arXiv blog

Physicist Predicts Gravitational Analogue Of Electrical Transformers

The gravitational equivalent of an electrical transformer could reveal bizarre new properties of space-time.

kfc 07/06/2010

  • 36 Comments

In 1831, Michael Faraday wrapped two wires around opposite sides of an iron doughnut and found that if he passed a current through one, it immediately induced a current in the other. Faraday's law of induction has since became a fundamental principle of electromagnetism and the operating law behind electrical transformers.

That's of more than passing interest to physicists studying the properties of space-time. It turns out that the equations of general relatively are formally analogous to Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism (at least, when they are studied in the weak, linear limit).

So all the results from classical electrodynamics can be equally applied to general relativity. This allows astrophysicists to define electrogravitic and gravitomagnetic fields that are analogous to electric and magnetic fields. And this kind of thinking has led to a number of predictions such as the well known frame-dragging effect in which space-time is dragged by a massive spinning object.

But today, John Swain at Northeastern University in Boston points out that despite the extensive work in this area, nobody has translated the simple idea of Faraday's electrical transformer into the gravitational domain, an oversight that he now corrects.

The analogy to a primary winding in Swain's model is a beam of particles traveling in a circle. This generates a "magnetogravitic flux" that can be picked up by a secondary winding, essentially a giant loop antenna.

That's an interesting idea that raises all kinds of questions about the nature of space-time. For example, an electromagnetic transformer requires a core, a doughnut of iron, thats properties are defined by its magnetic permeability. What manner of stuff might play the role of this core in a gravitational transformer and what on Earth might be gravitational permeability?

Then there's the question of where in the universe these kinds of transformers might exist. It's possible that the orbit of matter close to a black hole might provide the right kind of mass-energy currents.

And on Earth, it might just be possible that the Large Hadron Collider could produce mass-energy currents that are large enough to test the idea. How might the effect manifest itself?

We know that the LHC produces large amounts of electromagnetic synchrotron radiation as the paths of its charged particles are bent into a circle. Swain suggests that his idea could be tested by looking for "gravitational synchrotron radiation". In other words, near field gravitational wave effects that could be picked up by sensitive interferometers or Weber-type resonant bars.

Swain says there's as much reason to imagine a gravitational analogue to permeability as there is to think that permeability itself ought to exist--after all there is no way to derive the permeability of a material from first principles.

As he says himself: "Only experiment can tell!"

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1006.5754: Gravitatomagnetic Analogs of Electric Transformers

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

mattgroom

290 Comments

  • 585 Days Ago
  • 07/06/2010

Possibility

Because gravity decreases with distance i propose that the gravitional ring be put on the vertical axis. Currently the LHC runs on the horizontal so gravity is always the same at any place. However if you turn it up on its end and then measure the gravity at the top end if its the same (or not as less) as the bottom you have confirmed new science !!!!!

This experiment could prove the gravitational induction.

Presently the gravity should be less if you turned LHC on its end. But im hoping some weird gravity physics will allow gravity to be generated/increased at the far end.

If this is true you could have the makings to reverse it and move gravity away from an area using other weird affects.

Im not a physicist but im sure if someone saw anything in this they could ask me for more information and maybe id could thought experiment more out for them.

Reply

wut

5 Comments

  • 585 Days Ago
  • 07/06/2010

nutcases

Why do astrophysical articles always seem to bring out the most number of crazies with their quarter-baked ideas?

At least this one isn't a stream-of-consciousness ramble that runs for 5+ pages with no paragraph separation...

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 585 Days Ago
  • 07/06/2010

Re: nutcases

Physicists did not see that a most fundamental theory of contemporary physics namely relativity theory is completely invalid. It is logically and mathematically inconsistent. It's claimed experimental verification is nothing but propaganda. It is a theory which is theoretically and empirically completely invalid. You are referred to the DNA and quantum entangledment blog.

The very people who call others with name like "cranck", "lunatic fringe", "nuts" etc are those who embraced this complete nonsense leading to the further developed complete nonsense of wormholes and Higg's particles.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

mattgroom

290 Comments

  • 585 Days Ago
  • 07/06/2010

Re: nutcases

@wut
I quite agree with AKT, only idiots like you complain and never give constructive comments.

