- #51

- I
- Thread starter olgerm
- Start date

- #51

- #52

Ibix

Science Advisor

- 6,622

- 5,380

- #53

olgerm

Gold Member

- 472

- 25

As I understand it is not correct. Shold I find ##\sigma## on surface of cylinder on in centre of that?You have two arithmetic errors in the integral you did (missing a factor of 1/2 and the wrong sign), both easily correctable. But the integral still isn’t right because ##dA## is not constant, it’s a function of ##r##.

- #54

olgerm

Gold Member

- 472

- 25

- #55

Ibix

Science Advisor

- 6,622

- 5,380

@pervect's calculation is sufficient for that. We can - just - detect ##B_G## from the Earth. ##B_G\propto Rv\rho=R^2\omega\rho## (by both pervect's calculation and yours), so for a detectable ##B_G## you require ##R^2\omega\rhoTrying to find out if it is possible.

\approx R_E^2\omega_E\rho_E##, where the subscripted quantities are for the Earth. For something in a lab, ##R\approx R_E/6\times 10^6## and ##\rho\approx\rho_E##. That tells you that you need ##\omega\approx 36\times 10^{12}\omega_E##. I make that a 2m diameter solid mass of metal spinning at about 25 billion rpm.

That isn't anywhere near plausible. The rim velocity is in excess of the speed of light by a couple of orders of magnitude. (Which tells you that this semi-Newtonian calculation isn't valid, but the practical problems inherent in accelerating a macroscopic object to speeds where you need to use relativity should be obvious even without getting into the materials science.)

Last edited:

- #56

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

2019 Award

- 24,767

- 7,763

1. What will this tell you that Gravity Probe B will not?I really think it is important experiment if it is possible. Trying to find out if it is possible. I need estimations on maximum ω\omega and ρ\rho for that.

2. If it's so important, why are you ignoring so many comments?

- #57

olgerm

Gold Member

- 472

- 25

Even if it would repeat Gravity Probe B's experiment, it would be big deal.What will this tell you that Gravity Probe B will not?

Last edited:

- #58

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

2019 Award

- 24,767

- 7,763

Why not launch another one then?

- #59

- #60

Ibix

Science Advisor

- 6,622

- 5,380

Your formula in your first post, stripped of some subscripts and setting the inner radius to zero, is ##B_G=\mu_G\rho\omega r^2/2##. That is, ##B_G\propto\rho\omega r^2##. I believe @pervect got his formula from Wikipedia, which gives a different answer to you but only by some numerical factor - so it agrees that ##B_G\propto\rho\omega r^2## and only the constant of proportionality varies with position.Where does this come from?

It will work anywhere at the surface of the Earth, although as noted the constant of proportionality varies. As I noted in post #35 I do not believe that the gravitoelectromagnetic approximation is valid at the center of mass of the generating object, so there is no formula for the gravitomagnetic field at the center of the Earth, or anything else. Your original configuration isn't workable for this reason.Is it in centre of Earth or at poles?

You may be able to get a factor of two or three reduction in your required ##\omega## by adjusting the configuration of your experiment. You need six or seven orders of magnitude reduction. It's not going to happen, I'm afraid.

Last edited:

- #61

- 9,773

- 992

Note that according to my source above, the charged rotating sphere is analyzed in Griffiths, but I did not go so far as to look up the textbook reference, but relied on the internet.

Specifically, the questions I was trying to answer is "is it true that bigger objects have a bigger magnetic field"? We could consider a bigger object with the same value of rotational speed ##\omega##, but I found it convenient to analyze instead a bigger object where ##\omega r##, the tangential velocity, stayed constant.

The answer to the question is "yes". And because the answer to the question is yes, we can say that since the Earth is a big object, it has a stronger gravitomagnetic field than a lab-scale object, because the Earth is a lot bigger than anything we can build in a lab.

While I used Wiki and the other source I mentioned, and while the results are the same as the OP's results, I have come to realize that the dependency on scale follows more generally from a dimensional analysis of the Biot-Savart law.

Hyperphysics, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/Biosav.html, quotes this law as:

$$d\vec{B} =\frac{ \mu_0 I}{4 \pi r^2} d\vec{L} \times \hat{r}$$

I have taken the liberty of replacing the unit vector pointing in the direction from the current element to the point where the magentic field B is being measured with a different symbol, ##\hat{r}##, rather than the symbol that the hyperphysics used.

When we hold the tangential velocity and the charge density constant, we hold the current density ##j##, the current/square meter, constant for a rotating object. This is because ## j = \rho v##, and we hold ##\rho## and v constant.

It's possible to analyze this in terms of holding ##\omega## constant, rather than v constant, and get equivalent results, but I've chosen to do it this way I am writing it now.

The cross sectional area of the rotating object will increase by a factor of 4 if we double it's size. This implies that the current quadruples, because ##I = j r^2##. However, the distance from the center of the object to the point at which the magnetic field is being measured, r, also doubles. So for a doubling of size, ##\frac{ \mu_0 I}{4 \pi r^2} ## does not vary when we hold the tangential velocity v constant, i.e. when we hold ##\omega r## constant.

This leaves us with the term ##d\vec{L} \times \hat{r}## which increases linearly with the scale factor. This happens because ##\hat{r}## is defined as a unit vector, so the only factor remaining is the length of the current element, which doubles. Thus doubling the size of the objects doubles the magnetic field when we hold ##\omega r## constant.

- #62

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

2019 Award

- 24,767

- 7,763

Hmmmm....namely https://physicspages.com/pdf/Griffiths EM/Griffiths Problems 05.29.pdf, and applying the techniques of dimensional analysis to that formula.

I don't think this derivation is that of a rotating charged sphere external to the sphere. At large r, the dipole term is not leading (!) because the r and θ terms are becoming infinite. Also, the energy in the field is infinite too. Following their derivation - and I had some difficulty here - it appears that at no point are they taking an integral past the surface.

Deriving it myself, I get the following (EM case, units where c=1):

[tex]\vec{B} = qR_0^2\omega \frac{3(\hat{\omega} \cdot \hat{r})\hat{r} - \hat{\omega}}{3r^3} [/tex]

As I said earlier, I expect the force to go as β

In this case, we get one power of velocity in the derivation of B, and one in the Lorentz force.

- #63

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

2019 Award

- 24,767

- 7,763

[tex]\vec{B} = \frac{qR_0^2\omega}{r^3} \left( \frac{3(\hat{\omega} \cdot \hat{r})\hat{r} - \hat{\omega}}{3} \right) [/tex]

Now the right term in big parentheses is purely angular.

- #64

- 9,773

- 992

Are ##\hat{r}## and ##\hat{\omega}## both unit vectors?

- #65

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

2019 Award

- 24,767

- 7,763

Yes.

- #66

olgerm

Gold Member

- 472

- 25

maybe the constant of proportionality for earth (ball) is a lot smaller than for cylinder and cylinders gravitomagnetic field is still detectable.so it agrees that ##B_G\propto\rho\omega r^2## and only the constant of proportionality varies with position.

- #67

- 30,144

- 9,304

This is personal speculation (with no basis whatever in GR) and is off limits here.maybe the constant of proportionality for earth (ball) is a lot smaller than for cylinder and cylinders gravitomagnetic field is still detectable.

This thread has run its course. Thread closed.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 48

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 19

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 3K