Está en la página 1de 7

Date: 9 May 2003, Rev A 31 May 2008

To: Distribution

From: Gary V Stephenson

Subject: 1st International HFGW Trip Report



An international group has been formed to study the possibility of the laboratory
generation of gravitational waves (GW).
High frequency gravitational waves (HFGW) should be easier to generate due to
better coupling between GW and Electro-Magnetic (EM) energy / matter.
The Russians had been working in the area prior to the fall of the USSR and they
have more theoretical and laboratory experience than their US counterparts.
Foundation funding will likely be arranged in the near future to support the HFGW
Future applications may include communication, propulsion, and imaging.


The International High Frequency Gravitational Wave (HFGW) Working Group met at
Mitre in McLean, Virginia from Tuesday, May 6th, through Thursday, May 9th, 2003. I
attended all the scheduled meetings during these three days, and presented a paper on
Wednesday. Meeting minutes follow.


The chairpersons were Paul Murad, Dr. Robert M.L. Baker, Jr., and Dr. Ning Li. Paul
Murad made a few opening remarks, and then turned the conference over to Bob Baker,
who paid tribute to the life of Bob Forward, who passed away late last year.

Dr. Baker presented a brief overview of the state of the art in HFGW (paper 03-101).
The recent measurement of gravitational wave (GW) speed as c, the speed of light, was
discussed. The LIGO program was noted, and difficulty of developing sizable GW power
using mechanical masses was also summarized.

Dr. Valentin Rudenko proposed a coherent ensemble of acoustic micro radiators as one
of many possible options for GW generation (paper 03-113). He stressed that standing
waves would be desirable given the long integration time of many GW detectors.

Dr. Miguel Portilla presented a GW generator concept that uses a dielectric sphere in a
magnetic (B) field, exposed to EM, to produce GW via the Gertsenshtein effect (paper
03-112). Efficiency is improved by using a dielectric stack of alternating permittivity
within the sphere. A metric strain amplitude of h = 10-25 is predicted for this design. This
is a unitless quantity of length change per unit length, and is normalized to bandwidth by
dividing by the root of frequency bandwidth, in Hertz.

H. David Froning presented a paper written with Dr. Terence Barrett on generating
GW via specially conditioned EM that corresponds to an SU(2) topology (paper 03-122).
From a practical standpoint this condition can be satisfied with polarization modulation
of EM, but it can not be merely CW or CCW polarization, but a changing CW or CCW.

Lunch was held in the Mitre cafeteria.

After lunch Dr. Leonid Grishchuk presented a wide ranging paper that covered the
history of LFGW investigations, the bounds of current strain sensitivities, and the limits
of mechanical systems (paper 03-119). He also briefly reviewed his landmark toroid
resonant GW generator design, first published in Sov Phys JETP 41, 787, (1975). This
design may be improved by adding additional rings. As a reminder, he indicated the
advantage of standing coherent GW from the detection side: sensitivity goes as Q for
coherent signals, but a root Q for stochastic signals.

Dr. F.Y. Lis paper was presented by Ning Li. F.Y. Li was not able to travel due to visa
problems. The paper (paper 03-108) describes a GW sensor that uses an EM sense wave
in a strong B field to detect GW waves of the same wavelength. EM harmonics are
created when the EM and GW wave are in a synchro-resonance condition. The
quantum picture has a graviton and photon being annihilated, and a new photon being
released, with the excess spin compensated by the magnetic field. Detection sensitivity is
predicted as h < 10-30.

Dr. Fernando Romero-Borja presented his paper from the 80s, co-authored with Dr.
Heinz Dehnen, in which an array of vibrating elements may be phased such that a
stimulated emission of GW occurs (paper 03-102). What came out during the
presentation that was not immediately obvious from reading the paper was that the
vibrating element chain was intended to be a stack of elements, versus a longitudinal
array. That is, the emission is along the axis of the array.

Dr. Andrea Chincarini presented a paper, coauthored with Dr. Gianluca Gemme, that
describes a microwave resonant cavity pair which could be used as a GW sensor (paper
03-103). The difference in frequencies of the cavities must match the GW wave to be
sensed. They predicted 10-21 < h < 10-20 for the metric strain sensitivity.

The afternoon panel discussion was cancelled due to a lack of time.

There was a mixer held at the Ritz Carlton Plaza Room in the evening.


Dr. Bob Baker kicked off the morning session by presenting his paper on using arrays of
nano-devices to generate HFGW (paper 03-117). He made the case that the smaller the
device the more efficient the coupling. A small debate broke out when Dr. Baker
suggested that superconductors (SC) slow GW, i.e. that SC can act as a refraction device.
If this is true, lensing GW could open up entire new fields. This drew a comment from
Dr. Grishchuk, who pointed out that the index of space time to GW is very nearly 1, plus
or minus some very small constant, per measurements that have been made. Dr. Baker
pointed to peer reviewed papers by Ning Li and others that claim to have predicted much
lower speeds, therefore higher indices, in SC.

Ning Li was scheduled to present her paper next, but technical difficulties delayed this.

Dr. Clive Woods proceeded with his presentation of a review of HTSC gravitational
testing (paper 03-118). He reviewed the recent history of experimentation with spinning
HTSCs, both peer reviewed and not peer reviewed. Non-peer reviewed results have been
reported by Reiss, Rounds, and Schurner, and are open to interpretation. The only peer
reviewed work that has shown positive results so far is Podkletnovs. Koczor, Woods,
and Hathaway have all shown null results in separate high quality experiments.

Woods also briefly reviewed Podkletnovs impulse experiment, in which an electrical

discharge through a HTSC, in the presence of a strong B field, is reported to have lead to
a gravitational impulse. Both Woods and Hathaway plan separate attempts to reproduce
this experiment, although Woods funding is still in question. While Podkletnovs
theoretical motivations for this experiment are not clear, it may be that he has stumbled
across an effect related to the Gertsenshtein effect.

It was suggested during a break discussion that a more straightforward attempt of the
Gertsenshtein effect might be to use an existing synchrotron light source, such as at
Brookhaven or Sandia, shine it through a very strong magnetic field, and arrange a well
shielded GW detector tuned for this same frequency, to look for an emitted GW signal.

George Hathaway presented the results of his attempt to replicate the Podkletnov
spinning disk experiment, which was negative, i.e. there was no weight loss observed
(paper 03-121). This appeared to be a very convincing high quality experiment. George
has secured a private funding source and is now preparing an attempt to duplicate the
Podkletnov impulse experiment. Completion is expected in about 6 months.

Tony (Glen A.) Robertson also presented a paper, co-authored with Dr. Ray Lewis, on
spinning and impulse HTSC experiments, providing some possible theoretical rationale
for the effect generated by these experiments (paper 03-116). He is a member of the
delta-G team at NASA MSFC along with Ning Li, Ron Koczor, and others, and their
results, limited so far to the spinning case, have also been negative.

Lunch was held in the Mitre cafeteria.

After lunch Dr Ning Li went ahead with the presentation of her paper (paper 03-106),
which outlined her approach to representing that gravitational field equations in a manner
similar to Maxwells equations, where ordinary gravitation is represented by a gravito-
electric field Eg, frame-dragging is represented by a gravito-magnetic field Bg, and
free space gravitational permittivity 1/[4(pi)G] and gravitational permeability [4(pi)G]/c
are also defined. This implies that gravity propagates at the speed of light in free space,
but not necessarily elsewhere.

Dr. Giorgio Fontana presented a paper on his concept of a GASER, (paper 03-111) or
gravitational laser, which uses LTSC and HTSC joined together with a Josephson
Junction for set of orthogonal states for Cooper pair carriers, S-type on one side and P-
type on the other, with a carrier transition of J=2 required. The orthogonal nature of the
junction favors the creation of gravitons (or instantons) over photons.

Melvin Lewis presented the first of two papers on how HFGW might be applied to the
field of communication systems (paper 03-109). The application of communications
with submarines was mentioned as a possibility by Mel. The Friis transmission formula
was presented as it would be applied to GW, and Mel pointed out that the very poor
impedance matching of current GW transmitter and sensor antenna designs to space-time
impedance are currently limiting the technology.

I (Gary Stephenson) presented the second paper on the application of HFGW to

communication (paper 03-104). After presenting an overview of the current options in
GW generators and sensors, I presented a look at how to develop a link budget for such a
system, and laid out a fairly conservative roadmap for future work in this area.

Dr. Bob Baker presented the last paper of the day, on the possibility of imaging
applications using gravitational waves (paper 03-120). Because of their very low
scattering properties they could conceivably be used as X-rays are, but with much better
penetrating properties. GW X-ray (G-ray?) could be especially useful in the area of
geotechnical exploration. The development of GW imaging elements is one of many
technical risks that would have to be overcome.

Panel Discussion Topic: Where should we go next with GW generator & detector

A sampling of comments collected during the panel discussion are as follows:

* Need to better define the current state of the art - our database is incomplete.
* Need to prove or disprove the Gertsenshtein effect.
* Need more analysis of non-linear effects for better detectors and possibly generators.
* For GW generators, we need bigger strains, not necessarily just bigger fluxes.
* Could we match a GW generator with any of our current detectors? Solves half the
problem at the start.

* Need to theoretically investigate the properties of traveling GW that are undergoing
optical and acoustic coupling.
* Need to cooperate with the nuclear fusion crowd if we want to pursue plasma GW
* Need to review how to use lasers or synchrotron light to generate GW experimentally.
* Need a bibliography and /or an electronic reference library for group use.
* Need a inter-disciplinary focus group to keep coordination going, including theorists,
experimentalists, and engineers, perhaps with a newsletter and/or newsgroup.
* Need to network with the nanotech and SC crowds.

The meeting was adjourned for the day after the conclusion of the panel discussion.


Dr. Nikolai Gorkavyi presented a novel approach to cosmology that has gravitational
waves as playing a key role in the origin of the universe (paper 03-115). He outlined
major unsolved problems in cosmology, including the acceleration of the universe and
the driving force behind the big bang, and then proceeded to describe a theory that would
solve these problems. Following the Big Crunch approach of Banks & Fisher (2002), in
which the big bang is the collapse of a set of black holes, he points out that a large
quantity of GW is generated whenever black holes collide, as much as 20% of the overall
mass. This GW results in a term in Einsteins GR field equations that is repulsive in
nature, creating the big bang. Relic GW background that still lingers after the big bang
is responsible for the current acceleration of the universe.

Dr. Pankaj Joshi had been scheduled to present a paper on possible celestial noise
sources in the HFGW band, (paper 03-105) but Dr. Baker reported that Dr. Joshi had
fallen ill and was forced to withdraw his paper.

Marc Millis presented a paper covering the entire history of NASAs Breakthrough
Propulsion Physics (BPP) Program, (paper 03-110). Although BPP has lost its funding, it
did act as a pathfinder for an approach to incorporate breakthrough propulsion concepts
into a mainstream experimental physics context. The goals of the program were three:
find ways of reducing mass / inertia, find ways of increasing speed (including
superluminal), and find new ways of generating energy. Marc has sorted the main
theoretical approaches and has developed a detailed roadmap that attempts to bridge
where we currently find ourselves in science, through experimental phases, to where we
will develop and apply one or more of these breakthrough concepts. Some of the
concepts explored by the BPP program are still in work and could benefit from further
development, including Cramers test of the Woodward drive, Corums test of the
Heaviside Slepian rectification, and Maclays test of MEMS repulsive ZPF generation.
These projects are listed in detail on

Dr. Giorgio Fontana presented a paper on how GW generators may someday be useful
in the context of space propulsion,(paper 03-111). In particular, he detailed a non-linear
solution to the interaction of two strong GW plane waves which may produce a

singularity which could attract the craft under power, essentially using the Machian
inertial reference frame as the reaction mass. I asked Dr. Fontana if a linear superposition
of GW waves, such as a set of odd harmonics, might also serve as a propulsion source,
but he felt that this would be too weak to provide the necessary propulsion.

Lunch was held in the Mitre cafeteria.

