Gravity eases its pull

Nov 04, 2010
Gravity eases its pull

(PhysOrg.com) -- Ever since Galileo first dropped his balls off the top of the Tower of Pisa in the late 16th century, gravity has caused a major headache for mathematicians and physicists down the ages.

Throwing theorists' equations into chaos, it has proved a major stumbling block to the creation of a single 'theory of everything'.

But a new analysis by Dr David Toms, a theoretical physicist at Newcastle University, now shows that gravity may at least make some fundamental calculations more manageable.

He has found that gravity seems to calm the electromagnetic force at high energies. The finding could make some calculations easier, and is a rare case in which gravity seems to work in harmony with quantum mechanics, the theory of small particles. His full paper is published today in Nature.

Dr Toms explains: "The basic idea is that the value of the electric charge depends on how close you are to that charge.

"The number for the electric charge that you look up in the back of a textbook assumes that you are a very large distance - on the atomic scale - from the charge. The reason that the value changes with energy has to do with quantum mechanics.

"My research shows conclusively that charge is affected by gravity, and that it tends to make the charge weaker as you proceed to smaller distances. This is unexpected because in the complete absence of gravity the charge gets larger as the distance decreases."

In Dr Toms work, gravity seems to smoothe the interaction, making the force between the electron and photon nearly zero at high energies. This weakening of the force means that theorists can calculate the behaviour of high-energy electrons and photons after all.

"What seems to do is make things better for you but there is still a lot of work to do", he warns.

Explore further: And so they beat on, flagella against the cantilever

More information: Nature paper online: www.nature.com/news/2010/10110… l/news.2010.580.html

Provided by Newcastle University

4.7 /5 (53 votes)

Related Stories

MIT physicist receives grant for gravity work

Aug 03, 2006

MIT Professor of Physics Xiao-Gang Wen has received a grant from the Foundational Questions Institute to fund his study of the relationship between quantum mechanics and gravity.

Can R2 gravity explain dark matter?

Apr 20, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- "In many ways, the standard model of cosmology works very well," Jose Cembranos tells PhysOrg. "However, there are very basic features that we just do not know. We have dark energy and dark matter. They d ...

Testing the Equivalence Principle

May 21, 2007

Standing on the Moon in 1971, Apollo 15 astronaut Dave Scott held his hands out at shoulder height, a hammer in one hand and a feather in the other. And as the world looked on via live television, he let go.

Recommended for you

And so they beat on, flagella against the cantilever

Sep 16, 2014

A team of researchers at Boston University and Stanford University School of Medicine has developed a new model to study the motion patterns of bacteria in real time and to determine how these motions relate ...

Tandem microwave destroys hazmat, disinfects

Sep 16, 2014

Dangerous materials can be destroyed, bacteria spores can be disinfected, and information can be collected that reveals the country of origin of radiological isotopes - all of this due to a commercial microwave ...

Cornell theorists continue the search for supersymmetry

Sep 16, 2014

(Phys.org) —It was a breakthrough with profound implications for the world as we know it: the Higgs boson, the elementary particle that gives all other particles their mass, discovered at the Large Hadron ...

How did evolution optimize circadian clocks?

Sep 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —From cyanobacteria to humans, many terrestrial species have acquired circadian rhythms that adapt to sunlight in order to increase survival rates. Studies have shown that the circadian clocks ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

adamshegrud
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2010
Cool
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (29) Nov 04, 2010
"Ever since Galileo first dropped his balls off the top of the Tower of Pisa..."

HA!
Parsec
3.5 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2010
I am glad that the calculations are simpler, but I am surprised that experiments would not have detected this effect. The implication is that the effects mentioned would only apply at extremely high energies (Planck scale?), and/or very close separations (smaller than the diameter of the proton?).

How can these effects be experimentally confirmed? Is it possible to do so?
Slotin
1.2 / 5 (31) Nov 04, 2010
I am surprised that experiments would not have detected this effect
Such effect is indeed known for years as so called the "asymptotic freedom" and it's well handled with some other established theories like the QCD. The novel approach is the combination of QED and gravity, which leads to solutions more close to QCD predictions.

http://physicswor...ws/44235
VK1
1.1 / 5 (29) Nov 04, 2010
Strongforce is an attractive force (mass), outside of the atomic nuclei this force is gravity (square law). Gravity is strongforce outside of atomic nuclei.

Electromagnetism is a radiative force, the ability of electromagnetism to fracture the atomic nuclei is the weakforce. At certain energies this radiation merges as one, the electroweakforce (radiation).

We can call radiation negatively attractive (-1). Mass is attractive (+1). Therefore, before the big bang, out of a neutral field (0) attractiveness (0) radiation, mass and energy is derived. 0 = (+1) + (-1).

Qm is continuasly trying to find energies to unify the Electroweak force and the Strongforce, this will not happen. The strongforce cancels out radiation, it is mergable, but not in the way em and weakforce are.

Physics is still a long way from grandunification, there is still way too much confusion regarding drivers.
Recovering_Human
4.8 / 5 (16) Nov 04, 2010
HA!


I was hoping I wasn't the only one immature enough to laugh at that line. :D
alexliptt
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2010
Could I be crazy or can this be evidence of the unification of gravity and electromagnetism? If all the great scientists of recent past wanted to unify the forces it would mean that gravity is either an illusion or a product of electromagnetism. Thus the ironing out of charge by using gravity could just mean that the electromagnetism is held within the equations for gravity. Theory:gravity is electromagnetism for the massive and far apart.
nuge
5 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2010
"Ever since Galileo first dropped his balls off the top of the Tower of Pisa..."

HA!


Damn, I was so fired up to make that comment when I clicked on the article! You beat me to it >:|

Here's a different article about the same thing if anyone's interested:

http://www.newsci...rge.html
DamienS
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2010
Here's a different article about the same thing if anyone's interested:

http://www.newsci...rge.html

Yes, I am - thanks.
VK1
1.1 / 5 (30) Nov 05, 2010
Atoms have directionality, a common direction of polarization. Antimatter is matter of opposite spin. Through mechanics spin is charge. Labs smash atoms and capture protons spinning in opposing direction, electromagnetic containment. Antimatter destroys matter. Positrons are positive charge of atomic nuclei. Neutrons have neutral spin(charge). Electrons are negative field above positive field. Electric divergence within the Higgs mass giving field. Energy converts the field into a landscape. Energy lights up mass (singularity) the event is time. Dark mass is not spinning, it is not active, it seems like the galactic blackhole (Higgs field Galaxy singularity) is creating a disturbance, causing space to split in charge, light up. The black hole in the centre of our galaxy is magnetizing the whole visible galaxy. Dark matter is outside of the disturbance line.
VK1
1.2 / 5 (30) Nov 05, 2010
In our known universe, energy patterns resemble neural pathways. The pictures of the universe are webbed, galaxies are all attached. That means commonality. They are interlinked magnetized, polarized through spin. The universe has infinite grade possibilities, infant it is ensured. If the universe is polarized we know that our grade is not top. If the universe has a single blackhole then I can with certainty say that it is infinite, you cannot set a number that it can is not bigger than. We started from a singularity. It charged(like atom), time is decay(half-life), with time the central singularity decayed(weakforce) the weakforce is cause of constituents of matter, the decay is mass. The universe is polarized(common spin) antimatter is an anomaly same as in the lab, given time it reverts(repolarizes), if it comes into contact opposing spin of the nuclei cause opposing energy, this explodes in a powerful full wavelength energy(zero charge, high energy photons).
VK1
1.1 / 5 (28) Nov 05, 2010
By infinite, meaning, like atoms making up the earth are polarized, so is the earth and the solar system, the solar systems and the galaxy, the galaxies and the universe, the universe started a disturbance, we are contained within it we are in the event of time. At the beginning the emergence of the universe our singular universe disturbed the field, our universe must have a neighbor, our universe caused it, or, which is a lot more likely, a central common region caused us and probably 100,000,000,000 of us. And from there there was probably 1 universe which produced as an effect of grading of mass(weakforce) 100,000,000,000 other universes etc etc etc.

When the field moves an event happens, a magnetized field is produced, the field is alive. One disturbance causes another of lesser size. Matter small as neutrinos evades us, there must by laws of divergence be matter which has degraded from neutrinos them selves. And so on infinity.
VK1
1.1 / 5 (28) Nov 05, 2010
We must understand that relative sizes are applicable. Those which are too small have no effect on us, but because of charge we know within each singularity with time it breaks up. Within each atom lay a possibility for other universes. The universe arose from a single location after 14,000,000,000 years we're here, look at the number of events that have happened, look at how many galaxies there are, how many stars there are, how many atoms there are. We can't see atoms, yet, at the scale relative to ours now in the universe. The Planck is just a mathematical simplification.
VK1
1.1 / 5 (28) Nov 05, 2010
The field spins it creates charge, charge causes polarization, commonality ensues the outer field takes on direction, and common direction of spin, within each system lay division (fission(nuclear decay(from electromagnetism(called weakforce)))). Going opposite to degradation is more energetic, higher disturbance(charge), joining of nuclei produces a higher event horizon volume 4prs, within volume is split of negative and positive charge, spin is energy, energy is split negative - positive(electron - positron), by joining mass, allowing the atomic nuclei to pass the both negative field (electron) and the positive field (positron+mass(proton)).
VK1
1.1 / 5 (28) Nov 05, 2010
Energy impacting a singular point creates mass, the bigger the mass the bigger the disturbance field. The faster the rotation of the atom the higher the charge. Aim of fusion needs to be to surpass the positive charge down to the singularity. Strong force is mass within charge, charge is both positive and negative. Past the singular systems event horizon strongforce is a weak form of it self (inverse square root), we know it as gravity. How gravity lowers em energy? It doesn't, but with time systems divide, some fall out of "relative size", if each one of my atoms was composed of 100,000,000,000 individualized polarized disturbances in unison it would not change in the slightest in the atomic mechanics. Matter is alive it is in many states. Time is 1 directional. Systems always get smaller becaused they are comprised of a greater whole to begin with. Infinity.
Sanescience
not rated yet Nov 05, 2010
Does this have significance for how easy it is for hydrogen to fuse into heavier elements in the heart of a star (strong gravity) versus on earth (weak gravity) ?
VK1
1.1 / 5 (27) Nov 05, 2010
Powersource the size of atom power of disturbance equating that of 5 stars. All the energy earth could need for the next 50 billion years. Em containment is as energy expensive as the product if it is to remain stable. A miniature version would be more suitable, 0.001 solar masses 5stars/5000. This singularity could power earth or craft for a long period of time, even high rate. The more disturbance in the Higgs the more energy, directly usable. We could have enough energy to set a process in place to convert mars into a planet with a high oxygen atmosphere in a short period of time. Energy rich process, as long as containment is not required (direct use).
Zed123
4.8 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2010
@VK1

Lots of words there. Have you published the equations you've developed for any of this? Because I'd hate to think your groundbreaking new physics was only being posted as comments at the end of a physorg article..... :)
VK1
1.1 / 5 (27) Nov 05, 2010
@sanescience yes, it is the pressure, on earth if we cause an event, the atoms are evenly impacted, they gain commonality. If the event is focused on a singular spot the nuclei of positive charge will be merged into one. The fact is the amount of energy that goes in equals the mass that comes out, the thing is the mass that comes out has a higher atomic sphere radius, higher disturbance, the higher the disturbance the more potential discharge. Discharge is photons. Photons are merging of positrons and electrons, in our view it is electrons and protons that decay so what we actually see is the negative and positive neutrino merging, that is our vision. Yes, neutrinos have charge(relatively negligible), neutrinos have a spin, spin produces charge, and they only come in three forms positive neutral and negative.
VK1
1.1 / 5 (28) Nov 05, 2010
But anyways the pressure inside of stars is great enough for atomic resistance(charge) to be overcome, at that point we are closer to the singularity which is infinite directionally, gravity is no longer the same as when nuclei merge their lines of interaction are mutually infinite (square law), the force is strong with this one.
dcoder
5 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2010
@sanescience Discharge is photons. Photons are merging of positrons and electrons, in our view it is electrons and protons that decay so what we actually see is the negative and positive neutrino merging, that is our vision. Yes, neutrinos have charge(relatively negligible), neutrinos have a spin, spin produces charge, and they only come in three forms positive neutral and negative.


VK - damn you've worn your prom dress, but do you have a date? ... where are the links about where I can read about this 'we/our' knowledge? BTW, I love 5-*inf*; responses... in the future I'd recommending writing a research paper and submit it... it's more noteworthy...

AFATA - gravity is difficult for *anyone* to explain rationally, so more statistical research like this is welcomed, even if a tiny footstep.
Ravenrant
2 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2010
Yes, gravity is hard to fathom. Einstein said it is caused by the bending of space while simultaneously he and physicists have been denying the existence of space ever since.
kaasinees
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2010
Atoms have directionality, a common direction of polarization. Antimatter is matter of opposite spin.


can someone please ban VK1 and his bullshit off this website?
DamienS
5 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2010
Einstein said it is caused by the bending of space while simultaneously he and physicists have been denying the existence of space ever since.

Really? I hadn't heard Einstein was a denier of space or other physicists for that matter. Can you provide some references?
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2010
Here's a much more explicit Q & A about the (potentially enormous) significance of Dr. David Toms' paper: http://physicswor...ws/44235

Dr. Sean Robinson of MIT, who in 2006 presented a much less rigorous treatment of this idea along with co-author and Nobel Laureate Dr. Frank Wilczek, called Toms' new and persuasive mathematical treatment of this idea "demonstrably flawless."

The closing quote: "To take things further, physicists would need to integrate more exotic aspects of quantum gravity such as additional dimensions and supersymmetry." And additional dimensions could mean that this effect *might* be detectable at the Large Hadron Collider...
Donutz
5 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2010
"Ever since Galileo first dropped his balls off the top of the Tower of Pisa..."

HA!


Yeah, I was thinking they really could have phrased that better :-)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2010
This actually goes along with the negative energy/balance equations that some fringe physicists have been working on.

Gravity and the Strong Nuclear force would represent the negative side of the equation while the corresponding balance would be electromagnetic and weak nuclear interaction.

It's a rather interesting set of equations.
MaxwellsDemon
not rated yet Nov 05, 2010
I'd like to read up on that - got any good links to offer?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Nov 05, 2010
I'd like to read up on that - got any good links to offer?

Best vid I can offer so far is http://www.youtub...vlS8PLIo

There are a great many of us working on this and many don't want to share info yet. Soon though.
MarkyMark
1 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2010
"Ever since Galileo first dropped his balls off the top of the Tower of Pisa..."

HA!

Yea that must have hurt him a lot!!!!!
jdbertron
1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2010
Unfortunately the gravity of arrogant researchers who think their work is so brilliant that everyone has to pay to read it is not reducing its pull.
Jotaf
5 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2010
jdbertron: Scientists don't get squat of that "buy article" money you see on publishers' websites. It all goes to the publishing company, which basically receives articles for free (in the case of conference papers, researchers *pay* to get them there, or rather their funders pay for it), and then sell them. No, we don't like it, but we're too busy with other stuff to care (note: of course I can only speak for myself and the people I know). I think this is mostly inertia from the time when distributing articles in paper was a honorable business. Of course, they found ways to keep their revenues source. The arXiv is so popular for this very reason.
Koen
1 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2010
Interesting, how did Dr Toms measure this effect? What does he mean with 'weaker' or 'stronger' charge? Stronger or weaker Coulomb field maybe?
Bob_Kob
not rated yet Nov 07, 2010
"Ever since Galileo first dropped his balls off the top of the Tower of Pisa..."

HA!

Yea that must have hurt him a lot!!!!!


Yeah but at least his loss proved his theory!
Koen
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2010
There are so many theoretical ideas about gravity, but the only good experiment for inducing gravitic effects seems to be Podkletnov's impulse gravity beam. Why is it that research labs all over the world ignore this experiment?

HA!
DamienS
5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2010
...the only good experiment for inducing gravitic effects seems to be Podkletnov's impulse gravity beam. Why is it that research labs all over the world ignore this experiment?

Probably because there's not much to it. If there was anything to it, it would be all over the news as it would represent an incredible breakthrough. If it sounds too good to be true and no one else is able to reproduce the results, then it likely is too good to be true.
GuruShabu
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2010
Galileo NEVER dropped any balls from the tower of Pizza!
This is the same sort of misguiding info that tells Newton saw an apple falling from a tree and realised that the Moon had its influence on Earth.
It NEVER happened!
bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2010
Aside from my wander through Charlie Chaplin films talking on my tachyon communicator, I popped in to see Galileo and assure you he did drop a ball or two from the tower of Pisa. Maybe Issac did see an apple drop but I missed it cause I was eating a PIZZA at the time and watching the pretty maids all in a row.
Thex1138
not rated yet Nov 08, 2010
The coolest experiment with magnetism and gravity is when bolt two earth magnets together, same-poles facing [N-N or S-S]... and drop them from 50 feet next to an object who's weight was measured as the same before bolting them together... the two magnets fall slower than the rock of bag of sand etc,....
chandram
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2010
itis very intersting to note that the gravity may affect the charge strengths at close distances. It seems that gravity is able to interact witht the electromagnetic field. In the context of the failure of theories to unify gravith with the other three forces, this aspect assumes importance. It seems gravity has unique role being the first force to manifest, followed by strong nuclear , electromagnetic and weak nuclear .
MrPressure
Nov 08, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2010
The coolest experiment with magnetism and gravity is when bolt two earth magnets together, same-poles facing [N-N or S-S]... and drop them from 50 feet next to an object who's weight was measured as the same before bolting them together... the two magnets fall slower than the rock of bag of sand etc,....

Any docs or vids on this? I'd like to see how they filtered local vectors of interference or noise out of the experiment.
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2010
He’s talking about this claim made by Boyd Bushman, a retired research scientist who most recently worked at Lockheed’s Texas “Skunk Works” facility: http://www.youtub...DOpWtRfg (relevant comment starts at 4:58)

A juvenile effort to replicate this test can be seen here: http://www.youtub...aAHlC37I

Given the dearth of any kind of experimental controls in either case, nothing can be said to have been proven here. However, I have copies of some of Bushman’s patents and they’re very professional and (IMO) impressive, and they confirm his former position as a senior research scientist at Lockheed. So I haven’t ruled out the possibility that there’s a violation of the weak equivalence principle to be discovered with this kind of experiment.
daywalk3r
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2010
On the Bushman experiments..

One has to realize that molecules of air are usualy not really charge-neutral, ergo air is (at least partially) ionized..

Now, Bushman said in the interview that he measured a strong magnetic field around the magnets involved in the experiment (6+ ft in diameter).

There might be some kinetic energy transfer happening between the source of the mag. field and the particles of ionized gas it is moving through. And at 6+ feet diameter it makes for a quite big paddle..

So wheras the object with no magnetic field is slowed down only by the aerodynamic resistance, the object with a strong/large and distorted* mag. field around it would have to cope with some extra resistance by moving through the not-so-charge-neutral medium (air).

*The special alignment of the magnets could be part of it, as the resulting mag.field of the proposed alignment would be quite distorted - with a specific shape, somehow involved in the kinetic process. Rotation of the field incl.
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2010
That seems like a reach. You’re essentially saying that the inductance of the air yields a Lenz Law effect, slowing the fall of the magnetized object. But the relative permeability of the air is 1.00000037, compared to vacuum which is 1. That’s only a .37 millionths difference. The threshold for visual simultaneity is roughly 40 milliseconds, so it’s hard to imagine that such a tiny inductance in the air could yield a perceptible difference through a 59ft drop.

And if, for the sake of argument, we accept the video claims of the Progressive Tech people…then we’d have to explain why the test magnets in an attractive configuration fell –faster- than the non-magnetized test mass, and much faster than the repulsive configuration of magnets.

Someone should run the experiment with sensible controls, at this point we don’t even know if the claims are true or not.
panorama
not rated yet Nov 10, 2010
There is no drawing force at all.

Quantum theorys are wrong.

Model of atom is wrong.

nucleus of atoms expanding all a time.

Nucleus of atoms absorbs more and more energy all a time.

Also all kind of particle expanding all a time and absorbs more and more energy all a time.

There is very small particle who moving very very fast.lot of smaller what phtons are and this particle moving lot of faster what phtons moving. This particle emit energy for all visible universe particle.

.



Settle down Neil Adams...
daywalk3r
4 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2010
MD: I was thinking more in the lines of a side effect. For example, something like a "cushion" (or turbulence?) made up of affected charged air molecules, slightly increasing the effective aerodynamic radius of the object, dampening the acceleration / free fall speed (parashute effect).

However, this could be easily tested by measuring the free fall terminal velocities (aerodynamic equilibrium) of both objects, rather than just the velocity difference after a short distance (air-dampened) free fall. If the terminal velocities differ, the cause will be aerodynamic.

And if, for the sake of argument, we accept the video claims of the Progressive Tech people…
No, not even for a japaneese sake! ;-D

That experiment clearly suffers from vast amounts of "human-factor" :-D and therefor is not much more that a nice free time activity.

Someone should run the experiment with sensible controls
Agree. And best to begin with the terminal vel. test.

Nothing fundamental involved IMO.
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2010
But it doesn’t make sense to rule out an alleged new experimental interaction by inventing a fictional one. There would have to be direct coupling between the magnetic field and the air in order to generate the “air cushion” effect that you described. And there isn’t. If there were, an MRI machine would draw the air in the room toward itself (or force it away, depending on whether the coupling was attractive or repulsive).

It is theoretically possible that an intense and rapidly changing magnetic field could induce a tiny degree of opposing electromagnetic force in the air, but I’ve never heard of such an observation, even during the powerful EMPs of Sandia’s Z machine.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that “skepticism” means neither “belief” nor “disbelief,” it means “withholding judgment/opinion until sufficient data establishes the fact of the matter.” For now, there’s insufficient data to form a scientific opinion, even about the truth of the original claim.
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2010
Well, I'm not ruling out anything at this point, nor am I drawing any strict lines on what is and what is not the possible cause of this effect (if there really is one).

I'm merely pointing out some of the possibilities (which at this point are admittedly rather mere speculations) aswell as proposing a simple test to rule out an aerodynamic cause/origin, which would be the first thing on my to-do list if I were to discover such an odd effect/behaviour.

So much for "skepticism" ..

Cheers
Native
1 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2010
THE 2 WAY GRAVITATIONAL MOVEMENTS
"Gravity" is of course embedded in all other forces and it all just depends on the actual charge of macrocosmic or microcosmic electromagnetic force.
Electromagnetic charges makes swirling movements in molecular gas and matter, concentrating "contracting gravity" gas and matter via the z-pinch effect, sorting and lumping the molecular gas and matter in larger spheres that are gently slung out ("antigravity") from the swirling centre when these spheres reach their critical weight comparing to the centripetal/centrifugal forces.

"Gravity" therefore goes both ways: Firstly inwards via the swirling electromagnetic z-pinch and secondly outwards via the swirling centrifugal forces.
"Gravity" is therefore not a constant and it should be excluded as such from the scientific society.
beelize54
1 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2010
Gravity eases its pull
This finding is nothing special in context of Grand Unification Theory. GUT theory already predicts for many years, the force constants of all interactions will converge mutually at the sufficient energy density. And because gravity is a weak force, it means, the electromagnetic force will go down, too.