Timeline for Strong gravitational force induced by static electromagnetic fields?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 10, 2022 at 5:59 | vote | accept | John Eastmond | ||
| Aug 10, 2022 at 5:59 | |||||
| Aug 9, 2022 at 7:35 | answer | added | A.V.S. | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 12:10 | comment | added | John Eastmond | If you could cause a capacitor to levitate by charging it to 6 MV then you could discharge it and make it do work as it fell under the Earth’s gravity. By repeating wouldn’t you have a source of free energy? | |
| Aug 4, 2022 at 20:55 | comment | added | Andrew | @JerrySchirmer Yes, but what's computed here is a 4-force, which presumably is meant to appear on the right hand side of the geodesic equation. If they were using a non-affine parameter then the geodesic equation would have extra terms which could cancel the "force". Anyway that's just an example of the kind of thing that could be going on. To be very clear I haven't worked through the details. I just know I have seen many surprising claims about gravity of the form "there's an unusually large term which doesn't appear in other calculations" boil down to a mistake involving gauge invariance. | |
| Aug 4, 2022 at 20:41 | comment | added | Yukterez | Charge does produce gravitational repulsion, see the Reissner Nordström Repulsion but that Repulsion falls off faster than 1/r², so it is only gravitationally repulsive to neutral particles at close range, see physics.stackexchange.com/questions/718176/… | |
| Aug 4, 2022 at 20:27 | comment | added | Zo the Relativist | @Andrew: but an acceleration is a measurable quantity, right? I agree that there is almost certainly some smoke or mirrors or slight of hand going on here, though. | |
| Aug 4, 2022 at 20:16 | comment | added | Andrew | This is pure, irresponsible speculation -- I haven't read the paper or worked through the details. But, as an off-the-cuff first impression, "an unusually large first order term that is bigger than the leading second order term you see in ordinary perturbation theory" sounds a lot like an unphysical gauge artifact. In other words, if it turned out that the first order term was an artifact of a particular choice of coordinates and ends up canceling out when you compute an observable quantity, I would not be surprised. | |
| Aug 4, 2022 at 20:07 | history | edited | John Eastmond | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 76 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2022 at 17:34 | comment | added | Arturo don Juan | @StephenG-HelpUkraine in this case the author seems to have been decently known in his field, as is the institute he was from. As for papers which have cited this 2004 preprint, only one of them seems to be legit - but the author (Victor Varela) just briefly mentions that it's an "interesting physical and mathematical aspects of Majumdar-type solutions.". Sometimes this kind of thing happens with well-known theoretical researchers, where they put a small paper up on the arxiv that somehow never makes it to a journal, and yet years later everyone knows about it. | |
| Aug 4, 2022 at 14:31 | comment | added | StephenG - Help Ukraine | There is a Physics SE policy that we don't generally review individual papers and I think in the case of an unpublished one (arxiv is not "published" in this sense) this would be more likely rather than less. I would say offhand that the apparent lack of publication and experiment in 18 years is problematic, but the material is not something I would be competent to comment on in detail anyway. | |
| Aug 4, 2022 at 11:41 | history | edited | John Eastmond | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 43 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2022 at 11:35 | comment | added | John Eastmond | Ok - I've done that. | |
| Aug 4, 2022 at 11:34 | history | edited | John Eastmond | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2022 at 11:32 | comment | added | Noone | Please use hyperlinks for the abstract and not for the PDF file. | |
| Aug 4, 2022 at 11:29 | history | asked | John Eastmond | CC BY-SA 4.0 |