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 26 2006, 08:28 PM
Post #2





Guests






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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Mar 26 2006, 09:04 PM
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3585
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



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.


--------------------
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: 22nd December 2014 - 09:52 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.