Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Unmanned Spaceflight.com _ Telescopic Observations _ First real challenge to General Relativity?

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Mar 23 2006, 09:50 PM

...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.

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Mar 23 2006, 10:14 PM

The actual paper ( http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf ) says that the effect appears to be "directly proportional to the applied angular acceleration of thesuperconductor following our theoretical motivations" -- that is, the gravity generated is in direct proportion to how fast you spin the superconducting ring. Spin it at 65 million rpm and you'd generate a 1-G field. And -- to repeat -- the scientists involved apparently have rather bigger reputations than Poletnikov, and were researching a puzzling already-observed phenomenon in superconductors. IF this works out -- and, needless to say, that is an extremely big "if" -- the analogy to James Blish's "spindizzies" is rather eerie.

Posted by: ugordan Mar 23 2006, 10:17 PM

Weren't there experiments and claims (by a russian scientist ?) that spinning superconducting plates "reduce" gravity felt above them years ago? And these claims were pretty much dismissed as bull since they couldn't be properly reproduced.

Well, whaddya know...

EDIT: Yes, his name is Podkletnov (not Poletnikov)

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Mar 23 2006, 10:29 PM

Sorry about the misspelling. Their actual passage on him is as follows:

"The reported results are very different from previous claims in the literature from Podkletnov claiming gravitational shielding effects above rotating superconductors. As we have not observed any change in the vertical sensors (± 5 μg) above any superconductors during their phase transition and during rotation, our results even put new limits on any possible shielding effects (effect must be < 0.0005% compared to claims of up to 2% of weight change for samples above a rotating superconductor)." (pg. 16-17)

These guys are two bigwigs in the ESA and GmbH, and they were doing further research into aspects of an apparent phenomenon already observed by another team. It will, at any rate, be interesting to see if this develops into anything.

Posted by: ugordan Mar 23 2006, 10:38 PM

Very interesting, indeed. Though I have a hard time swallowing concepts like gravitomagnetic and gravitoelectric fields...

QUOTE
This gravitomagnetic London moment is equivalent to a frame-dragging or Lense-Thirring field and is of great interest since gravitational effects of measurable magnitudes could be produced in a laboratory environment

Are we finally on the verge of figuring out this thing called gravity?

Time will tell.

Posted by: tty Mar 23 2006, 10:52 PM

If the effect is proportional to speed of rotation it should be noted that APU's and small jet engines routinely run at up to 60 - 70,000 rpm and ultracentrifuges at twice that. That would equal 0,001-0,002 g. Now that is a really appreciable acceleration!
One small thing, "Gmbh" means "Limited Liability Company", it's the bit before that is the name of the firm.

tty

Posted by: ugordan Mar 23 2006, 10:57 PM

QUOTE (tty @ Mar 23 2006, 11:52 PM) *
If the effect is proportional to speed of rotation it should be noted that APU's and small jet engines routinely run at up to 60 - 70,000 rpm and ultracentrifuges at twice that. That would equal 0,001-0,002 g. Now that is a really appreciable acceleration!

I don't have time to read the entire paper right now, but from what I read so far, the effect is actually present when the superconductor accelerates its rotation. It apparently has nothing to do with the actual speed of rotation, only the angular acceleration of the disk.

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Mar 24 2006, 02:32 AM

I believe -- although I may be wrong, given my Mr. Wizard level of scientific understanding -- that "angular acceleration" just refers to the acceleration produced by the simple fact that the different parts of the disk keep changing their direction of motion as it turns: i.e., slowing down along one straight-line direction at the same time that they start moving in another. This, after all, is what centrifugal "force" really is: the power of inertia operating because the parts of a spinning object keep changing their velocity of motion along straight-line directions.

I imagine this will turn out to be nothing, just like the Aviation Week "Spaceplane" article -- but who knows? Maybe we'll luck out and it will actually amount to something.

QUOTE (tty @ Mar 23 2006, 10:52 PM) *
One small thing, "Gmbh" means "Limited Liability Company", it's the bit before that is the name of the firm.

Oops. Actually, it ain't that small; I've never heard of "ARC Seibersdorf" and have no idea what kind of reputation it has, even given that it's supposedly "Austria's largest research institution". (Tajmar turns out to have been interested in research into gravity control for some time: http://ilfb.tuwien.ac.at/~tajmar/ .) Still, the other guy is General Studies Officer for ESA's Advanced Concepts & Studies Office, which implies some kind of reputation.

Posted by: The Messenger Mar 24 2006, 06:18 AM

This is going to be very difficult to confirm, and very difficult to assign the force strictly to a gravitational vector. I question whether the effect, if real, would be totally different from what Podkletnov claimed: If you can create a magnogravimetric field, you can shield it - frankly I think the fickle gravity anomalies observe during total eclipses proved this fifty years ago. And I don-t think they have as yet realize the full implications of this relationship.\\\

Speaking of the B probe, and hint of any results?

Posted by: ugordan Mar 24 2006, 08:14 AM

QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Mar 24 2006, 03:32 AM) *
I believe -- although I may be wrong, given my Mr. Wizard level of scientific understanding -- that "angular acceleration" just refers to the acceleration produced by the simple fact that the different parts of the disk keep changing their direction of motion as it turns: i.e., slowing down along one straight-line direction at the same time that they start moving in another.

Nope, that would be radial acceleration as the acceleration vector points to the center of rotation. The angular velocity remains the same. Angular acceleration is the change (or derivation) of omega, which is the angular velocity. They even mentioned in one part of the paper thew were using two electric motors, one could go up to 6500 RPM but provided a slower spin-up speed and the other could go to (IIRC) 4500 but had a faster spin-up. They wouldn't mention that if the effect is totally determined by RPMs alone, IMHO.

QUOTE (The Messenger @ Mar 24 2006, 07:18 AM) *
This is going to be very difficult to confirm, and very difficult to assign the force strictly to a gravitational vector.

Have you read the paper? Apparently they conducted numerous experiments because they were as well reluctant to believe what they were seeing. They did isolate the accelerometers inside Faraday cages to get rid of electromagnetic side-effects. As Bruce points out, they think this is totally independent of Podkletnov's claims.

Posted by: Richard Trigaux Mar 24 2006, 08:32 AM

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.

Posted by: ugordan Mar 24 2006, 09:05 AM

QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 24 2006, 09:32 AM) *
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.

Posted by: Richard Trigaux Mar 24 2006, 09:49 AM

QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 24 2006, 10:05 AM) *
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)

Posted by: ugordan Mar 24 2006, 09:55 AM

QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 24 2006, 10:49 AM) *
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.

Posted by: dtolman Mar 24 2006, 03:02 PM

QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 24 2006, 04:55 AM) *
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!

Posted by: The Messenger Mar 24 2006, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 24 2006, 01:14 AM) *
Nope, that would be radial acceleration as the acceleration vector points to the center of rotation. The angular velocity remains the same. Angular acceleration is the change (or derivation) of omega, which is the angular velocity. They even mentioned in one part of the paper thew were using two electric motors, one could go up to 6500 RPM but provided a slower spin-up speed and the other could go to (IIRC) 4500 but had a faster spin-up. They wouldn't mention that if the effect is totally determined by RPMs alone, IMHO.
Have you read the paper? Apparently they conducted numerous experiments because they were as well reluctant to believe what they were seeing. They did isolate the accelerometers inside Faraday cages to get rid of electromagnetic side-effects. As Bruce points out, they think this is totally independent of Podkletnov's claims.

There is a potential, in an accelerating superconducting environment, of spawning shearing "Eddy moments" at unclockable frequencies. The resulting frequency domain of such a magnetic field - (if possible) - would only weakly interact with matter, and slice through any Faraday cage like a neutrino. For those of use who think this is what gravity is, there are many situations where similar shear fields can and do bleed off gravitational field energy.

Bruce jumps all over me for going off on this Teslaian concept. But I think it is real, has a major effect upon orbital calculation of masses, and ultimately predicts many of the quirky observations of Galileo and Cassini.

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Mar 24 2006, 03:35 PM

Oops. I was indeed wrong about the definition of angular acceleration; it is indeed a measurement of the change in rotation rate, rather than simply the measurement of a constant rotation rate and radius:
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci774878,00.html

Well, I did warn you that my scientific understanding is strictly on a Mr. Wizard level. I'm reminded of George Lichtheim's reference to "the mental chaos typical of the autodidact".

Posted by: gpurcell Mar 24 2006, 04:15 PM

QUOTE (dtolman @ Mar 24 2006, 03:02 PM) *
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!


