On the new gravimagnetism experiment
Jack Sarfatti
On Mar 26, 2006, at 11:56 AM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:
As reported by the ESA, "The experiment demonstrated that a
superconductive gyroscope is capable of generating a powerful
gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the gravitational counterpart of
the magnetic coil. 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."
Becker wrote: "The magnitude of the effect is and is not surprising. As
Jack showed below, this effect is huge, much larger than conventional GR
would predict (e.g. in a Gravity Probe B-type experiment). Given the
demonstration of the slowing of light in condensates over the last
decade, Jack's derivation offers a very interesting phenomenological
explanation for the effect, using a classical model of a rotating source
and the slowing of the light speed."
OK further QUICK AND DIRTY BACK-OF-THE-ENVELOPE PHENOMENOLOGY MODELING:
/\zpf ~ (1/LpLsc)cos(DELTATHETA), i.e. Josephson PHASE LOCK
The effective gravimagnetic field is ~ 1//\zpf ~ LpLsc/cos(DELTATHETA)
Lsc is the "cutoff" for the superconductor probably its coherence
length. I have to look back at Ray Chiao's "Gravity Radio" model.
Note the RESONANT DENOMINATOR
PERHAPS, THE PHASE LOCK WILL BE MOST EFFICIENT WHEN THE "BOSONS" OF THE
MACRO-QUANTUM "ROTOR" COUPLE TO VIRTUAL BOSONS OF THE SAME KIND IN THE
PHYSICAL VACUUM. THE THERMAL FLUCTUATIONS PROVIDE ENERGY TO PUT VIRTUAL
BOSONS ON MASS SHELL WHILE AT THE SAME TIME REAL BOSONS LOSE ENERGY IN
THOSE FLUCTUATIONS AND DISAPPEAR INTO THE VACUUM. IT'S DETAILED BALANCE
SHUFFLING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE VACUUM CONDENSATE AND THE "ROTOR"
CONDENSATE STABILIZING THE PHASE LOCK.
DELTA THETA = VACUUM PHASE - ROTOR PHASE
RMS = Root Mean Square Fluctuation
RMS(DELTA THETA) = RMS[VACUUM PHASE - ROTOR PHASE]^2 ~ 1/RMSN
N = Nvirtual + Nreal
of same type
Therefore, the MINIMUM RESONANCE WIDTH is
1/RMS(cosDELTATHETA) in the denominator.
That is, the MAXIMAL PEAK RESONANCE gravimagnetic field is ~ Lp*^2 =
LpLsc/RMS(cosDELTATHETA)
~ 10^20Lp^2
i.e.
Lsc/RMS(cosDELTATHETA) ~ 10^20Lp
RMS(cosDELTATHETA) ~ 10^-20(Lsc/Lp)
However, DELTA THETA ~ 2pi(MAGNETIC FLUX/FLUX QUANTUM) in the trapped
vortices in the rotating Type II superconductor. That is, the effect
should be dependent on the magnetic flux in the lattice magnetic
vortices. There should also be a temperature dependence of course.
Jack earlier: That's 10^20
The asymptotic gravimagnetic field B from a slowly rotating neutral mass
of angular momentum J in Planck units (Kerr metric)
B0phi ~ - (2J/r)sin^2theta
in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates
For example J(Earth) = 5.86 10^40 gmcm^2/sec = 145 cm^2 in Planck units,
i.e. ~ 10^68 Bekenstein BITS.
Therefore the Kerr parameter J in the usual rest LNIF representation of
the slowly rotating Kerr metric scales as G ~ Lp^2.
So this experiment reports a puzzling effective superconducting
amplification of hG/c^3 to ~ G* ~ 10^20hG/c'^3 with an effective Planck
area not of 10^-66 cm^2 but 10^-46 cm^2, i.e. not 10^-33 cm but 10^-23
cm, which is still 10^-10 fermi.
The effective parameter is actually
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
So the effect is EASY TO UNDERSTAND QUALITATIVELY as the SLOWING DOWN OF
THE SPEED OF LIGHT in a MACRO-QUANTUM ODLRO FIELD OF THE SUPERCONDUCTOR.
This effect is seen in atomic gas BECs.
The speed of light in the ODLRO superconducting field is
c' = c/n
so we have here, if the data is any good,
(1/n)^3 = 10^-20
Lp*^2 ~ n^3
i.e. n ~ 10^20/3
Speed of light slowed down to roughly 10 cm/sec in the superconductor.
Now is this the "model" they published?
Jack,
I will try to respond briefly. In the interests of objectivity, it
should be noted that since I was part of some of the goings on in this
field, including some of a more personal nature, some of my observations
and conclusions may naturally be biased. I have also been out of the
mainstream of this area for quite some time and do not know all the
developments and am in know way an expert on SC.
First, if confirmed - and I completely agree with Paul Murad and even
the experimenters themselves - that this needs to be reconfirmed many
times, it is truly a spectacular, historic result. de Matos and Tajmar
deserve immense credit for even obtaining the funding for such an
experiment over such a time period, and being able to carry it out. At
the least, it should open up the theoretical floodgates and revive
interest in Li-Torr, Becker, Ross, Baker, Robertson and NASA, Chiao,
etc. approaches.
Yes, we are all in agreement on that. In fact now I think I may
understand why it is a plausible idea.
Much criticisim has been lavished upon Li, the NASA group, and
Podkletnov for not having performed "perfect" experiments. One reason
for that is lack of funding. It is the infamous Catch-22. To do a
"perfect" experiment usually requires good funding for the time and
equipment necessary. But to get it, one requires already the perfect
experiment.
I am reminded of the "perfect no-cloning theorem" that actually gives
the wrong idea.
On the theoretical front, I agree with the Tajmar statement that this
experiment appears to have little to do with Li-Torr Theory. The Woods
Paper is very interesting and useful, but what he did is examine the
implications for HFGW if Li-Torr Theory was correct. It did not
completely or so much directly address the validity of Li-Torr Theory;
he did argue that it could not be dismissed cavalierly on the basis of
the some of the earlier critiques. (The underlying basis for the Li-Torr
Theory is often misunderstood, including by Tajmar in years past, and so
critiques often address the wrong issues, or at least not the most
fundamental issues.)
I also agree that it appears to have little to do with the Podkletnov
experiments directly. One advantage of, and a good decision by de Matos
and Tajmar, was is to use simpler experimental systems. I think when
studying unkown physics, the KISS principle really should apply!! They
apparently did not use High-Tc SC for their experiment, unlike
Podkletnov, who used a complicated double layered High-Tc SC system for
one of them. (The original Li-Torr work was based on Low-Tc Type 1 SC.)
Tony Robertson and Modanese have spent great effort investigating the
details of the Podkletnov system, and Robertson attributes the
possibility of this effect to such complexity in the linkage between the
layers. I do not think his model is convincing yet, but the de
Matos-Tajmar result should throw open the door for reconsideration.
As to weight gain, here I disagree with Tajmar. Though the magnitude of
such effects might have been incorrectly predicted by Li-Torr Theory,
that there would be some kind of Newtonian gravititational effect
produced due to an (AC) GM field being generated in the SC is a direct
prediction of one of the later Li-Torr Papers and should not be
controversial. That follows from the Einstein-Maxwell Equations of
linearized GR.
The magnitude of the effect is and is not surprising. As Jack showed
below, this effect is huge, much larger than conventional GR would
predict (e.g. in a Gravity Probe B-type experiment). Given the
demonstration of the slowing of light in condensates over the last
decade, Jack's derivation offers a very interesting phenomenological
explanation for the effect, using a classical model of a rotating source
and the slowing of the light speed.
However, I think more may be at work here. I do not know the details of
the de Matos-Tajmar Theory. But starting with my Thesis and in
subsequent work culminating in the following Paper with de Matos: C. de
Matos, R. E. Becker, arXiv:gr-qc/9908001, 1999, I argued that a
relatively large GM flux effects in SC, in the presence of a magnetic
field (which could in turn be generated by rotation), is required by QM
in the form of GM Flux Quantization, regardless of how this could be
generated and explained by the microphysics. I did not examine the same
system that de Matos-Tajmar are apparently studying. Mine did not have
rotation, and rotation should not be required for the effect I predicted
so long as a sufficiently strong magnetic field is present. So, the two
approached may not be directly comparable. (Certainly the experiment de
Matos and I proposed is not the same as what he and Tajmar eventually
performed.)
I came up with the concept of Coherent ZPM for the express purpose of
offereing a (very) qualitative concept for how such a larger GM field
could be generated, whether in a SC or in a HeII superfluid, which is
what my Thesis first looked at. (A superfluid should exhibit the same
effect the SC when rotated, albeit much weaker.) It might also be used
as an alternative to the underlying explanation in Li-Torr Theory.
The magnitude of the effect I predicted and what may have been
demonstrated here raises an important mathematical issue, which I
discussed first in the Thesis and in the subsequent de Matos-Tajmar and
Mitre Papers: If the GM field is really relatively huge, are the
linearized Einstein-Maxwell equations, which are the usual starting
point for discussions of GM effects in condensates, still valid in such
a regime? That needs to be addressed with this experiment, as well as my
own work.
After our Paper was written, de Matos gave an ESA Contract to Tajmar and
Bertolami to conduct a review of the literature in this field. They did
an exhaustive job, and amongst others, gave the de Matos-Becker Paper a
bad review. That Paper may very well be wrong, since it is in a certain
sense heretical, as was so stated in the Paper. After this review, when
de Matos was trying to get funding for himself and this kind of
research, I understand (from tertiary sources) that it became
"politically incorrect" for de Matos to be associated with our Paper.
Thus, he abjured and renounced our mutual Paper and refused to reference
that Paper in his subsequent work with Tajmar, at least in the first
Papers from them that I saw. Those Papers appeared to me at the time to
be not valid. Of course, I could have simply misunderstood them (I don't
recall any details) and I do not know any details of more recent work.
On a personal note, I do believe that it approaches or crosses the lines
of scientific unethicality to not reference prior work, if one knows
about it, even if one disagrees with it. Since I was acting as a kind of
(very informal) "advisor" for de Matos at the time, that was not what I
had hoped to see as an outcome.
But if renouncing me and my work in some small way helped de Matos win
funding for these new experiments, then I think the field of physics has
been very well served by it!
Take care,
Robert
Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Yes, thanks. Certainly these claims are important if replicated. Robert
Becker seems best positioned at the moment to comment on the theory in
these papers.
On Mar 25, 2006, at 9:48 PM, Tim Ventura wrote:
Story Link: http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/498/1/
ESA Announces Gravity-Modification Breakthrough
Gravitomagnetic London Effect Found in Rotating Superconductors
This week the European Space Agency announced the results of an
experimental test in which a superconductor rotating at 6,500 rpm is
shown to gain weight as the result of what is believed to be a
gravity-modification effect.
Gain weight? That's not good!
The results were presented March 21st at the ESA's European Space and
Technology Research Centre (ESTEC), in a paper entitled "Experimental
Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment". The paper predicts the
presence of a large gravitomagnetic field within a rotating
superconductor, and describes the experimental detection of this
phenomenon as an extra-gravitational acceleration on the superconductor
on the order of 100 µg.
The experiment was performed by Dr's Martin Tajmar & Clovis De Matos at
ARC Seibersdorf, Austria's largest independent research laboratory.
Tajmar, the Head of Field Space Propulsion Business for ARC, was quoted
as stating that these results, while preliminary, were nonetheless
rigorously reviewed before publication, "We ran more than 250
experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the
validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement.
Now we are confident about the measurement." Dr. Tajmar previously
commented on this continuing research study during a video-interview
with American Antigravity at STAIF 2006.
While the announcement of these initial test-results is highly
promising, Tajmar suggested that more experimentation is required before
the results can be considered fully conclusive. In a statement Saturday,
Tajmar remarked, "Of course, this effect needs further confirmation with
other sensors, setups, etc. As an experimentalist, it is always very
hard to release such data knowing that the claims are extraordinary, so
I really want to be very cautious."
Tajmar's experimental results follow in a long thread of anecdotal
claims & theoretical predictions from scientists such as Dr's Ning Li,
Evgeny Podkletnov, Douglas Torr, Robert Baker, Raymond Chiao, and David
Maker. While Li & Podletnov have described seeing remarkable large-scale
experimental results, other experiments have produced no results
whatsoever, creating a general uncertainty in the scientific community
as to whether gravitomagnetic effects do in fact exist in superconductors.
Dr. Clive Woods of Iowa State University addressed the issue of
gravitational-coupling in superconductors in a recent publication
entitled "High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Optics". His research
revisits earlier calculations by Li & Torr showing that gravitational
waves inside a Type-II superconductor propogate with a phase-velocity
300 times slower than in free-space, and leading to the hypothesis that
a superconductor may require focusing in order to correctly absorb &
re-radiate gravitational waves. This notion may explain in part at least
some of the difficulty found in obtaining consistent experimental
results, as illustrated by the experimental failure of Dr. Raymond
Chiao's "gravity-radio" experiment in 2003.
While Woods’ publication certainly seems to provide new insight into
manipulating gravitational force using superconductors, Tajmar believes
that Woods’ research is not applicable to this latest experiment, "As
you have probably seen in the experimental paper, we found the effect in
Nb and Pb (Type-II and Type-I) - so it's not specifically related to
Type-I or II superconductors. Moreover, Clive based his focusing
requirements on the speed of gravity equation from an old Li & Torr
paper - after calculating through her paper, I believe that this
specific equation is not correct."
Another startling aspect of Tajmar's reported experimental results is
the scale, which demonstrates a coupling many orders of magnitude higher
than both Relativity Theory and earlier research into High-Frequency
Gravity-Waves (HFGW's) would predict. HFGW researcher & STAIF
Session-Chairperson Gary Stephenson commented on this by noting that the
difference in scale of the reported effects may be the result of
Tajmar's experimental implimentation, which he described as a "DC static
gravitomagnetic field, potentially bound by different coupling
efficiencies than those predicted by the wavelike AC-nature of
traditional High-Frequency Gravitational Waves."
