Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Aviary discussion and topics

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby Gary » Mon Dec 22, 2008 4:33 pm

Added note:

There is an excellent audio talk and notes by Chiao from the ITP website:

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/qo02/chiao/

This is from 2002 but Chiao discusses the HFGW experiment at the end. The whole talk is worthwhile. AD should note Chiao's dismissal of the Podkletnov effect.

---

BTW for anyone interested in the conceptual basis for Chiao's work, this paper from 2002 is a good place to start:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208024

One of the conceptual tensions between quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) arises from the clash between the spatial nonseparability of entangled states in QM, and the complete spatial separability of all physical systems in GR, i.e., between the nonlocality implied by the superposition principle, and the locality implied by the equivalence principle.

Experimental consequences of this conceptual tension will be explored for macroscopically coherent quantum fluids, such as superconductors, superfluids, and atomic Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs), subjected to tidal and Lense-Thirring fields arising from gravitational radiation.

A Meissner-like effect is predicted, in which the Lense-Thirring field is expelled from the bulk of a quantum fluid.

Superconductors are predicted to be macroscopic quantum gravitational antennas and transducers, which can directly convert upon reflection a beam of quadrupolar electromagnetic radiation into gravitational radiation, and vice versa, and thus serve as both sources and receivers of gravitational waves. An estimate of the transducer conversion efficiency on the order of unity comes out of the Ginzburg-Landau theory for an extreme type II, dissipationless superconductor with minimal coupling to weak gravitational and electromagnetic radiation fields, whose frequency is smaller than the BCS gap frequency, thus satisfying the quantum adiabatic theorem.

The concept of ``the impedance of free space for gravitational plane waves'' is introduced, and leads to a natural impedance-matching process, in which the two kinds of radiation fields are impedance-matched to each other around a hundred coherence lengths beneath the surface of the superconductor.

A simple, Hertz-like experiment has been performed to test these ideas, and preliminary results will be reported.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am


Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby Access Denied » Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:19 am

Gary wrote:AD seems confused, again :)

Always a possibility…

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

[snip]

AD ignores that the superconductivity is a macroscale quantum effect.

Wrong, Chiao's experiment relies on (among other things) an as yet unproven (demonstrated and independently verified) hypothesis that superconductivity, an as yet not fully understood (described) phenomenon itself, can be used as a “gravity shield” to violate the equivalence principal… specifically that the superconducting ring won’t experience the same movement due to a gravity wave as the levitated ball thus allowing the ball’s relative motion to that of the presumed stationary ring to act as a gravity wave transducer. In essence this is an “anti-gravity” claim… hence the reason for the cautionary material I posted.

My apologies for your confusion. :)

I take it you’re unfamiliar with the proposed Satellite Test of the Equivalence Principle (STEP)?

http://einstein.stanford.edu/STEP/

STEP will advance the testing of the Equivalence Principle from several parts in 10^13 to 1 part in 10^18. Whether it confirms Equivalence five to six orders of magnitude more precisely than known today or discovers a violation, it will be a landmark experiment in Fundamental Physics, with consequences extending from gravitation theory to cosmology to theories of the evolution of the Universe. It will probe a large and otherwise inaccessible domain in the parameter space of new interactions. A null result would remain for many years a severe constraint on new theories. A positive result would constitute the discovery of a new force of Nature.

And…

NASA - The Equivalence Principle

[…] Gravity accelerates all objects equally regardless of their masses or the materials from which they are made. It's a cornerstone of modern physics.

But what if the equivalence principle (EP) is wrong?

Galileo's experiments were only accurate to about 1%, leaving room for doubt, and skeptical physicists have been "testing EP" ever since. The best modern limits, based on, e.g., laser ranging of the Moon to measure how fast it falls around Earth, show that EP holds within a few parts in a trillion (10^12). This is fantastically accurate, yet the possibility remains that the equivalence principle could fail at some more subtle level.

[snip]

The equivalence principle could offer one way to test string theory.

[snip]

This new facet of gravity, if it exists, would be so astonishingly weak that detecting it is a tremendous challenge. Gravity itself is a relatively weak force—it's a trillion trillion trillion (10^36) times more feeble than electromagnetism. Theorists believe the new force would be at least ten million million (10^13) times weaker than gravity.

Wake me up when somebody actually discovers an indisputable violation of GR… wait, on second thought, never mind… it will be all over the news.

Gary wrote:BTW for anyone interested in the conceptual basis for Chiao's work, this paper from 2002 is a good place to start:

“A simple, Hertz-like experiment has been performed to test these ideas, and preliminary results will be reported.”

