IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

First real challenge to General Relativity?, (and not from Gravity Probe-B)
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Guest_Richard Trigaux_*
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Mar 24 2006, 09:05 AM
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Richard Trigaux_*
post Mar 24 2006, 09:49 AM
Post #4





Guests






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)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Mar 24 2006, 09:55 AM
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dtolman
post Mar 24 2006, 03:02 PM
Post #6


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 291



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gpurcell
post Mar 24 2006, 04:15 PM
Post #7


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 242
Joined: 21-December 04
Member No.: 127



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- BruceMoomaw   First real challenge to General Relativity?   Mar 23 2006, 09:50 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   The actual paper ( http://esamultimedia.esa.int/do...   Mar 23 2006, 10:14 PM
- - ugordan   Weren't there experiments and claims (by a rus...   Mar 23 2006, 10:17 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   Sorry about the misspelling. Their actual passage...   Mar 23 2006, 10:29 PM
|- - ugordan   Very interesting, indeed. Though I have a hard tim...   Mar 23 2006, 10:38 PM
- - tty   If the effect is proportional to speed of rotation...   Mar 23 2006, 10:52 PM
|- - ugordan   QUOTE (tty @ Mar 23 2006, 11:52 PM) If th...   Mar 23 2006, 10:57 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   I believe -- although I may be wrong, given my Mr....   Mar 24 2006, 02:32 AM
|- - ugordan   QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Mar 24 2006, 03:32 A...   Mar 24 2006, 08:14 AM
|- - The Messenger   QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 24 2006, 01:14 AM) N...   Mar 24 2006, 03:22 PM
- - The Messenger   This is going to be very difficult to confirm, and...   Mar 24 2006, 06:18 AM
- - Richard Trigaux   The Lens-Thiring effect, or magnetogravitationnal ...   Mar 24 2006, 08:32 AM
|- - ugordan   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 24 2006, 09...   Mar 24 2006, 09:05 AM
||- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 24 2006, 10:05 AM) O...   Mar 24 2006, 09:49 AM
||- - ugordan   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 24 2006, 10...   Mar 24 2006, 09:55 AM
||- - dtolman   QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 24 2006, 04:55 AM) S...   Mar 24 2006, 03:02 PM
||- - gpurcell   QUOTE (dtolman @ Mar 24 2006, 03:02 PM) S...   Mar 24 2006, 04:15 PM
|||- - The Messenger   QUOTE (gpurcell @ Mar 24 2006, 09:15 AM) ...   Mar 24 2006, 04:36 PM
||- - nprev   QUOTE (dtolman @ Mar 24 2006, 07:02 AM) E...   Mar 24 2006, 08:08 PM
|- - Marz   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 24 2006, 02...   Mar 24 2006, 09:07 PM
|- - Richard Trigaux   [quote name='Marz' date='Mar 24 2006, ...   Mar 24 2006, 09:44 PM
||- - Marz   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 24 2006, 03...   Mar 24 2006, 11:00 PM
||- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (Marz @ Mar 25 2006, 12:00 AM) Than...   Mar 25 2006, 07:38 AM
|- - nprev   QUOTE (Marz @ Mar 24 2006, 01:07 PM) Ok.....   Mar 25 2006, 06:11 AM
|- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (nprev @ Mar 25 2006, 07:11 AM) (Re...   Mar 25 2006, 08:35 AM
|- - nprev   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 25 2006, 12...   Mar 25 2006, 09:08 AM
|- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (nprev @ Mar 25 2006, 10:08 AM) You...   Mar 25 2006, 04:54 PM
|- - ugordan   Why is it that any out-of-the ordinary claim has t...   Mar 25 2006, 05:02 PM
||- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 25 2006, 06:02 PM) W...   Mar 25 2006, 06:25 PM
|- - Bob Shaw   Richard: It's not just the facts of science w...   Mar 25 2006, 10:28 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   Oops. I was indeed wrong about the definition of ...   Mar 24 2006, 03:35 PM
- - Richard Trigaux   Heeeeemmmm... many wild speculations in latest po...   Mar 24 2006, 08:33 PM
|- - The Messenger   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 24 2006, 01...   Mar 24 2006, 09:49 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   I can vouch for the fact that quantum gravity theo...   Mar 24 2006, 09:36 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   Jeffrey Bell, ever the party-pooper, sends me the ...   Mar 25 2006, 10:18 PM
|- - The Messenger   QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Mar 25 2006, 03:18 P...   Mar 26 2006, 01:26 AM
|- - tty   QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Mar 26 2006, 12:18 A...   Mar 26 2006, 05:01 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   Did Jay Ward ever say just WHERE that Upsidaisium ...   Mar 26 2006, 04:14 AM
- - dvandorn   Ummm... directly over the vault where the formula ...   Mar 26 2006, 04:42 AM
- - nprev   From Wikipedia's article on Boris Badenov, inf...   Mar 26 2006, 05:29 AM
- - edstrick   Bob Shaw: "Or we could just put a Caution: Ma...   Mar 26 2006, 09:22 AM
- - Richard Trigaux   Sorry ugordan, but seemingly I am not alone to be ...   Mar 26 2006, 08:28 PM
- - ugordan   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 26 2006, 10...   Mar 26 2006, 09:04 PM
- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 26 2006, 10:04 PM) C...   Mar 26 2006, 09:17 PM
- - ugordan   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Mar 26 2006, 11...   Mar 26 2006, 09:23 PM


Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 06:48 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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.