|
(Stringy) Landau-Ginzburg <--> Tate experiments?
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>This post is partially meant as a continuation of the thread "On\nacausality in string theory" which I started in s.p.s., but I am now\nalso cross-posting to s.p.r. because some reader there who may not be\nparticularly interested in string theory might still want to help shed\nsome light on these experimental considerations.\n\nLet us first suppose that a true theory of quantum gravity might also\nhave non-trivial importance in trying to understand certain low energy\nphenomena.\n\n(The two experiments that I mentioned in my first post to the s.p.s.\nthread imply that quantum computation is fundamentally irreversible\nand non-causal and that the wave-function in QM is fundamentally\nnon-local and non-causal, and in this latter case the result was both\nLorentz invariant and correlated in a Bell-like way).\n\nI was recently thinking about the underlying category theory of B-type\nD-branes in Landau-Ginzburg models (orbifolds), and doing so\neventually reminded me of something bizarre that I had first read\nabout seven years ago:\n\nJanet Tate et al. obtained the first data for the Cooper-pair mass in\nthe relativistic region of a rotating nobium superconducting ring\nwithin the framework of the Ginzburg-Landau current equation [1].\n\nUnlike the flux quantization, which had been shown theoretically and\nexperimentally to contain no relativistic corrections (i.e. it is\nLorentz invariant), the mass appearing in the London magnetic field\nwas expected to differ from the free-electron mass. However, the\nhighly accurate data of Tate et al. contradict the theory, and no one\nhas been able to explain this result!\n\nFor instance, this result is considered theoretically in a 2003 paper\n[2] in the journal Physica C (superconductivity), and here is the\nabstract from this paper:\n\n"The quantization of the extended canonical momentum in quantum\nmaterials including the effects of gravitational drag is applied\nsuccessively to the case of a multiply connected rotating\nsuperconductor and superfluid. Experiments carried out on rotating\nsuperconductors, based on the quantization of the magnetic flux in\nrotating superconductors, lead to a disagreement with the theoretical\npredictions derived from the quantization of a canonical momentum\nwithout any gravitomagnetic term. To what extent can these\ndiscrepancies be attributed to the additional gravitomagnetic term of\nthe extended canonical momentum? This is an open and important\nquestion. For the case of multiply connected rotating neutral\nsuperfluids, gravitational drag effects derived from rotating\nsuperconductor data appear to be hidden in the noise of present\nexperiments according to a first rough analysis."\n\nNot finding a clear theoretical resolution of this issue, the authors\nrecommend doing further experiments which would e.g. measure the\ntorque of a spinning gyroscope produced by the gravitomagnetic field\n"possibly" generated by rotating superconductors and superfluids.\n\nVarious authors have also considered potential relations between low\nand high energy Landau-Ginzburg phenomena, one example being the idea\nthat the nuclear equations of state for rotating neutron stars suggest\nthe possibility of condensation of protons to Cooper pairs and\nprotonic stability [3].\n\nAt the end of the paper, "Rotating Superconductors: Ginzburg-Landau\nEquations", the author suspects that if higher order corrections were\nconsidered for his model then there might be a way to reconcile the\nTate experiments and theory, but I do not know if the author has even\nsince tried doing these modifications himself.\n\n\n[1] J. Tate et al., Phys Rev Lett 62(8), p 845-50.\n\n[2] M. Tajmar and C.J. de Matos, Physica C (superconductivity) 385,\np.551-54.\n\n[3] B. Carter, R. Prix, D. Langlois; Phys Rev B 62, 9740-60.\n\nW.H. Zurek; Physics Reports, 276(4), p.177-221.\n\n\n-------------------\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>This post is partially meant as a continuation of the thread "On
acausality in string theory" which I started in s.p.s., but I am now
also cross-posting to s.p.r. because some reader there who may not be
particularly interested in string theory might still want to help shed
some light on these experimental considerations.
Let us first suppose that a true theory of quantum gravity might also
have non-trivial importance in trying to understand certain low energy
phenomena.
(The two experiments that I mentioned in my first post to the s.p.s.
thread imply that quantum computation is fundamentally irreversible
and non-causal and that the wave-function in QM is fundamentally
non-local and non-causal, and in this latter case the result was both
Lorentz invariant and correlated in a Bell-like way).
I was recently thinking about the underlying category theory of B-type
D-branes in Landau-Ginzburg models (orbifolds), and doing so
eventually reminded me of something bizarre that I had first read
about seven years ago:
Janet Tate et al. obtained the first data for the Cooper-pair mass in
the relativistic region of a rotating nobium superconducting ring
within the framework of the Ginzburg-Landau current equation [1].
Unlike the flux quantization, which had been shown theoretically and
experimentally to contain no relativistic corrections (i.e. it is
Lorentz invariant), the mass appearing in the London magnetic field
was expected to differ from the free-electron mass. However, the
highly accurate data of Tate et al. contradict the theory, and no one
has been able to explain this result!
For instance, this result is considered theoretically in a 2003 paper
[2] in the journal Physica C (superconductivity), and here is the
abstract from this paper:
"The quantization of the extended canonical momentum in quantum
materials including the effects of gravitational drag is applied
successively to the case of a multiply connected rotating
superconductor and superfluid. Experiments carried out on rotating
superconductors, based on the quantization of the magnetic flux in
rotating superconductors, lead to a disagreement with the theoretical
predictions derived from the quantization of a canonical momentum
without any gravitomagnetic term. To what extent can these
discrepancies be attributed to the additional gravitomagnetic term of
the extended canonical momentum? This is an open and important
question. For the case of multiply connected rotating neutral
superfluids, gravitational drag effects derived from rotating
superconductor data appear to be hidden in the noise of present
experiments according to a first rough analysis."
Not finding a clear theoretical resolution of this issue, the authors
recommend doing further experiments which would e.g. measure the
torque of a spinning gyroscope produced by the gravitomagnetic field
"possibly" generated by rotating superconductors and superfluids.
Various authors have also considered potential relations between low
and high energy Landau-Ginzburg phenomena, one example being the idea
that the nuclear equations of state for rotating neutron stars suggest
the possibility of condensation of protons to Cooper pairs and
protonic stability [3].
At the end of the paper, "Rotating Superconductors: Ginzburg-Landau
Equations", the author suspects that if higher order corrections were
considered for his model then there might be a way to reconcile the
Tate experiments and theory, but I do not know if the author has even
since tried doing these modifications himself.
[1] J. Tate et al., Phys Rev Lett 62(8), [itex]p 845-50[/itex].
[2] M. Tajmar and C.J. de Matos, Physica C (superconductivity) 385,
p.[itex]551-54[/itex].
[3] B. Carter, R. Prix, D. Langlois; Phys Rev B 62, [itex]9740-60[/itex].
W.H. Zurek; Physics Reports, 276(4), [itex]p.177-221.[/itex]
-------------------
|