If the sign of a successful scientific theory is that you get more out of it than you put in, then the most successful of all must be Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Starting from a few simple principles and earthy thought experiments, such as what would happen if you got stuck in a falling elevator, general relativity predicts everything we know about gravity and much we never suspected. In the latest example, John Swain of Northeastern University suggests that it might be possible to build a gravitational transformer that transfers kinetic energy just as an electrical transformer transfers electrical energy.
The idea is based on the uncanny resemblance between the equations of general relativity and those of electricity and magnetism. The gravitational attraction that makes apples fall is analogous to an electric field, with mass playing the role of electric charge. And just as the motion of electric charges gives rise to a magnetic field, so the motion of mass gives rise to a “gravitomagnetic” field. Earth’s spin, for instance, tugs on satellites in an effect known as frame dragging.
A steady flow of mass is analogous to DC electric power; an unsteady flow, to AC power. If you juxtapose two wires carrying AC power, the current in one creates an oscillating magnetic field that in turn generates, or “induces,” current in the other wire, thereby transferring power—voilà, a transformer. So why shouldn’t the same work for mass flows? Gravitomagnetism could then convey power from one flow to a nearby one.
Physicist and futurist Robert L. Forward made an offhand remark about this possibility in a 1961 paper, and Swain proposes that the process occurs naturally during, for example, the formation of black holes. Scientists might even pull it off in the lab. “There are lots of situations where one would expect these transformerlike effects,” Swain says.
Any time someone talks about manipulating gravity in the lab, though, it blows some physicists’ fuses. Claims even by the most reputable of researchers have fizzled [see “A Philosopher’s Stone,” by George Musser; News Scan, Scientific American, June 2002]. Swain’s idea strikes relativity experts as vague and probably unobservable. “I notice that Swain never puts in actual numbers to calculate the size of anything,” says Clifford M. Will of Washington University in St. Louis.
The analogy between gravitation and electromagnetism is only approximate, adds Giovanni Modanese of the University of Bolzano in Italy. Theorists have yet to prove that gravitomagnetism can induce currents; if anything, he suspects it can’t. But it is remarkable that a century-old theory still remains a topic of such lively debate.
This article was originally published with the title Going with the Flow.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentThe article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The idea is based on the uncanny resemblance between the equations of general relativity and those of electricity and magnetism. The gravitational attraction that makes apples fall is analogous to an electric field, with mass playing the role of electric charge."
However, there is no detectable flow of gravitons between objects of mass that mediate an 'attractive force'.
The kinetic energy that produces the effects of gravitation instead seem to be contracted from spacetime by the potential energy of mass, as if spacetime contained or consisted of dispersed kinetic energy.
While an external field of kinetic energy contracted by an aggregation of mass might exhibit many of the characteristics of electromagnetism, that would presume the existence of a mediating particle of matter such as the Higgs boson...
"If you juxtapose two wires carrying AC power, the current in one creates an oscillating magnetic field that in turn generates, or “induces,” current in the other wire, thereby transferring power—voilà, a transformer. So why shouldn’t the same work for mass flows? " Isn't this what happens every time NASA uses the 'slingshot' effect, sending a spacecraft close around the sun or other large planetary body as primary to pickup speed before hurling out on a long elliptical path to some distant planet like neptune or pluto(yeah, I know it's no longer a planet)? Where does the extra energy come from for this maneuver if not the gravitation of the primary? What am I missing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, in the electromagnetic case there is a detectable flow of electrons whereas a gravitational field produces no detectable flow of hypothesized 'gravitons'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only measurable effect of gravitation is the mediation of kinetic energy, imparting velocity to matter, apparently an external manifestation of the potential energy of mass.
As far as I know there is already a system producing energy by tapping into garvitational field and it is already patented by philips.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a very good point. The 'slingshot' effect simply uses gravity to transfer kinetic energy from the planet to the spacecraft. It's perfectly analogous to a transformer. When you put it that way, it doesn't sound like this so exciting at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMO there is no transformation of energy that occurs; the gravitational effect _is_ the kinetic energy imparted to all matter within its enveloping spatial field. Interestingly, the planet loses no potential energy or mass; the additional energy is imparted to the spacecraft by the external field of spatial kinetic energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think its more interesting to note that the incremental velocity imparted to the spacecraft is directed towards the center of (the effectively spherically symmetrical distribution of) planetary mass which, in conjunction with its preexisting independently directed linear velocity, alters the trajectory or directional momentum of the spacecraft.
There is the possibility that "gravity" is, in fact, the fourth dimension that is the intermediate form of time and space between electromagnetic energy forms and matter!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThus, the nucleus (protons and neutrons) within an atom have electrons tangentially to the same(electron magnetic forms of energy) that, in fact, represent a gradual wave form from electromagnetic forms of energy to mass (proton and neutron).
Why all the difficult solutions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not a real transformer but a Capacitance Changer.
Gravity Control is aquired by the Flying Saucer.
I discovered the system in 1967 and after it was patented offered it to Nasa to be used on the Shuttles.
These big spheres under a Flying Saucer are the propulsion Units. They work on the (supposedly impossible problem ) problem tat Faraday proposed:
The two concentric metal spheres that do not touch and form a capacitor C. That capacitor is charged to a potential V. Then the outside sphere is removed.
The remaining sphere is now a One Terminal Capacitor with a capacity of c. The potential on that sphere is momentarily C/c x V.
Inside the spheres of a Flying Saucer there are some parts that can mimic the process.
It is also part of the tapping of energy out of the aether like a Flying Saucer does.
No, Nasa will not be using the system after some people botched an experiment and got the setting of an E-Bomb instead of that one for Gravity Control and Propulsion.
Tesla used that energy system for his Pierce Arrrow car in 1931.
Too advanced for the USA. Maybe Russia, India or China will take over as Space Leader.
For gravital attraction and repulsion technology, please see "Casimir Effect".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGravitomagnetism? A gravitational transformer? This is obviously the wild idea of a theoretical physicist. Not an engineer. Electrical transformers are used to increase or decrease the voltage of electricity running in a conductor. The analogue of voltage in mass flows is the pressure of a fluid running in a pipe. The analogue of electric transformer in mass flows is a pump. A "gravitational transformer" is just a pump.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBtw, engineers are already converting gravity to kinetic energy to electrical energy. It's called a hydroelectric power plant.
A German short-lived magazine claimed their air forces developed by the end of WWII an airship driven by "electromagnetic turbines", that used Helium. Helium is not a combustible, as it's an inert gas, but can be used as cooling mean, specially in an extremely cold, superconductivity environment. Some UFO related movies link those things with noises, close to the ones of electric transformers or MRI, an theorists of physics predict a gravity wave will sound like a rumble. If the 1961 concept is the origin of these fantastic ideas or just an independently conceived analog, is hard to find. The work of a professional writer involves much more research and cross-linking than thought
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishaven't read the mag article yet but looking forward to it....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer(#6).. the only thing I would add is that the body passing the kinetic energy to the spacecraft, loses that amount of kinetic energy.....
gesimesk(#9)...thanks for the post...very interesting....
@jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think you understand what kinetic and potential energy are...
With electromagnetism you have both attractive and repulsive forces. With gravity you do not, unless antigravity characterises antimatter, an idea which has yet to be demonstrated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this