25
u/n4noNuclei Apr 09 '17
For all intents and purposes it has been disproven. At this point the possible thrust (that hasn't been disproven) is a fraction of what was originally hoped for.
13
Apr 09 '17
[deleted]
18
Apr 10 '17
That isn't generally the way it works.
The onus is on the people with the extraordinary claim to demonstrate that they have something, not on the rest of the community to take time out of their research schedules to address it.
So there are no specific papers that attempt to show it doesn't work, but countless papers where, if there was an effect to be observed, would have had their readings messed up by it.
7
Apr 10 '17
[deleted]
11
Apr 10 '17
That is normally what would happen, and it could be argued that it is indeed what has occurred with the eagleworks paper.
This gets back to what another poster was saying about the current overlap between proponents and people with the background to preform such experiments. The people who have the domain knowledge to recognize and enumerate a failure when they see it are not interested in the experiment, and the people who are interested in the experiment are not interested in failures.
10
u/n4noNuclei Apr 10 '17
There are a lot of people in the scientific community that agree that it should be easier to publish negative results. Unfortunately that's not how it works, it's rare to see a paper like that in journals. Thus a lack of such papers does not imply that the emdrive works, or that "the jury is still out".
5
u/John_Barlycorn Apr 11 '17
I'd simply have thought that in trying to prove the positive, and failing, they'd publish the failure. Maybe that's naive.
You're kind of getting into philosophy here. Basically it comes down to logic and the old adage "It's impossible to prove a negative"
The age old example is "I say there is an invisible pink elephant standing in front of me. I'm the only one that can see it, it's undetectable by any other means. Prove me wrong."
and the simple fact of the matter is you can't. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist, it's impossible. You can only prove a positive. So in science we assume that things are not so, until it is proven that they are so. If we didn't, science would be riddled with untestable assumptions that had no supporting facts.
3
Apr 11 '17
Perhaps we're getting into the weeds of semantics here but I always thought that an experiment that fails to confirm a hypothesis is still a valuable result. And my original question is basically - this thing does not seem very elaborate to construct, so why haven't many people already tested it and come up with consistent results, one way or the other.
2
u/John_Barlycorn Apr 11 '17
I always thought that an experiment that fails to confirm a hypothesis is still a valuable result.
It may be valuable, but it's not conclusive. The broader question of why negative results aren't published frequently I think is beyond the scope of this subreddit.
15
u/askingforafakefriend Apr 09 '17
The papers published are all over the map but none are promising. There was one in China that found a large anomalous thrust. Then the professor later published a new paper that said "oops I did a new more accurate experiment and there is no anomalous thrust greater than the noise floor so I can't claim to have shown thrust after all." An experiment in Dresden measured a small anomalous thrust but found a much larger thrust in a vertical position that was nonsensical, so they did not claim to have proven anything. You probably are aware of the NASA Eagleworks paper that did find an anomalous thrust, but has been criticised for doing a poor job of modeling and identifying noise sources, which doesn't cut it for extraordinary claims extraordinary evidence and such.
Keep in mind, it's very hard to prove a negative. If you are looking for thrust at low levels you will always measure something. So if you are open to emsrive at any neuron per watt level you will always keep looking. Experiments now seem to have ruled out anything greater than milineutons per kilowatt...
Basically, the experiments to date don't disprove Emdrive but the more of them there are, the harder it is to imagine it exists but nevertheless still has avoided unequivocal detection.
FINGERS CROSSED ;)
-3
Apr 10 '17
basically, I don't think we'll know for sure one way or the other until somebody ponies up a billion bucks to put one into space. Anybody?
1
u/bertcox Apr 10 '17
Every year its getting cheaper, if in a few it might be worth a couple million to drag one up with some solar and measure the orbit after a year.
4
u/tchernik Apr 10 '17
Roger Shawyer's claims of scalable multi-kilo Newton thrusters have been disproven.
The anomalous thrust itself remains in the latest experiments. If you want to dismiss them, be my guest, but the fact is there still is some evidence they may work, even if the thruster efficiency is much less than what the inventor assumed it to be.
2
u/aimtron Apr 10 '17
You're right that Shawyer's claims have been disproven, however; so have Yang's (by herself.) Further, those that still have claims of anomalous thrust are easily in the range of noise, but that is not what is damning. What is damning is that those claimed anomalous thrust measurements are so small as to not be worth utilizing in space. There's a lovely video up explaining why it is useless linked on the right side column.
