Scientists at the
European Space Agency have announced
a surprising gravitational finding that's not predicted by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. It appears that upon rotating a ring of
superconducting material a
gravitomagnetic field is generated that is "[...]a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts." The experiment tests the Tajmar and de Matos conjecture on the difference between high-precision mass measurements of
Cooper pairs and their prediction in quantum theory. They claim this anomaly could be explained by the appearance of a gravitomagnetic field in the spinning superconductor. While they have completed an initial run of 250 experiments, they are asking other scientists to confirm their findings. A
more detailed PDF is available for download.
Does this effect in any way relate to
Eugene Podkletnov's claim that a spinning superconductor showed "gravity shielding effects"? Perhaps not, but a curious development nonetheless.
Update [2006-3-23 15:57:55 by maynard]: PDF contains text that their findings REFUTE Podkletnov's claim, not confirms it. See this:
The reported results are very different from previous claims in the literature from Podkletnov claiming gravitational shielding effects above rotating superconductors21,22. As we have not observed any change in the vertical sensors (± 5 ?g) above any superconductors during their phase transition and during rotation, our results even put new limits on any possible shielding effects (effect must be < 0.0005% compared to claims of up to 2% of weight change for samples above a rotating superconductor).
Please also see
this thread where dkos users and physicists
science and
mbkennel present somewhat differing views on the relative importance of this finding. And give both of 'em your recomended love as they're the only folks here offering insight from the professional's perspective on this announcement. Thanks to both of you!
[UPDATE #2] Please see here where dkos user andyfoland links to the acutal preprint of the paper in question. Again, please thank andy with your recommended love for providing an indepth reference (for those qualified to read and understand it - it's certainly over my head!)
[UPDATE #3]Please note dkos user physicist who calls these claims crackpot science and doubts that this is anything more than scientists abusing the press to make their case before peer formal review. (I believe that's his point). Anyway, please give him your recommended love for telling us his perspective as a professional in the field.