The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong

Softpedia.com ^ | March 24th, 2006, 12:39 GMT · | By Vlad Tarko

[Kevmo]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.

This gravitomagnetic field is similar to the magnetic field produced by a moving electric charge (hence the name "gravitomagnetic" analogous to "electromagnetic"). For example, the electric charges moving in a coil produce a magnetic field - such a coil behaves like a magnet. Similarly, the gravitomagnetic field can be produced to be a mass moving in a circle. What the electric charge is for electromagnetism, mass is for gravitation theory (the general theory of relativity).

A spinning top weights more than the same top standing still. However, according to Einstein's theory, the difference is negligible. It should be so small that we shouldn't even be capable of measuring it. But now scientists from the European Space Agancy, Martin Tajmar, Clovis de Matos and their colleagues, have actually measured it. At first they couldn't believe the result.

"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. They hope other physicists will now conduct their own versions of the experiment so they could be absolutely certain that they have really measured the gravitomagnetic field and not something else. This may be the first empiric clue for how to merge together quantum mechanics and general theory of relativity in a single unified theory.

"If confirmed, this would be a major breakthrough," says Tajmar, "it opens up a new means of investigating general relativity and its consequences in the quantum world."

The experiment involved a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute. According to quantum theory, spinning superconductors should produce a weak magnetic field. The problem was that Tajmar and de Matos experiments with spinning superconductors didn't seem to fit the theory - although in all other aspects the quantum theory gives incredibly accurate predictions. Tajmar and de Matos then had the idea that maybe the quantum theory wasn't wrong after all but that there was some additional effect overlapping over their experiments, some effect they neglected.

What could this other effect be? They thought maybe it's the gravitomagnetic field - the fact that the spinning top exerts a higher gravitational force. So, they placed around the spinning superconductor a series of very sensible acceleration sensors for measuring whether this effect really existed. They obtained more than they bargained for!

Although the acceleration produced by the spinning superconductor was 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, it is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Thus, the spinning top generated a much more powerful gravitomagnetic field than expected.

Now, it remains the need for a proper theory. Scientists can also now check whether candidate theories, such as the string theory, can describe this experiment correctly. Moreover, this experiment shows that gravitational waves should be much more easily to detect than previously thought.

[zeugma]

 So, they placed around the spinning superconductor a series of very sensible acceleration sensors for measuring whether this effect really existed. They obtained more than they bargained for!

I like my sensors to be sensible.

So much better than cranky sensors.

[minnesota_bound]

Give Einstein a break! He only had pencil and paper not some super duper collider.

[FredZarguna]

Your problem is that you don't know when to pick your battles.

Most experiments aren't published, because they turn out to be wrong. Most experiments that contradict established theory are wrong. Almost all experiments that contradict a theory that has been around since 1892 are wrong. Why? Because the theory published in 1892 was designed to account for an existing mass of experimental data, and no experiment since then until this one has produced this large an effect.

So what is the most prudent course of action? Not to say that a theory is wrong that parallels James Clerk Maxwell's unification of electricity and magnetism, which was put on an even firmer footing by the special theory of relativity and an even firmer basis by the general theory of relativity and -- I should not need to tell you this but I will - thousands of experiments before and since. The prudent course of science is not to say those thousands of experiments are wrong and this ONE experiment is correct, but to assume, in fact, the opposite: That this experiment is a fluke, published by overzealous researchers who apparently didn't realize that if the effect claimed were really this large we would have hell to pay all over interstellar and intergalactic space.

This effect, if real, would be seen in the large structure of the universe and isn't. Because you see, even though "Experiment Trumps Theory®, Amen" Reality trumps BAD experiments.

Reality Trumps Theory®, Amen is a registered trademark of Kevmo Bogus Enterprises, LLC and is used without his permission.

[FredZarguna]

So what?

[FredZarguna]

Kevmo, Kevmo, Kevmo.

Please learn some basic reading skills. The article clearly says, and I quote:

it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.

No less than X-times larger, means it is at least that much larger. Not smaller. Larger.

And because "Experiment Trumps Theory®, Amen." Let us examine not what you have theorized the article says, but what I actually wrote.

The magnetic analog of gravity was predicted by HEAVISIDE in 1892. He predicted this on the basis of the fact that Maxwell's equations were known to be relativistically invariant, whereas Newton's Laws were not. This property is called Lorentz Invariance [or more commonly in the jargon Lorentz Covariance.] Physicists did not [then, 1892] know why this was true. Heaviside believed that the reason classical mechanics and electrodynamics did not agree was because Newton was wrong [and Heaviside was correct, and this magnetic analog does exist for gravity.]

Einstein is not the only person who worked on relativity. There were lots of other people who worked on relativity before, during, and after Einstein. A few during or before are: Lorentz, Poincare, Minkowski, and Maxwell, and Heaviside. Maxwell and Heaviside did not know about Lorentz invariance. But they knew the Lorentz force would be the same whether it was produced a reference frame in which electrons were moving or stationary.

The proof that Magenetism is nothing more than a relativistic manifestation of Electricity is something covered in every Junior/Senior level text in physics and EE -- and the next step, which every senior level physics student does, is to show gravity has the same property and to derive a version of "Maxwell's Equations" for gravity. This is what Heaviside did.

You claim to be a EE, so you should know Maxwell's Equations, and be able to easily understand this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

And you should be better at reading than you are.

[FredZarguna]

This is one of just many problems, but you’re right. The induction current of gravitons produced by spinning bodies would be huge, and gravity waves would have been seen long ago.

[Sir_Ed]

Aren’t monkey’s and chimp’s muscles much stronger than humans?

Ed

[varmintman]

No. Apes arms are stronger than our arms because their arms are their major limbs, the comparison is between their arms and our legs. If you want to see how lame a chimp really is, have him try to run a competitive 440...

[BroJoeK]

varmintman: "Mathematically, the point at which top lifters become dysfunctional because of that square/cube problem is around 20,000 lbs and the biggest elephants are around 14,000 - 15,000.
That's the present size limit for Earth.
That means that there has been a very large increase in gravity on our planet fairly recently, and it means that everything Einstein ever said about gravity is wrong..."

Rubbish, you should be ashamed of yourself.

The largest Sauropods are estimated upwards of 100 tons.
Recent models show that physical limitations on their size was neither bone nor muscle strength, but joints.

According to this site:

"In 2013, in a study published in Plos One on October 30, 2013 by Dr. Bill Sellers, Rudolfo Coria, Lee Margetts et al, Argentinosaurus was digitally reconstructed to test its locomotion for the first time.
The results of the biomechanics study revealed that Argentinosaurus was mechanically competent at a top speed of 2m/s (5 mph) given the great weight of the animal and the strain that its joints were capable of bearing.
The results further revealed that much larger terrestrial vertebrates might be possible, but would require significant body remodeling and possible sufficient behavioral change to prevent joint collapse."

And while we're at it, this big-fellow (Indricotherium, compared to an African elephant) weighed in around 20 tons, some 25 million years ago:

And this big-fellow (Songhua River Mammoth compared to African elephant) also grew nearly 20 tons, as recently as 10,000 years ago:

[TXnMA]

Just on a quick read, it appears that the title is highly misleading: only one aspect of the complex theory has been brought into question.

For example, I see nothing in this finding that would invalidate the broader concept of relativistic time -- for which our dabbling in space flight and particle acceleration have provided strong corroborating evidence.

Of course, these findings might cause folks to look at weird concepts such as anti-gravity and FTL travel with renewed interest... '-)

[TXnMA]

Nicely done!

[Alamo-Girl]

For example, I see nothing in this finding that would invalidate the broader concept of relativistic time -- for which our dabbling in space flight and particle acceleration have provided strong corroborating evidence.

Indeed. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[TXnMA]

That patent is no more about gravity than this:

...or MagLev trains.

If anything, it is merely a claimed “slick” way to achieve maybe something like this:

...and I'm not yet convinced of its viability.

[RinaseaofDs]

Einstein won’t be ‘wrong’ here. He came up with theories that when tested came up being eerily accurate. He also observed things in experiments that he couldn’t explain. (Spooky action at a distance; wave/particle behavior of photons under observation)

Science, when done using scientific method, is ACCRETIVE. Technology has improved markedly since 1907 too.

This IS groundbreaking stuff. They clearly waited and spent big bucks making sure they weren’t going to announce ‘Cold Fusion’ and then get egg on their face. It will take some time to verify these results. I wish we’d do it here, but there isn’t much science done in the US anymore. All the money is going to agitprop science, or the ‘science of what’s happnin’ now’ - more fire and brimstone than about asking ‘why?’

It will be jumped on, and there is so much promising science here that is within the grasp of both discovery and meaningful application.

Understanding gravity may eventually mean transportation without batteries or large fuel tanks.

It has been a great day, and this thread is just evidence of the day getting better.

God is amazing. Endlessly amazing.

[TXnMA]

"Quite often when measurements and theory do not match the issue is the quality, accuracy and methodology of the instrumentation and how they are used that are the issue. "

I agree. The accelerometers most likely were micromachined from silicon:

Such devices are very effective and sensitive accelerometers. The problem with them (and any other form of accelerometer with which I'm familiar is that they produce an electrical output.

And, the problem is that electrical devices is that they requre wiring to connect them with the data-acquistion system.

...and conductors (aka "wiring") in the presence of moving magnetic fields -- generate electrical current.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can you say, "spuriously-generated [false] accelerometer signals"?

[sourcery]

Gyroscope's unexplained acceleration may be due to modified inertia

[TXnMA]

Ooops! Meant to include you in my #75 addressee list...

[FredZarguna]

Thanks. I've replied to this one before, and you're right. It's baloney.

The obvious counterargument is, "You're RIGHT! that's why Blue Whales do not exist." Typically, you get back that they spend their time in the water, which of course, Sauropods did for large parts of their life cycle as well.

It aint easy being huge. But it's far from impossible.

[Sir_Ed]

Interesting!

Thanks,

Ed

[Kevmo]

The “math” for this one is relatively simple and involves nothing more than grasping the difference between squared and cubed quantities.
***You’re talking about maybe 1 or 2 orders of magnitude difference. The “math” for this one is that the OBSERVED effect is 20 Orders of Magnitude off. That’s like saying a normal mosquito can knock over an elephant at normal speeds 95% of the time with kinetic energy. Heck, it’s like saying that Mosquito can knock the earth off its axis 95% of the time. That’s how far off the “math” is on this one.