Does the superfluid part of a supersolid, superfluid, or superconducting body have, of itself, “inertia?”

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
The contention discussed here, is that one might be able to get around the puzzle contained in the results of Kim and Chan:— That a quantity of inertial mass is effectively lost, (a so called non-classical-rotational inertia NCRI,) but that being a “supersolid” there is no path for the normal fraction to slip past the 1 – 2 % supersolid fraction, which (it is supposed) remains stationary within the annulus. As a solution we argue that the effective loss of inertial mass might be a real loss of inertial mass– that it might be intrinsic to a supersolid or superfluid “pool,” (a portion which has gone supersolid or superfluid.) In this way the puzzle would be resolved because the normal part and the supersolid part do not need to slip past each other in order to produce the experimental results.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
STEDTS-2
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-12-12
View other versions
Added to PP index
2020-12-12

Total views
44 ( #59,334 of 65,658 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #39,510 of 65,658 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.