arXiv blog

If superconducting sheets reflected gravitational waves...

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

kfc 03/23/2009

  • 13 Comments

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

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

gdaigle

3 Comments

  • 1053 Days Ago
  • 03/23/2009

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 .

Reply

hdeasy

1 Comment

  • 1053 Days Ago
  • 03/23/2009

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.

Reply

jenpalex

2 Comments

  • 1053 Days Ago
  • 03/23/2009

How do I Reddit this?

Reply

xrazzicaz

1 Comment

  • 1052 Days Ago
  • 03/24/2009

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?

Reply

sanman

31 Comments

  • 1052 Days Ago
  • 03/24/2009

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?

Reply

rapmontana

1 Comment

  • 1052 Days Ago
  • 03/24/2009

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?

Reply

bigrobhollins

11 Comments

  • 1052 Days Ago
  • 03/24/2009

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.

Reply

Advertisement

jcordaro

8 Comments

  • 1052 Days Ago
  • 03/24/2009

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?

Reply

rrohbeck

1 Comment

  • 1052 Days Ago
  • 03/24/2009

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?

Reply

Guest (radio engineer)

  • 1051 Days Ago
  • 03/25/2009

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?

Reply

rreineman

2 Comments

  • 1050 Days Ago
  • 03/26/2009

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?

Reply

rdsaam

1 Comment

  • 1050 Days Ago
  • 03/26/2009

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.

Reply

rreineman

2 Comments

  • 330 Days Ago
  • 03/16/2011

Re: Niobium Spheres

.0338 milliHz frequency is 8.21 hrs period. this is in the band of earth noise dominated by ocean and earth tides due to sun moon earth 3 body interactions, not to mention poorly modeled atmospheric tides in the same frequencies. It will be very difficult to pull your suspected signals out of this huge (300 microgal) noise spectrum.

Reply

Bio

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

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement