Talk:White–Juday warp-field interferometer

Caution

This article is about a simple repetition of the classic 19th century Michelson–Morley experiment using a change to the apparent length of one path to detect warped space. No mention is made of how it will be determined whether the device actually works for such a purpose as no way is presently known to warp space to test it. The diagrams do not reveal details for the design of the flux capacitor that produces the warped space. The claims in the article are pure fantasy. Aldebaran66 (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the conflict of interest the you point out, i just found it interesting that somebody is doing research on this, I believe is also part of NASA 100 years starship project. Is a test to see if is possible to measure York Time perturbations (expansion or contraction of space) and i don't think doing research is fantasy. You're more then welcome to re-write it in a more neutral way is that what you believe. Quantanew (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I will start by removing the photograph captioned: "Dr. Harold “Sonny” White creates a microscopic warp bubble with the White–Juday warp-field interferometer". In spite of the news release he is doing no such thing. The photograph does not even clearly show the device he is operating. Aldebaran66 (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am also removing the paragraph claiming: Dr. White says if his practical experiments are confirmed we would be able to create an engine that will get us to Alpha Centauri "in two weeks as measured by clocks here on Earth". Even if his "demonstration" is "confirmed" there is no assurance that any sort of a practical drive could then be fabricated making the nearest stars just two weeks away. Aldebaran66 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Is not base in one single source is base upon the scientific paper and press releases from NASA and other sites. Quantanew (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Adding another source. and this source has derivative work from another source from the same author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantanew (talk • contribs) 23:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the articles used as sources were either written by White or he directly provided the text. He even provided the device diagram that was then reproduced in several of the derivative news articles including the ones "from NASA". The one reference that you call "scientific" is a submission for presentation at a conference. This is not usually regarded as "scientific" as it is not peer reviewed. Usually scholarly papers based on conference presentations appear after the conference in peer reviewed journals but this has not yet happened in this case. All the information found so far about this interferometer can be traced directly back to White. Until an unaffiliated and independent expert comments on this device or a paper about it appears in a peer reviewed journal the "single source" tag should remain. Keep in mind that this tag does not, in itself, mean that the article is incorrect or not notable, it means that the article may not represent an unbiased view. It is a request to the editors to watch for and add truly independent sources if and when they become available. Aldebaran66 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well a least 2 papers has been published one in General Relativity and Gravitation and the other in AIP Conference Proceedings.

The one paper is an unreviewed conference proceeding submission we discussed and the Gravitation article contains nothing about the interferometer device. Neither are independent from White. I have removed White's photograph as this article is not about White and does not even show the device as I said before. The neutrality of this article is still in dispute so I restored that tag. The orphan tag can be left off and the link in the Alcubierre drive article can stay for now although Alcubierre is not mentioned in the article and even in the press releases the connection to it is not clear. Aldebaran66 (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is the neutrality still in dispute? you have done your editions to change it. Please elaborate.

And the instrument is call the White–Juday warp-field interferometer so a picture of Dr. White is relevant. Restating the image Quantanew (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The General Relativity and Gravitation paper is the original work from which this experiment is derived from, and as far as i know is a peer-reviewed journal. Quantanew (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally I found another source where they review the paper. Is beginning to get notable. Quantanew (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Another one, from another a source that i already cited. That's two different sources.Quantanew (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No need to answer all issues have been resolved Quantanew (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Dubious: I'd want to point out that the viXra reference seems a bit dubious. While I'm not an expert on physics, it seems it rests on some "fringey" ideas like "variable speed of light" theories, which are not proven and not widely acepted. There is also some mentioning of how Higgs bosons either do not exist or cannot be detected -- and yet Higgs bosons appear to have indeed been detected at the LHC, falsifying that. Though it also seems even White's proposal also rests on some maybe non-standard ideas, but I think what we need for WP is an independent expert review of his work by experts -- especially more "mainstream" ones -- in General Relativity or whatever fields are required here. That being said, I tend to be dubious of any proposals that rest on unproven, non-standard hypotheses. It seems we might not be able to get, or to conclusively rule in or out the possibility of, a "warp drive" until we have the necessary quantum gravity and other beyond-the-standard-model physics down pat. I could be wrong, of course. If someone more knowledgeable disagrees, I'd love to hear it.

Add: The AIAA/NASA stuff, however, looks to be better, though I can't read it since it's locked up behind a pay wall. But this is definitely a reliable source, I'd think. mike4ty4 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In the viXra source there is a review of White work as this article needed other sources. Is not based on that paper.Quantanew (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Without adverse effects

Without adverse effects is not accurate and I will change the article accordingly. Perhaps without "uncontrollable" adverse effects would be a better description. The biggest potential adverse effect is hawking radiation. Netdragon (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC).

Is a quote from the author. See source roundup Quantanew (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

These claims are still completely contrary to anything that could be called mainstream science

I haven't had the time to really dive into possible edits to this article yet, but in the meantime any casual visitors deserve to know that this is fringe science they are reading about, as almost any reputable physicist worth his or her salt would agree. There is still a complete reliance on essentially one person's claims, and a paper from ViXra, which is generally a site used for preprints which cannot meet the minimal standards to be accepted to the arxiv let alone actual peer review. (On a close reading, its clear that this paper is indeed nothing but a stream of nonsense about the Higgs field, in which the author complains about being labeled a crackpot.)

• His experiments are science. There is no "mainstream science". You subscribe too heavily to the social construction of scientific fact. Social hand-picking of what to study is actually NOT science. IF it can be refuted experimentally, which this can, then it is science. It'll either be supported or refuted. 66.190.88.211 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is that this Wiki article is about an interferometry experiment, but it is allowed to be uncritically associated with faster than light travel, even though that association is nowhere near justified. In fact, beyond not being justified, there are many strong reasons based on the most well-tested physical principles to regard these claims as impossible and in contradiction with known laws.

There are all kinds of problems and gaps here, but to name some: First, we have the unjustified association of the negative energy density from magnetic field configurations or the Casimir effect as being equivalent to exotic matter, the latter being what the warp drive needs to operate. Exotic matter has zero experimental support and generally might have severe problems being consistent with what we know, but its okay to just assume that it exists for the purposes of this article? Or is there any amazing breakthrough in the manipulation of these fleeting negative-energy effects that would, despite the many strong reasons to suspect otherwise, allow it to be coaxed into creating a warp bubble? More importantly, if such a device could allow faster-than-light travel, then it should be able to allow us to go back in time and kill our grandparents. Why should nature tolerate the creation of causal paradoxes, or by what mechanism does this fantastical device avoid such problems? This is exactly why FTL travel or communication is generally prohibited in anything approaching flat minkowski space, which is what most of the empty space this would-be vehicle would have us traversing looks like. These are just some of the basic questions that naturally arise, each of which requiring some kind of substantial revision of our understanding of nature in order to accept the claims. So uncritically repeating the claims as fact in this article is quite obviously not a NPOV.

More generally there is the problem that this actual experiment, based on what Ive been able to find, would do absolutely nothing to address any of these reasons to doubt the FTL claim. It would be a demonstration of known physical principles, as Aldebaran66 pointed out, which are after all what the incredible doubt about the possibility of FTL travel are based upon in the first place. This renders the claim in the lead ("possibly leading to the later development of an Alcubierre warp bubble") wrong on yet another level.

I will look into productive ways to edit based on these concerns when I have time, but ideally there should be others involved who have some greater and more authoritative knowledge too. Obviously much needed skepticism and context are needed for the FTL claims especially, but even without these big problems its really not clear what the basic claims here actually are, or what their basis is.

You appear not to understand the physics behind the Alcubierre drive. The Alcubierre metric is consistent with general relativity. An Alcubierre drive would distort space, creating apparent movement, but zero acceleration. Clocks on board the spacecraft would measure the same time as those on Earth. Therefore this does not create a possibility of a grandfather paradox.

That said, the requirement of negative energy density is problematic. I'm not sure how exactly the Casimir effect could potentially be exploited to this end. And I am curious about how spacetime is supposed to be manipulated in the experiment.

Are you sure it doesn't cause a grandfather paradox? Consider http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html. If Alice, Bob and Carol sent out Alcubierre-driven messenger probes out instead of ansible signals, would causality not be violated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs) 15:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That only discusses flat spacetime and 'conventional' speeds. For an Alcubierre drive a curved spacetime is required and locally everything is still slower-than-light. I can imagine that spacetime curvature and changes in spacetime curvature complicate that picture, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say how. --JorisvS (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

However, if they indeed manage to manipulate spacetime, then that would be a first, and hence an important step in the direction of possibly manipulating it to create an Alcubierre metric and thus FTL. --JorisvS (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Would it possible to delete or labelled this page as not science?

This is not science.

You don't seem to understand how science works. See below. 66.190.88.211 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• If it really exists, we don't know how to replicate this device. There is no article on its design only fanciful pictures which might be about many other things. (I was at the first and second 100YSS events and I read the papers about this device: No useful information was given about this device)

People have learned from Pons-Fleischmann not to publish anything until you have privately produced results. Why would he provide too many details about his experimental setup when it's probably in flux? Eventually, he'll either announce he hasn't produced phenomena or that he has. So far, he has had external noise and has had to move to a seismically isolated setup. You need to learn patience. Either he'll produce an effect, or won't. Either way, he'll probably publish a journal article since if he fails, others may try to pick up where he left off and try a modified approach. That's science either way. 66.190.88.211 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• There is no proof is works. No communication in mainstream science journals, how strange for something which is supposed to be a true revolution in human achievements.
• There is no replication of this work and this device elsewhere, by unrelated organizations.

Of course, there's "no proof". He's still running experiments. As I said, he has said he has no results yet because there was external noise. You don't publish journal articles in the middle of an experiment before you have results. 66.190.88.211 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please try to find two references from mainstream scientists that discuss about this. If I respect Vixra, there is the best and the worst on Vixra by construction, because anyone can upload an article. There are excellent papers on Vixra, but the reference shown (Paul Holland) is junk.

There's plenty, starting with Alcubierre. Then there's plenty of mathematical analysis of Alcubierre's equations and White's modifications. There's plenty of journal discussions about the impact on travelers, how to control the bubble, etc. Some scientists have moved on (including Alcubierre) due to the energy requirement. White has given the Alcubierre drive conversation new life and has sparked some new discussions such as the aforementioned impact of Hawking radiation on travelers, etc. Additionally, see below as to why your arguments are bunk. Your arguments are not even scientific since you don't know what science is. I recommend you take a course on philosophy of science so you understand the foundations of science. 66.190.88.211 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Otherwise Alcubierre's drive isn't compatible with general relativity, read Alcubierre's own article and the many others on the same subject and even the Wikipedia page about it: It violates several energy conditions. Which is another way to say it is not compatible with the universe as mainstream science understand it. Alcubierre was aware of that and he write it, he didn't tried to mislead people. It's only that some people want to read more that he wrote. JPLeRouzic (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you learn a little more about science. The mere fact that you think White's experiments aren't science shows that you don't know what science is. It's statements like yours and social hand-picking of what to fund that actually hold us back a lot. As I said in response to someone else above, his experiments are science. There is no "mainstream science". You subscribe too heavily to the social construction of scientific fact. Social hand-picking of what to study is actually NOT science. IF it can be refuted experimentally, which this can, then it is science. His experiments are cheap. Based on his results, it'll either be supported or refuted. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, we have learned from Pons-Fleischmann not to publish things prematurely. 66.190.88.211 (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd ask what ulterior motive you have in trying to delete the article. Eventually, even if White fails, we'll have an article about what he did. Perhaps 20 years from now someone will come along and go "aha! I know what he did wrong". Everything isn't wrapped up in a neat little package. Some things take many failures and learning from those failures to achieve success. Trying to cheat someone in the future from the information about those failures is horribly sadistic (we'll leave book-burning to the past, this article is important stuff) and I'd have to say you're trying to hold everyone back but perhaps you don't know any better. 66.190.88.211 (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't delete the article without consensus of editors. 66.190.88.211 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is already placed in the category of hypothetical technology, thus labeling it as such. And from my experience its subject is not at all as problematic as a hundred other articles I've seen here. As examples you can look at Animal rights, Orgone and Therapeutic touch, as well as looking at their history of edits showing how they developed.

But if you want to add the category of pseudoscience then you would proceed to discuss the reasons that it should be in such category (which you've already started to do with your bullet points). Then if there is consensus (or if you're willing to have disagreeing editors revert your edit) you'd then add at the bottom of the article [[Category:Pseudoscience]] Personally I'd vote to leave its categories as/is and learn to accept the fact that Wikipedia contains as much information about the culture of the internet as about the subjects of its articles. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

One other thought. The White–Juday warp-field interferometer is an hypothetical derivation of the Michelson interferometer. If you would recall Michelson and Morley's original publication was basically a very embarrassed and shamed announcement that they were unable to find proof of the commonly accepted scientific Aether theory. Sometimes science progresses by failure. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts Trilobitealive. If I understand correctly your point, Wikipedia as every human artifact, is poisoned from the inside and there is nothing we can do about it. Perhaps we really need a trusted version of Wikipedia after all for people who need real and valuable information, not lunacy. There were attempts and failures in the past, but mainly it was because there is no meaning in replicating Wikipedia and building such a huge amount of information as WP with trusted people is clearly impossible. I will think about it.JPLeRouzic (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree the Paul Holland source is not good but at the time the article was tagged of need of other sources and in this source there was a review of white's work. We can remove tha source now if it is controversial. The source "Frontiers of Propulsion Science". NASA Johnson Space Center. is from another author where they review white's work. This paper: White, Harold G. (2003). "A Discussion on space-time metric engineering". General Relativity and Gravitation 35 (11): 2025. Bibcode:2003GReGr..35.2025W. doi:10.1023/A:1026247026218 was published in the peer reviewed journal General Relativity and Gravitation. Quantanew (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

White, H., Warp Field Mechanics 101, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, accepted 2013. The paper Warp Field Mechanics 101, has just been accepted for publication.Quantanew (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Paul Holland source.Quantanew (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

How White's paper ever got past peer review at General Relativity and Gravitation is a mystery to me. Virtually all of its claims are false, based on both faulty math and physics. The errors are of undergraduate-GR-student quality. I'm totally stupefied by all this. Would be nice if some good investigative reporter looked into this. Who is paying for this "research"? I put a description of (some of) the errors here. It's technical but there is no other way to debunk this. Also, someone mentioned the grandfather paradox. Keep in mind that this paradox is also present in the rotating (Kerr) black hole, for example. There are closed timelike geodesics near the ring singularity on its "other" side (r < 0). JanBielawski (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

While it is a good job what you have done, the experiment that this people is carrying out at NASA seems somewhat different from the immediate realization of an Alcubierre drive. I think that a good reference should be this one appeared in International Journal of Modern Physics#D. The idea is to induce a local modification of space-time using a strong oscillating electric field at a high frequency and prove that there is an effect through the interferometer. This is what White calls a "Chicago Pile-1" experiment and, if it works, it would mean that some engineering could be performed on space-time. This would be a real breakthrough and, eventually, a step toward the eventual realization of something like an Alcubierre drive. All this, at this stage, is substantially independent from the analysis in the White's published material even if it is aimed to it. It is also constrained by eventual restriction requirements by NASA on what should be published or not. Very few is known about the results (see here for the latest updates). Missing the step of a space-time engineering, I think all this matter will be doomed.--Pra1998 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This worries me even more. I have nothing in principle against experiments but they ought to be run by competent people. This is clearly not the case here. The peer review process at Gen. Rel. Grav. has failed completely, NASA do not seem to have any overview in place worth talking about, it's all really disappointing. And now they are starting to make it secret. All the ingredients for replaying the usual pseudoscientific scenarios from the past are in place now. Remember N-rays? Let's just say I'm not at all surprised NASA has problems with their space programs. This research is definitely worth doing but if NASA is really serious about it, they should IMHO stop financing this cuckoo project and hire people with the necessary expertise. White is a nice guy (I saw the videos :-) ) but he should have noticed right away that he doesn't know enough about this and "recuse" himself. JanBielawski (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

After digging through all the available material (took quite some time... I guess I found pretty much everything, up to the new presentation slides that were recently made public by NASA and will be held at the 2013 Icarus Interstellar congress on August 17th, 2013, -> now linked under references), I began cleaning up the article a little (added theory section, removed some inaccuracies, changed the overloaded picture that was simply taken from the slides of the first presentation at 100YSS). The current theoretical research covers a lot of things that are not explained in here or anywhere else on wikipedia yet, but given the general speculative nature of the entire topic I recommend to leave the entry as compact as possible for the time being in order to prevent Wikipedia from covering all the off-mainstream unconfirmed research that still lurks out there.

This presentation in August is, as it seems, expected to show at least some interferometer test results. Whether or not the results confirmed anything is not exactly clear right now, however the speaker announcement states that there will also be a discussion on future activities and further testing techniques. Perhaps then the article will deserve a real overhaul.

Furthermore, to anybody who thinks of complaining that there is no "real" or "valid" science to be seen here I suggest to read up a little. This article is not about whether or not warp drive can be made a reality (maybe remove the warp drive and media section some day). It is (or should be) only about a scientific experiment that may or may not show interference that may result from spacetime warping (in some way similar to 19th century aether experiments, and we all know how that one ended) and all the far fetched implications that come with it. It has been put through the competitive and review process just like everything else at NASA, and convinced enough people to receive at least some modest funding. However, even if there is a positive test result it will have to be checked whether or not it can be repeated and is consistent with the current theory. Until then it will remain on the edge of science articles.

Update on Aug 11, 2013: I have seen a few people that were intrigued yet "suspicious" with this wikipedia entry and its new theory section. I also received some requests to add more explanation on how the device actually works in the theory, so I chose to update the article with a much more thorough explanation based on all the work I have come along to read. It now covers some of the theoretical research that was done in the years prior to the experiment and should provide insight to the suspicion-rising concepts. There are still a few more things worth mentioning, I will see if I can add them later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me40005 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Good job! great to see this article expanded with more background on the theory. Will see what are the updates on the 2013 Starship Congress. Quantanew (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Update on Aug 17, 2013:

Now after seeing the Starship Congress 2013 presentations I hereby suggest to move / change the article name from "White-Juday warp-field Interferometer" to a more general "Warp-field interferometer(s)" or "Warp-field interferometer experiments" or "Space-Warp Experiments". Why? Well, now there are already 2 different research groups (one at NASA's Johnson Space Center and an independent one at South Dakota State University), both of them are using (slightly) different interferometer setups. So far they used different analysis methods and both have seen some initial statistical non zero results but are still inconclusive because of external interference and limited sensitivity. The variable field approach has also not really been implemented yet, but the South Dakota State findings suggest it may add to the overall effect. Additionally, there are further testbeds in the making, aiming to increase accuracy (using a modified Fabry–Pérot interferometer) and field strength (using multiple cap rings).

As the theoretical framework remains the same for all these experiments it makes sense to change the article name and move the original title to a subsection title for the specific experimental setup. — Me40005 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to any specific title. Discussion regarding merges, splits and rewrites can continue below.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Cúchullain ^t/c 19:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

---

White–Juday warp-field interferometer → ? – See my entry on Aug 17th above. Me40005 (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that, per your rationale, Warp-field interferometer experiments would currently be the best of the titles you've suggested. --JorisvS (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should leave this article as it is and make a new page with all the current and upcoming experiments. Quantanew (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That could also work. Are we confident that we have enough material for two articles? Any general material currently covered by this article would have to be moved, of course. --JorisvS (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it there is not enough material publicly available for two articles (although this is likely to change over the next year or so). If we move all the general material now, there will be like 250 words left in here. --Me40005 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not quite that bad. The sections on the experiment and media reaction can stay and something or much of the motivation and the interstellar propulsion sections can also stay. These sections together currently contain ~750 words. --JorisvS (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Began moving things here. --Me40005 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Originally I wrote this article for this specific experiment, that's why i believe we should leave this article as it is, there is no need to move the theory(there is no rule about duplicating) or we can leave an intro in the theory section and link to Warp-field experiments.Quantanew (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is WP:Content forking. The articles should not contain identical (theory) sections. Maybe, if necessary to explain something else, can this article contain some theory that is also covered in the more general article, but certainly not literally. Conversely, the more general article must contain a summary of the White–Juday warp-field interferometer, but should not cover it in-depth. --JorisvS (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Lacking a specific move suggestion, I suggest this be closed as no move. Discussion of content organization such as merges and splits can of course continue. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article implies that achieving FTL is only a matter of technical ingeniuity

I don't know enough about this project to know how close they are to warp space-time, and perhaps they will actually manage to do this. Perhaps this is only a matter of finding the right design. But if they actually managed to achieve faster than light travel, this would absolutely baffle the vast majority of experts on how space-time actually works (physicists). There are no credible physical theories that even allow for FTL travel (specifically FTL communication, the only kind of FTL travel that has any practical applications), while the article as it stands now seems to imply that what they are trying to do is just hard, but very feasible. There must be some criticism of these claims from credible academics who can be quoted in this article, to make it clear that it is not generally accepted by scientists that FTL travel is within our reach. Ornilnas (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

FTL travel is possible, we just have to work hard to achieve it, and Harold White is doing this right now. It doesn't matter how long it takes or what people believe, FTL travel should be the only way to travel to the stars. Giggett (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the alcubiere metric article to see how you can achieve FTL without actually moving.No relativity violations. A spacecraft in a warp bubble will stay still, it's space that is warping (expanding and contracting) and this consistent with relativity and inflation theories Quantanew (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Though I feel like repeating myself (look above), I once more suggest to everyone to read up on the whole topic before posting any personal disbelief or doubts that are found in mainstream media reactions. For your specific claims I suggest to start here and then maybe look here. The main article on the topic also has more info. I also already suggested to remove or at least ease the more controversial FTL warp-drive claims in the specific section, as the experiment (and thus this article) is not about how to build actual FTL-drives. Me40005 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I will have a look. However, I would claim that the article (to a large degree) appears to be about hhow to build actual FTL-drives (although it seems better now than the last time I looked at it). For example: "The NASA research team has postulated that their findings could reduce the energy requirements for a macroscopic spaceship moving at ten times the speed of light from the mass–energy equivalent of the planet Jupiter to that of the Voyager 1 spacecraft (~700 kg)[11] or less.[12]". This literally makes it look like NASA is trying to make a working FTL drive, and that this just became feasible because of some technological breakthrough. I don't know the details of their findings, but I'm pretty sure this is not what happened. The article should make it absolutely clear that the interferometer is NOT a device which will make faster-than light travel with manned space ships a possibility.Ornilnas (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ornilnas, the Alcubierre metric is already accepted, the math checks out, and the standard model has shown itself to be accurate time and time again. The energy requirement has been the stumbling block. We know negative energy exists due to the Cassimir Effect. We just don't know how to harness it / store it, much less a mass the size of Jupiter. White has reduced that to the mass of a superlight airplane, but that's still more than we can produce. White is simply testing experimentally to see if he can get a small boost effect. He hasn't confirmed or refuted it yet and has had to adjust his experimental setup and move it to a seismically isolated room. IF he manages to produce boost, and it's confirmed from journal article (this will take a very long time) we're still a long way away from scaling this up to a craft big enough to carry humans or even a probe 66.190.88.211 (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

More than merely proposed

The first sentence says "The White–Juday warp-field interferometer is a space warping experiment that has been proposed," but later the article says the first experimental results were announced in 2013. If results were available to be announced last year, we are beyond the "proposed" stage, are we not? 75.163.217.66 (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point - thank you. I updated the lede and added the 2013 results. I reworded the lede a bit to be a little less awkward, hopefully without changing the intent. Aldebaran66 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete this page

I recommend that this page be deleted. The first sentence "The White–Juday warp-field interferometer is a space warping experiment..." is nonsensical. Interferometers are instruments, not experiments. The interferometer is simply a Michelson interferometer -- why should it get a new name? Why does it deserve a wikipedia entry? CQ123 (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is not the place for deletion discussions. Please create an WP:AFD so that your concern can be discussed and consensus can be obtained. Bensci54 (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks, it looks like the right thing to do is to merge this with the "Warp-field experiments" page since this page discusses the experiment and that page states that the only experimental work being done is the one described here. CQ123 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Recommendation to merge this page with Warp-Field Experiments

Although the title of this page is "W-J Interferometer," the text and references are about the use of a Michelson interferometer to measure optical distortions caused by warp fields. This is described in the wiki page "Warp-Field Experiments" which includes the same figure and reference included on this page. The single sentence "A space-warp device is inserted into one arm of a Michelson interferometer operating at 633 nm" fully describes the interferometer, although it would be useful to also include the cross-sectional size of the illuminated area. This could easily be captured in two sentences in the already-existing "current experiments" section of the Warp-Field Experiments page, and therefore should not cause a problem by unduly increasing that article's length. Note that the only entry in that section refers to the use of this Michelson interferometer. CQ123 (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe this issue has been decided already (look above) as this is the page for this experiment, Warp-Field Experiments is for this and other experiments been run now and I don't see any trouble in having this page for this specific experiment and the other for all the other general experiments Quantanew (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No consensus was reached in the move discussion above; it says continued discussion is allowed. If this page is about an experiment, it should have the word experiment in the title. And since the Warp-Field Experiments page only describes one experiment(this one), then the pages are redundant and they should be merged. CQ123 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. Especially since future warp-field experiments are going to be performed by White including ones that involve J-thrusters, so I think the "Warp-Field Experiments" article should have all the experiments that White performs at NASA, even this one. So yes to the merge. Giggett (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What gives? "Teh SB" deleted this entire thread. I undid that, and am now ready to simply execute the merge. Teh SB - if you have something to say, please comment here. CQ123 (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I would recomend we merge Warp-Field Experiments with this page no the other way around, because currently there is just one experiment and this is the page for it.Quantanew (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I need help finding the name and a source for Mr Juday

I can't seem to find his full name and a source he is the other team member on the creation of the instrument.Quantanew (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The best I can find is Mr White mentioning him the comments section here: http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/daydreaming-beyond-the-solar-system-with-warp-field-mechanics/

Natario Warp Drive

Today I found this paper: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00844801/document I didn't read it through, but I think they agree with everything White said, so should be put it in the article? (or maybe some other article)--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Update or something?

Hi guys, I recently watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wokn7crjBbA Is this a kind of update or something?--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is but see also Harold White and Warp Drive: A question with no answer that seems to point out toward a different approach followed by Harold White in his experiments than what normally would imply exotic matter. It is an unwanted disclosure by the colleague that asked the question.--Pra1998 (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pra1998, what do you by "unwanted disclosure"?--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As declared by White himself, they talked before, so the claim made by the man in the public that White is using a strongly coupled system and the attempts by White to avoid to answer are rather interesting. Indeed, it is well known that he is using strong electric fields on the interference zone. This marks an important difference with the original ideas in the Alcubierre drive and could be a breakthrough in general relativity in a lab.--Pra1998 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes I also suspect that the old arguments against the warp drive (which are all over the internet, physics exchange and so on) don't apply anymore to the methods that White is using. Maybe we should point that out in the articles related to White and the experiments. But I'm not sure what to write.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. The full video shows that they have results but White did not go too far about this and said that further confirmation is needed. This could be added with the proper link to the video.--Pra1998 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but if this were a real effect, would that also confirm stringtheory indirectly? Because I think he uses a brane model in higher dimensional space.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Really I do not know but I will content myself with a breakthrough in general relativity measurements in a lab in view of possible future applications.--Pra1998 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think travelling the universe is more exciting than having indirect evidence for stringtheory :) --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with string theory whatsoever. It is borne out of mainstream general relativity. --JorisvS (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I can't wait for an update on this DAMN. What about this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.5682v1.pdf It says that you can use a technique called "squeezed" vacuum to get a negative energy density. Comments on that?--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Check the results they are getting with the EmDriveQuantanew (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you ! But sry I'm not competent enough to help you with the article. Maybe you can ask some users here? --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen in the past I'd be extremely surprised if the whole thing was not 100% hogwash. I stopped bothering with this nonsense about 2 years ago as I find it intellectually offensive that a guy can be sponsored by NASA doing obvious pseudoscience. At the time I wrote down what was wrong with White's work (executive summary: everything), it's technical but first couple of pages of this note sum up the errors (all of them beginning-graduate-physics-student-level). JanBielawski (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comments here, as your notes, are completely off the mark. You missed a lot about this matter and keeping on putting forward arguments on Alcubierre solution is plainly wrong. This does not mean that Harold White and his group will find something but, please, if you are in a strong need to criticize him keep yourself well informed. It should be also known at people working in academia that it is rather common for industries and organizations aimed at the same aims to try to pursue tracks that may seem somewhat fringe science. This is so because in science it is really difficult to tell what will give a big hit or not working at the frontiers of knowledge. Maybe, studying some history of science could help.--Pra1998 (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I admit I stopped reading Harold White's papers last year (2014) so I may not be completely up to date. Has he retracted the nonsense he'd published until then though? I posted a detailed, technical critique while you are just saying that "I missed a lot about this matter". His work is based on specific technical claims which are provably false, so what is this all about? Your earlier quote from 7th of January 2015: "he is using strong electric fields on the interference zone" is even more discouraging, it has the standard "smell" of crank science. What am I missing? I am not in the academia BTW but I resent strongly the notion that "the industry" is somehow exempt from the basics. What's next at NASA, a perpetual motion machine? My prediction is the whole affair will eventually end up exactly where Pons and Fleischmann affair has ended up (it's an exact repetition of same). JanBielawski (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC) 63.80.243.2 (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No, this cannot go like the cold fusion failure. The reason is rather simple: This people works in industry and so, a device works or not. In any case, you will never know directly but just check their products to see if something weird is going on. About physics, it is well-known by now that this group has no exotic matter at hand to work out exotic solutions of Einstein equations (check this youtube video for clarifications). So, without exotic matter, what is going on at NASA? It is since 30 April of this year that there are no more news from this lab. The reason is that leakage caused a lot of damage to the image of their work and NASA itself. We have to wait for the next official announcements, if any. Meanwhile, they are performing interference experiments with an optic table properly insulated from noise and try to repeat their experiments in other labs of NASA for repeatability. What they have observed are interference effects in presence of a large energy density of e.m. field. This matter is known since 1973 from "Gravitation" by Wheeler, Thorne and Misner (check this paper to know more) but to see it performed in a small lab is really striking. Could this yield a breakthrough in propulsion? I do not know because you should ask to people working at NASA Eagleworks and, as you can see, they are silent since April. If you are interested just be patient otherwise forget it.--Pra1998 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not technical. I have no doubt NASA engineers have enough skill to build machines based on sensible designs. But what we have here is a non-sensical design based on, quite literally, gobbledygook mathematics. I suspect someone, somewhere, has finally caught on to that and that's the real story behind "a lot of damage to the image of their work". Perhaps a graceful, face-saving exit is in the works (that would be my guess) along the lines of changing the subject matter of the experiments so that the entire fake Alcubierre connection can be put to rest. Thanks for the Frasca reference, I'll check it out. At first sight it appears to be incorrect simply because that sort of thing - if true - would have been noticed ages ago. JanBielawski (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Curiosity is essential in science. I am glad NASA gave a grant to look at the concept and perform measurements. Negative results are also valuable. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not glad at all. What's wrong with giving the grant instead to a group of people who know what they are doing? Then I agree 100% that "curiosity is essential in science". But I don't like the idea of someone just coming up to me and saying "give me the money, I have a fantastic cure for cancer" and waving some published papers in my face, papers which appear "sensible" but are in fact pure nonsense, and then proceeding to just mixing some solutions in Petri dishes at random hoping something would eventually come out of it. How would you like it? A high school friend of mine passed away from cancer last February so this is not all an abstraction to me. JanBielawski (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Because if you know what you are doing it is not science anymore. It is called engineering. With your philosophy that people need to know EXACTLY what to do for science researches we probably are still living in the Dark Ages. Hence, this is why you are here behaving as a smart-ass when Dr. White gets the credit for all the nice attention despite he seems to know nothing. Please change your major or job if you do not have the curiosity to do science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.43.54.79 (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying. What I'm objecting to is simply incompetence. If we allow that sort of thing, then why any random Joe Bloe isn't allowed to get money to study "warp drive"? I could surely use some of the money myself, plus I'd enjoy travelling around and giving presentations. White's papers are mostly gobbledygook and to paste over this little fact by saying that this is an expression of "curiosity" is simply unacceptable. I have a truly amazing idea for experiments seeking cancer cure, would you mind doing a wire transfer of $100,000 (I'm not greedy) to my checking account? If you need any papers supporting my claim, I can write them. JanBielawski (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Interferometer experiment with an EmDrive

I could use some help to get better sources and more details regarding this experiment. I also could use some help decoding this : http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=6iiuo17dak3mntu0vjm9qo73h1&topic=36313.msg1362403#msg1362403 is from Paul March Quantanew (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A link to the Wikipedia EmDrive article would be helpful for some of the background information. Also vice versa.

New Article

I think this summarizes most of the experiments and results so far: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Queries

1.) How is he warping space without exotic/negative matter? 90.197.51.201 (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Any change in space-time can be accomplished in presence of matter or other forms of energy like an electromagnetic field according to Einstein equations. E.g. you are modifying space-time with your body even if the effect is negligibly small or also a wave emitted from an antenna does a similar effect. White's experiments try to get these effects using strong electromagnetic fields in a bounded space like a resonant cavity and studying the changing of a path of laser beams in an interferometric setup. The aim is to have gravitational effects meaningful in a table-top experiment. If he will succeed this will represent a significant breakthrough in experimental gravity studies and, possibly, should pave the way to applications. The results he and his group obtained so far are really encouraging. To have an idea of the theory behind you can look here.--Pra1998 (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

To answer exotic matter: Exotic matter is not necessary for a warp bubble if General Relativity is modified so that angles are locally preserved (conformal gravity). This same modification neatly explains dark matter and dark energy. --JorisvS (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

2.) If a warp bubble was created with the EM Drive experiment why hasn't it been on the global news? And have they finally re-done the experiment and posted their findings?176.254.86.243 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably because it is not known if this is the case. --JorisvS (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Was a plain old laser fired into the chamber and there some how was a warp bubble? Or was a device used in the chamber to create the bubble?2.217.80.205 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The experiment was performed by shooting a laser beam through a cavity, more recently. The cavity was fed with e.m. radiation. The set-up was positioned on an interferometer and the fringe pattern was recorded. This is similar to the kind of experiment described in this article. There is no warp bubble in these experiments, rather the strong e.m.fields have effects on the space-time geometry deflecting the laser beam and so, changing its path to modify the interference pattern. A paper by White's group is currently under review and should account for all the kind of results they were able to obtain with such a set-up.--Pra1998 (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Buy applying high voltages through a capacitor is he trying to magnify the casimir effect? I have heard people site the casimir effect as negative energy density and some as negative pressure. what is it. Furthermore shouldn't the insulating material between the capacitors be air not ceramic? 176.254.52.224 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Building a "warp drive spaceship"

Can we please delete the section "Warp drive research and potential for interstellar propulsion", or replace it with something like "White speculates that the technology might some day be used for super luminal space travel, although most mainstream physicists think this would violate current physical theories."? This is a kind of technology that might work some day, but it will not lead to spaceships with humans on them that travel 10 times the speed of light to Alpha Centauri, as the current text suggests. And even if it could, the current text looks ridiculous. It looks as if NASA is making specific plans to build a manned spaceship with this.Ornilnas (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

How bout a "warp drive spacecraft" or even better: "warp drive probe". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A unified section on criticisms of the experiment

I've seen a lot of discontent and criticism for the discussed experiment in the talk page. I think it would be helpful to create a section that unifies and clearly explains the criticisms that have been levelled at this particular experiment, in terms that are comprehensible to a layperson. Ideally such a section could be conveyed in point form, with simple explanations for each point (I'm not much good at simple language, to be honest, but I do know it when I see it). As far as I've seen, a few of the major concerns are as follows (by no means is this an exhaustive list): No results have been published in a peer reviewed journal; the design of the experimental device is unclear; the hypothesis contains theoretical errors; The experiment uses quantities of mass-energy much smaller than those proposed in the theory upon which the hypothesis is based; the "impassioned" nature of Dr.White's speech on the topic of the hypothesis suggests a very real risk of confirmation bias tainting the results; The experiment tries to unify quantum vacuum pressure with general relativity; that the experiment fails to follow the scientific method in certain philosophical ways; and so on. These are all claims I've seen being made on the talk pages of the various articles related to this experiment. If these claims could be unified, organized, and cited, it would be, in my opinion, a much more compelling way of introducing the skepticism towards this experiment to the layperson who may not read the talk page or pay much mind to the quality notices attached to the beginnings of many of these articles. However, space-time metrics are not my expertise; I think it would be more appropriate for someone more familiar with the topic to write such a section.