Good point, that was in 2002… where’s the novel results?

Let me guess… the MIB stole it?

Or was it… back to the drawing board?
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby ryguy » Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:11 pm

I might be biased, but in this debate I honestly see AD's arguments as very clear and on the side of the fence of verified and tested scientific principles. He's clearly willing to walk very close, and at times on top of, the fence of theoretical quantum physics - but AD does appear to me to be evaluating probabilities of each theory based more on science that's already been proven. Obviously the fact that a particular theory goes against well-tested scientific theory pushes it down the "probability" scale, as AD points out. But I have to take a step back because my knowledge in this particular field is nowhere near the level of AD's. I enjoy reading the discussion though...but take it slow guys - I don't want AD burned out like he did when he was debating with Serpentime last year. :)

As an EE, I had to chuckle at this from the writing Gary quoted:

Superconductors are predicted to be macroscopic quantum gravitational antennas and transducers, which can directly convert upon reflection a beam of quadrupolar electromagnetic radiation into gravitational radiation, and vice versa, and thus serve as both sources and receivers of gravitational waves.


Man...there is so much technically wrong with that single run-on sentence that I couldn't even begin to respond. A superconductor that can convert, through reflection, a beam of quadrupolar electromagnetic radiation into gravitational radiation? For some reason images of those funny pictures of UFOs keep going through my head - you know, the ones where some "inventor" claims to have reverse engineered alien technology, and he's drawn an elaborate UFO filled with spinning superconductors and field-lines (I assume they're trying to refer to some laymen's version of flux lines...with complete disregard for how drastically the field intensity drops proportionally with distance from the source) drawn in and around the craft. The field of "antigravity" really is full of fruitcakes who are absolutely clueless when it comes to real-world (yes macroscopic) properties of electricity.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:49 pm

ryguy wrote: The field of "antigravity" really is full of fruitcakes


'Tis the season to pass those nasty things around and pretend we eat them! :lol: After the holidays they will go back to being plain old nutjobs. :wink:

I hope you and your family have a great holiday break, Ryan! (Same to AD and Gary!)
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby ryguy » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:37 pm

Haha! I guess I do have fruitcakes on the brain...yikes.

Thanks Ray! Happy holidays to you and yours as well.

Just gearing down with work (both day-job and writing work) and looking forward to taking a nice long week off. We're head up North to a cabin where there's nothing but snow and black bears. Going to take the kids snowshoeing!

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby Gary » Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:31 pm

Guys! AD is correct about GR but he's citing the wrong domain of the theory (classical GR) for a macro-quantum effect.

It's like trying to explain Einstein's theory of the curvature of spacetime using Newtonian Mechanics!

Newtonian Mechanics is valid, of course, in a limited domain at velocities far less than the speed of light.

The same is true for Einstein's GR (a cornerstone of GR is the Equivalence Principle, see the excellent non-technical book John Wheeler wrote for Scientific American for an intuitive explanation).

Remember, Chiao in his 2002 lecture denies the claims of an "antigravity effect" (at least of the Podkletnov Ning Li kind).

The problem of interest to Chiao (which MIGHT lead to a kind of "gravity radio") is actually one of using experiment to test an area of physics previously inaccessible. This is possible because the experiment requires a working theory of quantum gravity -- something which does not yet exist -- to explain expected observations at the intersection of quantum effects and spacetime curvature.

Keep in mind that gravity (as a force) has only been tested to tenths of a millimeter. Below that scale, it could be different.

It might even be 10^40 times stronger.

Or it might 'leak' from our brane world into the bulk of hypoerspace, as shown by several leading physicists. (They are anxiously awaiting high energy experiments at the LHC which -- might -- be able to observe a graviton existing our brane world.

This is a domain where existing theory does not work.

Chiao's brilliant insight is that it may be possible to observe this conflict between QM and GR at a scale we can observe in a laboratory experiment.

What you're doing is as ridiculous as telling Bohr in the early 20th century to stop thinking about his model of the atom because there is no way anyone could ever build a fission atomic bomb, which was (then) purely science fiction.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... ondis.html

It is remarkable that the neutron was not discovered until 1932 when James Chadwick used scattering data to calculate the mass of this neutral particle. Since the time of Rutherford it had been known that the atomic mass number A of nuclei is a bit more than twice the atomic number Z for most atoms and that essentially all the mass of the atom is concentrated in the relatively tiny nucleus. As of about 1930 it was presumed that the fundamental particles were protons and electrons, but that required that somehow a number of electrons were bound in the nucleus to partially cancel the charge of A protons. But by this time it was known from the uncertainty principle and from "particle-in-a-box" type confinement calculations that there just wasn't enough energy available to contain electrons in the nucleus.

When an atom undergoes nuclear fission, a few neutrons (the exact number depends on several factors) are ejected from the reaction. These free neutrons will then interact with the surrounding medium, and if more fissile fuel is present, some may be absorbed and cause more fissions. Thus, the cycle repeats to give a reaction that is self-sustaining.


Obviously anyone who predicted an atom bomb prior to the discovery of the neutron must have been a nutcase :-)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19450818/wells

OF COURSE it was H.G. Wells who first perfected the atomic bomb and put it to work. And not only did he put it to work, demolishing most of the world's capital cities and destroying governments, but then he got busy and built an entirely new society. In less time than you can imagine after the last bomb fell, everybody was settling down nicely in a global socialist community under a World Republic; atomic energy, internationally controlled, was performing all the necessary jobs of production, transportation, heating, and such, and the creative energies of mankind were being applied to higher things. In 1914, when "The World Set Free" was published and no bombs of any sort had been dropped it all sounded fantastic and even funny.


Anyone here ever learn ANYTHING from history?
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby Gary » Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:39 pm

The physicist Leó Szilárd read the book [By H.G. Wells] in 1932, conceived of the idea of nuclear chain reaction in 1933, and filed for patents on it in 1934. -- ^ Richard Rhodes (1986). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 24. ISBN 0684813785.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby Gary » Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:54 pm

ryguy wrote:As an EE, I had to chuckle at this from the writing Gary quoted:

Superconductors are predicted to be macroscopic quantum gravitational antennas and transducers, which can directly convert upon reflection a beam of quadrupolar electromagnetic radiation into gravitational radiation, and vice versa, and thus serve as both sources and receivers of gravitational waves.


Man...there is so much technically wrong with that single run-on sentence that I couldn't even begin to respond. A superconductor that can convert, through reflection, a beam of quadrupolar electromagnetic radiation into gravitational radiation? For some reason images of those funny pictures of UFOs keep going through my head - you know, the ones where some "inventor" claims to have reverse engineered alien technology, and he's drawn an elaborate UFO filled with spinning superconductors and field-lines (I assume they're trying to refer to some laymen's version of flux lines...with complete disregard for how drastically the field intensity drops proportionally with distance from the source) drawn in and around the craft. The field of "antigravity" really is full of fruitcakes who are absolutely clueless when it comes to real-world (yes macroscopic) properties of electricity.

-Ry


Ryan, are you even aware of Dr. Chiao's background? He's not your run-of-the-mill garage theorist:

http://www.lambmedal.org/2006/2006-chiao.html

The 2006 Willis E. Lamb Award for Laser Science and Quantum Optics

Announced September 21, 2005. Awarded January 5, 2006, at the 36th Winter Colloquium on the Physics of Quantum Electronics.

Raymond Y. Chiao, University of California at Berkeley

For contributions to our understanding of time in quantum mechanics in connection with the quantum eraser and ultra-fast light.


Raymond Chiao was born in Hong Kong on Oct. 9, 1940, and moved as a child to the United States in 1947. He grew up in New York City, where he attended Collegiate School. It was there that he first got interested in science through reading Gamow’s book One, Two, Three, ..., Infinity.

He was admitted to Princeton University in 1957 as an electrical engineer, but then switched to the physics department, where he worked unsuccessfully with John Wheeler on a senior thesis project on the quantization of general relativity. He then switched from theoretical physics to experimental physics in graduate studies at MIT under the supervision of C. H. Townes, shortly after the experimental realization of the ruby laser. His thesis topic was on the first observation of the stimulated Brillouin effect.

After obtaining his Ph. D. in 1965 from MIT, he taught as an assistant professor there until 1967. He moved to UC Berkeley in 1967, and remained there until recently. Starting January 1, 2006, he has joined the faculty at UC Merced.

His research interests have been in nonlinear optics, Josephson parametric amplifiers, Berry’s phases in optics, and the quantum optics of two-photon interference. He plans to initiate at UC Merced experimental work at the interface of quantum mechanics and general relativity, such as the use of two Planck-mass, macroscopically coherent charged superfluid drops as transducers for generating, as well as detecting, gravitational radiation.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby Gary » Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:00 pm

And how many times was Baker's work reported from a major physics event by the New York Times?

Some 300 scientists and a few philosophers descended on the Harrison/Merrill Lynch Conference Center here on March 15 for a symposium modestly titled ''Science and Ultimate Reality.''


That was the intention, of course, of the conference, organized to honor the 90th birthday of Dr. John Archibald Wheeler, the Princeton and University of Texas physicist known for his poetic characterizations of the mysteries of the universe.

It was the kind of meeting where a talk on ''conceptual tensions'' between quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of gravity could revolve around the speaker's design for a new device to receive and transmit the gravity waves that Einstein said should ripple through space-time -- a sure Nobel-worthy achievement, if it worked.

Some speakers wondered aloud whether there was evidence that Einstein's relativity, the unquestioned shibboleth of 20th century science, might be fraying.


Quantum weirdness is also at the core of a ''gravitational antenna'' envisioned by Dr. Raymond Chiao, a professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley. According to quantum theory, particles like electrons can be ''entangled'' like dice that will each read the same value no matter how far apart they are thrown.

The phenomenon underlies theories of superconductivity. This entanglement means that the electrons in a superconductor should be extremely sensitive to a gravitational wave. In effect the electrons, trillions upon trillions of them, are conjoined to respond en masse.

As a result, Dr. Chiao said, according to his calculations, a one-inch disc of a high temperature superconductor like yttrium barium copper oxide would be orders of magnitude more sensitive than the sprawling laser arrays that are beginning to search for gravitational waves.

The superconductor, Dr. Chiao suggested, should also be able to convert electromagnetic waves into gravitational ones, and thus be used to send signals.

Dr. Chiao, who said he had been working on this idea for 20 years, said he was building a pair of these antennas, hoping to use them this year to beam gravitational waves across his laboratory in a similar manner to the way the German physicist Heinrich Hertz demonstrated the existence of electromagnetic waves in 1888.

Asked to estimate his chances of success, Dr. Chiao said he had no idea. His talk set the meeting buzzing, with physicists asking one another if they had heard it in one breath and then expressing doubt in the next. ''It would be sensational, if it were true,'' said Dr. Freeman Dyson, a theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby Access Denied » Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:22 am

Gary, sounds to me like Dr. Chiao is well aware of his chances for success in this particular endeavor and he has the luxury of being in a position where he has everything to gain and nothing to lose… somehow I don’t get that impression of you. ;)

Anyway, Merry Christmas and Best Wishes for the New Year to the RU crew… thank you one and ALL for being here!

:santagrin:

Tom


P.S. Ry, I thought I was the run-on sentence king… :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby Gary » Thu Dec 25, 2008 6:39 am

Happy holidays to all at Reality Uncovered!

I'm looking forward to the pleasure of jousting with you all in 2009! -- Gary
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby ryguy » Fri Dec 26, 2008 1:34 am

Gary wrote:Raymond Y. Chiao, University of California at Berkeley

[snip]

After obtaining his [b]Ph. D. in 1965 from MIT
, he taught as an assistant professor there until 1967. He moved to UC Berkeley in 1967, and remained there until recently. Starting January 1, 2006, he has joined the faculty at UC Merced.


Ahh....it's all clear now. Your Raymond Y. Chiao is the same, one and only "Ray Chow" from the source quote I mentioned a few posts up....he spelled the last name wrong...lol.

Thanks for clearing that up! According to him - Ray's research has more potential than the Li-Baker nonsense. Interesting!

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby Gary » Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:08 am

That's right!

I suggest you check with DARPA.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby Access Denied » Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:45 pm

Gary wrote:I suggest you check with DARPA.

LOL... I can assure you they’re not interested.

I suggest you read this 2004 ESA study which cites Chaio’s work among others…

On the interaction of mesoscopic quantum systems with gravity
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0408010

Here’s the abstract…

[empahasis mine]

We review the different aspects of the interaction of mesoscopic quantum systems with gravitational fields. We first discuss briefly the foundations of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Then, we consider the non-relativistic expansions of the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations in the post-Newtonian approximation. After a short overview of classical gravitational waves, we discuss two proposed interaction mechanisms: (i) the use of quantum fluids as generator and/or detector of gravitational waves in the laboratory, and (ii) the inclusion of gravitomagnetic fields in the study of the properties of rotating superconductors. The foundations of the proposed experiments are explained and evaluated.

And here’s the conclusion…

In this study, we have discussed possible interactions between two basic foundations of physics: quantum theory on the one hand and the theory of general relativity on the other. The basic ideas and theories were presented and important experiments as well as current propositions mentioned.

Since much research has recently concerned the interaction of gravitational fields with rotating and stationary quantum fluids (quantum systems with macroscopic phase coherence), we have discussed the proposed ideas and evaluated their results. Since gravity couples to all forms of energy, it is clear that coupling occurs, and we want to stress that it is of utmost importance to investigate this interaction further; however, we do not feel that the propositions lead to effects which can presently be measured in the laboratory.

To be more specific, the ideas regarding the generation (and detection) of gravitational waves via quantum systems should be considered theoretically in order to gain a better understanding of the exact coupling strength; only in this way, it is possible to assess the outcome of experiments conducted to this end. To our knowledge, there exists no general non-relativistic derivation of the coupling of an electron to both electromagnetic and gravitational fields, neither in the post-Newtonian approximation nor in the background of a gravitational wave. Thus, it is not possible to make predictions about the coupling strengths. It is highly recommended that this derivation be performed in order to gain qualitative as well as quantitative results.

Summarizing the propositions for experiments using rotating superconductors, there does not seem to be evidence for the inclusion of the gravitomagnetic fields on experimental grounds. The classical coupling scheme discussed yields interactions which can be neglected. Of course, as a result of GR, the gravitoelectromagnetic fields should be considered in the calculations. Yet, as stated before, we recommend that, even though these effects are interesting in their theoretical origin and should be investigated further, this should be done in a theoretical context to arrive at quantum coupling mechanisms which could lead to experimental results.

Theoretical debate aside, the point you keep ignoring is even if such an interaction exists there’s no practical use for it… other than possibly for gravity wave astronomy. It’s just too weak… and incredibly inefficient.

Sheesh, do the math!

](*,)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0

Postby Gary » Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:03 am

http://faculty1.ucmerced.edu/rchiao/2.cfm?menuid=197

AD still appears to be confusing the 'force' of gravity (actually the curvature of spacetime in GR) with Chiao's idea of impedance matching between the EM wave and the GR wave.

AD I believe your understanding of the problem is found in Eq. 1,2 and 3 here:

http://faculty1.ucmerced.edu/docs/paper1.pdf

The gravitational force is extremely small compared to the electrical force, and is therefore usually omitted in all treatments of quantum physics.


However:

Note that two spatially separated “Millikan oil drops” with the same mass and charge have the correct bilateral symmetry in order to couple to quadrupolar gravitational radiation, as well as to quadrupolar electromagnetic radiation. The coupling of the drops to dipolar electromagnetic radiation, however, vanishes due to symmetry. When they are separated by a distance on the order of a wavelength, they should become an efficient quadrupolar antenna capable of generating, as well as detecting, gravitational radiation.


Chiao covers numerous concepts in this paper. Consider, as an example:

Instead of causing motion of the drops through space, the electric and magnetic fields of the incident electromagnetic wave are again acting directly upon space itself by alternately squeezing and stretching the space in between the drops. The time-varying, accelerated motion of the drops as seen by the distant observer that causes quadrupolar radiation to be emitted in both cases, is due to the time-varying curvature of spacetime induced both by the incident gravitational wave and by the incident electromagnetic wave. It should be remembered
that the space inside which the drops reside is therefore no longer flat, so that the Newtonian concept of a radiation-driven, local accelerated motion of a heavy drop through a fixed, flat Euclidean space, is therefore no longer valid.


More importantly, in response to AD's objection:

Another common objection to these ideas is that the strain of space produced by a milliwatt of an electromagnetic wave is much too small to detect. However, in the Hertz-like experiment, one is not trying to detect directly the strain of space (as in LIGO), but rather the power that is being transferred by the gravitational radiation fields from the source to the receiver.


However, it is not necessary to directly measure the strain of space in order to detect gravitational radiation, just as it is not necessary to directly measure the electric field of a light wave, which may also be exceedingly small, in order to be able to detect this wave ... if one were to succeed to completely back-convert this milliwatt of GR wave power back into a milliwatt of EM power at the receiver, this amount of power would be easily detectable by standard microwave techniques.

Obviously a great deal of experimental work needs to be done to validate Chiao's theoretical predictions, before seriously considering technological applications, such as:

In engineering, it would open up the possibility of intercontinental communication by means of microwave-frequency gravity waves directly through the interior of the Earth, which is transparent to such waves. This would eliminate the need of communications satellites, and would allow communication with people deep underground or underwater in submarines in the Oceans. Such a new direction of gravity-wave engineering could aptly be called “gravity radio”.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to The Aviary

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron