Could GM London moment be source dark matter?

[rogers_buck]

Duncan, excuse me, Nacnud posted this over in the Technology forumn. <br /><br />http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html<br /><br />If you wouldn't mind reading what is there it would help with this next bit.<br /><br />A rotating disk of superconductive material produces the well known London moment which now appears to have a gravitational component to it. The authors theorize that the SC has an analagous quantum effect on the the ME gravitons. The photons are thought to be heavier and the gravitons are likewise thought to be heavier. The increase in mass being related to the energy of the spining SC disk.<br /><br />My conjecture is that since neutron stars are thought to be superconductive at their cores due to proton cooper pairing, they are also thought to produce a London moment because they are spinning. So, if it follows that ESA got the results they think they did, then would it not follow that spinning neutron stars would be emitting heavier gravitons?<br /><br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Okay, the following paper discusses Neutron stars containing cooper pair proton SCs. <br /><br />"In a recent paper by Link, it was pointed out that the standard picture of the neutron star core composed of a mixture of a neutron superfluid and a proton type-II superconductor is inconsistent with observations of a long period precession in isolated pulsars. In the following we will show that an appropriate treatment of the interacting two-component superfluid (made of neutron and proton Cooper pairs), when the structure of proton vortices is strongly modified, may dramatically change the standard picture, resulting in a type-I superconductor. In this case the magnetic field is expelled from the superconducting regions of the neutron star leading to the formation of the intermediate state when alternating domains of superconducting matter and normal matter coexist."<br /><br />PAPER<br /><br />Neutron stars can rotate at relativistic angular velocities. Soe we have a massive superconductor rotating at huge relativistic speeds... A disk a few centimeters rotating at 6K RPM produced a GM London moment effect of a couple of electron masses. Seems like velocities a factor of 10^10 and mass ~10^10 the disc would produce a mass anomally of ~10^19 electron masses. When you multiply the mass anomally from the disk by the 10^9 velocity and ~10^10 mass thats a pretty good simulation of a more massive star.<br /><br />So my question is could this be the source of the observed dark matter surrounding galaxies?<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[rogers_buck]

I'm still waiting for the paper to download. It would be interesting to try to establish a rough upper and lower limit for such a mass anomally for the case of neutron stars. As candidates for dark matter, one thing in their favor is that they are randomly dispersed throughout galaxies. This feature could serve as a stand-in for a more ubiquitous effects. The case for dark matter is pretty much one of averages so I believe it would be difficult to discriminate from the available observations.<br /><br />Not to change the subject entirely, but it also seems that a phenomena such as I am suggesting could produce some interesting oscillations in a few special circumstances. I'm thinking of a neutron star that is near a threshold that destroys superconductivity in the core when crossed. Such an event would quench the source of the mass anomally more or less instantly since phase changes like to occur that way. That would result in a supercooled black hole or hyperon star. Kaboom!<br /><br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Oh yeah... Also any disks of matter around the neutron star would suffer a similar (though less dramatic) fate. I believe a super cooled hyperon star would explode. Too many open quantum states too soon.<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

I wonder about the dynamics of super cooled event horizon formation subjected to a quenching event. So what would happen to a super cooled black hole at the center of a neutron star? The longevity of such a black hole would be determined by its mass. It would be interesting to plug such an event into the vereal theorem, but which one? Quantum or stellar? <br /><br />I'm finding it difficult to think about an event horizon inside a neutron star. The infall of matter in finite coordinate time cannot increase the size of the black hole since nothing can cross the event horizon in finite coordinate time. So it seems that a quenched black hole would exist inside the neutron star, something that normaly can't happen when a black hole forms without a quench.<br />

 

[yevaud]

I would suspect thast said Neutron Star, no matter what the situation, would rapidly become part of the mass of the Singularity. And as the man said, that would be that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><b><i> gravitons</i></b></font>/b>

 

[rogers_buck]

Also, the magnetic component of the quench would be a factor. That too would be snuffed.

 

[barrykirk]

Assuming that the Gravito-Magnetic London effect is real. How does one go about scaling it up into something useful.<br /><br />Let me explain by analogy.<br /><br />When Faraday first discovered Magnetic Induction, the first currents he generated were on the order of milli or micro watts and the currents lasted for a fraction of a second.<br /><br />I'm talking about when he first discovered the effect.<br /><br />Now we have electric generators that can crank out megawatts continously.<br /><br />So, how does one scale up the Gravito-Magnetic London effect?<br /><br />Well, it take a lot of energy to spin the mass up and down like they were doing. Also, it is a slow process taking almost a second.<br /><br />Is it possible to turn the superconductivity of the material on/off at a faster rate. I don't know what means would be used for that.<br /><br />If you were to take your superconducting disk and spin it up to much higher RPM... Say 25,000 RPM and keep it at constant velocity. Then switch the superconductivity on and off at a decent frequency, would that be possible?<br /><br />Or would it be possible to use something that provides the same effect as a super-conductor with just free electrons? They have a lot less mass to accelerate than entire atoms. I'm just asking questions, because I really don't know the answers.<br /><br />Also, is it possible to generate gravitational repulsion forces with this new effect?<br /><br />That would seem to me to be critical for getting useful applications out of it.

 

[rogers_buck]

As is evidenced by this thread's topic, superconductivity can appear in a variety of places. Plasmas, and BECs seem like good candidates. Their advantage over a solid spinning disk is that they can't fly apart.<br /><br />Another candidate springs to mind, exitonic superconductive states. I don't recall ever reading about cooper pairing in exitons (a cooper pair orbiting a hole), but why not? If a rapidly rotating ring of exitons on the surface of a cooled semiconductor could be made to simulate the rotating ring it could certainly achieve much higher RPMs than a solid superconductor. I think relativistic RPMs are possible, but I might be forgetting something like phonon scattering of the states.<br /><br /><br />

 

[barrykirk]

Was it the spin of the superconductor or the acceleration that made the difference?<br /><br />I seem to recall from the paper that acceleration was tied in.<br /><br />If I recall Faraday tried to get Magnetic fields to induce a current for years. He eventually stumbled on the fact that it was a changing magnetic field that induced the current.<br /><br />In some ways, acceleration makes more sense than simple motion. Now I know that constant spin rate is accelerated.... But I seem to remember from reading the abstract that the effect was more tied to the change in rotation rate.<br /><br />What about linear acceleration of the superconductor?

 

[barrykirk]

Yes Yes, I know that a spinning disk is undergoing a constant acceleration...<br /><br />To go by analogy which isn't always correct.<br /><br />Faraday needed to drag a conductor through a magnetic field to induce current. His first Euroka moment occurred when he was expanding and collapsing the magnetic field rather than moving the conductor through an established magnetic field. The point I'm trying to make is that in the straight E&M case energy is conserved. You need to put energy into the system to get energy in the form of an electric current out.<br /><br />Now going to the Gravito-Magnetic case, follow the energy. While I haven't analysed the situation and I don't have any equations available.<br /><br />My gut instinct tells me that energy will be conserved. I would believe that a gravito-magnetic field will have an energy content. Therefore, something is going to have to pump that energy into the field.<br /><br />If from what I understand the mass of particles is increasing by a minute amount. Now mass is just a resistance to a change of velocity. So, it takes extra energy to increase the velocity of the same particle to the same amount. Could that extra energy be what is being pumped into a gravito-magnetic field?<br /><br />Again, I'm just following the energy and saying that most fields have energy associated with them. To build a field, you need to provide an energy source to build it.<br /><br />Of course I may have everything wrong.

 

[rogers_buck]

That is intriguing. I'm doubtfull that many of these effects when measured were appropriatly instrumented for detecting anything like the London effect directly. But perhaps it could be inferred from the anomalies?<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

The problem with using this for propulsion is that the gravitons being relativistically fattened by the effect are real mass-equiv gravitons. So an apparatus capable of producing such a strong field would have a large relativistic mass itself while in operation. That seems to me to suggest a switched system for direct propulsion applications.<br /><br />For example, a GM London field generator module weighing in at a few tons static could be connected to the front of a space ship by springs. When the device is energized, the springs are compressed as the space ship-module are pulled together. The GM London package is then switched off and the springs push the package away from the ship stealing some of the ships forward momentum but a lesser amount than was obtained from the acceleration of the GM London effect.<br /><br />Multiple GM London effect modules could be stacked and phased to provide a continupis acceleration at some resonance point.<br /><br />Regarding the original experiment, it is a lot easier to detect a modulated signal than a steady signal, so switching might improve the SNR. That would require keeping the SC below the critical temperature and then suddenly cooling it or some means of supercooling the SC at the SC temp that can be switched off. I don't know if such a setup would be realistic.<br /><br />For significant field production in a switched configuration there would be all kinds of mechanical issues. You can't stop a fast moving disk or it will fly apart. If your using a zero static mass system (like excitons) the phonons produced by the quenching and build up would rip the thing apart. Super-fluid vortices are interesting because they have the natural tendency to form when accelerated. Perhaps you nudge a GM London super-fluid module with your springs, and this causes it to form vortices that pull you along and compress the spring. You see what I'm getting at.<br /><br />A propulsion application for a static GM London effect field migh

 

[rogers_buck]

Humm, I'm thinking Pioneer effect. A spin stabalized spacecraft with some components at 3K. Not much of a superconductor, but statistically there would be some cooper pairs formed. Given the length of time, they might add up...<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Good stuff for a dissertation if the data were available with sufficient detail. Seems like out of such a large data set there ought to be opportunity. <br />

 

[rogers_buck]

I'll have to ponder this.<br />

 

[minotast]

I have a question? <br /><br />Could it be possible that Dark Energy is the concept of Chi or energy that exists within each of us? It composes 75 percent of the universe now doesn't it? <br /><br />It could very well be possible that dark matter is psionic particals created by psionic energy, which in our terms is dark energy. <br /><br />Then again it could also be possible that dark matter could be cloaked matter of extraterrestrial crafts or artificial satelights and nano-bots.

 

[rogers_buck]

Humm. If it is typical, but what are the phase barriers that would prevent mobil quarks from existing all the way to the limits of black hole formation? I wonder if they speak to that in the full text...<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

LINK<br /><br />A relatively slowly rotating magnetar runs counter to the rotation/subduction dynamo model commonly sited as an explanation for the fast variety. Perhaps GMLM might be a better explanation for both... The magnetic outbursts might be a quench event...<br /><br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Just thinking a little about the nonissotropic gravitational field of a neutron star producing a GMLM suggests some rather curious geometries. Could the basic shape of the neutron star be a convex hyperbolic cylinder instead of a flattened sphere? A dynamic that would extrude material at the poles (like squeezing a tube of toothpaste with holes at both ends). The extruded material from the poles would erupt free of the enormous gravitational field as it free fell to the equator. Supercooled hyperonic states would release an enormous amount of energy in a band around the equator.<br /><br />My speculation is for and externalized version of the anticipated dynamo/subduction process. The onslaught of new quantum states at the equator might then quench the GMLM and upset the geometry as the neutron star reorganized under the new forces and the cooper pairs reformed.<br /><br />So instead of an issotopic patch rotating into the field of view, perhaps we might be seeing the ringing of a far more energetic system. In this case, the period of the pulsar would not merely be indicative of simple rotation, but a complex function of rotation and actual mass.<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

I wonder if there might be any tell-tale signs imprinted upon Saturn's rings?<br /><br />Uranu's inclination would tend to form resonances in its orbit and rotation with a highly vectored gravitational field inhomogeneity in play. In theory, getting knocked on its side would be a random event and given the planets uniform composition, what else could explain such resonances? Well, apart from its moons...<br /><br />What, I wonder, would this effect do to the models for CFS instabilities, bar moment, etc. Guess it doesn't matter until some LIGO results are in - all speculation. But certainly the lower limit would be set on its ear.<br /><br /> <br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

borman,<br />I believe that correct description of long periods comets' orbits is that the eccentricity is close enough to one that neither elliptical, parabolic or hyperbolic orbits can be ruled out within measurement errors. Most have turned out to have orbital periods, meaning they are elliptical orbits with current measurement accuracy. There are nongravitational effects near perihelion that muddy the waters (or aether <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) a bit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[nduriri]

Frontier Physics Evidence.<br />A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles that could lead to incoherent theories, maths is just a tool that helps us to have a rational approach in frontier physics but the approch in frontier physics must be guided by evidence that is observable by the senses.See page 10 Summary of gravitomagnetism.PDF www.gravitomagnetism.com

 

[search]

Hello Borman<br /><br />Instead of neutron stars being the sole originators of possible gravitomagetic fields what are your thoughts on entire galaxies producing phenomenal gravitomagnetic fields due to their rotation?<br /><br />I am imagining a galaxy behaving similary on a much larger scale. Galaxy own rotation with billions of stars differential rotation (even more imagine the Great Attractor scale):<br /><br />http://www.iszf.irk.ru/~kit/public/papers/drrev_e.pdf#search="direction%20of%20rotation%20of%20stars"<br /><br />If GR would be wrong regarding gravitomagnetic fields could we dispense dark matter and explain the lack of matter in the universe in other terms: gravity effect stronger than assumed. The effect over distance is increased exponentially.