The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong
Adjust text size:
According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.
This gravitomagnetic field is similar to the magnetic field produced by a moving electric charge (hence the name "gravitomagnetic" analogous to "electromagnetic"). For example, the electric charges moving in a coil produce a magnetic field - such a coil behaves like a magnet. Similarly, the gravitomagnetic field can be produced to be a mass moving in a circle. What the electric charge is for electromagnetism, mass is for gravitation theory (the general theory of relativity).
A spinning top weights more than the same top standing still. However, according to Einstein's theory,
the difference is negligible. It should be so small that we shouldn't even be capable of measuring it. But now scientists from the European Space Agancy, Martin Tajmar, Clovis de Matos and their colleagues, have actually measured it. At first they couldn't believe the result.
"We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement," says Tajmar. They hope other physicists will now conduct their own versions of the experiment so they could be absolutely certain that they have really measured the gravitomagnetic field and not something else. This may be the first empiric clue for how to merge together quantum mechanics and general theory of relativity in a single unified theory.
"If confirmed, this would be a major breakthrough," says Tajmar, "it opens up a new means of investigating general relativity and its consequences in the quantum world."
The experiment involved a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute. According to quantum theory, spinning superconductors should produce a weak magnetic field. The problem was that Tajmar and de Matos experiments with spinning superconductors didn't seem to fit the theory - although in all other aspects the quantum theory gives incredibly accurate predictions. Tajmar and de Matos then had the idea that maybe the quantum theory wasn't wrong after all but that there was some additional effect overlapping over their experiments, some effect they neglected.
What could this other effect be? They thought maybe it's the gravitomagnetic field - the fact that the spinning top exerts a higher gravitational force. So, they placed around the spinning superconductor a series of very sensible acceleration sensors for measuring whether this effect really existed. They obtained more than they bargained for!
Although the acceleration produced by the spinning superconductor was 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, it is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Thus, the spinning top generated a much more powerful gravitomagnetic field than expected.
Now, it remains the need for a proper theory. Scientists can also now check whether candidate theories, such as the string theory, can describe this experiment correctly. Moreover, this experiment shows that gravitational waves should be much more easily to detect than previously thought.Photo: the experimental apparatus. Credits: ESA
MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:
|Comment #1 by: Sam on 25 Jun 2009, 04:34 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I don't know why anyone would be surprised that Einstein's theory could be wrong. He was only a man and each man's work is just a stepping stone to the next discovery of truth. Theories are just that, theories! How can you progress if you believe everything that you are taught is accurate? Besides, after helping create the Atomic bomb, I wouldn't be surprised if he intentionally damaged his work to prevent man from creating another weapon. Imagine if the centrifugal force of a spinning superconductor could be directed up or down in the Y plane by way of an external coil. The effect would be similar to a jet engine or gravity repulsion and attraction.
|Comment #1.1 by: John on 12 Jul 2009, 18:57 GMT|
Agreed Sam. The reason people don't want to face that is because they are complacent with the belief that they know and what they know is correct. I also believe if Einstein were truly genius then he would have sabotaged his work as well. Even as adults, mankind is still a child destroying sandcastles with Tonka trucks.
|Comment #1.2 by: dee on 26 Feb 2010, 13:55 GMT|
Sam, it's surprising because the theory has had such truly phenomenal wide-ranging reach, is unifying, and has taken decade upon decade upon decade of meaning. It's more than "one man's work". In any case, what's much, much more important is the fact that the experiment above might or might not hold up in the larger scientific community. If it does, good. If it does not, good.
|Comment #1.3 by: Lee on 26 Feb 2010, 15:58 GMT|
This has NOTHING to do with proving Einstein wrong. You are missing the point. No one cares that it was Einstein's theory. Your theory about his damaging his own work is, well, stupid and you should do some research before you say stupid shit like that.
Theories in the scientific world are VERY different from the theories you espouse. They are well tested and grounded in a lot of calculations.
|Comment #1.4 by: Maddie on 26 Feb 2010, 17:53 GMT|
Scientific theory, which may also be known as a scientific model, is completely different than the colloquial or layman usage of the term "theory" -- in place of 'theoretical.' I can't really tell by the context if you understand that. I'm not implying that you don't, only clarifying a point for the others who may not.
|Comment #1.5 by: Tom Swirly on 26 Feb 2010, 18:10 GMT|
"I don't know why anyone would be surprised that Einstein's theory could be wrong."
First, I don't see anyone expressing great surprise here - just lots of interested people.
Second, this is actually a surprise by any reasonable definition of the world. Thousands of experiments have been performed in this area, and this is one of the first to show any anomalous results.
Finally, by no stretch of the imagination does this experiment "disprove" Einstein. For one thing, since it hasn't been reproduced it can't disprove anything... but more fundamentally, even once it's reproduced (which I suspect it will be) it hardly "disproves" General Relativity, any more than Einstein "disproved" Newton's laws.
When Einstein was finished, what was shown was not that Newton's Laws were "wrong" but that they were, in essence, a special case. People still use Newtonian mechanics for almost all their needs; you'll never see an architect or engineer correcting their designs based on Einstein.
In the same way, this experiment actually demonstrates a phenomenon that was predicted by Einstein! The significant part is that the magnitude of the result is much greater than expected, and if the experiment is shown to be true, there will have to be some sort of change - but remember that Einstein's work has successfully been applied at all scales already and all of those previous experiments will continue to be true.
It's still quite likely that this will turn out to be a measurement anomaly, unfortunately (because who doesn't love a breakthrough?) It's not that these people aren't fine scientists, but the magnitude is very small and there could be many other phenomena that are causing it (off the top of my head, Coriolis force, stray electromagnetic fields in the lab, some sort of electrostatic charge...)
|Comment #1.6 by: Physics Guy on 26 Feb 2010, 20:42 GMT|
Sam, please do not promulgate such nonsense. First, a theory is a fact. A true theory, not in the sense the layman uses it, has been proven time and again through experiment. A hypothesis is untested, not a theory.
Second, relativity (both general and special) is the most tested and proven theory of all time. No matter what test has been thrown at it (and there have been tens of thousands) it has always held true. Where it appeared that it didn't, either the test was wrong or malfunctioned or the results were fabricated or misunderstood.
Also, implying that a proven scientific fact is part of some conspiracy theory on the part of Albert Einstein is patently ridiculous. Please learn a bit about physics and reality and then come back and apologize for distorting the truth.
Finally, note that the article says detecting gravitational waves should be easier than originally thought. We've had some ridiculously sensitive instruments looking for them for years. One instrument is so sensitive that it may have detected graininess in space-time (which is something of a long shot, and not generally accepted at all). Yet we still haven't seen even a hint of a gravitational wave.
|Comment #1.7 by: Beth on 27 Feb 2010, 03:18 GMT|
Actually, scientific theories aren't the same as our day-to-day "theories." They're tested hypotheses that have been deemed truths. For example, the theory of gravity. Other than that, you brought up a good point. Although Einstein was a genius, it is remarkable that so much of his work was true, since he didn't have the resources or knowledge that we have now. Rather than be amazed that he got something wrong, we should be amazed that he got so much right.
|Comment #2 by: Eric on 28 Oct 2009, 07:20 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I told my physicist friends that Einstein's theory would be disproved
with experiments using spinning mass. I wrote it in a journal and dated it in 1996. I had written a new theory, and had a stack of papers which I have since then thrown out. I wish I had kept them. Is it possible to spin an atomic clock? I would be very curious to know the results of that vs spinning a mechanical clock at high speeds. Thanks for your article.
|Comment #2.1 by: Roger Bauman on 26 Feb 2010, 14:22 GMT|
Yeah, I did that too, but dated mine 1994, so there!
|Comment #2.2 by: Genius on 26 Feb 2010, 20:40 GMT|
I solved the Unified Field Theory. It described the link between gravity and electromagnetism. Then my dog ate it.
|Comment #2.3 by: jj on 02 Mar 2010, 14:09 GMT|
lmao at genius!!!
|Comment #2.4 by: Urogallo on 03 Mar 2013, 15:31 GMT|
I wish people would look up the definition of a scientific theory before they open their pie-holes.
|Comment #3 by: asenz on 26 Feb 2010, 13:42 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Isn't this the same experiment Evgeny Podkletnov was RIDICULED for in Finland more than ten years ago?!
|Comment #3.1 by: DX on 26 Feb 2010, 17:44 GMT|
Not at all. This experiment showed that a spinning superconducting ring had an increased gravetomagnetic effect, stronger than the force that was predicted. Podkletnov claimed that an object held over a spinning superconducting disk would be somehow shielded from the effects of gravity. Those results are quite unrelated.
|Comment #3.2 by: Michael G on 26 Feb 2010, 18:14 GMT|
"In 2006, Martin Tajmar and several coworkers at the Austrian Research Center (ARC) Seibersdorf announced their claim to have measured the gravitomagnetic London moment of Cooper pairs in a superconducting ring spinning at 6500 rpm. Despite the similarity to the apparatus used by Podkletnov, the authors carefully state in their eprint (see citation below) that their claimed result should not be confused with the claims of Podkletnov; specifically, they measured a tangential gravitomagnetic force created by Type I superconductors, (Elemental Lead and Niobium rings at liquid helium temperatures) but failed to measure an axial force from Type II superconductors (YBCO and BSSCO ceramics at liquid nitrogen temperatures) as described by Podkletnov. Thus, their results suggest a magnified form of 'frame dragging' rather than gravity reflection. However, there are major differences between the experiments, such as the method of driving the ring. (In the ARC experiments, the ring was physically driven by a motor, while Podkletnov's experiment levitated and spun the ring using magnetic fields.)"
|Comment #4 by: Jeff Hansen on 26 Feb 2010, 14:02 UTC|| reply to this comment|
This explains the "anomaly", we did not understand how the universe worked and therefore our expectations were wrong to begin with.
|Comment #4.1 by: zzz on 01 Mar 2010, 17:54 GMT|
Wkipedia: "The impact of General Relativity, in its weak-field and linearized form yielding gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic phenomena like, e.g., frame-dragging, has been investigated as well: it turns out to be unable to account for the flyby anomaly."
|Comment #5 by: Mike on 26 Feb 2010, 14:08 UTC|| reply to this comment|
An interesting experiment. Confirmation and explanation pending this could lead to interesting breakthroughs.
Wasn't it Einstein who comment of his own theory that it was alas only a theory and could easily be experimentally proved wrong?
This could certainly cause a stir in education where people have taken Einstein's theories on far too readily. One man can easily make mistakes, I for one often disagreed with Einstein on his quantum theories. This work shows promise, lets hope it leads to an interesting series of discoveries and progression.
|Comment #6 by: Paul on 26 Feb 2010, 14:10 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Relativity is only a theory, not a fact. There are other ways to explain this fenomena, but the academic establishment shuts out any critisism and undermines the works of many scientist that dare to go against the relativity dogma.
Inteligent Relativiter is a perfectly sound alternative theory for what we observe here. We should teach the controversy.
|Comment #6.1 by: Drahcir on 26 Feb 2010, 18:51 GMT|
|Comment #6.2 by: Mike on 26 Feb 2010, 22:02 GMT|
Like most creationists, you fail to understand the meaning of Theory as used in science, conflating it with the colloquial use, which is something closer to hypothesis.
Theories are, at the most simplistic level, frameworks for explaining observed data. These frameworks are then tested to see if the results they predict do occur. Relativity has been tested countless times and its predictions have held up. This experiment could certainly change the form and possibly (though unlikely) invalidate relativity as an explanatory framework. Science is the process of testing things to bring our frameworks closer to the truth and trying to find the description/equation/whatever that best describes and predicts results.
Intelligent Relativiter (I'm guessing a version of intelligent design in relativity drag) is, by definition, unscientific. How may we test to see if the predictions of this theory are true? Is there an experiment that we can do where the results are best answered by Intelligent design and not something else? If there are, are such experiments repeatable to the point where we can predict results? If the answer to these questions is not, you're not doing science and there is no controversy.
|Comment #6.3 by: chris on 27 Feb 2010, 20:35 GMT|
|Comment #6.4 by: Nuclear Chemist on 28 Feb 2010, 12:13 GMT|
Actually, there is a bit of faith in using any theory. With this bit of information, the Theory of Relativity does not go away, because it is the best thing we have. This will get people to keep looking which is what people of science should be doing all along. Its kind of like that stupid global warming garbage, or the nuclear winter bs. Just because politics is involved doesn't mean that science should take a breather. As far as likening the main theories to faith, sadly, yes, most people take them on faith until the theory is completely disproved AND there is something there to replace it. In the nuke field, there are "anomalies" when dealing with some things at certain levels. We use one theory for some items, another theory for others. Just remember your equations and know that we haven't mastered the universe as well as we like to pretend we have.
"...a person who knows the limits of his own knowledge is smarter than someone who doesn't. That makes the average person a heck of a lot smarter than many a Harvard Law graduate."
-Steven Laib, United States Supreme Court Bar
|Comment #6.5 by: SuperJesus on 01 Mar 2010, 03:06 GMT|
Clearly you must be talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster here, since he's the only one stringy enough to introduce such saucy results.
And to think some people say scientists don't have a sense of humor. Bravo sir.
|Comment #6.6 by: Average on 02 May 2013, 03:55 GMT|
The Irony in the spegatti monster being stringy as scientist are now huddling around the Super String Theory and Higgs Boson god particle to answer all their questions about the multi-verse; simply because the theory of general relativity was accurate, but just not accurate enough.
|Comment #7 by: Thos Weatherby on 26 Feb 2010, 15:29 UTC|| reply to this comment|
If you could then spin the gravitomagnetic field at the speed of light, would it's mass increase to infinity?
|Comment #7.1 by: Nick on 26 Feb 2010, 16:57 GMT|
Anything moving at the speed of light does not have a mass. So the answser would be no. Equally when mass increases due to high speed it take exponentialy more energy to accelerate. Remember the good old kinetic energy equation : Ek = (m * v^2)/2
But I don't understand the whole adding mass thing when you accelerate but it's describe equally by Einstein E = m*c^2 so it takes a lot of energy to add even a tiny amount of mass. We'll see how this turns out. But I haven't seen this published in other web pages so I'm not fully sure how credible this is. But I know academics can sometimes be dogmatic which is sad since science should not be about dogma.
Have a good day.
|Comment #7.2 by: Max on 26 Feb 2010, 19:12 GMT|
Probably not infinity. More than Rosie O'Donnell, but less than Kirstie Alley.
|Comment #7.3 by: Tom on 27 Feb 2010, 02:18 GMT|
Thos, I don't believe so. The speed of light is a fixed and measurable value, albeit a very high one.
|Comment #8 by: Jack Vermicelli on 26 Feb 2010, 16:01 UTC|| reply to this comment|
"Similarly, the gravitomagnetic field can be produced to be a mass moving in a circle."
What kind of English is it where "to be" can ever be used in place of of "by"?
|Comment #9 by: David on 26 Feb 2010, 16:14 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I think the scientists are looking at this from the wrong angle. First off the mass of the object does not change due to spinning. Second gravity isn't real. It is just an effect of bending the fabric of spacetime. That being said, the gravitomagnetic field that they are measuring is most likely an electromagnetic field. The reason why it is so much larger is because of the effect of the spinning of the superconductive material is causing energy to be derived from the quantum vacuum. Therefore, Einstein was NOT WRONG. They are just seeing quantum effects in the macro world.
|Comment #9.1 by: Hrash on 23 Apr 2010, 10:51 GMT|
That's probably it. As we all know, the one major drawback to Relativity is its incompatibility with Quantum Theory (which is why we have string theory.)
I'd love to see what the string theorists have to say about this.
|Comment #10 by: Matt M on 26 Feb 2010, 17:19 UTC|| reply to this comment|
yes except it could never reach C, no mass can* but it could get really close and its mass would begin to approach infinity. it would be very heavy...well thats what Einstein said at least
|Comment #11 by: bob longsmith on 26 Feb 2010, 17:33 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Interesting article. If this is true perhaps it could also explain all the "missing matter" in the universe and disprove the existence of dark matter.
|Comment #12 by: Jaakko Mäki on 26 Feb 2010, 17:38 UTC|| reply to this comment|
That's an interesting idea.. Before mass goes to infinity it'd collapse. Wham! you've got a black hole where you want.
Do it somewhere away from earth, like earth-sun lagrange point, feed it random stellar junk and put energy collectors around it.
