A New Spin On Physical Phenomena 249
f00Dave writes "Researchers have discovered "a new physical phenomenon, electrostatic rotation, that, in the absence of friction, leads to spin". I'm a bit skeptical about the implied relationship between physical "spin" (as in rotation) and quantum "spin", however. Still, this is the sort of scientific advance that renews my faith in the system. Go nerds! =]"
already done? (Score:5, Funny)
I never could get that working. My damn cat always ate the toast.. the fat bastard.
Re:already done? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:already done? (Score:2)
Obligatory Simpsons Reference (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Obligatory Simpsons Reference (Score:2)
"Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Output? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Output? (Score:3, Interesting)
Jasom
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
You forget... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You forget... (Score:2)
So installing Linux on the XBOX is an exercise in Science?
Re:Output? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Output? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Output? (Score:5, Interesting)
You have to understand that article was first translated from scientific talk to reporting talk, and now it's being translated back to /. nerd talk... (which isn't scientific talk btw).
An example is how they first found the value of the constant of gravity. They put two humoungous iron balls near eachother, and noted the very tiny torque they induced just by being near each other.
The fact that the observed effects were tiny doesn't mean they don't exist.
Re:Output? (Score:2)
Re:Output? (Score:2)
Re:Output? (Score:2)
Re:Output? (Score:2)
I don't see why gravity would be inducing angular acceleration.
Well, if they're suspended from arms attached to the same axis, the force will be manifested as torque.
Re:Output? (Score:2)
No. Torque is the angular version of force. Angular acceleration is the angular version of acceleration.
TTFN
Sponataneous Spinning? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sponataneous Spinning? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sponataneous Spinning? (Score:2)
article directly linked contained nothing which would allow
you to rigorously infer whether the effect observed was
a newly observed consequence of the laws of Gauss and Faraday,
or something contradictory to the implications of QED as
it is currently formulated.
You can not determine from the article under what circumstances
the angular accelleration occurs. You can not determine whether
it is linear, logarithmic, exponential, hyperbolic, or parabolic.
You cann
Re:Sponataneous Spinning? (Score:5, Funny)
It said the experiment taps the unlimited potential energy source of those who have the ability to post within seconds of a headline appearing without actually reading the article.
By their estimates, this should be enough to power mankind for the foreseeable future.
Re:Sponataneous Spinning? (Score:2)
Re:Sponataneous Spinning? (Score:3, Informative)
a) it spins until the tension in the wire counters the rotational force, and
b) the energy comes from the DC voltage they applied to the setup.
Right... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Right... (Score:3, Funny)
No more friction? (Score:4, Insightful)
At last my dream of building a perpetual motion machine can be realized. Take that thermodynamics!
ObSimpsons (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ObSimpsons (Score:3, Informative)
That night, in bed...
Marge: I'm worried about the kids, Homey. Lisa's becoming very obsessive. This morning I caught her trying to dissect her own raincoat.
Homer: [scoffs] I know. And this perpetual motion machine she made today is a joke! It just keeps going faster and faster.
Marge: And Bart isn't doing very well either. He needs boundaries and structure. There's something about flying a kite at night that's so
Equipment used (Score:5, Funny)
This gives me renewed hope for my latest project, a hyperdrive engine built of old Spaghetti-Os cans and dental floss.
Re:Equipment used (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Equipment used (Score:2, Funny)
Let me know how that goes for you. I gave up after my dental floss repeatedly broke when the ship started to approach relativistic speeds.
Re:Equipment used (Score:2)
Re:Equipment used (Score:2)
Well the paper refers to spheres that mass 780g with a 270mm diameter ....... time to buy that steel xmas tree ....
Cool, but what is the practical application? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cool, but what is the practical application? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe that's the cool thing about scientific curiosity - the things you discover don't have to have commercial value in order to be discovered.
Consider this: when it was determined that a current flowing in a wire produces a magnetic field, or when Faraday discovered that moving a magnet near a wire or coil of wire can produce a voltage, I'm sure a lot of people said, "but seriously, what would this be used for?" And they probably said the same thing about countless other things that were discovered in situations where the effect was so small that they had no apparent use.
Of course now we look back and say, "what a dumb question! How could they now know these things could be useful?" And maybe 200 years from now somebody will look at this archived announcement on Slashdot and say the same.
Then again, maybe this will turn out to be a misinterpretation of the experimental observation. Time will tell...
Re:Cool, but what is the practical application? (Score:2)
Re:Cool, but what is the practical application? (Score:5, Funny)
William Gladstone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was invited to witness a demonstration of Faraday's electrical equipment. Gladstone asked, "This is quite interesting, Faraday, but of what practical worth is it?" Faraday replied, "One day, sir, you may tax it."
Re:Cool, but what is the practical application? (Score:2)
I can think of some (Score:2)
So if you can get electrostatic spin, then there may be some interesting applications towards electric/mechanical energy force mechanism.
My problem is that I can't see how electrostatic spin is different from magnetism.
Oh well, it isn't important: it's their invention, not mine.
Re:Cool, but what is the practical application? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cool, but what is the practical application? (Score:2)
Well it brings us closer than we were before to a full and correct understanding of the universe we live in.
Isnt that enough?
Re:Cool, but what is the practical application? (Score:2)
Re:Cool, but what is the practical application? (Score:2)
Renewed faith? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a bit skeptical about the implied relationship between physical "spin" (as in rotation) and quantum "spin", however. Still, this is the sort of scientific advance that renews my faith in the system.
What system are we talking about? Why does faith need to be renewed in it? What, have you lost faith in physics because it doesn't discover new laws every day?
Re:Renewed faith? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Renewed faith? (Score:4, Interesting)
Even so, one needs to keep perspective. At risk of sounding religous: if that sort of thing makes one "lose one's faith" in "the system", then that faith can't have been very strong to begin with. Meaning, if you really understand the scientific method, then you'd realise that over time it WILL expose the fakes, and we can actually be quite relaxed and confident about that. The system itself is sound: the only thing we should worry about is society giving up this system in favour of another. To quote Carl Sagan: "At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." ... "At the same time, science requires the most vigorous and uncompromising skepticism, because the vast majority of ideas are simply wrong, and the only way to winnow the wheat from the chaff is by critical experiment and analysis.".
This essay by Jearl Walker [haxial.com] is an interesting and insightful read that relates this notion of "faith" in physics (read right up to the end).
Re:Renewed faith? (Score:2)
Re:Renewed faith? (Score:2)
I suspect this is one of the regular release articles, just like nVidia being forced to put out new versions of cards every 6 months no matter what the developments. To keep funds secured, scientists have to do these things, on regular intervals produce press reports about things they SUSPECT might be revolutionary, followed by possible applications in medical, milit
Re:Renewed faith? (Score:2)
Once they have professed "faith in the system", there's
precious little hope for critical thought.
Re:Renewed faith? (Score:2)
Re:Renewed faith? (Score:2)
behaves a little differently to classical spin,
but its the same stuff.
Why only frictionless? (Score:3, Informative)
In any case, we're talking about building a perpetual motion machine here and throwing the first law of thermodymics out the window. This makes the cold fusion claims sound pretty tame. At least they said where they were getting their energy, here it seems to come from nowhere.
Jasom
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:Why only frictionless? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yup, thats what they said.
Why won't this phenomenon cancel out at equilibrium amount of friction and keep the object spinning at constant angular momentum forever?
They didn't say it wouldn't. Presumably that is what would happen.
I[t] should also accelerate an object with a small amount of friction but at a slower rate than a frictionless object.
Yup. In their experiment the wire supporting the sphere was applying a counter-torque, it was just small enough that the new force was able to overcome it. By calculating the amount of torque generated by the wire after the number of revolutions made by the ball, they would have the static force generated.
In any case, we're talking about building a perpetual motion machine here and throwing the first law of thermodymics out the window.
Not likely. The kenetic energy of the rotation is probably balanced by a reduction in the net charge on the object. What they've got is basicly a really, really weak electric motor. A charged object in free fall would probably increase its angular momentum until it didn't have any charge left (then gravitational effects would probably eventually bleed all that energy back off again).
What I wonder is if its reversable, so rotation can be converted into a charge on the object.
Re:Why only frictionless? (Score:2)
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
What's this supposed ' lack of friction?' (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if they want to measure political spin, we have to wait to see what research grants they apply for next...(sorry, couldn't help it.) Seriously- how do they do this without friction?
Call me a skeptic... (Score:2, Insightful)
look at it from this "angle" (Score:3, Informative)
i dont get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, a drawing of the setup would have been nice.
Third, how do they get from spinning metal thingies to quantum spin? Sounds strange...
perfect for the ISS? (Score:2)
I can explain this... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh wait, no, it's due to the Earth's rotation!
Um, no, wait, it's due to a combination of the Earth's rotation and its orbit around the Sun.
Yeah! That's it!, Yeah, I got it! Woohoo!
Actually, Stephen Hawking is expected to say "it's the spooky force at close proximity."
Honestly, between you and me, I think this will turn out to be as real as cold fusion.
Faith (Score:2, Insightful)
Faith is belief in something which you know to be false -- Arthur Clarke.
Re:Faith (Score:2)
If a boy comes up to you and says "I have a red ball in my room" and you believe him, you have faith that he told yo the truth. But at know time do you know what he says is true. Even if you went to his room and didn't find the ball, doesn't mean it wasn't there when he told you.
the real article (Score:5, Informative)
Re:the real article (Score:5, Informative)
The article shows much more clearly than the pop news release that the rotation has nothing to do with quantum spin, and is entirely a classical electrostatic phenomenon. I will try to translate the article briefly:
Essentially, when you apply a charge to the first of the three metal spheres, the charges all repel each other and go to the outside of the first sphere. This exerts a repulsive force against the like charges on the other two spheres, causing an imbalance as more charges are pushed to the far side of the spheres (from the first one) than are on the close side of the spheres. Then, because the second and third spheres have an imbalanced charge distribution, they also exert forces on each other which further displace the charges.
The displaced charges result in a potential which isn't perfectly balanced like two spheres would be, and the resulting calculation shows an interaction proportional to 1/(r^6), where r is the separation distance, which yields a rotation.
Re:the real article (Score:2)
But hardly the makings of a scientific revolution...
new type of motor (Score:2, Interesting)
1. they apply a current through a metal ball. Which induces a magnetic field.
2. They place a second metal ball near the first ball. The proximity to the first magnetic field in the second ball induces a electric potential in the second ball.
3. The third ball may be electrically connected to the suspension wires of either or both balls 1 and 2. Hence, it induces a magnetic field of it's own. The relationship between the magnetic fields in th
Re:new type of motor (Score:2)
Re:new type of motor (Score:2)
It was the attraction and repulsion of the electric charges themselves that was blamed for the rotation induced...
Strangely enough (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing new (Score:3, Funny)
SB
Spin (Score:5, Funny)
I understand. The article's spin on the news has resulted in your confusion.
*ducks*
Anybody cross-check this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've RTFA (or press release, in this case). Interesting stuff.
I do have one initial concern, and that's the temporal juxtaposition of this announcement with April 1. Is three days of separation sufficient to assure that we're not seeing some kind of delayed effect here?
Re:Anybody cross-check this? (Score:3, Informative)
robi
Re:Anybody cross-check this? (Score:2)
I didn't notice the date when I first read it. And I scanned for one, too. My bad.
Yet it occurs to me that there is a possibility that this was submitted to UCR News on Apr 1 as a joke that whooshed right over the editors' heads... and the Apr 2 date is normal artifact of processing.
I'm sure that either way, there will soon be further stories about this.
Does not violate first law of thermodynamics (Score:3, Informative)
The researchers provided the energy. What's interesting about this is that just by charging the spheres with the same charge polarity, they began to rotate.
Re:Does not violate first law of thermodynamics (Score:2, Informative)
What is unique about this experiment is that a magnetic field is generated by a current but
There is one mistake in the article... (Score:2, Insightful)
More seriously though: both the articles in Applied Physics Letters and in Europhysics letters are followed by errata (see publication list [ucr.edu]. So they were at least partially wrong which is not a good start for dethroning a century-old theory.
Rotation of the earth? (Score:3, Interesting)
When are they going to learn... (Score:2, Insightful)
The article is very confusing, and makes several leaps that even the researchers don't promulgate.
Basically, what seems to be going on here is that one charges up metal spheres to see how they interact. This is a way of testing EM theory. Now, as is commonly known, charging a metal sphere will eventually have the charge distributed uniformly on the surface, and eventually static. However, it takes a non-zero amount of time to reach t
you've hit the nail - nonspherical ball bearings (Score:2)
Re:you've hit the nail - nonspherical ball bearing (Score:2)
Re:When are they going to learn... (Score:2)
Not even a physical chemist?
Re:When are they going to learn... (Score:2)
1. The time taken to charge up the spheres is nearly instantaneous; it only depends on the capacitance of the system, which in this case is undoubtably small. Also, in the article they state that they wait dozens of hours for the system to equilibriate before making measurements.
2. The charge is *not* uniformly induced on the two spheres not hooked up to the voltage source, which is exactly why they rotate. The *voltage* on the surface of each of the spheres is uniform (because other
no pratical use (Score:3, Insightful)
Just read the paper, cute trick but no new physics (Score:3, Interesting)
Sphere A is charged up; the two others, B and C, are at different distances from A. Each sphere is polarized in a non-uniform way (because each sphere has two hemispheres, one closer to the charged sphere and the other farther... just as tides form on Earth due to the moon).
The potential at the surfaces of B and C might be uniform but the charge distributions are not: they are dipole. Due to this dipole interaction (the more negativey charge hemisphere of one sphere wants to be closer to the more positively charged surface of the other sphere), Spheres B and C then tourqe to a different angle and will either a) stay there in the presence of some friction or b) oscillate back and forth in the absence of friction. Of course, there is always some element of friction due to the air and wire, but one can compensate by also oscillating the potential of A to make positive feedback, I imagine.
The press release was, in this physics grad student's opinion, horrible. Implications that this research has some impact on our understanding of electrostatics or (gasp) quantum mechanics is irresponsible. It's a cute trick, though, and I'll bet it will find applications in mico-,nano-tech and perhaps other research areas (e.g. experiments requiring precision angular measurements [washington.edu]).
Hedgehog Power Source (Score:2)
Back on topic, this is really neat. I hope it turns out to be a fruitful advance, and not just a case of the balls being influenced by the breeze from the cooling fan on the DC generator in the lab. :)
Hard to believe... (Score:2, Funny)
It makes one wonder what undiscovered physical properties can be found by applying a DC current to other objects!
I smell hot dogs!
APS article (Score:4, Informative)
http://ojps.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?
Sorry, if you aren't browsing from an institution that subscribes to Applied Physics Letters, you probably won't be able to download the article for free. But I'll be happy to paraphrase what I understood from the article:
This phenomenon was purely predictable from Coulomb's law and Gauss's laws of electrostatic attraction/repulsion. Many of you should have learned about these in freshman physics. The spheres were arranged in an assymetric pattern, so rotation isn't breaking any kind of symmetry. If you arranged their spherical balls in a mirror image pattern, the rotation will reverse. The authors aren't trying to say they measured some kind of new mystical force that hasn't already been understood for 100's of years but simply that there could be an engineering application that no one had thought of before.
I'm inclined to agree with the original poster's comment that this has nothing to do with quantum mechanical spin.
"Electric Wind"? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if they've adequately controlled against the phenomenon of "electric wind"?
They're "holding the potential constant" on the central sphere, despite any leakage from irregularities in its surface. The two uncharged spheres nearby should create a stronger field in their direction. Corona discharges toward the space between the spheres could result in a net outward motion of air there, and inward motion of air between the outer and central spheres. Friction of this air against the outer spehres would provide a rotational force, in opposite directions on the two spheres, with no net force on the central sphere.
Try again in a HARD vaccuum.
Coulomb Motor (Score:2)
Well this guy's certainly got some balls. (Score:2)
See for yourself! [ucr.edu]
Sorry :-)
In all seriousness, keep up the good work.
Charge objects in friction free environment...... (Score:2)
YaBut (Score:2)
Solved in the 80s (Score:2)
Dead or Alive [thesonglyrics.com] figured this out in the 80s.
This would have been more exciting (Score:2)
Any fundamentally difference from... (Score:2)
Re:lovely (Score:2, Funny)
You read the article before commenting!
--
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -o eth1 -s slashdot.org -j UP_MY_ASS
Better yours than mine.
Okay, then please explain. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now stabilize it rotationally. Now stick two or three metal brushes lightly against it, and hit it with some charge. Will it spin? Will it spin continuously faster?
If so, how?
Or alternatively, we can have 3 metalized ping pong balls on three jets of air [that is, infinitely thing strings, you might say] and each brushing against three metalic brushes. Will these spin
Re:Okay, then please explain. (Score:2)
Re: quantum vs classical spin (Score:3, Informative)