Physicists: The finding of the Graviton

Ricochet J · 10 Aug 2007 at 20:00

Hello

If scientists do manage to find the exchange particle of mavity, the graviton does that mean they will be likely to replicate mavity in space?

Thanks

Vonhelmet · 10 Aug 2007 at 20:16

Ricochet J said:
Hello

If scientists do manage to find the exchange particle of mavity, the graviton does that mean they will be likely to replicate mavity in space?

Thanks

Depends if they can produce the particle at will.

daz · 10 Aug 2007 at 20:20

Just because they manage to detect its presence doesn't mean they will master mavity.

Artificial mavity could be replicated by rotating a habitat ring sufficiently fast enough around it's centre though.

sjt269 · 10 Aug 2007 at 20:41

daz said:
Artificial mavity could be replicated by rotating a habitat ring sufficiently fast enough around it's centre though.

I love how simple you make that sound.

Theoretically, I assume mavity could be reproduced in space via the hitherto-undetected graviton, but practically, it would be difficult. How exactly are you going to manipulate a sub-atomic particle into doing exactly what you want it to? CERN had to build a 27km circular tunnel to try to track down particles that exist for only a fraction of a second; even assuming CERN found a graviton (which presupposes they'd be looking for one), it would be a long road from discovery to any form of practical use.

I'm kind of guessing there, because I've only got a very basic education in sub-atomic particles. I'm just getting that disclaimer in before someone knowledgeable comes along and blasts my speculation into oblivion with a reasoned arguement.

Glaucus · 10 Aug 2007 at 20:46

tTz said:
I love how simple you make that sound.

it is that simple.
Next to no friction in space. You fire the rockets to get a stable spin, which will induce centrifugal force.. If design in a circle layout, then it will act as mavity.

georges · 10 Aug 2007 at 20:48

Thread made me think it had been discovered

sid · 10 Aug 2007 at 21:11

AcidHell2 said:
it is that simple.
Next to no friction in space. You fire the rockets to get a stable spin, which will induce centrifugal force.. If design in a circle layout, then it will act as mavity.

Something like a deathstar would do nicely then lol.

Seriously though, circular spinning discs could easily generate mavity in space.

Seems to work fine in movies. Does anyone know if the ISS will have something similar on board?

sid

Glaucus · 10 Aug 2007 at 21:14

sid said:
Something like a deathstar would do nicely then lol.

Seriously though, circular spinning discs could easily generate mavity in space.

Seems to work fine in movies. Does anyone know if the ISS will have something similar on board?

sid

I don't think the ISS has, however they can spin it up to make some manouvers etc easier. But not all the time.

Thgis is about the best shape

The deck would be the very outside wall around the circle. The middle would remain pretty much zero G.

Spleenus · 10 Aug 2007 at 21:34

AcidHell2 said:
it is that simple.
Next to no friction in space. You fire the rockets to get a stable spin, which will induce centrifugal force.. If design in a circle layout, then it will act as mavity.

I could be very pedantic and point out that there is no such thing as centrifugal force..

but I understand what you mean. Wonder how fast it would have to spin in order to simulate Earth's mavity.

Azagoth · 10 Aug 2007 at 21:36

Google "Stanford Torus", now if they could realistically pull that off it would be way cool!

sjt269 · 10 Aug 2007 at 21:40

AcidHell2 said:
it is that simple.
Next to no friction in space. You fire the rockets to get a stable spin, which will induce centrifugal force.. If design in a circle layout, then it will act as mavity.

If it's that simple, why hasn't it been done for the ISS? Is it too expensive, or surplus to requirements or something?

Glaucus · 10 Aug 2007 at 21:41

tTz said:
If it's that simple, why hasn't it been done for the ISS? Is it too expensive, or surplus to requirements or something?

The experiments there doing on iss require zero mavity.

It would also be a big station and would need to be assembled in space, rather than just joining fully built pods together.

[TR]SweetSpotOz · 10 Aug 2007 at 22:32

Pretty cool stuff really.

Glaucus · 10 Aug 2007 at 22:35

Moses99p said:
there is no such thing ;D

Why so pedantic, it's a commonly understood phrase.

I dont see why there's no such thing?
It's a word that describes an action nothing more.

Azza · 10 Aug 2007 at 22:37

Moses99p said:
there is no such thing ;D

There is always one.

Lagmeister · 10 Aug 2007 at 23:05

there is no such thing ;D

Heh reminded me of this

http://xkcd.com/123/

Radiation · 10 Aug 2007 at 23:09

The idea of a graviton is pretty silly when you think about it.

.walls · 10 Aug 2007 at 23:19

@ Lagmeister

- that's class

Vonhelmet · 10 Aug 2007 at 23:33

Radiation said:
The idea of a graviton is pretty silly when you think about it.

As silly as the W and Z bosons?

Vertigo · 10 Aug 2007 at 23:37

Well current M theory suggests that mavity is actually a force that's leaking in to our universe from a parallel one, which explains why it's so weak compared to all the other forces and why no one has yet come up with a decent explanation of what generates it or how it's transmitted.

If this is indeed the case then it's conceivable that the graviton particles (if such a thing even exists) would never exist outside of their native universe and we'd only ever see the effects of them, never the particles themselves.