- Topics
- Aerospace
- Animals
- Anthro and Archaeology
- Bio and Medicine
- Brain and Behavior
- Business and Economy
- Computers and Electronics
- Education and Outreach
- Energy and Environment
- Geoscience
- Internet and Communication
- Media and Entertainment
- Nanotech, Chem and Materials
- Physics and Numbers
- Security and Defense
- Software
- Space
- Transportation
- Reader Blogs
- Shameless Commerce
- Register/Login
Researchers create gravity in lab experiment
Scientists funded by the European Space Agency have measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory. Under certain special conditions the effect is much larger than expected from general relativity and could help physicists to make a significant step towards the long-sought-after quantum theory of gravity.
Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the effect is virtually negligible. However, Martin Tajmar, ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Austria; Clovis de Matos, ESA-HQ, Paris; and colleagues have measured the effect in a laboratory.
Their experiment involves a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute. Superconductors are special materials that lose all electrical resistance at a certain temperature. Spinning superconductors produce a weak magnetic field, the so-called London moment. The new experiment tests a conjecture by Tajmar and de Matos that explains the difference between high-precision mass measurements of Cooper-pairs (the current carriers in superconductors) and their prediction via quantum theory. They have discovered that this anomaly could be explained by the appearance of a gravitomagnetic field in the spinning superconductor (This effect has been named the Gravitomagnetic London Moment by analogy with its magnetic counterpart).
Small acceleration sensors placed at different locations close to the spinning superconductor, which has to be accelerated for the effect to be noticeable, recorded an acceleration field outside the superconductor that appears to be produced by gravitomagnetism. "This experiment is the gravitational analogue of Faraday's electromagnetic induction experiment in 1831.
It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth’s gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts. Initially, the researchers were reluctant to believe their own results.
"We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement," says Tajmar, who performed the experiments and hopes that other physicists will conduct their own versions of the experiment in order to verify the findings and rule out a facility induced effect.
In parallel to the experimental evaluation of their conjecture, Tajmar and de Matos also looked for a more refined theoretical model of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment. They took their inspiration from superconductivity. The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles, known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled.
"If confirmed, this would be a major breakthrough," says Tajmar, "it opens up a new means of investigating general relativity and it consequences in the quantum world."
The results were presented at a one-day conference at ESA's European Space and Technology Research Centre (ESTEC), in the Netherlands, 21 March 2006. Two papers detailing the work are now being considered for publication. The papers can be accessed on-line at the Los Alamos pre-print server using the references: gr-qc/0603033 and gr-qc/0603032.
Submitted by BJS on Sat, 2006-03-25 07:38.
- Printer-friendly version
- 50894 reads
What's the update on this?
Been a few months.
My interest is in artificial gravity fabrication. One capable of containing explosions...e g transmutations.
Just wait for 5 more months!
Gravity Probe B final result will resolve it once for all. Just wait for 5 more months!
See:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=19479
or
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084
or
http://lighttale.com
quotation from the Father of Quantum Mechanics: Max Planck
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning.''
By the Father of Quantum Mechanics: Max Planck
Any recent updates to this subject
With regard to the original article, have there been any updates? I've been watching expectantly but have seen nothing. The gravity probe B story really didn't talk about any more experiments the ESA guys are doing.
Great Guys
I wish I was part of this research and experiment. Last year, I was thinking to my self after I sow a program about NASA children rockets. I thought that if we really want to invade the space, we shall use the universal powers e.g. Magnetic and/or Gravity. Then, I said gravity is impossible, it should be magnetic.
Before few days, I remembered the same subject and I though of it with my self and I figured that if we rotate a certain amount of magnetic field under a certain speed, we can generate gravity. The next step, we should know how to direct it and use it for good purposes.
I started searching on the net to see, if I was the only one who thought of that, or there are others??!!.
I'm happy that I am not the only mechanical engineer in this world who is thinking in the future subjectively.
If you need any assistance please let me know.
Good Luck.
Eng. Haitham Khamissi
e-mail: haitham600@yahoo.com
The experiment is indeed confirmed by Gravity Probe B & NZ group
Latest Tajmar Paper with NZ reference:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3806.pdf
Now, the probe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe...timeline#Future
" On February 9, 2007 it was announced that a number of unexpected signals had been received and that these would need to be separated out before final results could be released. Consequently, the date for the final release of data has been pushed back from April 2007 to December 2007.
Speculation on some internet sites, such as PhysicsForums.org, has centered around the source and nature of these anomalous signals. Several posters and alternative theorists (some skeptical of GPB and its methodology) have indicated that understanding these signals may be more interesting than the original goal of testing GR. "
Where in these forums was this speculation going on?
Anyone know?
Since it seems the anomalous data may confirm Tajmar et al., even better than the Canterbury results, this is of great interest here.
The experiment is confirmed by Gravity Probe B
The experiment is confirmed by Gravity Probe B experiment. See
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084
Podkletnov
"Despite the similarity to the apparatus used by Podkletnov, the authors carefully state in their eprint ... that their claimed result should not be confused with the claims of Podkletnov.
Specifically, they measured a tangental gravitomagnetic force created by Type I superconductors, (Elemental Lead and Niobium rings at liquid helium temperatures) but failed to measure an axial force from Type II superconductors (YBCO and BSSCO ceramics at liquid nitrogen temperatures) as described by Podkletnov. Thus, their results suggest a magnified form of 'frame dragging' rather than gravity reflection. However, there are major differences between the experiments, such as the method of driving the ring. (In the ARC experiments, the ring was physically driven by a motor, while Podkletnov's experiment levitated and spun the ring using magnetic fields.)"
Old Hat, New Hat, One Two Three
Google "Podkletnov" -- he came onto this ten years ago in Finland.
gravity
Refer to the crackpot comments above: Some people laughed at Werner Heisenberg as well!
Overblown Headline
I'm getting tired of headlines that promise miracles, followed by an article about some interesting, small phenom. This headline says that the researchers "created Gravity," when all they did was cause some TINY TINY Microscopic thing to happen that doesn't fit theory. It's not gravity - it's not even microgravity...
Dial it down, journalists!
Where did this go?
This research happened a while ago, you would expect by now we would have seen news that it had either been duplicated, or debunked.
Neither has happened; the net is silent on the subject, except for fringe claims that have been around for even longer. What gives?
Pseudoscience
First let me point out that the article was written in early 2006 so if it had panned out it would be bigger news by now.
This particular brand of pseudoscience has been floating around for awhile, usually rotating superconductor is paired with anti-gravity however.
I believe in the result, but I have different explanation
I believe in the result, but I have different explanation:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084
Let's hope it is confirmed
Comments from the crackpot gallery like the above notwithstanding, this looks like an interesting result. Hopefully the effect can be verified by other researchers, as it would be very useful to have new ways to use gravity in a laboratory setting.
No strings attached?
It would be nice to get quantum gravity without resorting to String Theory. Could we say it ties up some loose ends? :)
See http://www.scienceshelf.com/PhysicsTrouble.htm for a recent comparative review of two books on that subject.
I discuss these loose ends in my new book about 20th-century physics, Physics: Decade by Decade.
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
artificial gravity
So , how much power and rotation does it take to generate earth normal gravity
one step closer
to the GUT as well, I really hope this gets outside confirmation soon and that lots of funding goes their way.
It has been a very long time since the last major step in this long struggle for understanding.
artificial gravity
my penis
Comment on artificial gravity
Wonderful work. Inducing curvature through axial accelerations may force photons into either occupying or mimicking a secondary space-time rung. I think the later; that photons are no longer photons but should be described as having a greater space-time curvature than exists in photonic space-time but, perhaps an artificial one, i.e., induced gravitational moment. The measurement of this drop (increase in gravitational moment) is a number I have wanted for a long time and appears, from my perspective, correct. It is the number I wanted. These gravitational events may demonstrate artificial space-time shells not available through observation outside the lab but exist none the less. This in itself is exciting, especially for technology but, as I said, artificial.
This also may indicate the process of galaxy production, e.g., materials moving from flater (less curved to more highly curved) space-time, demonstrating quantum momentum, and be the reason for the observation of curved galaxies and the existence of black holes (flat space-time apertures) near the centers. It works for me. Anyway, just a thought, having only that weight and momentum.
Any origional thoughts on this?
Hrm
Incredible.
Incredible.
bad title
continuing the analogy, wouldn't it be like making an electromagnet, and saying 'researchers create electric field?'
uhh. okay. i tried to post that, and the security question wouldn't let me through. i'm going to lie and say i do hate spam ("yes"). but really spam isn't that big of a problem that i'd use such a strong word like "hate".
Post new comment