User:Super Quantum immortal/Graviton and neutrino optics

(fix the formating latter)

In short

Fire graviton and neutrino beams through random targets. Hope to observe a deflection or scattering( measurable refraction index n). Use the deflection phenomenon, to generate stronger beams, beater detectors, and smarted targets (theory/technology). Redo cycle of experiments/upgrade until graviton/neutrino optics are easy enough to use in normal applications (if possible).

(The speed of light in air, is 90km/s slower then in vacuum (n=1,0003). For He, its 10 times lower (n=1,000035). Simple variations in temperature can produce enough refraction differential(>>90Km/s difference) to bend light beams(mirage). It doesn't need much of a slow down to detect a deflection)

Hope dies last

The hope is, that they are materials with important refraction index to these beams(probably exotic). As far as i know, refraction indexes in optics are measured experimentally. Even if current theories rule out measurable refraction, we can still hope to detect a violation of current theories. This is arguments for in favour of the experiments, it doesn't assumes anything about the results. These are real pioneering experiments, they don't expect anything in particular. If current expectations hold true, it will be considerably hard to manipulate, neutrinos and gravity fields/waves.

Current experiments never attempted to see what the refraction indexes of gravity-waves/neutrinos really are. Even small slowdowns could be usable.

Electromagnetism was discovered by chance. A compass was left near an electric cable, and some one noticed that the needle moved. Here we hope to run in too something similarly new, by putting random stuff or doing stuff, on the trajectory of the beams.

We especially hope to run in too some retroaction mechanism.

In practice

We compare the normal detection, with detection when stuff are put/done in the path of the beam to the detector. When a deficit is detected, we scan the surroundings to determine the deflection angle.

These are very weak beams, we should cheat as hell in order to maximize detection of anomalies. I don't think i'll do this in my kitchen.

Gravity beams (my favourite)

They are various detectors alredy, from gravimeters to the huge gravity waves detectors with precision down to the diameter of a proton 8D. Gravitational wave detectors try to detect astronomical sources, we are not interested in that here. Generating gravity waves is actually trivial, simply accelerating any mass, will produce gravitational waves. Simply flapping your hands, will generate gravity waves. However, generating gravity waves that can be detected is a different matter. For self generated waves, we shouldn't need precisions of a proton.

coherent beam production

For the wave production, we could do it the stupid way, and just have a big mass vibrating. However it would be much more interesting to produce a monochromatic coherent beams (a gravitational laser).

First of all, little simplified intro on interference patterns. if we have 2 point sources of waves(same phase), on the Y axis. If they are distanced by λ/2. The waves cancel out along the Y axis, and add up along the X axis. At the direction of the X axis, the amplitude is maximal, as we turn away from the X axis, the amplitude of the wave pattern decrease gradually to 0, wile exhibiting an interference pattern (something like the function Gaussian*cosine). If the 2 point sources are distanced by λ, the 0 is on the X axis, and the max on the Y axis. A further useful conclusion, is the observation, that because of the conservation of energy law, when we know that in 1 direction the waves add up, in the other, they must cancel out, and vice versa.

We can use these observations to construct an interference pattern of gravity waves, that is actually a gravity "laser". More complex setups can be thought up, with combination of distance and phase manipulation. More complex setups could be technically more interesting. This scheme is the simplest. For technical reasons, in practice we may be forced to used a less optimum arrangement

We align in the Y direction a bunch of pairs of vibrating masses. The members of the pairs are distanced by λ/2, and there 0 axis is aligned with the Y axis. This is the proper way to do it, but if the number of sources is important, simply aligning them at random distances with each other would do. Then, wave sources are distanced randomly in the Y direction, half cancelling out with the other half. In the X direction, the waves tend to add up, producing a unified front, travelling at opposite directions. This also mean, that in the Y direction, the waves tend to cancel out more strongly then before (amplitudes reduce to 0 faster). The alignment must be significantly longer then λ, or the wave front will disperse too fast (diffraction). The longer it will be, the slowest it will disperse. Already, we get 2 relatively focused beams travelling.

Alignments are aligned in the X direction, distanced by λ, so that the wave fronts add up. Since they add up in the X direction, they cancel out further in the Y direction. The beams get more focused still.

In the Z direction, we pile up several layers of what we alredy constructed, in such a way that all are in pairs distanced by λ/2. Meaning, that the waves travelling along the Z axis cancelling out, and adding up along the X axis. The hight, must be significantly higher then λ, to minimize diffraction.

In the end, we get 2 focused beams at opposite directions. We can't get only 1 beam with interference patterns. The difference with normal waves, is that momentum equal and opposite to the waves is transferred to the matter of the emitter. The waves have momentum at one direction, and the emitter has equal and opposite momentum in the other direction. Here however the force of the gravity waves is so small, that momentum transfer is negligible. Finding materials that can interact in a non insignificant way, is actually 1 of the objectives of building this setup.

These kind of gravity beams, don't exactly occur naturally. Hope for unexpected results.

For practical reasons, the set up can be less then perfect. When wave length becomes a parameter things get difficult(c=λf). We can ignore the wave length, by having only alignments. Them selves aligned closer then 1 wave length, but at an appropriate phase shift so that they add up up front.

We can see that if the alignments are distanced by "L", then the second alignment should start emitting "L/c" before the first( the signal of the second layer reaches the first when it starts emitting, thus they will add up). The third should it self emit "L/c" before the second, etc. We still get an addition in the other direction on the X axis. In the Y directions they will tend to cancel out as before. Because of diffraction, the Y length should still be significantly greater then the wave length, if the wave length is too large, all this doesn't worth it. We can as well put them randomly together. An apparently acceptable technical limit, seams to be ~10^5Hz/10^3m

In the Z axis, if they are piled up at random distances, they should cancel out emission along the axis. (TODO a simulation)

We hope taking advantage of gravitomagnetic effects at relatively high frequencies. Maybe weird resonance effects at subatomic level. We could simulate a lensing effect. A lense, what it really does, is slow down the middle more then the periphery of a wave front. As the wave front keeps progressing and interfering with it self, it actually focusses. We would need to simulate the slowdowns, by an appropriate phase shift. Do a little Fourier series addition among different gravity beams(align properly different beam generators) to obtain various interesting wave patterns. Generation of a pulsed beam (in a period, almost all amplitude at 1 point, all the rest at almost 0), seams to be the most interesting. Dynamic feedback loop, output of detector coordinates generation at determined frequency. Automated system to adjust frequency to the easiest detectable. Wave reversion seams potentially useful here. How? I don't know.

Equations

a gravitational antenna( an oscillating mass) would give as equation in 1D Asin(|ωt+kx|)

if we put a second at point L and starting oscillating earlier by t0

Asin(|ω(t+t0)+k(x-L)|)

we want the two waves to add up at the (-) direction, so at point 0 the second wave should be Asin(0). We ignore periodicity, we want the smallest valius.

so 0=ω(0+t0)+k(0-L)

t0=kL/ω

hey, frequency is gone, neet

t0=L/c (technically doable, much more then 1GHz frequency on a macroscopic mass)

so we put a second layer of oscillating masses, at distance L from the first, and starting oscillating L/c before the first.

We do this again and again and again with multiple layers.

what happens in (+) direction? (x1>L)

at t1, x1 Asin(|ωt1+kx1|)

Asin(| ω(t1+t0)+k(x1-L) |) =ωt1+ωt0+kx1-kL= (ωt1+kx1) + ωt0-kL= (ωt1+kx1) + ωkL/ω - kL= ωt1+kx1

Exactly the same, they add up.

fucked up somewere?

The theory used, need more then just newtons theory of gravitation. However, it would be excessive in using general relativity. So gravitomagnetism equations are what we need.

The equations are like electromagnetism, but adapted for the gravity field(1/ε0=-4πG). Gravitational magnetism has nothing to do with magnetism of electricity, its different. The gravitomagnetism component (B) takes in to account in a simplified manner, a good approximation of relativistic effects. The field (E) component, is just plain old gravity field.

∇·E = -4πGρ ∇·B = 0 ∇XE = -∂B/∂t ∇XB = -(4πG/c²)J + (1/c²)∂E/∂t

from electromagnetism:

for an accelerated charge along Z

Power radiated (Larmor formula) P=q²*a² / (6π*ε0*c³)

Electric field (valid far from emitter, r>>λ/2π) E=q*a*sin(θ)/(4π*e0*c²*r)

(θ=0, we are on the Z axis, E is perpendicular to r, and in the plane)

so adapted in to gravitomagnetism it would give (if i'm not making a mistake)

P=m²a² (2G/3c³) (order of magnitude -38)

E=-m*a*sin(θ)G/rc² (order of magnitude -29)

Orders of magnitude

G=6.67428 * 10^-11 Ke=8.9875517873681764 * 10^9 c=299,792,458

from c=λ*f we get

100 Hz 10^6 m 10^4Hz 10^4 m 10^6Hz 100 m 10^9Hz 1 m

with lower frequencies we can get bigger masses, but λ becomes very big (over 100m). At low frequencies, λ becomes extremely big.

Neutrino beams

Production isn't that hard. A 4000MW nuclear reactor, actually generates 4185 MW of total energy, the 185MW are irradiated as neutrinos. Detection is an other matter, very hard. We alredy detect artificially generated neutrino beams. For example, neutrinos generated at fermilab are detected 700km away at a rate of 1ν/12houres.

Efforts (money) could be made to render the beams more coherent We could try producing slow ν(low frequency), intuitively, they should be more diffracting. But they will also be harder to detect(less nuclear reactions). We could attempt to concentrate slower neutrinos, and see if they are more reactions at the focus point. Consider a balance between refractability (concentration) and probability of reactions. Detecting material at relativistic speeds against the direction of the beam. Diffracting material at relativistic speeds, at the direction of the beam. In trying to being cheap, we could try to suck up cosmic radiation (zeta radiation), filter it and process it for the required reactions.

Applying on both neutrino/graviton

Targets could be normal materials as well as exotic stuff (superconductors, superfluids, Bose-Einstein condensates, plasma, etc...). Targets at low(or ultra low) temperatures. Play with the frequencies/energy and polarization. Try producing beams as coherent as possible. Use statistical methods. In short, it means making the experiment many times, making an average in the end. Calibrate the detector for the beam we are producing, not a generic detectors. We are not doing astronomy here. For example, we arrange the resonant frequency of the detector being the same as that of the beam. Detector/target/source at great distances. Small angles could be detectable this way. Put detector and emitter closer together. Deflection angles would be smaller, beams would be stronger. Use various geometries, like in normal optics. Choose geometries that enhance deflection. The most obvious trick, is to make targets larger. We can build them, or try to find huge natural targets with correct geometry/angle/composition (Mountains, planets, moons, sun, earth's core, etc). The dense cores of planets/sun should be particularly interesting. A less obvious geometry, is to use plates at very steep angle in relation to the beam, almost parallel. Any reflection would be maximized. Other more complex geometries can be devised, like alternating materials of various thicknesses and angles. Thicknesses of a multiple or a fraction of λ would be the most interesting. Use the same detector for many beams, from different directions, if 10 beams then detection is in a virtual way 10 times cheaper, use it at capacity. Do exactly the same experiment simultaneously from different directions, simply divide the measurement by the number of experiments for the real result. Vacuum as 1 of the refraction environments. In any refraction experiment, its the difference of refraction index that really matters. In any case, vacuum has a refraction index of 1, the lowest possible. If a beam crosses a vacuum/material intersection, we will get the maximum deflection possible. Moving targets. Like spinning, vibrating, sliding, etc. (we learned our lesson from electromagnetism). Use gravitational lensing, sun/planets/mountains/asteroids. The beams can go through inside the objects. What the focal point of the sun would be then? Many perfectly aligned and synchronized beam generators. Single use generators, a single pulse. Use of synchronized explosions, conventional or nuclear. Maybe these last 1s should be done in space. The explosions are treated as point sources, we arrange so that the waves generated add up at the detector.

Category:Original research Category:Research projects Category:Experimental Physics Category:Physics