First real challenge to General Relativity?, (and not from Gravity Probe-B) |
First real challenge to General Relativity?, (and not from Gravity Probe-B) |
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Mar 23 2006, 09:50 PM
Post
#1
|
Guests |
...in the form of what may be an accidentally discovered artificial gravity generator, with possible practical applications!:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html If this effect is real, it's fully 1/10,000 G -- which is not to be sneezed at, and might conceivably lead us to Bigger Things. |
|
|
Guest_Richard Trigaux_* |
Mar 24 2006, 08:32 AM
Post
#2
|
Guests |
The Lens-Thiring effect, or magnetogravitationnal field, is the exact equivalent to gravitation and mass of what the magnetic field is to electric field and charge.
This is because the two domains mostly obey to the same equations. When electric charges move, for instance rotate in a transformer coil (say to simplify a ring) they produce a magnetic field, with a north pole at one side of the ring, and a south pole at the other side. This magnetic field can in turn induce an electric field and a current into a secondary ring (coil). Similarly, a ring of matter rotating produces a magnetogravitationnal field, which can in turn induce the rotation of a secondary ring besides the first. This is a known consequence of the relativity. At a pinch, that relativity predicts the existence of the magnetogravitationnal field makes that it predicts too... the magnetic field, which is thus a BIG consequence of relativity at human scale. Alas for us, the gravitomagnetic field is so weak that any human scale test is still unable to detect it, only at space scale the gravity probe B could detect it (results please?). But it may play an important role in the realm of neutron stars and black holes, for instance the rotation energy of a black hole could be extracted to accelerate an accretion disk. (and for instance produce jets) What is new with this experiment is that a magnetogravitationnal field is said to result from electromagnetic effects alone, a thing hich is not predicted by relativity and is said (in the paper) to result from the violation of a basic physical symmetry. If it is true, it may be a breakthrough into our understanding of the relation between relativity and the quantum world. But I wait for others reproducing the results before inflating imagination. Anyway the gravitationnal field resulting from a Lens-Thiring field is ROTATING, so that it cannot be used to produce anti-gravitation or any propulsive gravitationnal field. At least not directly. At a pinch two Lens-Thiring rings repell each other, if they show both the same pole to the other. But it is much more complicated than using simply the magnetic properties of superconducting rings. And we are still far of producing a 1 G effect, if we need for this a rotation at 64 MILLIONS RPM... So the thing is anyway to follow carefully, as soon as the primary results are reproduced. |
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 09:05 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
And we are still far of producing a 1 G effect, if we need for this a rotation at 64 MILLIONS RPM... Once again, people, RPMs have nothing to do with it! The first page of the paper clearly states: QUOTE The field appears to be directly proportional to the applied angular acceleration of the superconductor following our theoretical motivations.
-------------------- |
|
|
Guest_Richard Trigaux_* |
Mar 24 2006, 09:49 AM
Post
#4
|
Guests |
Once again, people, RPMs have nothing to do with it! The first page of the paper clearly states: The field appears to be directly proportional to the applied angular acceleration of the superconductor following our theoretical motivations. Yes, but strong acceleration sustained in time leads to many RPM. I read somewhere in the paper that such speed would be necessary to produce a 1g field. The analogy with the electrical transformer stills hold: it is the change the into primary current (equivalent of acceleration here) which produces the secondary electromotrice force (eequivalent of gravitationnal acceleration) |
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 09:55 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
Yes, but strong acceleration sustained in time leads to many RPM. I read somewhere in the paper that such speed would be necessary to produce a 1g field. Such a speed isn't necessary for a 1 g field, a very rapid acceleration is. As you point out, only if you want to sustain the 1g field long enough will you reach such high RPMs. -------------------- |
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 03:02 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 291 |
Such a speed isn't necessary for a 1 g field, a very rapid acceleration is. As you point out, only if you want to sustain the 1g field long enough will you reach such high RPMs. So basically, unless someone invents a perpetual motion machine, this can be used to create strong, but short lasting gravity fields or weaker, but relatively longer lasting gravity fields (depending on how quickly you ramp up to the maximum RPM). Even if this can't be used to make artificial gravity plating in my space yaucht - its exciting to think that General Relativity has finally had a hole poked into it within my lifetime! |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 18th June 2024 - 05:52 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |