No measured thrust yet, but the Quantum Drive is fully operational in space! It has passed its testing phase with flying colors. Congratulations to the @ivo_ltd team for successfully producing space hardware that survived launch & 6 months in space! Now the fun can begin.

"Care to comment on the recent OTP-2 trends?" Yes, I would, but not yet. We are being very cautious about claims. My biggest thing is to root out any & all false positives during LEO testing just like we did during terrestrial testing. When it's right, we'll share clear results!

Just reflecting this morning on the fact that this series of Quantum Drive tests are the first testing of any propellantless drive ever in space! (If you know of a country or company that has previously, let me know.)

To those asking when the Quantum Drive will be turned on: it has actually been turned on multiple times over the last month during this operational test phase. They've all been rather short bursts that would not affect orbital characteristics-even if thrust had been produced.

Remember that the goal of this mission is to test the Quantum Drive and @memcculloch 's theory of QI. We might see thrust, we might not. The point is to have a successful testing period with a properly operating test platform. So far, that mission has been a success!

4. Interestingly, above the threshold (4.3eV in our example), the combined 500nm waves do end up having a shorter cross section (in nm) than the base of the 250nm wave. Is this why it can still fit within the “bathtub?”

3. In our example, two 500nm waves can be out of phase between 60 & 0 degrees and still hit the 4.3eV threshold. This must be why TPA occurs at a non-linear rate to intensity (proportional to the square of the intensity). More chances with different phases.

2. TPA does occur, but is rather rare. It takes a great intensity of light to increase the chances that 2 photons interact with the electron at nearly the same time. I'm assuming they don't have to interact at exactly the same time and that they can be slightly out of phase.

1. One of the things that bothered me from my last thread on the Photoelectric Effect was #3 where I stated “two 500nm photons (2x2.48eV) cannot even though the combined energy level is high enough!” This is not true. Here is a little bit about Two Photon Absorption (TPA).

7. My point is that the Photoelectric Effect doesn't actually seem to prove that light is a particle, but instead it reinforces the fact that light is a wave with a frequency!! (End thread)

6. This would be why lower frequencies (longer wavelengths) don't eject electrons--not because they don't have enough energy but because they don't fit! The energy is still important for calculating how fast the electron will be ejected though.

5. So we have a situation like waves in a bathtub where the only waves that can exist have short enough wavelengths to fit their nodes within the length of the tub. This fits the observations that certain frequencies and higher can cause PE.

4. Perhaps instead of focusing on the energy level we should be focusing on the frequency. Interestingly it isn't a particular frequency that can cause PE in a particular material, but it's a particular frequency or higher (=>) that can cause PE in a particular material.

3. A 500nm photon with 2.48eV cannot emit an electron from aluminum since aluminum's work function is 4.3eV. A 250nm photon (4.96eV) could since it is higher than 4.3eV. Interestingly two 500nm photons (2x2.48eV) cannot even though the combined energy level is high enough!

2. The common explanation for PE is there are energy levels associated with each photon which is also directly tied to its frequency. Each material, such as aluminum, has an energy threshold (called a work function) that the material needs from a photon to release an electron.

1. What if the Photoelectric Effect (PE) actually proves light is only a wave(a frequency) & not a particle?! Most say PE proves light comes as particles we call photons. PE proves that light causes effects in discrete packets of frequency, but not that it's a particle.

I found a paper covering a set of experiments ( https://t.co/VYF3RxMrlH) that seems to illustrate very clearly the idea that the "interference pattern" from a double slit experiment only looks like an interference pattern, but isn't in fact an interference pattern!

The @ivo_ltd Quantum Drive testing has started its initial calibration and assessment phase. All is good so far and we are excited to see the results of the upcoming tests!

An accumulation of strikes over time then leads to the "interference pattern" observed-whether it is 1 slit, 2 slits, etc. and whether it is a single "photon" at a time or a stream of "photons." Of course my thoughts are ever changing as I gain new information! :)

Personally, I'm currently of the idea that it just looks like an interference pattern due to it being made by a ripple in the electromagnetic field. With ripples being wave-like, their probability of hitting a given point on a target surface is higher at some points.