This is a question based on the paper by Raymond Chiao in 2002 where it is stated:

One of the conceptual tensions between quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) arises from the clash between the spatial nonseparability of entangled states in QM, and the complete spatial separability of all physical systems in GR, i.e., between the nonlocality implied by the superposition principle, and the locality implied by the equivalence principle. Experimental consequences of this conceptual tension will be explored for macroscopically coherent quantum fluids, such as superconductors, superfluids, and atomic Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs), subjected to tidal and Lense-Thirring fields arising from gravitational radiation. A Meissner-like effect is predicted, in which the Lense-Thirring field is expelled from the bulk of a quantum fluid. Superconductors are predicted to be macroscopic quantum gravitational antennas and transducers, which can directly convert upon reflection a beam of quadrupolar electromagnetic radiation into gravitational radiation, and vice versa, and thus serve as both sources and receivers of gravitational waves.

Has there been any followup on this claim, either experimental or theoretical?

  • $\begingroup$ Can graviton condensate? $\endgroup$ – an offer can't refuse Apr 10 '16 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Chiao $\endgroup$ – user56903 Apr 10 '16 at 16:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is nonsensical. One does not need superconductors etc. to convert gravitational waves into electromagnetic radiation. A couple of charges on a stick will do, but in either case the resulting em emissions will be unmeasurably small. What do you think LIGO does, exactly? It converts a gravitational wave into an electromagnetic signal... in a way that is actually detectable. In other words... we don't need these "results", we have already figured out how to do it right. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Apr 10 '16 at 23:17
  • $\begingroup$ You obviously have not read the paper. For example, in the above the conversion efficiency is claimed to be almost 100%. And simply screaming "nonsensical" is not a critique worth the pixels its written in. Please try harder. $\endgroup$ – user56903 Apr 11 '16 at 6:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy