Gravity Waves and - Am MIT spezialisierte KI-Forschung

Gravity Waves and
Neutrinos: The Later
Work of Joseph Weber

Allan Franklin
University of Colorado

How does the physics community deal with the subsequent work of a scientist
whose earlier work has been regarded as incorrect? An interesting case of this
involves Joseph Weber whose claim to have observed gravitational waves was
rejected by virtually all of the physics community, although Weber himself
continued to defend his work until his death in 2000. In the course of this
defense Weber made a startling suggestion regarding the scattering of neutri-
nos. I will summarize the history of gravity waves including the rejection of
Weber’s claim around 1975, his later work on gravity waves, and examine
the reaction of the physics community to his neutrino hypothesis.

In 1942, the distinguished sociologist of science, Robert Merton, von-
scribed universalism as one of the norms of science.1 “Universalism,” he
remarked, “ªnds immediate expression in the canon that truth-claims,
whatever their source, are to be subjected to preestablished impersonal crite-
ria: consonant with observation and with previously conªrmed knowl-
edge. The acceptance or rejection of claims entering the lists of science is
not to depend on the personal or social attributes of their protagonist; sein
Wettrennen, nationality, religion, Klasse, and personal qualities are as such irrele-
vant. . . . The Haber process cannot be invalidated by a Nuremberg decree

1. The others are: 1) Communism, in which “The scientist’s claim to ‘his’ intellectual
‘property’ is limited to that of recognition and esteem which, if the institution functions
with a modicum of efªciency, is roughly commensurate with the signiªcance of the incre-
ments brought to the common fund of knowledge (Merton 1942, P. 121). In brief, scien-
tiªc knowledge belongs to the scientiªc community. 2) Disinterestedness, in which sci-
entists should have no ªnancial interest in their work. The rewards of science are through
peer recognition. 3) Organized skepticism, in which the scientiªc investigator makes no
distinction between “that which requires uncritical respect and that which can be objec-
tively analyzed” (P. 126).

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft 2010, Bd. 18, NEIN. 2
©2010 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology

119

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

120

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

nor can an Anglophobe repeal the law of gravitation” (Merton 1942,
P. 118). Merton recognized that universalism was an ideal that was not al-
ways practiced. He believed, Jedoch, that most scientists subscribed to
universalism, at least in principle.

One aspect of the acceptance or rejection of a knowledge claim that
Merton did not discuss was the scientist’s record of previous achievement,
or the lack of it. When a scientist decides whether to further investigate a
novel claim it is the plausibility of that claim, which depends, in part, An
the credibility of the author of that claim which is an important, but cer-
tainly not the only, consideration.2 One might also ask whether the repu-
tation of the latter will inºuence whether their work is published. Diese
are not independent issues. If a claim remains unpublished3 or is not fur-
ther investigated, it has virtually no chance of being accepted as scientiªc
Wissen.

How does the physics community deal with the subsequent work of a
scientist whose earlier work has been regarded as incorrect? An interesting
case of this involves Joseph Weber, who pioneered the development of an
experimental apparatus designed to detect gravity waves, and who later
claimed to have observed those waves. Weber’s claim was soon rejected by
virtually all of the physics community, although Weber himself continued
to defend his work. In the course of this defense Weber made a very unor-
thodox and startling suggestion regarding the scattering of neutrinos.
Weber had connected his theory of the scattering of gravity waves, von-
signed to show the increased sensitivity of his gravity wave antenna, to the
scattering of neutrinos. In this essay I will brieºy summarize the early his-
tory of gravity waves until the rejection of Weber’s claim around 1975,
and follow Weber’s work on gravity waves until 1984 when he published
his neutrino hypothesis. I will also examine the reaction of the physics
community to that suggestion.

2. When the “Fifth Force,” a proposed modiªcation of Newton’s Law of Gravity, welche
also violated Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence, was proposed, part of the reason for its
further pursuit was the fact that it seemed to be able to explain three puzzling pieces of ev-
idence; a composition dependent effect that showed up in a reanalysis of the Eötvös experi-
ment, the slight difference between the value of G, the gravitational constant, when mea-
sured in the laboratory or in mines, and the tantalizing energy dependence of the CP
violating parameters in Ko meson decay. Zusätzlich, the expertise of the scientists and the
availability of experimental apparatus and funding may also enter into that decision. Für
additional discussion see Franklin (1999).

3. This is perhaps less crucial in an age when papers can be transmitted electronically or

made available on the Internet.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

121

1. The Early History of Gravity Waves4
In the late 1960s and early 1970s Joseph Weber claimed that he had de-
tected gravity waves (Weber 1969; 1970; Weber, Lee et al. 1973). Eins
problem was that the rate of detection was far in excess, by a factor of
1000, of what was expected by calculations based on Einstein’s General
Theory of Relativity. Trotzdem, Weber’s results were sufªciently credi-
ble that several experimental groups attempted to replicate his ªndings.
None were successful. In this case, the physics community was forced to
compare Weber’s claims that he had observed gravity waves with the re-
ports from six other experiments which failed to detect them. The results
presented by Weber’s critics were not only more numerous, but they had
also been carefully cross-checked. The groups had exchanged both data
and analysis programs and conªrmed their results. The critics had also in-
vestigated whether or not their analysis procedure, the use of a linear algo-
rithm, could account for their failure to observe Weber’s reported results.
They had also used Weber’s preferred analysis procedure, a nonlinear algo-
rithm, to analyze their own data, and still found no sign of an effect. Sie
had also calibrated their experimental apparatuses by inserting acoustic
pulses of known energy and ªnding that they could detect a signal.
Weber, andererseits, as well as his critics using his analysis proce-
dure, could not detect such calibration pulses.

Es gab, in addition, several other serious questions raised about
Weber’s analysis procedures. These included an admitted programming
error that generated spurious coincidences between Weber’s two detectors,
possible selection bias by Weber, Weber’s report of coincidences between
two detectors when the data had been taken four hours apart, and whether
Weber’s experimental apparatus could produce the narrow coincidences
behauptet. It seems clear that the critics’ results were far more credible than
Weber’s. Weber did not agree and offered various answers to the criti-
cisms, which the physics community did not ªnd plausible or compelling.
Von 1975 a consensus had been reached that Weber’ claim was unsubstanti-
ated.

The fact that the physics community had reached such a consensus
did not mean that the investigation of gravitational radiation ceased.
Gravity waves are an important prediction of Einstein’s General Theory of
Relativity5 and the experimental search for them has continued to this day

4. For a very detailed history of this episode see Collins (2004). For a quite different
view and Collins’ response see Franklin (1994) and Collins (1994). See also Levine (2004)
for a participant’s account.

5. The answer to the question of whether General Relativity predicts the existence of
gravity waves has changed with time. Einstein, himself, at one time thought that it didn’t,

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

122

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

(See Collins 2004). It also did not mean that Weber stopped working on
the subject. Collins has discussed both Weber’s subsequent funding his-
tory and given an account of some of the later work on gravity waves by
both Weber and others who joined in his defense. Weber’s later work was
not totally ignored, although it certainly did not attract the attention of
his earlier claims.6

2. More on Gravity Waves
In 1976 Weber and his collaborators (Lee, Gretz et al. 1976) published a
detailed answer to some of the criticisms offered of his earlier work.7
Weber had previously offered a rather unusual explanation of why gravita-
tional wave detectors might be more sensitive than others believed and
thus might explain the high ºux of gravity waves that he had detected. Er
noted that

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

Expressions for the antenna cross-section [sensitivity] require very
reasonable assumptions and approximations that have not been
tested by experiment. It is also possible that the antenna is operat-
ing in a more sensitive mode than ordinarily assumed. Frozen-in
metastable conªgurations within each detector might decay to
equilibrium as a result of collective excitation by gravitational radi-
ation, releasing far more energy than implied by the gravitational-
radiation ºux. (Weber 1970, S. 183–84)

Weber did not comment on why this would not have resulted in the de-
tection of a higher gravity wave ºux by his critics. He presumably
thought that this was due to their use of a linear analysis algorithm, welche
he believed was inferior to the nonlinear algorithm he used (See discussion
below).8

This speculation was, in fact, explicitly tested by Ronald Drever and
his collaborators (Drever, Hough et al. 1973). They tested it in two differ-
ent ways. They ªrst injected below threshold pulses into their detector to
see if Weber’s proposed mechanism would make them become observable.
It didn’t. “In a run lasting two months, none of the small pulses became
detectable” (P. 341). The second test involved injecting a train of ªve

but subsequently changed his mind. For an excellent history of gravity waves see
Kenneªck (2007).

6. Weber’s 1970 Papier, discussed below, was cited 149 mal. Der 1976 paper was cited

14 mal, including three self-citations.

7. This is also discussed in Collins (2004, Kapitel 11 Und 19).
8. Weber offered no explanation of the null results obtained by his critics using his pre-

ferred analysis algorithm.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

123

equal-amplitude, above-threshold pulses. “One might have expected any
ampliªcation process to be far more effective for the ªrst pulse of a train
than for the last, if the recovery of stored energy in the bar is a slow pro-
cess and the ªrst pulses in a train have depleted the accessible energy. Wir
in fact see no signiªcant change in the observed pulse height” (P. 341).
They concluded “that there is no important multiplication process in this
detector” (P. 341).

One of the most important aspects of Weber’s 1976 defense was his dis-
cussion of signal thresholds. Weber had been accused by his critics of ma-
nipulating his threshold for a gravity wave signal in order to maximize his
result.9 Weber had denied the accusation, and in this paper he presented
evidence that his results were, in fact, independent of the threshold used.
Weber began with a discussion of the importance of setting an appropriate
threshold.

An important aspect of the search window is the set of thresholds
employed for a coincidence experiment.10 Suppose there are small
numbers of moderately strong signals. Setting thresholds too low
will give a very large accidentals rate with large ºuctuations which
mask the signal. Setting thresholds too high will result in no coin-
cidences at all. (Lee et al., 1976, P. 895)

Weber then presented his data as a function of threshold. Figuren 1 Und
2 show his result for the lowest and highest threshold, jeweils. Er
concluded that the signal was consistently present.

Figures 2–8 show the effects of changing threshold, with the larg-
est accidentals rate ~10,000 [the highest rate] giving a zero-delay
excess of 2.1 standard deviations. Raising the threshold and lower-
ing the accidentals rate to 1069 gives a zero-delay excess of
3.0 standard deviations. . . . An accidentals rate 62 of gives a zero-
delay excess of 3.0 standard deviations. . . . Daher, a variation in ac-
cidentals rate by a factor of 16 gives a zero-delay excess exceeding
3 standard deviations, and a range of 4 Zu 1 in accidentals rate gives
a zero-delay excess greater than 4 standard deviations. (Lee et al.,
1976, S. 895–896)

A second important point concerned the choice of analysis algorithm.
Weber noted that for his preferred nonlinear algorithm “A single excita-

9. Garwin and Levine (1974) had shown using a computer simulation that such a pro-
cedure could generate a positive gravity wave signal. Kafka had shown the same effect us-
ing real data (Shaviv and Rosen 1975).

10. To guard against spurious signals in a single detection antenna Weber used a coin-

cidence between two widely separated antennas to determine a gravity wave signal.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

124

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

Figur 1. Nine days of data, Dec. 15–25, 1973, deªning a coincidence as any
pair of points above threshold, without regard to history. Lowest threshold. Aus
Lee at al. (1976).

tion of the antenna which produces a large VNB [signal] may cause during
the long relaxation time a number of output pulses which will exceed
threshold . . .” (P. 894; Figur 3). This phenomenon of proliferation, he ar-
gued, would give rise to a larger signal for the nonlinear algorithm as
compared to the linear analysis algorithm favored by his critics. “For ex-
reichlich, suppose there are a few large pulses causing proliferations . . . für
the nonlinear algorithm A. A single pulse may result in a large number of
threshold crossings giving several coincidences for algorithm A but only
one for algorithm B [linear]” (P. 899). Tatsächlich, Weber admitted that there
were “extended periods when the algorithm A yields a zero-delay excess
larger than 4 standard deviations, but algorithm B yields essentially noth-
ing“ (P. 897). Collins cites a letter from James Levine, one of Weber’s crit-
ics, in which Levine pointed out that the proliferation effect, should have
exactly the same effect on both noise and signal, without affecting their
relative size in any way (Collins 2004, P. 198).

Weber had previously admitted that the linear algorithm was better at

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

125

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

Figur 2. Same data as Figure 1, but with highest threshold. From Lee at al.
(1976).

detecting the short pulses that most physicists believed would be charac-
teristic of gravity waves. The proliferation effect led him to conclude that
the actual gravity wave pulses were longer than his critics expected.11

Weber continued his defense against possible human bias in a 1977 let-
ter to Nature in which he outlined the steps he had taken to do so (Weber
1977). These included removing himself from direct participation in data
reduction in 1972, checking that both the computer and human analyses
of the data gave the same results, and showing that spurious signal in-
jected into the data stream from time to time would be detected.

Collins reported that, except for self-citations to Weber’s own work,
these papers (Lee et al. 1976 and Weber 1977) were subsequently cited
only once each. This is not quite correct. During the period between 1977
Und 1981, the date of Weber’s next refereed publication, these papers were
cited seven times.12 To be fair, none of these comments was very positive.

11. Drever had, in fact, looked for such pulses and found no signal (Shaviv and Rosen

1975).

12. I have no explanation for the discrepancy between Collins’s number of citations and

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

126

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figur 3. Proliferation of pulses with nonlinear algorithm. A 1-kT pulse was
applied at t (cid:2) 0; the time scale is in seconds, running from right to left. From Lee
et al. (1976).

Most importantly, no attempts were made to answer Weber’s most recent
defense of his results or to discuss his claim that his new experimental re-
sults had been shown to be independent of the pulse threshold used.13
Weber’s results on gravity waves were simply regarded as incorrect. Der
fact that no one within the physics community thought it worthwhile an-
swering Weber’s defense indicates that he had lost all credibility as far as
gravity wave experiments were concerned. As Collins remarks, “In terms
of their impact they [Weber’s 1976 Und 1977 Papiere] might just as well
not have been written” (Collins 2004, P. 201). As we shall see, Jedoch,
his later work on neutrino detection was taken seriously enough to be
worthy of both comment and criticism and of additional experimental
work by others.

Weber’s papers were cited in other reports of attempts to detect

my own except for the possibility that between 2003, when Collins did his survey, Und
2008, when I did mine, the Web of Science database had improved. In any event, we both
agree that these papers had no impact.

13. It is hard to imagine how another experimenter might have checked Weber’s claim.
Negative results are independent of threshold. Perhaps the only way of checking Weber’s
results would have been to allow another physicist to reanalyze Weber’s data.

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

127

gravitational radiation. Most of the papers concluded that Weber’s results
were incorrect. A typical comment came in the 1978 review of gravita-
tional wave astronomy by J. Anthony Tyson and R. P. Giffard. “The giant
bursts observed by Weber have not been detected in careful searches by
several other groups of observers” (1978, P. 521). “It must be concluded
that the interpretation of the Weber events as gravitational wave pulses is
erroneous, since there is no corroborated evidence either for an excess
number of coincident events or any sidereal correlation” (S. 544–545).14
A similar view was expressed in Kafka and Schnupp (1978). “The aim had
been to verify or exclude the existence of gravitational wave pulses of the
kind proposed by Weber as an explanation for his own results. Although the
non-existence became obvious a long time ago, it seems appropriate to publish
our ªnal negative result, because our experiment was as similar to Weber’s
as possible, whereas all other experiments deviated in one way or the
andere. Darüber hinaus, we think we have set the lowest limits obtained by
Weber-type experiments over a reasonably long period of observation”
(P. 97, emphasis added). Kafka and Schnupp did, Jedoch, address the
question of the choice of analysis algorithm even though they believed
that the issue had already been settled. They applied two analysis algo-
rithms to their data, SA, the linear algorithm, and SE, which “was a reason-
able approximation to Weber’s preferred algorithm” (P. 101). “The results
do not give the slightest hint of a simultaneous inºuence in both detec-
tors. If the signiªcant observations reported by Weber’s group . . . hatte
been due to gravitational radiation of any kind, they should have shown
even more signiªcantly in our experiment” (P. 102). Ö. G. Jensen, WHO
was not an experimenter in the ªeld, but who was considering the possi-
bility of seismic detection of gravitational radiation was more neutral. “It
is now universally accepted that the possibility of gravitation radiation is
inherent in Einstein’s theory of gravitation, General Relativity. In recent
Jahre, much effort, both experimental and theoretical, has been devoted
to the detection of such radiation. Jedoch, success has not been nota-
ble. Weber, perhaps the foremost proponent of such research, has offered
evidence suggesting that certain coincident excitations of his two, well-
separated, mechanical antennae, could have been caused by gravitational
radiation bursts in the kilohertz band. Jedoch, many other researchers in
this ªeld . . . have been unable to verify Weber’s observations” (Jensen
1979, P. 2057).

14. One of the results that initially gave credibility to Weber’s reports was that he had
observed a 24-hour periodicity in his events, which correlated with the antenna pointing
to the center of the galaxy. This result later disappeared, which was just as well because
gravitational waves should have shown a 12-hour periodicity. They would not be absorbed
by the Earth.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

128

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

Weber’s results were, Jedoch, cited to justify further research into the
sensitivity of gravitational wave detectors and for the building of more
sensitive detectors. Thus Giffard, after discussing the disagreement be-
tween Weber and his critics, stated that “In view of such results, it is de-
sirable to consider in detail how the sensitivity of the antennas can be
improved, . . .” (Giffard 1976, P. 2478). Tyson and Giffard remarked
Das, “The need for more sensitive detectors is clearly established by the
lack of conªrmation of Weber’s exciting results” (Tyson and Giffard 1978,
P. 545).15

I also note the very positive statement concerning Weber’s initial con-
tributions to the ªeld of gravity waves by Tyson and Giffard. “It is clear
that none of this research would be occurring were it not for the pioneer-
ing experiments of Joseph Weber, who gave birth to the ªeld a decade ago
with the ªrst operating gravitational wave detector. His aluminum bar an-
tenna is the prototype of nearly all recent detectors” (1978, P. 522).16

In 1981 Weber suggested another possibility for enhancing the sensi-
tivity of a gravity-wave antenna. This was the possibility of preparing the
antenna in a correlated initial state. “This suggests the possibility of pre-
paring an antenna in a quantum state very different from thermal equilib-
rium state [the usual state of such an antenna]. Such a state might be
maintained for a signiªcant fraction of observation times. Here it is shown
that an appropriate choice of quantum states may give an enormous in-
crease in the energy absorbed from gravitational radiation” (Weber 1981,
P. 542). Weber admitted, Jedoch, that “it is by no means obvious that an
antenna can be prepared in such states, and that the unwanted interactions
can be kept sufªciently small to result in major improvements in signal to
noise ratio. The possibilities of such improvements are now being studied”
(P. 544).17 Weber’s theoretical conclusions were supported by Walls and
Zoller (1981). They noted that Walls had previously suggested a similar
scheme to increase the sensitivity of a cyclotron resonance detector to de-
tect infrared radiation and concluded that “. . . we have shown that the use
of correlated quantum states leads to a possible large increase of the sensi-
tivity of gravitational antennas” (P. 120). Weber’s suggestion was also
considered by Dododnov, Manko, and Rudenko (1982; 1983). Sie, An

15. Other papers that cited the Weber papers, but with no discussion, were Hirakawa,

Tsubono, and Fujimoto (1978); Felice (1979); and Fujimoto and Hirakawa (1979).

16. One might speculate that the relatively gentle treatment that Weber’s later work

received was due to the recognition of his early contributions.

17. Weber believed that such states might be achieved in polycrystalline aluminum,
and single crystals of silicon and sapphire. My colleagues inform me that there is current
work being done to look for quantum effects in macroscopic materials, although the sys-
tems being studied are far smaller than those Weber had suggested.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

129

die andere Hand, concluded that Weber’ scheme would not increase the sen-
sitivity of the gravity wave antenna, although they suggested that another
quantum mechanism could have such an effect.

Weber (1984) continued his defense of his gravity wave results, Das
time invoking the theory of coherent scattering. He remarked that, “For
an extended period, other observers were not able to ªnd the background
of pulses. Jedoch, beginning in 1980, all of the Maryland observations
were conªrmed” (P. 1187).18 In support of this statement he cited the re-
sults of a Maryland-Rome collaboration (Ferrari, Pizzella et al. 1982), von
which Weber was a member, and a result from a group at Stanford
(Boughn, Fairbank et al. 1982). The Maryland-Rome collaboration con-
cluded that there was a positive signal at zero time delay between their
two antennas. “The histograms are evidence for an external background of
Signale [a real gravity wave signal], greatest during the ªrst period, Und
having a level of conªdence associated with 3.62 standard deviations”
(Ferrari, Pizzella et al. 1982, P. 2486). The qualiªcation that the signal
was greatest for the ªrst period was important. The group had taken data
during the period July 5–13, 1978. They divided that interval into three
periods: Period I, July 5–8; Period II, July 8–11; and Period III, July 11–
13. As the group noted, a signiªcant signal (3.56 standard deviations) War
seen only during Period I (Figur 4). No signiªcant signal was observed in
the other two time periods, although a signal was also seen when the data
for all three periods were combined (Figur 5). They also noted that effects
of a similar magnitude were seen at noncoincidental times. They re-
marked, “To summarize, the coincidental effect is observed to be the larg-
est in one of the three periods when these periods are viewed separately. In
addition, effects of a similar magnitude are seen at noncoincidental times.
When the periods are combined into two contiguous groups, the coinci-
dental effect is the largest in the ªrst group at 3.62 (cid:3) with no other delay
in either group producing an excess above 3.0 (cid:3). And ªnally, when all the
data are combined, the largest excess is again coincidental” (P. 2479).

Weber also noted that the Stanford group had reported 8 events with
magnitude greater than 10 K (The noise signal expected would have an
average value of 1.5 K.) That was correct, but it is important to note that
the Stanford group made no claim that they had seen gravitational radia-
tion. Their conclusion was that, “The data from about 74 days of opera-
tion have been used to place a new observational upper limit on the distri-
bution of wide-band gravitational wave pulses which reach the earth
during a typical period” (Boughn, Fairbank et al. 1982, P. L22). Weber
also cited a letter from Pizzella who wrote, “a preliminary analysis on your

18. Virtually no one in the physics community agreed.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

130

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

Figur 4. Time delay histogram for Period I. From Ferrari et al. (1982).

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figur 5. Time delay histogram for Periods I, II, III. From Ferrari et al. (1982).

