Talk:Joseph Weber
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|
|
|
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Physics because it uses a stub template.
|
[edit] My opinion (question: Is this a usual section for a discussion page?)
Joseph Weber's gravity wave experiments at the University of Maryland in the 1970s consisted of multi-ton aluminum cylinders (Weber bars) suspended by means of piano wire. The detectors were surrounded by piezoelectric transducers, purportedly to detect any tiny variations in pressure due to the lengthening or shortening of the cylinders. As such, they comprised ittle more than a sensitive microphone with a massive vibrating element.
This could not have possibly worked. Such an experimental arrangement would have succeeded only in measuring the (acoustic) vibrations of traffic rolling down US Route 1 in College Park, seismic or other vibrations weakly coupled to the detectors through the piano wire or directly to the large cylinders through the air.
The failure of Dr. Weber's gravity wave experiments in terms of reproducability were by no means the only boondoggle of his long career. Before an audience of satellite engineers at Comsat laboratories in Clarksburg, MD (where I was present), Dr. Weber claimed to have developed a sensitive neutrino detector comprised of a large chunk of silicon crystal monitored with an NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) machine, such as the ones used as medical diagnostic instruments. He argued, the interaction of a neutrino with any atom in the perfect silicon crystal lattice would cause all of the atoms in the crystal to resonate, and that such an event could easily be detected by the NMR apparatus. The challenge, as Dr. Weber put it, was for telecom engineers to develop a means of modulating neutrinos, in order to make telecommunications satellites obsolete. Neutrinos are uncharged muons that are capable of passing through the equatorial diameter of the Earth with a negligible chance of interacting with any of the matter contained therein.
Many years after this lecture, I asked a physicist and former colleague of Nobel Laureate Ray Davis (University of Pennsylvannia, Argon Neutrino Detection) about this type of neutrino detection scheme. He told me that it was not an original idea with Weber, and that like his gravity wave experiments, no one had managed to verify the sensitivity of his alleged neutrino detector apparatus either.
Ray Davis' Argon (chemically-based) neutrino detectors were obsoleted by the Sudbury, Ontario photodetector array, which finally solved the 30 year mystery of the missing solar neutrinos.
The work Dr. Weber started in gravitational wave detection goes on in the form of attempts to measure them by means of laser interferometry equipment. The Michaelson-Morely and Kennedy-Thorndike experiments have already aptly determined, the state of motion of such devices cannot be determined by means such as those are not possible. Earth-based laser accelerometers are apt only to detect seismic and/or acoustic vibrations and the Earth's rotation. A space-based laser interferometer is likely to measure nothing of interest. You might have expected that, as this line of extended research was endorsed by Dr. Weber.Template:Danshawen
[edit] Deletion tag
A deletion tag, which I personally consider to be without merit (I'm the original creator of the article), has been placed on this article. But the editor who placed it has not created the entry for the article on the Articles for Deletion page. If it isn't created in the next 24 hours, I am going to remove the deletion tag. This editor claims Weber isn't notable. Funny, the American Astronomical Society considered him notable enough to NAME AN AWARD AFTER HIM. --Etacar11 06:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination with apologies. Thank you for pointing out the award which I had overlooked.Student7 (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, no worries. Thanks! --Etacar11 13:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Laser/Maser
Something stronger is needed to support the laser/maser claim. Needs in-line footnote. Nice if it were online, but probably can't be. The claim seems weak in view of the award to two other scientists. Student7 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Response: Here is evidence to support Weber's connection to the development of the MASER 1) The Wikipedia page on the MASER 2) The NYTimes obituary for Weber 3) citations in Townes' Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1964, which can be accessed at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1964/townes-lecture.pdf 4) The Maryland Engineering Innovation Hall of Fame citation: http://www.engr.umd.edu/ihof/inductees/weber.html
Some history of what happenned is also given in the book "Einstein's Unfinished Symphony."
The family version of what happened was that the maser principles were independently developed by several people, but only 3 prizes could be awarded, due to Cold War politics the prizes had to be split between US and Russian scientists, and thus the prize went to the more famous/well-connected of the American scientists involved (Townes). The family version, however, is probably quite incomplete. As described in "Einstein's Unfinished Symphony," Weber had no research funds at the time, and so, unlike the other scientists, he did not have the resources available to build a working prototype. Townes also argues that Weber's calculations were off by a factor of 10 and Weber did not build a prototype becuase he did not believe it was possible--but Townes is not the most objective source on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.142.50.92 (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
