EHT (Extended Heim Theory) posits the symmetry breaking of neutral gravitophotons into two types: attractive and repulsive. Though these two types are opposite, they apparently are not equal.

Last week, hdeasy wrote in PhysOrgForum:
“The reason that only one form of force is produced by the gravitophotons is that the coupling constants for the two sorts are different. Only for the attractive gravitophoton is the cross-section for interaction large enough to cause an effect – the other only interacts very weakly.”

The next day alongman replied, in part:
“Using the analogy of the rubber sheet deformed by a bowling ball to illustrate curvature of space by a planetary mass, one can visualize a positive (repulsive) gravitophoton field as causing a (very slight) local upward displacement of the rubber sheet, while a negative (attractive) gravitophoton field causes a relatively much larger downward displacement of the sheet (due to different strength coupling constants as hdeasy points out).”

When I read these postings it gave me a bit of a jolt. Here lies another potentially significant relationship between gravitophotons and magnetism. According to EHT gravitational coupling is greater in attraction and less so in repulsion. What is surprising is that this very much parallels magnetic coupling. Of course the analogy might not stand up under closer scrutiny as to the underlying mechanism, but as early as an 1887 text (Electricity: In Theory and Practice, by B. A. Fiske, D. Van Nostrand Publ. London) it has been known that magnetic repulsion is not as strong as magnetic attraction.

I’m not sure of the significance, but it sure is interesting.

In December of 2006 I began my inquires on the formation of a study group on gravity modification at the University of Minnesota.  See document here: Download file.

In early 2007 I approached the  Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs’ Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy to initiate seminars and information sessions.  My hope was that these seminars would stimulate a dialog and eventually lead to a Gravity Modification Institute.

In my model the University’s branches in the Twin Cities, Duluth and Rochester would each provide a connection to their local resources:  Rochester in medical applications, Duluth in space applications and the Twin Cities in public policy, urban design and product design applications. The structure of the Institute could be developed based upon that of the University’s Center for Nanostructured Applications (CNA), the Organization for Minnesota Nanotechnology Initiatives (OMNI) research center, the laboratory umbrella Minnesota Nano Technology Cluster (MiNTeC) and the Nanotechnology Coordinating Office.  These departments collaborate with the private sector’s Minnesota Nanotechnology Initiative (MNI) to provide a statewide foothold for the U of M’s world-class leadership in nanotechnology.

The interdisciplinary nature of gMOD research and applications make such a diverse approach essential to the success of the Institute.  Solidifying a University-wide strategy soon after the validated discovery of substantial gravitomagnetic effects allows the University to leapfrog other educational institutions by months, if not years.

Here is a preliminary suggestion of the framework for the Institute:

Title:   Gravity Modification Institute (alternatively, Center for Gravity Modification)

Location:    Under the Office of the VP of Technology

Partners and Collaborators: College of Design, Metropolitan Design Center, School of Physics, Center for Transportation Studies, University Metropolitan Consortium, Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy

Mission:  Understanding the interrelatedness of public policies, urban design, product development and social structures altered by the mass adoption of gravity modification (gMOD) technologies.

Campuses:  Minneapolis, Duluth and Rochester.

Proposed areas of investigation:

• Architecture (gravity-aided architecture, cantilever structures, complete load reduction, reinforcement and stabilization against wind, earthquake, flood);
• Legal (right to light, right to view, roaming rights);
• Structure Types (residential, barges, factories);
• Transportation (gravity-assisted transportation through load and friction reduction, gravityships, transportation corridors, transportation smart networks such as ITS);
• Space Applications (surface to low orbit payloads, disposal of orbital debris, orbital platforms, launch platforms, tug services, importing of raw materials);
• Industrial Applications (manufacturing processes, transport of liquids/granular materials, vacuumization, shielding from heat/sparks/particulates, containing gases for welding, force field windows, airfoil bodies);
• Laboratory (growth of defect-free crystals, metal alloy fabrication without sedimentation, centrifuging, electromagnetic optical lensing);
• Mining/Construction (hoisting, support walls, flood abatement);
• Medicine (hypergravity osteotherapy/sports conditioning, microgravity treatments for burns, circulatory, other);
• Safety and Rescue (recovery  from collapsed buildings, extraction from buildings, frozen lakes, cliffs, etc.);
• Sports (flying sports);
• Social Impacts (economic divides and dislocations);
• Semantics (slang and word usages);
• Public Policy (federal, regional, state and municipal regulation changes, residency, census data, demography, delivery of services);
• Security/Privacy (advertising, surveillance);
• Defense (clearing land mines, surveillance/reconnaissance);
• Dystopic Uses (terrorism, criminal intent, crowd control, religious zealotry, unethical military usage, unlawful surveillance, suppression of civil rights, extreme creative destruction, harmful byproducts, unappealing uses)

Unfortunately, neither the Institute for Public Affairs, College of Design nor the Institute of Technology have expressed an interest in the seminars and information sessions.  However, if the work of Tajmar, Droscher and Hauser gain interest later this year with their upcoming publications, perhaps there will be an opportunity to initiate such seminars early in 2009.

[NOTE:  What follows is revised from the original posting]

This is interesting. A team at Princeton found that the materials for Type II high temperature superconductivity (HTSC) are different from that of Type I low temperature superconductivity (LTSC) in yet another way. LTSC is found in elements such as niobium and lead, and HTSC in certain ceramic copper oxide compounds.  LTSC and HTSC both rely upon electron attraction as the bonding “glue”, but now it seems that HTSC materials exhibit greater electron repulsion when not superconducting. Here are two quotes:

“High-temperature superconductivity does not hinge on a magical glue binding electrons together. The secret to superconductivity, they say, may rest instead on the ability of electrons to take advantage of their natural repulsion in a complex situation.” … “Unlike the electrons studied in low-temperature superconducting materials, the electrons in high-temperature superconductors that are most likely to bond and flow effortlessly are the ones that repel others the strongest when the environment is not conducive to superconductivity”.

Cooper pairs have been shown to be the basis upon which both LTSC and HTSC operate.  However, the above study indicates that subtly different mechanisms may be in play, since in temperatures above those required for superconductivity the HTSC material’s electrons exhibit a uniquely strong repulsion. That repulsion, strangely enough, indicates their suitability for superconductivity  when cooled.  Ali Yazdani, a professor of physics at Princeton and the senior author of the paper, says “It’s counterintuitive, but that’s what’s happening.”

This may explain why Tajmar did not find any gravitomagnetic effect for HTSC copper oxide but did find positive measurable results when he tested LTSC niobium. Tajmar’s gMOD results may not only rely upon the electron bonding in superconductivity but also the conditions underlying electron bonding.  The answer may lie in phonons vs. spin excitations.

The action of phonons (crystal lattice vibrations) has long been thought to be the mechanism behind the electron bonding in LTSC superconductors.  However, in this article it has been suggested that HTSC is not caused by the actions of phonons, but of spin excitations as the basis for the “glue” so critical to high temperature superconductivity.  And just this week two separate teams in Germany and the US have performed calculations to suggest that lattice vibrations in cuprates [HTSC] can at best account for just a small fraction of the materials’ superconducting behavior.  However, the teams do not suggest what the dominant mechanism for HTSC might be.

So perhaps it is those mechanisms dominant in HTSC (spin excitations?) that interact less strongly with Tajmar’s and Hauser’s gravitophotons, and another mechanism in LTSC (phonons?) that interact more strongly?

Here is another related mystery.  Dr. Tajmar’s also reported that his “artificial gravity” field began to show its effect as temperatures merely approach that of superconductivity for the LTSC niobium. That state just above the transition temperature when a material starts to superconduct is known as the “pseudogap”. Researchers report that this pseudogap state as co-existing with that of the HTSC superconductive state, not a precursor to it.  But does this hold true for LTSC?  If not, might this also be an influencing factor in Tajmar’s results?

Additional research on the mechanism for LTSC (phonons vs. spin excitations) and on the pseudogap state for LTSC would further delineate the similarities/differences of LTSC vs. HTSC and possibly on the basis for gravity modification.

Bosons could be a common element in gMOD experiments.  Tajmar points to bosons as the basis for his gMOD effect.  At superconducting temperatures electrons (normally fermions) form massive bosonic pairs (called Cooper pairs).  In their original 2006 paper de Matos and Tajmar described the use of Type I superconductors (niobium and lead) in three years of experiments.  According to their theory (connected to Heim Theory by Droscher and Hauser) superconductors should form Cooper pairs.  The angular acceleration of Cooper pairs in rotation should result in the dragging of spacetime and with it the generation of acceleration fields (gMOD).

In a recent paper (“Comment on ‘Nonlinearity of the Field Induced by a Rotating Superconducting Shell'”) Tajmar discusses how it is the “lag-current” (cited by both R. Becker in 1933 and F. London in 1961) produced by the massive Cooper-pairs that generates the magnetic field making gMOD possible.  During rotation some of the pairs rigidly follow the superconducting lattice and some lag behind the lattice during rotation.  Lag plays a key role.

But what about other researchers working with exotic materials and bosons.  Have they reported any gravity-related effects with bosons?  The answer is yes.

Researchers Chris Phillips and  John Pendry at Imperial College London reported almost two years ago their success in using negative refraction optical metamaterials to achieve rudimentary “invisibility cloaks“.  Recent advances by their colleagues at St. Andrews University have allowed researchers to employ photonic crystal lattices as metamaterials to control electron waves called “plasmons”.  These plasmons have been used to create an artificial “event horizon” simulating the gravity field of a black hole.

Plasmons are quasiparticle bosons.  The St. Andrews study was inspired by, and simulates, the geometry of space curved by gravitational fields. The metamaterial that makes up the invisibility cloak stretches the metrics of space in a similar way to what heavy planets and stars do for the metrics of space-time in Einstein’s general relativity theory. Metamaterial semiconductors employed by Phillips are essentially artificial atoms that have the capacity to control the speed of light to a slow crawl.

So massive bosons are implicated in peer-reviewed research on gMOD at superconducting temperatures as well as anecdotal reports of gMOD at room temperature.  But bosons also exist as massless virtual particles.  It is in this virtual state that they are implicated in research on invisibility and metamaterials.  A boson producing the collective excitation of the electron’s spin wave structure in a crystal lattice is known as a magnon (a massless boson).

A  phonon is also a boson.  A phonon is a collective excitation of crystal lattice atoms or ions.  For years phonons have been considered the basis for superconductivity, but a recent paper suggests that superconductivity is not caused by the actions of phonons, but of spin excitations (hypothetical Goldstone bosons).  So now we have a potential connection between superconductivity, Cooper pairs (massive paired-electron bosons), massless (virtual) Goldstone bosons and spin wave excitations.  Droscher and Hauser further contribute to the connection between Cooper electron pairs and phonons, say in their paper Spacetime Physics and Advanced Propulsion Concepts that “The coupling of the electron pairs seems to be via phonons, generated by electron movement through the lattice of the superconductor.

Perhaps it is the interaction of Goldstone bosons that is responsible for effects reported by Searl and Hollingshead.  Hollingshead in particular increased the charge density on electrons by sending 220 volts at 480 Hz through the RP, which could have increased spin excitations.  It could also have effected the excitation of crystal lattice atoms in the RP, producing phonons.  A 1991 patent by Motorola suggested that phonon generation can happen at temperatures higher than that for superconductivity and still lead to the formation of Cooper pairs in a superlattice.  Interestingly, the semiconductor employed by Motorola is the same thin-film material as employed by C. Phillips to produce slow-light  solitons.

Finally, there is also the question of the role of ferrite.  The first naturally occurring metamaterials were found in ferromagnets.  Ferrite is the classic example of a ferromagnet and is the component which gives steel and cast iron their magnetic properties.  Perhaps metamaterials are implicated in reports of power generation in Searl’s device and that of others who claim power production from the interaction of magnetic fields.  More on that at a later date.

There are still too many questions and not enough published research to make any conclusions about the relatedness of these researchers.  Until more independently verifiable data is made available the research by Tajmar combined with improvements suggested by Droscher seem the best bet for the first generation of gMOD.

Though Dr. Tajmar and his colleagues including Clovis de Matos and Walter Droscher are in general (though not complete) agreement on the theory behind gravitomagnetic field modification they represent only a few of the researchers in gMOD.  Mention of the gravitomagnetic effect goes back as far as Heaviside in the 1880s.  Researchers include academics, but also inventors and, admittedly, some zealots.  If only some of these researchers’ reports of gMOD effects are true one would presume that they must be based upon the same physics as that of Tajmar et al.

Skepticism is the rule with regards to the inventors.  There is far more anecdotal reporting in that group than peer-reviewed research by them.  But when effects are reported that fall into line with Tajmar’s results, then perhaps they too have found some aspect of gMOD worth investigating.

First I’ll divide the discussion into two categories:  those devices that operate in the temperature range of condensed matter (i.e. superconducting) and those that operate at or near room temperature.  Tajmar is in the condensed matter (CM) camp, but we should also make mention of University researchers Ning Li and Douglas Torr.  In the room temperature (RT) camp are inventors John Searl, Henry Wallace and Marcus Hollingshead.  Others exist in both camps, but the key points can be made with these exemplars.

In their peer published papers (Physical Review B), researchers Li and Torr used Type II superconductors rather than Tajmar’s Type I superconducting materials.  Li posited that time-varying magnetic fields would produce a small a small gravitomagnetic effect through the spin alignment of lattice ions (see phonons in Part 2).  This contrasts with Tajmar’s assertion of Cooper pair bosons as being the component eliciting the effect.   Li’s last paper on the topic was in 1992.

The RT camp is not represented in peer-reviewed literature and is reported only anecdotally.  Searl reportedly configured magnetic rollers (rotors) to rotate around a central magnetic plate (stator). After a critical angular acceleration was reached the powered device ionized the air and accelerated electrons, producing superconducting temperatures and a CM state.  In recent years his Web site has discussed how the gravity effects were generated through the formation of unimpeded Cooper pairs (similar to Tajmar’s theory).  Several devices were supposedly lost to flight before a dielectric was employed to moderate the effect.  This supposedly happened in the mid 1940’s, 60 years before Tajmar reported his results with de Matos.

Wallace, a scientist at GE Aerospace, was issued patents in the early 1970s for the generation of a “kinemassic” (gravitomagnetic) field.  He posited the effect was due to nuclear spin, not electron spin.  The resultant precession of nuclear angular momentum was suggested to be similar to a rapidly spinning ferrous material.  Wallace based his experiments upon elements with odd number of nucleons (neutrons and protons), saying that there was an analogy between un-paired  angular momentum in these materials and the un-paired magnetic moments of electrons in ferromagnetic materials (ref <a href=”http://www.padrak.com/agn/WALLACE.html”>Stirniman</a>).

In November of 2002 Hollingshead reported effects when he spun three pairs of counter-rotating rings composed of electromagnet stubs (looking like inward-pointing stud collars) around a central soft iron <i>reference point</i> (RP) stator.  The RP stator was configured as a sphere, wrapped in a dielectric and surrounded by another layer of metal, thus acting as a capacitor when electrically charged.  When the rings were spun synchronously gMOD effects were achieved at least four orders of magnitude higher (literally lifting boulders and crushing work benches) than Tajmar’s micro-g experiments.  Hollingshead also reported that when the device was stationery and spun up a dramatic drop in temperature surrounding the RP occurred.

Hollingshead makes no claims regarding the pairing of electrons, but like Wallace suggests that nucleonic mechanisms are in play and that “protons are pushed into becoming neutrons” in the iron nuclei of atoms in the RP.  He even discusses contamination of the RP with “by-products” that attenuate the effect over time.  Whether Hollingshead now claims bosonic interactions is unknown due to his publicly taciturn nature.

Both Searl and Hollingshead reported creation of an ionized halo around their stationary devices, even though Hollingshead claimed he had never heard of Searl before developing his device.  Both reported the generation of a vacuum around the devices as air was pushed outward.  Wallace also hypothesized the generation of a shield effect, while Hollingshead claimed actual generation of a shield… and reported bouncing small objects off of it.

In a 2006 article in New Scientist, Tajmar similarly discussed the potential ability to create a “shield” with such a gravity effect.  He said, “Levitating cars, zero-g playgrounds, tractor beams to pull objects towards you, glass-less windows that use repulsive fields to prevent things passing through.  Let your imagination run riot: a gravitomagnetic device that works by changing the acceleration and orientation of a superconductor would be the basis for a general purpose force field.”  When asked by this blogger about Hollingshead however, Tajmar replied that he did not think that effect (if true) was related to his research. [see my Addendum to Inventors in COMMENTS]

Continued in Part 2

I’ve been asked what direct connection there is between EHT (Extended Heim Theory) and Dr. Tajmar’s work.  Such descriptions are beyond me to generate, though I can relate the writings of others.  So let me refer you to comments made recently on the PhysOrg public message board by Duane J. Oldsen.  Duane seems to have a good handle on the issues at hand.  Here are some direct outtakes:

To start off, Heim Theory (currently EHT, Extended Heim Theory) must be considered somewhat left field. It was Burkhard Heim’s private baby for several decades, since at least the ’50s, making rare German language forays into academic presentation and release. As far as I know, there is only Heim’s 1977 monograph and a 1976 presentation at MBB (now part of EADS) that are part of Heim’s official record.

EHT is composed of eight dimensions, the four of human experience, and an additional four that can be thought of as “bookkeeping” dimensions. Burkhard Heim had initially limited this to 6D, and EHT provides for an absolute maximum of 12D…

Heim was introduced to one Walter Droscher c.1980. At some point thereafter, the two begain working on Heim’s ideas together. Droscher reworked Heim’s original 6-dimensional model into an 8D model, which purportedly is able to account for all known forces and interactions, as well as predicting two additional forces. Droscher, in cooperation with Jochem Hauser, have been refining and publishing the Extended Theory via AIAA publications since at least 2002.

Structurally, EHT is similar to Loop Quantum Gravity… It predicts two additional forces, and claims the ability to predict the masses of fundamental particles from pure theory.

The two additional forces are variant gravitational forces, much weaker than normal gravity. “Quintessence” is a repulsive gravitational force that seems to match dark energy VERY closely. However, the timeline indicates that Heim predicted this force by the mid ’60s at latest, at least 5 years before universal expansion was observed. The second gravity-cousin is the gravito-photon force. EHT provides mathematical models that allow for the transformation of photons into attractive and/or repulsive gravitational particles, gravitophotons. It is the gravitophoton that is purported to allow the manipulation of gravity, and which provides the direct link to Tajmar’s work.  This is an excellent overview:[Note: Here is the link to the pdf referenced].

Until 2006, they were also reporting on a more radical claim, that the EHT physics potentially allow for FTL</i> [Note: Faster Than Light] travel. <i>However, at that time they thought that the technical requirements for even the STL (Slower Than Light) reactionless method would require truly gargantuan magnetic field strengths. 20+ Tesla for the most basic STL experiment, 80+ for the FTL. Since even the most minuscule laboratory verification would come nowhere near to real world application, the more extreme claims to gin up interest were probably justified.

After Tajmar’s announcement in 2006 however, Droscher & Hauser went back and took another look. They found that EHT gave good predictive agreement with the results Tajmar had reported. The Tajmar experiment and the proposed STL lab bench demonstrator were moderately similar, albeit that the gravitational fields produced were directed along different vectors. And each set of revised results from Tajmar is reported to have brought Tajmar’s observed results and the EHT predictions into closer and closer agreement.

Per private communication w/Hauser, Tajmar has many more results than those he has released. The released results being those best verified to the most anal retentive degree. Per public releases, Hauser and Tajmar have been in close contact for at least the last year.

In the short version of the paper, <a href = “http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/AIAA5595JCP2007DarkAbbreviated.pdf”>”Advanced Propulsion Systems from Artificial Gravitational Fields”</a>, Walter Dröscher and Jochem Hauser discussed how they would reconfigure Tajmar’s apparatus to reflect one of their earlier designs that had previously employed fermionic coupling under a 25 Tesla magnetic field.

Their paper was published through the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics as document AIAA 2006-4608 in August of 2006.  But only now, it seems, are Dröscher, Hauser and Tajmar collaborating on a combined paper that will (apparently) address how combining D & H’s z-axis configuration for improved field propulsion with Tajmar’s bosonic coupling approach could provide a rapid way forward to gMOD.

What does this mean?

In contrast to Tajmar’s device which produced a field tangental the axis of rotation, D & H’s configuration would generate a gravitational field acting parallel to the axis of rotation of the rotating ring and “thus can serve as a field propulsion principle”.  In short, rather than Tajmar’s 200 meter rotating ring to provide 1g of lift, a coil half a meter in diameter with 4 square meters of surface area rotating at 200 meters per second is calculated to be able to lift itself from the surface of the Earth… IF it employs bosonic coupling.  This interaction between electromagnetism and gravitation is predicted by EHT (Extended Heim Theory), of which D & H are the primary authors.

Even though Tajmar has (very conservatively) spoken of generating a milli-g of acceleration within five years, Dröscher and Hauser’s configuration would make Tajmar’s configuration 3 orders of magnitude more efficient.  No news yet on the expected publication date for early drafts of the paper, but with the testing currently going on at EarthTech with Dr. Tajmar in attendance is it any wonder why some in the physics community are holding their collective breath?

Earth Tech International of Austin Texas has <a href=”http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/tajmar/”>begun studies </a>to replicate Dr. Tajmar’s artificial gravity experiments.  ETI is a privately funded research organization dedicated to the exploration of new frontiers in physics.  ETI’s key principal is Dr. Harold Puthoff.

Theory papers: archive abstracts, downloadable papers, background notes can be found HERE.

Experiment papers: archive abstracts and downloadable papers can be found HERE.

In a recent private correspondence with Dr. Martin Tajmar, the principle investigator of the ESA study, he called attention to a recent version of his publication stating that results do compare favorably with independent tests obtained by the Canterbury Ring Laser Group and data from the Gravity-Probe B satellite. All “background noise” analyzed so far are at least 3 orders of magnitude below the observed phenomenon.

Other sources close to this research say that there are two other soon-to-be-announced advances.  First, a Japanese research team is currently engaged in replicating the results from Tajmar’s original study.  Second, discussions have taken place between Tajmar and the team of Walter Dröscher and Jochem Hauser of the Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft in Austria.  Dröscher and Hauser are proponents of the EHT (Extended Heim Theory) theorizing gravity particles as the basis for artificial gravity.  In 2007 the two proposed a reconfiguration of Tajmar’s experiment for advanced propulsion systems from artificial gravitational fields.  A combined research publication between all three is expected during the first half of 2008.