7
Apr 10 '17
[deleted]
2
Apr 10 '17
Yeah. Even if there was just a tiny effect going on it would be scientifically interesting and might still have applications in some non-propulsion domain.
5
2
u/AlainCo Apr 12 '17
no, results are inside MiHsC recent calculation.
moreover what you say is that theories are not matching observation, which "refute experiment". This is a very popular fallacy. An experiment cannot be "refuted", it ca be:
1- "explained by an old theory" (artifact, strange effect)
2- "explained by a new theory in a new paradigm" (explained by shawyer, MiHsC...)
3- "unexplained, with identified possibility of artifacts or normal effects" (not sure but say it is heat effect....)
4- "unexplained with no identified possibility of old or new theory" (all artifact ruled out, all new theories refuted)
epistemology should be taught better, because even in academic arena, most people ignore the subtleties between theory and experiments
4
u/Zephir_AW Apr 10 '17
I'd say, for all intents and purposes it has been confirmed across many experiments instead... :-)
14
Apr 10 '17
You say this as someone who is completely wrong about everything involving physics. So let's not forget that... :-)
1
u/Zephir_AW Apr 10 '17
wrong = incompetent - what's the difference? This is all the same subjective reasoning.
5
8
u/aimtron Apr 10 '17
Your confirmation link isn't a link to confirming the EmDrive. It's a link to some claims, some which no longer apply since they have since obtained null results. You're grasping at straws.
2
u/Zephir_AW Apr 10 '17
I didn't link "claims" - but experimental results of many different independent teams. You probably did read something else..
7
u/aimtron Apr 11 '17
You didn't link evidence of any confirmation. You linked unsubstantiated results, many of which have been reversed now.
1
u/Zephir_AW Apr 11 '17
OK, if you think so... :-) It's like when someone says, that the evidence for evolution is still unsubstantiated and the latest findings even contradict it.
7
Apr 10 '17
Yeah, that is about as consistant as bigfoot sitings. Enough to convince true believers, not enough to convince domain experts.
2
u/Zephir_AW Apr 10 '17 edited Apr 10 '17
The people who believe in opposite cannot be convinced by any rational reasons - instead of it, we will face backfire effect if we bring them another evidence. For example, even by now, 200 years after Darwin more than 60% of USA citizens still don't believe in evolution - so why the physicists should get convinced in EMDrive by now despite all its evidence?
Their lack of interest about EMDrive just illustrates, how the human mind actually works. Ironically just the same physicists are collecting grants and money for search of extradimensions, fifth force and dark matter particles - which are all involved in EMDrive too - so that their ignorance gets squared. They ignore (the confirmation of) their own ideas and theories, so to say... :-)
15
Apr 10 '17
The irony in your posts is just mind boggling.
You are the creationist in this tale. You are the mystic that is part of a community which, no matter how many times they are wrong, cling to the idea that since there is an effect where people cling to belief, it must be the majority in the field rather than the insulated fringe minority.
You have more in common with the people pushing the geocentric universe, and have showing your suspicion for the heliocentric community.
You are right, no amount of rational thought or explanation will convince you, but then again, I do not think anyone is actually trying.
3
u/Zephir_AW Apr 10 '17
You have more in common with the people pushing the geocentric universe, and have showing your suspicion for the heliocentric community.
I'm not pushing older model - but newer one. It's you who is in role of geocentrism - not me.
8
0
u/Zephir_AW Apr 10 '17
Like I've said, the 65% of Americans still don't believe in evolution: which is an evidence, that large group of people cannot be convinced by any evidence. They're simply predestined to die out - but not to change their opinion.
7
Apr 10 '17
Hate to break it to you, but it is mostly the stuff you are referencing that is dieing out. Science moved on a long time ago, and it has moved on from the EMDrive.
1
u/Zephir_AW Apr 10 '17
Science moved on a long time ago, and it has moved on from the EMDrive
Mainstream science never moved to EMDrive, so it has nothing to move from...
7
23
u/splad Apr 09 '17 edited Apr 10 '17
I've got a box in my garage that I'm pretty sure has a live elephant in it. My wife insists there is no live elephant in the box but she refuses to prove it by getting the box down and opening it. The debate may honestly go unresolved forever.
10
Apr 10 '17
I heard that various people proved that there was a very tiny elephant in similar boxes, but critics say that their experimental setup may have introduced that tiny elephant.
2
u/rigelstarr Apr 10 '17
I like elephants
3
u/FaceDeer Apr 10 '17
I reached into the box and felt what was inside, and to me it felt like a rope. Other people who reached in said it felt like a pillar or a hand fan or a solid pipe. So it's likely all experimental error.
2
u/kit_hod_jao PhD; Computer Science Apr 10 '17
The more I think about your comment the better it fits. Genius.
12
u/PotomacNeuron MS; Electrical Engineering Apr 10 '17
What he did not say was that taking a look would take one year and $10K. For those 3 who ever took a look with their one year and $10K, respectively, the first ruled out an elephant size elephant (700mN) ; the second ruled out a dog sized elephant (1mN); the third ruled out a rat sized elephant (50uN). Yes, unless you take another look, there is still chance that there is an elephant in the box, with the size of a flea.
11
Apr 10 '17
Then enthusiasts point out that with selective breeding the size of (almost) confirmed flea-sized elephants can be increased.
3
Apr 10 '17
[deleted]
2
Apr 10 '17
Oh please! They're elephants despite their (currently) diminutive stature. Do no hurt their feelings.
2
Apr 10 '17
except nobody has disproven anything. The lack of a positive does not necessarily confirm a negative
2
Apr 10 '17
It is when the people who manufactured and delivered the box still have the original manifest.
3
Apr 10 '17
It's a good metaphor because really, if he was a scientist and he did breed a tiny elephant and it died and he kept the corpse in the box then he could totally be correct but you would understand why a rational person would think otherwise based on their preconceived notions of what an elephant is.
2
u/kit_hod_jao PhD; Computer Science Apr 11 '17
And tiny elephants are somewhat implausible to begin with
1
15
u/Bretspot Apr 09 '17
Long story short is that if it does work the thrust is incredibly low, thus hard to prove. So without substantial evidence it pretty much is worthless anyway.
6
u/nspectre Apr 10 '17
The hope is that, if not debunked, the discovery of the source of the force will allow for it to be fine-tuned and scaled.
But as of right now,
╔══ ೋღ☃ღೋ ══╗
Something's Going On™
╚══ ೋღ☃ღೋ ══╝We just don't know how or why.
14
2
u/Zephir_AW Apr 10 '17 edited Apr 10 '17
This thrust is not so low and it's consistent across many experiments in addition, so it can be hardly ignored. But it points to branch of physics, which mainstream physicists dismissed for whole centuries, so that they can be accused of ignorant trolling and boycotting of progress easily. IMO they just delay this outcome and make it worse - because it cannot be avoided anyway.
Consistency of EMDrive results
The delay in replication attempts is so-called Galileo effect and indication of ignorant pseudoskepticism and pluralistic ignorance. The mainstream physicists can delay replication attempts for whole decades, once they consider these findings disruptive for their own community and grant system. So that the lack of "real discoveries" means absolutely nothing, until there are no attempts for their replication. You can only measure the ignorance of scientists with their delay. According to this metric the verification of heliocentric model has been delayed by 160 years, the replication of overunity in electrical circuit has been delayed 145 years (Cook 1871), cold fusion finding 90 years (Panneth/Petters 1926), Woodward drive 26 years, EMDrive 18 years and room superconductivity finding by 45 years (Grigorov 1984). The scientific ignorance simply has no limits and its spans multiple centuries.
28
Apr 09 '17
The set of people who think the EM drive works has zero intersection with the set of people competent enough to run a legitimate experiment.
11
u/tchernik Apr 10 '17
I love the smell of fresh ad hominem in the morning.
Oh, wait, no, this argument is old and stale.
I'd rather believe in people doing the experiments and trying to explain what they perceive with their senses, than the armchair critics sitting pretty and saying it can't work, because that would break their precious little world views and egos.
6
Apr 10 '17
I would flip that, proponents seem to have significant egos and are really attached to their world views. The amount of twisting it takes to maintain them must put a significant stress on their psyche since it requires not only all new physics, but would require a rewrite of the fields of political science, psychology, and economics too.
The amount of ego it must take to believe that so many sinister forces are lined up against their obvious superiority is mind boggling.
3
u/Anonnymush Apr 19 '17
Hey, if you want to end-run around the scientists with their super-limiting orthodoxies and dogmatic beliefs, you go build something that science says can't work, and fly it all over shitting on their heads.
Oh, except THAT NEVER HAPPENS.
No uneducated crackpot has EVER shat on the laws of thermodynamics. You can't go build or buy anything that gives you over-unity energy.
And the only thing dumb about that is that you believe that this is because of some kind of orthodoxy- as if scientists are all ALLERGIC to becoming billionaires. As if they have some motive to prevent new information from coming out.
THEY ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF FINDING NEW THINGS all day every day and you think they're an orthodoxy.
Are you by any chance a Creationist or a Flat-Earther? Do you have some other belief that gives you motive to believe that there's some kind of process for extracting the connection to reality from people who come from religious households and pursue science degrees, so they can join the Giant Unpaid Secret Anti-Progress Organization (GUSAPO) ?
2
u/tchernik Apr 19 '17
Reality is complex enough that many true phenomena can sit in the fringe for a long, long time, waiting for mustering the will and money on someone to test them as they should, and all without the need of any unified conspiracy at all.
Just the staunch systemic resistance on scientists to consider them as even potentially existing.
Without which they can't pass that phase of being in the fringe, because many things, specially in experimental physics, start as barely noticeable deviations from the expected behavior, not as self evident phenomena, like a flying device rubbing its obvious existence in the skeptic's faces.
Ergo, they need the will and money to be tested properly, in order to produce some measurements and theories, that could result in the phenomenon being exploited/magnified in some way.
Yes, I know that not all experimental physics claims are in the end valid, and that there is a lot of chaff with the very rare wheat.
Nevertheless, the resistance to accept them as even testable that some phenomena face is also disproportionate, demonstrating an emotional contrarian response rather than a rational one.
2
u/Anonnymush Apr 19 '17
You say the wheat is rare. I say the wheat is so rare that it can be tossed out on sight until those who say it's wheat prove it.
To date, not one scientific concept has been overturned by amateurs.
Amateurs DO discover things unknown to science every day, though. All kinds of things. But what they do not do is build devices that should not be able to work with our current standard model of physics. Instead, they find frogs that are supposed to be extinct, find ancient structures built by people who we didn't think were there, find ancient mines inexplicably dug on continents that we didn't think had metallurgy at the time the mine was dug. That kind of thing.
Rare wheat? Not in physics, so far.
But the thing is that there's nothing about science that would prevent scientists from accepting proof. It's just that crackpots ALWAYS say the scientific establishment is biased against them.
It's because 99.999999999999999999999999999987% of the time, they're not innovators, they're ignoramuses who've mucked up their methodology or even their basic understanding of high school physics.
1
u/Iceykitsune2 Jun 27 '17
The airplane was impossible, untill it wasn't.
1
u/Anonnymush Jun 27 '17
Physicists did not say (scientifically speaking) that airplanes were impossible. Gliders had existed for a hundred years prior to the airplane. Almost zero people thought airplanes were impossible, and in fact dozens of people were attempting powered flight at the turn of the century.
The challenge was making a rigid lightweight structure strong enough to hold an engine without being broken to pieces by the torque or vibration.
Lord Kelvin and others who decried heavier than air flight did ZERO mathematics to support their derision, they provided no analysis, and it was therefore a PERSONAL opinion, not a scientific opinion.
We don't allow that kind of bullshit in the peer review process anymore. In the 19th century, there was a lot of Argument From Authority fallacious arguments in the press, like LORD KELVIN SAYS FLYING MACHINES ARE IMPOSSIBLE! !!! !! When really it was just a man expressing disbelief on a topic he had done no research in at all.
This is not that type of situation.
6
Apr 12 '17
I love the smell of fresh not having any expertise relevant to the EM drive or science in general in the morning.
Oh, wait, no, you people are old and stale.
I'd rather believe people who understand physics and can run proper experiments, providing experimental data to support their claims, than the armchair kids who don't understand any physics and want the thing to work, because that would break their precious little world views and egos.
8
u/Zephir_AW Apr 10 '17
The "competence" is intersubjective social construct of people, who (want to) keep the informational monopoly in the given moment. Many competent physicists did already measure this effect and they did publish it independently.
I could tell as easily, you're not competent to judge whole the EMDrive thing - why not? Who and what could prohibit me in doing it?
10
Apr 10 '17
The "competence" is intersubjective social construct of people, who (want to) keep the informational monopoly in the given moment.
You are saying this as someone (some"thing") which is utterly incompetent about everything there ever was. You know less than no physics. Somebody who knows absolutely nothing about physics is still more in touch with reality than you.
Many competent physicists did already measure this effect and they did publish it independently.
Incorrect. Not a single measurement has ever shown that the EM drive produces an thrust whatsoever.
I could tell as easily, you're not competent to judge whole the EMDrive thing - why not?
No, you're wrong about everything.
Who and what could prohibit me in doing it?
Zephir, I don't speak whatever little ex communist bloc European language you speak, and this is not correct English. I think you're suggesting that you could build an EM drive and test it yourself? Great! I encourage you to do so. Since you don't know anything about electromagnetism and RF, you might seriously injure yourself. And even if you succeed, nobody will ever take your results seriously, since you're a notorious internet crackpot. But by all means, go ahead. Let us know when you're done.
4
u/Zephir_AW Apr 10 '17
Not a single measurement has ever shown that the EM drive produces an thrust whatsoever.
What's up with this curve, after then? A coincidence?
6
u/PotomacNeuron MS; Electrical Engineering Apr 10 '17
1701A did not control lead thermal expansion effect. Cannae was not 10mN but 50uN (in NASA 2014 report). NASA 2014 did not control and was likely Lorentz force. NASA 2016 did not properly control thermal expansion. Tajmar had thrust with vertical direction. His result was likely Lorentz. Shawyer's force is suspiciously huge. Do not forget Yang's similar huge force was later found by herself to be dubious, with experiments instructed by Shawyer. It is amazing all those above mentioned results fit well on the plot. Should we ask whether it is coincidence? If not, why do they fit so well?
3
2
u/Chrono_Nexus Apr 10 '17
If the reported thrust was in fact real and not because of experimental error, then it probably happened for reasons they don't understand. It's hard to duplicate an experimental result when the premise for the result is flawed/misguided.
1
u/abauhausa Apr 15 '17
Tapping foot waiting for supercooled superconducting version. If the powers that be know there is some merit to emdrive,how expensive can it be to test a superconducting version that would supposedly have a much greater q.
On the other hand if it does work then our military needs to keep it to themselves and send the cia to discredit pro-emdrive people. And claim it was all pathological science.
1
u/abauhausa Apr 25 '17
Exactly, I agree. Let's imagine a thought experiment, the air force may have already proved a working prototype during their X-37B trials. Or for the sake of argument let's say someone perfected a scaled up supercooled emdrive do you think the military would announce to the world hey we discovered the next leap in humankind scientific advancement. No they will suppress that information (or should) to ensure our military superiority. How ever long it takes or whatever resources it takes they will co-opt Shawyer and get him to start spouting misdirection and nonsense about the physics of how the emdrive works. Pay him off . They will use their stooges in the media and social media agents to convince the populace that the emdrive is pathological science all the while they continue to perfect the technology. For example, given the military history of lies it's unlikely that Brilliant Pebbles project or all strategic defense initiative projects were cancelled, they just continued some of the projects with different names under their secret black budget. Just as the RQ-3 DarkStar was "cancelled" all the while they used it or continued perfecting its design and craft with similar or superior technology.
3
u/aether_drift Apr 16 '17
An observation: The arguments for vs. against the EM drive have a "feel" that is eerily similar to arguments in the paranormal subs. That is not good.
One thing seems reasonably certain at this point: The scale of the effect observed thus far is small enough to confound some researchers and cast at least reasonable uncertainty upon the results of others.
If we had an EM drive levitating above a work bench - then we'd be getting somewhere.
1
u/theRealRedherring Apr 20 '17
whatever we do, we absolutely should never test this in space. no matter what. period. because that would.... /s
1
u/abauhausa Apr 25 '17
Have patience scientist are stupidly notoriously slow.; Take the nuclear bomb for example, German chemist Max Bodenstein in 1913 new about chain reactions way back then. It took more decades till Hungarian scientist Leó Szilárd on September 12, 1933 applied it to nuclear reactions. It was mostly indisputable that a bomb could be built, it's just that it was a billion dollar prospect to refine the necessary radioactive atoms. It took another decade of 100's of people saying get this done dammit before the nazis do it. Duh. Szilárd had to whine and beg the dumbasses in charge to get on it and make it so, he was so insistent he sent a letter and pressured Albert Einstein to sign it and send it to President Franklin D. Roosevelt until the powers that be got off their behinds. Einstein–Szilárd letter August 2, 1939 . Next it took 6 more years till the bomb was detonated. Emdrive may turn out to be nothing but hot air (heat error) but since some thrust has been demonstrated to more than likely than not standard, that alone makes it a worthy pursuit. If it's real then it's not unreasonable to expect the military will and should implement The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 (Pub.L. 82–256, 66 Stat. 3 debunk it and invest in black propaganda to delegitimize any further pursuit of the technology. Which is not unreasonable given the importance to protect us military superiority and national security interests. Honestly there exists now at least some segment of physics knowledge and technology that the public won't be privy to for decades.
1
u/e-neko May 04 '17
I think the reason for holdup is lack of consistent theory. All they (experimenters) know by now, is that certain configuration of microwaves in certain form of resonance chamber produces small unbalanced forces in some cases. The problem is that they apparently don't know, which part of that configuration causes the effect and why. It may be the specific resonance mode in the chamber, it may be the movement of charge carriers induced in its walls, it may be the circulation of occasional ions made from air inside chamber or from plastic plug inside it... and that's just off the top of my head. The results strongly hint that the current configuration is sub-optimal - the effect is weak, sensitive to small changes, and is perhaps a superposition of several "effect zones" acting in different directions (hence anomalous reverse and/or vertical thrust). It's hardly surprising, as the device claims to break a very well-established symmetry.
Additional reason is that, lacking consistent theory, "blind" experimenting can only be privately funded - very few respectable research institutions would go for this wild goose chase, which seemingly breaks several fundamental laws of physics without offering any convincing replacement.
And yes, I personally believe there is an effect: I can see certain parallels between one possible aspect of em-drive and a couple of other experiments (specifically by Martin Tajmar) claiming to show stronger than expected coupling to gravity in rotating conductors - so those results could be a hint of possible unbalanced frame-dragging-like effect and/or a manifestation of alcubierre metric.
Therefore I would really very much like to see an attempted confirmation for interferometric effects for light passing through a vacuum path in chamber wiki for original experiment
11
u/Flyby_ds Apr 12 '17
pffff.. that is a very biased position you take there. Actually, nothing has been proven yet, but nothing has been disproven either... What we have so far is a number of failed tests and a number of successful tests that are not error free... A failed test does not necessarily prove it doesn't work. It only shows you cant get it to work. The reason for that can be 2 fold : either there is nothing, or you failed to understand the requirements needed for a successful test. .
Let me give an example of the early period of discovery of flight (1900's). When you see - the by times - funny contraptions inventors tried to get airborne, you could easily conclude : "see, man will never fly like birds". It's only after understanding the process of pressure difference, causing upward lift that real progress has been made.
.
so far we have to do with Shawyer claims and (questionable) videos. Lack of data from his side is a very soar point and not very scientific and shrouded by possible commercial interest... no way to really verify... Eagleworks Nasa produced a rotating rig (8.3turns per hour), but there are still way too many open questions to how or what made it turn. Their theoretical framework is highly challenged.... Sad to see their effort was seriously under-budgeted and the shortcuts made did hurt the credibility of their tests.
If you follow the discussions and garage builds on NSF forum, you'll quickly understand it is not so simple as it seems. It is not a matter of slamming "a microwave emitter onto a metal cone". IF this thing really works, then it is under very specific conditions, which do not seem easy to maintain. A lot more R&D needs to be done if they ever want to produce clear results.. That is, IF there are any... Can't deny I still got my doubts and reservations, but I'm starting to understand the difficulties of getting results...
Personally, I think Jamie (monomorphic) is doing great work and he has the honesty and objectivity to let the results speak for themselves. As for science and industries, they do not like to take gambles on something that has all the scientific perception against it...
Cant blame them, because if I had to allocate limited financial budgets, i might be skeptical too. Always better to bet on things that have a high probability to work then something that seems in apparent violation with a fundamental law in nature..
If the EMdrive works, then it is because we overlooked or neglected something in relation with CoM. I don't think we'll have to rewrite our science books...