The EM drive has nothing to do with the warp drive paper. EM drive has to be sub-luminal per general relativity, if anything it's like flying with the impulse drives on Star Trek. The warp drive distorts space itself and there is zero thrust, because the spacecraft doesn't actually move.
*Matter/anti-matter reactor creates "warp plasma" which is then goes through the EPS conduits to the nacelles, then to the warp coils, and somehow distorting space. We'll just have to have WW3 and the Vulcans arrival to figure that shit out.
+Arturo Dela Cruz The ship doesn't move at all at warp. The warp bubble moves, not the ship. Therefore space is moving, and the ship is along for the ride.
Joshua Pearce This video is combining very badly 2 news that came out of the EM drive research. 1) was the that the EM drive might work 2) that they shot a laser interferometer into the EM drive and photons arrived earlier than they should have (compared to when the drive was off) they were playing with the idea that the EM drive was creating a warp bauble. It was tested twice, first with air and then without it just in case.
Joshua Pearce Because on a hunch they tested to see if the EM Drive they're currently testing had any effect on spacetime. It turns out in their very limited test that they saw a tiny amount of space-time distortion. It is still very much in the early stages of testing but the initial reports of unexplained thrust were one year ago, and they haven't been able to factor it out yet. They have a small budget but new equipment is set to arrive soon and they're going to do more testing in vacuum.
As a dedicated Trekkie this was bugging me the entire damn video! It is well known that warp drives create subspace bubbles to propel the ship. The closest scientific technology is the Alcubierre drive.
Sizzle 'n Fry NASA actually have a design of a warp drive that in theory might actually work. Then why don't they build it? Several reasons. The first being that once they built it, it would take half the power generated on Earth to power up the thing. They haven't figured out how to test the theory with anything smaller, or something that might produce similar results to prove the theory. At that (low) amount of power, the maximum payload would be about the size of a cubesat. The bubble would have a cone at the front and back. One theory suggests this would collect particles at the front, which would be accelerated to the near the speed of light and obliterate the first thing that got in its way. Some suggest this would be enough matter and force to destroy a planet, or solar system. Alternatively the matter may reach the apex of the front cone and appear on the apex of the back of the cone causing no problems at all. There is also a question of the payload its self. Most theories say that the bubble would cause anything inside it to not experience any momentum, but some scientists believe that it is only the bubble its self that would be warped and that everything inside it would be squashed at the back of the bubble destroying the payload. Then there is the question about what happens when the warp bubble collapses. Would the payload just stop, or would the contents of the bubble come out at close to the speed of light? With all these questions with no way currently of answering them, NASA thinks efforts are best spent on other propulsion methods for the time being.
Douglas Blatherwick there's also the minor issue of it taking half the yearly power generation of earth in /negative/ energy. Which right now is theoretical and has a pretty good chance of not actually being a thing.
I wouldn't call this video a "debunking." It's more of a "this is unlikely to be true and we won't know until we have the results of further experimentation." But it could be true, and that's still pretty exciting.
Fourteen Lines Yeah, an actual debunking would need to explain that (a) the problem isn't violation of Newton's third law, it's violation of conservation of momentum (which reduces to Newton 3 under certain conditions that aren't always true) and (b) conservation of momentum can only be violated if the laws of physics vary from place to place.
Fourteen Lines We actually don't need further experimentation to know the drive doesn't work. The excess force was not only small but also found during a control experiment. If the drive produces no less thrust when disabled, it wasn't producing any thrust to being with! "As a result, a second (control) test article was fabricated without the internal slotting (a.k.a. the null test article)..." "Thrust production was not dependent upon the slotting." ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009930.pdf
PhysicsPolice That's the Cannae Drive. Not the Shawyer EMDrive.. Do your homework. There were three devices tested.. the Main experiment, the "Null" drive without the slots and the control. Thrust was recorded with the first two, but not the last one. It was the last one that was unpowered.
understandable skepticism on scishow's part, but a few things ----two other labs saw similar effects with a similar device, one in china and one in the US. the chinese lab actually saw the effect scale with power input....but this is china after all, who knows if its legit ----it was 80-ish micronewtons, and the measurement error of the device is +/-9micronewtons. ----it was 80 micronewtons from a 1.1kw magnetron, which is pretty close to a home-made microwave, and at 80 micronewtons and the whole thing weighing only 9kg, it CURRENTLY beats the PANTS off other hall-effect drives like the ion drive on new horizons, which weighs 90kg. optimizations to the device could get thrusts far higher than that, especially using superconductors. ----the proposed explanation for it doesnt violate conservation of momentum, it (supposedly) exerts force onto virtual particles in the quantum foam (somehow) and those end up being the propellent ----you didnt even mention the weirdest part, they shot a laser interferometer into it and noticed the light beam was bent, and it was bent 40 times more than they calculated it could be by atmospheric heating inside the cone......and they tested it in a vacuum where there IS NO AIR to heat could it be all fake or a mismeasurement? absolutely, but there's enough here to get interested
Ryukachoo Yeah, I feel like they ended the segment by saying it was all nothing to get excited about. A little disappointing because while we've certainly learned to be cautiously skeptical and not jump to conclusions, I think there is enough going on with the testing around the EM drive to at least pay attention to.
Ryukachoo We should also keep in mind that all info we have on this is second-hand on best. Forum posts by researchers and such. No official papers have been released. With that being said, I'm hopeful. Because who wouldn't want reactionless thrusters? A nice reddit post on everything we know about this so far: tinyurl.com/mtqqbsx
Ryukachoo Where's this lab report from China published? The only report I've seen is from NASA and it unambiguously failed because the control experiment produced as much anomalous force as the supposedly-functioning EM Drive. "As a result, a second (control) test article was fabricated without the internal slotting (a.k.a. the null test article)..." "Thrust production was not dependent upon the slotting." ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009930.pdf
PhysicsPolice note: a null test is not a control test. they had a separate control test which made a couple micronewtons, slightly more than the measurement error of the machine. the null test was to see if the geometry of the chamber was important by not having the cone shape....apparently it isnt important because they saw very similar thrust numbers out of that...which is even weirder. the chinese paper is linked on the emdrive wikipedia page, but keep in mind it is a chinese university and they aren't exactly.....thorough.
Skip6235 Mythbusters tried to bust that... ironically they got a little bit of thrust... (the air pushing against the sail bounced off the sail again in a backwards/sideways direction which then gave a little bit of thrust)
Kieran Lepley A little bit different, here you end up dealing with an extra force even in a purely theoretical environment you have to take into account gravity given you're talking about lift. If where you are has a small enough gravitational force lifting yourself by your ankles could actually generate enough force to propel you to escape velocity.
bigperk345 ... No you couldn't... Otherwise NASA astronauts wouldn't need all those fancy EVA packs to jet around in microgravity, they'd just grab their ankles and pull themselves in the direction they wanted to go.
EVA packs allow far more control, you could grab your ankles and go in the general direction you wanted to except you'd start spinning which would undoubtedly set you on an undesirable course.
magister343 ~ Close, but not quite. Impulse engines are nuclear fusion engines where the plasma from the fusion reactor powers a massive magnetic coil to propel the ship. It is a form of magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster. (According to the ST:NG Technical Manual) This is used in conjunction with the ship's warp drive's alteration of the ship's relativistic mass, to achieve mid-to-high sub-light speeds. (Pretty cool, huh? they reduce the mass of the ship with a weak warp bubble to make it easier to accelerate in normal sublight space.) Btw; an MPD Thruster is like a supercharged ion drive. It requires a propellent.
Sean K. Weak in that its effect on the ship is weak. Keep in mind that the Normandy wasn't the only ship with a Mass Effect drive, and there were many equally-huge ships that had one.
The warp drive is based on a specific theoretical technology called the Alcubierre drive, which isn't technically a propulsion technology at all. Instead, it works by gravitationally warping space time in front of and behind a craft, creating a sort of "bubble." Since the effects of gravity aren't limited by the speed of light, such a "bubble" could "move" through the rest of space faster than the speed of light. You might not even have to worry about time dilation, since the space around your ship is moving, not the ship itself. A theoretical physicist named Harold G. White recently did work on the Alcubierre drive design and found that by changing the shape of the "warp bubble," he could reduce the amount of energy it might take to something much more manageable than previous estimates. There's still work being done on all this. The "EM drive" is a completely unrelated technology, as many others have pointed out already. It is possible that it could be working without violating Newton's Third Law, but it would have to be doing weird quantum physics stuff that we have only the vaguest understanding of at the moment. It could also be a measurement error, but the universe is weird, so I for one am not going to rule the thing out until they get more conclusive results.
The EmDrive is more like an impulse engine than a warp drive. What might be happening is the EmDrive is producing electromagnetic radiation which is pushing the engine with a tiny force. Resultingly, the thrust produced should be proportional to the power loss within the engine.That isn't a warp drive, but impulse engines are cool too.
Every time I have a bad day, I know I can come home and feel good again by watching a SciShow video. It's nice to know the world isn't totally void of great minds and wonderful people.
What the hell. Click bait. "EM" drive bears zero resemblance to warp drive. This guy doesn't even know how warp drive is supposed to work let alone be able to tell "the truth" about it.
+karton realista Yea, I'll give it that. It's good to clarify that they are different things. But it's still click bait. This video has nothing to do with warp drive except for that brief mention.
They did test the EMdrive in both China and the UK as well and they also achieved thrust during the experiment. I'm pretty sure that NASA even tested it in vacuum, also measuring thrust in that experiment. We aren't just talking about an experiment that might be a one time fluke, this experiment has been completed several times with positive and measurable results. The problem is that most scientists and engineers simply cant figure out why it works and until we know there might be something else "messing" with the experiments which hasn't been uncovered yet. And that's basically the gist of the problem, we cant really be sure if it's a secondary force of some kind or if the experiments themselves are flawed somehow until we can know for sure *why* it works. Also the possible warp bubble detected withing the EMdrive doesn't mean that we have a warpdrive yet. A warpdrive needs to create a warp bubble around itself and not within.
AtheistScientific I have, but all I've come across are the same kinds of pop-sci articles that this video is pointing out were misrepresentations of the truth. Not a single first-hand source or technical publication to be found. If you have found such a source, please share it--we're all interested in science here.
IceMetalPunk ***** I'm assuming that you've found this writeup from Reddit? It has been the best summary piece I've found yet on this development, and does a pretty decent job of summarizing what has been done, and by whom: www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/34cq1b/the_facts_as_we_currently_know_them_about_the/ It is worth noting that (AFAIK) the closest we have to a first-hand source is the NASASpaceFlight forum thread - no technical publications, papers, or anything "official" in the literature. IIRC the Eagleworks team gave a presentation in Cleveland a year or more ago at a conference, but I don't think the part they participated in was included in any proceedings.
Matt Bernhardt Your second paragraph is exactly the reason I made the comments I did. Of all the sources listed in that link, the only actual scientific source was from a Chinese journal...which couldn't be read without an account on the journal's site. So there doesn't really seem to be much evidence beyond speculation.
GamingByOne It is like mental masturbation, it reinforced your already existing beliefs, biases, ect. In turn making you feel good about yourself. It is the same reasons Christians enjoy going to church.
Two things problematic with this debunking: 1) they're making an impulse drive, not a warp drive. Nothing is bending space here and thrust can't get you past light speed, and you should know that, Hank. 2) The paper does report having produced thrust. If your explanation is measurement error, you could have argued to that effect in more detail.
Elliott Collins The warp drive thing was about the "news?" that they shot a laser interferometer into the EM drive and photons traveled faster than the speed of light making them believe that they created a warp bauble, they did several tests including one in vacuum to make sure that the EM drive was the one generating the distortion. This video is not as good as i was expecting i wanted a full debunking no a mish mash of 2 news.
That stuff you said at 3:14 answered so many questions in so little time! Do a video about that!!! Crossexamine galaxies at the edge of the universe and their growth span with the age of the universe and how long it took their light to get here. Please.
Anything new regarding alternate ways of creating thrust, no matter how insignificant it is right now, is encouraging. And let's face it, we need to start making a concerted effort to inspire young people to study the fields of math and science.
An EM drive update :) Its been confirmed that NASA is publishing a peer reviewed paper on this at some point very soon in American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. The drive has been shown to work Exerts forces on quantum particles Doesn't violate newton's laws Though technology like this sidesteps the need to carry propellant to achieve thrust (propellant adds mass, which increases the amount of propellant required... a vicious cycle) it isn't able to violate relativity (break the speed of light), it takes a lot of electricity, and its thrust to mass doesn't look viable for getting us into orbit even without carrying a power source... That said, I think tech like this may be enough to counter the orbit decay of ISS or other large satellites (bringing us one step closer to a cost effective closed system). It could also be very useful for long term unmanned missions around the solar system. If you want to see NASA try to sidestep relativity (potential warp drive tech) look into their alcubierre drive... its very cool, very impractical, and very theoretical! (did I mention cool?)
What? What has EM got to do with a warp drive? I thought the idea of a warp drive is that you are going faster than (or the same speed as) light, which we have known for a very long time is impossible...
actually acording to einstein when the big bang happened all matter that exploded from him spread with a speed faster than light which he called maximum speed
What? there's nothing wrong with a perpetual motion machine! You just need a cat, a piece of buttered toast, some duct tape, and a few magnets! Edit: oh, and something to keep the animal rights activists off your back. Learned that one the hard way.
Thank you for this episode! A suggestion for a future episode: Does there exist an inventory of known astronomical bodies (stars, etc.)? Since there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on earth, it would be impossible to include them all in a database. How is this done?
I hadn't heard this news in the first place until you told me about it then ruined it for me in seconds Hank. You have raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly sir.
While I don't disagree with the assessment of the viability of this technology, the argument at the 1:40 mark is flawed. The thing you have to remember about Newton's Third Law is that the forces in an action/reaction pair act on different objects and do not cancel each other out. See: How rockets work etc.
Well that's because you're ejecting the fuel, so the rocket goes the other way. Blasting your fuel against a wall is going to move it the other way. And if its contained, it pushes both ends. I'm not sure how the taper makes these forces offset, but I'm still in my course, there is plenty left for me to learn :)
i don't care how small it is, newton's 3rd law of motion is being broken. that is, if//when this experiment is reproduced with the same results. about that, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different results, but science does it all the time. I'm having a hard time deciding whether that's a contradiction or not.
That's not the definition of insanity, its a common misquote. Doing it repeatedly and expecting entirely different results is silly, granted, but it totally works if there are variables that can change. The classic tech support trick is turn it off and on again, and do it again. It tends to work. The scientific method is about doing it over and over in order to measure just those things that do change.
Huntracony that is not what they are claiming. Just that hey have made an EM drive with 30-50 micronewtons of thrust. The cone "method" he mention is not what NASA claimed to have used.
Seeing as you guys are sci-fi fans and clearly like Douglas Adams (from your repeated references to 42 and the like), I think you should definitely do something Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy related for the holiday known as Towel Day coming up on this May 25th.
well, if it is able to measure force accurately to within 15 micronewtons, then saying 30-50 "might not be real" is like saying "this scale is accurate to within one gram, so the fact that it shows 2 to 3 grams means there might not be any weight on it at all" "Random effects" also have absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the equipment, so you also kinda failed to make a sensible point there... (if "random effects" can cause 30-50 micronewtons of thrust, how do you make a scale that claims to be accurate to within 15 micronewtons?)
Actually measurement devices can produce false data from their usage error, just look at scales for mass. As for the materials used to measure, the torsion scale could measure within 15 uN but you also have to remember that they were using high intensity microwaves (which will fly through a thin copper casing like a hot knife through butter) and they measured the torsion with an electronic encoder which would mean that they had capacitors (ever tried to use a capacitor in the presence of high intensity microwaves, I have, the capacitor kind of overcharges) which is another possible reason for any measurement to be fake but isn't included in the error of the torsion balance scale.
get some college kids to nibble away at a pack of fig newtons until there are some micro newtons left over, then take 15 of them make a triple beam balance and put them all on one side . lol Done! a 15 micro newton scale.
***** Yeah I really wish that they talked a bit more about the whole idea rather than just debunking the (obviously wrong) claims of a warp drive. Anyone who actually read the articles mentioned would know that while the claims were quite incredible. They didn't talk about randomly skipping out of the universe to ride on a fold in space time, something the warp drive is all about.
Rok Adamlje SciShow, Mental Floss, when you see Myths about, or them trying to debunk something their arguments are usually less than stellar. (pun intended) Is the EM Drive a Warp Drive, no. Does it work? NASA has said that there is a definite force that cannot be accounted for by lack of instrument precision or outside forces. Basically it works. There are two other labs previously that have shown this to work as well. NASA's experiment was the first one to be done in a vacuum and in different orientations to cancel out the possibility of the thrust being gravity. The other labs used more input power and got relatively much more output than NASA got, but NASA's design had a fundamental difference in the design. They are planning of scaling up the engine and using a design closer to the other labs for the next test of the technology. The other labs did not test in a vacuum, or in different orientations. While they don't know why it works, it has been scientifically proven to work. The reason why NASA isn't making a big deal about it right now is that the input energy to output thrust they are getting isn't very good. Even if they are able to get the same results as the other labs with a larger test engine they will still will not make a large deal about it as some technologies don't always scale well. It will not be until they have run enough tests at different energy levels and a few tweaks to the design to make sure it will scale that they would make a big announcement. This may be a really big thing, it may be that it only works on a small scale. Right now it looks like it may be a great technology for space probes, but if it does scale, may greatly reduce the time for humans and cargo to go to other celestial bodies in our solar system. NASA is being careful because, though it looks promising, there have been many technologies that have seemed promising in initial tests, the initial test were correct, but for various reasons did not scale up.
Rok Adamlje I would less call it a 'debunking' and more a 'dehyping'. The actual experiment has garnered some legitimate interest and will likely be further tested. The internet hype on the other hand is a whole different beast.
"But don't worry... we can still observe them from here on Earth." That's like telling a 10 year old kid, "You can't go outside and play on this beautiful, sunny day. But don't worry, you can go to the window and look at it from inside." It's not comparable (or comforting) at all.
SboTV You are actually right. "Te legere credere quod omnia in interrete" -Julius ceaser. Abraham lincon was questioning Julius ceaser but the quote is not originally from him. I don't blame him/her it's a common misconception.
Z6U6Z6U Although perpetual movement could create infinite energy if harnessed, thus perpetual movement is not possible, either. Still, @Naqu I got your joke. :p
Naqu I've proven that it's true time and again, but physicists say that my wife's rantings and ravings about everything work outside the known laws of physics, and they won't recognize it.
The force backwards is created by reducing the space to increase pressure When you lay your hand in your hand, you can push equally, when one hand is balled up, you can't. It's a matter of symmetry and geometry.
1. The EM drive is not even not near a warp drive. That's just retarded hypers looking for views, clicks, and ad revenue. The EM drive would be a sublight drive, that would be the next step beyond an ion engine. Perhaps, if you will, an impulse drive. 2. It is currently believed that EM drives are not reaction-less, but are creating virtual particle pairs, that react differently to it's surfaces, thus can be used to create real, reaction based thrust. If you can't go for this description, you probably ought to throw out Hawking radiation, and accept that black holes don't evaporate either.
Zaphod Breeblebrox Actually, the EM drive does nothing at all. If you measure the same anomalous force while it's enabled and disabled, you have to chalk it up to systemic error and fail the device. That's why we have control experiments. "... a second (control) test article was fabricated without the internal slotting (a.k.a. the null test article)..." "Thrust production was not dependent upon the slotting." ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009930.pdf
PhysicsPolice Not sure why the control in the experiment failed to produce a null result. Perhaps whatever effect that it is working off of, does not follow classic RF design principles, and thus the control, was not a proper control. Could be an effect of longitudinal waves ( docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.arrl.org/files/file/QEX_Next_Issue/Jul-Aug_2012/Works_QEX_7_12.pdf ), or some other oddity we as of yet do not understand. 73, AE7EC
Come to think of it, if the control eliminated the gunn diode (I think that was the emitter) and replaced it with a like resistance, if that would be the determining factor. As we know, diodes already work with virtual particles (electron holes) vs. real particles (electrons). So the thrust could be generated at the junction itself. I have no idea really, it's just grasping at straws for explanations of an observed effect. 73, AE7EC
Simple debunk of the news. The EM Drive is more like the impulse drive and not the WARP Drive. It is still important that it would allow fast and easy interplanetary travel, Maybe not Star Wars fast, but a LOT faster than Chemical rockets. It would also be important to bring up the Quantum drive, which like the EM Drive uses no propellant, but uses the quantum fluctuations in space like a Subs drive screw uses the water to propel the vessel. All you need is power to power the drive system and not push off of in deep space. Both the Q-drive and EM Drive gives a range measured in how much time you can keep powering the drive, rather than how long you can keep burning and throwing away propellant, exactly like a nuclear submarine. Range measured in years rather than miles per gallon (or gallons per mile)
True warp drive (the model of technology, which already exists) does not need propulsion. It's bends space around it... in very simple terms of course.
vid needs to be updated, nasa has confirmed 'anomalous thrust' exceeding the margin of error of measuring systems. the fact that it produces measurable thrust without consuming fuel means that even if the thrust is minute it can be used for far longer periods of time than any other drive, even the best ion drives. not having to cart massive fuel loads changes the game entirely.
Here's an idea: put that space bending engine on a really fast ship that has a mega-powerful telescope on, travel somewhere 2000 light-years away (devided by the multiple the bend-engine brings in), watch ancient rome collapse live (or travel further and watch the pyramids being built). You're welcome.
What could work is a "Spatial Induction Drive", though I've no idea how to induce motion in space-time without having a really large mass. All you need to do is move space-time in the opposite direction to which it moves (upwards instead of downwards) and you can neutralize gravitational effects. Do this in space, and you have a propellentless thruster / booster / engine.
Alright, my uncle works with this guy you're talking about and I've met him. Let me clear some things up. He dubbed this engine if you can call it that, the Q-drive. It uses the quantum bounce of EM waves(there's your 3rd law friend), and can only be used in the vacuum of space. It acts sort of like a solar sail in the way it speeds up slowly but surely. As for the warp drive, he has a lot of theoretical math done in it, and has come to the shaky conclusion it's possible to develope, but hes spending his time on the Q-drive. Right ow the fastest we can get to Mars is ~6 months. With this technology 45 days. So while we do still need conventional rockets to get into space once we're there this thing can get us very far with very little energy.
I didn't get the part where you said Newton's third law is being violated :O The cone shaped metal will push back on the radiation, just like how a traditional rocket pushes back on the propellant.. so whats the problem?
Slight clarification : The (alleged) methodology with regards to the EM drive schematics they were testing was that it was meant to be interacting with the "quantum plasma" or the particles spontaneously produced by the ground state of empty space. The allegation of this being a "warp drive" is based around the idea that the interaction could lower the energy of the area of space in front of the cavity to lower than the ground state, producing a negative energy state (something that the "exotic" - IE as yet entirely theoretical - matter would provide in a real world warp drive). Since eagle-works already has instrumentation that was designed with detecting a "warp bubble" in mind, they said that they intend to do that test while they are at it. Please do not take the above as belief that the EM drive works, my personal opinion is that i won't believe it until its tested in a hard vacuum in micro gravity on the ISS, and even then with appropriate skepticism.
"...as phony as perpetual motion!" Oh bollocks, you tell me now? I've just spent 10 years trying to built a perpetual motion machine with matches, bog rolls and fifty miles of sticky tape.
"A lot more information about the early universe is coming our way in the next few years." Big smile on Hank's face. My interpretation: SciShow space will be around for a while, I get paid! Well, that's the first thing I thought about as a joke. I give Hank more credit than just that though. Lol
You know there is a theoretical warp-drive. It was thought out by Miguel Alcubierre when he wall still studying in UNAM and proposed a theory that you can go faster than light by expanding space behind a spacecraft while contracting space in front of the spacecraft and he explains that space behaves this way due to negative energy or dark energy(however you call it) but we have to make this theoretical into experimental but we just don't have the technology for that yet. But it is a nice thought that in the future we could travel vast distances in short periods of time.
I both hate and love SciShow. Love because they are interesting up to date science videos with reliable information, and no pseudoscience present... and science is awesome (and I fucking love it). Hate because every time I sit down to watch one episode I always end up binge watching them like some kind of box set... I have been here for 90 mins now, as usual. ... I suppose one more video can't hurt, eh?
I wonder if this channel would do a video on the late (and very deserving of our respect) Halton Arp's theory of intrinsic red shift and how his catalogue of strange quasars could fundamentally change astrophysics and astronomy should he ever be proved to be correct? Please? PRETTY please? Thanks, Mike. =D
I feel like I read the article about the EM drive a while back. I was very skeptical about the NASA results (I believe the article just credited NASA). I did my best to follow up but sometimes the lack of supporting information is a welcomed negative result in itself.
The photons exert a force on the reflective surface at the same time that the photons exert a force on the light source itself, right? Simple Newtonian physics. If the problem is that, then just point the light source outward into space so it works like usual chemical engines. The real problem is that the forces created by radiation is very low. The sun creates enough of this radiation pressure to be able to use solar sails, which are more viable. You would need a lot of stored energy in your space ship to use basically a giant flashlight to move your ship. Super difficult to achieve (since there is now also more mass).
When something is moveing(/oscillating) it has more mass. Let an object oscillate, move it 1m in X make it stop oscillating, move it back 1m in X and repeat. You are now rowing your spaceship along in space. What is the problem with that idea?
If we want a Star Trek type warp drive, we need to start on the controlled matter/anti-matter reactions that are used to compress space in front of a star ship in Star Trek
The EM drive is NOT a warp drive. It's equivalent to Star Trek's sublight Impulse Drive. NASA's Eagle Works lab is looking into this. They are also working on experiments to try to create a warp field in the lab, based on their own Harold "Sonny" White's modifications to Alcubierre's warp field equations. As with the EM drive, they have yet to produce a really solid positive result.
I dont know how a Warp drive does work. But if it works like an Alcubierre drive, then two points (1) it is physically possible in our universe (requires negative energy which either might not exist or we won't be able to produce, yeap) and (2) it has nothing to do with a fuel-less engine.
According to 2018, time is not the 4th dimension. I know that sounds heartbreaking for all the research done up until this point but fear not. Some research done as far back as 2011 has already suggested that time is not a dimension. On the bright side, this opens up the possibility of generally warping third dimensional space without breaking rules of the constant.
The EM drive has nothing to do with the warp drive paper. EM drive has to be sub-luminal per general relativity, if anything it's like flying with the impulse drives on Star Trek. The warp drive distorts space itself and there is zero thrust, because the spacecraft doesn't actually move.
Thanks! I wanted to sday something similar, but you saved me the time.
And the warp drive uses a anti matter reactor so it does have fuel
*Matter/anti-matter reactor creates "warp plasma" which is then goes through the EPS conduits to the nacelles, then to the warp coils, and somehow distorting space. We'll just have to have WW3 and the Vulcans arrival to figure that shit out.
star ship must use inertial canceller gravity to feel like not moving so fast
+Arturo Dela Cruz The ship doesn't move at all at warp. The warp bubble moves, not the ship. Therefore space is moving, and the ship is along for the ride.
How did anyone confuse a propellant-less drive with warp drive? So many layers of sillyness.
Joshua Pearce ikr
Joshua Pearce This video is combining very badly 2 news that came out of the EM drive research.
1) was the that the EM drive might work
2) that they shot a laser interferometer into the EM drive and photons arrived earlier than they should have (compared to when the drive was off) they were playing with the idea that the EM drive was creating a warp bauble. It was tested twice, first with air and then without it just in case.
I missed the part about the laser, thanks for the info.
Joshua Pearce Because on a hunch they tested to see if the EM Drive they're currently testing had any effect on spacetime. It turns out in their very limited test that they saw a tiny amount of space-time distortion.
It is still very much in the early stages of testing but the initial reports of unexplained thrust were one year ago, and they haven't been able to factor it out yet. They have a small budget but new equipment is set to arrive soon and they're going to do more testing in vacuum.
It's so darn unlikely that "cones" will be the engineering marvel which takes us to the stars. But I hope it's true anyways.
EM drives have nothing to do with Warp Drives.
WTF guys...
raijinmeister I know right
raijinmeister it's to get you hyped
I was hoping for Alcubierre Drive news.
As a dedicated Trekkie this was bugging me the entire damn video! It is well known that warp drives create subspace bubbles to propel the ship. The closest scientific technology is the Alcubierre drive.
Yeah, they swapped their sci-fi engines around. This was an alleged potential reactionless drive, which would still be pretty amazing.
"Warp drive?!"
*Watches video*
No warp drive :'(
Sizzle 'n Fry my dreams of seeing a real enterprise in my lifetime are crushed T_T
MettheSlayer i served onboard the USS Enterprise ;-) ...CVN-65 that is!
Michael Harper Damn, i´m jealous :P
Sizzle 'n Fry
NASA actually have a design of a warp drive that in theory might actually work. Then why don't they build it? Several reasons.
The first being that once they built it, it would take half the power generated on Earth to power up the thing. They haven't figured out how to test the theory with anything smaller, or something that might produce similar results to prove the theory.
At that (low) amount of power, the maximum payload would be about the size of a cubesat.
The bubble would have a cone at the front and back. One theory suggests this would collect particles at the front, which would be accelerated to the near the speed of light and obliterate the first thing that got in its way. Some suggest this would be enough matter and force to destroy a planet, or solar system.
Alternatively the matter may reach the apex of the front cone and appear on the apex of the back of the cone causing no problems at all.
There is also a question of the payload its self. Most theories say that the bubble would cause anything inside it to not experience any momentum, but some scientists believe that it is only the bubble its self that would be warped and that everything inside it would be squashed at the back of the bubble destroying the payload.
Then there is the question about what happens when the warp bubble collapses. Would the payload just stop, or would the contents of the bubble come out at close to the speed of light?
With all these questions with no way currently of answering them, NASA thinks efforts are best spent on other propulsion methods for the time being.
Douglas Blatherwick there's also the minor issue of it taking half the yearly power generation of earth in /negative/ energy. Which right now is theoretical and has a pretty good chance of not actually being a thing.
I wouldn't call this video a "debunking." It's more of a "this is unlikely to be true and we won't know until we have the results of further experimentation." But it could be true, and that's still pretty exciting.
Fourteen Lines They probably just read the io9 article like everyone else who seems to be debunking this story.
Fourteen Lines Yeah, an actual debunking would need to explain that (a) the problem isn't violation of Newton's third law, it's violation of conservation of momentum (which reduces to Newton 3 under certain conditions that aren't always true) and (b) conservation of momentum can only be violated if the laws of physics vary from place to place.
Fourteen Lines We actually don't need further experimentation to know the drive doesn't work. The excess force was not only small but also found during a control experiment. If the drive produces no less thrust when disabled, it wasn't producing any thrust to being with! "As a result, a second (control) test article was fabricated without the internal slotting (a.k.a. the null test article)..." "Thrust production was not dependent upon the slotting." ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009930.pdf
+physicspolice, the link you posted concerned tests done in 2014. The NASA announcement that prompted this video was from earlier this month.
PhysicsPolice That's the Cannae Drive. Not the Shawyer EMDrive.. Do your homework. There were three devices tested.. the Main experiment, the "Null" drive without the slots and the control. Thrust was recorded with the first two, but not the last one. It was the last one that was unpowered.
understandable skepticism on scishow's part, but a few things
----two other labs saw similar effects with a similar device, one in china and one in the US. the chinese lab actually saw the effect scale with power input....but this is china after all, who knows if its legit
----it was 80-ish micronewtons, and the measurement error of the device is +/-9micronewtons.
----it was 80 micronewtons from a 1.1kw magnetron, which is pretty close to a home-made microwave, and at 80 micronewtons and the whole thing weighing only 9kg, it CURRENTLY beats the PANTS off other hall-effect drives like the ion drive on new horizons, which weighs 90kg. optimizations to the device could get thrusts far higher than that, especially using superconductors.
----the proposed explanation for it doesnt violate conservation of momentum, it (supposedly) exerts force onto virtual particles in the quantum foam (somehow) and those end up being the propellent
----you didnt even mention the weirdest part, they shot a laser interferometer into it and noticed the light beam was bent, and it was bent 40 times more than they calculated it could be by atmospheric heating inside the cone......and they tested it in a vacuum where there IS NO AIR to heat
could it be all fake or a mismeasurement? absolutely, but there's enough here to get interested
Ryukachoo Yeah, I feel like they ended the segment by saying it was all nothing to get excited about. A little disappointing because while we've certainly learned to be cautiously skeptical and not jump to conclusions, I think there is enough going on with the testing around the EM drive to at least pay attention to.
Ryukachoo We should also keep in mind that all info we have on this is second-hand on best. Forum posts by researchers and such. No official papers have been released.
With that being said, I'm hopeful. Because who wouldn't want reactionless thrusters?
A nice reddit post on everything we know about this so far: tinyurl.com/mtqqbsx
Ryukachoo Thank you for this post.
I was wondering the same thing since this video is very different from the articles i read.
Ryukachoo Where's this lab report from China published? The only report I've seen is from NASA and it unambiguously failed because the control experiment produced as much anomalous force as the supposedly-functioning EM Drive. "As a result, a second (control) test article was fabricated without the internal slotting (a.k.a. the null test article)..." "Thrust production was not dependent upon the slotting." ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009930.pdf
PhysicsPolice
note: a null test is not a control test. they had a separate control test which made a couple micronewtons, slightly more than the measurement error of the machine.
the null test was to see if the geometry of the chamber was important by not having the cone shape....apparently it isnt important because they saw very similar thrust numbers out of that...which is even weirder.
the chinese paper is linked on the emdrive wikipedia page, but keep in mind it is a chinese university and they aren't exactly.....thorough.
It's the using a fan to push your own sailboat problem
Yes!
Skip6235 Mythbusters tried to bust that... ironically they got a little bit of thrust... (the air pushing against the sail bounced off the sail again in a backwards/sideways direction which then gave a little bit of thrust)
Kieran Lepley A little bit different, here you end up dealing with an extra force even in a purely theoretical environment you have to take into account gravity given you're talking about lift. If where you are has a small enough gravitational force lifting yourself by your ankles could actually generate enough force to propel you to escape velocity.
bigperk345 ... No you couldn't...
Otherwise NASA astronauts wouldn't need all those fancy EVA packs to jet around in microgravity, they'd just grab their ankles and pull themselves in the direction they wanted to go.
EVA packs allow far more control, you could grab your ankles and go in the general direction you wanted to except you'd start spinning which would undoubtedly set you on an undesirable course.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a warp drive actually is.
This does not sound anything like a warp drive. It is more like Star Trek's impulse drive, isn't it?
magister343 - That's what I was thinking.
magister343 ~ Close, but not quite. Impulse engines are nuclear fusion engines where the plasma from the
fusion reactor powers a massive magnetic coil to propel the ship. It is a form of magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster. (According to the ST:NG Technical Manual)
This is used in conjunction with the ship's warp drive's alteration of the ship's relativistic mass, to achieve mid-to-high sub-light speeds.
(Pretty cool, huh? they reduce the mass of the ship with a weak warp bubble to make it easier to accelerate in normal sublight space.)
Btw; an MPD Thruster is like a supercharged ion drive. It requires a propellent.
Jerry VanNuys So it's kind of like a weak Mass Effect field?
ajaxtaur It's kind of like a freakishly strong Mass Effect field. Those Galaxy class ships aren't exactly lightweight...
Sean K.
Weak in that its effect on the ship is weak. Keep in mind that the Normandy wasn't the only ship with a Mass Effect drive, and there were many equally-huge ships that had one.
The warp drive is based on a specific theoretical technology called the Alcubierre drive, which isn't technically a propulsion technology at all. Instead, it works by gravitationally warping space time in front of and behind a craft, creating a sort of "bubble." Since the effects of gravity aren't limited by the speed of light, such a "bubble" could "move" through the rest of space faster than the speed of light. You might not even have to worry about time dilation, since the space around your ship is moving, not the ship itself.
A theoretical physicist named Harold G. White recently did work on the Alcubierre drive design and found that by changing the shape of the "warp bubble," he could reduce the amount of energy it might take to something much more manageable than previous estimates. There's still work being done on all this.
The "EM drive" is a completely unrelated technology, as many others have pointed out already. It is possible that it could be working without violating Newton's Third Law, but it would have to be doing weird quantum physics stuff that we have only the vaguest understanding of at the moment. It could also be a measurement error, but the universe is weird, so I for one am not going to rule the thing out until they get more conclusive results.
Alcubierre requires “exotic” mass which doesn’t exit.
The EmDrive is more like an impulse engine than a warp drive. What might be happening is the EmDrive is producing electromagnetic radiation which is pushing the engine with a tiny force. Resultingly, the thrust produced should be proportional to the power loss within the engine.That isn't a warp drive, but impulse engines are cool too.
Thanks for making this episode, I was waiting for it eagerly :3
This is not a warp drive in the slightest. The Alcubierre Engine distorts quantum foam to make a warp bubble and push you faster than light using it.
rvidal0001 yes but you can go faster then light with it. and it doea push at the back. like riding a wave.
Every time I have a bad day, I know I can come home and feel good again by watching a SciShow video. It's nice to know the world isn't totally void of great minds and wonderful people.
What the hell. Click bait. "EM" drive bears zero resemblance to warp drive. This guy doesn't even know how warp drive is supposed to work let alone be able to tell "the truth" about it.
What a choice for a name! Feeling "under the water?"
It's actually a star trek reference ;) Although I've heard that it's also the name of a ship that sunk
+Random Guy Ok... missing the point
He says people started talking about EM drive as if it was warp drive, hence the video
+karton realista Yea, I'll give it that. It's good to clarify that they are different things. But it's still click bait. This video has nothing to do with warp drive except for that brief mention.
"Kek telescope"
top Keck*
Kaka* telescope
Top keck
topkeck
Charlie Hofigan topkeck telescope
Charlie Hofigan Glad I'm not the only one who thought that.
Charlie Hofigan kek
KinRedysko hubble noscope
Charlie Hofigan Meme's are a really powerful force indeed.
Keck.
I was waiting for this episode the moment I saw that headline. Thank you for clarifying the hyperbole of the hype!
They did test the EMdrive in both China and the UK as well and they also achieved thrust during the experiment. I'm pretty sure that NASA even tested it in vacuum, also measuring thrust in that experiment. We aren't just talking about an experiment that might be a one time fluke, this experiment has been completed several times with positive and measurable results.
The problem is that most scientists and engineers simply cant figure out why it works and until we know there might be something else "messing" with the experiments which hasn't been uncovered yet. And that's basically the gist of the problem, we cant really be sure if it's a secondary force of some kind or if the experiments themselves are flawed somehow until we can know for sure *why* it works.
Also the possible warp bubble detected withing the EMdrive doesn't mean that we have a warpdrive yet. A warpdrive needs to create a warp bubble around itself and not within.
AtheistScientific Published, scientific citation needed.
IceMetalPunk Yea, why don't you just google it. It's not hard to find the information I'm talking about.
AtheistScientific
I have, but all I've come across are the same kinds of pop-sci articles that this video is pointing out were misrepresentations of the truth. Not a single first-hand source or technical publication to be found. If you have found such a source, please share it--we're all interested in science here.
IceMetalPunk ***** I'm assuming that you've found this writeup from Reddit? It has been the best summary piece I've found yet on this development, and does a pretty decent job of summarizing what has been done, and by whom: www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/34cq1b/the_facts_as_we_currently_know_them_about_the/
It is worth noting that (AFAIK) the closest we have to a first-hand source is the NASASpaceFlight forum thread - no technical publications, papers, or anything "official" in the literature. IIRC the Eagleworks team gave a presentation in Cleveland a year or more ago at a conference, but I don't think the part they participated in was included in any proceedings.
Matt Bernhardt
Your second paragraph is exactly the reason I made the comments I did. Of all the sources listed in that link, the only actual scientific source was from a Chinese journal...which couldn't be read without an account on the journal's site. So there doesn't really seem to be much evidence beyond speculation.
EM drive has nothing to do with Warp Drive.
Why did I enjoy this video so much?
GamingByOne It is like mental masturbation, it reinforced your already existing beliefs, biases, ect. In turn making you feel good about yourself. It is the same reasons Christians enjoy going to church.
You know I may not be the best at math or anything, but I love just sitting here and binge watching sci-show and learning.
Two things problematic with this debunking:
1) they're making an impulse drive, not a warp drive. Nothing is bending space here and thrust can't get you past light speed, and you should know that, Hank.
2) The paper does report having produced thrust. If your explanation is measurement error, you could have argued to that effect in more detail.
Elliott Collins The warp drive thing was about the "news?" that they shot a laser interferometer into the EM drive and photons traveled faster than the speed of light making them believe that they created a warp bauble, they did several tests including one in vacuum to make sure that the EM drive was the one generating the distortion.
This video is not as good as i was expecting i wanted a full debunking no a mish mash of 2 news.
That stuff you said at 3:14 answered so many questions in so little time! Do a video about that!!! Crossexamine galaxies at the edge of the universe and their growth span with the age of the universe and how long it took their light to get here. Please.
We'll *never stop* believing in perpetual motion!!
hehehehe.....
TheVlog Then you might as well start believing in cold fusion too. And yes, I got the joke.
TheVlog
fifthgear93 Wow, fifth, that was just *cold*. Absolutely zero applause for that.
+Flame Games very punny
Anything new regarding alternate ways of creating thrust, no matter how insignificant it is right now, is encouraging. And let's face it, we need to start making a concerted effort to inspire young people to study the fields of math and science.
The EM drive has nothing to do with warp drive. Warp drive doesn't provide thrust, it's a faster than light drive.
An EM drive update :)
Its been confirmed that NASA is publishing a peer reviewed paper on this at some point very soon in American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
The drive has been shown to work
Exerts forces on quantum particles
Doesn't violate newton's laws
Though technology like this sidesteps the need to carry propellant to achieve thrust (propellant adds mass, which increases the amount of propellant required... a vicious cycle) it isn't able to violate relativity (break the speed of light), it takes a lot of electricity, and its thrust to mass doesn't look viable for getting us into orbit even without carrying a power source...
That said, I think tech like this may be enough to counter the orbit decay of ISS or other large satellites (bringing us one step closer to a cost effective closed system). It could also be very useful for long term unmanned missions around the solar system.
If you want to see NASA try to sidestep relativity (potential warp drive tech) look into their alcubierre drive... its very cool, very impractical, and very theoretical! (did I mention cool?)
What? What has EM got to do with a warp drive? I thought the idea of a warp drive is that you are going faster than (or the same speed as) light, which we have known for a very long time is impossible...
actually acording to einstein when the big bang happened all matter that exploded from him spread with a speed faster than light which he called maximum speed
This is the best channel on UA-cam why doesn't everyone on UA-cam fuck with it? It has comedy an it is entertaining
What? there's nothing wrong with a perpetual motion machine! You just need a cat, a piece of buttered toast, some duct tape, and a few magnets!
Edit: oh, and something to keep the animal rights activists off your back. Learned that one the hard way.
Thank you for this episode! A suggestion for a future episode: Does there exist an inventory of known astronomical bodies (stars, etc.)? Since there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on earth, it would be impossible to include them all in a database. How is this done?
A Warp device ? That is Chaos technology !
Basler Jones then why does your Holy Imperium of Man use it, eh? Such discrepancies show you inferior to the Tau.
Basler Jones Warp drive is safe as long as you use a navigator and the death of millions of warp users ... lol
I thought you just need to get the OK from the Inquisition and you would be able to use it
I hadn't heard this news in the first place until you told me about it then ruined it for me in seconds Hank.
You have raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly sir.
While I don't disagree with the assessment of the viability of this technology, the argument at the 1:40 mark is flawed. The thing you have to remember about Newton's Third Law is that the forces in an action/reaction pair act on different objects and do not cancel each other out.
See: How rockets work etc.
Well that's because you're ejecting the fuel, so the rocket goes the other way. Blasting your fuel against a wall is going to move it the other way. And if its contained, it pushes both ends. I'm not sure how the taper makes these forces offset, but I'm still in my course, there is plenty left for me to learn :)
My mistake, I didn't realize that it was a closed waveguide. I've looked it up: emdrive.com/principle.html and find the explanation suspect.
Can't help but imagine, how much blooper reel footage you guys must have...
Warp Drive
Reads about alcubierre drive
gets excited
gets dreams crushed by this guy
This is really more similar to the ion propulsion engine in kerbal space program. Not even close to a warp drive XD
awww..... 😢 I read that article and was super exited excited I even told every one at work about it 😣
i don't care how small it is, newton's 3rd law of motion is being broken. that is, if//when this experiment is reproduced with the same results.
about that, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different results, but science does it all the time. I'm having a hard time deciding whether that's a contradiction or not.
It already has been reproduced multiple times with the same results.
That's not the definition of insanity, its a common misquote. Doing it repeatedly and expecting entirely different results is silly, granted, but it totally works if there are variables that can change. The classic tech support trick is turn it off and on again, and do it again. It tends to work.
The scientific method is about doing it over and over in order to measure just those things that do change.
ua-cam.com/video/Iyx2BOcgO8c/v-deo.html
iamihop The Chinese and the Brits replicated these results if I remember correctly.
Huntracony that is not what they are claiming. Just that hey have made an EM drive with 30-50 micronewtons of thrust. The cone "method" he mention is not what NASA claimed to have used.
Officially the last Sci show video I will ever watch
That had nothing to do with warp drive. That had to do with electrical thrusters.
Craig Davis Whoever wrote the script for this video obviously doesn't understand the difference between the two.
Ray guns, warp drives, hyperthreading. Electricity is amazing. Thanks Volta, Faraday and pals.
wRp drives and em drives are tottaly diffrent
Was expecting news on the alcubierre drive experiments, I got all exited
Or Star Wars we have wrap drives too. Light Speed anyone? Which is still faster than C like way faster.
C is actually light speed ._.
I think we all have something to bring to the conversation... next time what you should bring, is silence.
Wrap?
Star Wars has a "Hyper drive" not at all a warp drive.
Key word "WARP"
Seeing as you guys are sci-fi fans and clearly like Douglas Adams (from your repeated references to 42 and the like), I think you should definitely do something Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy related for the holiday known as Towel Day coming up on this May 25th.
well, if it is able to measure force accurately to within 15 micronewtons, then saying 30-50 "might not be real" is like saying "this scale is accurate to within one gram, so the fact that it shows 2 to 3 grams means there might not be any weight on it at all"
"Random effects" also have absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the equipment, so you also kinda failed to make a sensible point there... (if "random effects" can cause 30-50 micronewtons of thrust, how do you make a scale that claims to be accurate to within 15 micronewtons?)
Actually measurement devices can produce false data from their usage error, just look at scales for mass. As for the materials used to measure, the torsion scale could measure within 15 uN but you also have to remember that they were using high intensity microwaves (which will fly through a thin copper casing like a hot knife through butter) and they measured the torsion with an electronic encoder which would mean that they had capacitors (ever tried to use a capacitor in the presence of high intensity microwaves, I have, the capacitor kind of overcharges) which is another possible reason for any measurement to be fake but isn't included in the error of the torsion balance scale.
get some college kids to nibble away at a pack of fig newtons until there are some micro newtons left over, then take 15 of them make a triple beam balance and put them all on one side . lol Done! a 15 micro newton scale.
*Do more like this please!!!*
Not exactly great debunking.
There's a lot more to the story than this video lets on.
And just when I thought he was about to get to that, he starts news about stars and telescopes...
***** Yeah I really wish that they talked a bit more about the whole idea rather than just debunking the (obviously wrong) claims of a warp drive. Anyone who actually read the articles mentioned would know that while the claims were quite incredible. They didn't talk about randomly skipping out of the universe to ride on a fold in space time, something the warp drive is all about.
Rok Adamlje SciShow, Mental Floss, when you see Myths about, or them trying to debunk something their arguments are usually less than stellar. (pun intended)
Is the EM Drive a Warp Drive, no.
Does it work? NASA has said that there is a definite force that cannot be accounted for by lack of instrument precision or outside forces.
Basically it works.
There are two other labs previously that have shown this to work as well. NASA's experiment was the first one to be done in a vacuum and in different orientations to cancel out the possibility of the thrust being gravity.
The other labs used more input power and got relatively much more output than NASA got, but NASA's design had a fundamental difference in the design. They are planning of scaling up the engine and using a design closer to the other labs for the next test of the technology. The other labs did not test in a vacuum, or in different orientations.
While they don't know why it works, it has been scientifically proven to work. The reason why NASA isn't making a big deal about it right now is that the input energy to output thrust they are getting isn't very good. Even if they are able to get the same results as the other labs with a larger test engine they will still will not make a large deal about it as some technologies don't always scale well. It will not be until they have run enough tests at different energy levels and a few tweaks to the design to make sure it will scale that they would make a big announcement.
This may be a really big thing, it may be that it only works on a small scale. Right now it looks like it may be a great technology for space probes, but if it does scale, may greatly reduce the time for humans and cargo to go to other celestial bodies in our solar system. NASA is being careful because, though it looks promising, there have been many technologies that have seemed promising in initial tests, the initial test were correct, but for various reasons did not scale up.
Rok Adamlje I would less call it a 'debunking' and more a 'dehyping'. The actual experiment has garnered some legitimate interest and will likely be further tested. The internet hype on the other hand is a whole different beast.
"But don't worry... we can still observe them from here on Earth." That's like telling a 10 year old kid, "You can't go outside and play on this beautiful, sunny day. But don't worry, you can go to the window and look at it from inside." It's not comparable (or comforting) at all.
I feel like this missed a bunch of stuff.
0:12 - 0:25 was brilliant.
EDIT: I spoke too soon 90% of this video is brilliant.
*"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."* _-Abraham Lincoln_
I get it
😏
Anzwertree pretty sure it was Benjamin Franklin who said that....
Anzwertree I thought Julius Caesar said that
SboTV You are actually right. "Te legere credere quod omnia in interrete" -Julius ceaser. Abraham lincon was questioning Julius ceaser but the quote is not originally from him. I don't blame him/her it's a common misconception.
Bless channels like this that help to sort the TRUTH from the bullshit.
First! *takes out soda and popcorn*
I watched this video for the first time today. James Webb telescope being operational in 2018? What hopes and dreams we all had back in 2015 :)
April 2021 and we'll still be waiting at least a year for some science. Or even more if someone else breaks something they shouldn't.
PERPETUAL MOTION IS A FACT!!!! JUST PLAY PORTAL!!!
Naqu Portal doesnt have perpetual motion, when people say perpetual motion they mean perpetual energy creation, not perpetual movement.
Z6U6Z6U Although perpetual movement could create infinite energy if harnessed, thus perpetual movement is not possible, either. Still, @Naqu I got your joke. :p
Phijkchu_naqu
snart hmm...yes?
Naqu I've proven that it's true time and again, but physicists say that my wife's rantings and ravings about everything work outside the known laws of physics, and they won't recognize it.
The force backwards is created by reducing the space to increase pressure
When you lay your hand in your hand, you can push equally, when one hand is balled up, you can't. It's a matter of symmetry and geometry.
1. The EM drive is not even not near a warp drive. That's just retarded hypers looking for views, clicks, and ad revenue. The EM drive would be a sublight drive, that would be the next step beyond an ion engine. Perhaps, if you will, an impulse drive.
2. It is currently believed that EM drives are not reaction-less, but are creating virtual particle pairs, that react differently to it's surfaces, thus can be used to create real, reaction based thrust. If you can't go for this description, you probably ought to throw out Hawking radiation, and accept that black holes don't evaporate either.
Zaphod Breeblebrox Actually, the EM drive does nothing at all. If you measure the same anomalous force while it's enabled and disabled, you have to chalk it up to systemic error and fail the device. That's why we have control experiments. "... a second (control) test article was fabricated without the internal slotting (a.k.a. the null test article)..." "Thrust production was not dependent upon the slotting." ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009930.pdf
PhysicsPolice Nasa is far behind the other research groups.
PhysicsPolice Not sure why the control in the experiment failed to produce a null result. Perhaps whatever effect that it is working off of, does not follow classic RF design principles, and thus the control, was not a proper control. Could be an effect of longitudinal waves ( docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.arrl.org/files/file/QEX_Next_Issue/Jul-Aug_2012/Works_QEX_7_12.pdf ), or some other oddity we as of yet do not understand.
73, AE7EC
Come to think of it, if the control eliminated the gunn diode (I think that was the emitter) and replaced it with a like resistance, if that would be the determining factor. As we know, diodes already work with virtual particles (electron holes) vs. real particles (electrons). So the thrust could be generated at the junction itself. I have no idea really, it's just grasping at straws for explanations of an observed effect.