If the gravitomagnetic coupling coefficient is in fact higher for
rotating-superconductors than for HFGW experiments, it could mean new
life for the experimental research of Dr. Evgeny Podkletnov, best-known
for a highly-publicized 1996 claim to have created a 2% decrease in the
weight of a YBCO Type-II superconductor rotating at 5,000 rpm.
Podkletnov has since then also described creating a powerful
"force-beam" apparatus by passing a high-energy electrical discharge
from a Marx-Generator through a superconducting spark-gap during
experimentation at the Moscow Chemical Research Institute in Russia.
Gary Stephenson commented in the similarity between the 1996 experiments
and Tajmar's results, stating, "Tajmar's experiment seems highly
analogous to Podkletnov's experiment, but based on a firmer theoretical
foundation. In essence, they are spinning a superconductor, which is
exactly what Podkletnov claimed produced an identical -- albeit larger--
result."
STAIF Conference Section-F Chairman Paul Murad made a more direct
comparison, stating, "Is this truly the first time that we've seen this
effect, or has it perhaps already been documented under different
manifestations? Is this the same as Podkletnov's gravity-shielding
effect? I can't help but wonder if these results have been seen in the
past in other experiments, and perhaps were either not reported or
instead attributed to other causal factors..."
With Tajmar's recent publication raising more questions than answers,
there seems to be only one point of clear consensus -- the need for
additional research. Paul Murad summarized the views of many with the
statement, "For the moment, I'm taking a wait and see attitude to see
how this research further develops. We also have to see the
experimental setup, possible environmental & terrestrial sources of
error, and a variety of successful experimental replications before
making a determination. We need to see this reproduced by others before
making a final decision."
Links: ESA: Towards a New Test of General Relativity?, Martin Tajmar
Homepage, Wired: Breaking The Law of Gravity, Chiao's Gravity-Radio
Interviews: Martin Tajmar Video Interview (STAIF 2006), Eugene
Podkletnov Audio Interview #1, Eugene Podkletnov Audio Interview #2
Publications: Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London
Moment, Local Photon and Graviton Mass and its Consequences
Related: High-Frequency Gravitational-Wave Optics, Weak gravitational
shielding properties of superconductors, Investigation of HV discharges
through large ceramic superconducting electrodes, Superconductor Impulse
Gravity Generator
Jan Panteltje
<sarf...@pacbell.net> wrote in
<ZpGVf.9286$tN3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>:
Nice post Jack, thank you for quoting.
This will start a new era without Einstein parrots I hope.
After reading both
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603033
and
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603032
on the los Alamos preprint server, reading ..32 gave me the feeling for
a tongue in cheek April 1 joke, I lost the math there I admit:
<quote>
Assuming that a Cooper-pair condensate is a possible form of a Higgs
condensate, we can equal the density of condensed Higgs particles nH to the
Cooper-pair density ns in a superconductor. Doing Equ. (31) into Equ. (30)
we obtain: eq (32)
This looks very similar to the vacuum energy relation that we found in
Equ. (12). By equalling both, we can estimate the mass of the Higgs boson in
function of the local density of mass eq 32
(33) Taking the example of Niobium (?m=8570 kg.m-3, ns=3.7x1028 m-3), we
estimate the Higgs mass as mH=192 GeV. Measurements at CERN and Fermilab
estimate the Higgs mass between 96 and 117 GeV/c2 with an upper limit of 251
GeV/c2. This is very close to our estimate above. This result leads us to
consider coherent matter on the same physical foot as spacetime vacuum.
Coherent matter would then be a form of vacuum. It is interesting to note
that from Equ.(9) and Equ.(33) we observe that the local density of mass
determines respectively the local mass of the graviphoton as well as the
local mass of the Higgs boson. On the other side by equalling both equations
we deduce that the local Higgs boson mass is proportional to the square of
the local graviphoton?s mass. 2 H g m ? m . (34) This can be understood as
being a fundamental bridge between linearized general relativity with a
cosmological constant, and the standard model. The physical meaning of that
bridge still needs to be explored.
</quote>
So, a new physics?
And you were right there when it happened.
But how about ww3 this week?
Will it be taiwan, Iraq, Russian rebels or what?
Anyways, I also liked this (from gr-qc/0603032) ;-):
<quote>
So in fact, the vacuum energy density is equal (up to the numerical factor
of 0.75) to the energy density of matter (E=mc2). This is indeed an
intriguing result and gives a totally new perspective to the energy of the
vacuum being defined as function of the local density of matter.
</quote>
Thank you for the nice post Jack!
ma1ibu
will align electron rings so they
are instantaneously parallel at all times.
This will make matter essentially two-dimensional.
See the Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
John