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

131

data showed also a sidereal effect” (Weber 1984, P. 1187). That effect sub-
sequently disappeared and had, in addition, initially shown a 24-hour pe-
Riod, when a 12-hour period was expected.

Weber’s results were contradicted by Brown et al. (1982) WHO, in einem
440-day experimental run detected only “one clearly nonthermal event.
This event was apparently of local origin, based on the analysis of co-
incident data from the far more sensitive Stanford cooled antenna. . . .
This search exceeds previous published searches in sensitivity, and sets a
90%-conªdence upper limit over the 440-day duration of the experiment
von (cid:4) 5 (cid:5) 10(cid:6)3 events per day above 114 GPU . . . (1 gravitational pulse
unit (cid:2) 105 erg cm(cid:6)2 Hz(cid:6)1). These results conªrm the previously reported
null results to a much lower event rate” (P. 1216).

As discussed by Collins (2004), Weber continued to receive funding for
his gravity research and continued publishing on gravity waves, although
most of his subsequent work appeared in nonrefereed conference proceed-
ings rather than in refereed journals.19 It was also certainly not the end of
searches for gravity waves, which have continued to the present with low
temperature antennas and subsequently with even more sensitive interfer-
ometers (See Collins 2004 for details).

3. Neutrinos and Antineutrinos
Weber’s 1984 paper also contained a startling new theoretical suggestion
concerning neutrino detection, as well as experimental results which sup-
ported that hypothesis. Weber, assuming an inªnitely stiff crystal, calcu-
lated that the coherent scattering of neutrinos from such a crystal would
vary with N2, where N was the number of scatterers.20 For a macroscopic
crystal N would be a very large number21 and this would increase the very
small neutrino scattering cross-section by many orders of magnitude. Das
would mean that instead of using a tank containing 100,000 gallons of
cleaning ºuid,22 one could use a sapphire crystal that one could hold in
one’s hand as a neutrino detector.

Weber also presented experimental results in support of his coherent-
scattering hypothesis. The apparatus is shown in Figure 6. The torsion
balance contained two sapphire crystals, 2.5 cm in diameter and 0.38 cm

19. It is difªcult to know whether this was because Weber stopped submitting papers

to refereed journals or whether he submitted papers that were rejected.

20. This was in line with Weber’s previous attempts to demonstrate increased sensitiv-

ity for his gravity wave detectors.

21. For a macroscopic object the number of scatterers would be of the order of Avoga-

dro’s number, 6 (cid:5) 1023.

22. This was the size of the detector used by Ray Davis and his collaborators to detect

solar neutrinos.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

132

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

Figur 6. Torsion balance for weak interaction experiments. From Weber
(1984).

dick, attached to an aluminum disk. There were two identical aluminum
cylinders. A 3000 Curie titanium tritide radioactive source was lowered
into one cylinder and an equal mass dummy source was lowered into the
other cylinder. If there were a signiªcant force due to the neutrinos emit-
ted by the tritium, the balance would rotate away from the tritium source.
“The torsion balance shown in Fig. [6] was employed for measurement of
the momentum transferred to the crystal by antineutrinos. A closed loop
servosystem was developed to measure the forces exerted on the crystal. A
radio frequency bridge became unbalanced whenever the torsion balance
was displaced from its equilibrium position. The unbalance voltage was
then ampliªed and then employed to produce an electrostatic force to re-
store the balance to its equilibrium position. The force is measured by ob-
serving the output voltage” (Weber 1984, S. 1197–98). Weber was quite
careful about possible backgrounds that might simulate the effect he was
investigating and remarked that

A 3000 Ci [Curie] tritium source generates 0.1 W as a result of the
kinetic energy of the 6-keV (cid:7) decay electrons. A torsion balance
will respond to a heat source for several reasons. Thermal gradients
may result in unbalanced gas pressures; thermoelectric effects may
generate potentials. In order to make the thermal effects as small as
möglich, the cylinders in which the tritium source moved were en-

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

133

closed in several layers of superinsulation. It was observed that the
thermal effect has a relaxation time of several minutes. To reduce
the thermal contribution, the servosystem [used to detect any
deºection of the balance] was designed with a response time of
9 Sek. It was also observed that the sign of the thermal response was
opposite in the two cylinders for raising and lowering the tritium
source and the dummy. An electrically heated resistance was in-
stalled in the dummy. Observations then indicated that the thermal
response force was less than 10% of the antineutrino forces in these
experiments. Since the masses of the tritium source and dummy
capsules were equal, the gravitational force of the tritium source
was also balanced out. (Weber 1984, P. 1198)

The torsion balance was calibrated by replacing both the dummy and
the tritium source with a lead mass in one side of the balance. “The gravi-
tational interaction of the lead mass and the target crystal provides a
known force to calibrate the torsion balance in terms of the servosystem
output voltage” (P. 1198).

The output voltage for the gravitational interaction of the lead mass
with the target crystal, an attractive force, is shown in Figure 7. Figur 8
shows the output voltage for the interaction of the tritium source with the
target crystal, expected to be repulsive. They clearly show opposite effects,
as expected. The predicted results are shown in Figures 9 Und 10, and are
in agreement with the observations. Weber calculated a scattering cross-
section of 1.06 (cid:2) 0.44 cm2 and remarked that “It is noted that this is a
‘blind’ experiment. All data are on a magnetic tape which is processed by a
programmer who has no information concerning what is expected. Figuren
[7] Und [8], without corrections, imply that a repulsive force is being ob-
served consistent with a large scattering cross section” (P. 1203). Weber’s
comments were intended to avoid any repetition of the accusation that he
had manipulated his analysis procedure to maximize his expected effect.

Weber concluded that “Cross sections are now available for coher-
ent low-energy neutrino and antineutrino experiments exceeding the
incoherent values by more than 20 orders. Gravitational radiation antenna
cross sections for some quantum processes exceed the predicted classical
values by more than eight orders. These phenomena provide new frontiers
for gravitational and neutrino astronomy” (S. 1206–7, emphasis added).
If Weber’s results were correct, this would be an understatement.

Weber (1985) extended his calculations and presented additional ex-
perimental results in support of his suggestion. He reported observing
both a heating effect due to inelastic coherent scattering of antineutrinos
as well as an elastic cross section of 1.5 cm2 for a 100 g crystal. Both exper-

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

134

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

Figur 7. Output voltage for gravitational interaction between a 27-g lead mass
with the target crystal. From Weber (1984).

iments used antineutrinos from a nuclear reactor. A cross section for elastic
scattering of antineutrinos from a 600 Curie tritium source on a 12 g crys-
tal was also reported. No details of the experiments were provided but
Weber promised that, “These experiments will be described in detail in
forthcoming papers” (P. 1473).23

A. Theoretical Objections
Weber’s calculations and experimental results on neutrino scattering were
deemed plausible enough to be commented on by several authors. Der
comments were of two types. The ªrst argued on theoretical grounds
that Weber’s calculations were incorrect. The second pointed out that
there were already experimental results that excluded Weber’s hypothesis.
T. H. Ho (1986), Zum Beispiel, remarked that some neutron scattering ex-
periments satisªed the conditions that Weber had required for his coher-
ent effects. “Thus, in a silicon-neutron diffraction experiment, one should
observe such a large coherent scattering cross section! Since such kinds of

23. These details would appear in Weber (1988).

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

135

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

Figur 8. Output voltage for interaction of tritium source with target crystal.
From Weber (1984).

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figur 9. Predicted output waveform for gravitational interaction. From Weber
(1984).

136

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Figur 10. Predicted output waveform for antineutrino interaction. Aus
Weber (1984).

experiments have been done frequently and no one has found such coher-
ent enhancement of neutron scattering, it seems that Weber’s mechanism
could already be excluded by the present neutron diffraction experiment”
(P. 295). G. F. Bertsch and Sam Austin (1986) argued that Weber’s calcu-
lation was incompatible with wave mechanics, and that one would expect
to ªnd an analogous effect in x-ray scattering. If Weber was correct then
x-ray scattering on amorphous and crystalline silicon would be quite dif-
ferent whereas, “In fact there are negligible differences in the attenuation
of x rays by amorphous or crystalline silicon, for thin ªlms of the same ar-
eal density” (P. 361).

M. N. Diener (1987) also discussed inconsistencies in Weber’s der-
ivation and concluded that, “we have shown that Weber’s derivation of
large cross sections is wrong on the basis of elementary physical argu-
ments and that it is the result of an incorrect mathematical derivation”
(S. 1164–65).24 He further noted that such coherence effects could only
be observed if the wavelength of the neutrinos is comparable to the size of
the crystal, an ultra-low-energy region.25 Casella (1986) considered the

24. Butler noted that Bertsch and Austin had used a similar argument to disallow

Weber’s result.

25. For a wavelength of order 1 cm the energy of the neutrinos would be approximately

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

137

scattering of neutrinos with wavelength to the lattice spacing of an ideal
crystal, or considerably less.26 He found that “The coherent force produced
by neutrinos of such wave-lengths is linear in N. Somit, in agreement
with Butler,27 I ªnd that a coherence factor O(N2) can occur only for neu-
trinos with ultra-long wavelengths” (P. 42).

Weber’s experimental result was considered “remarkable” by P. F.
Schmied (1987). He remarked, Jedoch, that “The purpose of this letter is to
point out that the conventional treatment of coherent scattering in a rigid
target . . . predicts a coherent neutrino force which is 23 orders of magni-
tude smaller than the force calculated (and apparently observed) von
Weber” (P. 107). He concluded

Daher, since it appears physically impossible for particles of wave-
Länge (cid:2)10(cid:6)8 cm to be scattered in phase (and with signiªcant mo-
mentum transfer) from a volume (cid:2)1 cm3 as conjectured by Weber,
we must conclude that the observed repulsive force—agreeing in
magnitude with Weber’s prediction—could not have been due to
normal coherent neutrino interactions. It therefore represents either
a totally new force or an experimental artifact of unknown origin
which has coincidentally replicated Weber’s conjectured factor 1023
enhancement. Clearly a more rigorous repetition of this preliminary
measurement, with variation of some of the experimental parame-
ters, would be required to distinguish between these two possibili-
Krawatten. (P. 109)

Weber’s suggestion was found “intriguing” by Y. Aharonov and his col-
laborators (Aharonov, Avignone et al. 1987). They noted that although
Weber had presented experimental evidence in support of his hypothesis
several arguments had been offered against the existence of such phenom-
ena.28 They also found that the force produced would vary linearly with N,
the number of scatterers, not quadratically with N2 as Weber had claimed.
They did, Jedoch, remark that if the hypothesis were correct that several
interesting consequences would follow. At this time the solar neutrino
Problem, in which the number of observed solar neutrinos was a factor of
three smaller than that predicted by the Standard Solar Model, was still
unsolved.29 They remarked that

10(cid:6)4 eV, whereas the energy of the electrons used in Weber’s experiments had far shorter
wavelengths, and energies in the keV and MeV range.

26. The lattice spacing would be of order 10(cid:6)8 cm, in comparison to the 1 cm size of a

crystal.

27. Casella had a preprint of Butler’s paper.
28. They cited Ho, Bertsch and Austin, and Casella.
29. For details see Franklin (2001).

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

138

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

It might then be remotely possible that the distribution of crystal
sizes conspires to reduce the count rate in Davis’s 37Cl experiment
by a factor of 3.

If this were the case, Jedoch, the total solar energy absorbed by
the Earth would increase by (cid:2)20% over that due to photon absorp-
tion alone. One is tempted to wonder whether the present under-
standing of the Earth’s temperature due to solar photons and terres-
trial radioactivity is complete enough to exclude such a revision;
the change in the overall temperature due to solar neutrinos would
Sei (cid:3) 15° C. (P. 1175)30

Harry Lipkin (1987) also examined the question of coherent scattering
from crystals and concluded that it “is to vary linearly with N for large N”
(P. 1176).

B. Further Experiments
The promised details of Weber’s three experiments appeared in 1988
(Weber 1988). The ªrst experiment reported used antineutrinos from a
tritium source, which had an average energy of 6.2 keV. It was essentially
the same experiment he had reported in 1984, with slight changes in both
the apparatus and the analysis procedures, and with more data. He now re-
ported a cross section of 2.05 (cid:2) 0.23 cm2, in contrast to his previously re-
ported preliminary result of 1.06 (cid:2) 0.44 cm2. Weber noted, Jedoch, Das
his measured cross section differed from his calculated result by a factor
von 10. Weber had an explanation. “Equation (2) gives a scattering cross
section (cid:2)20 cm2. This implies that most of the antineutrinos are scattered
once by the ªrst layers of the crystal. Multiple scattering will occur, Und
precise agreement with the single-scattering cross section is not expected.
We believe that a much smaller crystal, with no dislocations, would have
an observed cross section in agreement with (2)” (P. 37). In this experi-
ment the radioactive tritium source was in close proximity to the detector
and he thought it important to do other experiments that avoided prob-
lems of that experiment such as heating effects.

The second reported experiment used antineutrinos with an average en-
ergy of approximately 1.6 MeV from a nuclear reactor, in which the detec-
tor was quite distant from the reactor. The apparatus is shown in Fig-
ure 11. In this experiment Weber recorded the difference in the force on
the torsion balance when the sapphire crystal detector was shielded by a

30. They also noted that the experiments of Dicke and Braginsky, which were used to
establish the equality of gravitational and inertial mass, would be sensitive to a neutrino
wind from the sun if Weber were correct.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

139

Figur 11. Sketch of reactor antineutrino experiment. From Weber (1988).

5 kg crystal and when it was not. Weber’s experiment depended on the
correctness of his theory. “Again, if the large cross sections predicted by
the theory are correct, a larger crystal should serve as an antineutrino
shield. Switching is carried out by harmonically moving the shield into
the line of sight between reactor and balance” (P. 37). He reported a force
exerted on the balance of 3.9 (cid:8) 0.4 (cid:5) 10(cid:6)5 dynes, comparison with his
predicted value of 3.0 (cid:5) 10(cid:6)5 dynes (Figur 12). “We are not stating that
the theory as presented here is complete, and agreement of observation
with theory is not claimed” (P. 37).

Weber’s third experiment used solar neutrinos, which avoided back-
ground and experimental problems associated with a nuclear reactor. In
this case the torsion balance had a crystal on one side and an equal mass
composed of lead sheets on the other (Figur 6).

If two equal masses having different composition are at opposite
ends of a torsion balance, the Eötvös experiment is expected to give
no observable torques, due to gravitational and inertial forces.
Jedoch, if the masses have very different Debye temperatures, Und
very different crystal structures, the solar-neutrino ºux is expected
to produce torques.

A diurnal effect is predicted as the position of the Sun changes,
relative to the balance. We have been observing the diurnal effect
during the past two years, with a peak when the Sun is in the direc-
tion of the line normal to the line joining the two masses.

Considerable care is required to distinguish forces associated
with solar neutrinos from effects of diurnal ºuctuations due to vari-
ations in temperature, and laboratory building orientation. (P. 38)

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

140

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

Figur 12. Observed response to reactor antineutrinos. From Weber (1988).

The results for the solar-neutrino experiment are shown in Figure 13.
Weber remarked that, “These data imply that a force of (cid:2) 4.6 (cid:5) 10(cid:6)6
dynes is being observed, due to the elastic scattering of solar neutrinos”
(P. 38).

