Comment on MegaAmpere to MegaGauss- Using laser fluctuations to measure gravitational potential turbulence

‪This intro added 10 Jul 2022 in update to “Solar System Gravimetry and Gravitational Engineering ”

Comment on “MegaAmpere to MegaGauss” – Using laser fluctuations to measure gravitational potential turbulence

Pierre-Alexandre, P-A Gourdain

I am reading your Mega-ampère to mega-gauss paper. You mention 172 Tesla. Just wanted to check that I am using the same energy density as you. That should be B^2/(2 mu0) = 172^2/(2*1.25663706212E-6) = 1.1771E10 Joules/meter^3. Unless the cavity is filled.

I have been tracking experiments and papers where anyone is looking beyond 100 Tesla, static or dynamic, for about 40 years now. The energy density of the gravitational field at the earth surface is roughly equivalent to a static magnetic field of 379 Tesla. And I have been looking for a way to see if that is true. The gravitational potential field must be fairly uniform and stable second by second. But its variations should show up in high energy density experiments of many sorts. Not total power, energy density or power density.

The expression I found is one that Robert Lull Forward (Univ MD College Park, worked with Joe Weber) used. Joe recommended I follow what Robert had done, and that energy density seemed an odd item. I tried every possible model to try to visual and model what might be the basis of something like that. The expression he used is g^2/(8 pi G), where g is the local gravitational acceleration (about 9.8 m/s2) and G is the SI value 6.67430E-11 (m^3/s^2)/kg. There are cases where this is valid. Then g = B/sqrt(8 pi G/2 mu0) = B/38.70768. So a value of 172 Tesla should connect with an acceleration of (172/38.70768) = 4.444 m/s^2.

Measuring the energy density directly is difficult. But it might be possible, if a magnetic experiments of those energy densities is run consistently for different times over days and weeks or years. If I am right, then a magnetic field maintained near that value should interact with the gravitational energy density field. The energy density is the gravitational potential times a density. That should be the density of the cavity, the mass in the cavity where the magnetic field is. Possibly with an offset (scalar field).

I just wanted to check if you calculate the energy density for these dynamic fields the same way.

When I use the laser (theoretically) for generating intense fields, the power per unit area is just c * g^2/(8 pi G) or about 1.716E19 Watts/meter^2 for a 9.8 m/s^2 field. Since the acceleration varies with time, the energy density and the equivalent magnetic field does as well. I am trying to keep track of all the laser vacuum papers, because it is not an empty vacuum people will be measuring, but a gravitational potential field with a corresponding energy density. Yes, the sun’s gravitational potential matters. Not only for changes in the rate of clocks, but there might also be a measurable threshold for magnetic fields.

I looked at fusion experiments a lot, because I felt that a natural gravitational field would be grainy and vary. So that anyone trying to build a static fusion model would run into trouble. And, for measuring gravitational effects, it might be that any continuously operating fusion reactor would also be an outstanding gravitational and magnetic field sensor for natural fields.

It does not depend on the current, rather on the energy density. With femtosecond pulses, the energy required for a high energy density pulse could be quite small. They running it continuously, the variations should correlate with sun moon tidal signal, the same as measured at a superconducting gravimeter (or other type of gravimeter) station.

I took a break writing this, to think about how to make a three axis laser detector, or a multi-axis particle beam detector to track the sun and moon, and also separate out the magnetic field components, and not make it too complicated or expensive.

The earth’s magnetic potential and the gravitational potential are probably the same thing underneath. A pure potential field only has to give the values for the potential at every point and fit the measurements for all gradient measurements over time, by frequency. But, in my view, the total potential is made up of spatial and temporal variations. Somewhat like an oscillating cloud that is also moving and changing size. The turbulence spectrum is what drives whether something is “magnetic” or “gravitational”. Somewhat like how we separate parts of the electromagnetic field by frequency. But in a larger model where you also carefully trace the spatial spectrum of sources. Imagine five wind driven clouds, each a different color. They are like galaxies where intersecting clouds of stars do not have many actual collisions of the stars. So these intersecting clouds pass right through each other. That helps me visualize. But what I am also thinking in the background – the frequencies of any signal are independent. If each cloud has a different frequency, they do not interfere with each other. The signal is “linear”. The signals can be superposed in a simple way. The reason I think that, is because the vector sun moon tidal signal I have worked with for almost two decades now is pure “Newtonian”. At the sampling rates and sensitivities used in detectors, the field of the sun and the field of the moon are quite distinct. They each have a location and, I am fairly certain, a unique signature.

Three lasers of high energy density, be as small power levels as possible.
Three electron beams
Three ion beams.
An electrochemical flow
A neutral plasma
A charged plasma
Solid state flows of many sorts

I am getting over the flu and a bit tired. I will try to come back and finish this comment. The main thing is that the tidal gravitational is directional and very stable over time. It can be exactly calculated using the Newtonian approximation using JPL solar system ephemeris and fairly simple instruments for local verification. Because it is so precise, correlations are simple. If the sampling rate goes up into “electromagnetic frequencies” like GHz or THz or higher, then in the gravitational sensors people will talk about Gsps, Tsps and other samples per second. The sensitivities are well within reach of many experiments. Many have already reached the necessary sensitivity, they just need a reference signal or common source, or collaboratively chosen target.

The fluctuations of the gravitational potential, and the fluctuations of the magnetic potential of the earth should fit together as a single potential with overlap. Some of the signals called “gravitational” are partly “magnetic”. Some “magnetic” are partly gravitational. That is why I keep recommending that groups go to high enough sampling rates to use time of flight and angle of arrival for locating and mapping sources. The correlations between sensors for a given point in space and time as a source element are characteristic of that source. And many many kinds of machine learning, and AI algorithms can take that and use it for imaging.

I cannot finish this just now. I try to work an 18 hour day, but today I just cannot go past 16. LOL!

Richard Collins