What Are the Latest Precision Tests of the Inverse Square Law for Gravity?

AI Thread Summary
Recent discussions highlight advancements in testing the inverse square law for gravity, with claims of precision down to 56 micrometers. A 2001 paper by Eric Adelberger is noted as a significant reference, but newer tests suggest even finer measurements. The distinction between precision and length scale is emphasized, clarifying that more precise tests can occur at longer distances. Participants express a desire to locate the latest papers confirming these findings. The conversation underscores ongoing research into gravitational laws and the quest for more accurate measurements.
karnten07
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

I know that in a 2001 paper there were tests of the inverse square law for gravity down to 218\mu metres. But i have seen in other papers (more recent ones) that they claim it has been tested to a greater precision, somewhere around 100\mu metres i think. But these papers only make reference to this accuracy but give no actual references and don't know how i could find a paper which describes this precise test.

Does anyone know of any papers that have tested gravity to a finer precision? Is much appreciated.

Karnten07
 
Physics news on Phys.org


First, you're confusing two different things. The precision of a test is how small a deviation you could see: for example, a test that could spot a 1% variation is twice as precise as one that could spot a 2% variation. The length scale at which gravity is what is measured in microns. But you can have a more precise test at a longer distance, for example.

Second, I don't know what the measurement at the smallest length scale is, but I expect if you look for Eric Adelberger's publications (he's at the University of Washington), it would be a good start.
 


Vanadium 50 said:
First, you're confusing two different things. The precision of a test is how small a deviation you could see: for example, a test that could spot a 1% variation is twice as precise as one that could spot a 2% variation. The length scale at which gravity is what is measured in microns. But you can have a more precise test at a longer distance, for example.

Second, I don't know what the measurement at the smallest length scale is, but I expect if you look for Eric Adelberger's publications (he's at the University of Washington), it would be a good start.

Ah yes, you're right, sorry for the confusion. I was looking for the tests of gravity at the smallest length scale. Eric's paper is the one that i have and it is dated 2001, so i wasn't sure if these were the smallest length scales studied to date.

Ah, i found something, Eric is going to review recent tests on the inverse square law of gravitation down to 85\mu metres, now i just need to find the paper he's talking about! anyone? Thanks for your help Vanadium

Karnten07
 


karnten07 said:
Ah yes, you're right, sorry for the confusion. I was looking for the tests of gravity at the smallest length scale. Eric's paper is the one that i have and it is dated 2001, so i wasn't sure if these were the smallest length scales studied to date.

Ah, i found something, Eric is going to review recent tests on the inverse square law of gravitation down to 85\mu metres, now i just need to find the paper he's talking about! anyone? Thanks for your help Vanadium

Karnten07

Its okay i found it, gravitation has been tested down to 56\mu metres and te inverse square law still holds.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top