First Steps Toward Artificial Gravity 470
CompaniaHill writes "Have scientists been able to artificially generate a gravitational field? Researchers at the European Space Agency believe so.
"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."
The effect is very small, so don't expect to see it used in spacecraft any time soon. But the effect is still many times larger than the predictions of Einstein's theories.
"If confirmed, this would be a major breakthrough," says [Austrian researcher Martin] Tajmar. "It opens up a new means of investigating general relativity and it consequences in the quantum world.""
More spinning superconductors (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem usually comes when someone wants to see the experiment replicated. For some reason the effect always seems to go away when other people are looking. Or worse, other people notice things like "you've got a lot of evaporating liquid nitrogen flying past your mass sensor, isn't that going to affect the readings?
Still, effective anti-grav in my lifetime would be quite a breakthough.
Re:More spinning superconductors (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More spinning superconductors (Score:2, Insightful)
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nevertheless, this is a very interesting discovery. Anyone have any other links?
Re:Did they detect an increase in mass? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe you misunderstood the parent of your post. If I understand that post correctly, he's referring to Newton's gravitational law. It states that the gravitational force between Object A and Object B is directly proportional to the product of the two masses.
So, in other words, your parent was asking: If we assume that the distance between two objects remains constant, as does the gravitational constant of the universe, shouldn't there be an increase in the mass of one of the objects to account for the gravitational force increasing?
Or, put more simply: Did the spinning superconductor experience an increase in mass (somehow?), or was it the universal gravitational constant that was (somehow?) affected by the spinning superconductor?
Slashdot misses the point again (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what the editors were thinking:
"Well, we can talk about the really exciting implications of this experiment that will be relevant to respectable physics
How long before some crackpot on the threads says: "Well, if you just spin the disk backward, logically it should follow that the artificial gravity will turn into anti-gravity! I have made the greatest scientific discovery since Einstein! Wait... I better be quiet about this before the oil companies and government agencies try to sabotage me, just like they did with my zero-point energy machine and my perpetual engine (I'm still working on getting the lubricant working correctly...)"
Nice job, guys.
Re:Can someone help explain? (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess is that it was a perspective trick - like you sometimes get in funhouses, you know? The slope was steeper than it looked, and your brain interpreted the conflicting information from your eyes and your inner ear as a horizontal force.
Re:Did they detect an increase in mass? (Score:2, Insightful)
(But this device, apparently, isn't entirely consistent with General Relativity either. Nor does it generate gravity - it apparently creates a force that relates to gravity in the same way magnetism relates to electricity. I can't understand that.)
Re:Awesome (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
If it over corrects it would damage the crew inside, who knows, maybe it is correcting and the shaking and such isn't as bad as it would be otherwise.
Re:Forgot spaceships (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure about that. Consider the following analogies:
If you can create light, it should be easy to create antilight, i.e., darkness.
If you can create sound, it should be easy to create antisound, i.e., silence.
If you can create heat, it should be easy to creat antiheat, i.e., cold.
Re:been arround since 1997, this stuff, google it (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, would you care to comment on the likelihood that the scientists conducting this research thought of these same factors, and accounted for them in their experimental methodology?
Re:Great in the long run (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't you think that's a bit trivial? The impact of the ability to manipulate gravity is enormous. Your comment reminds me of the guy who posted that he was looking forward to teleportation reducing his commute time.
Re:Forgot spaceships (Score:5, Insightful)
Cold is defined as the absence of heat. There is no such thing as measuring how "cold" something is - heat is the intrinsic property, cold is just a lack of it.
Same thing with light.
A lack of gravity does not imply anti-gravity. It just means that spacetime is flat in that particular region (and of course we know it's never truly flat, there's always some deviation). Anti-gravity would be akin to emitting gravitons with a "negative gravitational charge" - it's possible in theory and that's about it as far as we've discovered.
Re:Small steps or large leaps (Score:3, Insightful)
While spinning is still probably a good idea for space superstructures, there are lots of uses for artificial gravity, and even on a spinning space superstructure, you might want to even out the gravity close to the center with that at the rim.
Re:More spinning superconductors (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, in the real world, experiments are difficult and there is absolutely no guarantee that an experiment which works sometimes can be replicated with certainty on demand. An experiment may work once, then the researcher spends a month trying to get things working again, then it works, then the researcher spends another month trying to get things working again. This is particularly true in the case of novel experimental results for which we do not have a solid theoretical understanding.
Without a good theoretical understanding, it is extremely difficult to know which experimental parameter causes a setup to work or not work, which makes it difficult for other people to duplicate work, and difficult to guarantee it will work for a single demonstration. But neither of these things by themselves invalidate experimental results.
I think the tendency of many to cry "kook" everytime we see experimental results which contradict theory and are difficult to replicate some of the times we try is quite non-scientific.
Re:Awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More spinning superconductors (Score:3, Insightful)
Not too much salt though (Score:4, Insightful)