Fruechte Gravity Theory Blog

The findings here are similar to Werner and Klein, as evidenced in the following:

“The aim of our experiment was to directly demonstrate the essential operational signature of all AB-type effects, which is their non-dispersivity.  This is the property that the phase shifts are independent of the wavelength of the interfering particles, which is a consequence of the fact that no classical force is acting on the particles and therefore no positional shift or spread of the wave packet is observable.”

The equation for q₀ seems to be pure dimensionally and I am not questioning that, especially after what de Broglie and others came up with along the way.  It is talking about phase shift however.

Calculation of the expected drop of the filtered beam makes use of both standard gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth and the slit spacing of the experiment.  As in Dabbs et al. fourteen years later, the average velocity of the slow beam is measured, and then compared to the expected difference in drop between the fast and slow components.  The longer wavelength of the slow component would normally produce a wider diffraction pattern through the last slit.  It is unfortunate that one of the peak amplitudes of the diffracted neutrons could be detected near the location of the expected drop.

This represents an experiment where gravity is assumed to be the force that collects ultracold neutrons.  In contrast to other gravity trap efforts where the effect is assumed, this particular experiment actually uses a UCN counter.  Since neutrons are not pulled by gravity unless bound to a proton through the strong nuclear force, and with at least one electron in orbit, the only neutrons that should be expected at the counter at the bottom of the “gravity acceleration tube” are those which go into the tube by random, albeit straight, trajectory.  Supporting this concept is the statement by Yoshiki et al.:  ”(3) The poor ratio of the detected UCN to the expected UCN [3,21,22] in this experiment is not well understood.  We are left with an unresolved attenuation factor of about 100 in order of magnitude.”  The paper suggests that this is due to “bad conductance” in the gravity tube which “might give rise to counterflow of UCN back to the container,”.

As stated in the abstract, alluded to in the title, and reiterated throughout Klein and Werner, “A range of phenomena similar or analogous to those of classical optics is exhibited by slow neutrons.”  The abstract goes on to say that this includes “reflection, refraction, diffraction and interference”.  It would not be possible for neutrons to have wave characteristics which behave like massless photons in most ways, no matter their velocity, if they were affected by gravity.
Attempts are made in the paper to insert Newtonian gravity, however calculations make use of the quantum in the main.  Additionally, the effect of gravity, as an experiment that is rotated, is given in terms of phase shift.  With wavelengths on the order of Angstroms, it is easy to see that phase will be effected by the gravitational force acting on parts in the test apparatus, in terms of tension, compression, shear, and bending.
There are two experiments referenced in the paper that attempt to include the effect of the Earth’s gravitational field.  In the first, Koester 1965, 1967, as in Dabbs et al, there is a straight path to the neutron sensor after single edge diffraction, in this case at “K5” [p. 282] [2.7.2 Measurements of scattering lengths based on mirror reflection.]
“In the very first neutron interferometer, built by Maier-Leibnitz and Springer (1962) (see figure 19(a))”, the flight path spans 9.5 meters, dimension D in the figure.  “The mean effective wavelength was 4.4 Ǻ”, which corresponds to a velocity of 899 m/s.  Neglecting travel through the prism, a drop of 551 μm would be expected due to a gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s² .  No such drop is mentioned, nor is an adjustment in location of the “scanning slit” mentioned.  If the neutrons were pulled by gravity and coming in at an angle off horizontal, we would expect an effect on the interference pattern.  The position of the “main slit” [Fig. 19(b)] is varied only ± 60 μm. [3.4.1 Interference by division of the wavefront.]
In the same section, with a different apparatus, [Fig. 20], “Klein and Opat (1976)”, there is a shorter flight path, 2.0 m, and a slower velocity, 20 Ǻ, 198 m/s.  Again, no compensation for gravity is shown, and the Fresnel diffraction pattern is implied as being the same as for light of a similar wavelength.  This implication is supported by the main emphasis of the paper.
In the section [3.4.2 Interference by amplitude division], neutron interference is said to be “topologically similar to the Raleigh interferometer of classical optics… (Zeilinger 1981)”, and also “analogous to the Lummer-Gehrke interferometer of classical optics”.  Other types of experiments pointed out as being similar are “band pass monochromators” and “the so called ‘super-mirrors’ (Mezei 1976, 1978, Mezei and Dagleish 1977) which are highly efficient neutron polarizers.”

The acceleration due to gravity was actually determined to be approximately 0.5 percent less than expected, from velocities at the “polycrystalline Be block”.  It reads to me as though velocities less than what would be expected at the 14.587 cm drop from horizontal were missing after the second collimating slit, by design.  It would be difficult to define the velocity limit perfectly, so there would have been some velocities just under, maybe even 0.5 percent under.  Barrier diffraction of a straight path would allow some of these neutrons to reach the lower counter, and “the counting rates in the lower detector were not large (200 counts/min at the bottom of the travel and 30-MW reactor power)”.  Also, the slow component is said to have dropped approx. 10-20 cm, quite a range, and may be partly due to single edge diffraction patterns.
Something interesting about Fig. 4 in the paper relating to the “fast” component is that for the top 9 data points for “counts/channel”, shifting the triangle to center over channel 65 would seem to be a better fit.  With the complete set of data points used, the fit is effected by some of the higher near zero readings on the right side of the plot.  These readings may again include neutrons directed by single edge diffraction at the edge of the barrier.