Slashdot Mirror


First Steps Toward Artificial Gravity

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.""

5 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. More spinning superconductors by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe there is something to all of those internet kooks afterall? This is hardly the first time I've seen talk of creating (or nullifying) gravity by spinning superconductors around, sometimes with electromagnetic charge and sometimes without.

    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.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  2. Re:Did they detect an increase in mass? by SpottedKuh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're kidding, right? Mass is independent of gravity. That's second-grade knowledge.

    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?

  3. Slashdot misses the point again by dildo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Artificial gravity is not the real exitement around this experiment. The really important part is, you know, experimental evidence that may provide insight into the unification of relativity and quantum mechanics.

    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 ... or we could talk about some artificial gravity field thingy that will make crackpots and sci-fi fans excited. Well, it looks pretty obvious. Defer to the crackpots."

    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.

  4. Re:Forgot spaceships by amliebsch · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you can create gravity, it should be easy to create antigravity - i.e., free fall.

    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.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  5. Re:Forgot spaceships by ktulu1115 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly.

    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.

    --
    # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
    #