Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Towards a new test of general relativity?
European Space Agency ^ | 23 March 2006 | Staff

Posted on 03/25/2006 11:13:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry

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.


An angularly accelerated superconductive ring induces non-Newtonian gravitational fields in its neibourghood.

"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.

[Omitted contact info at end of article.]


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: physics; podkletnov; relativity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: doc30
Then again, there are many on FR who believe that taxes should not be spent on R&D

I'm one of those. See my book SCIENCE FUNDING: POLITICS AND PORKBARREL, Transaction Publishers., 1992. I believe I made the case that Federal funding has badly corrupted the scientific enterprise in the US. It has led to scientists chasing fads, it has frozen out innovative research (I've had that happen to me personally), and has resulted in a lot of second-rate and third-rate research being done (a full third of published scientific papers are never cited by other scientists, and these are the ones that passed peer review and were published; the stuff that's even worse never got published).

61 posted on 03/25/2006 3:49:43 PM PST by JoeFromSidney (My book is out. Read excerpts at www.thejusticecooperative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
When accelerations or gravitational fields are involved, GR is needed; and in its framework, an accelerating reference frame and gravitational field are equivalent, just as PH stated.

The reason I mentioned the special theory is that I believe time dilation can be determined with nothing more complicated than the Lorentz transformation. So I didn't think the General Theory was involved. I'm well aware, however, that the GT deals with gravity.

As always, I welcome corrections (I need them).

62 posted on 03/25/2006 4:09:48 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Calvin Locke
PBS ran a series in honor of Einstein's 100th, and the US Navy did indeed take a matched pair of cesium clocks, and fly one of them around for a while, and yes, the one in the air "slowed".

Interesting, but still inconclusive it seems to me. If there are competeing effects, perhaps the one that slows it down at higher altitude wins. All the variables would not have been accounted for in that experiment, presuming it was conducted as you just said.

I'm not trying to be stubborn, just trying to understand it.

63 posted on 03/25/2006 4:19:39 PM PST by lafroste (gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: lafroste
I'm not trying to be stubborn, just trying to understand it.

Help me understand where you're trying to go. Are you suggesting that changes in time cause gravity changes, rather than the other way around?

64 posted on 03/25/2006 4:34:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Do you think this will help them be able to explain magnetism? I'm hoping it will help them be able to spell the word "neibourghood" better. And maybe help the stupid Montreal Canadiens make the playoffs.


65 posted on 03/25/2006 4:41:16 PM PST by Argh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: lafroste
So you get n pairs of clocks and experiment to your heart's content. Use one of the extra-constant pulsars as a control.

Atomic clocks are getting cheaper. There's that "grain of rice" sized atomic oscillator that will put "atomic" precision in every watch and pc.

Okay, probably not that precise for measuring deltas in any reasonable timeframe.

66 posted on 03/25/2006 4:54:14 PM PST by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney

It has been said that 80% of the scientific and technical knowledge out there is in patents, not journals. I've been in academic and industrial circles and there is a very big difference between them. Two of my pet peeves are 1) seeing so-called "new" research that is really a repeat of work done in the '50s or 60's because the electronic jounrals don't go back that far and grad students are too lazy to pick up the print version of Chemical Abstracts and 2) esoteric academic work that hovers around the periphery of some major field but has no direct impact. The problem with grant agencies (and I am guessing that's where your beef is) has to do with the politics behind the science. I can remembered being lectured by colleagues about what buzz words you needed to include just to hpe to get funding. It turned into a grant writing game and I hated it. Now that I'm in the private sector, I've seen and done a lot of exciting things but just can't talk about them. At some conferences, I've even seen challeneges presented that we solved years ago. There really is a lot in the labs of privaate industry, but we do depend on university research to do the kinds of work we cannot directly invest in. What would be your suggestion for funding and/or directing non-private sector work?


67 posted on 03/25/2006 6:24:53 PM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I have to admit, I really have trouble getting my brain around this story. Maybe the fourth or fifth attempt at a popularization will trigger some synthesis of what's going on. It took that long with the famous "double slit" experiments.
68 posted on 03/25/2006 6:43:49 PM PST by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Probing the mind of God bump.


69 posted on 03/25/2006 11:09:19 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I'm going to propose that we take the LIGO gravitational laboratory at Hanford and spin it at 6,500 RPM. Should be worth a fair NSF grant.
70 posted on 03/25/2006 11:27:49 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum
"....but I'm stuck on gravitons. I thought they were theoretical."

They are neither theoretical nor practical. They are just an image. Think about an electron. You may think you know something about but all you have are just some images.
71 posted on 03/26/2006 1:51:48 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
I reserve judgement. ;)

But it is very interesting...

72 posted on 03/26/2006 4:34:43 AM PST by patton (Once you steal a firetruck, there's really not much else you can do except go for a joyride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: patton

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf


Lots more details.


73 posted on 03/26/2006 4:43:28 AM PST by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget (God punishes Conservatives by making them argue with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
A summary in luddite style:

-------------------------------

"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.

Depending on further confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological domain

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.

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

If confirmed, this would be a major breakthrough," says Tajmar"

-------------------------------

In other words they don't know and are just guessing

74 posted on 03/26/2006 4:47:46 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert
E = mc10 ???

hmmm...

75 posted on 03/26/2006 5:48:52 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Wow.....I'm impressed. I fooled for half an hour trying to put up the superscript in html


76 posted on 03/26/2006 5:57:13 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Links to the papers...

this one and the other one

77 posted on 03/26/2006 10:38:39 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Thanks. Doesn't really help my understanding, but one of the others may benefit.
78 posted on 03/26/2006 1:06:10 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: doc30
What would be your suggestion for funding and/or directing non-private sector work?

Actuallly I made a number of suggestions in the book, but I'm not "fixated" on any of them. My main point is that we've tried government funding and it has made things worse, not better. We need to look for other alternatives.

I spent 18 years working in a university research institute. Much different from faculty research. No "publish or perish." Instead, it was "satisfy the client," and most of the clients were in industry. We did have some government clients, but they were all mission-oriented agencies: Air Force, FAA, etc. They weren't supporting basic research as such, they were buying basic research they needed to solve their problems.

In general, we were very unsuccessful in getting support from NSF and similar "research" agencies. We didn't play the games they wanted us to play. We were looking for research that would solve somebody's problems. We did much better in getting support from industry, because we focused on their problems regardless of whether it led to a journal article.

Even so, I've got a couple dozen journal articles and several books to my credit. But they were sort of byproducts of research I undertook for other reasons, not the main objective.

79 posted on 03/26/2006 5:13:15 PM PST by JoeFromSidney (My book is out. Read excerpts at www.thejusticecooperative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney

I can appreciate your point of view very well. I've always found it quite fulfilling and satisfying to solve a problem in our company.

One problem we have is finding partnerships for basic research. We really aren't equipped to do that in house so our logical choice is to partner with a university. THe problem is that our company won't sign their non-disclosure and they won't sign ours. It seems U.S. universities are getting very greedy and want to retain all intellectual property rights and have us pay roayalties to use the work. Most of what we do are in trade secrets or patented ourselves to block competitor use. That puts us in a real bind. Our parent company in Europe doesn't have this problem and have all kinds of joint ventures. Perhaps you could freepmail me with any suggestions of institutes, like yours, that may be able to help us with some basic research needs?


80 posted on 03/26/2006 6:15:47 PM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson