GP-B Results: Electrostatic Patches in Superconducting Niobium Film - New Discovery ??

WAS EINSTEIN RIGHT? SCIENTISTS PROVIDED FIRST PUBLIC PEEK AT GRAVITY
PROBE B RESULTS on 14 April 2007
http://einstein.stanford.edu/

"According to Einstein's theory, over the course of a year, the
geodetic warping of Earth's local space-time causes the spin axes of
each gyroscope to shift from its initial alignment by a minuscule
angle of 6.606 arc-seconds in the plane of the spacecraft's orbit.
Likewise, the twisting of Earth's local space-time causes the spin
axis to shift by an even smaller angle of 0.039 arc-seconds in the
plane of the Earth's equator. GP-B Scientists expect to announce the
final results of the experiment in December 2007, following eight
months of further data analysis and refinement."

".... So far the data from the GP-B gyroscopes clearly confirm
Einstein's predicted geodetic effect to a precision of better than 1
percent."

But during the analysis of GP-B results, apart from observing the
damping out of the "polhode" motion of the gyroscopes, an important
new discovery was made by the GP-B team. That is, the GP-B rotors show
electrostatic patches (on the surface of the rotor and housing) of
sufficient size to measurably affect the gyroscopes' spin axes.

To facilitate further discussion of this electrostatic patch effect,
let me list out some of the relevant details.

(a) Over its 47-year lifetime, GP-B has advanced the frontiers of
knowledge, spawned more than a dozen new technologies, including the
record-setting gyroscopes and gyro suspension system, the SQUID gyro
readout system and the ultra-precise star-pointing telescope.

(b) In 2004, after a four-month initialization and on-orbit check-out
period, during which the four gyroscopes were spun up to an average of
4,000 rpm and the spacecraft and gyro spin axes were aligned (in the
orbit plane) with the guide star, IM Pegasi, the experiment commenced.

(c) During the 50 weeks experiment, the proper motion and annual
aberration of the guide star is precisely tracked, and the spacecraft
axis of symmetry is kept aligned with the guide star within 20 milli-
arc seconds.

(d) When the spacecraft symmetry axis shifts out of the orbit plane
(in the process of following the guide star), the gravity gradient
torques on the spacecraft do not average to zero, resulting in a net
support force exerted on the gyros. These net support forces lead to
gradual drift in the gyro spin axis, also referred as Newtonian drifts
of the gyros.

(e) During the data analysis stage, it has been *discovered* that a
part of the actually observed drift in the gyro spin axes can be
attributed to the so called 'electrostatic patch effect'. The
electrostatic patch effect is said to be caused by 'variation of
electric potential' over the superconducting Niobium surfaces.

Let
D_obs be the actually observed drift in the gyro spin axes.
D_rel be the relativity induced geodetic drift in spin axes.
D_net be the total Newtonian drift in the gyro spin axes.
D_epe be the drift attributed to the electrostatic patch effect.
Then,
D_obs = D_rel + D_net + D_epe ....... (1)
Or,
D_rel = D_obs - D_net - D_epe ....... (2)

And as per equation (2) D_rel is found to be 6.6 arc seconds as
expected. Hence the announcement with all pomp and show that GP-B
experiment has *proved* that 'EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT'.

Wait a minute!
Suppose during the initial stage of data analysis there
was no *discovery* of 'electrostatic patch effect'. Then equation (2)
would have been simply written as,
D_rel = D_obs - D_net ....... (3)
And if equation (3) did not yield the *expected* value of D_rel, what
were the options available before the GP_B team? Either to declare
the GP_B experiment as a failure or to *discover* some new effects
that could salvage the situation and bring the D_rel values within the
*expected* range.

Well, in my opinion, the so called 'electrostatic patch effect' on a
superconducting Niobium film appears to be such a *discovery* which
has practically salvaged the situation. How else can one expect the
electric potential to vary over the superconducting Niobium film
coating over a perfect spherical surface? "Patch effects in metal
surfaces are well known in physics." But are they equally well known
to exist on superconducting metal films?

It is well known that when a superconducting metal sphere spins (or an
object coated with a superconducting metal spins), it creates a
magnetic field around itself. This phenomenon (of London magnetic
moment) has been experimentally studied in great detail and the SQUID
gyro readout system has been almost perfected. But the detailed
understanding of the physical process associated with the generation
of London magnetic moment appears to be still lacking.

For example the explanation given at the following Stanford site is,
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content...de/Page17.html
"On the surface of the spinning metal, electrons lag behind the
metal's positively-charged atoms creating a small difference field.
This difference generates a magnetic field."

This appears to be a faulty viewpoint.

It appears more reasonable to expect a radial polarization of the
spherical rotor in such a way that the free electrons (or Cooper
pairs) occupy outermost radial layer during the spinning motion. A
transverse (axial) magnetic field is induced by the outermost spinning
layer of free electrons or Cooper pairs. In this regard kindly refer
to,
arXiv:cond-mat/0407670 v2 9 Nov 2004 available at:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0407670

".... note that for a superconductor the Fermi surface and surface of
the metal are necessarily close. Already London states that
superconductivity is a surface phenomenon, but this nowadays sometimes
seems to be forgotten." It is a "fact that the superconducting
condensate is concentrated near the metal surface".

Discussion of this point of view is relevant here because it appears
that the notion of electrostatic patches on the superconducting
surface is founded on the faulty viewpoint regarding the actual
physical process involved.

Learned readers are requested to give their considered opinion on the
subject issue

GSS

"GSS" wrote in message oups.com...
WAS EINSTEIN RIGHT? SCIENTISTS PROVIDED FIRST PUBLIC PEEK AT GRAVITY
PROBE B RESULTS on 14 April 2007
http://einstein.stanford.edu/

"According to Einstein's theory, over the course of a year, the
geodetic warping of Earth's local space-time causes the spin axes of
each gyroscope to shift from its initial alignment by a minuscule
angle of 6.606 arc-seconds in the plane of the spacecraft's orbit.
Likewise, the twisting of Earth's local space-time causes the spin
axis to shift by an even smaller angle of 0.039 arc-seconds in the
plane of the Earth's equator. GP-B Scientists expect to announce the
final results of the experiment in December 2007, following eight
months of further data analysis and refinement."

".... So far the data from the GP-B gyroscopes clearly confirm
Einstein's predicted geodetic effect to a precision of better than 1
percent."

But during the analysis of GP-B results, apart from observing the
damping out of the "polhode" motion of the gyroscopes, an important
new discovery was made by the GP-B team. That is, the GP-B rotors show
electrostatic patches (on the surface of the rotor and housing) of
sufficient size to measurably affect the gyroscopes' spin axes.

To facilitate further discussion of this electrostatic patch effect,
let me list out some of the relevant details.

(a) Over its 47-year lifetime, GP-B has advanced the frontiers of
knowledge, spawned more than a dozen new technologies, including the
record-setting gyroscopes and gyro suspension system, the SQUID gyro
readout system and the ultra-precise star-pointing telescope.

(b) In 2004, after a four-month initialization and on-orbit check-out
period, during which the four gyroscopes were spun up to an average of
4,000 rpm and the spacecraft and gyro spin axes were aligned (in the
orbit plane) with the guide star, IM Pegasi, the experiment commenced.

(c) During the 50 weeks experiment, the proper motion and annual
aberration of the guide star is precisely tracked, and the spacecraft
axis of symmetry is kept aligned with the guide star within 20 milli-
arc seconds.

(d) When the spacecraft symmetry axis shifts out of the orbit plane
(in the process of following the guide star), the gravity gradient
torques on the spacecraft do not average to zero, resulting in a net
support force exerted on the gyros. These net support forces lead to
gradual drift in the gyro spin axis, also referred as Newtonian drifts
of the gyros.

(e) During the data analysis stage, it has been *discovered* that a
part of the actually observed drift in the gyro spin axes can be
attributed to the so called 'electrostatic patch effect'. The
electrostatic patch effect is said to be caused by 'variation of
electric potential' over the superconducting Niobium surfaces.

Let
D_obs be the actually observed drift in the gyro spin axes.
D_rel be the relativity induced geodetic drift in spin axes.
D_net be the total Newtonian drift in the gyro spin axes.
D_epe be the drift attributed to the electrostatic patch effect.
Then,
D_obs = D_rel + D_net + D_epe ....... (1)
Or,
D_rel = D_obs - D_net - D_epe ....... (2)

And as per equation (2) D_rel is found to be 6.6 arc seconds as
expected. Hence the announcement with all pomp and show that GP-B
experiment has *proved* that 'EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT'.

Wait a minute!
Suppose during the initial stage of data analysis there
was no *discovery* of 'electrostatic patch effect'. Then equation (2)
would have been simply written as,
D_rel = D_obs - D_net ....... (3)
And if equation (3) did not yield the *expected* value of D_rel, what
were the options available before the GP_B team? Either to declare
the GP_B experiment as a failure or to *discover* some new effects
that could salvage the situation and bring the D_rel values within the
*expected* range.

Well, in my opinion, the so called 'electrostatic patch effect' on a
superconducting Niobium film appears to be such a *discovery* which
has practically salvaged the situation. How else can one expect the
electric potential to vary over the superconducting Niobium film
coating over a perfect spherical surface? "Patch effects in metal
surfaces are well known in physics." But are they equally well known
to exist on superconducting metal films?

It is well known that when a superconducting metal sphere spins (or an
object coated with a superconducting metal spins), it creates a
magnetic field around itself. This phenomenon (of London magnetic
moment) has been experimentally studied in great detail and the SQUID
gyro readout system has been almost perfected. But the detailed
understanding of the physical process associated with the generation
of London magnetic moment appears to be still lacking.

For example the explanation given at the following Stanford site is,
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content...de/Page17.html
"On the surface of the spinning metal, electrons lag behind the
metal's positively-charged atoms creating a small difference field.
This difference generates a magnetic field."

This appears to be a faulty viewpoint.

It appears more reasonable to expect a radial polarization of the
spherical rotor in such a way that the free electrons (or Cooper
pairs) occupy outermost radial layer during the spinning motion. A
transverse (axial) magnetic field is induced by the outermost spinning
layer of free electrons or Cooper pairs. In this regard kindly refer
to,
arXiv:cond-mat/0407670 v2 9 Nov 2004 available at:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0407670

".... note that for a superconductor the Fermi surface and surface of
the metal are necessarily close. Already London states that
superconductivity is a surface phenomenon, but this nowadays sometimes
seems to be forgotten." It is a "fact that the superconducting
condensate is concentrated near the metal surface".

Discussion of this point of view is relevant here because it appears
that the notion of electrostatic patches on the superconducting
surface is founded on the faulty viewpoint regarding the actual
physical process involved.

Learned readers are requested to give their considered opinion on the
subject issue

GSS

My considered opinion...
In layman's parlance, "A poor worker blames his tools".


But... but... but...
| Imagine a train leaving one city at 12:00 and arriving in a city 60
| miles to its west at 12:01. Do you really think that train traveled
| 3,600 miles per hour? Of course not! This example used two _different_
| coordinate systems for "time", the two timezones of those two cities. To
| obtain the speed you _must_ use a single coordinate system; then you'll
| realize it traveled just under 60 miles per hour. -- Humpty Roberts.
My considered opinion...
Humpty Roberts's head needs an electrostatic patch.
It is a fact that the nonconducting neurons are concentrated near the rectal
sphincter.

On May 3, 9:37 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"GSS" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
WAS EINSTEIN RIGHT? SCIENTISTS PROVIDED FIRST PUBLIC PEEK AT GRAVITY
PROBE B RESULTS on 14 April 2007
http://einstein.stanford.edu/

......
Learned readers are requested to give their considered opinion on the
subject issue

GSS

My considered opinion...
In layman's parlance, "A poor worker blames his tools".

But... but... but...
| Imagine a train leaving one city at 12:00 and arriving in a city 60
| miles to its west at 12:01. Do you really think that train traveled
| 3,600 miles per hour? Of course not! This example used two _different_
| coordinate systems for "time", the two timezones of those two cities. To
| obtain the speed you _must_ use a single coordinate system; then you'll
| realize it traveled just under 60 miles per hour. -- Humpty Roberts.
My considered opinion...
Humpty Roberts's head needs an electrostatic patch.
It is a fact that the nonconducting neurons are concentrated near the rectal
sphincter.

Still, of course I consider Tom Roberts a shade better than most other
relativists. At least he concedes that 4-D spacetime is just a
mathematical model in GR and that 4-D spacetime is not a physical
entity.

Post Relativity generations of Physicists and Mathematicians consider
the spacetime continuum to be a physical entity which can even be
deformed and curved.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content...ecSum-scrn.pdf

"It's fascinating to be able to watch the Einstein warping of
spacetime directly in the tilting of these GP-B gyroscopes" said
Francis Everitt who has been working with the GP-B mission for the
last 45 years.

What is most appalling to me is the realization that such eminent
scientists as Francis Everitt do really believe that spacetime is a
physical entity that could get curved, warped or even dragged!! Not
only that, they could also 'train' generations of scientists into
believing that warped spacetime is a physical entity and convincing
them that 'testing the warping and dragging of spacetime' is worth it
at any cost. It appears to be a classic example of real life enactment
of the famous tale - 'Emperor's New Clothes'.


In GR spacetime is just an_arbitrary_human construct, a model
constructed in an attempt to give an alternative mathematical
representation to the phenomenon of gravitation. Spacetime is not any
physical entity that exists. It is a sum total representation of three
different descriptions - PAST history which does not *physically
exist* any longer, PRESENT existence and FUTURE that is yet to exist.

The motion of various particles in three-dimensional physical space
can be represented through suitable traces in a four-dimensional XYZ-T
space-time manifold. An important point to be noted here is that four-
dimensional traces of particles do not physically exist anywhere at
any time; these are just mathematical representations of the motion of
particles in three dimensional space over a period of time. The 4-D
geometry of the particle traces is just a mathematical representation,
a mathematical model. In the same way, a four-dimensional spacetime
manifold XYZ-T does not physically exist anywhere at any time; it is
just a mathematical model.

Similarly the often used term 'curvature of spacetime' is physically
meaningless. It is a mathematical notion and the standard meaning of
"curvature of spacetime" is the Riemann curvature tensor constructed
out of the metric components of the 4-D manifold.

I wonder whether such eminent scientists as Francis Everitt really *do
not understand* that spacetime curvature is just a mathematical notion
and not a physical entity. But I know that Tom Roberts understands
that. That is why I consider him to be a shade better than most other
relativists.

GSS

"GSS" wrote in message ups.com...
On May 3, 9:37 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"GSS" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
WAS EINSTEIN RIGHT? SCIENTISTS PROVIDED FIRST PUBLIC PEEK AT GRAVITY
PROBE B RESULTS on 14 April 2007
http://einstein.stanford.edu/

.....
Learned readers are requested to give their considered opinion on the
subject issue

GSS

My considered opinion...
In layman's parlance, "A poor worker blames his tools".

[snip Roberts' diatribe]

Still, of course I consider Tom Roberts a shade better than most other
relativists. At least he concedes that 4-D spacetime is just a
mathematical model in GR and that 4-D spacetime is not a physical
entity.

Yes, he's also conceded that GR is irrelevant to GPS.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm

However, he's still out grasping for straws to support his stupidity
and basic ignorance of physics.

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message ...
Current astronomical spectrometers are sensitive enough to detect the
variations in the spectra of distant stars due to the earth's orbit.
Does anyone have a reference for a measurement of this? Or a reference
describing how to account for it? Or a textbook discussing this? (Google
found some lab homework on this, but I want a reference to a measurement
or a discussion.)

BTW how is this handled? I would guess that spectra are conventionally
corrected to the solar system barycenter, but I know next to nothing
about the details of modern astronomy, and would like to know how real
astronomers handle this.

(Why do I want this? Because I am updating a FAQ page on
experimental tests of Special Relativity, and I just realized
that this would be a good, clear demonstration that
wavelength is observer dependent.)

Another question: is any spectroscopy done using frequency? If so, can
one combine with a wavelength measurement of the same line and show
f*lambda=c? A reference to that would be most welcome.


Tom Roberts

I'd say that was *worse* than other relativists. He has no concept of
the Sun moving around the Galaxy and in relative motion with other stars.
He has no concept of relative motion, period.


Post Relativity generations of Physicists and Mathematicians consider
the spacetime continuum to be a physical entity which can even be
deformed and curved.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content...ecSum-scrn.pdf

"It's fascinating to be able to watch the Einstein warping of
spacetime directly in the tilting of these GP-B gyroscopes" said
Francis Everitt who has been working with the GP-B mission for the
last 45 years.

People see what they want to be paid to see.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/ceps/etp/mars/percival.html

"In his book "Mars as the Abode of Life", published in 1908, Percival Lowell presented
his theory that Mars' canals were built by intelligent beings."

It's still going strong, Spirit and Opportunity are searching for any indication of
biological activity.

What is most appalling to me is the realization that such eminent
scientists as Francis Everitt do really believe that spacetime is a
physical entity that could get curved, warped or even dragged!!

Eminent? How about "prominent"?
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had been found which were contradictory to this principle." --Einstein.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Pinocchio's nose was prominent.
http://polnotes.typepad.com/windfarm.../pinocchio.gif
It got that way from telling untruths.

Not
only that, they could also 'train' generations of scientists into
believing that warped spacetime is a physical entity and convincing
them that 'testing the warping and dragging of spacetime' is worth it
at any cost. It appears to be a classic example of real life enactment
of the famous tale - 'Emperor's New Clothes'.

Exactly. Math is used to describe Nature, not to re-invent it.
Just how gullible was the eminent emperor when a small boy said he was naked?
Idiots lie to hide their embarrassment at being caught by a lie and thus
compound the problem, but mostly they are lying to themselves.
The difficulties are more psychological than physical.



In GR spacetime is just an_arbitrary_human construct, a model
constructed in an attempt to give an alternative mathematical
representation to the phenomenon of gravitation. Spacetime is not any
physical entity that exists. It is a sum total representation of three
different descriptions - PAST history which does not *physically
exist* any longer, PRESENT existence and FUTURE that is yet to exist.

The motion of various particles in three-dimensional physical space
can be represented through suitable traces in a four-dimensional XYZ-T
space-time manifold. An important point to be noted here is that four-
dimensional traces of particles do not physically exist anywhere at
any time; these are just mathematical representations of the motion of
particles in three dimensional space over a period of time. The 4-D
geometry of the particle traces is just a mathematical representation,
a mathematical model. In the same way, a four-dimensional spacetime
manifold XYZ-T does not physically exist anywhere at any time; it is
just a mathematical model.

Time is not a vector, it has no inverse. One cannot go back in time.
We can, however, write Q(t) = e^(-t) when we really mean Q(t) = e^(-1 * t).
Mathematics is a convenient shorthand but sometimes people are confused
by its notation (and buzz-words).

Similarly the often used term 'curvature of spacetime' is physically
meaningless. It is a mathematical notion and the standard meaning of
"curvature of spacetime" is the Riemann curvature tensor constructed
out of the metric components of the 4-D manifold.

I wonder whether such eminent scientists as Francis Everitt really *do
not understand* that spacetime curvature is just a mathematical notion
and not a physical entity. But I know that Tom Roberts understands
that. That is why I consider him to be a shade better than most other
relativists.

GSS
He's worse that other relativists, he's a leader of sheep.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF

They are ALL gullible, and some are getting paid by the more gullible.
The emperor's courtiers will all assert he is dressed in very fine invisible
clothes.

On May 4, 6:59 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"GSS" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On May 3, 9:37 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
.....
My considered opinion...
In layman's parlance, "A poor worker blames his tools".

[snip Roberts' diatribe]

Post Relativity generations of Physicists and Mathematicians consider
the spacetime continuum to be a physical entity which can even be
deformed and curved.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content...20PFA%20Report...

"It's fascinating to be able to watch the Einstein warping of
spacetime directly in the tilting of these GP-B gyroscopes" said
Francis Everitt who has been working with the GP-B mission for the
last 45 years.

People see what they want to be paid to see.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/ceps/etp/mars/percival.html

"In his book "Mars as the Abode of Life", published in 1908, Percival Lowell presented
his theory that Mars' canals were built by intelligent beings."

It's still going strong, Spirit and Opportunity are searching for any indication of
biological activity.

What is most appalling to me is the realization that such eminent
scientists as Francis Everitt do really believe that spacetime is a
physical entity that could get curved, warped or even dragged!!

Eminent? How about "prominent"?
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had been found which were contradictory to this principle." --Einstein.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Pinocchio's nose was prominent.
http://polnotes.typepad.com/windfarm.../pinocchio.gif
It got that way from telling untruths.

Not
only that, they could also 'train' generations of scientists into
believing that warped spacetime is a physical entity and convincing
them that 'testing the warping and dragging of spacetime' is worth it
at any cost. It appears to be a classic example of real life enactment
of the famous tale - 'Emperor's New Clothes'.

Exactly. Math is used to describe Nature, not to re-invent it.
Just how gullible was the eminent emperor when a small boy said he was naked?
Idiots lie to hide their embarrassment at being caught by a lie and thus
compound the problem, but mostly they are lying to themselves.
The difficulties are more psychological than physical.


In GR spacetime is just an_arbitrary_human construct, a model
constructed in an attempt to give an alternative mathematical
representation to the phenomenon of gravitation. Spacetime is not any
physical entity that exists. It is a sum total representation of three
different descriptions - PAST history which does not *physically
exist* any longer, PRESENT existence and FUTURE that is yet to exist.

The motion of various particles in three-dimensional physical space
can be represented through suitable traces in a four-dimensional XYZ-T
space-time manifold. An important point to be noted here is that four-
dimensional traces of particles do not physically exist anywhere at
any time; these are just mathematical representations of the motion of
particles in three dimensional space over a period of time. The 4-D
geometry of the particle traces is just a mathematical representation,
a mathematical model. In the same way, a four-dimensional spacetime
manifold XYZ-T does not physically exist anywhere at any time; it is
just a mathematical model.

Time is not a vector, it has no inverse. One cannot go back in time.
We can, however, write Q(t) = e^(-t) when we really mean Q(t) = e^(-1 * t).
Mathematics is a convenient shorthand but sometimes people are confused
by its notation (and buzz-words).

Similarly the often used term 'curvature of spacetime' is physically
meaningless. It is a mathematical notion and the standard meaning of
"curvature of spacetime" is the Riemann curvature tensor constructed
out of the metric components of the 4-D manifold.

I wonder whether such eminent scientists as Francis Everitt really *do
not understand* that spacetime curvature is just a mathematical notion
and not a physical entity. But I know that Tom Roberts understands
that. That is why I consider him to be a shade better than most other
relativists.

GSS

He's worse than other relativists, he's a leader of sheep.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF

They are ALL gullible, and some are getting paid by the more gullible.
The emperor's courtiers will all assert he is dressed in very fine invisible
clothes.

In this regard let me quote the following observation of Tolstoy:

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of
the highest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity
of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues,
which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven,
thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

As such, how long do you think this facade of relativity could
continue, a decade or a century?

Could it prove to be fatal for whole of Physics which was once
regarded as 'mother' of all sciences??

GSS

Any property not a scalar can be a vector, and inverses are arbitrary.