Can Superconductors Block Gravitational Fields?

jswitte writes "Raymond Chiao, of the University of California at Berkel, believes that superconductors can convert electromagnetic radiation into gravitational radiation. His full paper can be found here. His theory is based on the idea that superconductors might be able to block the so-called 'gravitomagnetic' field just as they block the electomagnetic field in the famous Meissner effect allowing superconductors to levitate in magnetic fields. He claims that when he 'adds the gravitomagnetic field to the standard quantum equations for superconductivity, he confirms not only the gravitational Meissner-like effect but also a coupling between the two breeds of magnetic field. An ordinary magnetic field sets electrons in motion near the surface of a superconductor. Those electrons carry mass, and so their motion generates a gravitomagnetic field.'"

Comments

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Cyberdeck]

Extrordinary claims need extrordinary proof. Build the device and demonstrate that it works. Publish the specs. Have other people who are not associated at all with you build these devices. If they confirm the results then the claim can be made relatively authoritatively.

If it doesn't happen then that's also fine, it means that a hypothesis was shown to be not an accurate model of how the universe works.

The method described is science in action, the way it is supposed to work.

Of course if this does work then they are going to have some surprises when they enable those underground superconductive power cables in, IIRC, downtown Chicago. (Detroit? Somebody help me out here, please?)

-C

Re:I'll believe it when I see it.

[GooseKirk]

Because the phrase "extraordinary proof" is stupid. What the fuck IS "extraordinary" proof? Since when is proof not enough to prove something?

Re:I'll believe it when I see it.

[gorilla]

Because some claims are trivial, and we can't spend enough time to validate every claim at the level required to validate the extrordianary ones. If I claim that I've found a fossil of a new species of dinosaur, then that can be validated simply by publishing a description of the fossil. If I claim that I've found a living dinosaur, then I'm going to have to do a little more than just write about it.

Sigh...cynicism kills!

[DaBjork]

Firstly, Fuel cells ARE 8th grade chem, they are just 2H + O = H2O. Secondly, astrophysicists have been theorizing antigravitation as a solution to the "dark matter" problem for quite sometime. Don't get me wrong, I am all for a healthy dose of cynicism, but in order to progress we need to take an open mind. This is not that far out of the realm of possibility. Point to the error in the theory if you feel this person is wrong. Then your point will stand on it's own.

If it sounds too good to be true...

[PurpleFloyd]

Note that the Scientific American article is very cautious: they state the implications if it's true. While, if true, this is a breakthrough on the level of relativity or quantum mechanics, one should take this with a large grain of salt. Plenty of other "revolutionary" theories haven't managed to pan out.

Re:Free Advice for Fringe Physicists

[Saoshyant]

Chiao has published the paper describing the theory, complete with mathematical arguments that "seem to be correct." Now, he's moving on to perform the experiments that will either verify or refute the theory. This is the way it's done! Black Holes were nothing more than a theory with mathematical arguments that "seem(ed) to be correct", until CHANDRA started supplying experimental evidence. General Relativity was a theory with mathermatical aruments that "seem(ed) to be correct", until we managed to observe light bending around the mass of the sun. There's nothing wrong with publishing a theory that has yet to be proven; many theoretical physiscists never participate in experimentation. They publish theories.

Re:Mmm... Time machine

[s390]

Maybe they'll go back and rename the school correctly. Berkel. It is to laugh!

Surely. Isn't it properly spelled "Berzerkely?" ;-)

As for the theory, it doesn't seem plausible, but physics is full of implausible concepts that work out in real life.

True enough. Yet the more implausible they seem, the more I suspect them of being over-convoluted theories that just _happen_ to match the results. Some things that seem implausible from a macro (visible, Newtonian) point of view are believable, but a lot of the quantum-level theories are just guesswork, as far as I'm concerned. Physicists must publish _something_ to keep their jobs, and that's what I think drives too much of the recent scientific theorizing. Publish something! That's their bread and butter. And they can write up for grants to pursue Big Physics research... and jobs. For example, fusion research is all simply a massive boondoggle.

Since gravity is a manifestation of a warpage of space-time, does this also mean that he is claiming superconductors are equivalent to gravity wells?

Another interpretation is that the space-time warp of gravity is a big illusion... that gravity isn't about mass but about energy (and mass and energy are related, thus the illusion). Thus the photons which have no mass _do_ have its analog... energy, and thats what gravity acts upon to bend the path. There _must_ be a consistent explanation for both macro and quantum level interactions, and until we find it, we'll not be intellectually fit to travel into the cosmos. We've got time (depending on when the next major comet intersects Earth's orbit at the wrong moment), but we do really need to figure everything out before our time runs out for us here.

No doubt that the symmetry between Maxwell's equations and Einstein's equations is stark, but does this also mean that they are equivalent in meaning and applicability?

My intuition tells me that such mathematical symmetries are trying to tell us something, but we just haven't figured it all out well enough - yet. We need free thinkers in the physical sciences, but... the entire structure of academia is built to enforce conformity. Some few people survive it and think "outside the box" as it were (Feynmann comes to mind), but the majority are just buried in conformity. The best thing the politicians could do to advance science would be to grant all science graduate students Associate level pay with no obligations to serve their tenured colleagues, but maintaining their freedom to consult and even collaborate with them whenever they find it helpful. This would accelerate big science in a way that would make the last decades seem a backwater.

Though the article puts a dig into superstring theory at the end, isn't it exactly this type of theory that is needed to unify such disparate theories as gravity and electromagnetism? If there is a symmetry there, wouldn't it make sense that the two equations would derive from a common principle?

Yes. Superstring theories (there are several that are trying to agree, convolutedly) are all so very complex that they're ultimately not very credible. Sorry! (To a generation of theoretical physicists.) The Universe _must_ have some simple rules (Einstein would agree with this, I am sure), but you haven't figured them out, so far. Complex systems are the products of insufficient mentality in both science and large-scale software systems. The bottom line for me is that I'm not convinced that they're not just playing with irrelevant and really fantastic math that will never work right. When they go outside five dimensions (3 space, 1 time, 1 energy), I lose interest. Or maybe six (vector/spin). But you maybe will get my drift... ten, twelve, fourteen dimensions? Give it up already!

My elementary physics is no match for the mathematics in the paper.

Mine too. ;-) But my scientific intuition is not satisfied by the embarrassing worldwide failure to integrate General Relativity with the Standard Model of Quantum Theory. It's an intellectual debacle that the so-called "best minds" of science haven't been able to work this out for going on a century here. It's also a shame that kids aren't going into science. Can we rehabilitate the Red Menace to get our politicians and educators back in gear here? That worked real well in the 50s and 60s, but raghead terrorists won't cut it.

Has a gravitomagneticfield been proven to exist ?

[Edmund Blackadder]

Just because a theory sounds nice and fits well with other known theories (electro magnetism) does not mean it is true.

There is plenty of moving mass in the universe. Has anyone measured a gravitomagnetic effect?

i havent heard of it.

Re:Podkletnov

[g4dget]

This is science, not a sandbox brawl. You don't get to pick and choose who you cite based on who you don't like. Podkletnov's experimental results are published, peer reviewed, and seem related. If Chiao is aware of them (and he must be), he has an obligation to cite them. If he thinks Podkletnov's results have no bearing on the effects predicted by his own theory, he can explain so in his citation. If he thinks there are fundamental flaws with Pokletnov's experimental setup, he can explain them.

Personally, I think both are crackpots. But if crackpots publish scientific papers, they still should follow the rules of academic conduct, because the rules of academic conduct ultimately are what helps us sort out the real crackpots from the forward thinkers.

I call bullshit

[denshi]

Yet the more implausible they seem, the more I suspect them of being over-convoluted theories that just _happen_ to match the results. Some things that seem implausible from a macro (visible, Newtonian) point of view are believable, but a lot of the quantum-level theories are just guesswork, as far as I'm concerned.

And yet, they're not guesswork. They are powerful predictive models that have enabled the construction of devices such as the one you are typing garbage into.

Physicists must publish _something_ to keep their jobs, and that's what I think drives too much of the recent scientific theorizing.

Every competent university physicist could easily double their salaries by going into industry. Not everyone in the world is as cynical and trite as yourself.

Yes, academic credentialism is driven by publishing. So? How does that translate into your assumption that all the 'recent theorizing' is bunk? Publishing is hard work. You don't just make up crap and watch is magically traverse the gauntlet of peer review.

For example, fusion research is all simply a massive boondoggle.

Oh, right, because there's no such thing as fusion. That's why we know it's a boondoggle. Oh wait. It seems fusion is actually a common physical process! Maybe we should look into it. If, you know, that's all right with you.

Another interpretation is that the space-time warp of gravity is a big illusion... that gravity isn't about mass but about energy (and mass and energy are related, thus the illusion). Thus the photons which have no mass _do_ have its analog... energy, and thats what gravity acts upon to bend the path.

Work up the math, develop a consistent theory with provable axioms, then we'll talk. This isn't consultancy, s390, this is science. Golf, blowjobs, and 'intuition' won't cut it. Oh, and physics on LSD went out 20 years ago.

Have you actually *read* the General Theory of Relativity? Go get Wheeler's "Gravitation". It deals with your confused theory, and much more besides, all coherently.

We need free thinkers in the physical sciences, but... the entire structure of academia is built to enforce conformity. Some few people survive it and think "outside the box" as it were (Feynmann comes to mind), but the majority are just buried in conformity.

There are things to be said in favor of conformity. Science was created in a time of mystics and frauds. Actually having to prove what you claim was a big jump, and conformity is a natural side-effect of that. On the other hand, there is too much conformity in the university environment these days, but for that the blame can be laid at the doors of the administration. Nationwide, administration staff has doubled relative to student&faculty populations. All the bone-headed management theories that the private sector spent the last decade or two working through have trickled into the Uni, and all the 'free thinkers' fear for their jobs. Tenure, the great bulwark of high-performance original thinkers, is on the way out.

The bottom line for me is that I'm not convinced that they're not just playing with irrelevant and really fantastic math that will never work right. When they go outside five dimensions (3 space, 1 time, 1 energy), I lose interest.

Work through the math, get back to us.

But my scientific intuition is not satisfied by the embarrassing worldwide failure to integrate General Relativity with the Standard Model of Quantum Theory. It's an intellectual debacle that the so-called "best minds" of science haven't been able to work this out for going on a century here.

Perhaps if your 'scientific intuition' was better grounded in, say, math and science, then you wouldn't troll with this garbage. Oh, we broke the Standard Model 3 years ago. Better update your notes.

Far Side

[N8F8]

I'll not pretend to grok the paper entirely, but a casual read remids me of a classic Far Side cartoon where a bunch of scientists are standing around a chalkboard. On the board is one of the scientist's Grand Unifid Theory. Smack dab in the middle of the equation is the phrase "And then a miracle happens".

This paper reads the same way... "When A is time-independent, this equation has the same form as the time independent Schrodinger equation for a particle (i.e., a Cooper pair) with mass m2eff and a charge e2 with an energy eigenvalue except that there is an extra nonlinear term whose coefcient is given by the coefcient x, which arises at a microscopic level from the Coulomb interactions between Cooper pairs [16]. The values of these two phenomenological parameters must be determined by experiment."

But then again, what do I know?