Paper proposes method to create gravitational fields

January 11, 2016

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 : 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 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 . Imagine calling the other side of the world without going through satellite or terrestrial relays.

Explore further: Researcher's work offers more proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity

More information: André Füzfa; How current loops and solenoids curve spacetime; Physical Review D; 13 December 2015; arxiv.org/abs/1504.00333

Related Stories

Video: The hunt is on for gravitational waves

December 21, 2015

Gravitational waves are tiny distortions of space-time caused by some of the most violent cosmic events such as colliding black holes. The observation of these 'ripples of space-time' requires exquisitely sophisticated new ...

Scientists explain the theory behind Ising superconductivity

November 23, 2015

Superconductivity is a fascinating quantum phenomenon in which electrons form pairs and flow with zero resistance. However, strong enough magnetic field can break electron pairs and destroy superconductivity. Surprisingly, ...

Recommended for you

Electron highway inside crystal

December 8, 2016

Physicists of the University of Würzburg have made an astonishing discovery in a specific type of topological insulators. The effect is due to the structure of the materials used. The researchers have now published their ...

Researchers improve qubit lifetime for quantum computers

December 8, 2016

An international team of scientists has succeeded in making further improvements to the lifetime of superconducting quantum circuits. An important prerequisite for the realization of high-performance quantum computers is ...

20 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (13) Jan 11, 2016
Needs to be vetted/reviewed...but if the math checks out then this should definitely be on any physicist's wish-list. The effect proposed is pretty tiny, and I'm not sure whether that will hold up detection sensitivities. They say the effect would be similar in magnitude as that expected from current gravity experiments. (But I get the feeling that pumping that amount of power into a system creates its own sort of vibrations that will be hard to tell apart from the expected signal.)
Still. If it is possible to create our own gravity lab instead of waiting for gravity events that would be huge.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (10) Jan 11, 2016
Such a closed minded response from a tired old man.

Anti-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 (13) Jan 11, 2016
Anti-Thinking wants to ensure that every detail is accounted before exploring the positive opportunities.

No. 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.

Your negative outlook invites condemnation.

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 (9) Jan 11, 2016
Ok. So you go find a way to make it happen rather than insist on processes to limit exploration of further understanding.

If 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 (11) Jan 11, 2016
Can the math be worked? Research.

Yes. I.e. someone should check that.
Does the amount of power into the system affect the signal in this case? Research.

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.

Or did you just want, once again, to say No so as to be obstructive?

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
5 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2016
I don't understand how they have a "mathematical proof" for this experiment. Did this dude solve UFT? What other math is there that correlates magnetism with gravity?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2016
Anti-Thinking, you look for ways for things to Not work.

It's late here .. Crush ya later dipshit.
Nik_2213
4 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2016
Follow the link to the summary, then down-load the *full* document as PDF via link at upper right.

Uh, 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 (6) Jan 11, 2016
Anti-Thinking, you look for ways for things to Not work.

Sure. 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.

It's late here .. Crush ya later dipshit.

Heh...that'll be the day ;-)

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tional-f
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2016
No. 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)
AA ought to do a little research first to see if this publication does peer review of its articles.

"... 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
3 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2016
Heres the link for those who actually want to know
https://journals....nonymity
NoStrings
5 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2016
I read the archiv link to the original article. I think the premise is a bit farfetched trying to associate specifically magnetic field energy and current as a source of gravitational effect. I mean, the equations are correct, but anything containing high energy concentration would work the same, no surprise here. I would venture to say that shooting a naval high caliber cannon in a cliff wall would have stronger gravitational effect from the same distance as the proposed magnetic effect. However in case of the naval shell, the gravitational effect of the shell itself while in transit will be enormous orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational wave created. Note that the author talks about a static gravitational effect; in which case everyone remembers an ancient Cavendish experiment of using a set of large and small lead balls to measure gravitational constant (absolutely detectable and pretty accurate 200 years ago, which can't be said about the published article).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2016
Hi antialias. :)
Needs to be vetted/reviewed...but if the math checks out then this should definitely be on any physicist's wish-list.
Can you do that 'vetting' for the forum, mate? You are a mathematician, aren't you; or am I thinking of someone else? If you could, your mathematical assessment and consequential scientific opinion on this would be much appreciated by all here. Thanks. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2016
I would venture to say that shooting a naval high caliber cannon in a cliff wall would have stronger gravitational effect from the same distance as the proposed magnetic effect.

But 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.

Can you do that 'vetting' for the forum, mate?

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
5 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2016
It would provide a good way to measure the magneto-gravitational coupling, but I think the experiment needs to be done in space – the experiment requires about 200 days of continuous operation to accumulate a phase shift that's of the same order as a gravitational wave, and it's way too noisy on the earth's surface for an uninterrupted run of that duration, I'm pretty sure.
marcush
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2016
"... 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...


This is standard. Journal editors do not always know the people who are best able to understand a paper. Science is very specialised.
eagleslightlybetter
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2016
Needs to be vetted/reviewed...


Antialias, have you ever published in a scientific journal? Perhaps you could benefit from some remedial instruction in how this process actually unfolds.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2016
Antialias, have you ever published in a scientific journal?

I 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.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2016
I think the premise is a bit farfetched trying to associate specifically magnetic field energy and current as a source of gravitational effect.
Not farfetched. Quite nearfetched actually, straight from the stress-energy tensor, which is the source of spacetime curvature. It's a tensor of order 2 so it has 16 components. Its time-time component is the density of relativistic mass, which includes the electromagnetic field. What's its specific contribution to the curvature? We need to know the strength of magneto-gravitational coupling.
NoStrings
not rated yet Jan 13, 2016
Protoplasmix, I mean farfetched about focusing on magnetic field, or specifically on direct magneto-gravitational coupling. There isn't a direct coupling. So if you follow the equations, that is what happens - calculating ST tensor via energy contained in the magnetic field. Call it coupling if you wish, the fact remains, magnetic field doesn't bend space, energy density contained in it does.

As I said, of course strong magnetic field will work to create gravitational effect. But, of course, the magnitude of effect will be minuscule, comparing to an effect of moving even a 1 milligram of matter of any kind into the test location. Because to match gravitational effect of that milligram you will need to put 90 GigaJoules of energy into the magnetic field, which is technologically not feasible today, and would require many hundreds of tons of superconducting equipment if one even tried to do something so foolish.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.