# Has NASA stumbled upon the basis for a real life faster than light drive?



## qubit (Apr 30, 2015)

> What this tool recorded is that when lasers are fired through the EmDrive's resonance chamber, some of the beams *start moving faster than the speed of light*. If everything checks out - and on the surface the math does - it means the EmDrive is producing some kind of warp field.



This isn't confirmed yet and critics of course point to potential confounding factors, such as atmospheric heating, but this could be just the breakthrough we need!







http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...Have-Accidentally-Stumbled-Across-Warp-Fields


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 30, 2015)

I like the disclaimer



Spoiler



At this point, it's necessary to throw up a very important disclaimer: None of the information here has been verified, peer-reviewed, or is considered academically sound. By tomorrow, someone could realize they made a mathematical error, or conducted measurements in metric and the whole thing will fall apart. But right now, very smart people are considering this to be a legitimate possibility that needs further study.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 30, 2015)

It looks like they have been hard at work in the last year!

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...-unveils-warp-speed-spacecraft-design.203489/

Or the good laugh had here: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...gn-for-its-first-warp-speed-spaceship.202043/


----------



## qubit (Apr 30, 2015)

tsk, Caps just being "awkward" again.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 30, 2015)

Now which EM Drive we Talking  About



Ahhzz said:


> Thoughts?
> 
> http://io9.com/new-test-suggests-nasas-impossible-em-drive-will-work-1701188933
> 
> ...



If its the Same Drive 
well 



Spoiler:  Expletive don't click if you love animals 



Shag my rear with a Dido made from hedghog skin


----------



## Caring1 (May 1, 2015)

The same drive that's stated not to require fuel, then goes on to say it would require a nuclear power plant to drive it?


----------



## Caring1 (May 1, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> well
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sure Dido would object


----------



## dorsetknob (May 1, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> I'm sure Dido would object


So would the hedgehog  
So would I 
Sonic needs his coat


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 1, 2015)

Other thought-to-be-faster-than-light concepts were proven to have bended space to give that illusion.  I suspect the same will happen with EmDrive.  Even so, I'm glad physicists are looking into the EmDrive.  It sounds like the theory is worth testing and if it works, physicists need to fill in the gaps that exist.


----------



## Exceededgoku (May 1, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> The same drive that's stated not to require fuel, then goes on to say it would require a nuclear power plant to drive it?


It does need power...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 1, 2015)

If it doesn't require much power, it could run off of plutonium decay.  If it does, nuclear would have to be used until fusion is available.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 1, 2015)

Power for command and control   not thrust


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 1, 2015)

So after reading up on all of this (it was posted days ago on the Escapist), my only conclusion is that it isn't news.

1) Nothing at all has been confirmed, so anything stated right now can be easily dismissed.
2) The thrust generated thus far is something akin to an ion drive.  Not going to be going to warp at those velocities.
3) The lack of propellant being ejected out of one end is interesting (non-classical newtonian travel is a step forward, ie reactive masses and forces generate motion), but not yet anything but a novelty.
4) This is conspiracy nut level reporting.  0 facts, but the topic is something that nerds will want to believe even if it is proven inaccurate.


The warp drive, in theory, is awesome.  Unfortunately these people aren't making that, they're aiming to make an engine that distorts the space-time continuity to create non-relativistic speeds.  They want to make a geo-metro, not an F1 racer.  They are trying to conflate a bit of the nerd zeitgeist into hype.  Using the term warp drive is interesting, but wholly PR.  When they can prove their engine works experimentally, and can be implemented on anything of consequence, I'll listen.  Until then the topic is just fantasy couched in nerd terms.


----------



## BiggieShady (May 1, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Not going to be going to warp at those velocities.


Of course not, but the point here is that previously unknown cause and effect may be discovered ... all they know is "whatever the EM drive does creates a warp field" unless they fucked up the experiment similar to this:


 
... michelson and morley did something similar more than 100 years ago to measure speed of light


----------



## qubit (May 1, 2015)

@lilhasselhoffer I don't think it's as bad as that, it's not "conspiracy nut reporting" and it certainly is news.

