The Cellar - Scientists generate gravity in a lab. Einstein was wrong.

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Technology (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - Scientists generate gravity in a lab. Einstein was wrong. (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=10320)

Scientists generate gravity in a lab. Einstein was wrong.

On the heels of the very photogenic Z machine featured recently on the Image of The Day, we have this gravitational experiment in Austria.

And the results are shocking.

Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of generating a very weak gravitomagnetic field. This unprecedented experiment attempted to measure that field's strength, but the results were 100 million trillion times greater than what the scientists expected based on Einstein's theory. So they repeated the experiment 250 times over 3 years, and kicked the results around for 8 months trying to see if they did anything wrong. They are convinced of the results.

This opens up a whole new field of technology. The strength of the gravitational field created in the lab is still tiny, just a millionth that of the earth's, but the first steps in a technology are always tiny.

Who knows where this will lead us, if anywhere? But this is huge.

Quote:

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.

Gravitomagnetic induction of gravitational fields
Gravitomagnetic induction of gravitational fields

"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."

This may be a much bigger deal than the Z machine, but doesn't look anywhere near as cool:

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

This may be a much bigger deal than the Z machine, but doesn't look anywhere near as cool:

yes, but wait 'til they plug it into the Z-machine and...

*foop*

(the sound a new black hole makes):worried:

HTML Code:

Einstein was wrong.

But he was less wrong than everyone else.:D

How 'bout some antigrav? That'd be the deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kagen4o4

link to article?

Link's in the second line. I should have made it bigger.

I read this when you first posted it but despite my interest in the subject I'm not sure I understand what is being said.

Is a gravitomagnietic (GMF for short) field the same thing as gravity? Or is it the same thing as a gravity wave? How do GMFs affect or interact with gravity?

I'm not sure I understand what they are saying is happening or what currently unanswered questions this study helps answer.

Beestie: from here

Quote:

A GRAVITOMAGNETIC FIELD , according to the theory of general relativity, arises from moving matter (matter currents) just as an ordinary magnetic field arises from moving charges (electrical currents). The analogy is so apt that the equations describing this "magnetic" component of gravity can essentially be adapted from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism by replacing the charge density with the mass density and the charge current with the mass current. The rotating Earth, containing a lot of matter in motion, is the source of such a very weak gravitomagnetic force...

I would guess that the real issue here is our understanding of the physics of superconductors. GEM is usually stated as being only valid under certain conditions -- far from isolated sources (so they can be treated as "points") and for slowly-moving (nonrelativistic) particles. I don't see why superconductor experiments should be expected to conform to the classical values expected for the simple cases.

Dude, I killed another thread. :mecry:

Nah, I just start threads that never go anywhere. :mecry:

Where could it go? Who among us is qualified to prove or disprove any of this?
All we can do is observe in awe and wonder what the next step revealed will be.:mg:

Bardeen (who also developed the transistor), Cooper, and Schrieffer developed the BCS theory that defines superconductivity. In simple terms, a pair of electrons are attracted due to a crystal vibration called a phonon (not photon). In materials cold enough (so that the crystal vibration is diminished), these electron pairs literally bounce from molecules much like a skier on moguls. Normally a moving charge creates a magnetic field. But the Cooper pair drives the magnetic field out - called the Meissner effect. The need to drive out this magnetic field is why the superconductivity fails if the current is too great - causing a magnetic field. Since the Londons defined an equation, this is sometimes called the London effect.

Because the electrons travel from atom to atom as smoothly as that mogul skier, then the conductor is said to have zero resistance - is a lossless conductor. Furthermore, electrons don't move at the speed of light. Anything that moves at light speed has no mass. Electrons have mass. But it is not so much the moving of electronics that creates speed of light waves. Electrons moving a little bit, like a wave in the ocean, combine to create a wave that moves faster than the particles. The wave can move at light speeds even though the electron moves little distance.

Electrons create an electric field. Electrons that are moving create a magnetic field. Both conditions and therefore both fields are necessary to create electricity and electromagnetic waves (light, radio, x-rays, heat, etc). These fields are well understood and were defined by Maxwell's equations.

Einstein wanted to combine gravity and other forces into a unified theory. But gravity remained elusive.

Now where I don't quite understand what was posted. An electromagnetic field involves two fundamental forces of nature that must occur simultaneously AND in a matched ratio (called impedance). So how does gravity fit into these relationships? I don't understand what is being claimed in the theory behind this experiment. If superconductivity creates gravity, then is gravity a third force involved with electromagnetic fields?

Meanwhile, photons have no mass. Therefore photons move at light speed. If photons are slowed, then photons have mass. How does this contradiction get resolved?

OK, let's assume that a cousin to the electron is a graviton. Does a graviton create a gravity field? And then a moving graviton creates what that is synonymous with a magnetic field? Or does a moving graviton also create a magnetic field? I am trying to understand the relation ship between superconductivity - electricity - with gravity. But I don't understand what the articles are trying to claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Where could it go? Who among us is qualified to prove or disprove any of this?
All we can do is observe in awe and wonder what the next step revealed will be.:mg:

I tested gravity this moring when I was sorting out my medications. It works.

Hawking was wrong, too but if anyone can sort it all out...

Quote:

Originally Posted by barefoot serpent

Hawking was wrong, too but if anyone can sort it all out...

... it's Brian Greene.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBsjb

... it's Brian Greene.

Media whore!
(And Lawrence Krauss, and Michael Turner.)

Using media as a tool to reach the average person is not a bad thing! I liked both his books. The NOVA TV version was cheesy though.

Naw, public outreach is good for physics... My friends and I would take bets on which one of the Big Two would come out and give the PR lecture for any new advancement. Krauss was the chair of my department at Case, so I just liked being able to call him a whore. :lol: