Gyroscope's unexplained acceleration may be due to modified inertia
July 26, 2011 by Lisa Zyga
(PhysOrg.com) -- When a spinning laser gyroscope is placed near a super-cooled rotating ring, the gyroscope accelerates a bit in the same direction as the ring, and scientists arent sure why. The anomalous acceleration was discovered in 2007 by Martin Tajmar at the Space Propulsion group at the Austrian Institute of Technology in Seibersdorf, Austria. So far, the effect has only been observed in this one laboratory. Since then, scientists have been looking for an explanation for the so-called Tajmar effect.
In a recent study, Michael McCulloch of the University of Plymouth in the UK has shown that a model that he previously proposed can predict the small unexplained acceleration. His results are published in a recent issue of Europhysics Letters.
[Laser gyroscopes] work by sending light around a circle in both directions, and then measuring the interference of the two opposing light waves, McCulloch told PhysOrg.com. When the gyro is spun/accelerated, the interference pattern changes detectably. Commercial laser gyroscopes that operate this way are currently used in aircraft and missiles for orientation and stabilization.
In this study, McCulloch suggests that the gyroscopes observed acceleration stems from a change in its inertial mass and an attempt to conserve momentum with respect to a supercooled rotating ring. Tajmars experiments used rings that were cooled to 5K and made of a variety of materials, such as niobium, aluminum, stainless steel, and TEFLON.
McCulloch proposes that the gyroscopes inertial mass is determined by surrounding Unruh radiation that is modified by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect. In the model, the Unruh radiation is generated by the gyroscopes acceleration relative to every other mass in the universe, such as the fixed stars in the sky and the cold rotating rings. The Hubble-scale Casimir effect is an effect in quantum field theory that, in this case, prohibits the generation of longer Unruh waves, and so indirectly affects the gyroscopes inertial mass. McCulloch calls this model modified inertia due to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect (MiHsC) or simply quantized inertia.
When the gyroscope is at room temperature, it is surrounded by short-wavelength Unruh radiation, and its inertial mass is close to its gravitational mass. When its surroundings are cooled, the gyroscopes inertia becomes more sensitive to the small accelerations of the fixed stars. The wavelengths of the Unruh radiation become longer, and are prohibited by the Hubble-scale Casimir effect, causing the gyroscopes inertial mass to decrease to less than its gravitational mass. However, when the supercooled ring begins to rotate, the rings larger accelerations cause the Unruh waves to shorten so that fewer waves are prohibited, and the gyroscopes inertial mass increases.
According to the model, in order to conserve momentum, the gyroscope attempts to move with the ring by accelerating in the same direction. For clockwise rotations, the gyroscope should accelerate at a rate of about 2.67 x 10-8 times the acceleration of the ring. For counterclockwise rotations, the gyroscope should accelerate only about half that much.
This models predictions closely match Tajmars observations, in which the gyroscopes acceleration was about 3 x 10-8 times that of the ring for clockwise rotations, and half that for counterclockwise ones. MiHsC does not have any adjustable parameters, so it agrees with the observations without being numerically tuned.
McCullochs model can also explain why the counterclockwise acceleration is smaller than the clockwise one. As the gyroscope starts to spin with the ring, it changes movement relative to the fixed stars. When in the northern hemisphere (where the experiment was performed), this effect causes a greater acceleration when rotating clockwise. But the model predicts that, when performing the experiment in the southern hemisphere, the gyroscope should accelerate more when rotating counterclockwise than clockwise, while still following the rings rotation.
Inertial mass has not been well understood and has been assumed to be the same as gravitational mass (the Equivalence Principle, EP), McCulloch explained. If MiHsC is correct, then the EP is only an approximation (the small deviation from the EP due to MiHsC could not have been detected in torsion balance experiments, as I explain in the Discussion of my paper). As a result there may be implications for General Relativity since this assumes the EP is true (and therefore also implications for low-acceleration phenomena like the orbits of stars at the edge of galaxies). Inertia is important practically since it determines the sensitivity of an object's motion to outside forces.
As McCulloch explains, the Tajmar effect is closely related to another odd observation: the unexplained acceleration of some spacecraft. For instance, when interplanetary probes fly by the (spinning) Earth, some of them undergo unexplained jumps in velocity. In a previous paper, McCulloch showed that the MiHsC model agrees fairly well with these flyby anomalies if a spacecrafts acceleration is determined relative to all the particles of matter in the spinning Earth. He also showed that the model could explain the Pioneer anomaly: as the two Pioneer spacecraft flew out of the Solar System, they slowed down more than predicted, which can be attributed to the spacecrafts small decrease of inertial mass, which increased their acceleration toward the Sun.
In the current paper, McCulloch suggests a way to test his models validity for explaining the Tajmar effect. His model predicts that reducing the mass of the rotating ring by a factor of 10,000 would result in a decrease of the effect with distance. He hopes that Tajmars group will try this test with lighter rings using their existing equipment. If McCullochs model holds up, it could potentially prove useful.
Once the cause of something is known, then it may be controllable, he said. The control of inertia could be useful. For example: Can we generate Unruh radiation to change the inertial mass of an object and thereby move it? I have discussed this possibility in previous papers (e.g., EPL, 90, 29001).
More information: M. E. McCulloch. The Tajmar effect from quantised inertia. EPL, 95 (2011) 39002. DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/95/39002
Copyright 2011 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
2 comments
-
distribution of molecules throughout the atmosphere
2 hours ago
-
The Global Positioning System !
3 hours ago
-
A Question relating Power
4 hours ago
-
Writing a book so im learning about things, i have some general questions please read
7 hours ago
-
Question about induced E field.
8 hours ago
-
Charging a capacitor in a tesla coil
8 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed
(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon ...
May 25, 2012 |
4.2 / 5 (21) |
47
|
Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector
Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.
May 23, 2012 |
4 / 5 (7) |
15
|
Hawaii lab turns laser-powered bubbles into microrobots
(Phys.org) -- A team of scientists from the University of Hawaii are working on microrobots created from bubbles of air in a saline solution. The bubbles take on their title of robots as a laser ...
Sound increases the efficiency of boiling
Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology achieved a 17-percent increase in boiling efficiency by using an acoustic field to enhance heat transfer. The acoustic field does this by efficiently removing vapor bubbles ...
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (2) |
2
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidias competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Browser wars flare in mobile space
The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update)
SpaceX's Dragon cargo vessel smells like a new car, said astronauts at the International Space Station after opening the hatches Saturday following the spacecraft's landmark mission to the orbiting lab.
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Is this a representation of the gravitational spacetime drag of Earth's gravity?
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
In a classical Universe, translational inertia is solely determined by an object's mass: a Frisbee and a screwdriver with the same mass exhibit the same translational inertia.
An objects ROTATIONAL inertia depends on two things: the quantity of mass it comprises and the DISTRIBUTION of that mass. Because a Frisbee's mass is distributed farther from its axis of rotation than the screwdriver's, the Frisbee will have a higher moment of inertia.
to be continued...
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Miracles apparently occur.
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
For translations, Force = Mass x Linear Acceleration. For rotations, Torque = Inertia x Radial Acceleration. This change in the bug's moment of inertia can only be accomplished via a radial acceleration of some sort. Newton's Third Law of Motion (the action/reaction one) mandates that this angular acceleration on the part of the bug will be met with an equal but opposite TORQUE.
The bug will experience this torque as a force that tends to push him ACROSS his line of motion. This is the phenomenon we call the "Coriolis force."
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Wow, maybe this is Heim theory come back from the dead. We can only hope.
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (2)
Unruh *radiation* is still only theoretical. And that's not the least of the, uh, shall we say "wild assumptions" involved? Anyone interested can have a look here:
http://iopscience...BA225.c2
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (3)
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Had I seen this article anywhere else, I would have dismissed it just off-hand as a prank.
Now, after a less than joyful adventure in Wikipedia around this subject, all I can say is, "Oh, boy. I must be gettig too old for this sh*t."
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
@LKD: Just to be very clear: this phenomenon is NOT related to the Coriolis effect, at least not in any way that will help you pass an exam in mechanical dynamics.
If I were to guess--and, really, that's all I have to offer here--I would hazard that the phenomenon described here has something to do with relativistic frame dragging engendered by the rotating ring. YES, I know the ring isn't moving at relativistic speeds, but then the ring laser can detect phase shifts on the order of an angstrom, so maybe it isn't such a far-fetched idea.
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (2)
@cyberCMDR: Probably not, unless the scale of your ring laser is of a similar magnitude to the wavelength of your gravity waves.
Think about tossing a rubber duck into the ocean. A big swell will capsize your sailboat because the port side may be on a crest while the boat falls into a trough to starboard, but the duck is so small compared to the swell that the differentials ACROSS the duck are very small indeed.
A millisecond pulsar generates gravity waves with a wavelength of 300 km. You're going to need something rather bigger than a breadbox to detect them with any fidelity.
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (12)
Since when does an effect that is seen in only one lab and not reproduced anywhere become worthy of explanation? Isn't the usual procedure to duplicate the effect first? Can you say Fleishman & Pons?
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (8)
Am I a debbie downer when I say that they're gassing the tank before putting in the engine?
I'm not saying that they can't reproduce it, but until they do, all this talk is conjecture. Isn't reproducability a basic tenant of science??!
For all we know, there are thousands of variables at that lab that might be unnacounted for.
Lets do the exact same set up on the opposite side of the earth, and then let's start discussing what is causing it. Until then, my conjecture that it's most likely caused by some error or factor in the actual lab is just as valid as their conjecture that it is a theoretical force in action. Occam and his razor agree.
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 3.9 / 5 (7)
http://lanl.arxiv...2271.pdf
Then, when his results could not be replicated even by himself (likely because they were noise) Tajmar abandoned the claims of a special connection between spinning superconductors (and thus electrons) and gravity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2271
So I'm somehow surprised by now, when new, even more fantastic theory emerged to explain it.
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Sorry Moebius, I didn't notice that you had already made my point first :)
@callippo - I think you're being unfair to modern physics. The only reason string theory has any traction is that it does work in an elegant way with existing data, and it points out some intriguing possibilities. That said, string theory is not used as a final explanation for anything, because it is not proven.
There still has to be plenty of evidence for something to be accepted - especially phenomena on the ground. (Cosmology/astrophysics notwithstanding due to limitations of their ability to study far away things)
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (6)
What the elegance means? The complex ad-hoced math, which nobody actually understand? The lack of fixed clean postulate list? The existence of pile of mutually inconsistent string theory clones? The fuzzy landscape of 10^500 "solutions"? The "elegance" is just PR connection implanted into your brain by trustworthy looking face of Brian Greene, face it.
If it doesn't predict the mass of single particle, it couldn't be used as an explanation of anything even if it would be proven somehow. And because it behaves as a random numbers generator, it can be proven neither.
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
http://depalma.pa...rop.html
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.1108 http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4159
http://iopscience...9001.pdf
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Real forces that could actually occur here could be due black body radiation from the gyroscope. When this impacts in a near field on the highly conductive spinning ring there will be a bit of back force, and could easily be enough to explain a counter acceleration.
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (9)
Jul 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
lol
In mathematics this "\" is called a backslash.
Physics has no such symbol. Backstabbing has no symbol.
Just blood as a sign.
Did EP lose or gain significance here?
Jul 27, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (2)
Jul 27, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Jul 27, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Jul 27, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Jul 27, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
AFAIK nobody gets assignments. You can submit an article and maybe you get 10 bucks when published.
Apart from that the string "Martin Tajmar" always causes my seriosity radar to squawk.
Jul 27, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
But we should admit, Tajmar's results remain unpublished in any reputable physics journals. It has been nearly two years since the _original press release_ and the results Tajmar submitted to Phys.Rev.C have still not been accepted. Whereas I'm rather sure, Podkletnov is the victim of the same ignorance, like the cold fusion and/or room temperature findings, I'm still not completely convinced about Tajmar.
Jul 27, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Another point comes from recent idea, the charged particles are dragged/are dragging vacuum a much more, than the uncharged ones even at the relatively low speeds. At the case of superconductors both these effects could yield into strong drag of vacuum fluctuations with electrons within accelerated superconductors. If this explanation is correct, it could manifest even for so-called pseudogap state, which actually don't require for superconductors to remain superconductive through bulk.
But Mr. Tajmar's explanation appears to be of different category. It seems, it does work even for completely neutral particles, like the liquid helium.
Jul 27, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
http://www.superc.../20C.htm
So far, the (super)conductivity of these materials is miserable, because the hole stripes inside of these materials are separated with many insulation oxide layers (which actually keeps their room temperature superconductivity). But the Tajmar/Podkletnov effects are bulk ones, so it shouldn't be a problem in their gravitomagnetic applications.
The problem is, the mainstream physics is the less interested about research of important phenomena, the more the explanation of these phenomena remains separated from mainstream theories. If I say, my theory violates Lorentz symmetry and/or equivalence principle, I can be completely sure, at least 90% of theorists will stop to communicate with me immediately. This is why, the research of these phenomena continues slowly as one man show, despite of their potential applications.
Jul 27, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Eeesh. She'd have written that up for 10 bucks? That's even more depressing.
Anyway, agreed. Gotta love it: Unruh radiation, Hubble Casimir effects, inertia based on Mach's principle and the Pioneer anomaly (thanks for pointing that one out Deesky)...all rolled into one. My BS meter has spiked.
Jul 27, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jul 27, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Haha probably. But then that same phenomenon accounts for 99.99999% of ALL anomalous observations, so don't feel too bad. As an old man once said, "Of COURSE the game is rigged! But don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win!"
Jul 28, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/7519801.aspx
A peer reviewed paper is coming out in Elsevier.
Frank Znidarsic
Jul 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
You and YYZ do a nice job on this site. They should pay you both.
Jul 28, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Now that's just an awfully damned nice thing of you to say... I think. I'd better check out this YYZ character. :)
Jul 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
http://www.physor...et-.html
Without asking, I'm guessing he's either a retired professor, or a very gifted amateur.
Jul 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jul 28, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
On the other hand, he has a near perfect track record...but that can be unusual for a professional as well...
Just feeding the fire.
Jul 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jul 28, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Jul 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I don't think Oliver generally begins or feeds the negative discussions that often (although he's not innocent in more ways than one) I think Oliver's presence causes the members to become negative by his dogma on his crackpot theories.
Jul 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
You have to observe the ratings a user is giving to others in order to learn more about him.
His presence functions like litmus paper - it helps to tell people's mindsets apart.
Jul 29, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Oh wow, you CAN see who rated what. Now my guilted 5 ratings for Oliver have to stop.
Jul 29, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
No kidding? How do you do that?
Jul 29, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Jul 30, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Jul 30, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Aug 01, 2011
Rank: not rated yet