It doesn't really matter what the original project was trying to do, scientific discoveries are often made by accident and this just might be one of them. If these laser beams are really moving at FTL speeds (irony there, think about it  ) then this discovery may be used to build FTL drives eventually. It's the principle that counts here, not how effective this particular experiment is at propelling anything very quickly.

Of course, after all this, the simplest, least exciting explanation is unfortunately probably the correct one: measurement error, lol.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 1, 2015)

I'll ask those that contest my rather pessimistic view one question.  If it was named a distortion drive, rather than a warp drive, would it have gotten the same press?


My contention is no.  The fact that it may, or may not, work is beside the point.  These people are taking a term from an immensely popular science fiction universe, applying it to their questionable device, and then putting the device out there into the news to generate positive PR.  By that logic a dark matter engine already exists, we call it a steam engine fired from the blackest coal imaginable. 

Sarcasm aside, if this actually works I'll be interested.  Maybe a probe launched in the next decade could reach Pluto in my lifetime.  As it stands, no proof no positivity.  It's the hard and fast rule that separates snake oils salesmen from people like Tesla.


Edit:
Cleaned up craptastic grammar.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 1, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Sarcasm aside, if this actually works I'll be interested. Maybe a probe launched in the next decade could reach Pluto in my lifetime


NEWS FLASH

Nuclear powered Probe approaching Pluto  eta July 2015

_New Horizons_ is on approach for a dramatic flight past the icy dwarf planet and its moons in July 2015.

I like playing Ping Pong with Sarcasm


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 2, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> NEWS FLASH
> 
> Nuclear powered Probe approaching Pluto  eta July 2015
> 
> ...



I was wrong.  I had confused the 80's launches with those that are getting to Pluto.  That was an error on my part.  Allow me to correct it.

"Perhaps a probe launched from Earth will be able to get to Pluto inside of a decade."  A bit of hyperbole with the flight time being 9.5 years, but nothing too inaccurate.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 2, 2015)

Anyone else up for a spin around the universe?


----------



## qubit (May 2, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'll ask those that contest my rather pessimistic view one question.  If it was named a distortion drive, rather than a warp drive, would it have gotten the same press?
> 
> 
> My contention is no.  The fact that it may, or may not, work is beside the point.  These people are taking a term from an immensely popular science fiction universe, applying it to their questionable device, and then putting the device out there into the news to generate positive PR.  By that logic a dark matter engine already exists, we call it a steam engine fired from the blackest coal imaginable.
> ...


I agree that there's likely a certain amount of PR going on here to make it sound more exciting. However, they did muse that perhaps there's some sort of warping of space going on here, which would then sorta, kinda justify it if you squint the right way, lol.

Oh and this grammar nazi really appreciates the grammar cleanup.  I go into complete OCD (or should that be CDO with the letters in the right order?) mode when I post something with a typo, which happens often enough - even after proofreading. It ends up looking perfect most of the time only because I tend to look over it a few times after posting. I'll even fix a post years after posting it if I see a typo. Better late than never.

I think being a perfectionist when writing is important and I don't apologize for doing it. Similarly, it's bloody grating to see so many illiterate and carelessly written posts on virtually every forum I visit and I don't apologize for that, either. It just makes that person look stupid and unprofessional. I'll cut them lots of slack though if English is obviously their second language, which is only fair.



Easy Rhino said:


> Anyone else up for a spin around the universe?


Yeah, let's go.


----------



## MrGenius (May 2, 2015)

I'd rather take the "tripless trip". And just quantum teleport myself wherever I want to go. Bypassing space-time altogether. Pretty unlikely that's ever going to happen though. Must be nice being a qubit.

It's comforting to know I'm not the only one obsessed with utmost grammatical accuracy in posts. The ratio of my edited posts to non-edited posts must be somewhere around 5000:1.


----------



## qubit (May 2, 2015)

Oh yes it's great, especially being an overclocked one!


----------



## natr0n (May 2, 2015)

I like how nasa teases ideas that they already know or have mastered.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 2, 2015)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...-Warp-Field-Still-Generates-Works-In-A-Vacuum

Original source:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/


So, I'll buy into this being news now.
1) Power technology has been around since the 1980's.
2) Measurable thrust has been proven to not be measurement accuracy errors.
3) Analytical models of the drive have explained discrepancies in measured thrust, and have been proven accurate via further testing.
4) Multiple locations, and numerous tests, have yielded consistent results.
5) Every a****** of the scientific community has had their chance to rip this thing to pieces, but it still stands.

Congratulations, you've got a drive that works in reality, yet screws with our basic understanding of the laws of physics.  Awesome!

No sarcasm at all here.  I'm glad experimental results have confirmed this sucker as correct.  It may put a damper on our understanding of the universe, but that's an opportunity to move closer to the truth.  I'm looking forward to the explanation of why conservation of momentum can be violated here.  Though that may take years, the practical ability to explore our solar system in significantly less time is worth a bit of reworking physics.  The conservation of momentum is a theory for a good reason after all.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 2, 2015)

MrGenius said:


> It's comforting to know I'm not the only one obsessed with utmost grammatical accuracy in posts.


Rant Time

what pisses me off is when some one from The UK  Posts  it  Does not matter what the subject matter is  and the person use's  InCorrect Spelling

Damm auto correct    damm the auto dictionary 
If i want to write Colour   i will write colour and not  " color "
I'm English   and i will use ENGLISH SPELLINGS   Not your YANKEE english spellings

No offense to our south of Canada friends  Its Called the English language  not the American language

TXT   Speak is another  Keep it on your Telephone not on the Forums

Rant over


----------



## MrGenius (May 2, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Rant Time...
> ...Rant over


Your frustration seems perfectly reasonable to me. I, as an American, take no offense to it at all. I'm fairly sure it would annoy me just as much, if the circumstances were reversed.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 2, 2015)

Excuse my unscientific thoughts on this but...if FTL speeds are possible than doesnt it figure that there are "things", undiscovered particles or whatever already travelling at speeds FTL.

It is one thing potentially creating such particles but how do you then detect them?

Consequently, if it is possible to detect them,  then why have we not done this already? ................ because they do not exist in nature and are therefore, impossible?

Maybe it's just my lateral way of thinking about it on a brandy night.

Oh and  @MrGenius .  on behalf of the Brits, apology accepted....only another 318.899,999 to go


----------



## dorsetknob (May 2, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Excuse my unscientific thoughts on this but...if FTL speeds are possible than doesnt it figure that there are "things", undiscovered particles or whatever already travelling at speeds FTL.
> 
> It is one thing potentially creating such particles but how do you then detect them?
> 
> ...


thanks


 unscientifically you travel faster than the particle/object   then you can study them at your leisure  slow down then speed up and again study them at your   leisure 

Or to Put it another way

In order to study a Porsche 911 at speeds over 130Mph    you drive a Ferrari 458  and not a fiat 500

Now that's a Rum Thought


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 3, 2015)

No, no, no.

This is not FTL.  Nowhere in the article does it say this is an FTL drive.  To interpret it as such is so inaccurate that it borders on criminally stupid.

The drive is conventional, and generates enough acceleration to make a trip from Earth to Mars in about 70 days.  The drive, through an unknown mechanism, generates this acceleration without conventional fuel ejection (shooting fuel out one end applies the opposite force on a body, accelerating it forward).


The FTL part of this is that a beam of photons were shot through the drive, and they arrived at the detector much faster than would be allowed through the medium regularly.  Note what is being said here.

First, the velocity of the photons was calculated by distance in drive/time from emitter to collector.  This, in conventional terms is distance/time.  It's pretty easy to see this as a good assumption, because in normal conditions space-time is relatively constant.  Imagine instead a chunk of graph paper inside the drive.  Through some unknown mechanism, the graph paper is being distorted such that there are less squares from point to point, making the light take less time to cover the same space.  In our frame of reference, the velocity of the photons is greater than light speed, but in reality the velocity is not appreciably greater.

Second, the thing being measured is a photon stream.  This isn't a drive that moves that fast.  It is akin to strapping a bottle rocket to your skates, and wondering why after it's lit you only travel 3."  Perspective is necessary.


