The gravitational field at any point P in space is defined as the gravitational force felt by a tiny unit mass placed at P. This is clearly not a problem for a one kilogram mass in discussing planetary and solar gravity. But the picture does convey the general idea.
Of course, for our single mass, the field lines add little insight:. The arrowheads indicate the direction of the force, which points the same way all along the field line. However, as is evident in the diagram above, there is a clue: where the lines are closer together, the force is stronger. The next simplest case is two equal masses. Let us place them symmetrically above and below the x -axis:.
The fact that the total gravitational field is just given by adding the two vectors together is called the Principle of Superposition. But just adding the forces as vectors works fine for gravity almost everywhere away from black holes, and, as you will find later, for electric and magnetic fields too.
Finally, superposition works for any number of masses, not just two: the total gravitational field is the vector sum of the gravitational fields from all the individual masses. Newton used this to prove that the gravitational field outside a solid sphere was the same as if all the mass were at the center by imagining the solid sphere to be composed of many small masses — in effect, doing an integral, as we shall discuss in detail later.
He also invoked superposition in calculating the orbit of the Moon precisely, taking into account gravity from both the Earth and the Sun. Exercise : For the two mass case above, sketch the gravitational field vector at some other points: look first on the x -axis, then away from it. What do the field lines look like for this two mass case? We can hold them stable for up to You might not realize it, but there are two entirely different ways of thinking about mass. But there's another mass out there: gravitational mass.
Newton's law of universal gravitation L and Coulomb's law for electrostatics R have almost If the 'm' in the gravitational force obtains a negative sign for antimatter, upcoming experiments ought to reveal it. For antimatter, though, we've never been able to measure this at all.
We've applied non-gravitational forces to antimatter and seen it accelerate, and we've created and annihilated antimatter as well; we're certain how its inertial mass behaves, and it's exactly the same as normal matter's inertial mass. But if we want to know how antimatter behaves gravitationally, we can't just go off of what we theoretically expect ; we have to measure it. One of the great strides that's been taken recently is the creation of not just particles of antimatter, but neutral, stable bound states of it.
Anti-protons and positrons anti-electrons can be created, slowed down, and forced to interact with each other, where they form neutral anti-hydrogen. By using a combination of electric and magnetic fields, we can confine these anti-atoms and keep them stable, away from the matter that would cause them to annihilate. We've successfully held them stable for around 20 minutes at a time, far exceeding the microsecond timescales that unstable, fundamental particles survive. We've struck them with photons, discovering that they have the same emission and absorption spectra as atoms.
In every way that matters, we've determined that antimatter's properties are exactly as standard physics predicts them to be. When oriented vertically, it should be able to measure which direction antimatter falls, and at what magnitude. Except, of course, gravitationally. If there were some type of matter that had negative gravitational charge, it would be repelled by Some of these have been measured for a long time: antimatter's inertial mass, electric charge, spin and magnetic properties are well-known.
Its binding and transitional properties have been measured by other detectors at the ALPHA experiment, and line up with what particle physics predicts. But if the gravitational acceleration comes back negative instead of positive, it would literally turn the world upside down. The possibility of having artificial gravity is tantalizing, but it is predicated on the existence Antimatter may be that mass, but we don't yet know, experimentally.
Currently, t here is no such thing as a gravitational conductor. On an electrical conductor, free charges live on the surface and can move around, redistributing themselves in response to whatever other charges are around. If you have an electric charge outside an electrical conductor, the inside of the conductor will be shielded from that electric source.
As we have already seen, Einstein proposed that gravity is actually a consequence of the distortion of space-time caused by different bodies. For this reason, it should be possible to develop artificial gravity , at least in the void of space. What is needed is to provide a means of acceleration in one direction that should, according to Einstein, produce an effect similar to gravity.
This can be done through linear acceleration, like a rocket, or through angular momentum, i. This is a common theme in many sci-fi books and films. Think of the rotating spacecraft in A Space Odyssey , for example.
So long as the ship is large enough, it should be able to produce a force on its occupants that would be almost indistinguishable from gravity on Earth. It wouldn't be exactly the same, though, because large Coriolis forces would also be present, and things would fall in curves instead of straight lines. This also has some inherent problems. The faster something is accelerating, the greater the gravitational pull, or g-forces , on the occupants.
This is not a problem for stationary craft, like a space station, but for ships that would need to travel long distances at high acceleration, it could prove catastrophic for the crew. If the craft were to travel at only a small fraction of the speed of light, the crew would likely experience something in excess of 4, gs. That is, according to an article in Forbes , more than times the acceleration needed to prevent blood flow in your body - - probably not ideal.
It has been hypothesized that this can be gotten around by using electromagnets and conductive "floors" in ships, but you'd still have the problem of a "downward" force. There is likely no means of "shielding" the crew from the effects of gravity at high velocities in space. The only way to deal with this in the future may be to develop some form of negative, or anti- gravitational, field.
However, like all matter, we have at least some positive mass, so we would need a way to create a negative gravitational mass. Researchers, there are working with trapped antihydrogen atoms, the antimatter counterpart of hydrogen. By precise comparisons of hydrogen and antihydrogen, the experiment hopes to study fundamental symmetries between matter and antimatter. Ultimately, this could lead to the measurement of the gravitational acceleration of antimatter.
If it is found that antimatter accelerates, in the presence of the gravitational field on the surface of Earth, at a negative value e. According to Forbes : " If it becomes sensitive enough, we could then measure which way it falls in a gravitational field.
If it falls down, the same as normal matter, then it has positive gravitational mass, and we can't use it to build a gravitational conductor. But if it falls up in a gravitational field, that changes everything. With a single experimental result, artificial gravity would suddenly become a physical possibility. If successful, this could also open the door for a gravitational capacitor to create a uniform artificial gravity field. It could even, in theory, allow the creation of a "warp drive" - a way to deform spacetime.
However, until we can discover a particle or set of particles, that have negative gravitational mass, artificial gravity will only be possible through mechanical means, like acceleration, etc. By subscribing, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
0コメント