Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

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! =]"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A New Spin On Physical Phenomena

Comments Filter:
  • You forget... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:10PM (#5662949)
    science does not always have to be usefull.
  • No more friction? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AntiGenX ( 589768 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:10PM (#5662952)
    I'm more excited about the "absence of friction" part...
    At last my dream of building a perpetual motion machine can be realized. Take that thermodynamics!
  • by Dukeofshadows ( 607689 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:11PM (#5662955) Journal
    Unlimited spin would be nice for turntables and whatnot (imagine the mew re-mixes at ungodly RPMs) but seriously what would this be used for? I don't know much about physics, so could someone please elucidate the commercial value of this discovery?
  • Renewed faith? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jgalun ( 8930 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:14PM (#5662984) Homepage
    I don't understand this submission:

    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?
  • Nowhere do i see the words, "in a vacuum." So that leaves, 'without friction' as an useless phrase? or maybe this is a standard term that i'm missing? Me, i'd assume that spinning in air causes friction (not to mention dizziness.)


    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?

  • by Randolpho ( 628485 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:18PM (#5663020) Homepage Journal
    ... but, with the miniscule amount of information provided, it seems to me that the spinning spheres merely demonstrate electromagentic force.
  • i dont get it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nilsjuergens ( 69927 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:19PM (#5663023) Homepage Journal
    Is is just me, or does the article not really explain what it is they are talking about.

    Also, a drawing of the setup would have been nice.

    Third, how do they get from spinning metal thingies to quantum spin? Sounds strange...
  • Re:Output? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Madsci ( 616781 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:21PM (#5663046)
    Thats the equivalent of saying, "Magnets can't give us free energy, so they must be useless" Do you yield energy? Are you useful? Wait... forgot who I was talking to.
  • Re:Output? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by einer ( 459199 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:26PM (#5663087) Journal
    It is another premise on which to build theories and further our understanding of the nature of the universe. This was made clear in the first paragraph.
  • Silly Scientists (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:29PM (#5663107)
    So let me get this straight.

    They applied an electrical charge to a object, while inside the Earth's magnetic field, and they were surprised that the object experienced a rotational force?

    They didn't consider the magnetic field. They didn't consider that the magnetic field is constantly changing, due to the spin of the Earth and Solar wind. They didn't consider that having three charged spheres near to each other would cause the charge of those spheres to develop a pole.

    No. They jumped right to the conclusion that they had discovered something new about the spin of atomic particles.

    Spare me.
  • ObSimpsons (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Drakonian ( 518722 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:30PM (#5663114) Homepage
    In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
  • Re:Renewed faith? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by E1v!$ ( 267945 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:31PM (#5663122) Homepage
    I think he's talking about things like cold fusion, that university group faking results, etc...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:33PM (#5663147)

    Just a random guess, but perhaps they're saying "frictionless" because this is what their experiment involves. It's very likely true also, given other physical laws, that the same force would work against friction too, but their experiment hasn't shown that. Their experiment has only shown that it happens in (near-) frictionless environment, so that's what they have reported.

    With regard to energy, I assume there is some flow of current somewhere. The article does say a DC voltage was applied to the spheres. It's not as if it's all that different from some familiar experiments. Two objects both with positive charges have a force between them and this force can do work, but it doesn't mean energy is coming from nowhere. On the other hand, it is unclear exactly what the process is, so it's hard to say for sure.

  • by NewbieProgrammerMan ( 558327 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:35PM (#5663162)

    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...

  • Faith (Score:2, Insightful)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:36PM (#5663167) Homepage Journal
    Still, this is the sort of scientific advance that renews my faith in the system.

    Faith is belief in something which you know to be false -- Arthur Clarke.

  • by mysticgoat ( 582871 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:42PM (#5663202) Homepage Journal

    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?

  • by MickLinux ( 579158 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:45PM (#5663224) Journal
    You take a 2-colored, metal-coated ping-pong ball [it can be done], and suspend it in air on a cushion of air jets. [Also can be done.]

    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 and accelerate continuously faster?

    Suppose, instead of balancing them on air jets, we used strong magnetism and magneticized balls. Will it work then?

    Why, or why not?
  • by nniillss ( 577580 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:53PM (#5663277)
    which is the date: should read April 1.

    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.

  • by ThePlague ( 30616 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @03:59PM (#5663329)
    Chemists can't do physics! This is Fleish and Ponds all over again.

    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 these static states. What these boys have done is charge 3 spheres (presumably) simultaneously, and then observe physical spin (rotation) in the spheres.

    Well, inhomogenities in the surfaces can have slightly non-uniform charge currents during the charging process. All it would take is a slight asymmetry, and the charge on two spheres (let alone three) could and would provide a torque to the other(s) via the usual Coulomb interaction.

  • no pratical use (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Friday April 04, 2003 @04:05PM (#5663385) Homepage Journal
    is the cry of the un-imaginative.
  • by Freedryk ( 117435 ) on Friday April 04, 2003 @04:17PM (#5663464)
    Nanotech basically. They have basically discovered a way to use a distribution of electric charges on a configuration of three sphere to start one of the spheres rotating. This is different from current electric motors; they use magnetic fields to start things rotating. This kind of engine would use a lot less current to generate motion than conventional electromagnetic motors. This would be good for building little machines; it's really hard to make electromagnets at the subatomic scale, but metallic spheres? Much easier. And static charge? It's hard NOT to get something with static charge on it down at that scale.

    Having said that, this is purely a proof-of-concept thingy. What they did was just say, "Look, we can use this simple setup to create rotation". It's like they stuck a magnet near another magnet dangling on a string ang made it rotate. That's a long way from an electromagnetic motor, but it is a first step...

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...