This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Uncategorized

Hooray – JSC Warp Drive Confirmed !!!!

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
July 28, 2015
Filed under
Hooray – JSC Warp Drive Confirmed !!!!

‘Impossible’ propellantless engine appears to work despite breaking laws of physics, Sydney Morning Herald
“Ridiculed as impossible by the scientific community, the electromagnetic propulsion engine – which could supposedly take a craft from Earth to Pluto in just 18 months without the need for rocket fuel – has apparently been confirmed by an independent scientist as working.”
Keith’s note: Once again English-language tabloids 1,2,3 with nothing better to do than repeat unfounded rumors – about unconfirmed results of murkily duplicated experiments (that were already murky) – conducted by some guy in Germany – experiments that are not described in any detail or – unpublished and only presented at an AIAA meeting – results that are only discussed in Internet chat rooms – as if they were fact. Normally, this nonsense would appear once or twice and then vanish. The prime reason it does not go away is because NASA JSC actually threw some money at this goofy science project, is too embarrassed to admit it (more than they have to), and never likes to admit that it ever does anything wrong – regardless of how many laws of physics and logic have been violated. Then again the JSC folks were probably a little jealous that LaRC was getting all of that wonderful cold fusion media attention and wanted to get themselves some of that quacky goodness. If this was real then you’d be hearing Charlie Bolden proclaiming that it was another step on the #JourneyToMars – right?
Now Drudge Report is re-blasting links to these stories to hundreds of millions of people because NASA never shoots this goofiness down. If NASA can send pictures back from Pluto and break the Internet, it can write a 5 sentence press statement that shuts this nonsense off once and for all. But it can’t – or rather, it won’t. They only want you to know what they got right – not what they tried and got wrong.
Clarifying NASA’s Warp Drive Program, earlier post
NASA: We’re Not Working on Warp Drive, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

31 responses to “Hooray – JSC Warp Drive Confirmed !!!!”

  1. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    I haven’t clicked on the link yet, but I’m going to guess . . . Sonny White Strikes Again!

    *Checks link*

    Wow, I was wrong. Whenever I hear about NASA’s “warp drive” program, it’s always Sonny White spouting off some nonsense so he can keep his job for a few more years. Not this time.

    Seriously, when this stuff gets published in a peer-reviewed journal, or at least a preliminary paper that offers up its data and is falsifiable, then we can at least take it seriously enough to try and debunk it.

    • Michael Reynolds says:
      0
      0

      Scientist do not “debunk”, they prove a theory/hypothesis false or true.
      In either case the most logical reason that nothing has been published yet, is because the work is not done yet. The next steps are proving the null hypothesis true or false.
      There is still a very good possibility that the EM drive is not actually breaking any of our current laws of physics. Skepticism is fine and healthy, but some of the dialogue spouted out makes me shake my head, especially for those who overly use the term “impossible” or are outright hostile in their critic.

      • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
        0
        0

        “The next steps are proving the null hypothesis true or false.”

        Technically, null hypotheses can only be falsified, in which case the alternate hypothesis becomes the new status quo.

        I find it very curious that in NASA’s “publish any crap and go to conferences” culture, we find a pocket of silence.

        • Michael Reynolds says:
          0
          0

          Two words: Raven Paradox.
          In any case my point was that people are being overly critical of studies that are in many cases in their infancy. For instance I have been working on a hypothesis over the genesis of drumlin formations in Northern Michigan for 4 years, but lack of funding is making it take much longer than I expected to finish my research and ultimately publish even though I have presented what research I have 2 times before.
          Too be honest, I find that the biggest problem with the EM drive as presented is the media, and how they portray it. Reporters are getting overly excited and spin something into more than what it might be using terminology that they think is comparable to what is actually happening; such as describing the EM drive as a “warp drive”. In other words you trekkies out there need to keep your excitement abated until such time as there is something to report.

          • Bernardo de la Paz says:
            0
            0

            Well said by both you and Spacenut. I will strive to keep your comments in mind.

      • Gerald Cecil says:
        0
        0

        Actually, most physical scientists never ‘proved the null hypothesis true or false’. They just showed that data were inconsistent with a particular assumed-to-be -correct model. Now they start with a Bayesian prior that encapsulates our knowledge before the experiment and find the model parameters that maximize the likelihood of the data. The product usually after very complicated integration to normalize distributions is the posterior probability of the model being right based on the data and assumed prior.