Robert Becker (not Baker) presented an unique mix of theoretical approaches to gravity
called A Gravitational Archipelago, (paper 03-123) in which he outlined the following
unusual theoretical viewpoints:

1) A black hole theory of particles as first developed by Motz, similar to how M-theory
approaches black holes. This approach builds all of the rest of physical interactions in
physics off of gravity using the assumption that elementary particles are tiny black holes
with gravitational charge quantization.
2) Gravito-magnetic flux quantization, a prediction that phase quantization applies to
gravito-magnetic fluxoids just as it does to magnetic fluxoids. This would imply that
Lense Thirring is quantized, but it may also be that the effect is masked so that we do not
see it in earth bound HTSCs, since the earths own frame dragging is so large.
3) Coherent zero point motion (CZPM), has been observed in HTSC. CZPM is the
vibrational equivalent of the laser, where ultrafast (pS) optical pulses excite THz phonon
vibrational fields. Also referred to as phonon squeezing; see Merlin (1997).
4) Torsion theories, such as the Teleparallelism (TP) of Jose Vargas, in which the metric
is replaced by the affine, and curvature is replaced by torsion. In General Relativity (GR),
torsion vanishes, but in TP, curvature vanishes. Hence, a metric curvature description of
gravitational waves is not possible in TP.

Becker went on the suggest the following technologies may be applicable to GW: spin-
tronics, SNAP (superlattice nanowire pattern transfer) GW-EM superhetrodyning, and
graviton Qubits.

Dr. Hal Puthoff presented the very latest formulation of the polarization vacuum (PV)
approach to GR, (paper 03-124) in which GR is replaced by treating a vacuum as having
a variable index. Although it is theoretically equivalent in many respects, predicting
relativistic effects like red shift, contracted length, mass increase, and frequency drop in
the presence of space curvature, it is much easier to formulate and work with. However,
there are some differences between GR and PV that should be testable. GR predicts
transverse gravitational waves (TGW), whereas PV predicts longitudinal gravitational
waves (LGW). This could be tested by determining the orientation of Weber bars or other
GW detectors in picking up a rotationally generated GW. There is also a difference in the
power of the GW, Ptgw = 3(Plgw)/2. Calculations of power for astronomical sources should
be carefully checked to determine if sensed power is really matching predictions.

When asked during the Q&A session whether or not PV could be used to predict or
account for the solar eclipse anomaly, Dr Puthoff indicated that this was still awaiting

Originally scheduled as the last paper of the conference, Paul Murad presented a paper
(paper 03-114) covering a variety of subjects including unexplained aerial observation
phenomena (AOP), and unexplained physics experiments. The AOPs included a variety
of interesting photos of light columns and translucent dark clouds. The unexplained
experiments include Van Flandens speed of gravity work, the solar eclipse anomaly,
Kosyrevs observation of the torsion field, Shipovs gyroscope observations, torsion
formulations of GR, and Jefimenkos co-gravity formulations. All these areas were
mentioned as needing more attention.

A portion of time at the end of the conference was allocated to Dr Rudenko, to complete
his paper on the Gravitational Hertz Experiment (paper 03-113). It appeared that this
experiment was in the early planning stages in Russia (in 1985?), and then at some point,
lost funding (1989?). Dr. Rudenko described transverse deformation of a cylindrical
resonator as being one manifestation. If a resonant frequency is chosen to correspond to
molecular resonances, and is excited by an EM wave at that resonant frequency, then GW
will be emitted. Material choice is a key problem. He:Ar in a 1:10 ratio was planned as a
resonant material due to a high sonic velocity when it is compressed into plasma or
matrix crystal form. To aid in the compression, a clapping book mechanism was
planned that was to be compressed with lasers and thin metal discs. Compression is very
short lived, generating a pulse on the order of 1 nsec. Predicted peak power of the EM
burst would be on the order of 1026 W, for a GW power of 1 W, with a metric strain of

Panel Discussion Topic: What has the value been in this meeting, what would be the
value in future meetings and what form should they take?

A sampling of comments collected during the panel discussion are as follows:

* Just raising awareness of HFGW has been good.

* Suggest collecting mini-proposal work packages and reviewing every two years.
* Need a small lab and small set of post docs to keep effort alive and moving forward.
* Could fund international team to get HFGW going - HFGW is worth doing.
* We need to get a handle on all we can do already before moving on to explore
* We need a simple experiment that is easy to duplicate to prove GW.
* Funding plan: shot term - foundations; long term - venture capital
* There is a feeling we need focus, perhaps by concentrating efforts.
* Is it worth developing a joint proposal? Who would work on it? What would the subject
be? Who would we issue it to?
* Clive Woods and Mel Lewis have both offered to host future meetings.

The concluded the main session and the conference was adjourned.