Oh, the future..
|Comment #13 by: DX on 26 Feb 2010, 17:39 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Do you not know that Einstein and relativity are not the same as quantum theory? I would hazard a guess that if you're referring to Einstein's work as "his quantum theories", you probably didn't understand them in the first place.
|Comment #14 by: Dan on 26 Feb 2010, 17:40 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I flew to the moon in 1847, but forgot to tell anyone until now.
|Comment #15 by: Sean on 26 Feb 2010, 17:44 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Evgeny Podkletnov was conducting research on gravity shielding. In his research he required a similar set up for rotating superconductors, however his funding didn't cover this development, and to my knowledge he never was able to conduct said experiments.
|Comment #16 by: Dan on 26 Feb 2010, 17:46 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I am amazed at how many of you knew all along that there were flaws in reletivity, yet waited until there appears to be evidence supporting your claim before making your position "public" (and by public, I mean anonymous).
|Comment #17 by: Alf Kelly on 26 Feb 2010, 17:51 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I have been saying einstein was wrong for three decades
|Comment #18 by: cwm on 26 Feb 2010, 17:54 UTC|| reply to this comment|
My degree is in physics and I have to say this result is amazing. Gravitomagnetism is nearly analogous to electromagnetism, except for a negative sign, but if you accept that there may be some underlying reason for the extra -1, it otherwise makes perfect sense from a symmetry point of view.
If this is correct and if we can figure out why charge gets an extra -1 multiplier in the del dot E equation where as gravity does not... well.... new science?
This to me is much more interesting than string theory, which still appears to be little more than a mathematicians pipe dream to me. (Of course, I don't think there's any cause to believe multiple universes exist, either, so I guess I'm just a stick in the mud.)
|Comment #18.1 by: Okuno on 10 Jul 2010, 22:03 GMT|
High-five for not believing in a multiverse!
Also, I think I'm going to take this whole article+comments and use it as source material for an essay on how not to be a scientist. Even the sensible sounding people are getting layman-subtle/scientist-obvious stuff wrong...
|Comment #19 by: jon on 26 Feb 2010, 17:54 UTC|| reply to this comment|
"a series of very sensible acceleration sensors"
ahh spellcheck can't save us all the time. Sensible=sensitive
|Comment #20 by: James Smith on 26 Feb 2010, 17:55 UTC|| reply to this comment|
This does not prove the theory wrong. In fact, it proves that it is correct. If there had been no gravitomagnetic field, then the theory would be wrong. Keep in mind, even though the difference seems huge, we are really examining such minute effects that even a tiny error in measuring or calculations would make those changes. When Einstein calculated the effects, he did not have access to the computers and technology available today.
|Comment #20.1 by: yessir on 28 Feb 2010, 16:45 GMT|
Einstein did no calculations based on experiments at all really. He did thought experiments where he literally just thought really really hard and understood the way things worked. When huge experiments were conducted in order to prove his theories (measuring orbit of Mercury, gravitation lensing around the sun, etc) he did not care enough to watch the results at all, claimed he already knew he was right and didnt need the experiments.
|Comment #22 by: Connor on 26 Feb 2010, 17:57 UTC|| reply to this comment|
If you read this article, please do not assume you know anything. More importantly, do not share your crap spelling and display your ignorance of physics on here. We're all dumber for having read your comments.
|Comment #23 by: JFoxwell on 26 Feb 2010, 18:22 UTC|| reply to this comment|
"spin the gravitomagnetic field at the speed of light" - it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any object with mass to the speed of light.
also, what substance are you imagining that could be rotated at such a high speed that the outside edge would approach the speed of light without the material breaking up?
|Comment #24 by: Peter on 26 Feb 2010, 18:24 UTC|| reply to this comment|
There is an old series of similar experiments which I seem to recall feature rotating superconductors. The experiments claimed a lowering of gravity above the rotating discs.
It makes sense that the dissappearing gravity goes somewhere and increases the measured weight of the disc.
Don't think of this as an anti-gravity device though. It is more like supergravity, and using it to accelerate a rocket more would also have the environmental impact of blowing off our atmosphere.
|Comment #25 by: Mw on 26 Feb 2010, 18:26 UTC|| reply to this comment|
This doesn't disprove Einstein's theory of relativity.
|Comment #27 by: fnorgby on 26 Feb 2010, 18:37 UTC|| reply to this comment|
@Paul: Nice one. Icwutyoudidthere. Anyhow, this might be evidence that one part of one body of theory is inaccurate. Saying it "proves einstein wrong" is a bit premature. General relativity has been proven *right* under so many different circumstances and in so many different ways that something like this is more of a "clarification" than a refutation.
Even Bohr's description of how atoms work is still "correct" enough for people to do good science with it.
|Comment #28 by: Craig on 26 Feb 2010, 18:38 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I wrote the same paper too in 1990. Damn.
|Comment #29 by: Ted on 26 Feb 2010, 18:55 UTC|| reply to this comment|
The surprising part of finding a problem in Einstein's work is how consistently his theories were *right* prior to this. Of course he wasn't as accurate as we are today, but the profound impact he had on science (and the validity of so much of his work) is what really makes this discovery something noteworthy.
|Comment #30 by: Antoine on 26 Feb 2010, 19:00 UTC|| reply to this comment|
The theory of relativity is a theory, meaning the best explanation that fits the observable facts. It in backed up by a bundle of experimental evidence. It is more then just one man's idea. This is a very interesting experiment but we will have to use it to formulate a new theory that takes all the other evidence into account before it overthrows relativity. Also does this effect work with non-superconductors? is it perhaps something happening in that material that is amplifying the results? I'm hoping for a new effect that allows us to modify gravity.
|Comment #31 by: D. Thournir on 26 Feb 2010, 19:39 UTC|| reply to this comment|
The first thing that popped into my mind: artificial gravity!
|Comment #32 by: timmeh on 26 Feb 2010, 20:08 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Wasn't this already done when the speed of light was broken in that experiment with the array of radios? Maybe I'm wrong, I'm no expert.. I could be mixing up the special theory with the general theory of relativity for all I know LOL
|Comment #33 by: Claire Hall on 26 Feb 2010, 20:27 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I think that special relativity has difficulty with many aspects of the physical universe, particularly gravity. Lorentzian relativity is just as valid, but has been neglected. You might want to examine:
|Comment #34 by: DB on 26 Feb 2010, 20:35 UTC|| reply to this comment|
|Comment #35 by: DB on 26 Feb 2010, 20:39 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Normally there are two spheres, and a spark jumps between them. Now imagine the spheres are flat surfaces, superconductors, one of them a coil or O-ring. Under specific conditions, applying resonating fields and composite superconducting coatings, we can organize the energy discharge in such a way that it goes through the center of the electrode, accompanied by gravitation phenomena - reflecting gravitational waves that spread through the walls and hit objects on the floors below, knocking them over...The second generation of flying machines will reflect gravity waves and will be small, light, and fast, like UFOs. I have achieved impulse reflection; now the task is to make it work continuously...
|Comment #36 by: Tiny Tim on 26 Feb 2010, 20:50 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Try this out:
series of very sensible acceleration sensors
series of very sensitive acceleration sensors
I think it reads better.
|Comment #37 by: GMNightmare on 26 Feb 2010, 21:16 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I'm sorry, but wtf.
This doesn't prove the theory wrong at all. In fact, I see it only backing it up. Yeah, sure, maybe the value is larger than what was predicted, but that means absolutely nothing. It was a PREDICTION, the prediction was not the theory.
For that matter, "It should be so small that we shouldn't even be capable of measuring it." is BS. Negligible for standard situations. The experiment intentionally tries to break those situations.
Let me give you a more common example, what does every student use to represent gravity in equations? 9.81. Is that exact? No, in fact it even changes depending upon where you are on earth. Is it negligible? Absolutely. The experiment here to me just sounds like putting the problem on Jupiter and wondering why the hell the 9.81 doesn't work for gravity figure.
Besides, 30 or so years ago, it would be darn near impossible to measure it. With increasing technology, smaller and smaller things can be measured, I don't want to hear BS "we shouldn't even be capable of measuring it" every time something like this happens.
|Comment #38 by: Brian on 26 Feb 2010, 21:27 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I am a hobbyist so excuse me if I am isinformed but is the gravitometric field not in theory created by the graviton which we cannot currently prove the existence of? In which case is it not entirely possible that they are not even measuring the proper field?
Personally I would love it if this was true and we were able to explain one of the many anamalies of string theory? Personally I find string theory to be fascinating. I have spoken to Dr. Brian Greene a few times regarding string theory and what I could understand of it.
Certain things in string theory seem to jive with a lot of things I have observed.
|Comment #38.1 by: Hrash on 23 Apr 2010, 10:55 GMT|
You spoke to Brian Greene? Lucky.
|Comment #40 by: Yadi on 26 Feb 2010, 22:01 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Wish more people would take that view towards global climate change and atmospheric science.
|Comment #41 by: mystikphish on 26 Feb 2010, 22:12 UTC|| reply to this comment|
And could this effect be detected in something spinning nearly that fast already, like a black hole? I'd imagine it's already being studied by astronomers in the field.
|Comment #42 by: Lauralee on 26 Feb 2010, 22:57 UTC|| reply to this comment|
@#6 You are kidding, right? If not, then the "theory vs. fact" argument you raise is specious and misinformed.
Relativity is both a fact and a theory. The facts are that many, many measurements have confirmed the predictions of the theory to an astonishing degree. The theory aspect leaves open the possibility of future revision to our understanding of how the facts relate. The theory may change, but the facts remain. That you consider a fact to be hierarchically related to a theory is the illuminating element of your misinformed opinion. That you flaunt it as dogma makes it specious. The only "dogma" associated with relativity is that which extends from a vast body of evidence that proves we can indeed trust the theory to predict a great many phenomena.
|Comment #43 by: CR on 26 Feb 2010, 22:58 UTC|| reply to this comment|
This supposedly simple experiment has not been independently verified in the four years since the discovery. That suggests they did something wrong.
|Comment #44 by: Thor on 26 Feb 2010, 23:23 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Is anyone here willing to admit that they would never have any kind of alternate theory were it not for Einstein and his contemporaries. They showed us the new world. You think you could have found a better continent. Relativity has worked to educate you past your understanding. Guess what? I have often disagreed with Einstein on his choice for lunch.
|Comment #44.1 by: gravity guru on 13 Feb 2012, 04:56 GMT|
Thor that line you used "they were educated beyond their understanding" is the line I've wished i had when talking to lettered sheep. thank you. If the need arises to use it I'll be sure to give you the credit. Ron G.
|Comment #46 by: Falcon40 on 26 Feb 2010, 23:56 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Taking this one step further, much has been written and said about the Higg's Boson and how subatomic particles obtain their mass. Isn't it just possible that vibrating is a subset of spinning and that subatomic particles obtain their mass through vibration. If so, this would neatly eliminate the need for the Higg's field and its theoretical particle and fit nicely into any revised TOE...
|Comment #46.1 by: Jeff Buck on 13 Aug 2010, 08:46 GMT|
I was combing through these comments with a hunch that I would stumble across an idea simple and pure enough to make sense to an interested amateur with a very primitive working knowledge of the theory of everything. I do not speak the language of the universe well, so I go on intuition...(laughable to most here, unfortunately). Anyway, considering the fact that vibration observably creates phenomena in the classical world, (plucking a guitar string) why should it not create phenomena in the quantum field or in alternate and perhaps more fundamental dimensions? Moreover, what is it about vibration that makes it so...lively? I would love and greatly appreciate a response from anyone...save the cynics and sarcasmos. Yes, I just created a word. Well said, Falcon. Are you a Maltesian?
|Comment #48 by: Agustín on 27 Feb 2010, 04:37 UTC|| reply to this comment|
What happens when a scientific paradigm is breaken (sorry for my english)?
I think that, since science is a relative "new" discipline in human culture, there are not many cases of this "scietific paradigm break" in history. Flogisto comes to my mind, or the heliocentrical theories. But this could be even bigger. And more: what do you think about this "rather palpable" affair between cience and religius concepts that have been recently arising, with quantum theory most recent findings?
Thank god we have the chance to live in this historic times .
Un abrazo desde Argentina.
|Comment #49 by: david on 27 Feb 2010, 14:01 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I have a hard time believing you, becaues you misspelled agency
|Comment #49.1 by: Jeff Buck on 13 Aug 2010, 08:53 GMT|
I have a hard time believing you, because you misspelled because. You're obviously inquisitive enough, so why not try to add some thoughtfulness to the discourse? Why comment at all if it is just derisive, ingorant sarcasm? Maybe you would have something very profound to add! Maybe not, though.
|Comment #50 by: Com on 27 Feb 2010, 17:24 UTC|| reply to this comment|
@jfoxwell, comment #23
It's a thought experiment, counterfactual reasoning, a well established and effective way to do science. Einstein himself tried to imagine what it would be like to travel alongside a photon.
|Comment #51 by: Danni on 28 Feb 2010, 05:04 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I thought that too, I thought this proved him right, wrong only by underestimation... is that incorrect?
|Comment #52 by: Redbeard on 28 Feb 2010, 05:33 UTC|| reply to this comment|
ok you REALLY need to edit this and check spelling/grammar or at the VERY least have a native English speaker proofread this and repost it. Otherwise it's interesting.
|Comment #53 by: rjv on 28 Feb 2010, 05:49 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I would take this more seriously if you didn't have a typo in the 3rd paragraph.
|Comment #54 by: Adam on 28 Feb 2010, 14:25 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Paul you are a retard. If you want to swallow simplistic Creationist propaganda hook, line and sinker that's your perogative but please don't take it upon yourself to spread "the word" to the grown-up world. We're all busy doing adult things like thinking for ourselves.
|Comment #55 by: nutflipped on 28 Feb 2010, 14:49 UTC|| reply to this comment|
DEATH TO ZIONIST DOGMA AND ITS PREACHERS LIKE EINSTEIN! ARYAN SCIENTISTS WERE RIGHT! This experiment will not be reported by the mainstream Zionist media!
|Comment #56 by: Tim on 28 Feb 2010, 23:50 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Could this explain the gravitational effect in galaxies formerly attributed to dark matter?
|Comment #57 by: roga on 01 Mar 2010, 09:20 UTC|| reply to this comment|
this came out in 2006. why are there no comments until june 2009? and if this came out in 2006 what developments have occured since then?
|Comment #58 by: Aeromondo on 01 Mar 2010, 23:54 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Does this not eliminate the need for 'dark matter' to account for the motions of the cosmos now? Does not the spinning of galaxies, planets and stars make them heavier?
|Comment #59 by: amruteswar on 02 Mar 2010, 06:28 UTC|| reply to this comment|
It reminds me of a famous einstien's quote that i read during my school:
"There are a million experiments that can prove me right ,but there is only one experiment that can prove me wrong "
I think that experiment is just around the corner.
|Comment #59.1 by: curlyfries on 05 Mar 2010, 21:54 GMT|
Funny how none of this research has yet to be published in a journal (and no, conference proceedings don't count - I don't count mine).
And before anyone rattles on about the cult of Einstein and how this guy is a genius and nobody wants to change their theories, etc: No, sorry. When physics needs to be worked on, and things turn out to be wrong are the most exciting and best times to raise money for physics. Every physicist wants that, but it's up to reality, not us and until others replicate this work or it obtains a shred of believability that won't happen.
|Comment #60 by: Dr_Zinj on 10 Mar 2010, 19:39 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Any theory is a fact if it meets or accurately describes the phenomena.
And it's possible to have two (or more) different theories that apply equally well to the target phenomena.
2+4 = 6 = 1+5 = 6 = 3+3
The science is in finding the one that fits best.
|Comment #60.1 by: Gravity guru on 13 Feb 2012, 06:22 GMT|
Dr_Zinj, Why can't all physics be as clear as you? You made the idea of a Theory very simple. I have a theory that explains what causes gravity and seven other phenomenons of physics as well. Yet when I try to put it out on a physics or science site it never has been shown. In point of fact I was bared from Physics Forum forever for explaining the theory to them. I've received the same treatment from other sites for my theory about what determines the spin direction of cyclonic storms in the different hemispheres and i show them where i got my theory facts. The facts i use have been taught in this country nay in the world, as true, for well over a hundred years. yet I've been silenced not refuted. Is there an avenue i can take to have my theories reviewed by unbiased competent individuals? I live in central Florida. Any help would be a big help. thank you, Ron G.
|Comment #61 by: donkey on 11 Mar 2010, 11:05 UTC|| reply to this comment|
This is NOT the first experiment that shows a fault/problem with Einstein's theories. Check out Prof Cahill at Flinders University:
|Comment #62 by: donkey on 11 Mar 2010, 11:07 UTC|| reply to this comment|
And there is this guy as well:
|Comment #63 by: Stephen Harris on 24 Apr 2010, 16:09 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Theories are not facts or they would not be called theories, from either a layman or a academic perspective. Experiments may lend support that a theory is correct, but do not prove a theory correct. When experiments confirm a theory it means they agree with the theory, not that the theory is now known to be true, that sense of confirm is not meant. While an experiment and its result is a fact, that doesn't mean that the experiment "truly" supports a theory, even if it seems that way. Experimental results have been invalidated 50 years later because nobody at the time of the experiment realized that there was a flaw in the design of the experiment. There is a difference between an hypothesis and a theory but that difference doesn't amount to overcoming the *fact* that a theory is never proven (then it is no longer a theory) and this is just a matter of definition which is a matter of fact.
|Comment #64 by: Brendon King on 12 May 2010, 11:42 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Hi I have been investigating many theories. There is a physicist by the name of Nassim Haramein who's unified theory may answer this question. He is lead physicist for a project called the resonance project.
|Comment #65 by: Mars on 14 May 2010, 07:09 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Well it proves this.. Einstein may not have always been right, but he was never wrong. I am a physics nut who has been spinning magnets for a very long time. I have spun superconductors, t1 and t2, saved 1000 bucks for nitro tanks on a budget, and done things that sane folks still accuse me for. If anyone cares to email me ill explain a new way to think about a few things that you big timers have never been able to wrap your tiny noodle around. Us Arkansas basement Telsa coil freaks, may know a tad bit more than you think.
try this one day if you want to even test the simplest over unity items related to this, take you two small ring magnets put them on the table on their dime edge, close enough for the fields to interact, spin one, what does the other one do?
Most of you are so far behind on really doing things that you cant describe what is really going on because you have not did the physical work to open others eyes.
I would say i know more about ring magnets than most of you.
if you did the puny experiment you found out that the second magnet spun in time with the first. if you made the main magnet very large lets say for dummies, basketball size, spun it at only say about 700 rpm on its dime edge you would find that for about 10 foot out in all directions you could make 100's of 10 inch rings spin in time. Mount them on old 60 dodge gens and put them in series you make .. much more Et than it takes to spin the main magnet. I even have a entire shop space that is totally powered by spinning magnets, so much more needs to be done with magnets than what you learned in the third grade my dear pundits. I have hundreds of finds that cannot be explained, why is this so hard to understand that we are viral moss in the grand scope of things known.
I should come to your house and spin all your fridge magnets if you think the math alone will show you all the real... effects.
|Comment #65.1 by: Gravity guru on 13 Feb 2012, 06:46 GMT|
Mars i fully agree with you and any coil winder can't be all wrong. I wonder if you have ever thought that if General Relativity's curved space is correct how does it explain the moon not rotating. The moon should act like a marble sloshed around in a bowl. The marble does spin in that curved space. I hope you enjoy this bit of thought. Ron G.
|Comment #66 by: mb on 20 May 2010, 23:25 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Very cool. Fascinating article and experiment.
I am just an engineer in the aerospace field. Not too interested in most things this scientific but getting there. However, not thrilled about mingling with the kind of people in this blog. Very vitriolic and womanish.
So you susans above stop bitching and appreciate the work. Drop the skirt and grow some balls.
|Comment #67 by: navaneeth... on 23 May 2010, 15:02 UTC|| reply to this comment|
i'm a btech student... in india.... it may seem that i'm a fool... but i can prove that special theory of relativity is wrong... i can explain what went wrong in the twin paradox...
|Comment #68 by: monche on 06 Jun 2010, 10:47 UTC|| reply to this comment|
The problem with today’s scientist is that they expend so much money assuming the theory of relativity is 100% correct, and they deny it could be wrong. Of curse is just an approximation to reality, a new model has to be adopted. We must open our minds to new theories and apply the forgotten scientific methods.
|Comment #68.1 by: bipul on 31 Oct 2010, 14:53 GMT|
i totally agree with you guys.I also think general theory wrong. that idiot genius guy didn't think how his theory works on antartica
|Comment #68.2 by: ali on 12 Feb 2011, 15:16 GMT|
Through discovering the relation between matter and space-time, I have
demonstrated that there is only one theory of relativity which explains geometry of space-time, motion and fundamental interaction as the result of vortex field. Therefore, one can conclude that dividing the theory of relativity into special and general theories is the result of poor understanding of Lorentz transformation and covariant electrdynamics.
Importantly, it is seen that the mechanisms behind gravitational and electrodynamic interactions are the same. This is nothing but the unification of fundamental forces based on the vortex theory of interaction. This is consistent with the fact that there is a symmetry in nature.
Therefore, the theory of general relativity cannot be a correct theory of gravity. General relativity actually creates new inconsistent problems instead of solving the problem of gravity. It is well known that when a theory is inconsistent, it creates new paradoxes.
|Comment #69 by: whiz kid on 12 Jun 2011, 04:23 UTC|| reply to this comment|
the general theory is wrong it does not go according to the framework of the universe it sounds like a fairy tale story the theory just makes things even more complicated and does not go in accordance to quantum physics .
|Comment #70 by: HERMAN on 04 Jul 2011, 20:17 UTC|| reply to this comment|
In this life there are two things that you pay NO attention to:
1. Anything a secondhand car salesman says.
2. Anything a scientist says or said, including Einstein.
These fantastic individuals can prove that something is "one hundred million trillion" times stronger than something else. No problem, and dead accurate too! It's like "excuse me Herman, we have established that your heartbeat is one hundred million trillion times faster than it should be. We suggest you see a doctor".It gives me great pleasure to know that certain things and events no human being will EVER be able to explain, least of all the scientists.
