Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

[Access Denied]

For the second and hopefully the last time, or not, some "key" figures in the UFOlogical community popularly known as the “Aviary” who among other things, for the last 30 years or so, have been engaged in, and have been attempting to secure funding for, pseudoscientific “research” based on alleged “alien technology”, have been exposed in a relatively “high profile” (public) way.

From Wired’s “Danger Room”…

'Magical' Gravity Wave Weapons No Threat, Panel Says
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/12/g ... threa.html

Fear not, tinfoil hat brigade. Despite what you may have heard on the Internets, the rippling of spacetime cannot be used as some sort of weapon. So says JASON, the Pentagon's premiere scientific advisory board.

For years, word has circulated among the fringe-science set that high-frequency gravitational waves, or HFGWs, could be harnessed for "tremendously lucrative commercial and military applications."

[snip]

It will probably not surprise you to learn that I discovered all of this by clicking through the links at AmericanAntigravity.com. Or that one of the members of this HFGW-backing team is a 14 year-old student in Virginia.

For decades, JASON has been enlisted by the Pentagon to assess the scientific validity of what appear to be quackery -- just to make sure the Defense Department doesn't miss something big, by being close-minded. In a harshly-worded report, obtained by Secrecy News, the panel tells the Pentagon: Don't sweat it. You're not missing a thing.

[snip]

Interestingly, a fellow by the name of Ronald Pandolfi arranged for many of the HFGW speakers and presentations. In certain circles, Pandolfiis known as the "CIA's UFO expert."

A copy of the report sponsored by Dr. Pandolfi (aka “Pelican”) at the ODNI, who’s also credited with bringing a merciful (to taxpayers and the greater scientific community) end to Dr. Harold ”Hal” Putoff’s (aka “Owl”) pseudoscientific CIA sponsored STARGATE “remote viewing” program that was being overseen by Dr. Christopher “Kit” Green (aka “Bluejay”), can be downloaded here…

High Frequency Gravitational Waves
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/gravwaves.pdf

The report is hilarious. Some select quotes…

…to deposit even an ergs worth of HFGW gravitons in a target requires >> 10^40 ergs of electric power input to a HFGW generator. This is more than total energy from electric power generation on the earth (< 10^12 watts) for longer than the age of the Universe.

Use of HFGW beams for destroying, deflecting, or compromising distant targets (or close ones) has no promise.

That’s putting it mildly.

…it would be necessary, on the average, to wait a time of 10^24 s for a photon to be emitted from the region of 9-T magnetic field by the inverse Gertsenshtein Effect.

This is a long time. Since a year is 3·10^7 s, and the age of the universe is less than 10^18 s, one would either have to wait 10^6 ages of the universe (beyond the funding horizon of any federal agency) or replicate the experiment some 10^17-fold to obtain one photon per year.

Minor detail.

Beyond all of these specific problems, we address the suggestion that even though HFGW are not useful with our present understanding of general relativity, such experiments should be supported because if scientific understanding were wrong, and HFGW were easier to generate and to detect than is believed by the standard theory, there would be adverse national security consequences. One can always imagine something different, but it is clear that the work should be put in the hands of a team that understands both gravitational radiation and experimental physics.

Subtle.

…the idea that one could have a small HFGW detector (and source) is not extrapolation but hallucination.

Or as we say in the business, “not even wrong”…

A point no doubt lost on our poor friend Gary Bekkum, who’s been stalking Mr. Pandolfi and trying to create drama and intrigue where in fact there is none since he started posting here at RU, judging by his latest blog entry…

Ron Pandolfi's DNI MASINT JASON HFGW Study
http://stargate007.blogspot.com/2008/12 ... -hfgw.html

[Note: We’ve decided to grant Gary amnesty and invite him back to RU under the condition that any further discussion related to the (now locked) thread Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?, the basis of which he repeatedly failed to substantiate and retract his claims for, is strictly off limits.]

Now about that classified appendix?

Perhaps this paragraph [see my red highlight in the paragraph in question above – AD] provides a clue:

Whoosh…

Perhaps a better question is why did it take a panel of experts to debunk what’s obviously wrong to anyone who’s studied or closely follows cosmolgy and particle physics?

[Zep Tepi]

Excellent post AD. It's amazing how simple something looks once it has had all of the spin and fog removed from it.

Good job

[ryguy]

Wow...nice writeup AD. I wrote a follow-up on TopSecretWriter - comparing the JASON group to RU...haha.

Jason Physicists Discredit Baker and HFGW

After seeing your writeup, I decided to link the "RU Investigators" link to this particular thread, so people could see your analysis.

Nothing as cool as the Wired article, but after reading that PDF I couldn't help but call the Jasons the Hoax Busters of Physics... lol

-Ry

[Gary]

A few points (quoted here) from the JASON study:

Our analysis of the proposed detectors and applications shows that previous analyses [10, 11, 12, 15] of them have been badly incorrect, and that they are infeasible by many orders of magnitude. Most importantly, previous
analyses of the proposed detector use a badly incorrect estimation of the sensitivity a homodyne detector, and are the resulting sensitivity estimates are too optimistic by more than 20 orders of magnitude. Similar errors occur
throughout the analyses that we have seen in this study. Notably, this error does not concern gravitaton physics directly; it is an error of electrical engineering of the proposed detector. None of the proposed applications
that were briefed to us, or which we have read about, are remotely possible in the foreseeable future.

I am aware of another HFGW initiative not related to the Li-Baker work which was the primary research examined in Ron Pandolfi's study.

http://www.ucmerced.edu/news_articles/1 ... aymond.asp

Chiao is an award-winning atomic, molecular and optical physicist. His research into the behavior of photons - the particles that make up light - and related particles has made Chiao a renowned expert in his field.

When Chiao sets up shop in Merced, startup funds from the UC system available to him as a new UC Merced professor will make it possible to pursue a new line of research: attempting to detect the gravitational radiation predicted decades ago by Albert Einstein.

Einstein theorized that gravity travels in waves, like light, heat or sound. Chiao aims to discover gravity waves directly by generating them, as well as detecting them, directly in a laboratory setting, using macroscopically coherent quantum matter as the means.

"I am eager to start what I believe is an important line of research not being pursued elsewhere," said Chiao. "If I were to be successful in this new research at Merced, the results would be extremely important, as the generation and detection of a new kind of 'gravity radio waves' would open up whole new areas of science and engineering, such as a new kind of long-distance wireless communication."

Gravitational radiation, Chiao explained, would be able to travel through the earth, potentially creating a direct line of wireless communication between opposite points on the globe.

To work on this question, Chiao will be setting up equipment at UC Merced using recently developed technology involving extremely cold helium 3 - helium 4 dilution refrigerators, which he plans to purchase from a company in Europe. In addition to using UC startup funds, he will seek funding for his work from various private foundations and from the National Science Foundation.

Chiao, who was born in China, completed his undergraduate degree at Princeton University and his doctorate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, both in physics. After two years on the faculty at M.I.T., he joined the Berkeley faculty as an Alfred P. Sloan fellow in 1967. Among his many honors and awards, he counts a prize from the Gravity Research Foundation, a Scientific Innovation Award from the Center for Advanced Studies and the Einstein Prize for Laser Science. From 1987 - 1996 he was the recipient of the Senior U.S. Scientist Award of the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung. Currently, he serves as a fellow of the American Physical Society and a fellow of the Optical Society of America and as a foreign member of the Royal Norwegian Society of Arts and Letters. He recently won the 2006 Willis E. Lamb Medal for Laser Science and Quantum Optics with colleagues Roy J. Glauber and Manfred Kleber.[/i

Dr. Chiao requested I withhold additional information at this time.

I note this quoted from the JASON study:

[i]Beyond all of these specific problems, we address the suggestion that even though HFGW are not useful with our present understanding of general relativity, such experiments should be supported because if scientific understanding were wrong, and HFGW were easier to generate and to detect than is believed by the standard theory, there would be adverse national security consequences. One can always imagine something different, but it is clear that the work should be put in the hands of a team that understands both gravitational radiation and experimental physics.

The key idea not examined in the JASON study is related to "our present understanding of general relativity" within the context of macroscale quantum systems.

By the way I first was made aware of Pandolfi's briefing for JASON in an email from November of 2007. Curiously, Pandolfi confirmed to me the need to determine why American and not foreign HFGW researchers were interested in 'UFO' technology.

When I asked why that was the case, he replied, and I quote:

"I was just curious as to why several of the researchers were also involved in ufo studies. Bob gave a good answer that I can use in case the question comes up ... Obviously UFO junkies have legitimate interests. I was just wondering why several of them are interested in high-frequency gravitational waves. As best I can tell this is a US centric connection. High-frequency gravitational wave researchers in Russia, Italy, China, and elsewhere seem to have no interests in UFOs. It might just be a statistical fluctuation with small sample sets."

[Gary]

I just now read Ryan's blog, where he writes:

During the course of the study being conducted by the JASON group, I had the pleasure of having several discussions with one of the researchers. After my recent blog update regarding Baker's HFGW research and Chinese funding or support of the research (before I'd heard about the JASON report on the matter), he contacted me and, in part, wrote the following:

"Perhaps China is not funding HFGW resarch, or at least the type of HFGW research being promoted by Baker, Davis, and Puthoff. By the way, not all HGFW research is bad science. You should review the work by Ray Chow at the University of California at Merced."

I note here for the record that last year I blogged the following:

http://stargate007.blogspot.com/2007/10 ... radio.html

A new development in the highly speculative theoretical physics of transduction between gravity and electromagnetism may have been behind the recent spy fiasco involving a meeting with skeptical physicist Robert Park, arranged by Dan Smith at the request of a MASINT Senior Intelligence Official.

MASINT is Measurement and Signatures Intelligence.

The Federation of American Scientists defines MASINT as "scientific and technical intelligence information obtained by quantitative and qualitative analysis of data (metric, angle, spatial, wavelength, time dependence, modulation, plasma, and hydromagnetic) derived from specific technical sensors for the purpose of identifying any distinctive features associated with the source, emitter, or sender and to facilitate subsequent identification and/or measurement of the same."

The paper is titled "Generation and detection of gravitational waves at microwave frequencies by means of a superconducting two-body system"

This is purely speculation on my part, but it seems reasonable that MASINT would seek out expert opinion on Chiao's latest work, given the timing of the meeting and the release of the paper suggesting the possibility of using gravity for communications.

The technology that would allow this kind of deep penetration through the Earth would allow for "observations of the gravitational-wave analog of the Cosmic Microwave Background from the extremely early Big Bang, and also communications directly through the interior of the Earth" according to the abstract for the paper.

We also suspect that intelligence agencies may seek to discredit important emerging technology concepts in order to safely bury the research in the "black world."

[Gary]

Note added for AD: STAR GATE (the real DIA program, not the generic SG used for the whole of USG remote viewing programs) contracted their scientific research with SAIC and Dr. Ed May, NOT SRI, Hal Puthoff (Owl) and Kit Green (Bluejay).

[ryguy]

Thanks for your updates Gary - and I really appreciate your response to the quote at my blog. I was going to ask you for some clarification, and was hoping that you may have answered my question in your post before I was able to ask, but you didn't - so I'll ask here:

Are you familiar with the work by Ray Chow, mentioned in that quote?

This is purely speculation on my part, but it seems reasonable that MASINT would seek out expert opinion on Chiao's latest work, given the timing of the meeting and the release of the paper suggesting the possibility of using gravity for communications.

My impression has been that MASINT is interested in doing two things.

1. Removing "junk science" from the equation so that pseudo-science doesn't suck much-needed research funds out of the bucket.
2. Helping to prevent U.S. scientists falling for "Active Measures" conducted by foreign intelligence services.
3. In general, elevating the field of research by helping U.S. scientists focus on legitimate science, and ignoring pseudo-science.