Hm. Spin it fast enough for a surge of negative g acceleration away from a planetary body...a gravity rocket!

Posted by: The Messenger Mar 24 2006, 04:36 PM

QUOTE (gpurcell @ Mar 24 2006, 09:15 AM) *
Hm. Spin it fast enough for a surge of negative g acceleration away from a planetary body...a gravity rocket!

When I started talking about using the magnets on the MNR to build a 'gravity camera', certain people got nervous and essentially banned me from the room.

I don't know that this implies a negative g force can be created - this would assume the detected field can be polarized, and they have not made that distinction. Gravity fields are (no matter who's physics you use) most likely chaotic, and therefore we are stuck with conventional means of overcoming gravity.

It should not be assumed that only in superconductive enviroments gravo-electro coupling can occur, so even if they are differentiated forces, this coupling could crop up places we have not expected. For example, it could lead to weak resonances in orbital stability, and stuff unexpected braking energy into comets as they pass through these weakly resonant fields. Ever wonder why earthquakes disrupt the ionosphere, and thunderstorms produce gamma rays? This completely opens up the astrophysical field, redefining possible solar history scenarios and on and on.

A field strength 30 orders of magnitude greater than predicted by GR is nothing to sneeze at, and also has severe implications for GR restrictions on gravitational redshifts, lensing and dark matter content.

And then of course, there is the matter of the Newtonian predictions of the masses of the planets smile.gif

Posted by: nprev Mar 24 2006, 08:08 PM

QUOTE (dtolman @ Mar 24 2006, 07:02 AM) *
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!


...or, from another viewpoint, effects arising from quantum-level gravitational interactions might be finally observable at the macro level. I still think of GTR as the "big-picture" view of gravity (with Newtonian physics as a special case thereof applicable at low relative velocities), and I think that it will always stand.

What has always struck me about our understanding of gravity is that the mainstream theories generally describe observed effects without predicting a mechanism or engine (if you will) that actually produces these effects. We really need a quantum theory of gravity to make any forward progress from an engineering viewpoint, if that's even possible... huh.gif

Hmm...Now that I think about it...rotation...superconductor....gotta wonder if Andrei Sakarhov's 1967 conjecture (lately amplified in a way by Haisch, Rueda, & Puthoff) that gravity and inertia are Van Der Walls interactions between virtual particle pairs & "real" matter was correct? An angularly accelerating mass would tend to "plow into" more virtual particle pairs than when at rest, and maybe the superconductive nature of the mass in the experiment facilitates charge distribution (from the disruption of natural virtual pair destruction) across the entire mass, thus producing the observed weak "gravitational" gradient.... blink.gif

Posted by: Richard Trigaux Mar 24 2006, 08:33 PM

Heeeeemmmm...

many wild speculations in latest posts. Many words that relativity scientists themselves will not understand.

Cool, guies, cool. If the effect indicated is real, it implies many theory by knowledgeable people before we ignorants understand it.

And if the observed effect was simply the deformation of the frame of the experiment aparatus under the heavy strain of a strongly accelerated large disk, no matter of what it is made of? It would produce the same output from the accelerometres than a magnetogravitationnal field, and be proportional to acceleration too. And easily larger than a magnetogravitationnal field...

I think we all wish that one day would be discovered something allowing us to travel in space as easily as in Starwars. But nothing proves that it really exist.

Experiments like this one must be monitored carefully, as they have the potential to lead to important discoveries. But usually they don't.

This thread reminds me the one about http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=1984 which was also using a rotating disk and interaction between gravitation and electromagnetic field to drive a spacecraft.

Posted by: Marz Mar 24 2006, 09:07 PM

QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 24 2006, 02:32 AM) *
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!

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Mar 24 2006, 09:36 PM

I can vouch for the fact that quantum gravity theories DO require the quantization of space and time -- that is, there are specific minimal sizes for both below which it is impossible for any physical phenomena to be separated from each other either in spatial position or in timing. (Some of these describe space-time as a "foam", although my knowledge goes no farther than that.)

