Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can Superconductors Block Gravitational Fields?

Posted by chrisd on from the lose-weight-fast-with-no-dieting dept.

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.'"

4 of 476 comments (clear)

  1. Wait for the experimental test by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The key point here is that the theory predicts that the conversion of microwaves to gravity waves will be reasonably efficient. So this is testable, and is being tested. There should be a definitive result this year.

    Nobel prize material if it works. Footnote in Physical Review Letters if it doesn't.

    1. Re:Wait for the experimental test by Wocko · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It is based on the fact that not only should gravity waves convert to microwaves, but that the inverse should be true.

      So, if you imagine the following experiment:

      Inside a Faraday cage, place a superconductor and a microwave source.

      Inside another Faraday cage, place a superconductor and a microwave detector.

      From inside the first Faraday cage, fire the microwave source at the superconductor. The theory predicts that a gravitation wave will be emitted.

      Aim the (suspected) emitted gravitation wave at the second superconductor (inside the second Faraday cage).

      Detect any microwave radiation after the gravitation wave has been converted by the second superconductor.

      The Faraday cages block electromagnetic radiation so they ensure that no microwaves can leak from the emitter to the detector, and therefore gravitation waves must be the culprit.

  2. I had a friend once . . . by Ezubaric · · Score: 3, Interesting


    I had a friend who was working on this for a while. He kept building larger and larger metal units, cooling them down more and more, trying to get a rotating disk to speed up in a very, very, strong (par. magnetic field). If it sped up, then this was a reduction in the moment of inertia, and a decreased effective mass.

    After two years of working on it, he gave up. He did get a measurable increase, but it was too little to be more than measurement error.

    --

    ----------
    I am an expert in electricity. My father held the chair of applied electricity at the state prision.
  3. Scientific American Settles it... by i1984 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    When I first glanced at this thread I figured this was just another crank story like the time machine or the previous anti-gravity superconductor, but then I saw it was in Scientific American I knew that if it wasn't crank science, it was at least probably being blown out of proportion, sensationalized, and/or taken out of context.

    Perhaps that's a bit too harsh, but Scientific American has come down in the world quite a bit since the late eighties or early nineties. As I recall, they got a new editor many years ago and he was hell bent on dumbing the magazine down, fluffing it up with low-attention-theshold filler, and generally reducing it to a level of depth, insight, and relevance typical of USA Today or Omni Magazine. He suceeded, and many of the science professionals I knew cancelled their subscriptions shortly thereafter.

    This subject strikes me as the researcher noting to himself "oh, hey...if I make some interesting assumptions, I get this cool effect popping out. And I might as well test it since it's so easy to test." Or an April Fools joke*. Which falls short of us dismissing the idea out of hand, but does suggest it doesn't deserve much media coverage -- at least until any positive results are verified. In other words, it was just sensationalist enough to get Scientific American's attention (they dig this kind of stuff), but not so far to the side of quackery that it has (yet) been featured in the Fortean Times.

    * By the way, the paper missed April Fools day by four days; the date is stamped April 5, 2002. There's also a second date stamp of April 11, 2002. (A slightly earlier date stamp would have cleared things up pretty quickly!)