73, AE7EC
Carbosful Which other research groups?
Simple debunk of the news. The EM Drive is more like the impulse drive and not the WARP Drive. It is still important that it would allow fast and easy interplanetary travel, Maybe not Star Wars fast, but a LOT faster than Chemical rockets.
It would also be important to bring up the Quantum drive, which like the EM Drive uses no propellant, but uses the quantum fluctuations in space like a Subs drive screw uses the water to propel the vessel. All you need is power to power the drive system and not push off of in deep space. Both the Q-drive and EM Drive gives a range measured in how much time you can keep powering the drive, rather than how long you can keep burning and throwing away propellant, exactly like a nuclear submarine. Range measured in years rather than miles per gallon (or gallons per mile)
True warp drive (the model of technology, which already exists) does not need propulsion. It's bends space around it... in very simple terms of course.
Dash my hopes and dreams, why don't cha! *cries single tears out left eye*
Man I know I'm late with this, but I'm really digging Hank's new haircut.
vid needs to be updated, nasa has confirmed 'anomalous thrust' exceeding the margin of error of measuring systems. the fact that it produces measurable thrust without consuming fuel means that even if the thrust is minute it can be used for far longer periods of time than any other drive, even the best ion drives. not having to cart massive fuel loads changes the game entirely.
Thank you scishow! For once again keeping the internet from being stupid.
I commend you for not jumping on the hype train to get views.
Here's an idea: put that space bending engine on a really fast ship that has a mega-powerful telescope on, travel somewhere 2000 light-years away (devided by the multiple the bend-engine brings in), watch ancient rome collapse live (or travel further and watch the pyramids being built). You're welcome.
What could work is a "Spatial Induction Drive", though I've no idea how to induce motion in space-time without having a really large mass.
All you need to do is move space-time in the opposite direction to which it moves (upwards instead of downwards) and you can neutralize gravitational effects. Do this in space, and you have a propellentless thruster / booster / engine.
Alright, my uncle works with this guy you're talking about and I've met him. Let me clear some things up. He dubbed this engine if you can call it that, the Q-drive. It uses the quantum bounce of EM waves(there's your 3rd law friend), and can only be used in the vacuum of space. It acts sort of like a solar sail in the way it speeds up slowly but surely. As for the warp drive, he has a lot of theoretical math done in it, and has come to the shaky conclusion it's possible to develope, but hes spending his time on the Q-drive. Right ow the fastest we can get to Mars is ~6 months. With this technology 45 days. So while we do still need conventional rockets to get into space once we're there this thing can get us very far with very little energy.
I didn't get the part where you said Newton's third law is being violated :O
The cone shaped metal will push back on the radiation, just like how a traditional rocket pushes back on the propellant.. so whats the problem?
Hey, it's Inspector Dax from TMZ!!!
Slight clarification : The (alleged) methodology with regards to the EM drive schematics they were testing was that it was meant to be interacting with the "quantum plasma" or the particles spontaneously produced by the ground state of empty space. The allegation of this being a "warp drive" is based around the idea that the interaction could lower the energy of the area of space in front of the cavity to lower than the ground state, producing a negative energy state (something that the "exotic" - IE as yet entirely theoretical - matter would provide in a real world warp drive). Since eagle-works already has instrumentation that was designed with detecting a "warp bubble" in mind, they said that they intend to do that test while they are at it.
Please do not take the above as belief that the EM drive works, my personal opinion is that i won't believe it until its tested in a hard vacuum in micro gravity on the ISS, and even then with appropriate skepticism.
I also hate the term they made up. "Quantum Plasma". pshht.
Braking in space from near lightspeed is gonna be hell
Wait a second...
Keck telescope...
Kek telescope...
NASA! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!?!?!?
"...as phony as perpetual motion!" Oh bollocks, you tell me now? I've just spent 10 years trying to built a perpetual motion machine with matches, bog rolls and fifty miles of sticky tape.
"A lot more information about the early universe is coming our way in the next few years." Big smile on Hank's face.
My interpretation: SciShow space will be around for a while, I get paid!
Well, that's the first thing I thought about as a joke. I give Hank more credit than just that though. Lol
I love your *New* Hairstyle Hank :)
This EM drive sounds more like Impulse then warp :p
Wow, a hank presented video, that's rarer than a unicorn.
When the James Webb telescope comes online in 2018..." Well you were only 3 years off Hank, a speck in the fabric of time.
You know there is a theoretical warp-drive. It was thought out by Miguel Alcubierre when he wall still studying in UNAM and proposed a theory that you can go faster than light by expanding space behind a spacecraft while contracting space in front of the spacecraft and he explains that space behaves this way due to negative energy or dark energy(however you call it) but we have to make this theoretical into experimental but we just don't have the technology for that yet. But it is a nice thought that in the future we could travel vast distances in short periods of time.
I both hate and love SciShow.
Love because they are interesting up to date science videos with reliable information, and no pseudoscience present... and science is awesome (and I fucking love it).
Hate because every time I sit down to watch one episode I always end up binge watching them like some kind of box set... I have been here for 90 mins now, as usual.
... I suppose one more video can't hurt, eh?
I wonder if this channel would do a video on the late (and very deserving of our respect) Halton Arp's theory of intrinsic red shift and how his catalogue of strange quasars could fundamentally change astrophysics and astronomy should he ever be proved to be correct?
Please?
PRETTY please?
Thanks,
Mike. =D
Impulse Engines, were also used in star trek and sounds like a closer discription, then to the warp engines used.
Awesome!!
I feel like I read the article about the EM drive a while back. I was very skeptical about the NASA results (I believe the article just credited NASA). I did my best to follow up but sometimes the lack of supporting information is a welcomed negative result in itself.
The EM drive story is making rounds again, time to pull this video out and slap people with it.
The photons exert a force on the reflective surface at the same time that the photons exert a force on the light source itself, right? Simple Newtonian physics. If the problem is that, then just point the light source outward into space so it works like usual chemical engines. The real problem is that the forces created by radiation is very low. The sun creates enough of this radiation pressure to be able to use solar sails, which are more viable. You would need a lot of stored energy in your space ship to use basically a giant flashlight to move your ship. Super difficult to achieve (since there is now also more mass).
I wasn't holding my breath on this one, to be honest, but I still hope that just once there will be this big of a breakthrough in my time.
When something is moveing(/oscillating) it has more mass.
Let an object oscillate, move it 1m in X make it stop oscillating, move it back 1m in X and repeat. You are now rowing your spaceship along in space. What is the problem with that idea?
If we want a Star Trek type warp drive, we need to start on the controlled matter/anti-matter reactions that are used to compress space in front of a star ship in Star Trek
The EM drive is NOT a warp drive. It's equivalent to Star Trek's sublight Impulse Drive. NASA's Eagle Works lab is looking into this. They are also working on experiments to try to create a warp field in the lab, based on their own Harold "Sonny" White's modifications to Alcubierre's warp field equations. As with the EM drive, they have yet to produce a really solid positive result.
Yeah, this isn't the warp drive, this is the impulse engines... effectively.
I dont know how a Warp drive does work. But if it works like an Alcubierre drive, then two points (1) it is physically possible in our universe (requires negative energy which either might not exist or we won't be able to produce, yeap) and (2) it has nothing to do with a fuel-less engine.
Yay! The alcubierre drive survives!
According to 2018, time is not the 4th dimension. I know that sounds heartbreaking for all the research done up until this point but fear not. Some research done as far back as 2011 has already suggested that time is not a dimension. On the bright side, this opens up the possibility of generally warping third dimensional space without breaking rules of the constant.
Anything is possible. Give us enough time to discover it all.
I might have no idea what he was talking about, but it sounded really cool...