New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Going with the Flow: Can the Similarity between Gravitation and Electromagnetism Be Exploited?

Could electrical transformers have a gravitational analogue?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

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.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


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.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe