NASA may have accidentally created a warp field?

[PurpleBuddha]

When lasers were fired through the EmDrive’s resonance chamber, it measured significant variances and, more importantly, found that some of the beams appeared to travel faster than the speed of light. If that’s true, it would mean that the EmDrive is producing a warp field or bubble. Here’s a comment from a space forum following the tests.
That’s the big surprise. This signature (the interference pattern) on the EmDrive looks just like what a warp bubble looks like. And the math behind the warp bubble apparently matches the interference pattern found in the EmDrive.
Another surprise is that the discovery was accidental, as this comment attests.
Seems to have been an accidental connection. They were wondering where this “thrust” might be coming from. One scientists proposed that maybe it’s a warp of the spacetime foam, which is causing the thrust.
What happens next? To prove that the warp effect was not caused by atmospheric heating, the test will be replicated in a vacuum. If the same results are achieved, it seems to mean that the EmDrive is producing a warp field, which could ultimately lead to the development of a warp drive.

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/04/nasa-may-have-accidentally-developed-a-warp-drive/

I wish this wasn't too good to be true. What does everyone here think? My guess is that this is a calibration problem that led to a false measurement. But I am very much a lay person when it comes to things like this.

 

[sojourner]

Atmospheric heating.

 

[Ithekro]

Be interesting if it happens when they test it in a vacuum.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

My half-ignorant take on this is that if we are to ever discover FTL travel, this is as good time as any. This could be it (but still probably isn't).

Either FTL travel in our universe is impossible – which I do believe is the case – and all of these results are instrumentation error. Or it is possible – unlikely, but I will always be somewhat hopeful – in which case any such experiment can lead to an accidental discovery, and the accidental part of it in itself wouldn't be particularly surprising. I do think that "incredibly impractical" is the same thing as "impossible", and all hypothetical warp drive you can read about sound incredibly impractical. So an actually possible FTL travel will have to include something that comes out of the blue just like this.

And I also think this differs a little bit from the neutrino observation error. Neutrinos – pretty regular and widespread particles – travelling at the FTL speeds in normal conditions seemed way too convenient. EmDrive is at least doing things that are unnatural – or at least sound that way to a layman like me who doesn't fully understand how exactly it operates. Regardless of that, there is a chance of you observing conditions that aren't present in nature, or in experiments you've performed previously. which makes it a better place to look for things that you consider impossible.

Reading the description of the EmDrive it still sounds way too unremarkable for FTL, as it doesn't do anything out of the ordinary, but the only things that would be really out of the ordinary are those that are near-impossible (like exotic matter), so that's not really an argument.

I remain sceptical, but curious.

 

[publiusr]

When you want something to be so...it usually isn't.

 

[Amaris]

The website is mysteriousuniverse.org, which is a pseudoscience woo site. They advocate "cryptozoology" (Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot), ghost hauntings, and UFOs. I would be highly suspicious of that source alone, but having a look around on other sites, there's nothing firm, and only two or three saying anything: The Inquisitr site cites Mysterious Universe website as its source, and Sputnik International cites Mysterious Universe as its source. Both also cite NASASpaceflight.com, but before anyone gets excited, the site isn't actually associated with NASA.

The discussion they're having there, which you can read here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.1860

Discusses warp bubbles, faster than light travel, and so on, but it doesn't confirm anything that MU or the other two sites claim it does.

Without having further information, I'd say it's likely too good to be true, and any information otherwise, outside of NASA or another scientific authority directly, should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Believe me, I'd love it to be true, but we've seen these pronouncements a thousand times, with disappointment in the end. It's best to be cautious, and it's always wise to steer clear of sites like Mysterious Universe.

 

[Metryq]

scientific authority

 

[YellowSubmarine]

The website is mysteriousuniverse.org, which is a pseudoscience woo site.

And so much for this even being an instrumentation error. It didn't even happen.

 

[JTShanks]

You'd think a situation like this would result in a much larger response and bigger news outcry.

 

[Amaris]

scientific authority

Sorry about those pesky facts getting in the way of a good story, but if there isn't verifiable evidence behind it to back it up, it's just that: a story. Seeing something like this should have you agreeing for more scientific study, not rolling your eyes because I want evidence that what we're reading isn't fanciful wishes presented as fact. To be honest, if the words "scientific authority" have you rolling your eyes, perhaps the science forum isn't right for you?

The website is mysteriousuniverse.org, which is a pseudoscience woo site.

And so much for this even being an instrumentation error. It didn't even happen.

Well, as I said, the NASASpaceflight.com forum does talk about it happening, but there's nothing to indicate that it was superluminal, only perceived as such, and we know how perceptions are when it comes to that kind of thing.

We all want to see warp speed become a reality, we're Star Trek fans. The truth is, though, that this information has no verifiable source beyond a woo site, and sites that cite said woo site, as well as a forum where engineers talk shop, and that's just not enough.

 

[Metryq]

scientific authority

Sorry about those pesky facts getting in the way of a good story, but if there isn't verifiable evidence behind it to back it up, it's just that: a story. Seeing something like this should have you agreeing for more scientific study, not rolling your eyes because I want evidence that what we're reading isn't fanciful wishes presented as fact. To be honest, if the words "scientific authority" have you rolling your eyes, perhaps the science forum isn't right for you?

Project much?

I think this warp drive story is nonsense. I was rolling my eyes over the phrase "scientific authority." Evidence is all that matters in science. The fact that you went off on a tangent and had to get on your soap box suggests that you're the one who doesn't belong in the science forum.

 

[Kemaiku]

What about NASA makes you disagree with the term scientific authority, which is a legitimate term.

Don't skimp on the details, I want to hear this one.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I was rolling my eyes over the phrase "scientific authority." Evidence is all that matters in science.

J. Allen was just saying that it'd be rather stupid to trust a pseudoscience site over an established "scientific authority" that is actually part of a peer-reviewed scientific process.
I'm not sure what your problem is here.

This thread is on very thin ice anyway since I don't see any credible source for any of this.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Also let's not forget that NASA are the only authority in the world on what NASA has discovered, which is what the article is falsely claiming – and it seems that discovered something sufficiently different for the article to be untrue.

 

[Amaris]

What about NASA makes you disagree with the term scientific authority, which is a legitimate term.

Don't skimp on the details, I want to hear this one.

I was rolling my eyes over the phrase "scientific authority." Evidence is all that matters in science.

J. Allen was just saying that it'd be rather stupid to trust a pseudoscience site over an established "scientific authority" that is actually part of a peer-reviewed scientific process.
I'm not sure what your problem is here.

This thread is on very thin ice anyway since I don't see any credible source for any of this.

These points exactly. One should always examine the evidence presented quite closely, but there's going to be a difference between reading it on Mysterious Universe and reading it on the AAAS site.

I mean, let us examine them both. We'll use two recent stories about volcanic activity to make our points.

MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE

The Calbuco volcano has been dormant for over 40 years, so its eruptions on April 22nd and 23rd would have been news even if they hadn’t been as unexpected and spectacular as they were. The first shot smoke and ash over six miles into the air, shutting down air traffic and forcing the evacuation of the entire town of Ensenada . The second occurred during an electrical storm and lightning bolts lit up the eruption. The eruptions attracted news coverage from around the world … and quite possibly from around the universe as two sets of UFOs were spotted at the site.

On April 22nd, a news station covering the volcano’s eruption also recorded what appears to be five UFOs in a line – four in close formation and one trailing – which flew directly into the ash clouds at a low altitude above the volcano and disappeared. No one seemed to notice it at the time and no official statements were made after the images were distributed on the Internet.

AAAS WEBSITE

Geologists finally have a complete picture of the active volcanic system underneath Yellowstone National Park in the United States, after discovering a large reservoir of magma in the planet's lower crust.
This pool of partly molten rock, which had been predicted but never glimpsed before, connects two well-known features of the park's volcanic plumbing: a smaller chamber of magma in the upper crust and a particularly hot spot of the Earth's mantle below.
The findings do not suggest any increased risk of eruption, but the discovery of the magma pool represents the last piece of the puzzle regarding Yellowstone's supervolcano.

Hsin-Hua Huang from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City and a team of U.S. colleagues combined data from several seismic arrays in North America to identify this magma reservoir in the lower crust — a region that has been difficult to study.
Their study, which appears in the 24 April issue of the journal Science , should help geologists understand how these major volcano systems work and, perhaps, provide a way to assess hazards in the future.

Gee, which site seems more dedicated to scientific literacy and accuracy? I mean, sure, the AAAS goes into some dry account of a study done on the inner workings of the volcanic activity that takes place underneath Yellowstone, but where's the pizzazz? Where's the excitement? Wait, Mysterious Universe says they saw UFOs in a volcanic plume from an erupting volcano! Hot DAMN, there's the excitement! Now that's SUPER SCIENCE!

Also let's not forget that NASA are the only authority in the world on what NASA has discovered, which is what the article is falsely claiming – and it seems that discovered something sufficiently different for the article to be untrue.

This also. Until NASA releases the data, we don't know much of anything.

 

[sojourner]

Maybe it's time to add a pseudoscience subforum under sci/tech.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Maybe it's time to add a pseudoscience subforum under sci/tech.

Dedicated to debunking the woo?

 

[Amaris]

We could call it the Woo Ward.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

We could call it the Woo Ward.

Or the Debunking Bunker

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Where junk science goes to die.