format: text

text:
# Conceptual tensions between quantum mechanics and general relativity: Are there experimental consequences, e.g., superconducting transducers between electromagnetic and gravitational radiation?

## 1 Introduction

> “Mercy and Truth are met together; Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other.” (Psalm 85:10)

In this Festschrift Volume in honor of John Archibald Wheeler, I would like to take a fresh look at the intersection between two fields to which he devoted much of his research life: general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM). As evidence of his keen interest in these two subjects, I would cite two examples from my own experience. When I was an undergraduate at Princeton University during the years from 1957 to 1961, he was my adviser. One of his duties was to assign me topics for my junior paper and for my senior thesis. For my junior paper, I was assigned the topic: Compare the complementarity and the uncertainty principles of quantum mechanics: Which is more fundamental? For my senior thesis, I was assigned the topic: How to quantize general relativity? As Wheeler taught me, more than half of science is devoted to the asking of the right question, while often less than half is devoted to the obtaining of the correct answer, but not always!

In the same spirit, I would like to offer up here some questions concerning conceptual tensions between GR and QM, which hopefully can be answered in the course of time by experiments, and, in particular, to make some specific experimental proposals, such as the use of macroscopic quantum objects like superconductors, as quantum transducers and antennas for gravitational radiation, in order to probe the tension between the concepts of $`locality`$ in GR and $`nonlocality`$ in QM.

As I see it, the three main pillars of physics at the beginning of the 21st century are quantum mechanics, relativity, and statistical mechanics, which correspond to Einstein’s three papers of 1905. There exist conceptual tensions at the intersections of these three fields of physics (see Figure 1). It seems worthwhile re-examining these tensions, since they may lead to new experimental discoveries. In this introduction, I shall only briefly mention three conceptual tensions between these three fields: $`locality`$ versus $`nonlocality`$ of physical systems, $`objectivity`$ versus $`subjectivity`$ of probabilities in quantum and statistical mechanics (the problem of the nature of information), and $`reversibility`$ versus $`irreversibility`$ of time (the problem of the arrows of time). Others in this Volume will discuss the second and the third of these tensions in detail. I shall limit myself to a discussion of the first conceptual tension concerning locality versus nonlocality, mainly in the context of GR and QM. (However, in my Solvay lecture , I have discussed the other two tensions in more detail).

Why examine conceptual tensions? A brief answer is that they often lead to experimental discoveries. It suffices to give just one example from late 19th and early 20th century physics: the clash between the venerable concepts of $`continuity`$ and $`discreteness`$. The concept of continuity, which goes back to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (“everything flows”), clashed with the concept of discreteness, which goes back to Democritus (“everything is composed of atoms”). Eventually, Heraclitus’s concept of continuity, or more specifically that of the $`continuum`$, was embodied in the idea of $`field`$ in the classical field theory associated with Maxwell’s equations. The atomic hypothesis of Democritus was eventually embodied in the kinetic theory of gases in statistical mechanics.

Conceptual tensions, or what Wheeler calls the “clash of ideas,” need not lead to a complete victory of one conflicting idea over the other, so as to eliminate the opposing one completely, as seemed to be the case in the 19th century, when Newton’s idea of “corpuscles of light” was apparently completely eliminated in favor of the wave theory of light. Rather, there may result a reconciliation of the two conflicting ideas, which then often leads to many fruitful experimental consequences.

Experiments on blackbody radiation in the 19th century were exploring the intersection, or borderline, between Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism and statistical mechanics, where the conceptual tension between continuity and discreteness was most acute, and eventually led to the discovery of quantum mechanics through the work of Planck. The concept of $`discreteness`$ metamorphosed into the concept of the $`quantum`$. This led in turn to the concept of discontinuity embodied in Bohr’s quantum jump hypothesis, which was necessitated by the indivisibility of the quantum. Many experiments, such as Millikan’s measurements of $`h/e`$, were in turn motivated by Einstein’s heuristic theory of the photoelectric effect based on the quantum hypothesis. Newton’s idea of “corpuscles of light” metamorphosed into the concept of the $`photon`$. This is a striking example showing how that many fruitful experimental consequences can come out of one particular conceptual tension.

Within a broader cultural context, there have been many acute conceptual tensions between science and faith, which have lasted over many centuries. Perhaps the above examples of the fruitfulness of the resolution of conceptual tensions within physics itself may serve as a parable concerning the possibility of a peaceful reconciliation of these great cultural tensions, which may eventually lead to the further growth of both science and faith. Hence we should not shy away from conceptual tensions, but rather explore them with an honest, bold, and open spirit.

## 2 Three conceptual tensions between quantum mechanics and general relativity

Here I shall focus my attention specifically on some conceptual tensions at the intersection between QM and GR. A commonly held viewpoint within the physics community today is that the only place where conceptual tensions between these two fields can arise is at the microscopic Planck length scale, where quantum fluctuations of spacetime (“quantum foam”) occur. Hence manifestations of these tensions would be expected to occur only in conjunction with extremely high-energy phenomena, accessible presumably only in astrophysical settings, such as the Big Bang.

However, I believe that this point of view is too narrow. There exist other conceptual tensions at macroscopic, non-Planckian distance scales, which should be accessible in low-energy laboratory experiments involving macroscopic QM phenomena. It should be kept in mind that QM not only describes $`microscopic`$ phenomena, but also $`macroscopic`$ phenomena, such as superconductivity. Specifically, I would like to point out the following three conceptual tensions:

(1) The spatial nonseparability of physical systems due to entangled states in QM, versus the complete spatial separability of all physical systems in GR.

(2) The equivalence principle of GR, versus the uncertainty principle of QM.

(3) The mixed state (e.g., of an entangled bipartite system, one part of which falls into a black hole; the other of which flies off to infinity) in GR, versus the pure state of such a system in QM.

Conceptual tension (3) concerns the problem of the nature of information in QM and GR. Again, since others will discuss this tension in detail in this Volume, I shall limit myself only to a discussion of the first two of these tensions.

These conceptual tensions originate from the superposition principle of QM, which finds its most dramatic expression in the entangled state of two or more spatially separated particles of a single physical system, which in turn leads to Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) effects. It should be emphasized here that it is necessary to consider two or more particles for observing EPR phenomena, since only then does the configuration space of these particles no longer coincide with that of ordinary spacetime. For example, consider the entangled state of two spin 1/2 particles in a Bohm singlet state initially prepared in a total spin zero state

$$|S=0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{|_1|_2|_2|_1\right\},$$
(1)
in which the two particles in a spontaneous decay process fly arbitrarily far away from each other into two space-like separated regions of spacetime, where measurements on spin by means of two Stern-Gerlach apparati are performed separately on these two particles.

As a result of the quantum entanglement arising from the $`superposition`$ of $`product`$ states, such as in the above Bohm singlet state, it is in general impossible to factorize this state into products of probability amplitudes. Hence it is impossible to factorize the $`joint`$ probabilities in the measurements of spin of this two-particle system. This mathematical $`nonfactorizability`$ implies a physical $`nonseparability`$ of the system, and leads to instantaneous, space-like correlations-at-a-distance in the joint measurements of the properties (e.g., spin) of discrete events, such as in the coincidence detection of “clicks” in Geiger counters placed behind the two distant Stern-Gerlach apparati. These long-range correlations violate Bell’s inequalities, and therefore cannot be explained on the basis of any local realistic theories.

Violations of Bell’s inequalities have been extensively experimentally demonstrated . These violations were predicted by QM. If we assume a realistic world view, i.e., that the “clicks” of the Geiger counters really happened, then we must conclude that we have observed $`nonlocal`$ features of the world. Therefore, a fundamental spatial nonseparability of physical systems has been revealed by these Bell-inequalities-violating EPR correlations . It should be emphasized that these space-like EPR correlations occur on macroscopic, non-Planckian distance scales, where the conceptual tension (1) between QM and GR becomes most acute.

Gravity is a long-range force. It is therefore natural to expect that experimental consequences of conceptual tension (1) should manifest themselves most dramatically in the interaction of macroscopic quantum matter, which exhibit long-range EPR correlations, with long-range gravitational fields. In particular, the question naturally arises: How do entangled states, such as the Bohm singlet state, interact with tidal fields, such as those in gravitational radiation ? It is therefore natural to look to the realm of macroscopic, long-range quantum phenomena, such as superconductivity, rather than phenomena at microscopic, Planck length scales, in our search for these experimental consequences.

Already a decade or so before Bell’s ground-breaking work on his famous inequality, Einstein himself was clearly worried by the radical, spatial nonseparability of physical systems in quantum mechanics. Einstein wrote :

> “Let us consider a physical system S12, which consists of two part-systems S1 and S2. These two part-systems may have been in a state of mutual physical interaction at an earlier time. We are, however, considering them at a time when this interaction is at an end. Let the entire system be completely described in the quantum mechanical sense by a $`\psi `$-function $`\psi _{12}`$ of the coordinates $`\mathrm{q}_1`$,… and $`\mathrm{q}_2`$,… of the two part-systems ($`\psi _{12}`$ cannot be represented as a product of the form $`\psi _1\psi _2`$ but only as a sum of such products \[i.e., as an entangled state\]). At time t let the two part-systems be separated from each other in space, in such a way that $`\psi _{12}`$ only differs from zero when $`\mathrm{q}_1`$,… belong to a limited part R1 of space and $`\mathrm{q}_2`$,… belong to a part R2 separated from R1. . . .
>
> “There seems to me no doubt that those physicists who regard the descriptive methods of quantum mechanics as definitive in principle would react to this line of thought in the following way: they would drop the requirement for the independent existence of the physical reality present in different parts of space; they would be justified in pointing out that the quantum theory nowhere makes explicit use of this requirement.” \[Italics mine.\]

This radical, spatial nonseparability of a physical system consisting of two or more entangled particles in QM, which seems to undermine the very possibility of the concept of field in physics, is in an obvious conceptual tension with the complete spatial separability of any physical system into its separate parts in GR, which is a local realistic field theory.

However, I should hasten to add immediately that the battle-tested concept of field has of course been extremely fruitful not only at the classical but also at the quantum level. Relativistic quantum field theories have been very well validated, at least in an approximate, correspondence-principle sense in which spacetime itself is treated classically, i.e., as being describable by a rigidly flat, Minkowskian metric, which has no possibility of any quantum dynamics. There have been tremendous successes of quantum electrodynamics and electroweak gauge field theory (and, to a lesser extent, quantum chromodynamics) in passing all known high-energy experimental tests. Thus the conceptual tension between $`continuity`$ (used in the concept of the spacetime $`continuum`$) and $`discreteness`$ (used in the concept of quantized excitations of a field in classical spacetime) seems to have been successfully reconciled in these relativistic quantum field theories. Nevertheless, the problem of a satisfactory relativistic treatment of quantum measurement within these theories remains an open one.

### 2.1 Quantum fluids versus perfect fluids

Here I shall propose some low-energy experimental probes of conceptual tension (1), using macroscopically entangled, and thus radically delocalized, quantum states encountered in large quantum objects, such as superconductors, superfluids, and the recently observed atomic Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs), i.e., in what I shall henceforth call “quantum fluids.” Again it should be stressed that gravity is a long-range force, and therefore it should be possible to perform low-energy experiments to probe the interaction between gravity and these kinds of quantum matter on large, non-Planckian distance scales, without the necessity of performing high-energy experiments, as is required for probing the short-range weak and strong forces on very short distance scales. The quantum many-body problem, even in its nonrelativistic limit, may lead to nontrivial interactions with weak, long-range gravitational fields. One is thereby strongly motivated to study the interaction of quantum fluids with weak gravity, in particular, with gravitational radiation.

One manifestation of this conceptual tension is that the way one views a quantum fluid in QM is conceptually radically different from the way that one views a perfect fluid in GR, where only the $`local`$ properties of the fluid, which can conceptually always be spatially separated into independent, infinitesimal fluid elements, are to be considered. For example, interstellar dust particles can be thought of as being a perfect fluid in GR, provided that we can neglect all interactions between such particles. The response of these particles in this classical many-body system to a gravitational wave passing over it, is characterized by the local, free-fall motion of each dust particle. These particles are treated as test particles in GR, and they do not react back upon the gravitational wave. The weak equivalence principle tells us that the gravitational force from the wave vanishes in the local, freely-falling inertial frame centered on a given dust particle, and hence cannot do any work on this particle in the absence of any mutual interactions between the particles. There is therefore no possibility of any energy transfer at all from the gravitational wave to this classical many-body system, so that it is impossible to use such a system of $`noninteracting`$ classical particles to construct an antenna for receiving or emitting gravitational radiation.

By contrast, due to their radical delocalization, particles in a macroscopic quantum many-body system, such as a superconductor, are entangled with each other in such a way that there arises an unusual “quantum rigidity” of the system, closely associated with what London called “the rigidity of the macroscopic wavefunction” . This rigidity arises from the single-valuedness of the macroscopic ground-state wavefunction, and the fact that there exists an energy gap (the BCS gap) separating the ground state from all the excited states of the system. There should arise from this rigidity of the wavefunction not only the usual Meissner effect, in which the magnetic field is expelled from the interior of the superconductor, but also a Meissner-like effect, in which the Lense-Thirring field of the gravitational wave is also expelled, as we shall presently see.

This in turn should lead to a mirror-like reflection of a gravitational plane wave from the surface of the superconductor. Unfortunately, there is no way to check whether this actually occurs or not, without a practical laboratory emitter and receiver of gravitational radiation. However, we shall see that closely associated with this Meissner-like effect, there also should arise a direct coupling between the electromagnetic (EM) and gravitational (GR) radiation fields at the surface of a certain type of superconductor, in a quantum kind of direct transducer action. In this way, practical laboratory emitters and receivers of gravity waves could indeed become possible. Thus a quantum fluid in QM should behave in a radically different manner from that of a perfect fluid in GR, in their respective responses to gravitational radiation.

In an ideal BEC, there would seem to be no quantum entanglement, since the total condensate wavefunction can be written as a tensor product of many copies of the same one-particle wavefunction, one for each particle. However, as a necessary condition for the formation of any actual BEC, including the recently discovered atomic BECs, there must be mutual interactions between the particles, such as repulsive $`S`$-wave scattering. Each scattering event $`entangles`$ the momenta of the two particles that participate in it. The many particle-particle scatterings, for example, the hard-sphere collisions in superfluid helium, naturally lead to a macroscopically entangled state. Moreover, in the case of superconductivity, a given Cooper pair of electrons in the superconductor is in a Bohm singlet state, which is an entangled state in which the two electrons in the Cooper pair have opposite spins $`and`$ opposite momenta.

### 2.2 Spontaneous symmetry breaking, ODLRO, and superluminality

The unusual states of matter in these quantum fluids all possess spontaneous symmetry breaking, in which the ground state, or the vacuum state, of the quantum many-body system (any $`state`$, or many-body wavefunction, is purely a quantum concept) breaks the symmetry of the Hamiltonian of the system (any quantum Hamiltonian, however, can be conceived of as a classical one in the correspondence-principle limit). The physical vacuum, which is in an intrinsically nonlocal ground state of a relativistic quantum field theory, possesses certain similarities to the ground state of a superconductor. Weinberg has argued that in superconductivity, the spontaneous symmetry breaking process results in a broken $`gauge`$ invariance , an idea which traces back to the early work of Nambu . The Meissner effect is closely analogous to the Higgs mechanism of high-energy physics, in which the physical vacuum also spontaneously breaks local gauge invariance. From this viewpoint, the appearance of the London penetration depth for a superconductor is analogous in an inverse manner to the appearance of a mass for a gauge boson, such as that of the W or Z boson. Thus, the photon, viewed as a gauge boson, acquires a mass inside the superconductor, such that its Compton wavelength becomes the London penetration depth.

Closely related to this spontaneous symmetry breaking process is the appearance of Yang’s off-diagonal long-range order (ODLRO) of the reduced density matrix in the coordinate-space representation for these macroscopically coherent quantum systems . In particular, there seems to be no limit on how far apart Cooper pairs can be inside a single superconductor before they lose their quantum coherence. ODLRO and spontaneous symmetry breaking are both purely quantum concepts.

Within a superconductor there should arise both the phenomenon of instantaneous EPR correlations-at-a-distance and the phenomenon of the rigidity of the wavefunction, i.e., a Meissner-like response to radiation fields. Both phenomena, which we shall presently see are intimately connected, involve at the microscopic level $`interactions`$ of entangled electrons with an external environment, either through local $`measurements`$, such as in Bell-type experiments, or through local $`perturbations`$, such as those due to gravitational radiation fields interacting locally with these electrons.

Although at first sight the notion of “infinite quantum rigidity” would seem to imply infinite velocities, and hence would seem to violate relativity, there are in fact no violations of relativistic causality here, since the instantaneous EPR $`correlations`$-at-a-distance (as seen by an observer in the center-of-mass frame) are not instantaneous $`signals`$-at-a-distance, which could instantaneously connect causes to effects . Also, experiments have verified the existence of superluminal wave packet propagations, i.e., faster-than-$`c`$, infinite, and even negative group velocities, for finite-bandwidth, analytic wave packets in the excitations of a wide range of physical systems . An analytic function, e.g., a Gaussian wave packet, contains sufficient information in its early tail such that a causal medium can, during its propagation, reconstruct the entire wave packet with a superluminal pulse advancement, and with little distortion. Relativistic causality forbids only the $`front`$ velocity, i.e., the velocity of $`discontinuities`$, which connects causes to their effects, from exceeding the speed of light $`c`$, but does not forbid a wave packet’s $`group`$ velocity from being superluminal. One example is the observed superluminal tunneling of single-photon wave packets . In the case of superconductors, the “finite-bandwidth” condition is guaranteed by the restriction that the local perturbations arising from classical fields only contain frequencies less than the BCS gap frequency, in order to satisfy the quantum adiabatic theorem. Thus the notion of “infinite quantum rigidity,” although counterintuitive, does not in fact violate relativistic causality. I shall return to this point later in Section 3.

### 2.3 The equivalence versus the uncertainty principle

Concerning conceptual tension (2), the weak equivalence principle is formulated at its outset using the concept of “trajectory,” or equivalently, “geodesic.” By contrast, Bohr has taught us that the very $`concept`$ of trajectory must be abandoned, because of the uncertainty principle. Thus the equivalence and the uncertainty principles are in a fundamental conceptual tension. The equivalence principle is based on the idea of locality, since it requires that the region of space, inside which two trajectories of two nearby freely-falling objects of different masses, compositions, or thermodynamic states, are to be compared, go to zero volume, before the principle becomes exact. This limiting procedure is in conflict with the uncertainty principle, since taking the limit of the volume of space going to zero, within which these objects are to be measured, makes their momenta infinitely uncertain.

Experimental manifestations of this conceptual tension may occur not only on microscopic, but also on macroscopic length scales, again since there exist macroscopic quantum objects. However, whenever the correspondence principle holds, the center of mass of a quantum wavepacket (for a single particle or for an entire quantum object) moves according to Ehrenfest’s theorem along a classical trajectory, and $`then`$ it is possible to reconcile these two principles.

Davies  has come up with a simple example of a quantum violation of the equivalence principle : Consider two perfectly elastic balls, e.g., one made out of rubber, and one made out of steel, bouncing against a perfectly elastic table. If we drop the two balls from the same height above the table, their classical trajectories, and hence their classical periods of oscillation will be identical, and independent of the mass or composition of the balls. This is a consequence of the weak equivalence principle. However, quantum mechanically, there will be the phenomenon of tunneling, in which the two balls can penetrate into the classically forbidden region $`above`$ their turning points. The extra time spent by the balls in the classically forbidden region due to tunneling will depend on their mass (and thus on their composition). Thus there will in principle be mass-dependent quantum corrections of the classical periods of the bouncing motion of these balls, which will lead to quantum violations of the equivalence principle.

There exist macroscopic situations in which Ehrenfest’s correspondence principle fails. Imagine that one is inside a large quantum object, such as a big piece of superconconductor. Even in the limit of a very large size and a very large number of particles in this object (i.e., the thermodynamic limit), there exists no correspondence-principle limit in which classical trajectories or geodesics for the electrons which are members of Cooper pairs within the superconductor, make any sense. This may be true in spite of the fact that the motion of its center of mass of the superconductor may perfectly obey the equivalence principle, and therefore may be conceptualized in terms of a geodesic.

However, due to the uncertainty principle and the indistinguishability of identical particles, the electrons of the BCS ground state of a superconductor are radically delocalized. Hence one again expects that a superconductor should respond to externally applied gravitational fields, including radiation fields, in a radically different fashion from the response of normal electrons undergoing geodesic motions inside a normal metal. Experimentally, this radical difference should show up when one cools a normal metal through the superconducting transition temperature, so that it becomes a superconductor.

## 3 Superconductors as antennas for gravitational radiation

Another strong motivation for performing the quantum calculation to be given below, is that it predicts a large, counterintuitive quantum rigidity of a macroscopic wavefunction, such as that in a big piece of superconductor, when it interacts with externally applied gravitational radiation fields . Mathematically, this quantum rigidity corresponds to the statement that the macroscopic wavefunction of the superconductor must remain single-valued at all times during the changes arising from adiabatic perturbations due to radiation fields. This implies that objects such as superconductors should be much better gravitational-wave antennas than Weber bars.

The rigidity of the macroscopic wavefunction of the superconductor originates from the instantaneous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations-at-a-distance in the behavior of a Cooper pair of electrons in the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) ground state in distant parts of the superconductor viewed as a single quantum system, when there exists some kind of gap, such as the BCS gap, which keeps the entire system adiabatically in its ground state during perturbations due to radiation. Two electrons which are members of a single Cooper pair are in a Bohm singlet state, and hence are quantum-mechanically entangled with each other, in the sense that they are in a superposition state of opposite spins $`and`$ opposite momenta. This quantum entanglement gives rise to EPR correlations at long distance scales within the superconductor. The electrons in a superconductor in its ground BCS state are not only $`macroscopically`$ entangled, but due to the existence of the BCS gap which separates the BCS ground state energetically from all excited states, they are also $`protectively`$ entangled, in the sense that this entangled state is protected by the presence of the BCS gap from decoherence arising from the thermal environment, provided that the system temperature is kept well below the BCS transition temperature.

The resulting large quantum rigidity is in contrast to the tiny rigidity of classical matter, such as that of the normal metals used in Weber bars, in their response to gravitational radiation. The essential difference between quantum and classical matter is that there can exist macroscopic quantum interference, and hence macroscopic quantum coherence, throughout the entire quantum system, which is absent in a classical system.

One manifestation of the tiny rigidity of classical matter is the fact that the speed of sound in a Weber bar is typically five orders of magnitude less than the speed of light. In order to transfer energy coherently from a gravitational wave by classical means, for example, by acoustical modes inside the bar to some local detector, e.g., a piezoelectric crystal glued to the middle of the bar, the length scale of the Weber bar $`L`$ is limited to a distance scale on the order of the speed of sound times the period of the gravitational wave, i.e., an acoustical wavelength $`\lambda _{sound}`$, which is typically five orders of magnitude smaller than the gravitational radiation wavelength $`\lambda `$ to be detected. This makes the Weber bar, which is thereby limited in its length to $`L\lambda _{sound}`$, much too short an antenna to couple efficiently to free space.

However, macroscopic quantum objects such as superconductors used as antennas are not limited by these classical considerations, but can have a length scale $`L`$ on the same order as (or even much greater than) the gravitational radiation wavelength $`\lambda `$. Since the radiation efficiency of a quadrupole antenna scales as the length of the antenna $`L`$ to the fourth power when $`L<<\lambda `$, quantum antennas should be much more efficient in coupling to free space than classical ones like the Weber bar by at least a factor of $`\left(\lambda /\lambda _{sound}\right)^4`$. Also, we shall see below that a certain type of superconductor may be a $`transducer`$ for directly converting gravitational waves into electromagnetic waves, and vice versa; this then dispenses altogether with the necessity of the use of piezoelectric crystals as transducers.

Weinberg  gives a measure of the efficiency of coupling of a Weber bar antenna of mass $`M`$, length $`L`$, and velocity of sound $`v_{sound}`$, in terms of a branching ratio for the emission of gravitational radiation by the Weber bar, relative to the emission of heat, i.e., the ratio of the $`rate`$ of emission of gravitational radiation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{grav}`$ relative to the $`rate`$ of the decay of the acoustical oscillations into heat $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{heat}`$, which is given by

$$\eta \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{grav}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{heat}}=\frac{64GMv_{sound}^4}{15L^2c^5\mathrm{\Gamma }_{heat}}3\times 10^{34}.$$
(2)
The quartic power dependence of the efficiency $`\eta `$ on the velocity of sound $`v_{sound}`$ arises from the quartic dependence of the coupling efficiency to free space of a quadrupole antenna upon its length $`L`$, when $`L<<\lambda `$.

Assuming for the moment that the quantum rigidity of a superconductor allows us to replace the velocity of sound $`v_{sound}`$ by the speed of light $`c`$ (i.e., that the typical size $`L`$ of a quantum antenna bar can become as large as the wavelength $`\lambda `$), we see that superconductors can be more efficient than Weber bars, based on the $`v_{sound}^4`$ factor alone, by twenty orders of magnitude, i.e.,

$$\left(\frac{c}{v_{sound}}\right)^410^{20}.$$
(3)
Thus, even if it should turn out that superconducting antennas in the final analysis are still not very efficient $`generators`$ of gravitational radiation, they should be much more efficient $`receivers`$ of this radiation than Weber bars for detecting astrophysical sources of gravitational radiation . However, I shall give arguments below as to why under certain circumstances involving “natural impedance matching” between quadrupolar EM and GR plane waves upon a mirror-like reflection at the planar surface of extreme type II, dissipationless superconductors, the efficiency of such superconductors used as simultaneous transducers and antennas for gravitational radiation, might in fact become of the order of unity, so that a gravitational analog of Hertz’s experiment might then become possible.

But why should the speed of sound in superconductors, which is not much different from that in normal metals, not also characterize the rigidity of a superconducting metal when it is in a superconducting state? What is it about a superconductor in its superconducting state that makes it so radically different from the same metal when it is in a normal state? The answer lies in the important distinction between $`longitudinal`$ and $`transverse`$ mechanical excitations of the superconductor . Whereas longitudinal, compressional sound waves propagate in superconductors at normal sound speeds, transverse excitations, such as those induced by a gravitational plane wave incident normally on a slab of superconductor in its superconducting state, cannot so propagate.

Suppose that the opposite were true, i.e., that there were $`no`$ substantial difference between the response of a superconductor and a normal metal to gravitational radiation. (Let us assume for the moment the complete absence of any electromagnetic radiation.) Then the interaction of the superconductor with gravitational radiation, either in its normal or in its superconducting state, will be completely negligible, as is indicated by Eq.(2). We would then expect the gravitational wave to penetrate deeply into the interior of the superconductor (see Figure 2).

If this were true, the motion of a Cooper pair deep inside the superconductor (i.e., deep on the scale of the London penetration depth), could then be characterized by a velocity $`𝐯_{pair}(t)`$ which would not be appreciably different from the velocity of a normal electron or of a nearby lattice ion (we shall neglect the velocity of sound in this argument, since $`v_{sound}<<c`$). Hence locally, by the weak equivalence principle, Cooper pairs, normal electrons, and lattice ions (i.e., independent of the charges and masses of these particles) would all undergo free fall together, so that

$$𝐯_{pair}(t)=𝐡(t),$$
(4)
where $`𝐯_{pair}(t)`$ is the local velocity of a Cooper pair, and where $`𝐡(t)`$ is the local velocity of a classical test particle, whose motion is induced by the presence of the gravitational wave, as seen by an observer sitting in an inertial frame located at the center of mass of the superconductor. Then the $`curl`$ of the velocity field $`𝐯_{pair}(t)`$ deep inside the superconductor, as seen by this observer, would be nonvanishing

$$\times 𝐯_{pair}(t)=\times 𝐡(t)=𝐁_G(t)0,$$
(5)
since the Lense-Thirring or gravitomagnetic field $`𝐁_G(t)`$ of gravitational radiation does not vanish deep in the interior of the superconductor when gravitational radiation is present (we shall see presently that the $`𝐡(t)`$ field plays the role of a gravitomagnetic vector potential, just like the usual vector potential $`𝐀(t)`$ in the electromagnetic case).

This, however, leads to a contradiction. It is well known that for adiabatic perturbations (e.g., for gravity waves whose frequencies are sufficiently far below the BCS gap frequency, so that the entire quantum system remains $`adiabatically`$ in its ground state), the superfluid velocity field $`𝐯_{pair}(t)`$ deep in the interior of the superconductor (i.e., at a depth much greater than the London penetration depth) must remain $`irrotational`$ at all times , i.e.,

$$\times 𝐯_{pair}(t)=0.$$
(6)
Otherwise, if this irrotational condition were not satisfied in the presence of gravitational radiation, the wavefunction would not remain single-valued. Deep inside the superconductor, $`𝐯_{pair}(t)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_2}\varphi (t)`$, where $`m_2`$ is the mass of the Cooper pair. Thus the superfluid or Cooper pair velocity is directly proportional to the spatial gradient of the phase $`\varphi (t)`$ of the Cooper-pair condensate wavefunction. It would then follow, from such a supposed violation of the irrotational condition, that the phase shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (t)`$ after one round-trip back to the same point around an arbitrary closed curve $`C`$ deep inside the superconductor in its ground state, is, upon using Stokes’s theorem,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _C}\varphi (t)𝑑𝐥={\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _C}𝐯_{pair}(t)𝑑𝐥`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{S(C)}}\times 𝐯_{pair}(t)𝑑𝐒={\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{S(C)}}𝐁_G(t)𝑑𝐒0,`$
where $`S(C)`$ is a surface bounded by $`C`$ (see Figure 2). That is, the phase anomaly $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (t)`$ of the wavefunction is directly proportional to the flux through the circuit $`C`$ of the gravitomagnetic field $`𝐁_G(t)`$, which is nonvanishing. This phase anomaly $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (t)`$ is also directly proportional to a nonvanishing component of the Riemann curvature tensor. However, that the round-trip phase shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (t)`$ is nonvanishing in the ground state wavefunction of any quantum system, is impossible in QM due to the single-valuedness of the wavefunction, as viewed from the inertial frame of the center-of-mass of the system . Otherwise, the very concept of wavefunction would become meaningless.

There is extensive experimental evidence that the single-valuedness of the wavefunction in QM is not violated. For example, the observed quantization of orbital angular momentum in atoms and molecules constitutes such evidence on microscopic length scales. Also, the observations of quantization of the circulation of vortices in both superfluids helium of isotope 3 and helium of isotope 4, and of the quantization of flux in superconductors, constitute such evidence on macroscopic length scales. As a special case of the latter when the topological winding number is zero, the Meissner effect is itself evidence for the validity of the single-valuedness of the macroscopic wavefunction.

Therefore, in the presence of a gravity wave, Cooper pairs $`cannot`$ undergo free fall, and the $`transverse`$ excitations of the Cooper pair condensate must remain rigidly irrotational at all times in the adiabatic limit. This leads to a Meissner-like effect in which the Lense-Thirring field $`𝐁_G(t)`$ is expelled, and would seemingly lead to infinite velocities for the transverse excitations inside the superconductor. (See the above discussion of superluminality.) However, such transverse excitations should be coupled to perturbations of spacetime through the Maxwell-like equations for the time-varying gravitational fields to be discussed below, and then the speed of such excitations may turn out to be governed by the vacuum speed of light $`c`$.

## 4 Meissner-like effect in the response of a superconductor to gravitational radiation

The calculation for the $`quantum`$ response of large objects, for example, a big piece of superconductor, to weak gravitational radiation, is based on the concept of $`wavefunction`$, or quantum state, for example, the BCS state, and proceeds along completely different lines from the calculation for the $`classical`$ response of a Weber bar to this radiation, which is based on the concept of $`geodesic`$, or classical trajectory . When the frequency of the gravitational radiation is much less than the BCS gap, the entire superconductor should evolve in time in accordance with the quantum adiabatic theorem, and should therefore stay rigidly, i.e., adiabatically, in its ground state. There results a large, diamagnetic-like linear response of the entire superconductor to externally applied, time-varying gravitational fields. This Meissner-like effect does not alter the geodesic center-of-mass motion of the superconductor, but radically alters the internal behavior of its electrons, which are all radically delocalized due to entanglement within the superconductor.

Here I would like to give a brief historical survey of this problem. In 1966, DeWitt  considered the interaction of a superconductor with gravitational fields, in particular with the Lense-Thirring field. Starting from the general relativistic Lagrangian for a single electron with a charge $`e`$ and a mass $`m`$, he derived in the limit of weak gravity and slow particles a nonrelativistic Hamiltonian for a single electron in the superconductor, which satisfied the minimal-coupling rule

$$𝐩𝐩e𝐀m𝐡,$$
(8)
where $`𝐩`$ is the canonical momentum, $`𝐀`$ is the usual vector potential, and $`𝐡`$ is a gauge-like vector potential formed from the three space-time components $`g_{i0}`$ of the metric tensor viewed as an ordinary three-vector. Papini  in 1967 considered the possibility of the detection the quantum phase shift induced by $`𝐡`$ arising from the Lense-Thirring field generated by a nearby rotating massive body, by means of a superconducting interference device (or SQUID) using Josephson junctions. In 1979, Stodolsky  considered the detection of phase shifts by means of matter-wave and light-wave interferometry (e.g., neutron interferometers, such as that of Collela, Overhauser, and Werner , and light-wave interferometers, such as that of LIGO (i.e, the Laser-Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory; e.g., see the review by Tyson and Giffard )), in the approximation of a semiclassical, single-particle propagation in weak gravitational fields, such as those associated with gravity-wave and Lense-Thirring fields. In 1983, Ross  derived the modified London equations for a superconductor in a gravitational field, and showed that these equations are consistent with the modified fluxoid quantization condition in a gravitational field found earlier by DeWitt in 1966.

In a series of papers in the early 1980s, Anandan and I considered the possibility of constructing antennas for detecting time-varying Lense-Thirring fields, and thus for detecting gravitational radiation, using Josephson junctions as transducers, in $`neutral`$ superfluid helium analogs of the SQUID using an antenna geometry in the form of a figure 8 superfluid loop, and also an antenna bent into a the form of a baseball seam . In 1985, Anandan  considered the possibility of using superconducting circuits as detectors for astrophysical sources of gravitational radiation, but did not mention the possibility of superconductors being efficient emitters, and thus practical laboratory sources of gravity waves, as is being considered here. In 1990, Peng and Torr used the generalized London equations to treat the interaction of a bulk superconductor with gravitational radiation, and concluded that such a superconducting antenna would be many orders of magnitude more sensitive than a Weber bar . There have also been earlier predictions of a modified Meissner effect in the response of superconductors to time-varying Lense-Thirring fields, and hence to gravitational radiation . For recent work along these lines, see . These papers, however, also did not consider the possibility of a transducer action between EM and GR radiation mediated by the superconductor, as is being considered here. Also, the theoretical approach taken here is quite different, as our approach will be based on the Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity, and the resulting constitutive relation for the gravitomagnetic or Lense-Thirring field, rather than on the modified London equations.

I shall show below that Josephson junctions, which are difficult to implement experimentally, are unnecessary, and that a superconductor can by itself be a $`direct`$ transducer from electromagnetic to gravitational radiation upon reflection of the wave from a vacuum-superconductor interface, with a surprisingly good conversion efficiency. By reciprocity, this conversion process can be reversed, so that gravitational radiation can also be converted upon reflection into electromagnetic radiation from the same interface, with equal efficiency. The geometry of a superconducting slab-shaped antenna proposed here is much simpler than some of the earlier proposed antenna geometries. These developments suggest the possibility of a simple, Hertz-like experiment, in which the emission and the reception of gravitational radiation at microwave frequencies can be implemented by means of a pair of superconductors used as transducers.

### 4.1 Calculation of diamagnetic-like coupling energies: The interaction Hamiltonian

Consider a gravitational plane wave propagating along the $`z`$ axis, which impinges at normal incidence on a piece of superconductor in the form of a large circular slab of radius $`r_0`$ and of thickness $`d`$. Let the radius $`r_0`$ be much larger than the wavelength $`\lambda `$ of the plane wave, so that one can neglect diffraction effects. Similarly, let $`d`$ be much thicker than $`\lambda `$. For simplicity, let the superconductor be at a temperature of absolute zero, so that only quantum effects need to be considered.

The calculation of the coupling energy of the superconductor in the simultaneous presence of both electromagnetic and gravitational fields starts from the Lagrangian for a single particle of rest mass $`m`$ and charge $`e`$ (i.e., an electron, but neglecting its spin)

$$L=m(g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu )^{1/2}+eA_\mu \dot{x}^\mu ,$$
(9)
from which a minimal-coupling form of the Hamiltonian for an electron in a superconductor, in the limit of $`weak`$ gravitational fields and $`low`$ velocities, has been derived by DeWitt . Here we apply this minimal-coupling Hamiltonian to $`pairs`$ of electrons (i.e, Cooper pairs in spin-zero singlet states),

$$H=\frac{1}{2m_{2eff}}\left(𝐩e_2𝐀m_2𝐡\right)^2$$
(10)
(using SI units), where $`m_2=2m_e`$ is the vacuum rest mass of a Cooper pair, $`m_{2eff}`$ is its effective mass, $`e_2=2e`$is its charge, $`𝐩`$ is its canonical momentum, $`𝐀`$ is the electromagnetic vector potential, and $`𝐡`$ is the gravitomagnetic vector potential, which is the gravitational analog of $`𝐀`$ in the case of weak gravity. The gravitomagnetic vector potential $`𝐡`$ is the three-velocity formed from the space-time components $`h_{i0}`$ of the small deviations of the metric tensor $`h_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ from flat spacetime (the metric tensor being given by $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, and the Minkowski tensor for flat spacetime being given by $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$). Thus we shall define

$$𝐡|_ih_{i0}c\text{ .}$$
(11)
It is convenient for performing this calculation to choose the radiation gauge for both $`𝐀`$ and $`𝐡`$, so that

$$𝐀=𝐡=0,$$
(12)
where the chosen coordinate system is that of an inertial frame which coincides with the freely-falling center of mass of the superconductor at the origin (this is $`not`$ the transverse-traceless gauge choice). The physical meaning of $`𝐡`$ is that, apart from a sign, it is the three-velocity of a local, freely-falling test particle as seen by an observer in an inertial frame located at the center of mass of the superconductor. In Eq.(10), we have neglected for the moment the interactions of the Cooper pairs with each other.

Why not use the standard transverse-traceless gauge in order to perform these calculations? The answer is given in Figure 2, in which we depict a side-view snapshot of a gravitational plane wave propagating to the right. The arrows indicate the instantaneous velocity vectors $`𝐡`$ of the test particles induced by the wave, as seen by an inertial observer at the center-of-mass. Note that the gravitational tidal forces reverse in sign after a propagation by half a wavelength to the right along the $`𝐤`$ axis. Therefore, by inspection of the diagram, we see that the circulation integrals around circuits $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$

$$_{C_1}𝐡𝑑𝐥0,\text{and }_{C_2}𝐡𝑑𝐥0$$
(13)
do not vanish. These circulation integrals are gauge-invariant quantities, since there are related to the gauge-invariant general relativistic time shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (and the corresponding quantum phase shift), where, for weak gravity and small circuits $`C`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=_C\frac{g_{0i}dx^i}{g_{00}}\frac{1}{c}_C𝐡𝑑𝐥0.$$
(14)
The time shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is related through Stokes’s theorem (see Eq.(7)) to the $`flux`$ of the gravitomagnetic (or Lense-Thirring) field through the circuit $`C`$, which, for small circuits $`C`$ close to the center of mass, is directly proportional to the nonvanishing “magnetic” Riemann curvature tensor component $`R_{\widehat{0}\widehat{x}\widehat{z}\widehat{x}}`$, where the hats above the indices indicate the use of Fermi normal coordinates .

Since in the transverse-traceless gauge, $`𝐡`$ is chosen to be identically zero, there would be no way to satisfy Eqs.(13) and (14). In the long-wavelength limit, i.e., in the case where the antenna is small compared to a wavelength, such as in Weber bars, the transverse-traceless gauge can be a valid and more convenient choice than the radiation gauge being used here. However, we wish to be able to consider the case of superconducting slabs which are large compared to a wavelength, where the long-wavelength approximation breaks down, and therefore we cannot use the transverse-traceless gauge, but must use the radiation gauge instead.

The electromagnetic vector potential $`𝐀`$ in the above minimal-coupling Hamiltonian gives rise to Aharonov-Bohm interference. In like manner, the gravitomagnetic vector potential $`𝐡`$ gives rise to a general relativistic twin “paradox” for rotating coordinate systems and for Lense-Thirring fields given by Eq.(14). Therefore $`𝐡`$ gives rise to Sagnac interference in both light and matter waves. The Sagnac effect has recently been observed in superfluid helium interferometers using Josephson junctions, and has been used to detect the Earth’s rotation around its polar axis .

From the above Hamiltonian, we see that the minimal coupling rule for Cooper pairs now becomes

$$𝐩𝐩e_2𝐀m_2𝐡\text{ }$$
(15)
in the simultaneous presence of electromagnetic (EM) and weak general relativistic (GR) fields. This minimal-coupling rule has been experimentally tested in the case of a uniformly rotating superconducting ring, since it predicts the existence of a London magnetic moment for the rotating superconductor, in which magnetic flux is generated through the center of the ring due to its rotational motion with respect to the local inertial frame. The consequences of the above minimal coupling rule for the slightly different geometry of a uniformly rotating superconducting sphere can be easily worked out as follows: Due to the single-valuedness of the wavefunction, the Aharonov-Bohm and Sagnac phase shifts deep inside the superconducting sphere (i.e., in the interior far away from the surface) arising from the $`𝐀`$ and the $`𝐡`$ terms, must cancel each other exactly. Thus the minimal coupling rule leads to a relationship between the $`𝐀`$ and the $`𝐡`$ fields inside the bulk given by

$$e_2𝐀=m_2𝐡\text{ .}$$
(16)
This relationship in turn implies that a uniform magnetic field $`𝐁=\times 𝐀`$, where $`𝐀=\frac{1}{2}𝐁\times 𝐫`$ in the symmetric gauge, will be generated in the interior of the superconducting sphere due to its uniform rotational motion at an angular velocity $`𝛀`$ with respect to the local inertial frame, where $`𝐡=𝛀\times 𝐫`$ in the rotating frame. Thus the London moment effect will manifest itself here as a uniform magnetic field $`𝐁`$ in the interior of the rigidly rotating sphere, which can be calculated by taking the curl of both sides of Eq.(16), and yields

$$𝐁=\frac{2m_2}{e_2}𝛀\text{ ,}$$
(17)
which is consistent with Larmor’s theorem. In general, the proportionality constant of the London moment will be given by the inverse of the charge-to-mass ratio $`e_2/m_2`$, where $`m_2`$ has been experimentally determined to be the $`vacuum`$ value of the Cooper pair rest mass, apart from a small discrepancy of the order of ten parts per million, which has not yet been completely understood .

However, in the above argument, we have been assuming rigid-body rotation for the entire body of the superconductor, which is obviously not valid for microwave-frequency gravitational radiation fields, since the lattice cannot respond to such high frequencies in such a rigid manner. Hence the above analysis applies only to time-independent (i.e., magnetostatic) and spatially homogeneous (i.e., uniform) magnetic fields and steady rotations, and is not valid for the high-frequency, time-dependent, and spatially inhomogeneous case of the interaction of gravitational and electromagnetic radiation fields near the surface of the superconductor, since the above magnetostatic analysis ignores the important boundary-value and impedance-matching problems for radiation fields at the vacuum-superconductor interface, which will be considered below.

One can generalize the above time-independent minimal-coupling Hamiltonian to adiabatic time-varying situations as follows:

$$H=\frac{1}{2m_{2eff}}\left(𝐩e_2𝐀(t)m_2𝐡(t)\right)^2\text{ ,}$$
(18)
where $`𝐀(t)`$ and $`𝐡(t)`$ are the vector potentials associated with low-frequency electromagnetic and gravitational radiation fields, for example. (This time-dependent Hamiltonian can also of course describe low-frequency time-varying tidal and Lense-Thirring fields, as well as radiation fields, but the adiabatic approximation can still be valid for radiation fields oscillating at high microwave frequencies, since the BCS gap frequency of many superconductors lie in the far-infrared part of the spectrum.) Again, it is natural to choose to use the radiation gauge for both $`𝐀(t)`$ and $`𝐡(t)`$ vector potentials in a symmetrical manner, in the description of these time-varying fields. The physical meaning of $`𝐡(x,y,z,t)𝐡(t)`$ is that it is the $`negative`$ of the time-varying three-velocity field $`𝐯_{test}(x,y,z,t)`$ of a system of noninteracting, locally freely-falling classical test particles as seen by the observer sitting in an inertial frame located at the center of mass of the superconductor. At first, we shall treat both $`𝐀(t)`$ and $`𝐡(t)`$ as classical fields, but shall treat the matter, i.e., the superconductor, quantum mechanically, in the standard semiclassical approximation.

The time-dependent Hamiltonian given by Eq.(18) is, I stress, only a “guessed” form of the Hamiltonian, whose ultimate justification must be an experimental one. In case of the time-dependent vector potential $`𝐀(t)`$, there have already been many experiments which have justified this “guess,” but there have been no experiments which have tested the new term involving $`𝐡(t)`$. However, one justification for this new term is that in the static limit, this “guessed” Hamiltonian goes over naturally to the magnetostatic minimal-coupling form, which, as we have seen above, $`has`$ been tested experimentally.

From Eq.(18), we see that the time-dependent generalization of the minimal-coupling rule for Cooper pairs is

$$𝐩𝐩e_2𝐀(t)m_2𝐡(t).$$
(19)
It would be hard to believe that one is allowed to generalize $`𝐀`$ to $`𝐀(t)`$, but that somehow one is $`not`$ allowed to generalize $`𝐡`$ to $`𝐡(t)`$.

One important consequence that follows immediately from expanding the square in Eq.(18) is that there exists a cross-term

$$H_{int}=\frac{1}{2m_{2eff}}\left\{2e_2m_2𝐀(t)𝐡(t)\right\}=\left(\frac{m_2}{m_{2eff}}\right)e_2𝐀(t)𝐡(t).$$
(20)
It should be emphasized that Newton’s constant $`G`$ does not enter here. The physical meaning of this interaction Hamiltonian $`H_{int}`$ is that there should exist a $`direct`$ coupling between electromagnetic and gravitational radiation mediated by the superconductor that involves the charge $`e_2`$, and not $`G`$, as its coupling constant, in the quantum adiabatic theorem limit. Thus the strength of this coupling is electromagnetic, and not gravitational, in its character. Furthermore, the $`𝐀𝐡`$ form of $`H_{int}`$ implies that there should exist a linear and reciprocal coupling between these two radiation fields mediated by the superconductor. This implies that the superconductor should be a quantum-mechanical transducer between these two forms of radiation, which can, in principle, convert power from one form of radiation into the other, and vice versa, with equal efficiency.

We can see more clearly the significance of the interaction Hamiltonian $`H_{int}`$ once we convert it into second quantized form and express it in terms of the creation and annihilation operators for the positive frequency parts of the two radiation fields, as in the theory of quantum optics, so that in the rotating-wave approximation

$$H_{int}a^{}b+b^{}a$$
(21)
where the annihilation operator $`a`$ and the creation operator $`a^{}`$ of a single classical mode of the electromagnetic radiation field, obey the commutation relation $`[a,a^{}]=1`$, and where the annihilation operator $`b`$ and the creation operator $`b^{}`$ of a matched single classical mode of the gravitational radiation field, obey the commutation relation $`[b,b^{}]=1`$. (This represents a crude, first attempt at quantizing the gravitational field, which applies only in the case of weak gravity.) The first term $`a^{}b`$ then corresponds to the process in which a graviton is annihilated and a photon is created inside the superconductor, and similarly the second term $`b^{}a`$ corresponds to the reciprocal process, in which a photon is annihilated and a graviton is created inside the superconductor. Energy is conserved by both of these processes. Time-reversal symmetry, and hence reciprocity, is also respected by this interaction Hamiltonian.

### 4.2 Calculation of diamagnetic-like coupling energies: The macroscopic wavefunction

At this point, we need to introduce the purely quantum concept of wavefunction, in conjunction with the quantum adiabatic theorem. To obtain the response of the superconductor, we must make explicit use of the fact that the ground state wavefunction of the system is $`globally`$ unchanged (i.e., “rigid”) during the time variations of both $`𝐀(t)`$ and $`𝐡(t)`$. The condition for validity of the quantum adiabatic theorem here is that the frequency of the perturbations $`𝐀(t)`$ and $`𝐡(t)`$ must be low enough compared with the BCS gap frequency of the superconductor, so that no transitions are permitted out of the BCS ground state of the system into any of the excited states of the system. However, “low enough” can, in practice, still mean quite high frequencies, e.g., microwave frequencies in the case of high $`T_c`$ superconductors, so that it becomes practical for the superconductor to become comparable in size to the microwave wavelength $`\lambda `$.

Using the quantum adiabatic theorem, one obtains in first-order perturbation theory the coupling energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{int}^{(1)}`$ of the superconductor in the simultaneous presence of both $`𝐀(t)`$ and $`𝐡(t)`$ fields, which is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{int}^{(1)}=\left(\frac{m_2}{m_{2eff}}\right)\psi \left|e_2𝐀(t)𝐡(t)\right|\psi =$$

$$\left(\frac{m_2}{m_{2eff}}\right)_V𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z\text{ }\psi ^{}(x,y,z)𝐀(x,y,z,t)𝐡(x,y,z,t)\psi (x,y,z)$$
(22)
where

$$\psi (x,y,z)=\left(N/\pi r_0^2d\right)^{1/2}=\text{Constant}$$
(23)
is the Cooper-pair condensate wavefunction (or Ginzburg-Landau order parameter) of a homogeneous superconductor of volume $`V`$ , the normalization condition having been imposed that

$$_V𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z\text{ }\psi ^{}(x,y,z)\psi (x,y,z)=N,$$
(24)
where $`N`$ is the total number of Cooper pairs in the superconductor. Assuming that both $`𝐀(t)`$ and $`𝐡(t)`$ have the same (“+”) polarization of quadrupolar radiation, and that both plane waves impinge on the slab of superconductor at normal incidence, then in Cartesian coordinates,

$$𝐀(t)=(A_1(t),A_2(t),A_3(t))=\frac{1}{2}(x,y,0)A_+\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t)$$
(25)
$$𝐡(t)=(h_1(t),h_2(t),h_3(t))=\frac{1}{2}(x,y,0)h_+\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t).$$
(26)
One then finds that the time-averaged interaction or coupling energy in the rotating-wave approximation between the electromagnetic and gravitational radiation fields mediated by the superconductor is

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }E_{int}^{(1)}}=\frac{1}{16}\left(\frac{m_2}{m_{2eff}}\right)Ne_2A_+h_+r_0^2.$$
(27)
Note the presence of the factor $`N`$, which can be very large, since it can be on the order of Avogadro’s number $`N_0`$.

The calculation for the above coupling energy $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }E_{int}^{(1)}}`$ proceeds along the same lines as that for the Meissner effect of the superconductor, which is based on the diamagnetism term $`H_{dia}`$ in the expansion of the $`same`$ time-dependent minimal-coupling Hamiltonian, Eq.(18), given by

$$H_{dia}=\frac{1}{2m_{2eff}}\left\{e_2𝐀(t)e_2𝐀(t)\right\}.$$
(28)
This leads to an energy shift of the system, which, in first-order perturbation theory, again in the rotating-wave approximation, is given by

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }E_{dia}^{(1)}}=\frac{1}{32m_{2eff}}Ne_2^2A_+^2r_0^2.$$
(29)
Again, note the presence of the factor $`N`$, which can be on the order of Avogadro’s number $`N_0`$. From this expression, we can obtain the diamagnetic susceptibility of the superconductor. We know from experiment that the size of this energy shift is sufficiently large to cause a complete expulsion of the magnetic field from the interior of the superconductor, i.e., a Meissner effect. Hence there must also be a complete reflection of the electromagnetic wave from the interior of the superconductor, apart from a thin surface layer of the order of the London penetration depth. All forms of diamagnetism, including the Meissner effect, are purely quantum effects.

Similarly, there exists a diamagnetic-like “gravitomagnetic” term $`H_{GM}`$ in the expansion of the $`same`$ minimal-coupling Hamiltonian, Eq.(18), given by

$$H_{GM}=\frac{1}{2m_{2eff}}\left\{m_2𝐡(t)m_2𝐡(t)\right\}.$$
(30)
This leads to a gravitomagnetic energy shift of the system given in first-order perturbation theory in the rotating-wave approximation by

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }E_{GM}^{(1)}}=\frac{1}{32m_{2eff}}Nm_2^2h_+^2r_0^2.$$
(31)
From this expression, we can obtain the gravitomagnetic susceptibility of the superconductor, which does not vanish. This necessitates the introduction of a nontrivial constitutive relation for the gravitomagnetic field (see Section 6).

## 5 The impedance of free space for gravitational plane waves

It is not enough merely to calculate the coupling energy arising from the interaction Hamiltonian given by Eq.(27). We must also compare how large this coupling energy is with respect to the free-field energies of the uncoupled problem, in particular, that of the gravitational radiation, in order to see how big an effect we expect to see in the gravitational sector. To this end, I shall introduce the concept of impedance matching, both between the superconductor and free space in both forms of radiation, and also between the two kinds of waves inside the superconductor viewed as a transducer. The impedance matching problem determines the efficiency of power transfer from the antenna to free space, and from one kind of wave to the other. It is therefore useful to introduce the concept of the impedance of free space $`Z_G`$ for a gravitational plane wave, which is analogous to the concept of the impedance of free space $`Z_0`$ for an electromagnetic plane wave (here SI units are more convenient to use than Gaussian cgs units)

$$Z_0=\frac{E}{H}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu _0}{\epsilon _0}}=377\text{ ohms,}$$
(32)
where $`\mu _0`$ is the magnetic permeability of free space, and $`\epsilon _0`$ is the dielectric permittivity of free space.

The physical meaning of the “impedance of free space” in the electromagnetic case is that when a plane wave impinges on a large, but thin, resistive film at normal incidence, due to this film’s ohmic losses, the wave can be absorbed and converted into heat if the resistance per square element of this film is comparable to 377 ohms . In this case, we say that the electromagnetic plane wave has been approximately “impedance-matched” into the film. If, however, the resistance of the thin film is much lower than 377 ohms per square, as is the case for a superconducting film, then the wave will be reflected by the film. In this case, we say that the wave has been “shorted out” by the superconducting film, and that therefore this film reflects electromagnetic radiation like a mirror. By contrast, if the resistance of a normal metallic film is much larger than 377 ohms per square, then the film is essentially transparent to the wave. As a result, there will be almost perfect transmission.

The boundary value problem for a travelling plane-wave solution to Maxwell’s equations coupled to a thin resistive film with a resistance per square element of $`Z_0/2`$, yields a unique solution that this is the condition for the $`maximum`$ possible fractional absorption of the wave energy by the film, which is 50%, along with 25% of the wave energy being transmitted, and the remaining 25% being reflected (see Appendix A) . Under such circumstances, we say that the film has been “$`optimally`$ impedance-matched” to the film. This result is valid no matter how thin the “thin” film is.

The gravitomagnetic permeability $`\mu _G`$ of free space is

$$\mu _G=\frac{16\pi G}{c^2}=3.73\times 10^{26}\text{ }\frac{\text{m}}{\text{kg}}\text{,}$$
(33)
i.e., $`\mu _G`$ is the coupling constant which couples the Lense-Thirring field to sources of mass current density, in the gravitational analog of Ampere’s law for weak gravity. Ciufolini et al. have recently measured, to within $`\pm 20\%`$, a value of $`\mu _G`$ which agrees with Eq.(33), in possibly the first observation of the Earth’s Lense-Thirring field, by means of laser-ranging measurements of the orbits of two satellites . From Eq.(33), I find that the impedance of free space is

$$Z_G=\frac{E_G}{H_G}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu _G}{\epsilon _G}}=\mu _Gc=\frac{16\pi G}{c}=1.12\times 10^{17}\text{ }\frac{\text{m}^2}{\text{s}\text{kg}}\text{,}$$
(34)
where the fact has been used that both electromagnetic and gravitational plane waves propagate at the same speed

$$c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon _G\mu _G}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon _0\mu _0}}=3.00\times 10^8\text{ }\frac{\text{m}}{\text{s}}\text{.}$$
(35)
Therefore, the gravitoelectric permittivity $`\epsilon _G`$ of free space is

$$\epsilon _G=\frac{1}{16\pi G}=2.98\times 10^8\text{ }\frac{\text{kg}^2}{\text{N}\text{m}^2}\text{.}$$
(36)
Newton’s constant $`G`$ now enters explicitly through the expression for the impedance of free space $`Z_G`$, into the problem of the interaction of radiation and matter. Note that $`Z_G`$ is an extremely small quantity. Nevertheless, it is also important to note that it is not strictly zero. Since nondissipative quantum fluids, such as superfluids and superconductors, can in principle have strictly zero losses, they can behave like “short circuits” for gravitational radiation. Thus we expect that quantum fluids, in contrast to classical fluids, can behave like perfect mirrors for gravitational radiation. That $`Z_G`$ is so small explains why it is so difficult to couple $`classical`$ matter to gravity waves. It is therefore natural to consider using nondissipative $`quantum`$ matter instead for achieving an efficient coupling.

By analogy with the electromagnetic case, the physical meaning of the “impedance of free space” $`Z_G`$ is that when a gravitational plane wave impinges on a large, but thin, $`viscous`$ fluid film at normal incidence, due to this film’s dissipative losses, the wave can be absorbed and converted into heat, if the dissipation per square element of this film is comparable to $`Z_G`$. Again in this case, we say that the gravitational plane wave has been approximately “impedance-matched” into the film. If, however, the dissipation of the thin film is much lower than $`Z_G`$, as is the case for nondissipative quantum fluids, then the wave will be reflected by the film. In this case, we say that the wave has been “shorted out” by the superconducting or superfluid film, and that therefore the film should reflect gravitational radiation like a mirror. By contrast, if the dissipation of the film is much larger than $`Z_G`$, as is the case for classical matter, then the film is essentially transparent to the wave, and there will be essentially perfect transmission.

The same boundary value problem holds for a travelling plane-wave solution to the Maxwell-like equations coupled to a thin viscous fluid film with a dissipation per square element of $`Z_G/2`$, and yields the same unique solution that this is the condition for the $`maximum`$ possible fractional absorption (and the consequent conversion into heat) of the wave energy by the film, which is 50%, along with 25% of the wave energy being transmitted, and the remaining 25% being reflected (see Appendix A). Under such circumstances, we again say that the film has been “$`optimally`$ impedance-matched” to the film. Again, this result is valid no matter how thin the “thin” film is.

When the superconductor is viewed as a transducer, the conversion from electromagnetic to gravitational wave energy, and vice versa, can be viewed as an $`effective`$ dissipation mechanism, where instead of being converted into heat, one form of wave energy is converted into the other form, whenever impedance matching is achieved within a thin layer inside the superconductor. As we shall see, this can occur naturally when the electromagnetic wave impedance is $`exponentially`$ reduced in extreme type II superconductors as the wave penetrates into the superconductor, so that a layer is automatically reached in its interior where the electromagnetic wave impedance is reduced to a level comparable to $`Z_G`$. Under such circumstances, we should expect efficient conversion from one form of wave energy to the other.

## 6 Maxwell-like equations for gravity waves

For obtaining the impedance of free space $`Z_0`$ for electromagnetic plane waves, we recall that one starts from Maxwell’s equations

$$𝐃=+\rho _e$$
(37)
$$\times 𝐄=\frac{𝐁}{t}$$
(38)
$$𝐁=0$$
(39)
$$\times 𝐇=+𝐣_e+\frac{𝐃}{t},$$
(40)
where $`\rho _e`$ is the electrical free charge density (here, the charge density of Cooper pairs), and $`𝐣_e`$ is the electrical current density (due to Cooper pairs), $`𝐃`$ is the displacement field, $`𝐄`$ is the electric field, $`𝐁`$ is the magnetic induction field, and $`𝐇`$ is the magnetic field intensity. The constitutive relations (assuming an isotropic medium) are

$$𝐃=\kappa _e\epsilon _0𝐄$$
(41)
$$𝐁=\kappa _m\mu _0𝐇$$
(42)
$$𝐣_e=\sigma _e𝐄,$$
(43)
where $`\kappa _e`$ is the dielectric constant of the medium, $`\kappa _m`$ is its relative permeability, and $`\sigma _e`$ is its electrical conductivity. We then convert Maxwell’s equations into wave equations for free space in the usual way, and conclude that the speed of electromagnetic waves in free space is $`c=(\epsilon _0\mu _0)^{1/2}`$, and that the impedance of free space is $`Z_0=(\mu _0/\epsilon _0)^{1/2}`$. The impedance-matching problem of a plane wave impinging on a thin, resistive film is solved by using standard boundary conditions in conjunction with the constitutive relation $`𝐣_e=\sigma _e𝐄`$.

Similarly, for $`weak`$ gravity and $`slow`$ matter, Maxwell-like equations have been derived from the linearized form of Einstein’s field equations . The gravitoelectric field $`𝐄_G`$, which is identical to the local acceleration due to gravity $`𝐠`$, is analogous to the electric field $`𝐄`$, and the gravitomagnetic field $`𝐁_G`$, which is identical to the Lense-Thirring field, is analogous to the magnetic field $`𝐁`$; they are related to the vector potential $`𝐡`$ in the radiation gauge as follows:

$$𝐠=\frac{𝐡}{t}\text{ and }𝐁_G=\times 𝐡\text{ , }$$
(44)
which correspond to the electromagnetic relations in the radiation gauge

$$𝐄=\frac{𝐀}{t}\text{ and }𝐁=\times 𝐀\text{ .}$$
(45)
The physical meaning of $`𝐠`$ is that it is the three-acceleration of a local, freely-falling test particle induced by the gravitational radiation, as seen by an observer in a local inertial frame located at the center of mass of the superconductor. The local three-acceleration $`𝐠=𝐡/t`$ is the local time derivative of the local three-velocity $`𝐡`$ of this test particle, which is a member of a system of noninteracting, locally freely-falling, classical test particles (e.g., interstellar dust) with a velocity field $`𝐯_{test}(x,y,z,t)=𝐡(x,y,z,t)`$ as viewed by an observer in the center-of-mass inertial frame. Similarly, the physical meaning of the gravitomagnetic field $`𝐁_G`$ is that it is the local angular velocity of an inertial frame centered on the same test particle, with respect to the same observer’s inertial frame, which is centered on the freely-falling center-of-mass of the superconductor. Thus $`𝐁_G`$ is the Lense-Thirring field induced by gravitational radiation.

The Maxwell-like equations for weak gravitational fields (upon setting the PPN (“Parametrized Post-Newton”) parameters to be those of general relativity) are

$$𝐃_G=\rho _G$$
(46)
$$\times 𝐠=\frac{𝐁_G}{t}$$
(47)
$$𝐁_G=0$$
(48)
$$\times 𝐇_G=𝐣_G+\frac{𝐃_G}{t}$$
(49)
where $`\rho _G`$ is the density of local rest mass in the local rest frame of the matter, and $`𝐣_G`$ is the local rest-mass current density in this frame (in the case of classical matter, $`𝐣_G=\rho _G𝐯`$, where $`𝐯`$ is the coordinate three-velocity of the local rest mass; in the quantum case, see Eq.(76)). Here $`𝐇_G`$ is the gravitomagnetic field intensity, and $`𝐃_G`$ is the gravitodisplacement field.

Again, converting the Maxwell-like equations for weak gravity into a wave equation for free space in the standard way, we conclude that the speed of GR waves in free space is $`c=(\epsilon _G\mu _G)^{1/2}`$, which is identical in GR to the vacuum speed of light, and that the impedance of free space for GR waves is $`Z_G=(\mu _G/\epsilon _G)^{1/2}`$, whose numerical value is given by Eq.(34). Since the forms of these equations are identical to those of Maxwell’s equations, the same boundary conditions follow from them, and therefore the same solutions for electromagnetic problems carry over formally to the gravitational ones. These include the solution for the optimal impedance-matching problem for a thin, dissipative film given in Appendix A.

At this point, I would like to introduce the following constitutive relations (assuming an isotropic medium), which are analogous to those in Maxwell’s theory, viz.,

$$𝐃_G=4\kappa _{GE}\epsilon _G𝐠$$
(50)
$$𝐁_G=\kappa _{GM}\mu _G𝐇_G$$
(51)
$$𝐣_G=\sigma _G𝐠$$
(52)
where $`\epsilon _G`$ is the gravitoelectric permittivity of free space given by Eq.(36), $`\mu _G`$ is the gravitomagnetic permeability of free space given by Eq.(33), $`\kappa _{GE}`$ is the gravitoelectric dielectric constant of a medium, $`\kappa _{GM}`$ is its gravitomagnetic relative permeability, and $`\sigma _G`$ is the gravitational analog of the electrical conductivity of the medium, whose magnitude is inversely proportional to its viscosity. It is natural to choose to define the constitutive relation, Eq.(52), with a minus sign, so that for $`dissipative`$ media, $`\sigma _G`$ is always a $`positive`$ quantity. That this constitutive relation should be introduced here is motivated by the fact that gravitational radiation produces a shear field in the quadrupolar transverse velocity field of test particles given by Eq.(26), so that one would expect that the shear viscosity of the medium through which it propagates should enter into its dissipation. Otherwise, there could never be any dissipation of gravitational radiation as it propagates through a medium. The factor of 4 on the right hand side of Eq.(50) implies that Newton’s law of universal gravitation emerges from Einstein’s theory of GR in the correspondence principle limit. In this limit, the weak equivalence principle is recovered by demanding that $`\kappa _{GE}`$ approach unity at low frequencies.

The phenomenological parameters $`\kappa _{GE},`$ $`\kappa _{GM},`$ and $`\sigma _G`$ must be determined by experiment. Because of the possibility of large Meissner-like effects such as in superconductors and other quantum fluids, $`\kappa _{GM}`$ can differ substantially from $`1`$ at low frequencies (see Appendix B). The nonvanishing gravitomagnetic susceptibility calculated from Eq.(31) should lead to a value of $`\kappa _{GM}`$ compatible with such large Meissner-like effects. Also, note that $`\kappa _{GM}`$ can be spatially inhomogeneous, such as near the surface of a superconductor.

But why is it even $`permissible`$ to introduce nontrivial constitutive relations, Eqs.(50), (51), and (52), with $`\kappa _{GE}1`$, $`\kappa _{GM}1`$, and $`\sigma _G0`$? One argument against the introduction of such relations is that the sources of all gravitational fields, including the gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic fields, are entirely determined by the masses and the mass currents of the material medium in a composition-independent way, since the source of spacetime curvature in Einstein’s field equations arise solely from the stress-energy tensor, which includes the energy density, momentum density, and stress associated with all forms of matter and all nongravitational fields, and which is coupled to spacetime solely via $`G`$. Thus the source of spacetime curvature must be independent of the composition of the material sources, and of the kind of nongravitational interaction which binds the material together. In this line of reasoning, there cannot be any mysterious property of the material which would make $`\kappa _{GE}`$, $`\kappa _{GM}`$, and $`\sigma _G`$ different for different materials. The only permissible values of these constants would then be $`\kappa _{GE}=1`$, $`\kappa _{GM}=1`$, and $`\sigma _G=0`$. Otherwise, there would be a seeming violation of the equivalence principle, since there would then be a composition-dependent response of different kinds of matter to gravitational fields.

However, one must carefully distinguish between the weak equivalence principle, which has been extensively experimentally tested in the low-frequency, Newtonian-gravity limit, and what I shall call the “extended” equivalence principle, which extends the composition-independence of the weak equivalence principle to include the response, in particular, the linear response, of all kinds of matter to Post-Newtonian gravitational fields, such as to Lense-Thirring and gravitational radiation fields. Because of the difficulty of generating and detecting these Post-Newtonian fields, this “extended” equivalence principle has not been experimentally tested.

One implication of the “extended” equivalence principle would be that

$$\kappa _{GE}=1,\text{ }\kappa _{GM}=1,\text{and }\sigma _G=0,$$
(53)
in the linear response of all matter to gravitational radiation at all frequencies. Suppose that this “extended” equivalence principle were true. I shall argue below using the Kramers-Kronig relations, in particular, the zero-frequency sum rule which follows from these relations, that this would lead to a conflict with some known observational facts.

The plane-wave solution of the above Maxwell-like equations lead to the propagation of a gravitational plane wave at a frequency $`\omega `$ at a phase velocity $`v_{phase}(\omega )`$ given by

$$v_{phase}(\omega )=c/n_G(\omega ),$$
(54)
where the index of refraction $`n_G(\omega )`$ of the medium for the gravitational plane wave is given by

$$n_G(\omega )=\left(\kappa _{GE}(\omega )\kappa _{GM}(\omega )\right)^{1/2}.$$
(55)
Such a solution is formally identical to that for an electromagnetic plane wave propagating inside a dispersive optical medium, whose index of refraction is given by $`n(\omega )=\left(\kappa _e(\omega )\kappa _m(\omega )\right)^{1/2}`$. Since we are considering the linear response of the medium to $`weak`$ gravitational radiation fields, and since the response of the medium must be $`causal`$, the index of refraction $`n_G(\omega )`$ must obey the Kramers-Kronig relations

$$\text{Re }n_G(\omega )1=\frac{1}{\pi }P_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{\text{Im }n_G(\omega ^{})}{\omega ^{}\omega }𝑑\omega ^{}$$
(56)
$$\text{Im }n_G(\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }P_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{\text{Re }n_G(\omega ^{})1}{\omega ^{}\omega }𝑑\omega ^{},$$
(57)
where $`P`$ denotes the Cauchy Principal Value. The zero-frequency sum rule follows from the first of these relations, viz.,

$$\text{Re }n_G(\omega 0)=1+\frac{c}{\pi }_0^+\mathrm{}\frac{\alpha _G(\omega ^{})}{\left(\omega ^{}\right)^2}𝑑\omega ^{},$$
(58)
where $`\alpha _G(\omega )`$ is the power attenuation coefficient of the gravitational plane wave at frequency $`\omega `$ propagating through the medium, i.e., $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha _G(\omega )z)`$ is the exponential factor which attenuates the power of a wave propagating along the $`z`$ axis. The nonvanishing dissipation coefficient $`\sigma _G(\omega )`$ introduced in conjunction with the constitutive relation Eq.(52) will lead to a nonvanishing value of $`\alpha _G(\omega )`$. Assuming that the medium is in its ground state, the gravity wave cannot grow exponentially with propagation distance $`z`$. Hence $`\alpha _G(\omega )>0`$ for all frequencies $`\omega `$, and therefore

$$\text{Re }n_G(\omega 0)>1.$$
(59)
Now suppose that the “extended” equivalence principle were true. Then at all frequencies $`\kappa _{GE}(\omega )=1`$ and $`\kappa _{GM}(\omega )=1`$, independent of the composition of the medium. In particular at low frequencies, this implies that the index of refraction

$$n_G(\omega 0)=1$$
(60)
must strictly be unity. It then follows from the above zero-frequency sum rule, that the attenuation coefficient

$$\alpha _G(\omega )=0\text{ for all }\omega $$
(61)
must strictly vanish for all frequencies $`\omega `$. This result would imply that absorption of gravitational radiation would be impossible at any frequency by any kind of matter. Detectors of gravitational radiation would be impossible due to this “extended” equivalence principle. By reciprocity, emission of gravitational radiation by any kind of matter at any frequency would likewise also be impossible. Gravitational radiation might as well not exist . This, however, is contradicted by the observations of Taylor and Weisberg . Thus the “extended” equivalence principle must be a false extension of the weak equivalence principle. Hence, not only is it $`permissible`$, but it is also $`necessary`$, to introduce constitutive equations with nontrivial values of $`\kappa _{GE}`$, $`\kappa _{GM}`$, and $`\sigma _G`$.

It should be stressed here that although the above Maxwell-like equations look formally identical to Maxwell’s (apart from a sign change of the source terms), there is an elementary physical difference between gravity and electricity, which must not be overlooked. In electrostatics, the existence of both signs of charges means that both repulsive and attractive forces are possible, whereas in gravity, only positive signs of masses, and only attractive gravitational forces between masses, are observed. One consequence of this experimental fact is that whereas it is possible to construct Faraday cages that completely screen out electrical forces, and hence electromagnetic radiation fields, it is impossible to construct gravitational analogs of such Faraday cages that screen out gravitoelectric forces, such as Earth’s gravity.

However, the gravitomagnetic force can be either repulsive or attractive in sign, unlike the gravitoelectric force. For example, the gravitomagnetic force between two parallel current-carrying pipes changes sign, when the direction of the current flow is reversed in one of the pipes, according to the Ampere-like law Eq.(49). Hence $`both`$ signs of this kind of gravitational force are possible. One consequence of this is that gravitomagnetic forces $`can`$ cancel out, so that, unlike gravitoelectric fields, gravitomagnetic fields $`can`$ in principle be screened out of the interiors of material bodies. A dramatic example of this is the complete screening out of the Lense-Thirring field by superconductors in a Meissner-like effect, i.e., the complete expulsion of the gravitomagnetic field from the interior of these bodies, which is predicted by the Ginzburg-Landau theory given below in Section 8, and by the Gross-Pitaevskii theory for atomic BECs given in Appendix B. Therefore the expulsion of gravitational radiation fields by superconductors can also occur, and thus mirrors for this kind of radiation, although counterintuitive, are not impossible.

## 7 Poynting-like vector and the power flow of gravitational radiation

In analogy with classical electrodynamics, having obtained the impedance of free space $`Z_G`$, we are now in a position to calculate the time-averaged power flow in a gravitational plane through a gravitational analog of Poynting’s theorem in the weak-gravity limit. The local time-averaged intensity of a gravitational plane wave is given by the time-averaged Poynting-like vector

$$\overline{𝐒_𝐆}=\overline{𝐄_G\mathbf{\times }𝐇_G}\text{ .}$$
(62)
For a plane wave propagating in the vacuum, the local relationship between the magnitudes of the $`𝐄_G`$ and $`𝐇_G`$ fields is given by

$$\left|𝐄_G\right|=Z_G\left|𝐇_G\right|\text{ .}$$
(63)
From Eq.(44a), it follows that the local time-averaged intensity, i.e., the power per unit area, of a harmonic plane wave of angular frequency $`\omega `$ is given by

$$\left|\overline{𝐒_G}\right|=\frac{1}{2Z_G}\left|𝐄_G\right|^2=\frac{\omega ^2}{2Z_G}\left|𝐡\right|^2=\frac{c^3\omega ^2}{32\pi G}\left|h_{0i}\right|^2\text{.}$$
(64)
For a Gaussian-Laguerre mode of a quadrupolar gravity-wave beam propagating at 10 GHz with an intensity of a milliwatt per square centimeter, the velocity amplitude $`\left|𝐡\right|`$ is typically

$$\left|𝐡\right|2\times 10^{20}\text{ m/s, }$$
(65)
or the dimensionless strain parameter $`\left|h_{0i}\right|=\left|𝐡\right|/c`$ is typically

$$\left|h_{0i}\right|8\times 10^{31}\text{ ,}$$
(66)
which is around ten orders of magnitude smaller than the typical strain amplitudes observable in the earlier versions of LIGO. At first sight, it would seem extremely difficult to detect such tiny amplitudes. However, if the natural impedance matching process in dissipationless, extreme type II superconductors to be discussed below can be achieved in practice, then both the generation and the detection of such small strain amplitudes should not be impossible.

To give an estimate of the size of the magnetic field amplitudes which correspond to the above gravitational wave amplitudes, one uses energy conservation in a situation in which the powers in the EM and GR waves become comparable to each other in the natural impedance-matching process described below, where, in the special case of perfect power conversion (i.e., perfect impedance matching) from EM to GR radiation,

$$\frac{\omega ^2}{2Z_0}\left|𝐀\right|^2=\frac{\omega ^2}{2Z_G}\left|𝐡\right|^2$$
(67)
in the free space above the surface of the superconductor, from which it follows that

$$\frac{\left|𝐀\right|}{\left|𝐡\right|}=\frac{\left|𝐁\right|}{\left|𝐁_G\right|}=\frac{\left|𝐁\right|}{\left|𝛀_G\right|}=\left(\frac{Z_0}{Z_G}\right)^{1/2}\text{,}$$
(68)
where the ratio is given by the square-root of the impedances of free space $`(Z_0/Z_G)^{1/2}`$ instead of the mass-to-charge ratio $`2m_2/e_2`$ ratio implied by Eq.(17). Thus for the above numbers

$$\left|𝐁\right|5\times 10^3\text{ Tesla .}$$
(69)
## 8 Ginzburg-Landau equation coupled to both electromagnetic and gravitational radiation

A superconductor in the presence of the electromagnetic field $`𝐀(t)`$ alone is well described by the Ginzburg-Landau (G-L) equation for the complex order parameter $`\psi `$, which in the quantum adiabatic theorem limit is given by

$$\frac{1}{2m_{2eff}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}e_2𝐀(t)\right)^2\psi +\beta |\psi |^2\psi =\alpha \psi .$$
(70)
When $`𝐀`$ is time-independent, this equation has the same form as the time-independent Schrödinger equation for a particle (i.e., a Cooper pair) with mass $`m_{2eff}`$ and a charge $`e_2`$ with an energy eigenvalue $`\alpha `$, except that there is an extra nonlinear term whose coefficient is given by the coefficient $`\beta `$, which arises at a microscopic level from the Coulomb interaction between Cooper pairs . The values of these two phenomenological parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ must be determined by experiment. There are two important length scales associated with the two parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of this equation, which can be obtained by a dimensional analysis of Eq.(70). The first is the coherence length

$$\xi =\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_{2eff}|\alpha |}\right)^{1/2}\text{ ,}$$
(71)
which is the length scale on which the condensate charge density $`e_2|\psi |^2`$ vanishes, as one approaches the surface of the superconductor from its interior, and hence the length scale on which the electric field $`𝐄(t)`$ is screened inside the superconductor. The second is the London penetration depth

$$\lambda _L=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_{2eff}\beta |\psi |^2}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\epsilon _0m_{2eff}c^2}{e_2^2|\psi _0|^2}\right)^{1/2}\text{ ,}$$
(72)
which is the length scale on which an externally applied magnetic field $`𝐁(t)=\times 𝐀(t)`$ vanishes due to the Meissner effect, as one penetrates into the interior of the superconductor away from its surface. Here $`|\psi _0|^2`$ is the pair condensate density deep inside the superconductor, where it approaches a constant.

The G-L equation represents a mean field theory of the superconductor at the macroscopic level, which can be derived from the underlying microscopic BCS theory . The meaning of the complex order parameter $`\psi (x,y,z)`$ is that it is the Cooper pair condensate wavefunction. Since $`\psi (x,y,z)`$ is defined as a complex field defined over ordinary $`(x,y,z)`$ space, it is difficult to discern at this level of description the underlying quantum entanglement present in the BCS wavefunction, which is a many-body wavefunction defined over the configuration space of the many-electron system. Nevertheless, quantum entanglement, and hence instantaneous EPR correlations-at-a-distance, shows up indirectly through the nonlinear term $`\beta |\psi |^2\psi `$, and is ultimately what is responsible for the Meissner effect (see Appendix B). The G-L theory is being used here because it is more convenient than the BCS theory for calculating the response of the superconductor to electromagnetic, and also to gravitational, radiation.

I would like to propose that the Ginzburg-Landau equation should be generalized to include gravitational radiation fields $`𝐡(t)`$, whose frequencies lie well below the BCS gap frequency, by using the minimal-coupling rule, Eq.(19), to become the following equation in the quantum adiabatic theorem limit:

$$\frac{1}{2m_{2eff}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}e_2𝐀(t)m_2𝐡(t)\right)^2\psi +\beta |\psi |^2\psi =\alpha \psi .$$
(73)
Again, the ultimate justification for this equation must come from experiment. With this equation, one can predict what happens at the interface between the vacuum and the superconductor, when both kinds of radiation are impinging on this surface at an arbitrary angle of incidence (see Figure 3). Since there are still only the same two parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in this equation, there will again be the same two length scales $`\xi `$ and $`\lambda _L`$, and *only* these two length scales, that we had *before* adding the gravitational radiation term $`𝐡(t)`$. Since there are no other length scales in this problem, one would expect that the gravitational radiation fields should vanish on the same length scales as the electromagnetic radiation fields as one penetrates deeply into the interior of the superconductor. Thus one expects there to exist a Meissner-like expulsion of the gravitational radiation fields from the interior of the superconductor.

The meaning of these two length scales becomes clearer when one considers the extension of the Abrikosov vortex solution of the Ginzburg-Landau equation with $`𝐀(t)0`$, but with $`𝐡(t)=0`$, to the above generalized Ginzburg-Landau equation with both $`𝐀(t)0`$ and $`𝐡(t)0`$. The coherence length $`\xi `$ is the distance scale on which the Cooper pair density vanishes near the vortex center, and the London penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$ is the distance scale on which the vortical supercurrents decay exponentially away from the center of the vortex. Hence both the gauge fields $`𝐀(t)`$ and $`𝐡(t)`$ should vanish exponentially on the same scale of length $`\lambda _L`$.

Both $`𝐁(t)`$ and $`𝐁_G(t)`$ fields $`must`$ vanish into the interior of the superconductor, since both $`𝐀(t)`$ and $`𝐡(t)`$ fields $`must`$ vanish in the interior. Otherwise, the single-valuedness of $`\psi `$ would be violated. Suppose that $`𝐀(t)`$ did not vanish deep inside the superconducting slab, which is topologically simply connected. Then Yang’s nonintegrable phase factor for arbitrary circuits $`C`$

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\left(ie_2/\mathrm{}\right)_C𝐀(t)𝑑𝐥\right),$$
(74)
which is a gauge-independent quantity, would also not vanish, which would lead to a violation of the single-valuedness of $`\psi `$. Suppose that $`𝐡(t)`$ did not vanish. For weak gravity, the nonintegrable phase factor for small arbitrary circuits $`C`$

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\left(im_2/\mathrm{}\right)_C𝐡(t)𝑑𝐥\right),$$
(75)
which is a gauge-independent quantity , would also not vanish, so that again there would be a violation of the single-valuedness of $`\psi `$ (see Figure 2).

The $`𝐀(t)`$ and $`𝐡(t)`$ fields are coupled strongly to each other through the $`e_2𝐀𝐡`$ interaction Hamiltonian. Since the electromagnetic interaction is very much stronger than the gravitational one, the exponential decay of $`𝐀(t)`$ on the scale of the London penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$ should also govern the exponential decay of the $`𝐡(t)`$ field. Thus both $`𝐀(t)`$ and $`𝐡(t)`$ fields should decay exponentially with the $`same`$ length scale $`\lambda _L`$ into the interior of the superconductor. This implies that both EM and GR radiation fields should also be expelled from the interior, so that a flat surface of this superconductor should behave like a plane mirror for both EM and GR radiation.

The Cooper pair current density $`𝐣`$, which acts as the source in Ampere’s law in both the Maxwell and the Maxwell-like equations, can be obtained in a manner similar to that for the Schrödinger equation

$$𝐣=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2im_{2eff}}\left(\psi ^{}\psi \psi \psi ^{}\right)\frac{e_2}{m_{2eff}}|\psi |^2𝐀\frac{m_2}{m_{2eff}}|\psi |^2𝐡\text{ .}$$
(76)
Note thar $`𝐣`$ is nonlinear in $`\psi `$, but linear in $`𝐀`$ and $`𝐡`$. Near the surface of the superconductor, the gradient terms dominate, but far into the interior, the $`𝐀`$ and the $`𝐡`$ terms dominate. We shall now use $`𝐣`$ for calculating the sources for both Maxwell’s equations for the electromagnetic fields, and also for the Maxwell-like equations for the gravitational fields. The electrical current density, the electrical free charge density, the rest-mass current density, and the rest mass density, are, respectively,

$$𝐣_e=e_2𝐣\text{ , }\rho _e=e_2|\psi |^2\text{ , }𝐣_G=m_2𝐣\text{ , }\rho _G=m_2|\psi |^2\text{ .}$$
(77)
I have not yet solved the generalized Ginzburg-Landau equation, Eq.(73), coupled to both the Maxwell and Maxwell-like equations through these currents and densities. These coupled equations are nonlinear in $`\psi `$, but are linear in $`𝐀`$ and $`𝐡`$ for weak radiation fields. However, from dimensional considerations, I can make the following remarks. The electric field $`𝐄(t)`$ should be screened out exponentially towards the interior of the superconductor on a length scale set by the coherence length $`\xi `$, since the charge density $`\rho _e=`$ $`e_2|\psi |^2`$ vanishes exponentially on this length scale near the surface of the superconductor. Similarly, the magnetic field $`𝐁(t)`$ should vanish exponentially towards the interior of the superconductor, but on a different length scale set by the London penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$. Both fields vanish exponentially, but on different length scales.

At first sight, it would seem that similar considerations would apply to the gravitational fields $`𝐠(t)`$ and $`𝐁_G(t)`$. However, since there exists only a positive sign of mass for gravity, the gravitoelectric field $`𝐠(t)`$ $`cannot`$ be screened out, just as in the case of Earth’s gravity. Nevertheless, the gravitomagnetic field $`𝐁_G(t)`$ $`can`$ be, indeed $`must`$ be, screened by the quantum-mechanical currents $`𝐣`$, in order to preserve the single-valuedness of $`\psi `$. The quantum-current source terms responsible for the screening out of the $`𝐁_G(t)`$ field in Meissner-like effects are not coupled to spacetime by means of Newton’s constant $`G`$ through the right-hand side of the Ampere-like law, Eq.(49), but are coupled directly without the mediation of $`G`$ through the gravitomagnetic constitutive relation, Eq.(51), and through the Faraday-like law, Eq.(47), whose right-hand side does not contain $`G`$. For the reasons given above, $`𝐁_G(t)`$ must decay exponentially on the same scale of length as the gauge field $`𝐀(t)`$ and the magnetic field $`𝐁(t)`$, namely the microscopic London penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$.

This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that a Meissner-like effect is also predicted to occur in the case of atomic BECs (see Appendix B). From the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, it follows that the Lense-Thirring field should also be expelled from the bulk of these $`neutral`$ quantum fluids, apart from a thin London penetration depth $`\lambda _L=(8\pi \overline{n}a)^{1/2}`$, where $`\overline{n}`$ is the mean atomic density of the BEC, and $`a`$ is the $`S`$-wave atom-atom scattering length. These atom-atom scattering events, which lead to the formation of the BEC, entangle the momenta of the participating atoms, and lead to a London penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$ which is a $`microscopic`$ length scale, and not an astronomically large, $`macroscopic`$ length scale involving Newton’s constant $`G`$.

The exponential decay into the interior of the superconductor of both EM and GR waves on the scale of $`\lambda _L`$ means that a flat superconducting surface should behave like a plane mirror for both electromagnetic and gravitational radiation. However, the behavior of the superconductor as an efficient $`mirror`$ is no guarantee that it should also be an efficient $`transducer`$ from one type of radiation to the other. For efficient power conversion, a good transducer impedance-matching process from one kind of radiation to the other is also required.

## 9 Natural impedance matching in extreme type II superconductors

Impedance matching in a natural transduction process between EM and GR waves could happen near the surface of extreme type II superconductors, where $`\xi <<\lambda _L`$, and thus the electric field is screened out much more quickly on the scale of the coherence length $`\xi `$, than the magnetic field, which is screened much more slowly on the scale of the penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$. The EM wave impedance for extreme type II superconductors should therefore decay on the scale of the coherence length $`\xi `$ much more quickly than the GR wave impedance, which should decay much more slowly on the scale of the penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$. The high-temperature superconductor YBCO is an example of an extreme type II superconductor, for which $`\xi `$ is less than $`\lambda _L`$ by three orders of magnitude .

The wave impedance $`Z=E/H`$ of an EM plane wave depends exponentially as a function of $`z`$, the distance from the surface into the interior of the superconductor, as follows:

$$Z(z)=\frac{E(z)}{H(z)}=Z_0\mathrm{exp}(z/\xi +z/\lambda _L).$$
(78)
The GR wave impedance $`Z_G`$, however, behaves very differently, because of the absence of the screening of the gravitoelectric field, so that $`E_G(z)`$ should be constant independent of $`z`$ near the surface, and therefore

$$Z_G(z)=\frac{E_G(z)}{H_G(z)}=Z_G\mathrm{exp}(+z/\lambda _L).$$
(79)
Thus the $`z`$-dependence of the ratio of the two kinds of impedances should obey the exponential-decay law

$$\frac{Z(z)}{Z_G(z)}=\frac{Z_0}{Z_G}\mathrm{exp}(z/\xi ).$$
(80)
We must at this point convert the two impedances $`Z_0`$ and $`Z_G`$ to the same units for comparison. To do so, we express $`Z_0`$ in the natural units of the quantum of surface resistance $`R_0=h/e^2`$, where $`e`$ is the electron charge. Likewise, we express $`Z_G`$ in the corresponding natural units of the quantum of surface dissipation $`R_G=h/m^2`$, where $`m`$ is the electron mass. Thus we get the $`dimensionless`$ ratio

$$\frac{Z(z)/R_0}{Z_G(z)/R_G}=\frac{Z_0/R_0}{Z_G/R_G}\mathrm{exp}(z/\xi )=\frac{e^2/4\pi \epsilon _0}{4Gm^2}\mathrm{exp}(z/\xi ).$$
(81)
Let us define the “depth of natural impedance-matching” $`z_0`$ as the depth where this dimensionless ratio is unity, and thus natural impedance matching occurs. Then

$$z_0=\xi \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{e^2/4\pi \epsilon _0}{4Gm^2}\right)97\xi .$$
(82)
This result is a robust one, in the sense that the logarithm is very insensitive to changes in numerical factors of the order of unity in its argument. From this, we conclude that it is necessary penetrate into the superconductor a distance of $`z_0`$, which is around a hundred coherence lengths $`\xi `$, for the natural impedance matching process to occur. When this happens, transducer impedance matching occurs automatically, and we expect that the conversion from electromagnetic to gravitational radiation, and vice versa, to be an efficient one. For example, the London penetration depth of around 6000 Å in the case of YBCO is very large compared with $`97\xi `$400 Å in this material, so that the electromagnetic field energy density has not yet decayed by much at this natural impedance-matching plane $`z=z_0`$, although it is mainly magnetic in character at this point. Therefore the transducer power-conversion efficiency could be of the order of unity, provided that there is no appreciable parasitic dissipation of the EM radiation fields in the superconductor before this point.

The Fresnel-like boundary value problem for plane waves incident on the surface of the superconductor at arbitrary incidence angles and arbitrary polarizations (see Figure 3) needs to be solved in detail before these conclusions can be confirmed.

## 10 Preliminary results of a first experiment, and a proposal for a future experiment

However, based on the above crude dimensional and physical arguments, the prospects for a simple Hertz-like experiment testing these ideas appeared promising enough that I have performed a first attempt at this experiment with Walt Fitelson using YBCO at liquid nitrogen temperature. The schematic of this experiment is shown in Figure 4. Details will be presented elsewhere. No observable signal inside the second Faraday cage was detected, down to a limit of around 70 dB below the microwave power source of around $`10`$ dBm at 12 GHz. (We used a commercial satellite microwave receiver at 12 GHz with a noise figure of 0.6 dB to make these measurements; the Faraday cages were good enough to block any direct electromagnetic coupling by more than 70 dB). We checked for the presence of the Meissner effect in the samples in situ by observing a levitation effect upon a permanent magnet by these samples at liquid nitrogen temperature.

Note, however, that since the transition temperature of YBCO is 90 K, there may have been a substantial ohmic dissipation of the microwaves due to the remaining normal (unpaired) electrons at our operating temperature of 77 K, so that the EM wave was absorbed before it could reach the impedance-matching depth at $`z_0`$. It may therefore be necessary to cool the superconductor down to very low temperatures before the normal electron component freezes out sufficiently to achieve such an extreme impedance matching process. The exponential decrease of the normal, unpaired electron population at very low tempertures due to the Boltzmann factor $`\mathrm{exp}(E_g/k_BT)`$, where $`E_g`$ is the BCS energy gap at very low temperatures, and thereby an exponential “freezing out” of the ohmic dissipation of the superconductor, may then allow this impedance matching process to take place, if no other parasitic dissipative processes remain at these very low temperatures. Assuming that the impedance-matching argument given in Eq.(81) is correct, and assuming that in the normal state, the surface resistance of YBCO is on the order of $`h/e^2=26`$ kilohms per square in its normal state, one would need a Boltzmann factor of the order of $`e^{100}`$ in order to freeze out the dissipation due to the normal electrons down to an impedance level comparable to $`Z_G`$. This would imply that temperatures around a Kelvin should suffice.

However, there exist unexplained residual microwave and far-infrared losses (of the order of 10-5 ohms per square at 10 GHz) in YBCO and other high T$`_\text{c}`$ superconductors, which are independent of temperature and have a frequency-squared dependence . One possible explanation is that YBCO is a $`D`$-wave superconductor , which is therefore quite unlike the classic, low-temperature $`S`$-wave superconductors with respect to their microwave losses. In $`D`$-wave superconductors, there exists a four-fold symmetry of nodal lines along which the BCS gap vanishes . Hence it would be impossible to freeze out the normal, ohmic component of unpaired electrons along these nodal lines by means of the Boltzmann factor, which makes the choice of YBCO for the Hertz-like experiment a bad one.

A better choice of superconductor would have been a classic, $`S`$-wave, extreme type-II superconductor, such as a niobium alloy which has an isotropic BCS gap. For such a superconductor, the ratio of penetration depth to coherence length in the “extreme dirty limit” is given by De Gennes

$$\kappa \frac{\lambda _L(T)}{\xi (T)}0.75\left(\frac{\lambda _L(0)}{\mathrm{}}\right),$$
(83)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the mean free path for electron scattering. For a niobium alloy with $`\lambda _L(0)400`$ Å and $`\mathrm{}1`$ Å, it follows that $`\kappa 300`$. Thus impedance matching down to the extremely low value of $`Z_G`$, as given in Eq.(34), would still be possible. However, for achieving such an extreme impedance matching process, one would still need a Boltzmann factor of the order of $`e^{100}`$, and therefore it would be necessary to cool the niobium alloy superconductor down to very low temperatures, e.g., tens of millikelvins, before the normal, ohmic electron component would freeze out sufficiently, but more research needs first to be done to determine whether microwave residual losses can indeed be exponentially suppressed by such a large exponential factor. An improved Hertz-like experiment using extreme type II superconductors with extremely low losses, perhaps at millikelvin temperatures, is a much more difficult, but worthwhile, experiment to perform.

Such an improved experiment, if successful, would allow us to communicate through the Earth and its oceans, which, like all classical matter, are transparent to GR waves. Furthermore, it would allow us to directly observe for the first time the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) in GR radiation, which would tell us much about the very early Universe.

## 11 Conclusions

The conceptual tensions between QM and GR, the two main fields of interest of John Archibald Wheeler, could indeed lead to important experimental consequences, much like the conceptual tensions of the past. I have covered here in detail only one of these conceptual tensions, namely, the tension between the concept of spatial nonseparability of physical systems due to the notion of nonlocality embedded in the superposition principle, in particular, in the entangled states of QM, and the concept of spatial separability of all physical systems due to the notion of locality embedded in the equivalence principle in GR. This has led to the idea of superconducting antennas and transducers as potentially practical devices, which could possibly open up a door for further exciting discoveries.

## 12 Acknowledgments

I dedicate this paper to my teacher, John Archibald Wheeler, whose vision helped inspire this paper. I would like to thank L. Bildsten, S. Braunstein, C. Caves, A. Charman, M. L. Cohen, P. C. W. Davies, B. S. DeWitt, J. C. Davis, F. Everitt, W. Fitelson, E. Flanagan, J. C. Garrison, L. Hall, T. Hänsch, J. M. Hickmann, S. Hughes, J. M. Leinaas, R. Laughlin, C. McCormick, R. Marrus, M. Mitchell, J. Moore, J. Myrheim, R. Packard, R. Ramos, P. L. Richards, R. Simmonds, D. Solli, A. Speliotopoulos, L. Stodolsky, G. ’t Hooft, C. H. Townes, W. Unruh, S. Weinreb, E. Wright, W. Wootters, and A. Zettl for helpful discussions. I am grateful to the John Templeton Foundation for the invitation to contribute to this Volume, and would like to thank my father-in-law, the late Yi-Fan Chiao, for his financial and moral support of this work. This work was supported also by the ONR.

## 13 Appendix A: Optimal impedance matching of a gravitational plane wave into a thin, dissipative film

Let a gravitational plane wave given by Eq.(26) be normally incident onto a thin, dissipative (i.e., viscous) fluid film. Let the thickness $`d`$ of this film be arbitrarily thin compared to the gravitational analog of the skin depth $`(2/\kappa _{GM}\mu _G\sigma _G\omega )^{1/2}`$, and to the wavelength $`\lambda `$. The incident fields calculated using Eqs.(44) (here the notation $`𝐄_G`$ will be used instead of $`𝐠`$ for the gravitoelectric field) are

$$𝐄_G^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2}(x,y,0)\omega h_+\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t)$$
(84)
$$𝐇_G^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2Z_G}(y,x,0)\omega h_+\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t).$$
(85)
Let $`\rho `$ be the amplitude reflection coefficient for the gravitoelectric field; the reflected fields from the film are then

$$𝐄_G^{(r)}=\rho \frac{1}{2}(x,y,0)\omega h_+\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t)$$
(86)
$$𝐇_G^{(r)}=+\rho \frac{1}{2Z_G}(y,x,0)\omega h_+\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t).$$
(87)
Similarly the transmitted fields on the far side of the film are

$$𝐄_G^{(t)}=\tau \frac{1}{2}(x,y,0)\omega h_+\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t)$$
(88)
$$𝐇_G^{(t)}=\tau \frac{1}{2Z_G}(y,x,0)\omega h_+\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t),$$
(89)
where $`\tau `$ is the amplitude tranmission coefficient. The Faraday-like law, Eq.(47), and the Ampere-like law, Eq.(49), when applied to the tangential components of the gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic fields parallel to two appropriately chosen infinitesimal rectangular loops which straddle the thin film, lead to the two boundary conditions

$$𝐄_G^{(i)}+𝐄_G^{(r)}=𝐄_G^{(t)}\text{ and}$$
(90)
$$𝐇_G^{(i)}+𝐇_G^{(r)}=𝐇_G^{(t)},$$
(91)
which yield the two algebraic relations

$$1+\rho \tau =0$$
(92)
$$1\rho \tau =\left(Z_G\sigma _Gd\right)\tau \zeta \tau $$
(93)
where we have used the constitutive relation, Eq.(52),

$$𝐣_G=\sigma _G𝐄_G$$

to determine the current enclosed by the infinitesimal rectangular loop in the case of the Ampere-like law, and where we have defined the positive, dimensionless quantity $`\zeta Z_G\sigma _Gd`$, i.e., $`Z_G`$ normalized to the surface dissipation $`(\sigma _Gd)^1`$, which is analogous to the surface resistance, or “ohms per square” $`(\sigma _ed)^1`$ . The solutions are

$$\tau =\frac{2}{\zeta +2}\text{ and }\rho =\frac{\zeta }{\zeta +2}.$$
(94)
Using the conservation of energy, we can calculate that the absorptivity $`A`$, i.e., the fraction of power absorbed from the incident gravitational wave and converted into heat, is

$$A=1\left|\tau \right|^2\left|\rho \right|^2=\frac{4\zeta }{(\zeta +2)^2}.$$
(95)
To find the condition for maximum absorption, we calculate the derivative $`dA/d\zeta `$ and set it equal to zero. The unique solution for maximum absorptivity occurs at $`\zeta =2`$, where

$$A=\frac{1}{2}\text{ and }\left|\tau \right|^2=\frac{1}{4}\text{ and }\left|\rho \right|^2=\frac{1}{4}\text{.}$$
(96)
Thus the optimal impedance-matching condition into the thin, dissipative film, i.e., when there exists the maximum rate of conversion of gravitational wave energy into heat, occurs when the dissipation in the fluid film is $`Z_G/2`$ per square. At this optimum condition, 50% of the gravitational wave energy will be converted into heat, 25% will be transmitted, and 25% will be reflected. This is true independent of the thickness $`d`$ of the film, when the film is very thin. This solution is formally identical to that of the optimal impedance-matching problem of an electromagnetic plane wave into a thin ohmic film .

## 14 Appendix B: The Gross-Pitaevskii equation and weak gravity

### 14.1 The London penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$ and the S-wave scattering length $`a`$

The mean-field description of the recently observed atomic BECs is also given by Eq.(70), except with $`𝐀(t)=0`$, whereupon it is called the “Gross-Pitaevskii” (G-P) equation instead of the “Ginzburg-Landau” (G-L) equation. The G-P equation was first suggested in the context of a phenomenological theory of superfluid helium, but has also been applied with great success to atomic BECs . In the atomic BEC case, it can be derived from a microscopic theory of the weakly-interacting Bose gas due to Bogoliubov. (Similarly, the weakly-interacting photon gas leads to a photonic BEC, and thus a “photon superfluid” .) Again, the same $`two`$ phenomenological parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ which appear in the time-independent G-L equation also appear in the time-independent G-P equation, and therefore also lead to $`two`$ length scales $`\xi `$ and $`\lambda _L`$. For the case of the weakly-interacting Bose gases in atomic BECs, the parameter $`\beta `$ is directly proportional to the scattering length $`a`$ for the $`S`$-wave atom-atom scattering in the BEC at low energies. Each microscopic atom-atom scattering event entangles the momenta of the two participating atoms, thus producing an entangled state consisting of a sum of product states of two atoms with opposite momenta. This in turn leads to instantaneous EPR correlations-at-a-distance which violate Bell’s inequality. Similarly, the Meissner effect, which arises from the $`\beta `$ term in the G-L equation, also originates microscopically from the quantum entanglement of pairs of particles participating in individual scattering events inside the superconductor, which in turn also leads to instantaneous EPR correlations-at-a-distance.

Using the minimal-coupling rule for neutral particles of mass $`m`$, which is a special case of Eq.(19),

$$𝐩𝐩m𝐡(t),$$
(97)
the G-P equation should be generalized in the presence of gravitational radiation fields to become, in the quantum adiabatic theorem limit, the equation

$$\frac{1}{2m_{eff}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}m𝐡(t)\right)^2\psi +\beta |\psi |^2\psi =\alpha \psi ,$$
(98)
where $`m`$ is the vacuum rest mass of the atom, and $`m_{eff}`$ is its effective mass. In the case of the atomic BECs, the effective mass is equal to the vacuum rest mass of the atom, i.e., $`m_{eff}=m`$, to a very good approximation. The minimal-coupling term with the vector potential $`𝐀(t)`$ is of course absent for these $`neutral`$ quantum fluids. However, as in the G-L equation, the $`same`$ two parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ still make their appearance here in the G-P equation. The same dimensional arguments as in Section 8 apply once again, so that, just as in the generalized G-L equation Eq.(73), two, and only two, length scales, $`\xi `$ and $`\lambda _L`$, make their appearance in the generalized G-P equation, namely, the coherence length

$$\xi =\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m|\alpha |}\right)^{1/2}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m|\mu |}\right)^{1/2}=\left(\frac{1}{8\pi a\overline{n}}\right)^{1/2}$$
(99)
where $`\mu =4\pi a\overline{n}\mathrm{}^2/m`$ is the chemical potential, $`a`$ is the scattering length, and $`\overline{n}`$ is the mean atomic density of the BEC, and the London penetration depth

$$\lambda _L=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m\beta |\psi |^2}\right)^{1/2},$$
(100)
which is derived from the parameter $`\beta `$; $`\lambda _L`$ is to be interpreted as the London penetration depth of the gravitational radiation field $`𝐡(t)`$, viewed as a gauge-like field, into the interior of the $`neutral`$ quantum fluid. For an atomic BEC, which is a weakly-interacting Bose gas, the parameter $`\beta `$ is directly related to the scattering length $`a`$ through

$$\beta =\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2a}{m}.$$
(101)
Numerically, for the case of the atomic BEC formed from the rubidium isotope 87Rb, where the scattering length has been measured to be $`a=5.77`$ nm, and where the average atomic density is typically $`\overline{n}=|\psi _0|^210^{14}`$ atoms/cm3, the London penetration depth is of the order

$$\lambda _L\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m\beta |\psi _0|^2}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{1}{8\pi a\overline{n}}\right)^{1/2}3\times 10^5\text{ cm,}$$
(102)
i.e., about 0.3 $`\mu `$m, which is a microscopically small length scale. For a pure atomic BEC, the coherence length $`\xi `$ is equal to the London penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$. In general, however, the coherence length is not equal to the London penetration depth. In analogy with DeGennes’s extreme type II superconductivity in alloys for which $`\xi <<\lambda _L`$, we expect that there exist circumstances under which an atomic BEC with a cold, dense noble buffer gas would exhibit “extreme type II” behavior, in which the coherence length $`\xi `$ is much less than the London penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$. Under these circumstances, it becomes clear that one should interpret $`\lambda _L`$, and not $`\xi `$, as the screening length for quantum currents, and hence the penetration depth of the gauge-like field $`𝐡(t)`$.

This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the Abrikosov vortex solution for type II superconductors can be generalized to an Abrikosov-like vortex solution of the generalized G-P equation Eq.(98), since the formal structures of these two problems are the same. The meaning of $`\lambda _L`$ in the case of the Abrikosov-like vortex is that it is the screening distance for $`neutral`$ quantum currents to exponentially decay from the center of the vortex, and hence for the flux quantum of the gauge-like field $`𝐡`$ to become trapped inside the vortex core, and thus to become well defined.

It is indeed surprising at first sight that Newton’s constant $`G`$ does not appear here into this expression for the London penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$, which would have made $`\lambda _L`$ astronomically large. For if the Lense-Thirring field were to arise solely from the mass-current source term on the right-hand side of the Ampere-like law, Eq.(49), $`and`$ if the gravitomagnetic relative permeability $`\kappa _{GM}`$ were simply that of the vacuum deep inside the BEC, so that $`\kappa _{GM}=1`$ in the constitutive relation Eq.(51) throughout the bulk of the quantum fluid, then using the substitution $`e^2/4\pi \epsilon _04Gm`$ in Eq.(72), one might expect that $`G`$ would enter the London penetration depth in the case of the atomic BEC as follows:

$$\lambda _L^{(G)}=\left(\frac{c^2}{16\pi Gm\overline{n}}\right)^{1/2}1.4\times 10^{17}\text{ cm,}$$
(103)
i.e., about a tenth of a light-year, which an astronomically large length scale. This would imply that in addition to the two length scales $`\xi `$ and $`\lambda _L`$ given above, there exists a $`third`$, and much larger length scale $`\lambda _L^{(G)}`$, which would somehow also enter into the solution of the Abrikosov-like vortex problem for extreme type II atomic BECs, for instance. If such were the case, one might expect Meissner-like expulsions of the Lense-Thirring field on the scale of $`\lambda _L^{(G)}`$ in astrophysical settings, such as in neutron stars . However, due to the sign change of the source term of the Ampere-like law, no such astrophysical Meissner-like effect would in fact exist at all (see the next section) .

One possible solution to this problem of the inconsistency of length scales is to introduce a relative permeability $`\kappa _{GM}`$ which becomes very large and negative inside the bulk of this neutral quantum fluid, which implies the existence of a strong Meissner-like effect in which the Lense-Thirring field is expelled from the interior of the quantum fluid, apart from a thin layer of thickness $`\lambda _L`$. This is a manifestation of the fact that London’s “rigidity of the macroscopic wavefunction” associated with the instantaneous EPR correlations-at-a-distance originating from the quantum entanglement characterized by the microscopic scattering length $`a`$, and hence by the parameter $`\beta `$, overpowers the gravitational radiation field, and prevents its penetration into the quantum fluid (remember that the gravitational interaction is the weakest of all the interactions). When the cubic nonlinearity $`|\psi |^2\psi `$ associated with the parameter $`\beta `$ in the G-P and G-L equations becomes dominant is also when the irrotational condition $`\times 𝐯_{sup}=0`$, where $`𝐯_{sup}`$ is the superfluid velocity field, becomes valid . Hence gravity waves should be reflected from a flat surface of a quantum fluid, such as superfluid helium or an atomic BEC, as if it were a plane mirror. For otherwise, if the gauge-like $`𝐡(t)`$ field with a weak, but arbitrary, amplitude were allowed to penetrate deeply into the interior of the quantum fluid, again this would lead to a violation of the single-valuedness of the complex order parameter or condensate wavefunction $`\psi `$  (i.e., again consider what would happen in Figure 2 in the case of a neutral atomic BEC, when gravitational radiation is allowed to penetrate deeply into it with a wavelength $`\lambda <<\lambda _L^{(G)}`$). Thus it is the nonlocal quantum interference throughout the bulk of the quantum fluid, and the direct quantum back-action upon spacetime of the interference currents which are produced in response to externally applied Lense-Thirring fields, which prevents the entry of the Lense-Thirring field, and hence of gravitational radiation into the bulk of this fluid.

### 14.2 The sign and the size of the gravitomagnetic susceptibility $`\chi _{GM}`$ for an atomic BEC

In connection with the strong Meissner-like effect which is predicted to occur in quantum fluids, it is useful to introduce the concept of the gravitomagnetic susceptibility $`\chi _{GM}`$, which is analogous to the magnetic susceptibility $`\chi _m`$ of electromagnetism, through the constitutive relation

$$𝐁_G\mu _G^{}𝐇_G=\kappa _{GM}\mu _G𝐇_G=\left(1+\chi _{GM}\right)\mu _G𝐇_G.$$
(104)
Thus $`\kappa _{GM}=1+\chi _{GM}`$, and the gravitomagnetic permeability $`\mu _G^{}`$ of a quantum fluid, such as an atomic BEC, is given by

$$\mu _G^{}=\left(1+\chi _{GM}\right)\mu _G,$$
(105)
which can differ, in principle, from the gravitomagnetic permeability of free space $`\mu _G=16\pi G/c^2.`$ One must be careful when considering the sign of $`\chi _{GM}`$ that the Ampere-like law, Eq.(49), possesses an opposite sign in front of its mass-current source term relative to that of the electrical current source term in Ampere’s law. This sign change is necessitated by the continuity equation that results from taking the divergence of this Ampere-like law, in conjunction with the fact that there must also be a sign change in front of the mass source term of the Gauss-like law, Eq.(46), relative to that of electricity: $`Like`$ masses $`attract`$ each other in ordinary gravity. The negative sign of the mass-current source term implies that two $`parallel`$ mass currents $`repel`$ each other due to the Lense-Thirring force between two current-carrying pipes, and that anti-parallel mass currents $`attract`$.

Deep inside the bulk of the quantum fluid (e.g., an atomic BEC), the London-like equation relating the quantum probability current density to the gauge-like field h, which follows from Eq.(76), is given in the radiation gauge by

$$𝐣=|\psi _0|^2𝐡=\overline{n}𝐡,$$
(106)
where for atomic BECs, we have used the fact that $`m_{eff}=m`$. This is analogous to the London equation for superconductors, which London used to derive the Meissner effect, i.e.,

$$𝐣=\frac{e_2}{m_{2eff}}|\psi _0|^2𝐀=\frac{e_2}{m_{2eff}}\overline{n}𝐀.$$
(107)
Let us now follow London’s procedure, except that the above constitutive relation Eq.(104) is assumed to hold inside the medium, so that the magnetostatic Ampere-like law now becomes (using $`𝐣_G=m𝐣)`$

$$\times 𝐁_G=\mu _G^{}𝐣_G\text{,}$$
(108)
where $`\mu _G^{}=\left(1+\chi _{GM}\right)\mu _G`$, and $`\chi _{GM}`$ may be large and negative. It follows in the radiation gauge, that one obtains a Yukawa-like equation

$$\times \left(\times 𝐡\right)=\left(𝐡\right)^2𝐡=^2𝐡=\frac{1}{\lambda _L^2}𝐡\text{ ,}$$
(109)
where $`\lambda _L=\left(\mu _G^{}\overline{n}m\right)^{1/2}`$ is the London penetration depth. There results an exponential decay of the $`𝐡`$ field starting from the surface towards the interior of the quantum fluid, i.e., a Meissner-like effect, on the scale of $`\lambda _L`$. Since the London penetration depth $`\lambda _L`$ is fixed by S-wave scattering to be $`\left(8\pi \overline{n}a\right)^{1/2}`$ where $`a`$ is the $`microscopic`$ atomic scattering length, it follows that the gravitomagnetic susceptibility of the atomic BEC is very large and negative, so that to a good approximation, $`1+\chi _{GM}\chi _{GM}`$, and thus

$$\chi _{GM}\frac{c^2}{2G}\frac{a}{m}3\times 10^{42}.$$
(110)
One consequence of this surprising result is that in Post-Newtonian gravity, there should exist a very large quantum source term for the Lense-Thirring field which originates not from the usual classical mass currents coupled to spacetime through $`G`$, but from nonlocal quantum interference currents coupled directly to spacetime without the mediation of $`G`$. There seems to be no experimental evidence against the existence of such a quantum source term, and, indeed, the Hess-Fairbank effect (see below) may be evidence for its existence. The implications of the Kramers-Kronig relations in light of this result would need further exploration.

By contrast, if one were to insist on setting the gravitomagnetic susceptibility $`\chi _{GM}`$ equal to zero, so that $`\mu _G^{}=\mu _G`$, i.e., that such a quantum source term does not exist, then due to the sign change in the source term of the Ampere-like equation Eq.(108), one would obtain a Helmholtz-like equation

$$^2𝐡+\left(\frac{1}{\lambda _L^{(G)}}\right)^2𝐡=0,$$
(111)
which has the form $`\left(^2+k^2\right)𝐡=0`$, instead of the Yukawa-like equation

$$^2𝐡\left(\frac{1}{\lambda _L}\right)^2𝐡=0,$$
(112)
which has the form $`\left(^2\kappa ^2\right)𝐡=0`$. The Helmholtz-like equation Eq.(111) possesses sinusoidal, propagative solutions, rather than exponential, evanescent solutions of the Yukawa-like equation Eq.(112), so that no Meissner-like effect would exist at all, even in astrophysical settings. Therefore any quantum fluid, including superfluid helium and atomic BECs, would never satisfy, under any circumstances involving gravitational radiation, the irrotational condition $`\times 𝐯_{sup}=0`$ : This would lead to a violation of the single-valuedness of $`\psi `$, in contradiction with QM.

### 14.3 The Hess-Fairbank experiment

There may already be an experimental hint of the existence of a strong Meissner-like effect in the case of superfluid helium. The Hess-Fairbank experiment  is an analog of the Meissner effect seen in a slowly rotating bucket of liquid helium as it is slowly cooled through the lambda transition temperature, in which the angular momentum of the fluid is $`expelled`$ from the superfluid below this transition. This may be viewed as evidence for a true Meissner-like effect, in which the Lense-Thirring field from distant matter in the Universe is expelled. From an application of the limited form of Mach’s principle in GR using the Lense-Thirring effect from distant, rotating shells of stars , it follows that the parabolic meniscus of any steadily rotating classical fluid, including that of normal liquid helium above the transition temperature, is actually a consequence of the presence of the Lense-Thirring field from this distant matter. The Hess-Fairbank effect could then be reinterpreted as a true Meissner-like effect, in which the Lense-Thirring field of these distant stars is actually expelled. Moreover, one could interpret this effect as evidence for a violation of the “extended” equivalence principle discussed in Section 6, since the response of a quantum fluid (viz., superfluid helium) to the Lense-Thirring field of distant matter is obviously different from the composition-independent, parabolic-meniscus response of all classical fluids.

One implication is that the parabolic meniscus should become a flat meniscus below this thermodynamic transition, except for a thin layer of thickness $`\lambda _L`$, which, in general, differs from $`\xi `$. It should be possible to measure the curvature of the surface of the rotating fluid by reflecting a laser beam from it. The flattening on the meniscus of rotating liquid helium below the lambda point of a slowly rotating bucket of this liquid, as it is slowly cooled through the lambda transition, can be observed by means of laser interferometry . The flat meniscus also predicted by Eq.(98) for the slowly rotating bucket of superfluid helium below the transition temperature implies that this quantum fluid below its transition temperature should become a plane mirror for gravitational radiation. However, there is no way of knowing this without a source and detector of such radiation. Hence the experiment on superconductors as transducers must be performed first.