An angularly accelerated superconductive ring induces non-Newtonian gravitational fields in its neibourghood.
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.
"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.]
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).
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Probing the mind of God bump.
But it is very interesting...
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
Lots more details.
-------------------------------
"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
hmmm...
Wow.....I'm impressed. I fooled for half an hour trying to put up the superscript in html
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.
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?
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.