CAPSLOCKSTUCK
FTL particle detection (or high energy particle detection) is, to put it bluntly, a bitch.  The energy is so high that they basically don't stop for anything.  To use conventional terms, it's like using a paper target to study a single bullet at a shooting range.  By the time the bullet does anything there have been thousands of other bullets penetrating the paper, so you can't really tell which bullet hole belongs to the one you are looking for.

This is why scientists and miners now have a lot in common.  Scientists have buried high energy particle detectors in the Mesaba mountain range (iron ore heavy mountains in the Midwest US), which is effectively like coating the previously mentioned paper in an inch of steel.  Only the 50 caliber bullet is strong enough (read: has enough energy) to penetrate the steel and leave a mark.

We have technically created particles traveling faster than the speed of light already.  The thing is, that's basically using 100 particles and only having one pass the light speed barrier.  The sum of their speed though is not greater than light speed (in any one direction).

Various theories exist about FTL particles.  Assuming that the prevailing models are correct, the only thing you need to do to travel faster than light speed is remove mass from the equation (vast oversimplification, but it's easier than summarizing the models).  Assuming a particle doesn't interact with the Higgs Field, the particle has no mass.  No mass means the energy requirement to accelerate the particle is zero, meaning FTL is possible.  While all good on paper, the means by which this may be achieved is absolutely unknown.  Even this gross oversimplification is painful.


----------



## 64K (May 3, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> No, no, no.
> 
> This is not FTL.  Nowhere in the article does it say this is an FTL drive.  To interpret it as such is so inaccurate that it borders on criminally stupid.
> 
> ...



You can correct someone's error without inferring that they are "criminally stupid".

I think you are wound up to tight and you should consider that.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 4, 2015)

64K said:


> You can correct someone's error without inferring that they are "criminally stupid".
> 
> I think you are wound up to tight and you should consider that.



Allow me a brief indulgence, so that I can frame my answer.

As a child of the very late 80's, I've seen the rise of media that exists only to interpret interpretations of news.  With the functional collapse of journalism into political rhetoric, the only way that you can get news is to either interpolate truth from two opposing political reports, or to search out the original source and interpret it for yourself.

Case in point, Baltimore.  The police have a track record of abusing their detainees, the people are functionally just above the poverty line set by the government (on average), and yet this is not what the main stream media reported.  Fox reported that a bunch of thugs were looting and rioting.  More liberal media outlets showed the violence against protestors, and claimed racism.  Neither source really reported on anything, they presupposed an interpretation based upon political agendas and "found" facts to support their presuppositions.

In fact, the shows doing the best reporting are comedic.  Seriously, consider that the Daily Show, Nightly Show, and Last Week Tonight are doing a better job reporting facts than traditional reporting outlets.  WTF?

Based upon this indulgence, allow yourself a moment in my shoes.  Qubit interprets and posts a news article, which itself is an interpretation on a report that interprets harvested data.  If you'd ever played the phone game in elementary school, you'd know that with this many interpretations many of the facts are lost along the way, and incorrect conclusions can be drawn. 



The thing is, this is the internet.  Everybody lists their sources, and the Escapist is no different.  It took me less than 30 seconds to find their single source, and link to it.  It brought us a NASA post, which itself had no source.  That's reasonably taken as the relevant factual source, so I read it.  While dry, the article is not given to hyperbole.  It doesn't cite FTL speeds, it doesn't conjecture about Star Trek, and it doesn't claim anything special.  It states the general conditions of testing, the relevant results, how these results were confirmed, and conjectures about how such a device could be used.  Nothing amazing, but factually correct.

After two interpretations we get "*Has NASA stumbled upon the basis for a real life faster than light drive?*" 

Patently, no.  To grab headlines with this crap, while linking to a source that basically proves not, is stupid.  If along the lines anyone had done their research, they would have smacked the person who suggested this and told them it was a bold faced lie and easily disprovable.  To post this as a headline makes journalistic credibility something you don't have.

If you want to post a headline based in truth, how about the amazing stuff?  Perhaps: "NASA's new drive could make a trip to Mars your summer destination."  While hyperbolic, follow it up with the projected 70 day travel to Mars, 90 days there, and 70 day return trip.  What about "Move over Hubble, satellites of the future could spend decades in space without a drop of fuel."  Again, hyperbolic as the nuclear reactor would need material. On the other hand refueling reactive mass rockets would be a thing of the past.  Finally, why not go with "Soon the International space station could be the greenest vehicle in Earth's history."  Not even hyperbolic this time.  925,000 pounds of matter that absorbs sunlight, uses one of these drives to maintain orbit, and emits no burnt fuel is green in the extreme (boy that bit of stupid hurts to say).


In short, yes I'm wound tight.  Crap reporting does that to me.  If you cite sources you'd better make sure to check them, and if you're reposting news you'd better check their work.  If you don't there will be someone who calls you out on this crap.  That's not a reflection on the author, but a reflection on a broken system where people accept what is said at face value.  Nobody should get away with that.



Edit:
Whether it is a failing of me to make the point, or simply wording it incorrectly, I need to clarify something.  I am not attacking Qubit personally, and have no intention of insulting anyone else directly.  What I want is factual reporting, without hyperbole.

The original data is dry, but you expect that from NASA.  The Escapist reports it in relations to Star Trek, which is stretching things but reasonable.  From one rather substantial embellishment, to a patently incorrect article title, requires only one more interpretation.  That seems rather problematic.

Think I'm being a bit of a prick, I'll concede that point.  At the same time, let's review.  NASA never says anything is traveling FTL, only that a beam of photons shot through the engine take less time to reach a detector than light speed would allow over the given distance of normal space.  The Escapist states specifically (as cited by Qubit) that nothing is moving FTL.  Despite this, the title is about NASA stumbling onto FTL.  That seems a bit of a problem, no?


Of course, let's make sure I'm shooting straight.  I started out saying this isn't news after all.  First off, NASA hasn't used the Star Trek terms, so I lose points for conflating their research with the Escapist's reporting.  I followed up with a factual error on the probes reaching Pluto.  Points lost there, but I admitted to error.  I wind up stating that the drive creates acceleration through an unknown methodology.  While technically correct, the article does suggest some preliminary theories.  This is a toss up, so I'll call it a net wash.  

On the whole, I've failed factually once and failed to properly cite interpretation once.  Not horrible, but definitely not up to journalistic standards.  The only reason I should be listened to is that it's a direct interpretation of the article linked to with actual facts.  Perhaps it's asking too much, but that's what I want to see.  I don't need to know what you think, of what she thinks, of what he thinks, of what was reported by a researcher.  That much interpretation is criminally stupid, because the facts are lost to interpretation.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 4, 2015)

I made my mind up about the article within moments....it is bollocks.
however.... i have stayed with this thread because of the interesting conversation it has generated.....that is the point.
Theres certainly no need to use it for spleen venting.
I was grateful for the explanation you gave me earlier, i thought it was very good.

cant see any reference to @qubit interpreting anything, looks like he just "threw it out here", i may not have heard about it otherwise.


----------



## Mathragh (May 4, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Allow me a brief indulgence, so that I can frame my answer.
> 
> ...



I'm really glad people still keep making the effort to post stuff like this.

Heres another informative post which does a good job of explaining the current state of things regarding this apparently propulsionless drive


----------



## DinaAngel (May 4, 2015)

a photon spinner would send us to lightspeed but its too much energy required. also the problem is that u cant stop if u arent close to a star.

a photon spinner uses the physical movement of the photons to spin up a turbine and creates a jet of photons propelling the object.  all over the hull of the object u have fiber optics that goes to the turbine.

would take around 40 +- 20 years to reach lightspeed.

its simple but its not viable currently so its shelfed


----------



## AsRock (May 4, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...-Warp-Field-Still-Generates-Works-In-A-Vacuum
> 
> Original source:
> http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/
> ...



So most of this data is just NASA trying to give a reason(s) they should get a bigger budget ?. Ironic is it not time for  new president too.

Surely it's improved since then right ?.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 4, 2015)

@AsRock no, it's not a budgetary time press release.  In fact if you'll notice in post 3, I noted that almost a year ago these things were released as progress updates on the subject.  They have been working on this awhile now.


----------

