Producing and detecting gravitational fields at will using magnetic fields, controlling them for study, working with them to produce new technologies—it sounds impossible, but Prof. André Füzfa of Namur University has proposed just that in an article published in the prestigious scientific journal Physical Review D.
At present, scientists study gravitational fields passively. They observe and try to understand existing gravitational fields produced by large inertial masses such as stars or planets, without being able to change them, as with magnetic fields. It was this frustration that led Füzfa to attempt a revolutionary approach: creating gravitational fields at will from well-controlled magnetic fields and observing how these magnetic fields could bend space-time.
In his article, Füzfa has proposed, with supporting mathematical proof, a device with which to create detectable gravitational fields. This theoretical device is based on superconducting electromagnets and therefore relies on technologies routinely used, for example, at CERN or the ITER reactor.
Although conducting this experiment would require major resources, it could be used to test Einstein's theory of general relativity. The ability to produce, detect and, ultimately, control gravitational fields would certainly be a major step forward in physic. People could then produce gravitational interactions in the same way as the other three fundamental interactions (e.g. electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces). That would usher gravitation into a new experimental and industrial era.
Until now, a scientific advance like this was a dream of science fiction, but it could open up many new applications, for example, in the field of telecommunications with gravitational waves. Imagine calling the other side of the world without going through satellite or terrestrial relays.
Explore further:
Magnetic wormhole connecting two regions of space created for the first time
More information:
André Füzfa; How current loops and solenoids curve spacetime; Physical Review D; 13 December 2015; arxiv.org/abs/1504.00333
back to top
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Jan 11, 2016Still. If it is possible to create our own gravity lab instead of waiting for gravity events that would be huge.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2016Anti-Thinking wants to ensure that every detail is accounted before exploring the positive opportunities. It's a tiny effect so unimportant. The math needs validation regardless of observation. Anti-Thinking has a 'feeling' that there's no signal.
Wipe your chin, and stop feeling whatever your playing with, Anti-Thinking.
Your negative outlook invites condemnation. Go find a way that something amazing might work. As it stands you are a useless black cloud.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Jan 11, 2016No. I just want someone else to have a look at the math and see if it's solid. It's called peer review. It's also called 'common sense' (look it up. I think that's a concept that passed you by in life)
Do you just accept the calculations that your bank hands you when taking out a loan or do you double check? If not: I have a cheap Eiffel Tower for you somewhere.
Negative outlook? How do sentences like
" this should definitely be on any physicist's wish-list" and "if it is possible to create our own gravity lab instead of waiting for gravity events that would be huge." square with a 'negative outlook' on planet bluehigh? If this pans out it would be five kinds of awesome.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2016If you're as smart as you believe you are then ask yourself ...
Can the math be worked? Research.
Does the amount of power into the system affect the signal in this case? Research.
Is this 'tiny effect' an indication of a new understanding? Research.
Or did you just want, once again, to say No so as to be obstructive?
Too lazy and rely on others?
Anyway, you're a negative Anti-Thinking dribbling old tool. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would know.
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris, France. I've been there with the Pope.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Jan 11, 2016Yes. I.e. someone should check that.
Yes. I.e. someone should check that
It's just prudent to do this kind of cheap research (read: feasibility studies) first before sinking a substantial amount of money into an experimental setup and then going "Oh, if we had double-checked our math we could have found out that spending that amount of money would be wasted". Because that's the kind of thing people get mad about.
Again: where on Earth did I say no? I said: go for it after checking. Currently it's an arxiv paper. Which means no one has double-checked the work.
You live in some very strange bizarro-world where sensible enthusiasm equates to negativity, don't you?
jalmy
not rated yet Jan 11, 2016bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2016It's late here .. Crush ya later dipshit.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (2) 20 hours agoUh, it's like that 'closed funnel' thruster thing. Maths looks good, but needs a reality check. If it works, it gets a Nobel and a book contract. If fails, it was a good try...
FWIW, it's not going to lead to 'artificial gravity' that we'd notice any time soon; it would be at the very limit of detection with current tech...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) 19 hours agoSure. A sanity check is always advisable before plunging on. It's how science works: through criticism (read: constructive criticism). look at all the angles and see if still makes sense.
Heh...that'll be the day ;-)
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tional-f
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) 19 hours ago"... Authors may submit a list of experts whom they consider especially suited to review their paper. Such a list is particularly welcome when a manuscript treats a highly specialized subject. The editors are, of course, not constrained to select a referee from that list."
"ANONYMITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE PEER-REVIEW PROCESS
"Anonymous peer review is critical to our publication process. Therefore, the identity of our reviewers is not released to authors or other referees throughout or after the review process. Please see http://journals.a...s-policy for more details on the release of review-process information."
-Why lookee there...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) 19 hours agohttps://journals....nonymity
NoStrings
not rated yet 18 hours agoRealityCheck
not rated yet 17 hours agoantialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) 16 hours agoBut not as tunable...nor sustainable (or repeatable).
Sustainable/repeatable is a rather important part, I feel, because any measured effect will be so delicate that taking many measurements and doing a statsitical analysis on them to remove noise effects will be crucial.
No I can't. That paper is way outside my specialty. I can get a gist of what they're saying, but am no way up to checking all the finer points. (Certainly not to the point where I'd feel confident of making a statement on whether it's definitely good or not)
Protoplasmix
not rated yet 11 hours agomarcush
not rated yet 6 hours agoThis is standard. Journal editors do not always know the people who are best able to understand a paper. Science is very specialised.
eagleslightlybetter
not rated yet 4 hours agoAntialias, have you ever published in a scientific journal? Perhaps you could benefit from some remedial instruction in how this process actually unfolds.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet 2 hours agoI have. It works like this: You submit your paper to a journal. The editors judge whether it fits the journal's theme (in one case they suggested I resubmit to a different journal. I sent for publication in IEEE medical imaging but ended up submitting to IEEE transactions on biomedical engieering). Then they hand it out to peer review.
I didn't suggest reviewers. While the subject was rather specialized anyone in the medical imaging/segmentation/analysis community would be able to understand it.
Then you get back recommendations/criticisms from the reviewers and adjust the paper to address those. Then it goes to a second round of peer review (or not if the issues were so minor that the editors can judge whether they have been addressed satidfactorily). In the above case I do not know if a second round followed as the paper was accepted some time after resubmitting.