        So, after this pedantic recap, I remind that model testing is only acceptable if it predicts a result before the experiment is run. Otherwise, probabilities are valueless post facto rationalizations. It’s acceptable to fish around first to understand magnitudes then design appropriate experimental apparatus and procedures, then make a quantitative prediction before acquiring data. It is unacceptable to massage data and model until an acceptable probability appears. I’m interested to see how this process unfolds here.

        • Michael Reynolds says:
          0
          0

          I was educated primarily through the frequentists approach, so my knowledge of the Bayesian approach is limited. The one time I was educated in both, the group taking part in the study spent more time arguing in favor of their approach to interpreting the data vice the others. My understanding of the arguments was limited due to the fact that I am an Earth scientist and the “debaters” all climate scientist arguing over various climate models.

      • Spacenut says:
        0
        0

        “Skepticism is fine and healthy, but some of the dialogue spouted out makes me shake my head”
        Completely agree, some of the elitist, dismissive, condescending and sometimes downright rude comments made by so called grown up scientists does far more damage to the image of science than any amount of possibly incorrect science. Just because as as a scientist you disagree with the conclusions made and methodology used to obtain results of others doing research does not give you the right to be rude, offensive and dismissive, by all means put your opposing viewpoint across in a respectful manner but to act as if you are somehow of superior intellect and understanding is simply not the way to create a good public image for the scientific community at large.

      • savuporo says:
        0
        0

        “Scientist do not “debunk”, they prove a theory/hypothesis false or true.”

        I am sorry, science does not prove and cannot prove anything to be true or false. Science does not completely disprove or prove any idea, theories are simply accepted or rejected based on evidence, negative and positive. The acceptance or rejection is always revised according when new evidence or new perspectives about old evidence open up.

      • wwheaton says:
        0
        0

        The problem is, Conservation of Momentum IS a “Law of Physics”, insofar as physics has laws at all. Of course it could turn out to be false, but it has deep theoretical roots (invariance of the laws of physics under spatial translations, as proved by Emmy Noether in the 1920s) and it is built in to all our theories of physics. People need to understand this.

        The “electromagnetic propulsion engine” flatly breaks conservation of momentum, if it does not push on SOMETHING. (Something massive. A photon rocket does not break that law, of course — it pushes on light — but it has the problem that the input power P it needs is P=cF, at least, where F is thrust and c is the speed of light. Pushing on any massless particles has this same problem.)

        So, if this thing works, it gets a Nobel Prize, flat — Hey, Presto! — for revolutionizing physics. Could be, of course, I’d love it, but forgive me for being skeptical.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      White is doing the warp field testing, but this article is about the EM drive, not related to White at all. The two separate test programs have been conflated.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        That’s because White claims that the EmDrive mechanism is an aspect of his own “warp field” theories.

        You can’t sue someone for merely taking that man at his word.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          Does he? That’s interesting. As I understand it, the theoretical basis for how the EM Drive actually works is more or less an open question at this point. I guess if White can fit that into his work, more power to him.

  2. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    Being a long-time Trekkie, hearing this thing described as a ‘warp drive’ annoys me but I guess such highly inaccurate pop-culture shorthand is pretty much the only way the media knows how to communicate science stories to the general public.

  3. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this doesn’t seem to be a “warp” drive but rather a photon emitter (RF emitter which consists of photons). It would seem that this would be similar to a solar sail. It could allow high speeds to be attained but would take a while and would require a power source.

    • EtOH says:
      0
      0

      Supposedly the photons are entirely contained inside the drive, hence the controversy. But the device gets very hot, and certainly emits IR, which was ultimately found to be the origin of the Pioneer anomaly.

      • Bernardo de la Paz says:
        0
        0

        So, for us lay folks, it would be nice if the critics of these experiments would go beyond just “violates theory” and explain the experimental flaws that lead to the apparent violations of theory. Your comment seems to be a good step in that direction. Thank you.

    • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
      0
      0

      “and would require a power source.”

      What do you think the cold fusion work at LaRC is for??

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      Yeah, this article is about the EM drive, not related to the warp field tests at all. These two separate test programs have been conflated.

  4. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Here’s a more sensible discussion:

    http://www.centauri-dreams….

  5. Spaceman says:
    0
    0

    It is amazing to see the continued vitriol that Keith Cowing turns out against Sonny White. Both being retired from NASA and having worked with Sonny, I know the truth. Sonny is working on a new understanding of physics and how gravity may actually work. He has shown a relationship between the gravitational constant and the zero state of the hydrogen atom. His q thruster generates something like a electromagnetic field that can push off of quantum space(which is everywhere) /creating negative pressure and create a force in one direction. Thus the lack of having to expel a fluid to create thrust. He probably has done enough work to prove to himself that his new theories have merit, but needs independent testing to prove it conclusively. For something that may turn our understanding of physics on it’s head, I would think we would be patient and appreciate the extremely small amount of funding that NASA is spending in this area. If anything, this continued vitriolic criticism has greatly slowed down his work, along with the complexity of explaining this to higher ups that don’t fully understand the physics of what he is doing.

    The implications to the human race if he is right are huge. It may be possible with nuclear power to create a thrust level that would allow a spacecraft to fly at a constant one g. Any where in the solar system in probably under a month. It is not just limited to space. Reusable launch to orbit would be cheap. Anywhere on earth in under 3 hours probably. Capability to raise very large objects with out cranes.

    I know this takes some trust in Sonny, but he has a lot of passion in this area and is extremely smart and well respected within NASA.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Right. Someone named “spaceman” strings a bunch of sciencey words together and claims that the JSC warp drive guys have revealed new information on the fundamental nature of reality.

    • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
      0
      0

      “I know the truth.”

      Of course you do. Us idiots who have spent our lives studying physics are just so clueless about how the universe works.

      ” Sonny is working on a new understanding of physics and how gravity may actually work.”

      I was under the impression that we do understand how gravity works. Massive objects warp the curvature of space-time (according to the formulas of General Relativity), which is what we call gravity. And I think we just had a spacecraft (Gravity Probe-B) pretty much confirmed GR is the best we have today.

      ” He has shown a relationship between the gravitational constant and the zero state of the hydrogen atom.”

      And that relationship would be what exactly? References please.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      Sonny should publish something about whatever it is that might turn physics on its head. Otherwise it’s really hard to give any credibility to claims made. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      I fully respect all opinions. However if you believe Dr. White’s proposal is correct, then I would suggest you investigate the theory he proposes and explain it in detail. Theory comes first. Experiments are performed only to confirm theories that have been examined and found rigorous. And personal virtues are, for better or worse, irrelevant to the laws of science.

  6. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    I’m not a physicist, but my daughter and son-in-law are, so I asked them. Here’s the problem. No one in serious physics would take an anomalous measurement as proof of a radical new theory. There are always too many sources of error. Theory must come first. In this case the theory proposed by Dr. White is that the group velocity of microwaves in a waveguide varies with the diameter, therefore in the tapered resonator, essentially a waveguide blocked at both ends, the photons at one end will be moving faster and will impact the end of the waveguide with more momentum.

    The problem with this is that photons are simply not billiard balls with momentum determined by mass and velocity. The momentum of a photon depends only on its frequency, and there is no evidence the frequency of the photons is altered in the resonator. If photon momentum depended on group velocity then simply reflecting light between two mirrors, one covered by a layer of glass which lowers the velocity of the light, would create thrust.

    The considerable microwave power injected into the resonator is converted to heat and produces irregular heating of the resonator. This produces forces on the device due to differential boyancy, thermal recoil of air molecules (even in near-vacuum), and even reaction forces from emitted thermal radiation (as occurred in the Pioneer probes). Forces on the device from these effects will be significant and are not easily predicted.

    As Doug points out, this is unrelated to the spacewarp concept.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      If White is claiming that part (or all) of the thrust is emerges from the exchange of momentum between the waveguide and the photons, then his claim is bupkis, as you point out. It would otherwise require an entire rewriting or abolishing of mass-energy equivalency.

  7. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    I saw the named German physicist at the AIAA – and he feels the Sydney article is just one more example of media gone mis-quoting and mis-understanding. Also that the media just loves these type headlines and usually never gets these things right. Click-bait I think is the phrase? (Hey-I clicked too!) Then the researcher gets critiqued for things they never said in their papers or anywhere.

  8. Eli Rabett says:
    0
    0

    This sort of thing has a history. As Danial Woodard pointed out such things do not exist by themselves but would require a complete change in our understanding of very basic physics, and there is a history of engineers fooling themselves because they only look at the surface.