|Comment #71 by: paladikal on 24 Sep 2011, 13:21 UTC|| reply to this comment|
old hat. The Theory of Relativity is bogus. It was a scam right from the start as proved very early on. Now however particles have been observed traveling faster than light. That's it. End of theory
|Comment #71.1 by: Professor Popkiss on 29 Oct 2011, 01:39 GMT|
By its very definition travelling faster than light would make it invisible, so only its 'effect' would be visible. I'm talking in terms that a layman can understand simply because there doesn't appear to be any real scientists here. For example if you take a theory and promote it long enough and loud enough, as anyone will tell you, it will accepted as fact and as for string theory, I was discussing its basics back in '77 yes that's 1977 when discussing how quantum mechanics couldn't account on the sub-atomic level for some of the more observable anomalies that kept cropping up in the thermodynamic models for certain super-conductors
|Comment #71.2 by: physics.nerd on 31 Oct 2011, 00:31 GMT|
Are you talking about the neutrinos? That is likely a technical error due to the different speeds in the respective times of the experiment as proved by general relativity. I dont know what you mean by "scam," but i can tell that you clearly aren't very bright.
|Comment #72 by: physics.nerd on 31 Oct 2011, 00:28 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Further research by Tajmar explains the anomaly as being induced in the gyroscope through the prescense of liquid helium in the experiment.
|Comment #73 by: Quantumdude on 01 Nov 2011, 01:48 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Incomplete understanding of the meaning of the similarity of the gravitomagnetic formulas, above, and Maxwell's equations for (real) electricity and magnetism have given rise to fringe physics. Use of the gravitomagnetic analogy for a simplified form of the Einstein field equations, on the other hand, is firmly part of General Relativity. It is an approximation to the current standard theory of gravitation, and has testable predictions, which are in the final stages of being directly tested by the Gravity Probe B experiment. Despite the use of the word magnetism in gravitomagnetism, and despite the similarity of the GEM force laws to the (real) electromagnetic force law, gravitomagnetism should not be confused with any of the following:
* Claims to have constructed anti-gravity devices;
* Eugene Podkletnov's claims to have constructed gravity-shielding devices and gravitational reflection beams.
* Any proposal to produce gravitation using electrical circuits.
Though it should be noted that the similarity of gravitomagnetic force laws to electromagnetic force laws offers some evidence of similar or shared foundational mechanisms. See also Kaluza-Klein theory and Heim theory.
|Comment #74 by: kkris1 on 01 Nov 2011, 10:41 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Well, it can be explained by different theory of gravity. If we consider that gravity is caused by external energy weakly interacting with matter and creating the "push" rather than a pull, the amount of energy "intercepted" by spinning wheel should be bigger than stationary one (same as driving through the rain; the faster you go, the bigger the number of the raindrops will be hitting your windscreen). Also the gravity directly under the spinning wheel should be smaller since some of the incident energy would be absorbed by the wheel.
|Comment #75 by: Angiel on 22 Jun 2012, 00:18 UTC|| reply to this comment|
The argument itself about relativity is right or wrong is not scientific.
No scientific theory can ever be proven right. To do that, we would have to exhaustively test the theory everywhere at all times in the entire universe, especially in times and places that are extremely far away and different from where we are, which is impossible. The best we can do is to know that a theory works well under the circumstances that we are able to test it. Classical physics had been believed to be proven right until we were able to test it under far higher speed than before.
On the other hand, no theory that has been well tested in many circumstances and over long period of time can ever be wrong. It may be imperfect or incomplete, but not wrong. Classical physics is still the foundation of modern technology and hence modern life. Without it, we would not have automobiles, airplanes, and skyscrapers as we have today. It is highly accurate. We can fairly conclude modern physics applies broader and more accurately than classical physics. But we cannot conclude either is right or wrong.
From ancient philosophy to classical physics to modern physics, our knowledge and understanding of the universe continue to improve, sometimes slow, sometimes fast, sometimes abruptly. As such improvements are made, we humans tend to say the older theory is wrong and the new one is right – until the next improvement comes along. This has occurred repeatedly in history and we should learn something from it. Have we learned and understood everything about the universe? Obviously not. Then obviously no theory is perfect. Yes, we know relativity does not apply to the very small when quantum mechanics must be used. (Some may argue about other circumstances.) But such limitations in applicability are by no means proof that the theory is wrong. On the other hand, it is unscientific to insist that it is a perfect, final theory that mankind can never improve upon. If that were the case, Einstein wouldn’t have spent decades of his life trying to come up with a better theory, which he called the Unified Field Theory, though unsuccessfully.
The discussion on relativity is right or wrong is largely honest discussion under the lack of understanding of the philosophy of science as described above. But at times it is also driven by religion, racism, nationalism, pride, hatred, etc., all of which are divisive but none of which is scientific. It is time to drop all that and look at science – scientifically. We can honestly discuss the merit or range of applicability of the theory but should stop arguing the person is right or wrong, which is even more far fetched than arguing the theory is right or wrong. We should embrace the work of science as one that belong to the entire humankind and disregard race, religion, gender, nationality, or any other factors that divide us.
If no scientific theory can be absolutely correct and our knowledge and understanding of the universe continue to improve, then is it about time to that we make another step of improvement? Take a look at this short video at http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/angiel/the-constitution-of-the-universe.
|Comment #75.1 by: playloud on 18 Nov 2012, 15:08 GMT|
Is it possible that relativity theory works the same for the quantum world as it does everywhere else if it could be viewed from the quantum perspective?
|Comment #76 by: phillis on 13 Sep 2012, 23:38 UTC|| reply to this comment|
i think that the theory of being wrong isnt always the right way but thats only me
|Comment #77 by: phillis on 13 Sep 2012, 23:40 UTC|| reply to this comment|
i am not a scientist leave that up to them tell me what you think
Copyright © 2001-2013 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at