[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

Dude , spit it out !  Spit the damned  orthodoxy out !
I just laid out the trick ; converting internal EMR energy into uni-directional kinetic energy of matter .  Diagram it out , calculate it out , figure it out !  You owe yourself that !
D. H.

[Bored chemist]

Are you telling me that a gigawatt of laser power , transferred to kinetic energy of matter , results in a motive force of ONE POUND !!

No.
Nobody said that.
It's just that you can't (or won't) understand what people write.

[Kryptid]

Dude , spit it out !  Spit the damned  orthodoxy out !
I just laid out the trick ; converting internal EMR energy into uni-directional kinetic energy of matter .  Diagram it out , calculate it out , figure it out !  You owe yourself that !
D. H.

In a best case scenario, the photons would reflect off of the electron cloud as if it was a perfect mirror. That would maximize that amount of momentum that the photons could donate to the electrons. However, that would be exactly the same amount of momentum that the photons would donate to an actual perfectly reflective mirror if they struck it instead. There is therefore no benefit in adding the electrons in.

I don't need to do any math in order to know this. The law of conservation of momentum tells us that a photon that strikes an electron cannot possibly donate more momentum to that electron than it already had to begin with. Momentum doesn't materialize out of nothingness. If the force on the ship that the laser beam imparts is X, then that laser beam can only donate a force of X to the electron cloud (in the opposite direction). If that electron cloud then moves downstream and hits a collector that prevents them from escaping, then they will impart a force of X to that collector in the opposite direction to the ship's movement. That will cancel out any net thrust.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

IF all we were dealing with were matter , then what you said would be the case .  However , we are not .  A beam of matter , say matter in a plasma PHASE , accelerated by 1 gigawatt of power , will reach absurdly high velocity very quickly .  Let that matter smack into a force guage , then confess to old "Professor" that it's a helluva lot more than ONE FREAKING POUND!
This difference is the basis of what I am talking about !  You already know that a photon rocket is a reactionless drive .  Now accept that there are ways of multiplying the effect !
P.M.

[Bored chemist]

A beam of matter , say matter in a plasma PHASE , accelerated by 1 gigawatt of power , will reach absurdly high velocity very quickly .

Not if the matter is heavy. The force exerted by gigawatt of radiation is about a pound.

It doesn't matter how many times you say  that you don't believe it.

et that matter smack into a force guage , then confess to old "Professor" that it's a helluva lot more than ONE FREAKING POUND!

Only if it is heavy.

do you see the problem there?

You already know that a photon rocket is a reactionless drive

No, it is powered by the reaction forces of the photons.

Now accept that there are ways of multiplying the effect !

You can multiply the zero thrust by whatever you like. Reactionless drives still don't work.

[Kryptid]

IF all we were dealing with were matter , then what you said would be the case .  However , we are not .  A beam of matter , say matter in a plasma PHASE , accelerated by 1 gigawatt of power , will reach absurdly high velocity very quickly .  Let that matter smack into a force guage , then confess to old "Professor" that it's a helluva lot more than ONE FREAKING POUND!

Please explain how a photon bumping into an electron is going to impart more force on that electron than it would if it hit a mirror instead.

You already know that a photon rocket is a reactionless drive

Do you even know what a reactionless drive is?

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

.....Once more into the breech !
Remember now , we are dealing with special components here , not ordinary clumps of matter .  One oblique collision/reflection of X-ray and electron can yield relativistic velocities for the electron .  Being matter , electrons striking thusly will not bounce "perfectly" , as light does from a "heavy" object , they will hit explosively .  Example : A 1 microgram object striking at .9c hits with the explosive  (impact) force of 20 kg of TNT (~120GJ) .  A momentary 1GW pulse of X-rays pumped into a dense plasma container will accelerate more electrons than this to this speed .  The result ?  One pound of recoil/ thrust on the injection side for a moment , a 120 GJ impact on the reciever side .  This translates into a powerful , unidirectional thrust , for the ensemble as  whole .
 Again , quantised energy of the photons + energy of momentum of the photons adds to the energy of momentum of the electrons . Their tangible-matter nature allows for ordinary , high-energy kinetic impacts on the reciever side of the device .  These opposing the almost recoil-less , EMR-type interactions , on the injector side . 
 Constantly repeating this cycle would result in a "Strikes-per-minute" engine , somewhat akin to an RPM (reciprocating) engine .  Audible vibrations would be a likely by-product . 
Alright , something the "Daedalus" folks can chew on , without ingesting toxic radiation !
Helloo , Pushme-pulley !
P.M.

[Kryptid]

One oblique collision/reflection of X-ray and electron can yield relativistic velocities for the electron . 

That's because a single electron is incredibly light-weight. An electron weighs about 9.11 x 10^-31 kilograms.

Being matter , electrons striking thusly will not bounce "perfectly" , as light does from a "heavy" object , they will hit explosively .

If you'll recall from earlier discussions in this thread, a collision where a projectile bounces back actually imparts more force than one which does not.

Example : A 1 microgram object striking at .9c hits with the explosive  (impact) force of 20 kg of TNT (~120GJ) . 

Given that electrons weigh 9.11 x 10^-31 kilograms, that microgram of matter you speak of would weigh 1.1 x 10²⁴ times more than an electron. That is not an insignificant difference.

A momentary 1GW pulse of X-rays pumped into a dense plasma container will accelerate more electrons than this to this speed

Please provide the needed math to support this claim.

The result ?  One pound of recoil/ thrust on the injection side for a moment , a 120 GJ impact on the reciever side .

If you want to give your electrons 120 gigajoules of kinetic energy, you're going to have to supply 120 gigajoules to the system. At one gigawatt of laser power, that's going to require two minutes even if the system is able to transfer the energy perfectly with no losses. That's hardly a "momentary" pulse.

Also, you're being inconsistent with your units. "Pounds" here are a unit of force whereas "gigajoules" are a unit of energy. You're comparing apples with oranges. Please rewrite that sentence where you use the same units to describe what's happening on both ends of the ship.

This translates into a powerful , unidirectional thrust , for the ensemble as  whole .

Except for the part where momentum doesn't materialize out of nowhere, that is.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

I'm describing the recoil on the injector side in pounds of force , because it receives a consistent (say , one second long) push from the photon injector .  I'm using joules for the reciever side because I envision using shock-waves (instantaneous impacts) to provide "shoves" to this side .  If I inject 1GW for 1 second , I get 1 GJ of energy to "hit" the reciever side with .  That is equivalent to almost a pound of TNT .  I believe that the shove from that will far outweigh the paltry shove on the injector side .
P.M.

[opportunity]

In this "new theories" section, to say something like a reactionless drive is absurd is not in the spirit of the new theories section.

Yes, we need to abide by contemporary physics understanding, and yes "way off" ideas without citing references to contemporary theory should be deemed as a bit of a stretch.

I understand where the moderators and close backers of the moderators are coming from, and yes in this "new theories section", and not the physics section.

Its good though to have a few rough debates, because its a heads up for both "stringent contemporary physics" and at the other spectrum "spontaneous hatchings of ideas". Both sides keep each other honest, both sides require a response that determines their own course compared to the other.

Personally, I think a reactionless drive is possible. Alcubierre proposed the idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive.  The problem he encountered was contradicting the law of conservation of energy.....namely, how does one create a negative energy gradient in front of the nominate craft direction. If someone can crack the code of creating a negative energy field in front of a craft, most likely using a "concentrated" and more importantly "projected" EM field, they've wacked the pinyata. I'm thinking that its possible to achieve without contradicting the law of conservation of energy by requiring a field with energy put in , and a substantial amount at that, that "appears" to cancel itself out, and thus an EM resonant field, pure constructive interference.

[Kryptid]

I'm describing the recoil on the injector side in pounds of force , because it receives a consistent (say , one second long) push from the photon injector .  I'm using joules for the reciever side because I envision using shock-waves (instantaneous impacts) to provide "shoves" to this side .  If I inject 1GW for 1 second , I get 1 GJ of energy to "hit" the reciever side with . 

Until you get your units consistent, this is meaningless. You can't say that one gigajoule is bigger than one pound because a gigajoule is not a unit of force.

I believe that the shove from that will far outweigh the paltry shove on the injector side .

Belief is irrelevant. Show the math that it is so (which would require consistent units). In particular, I'm still waiting for you to explain what kind of mechanism would make a single photon hit an electron harder than that same photon would hit a tiny hypothetical mirror with the mass of an electron.

Personally, I think a reactionless drive is possible. Alcubierre proposed the idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive.

The Alcubierre drive is not reactionless because the drive does not experience a change in momentum. It remains at rest relative to the "bubble" of space that it sits inside of.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

In 1923 Arthur Compton presented his most renowned paper on Electron-Photon scattering .  In it he established  (by empirical evidence) the fact that photons reflect from massive objects with very little exchange of KE .  He also established that they reflect from electrons with major exchanges of kinetic energy .  It has since been realised that this involves the photons quantised energy , not just energy of momentum . Considering  the lack of recoil involved with "photon launching" , this creates a gigantic opportunity for a "difference engine" .  Think of a jet engine ingesting some air , adding some magic dust to it , and spitting out 12 times as much air .  Doesn't seem right , does it ?  Triiiick !! Got it ?
P.M.
P.S.- Push a bowling ball with one pound of force for one second , then detonate 2/3 stick dynamite next to it .  Tell me which one pushed it further ! 

[Kryptid]

In 1923 Arthur Compton presented his most renowned paper on Electron-Photon scattering .  In it he established  (by empirical evidence) the fact that photons reflect from massive objects with very little exchange of KE .

That's because macroscopic objects like mirrors are many, many orders of magnitude more massive than the mass-energy of the photons that hit them.

He also established that they reflect from electrons with major exchanges of kinetic energy .

And this is because electrons are significantly closer to a photon's mass-energy than something like a visible mirror is.

It has since been realised that this involves the photons quantised energy , not just energy of momentum .

Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. A photon's momentum is quantized.

Considering  the lack of recoil involved with "photon launching" , this creates a gigantic opportunity for a "difference engine" .

There is a recoil involved when photons are emitted. That's the principle behind laser cooling.

Think of a jet engine ingesting some air , adding some magic dust to it , and spitting out 12 times as much air .  Doesn't seem right , does it ?  Triiiick !! Got it ?

Magic is right. Until someone discovers or invents magic, such an engine will not work in the real world.

P.S.- Push a bowling ball with one pound of force for one second , then detonate 2/3 stick dynamite next to it .  Tell me which one pushed it further ! 

The problem is that you are somehow assuming that the electrons hitting the receiver is analogous to the dynamite when you have yet to demonstrate that. You have yet to do any calculations that demonstrate that your electron cloud magically gains extra momentum out of nowhere when the laser beam hits it. You keep saying it happens but you consistently refuse to substantiate it. You're not going to get anywhere when it comes to convincing others if you don't provide the proper evidence.

So I ask you again: does a photon hit an electron harder than it would hit a microscopic mirror with the mass of an electron? Substantiate your answer afterwards.

[opportunity]

Personally, I think a reactionless drive is possible. Alcubierre proposed the idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive.

The Alcubierre drive is not reactionless because the drive does not experience a change in momentum. It remains at rest relative to the "bubble" of space that it sits inside of.

I thought about that also, yet the formation of the forward and behind spatial distortions need to come from the craft...somehow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive

[Kryptid]

I thought about that also, yet the formation of the forward and behind spatial distortions need to come from the craft...somehow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive

Yes, that is a problem in itself. I don't know how you would go about making space expand and contract at will.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

To : Kryptid
 Your query has an inbuilt ASS-umption which is incorrect .  You assume that a mirror is a mirror is a mirror .  However , when that mirror is electron-small , electron-mass , and unattached , it will recoil relativistically from the impact .  This allows a FAR greater transfer of kinetic energy to the electron , leaving the EMR energy-poor .  The tremendous intrinsic energy of the photon is expended all at once , instead of bouncing uselessly off of the "mirror" .  This is laid out explicitly in Compton's 1923 paper .  The imbalance in energy spent starts here !
 By the way , the naysayers said the same damned thing about the jet engine , right up until it physically worked !
P.M.

[Bored chemist]

Are Reactionless Drives really , physically possible ?  Argument is put forth here that , contrary to popular belief , they actually , genuinely are . 

That statement is false.
No such argument is put forward.
All we get is  demonstrations of the OP's lack of understanding of high school physics.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

Put 1GW of energy into a firehose-size stream of water .  Result ? You cut buildings in half . 
Put 1GW of energy into a firehose-size stream of EMR .  Result ?  Buildings laugh at you .
Dump a stream of ions into the EMR stream .  Result ?  I laugh at you , as the buildings go down .
 They didn't teach this in Lowbrow School , Arthur Compton did .
Ooch , ooch , owch , hot , ho-ot !
P.M.

[Kryptid]

To : Kryptid
 Your query has an inbuilt ASS-umption which is incorrect .  You assume that a mirror is a mirror is a mirror .  However , when that mirror is electron-small , electron-mass , and unattached , it will recoil relativistically from the impact . 

Which means that tiny mirror behaves the same way as an electron would.

The tremendous intrinsic energy of the photon is expended all at once

This is incorrect. If you look at the equation governing the change of wavelength of a photon scattering off an electron, the change will be, at most, double the Compton wavelength of the electron. In order for the energy of the photon to be "expended all at once", the change in wavelength would have to approach infinity (photons approach infinite wavelength as their energy approaches zero).

By the way , the naysayers said the same damned thing about the jet engine , right up until it physically worked !
P.M.

Jet engines don't violate the conservation of momentum.

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

To : Onthefritz Nitpicky .
It still recoils from the photon at RELATIVISTIC SPEED !  This means something important , liiike MASSIVE IMPACT on one side , weak-stick recoil on the other . 
 Tarzan yell now !
P.M.