Slashdot Mirror
A New Spin On Physical Phenomena
f00Dave writes "Researchers have discovered "a new physical phenomenon, electrostatic rotation, that, in the absence of friction, leads to spin". I'm a bit skeptical about the implied relationship between physical "spin" (as in rotation) and quantum "spin", however. Still, this is the sort of scientific advance that renews my faith in the system. Go nerds! =]"
science does not always have to be usefull.
I'm more excited about the "absence of friction" part...
At last my dream of building a perpetual motion machine can be realized. Take that thermodynamics!
Unlimited spin would be nice for turntables and whatnot (imagine the mew re-mixes at ungodly RPMs) but seriously what would this be used for? I don't know much about physics, so could someone please elucidate the commercial value of this discovery?
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
I don't understand this submission:
I'm a bit skeptical about the implied relationship between physical "spin" (as in rotation) and quantum "spin", however. Still, this is the sort of scientific advance that renews my faith in the system.
What system are we talking about? Why does faith need to be renewed in it? What, have you lost faith in physics because it doesn't discover new laws every day?
Now if they want to measure political spin, we have to wait to see what research grants they apply for next...(sorry, couldn't help it.) Seriously- how do they do this without friction?
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
... but, with the miniscule amount of information provided, it seems to me that the spinning spheres merely demonstrate electromagentic force.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Is is just me, or does the article not really explain what it is they are talking about.
Also, a drawing of the setup would have been nice.
Third, how do they get from spinning metal thingies to quantum spin? Sounds strange...
-- Having problems sending big files over the net? Try out Efisto (http://efisto.org)
Thats the equivalent of saying, "Magnets can't give us free energy, so they must be useless" Do you yield energy? Are you useful? Wait... forgot who I was talking to.
Your paranoia is about as subtle as the alien probe in your neck.
It is another premise on which to build theories and further our understanding of the nature of the universe. This was made clear in the first paragraph.
So let me get this straight.
They applied an electrical charge to a object, while inside the Earth's magnetic field, and they were surprised that the object experienced a rotational force?
They didn't consider the magnetic field. They didn't consider that the magnetic field is constantly changing, due to the spin of the Earth and Solar wind. They didn't consider that having three charged spheres near to each other would cause the charge of those spheres to develop a pole.
No. They jumped right to the conclusion that they had discovered something new about the spin of atomic particles.
Spare me.
In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
Random is the New Order.
Just a random guess, but perhaps they're saying "frictionless" because this is what their experiment involves. It's very likely true also, given other physical laws, that the same force would work against friction too, but their experiment hasn't shown that. Their experiment has only shown that it happens in (near-) frictionless environment, so that's what they have reported.
With regard to energy, I assume there is some flow of current somewhere. The article does say a DC voltage was applied to the spheres. It's not as if it's all that different from some familiar experiments. Two objects both with positive charges have a force between them and this force can do work, but it doesn't mean energy is coming from nowhere. On the other hand, it is unclear exactly what the process is, so it's hard to say for sure.
Faith is belief in something which you know to be false -- Arthur Clarke.
You take a 2-colored, metal-coated ping-pong ball [it can be done], and suspend it in air on a cushion of air jets. [Also can be done.]
Now stabilize it rotationally. Now stick two or three metal brushes lightly against it, and hit it with some charge. Will it spin? Will it spin continuously faster?
If so, how?
Or alternatively, we can have 3 metalized ping pong balls on three jets of air [that is, infinitely thing strings, you might say] and each brushing against three metalic brushes. Will these spin and accelerate continuously faster?
Suppose, instead of balancing them on air jets, we used strong magnetism and magneticized balls. Will it work then?
Why, or why not?
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
The article is very confusing, and makes several leaps that even the researchers don't promulgate.
Basically, what seems to be going on here is that one charges up metal spheres to see how they interact. This is a way of testing EM theory. Now, as is commonly known, charging a metal sphere will eventually have the charge distributed uniformly on the surface, and eventually static. However, it takes a non-zero amount of time to reach these static states. What these boys have done is charge 3 spheres (presumably) simultaneously, and then observe physical spin (rotation) in the spheres.
Well, inhomogenities in the surfaces can have slightly non-uniform charge currents during the charging process. All it would take is a slight asymmetry, and the charge on two spheres (let alone three) could and would provide a torque to the other(s) via the usual Coulomb interaction.
is the cry of the un-imaginative.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on