Weber concluded that, “Experiments with antineutrinos from tritium
at about 12 keV, with reactor neutrinos at about 1.6 MeV, and solar neu-
trinos in the range 0 (cid:6) 430 keV, give measurable forces, apparently due to
coherent scattering from stiff nearly perfect crystals, consistent with the
hypothesis of very large cross sections” (P. 39).

Weber’s theoretical calculations and, insbesondere, his experimental re-
sults on neutrinos were taken seriously by Franson and Jacobs (1992). Der
introduction to their paper noted that, “Although this [Weber’s] theory
has been criticized by several authors, potentially important experiments
should be repeated regardless of whether or not their results are under-
stood theoretically” (P. 2235). They further remarked that Weber’s experi-
mentally measured force from solar neutrinos corresponded to a transfer of
86 % of the incident neutrino momentum to the crystal and that most of
the neutrinos scattered at large angles. They incorporated this result into
the design of their experimental apparatus (Figur 14). “The fact that
nearly total neutrino scattering was apparently observed in the earlier ex-
periments allows the possibility of using one crystal to shield the neutrino

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

141

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

Figur 13. Elastic scattering of solar neutrinos. From Weber (1988).

Figur 14. Top view of the torsional pendula, consisting of two sapphire disks
suspended by tungsten ªbers, and the two sapphire “shield” crystals. Aus
Franson and Jacobs (1992).

ºux from impinging on a second crystal.31 . . . In view of this situation it
was felt that it would be acceptable to use such a shield in the present ex-
periment as a test of the earlier experimental results” (P. 2235). The au-
thors remarked, Jedoch, that because of this assumption, care would have
to be taken in the interpretation of their results.

The experiment used two identical torsion balances consisting of two

31. In this case Weber’s theory and results acted as an “enabling theory,” which allowed
the design of the Franson-Jacobs experiment. I note than an “enabling theory” need not be
correct. For details see Franklin (1995).

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

142

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

Figur 15. Mach-Zehndere interferometer used to measure the phase shift due
to the differential rotation of two fused silica bars attached to the top of the tor-
sional pendula (not shown). From Franson and Jacobs (1992).

sapphire crystals, suspended side by side in a vacuum chamber. Shield
crystals were placed in front of the sapphire disks shielding half of each
disk. Thus the neutrinos would exert forces that would result in a differen-
tial rotation between the two balances, if Weber was correct. The expected
differential rotation would be measured using an interferometer (Feige-
ure 15). A bar of fused silica was mounted on the top of each of the sap-
phire disks and positioned at an angle of 45° relative to the beams from a
helium-neon laser. A rotation of the bars would increase or decrease the
optical path length of the laser beams passing through them. A common
rotation would have no effect on the fringe pattern, whereas a differen-
tial rotation would produce a measurable change in the pattern. The ex-
perimental apparatus was calibrated by applying a known torque to one
of the torsional pendula. The estimated torque was in good agreement
with the measured torque. The experimenters calculated that the appara-
tus would be sensitive to the neutrino ºux in an interval of 20 minutes at
sunrise each day. The expected result was calculated and is shown in Fig-
ure 16. A typical data run began around midnight and lasted until one
hour after sunrise. A typical observed result is shown in Figure 17. “It can
be seen that the signal-to-noise ratio was sufªciently high that neutrino
scattering of the expected magnitude should have been apparent from a
single experimental run and that none was observed” (S. 2237–8). Der
data for 22 experimental runs gave an average value for f (cid:2) 0.0033

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

143

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

Figur 16. Expected differential torque from neutrino scatteriung as a function
of time and normalized to its maximum value. From Franson and Jacobs (1992).

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

Figur 17. Measured torque from a typical run, normalized to the maximum
expected torque of Figure 16 and plotted on the same scale. The high-frequency
oscillations correspond to torsional modes of the pendula. From Franson and
Jacobs (1992).

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

144

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

(cid:2) 0.0030 Wo (cid:9)(T) (cid:2) F (cid:9)e(T), Wo (cid:9)(T) was the measured torque, (cid:9)e(T)
was the expected torque, and f was a parameter obtained from a least
squares ªt to the data. Franson and Jacobs concluded that, “The uncer-
tainty (one standard deviation) in this estimate was obtained from the ob-
served variation in the results of the 22 individual experimental runs and
is a factor of 330 less than one would expect from total scattering ( F (cid:2) 1).
These results are inconsistent with the corresponding value ( F (cid:2) 0.86) ob-
tained in the earlier experiments . . .” (P. 2238).

The experimenters also noted that, “As mentioned previously, the ex-
pected torque (cid:9)e(T) was calculated on the hypothesis that the shield crys-
tals give total scattering as suggested by the earlier theoretical predictions
and experimental results” (P. 2238). Without using that assumption they
calculated a large-angle neutrino scattering length, ls. Their experimental
results yielded an estimated scattering length of greater than 120 cm, con-
sistent with an inªnite scattering length. The results obtained by Weber
yielded a scattering length of 0.64 cm. “Thus the results obtained here are
inconsistent with the earlier results regardless of whether or not it is as-
sumed that the shield crystals scatter all of the incident neutrinos”
(P. 2238).32

Both Weber’s theory and experimental results were further tested in
an experiment by the Eöt-Wash group33 that was primarily devoted to
measuring the universality of free fall (Su, Hackel et al. 1994).34 The ex-
perimenters used a continuously rotating torsion balance to measure the
differential accelerations of Be-Cu and Be-Al test bodies, and most impor-
tantly for our story the differential acceleration of single-crystal silicon en-
cased in an aluminum shell and copper. The experiment was calibrated by
both sudden changes in the turntable rotation speed and by placing
known masses near the torsion balance to introduce known gravitational
Effekte. Other sources of background that might mask or mimic the
sought-for effect such as tilt of the apparatus, magnetic effects, thermal ef-
fects, turntable irregularities, usw. were shown to be negligible.

The data obtained with the Si-Al/Cu masses, could be used to check

32. Franson and Jacobs thanked Joseph Weber for a discussion of his earlier experi-

gen.

33. The group adopted the whimsical nickname Eöt-Wash because of their previous
work of the Fifth Force in which they performed a modern version of the original Eötvös
Experiment, which had established the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. (For de-
tails see Franklin 1993).

34. Eric Adelberger, one if the leaders of the group, “found Weber’s experiment to be
completely unconvincing and realized that with a modest effort we could test his claim”
(private communication).

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

145

Weber’s results. If Weber were correct then the scattering of neutrinos
from the single-crystal Si mass would change the rotation of the balance.
Noch einmal, the experimenters noted that Weber’s theoretical calculations
had been refuted but that, “Here we address Weber’s claim that he has
veriªed his theory experimentally by using neutrinos from the Sun”
(P. 3634). The group stated that although their test bodies were not opti-
mum (as compared with those used by Weber) for testing Weber’s results,
“we had sufªcient sensitivity to make a decisive test of Weber’s claim that
solar neutrinos apply an appreciable force to single-crystal test bodies”
(P. 3634). The experimenters remarked that if Weber’s results were correct
then they should have observed a differential acceleration of (cid:6)3.0 (cid:5) 10(cid:6)9
cm/s2, for the Si-Al/Cu test bodies. “Instead we saw a signal of less than
(cid:6)5.0 (cid:5) 10(cid:6)12 cm/s2 (2(cid:3) limit on Si being repelled by the Sun)” (P. 3635).
This established a two-standard deviation limit of Fexpt/FWeber (cid:3) 1/530.
“We conclude that Weber’s claim of enhanced scattering of solar neutrinos
has been ruled out by direct experimental results” (P. 3635).

The combination of persuasive, negative experimental results and the
theoretical arguments against the correctness of Weber’s hypothesis con-
cerning neutrino scattering seems to have had a chilling effect on the fur-
ther investigation of Weber’s idea. During the period 1994–2008, I could
ªnd only two further experimental tests of Weber’s suggestion. Both were
negative.

The ªrst of these appeared in 1995 (Luo, Chen et al. 1995). The experi-
menters noted that Weber had not, in his original paper, given either the
stability or the noise level in his torsion balance. “Reanalysing Weber’s ex-
periments, we ªnd that the stability or noise level of the torsion balance
has not been given in his paper, this problem is very important and impos-
sible to be neglected. If the total noise level of the torsion balance was
comparative [comparable] with the effect predicted by Weber’s theory, sein
results, Natürlich, would be unacceptable” (P. 137). The apparatus was
quite similar to that used by Weber, containing a torsion balance with one
target consisting of lead sheets and the other of a single sapphire crystal.
The output for their balance is shown in Figure 18. The large jump to-
ward the right-hand side of the ªgure was a calibration signal. They found
that their calibration yielded a result of 1.2 (cid:5) 10(cid:6)8 dynes/mV. The aver-
age noise level was 6.75 mV, yielding a noise level for the balance of 8.1 (cid:5)
10(cid:6)8 dynes. They concluded, “According to the theory presented by
Weber, a force of about 5 (cid:5) 10(cid:6)6 dynes should be observed by our torsion
balance, due to elastic scattering of solar neutrinos. Based on the ratio of
1.2 (cid:5) 10(cid:6)8 dynes/mV, the predicted force 5 (cid:5) 10(cid:6)6 dynes is equivalent to
an output voltage of 417 mV, which was about 60 times larger than the

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

146

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

Figur 18. Observed movement of the torsion balance during 29 hours from
April 20 Zu 21, 1994. From Luo et al. (1995).

noise level, and should be observed obviously. Aber, in fact, we did not ªnd
any diurnal effect larger that a force of 8.1 (cid:5) 10(cid:6)8 dynes” (P. 139).

The second experiment appeared in 2006 (Feng, Yang et al. 2006). Der
experimenters used a torsion pendulum with four masses, two sapphire
crystals and two lead rings, and measured the change in the equilibrium
position of the pendulum which, if Weber was correct, would show a diur-
nal period. They noted the theoretical objections to Weber’s suggestion
and remarked that because the Eöt-Wash group had used a different crys-
talline material, silicon rather than sapphire, they could not compare that
result to Weber’s. “On the other hand, even though Weber’s theory is
doubted, the best and valid way to test it will be a longer high precision
experiment” (P. 2052). Possible temperature effects on the pendulum
were carefully measured and the experimenters concluded that they were
negligible. The group concluded that, “Our experiment gives a null result
for the diurnal force with a noise level of 3.8 X 10(cid:6)14 N, welches ist
526 times smaller than the predicted value of Weber’s theory, and directly
rules out Weber’s theory and the experimental result” (P. 2052).

This was the latest experimental test of Weber’s theory of neutrino scat-
tering and of his experimental results. Over a period of slightly more than
20 years there had been only four such tests. This was a far cry from the ac-
tivity occasioned by Weber’s claim that he had observed gravity waves.

Weber’s hypothesis is, Jedoch, still alive. In 2008 a group in Romania

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

147

published a design for a high-sensitivity torsion balance to detect neutri-
nos, which they stated was currently under construction (Cruceru, Nico-
lescu et al. 2008). They remarked that, “One of the most intriguing
proposals of the last decades in physics is represented by Weber’s idea of
detecting neutrinos by coherent scattering on stiff crystals” (P. 1719). Der
group noted the previous theoretical criticisms of Weber, but found rea-
sons to question all of them. They were also undeterred by the previous
negative experimental tests. “Even though Weber’s theory is doubted, Die
only way to test it will be to go through new dedicated experiments. Es ist
signiªcant and necessary that new designed experiments test Weber’s the-
ory as well as Weber’s experimental results” (P. 1725). Their new device is
intended to be both highly sensitive and portable so that it can be in-
stalled in “signiªcantly different locations.”

4. Diskussion
The history we have presented demonstrates that “universalism” as both a
norm and an ideal of science is rather complex in its application. Weber’s
failure to adequately deal with the criticisms of his early work on gravity
waves led to an almost total loss of his credibility with respect to that sub-
ject. Even when Weber later offered an experimental argument against the
claim that he had manipulated his acceptance threshold to obtain a posi-
tive result no one in the physics community pursued that issue. It was re-
garded as a waste of time.

We have seen, Jedoch, that loss of credibility in one area does not nec-
essarily lead to loss of credibility in all areas. It is not transitive. It did not
apply to Weber’s unorthodox hypothesis concerning the coherent scatter-
ing of neutrinos. That suggestion, along with Weber’s experimental re-
sults supporting that claim, was investigated both theoretically and exper-
imentally, albeit not with the same enthusiasm as his early work on
gravity waves. Although that later work on neutrinos has been found
wanting, it is still alive in the proposal to build a more sensitive balance,
although just barely.

It is also signiªcant that Weber’s 1984, 1985, Und 1988 publications
on neutrino scattering were all published in refereed journals. Tatsächlich, Die
1988 Papier, which included experimental results, was published after his
earlier theoretical work on neutrinos had been extensively criticized. Col-
lins cites a statement from one of the referees of that 1988 Papier:

So the reason I recommended, eventually, the publication of that
paper was because, although it seemed impossible, he was present-
ing data, he did have a calibration, and he describes his apparatus.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

148

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

So you can’t not publish it just because you don’t believe it can be
möglich. . . .

There were referees who said, “Don’t publish that paper,” but I
said that you’d better publish it, because with my changes he’s ob-
served all the rules. . . .

I was the culprit in getting that published, simply because I
thought in all fairness he’s got an effect there, calibrated, and not
there with a control bit of lead, and therefore it obeys all the rules
of publishing, unless you just say, “Oh, it can’t be true”—a very
dangerous thing to say. (Collins 2004, P. 335)

It is clear that the referee was adopting “universalism” as a guiding
principle.35 Although suggesting an implausible hypothesis, Weber’s pa-
per was acceptable according to the usual criteria for publication. Neither
Weber’s previous work nor the criticism of it affected the decision to rec-
ommend publication. Nor did it result in a refusal to fund his research. In
his later papers Weber acknowledged ªnancial support from the Advanced
Research Projects Agency (Department of Defense), the National Science
Foundation, the Defense Nuclear Agency, the Strategic Defense Initiative,
and the Ofªce of Innovative Science and Technology.36

Despite Weber’s record of failure over the last twenty ªve years of his
life, his earlier achievements on the apparatus to detect gravity waves are
still recognized. His original antenna, a Weber bar, along with a plaque
commemorating it, is on display at the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravi-
tational Wave Observatory) site in Hanford Washington. The American
Astronomical Society prize for instrumentation is called the Joseph Weber
Prize for Astronomical Instrumentation.

Verweise
Aharonov, Y., F. T. Avignone, A. Casher, et al. 1987. “Constraints on
Anomalous Scattering of Neutrinos from Crystals.” Physical Review Let-
ters 58: 1173–1175.

Bertsch, G. F. and S. M. Austin.1986. “Comment on “Method of observa-

tion of neutrinos and antineutrinos.” Physical Review C 34: 361.

Boughn, S. P., W. M. Fairbank, R. P. Giffard, et al. 1982. “Observations

35. One should not extrapolate from the comments of one referee. Clearly other referees
argued against publication but it is difªcult to know whether this was because they be-
lieved Weber’s work was wrong or because of his reputation, or some combination of the
zwei. Nevertheless the fact that the 1984, 1985, Und 1988 papers were published argues for
an overall universalism in the publication process.

36. For details of Weber’s subsequent publications and funding see Collins (2004,

Chapters 19–21).

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

149

with a Low-Temperature Resonant Mass Gravitational Radiation De-
tector.” Asrophysical Journal 261: L19–L22.

Braun, B. L., A. P. Mills and J. A. Tydon 1982. “Results of a 440-day
search for gravitational radiation.” Physical Review D 26: 1209–1218.
Diener, M. N. 1987. “Comment on “Method of observation of neutrinos

and antineutrinos.” Physics Review C(1164–1165).

Casella, R. C. 1986. “On the Theory of Coherent Neutrino Scattering

from Crustals.” Il Nuovo Cimento 94A: 42–50.

Collins, H. 1994. “A Strong Conªrmation of the Experimenters’ Regress.”

Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 25(3): 493–503.

Collins, H. 2004. Gravity’s Shadow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cruceru, ICH., G. Nicolescu and O. G. Duliu. 2008. “A Dedicated Torsion
Balance to Detect Neutrinos by Coherent Scattering on High Debye
Temperature Monocrystals.” International Journal of Modern Physics A
23: 1719–1728.

Dodonov, V. V., V. ICH. Manko and V. N. Rudenko. 1982. “The Efªciency of
a Gravitational Detector with Interference of Quantum States.” JETP
Letters 36: 63–66.

Dodonov, V. V., V. ICH. Manko and V. N. Rudenko. 1983. “Quantum Inte-
grals of Motion and Gravity-Wave Experiment Measurements in Pure
Quantum Sates.” Foundations of Physics 13: 607–628.

Drever, R. W. P., J. Hough, R. Bland, et al. 1973. “Search for Short Bursts

of Gravitationa Radiation.” Nature 246: 340–344.

Felice, F. D. 1979. “Effects of a Graviational Wave on Relativistic Parti-

cles.” Journal of Physics A 12: 1223–1228.

Feng, G., S. Yang, L. Tu, et al. 2006. “Improvement of Test of Solar Neu-
trino Coherent Scattering with Torsion Pendulum.” Chinese Physics Let-
ters 23: 2052–2055.

Ferrari, V., G. Pizzella, M. Lee, et al. 1982. “Search for correlations Be-
tween the University of Maryland and the University of Rome
gravitationa radiation antennas.” Physical Review D 25: 2471–2486.
Franklin, A. 1993. The Rise and Fall of the Fifth Force: Discovery, Pursuit,
and Justiªcation in Modern Physics. New York: American Institute of
Physik.

Franklin, A. 1994. “How to Avoid the Experimenters’ Regress.” Studies in

History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 25: 97–121.

Franklin, A. 1995. “Laws and Experiment.” Pp. 191–207 in Laws of Na-

tur. Edited by F. Weinert. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Franklin, A. 1999. “Instrumental Loyalty and the Recycling of Expertise.”
Pp. 97–131 in Can That Be Right? Essays on Experiment, Beweis, Und
Wissenschaft. Edited by A. Franklin. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

150

Gravity Waves and Neutrinos

Franklin, A. 2001. Are There Really Neutrinos? An Evidential History. Nocken-

Brücke, MA: Perseus Books.

Franson, J. D. and B. C. Jaqcobs 1992. “Null Result for Enhanced Neu-

trino Scattering in Crystals.” Physical Review A 46: 2235–2239.

Fujimoto, M. K. and H. Hirakawa. 1979. “Theory of the Detection of
Continuous Gravitational Radiation.” Journal of the Physical Society of
Japan 46: 703–706.

Garwin, R. L. 1974. “Detection of Gravity Waves Challenged.” Physics To-

day 27(12): 9–11.

Giffard, R. P. 1976. “Ultimate sensitivity limit of a gravitational wave an-
tenna using a linear motion detector.” Physical Review D 14: 2478–
2486.

Hirakawa, H., K. Tsubono and M. K. Fujimoto. 1978. “Search for Gravi-
tational Radiation from the Crab Oulsar.” Physical Review D 17: 1919–
1923.

Ho, T. H. 1986. “Comments on the “Method for Observation of Neu-

trinos and Antineutrinos”.” Physics Letters 168B: 295.

Jensen, Ö. G. 1979. “Seismic Detection of Gravitational Radiation.” Re-

views of Geophysics and Space Physics 17: 2057–2069.

Kafka, P. and L. Schnupp. 1978. “Final Result of the Munich-Frascati
Gravitational Radiation Experiment.” Astronomy and Astrophysics 70:
97–103.

Kenneªck, D. 2007. Traveling at the speed of thought: Einstein and the quest for

gravitional waves. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lee, M., D. Gretz, S. Stepple, et al. 1976. “Gravitational-Radiation-De-
tector Observations in 1973 and 1974.” Physical Review D 14: 893–
906.

Levine, J. L. 2004. “Early Gravity-Wave Detection Experiments, 1960–

1975.” Physics in Perspective 6: 42–75.

Lipkin, H. J. 1987. “N Dependence of Coherent Radiation from Crystals.”

Physical Review Letters 58: 1176–79.

Luo, J., X. Chen, J. Li, et al. 1995. “Test of Abnormally Large Coherent
Scattering Cross section Using Solar-Neutrino.” Chinese Physics Letters
12: 136–139.

Merton, R. 1942. “A Note on Science and Democracy.” Journal of Legal

and Political Sociology 1: 115–126.

Shaviv, G. and J. Rosen, Eds. 1975. General Relativity and Gravitation: Pro-
ceedings of the Seventh International Conference (GR7), Tel-Aviv University,
June 23–28, 1974. New York: John Wiley.

Schmied, P. F. 1987. “Comments on a reported Measurement of an Abnor-
mally Large Coherent Neutrino Cross Section.” Physics Letters B 183:
107–109.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
2
1
1
9
1
7
9
0
8
5
0
P
Ö
S
C
.
2
0
1
0
1
8
2
1
1
9
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft

151

Su, Y., B. R. Hackel, E. G. Adelberger, et al. 1994. “New Tests of the

Universality of Free Fall.” Physical Review D 50: 3614–3636.

Tyson, J. A. and R. P. Giffard. 1978. “Gravitational-Wave Astronomy.”

Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophyiscs 16: 521–554.

Walls, D. F. and P. Zoller. 1981. “Enhanced Sensitivity of a Gravitational

Wave Detector.” Physics Letters 85A: 118–120.

Weber, J. 1969. “Evidence for Discovery of Gravitational Radiation.”

Physical Review Letters 22: 1320–1324.

Weber, J. 1970. “Anistropy and Polarization in the Gravitational-

Radiation Experiments.” Physical Review Letters 25: 180–184.

Weber, J. 1977. “Gravitational Radiation detector observations in 1973

and 1974.” Nature 266: 243.

Weber, J. 1981. “New Method for Increase of Interaction of Gravitational

Radiation with an Antenna.” Physics Letters 81A: 542–544.

Weber, J. 1984. “Gravitons, Neutrinos, and Antineutrinos.” Foundations of

Physik 14: 1185–1209.

Weber, J. 1985. “Method for observation of neutrinos and antineutrinos.”

Physics Review C 31(1468–75).

Weber, J. 1988. “Apparent Observation of abnormally large coherent scat-
tering cross sections using keV and MeV range antineutrinos, and solar
neutrinos.” Physical Review D 38: 32–39.

Weber, J., M. Lee, D. J. Gretz, et al. 1973. “New Gravitational Radiation

Experiments.” Physical Review Letters 31: 779–783.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D