I had missed the fact that earlier this year in a response to an early version of Tajmar’s paper on the role of helium (see June 23 entry), Jochim Hauser and Walter Droscher suggested that there are no major friction effects with helium. Since the effect is not due to the mechanical friction of rotating gases the authors suggest Tajmar’s anomalous effect must be due to other mechanisms.

They go on to say that since symmetry breaking is required for the production of gravitophotons, yet the Tajmar’s effect occurs at temperatures higher than required for Cooper-pair formation, it is likely not the Cooper-pair bosons that produce the symmetry breaking.

This brings into the mix the possibility that a yet unidentified symmetry breaking mechanism far above superconducting temperatures may be sufficient to produce Tajmar’s results (see note from the Editor near the bottom of the April 14 Blog entry).

A new publication by Dr. Tajmar (with Plesescu and Seigert) is entitled, “Anomalous Fiber Optic Gyroscope Signals Observed above Spinning Rings at Low Temperature”. It can be accessed HERE.

In the article, Tajmar confirms his earlier results reporting that, “our signals are up to 18 orders of magnitude larger” compared to classical frame-dragging spin-coupling predictions of general relativity.

But there is a new twist. The rotating helium used to cool the system has also been found to contribute to the effect. Helium was employed in Tajmar’s original experimentation series to convey cold to the niobium (Nb) superconducting sample. However, now the Nb has been shown to contribute a weaker effect and the rotating helium produces the main effect. This occurs below 25-30 degrees Kelvin, well above superconducting temperatures for Nb and only 47 degrees below that of liquid nitrogen.

Remember that Tajmar’s central tenet has been that the superconducting Nb allows for the creation of bosonic Cooper pairs and it is the movement of these bosons that produce the gravitomagnetic effect. But helium is also a boson (both nucleus and atom) and apparently the major contributor to the effect. This is still consistent with the work of Droscher and Hauser and brings into view the possibility that the rotating ring need not be of solid material nor restricted to very low temperatures.

One goal of the work of Dröscher, now made more tangible through his collaboration with Tajmar, is that of propulsive fields achievable of space flight. However a more controversial and advanced propulsion aspect of Dröscher and Häuser’s theory has not been mentioned in their publications in recent years, even though they apparently have not abandoned it. Even among talk of new theories of gravity it is controversial. Yet it was this work that brought them an award by the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics), a very down-to-Earth organization of pragmatic aeronautical engineers and physicists in close association with NASA.

The following descriptions are taken almost wholly from Seculine Consulting’s 2006 “Notes on Heim’s Quantum Theory”, Dröscher & Häuser’s 2002 “Physical Principles of Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Heim’s Field Theory” and their 2004 “Guidelines for a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim’s Quantum Theory”.

In Heim’s work, which predates string theory, Einstein’s general relativity has been extended in a way that expands the space-time metric by 4 dimensions, and also adds 4 non-metric dimensions for a total of 12 dimensions. In Heim Theory standard gravity G is the tensor summation of three gravitational components, i.e. G = Gg + Ggp + Gq. The 3 gravitational forces are as follows:

Gg (Scalar Gravity, or “Gravitonic”) – propagated by the Graviton
Ggp (Dark Energy/Matter) – a pairing of both attractive (+) and repulsive (-) particles propagated by the Gravito-photon
Gq (Vacuum Field) – a repulsive vacuum particle propagated by the Quintessence particle

Under this theory space propulsion may be achieved using gravitophoton field propulsion, which is predicted to be a two stage process:

Stage 1: Sub-luminal travel is predicted via the acceleration provided by an unbalanced pulling force generated through the absorption of negative gravito-photons in the ship’s drive mechanism.

Stage 2: Super-luminal travel possibilities open up through the use of a positive graivito-photon distribution behind the ship to create a pushing force that results in quantum steps in reduced gravitational potential in the speed of light, and is therefore analogous to a warp drive. This is also described by Heim proponents as a “parallel space” travel since there are different values for G and c within the influence of the positive gravito-photonic field.

Super-luminal travel is faster-than-light travel. Hence the controversy.

Under the assumption that the gravitational potential of the spacecraft can be reduced by the production of quintessence particles, a transition into parallel space is postulated to avoid a potential conflict with relativity theory. In order to resolve this contradiction, it is postulated that the object has to leave our space time and enters into a parallel 4-dimensional physical space-time (or parallel universe/multiverse).

Einstein’s goal was the unification of all physical interactions based on his principle of geometrization, i.e., having a metric that is responsible for the interaction. This principle is termed Einstein’s geometrization principle of physics (EGP). To this end, Heim and Dröscher introduced the concept of an internal space, denoted as Heim space H8, having 8 dimensions (in contrast to the theory’s original 12 dimensions). Although H8 is not a physical space, these invisible internal coordinates govern events in space time.

In such a space, superluminal speeds would be possible in principle. The interesting fact is that an object can transit into parallel space at a relatively low speed from our own space time.

It is clear that a gravito-photon field propulsion would be far superior compared to chemical propulsion or any other currently conceived propulsion system. For instance, an acceleration of 1g could be sustained without entering parallel space during a lunar mission. For such a mission only the acceleration phase is needed. For a launch from the surface of the Earth of a 150,000 kg spacecraft producing an acceleration larger than 1g the first half of the distance to the moon is covered in some 2 hours, resulting in a total flight time of 4 hours. How about a more distant target?

A Mars mission, under the same assumptions as a flight to the moon, would achieve a total flight time with acceleration and deceleration of 34 days in normal space. Entering parallel space, a transition is possible at a speed of some 67,000 mph reached after approximately 1 hour at a constant acceleration of 1g. In parallel space the velocity increases to 0.4 c, reducing total flight time to some 2.5 hours. Compare this to NASA’s projections of a two year round trip to Mars by a direct minimum energy orbit in each direction.

Mars is some 0.5 A.U. away (astronomical units, 1 A.U. = 1,500,000,000 km) yet the nearest star is 4.3 lightyears (1 lightyear = 9,460,000,000,000 km) away. For an interstellar mission, the concept of parallel space is indispensable.

An acceleration phase of some 34 days with 1g would result in a final velocity of just one per cent of the speed of light, 0.01 c in normal space. At the end of an acceleration phase of 34 days a spacecraft with a mass of 100,000 kg transitioned into parallel space would cause a velocity gain by a factor of 33,000 resulting in an effective speed of 330 c. A distance of 10 light-years could be covered within 11 days. The deceleration phase requires another 34 days, so a one-way trip to the star Procyon (11.5 lightyears from Earth) would take about 90 days. There are about 30 known stars within a radius of 13 light-years from Earth.

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.