Reply

diggers

4 Comments

  • 585 Days Ago
  • 07/06/2010

Summary Has Slight Error

A transformer does not require a core, an iron core for example just alters the changing magnetic flux and amplifies the effect: mutual inductance.

Reply

sonhouse

1 Comment

  • 585 Days Ago
  • 07/06/2010

Re: Summary Has Slight Error

It seems to me more than a slight error if they are tying gravitomagnetics to a core mass. This might be a weakness of the whole concept. If the 'core' is massless it means energy has to stand in for mass, a LOT of energy. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Reply

UncleAl

409 Comments

  • 585 Days Ago
  • 07/06/2010

Re: Summary Has Slight Error

The author conjectures that an aligned spin mass could be the gravitational equivalent of a ferromagnetic transformer core. Large spin mass to total mass ratio cannot be obtained with magnets. Magnets have near-zero aligned spin mass fraction, particle (94% of Alnico 5 magnetic field) or orbital (37% of Sm_2Co_17 magnetic field) angular momentum. One aligned electron/formula unit or one aligned electron/crystallographic unit cell is terrible.

Magically homopolarize all five aligned d-electrons in every atom of (55-Mn)+2 throughout an entire single crystal. That is 0.005% aligned spin mass/metal ion mass, the ratio further dropping for the counterions' inert mass.

Cryogenic polarized nuclear spins are better, but the nuclear magneton is small. NMR field vs. frequency table,

http://web.mit.edu/speclab/www/Facility/nmrfreq.html

Hydrogen and fluorine are outstanding spin-1/2 nuclei; Niobium-93 has spin 9/2. Teflon TFE and HD polyethylene are easy to obtain and work. Let's do nuclear spin alignment population analyses at 10 tesla for fluorine-19 in teflon (100% isotopic abundance, 75.98 wt-% F) and niobium metal (100% isotopic abundance),

e^[-(/_\H)/kT)]


F-19 = 470.385 MHz @ 11.7434 tesla
= 400.553 MHz @ 10 tesla
Nb-93 = 1222.214 MHZ @ 11.7434 tesla
= 1040.767 MHz @ 10 tesla

/_\H = 400.553 MHz = 2.65409x10^(-25) J, fluorine
= 1040.766 MHz = 6.89619x10^(-25) J, niobium
k = 1.38065x10^(-23) J/K
T = 2.1768 kelvins


1.00887:1 fluorine (Nb, 1.023:1 top vs. bottom, but remember nuclear 9/2 spin - 10 spin states) 2.3 mass-% net polarized spin is rather awful.

A helium-3 dilution refrigerator at 0.1 kelvin is a 1.212:1 (1.648:1) ratio, at 0.05 kelvin 1.469:1 (2.716:1)... but there aren't any new helium-3 dilution refrigerators given idiot Homeland Severity and its neutron detectors sucking up all He-3 supplies on planet Earth.

Reply

Advertisement

Jossarian

1 Comment

  • 585 Days Ago
  • 07/06/2010

Experiment? Done.

Martin Tajmar from ESA already observed gravitomagnetic field:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Some attempts to explain this:
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/AIP2010Hauser.pdf

Reply

cymshah

14 Comments

  • 585 Days Ago
  • 07/06/2010

does this mean....

we're one step closer to warp drive?

Reply

Viv

61 Comments

  • 585 Days Ago
  • 07/06/2010

LHC as an antenna?

Well if the article is correct then making the LHC an antenna for black hole produced effects would yield better results than trying to use the LHC to produce those effects ;-)

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 585 Days Ago
  • 07/06/2010

Re: LHC as an antenna?

Relativity theory is invalid, logically due to its inconsistency and empirically as it did not measure relativistic quantities: it calculated the theoretical values of them from other experimentally obtained quantities instead of measuring them first and compare them with theoretical values. 

So, what do you mean by black holes? Well there still is a classical one. It is where the gravitational field is so strong that the escape speed exceeds c. This seems to be the only decent definition of black holes now as relativity theory is false.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

jjs

80 Comments

  • 584 Days Ago
  • 07/07/2010

Re: LHC as an antenna?

Say what?   Relativity theory, as predicted by Einstein, has been born out in experiments.  Exactly according to the scientific method.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 582 Days Ago
  • 07/09/2010

Re: LHC as an antenna?

Which of the axioms of relativity theory experimentally verified?

On the top of it, the theory is a mathematical nonsense. It is mathematically inconsistent.

Best regards

Reply

jjs

80 Comments

  • 561 Days Ago
  • 07/30/2010

Re: LHC as an antenna?

Precision of Mercury.

Bending of light around the sun and galaxies

Time contraction at high speeds

All predicted by relativity, all experimentally verified.

Reply

Advertisement

Rkcampbell

1 Comment

  • 584 Days Ago
  • 07/07/2010

Re: LHC as an antenna?

AKT, you say relativity is invalid because it did not "measure relativistic quantities"?  Theories are devised to explain experimental results in science, experiments are designed to test and measure.  Perhaps you could ratchet down your anger at the very idea of relativity theory and look at the experimental results jjs mentioned.

Best regards to you, too

RKC

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 582 Days Ago
  • 07/09/2010

Re: LHC as an antenna?

I am not angry. I am just disappointed. Virtually all "experimental verifications' of SR and QFT are self-fulfilling. It goes as follows "As SR (QFT) is correct SR (QFT) is correct.

More seriously, I do not accept Wilson bubble chamber experiments. QM asserts that no particles have trajectory. QFT verifies itself by experiments which uses Wilson Chamber.

I do not understand where contemporary physics stands upon.

The nature of experimental verification has changed completely and I am less than willing to accept such claim anymore. It all sounds like propaganda for money grabbing. From may European scientists, I heard complains that CERN sucks up all research money in Europe. This is because it is a most money spending project which serves many contractors.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 581 Days Ago
  • 07/10/2010

Re:QM asserts that no particles have trajectory.

This is just a nonsense, QM doesn't prohibit the free particle in traveling along straight path.

http://www.ph.biu.ac.il/~rapaport/java-apps/quant2d.html

You should learn some physics first before trying to spam here.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 581 Days Ago
  • 07/10/2010

Re:QM asserts that no particles have trajectory.

It is a well understood fact that standard QM does not allow trajectory. It is because the position and momentum do not commute. Once we localise a particle, we have zero information about what is the momentum. This makes it impossible for a particle to form a trajectory. It is a very subtle thinking needed. The probability of the particle forming the trajectory which we observe as in Wilson chamber is zero.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

UncleAl

409 Comments

  • 585 Days Ago
  • 07/06/2010

Offhand comment

Predictive gravitation theories (except for teleparallelism in Weitzenböck spacetime with spacetime torsion) are parity-even.  Newton is 1/r^2, Green's theorem is all squared terms; General Relativity is presme to be parity-even, certainly at macroscopic scale.  There is no set of circumstances wherein a "negative distance" makes any difference at all.

Look at those posted vector cross-products!  Electromagnetisim is chiral - relative orientation matters, Right Hand rules,

http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/handrules/images/right-hand-rule.jpg

http://www.diracdelta.co.uk/science/source/f/l/flemings%20right%20hand%20rule/image001.jpg

Torque in electric motors is *not* symmetric.  If a gravitational analogue of electrical engineering exists, vacuum isotropy will be dinged.  Inverse handedness - chirality and parity - will give different outputs.  Chemical enantiomers will not be degenerate in properties if properly examined.  Left and right shoes will not vacuum free fall identically.  If so, we'd desperately like to know the size of the coupling constant scaling diastereotopic divergence.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg
Somebody should look.  The worst it can do is succeed.

This arxive paper needs some serious relativistic masses for detectable gravitational anomalies.  The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and the LHC were both designed to do gold nuclei at enormous GeV/nucleon energies.  It could be reducible to practice.  Tesla showed that once you have a big fat primary, everything down-field will be sparking.

Reply

martinaatayo

112 Comments

  • 584 Days Ago
  • 07/07/2010

Gravito-electromagnetic applications

To a curious constructivist mind, no idea,is
ever considered stupid. Instead, varying levels
of perception and understanding define varying
human conceptual appreciation,
and more importantly,application
in practical terms.
The concept introduced above stands to
generate multiple applications in heavy
duty manufacturing cycles..only to those
who know how, and what, technologies, may
be articulated..(examples of likely
applications, deliberately withheld)
kudos !!
Martin Atayo
Washington, DC

Reply

brentrobot

12 Comments

  • 583 Days Ago
  • 07/08/2010

Hmmm I wonder if this effect could be generated by heavy asymmetrical nuclei that are simply rotating about their own axis.

The strong force would allow them to rotate at relativistic speeds without flying apart.

And if they were to be in a crystal formation and also rotating at the same speed, perhaps you would get an effect similar to a laser.

And if there were some way to focus the resultant gravitoelectric wave you would have something very interesting.

Reply

Advertisement

niebieskieucho

7 Comments

  • 582 Days Ago
  • 07/09/2010

Space-time

Quote: "The gravitational equivalent of an electrical transformer could reveal bizarre new properties of space-time."

Space-time belongs to one of many scientific myth. Space cannot couple with time, as time = motion/changes. It's ridiculous to marry space with time. It's enough to write just about space.  

Reply

UncleAl

409 Comments

  • 582 Days Ago
  • 07/09/2010

Re: Space-time

"It's ridiculous to marry space with time."

Gold's s- and d-orbitals are relativistically contracted toward the nucleus. Gold's atomic radius with 80 protons and electrons is 135 pm compared to 260 pm for cesium with 55 protons and electrons. A gold atom is 148% the atomic weight, yet only 14% the atomic volume of cesium. 

Gold density = 19.32 g/cm^3
Cesium density = 1.873 g/cm^3

http://www.chemicool.com/elements/gold.html
http://www.chemicool.com/elements/cesium.html

1) Particle accelerators.
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-vector
3) GR prediction for periastron precession scales as (semi-major axis)^(-3)
4) http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm

But why stop here?

Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009)
Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model

http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2861
DI Herculis anomalous orbital precession  reconciled with General Relativity

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7283//abs/nature08776.html
Nature 463 926 (2010)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
0.1 mm height difference is predicted GR time difference within 7 ppb relative.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9148/title/Einstein_Unruffled_Relativity_passes_stringent_new_tests
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html
Relativity in the GPS system

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://unusedcycles.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/physics-of-gps-relativistic-time-delay/
Relativistic effects on orbital clocks

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
Nature 425 374-376 (2003)
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/
Section 3.4.1, Figure 5
falling light

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment

Oh dear, it's worse than that!

http://diracseashore.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/c-sells-c-shells-by-the-c-shore/#more-118

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html
Harvard Tower experiment

If you know you are an idiot, and we know you are an idiot, and each knows the other knows you are an idiot, and even other idiots know you are an idiot - and you are a boring idiot -  why do you further pursue the point?

Oh yeah...

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0602178
No superluminal information transfer
http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html
The distorted cube

Newton was wrong.

The Apparent Shape of a Relativistically Moving Sphere", Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 55 137–139 (1958)

"Invisibility of the Lorentz Contraction", Phys. Rev. 116(4) 1041 (1959)

"Apparent shape of large objects at relativistic speeds". Am. J. Phys 29 283–286 (1961)

"Classroom exercises with the Terrell effect". Am. J. Phys. 59 912 (1991)

"Because of the finite speed of light, the photographic appearance of a relativistic body would not simply show a Lorentz contraction. In its simplest version, this effect provides exercises, accessible to undergraduates, that illustrate concepts of simultaneity and use of the Lorentz transformation. Transformation of light intensity also provides useful exercises and interesting results.

Pookie pookie.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 581 Days Ago
  • 07/10/2010

Re: Space-time

The so called physicists are emotional beings. So often reasoned argument is replaced by the totally expected (in these days) outburst of anger and hatred when some one steps on their nerve. I found that this is a juvenile culture. It is especially so as they are not aware of their emotional and cultural problems.

Newton said motion is a function from time to space. He warned that neither time nor space are physical entities. They are metaphysical entities. This is why in classical dimensional analysis, [time] and [length] are undefined dimensions whereas [speed], [accleration] etc are defined dimensions. For example as even elementary school students understand [speed]=[length]/[time]. You are referred to "Mathematical Physics", by Mentzel.

Except some enlightened  Quantum Physicists such as prof. David Deutsche of Merton College, this most basic principle of physics has been completely forgotten among physicists, thanks to the SR which defines [time] and [length] by [speed]. GR furthered  this "revolutionary" ideology to define [time] and [length] by [acceleration]. This is called self-refutation which became a mental disease in the last century. Some critics call this  "religion" but calling it religion might be an insult to decent religions.

Putting this conceptual flaw aside, GR is marred by so many mathematical and physical troubles. To begin with one of its most basic axioms is false. This certainly makes the whole theory of GR false. Assume A accelerates away from C with rate a and B accelerates away from C with rate b in opposite direction. Then kinematics will tell you that A accelerates away from B with rate a+b. This cannot be interpreted using force. This means that Einstein's claim that all accelerations are gravitational forces is FALSE. Moreover if PoE is correct why Einstein failed to unify em forces and gravitational forces.

Typical response to this fatal criticism  is as follows:

1. [Physics Prof. Jess Brewer, UBC] The addition of acceleration a+b is not relativistic.

It just does not matter. Does it make any difference? Also PoE is an axiom of GR and it means that one cannot use GR's results to state this axiom at the pain of vicious circularity. This simplest logical argument does not register to the brain of theoretical physicists.

2. [Many Experts here] GR does not talk about gravitational forces.

GR builds a 4D manifold model of space time from basic axioms. PoE is one of them. When PoE is prescribed, there is no such 4D space time manifold model. So, all we have to frame PoE is gravitational force. No matter how you represent gravitational force mathematically  and whatever "sexy" name you put on gravitational forces, gravitational forces are gravitational forces.

Naturally none of these irrelevant "responses" really defend the fallen GR.

Putting these physical errors aside, there is a disturbing mathematical errors in GR. What's new?! I will explain this problem using 2D space time representation of the motion of a train on a track. We use time coordinate and distance coordinate as train engineers have been using for the lase a few centuries. It is called by them, "diagram". The idea is to represent the motion of a train on this track as a graph on this 2D space time. This method, as all train engineers know very well without the genius of Einstein, does not work when the stations etc are moving around on on the coordinate representing the track. The idea of using space-time is to capture the motion as a static graph.

This means that this method of space time is limited to the situation where no stars are moving around changing their locations in the universe. This reduces Einstein's "genius" only to the class room of American Universities as HWs. Raymond Cote once said that GR is good only for test particles. Certainly it was good for Sir Arthur Eddington who faked data to experimentally verify the double bend result of light coming around sun.

This problem made GR unusable in the world of Big Bang Theory. After resisting a while Einstein gave in and parametrised GR with cosmological constant. This works only for the expansion of the universe but it cannot deal with the internal motion of stars.

Einstein's universe is expanding but otherwise it is stationary, dead. Only a few test particles move around and their motion is captured as geodesic in the 4D space time manifold.

To make the matter even more entertaining, we can always fix the inccuring anomalies by "calculating" the distribution of dark matters  in the space. GR never fails anymore. It was Karl Popper who told us that all physical theories must be empirically falsifiable. Alas, we have gained the ultimate theory which never fails. We might as well sit in an armchair with Cuban cigar and order competent graduate students to calculate the distribution of the dark matter to fix the problems. When some smart guys come up with direct hit attack on GR, we can always call them with names. These guys do not control peer reviewed publication systems.

I am fine with this name calling as long as it is substantiated by scientific reasoning. But name calling itself does not constitute scientific discussion. It is just an avoidable irrelevance which says nothing about attacked but everything about attackers.  Listing up tons of papers without  relating them to the issues  just does not do it. To begin with discussion is never meant to be listing links or copying and pasting from wikipedia.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 580 Days Ago
  • 07/11/2010

Re: Space-time

Well those who question GR and SR are "idiots", let me ask some questions about those who do not question GR and SR.

1. It was Einstein himself who said, we must  question authority. He warned that as he was a revolutionary, they made him a kind of authority. He also said it is wrong to assume that we have theories which explain everything. He said that what we can explain using current theory and our empirical knowledge is a tiny fraction of what has yet to be discovered. It is what we call "relativists" who acted against everything Einstein said in the name of Einstein and his "genius". He also said that once he became "famous, he became stupid.

2. Top disciples of Einstein said that only a handful (Albert Einstein, Arthur Eddington and Karl Heim) can really understand relativity theory. As a young student, I learned about this. But in contemporary physics it appears that all academic physicists has become one of these handful. As a mathematician, I do not understand this anomaly. So, what kind of thinking is that these hundreds of thousands of "only handful" look down upon those who keep asking questions about relativity.

3. I have asked many questions and received either name calling or rather questionable responses. I have already dealt with the illness of resorting to name callings. I trust that academic physicists still have decency left to respect basic human code. So, let me focus on the questionable responses.

4. When I asked about the anomalies regarding the inertial frames as used in Einstein's thought experiments, all defenders of Einstein told me that all critic of SR have no simple logic to carry out correct frame and event analysis. In many formal places they said the same thing. They said that all criticisms on SR are based upon the wrong frame and event analysis and all of them are already sorted out by 1950.

5. Odd, indeed. I presented a thought experiment Einstein conducted to reject absolute simultaneity, for the purpose of showing that Einstein missed one other possibility. It goes as follows: Einstein assumed that a train runs on a track with constant speed. He assumed that when a passenger on the train is on the right bisector of two points A and B on the ground, lightning strikes A and B.  Einstein correctly deduced from this situation that the observer will observe that A and B are hit at different moment. He ironically used classical argument here. I added one other possibility. Under CSL, this observer will observe that A and B are hit at the same moment. This is because under CSL, the speed and the light path of light is independent of the constant speed motion of the emitter of light. Clearly this shows that Einstein's thought experiment shows nothing but contradiction in the axiom system {d=vt, PoR,CSL} aka SR. SR deduces the loss of simultaneity and its negation. To this Mr. Smith who claims that he has "consistency proof" of SR respond asking me when I said that lightning strikes at the same time, in which frame it was? To begin with, it is strange that the very setting Einstein used to deduce the loss of simultaneity becomes questionable in the mind of Einstein's supporter Mr. Smith when I use it for my purpose. May be not so strange. There was a researcher who made an experiment in chemistry. Using the same data obtained, he wrote two papers, one verifying that the mainstream theory is verified. The other contained a conclusion that the main stream theory was violated by the experiment. The first paper was accepted and the second paper was rejected.  I presented a good example of the poor understanding of event and frame analysis on the mainstream establishment. Borrowing their offensive words, shall I say that these people who believe in SR do not know what they are talking about. It is them who have  no logic to do correct event and frame analysis.

6. The same happens when we consider the "blessed victor" of SR, namely the muon decay problem. They wrongly claim that from muon's perspective, the sea level approaches muon travelling the contracted length. So, sea level can reach muon before it expires. What  kind of event and frame analysis is this? Sea level does not move along the rod which appears shrunk for muon. It travels toward muon along the rod in muon's frame which does not shrink for muon. This also clearly shows that the followers of Einstein and Einstein himself had no competence on the event and frame analysis.

7. Those believers did not know that the thought experiment Einstein used to deduce length contraction from {d=vt,PoR,CSL} also deduces the negation of length contraction too. If we consider that the point from which light was emitter towards the moving mirror is a point on the ground, Length Contraction is deduced. But if we consider that this point is a point of the frame of the moving mirror, there is no length contraction. This yet is another evidence which makes Einsteinians questionable people who blames others for not doing correct event and frame analysis while they themselves know nothing about frame analysis and event analysis.

No wonder these people have no other defense but name calling, outburst of anger and hatred, intimidation and even blackmailing.

These people take things and themselves too seriously. They should listen to Einstein who said that once you make physics your profession  you loose the joy of it. Take it easy and enjoy discussions.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

niebieskieucho

7 Comments

  • 574 Days Ago
  • 07/17/2010

Re: Space-time

You can support yourself with hundreds of links. It's futile. Just use your brain. How could you couple time with space? Time (of something) = motion (of something). Motion/time (of something) is the result of velocity (of something). Is it clear? Those who admit that understood relativity automatly admit they understood nonsense.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 574 Days Ago
  • 07/17/2010

Re: Space-time

Relativity theory attracted people's attention because of its irrational claims which were presented as "revolutionary" ideas.

20Th century was  the century of the juvenile fever of "revolutionary ideas" with severe consequence such as Marxism, Fascism, Reaganism and NEOCON. It was a cultural ground for false revolutional theories to be accepted and grow into powerful destructive cults. 

This theory presented its revolutionary nature through what pure mathematicians call "self-refutation" which both Russel and Popper criticised. That self-refutation leads to contradictions is a common sense among normal mentally healthy people. For the elites in physics, self-refutation leads to "creative" ways of looking at what is around us.

This theory uses certain assumptions  to develop a theory which in the end undermines the assumptions. America was founded by the religious refugees from Europe who were helped by the First Nations to survive this harsh natural environment. Upon this foundation, America grew into a revolutionary super power who replaced original  native community and culture with "Thanks Giving" Day Holiday.

Einstein deduced Lorentz Transformation by applying Length Contraction and Time Dilation to Galilean Transformation. Then he denounced Galilean Transformation as FALSE. Einstein used numerous thought experiments to frame SR and then with his teacher Minkowski he denounced all of them as meaningless on the bases of the so called light cone interpretations which claims that there is no causality between the emission of light and reception of light.

Once they established hegemony in physics, this cult naturally behaved as repressing power to silence criticisms as they have no intellectual capacity to defend their "theory". No body has such capacity. It is impossible to scieitifically defend logically inconsistent theories. First they try to ignore criticisms, then they ridicule criticisms and finally they resort to violent personal attacks as we have seen in this blog too. In academia the price critics had to pay was severer. Prof. Dr. Margueijo of Cambridge University in his book "Faster than the seepd of light" publically stated that criticising relativity theory meant academic suicide. Prof. Dr. Dingle lost his professional and social life for asking questions about SR. Prof. Paul Marmet, Order of Canada, lost his professional life at Laval University by presenting an alternative theory to SR. A graduate student at MIT physics department came up with a classical explication of the double bend results which became a mile stone in the development of GR. Physics professor at MIT could not find error in his explanation and they summoned him and told him to do his PhD outside of physics.

The endless list of papers Uncle Al has been presenting as his "response" looks like a typical tactics of "intimidation" which the "science" of Global Warming also used. In this "science", politically they took over the editorial board of their journals and did two things:

1. Rejected critics.

2. Promoted papaers which used faked data to advance their cause.

Then they resorted to the tactics of intimidation asking criticis to present peer reviewed publications. They went even further to declare that criticising global warming theory is "crime against humanity".

It is totally expected that these fake scietists cannot answer to the simplest question of if melting ice in water will raise water level. We were told from these "real" scientists that melting ice in the arctic ocean will cause serious raise of sea level. Even a middle school science student will understand this criticism.

David Bohm's QM is more acceptable than mainstream QM though Bohm had no peer reviewd publications simply because he was balcklisted and was not allowed to publish in peer reviewed journals once he turneed against Copenhagen QM.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

mattgroom

290 Comments

  • 559 Days Ago
  • 08/01/2010

Re: Space-time

@niebieskie
I don't understand what you are saying?

Motion/time = velocity. I can agree to sound of that.

We take the position of an object as it moves from place A to B, its motion if you like. Knowing its time it took we certainly get its velocity for that period.

The equation is generally v= dx/dt though.

Not sure about the rest of what you are saying?

Perhaps its that velocity is an average, but what more do you ask, its quite impossible to know the exact velocity at any given point, only an approximation/average.

Its quite possible particles behave like people driving cars...they speed up and slow down.I am not sure they do that or can conceive of a reason they would. Of course that would intimate some one driving the particles which is more a philosophical question?

Reply

Advertisement

jabowery

1 Comment

  • 582 Days Ago
  • 07/09/2010

Current vs Voltage

So shouldn't we expect the earth's rotation to provide the equivalent of an extremely high current, low voltage loop?  If this "transformer" analogy is true, then shouldn't it be possible to generate an extremely high velocity low mass loop at the poles?

Reply

UncleAl

409 Comments

  • 581 Days Ago
  • 07/10/2010

Re: Current vs Voltage

The Earth's equator has a surface rotational velocity of 0.465 km/sec (sidereal day).  Lightspeed is 3x10^8 km/sec.  1.55 parts-per-billion of lightspeed is piffle for generating anomalies.  Consider Gravity Probe B.

Consider 1.74 solar-mass 465.14 Hz pulsar PSR J1903+0327 and its 1.05 solar-mass companion joined in a 95.17-day orbit.  27% versus 1.4x10^(-4)% gravitational binding energies, 1.8x10^11 versus ~30 surface gees, 2x10^8 gauss versus ~5 gauss magnetic fields; superconductive compressed neutrons plus conjectured core compositions including hyperons, delta isobars, deconfined quark matter, Bose condensate, meson condensate (pion, kaon)... versus proton-electron plasma; and pulsar 11% of lightspeed equatorial spin velocity.  No observed anomalies for GR-predicted orbit, orbital precession, spin-orbit coupling, or orbital decay from gravitational radiation.

General Relativity works to spec.  An anomaly loophole or footnote must be consistent with all prior observations.  Look where physics demands default assumptions are "obvious" beyond question.  That does not constrain the observation to be simple.

Otto Stern gave Paul Dirac a nuclear wedgie by measuring (to within 40% - brutal experiment) the proton's magnetic moment.  The Dirac equation was astoundingly good for electrons... and wrong for composite particles.  Nobody knew the proton was composite.

Observation tells us that no measurable observable compromises GR predictions.  The arxiv paper discusses a testable set of richer implications.  One can go the other way and ask if a non-measurable observable does the naughty:  Do opposite shoes violate the Equivalence Principle?  Inverse geometric parity atomic mass distributions are not physics - they are chemistry.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg
A test of physics' illusion of knowledge.

Reply

SciLurker

5 Comments

  • 580 Days Ago
  • 07/11/2010

Was: Re: Current vs Voltage

Reply

SciLurker

5 Comments

  • 580 Days Ago
  • 07/11/2010

Re: Was: Re: Current vs Voltage

I didn't find your personal email address...

Reply

SciLurker

5 Comments

  • 580 Days Ago
  • 07/11/2010

Re: Current vs Voltage

The copper loop would have to link from pole to pole. A loop at the top of one pole would generate very little electricity because it does not travel as far through the magnetic field.
A loop that ran from pole to pole might generate a significant amount of electricity, but I could not calculate it.

I think the Earth's magnetic fields rotate with the planet. So you would gain nothing there. But air friction, and the Van Allen belt, might give quite a lot.

It's a question for better minds than mine...

Reply

UncleAl

409 Comments

  • 580 Days Ago
  • 07/11/2010

Re: Current vs Voltage

The arxiv paper is about gravitation not magnetic induction.  North America is already heavily woven with elevated steel-cored aluminum conductor - the power grid - from Canada to Mexico and Pacific to Atlantic oceans.  Nothing much happens day-to-day outside ordinary power generation.

A fat solar flare whacking the Earth's magnetosphere Roman-candles the grid from lines of force recombination and magnetic induction.  We are currently in the deepest solar minimum in at least a century.  Little amplitude recovery is expected for two solar cycles.  However, sunspot 1087 just came into view, and it is an angry whopper.  A .50 caliber Barrett round will kill you just as dead as a thermonuclear blast.

http://www.spaceweather.com/
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 579 Days Ago
  • 07/12/2010

Gravitation v.s EM theory?

> That's of more than passing interest to physicists studying the properties of space-time. It turns out that the equations of general relatively are formally analogous to Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism (at least, when they are studied in the weak, linear limit).

> So all the results from classical electrodynamics can be equally applied to general relativity. This allows astrophysicists to define electrogravitic and gravitomagnetic fields that are analogous to electric and magnetic fields. And this kind of thinking has led to a number of predictions such as the well known frame-dragging effect in which space-time is dragged by a massive spinning object.

As a pure mathematician I consider that argument like this is a typical abuse of mathematics in theoretical physics. Only contemporary theoretical physicists are lost in this way by their misunderstanding of mathematics.

I have already shown a good example of how this kind of "reasoning" fails. In SR waves are abstracted to just mathematical functions from Time * Space to Space. Upon this base, SR built relativistic theory of waves. From this theory, one can derive an equation which relates phase speed and group speed. This equation due to De Broglie tells us that the phase speed and group speed agree iff both of them have speed c. But the mathematical wave function which represents sound wave shows that the phase speed and group speed of sound waves are the same and they are NOT c.

Abstraction by laymen could lead to this kind of catastrophic ends. Physics is not just calculation. Think, please.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

Advertisement

mattgroom

290 Comments

  • 557 Days Ago
  • 08/03/2010

I Believe

I Believe they discussed that issue about speed of sound and speed of light appearing to have identical properties.

Maybe..
The sound wave can be considered to be the fastest wave of transmitting sound. Just like the photon wave is the fastest way of transmitting light.

Hence some similarities pervade both.

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement