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, 09:07 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 311 Joined: 31-August 05 From: Florida & Texas, USA Member No.: 482 |
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. Ok... um... duh.... I don't even have a Mr. Wiz level of understanding of these concepts. It's the first time I've ever heard the word 'magnetogravity', and I'm not happy about it. :-p I always thought Einstein's view of a Gravitational "Field" was a literal distortion of space-time. That's why I thought quantum-gravity is, from where I sits, crazy! (If gravity is in discrete quanta, then that must mean time AND space can be defined in discrete quanta - please tell me this ain't so!) The idea that a gravitational "field" can rotate means really stupid things to me, like time & space must rotate with it? For instance, if ya'll are already speculating on rotating mass to create "negative" gravity, then why not "negative" space-time too? Um... check please! |
|
|
Mar 25 2006, 06:11 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8783 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
Ok... um... duh.... I don't even have a Mr. Wiz level of understanding of these concepts. It's the first time I've ever heard the word 'magnetogravity', and I'm not happy about it. :-p I always thought Einstein's view of a Gravitational "Field" was a literal distortion of space-time. That's why I thought quantum-gravity is, from where I sits, crazy! (If gravity is in discrete quanta, then that must mean time AND space can be defined in discrete quanta - please tell me this ain't so!) The idea that a gravitational "field" can rotate means really stupid things to me, like time & space must rotate with it? For instance, if ya'll are already speculating on rotating mass to create "negative" gravity, then why not "negative" space-time too? Um... check please! Well, there is such a thing as the Planck-Wheeler wavelength, which is basically the point at which spacetime becomes discontinuous, so broadly speaking this is the fundamental unit of spacetime. Bruce alluded to "foaminess", and this is probably an indirect reference to Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's classic Gravitation; what it seems to mean is that the physical universe is a second-order side effect of the considerably greater potential mass/energy "background" of virtual particle production, known in some circles as the zero-point field. (Research note: There is a LOT of marginal pseudoscience that has arisen from these apparently well-established and uncontroversial principles; I urge anyone investigating this material on the Net to maintain a healthy level of skepticism and employ full-strength critical thinking at all times!) . -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Guest_Richard Trigaux_* |
Mar 25 2006, 08:35 AM
Post
#5
|
Guests |
(Research note: There is a LOT of marginal pseudoscience that has arisen from these apparently well-established and uncontroversial principles; I urge anyone investigating this material on the Net to maintain a healthy level of skepticism and employ full-strength critical thinking at all times!) . Good caution. But it may happen that the solution lies in a domain or idea considered as fringe today. What is important with non-standard idea, is not to make "alternative" dogmas of them, but to study them with caution and method. Of course many fringe ideas would not pass even the very first step of any serious study, but who knows. Perhaps it is a flaw into the science method itself which prevents us of understanding the truth. As for me I do not make categories such as "standard" or "fringe". I just consider likeliness or usefulness of ideas. of course standard theories are in the best position (it is why they are standard theories, and the only good reason for them to be standard theories) while many fringe theories quickly appear as ignorant speculations or confusions. But who knows, maybe a new Einstein is breeding somewhere... |
|
|
Mar 25 2006, 09:08 AM
Post
#6
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8783 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
Good caution. But it may happen that the solution lies in a domain or idea considered as fringe today. What is important with non-standard idea, is not to make "alternative" dogmas of them, but to study them with caution and method. Of course many fringe ideas would not pass even the very first step of any serious study, but who knows. Perhaps it is a flaw into the science method itself which prevents us of understanding the truth. As for me I do not make categories such as "standard" or "fringe". I just consider likeliness or usefulness of ideas. of course standard theories are in the best position (it is why they are standard theories, and the only good reason for them to be standard theories) while many fringe theories quickly appear as ignorant speculations or confusions. But who knows, maybe a new Einstein is breeding somewhere... You are quite correct , Richard, and I apologize to the forum at large; the "wild ideas" of yesterday have, with almost disquieting frequency in the history of science, become the standard theories. It is therefore just as erroneous to dismiss those hypotheses that diverge from the norm as it is to accept established dogma without a qualm. Thank you for the valuable lesson (and reminder) that pragmatic objectivity is THE primary principle in the expansion of human knowledge! -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Guest_Richard Trigaux_* |
Mar 25 2006, 04:54 PM
Post
#7
|
Guests |
You are quite correct , Richard, and I apologize to the forum at large; the "wild ideas" of yesterday have, with almost disquieting frequency in the history of science, become the standard theories. It is therefore just as erroneous to dismiss those hypotheses that diverge from the norm as it is to accept established dogma without a qualm. Thank you for the valuable lesson (and reminder) that pragmatic objectivity is THE primary principle in the expansion of human knowledge! Please don't apologize: there really IS a lot of rubbish on the net and into fringe science, some who are frankly and happily nuts, and we must be very cautious before accepting something. Examples: -there is "another forum" where guies also use to comment the Mars images of Oppy and Spirit. But some used to point at a random rock and say "it is a car sit" or "a machined part" and when we told them it was just rock, they started to say we were narrow minded censors, and spam all the threads and stalk all the posters. So, as several others, I moved to UMSF where such posts are deleted at once without even a notice. This is why UMSF is a pleasant yet serious forum. -by chance I was vaccinated early against nut theories. I remember in the 1970 I read in the french monthly "science et vie" (the most popular science popularization review) about "synergetics" telling that we could easily extract huge amounts of energy from vacuum, with a simple device. Of course synergetics was "censored" by true scientists. When I contacted the guies, to ask what experiments they were doing, what results they obtained, they replied that they were doing nothing, waiting for this to be recognized by mainstream science. And with this reply was a sample of their monthly review, explaining that... the Jews were the main danger in society. At that time nobody yet was speaking of false science, but I however understood that there was something very wrong with synergetics. This don't avoid that the idea of the vacuum containing energy was presented by others, sometimes by mainstream scientists. -etc. etc. The problem is that there is no clear limit between a science which would be completelly nuts and always false, and a science which would be completelly serious and always true. Some fringe theories open interesting concepts, and there may be some flaw into the standard theories (like with the former aether) or even in the science method itself. For instance the Heim theories seem completelly nut (they open the door to all the Starwars technologies, hyperdrives, repulsors...) yet Heim was the only one able to predict the mass of the known particules. This ambiguity also appears on this forum, with disagreements, for instance about the presence of a thread on SETI and one on Intelligent Design. So there is no simplistic behaviour guideline. We must keep an open mind, while keeping a sane amount of criticism. But this is just how science works. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th April 2024 - 06:35 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. |