Posted by: Richard Trigaux Mar 24 2006, 09:44 PM

[quote name='Marz' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:07 PM' post='47406']
I always thought Einstein's view of a Gravitational "Field" was a literal distortion of space-time.
[/quote]

If you imagine a flat surface, with a ball which rolls on it. The ball goes straight ahead. But if there is a bump on the surface, then the ball undergoes a trajectory change when it passes on the bump. This is the two dimention equivalent to the idea of a three dimentional distorted space. But seems from above, our two dimention equivalent shows just a force changing the trajectory of the ball: The two dimention equivalent of a three dimentionnal gravitation field. So the descriptions of a distorted space time and of a gravitation field are just two concepts to describe the same reality.


[quote name='Marz' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:07 PM' post='47406']
The idea that a gravitational "field" can rotate means really stupid things to me, like time & space must rotate with it?
[/quote]

Yes it does, and is the reason why the "magnetogravitationnal field" is also called frame drag. Around a rotating black hole, the space rotates with the black hole. This effect exists around Earth too, but much weaker, this is why we need a very sensitive experiment like Gravity Probe B.



[quote name='Marz' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:07 PM' post='47406']
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!)
[/quote]

Yes they should. But nobody yet knows how they do. Relativity and quatum theory are in contradiction, and there is no yet sure mean to reconcile them, only speculations. Unifying gravitation with the other forces (which are quantum) is the dream of all the physicists, object of the largest theoretical search.


[quote name='Marz' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:07 PM' post='47406']
It's the first time I've ever heard the word 'magnetogravity', and I'm not happy about it. :-p
[/quote]

It is not very well known, and until recently I heard it only into fringe science. But it is an old prediction of general relativity which today comes to test with Gravity Probe B. Often scientists (and still more journalist who speak of science) do some "simplification" when they expose their results to the general public. Science is like the human body, in a way: there are parts that they do not like to show, even if it is the parts we most desire to see. Scientists don't like to speak of what they don't really understand themselves (like UFOs, but this is another story) and enjoy very much to speak of their success. So "magnetogravitationnal "is a word likely to be very well known in some years, although it exists still Einstein.


[quote name='Marz' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:07 PM' post='47406']
For instance, if ya'll are already speculating on rotating mass to create "negative" gravity, then why not "negative" space-time too?
[/quote]
Never heard of this.



[quote name='Marz' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:07 PM' post='47406']
Um... check please!
[/quote]

Check yourself, in articles of science reviews which speak of relativity, Probe B, standard theory, quantum theory, unification theories. This is not of an easy access, but it remains understandable for anybody with a science bachelor level.

Posted by: The Messenger Mar 24 2006, 09:49 PM

QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 24 2006, 01:33 PM) *
And if the observed effect was simply the deformation of the frame of the experiment aparatus under the heavy strain of a strongly accelerated large disk, no matter of what it is made of? It would produce the same output from the accelerometres than a magnetogravitationnal field, and be proportional to acceleration too. And easily larger than a magnetogravitationnal field...

Good cautionary note, but as I read the experiment, they controlled for the rotating mass by monitoring the effect both above and below the superconductive transition. Something else could be wrong.

Particle physicists have never been able to weld a path between GR and quantum observables, and the fingers have always pointed in both directions. Since partical physics are at least phonomonologically derived, if confirmed, this paper would tend to throw GR out-of-the-boat first. But stay tuned, because once the attributes of this 'induced Newtonian metric' are understood, Planckian limits are next in-line...

Posted by: Marz Mar 24 2006, 11:00 PM

QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 24 2006, 03:44 PM) *
Never heard of this.

Check yourself, in articles of science reviews which speak of relativity, Probe B, standard theory, quantum theory, unification theories. This is not of an easy access, but it remains understandable for anybody with a science bachelor level.


Thanks for the excellent response. My "negative" space-time comment was only an attempt at humor, since others were also dreaming up space-yachts and gravity rockets in earlier posts. I mean, why stop at just negative gravity? (I don't have Shaka's knack for wit. huh.gif )

I've been trying to get a grip on relativity, but "frame dragging" is pretty tough for me to accept... especially if space-time has a finite quantum definition, as Bruce alluded to. This would mean that if I went near a rotating black hole, then MY timeline could get stretched beyond this quantum limit, and therefore "snap" into another timeline (like streams of foam floating down a drain)?

Another weird conceptual problem I have with this: Imagine Star-A that rotates clockwise, and Star-B of equal mass that rotates counter-clockwise. Their galaxy collides and these two stars end up in a tight binary system orbiting each other closely. What in the heck does their rotating space-time look like? ph34r.gif More importantly: what does it mean?

I'd like a bucket of quantum-secondlets to go, please. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: nprev Mar 25 2006, 06:11 AM

QUOTE (Marz @ Mar 24 2006, 01:07 PM) *
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!) blink.gif blink.gif .

Posted by: Richard Trigaux Mar 25 2006, 07:38 AM

QUOTE (Marz @ Mar 25 2006, 12:00 AM) *
Thanks for the excellent response. My "negative" space-time comment was only an attempt at humor, since others were also dreaming up space-yachts and gravity rockets in earlier posts. I mean, why stop at just negative gravity? (I don't have Shaka's knack for wit. huh.gif )

I've been trying to get a grip on relativity, but "frame dragging" is pretty tough for me to accept... especially if space-time has a finite quantum definition, as Bruce alluded to. This would mean that if I went near a rotating black hole, then MY timeline could get stretched beyond this quantum limit, and therefore "snap" into another timeline (like streams of foam floating down a drain)?

Another weird conceptual problem I have with this: Imagine Star-A that rotates clockwise, and Star-B of equal mass that rotates counter-clockwise. Their galaxy collides and these two stars end up in a tight binary system orbiting each other closely. What in the heck does their rotating space-time look like? ph34r.gif More importantly: what does it mean?

I'd like a bucket of quantum-secondlets to go, please. rolleyes.gif


yes all this is difficult to put into familiar images, and not only for you, for anybody too it is difficult, included high level scientists, who can explore these domains only with the help of extremely complicated mathematics. It is like a blind man exploring a castle with only his fingers, and trying to reconstruct a mental image of it afterward. He could seize some things, like the overal layout and use of the place, but not what the castle really looks like.


I think that the spacetime around rotating black holes can be relevantly compared to a fluid around a whirlpool. Around a rotating black hole, space is deformed in much the same way as the water around the whirlpool. If you put a drop of ink into the water, far away from the whirlpool, it remains a small dot. But approaching the whirlpool, this dot undergoes a shearing, it is elongated, and at last it makes a spiral around the whirlpool. With spacetime, it is much the same, as if it was made of small particles slipping on each other like the water. So, exactly like water manages to remain just plain water with a 1 density everywhere despite any motion or shearing effect, the space remains space as we know it everywhere, around a rotating black hole, and even inside it. (By the way, our timelines can be severely entangled, but they never go back). Or, if you want, the ink blot in the water can be compared to the referential into space, and this gives an image of how this referential can be dragged.

Posted by: Richard Trigaux Mar 25 2006, 08:35 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Mar 25 2006, 07:11 AM) *
(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!) blink.gif blink.gif .


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...

Posted by: nprev Mar 25 2006, 09:08 AM

QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 25 2006, 12:35 AM) *
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! smile.gif

Posted by: Richard Trigaux Mar 25 2006, 04:54 PM

QUOTE (nprev @ Mar 25 2006, 10:08 AM) *
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! smile.gif


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.

Posted by: ugordan Mar 25 2006, 05:02 PM

Why is it that any out-of-the ordinary claim has to initiate yet another discussion on k00ks and fringe science like this? Instead of discussing possible implications and future use if this indeed turns out not to be a bogus effect.

Sheesh...

Posted by: Richard Trigaux Mar 25 2006, 06:25 PM

QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 25 2006, 06:02 PM) *
Why is it that any out-of-the ordinary claim has to initiate yet another discussion on k00ks and fringe science like this? Instead of discussing possible implications and future use if this indeed turns out not to be a bogus effect.

Sheesh...



Aaarghhh as what I was saying, it is not simple.... smile.gif

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Mar 25 2006, 10:18 PM

Jeffrey Bell, ever the party-pooper, sends me the following E-mail:

"These gentlemen have previously published theoretical papers on this
effect in three journals:

"INDIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
JOURNAL OF THEORETICS (sic)
PHYSICA C

"These are all fringe physics journals. PHYSICA C published Polednikov's
now-discredited gravity screening work. I'll wait for this 'discovery'
to appear in PHYSICS REVIEW, like most serious work in this field."

Posted by: Bob Shaw Mar 25 2006, 10:28 PM

Richard:

It's not just the facts of science which betray the difference between 'us guys' and the tribe over the hill - we at least can identify speculation -and downright fiction - as entertainment and intellectual stimulation, without getting overly emotional about the whole shooting match. Some scientists of great repute can't quite make that distinction, and so become fanatically anti-credulous, and that's as bad as the loons in it's own way! There's nowt wrong with some out-of-the-box gedanken fun and games, and long may it continue - just so long as it's clearly labelled as such.

Or we could just put a Caution: May Contain Nuts label on it!

Hehe.

Bob Shaw

Posted by: The Messenger Mar 26 2006, 01:26 AM

QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Mar 25 2006, 03:18 PM) *
Jeffrey Bell, ever the party-pooper, sends me the following E-mail:

"These gentlemen have previously published theoretical papers on this
effect in three journals:

"INDIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
JOURNAL OF THEORETICS (sic)
PHYSICA C

"These are all fringe physics journals. PHYSICA C published Polednikov's
now-discredited gravity screening work. I'll wait for this 'discovery'
to appear in PHYSICS REVIEW, like most serious work in this field."

Thanks for the heads up.

Fortunately, this will not be a difficult experimental setup to duplicate. (I would try to do it myself, if they would let me back in the NMR room huh.gif ) Let's hope this does not argue down to "But you have to use nickel from the slobovia mine excavated between 1963 and 1967!...". One Stanley Pons is enough.

If there is a red flag in the data already presented, it is the 30 magnitude number - something that out-of-wack should have surfaced before. This is one of the weaknesses of being on the fringe - it is easy to read more credibity into a goofy paper than it is for skeptics with more faith in the system...odd paradox.

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Mar 26 2006, 04:14 AM

Did Jay Ward ever say just WHERE that Upsidaisium mine that Rocky and Bullwinkle were looking for finally turned out to be located?

Posted by: dvandorn Mar 26 2006, 04:42 AM

Ummm... directly over the vault where the formula for Hush-a-Boom was stored, I think.

"Now, there's something you don't see every day, Chauncy..."

-the other Doug

Posted by: nprev Mar 26 2006, 05:29 AM

From Wikipedia's article on Boris Badenov, infamous high-ranking official of the People's Republic of Pottsylvania's foreign intelligence apparatus during the 1960s:

"The source of upsidaisium came [edit-sic] from Mount Flatten, a mountain located in the American southwest that floated high above the ground (due to the mountain being full of upsidaisium)."

Hmm. It seems that cavorite (described by Wells, 1901) in fact occurs naturally in abundance at at least one location where it was independently rediscovered more than sixty years later...and is now lost again.

I blame moose and squirrel!!!! mad.gif tongue.gif

Posted by: edstrick Mar 26 2006, 09:22 AM

Bob Shaw: "Or we could just put a Caution: May Contain Nuts label on it!"

Is that like the text on the cardboard box Wallace was wearing at the end of the WereRabbit movie?

AND..... just when you thought it was safe to get back in the heavy-water:
http://pesn.com/2006/03/24/9600253_Fleischmann_joins_D2Fusion/

Unlike some.... who see it when they believe it... I'll believe it when I see it. Pumping power to the grid, day in, day out. Metered.

Posted by: tty Mar 26 2006, 05:01 PM

QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Mar 26 2006, 12:18 AM) *
Jeffrey Bell, ever the party-pooper, sends me the following E-mail:

"These gentlemen have previously published theoretical papers on this
effect in three journals:

"INDIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
JOURNAL OF THEORETICS (sic)
PHYSICA C

"These are all fringe physics journals. PHYSICA C published Polednikov's
now-discredited gravity screening work. I'll wait for this 'discovery'
to appear in PHYSICS REVIEW, like most serious work in this field."


I suppose he means Physical Review?

tty

Posted by: Richard Trigaux Mar 26 2006, 08:28 PM

Sorry ugordan, but seemingly I am not alone to be cautious about this strange result. Of course it is too soon to decide weither or not the effect is true (replication is still missing) but there was already some false alarms... The worse of all is that, if one day some fringe theory proves valuable, it will be all the more difficult for scientists to accept it, and even to notice it. We have a proverb in France, about a guy who always shout "fire fire" for nothing. Until one day his own house is on fire, but nobody believes him...