As he said, and I quoted on the blog, there is some potentially legitimate and "good" HFGW research being done by the likes of Ray Chow. I'm curious why you suggest MASINT should focus on foreign research - in particular, Chinese research? I don't mean that in any disrespectful way, by the way, I'm sincerely curious about your focus.

We also suspect that intelligence agencies may seek to discredit important emerging technology concepts in order to safely bury the research in the "black world."

Again - see my points above. I don't believe that the purpose is to "discredit important emerging technology concepts," but instead the point is to discredit pseudo-science, and in effect, elevate the excellent work of those legitimate scientists who are more deserving of funding resources.

-Ry

[ryguy]

Note added for AD: STAR GATE (the real DIA program, not the generic SG used for the whole of USG remote viewing programs) contracted their scientific research with SAIC and Dr. Ed May, NOT SRI, Hal Puthoff (Owl) and Kit Green (Bluejay).

AD was referring to the entire government-funded RV research, not only the last bit run by the SAIC. The point, furthermore, is that STAR GATE could potentially never have come about if it wasn't for the 1970s brainchild of Hal Puthoff, and Kit Green's initial promotion of it to the CIA.

-Ry

[ryguy]

By the way, concerning Active Measures - it's still commonplace today. The following should give all researchers pause.

SpyMuseum.org

Contemporary active measures are not confined to Russian soil. In fact, the recent controversy over cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad may well have been choreographed by the SVR, Russia’s foreign intelligence service. The evidence is circumstantial but compelling. For one, Kalugin says, the KGB has a history of using Danish journalists to plant disinformation in the Western press. And Flemming Rose, the Jyllands Posten cultural editor who commissioned the cartoons in 2005, happened to serve for several years as a correspondent in Moscow where, Kalugin observes, he published a spate of obviously government-sponsored, anti-Chechen articles. According to Litvinenko and journalist Adlan Beno, Rose also happens to be married to the daughter of an ex-KGB officer. This does not per se make Rose a Russian agent, of course, but Russian intelligence may well have availed itself of this “in-house” connection to influence the Danish journalist. “This guy may have been used,” Kalugin says.

Crazy huh? Using journalists and media types to plant disinformation in the Western Press?

Says Peter Earnest, a former senior CIA clandestine service officer who served in the Middle East: “As a way of fueling anti-western feelings among Muslims, publishing of cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Mohammad in an obscure Danish journal was a no-brainer, if it was done deliberately, particularly if you are prepared to use resources elsewhere to keep the controversy alive and pulsating.” And what’s in it for Moscow? The Kremlin seeks to ompromise and undermine the United States and “make Russia look [like] an alternative” international partner to Middle Eastern nations, says Kalugin. Emphasizing the continuity between Soviet and Russian active measures, he concludes: “It’s a tradition, it’s not something new. That’s important to see the past projected onto the present-and the future.”

I wonder if Chinese Intelligence has also worked out the art of Active Measures?

To identify the use of active measures within fringe science - in other words, Chinese efforts to divert U.S. scientific efforts toward useless & dead-end fields - one would need to look for journalists who work hard to promote pseudo-science, and in particular try to encourage U.S. government assets to pursue those avenues of research.

Do we know anyone like that?



Cheers,
-Ry

[Gary]

Ryan makes a valid point about foreign intelligence planting stories in Western media for their own purposes.

As a great example, this recent story from THE ATLANTIC:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200812/spies

“Would you be interested in writing stories about what we are doing in the Russian government?” Vladimir asked me. We were eating lunch at Cactus Cantina, a sprawling Mexican restaurant near the Russian Embassy; he was having fajitas, I was having enchiladas. His English, by diplomatic standards, wasn’t great, so I couldn’t tell exactly what he was getting at. Then he added: “We would pay you, of course.” Ah. Now it was clear.

I had met Vladimir (not his real name) a week before, at a conference in Washington. He had seen my name on the registration list and sought me out, which was unusual: Russian government officials don’t often seek out journalists. The embassy’s public-relations officer had never even returned any of the calls I’d made; Vladimir significantly outranked him.

Vladimir had said he’d been following my stories on eurasianet.org, a news Web site primarily about the former Soviet Union to which I regularly contribute, and wanted to talk to me. So he’d invited me out for lunch, and there we were.

Of course American intelligence does the same, even recruiting American journalists, as was the case for one web publisher who was offered money to publish stories requested by military intelligence.

In the case of 'Vladimir' he was known by FBI as a Russian agent:

“Do you have any questions for us?” one of the agents asked at the end of our conversation. Yes: How did you find out about me and get my cell-phone number? “I know you’re the FBI,” I said, “but—” “Exactly,” he said, cutting me off.

He asked me to call him whenever I met again with Vladimir. I balked. I didn’t want to be an FBI mole any more than I wanted to be a Russian spy. “Yeah, I know you have your ‘journalistic ethics,’” he said, making air quotes around the words.

I left Starbucks with my heart pounding. How did they know I was meeting Vladimir? Did they have their own spy in the Russian Embassy looking at his appointment book? Were they reading his e-mail? Listening to his phone conversations? And were they now reading my e-mail and listening to my phone conversations? And what would happen if I didn’t become a mole?

By the way do you know anyone living in a foreign country with a close professional relationship to anyone on the short list for CIA Director for the new administration?

[ryguy]

By the way do you know anyone living in a foreign country with a close professional relationship to anyone on the short list for CIA Director for the new administration?

Doh! I forgot all about that - I read that in the news recently and was meaning to do a follow-up about Gannon at some point but I lost power for a week (no articles without power!!) and time got away from me...lol. Thanks for the reminder. Will you be writing anything on that in your blog?

-Ry

[Access Denied]

Wow...nice writeup AD.

Thanks Ry, yours ain’t too shabby either.

[missed your new one about Kit before it… well done]

Gary, you said…

I am aware of another HFGW initiative [Chiao’s] not related to the Li-Baker work which was the primary research examined in Ron Pandolfi's study.

You mean this writeup of an invited lecture by Chiao at the Time & Matter 2007 Conference in Bled, Slovenia?

[hardly “inside” knowledge]

And…

Dr. Chiao requested I withhold additional information at this time.

I wonder why… could that be because he doesn’t want to be associated with your idle speculation regarding a conspiracy to “suppress” HFGW research?

[like the paragraph from the report you quoted addressing the notion that aliens in possession of the “right” physics may be spying on us with HFGWs]

And…

[emphasis mine]

This is purely speculation on my part, but it seems reasonable that MASINT would seek out expert opinion on Chiao's latest work, given the timing of the meeting and the release of the paper suggesting the possibility of using gravity for communications.

It would appear in this case your “speculation” was well founded…

[from the report, emphasis mine]

Similar errors occur throughout the analyses that we have seen in this study. Notably, this error does not concern gravitaton physics directly; it is an error of electrical engineering of the proposed detector. None of the proposed applications that were briefed to us, or which we have read about, are remotely possible in the foreseeable future. Therefore these proposals belong to the realm of pseudo-science, not science.

Seems Chiao's work would fall under that “which we’ve read about” and for the reasons given in the report outlined in my first post above like the (literally) astronomically huge amounts of energy required, the “possibility” of creating a practical “gravity radio” as proposed by anybody, including Chiao, is ruled out.

[don’t forget that the strength of GR waves, like EM waves, decrease with distance in accordance with the inverse-square law]

However this doesn't necessarily negate Chiao‘s other HFGW work like the quest to detect GR from the BB or potentially stronger natural sources like binary white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes… aka gravity wave astronomy.

As Ryan pointed out from Ron…

As he said, and I quoted on the blog, there is some potentially legitimate and "good" HFGW research being done by the likes of Ray Chow [sic].

Or as wiki puts it…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

In principle, gravitational waves could exist at any frequency. However, very low frequency waves would be impossible to detect, and very high frequency waves have no credible source able to generate detectable waves. Stephen W. Hawking and Werner Israel list different frequency bands for gravitational waves that could be plausibly detected, ranging from 10^-7 Hz up to 10^11 Hz.

Speaking of credible sources…

The key idea not examined in the JASON study is related to "our present understanding of general relativity" within the context of macroscale quantum systems.

As I would expect… that’s putting the cart before the horse. Before you can begin to “examine” any “new” physics you need to refute GR first… good luck with that.

Sorry Gary…

"These are not the droids you're looking for"
- Obi-Wan Kenobi

[Gary]

Note added: AD writes "As I would expect… that’s putting the cart before the horse. Before you can begin to “examine” any “new” physics you need to refute GR first… good luck with that."

I suggest AD read pages 8-9 of the Chiao paper on Einstein's equivalence principle.

AD: "You mean this writeup of an invited lecture by Chiao at the Time & Matter 2007 Conference in Bled, Slovenia?
[hardly “inside” knowledge] And… Gary wrote: 'Dr. Chiao requested I withhold additional information at this time.'
I wonder why… could that be because he doesn’t want to be associated with your idle speculation regarding a conspiracy to “suppress” HFGW research?"

I brought the JASON study to Dr. Chiao's attention, and he graciously answered my questions, and I intend to honor his request to withhold any additional information for now.

AD: "Seems Chiao's work would fall under that “which we’ve read about” and for the reasons given in the report outlined in my first post above like the (literally) astronomically huge amounts of energy required, the “possibility” of creating a practical “gravity radio” as proposed by anybody, including Chiao, is ruled out. [don’t forget that the strength of GR waves, like EM waves, decrease with distance in accordance with the inverse-square law]"

If AD had read Dr. Chiao's paper, he would have seen the following [technical information to follow, key points in bold]:

It may also be objected that the microwave-frequency electrical currents induced through Faraday’s law in the GR to EM wave conversion process may be too feeble and too difficult to detect. However, we are not proposing to detect these currents, but rather to detect the power converted from the GR wave into the EM wave, and vice versa. With an antenna design which takes into account impedance-matching and cross-section considerations properly, the power transmitted from the source to the receiver should be readily measurable.

If we should be successful in the Hertz-like experiment, one of the first tests to see if we truly have GR rather than EM coupling between the transmitter (or source) and receiver (or detector) halves of the apparatus, is to tilt the transmitter part of the apparatus by +22.5o with respect to the vertical around the line of sight joining the transmitter and receiver, and to tilt the receiver part of the apparatus by −22.5o with respect to the line of sight. The signal should be extinguished at the resulting 45o relative orientation between the two halves of the apparatus, and not at 90o, as would the case for EM waves. This would be a clear signature that we have successfully generated and detected GR waves rather than EM waves [this was suggested by Kirk Wegter-McNelly, personal communication].

AD should be aware of the conceptual conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Theory: in the past this serious failure to unify the theory of the very large with that of the very small has been largely overlooked.

For example, although not directly related to HFGW, David Bohm offered the example of a "remote control" pilot signal, where a far weaker energy is able to control a much larger energy.

Faraday's law of induction implies that the time-varying distance between the sphere and the ring caused by the tidal force of an incident gravitational wave induces time-varying electrical currents, which are the source of an electromagnetic wave at the same frequency as the incident gravitational wave. At sufficiently low temperatures, the internal degrees of freedom of the superconductors are frozen out because of the superconducting energy gap, and only external degrees of freedom, which are coupled to the radiation fields, remain. Hence [b]this wave-conversion process is loss-free and therefore efficient, and by time-reversal symmetry, so is the reverse process.[/b]

Under the operation of time reversal, the single, outgoing EM wave mode becomes a single, incoming EM wave mode incident upon the superconducting two-body system. The EM wave mode is then back-converted into an outgoing GR wave mode. This reverse (or reciprocal) process has the same complete, loss-free conversion efficiency as the forward process by time-reversal symmetry

[Access Denied]

I suggest AD read pages 8-9 of the Chiao paper on Einstein's equivalence principle.

I did, what about it?

I suggest you read this…

Anti-gravity

Tajmar et al (2006 & 2007)

A paper by Martin Tajmar et al in 2006 claims detection of an artificial gravitational field around a rotating superconductor, proportional to the angular acceleration of the superconductor. A subsequent paper claims to explain the phenomenon in terms of the nonzero cosmological constant. Neither the experimental results nor the theoretical explanation are widely accepted.

In July 2007, Graham et al of the Canterbury Ring Laser Group, New Zealand, reported results from an attempt to test the same effect with a larger rotating superconductor. They report no indication of any effect within the measurement accuracy of the experiment. Given the conditions of the experiment, the Canterbury group conclude that if any such 'Tajmar' effect exists, it is at least 22 times smaller than predicted by Tajmar in 2006.

And this…

Gravitomagnetism

Fringe physics

Incomplete understanding of the meaning of the similarity of the gravitomagnetic formulas, above, and Maxwell's equations for (real) electricity and magnetism have given rise to fringe physics. Use of the gravitomagnetic analogy for a simplified form of the Einstein field equations, on the other hand, is firmly part of General Relativity. It is an approximation to the current standard theory of gravitation, and has testable predictions, which are in the final stages of being directly tested by the Gravity Probe B experiment. Despite the use of the word magnetism in gravitomagnetism, and despite the similarity of the GEM force laws to the (real) electromagnetic force law, gravitomagnetism should not be confused with any of the following:

- Claims to have constructed anti-gravity devices;
- Eugene Podkletnov's claims to have constructed gravity-shielding devices and gravitational reflection beams.
- Any proposal to produce gravitation using electrical circuits.

Perhaps you’re confused?

If AD had read Dr. Chiao's paper, he would have seen the following [technical information to follow, key points in bold]

I did see that but apparently you don’t understand the difference between the experiment he proposes to validate his idea and a practical “gravity radio” capable of working over large distances like through the Earth?

Again, he might be able to make something that works in the lab over very short distances but that remains to be seen… I have my doubts. Even then, and putting aside the problems with the detection of such a small signal for the moment, scaling that up to the point where might be useful requires an exponentially more powerful HFGW source… so much so there’s no point in persuing it.

Why can’t you acknowledge this fact?

Are you really that ignorant of basic physics?

I suspect you don’t even understand the “technical” portion you quoted. The proposed test is to validate whether or not in fact the apparatus is generating a quadrapole radiation pattern… a defining characteristic of GR waves. The fact that Dr. Chiao acknowledges this “skeptical” test raises his credibility in my book… that and the fact he also points out where some possibly incorrect assumptions may have been made on his part.

That’s the difference between (real) science and pseudoscience… and pseudoscientific “journalists”.

AD should be aware of the conceptual conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Theory: in the past this serious failure to unify the theory of the very large with that of the very small has been largely overlooked.

Keyword “conceptual”. It’s not a “serious failure” in the real world… the real world being anything other than Planck scale… i.e. unimaginably small or unimaginably energetic. Keyword “unimaginable”.

GR works, QM works… a GUT isn’t going to change anything… except put a lot of theoretical physicists and pseudoscientific scam artists out of work.

For example, although not directly related to HFGW, David Bohm offered the example of a "remote control" pilot signal, where a far weaker energy is able to control a much larger energy.

You’re right, pilot wave “theory”, a subject we’ve debated exhaustively here, has absolutely nothing to do with it… grasping at straws again?

[Gary]

AD seems confused, again

But first, a valid point: the overzealous raising of expectations based upon theoretical assumptions which require verification.

As an example, a few years ago I 'outed' this government contract with Ning Li:

http://www.starstreamresearch.com/antigravity1.htm

"The ability to generate gravitational forces artificially would allow for new forms of propulsion, new ways of controlling missiles and gun-launched munitions, the lowering of weight of heavy vehicles (i.e., making a 70 ton tank appear to weight much less), and the potential of deflecting or countering the guidance systems of missiles which rely on inertial guidance (like theater or intercontinental ballistic missiles)."

"The potential of the cutting edge technology that is hoped to result from the confirmation of the experiment being conducted under this effort is of primary interest to the Government...The success of this experiment would be of enormous value to DOD weapons and weapon systems."

Reference: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/FY01RPT.doc

Agreement Number: DAAH01-01-9-R001
Type of Agreement: Other Transaction for Prototype
Title: Gravito � Electro Magnetic Superconductivity Experiment
Awarding Office: US Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), AMSAM-AC-RD-BA
Awardee: AC Gravity, LLD
Effective Date: 25 Apr 2001
Completion Date: 25 Sep 2002
U.S. Government Dollars: $448,970

AD brings up claims made elsewhere (not by Chiao) for rotating superconductors. The premise behind Chiao's experiment is a quantum effect.

Quote from Chiao's previous paper (added on 12-22-08 for clarification):

There exist other conceptual tensions at macroscopic, non-Planckian distance scales, which should be accessible in low-energy laboratory experiments involving macroscopic QM phenomena. It should be kept in mind that QM not only describes microscopic phenomena, but also macroscopic phenomena, such as superconductivity.

BTW Quantum mechanics is fundamental to relativistic effects, unless one is prepared to modify the formalism and add an unknown non-linear modification such as the collapse postulate (example Sir Roger Penrose's "objective reduction.)" ... I suggest http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810078 for background on the 'conceptual tension' between the theories.

OK, here is how Chiao describes the experiment:

The 2-body system of a superconducting sphere levitated in the magnetic field generated by a persistent current in a superconducting ring, can possibly convert gravitational waves into electromagnetic waves, and vice versa.

AD wrote: "Keyword “conceptual”. It’s not a “serious failure” in the real world… the real world being anything other than Planck scale… i.e. unimaginably small or unimaginably energetic. Keyword “unimaginable”."

AD ignores that the superconductivity is a macroscale quantum effect.


And the explanation:

Now consider what happens when this rotating body is slowly cooled, whilst it is undergoing rotation with respect to the distant “fixed stars”, down below its transition temperature Tc. Now for all temperatures T < Tc, there exists a magnetic field B produced by this rotating superconducting body in the “London moment” effect. The London moment arises from the constructive quantum interference of the Cooper pairs of electrons in the superconductor near its surface after one round trip around the perimeter of the body, as seen by the distant inertial observer. This quantum interference effect implies that the Cooper pairs everywhere near the surface of the body in its lowest energy state will come to a complete halt with respect to the distant “fixed stars”. The nuclei near the surface, however, continue to rotate with respect to the distant “fixed stars”. Thus this differential motion of the Cooper pairs with respect to the nuclei near the surface produces a surface electrical current. It is this current that produces the magnetic field B which is sketched in Figure 2 (b).

However, according to the [ ... ] interpretation of the Equivalence Principle, there cannot be any difference in the response of the rotating body above or below its transition temperature to any kind of gravitational field, including the Lense-Thirring field which arises from the distant “fixed stars”. Specifically, the response of the rotating body to the Lense-Thirring field arising from these distant “fixed stars” should be independent of the thermodynamic state of this body, and in particular, it should be independent of whether the rotating body is composed of incoherent, classical matter, or coherent, quantum mechanical matter. This interpretation of the Equivalence Principle is contradicted by experiments that demonstrate the existence of the London moment.

In fact, it is the uncertainty principle which overcomes the Equivalence Principle of relativity, as explained:

The Cooper pairs in the BCS ground state are in entangled states of momentum and spin, which are nonlocal, so it is impossible to know whether it is the upper or the lower electron in Figure 3 that is moving upwards or downwards in response to the tidal g fields. The large number of these phase-coherent electrons in the system (on the order of Avogadro’s number) in the case of superconductors, compensates for the usual weakness of the interaction between gravitational radiation and matter, and leads to a superradiant, mirror-like reflection [3b].