NASA's Helical Engine and Other Reactionless Drives

Reactionless drives are spacecraft engines that produce thrust without any exhaust. Examples include the Dean drive, GIT thrusters, and EM drives. The latest proposal is the Helical Engine, described in a NASA technical report by David Burns. In this video I discuss the fundamental reason why reactionless drives don't work: They violate Noether's theorem which links spatial translation invariance to conservation of momentum. I then analyze the physics behind the helical engine, and identify the error made in the NASA technical report.

[Goodgu]

This was a great video and a great explanation. I do want to remind you and others though that we do not definitively know the rules that govern our universe. We have written "laws" based on observations we have made, and created formula that match those observations. However our knowledge of how the universe works is constantly evolving. Perhaps no form of reactionless drive will ever exist, perhaps we will find that our current understanding of the universe is flawed, that the laws we have created were based on the limited data our technology was capable of observing, and that our assumptions about what is possible were too limited. Or perhaps we will find a new form of energy, or matter or something completely unique that does not follow the formula that we have made up.

I believe it's important for humans to continue attempting to develop technology that violates the laws other humans have made up. We can never prove without a doubt that the laws we have written down are absolute. All we can do is continue to believe they are until someone proves them not to be.

[pissnotime]

Can you show how em drive can't work ? It would be very enlightening

[genxlife]

I am not saying that reactionless drives work, but I can't help but be reminded that people once said that heavier-than-air powered flight also defied the laws of physics.

[turknuz]

Reactionless drives will be based on quantum effects and conservation of momentum is not quantum law

[samg]

I believe it was intended to be used in orbital maneuvers. Imagine that apogee is 200km and perigee is 150 km. Particle shift to the right could occur at 150 km to raise the orbit to, say, 151 km. Then wait to particle shift back to the left until satellite reaches the apogee of the orbit, decreasing it to 199km. This method effectively raises the orbit of a satellite by borrowing from the other end of the orbit. This does not violate the laws of physics.

[KommonCents_]

Laws can be broken in a simulation 🤯🤯

Edit: Mildly trolling, love the video 🤙 Just remember the laws are absolute, not our current understanding of them.

[mNag]

The EM drive was seeing some small scale thrust in lab settings, and one was launched to space a couple months ago to see for sure. It'll probably be a dud since I haven't heard about it since the launch, but who knows?

[friendryan]

That is for a closed system. You can make reactionless drives that work in an Open system. One that works with Quantum forces that can travel through a closed system. You will see.

[dawitteklay]

Loved this video can you do one on the dean drive why does it seem like it work they built models and they move when is the mistake happening exactly

[lachezarkrastev]

So from where momentum comes in Casimir effect? There are many things we do not know ...

[JorgeFlores-ckbp]

The gyros do produce force and produce movement in space, in fact that is why On the ISS they have to keep all the things attach to cables because if those things bounce and hit the ISS from inside that can change the ISS direction

[hexagon-multiverse]

Really enjoyed this interesting topic, so clearly explained. I'm still puzzled that a NASA scientist thought the Helical engine would work. Even an average schmuck like me instantly remembered that you can't turn angular momentum into linear momentum.

[luisandraschnik]

What do you think about Dr. Charles Buhler and your propellantless propulsion?

[HideBuz]

This video is a very simplistic view of the world. What we call law of momentum is but a simple model and abstraction of the world, not taking into account the mass of unknowns of how our reality really works. Science is literally about reinvention thought models over and over again, to find the closest model we can think up. People who are constricted in thought about the laws of what one human mind has thought up, would have never discovered quantum mechanics or even gravity, which are mere theoretical models and that are still mot understood.

[andreschoen]

How does Noether's Theorem explain time differences in a closed system on earth, in empty space or at a black hole's event horizon?

[kuyang]

The concept was already mentioned by Bikash Kunwar in his Nobel Deity's Planet which was published in 2016 . He explained as:
Kishan was a scientist in SSO and he had invented a fastest flying object theory. Ship was designed in such a way that the energy could not lose but was changed in one form to another due to which energy was sufficient for the ship to travell long distance on a very long time and there were no other elements in space to loose energy for which required energy was rotated within the ship’s engine. Speed was increased with a continuous strike of light which made ship fast and traveled 15 times faster than of sunlight, elements used on all parts of ship were special and could exist on a very high temperature.

[Triring]

Concerning conservation of momentum, if we discover a new phenomenon that is not related to momentum/movement but related to stretching/compactification of spacial dimension then conservation of momentum is thrown out the window since the object is not moving but space around it is moving around the object.

[bignicebear]

Even if our formulas are wrong, they are very close to the truth, or we would have noticed.
So build a working model, if it generates even the tiniest amount of *verifiable* thrust, we'll have something to work with.

[rlprtwl]

Momentum is only explained by experimental observations. Inertia, centrifugal "force"...etc. are in fact dynamic space pressures. Static space pressure is gravity for example, what is created by mass, away from them (space curving backwards to the mass or object). Dynamic space pressure is a similar caracteristic happening inside the objects but curving outwards (lot of space inside material). That inside space curving is causing effects in case of accelerations, inertia, centrifugal "force" (centrifugal space pressure, more exact)...etc. Is a possibility to create a closed propulsion, what is NOT without energy input, but is way more efficient than rocket propulsion. Propulsion to move on the fabric of space. In fact rocket (jet) propulsion is in fact using "space pressure", accelerating material ... Possible that Black Holes don't even have inertia or momentum, cause: no internal space in them. They have only statical space pressure ("gravity"). Black Holes move WITH the fabric of space but NOT ON the fabric of space. But that is a different subject all together. (Space physics...)

[arthurzettel]

Question ● have any of these drives been tested in the vaccum of space ?