About the result itself, admitting it is true, I don't think it makes a hole in General Relativity. Why? a field is generated, that relativity knows. It arises into conditions which are not predicted by relativity, because they arise from quantum phenomena. But after, this force still behaves how relativity predicts. We have discovered the gravitationnal equivalent of a magnet, fine.


What is strange however (I say strange, not suspicious) is that this field appears when Cooper pairs* are rotating. Why Cooper pairs? To be exact, any rotating mass generates a magnetogravitationnal field, and any particule do it, the intensity of the field depending only on the rotating mass. So 1kg of electrons and 1kg of protons give the same result. But Cooper pairs would give a 10 power 30 more intense field. What is special with Cooper pairs? Have they an unusual spin, giving them some special properties, for instance being Böse-Einstein*** in place of the Fermi-Dirac** electron? Are they Böse-Einstein with a mass, unlike the photons? (they would be the only particules like that). Or are they just much bigger in geometric size? Or what else?


*Cooper pairs are two coupled electrons which allow for superconductivity.

** Böse Einstein particules can be piled the ones on the other, like photons the particules of light that we can "go through" without touching them. Beams of light can cross each other without disturbing each other.

*** Fermi Dirac particules cannot be together on the same place, like the atoms, protons, etc. So the result is that they form "solid" bodies which occupy a minimum volume, we can touch them and we cannot go through.

Posted by: ugordan Mar 26 2006, 09:04 PM

QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 26 2006, 10:28 PM) *
Sorry ugordan, but seemingly I am not alone to be cautious about this strange result.

Cautious is fine, but let's not dismiss this immediately on the grounds it's unconventional. And let's not also accept it as a given, either. More experiments clearly are needed to veryify/dismiss this effect.

QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 26 2006, 10:28 PM) *
We have a proverb in France, about a guy who always shout "fire fire" for nothing. Until one day his own house is on fire, but nobody believes him...

Or as the English speaking folks would say: "the boy who cried wolf".

QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 26 2006, 10:28 PM) *
But Cooper pairs would give a 10 power 30 more intense field. What is special with Cooper pairs? Have they an unusual spin, giving them some special properties, for instance being Böse-Einstein*** in place of the Fermi-Dirac** electron? Are they Böse-Einstein with a mass, unlike the photons? (they would be the only particules like that). Or are they just much bigger in geometric size? Or what else?

The article seems to suggest that the effect arises because of a non-zero graviton mass in the superconductor. I'm in no position to judge the validity/plausibility of that claim, though, but it does look like a quantum effect manifesting itself gravitationally, which might be the first experiment ever to do so (?!).
And there, I think, might lie the significance.

Posted by: Richard Trigaux Mar 26 2006, 09:17 PM

QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 26 2006, 10:04 PM) *
Cautious is fine, but let's not dismiss this immediately on the grounds it's unconventional. And let's not also accept it as a given, either. More experiments clearly are needed to veryify/dismiss this effect.
Or as the English speaking folks would say: "the boy who cried wolf".


I agree.


QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 26 2006, 10:04 PM) *
The article seems to suggest that the effect arises because of a non-zero graviton mass in the superconductor. I'm in no position to judge the validity/plausibility of that claim, though, but it does look like a quantum effect manifesting itself gravitationally, which might be the first experiment ever to do so (?!).
And there, I think, might lie the significance.


The effect would be unusual, because the graviton would have an unusual property in superconductors. But why it should have a mass here and not elsewhere? We already know very little about gravitons, which are still hypothetical particules, not yet observed (as far as I know). But what is there special in a superconductor? There are only very ordinary electrons, protons and neutrons. If there is something special, it can be only about Cooper pairs, which may have a special spin, or are the "largest" known particules.

I agree that if the effect is real, it is extremely important, as you say, a gravitationnal effect resulting only from quantum stuff. Important theoretically, and maybe in practice, for eventual technical applications. Still far from an UFO working with a gravitation ring, but...

Posted by: ugordan Mar 26 2006, 09:23 PM

QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 26 2006, 11:17 PM) *
The effect would be unusual, because the graviton would have an unusual property in superconductors. But why it should have a mass here and not elsewhere?

Well, the experiment builds on the already known and existing London moment which arises from photons gaining mass inside the superconductor. Plus, the experiment only sought to explain a discrepancy found in previous measurements where the Cooper pair masses were different than what was predicted. Thus this proposing model was brought up and apparently was a pretty decent fit to the data.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)