Fundamental Aspects of Quantum Theory pp 359-371 | Cite as

# Gravitational and Rotational Effects on Superconductors

## Abstract

During the past several decades, a series of fascinating phenomena in superconductors have been discovered which show that the electron pairs, called Cooper pairs, which are responsible for superconductivity, are in the same quantum mechanical state, described by a wave function ψ\( \psi (\vec{x},\,t) \) that has appreciable value throughout the superconductor which normally has macroscopic dimensions. This naturally raises the question of what effects the two long range fields, namely the electromagentic and gravitational fields, have on a superconductor. The effect of the electromagnetic field has been studied extensively.^{1,2} Indeed, a superconducting device, the SQUID, provides the most sensitive measurement of this field. This gives an additional reason for studying the effect of gravity, since the extreme sensitivity of superconducting devices may enable us to test for the first time relativistic gravitational effects on a charged quantum mechanical system (the Cooper pair).

## Keywords

Magnetic Flux Gravitational Field Josephson Junction Cooper Pair Newtonian Gravity## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.F. London, Superfluids I (Wiley, New York 1950).MATHGoogle Scholar
- 2.See for example T. Van Duzer and C.W. Turner, Principles of Superconductive Devices and Circuits (Elsevier, New York, Oxford, 1981).Google Scholar
- 3.B.S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 1092 (1966).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.G. Papini, Phys. Letter. 24A, 32 (1967).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 5.W. Meier and N. Salie, Abstract in the 9th International Conference on Gen. Rel. and Grav., Jena (1980), vol. 2.Google Scholar
- 6.J. Anandan in Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, edited by C.J. Isham and R. Penrose (Oxford University Press, 1985).Google Scholar
- 7.J. Anandan, Phys. Lett. 105A, 280 (1984).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 8.R.M. Brady, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Cambridge, 1982. This thesis assumes that the current in a wire is constant in a gravitational field, which violates charge conservation in general relativity.Google Scholar
- 9.J. Anandan, Phys. Lett. 110A, 446 (1985).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 10.J. Anandan, Proceedings of the Fourth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Rome 1985, edited by R. Ruffini (North Holland, Amsterdam 1986).Google Scholar
- 11.L.I. Schiff and M.V. Barnhill, Phys. Rev. 151, 1067 (1966).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.See also A.J. Dessler et al., Phys. Rev. 168, 737 (1968)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12a.C. Herring Phys. Rev. 17, 1361 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.J. Anandan, Gen. Rel. and Grav. 16, 33 (1984).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.J. Anandan, Class. Quantum Grav. 1, L51 (1984).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.B.D. Josephson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36, 216 (1964).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.J. Lense and H. Thirring, Phys. Z. 29, 156 (1918).Google Scholar
- 17.A similar argument due to B.D. Josephson was quoted by P.W. Anderson in Progress in Low Temp. Phys., edited by C.J. Gorter (North Holland, Amsterdam 1967). But it is not clear if this prediction is for the magnetic field in the interior or in the space inside a cavity of the superconductor.Google Scholar
- 18.A prediction in agreement with (3.4) was made by R.M. Brady, J. Low Temp. Phys. 49, 1 (1982). But his equation (3.3) used to obtain this result, can be written in the present notation as \( \rlap{--}{h} = \frac{{\partial \phi }}{{\partial X}}\nu = - \frac{{2(m{c^2} - W)}}{c}{t_{\nu }}, \), which disagrees with (2.5) of the present paper and is not gauge invariant.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.B. Cabrera, H. Gutfreund and W.A. Little, Phys. Rev. B25, 6644 (1982), predict a value for \( {\vec{B}_0} \) which differs from (3.4). This work seems to imply, in the present formalism \( {p^{\mu }} = 2m\,c\gamma \,{t^{\mu }}, \), in the interior of a superconductor, which appears to disagree with (2.5) because mc
^{2}(γ-1) is the average kinetic energy of electrons on the Fermi surface. Moreover, the last equation yields \( - \rlap{--}{h}\frac{{d\phi }}{{d\tau }} = \frac{2}{c}(m{c^2}\gamma + e\,{A_{\mu }}{t^{\mu }}), \), which also seems to disagree with the Josephson eq. (2.6). It therefore appears to imply that a Josephson junction can radiate even when there is no electrochemical potential difference across the junction, which would violate conservation of energy.ADSGoogle Scholar - 20.R.V. Pound and G.A. Rebka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 1566 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.J.-S. Tsai, A.K. Jain and J.E. Lukens, Phys. Rev. Lett., 51, 316 (1983).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.H.A. Farach has suggested to me that such a small velocity can be achieved by uniformly changing the temperature of a rod to which the Doppler shifting device is attached. Also, T. Datta has suggested, the use of the piezoelectric effect on a crystal, namely its change in size when an electric field is applied, to obtain the same low velocity. A variation of ∼ 10 volts/sec of the potential difference across a suitable crystal would be sufficient to get v∼ 10
^{–8}m/sec.Google Scholar - 24.Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.R. Colella, A.W. Overhauser and S.A. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 1472 (1975).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.D. Greenberger, Ann. Phys. 47, 116 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- trang 359–371Google Scholar