
Artificial Gravity Can Be Created Using Superconducting Electromagnets (2016) - conse_lad
https://sparkonit.com/2016/01/11/artificial-gravity-created-using-superconducting-electromagnets/
======
inflatableDodo
> _With Füzfa’s experiment, it may be possible to create artificial gravity in
> a much smaller space, reducing the cost of spacecraft carrying humans
> destined for other planets._

So, is this claim in any way supported, or even being made by Füzfa? Lets look
at the referenced paper.

> _We finally propose an experimental setup, achievable with current
> technology of superconducting coils, that produces a phase shift of light of
> the same order of magnitude than astrophysical signals in ground-based
> gravitational wave observatories._

Hmm, that would seem to suggest making artificial gravity fields that are only
as strong on earth as those detected from stars many light years away. How big
is the device required?

> _To conclude this section, we emphasize that the generation and detection of
> artificial gravitational fields by strong magnetic fields is within
> experimental reach but requires large multi-layered superconducting magnets
> powered during dozens of days._

 _How current loops and solenoids curve space-time_ \-
[https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.00333](https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.00333)

Basically, this article is horseshit.

------
anfilt
It's from 2016 if this was the case I am sure it would have made more news.

I am no theoretical physicists, but from my understanding we can't figure out
how to link/relate gravity to the electromagnetic forces which can be
explained quantum mechanically. If you could that would allow for a unified
theory of gravity and the quantum world. That would be huge news.

------
dr_dshiv
This leads back to the US government analysis of applications of high
frequency gravitational waves. Sadly, no hope in sight.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16306-us-investigation-into-gravity-weapons-
nonsense/

It's a good 1000 year physics problem.

------
kldavis4
Here's the paper:
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00333](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00333)

------
jodrellblank
[2016]

~~~
conse_lad
Added

~~~
jodrellblank
" _It 's just an HN convention to have the year in the title when the article
isn't the current year. Not only does it not imply badness, it's associated
with goodness, since most things from previous years have lost their
interest._" \- dang

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dang%20year%20title&sort=byPop...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dang%20year%20title&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)

~~~
conse_lad
Oh I wasn't aware such a rule existed. Thanks for the heads up. Edited the
title.

