energy is possible from the Casimir effect. Birkeland & Brevik highlight that momentum asymmetries exist throughout nature and that the artificial stimulation of these by electric and magnetic fields have already been experimentally observed in complex liquids. A QVT system seeks to make use of predicited Casimir-like momentum transfer. It is argued that when the vacuum is exposed to crossed electric and and magnetic fields (i.e. E and B-fields) it will induce a drift of the entire vacuum plasma which is orthogonal to that of the applied E x B fields. In a 2015 paper White highlighted that the presence of ordinary matter is predicted to cause an energy perturbation in the surrounding quantum vacuum such that the local vacuum state has a different energy density when compared with the "empty" cosmological vacuum energy state. This suggests the possibility of modelling the vacuum as a dynamic entity as opposed to it being an immutable and non-degradable state. White models the perturbed quantum vacuum around a hydrogen atom as a Dirac vacuum consisting of virtual electron-positron pairs. Given the nontrivial variability in local energy densities resulting from virtual pair production he suggests the tools of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) can be used to model the quasiclassical behavior of the quantum vacuum as a plasma. White compares changes in vacuum energy density induced by matter to the hypothetical chameleon field or quintessence currently being discussed in the scientific literature. It is claimed the existence of a “chameleon” field whose mass is dependent on the local matter density may be an explanation for dark energy. A number of notable physicists, such as Sean Carroll, see the idea of a dynamical vacuum energy as the simplest and best explanation for dark energy. Evidence for quintessence would come from violations of Einstein's equivalence principle and variation of the fundamental constants ideas which are due to be tested by the Euclid telescope which is set to launch in 2020. Systems utilizing Casimir effects have thus far been shown to only create very small forces and are generally considered one-shot devices that would require a subsequent energy to recharge them (i.e. Forward's "vacuum fluctuation battery"). The ability of systems to use the zero-point field continuously as a source of energy or propellant is much more contentious (though peer-reviewed models have been proposed). There is debate over which formalisms of quantum mechanics apply to propulsion physics under such circumstances, the more refined Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), or the relatively undeveloped and controversial Stochastical Quantum Electrodynamics (SED). SED describes electromagnetic energy at absolute zero as a stochastic, fluctuating zero-point field. In SED the motion of a particle immersed in the stochastic zero-point radiation field generally results in highly nonlinear behaviour. Quantum effects emerge as a result of permanent matter-field interactions not possible to describe in QED The typical mathematical models used in classical electromagnetism, quantum electrodynamics (QED) and the standard model view electromagnetism as a U(1) gauge theory, which topologically restricts any complex nonlinear interaction. The electromagnetic vacuum in these theories is generally viewed as a linear system with no overall observable consequence. For many practical calculations zero-point energy is dismissed by fiat in the mathematical model as a constant that may be canceled or as a term that has no physical effect. Pilot-wave theories like SED model quantum behaviour as emergent effects due to some underlying sub-quantum physics.[46] (a) A walker in a circular corral. Trajectories of increasing length are colour-coded according to the droplet’s local speed. (b) The probability distribution of the walker’s position corresponds roughly to the amplitude of the corral’s Faraday wave mode.The 2016 NASA paper highlights that stochastic electrodynamics (SED) allows for a pilot-wave interpretation of quantum mechanics. Pilot-wave interpretations of quantum mechanics are a family of deterministic nonlocal theories distinct from other more mainstrean interpretations such as the Copenhagen interpretation and Everett's many-worlds interpretation. Pioneering experiments by Couder and Fort beginning in 2006 have shown that macroscopic classical pilot-waves can exhibit characteristics previously thought to be restricted to the quantum realm. Hydrodynamic pilot-wave analogs have been able to duplicate the double slit experiment, tunneling, quantized orbits, and numerous other quantum phenomena and as such pilot-wave theories are experiencing a resurgence in interest. Coulder and Fort note in their 2006 paper that pilot-waves are nonlinear dissipative systems sustained by external forces. A dissipative system is characterized by the spontaneous appearance of symmetry breaking (anisotropy) and the formation of complex, sometimes chaotic or emergent, dynamics where interacting fields can exhibit long range correlations. In SED the zero point field (ZPF) plays the role of the pilot wave that guides real particles on their way. Modern approaches to SED consider wave and particle-like quantum effects as well-coordinated emergent systems that are the result of speculated sub-quantum interactions with the zero-point field

I warned that the section would be butchered if it wasn't paired back significantly. Instead you continued to add additional WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE material. I took out some of this but the majority was moved to other articles by another user.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Edited slightly for clarity. The pilot wave image required context and wasn't specific to RC thrusters or vacuum energy, so I left it out. – SJ + 00:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)