An Experiment to Measure Gravity Blockade in Superfluids

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the theoretical implications of using a superfluid to potentially block gravitational waves. A hypothetical experiment involves a thin spherical shell filled with a superfluid surrounding a lead core, placed on a spring scale. The premise suggests that activating the superfluid could lead to a measurable drop in weight, indicating a possible interaction with gravity. Participants express skepticism about the simplicity of creating superfluids and question why experiments haven't been conducted to explore these theories further. Some clarify that the original idea pertains to surrounding lead with a superfluid, not transforming lead itself. The conversation highlights the ongoing challenges in understanding quantum gravity and the dominance of General Relativity, which has consistently aligned with experimental results. Despite the intriguing nature of the idea, the consensus emphasizes the need for rigorous experimentation to validate any claims about superfluids and gravity.
eNtRopY
Imagine, if you will, a thin spherical shell filled with a substance that can be made a superfluid with the flip of a switch. We fill the volume of the inner shell with lead. We place this system on a spring scale.

Now, according to recent theory, superfluids may in fact block gravitational waves. So, if we flip the switch on, so that the superfluid is on, we should immediately notice a drop in the measured weight of our system.

In fact, this ability to turn off gravity may actually help us measure the characteristics of gravitational waves.

eNtRopY
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
wow, interesting.
but if turning lead into a superfluid was as easy as flipping a switch, we would know more than just theories
 
Greetings !
Originally posted by The_oMeGa
but if turning lead into a superfluid was as
easy as flipping a switch, we would know more
than just theories
:wink:

I still do not understand it, despite the
difficulties of cooling superconductors
and all and the pathetic and changing force
of gravity on Earth's surface - why can't
they just conduct a series of experiments
with them to see once and for all if
gravity is affected ? I mean if it's such a
hot subject and all and the potential
is high in usefullness terms - just get the
money and do it thoroughly. What's the problem ?

Live long and prosper.
 
Originally posted by The_oMeGa
wow, interesting.
but if turning lead into a superfluid was as easy as flipping a switch, we would know more than just theories

I don't think Ent was talking about "turning lead into a superfluid", but rather sarounding a lump of lead with a superfluid.

This is indeed an interesting idea. And one which seems so simple and obvious, I have to wonder if it hasn't already been done.

Also; if superfluids turn out to be of great importance and practical application, will we have to come up with a different word for "superfluous"?
 
Originally posted by LURCH
I don't think Ent was talking about "turning lead into a superfluid", but rather sarounding a lump of lead with a superfluid.

Thank you for understanding me, LURCH.

eNtRopY
 
Originally posted by eNtRopY
Now, according to recent theory, superfluids may in fact block gravitational waves. So, if we flip the switch on, so that the superfluid is on, we should immediately notice a drop in the measured weight of our system.

eNtRopY

The above may be stretching things a bit. There have been numerous attempts to formulate quantum gravity. Each of these ideas usually involves some predicted difference with General Relativity. At any point in time, there are probably dozens of work-in-process ideas being floated.

However, repeated tests of every aspect of gravity yields results consistent with the predictions of GR. Needless to say, if a superfluid blocked the Earth's gravity in any way, that would not be expected by GR.

I am certainly not saying that such an experiment shouldn't be performed; I just want to set the record straight about the current state of theory. At this point, GR rules safely and soundly, and continues to take on all comers.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top