Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

arXiv blog

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Email Subscription

Recently on the arXiv blog...

Recent comments on the arXivblog

  • TooMany : While the anti-nuke contingent in the US and in parts of Europe continues to rant about the...
  • mulliguns : Points to why a pair may be the most difficult to row successfully, and that sometimes odd size...
  • shaase : It would seem difficult to guarantee that oarsmen all pull with the same force, so it will still...
  • seth : Even though the new arrangements were not immediately obvious, I do think they make common sense....
  • ... : I have examined the major uranium producing countries and made a forecast for 2009, 2010 and...
  • ZephirAWT : Frankly, I don't believe in communication hypothesis wery much, but there's is at least another...
  • ... : http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/The link above goes to your Technology Review...
  • jmc8888 : Great explanation of an issue that only concerns the idiots. If running out of nuclear fuel was a...
  • spad12 : "Federally insured loans do not reduce the overall cost of projects, they just shift part of the...
  • Siphon : Of course, many things do change with temperature: density of the radioactive material, which...
  • mbelvadi : I wonder if this model takes into account the slow cumulation of very tiny increments of...
  • ZephirAWT : That's OK, it's word consumption (110 thousands tons of uranium concentrate) - enough to next ten...
  • Bob... : 1) "Federally back the loans..."  Federally insured loans do not reduce the overall cost of...
  • tsport100 : What a load of alarmist rubbish this article is. Australia has 1.2 MILLION tonnes of known...
  • ZephirAWT : /*..Uranium is being taken from coal ash waste...*/It isn't - we are only speculating about it...
  • Colonel... : Says this blog: "The combined threats of climate change, energy security and fears over the high...
  • spad12 : "The initial costs (overnight costs) are very large.    Financing the construction effectively...
  • Bob... : "it is cheap after the initial costs (and even then a large portion of the costs is in the form...
  • pasward : Do they?  If you are headed toward a star, being off by 1,000,000 km is still going to get you...
  • spad12 : A: Most of the current estimates brought up on when we will run out of uranium are based on no...
Advertisement
Monday, March 23, 2009

If superconducting sheets reflected gravitational waves...

...wouldn't our most sensitive experiments have spotted this by now? Maybe they have

In the couple of weeks since he introduced the idea that superconducting sheets can reflect gravity waves, Raymond Chiao from the University of California, Merced, has been busy with a couple of buddies working out how big this effect is.

Let's review the idea. Chiao's claim is that gravity has a fundamentally different affect on localised particles compared to delocalised ones and that a type 1 superconductor contains both: ordinary ions and electrons that make up the ionic lattice of the superconductor and the superconducting Cooper pairs of electrons which are entirely delocalised.

The ions and electrons can be thought of as "freely floating, non-interacting "dust particles" undergoing free-fall motion along well defined trajectories (i.e., geodesics)," he says.

Whereas the position of Cooper pairs is entirely uncertain and so cannot be influenced by gravity in the same way. When a superconductor is struck by a gravitational wave, "this causes the Cooper pairs to undergo non-geodesic motion relative to the geodesic motion of its ionic lattice," says Chiao.

In other words, the gravitational waves give the ionic lattice a good shaking but leave the Cooper pairs untouched.

This separationof charge causes the superconductor to become electrically polarised, generating a restoring force known as the Coulomb force. Chiao and co describe it like this: "The enormous back-action of the Coulomb force on the motion of the Cooper pairs, greatly enhances the mass supercurrents generated by the wave, so that they become strong enough to produce reflection."

Chiao and co ask how big is this effect of a gravitational wave on a thin superconducting sheet compared to the effect on an ordinary conducting sheet. The answer? 42 orders of magnitude bigger.

Yep, 42 orders of magnitude.

That has all kinds of implications. The title of Chiao's last paper on this topic was : "Do Mirrors for Gravitational Waves Exist?" He and his mates now feel able to answer this question with the following statement:

"We therefore conclude that laboratory-scale superconducting mirrors for gravitational microwaves exist."

That's a tantalising quote but what are they hinting at?

One experiment springs to mind that might be capable of seeing this effect. Gravity Probe B is a space-based experiment designed to spot the geodetic effect and frame dragging, two tiny forces predicted by general relativity.

The experiment consists of four perfectly round spheres, each about the the size of a baseball, that spin rapidly and so behave like gyroscopes. Each sphere has a thin superconducting coating which allows its spin and any changes to it to be measured precisely.

If there were an obvious interaction between a superconducting films and gravitational waves, wouldn't Gravity Probe B have picked them up somehow? After all, in his previous paper Chiao says that a superconducting sphere is the perfect shape for a graviational wave antenna.

As it turns out, the experiment has been throwing out anomalous results ever since it was launched. The team has puzzled over them for years now and lately come to the conclusion that they are the result of some imperfections in the shape of the spheres. This seems rather unlikely given the testing regime that Gravity Probe B underwent during its tortuous history.

Could the real cause of Gravity Probe B's problems be reflections from passing gravitational waves?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0903.3280: Laboratory-Scale Superconducting Mirrors for Gravitational Microwaves

Comments

  • Chiao vs Tajmar
    Martin Tajmar also posits an explanation for the anomalous data from Gravity Probe B based upon Cooper-pair mass in Niobium superconductors in arxiv.org/abs/0707.3806 .
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gdaigle
    03/23/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: Chiao vs Tajmar
      Yes - the weird effect seen on GpB  is very similar in nature (size, direction(tangential)) to that seen by Tajmar. The mechanism suggested by Droscher & Hauser has to be the main contender, as it was an a-priori prediction as commented on in the cover story of New Scientist Jan 2006, 3 months before Tajmar's announcement on the ESA homepage. Other explanations are rather ugly a posteriori  tack-ons to the Standard model.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      hdeasy
      03/23/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • [no subject]
    How do I Reddit this?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jenpalex
    03/23/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Curved mirrors
    Following the above then, does this mean a curved mirror / mirror pairs would allow focusing of gravitational waves to allow a stronger effect?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    xrazzicaz
    03/24/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Graphene?
      Since graphene is able to make electrons appear to behave as if they were massless, I wonder if it could also be used to probe the nature of gravity?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      sanman
      03/24/2009
      Posts:7
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
    • Re: Curved mirrors
      That would depend on the relative sizes of the gravity wavelength and the curved mirrors.  I suspect the spectrum of cosmic gravity waves contains mostly very long wavelengths.  Does anyone know of published hypotheses on said spectrum?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      rapmontana
      03/24/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
  • house of laymen approaching the floor
      yalls advanced degrees and studies amaze me yet i'm thinking, that, (after a quick refresher of theory and law and history) this experiment may be providing such confounding results due to what is the accumulated interferance of our electrical/magnetic presence in the form of satelites orbiting the planet.  maybe the experiement may be better concluded studying our moon, a relatively inert planetoid.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    bigrobhollin...
    03/24/2009
    Posts:11
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • What happens behind the mirrors?
    I'm wondering what happens behind the mirrors after the reflection takes place - have they just deflected gravity, or just the wave?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jcordaro
    03/24/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Gravity wave detection?
    The article alludes that a gravity wave imparts energy on the Cooper pairs.
    If a type 1 superconductor film is held at the hairy edge of superconductivity by controlling the magnetic field or current, could a gravity wave be detected in the control loop?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    rrohbeck
    03/24/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: Gravity wave detection?
      What does this imply for validation of Podkletnov's work? If the impinging gravity wave causes coulomb effects, can an electric pulse into a superconducting sheet *create* a gravity wave?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      radio engine...
      03/25/2009
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
  • Niobium Spheres
    GWR Instruments' superconducting Gravimeter sensor is a magnetically suspended free floating superconducting niobium sphere. It operates at 4.5 K in a vacuum environment temperature controlled to 1 microKelvin. With a 2.5 cm diam sphere weighing 4 grams, precision of gravity measurement can be as low as 1 part in 10e13, along the vertical axis. Perhaps if predicted gravity waves gave a large enough effect on superconducting spheres, they could be detected in long term data from the many instruments located in the world wide GGP Superconducting Gravity meter network.

    What are ideal instrument geometries which would enhance the signal level? What is the frequency of interest and time duration for the proposed signals?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    rreineman
    03/26/2009
    Posts:1
    • Re: Niobium Spheres
      There is dimensional and numerical scaling of particular chiral (resonant) geometries resulted in good correlation to superconductor data (critical fields, current densities, coherence lengths, penetration depths etc) which also correlated (out of the box) well with cosmic parameters (universe critical density, age, expansion etc) and generally describing 'dark energy' as presented in:

      http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905007

      In this paper (Table 2.4.1), there is a correlation which indicates that substantially all (~70%) of the universe (~1E56 g) (as currently depicted by 'dark energy') has a frequency of 3.38E-5 hz  or .0338 millihertz at a characteristic critical temperature (Tc) of 8.11E-16 K

      This frequency has a numerical approximation with the lower end of “polhode” frequency scale (and at initial Gravity Probe B 'flight' stage) quantitatively noted on Gravity Probe B web page as _*.1 - .35 millihertz*_ and Oct - Jul: http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html

      The hypothesis would be that the Gravity Probe B gyroscope niobium superconductor Cooper mass (5.79E-10 g) or GWR Instruments' superconducting Gravimeter sensor is subject to gravitational tidal by the substantial universe mass (dark energy/c^2) with density 6.38E-30 g/cc. and total mass ~1E56 g.


      The particular Gravity Probe B gyroscope niobium superconductor Cooper mass is calculated to be 5.79E-10 g as follows:

      niobium critical temperature (Tc) = 8 K
      niobium niobium thickness 1270 nm
      gyroscope diameter 3.81 cm (1.5 inch)
      niobium volume pi*3.81*3.81*1.27E-6 = 5.79E-5 cm3 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905007 Table 2.9.1 Cooper Pair density is 1E-5 g/cc Therefore Cooper Pair Mass = 5.79E-10 g
      This Cooper Pair Mass may be characterized in a somewhat fluid form subject to dimensional distortion.

      So the hypothesis would be that the Cooper Pair mass of 5.79E-10 g contained in gyroscope niobium superconductor gravitationally tidally oscillates with the universe mass at a frequency of .0338 millihertz and harmonics as depicted in: http://einstein.stanford.edu/Media/Polhode_motion-animation.html

      Is such a temporal movement (.0338 millihertz)  observed in GWR Instruments' superconducting Gravimeter sensor?

      Richard Saam
      Corpus Christi, Texas.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      rdsaam
      03/26/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.