Gravity can be produced, detected, and controlled claims scientist

Gord_in_Toronto

Penultimate Amazing
Gord_in_Toronto
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
26,512
Hmm. Gravity can be produced, detected, and controlled claims scientist

I red it here: http://www.dispatchtribunal.com/gravity-produced-detected-controlled/10585/

The abstract is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.00333

The curved space-time around current loops and solenoids carrying arbitrarily large steady electric currents is obtained from the numerical resolution of the coupled Einstein-Maxwell equations in cylindrical symmetry. The artificial gravitational field associated to the generation of a magnetic field produces gravitational redshift of photons and deviation of light. Null geodesics in the curved space-time of current loops and solenoids are also presented. We finally propose an experimental setup, achievable with current technology of superconducting coils, that produces a phase shift of light of the same order of magnitude than astrophysical signals in ground-based gravitational wave observatories.
Click to expand...

Hits ALL the bases . . . except "quantum". :D

The author of the paper is at this university: https://directory.unamur.be/staff/afuzfa/publications?_LOCALE_=en

The journal in which the paper is to be published is: https://journals.aps.org/prd/authors/editorial-policies-practices

It all seems pretty genuine. Can anyone get access to the paper? I'm willing to be convinced. :w2:
 
I'm pretty sure it can be detected at least.

Hang on, dropped my soda.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
The abstract is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.00333
It all seems pretty genuine. Can anyone get access to the paper? I'm willing to be convinced. :w2:
Click to expand...

The (I assume) full paper is available from the Arxiv link above. Don't know how much it will change from there until the journal paper is published. Just click on the PDF link in the top right, beneath "Download." 12 pages. Looks pretty maths heavy.
 
jonesdave116 said:
The (I assume) full paper is available from the Arxiv link above. Don't know how much it will change from there until the journal paper is published. Just click on the PDF link in the top right, beneath "Download." 12 pages. Looks pretty maths heavy.
Click to expand...

Ah. My bad. I just assumed I was going to have to pay for it. :o

My Math is not up to it either. There some wiser and better educated on this forum. Maybe one can help out?
 
Energy curves spacetime just as mass does. That's been known for a hundred years, as it's an immediate consequence of Einstein's field equations and the definition of the stress-energy tensor.

Calculating the gravitational effect of energy is basically just arithmetic.

Generating enough energy to create a measurable gravitational field is a matter of engineering. If it's been done, that's pretty impressive.
 
(Have only scanned the paper briefly, and GR is far from the core of my expertise, but:)

Let's be clear: the author is claiming that gravity means things are attracted to other things, and that you can attract something to a location by putting a higher energy density there. There is nothing controversial about this, and it corresponds to "controlling gravity" in the same sense that Cavendish "controlled gravity" by putting a lead block next to a torsion pendulum. (The pendulum bob is attracted to the block! Cavendish harnessed gravity itself to swing a pendulum!)

The surprise in this case, if true, is that the additional energy is not "a block of lead" but rather "a strong magnetic field". An example of lots-of-magnetic-field-energy might be the solenoid of the CMS magnet: a few gigajoules of field energy, which E=mc^2 says has the same gravitational pull of a few tens of nanograms of matter.

If Fuzfa is saying that's detectable with LIGO-like interferometry --- well, I am surprised, but in the "my intuition is only worth so much, I'd like to check the algebra" sense rather than the "what a crackpot" sense. If Fuzfa is saying that vastly more powerful magnets are worth considering, I am also surprised. (I think that the energy-storage industry talks about terajoules, but not in compact instruments.) If Fuzfa is saying that my equivalence-principle intuition is wrong and I need to look at something other than the magnetic energy density, I am very very surprised, but would defer to a GR expert I've heard of before.
 
Last edited:
How many Joules in an MRI machine?

It must be enough to warp time, it always seems to take FOREVER.

And boy, does it make my eyelids heavy too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom