Discussion:
gravitomagnetic effect 10^20 large then predicted by GR ?
(too old to reply)
serg271
2006-03-24 23:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html
"It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of
generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the
gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further
confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological
domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other
high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the
acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field
is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than
Einstein's General Relativity predicts. "

"The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in
quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as
photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles,
known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the
unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled. "

Any comments ?
Uncle Al
2006-03-25 13:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by serg271
http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html
"It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of
generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the
gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further
confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological
domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other
high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the
acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field
is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than
Einstein's General Relativity predicts. "
"The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in
quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as
photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles,
known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the
unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled. "
Any comments ?
1) Podkletnov.

2) Gravity Probe B was two pairs of anti-parallel superconductive
4300 rpm gyroscopes free falling in a 0.7742 rpm housing. No major
anomaly vs. housing or reference star was detected over 352 days of
free fall. It was DESIGNED to look for gravitomagnetic effects with
extraordinary sensitivity and minimal background fuzz. "one hundred
million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
predicts" would have been noticed by the grad students.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

3) Binary pulsars orbit to General Relativity specs within
observational error. Pairs of 1.4 solar mass superconductng gyroscopes
with equatorial surface velocities of 20% lightspeed bearing huge
magnetic fields (10^8 tesla) and observed over months give no
anomalies,

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-2/
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-7/

"one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General
Relativity predicts" would have emerged from collected and analyzed
data.

4) Gravitons are a mathematical fabrication. There is no empirical
evidence that gravitons inhabit physical reality.

5) If the boojum was a nice clean precision-manufactured niobium
stannide supercon, then the report has possible credence. If the
supercon was YBCO, the report is probably crap at face value. High
temp ceramic supercons are notorious for spurious effects.

Anybody gainsaying General Relativity had best demonstrate an
unambiguous reproducible falsification. If an unallied group builds
its own a apparatus and observes the anomaly with a different (BCS)
supercon, that is convincing.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
serg271
2006-03-26 16:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Uncle Al
1) Podkletnov.
2) Gravity Probe B was two pairs of anti-parallel superconductive
4300 rpm gyroscopes free falling in a 0.7742 rpm housing. No major
anomaly vs. housing or reference star was detected over 352 days of
free fall. It was DESIGNED to look for gravitomagnetic effects with
extraordinary sensitivity and minimal background fuzz. "one hundred
million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
predicts" would have been noticed by the grad students.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
3) Binary pulsars orbit to General Relativity specs within
observational error. Pairs of 1.4 solar mass superconductng gyroscopes
with equatorial surface velocities of 20% lightspeed bearing huge
magnetic fields (10^8 tesla) and observed over months give no
anomalies,
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-2/
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-7/
"one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General
Relativity predicts" would have emerged from collected and analyzed
data.
4) Gravitons are a mathematical fabrication. There is no empirical
evidence that gravitons inhabit physical reality.
5) If the boojum was a nice clean precision-manufactured niobium
stannide supercon, then the report has possible credence. If the
supercon was YBCO, the report is probably crap at face value. High
temp ceramic supercons are notorious for spurious effects.
Anybody gainsaying General Relativity had best demonstrate an
unambiguous reproducible falsification. If an unallied group builds
its own a apparatus and observes the anomaly with a different (BCS)
supercon, that is convincing.
Here is a better description
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
and arxiv
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0602591
They were using Niobium, lead and YBCO. The effect was observed only
with Niobium and lead, but not with YBCO, and only in low temperature
(liquid helium, but not with liquid nitrogen). Sgnal-to-noise is 3.3 -
not very good by their own words. So what does it mean if the result
confirmed but only within this limited setup ? Is some other, less
exotic but still interesting explanation is likely ?
Richard Saam
2006-03-28 08:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by serg271
Post by Uncle Al
1) Podkletnov.
2) Gravity Probe B was two pairs of anti-parallel superconductive
4300 rpm gyroscopes free falling in a 0.7742 rpm housing. No major
anomaly vs. housing or reference star was detected over 352 days of
free fall. It was DESIGNED to look for gravitomagnetic effects with
extraordinary sensitivity and minimal background fuzz. "one hundred
million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
predicts" would have been noticed by the grad students.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
3) Binary pulsars orbit to General Relativity specs within
observational error. Pairs of 1.4 solar mass superconductng gyroscopes
with equatorial surface velocities of 20% lightspeed bearing huge
magnetic fields (10^8 tesla) and observed over months give no
anomalies,
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-2/
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-7/
"one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General
Relativity predicts" would have emerged from collected and analyzed
data.
4) Gravitons are a mathematical fabrication. There is no empirical
evidence that gravitons inhabit physical reality.
5) If the boojum was a nice clean precision-manufactured niobium
stannide supercon, then the report has possible credence. If the
supercon was YBCO, the report is probably crap at face value. High
temp ceramic supercons are notorious for spurious effects.
Anybody gainsaying General Relativity had best demonstrate an
unambiguous reproducible falsification. If an unallied group builds
its own a apparatus and observes the anomaly with a different (BCS)
supercon, that is convincing.
Here is a better description
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
and arxiv
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0602591
They were using Niobium, lead and YBCO. The effect was observed only
with Niobium and lead, but not with YBCO, and only in low temperature
(liquid helium, but not with liquid nitrogen). Sgnal-to-noise is 3.3 -
not very good by their own words. So what does it mean if the result
confirmed but only within this limited setup ? Is some other, less
exotic but still interesting explanation is likely ?
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
Equation 5 presents the basic hypothesis.

g is proportional (by Cooper pair density/bulk density) to dot omega (angular
acceleration)

Gravity Probe B does not have the experimental 'dot omega'
so results are not comparable.

Gravitational Radiation Theory says spinning objects must have eccentricity
Not all Pulsars should gravitationally radiate.

Podkletnov 1992 had a 'dot omega'.

Due to individual idiocentric superconductor
Material Cooper Pair density characteristic,
Before conducting the gravitational experiment,
Do a good material critical current analysis
or establish specific material Cooper Pair Density by other means
and fabricate to MAXIMIZE.

Richard
LawsonE
2006-03-26 16:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Uncle Al
Post by serg271
http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html
"It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of
generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the
gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further
confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological
domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other
high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the
acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field
is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than
Einstein's General Relativity predicts. "
"The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in
quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as
photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles,
known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the
unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled. "
Any comments ?
[...]
Post by Uncle Al
5) If the boojum was a nice clean precision-manufactured niobium
stannide supercon, then the report has possible credence. If the
supercon was YBCO, the report is probably crap at face value. High
temp ceramic supercons are notorious for spurious effects.
Anybody gainsaying General Relativity had best demonstrate an
unambiguous reproducible falsification. If an unallied group builds
its own a apparatus and observes the anomaly with a different (BCS)
supercon, that is convincing.
It's always possiblethat there's something special about the specific
material used that isn't due to "spurious effects" per se, but to some
unexpected property of that material under those circumstances.
Murat Ozer
2006-03-28 08:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LawsonE
Post by Uncle Al
Post by serg271
http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html
"It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of
generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the
gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further
confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological
domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other
high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the
acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field
is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than
Einstein's General Relativity predicts. "
"The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in
quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as
photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles,
known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the
unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled. "
Any comments ?
[...]
Post by Uncle Al
5) If the boojum was a nice clean precision-manufactured niobium
stannide supercon, then the report has possible credence. If the
supercon was YBCO, the report is probably crap at face value. High
temp ceramic supercons are notorious for spurious effects.
Anybody gainsaying General Relativity had best demonstrate an
unambiguous reproducible falsification. If an unallied group builds
its own a apparatus and observes the anomaly with a different (BCS)
supercon, that is convincing.
It's always possiblethat there's something special about the specific
material used that isn't due to "spurious effects" per se, but to some
unexpected property of that material under those circumstances.
Or Systematic Errors, the dreadful fear of all experimentalists...

Murat Ozer
Uncle Al
2006-04-05 19:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by serg271
Post by Uncle Al
1) Podkletnov.
2) Gravity Probe B was two pairs of anti-parallel superconductive
4300 rpm gyroscopes free falling in a 0.7742 rpm housing. No major
anomaly vs. housing or reference star was detected over 352 days of
free fall. It was DESIGNED to look for gravitomagnetic effects with
extraordinary sensitivity and minimal background fuzz. "one hundred
million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity
predicts" would have been noticed by the grad students.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
3) Binary pulsars orbit to General Relativity specs within
observational error. Pairs of 1.4 solar mass superconductng gyroscopes
with equatorial surface velocities of 20% lightspeed bearing huge
magnetic fields (10^8 tesla) and observed over months give no
anomalies,
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-2/
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-7/
"one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General
Relativity predicts" would have emerged from collected and analyzed
data.
4) Gravitons are a mathematical fabrication. There is no empirical
evidence that gravitons inhabit physical reality.
5) If the boojum was a nice clean precision-manufactured niobium
stannide supercon, then the report has possible credence. If the
supercon was YBCO, the report is probably crap at face value. High
temp ceramic supercons are notorious for spurious effects.
Anybody gainsaying General Relativity had best demonstrate an
unambiguous reproducible falsification. If an unallied group builds
its own a apparatus and observes the anomaly with a different (BCS)
supercon, that is convincing.
Here is a better description
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
and arxiv
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0602591
They were using Niobium, lead and YBCO. The effect was observed only
with Niobium and lead, but not with YBCO, and only in low temperature
(liquid helium, but not with liquid nitrogen). Sgnal-to-noise is 3.3 -
not very good by their own words. So what does it mean if the result
confirmed but only within this limited setup ? Is some other, less
exotic but still interesting explanation is likely ?
Ahh... you'd think they would have put it in /gr-qc/. The S/N is weak
compared to their grandiose conclusions. Mere superconductivity
appears to be insufficient. If BCS type II supercons at 4K reliably
show the effect, I want to see some others tested before anybody
shouts "one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's
General Relativity predicts."

stuff Tc, K Hc2, KOe at 4 K
================================
Pb 7.2 0.8
Nb 9.3 2
Nb3Sn 18 221
Nb3(AlGe) 20 396
Nb3Ge 23 342
MgB2 39 146 (random polyxtal)

MgB2 (2.73 g/cm^3) is much less dense than the others (Nb, 8.57
g/cm^3).

It is a curious result deserving of replication in other labs in other
materials. My money is on Einstein.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
Richard Saam
2006-04-11 19:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Uncle Al
Ahh... you'd think they would have put it in /gr-qc/. The S/N is weak
compared to their grandiose conclusions. Mere superconductivity
appears to be insufficient. If BCS type II supercons at 4K reliably>
show the effect, I want to see some others tested before anybody
shouts "one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's
General Relativity predicts."
stuff Tc, K Hc2, KOe at 4 K
================================
Pb 7.2 0.8
Nb 9.3 2
Nb3Sn 18 221
Nb3(AlGe) 20 396
Nb3Ge 23 342
MgB2 39 146 (random polyxtal)
MgB2 (2.73 g/cm^3) is much less dense than the others (Nb, 8.57
g/cm^3).
It is a curious result deserving of replication in other labs in other
materials.
An added remark on the "stuff"

Ref: Kittel Seventh Edition chapter 12

Reasonable extrapolations/calculations of Hc where Hc is related to
Stabilization Superconductor Free Energy Density (p 349) and where Hc ~
sqrt(Hc1*Hc2) (p 364) would indicate a better correlation of Hc as a
function of Tc than Hc2 as a function of Tc and perhaps a better
baseline for correlating potential gravitomagnetic effects.

Richard
Oh No
2006-04-28 04:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Uncle Al
Ahh... you'd think they would have put it in /gr-qc/.
gr-qc/0603033

Abstract: It is well known that a rotating superconductor produces a
magnetic field proportional to its angular velocity. The authors
conjectured earlier, that in addition to this so-called London moment,
also a large gravitomagnetic field should appear to explain an apparent
mass increase of Niobium Cooper-pairs. This phenomenon was indeed
observed and induced acceleration fields outside the superconductor in
the order of about 10^-4 g were found. The field appears to be directly
proportional to the applied angular acceleration of the superconductor
following our theoretical motivations. If confirmed, a gravitomagnetic
field of measurable magnitude was produced for the first time in a
laboratory environment. These results may open up a new experimental
window on testing general relativity and its consequences using coherent
matter.
Post by Uncle Al
It is a curious result deserving of replication in other labs in other
materials.
As they say themselves.
Post by Uncle Al
My money is on Einstein.
I would be cautious of backing Einstein on this one, since the
understanding of super conduction takes us into the quantum domain, and
so to quantum theories of gravity.

On the other hand I am suspicious of the result, but understanding it
requires more knowledge of superconduction than I claim to possess, and
probably more knowledge of superconduction which anyone possesses, since
it seems the phenomenon is not fully understood. I am also suspicious of
the authors' use of the Higgs mechanism to show the mass increase in
Niobium Cooper pairs; this seems to be their own calculation and I do
not know if it is generally accepted.

Since they have to apply a substantially greater acceleration than that
found to the superconducting ring in order to observe the effect, it
seems plausible that a field of the size found is actually due to an
experimental error. I would be inclined withhold judgement until such
time as there is clear evidence from other experiments, and preferably a
solid theory to go with it.


Regards
--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
Loading...