does Gravity B probe have an error ? [Archive]

Charlie Stromeyer Jr.

May23-04, 03:14 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>The Gravity B probe has superconducting niobium shells. Are the\nengineers aware of the J. Tate et al. experiments which found that the\nmass of the cooper pair in a rotating superconducting niobium ring is\ngreater than predicted by theory, i.e. the London moment flux [1].\n\nSome other potentially related experiments are discussed in paper [2],\nbut the authors do not find a satifactory resolution of this issue and\nso instead conclude:\n\n"Present uncertainties in experiments with rotating\nsuperconductors and superfluids leave a\nvery high upper boundary of possibly involved\ngravitomagnetic fields. This shall stimulate the\ninvestigation of the gravitomagnetic properties of\nsuch rotating superconductors and superfluids, for\nexample by measuring the torque on a spinning\ngyroscope produced by the gravitomagnetic field\npossibly generated by rotating superconductors\nand superfluids. According to the knowledge of\nthe authors, this experiment has not been done.\nAccording to our analysis, it could be a worthwhile\ntask however."\n\nFurthermore, T.H. Boyer discovered that a conducting spherical shell\nis subject to repulsive stress due to EM zero point energy [3], and so\nI am curious to know if NASA is planning to perform any Casimir- like\nexperiments?\n\nAlas, Richard Feynman is no more, and so if there might be some type\nof experimental error(s) then perhaps NASA should summon good ole\nUncle Al to the rescue !-)\n\n\n[1] J. Tate et al., Phys Rev Lett 62(8), pp.845-50.\n\n[2] M. Tajmar, C.J. de Matos, Physica C (superconductivity), 385\n(2003), pp.551-54.\n\n[3] T.H. Boyer, Phys Rev 174 (1968) p.1764-?.\n\nG. Esposito et al., Int Jrnl Mod Phys A, 14(2), (1999),\npp.281-300.\n\nhttp://www.wspc.com/books/physics/4505.html\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>The Gravity B probe has superconducting niobium shells. Are the
engineers aware of the J. Tate et al. experiments which found that the
mass of the cooper pair in a rotating superconducting niobium ring is
greater than predicted by theory, i.e. the London moment flux [1].

Some other potentially related experiments are discussed in paper [2],
but the authors do not find a satifactory resolution of this issue and
so instead conclude:

"Present uncertainties in experiments with rotating
superconductors and superfluids leave a
very high upper boundary of possibly involved
gravitomagnetic fields. This shall stimulate the
investigation of the gravitomagnetic properties of
such rotating superconductors and superfluids, for
example by measuring the torque on a spinning
gyroscope produced by the gravitomagnetic field
possibly generated by rotating superconductors
and superfluids. According to the knowledge of
the authors, this experiment has not been done.
According to our analysis, it could be a worthwhile
task however."

Furthermore, T.H. Boyer discovered that a conducting spherical shell
is subject to repulsive stress due to EM zero point energy [3], and so
I am curious to know if NASA is planning to perform any Casimir- like
experiments?

Alas, Richard Feynman is no more, and so if there might be some type
of experimental error(s) then perhaps NASA should summon good ole
Uncle Al to the rescue !-)

[1] J. Tate et al., Phys Rev Lett 62(8), pp.845-50.

[2] M. Tajmar, C.J. de Matos, Physica C (superconductivity), 385
(2003), pp.551-54.

[3] T.H. Boyer, Phys Rev 174 (1968) p.1764-?.

G. Esposito et al., \Int Jrnl Mod Phys A, 14(2), (1999),
pp.281-300.

http://www.wspc.com/books/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/4505.html

Italo Vecchi

May25-04, 01:29 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>cstromey@hotmail.com (Charlie Stromeyer Jr.) wrote in message news:<61773ed7.0405221148.1db51a41@posting.google. com>...\n> The Gravity B probe has superconducting niobium shells. Are the\n> engineers aware of the J. Tate et al. experiments which found that the\n> mass of the cooper pair in a rotating superconducting niobium ring is\n> greater than predicted by theory, i.e. the London moment flux [1].\n>\n> Some other potentially related experiments are discussed in paper [2],\n> but the authors do not find a satifactory resolution of this issue and\n> so instead conclude:\n>\n> "Present uncertainties in experiments with rotating\n> superconductors and superfluids leave a\n> very high upper boundary of possibly involved\n> gravitomagnetic fields.\n\n....\n\n> [1] J. Tate et al., Phys Rev Lett 62(8), pp.845-50.\n>\n> [2] M. Tajmar, C.J. de Matos, Physica C (superconductivity), 385\n> (2003), pp.551-54.\n>\n> [3] T.H. Boyer, Phys Rev 174 (1968) p.1764-?.\n>\n> G. Esposito et al., Int Jrnl Mod Phys A, 14(2), (1999),\n> pp.281-300.\n>\n> http://www.wspc.com/books/physics/4505.html\n\n\nRef. [2] is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0203033 .\nTajmar, Matos and others elaborate further\nat http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0404005 . Here is the abstract.\n\n"The weight of high temperature superconductors passing through their\ncritical temperature was measured. No anomaly was found within the\nequipment accuracy ruling out claimed anomalies by Rounds and Reiss.\nOur experiments extend the accuracy of previous measurements by two\norders of magnitude. In addition, for the first time, the weight of a\nrotating superconductor was measured. Also in this case, no weight\nanomaly could be seen within the accuracy of the equipment used. "\n\nCheers,\n\nIV\n\n------------------\n\n"She ate a little bit, and said anxiously to herself, `Which way?\nWhich way?\', holding her hand on the top of her head to feel which way\nit was growing, and she was quite surprised to find that she remained\nthe same size: to be sure, this generally happens when one eats cake,\nbut Alice had got so much into the way of expecting nothing but\nout-of-the-way things to happen, that it seemed\nquite dull and stupid for life to go on in the common way. "\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>cstromey@hotmail.com (Charlie Stromeyer Jr.) wrote in message news:<61773ed7.0405221148.1db51a41@posting.google.com>...
> The Gravity B probe has superconducting niobium shells. Are the
> engineers aware of the J. Tate et al. experiments which found that the
> mass of the cooper pair in a rotating superconducting niobium ring is
> greater than predicted by theory, i.e. the London moment flux [1].
>
> Some other potentially related experiments are discussed in paper [2],
> but the authors do not find a satifactory resolution of this issue and
> so instead conclude:
>
> "Present uncertainties in experiments with rotating
> superconductors and superfluids leave a
> very high upper boundary of possibly involved
> gravitomagnetic fields.

....

> [1] J. Tate et al., Phys Rev Lett 62(8), pp.845-50.
>
> [2] M. Tajmar, C.J. de Matos, Physica C (superconductivity), 385
> (2003), pp.551-54.
>
> [3] T.H. Boyer, Phys Rev 174 (1968) p.1764-?.
>
> G. Esposito et al., \Int Jrnl Mod Phys A, 14(2), (1999),
> pp.281-300.
>
> http://www.wspc.com/books/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/4505.html

Ref. [2] is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0203033 .
Tajmar, Matos and others elaborate further
at http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0404005 . Here is the abstract.

"The weight of high temperature superconductors passing through their
critical temperature was measured. No anomaly was found within the
equipment accuracy ruling out claimed anomalies by Rounds and Reiss.
Our experiments extend the accuracy of previous measurements by two
orders of magnitude. In addition, for the first time, the weight of a
rotating superconductor was measured. Also in this case, no weight
anomaly could be seen within the accuracy of the equipment used. "

Cheers,

IV

------------------

"She ate a little bit, and said anxiously to herself, `Which way?
Which way?', holding her hand on the top of her head to feel which way
it was growing, and she was quite surprised to find that she remained
the same size: to be sure, this generally happens when one eats cake,
but Alice had got so much into the way of expecting nothing but
out-of-the-way things to happen, that it seemed
quite dull and stupid for life to go on in the common way. "

Charlie Stromeyer Jr.

May25-04, 01:33 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>cstromey@hotmail.com (Charlie Stromeyer Jr.) wrote in message news:\n\n> Furthermore, T.H. Boyer discovered that a conducting spherical shell\n> is subject to repulsive stress due to EM zero point energy [3], and so\n> I am curious to know if NASA is planning to perform any Casimir- like\n> experiments?\n>\n> Alas, Richard Feynman is no more, and so if there might be some type\n> of experimental error(s) then perhaps NASA should summon good ole\n> Uncle Al to the rescue !-)\n\nPaper [1] proposes doing a space satellite Eotvos experiment with zero\npoint vacuum energy to try to determine if Casimir vacuum energy falls\nin a gravitational field at the same rate as ordinary matter.\n\nSo now there is another reason for Uncle Al to go up there and fix the\nGravity Probe B !-) There are also some new papers about testing GTR\nwhich may interest Uncle Al and some other readers [2].\n\nAlso, if anyone wants to take a mental break and waste some time then\nthere is a new paper providing more evidence that the alleged\n"Podkletnov effect" was bogus [3].\n\nWhatever happens, let\'s all root for Uncle Al and hope that he doesn\'t\nland the Gravity Probe B in our own backyard :-)\n\n\n[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0312115\n\n[2] gr-qc/0405048, 0405015, 0402122, 0401063, 0312091, 0312008,\n0309023\n\n[3] gr-qc/0404005\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>cstromey@hotmail.com (Charlie Stromeyer Jr.) wrote in message news:

> Furthermore, T.H. Boyer discovered that a conducting spherical shell
> is subject to repulsive stress due to EM zero point energy [3], and so
> I am curious to know if NASA is planning to perform any Casimir- like
> experiments?
>
> Alas, Richard Feynman is no more, and so if there might be some type
> of experimental error(s) then perhaps NASA should summon good ole
> Uncle Al to the rescue !-)

Paper [1] proposes doing a space satellite Eotvos experiment with zero
point vacuum energy to try to determine if Casimir vacuum energy falls
in a gravitational field at the same rate as ordinary matter.

So now there is another reason for Uncle Al to go up there and fix the
Gravity Probe B !-) There are also some new papers about testing GTR
which may interest Uncle Al and some other readers [2].

Also, if anyone wants to take a mental break and waste some time then
there is a new paper providing more evidence that the alleged
"Podkletnov effect" was bogus [3].

Whatever happens, let's all root for Uncle Al and hope that he doesn't
land the Gravity Probe B in our own backyard :-)

[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0312115

[2] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405048, 0405015, 0402122, 0401063, 0312091, 0312008,
0309023

[3] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0404005

Charlie Stromeyer Jr.

May29-04, 11:52 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>vecchi@weirdtech.com (Italo Vecchi) wrote in message news:\n\n> Ref. [2] is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0203033 .\n> Tajmar, Matos and others elaborate further\n> at http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0404005 . Here is the abstract.\n>\n> "The weight of high temperature superconductors passing through their\n> critical temperature was measured. No anomaly was found within the\n> equipment accuracy ruling out claimed anomalies by Rounds and Reiss.\n> Our experiments extend the accuracy of previous measurements by two\n> orders of magnitude. In addition, for the first time, the weight of a\n> rotating superconductor was measured. Also in this case, no weight\n> anomaly could be seen within the accuracy of the equipment used. "\n\nNote, though, that this newer paper is about testing YBCO\nsuperconductors in order to rule out the alleged "Podkletnov effect"\nwhich had already been determined to be a bogus effect due to\nconservation of energy arguments.\n\nHowever, the two Tate et al. experiments were about using SQUIDs to\nmeasure the mass of the Cooper pair in a rotating niobium\nsuperconductor within a Landau-Ginzburg framework.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>vecchi@weirdtech.com (Italo Vecchi) wrote in message news:

> Ref. [2] is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0203033 .
> Tajmar, Matos and others elaborate further
> at http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0404005 . Here is the abstract.
>
> "The weight of high temperature superconductors passing through their
> critical temperature was measured. No anomaly was found within the
> equipment accuracy ruling out claimed anomalies by Rounds and Reiss.
> Our experiments extend the accuracy of previous measurements by two
> orders of magnitude. In addition, for the first time, the weight of a
> rotating superconductor was measured. Also in this case, no weight
> anomaly could be seen within the accuracy of the equipment used. "

Note, though, that this newer paper is about testing YBCO
superconductors in order to rule out the alleged "Podkletnov effect"
which had already been determined to be a bogus effect due to
conservation of energy arguments.

However, the two Tate et al. experiments were about using SQUIDs to
measure the mass of the Cooper pair in a rotating niobium
superconductor within a Landau-Ginzburg framework.

Uncle Al

May29-04, 11:52 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Charlie Stromeyer Jr." wrote:\n>\n> cstromey@hotmail.com (Charlie Stromeyer Jr.) wrote in message news:\n>\n> > Furthermore, T.H. Boyer discovered that a conducting spherical shell\n> > is subject to repulsive stress due to EM zero point energy [3], and so\n> > I am curious to know if NASA is planning to perform any Casimir- like\n> > experiments?\n> >\n> > Alas, Richard Feynman is no more, and so if there might be some type\n> > of experimental error(s) then perhaps NASA should summon good ole\n> > Uncle Al to the rescue !-)\n>\n> Paper [1] proposes doing a space satellite Eotvos experiment with zero\n> point vacuum energy to try to determine if Casimir vacuum energy falls\n> in a gravitational field at the same rate as ordinary matter.\n\nEotvos experiments that could work in principle could fail for real\nworld sample dilution versus apparatus sensitivity. An Eotvos\nexperiment is a (net property difference) versus (null) measurement.\nWith one singular exception, all test masses\' contrasted properties at\nabsolute magnitude are very dilute versus total rest mass. Their net\nproperty *difference* versus total rest mass, the active mass in the\nexperiment, is then negligibly small,\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b34\n(Absolute property mass)/(total mass) of test mass properties. 0.76%\nlight element absolute nuclear binding mass-equivalent reduces to\n0.19% difference in Be (6.462844 MeV/baryon) versus Mg (8.265129\nMeV/baryon), among the most divergent light element contrasts.\n\nThe only exception is the parity Eotvos experiment in which\nessentially 100% of the test mass is active mass - certainly all the\nnuclear mass and arguably all the non-valence electrons\' mass. The\ntable in the URL only assigns nuclear mass as active mass in parity\ntest masses. In parity test masses the difference *is* the property -\nand geometry is chosen to be exactly anti-phase along all coordinate\naxes. The difference between anti-phase lattices is then their\noverall sum. No fraction of test mass rest mass is inert, except\nperhaps for valence electrons not centered on nuclear coordinates.\n\nTwo more constraints: Composition EP violaton is constrained by the\nNordtvedt effect and lunar laser ranging to no more than 1 part in two\ntrillion difference/average. Thermodynamic arguments constrain *any*\nEP violation to no more than about 10 parts in a trillion\ndifference/average.\n\nOn that basis, the parity Eotvos experiment has two amplifiers over\nprevious EP investigations:\n\n1) At least 520-fold improvement for sample dilution.\n2) Up to 20-fold improvement for allowed anomaly amplitude vs.\nempirical constraint.\n\nThe parity Eotvos experiment then offers a potentially larger\nallowable EP anomaly than any other test by a factor of 10,000. Two\nto rour orders of magnitude improvement is significant.\n\nI have explored synthesis of bulk Casimatter, posted here some years\nback,\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/casimir3.htm\n\nAlternately vacuum deposit a minimal thickness reflective aluminum\nfilm, and a LiF-MgF2 alloy (to match CTE of aluminum) transparent gap\nwith optical half-length cancellation for 121 nm (92% reflectivity of\naluminum, 98% of transparency of spacer; excluded energy varies as the\ninverse fourth power of the gap; etalon efficiency varies with the\nnumber of bounces). Spin an annulus across alternate deposition\nsectors in hard vacuum to build a spiral of thousands of bifilar\nlayers, in principle. Cut out a piece. You have bulk Casimatter that\nis about 37 wt-% etalon gap.\n\nThe (excluded Casimir mass-energy)/(total mass-energy) is about one in\n10^15. Excluded Casimir mass-energy cannot exceed the binding energy\nof the lattice. At very small separations the Casimir effect becomes\nvan der Waals attraction.\n\n> So now there is another reason for Uncle Al to go up there and fix the\n> Gravity Probe B !-) There are also some new papers about testing GTR\n> which may interest Uncle Al and some other readers [2].\n\nGravity Probe B doen\'t need fixing. It was designed assuming, among\nother things,\n\n1) Einstein was exactly correct. There is no reason in any venue at\nany scale to presume otherwise, to date.\n2) London magnetic moment arises in a spinning superconductor.\nWorks by the book.\n3) Rotating bodies (10,000 rpm in Gravity Probe B) do not violate\nthe Equivalence Principle. If they do, it won\'t be a subtle thing to\ndetect and measure. Four gyro balls are spinning, their 80-kg housing\nis not.\n4) Rotating supercons have no Podkletnov effect. Ditto.\n\nA lot of heterodox theory will be permanently buried - or vindicated.\nNote that the gyro balls are fused amorphous silica not crystalline\nquartz of opposite hands. Gravity Probe B is *not* a parity Eotvos\nexperiment. It could be an EP test! Make another one in which two\ngyro balls are crafted from crystallographic space group P3(1)21\nalpha-quartz and P3(1)21 alpha-quartz. Two balls are fused silica.\nYou now have the parity EP test plus two hemi-parity tests. One\nexpects one hand of quartz to display most or all of the anomaly, the\nother to fall as expected.\n\nThere are a few, ah, problems. Gravity Probe B is rather expensive to\nfabricate, launch, and run. Carving perfect spheres of amorphous\nsilica and cooling them down to 1.8 K is no big whoop. Crystalline\nquartz is anisotropic. One would have to carve exact ellipsoids whose\naxes are aligned with crystallographic axes, and have them\nanistropically contract with temp into sphericity.\n\nTemp, K a,b c, A c/a\n=================================\n298 4.9137 5.4047 1.0999\n13 4.9021 5.3977 1.1011\n\n> Also, if anyone wants to take a mental break and waste some time then\n> there is a new paper providing more evidence that the alleged\n> "Podkletnov effect" was bogus [3].\n\nConsider simple examination. The atmosphere weighs/area about as much\nas a meter thickness of solid lead. The building above (and the\nground below, if you like) add more proximate mass/area to that.\nPodkletov switches on his anti-gravity beam. Everything above\n(and/or, at your pleasure, below) weighs fractionally less. Where\ndoes the mgh go (plus mechanical relaxation, spring equation, due to\nlowered weight)? There must surely be a power surge in the empowering\nmodality - energy is conserved. Podkletov switches off his\nanti-gravity beam. Everythng above (and/or, at your pleasure, below)\nweighs fractionally more. Where does the mgh come from (plus\nmechanical elastic energy, again)? There must surely be a power surge\nin the empowering modality - energy is conserved.\n\nThis is serious stuff. One could fashion a generator from a magnet\nsuspended on a loose spring (e.g., a fused silica spring as in BET\napparatus) inside an immovable coil. If the mgh "comes from\nelsewhere," you switch the Podkletov effect on and off in resonance\nwith the damped loaded spring and have a Perpetual Motion Machine of\nthe First Kind.\n\n> Whatever happens, let\'s all root for Uncle Al and hope that he doesn\'t\n> land the Gravity Probe B in our own backyard :-)\n\nI appreciate your enthusiasm, but I doubt anything unexpected will\noccur, either way, in Gravity Probe B. A huge triumph of the parity\nEotvos experiment would be for its Eotvos rotor to oscillate through\nan angle sufficient to translate its periphery a distance of two\natoms\' width. That\'s about an 8-sigma signal. Metric gravitation\npostulating the EP would be counterdemonstrated, affine gravitation\nanti-symmetric to parity transformation would be reduced to practice\nat will. Adelberger\'s Mark III rotor is sensitive to 1 part in\n10^(13) difference/average, 5X better than the Mark II used in the\nNordtvedt effect study.\n\n> [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0312115\n\nBy the time you work through all the assumptions, the paper argument\nis not strong. The elegantly claimed ratio of Casimir mass-equivalent\nto mass-equivalent is 1.6x10^(-14), which is consonent with my crudely\nconstructed Casimatter, about 10^(-15). "In drag-free satellite\nmissions such as SEE, STEP, Galileo Galilei or MICRO-SCOPE, the Eotvos\nparameter can reach an accuracy of 10^(-15)-10^(-17), so that our\nCasimir vacuum energy Eotvos test could reach a 1% level." A parity\nEotvos in alpha quartz would then offer 500,000,000% relative at 10\nparts-per-trillion maximum anomaly allowed, times 100% rest mass\nparticpation. Prune optimism to taste, hacking off three or five\norders of magnitude. Who still has the better heterodox experiment?\n\n> [2] gr-qc/0405048, 0405015, 0402122, 0401063, 0312091, 0312008,\n> 0309023\n\n> [3] gr-qc/0404005\n\nI would have done the [3] experiments in a dry nitrogen filled\nenclosure to eliminate icing. There are no magic surprises detected.\n\nParity effects are explicity absent in metric gravitation (and\nNewton). Parity effects are explicitly present in affine\ngravitation. Why does physics as whole pursue motes in a faery\'s eye,\nbut ignore the beam in its own eye?\n\nThanks for the references!\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm\n(Do something naughty to physics)\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Charlie Stromeyer Jr." wrote:
>
> cstromey@hotmail.com (Charlie Stromeyer Jr.) wrote in message news:
>
> > Furthermore, T.H. Boyer discovered that a conducting spherical shell
> > is subject to repulsive stress due to EM zero point energy [3], and so
> > I am curious to know if NASA is planning to perform any Casimir- like
> > experiments?
> >
> > Alas, Richard Feynman is no more, and so if there might be some type
> > of experimental error(s) then perhaps NASA should summon good ole
> > Uncle Al to the rescue !-)
>
> Paper [1] proposes doing a space satellite Eotvos experiment with zero
> point vacuum energy to try to determine if Casimir vacuum energy falls
> in a gravitational field at the same rate as ordinary matter.

Eotvos experiments that could work in principle could fail for real
world sample dilution versus apparatus sensitivity. An Eotvos
experiment is a (net property difference) versus (null) measurement.
With one singular exception, all test masses' contrasted properties at
absolute magnitude are very dilute versus total rest mass. Their net
property *difference* versus total rest mass, the active mass in the
experiment, is then negligibly small,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b34
(Absolute property mass)/(total mass) of test mass properties. .76%
light element absolute nuclear binding mass-equivalent reduces to
.19% difference in Be (6.462844 MeV/baryon) versus Mg (8.265129
MeV/baryon), among the most divergent light element contrasts.

The only exception is the parity Eotvos experiment in which
essentially 100% of the test mass is active mass - certainly all the
nuclear mass and arguably all the non-valence electrons' mass. The
table in the URL only assigns nuclear mass as active mass in parity
test masses. In parity test masses the difference *is* the property -
and geometry is chosen to be exactly anti-phase along all coordinate
axes. The difference between anti-phase lattices is then their
overall sum. No fraction of test mass rest mass is inert, except
perhaps for valence electrons not centered on nuclear coordinates.

Two more constraints: Composition EP violaton is constrained by the
Nordtvedt effect and lunar laser ranging to no more than 1 part in two
trillion difference/average. Thermodynamic arguments constrain *any*
EP violation to no more than about 10 parts in a trillion
difference/average.

On that basis, the parity Eotvos experiment has two amplifiers over
previous EP investigations:

1) At least 520-fold improvement for sample dilution.
2) Up to 20-fold improvement for allowed anomaly amplitude vs.
empirical constraint.

The parity Eotvos experiment then offers a potentially larger
allowable EP anomaly than any other test by a factor of 10,000. Two
to rour orders of magnitude improvement is significant.

I have explored synthesis of bulk Casimatter, posted here some years
back,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/casimir3.htm

Alternately vacuum deposit a minimal thickness reflective aluminum
film, and a LiF-MgF2 alloy (to match CTE of aluminum) transparent gap
with optical half-length cancellation for 121 nm (92% reflectivity of
aluminum, 98% of transparency of spacer; excluded energy varies as the
inverse fourth power of the gap; etalon efficiency varies with the
number of bounces). Spin an annulus across alternate deposition
sectors in hard vacuum to build a spiral of thousands of bifilar
layers, in principle. Cut out a piece. You have bulk Casimatter that
is about 37 wt-% etalon gap.

The (excluded Casimir mass-energy)/(total mass-energy) is about one in
10^15. Excluded Casimir mass-energy cannot exceed the binding energy
of the lattice. At very small separations the Casimir effect becomes
van der Waals attraction.

> So now there is another reason for Uncle Al to go up there and fix the
> Gravity Probe B !-) There are also some new papers about testing GTR
> which may interest Uncle Al and some other readers [2].

Gravity Probe B doen't need fixing. It was designed assuming, among
other things,

1) Einstein was exactly correct. There is no reason in any venue at
any scale to presume otherwise, to date.
2) London magnetic moment arises in a spinning superconductor.
Works by the book.
3) Rotating bodies (10,000 rpm in Gravity Probe B) do not violate
the Equivalence Principle. If they do, it won't be a subtle thing to
detect and measure. Four gyro balls are spinning, their 80-kg housing
is not.
4) Rotating supercons have no Podkletnov effect. Ditto.

A lot of heterodox theory will be permanently buried - or vindicated.
Note that the gyro balls are fused amorphous silica not crystalline
quartz of opposite hands. Gravity Probe B is *not* a parity Eotvos
experiment. It could be an EP test! Make another one in which two
gyro balls are crafted from crystallographic space group P3(1)21
\alpha-quartz and P3(1)21 \alpha-quartz. Two balls are fused silica.
You now have the parity EP test plus two hemi-parity tests. One
expects one hand of quartz to display most or all of the anomaly, the
other to fall as expected.

There are a few, ah, problems. Gravity Probe B is rather expensive to
fabricate, launch, and run. Carving perfect spheres of amorphous
silica and cooling them down to 1.8 K is no big whoop. Crystalline
quartz is anisotropic. One would have to carve exact ellipsoids whose
axes are aligned with crystallographic axes, and have them
anistropically contract with temp into sphericity.

Temp, K a,b c, A c/a
=================================
298 4.9137 5.4047 1.0999
13 4.9021 5.3977 1.1011

> Also, if anyone wants to take a mental break and waste some time then
> there is a new paper providing more evidence that the alleged
> "Podkletnov effect" was bogus [3].

Consider simple examination. The atmosphere weighs/area about as much
as a meter thickness of solid lead. The building above (and the
ground below, if you like) add more proximate mass/area to that.
Podkletov switches on his anti-gravity beam. Everything above
(and/or, at your pleasure, below) weighs fractionally less. Where
does the mgh go (plus mechanical relaxation, spring equation, due to
lowered weight)? There must surely be a power surge in the empowering
modality - energy is conserved. Podkletov switches off his
anti-gravity beam. Everythng above (and/or, at your pleasure, below)
weighs fractionally more. Where does the mgh come from (plus
mechanical elastic energy, again)? There must surely be a power surge
in the empowering modality - energy is conserved.

This is serious stuff. One could fashion a generator from a magnet
suspended on a loose spring (e.g., a fused silica spring as in BET
apparatus) inside an immovable coil. If the mgh "comes from
elsewhere," you switch the Podkletov effect on and off in resonance
with the damped loaded spring and have a Perpetual Motion Machine of
the First Kind.

> Whatever happens, let's all root for Uncle Al and hope that he doesn't
> land the Gravity Probe B in our own backyard :-)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I doubt anything unexpected will
occur, either way, in Gravity Probe B. A huge triumph of the parity
Eotvos experiment would be for its Eotvos rotor to oscillate through
an angle sufficient to translate its periphery a distance of two
atoms' width. That's about an 8-\sigma signal. Metric gravitation
postulating the EP would be counterdemonstrated, affine gravitation
anti-symmetric to parity transformation would be reduced to practice
at will. Adelberger's Mark III rotor is sensitive to 1 part in
10^(13) difference/average, 5X better than the Mark II used in the
Nordtvedt effect study.

> [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0312115

By the time you work through all the assumptions, the paper argument
is not strong. The elegantly claimed ratio of Casimir mass-equivalent
to mass-equivalent is 1.6x10^(-14), which is consonent with my crudely
constructed Casimatter, about 10^(-15). "In drag-free satellite
missions such as SEE, STEP, Galileo Galilei or MICRO-SCOPE, the Eotvos
parameter can reach an accuracy of 10^(-15)-10^(-17), so that our
Casimir vacuum energy Eotvos test could reach a 1% level." A parity
Eotvos in \alpha quartz would then offer 500,000,000% relative at 10
parts-per-trillion maximum anomaly allowed, times 100% rest mass
particpation. Prune optimism to taste, hacking off three or five
orders of magnitude. Who still has the better heterodox experiment?

> [2] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405048, 0405015, 0402122, 0401063, 0312091, 0312008,
> 0309023

> [3] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0404005

I would have done the [3] experiments in a dry nitrogen filled
enclosure to eliminate icing. There are no magic surprises detected.

Parity effects are explicity absent in metric gravitation (and
Newton). Parity effects are explicitly present in affine
gravitation. Why does physics as whole pursue motes in a faery's eye,
but ignore the beam in its own eye?

Thanks for the references!

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

Charlie Stromeyer Jr.

Jun2-04, 03:56 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\ncstromey@hotmail.com (Charlie Stromeyer Jr.) wrote in message news:\n\n> Furthermore, T.H. Boyer discovered that a conducting spherical shell\n> is subject to repulsive stress due to EM zero point energy [3], and so\n> I am curious to know if NASA is planning to perform any Casimir- like\n> experiments?\n\nPage L90 of [1] states, "Unfortunately, although the Casimir force for\nparallel plates is attractive, in a landmark paper Boyer showed that\nit is repulsive for a perfectly conducting spherical shell, and thus\nno balance of forces is possible. However, with PT-symmetric quantum\nelectrodynamics such a balance is achievable."\n\nHere, the authors are referring to their model of nonunitary massless\nQED. Although the Hamiltonian of this theory is nonhermitian, the\ntheory still has a real, positive spectrum which is achievable when\nsuch nonunitary theories still respect (the product of) PT invariance\n(where P and T represent parity and time reversal).\n\nIn this version of QED, the photon couples to the axial-vector current\nwith an imaginary coupling constant. The eigenvalue condition can be\nsolved, and the semiclassical Casimir model for the fine-structure\nconstant yields a positive value because instead of a Coulomb\nrepulsion there is an attraction due to e --> ie.\n\nIs such a theory realistic and might it be testable via the Gravity\nProbe B? I do not have any of the technical specifications or\nblueprints for the Probe, and nor am I an experimentalist anyways, and\nso this is why I am asking. TIA.\n\n\n[1] C.M. Bender and K.A. Milton, "A nonunitary version of massless\nquantum electrodynamics possessing a critical point", J. Phys. A, 32\n(1999), L87-L92.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>cstromey@hotmail.com (Charlie Stromeyer Jr.) wrote in message news:

> Furthermore, T.H. Boyer discovered that a conducting spherical shell
> is subject to repulsive stress due to EM zero point energy [3], and so
> I am curious to know if NASA is planning to perform any Casimir- like
> experiments?

Page L90 of [1] states, "Unfortunately, although the Casimir force for
parallel plates is attractive, in a landmark paper Boyer showed that
it is repulsive for a perfectly conducting spherical shell, and thus
no balance of forces is possible. However, with PT-symmetric quantum
electrodynamics such a balance is achievable."

Here, the authors are referring to their model of nonunitary massless
QED. Although the Hamiltonian of this theory is nonhermitian, the
theory still has a real, positive spectrum which is achievable when
such nonunitary theories still respect (the product of) PT invariance
(where P and T represent parity and time reversal).

In this version of QED, the photon couples to the axial-vector current
with an imaginary coupling constant. The eigenvalue condition can be
solved, and the semiclassical Casimir model for the fine-structure
constant yields a positive value because instead of a Coulomb
repulsion there is an attraction due to e --> ie.

Is such a theory realistic and might it be testable via the Gravity
Probe B? I do not have any of the technical specifications or
blueprints for the Probe, and nor am I an experimentalist anyways, and
so this is why I am asking. TIA.

[1] C.M. Bender and K.A. Milton, "A nonunitary version of massless
quantum electrodynamics possessing a critical point", J. Phys. A, 32
(1999), L87-L92.

Charlie Stromeyer Jr.

Jun4-04, 07:52 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\ncstromey@hotmail.com (Charlie Stromeyer Jr.) wrote in message news:\n\n> The Gravity B probe has superconducting niobium shells. Are the\n> engineers aware of the J. Tate et al. experiments which found that the\n> mass of the cooper pair in a rotating superconducting niobium ring is\n> greater than predicted by theory, i.e. the London moment flux [1].\n\nThere is a new preprint [1] which claims that the Tate et al. finding\nshould not affect the Gravity Probe B. However, as can be seen on page\n4 it is clear that the authors have not considered certain other\npossible explanations such as those in another new paper [2] as well\nas some of the older papers [3] about this anomaly.\n\nThere is also another weird and unexplained finding [4] about Nb\n(Niobium), and this second anomaly may also be related to\nsuperconductivity [5], but at perhaps lower temperatures than with\nwhat Gravity Probe B will be using (because I myself don\'t know what\ntemperature range the Probe\'s Niobium shells will be operating\nwithin).\n\n\n[1] gr-qc/0406006\n\n[2] cond-mat/0404136\n\n[3] gr-qc/0004076, gr-qc/9708004, cond-mat/0010260, and H.\nCapellmann, Eur Phys J. B (2002), pp.25-30\n\n[4] http://www.globaltechnoscan.com/28thMay-3rdJune03/metal.htm\n\n[5] cond-mat/0308604\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>cstromey@hotmail.com (Charlie Stromeyer Jr.) wrote in message news:

> The Gravity B probe has superconducting niobium shells. Are the
> engineers aware of the J. Tate et al. experiments which found that the
> mass of the cooper pair in a rotating superconducting niobium ring is
> greater than predicted by theory, i.e. the London moment flux [1].

There is a new preprint [1] which claims that the Tate et al. finding
should not affect the Gravity Probe B. However, as can be seen on page
4 it is clear that the authors have not considered certain other
possible explanations such as those in another new paper [2] as well
as some of the older papers [3] about this anomaly.

There is also another weird and unexplained finding [4] about Nb
(Niobium), and this second anomaly may also be related to
superconductivity [5], but at perhaps lower temperatures than with
what Gravity Probe B will be using (because I myself don't know what
temperature range the Probe's Niobium shells will be operating
within).

[1] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406006

[2] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0404136

[3] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0004076, http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9708004, http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0010260, and H.
Capellmann, Eur Phys J. B (2002), pp.25-30

[4] http://www.globaltechnoscan.com/28thMay-3rdJune03/metal.htm

[5] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0308604

clovis de Matos

Jun10-04, 06:47 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nThe anomaly reported by Tate regarding the Cooper pairs mass can be\nconjectured to be related with the presence of a GravitoMagnetic (GM)\nfield which would appear together with the magnetic London moment. The\ncoupling between the magnetic and GM fields appearing in that context\nis questionable, that is why we call it a conjecture. As a result of\nthat conjecture, a spinning superconductive gyroscope would have an\nanomalous GM moment, which would be directly proportional to the\nclassical angular momentum. However the constant of proportionality\ncancels out in the equation of motion which rules the behavior of the\naxis of rotation of the superconductive gyroscope (like those embarked\non-board GP-B). Therefore the precession motion to be measured in the\nGP-B experiment should not be affected by any anomalous GM momentum\ndue to the anomaly in Tate\'s Cooper pair mass measurement.\n\nIf GP-B would have been designed to measure the influence of the Earth\nGM field on the free fall of a SCive gyroscope, instead of the\nprecession of its angular momentum due to a GM interaction with the\nearth, then it would have been possible to measure the\nGM-dipole-dipole interaction (between the centers of mass of the gyro\nand of the rotating Earth, by measuring, for example, the net force\napplied on the center of mass of the gyro due to that interaction),\nand eventually identify any anomaly of the GM moment of the SCive\ngyroscope, related with Tate\'s mass anomaly for the Cooper pairs. But,\nas I said, that is a different mission (wrt GP-B), whose main purpose\nwould be, most probably, to test the Principle of equivalence. If you\nwish, this mission would be similar to a STEP or microscope mission,\nwith spinning Scive gyros instead of non-spinning, normal state\n(non-SCive), proof masses (as is currently planned). This would be an\ninteresting mission concept to test our (T-dM) conjecture in space.\nBut before considering such arguments one still has to convey some\nresearch in the earth laboratory.\n\nBest wishes.\n\nClovis J. de Matos\nAdvanced Concepts and Studies Officer\nEuropean Space Agency\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>The anomaly reported by Tate regarding the Cooper pairs mass can be
conjectured to be related with the presence of a GravitoMagnetic (GM)
field which would appear together with the magnetic London moment. The
coupling between the magnetic and GM fields appearing in that context
is questionable, that is why we call it a conjecture. As a result of
that conjecture, a spinning superconductive gyroscope would have an
anomalous GM moment, which would be directly proportional to the
classical angular momentum. However the constant of proportionality
cancels out in the equation of motion which rules the behavior of the
axis of rotation of the superconductive gyroscope (like those embarked
on-board GP-B). Therefore the precession motion to be measured in the
GP-B experiment should not be affected by any anomalous GM momentum
due to the anomaly in Tate's Cooper pair mass measurement.

If GP-B would have been designed to measure the influence of the Earth
GM field on the free fall of a SCive gyroscope, instead of the
precession of its angular momentum due to a GM interaction with the
earth, then it would have been possible to measure the
GM-dipole-dipole interaction (between the centers of mass of the gyro
and of the rotating Earth, by measuring, for example, the net force
applied on the center of mass of the gyro due to that interaction),
and eventually identify any anomaly of the GM moment of the SCive
gyroscope, related with Tate's mass anomaly for the Cooper pairs. But,
as I said, that is a different mission (wrt GP-B), whose main purpose
would be, most probably, to test the Principle of equivalence. If you
wish, this mission would be similar to a STEP or microscope mission,
with spinning Scive gyros instead of non-spinning, normal state
(non-SCive), proof masses (as is currently planned). This would be an
interesting mission concept to test our (T-dM) conjecture in space.
But before considering such arguments one still has to convey some
research in the earth laboratory.

Best wishes.

Clovis J. de Matos
Advanced Concepts and Studies Officer
European Space Agency

Charlie Stromeyer Jr.

Jun16-04, 03:50 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>clovis.de.matos@esa.int (clovis de Matos) wrote in message news:\n\n> Therefore the precession motion to be measured in the\n> GP-B experiment should not be affected by any anomalous GM momentum\n> due to the anomaly in Tate\'s Cooper pair mass measurement.\n\nThank you for your reply. Someone in this newsgroup had earlier asked\nabout why the GP-B\'s shells were made of niobium which reminded me of\nthe Tate result. I had never read anything about the technical\nspecifications of GP-B which is why I was asking.\n\nLikewise, I do not know if the GP-B will be able to make measurements\nsensitive enough to confirm or exclude the presence of any Casimir-\nlike effects.\n\nDo you also happen to know or think that the theoretical work of Ning\nLi concerning rotating superconductors and GM fields should contain\nany valid ideas?\n\nAlso, Urs Schreiber wrote:\n\n"From quantum gravity some people expect that on extremely small\nscales\nspacetime will show some sort of foamy structure, maybe being\ntopologically\nnon-trivial. An old idea by Percival and collaborators is that atom\ninterferometry, e.g. the 2-slit experiment with heavy stuff such as\nBuckminster Fullerenes (Nature Vol. 401, No. 6754, p. 680 (1999).) as\ndone\nby Zeilinger\'s group\n(http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/zeilinger.html), may\nbe sensitive to such a spacetime grabularity.\n\nI had mentioned that in the past from time to time\n\nhttp://groups.google.de/groups?selm=9a4m0g%24bvq1%40rs04.hrz.uni-essen.de\nhttp://groups.google.de/groups?selm=3E5A1BAC.F2755C1B%40uni-essen.de\n\ngiving some references."\n\nThe C_60 (buckyball crystals) which Zeilinger above has used can be\nmade superconductive, but I don\'t know if this is possible at higher\ntemperatures because the initial claims of superconductivity at 117 K\nwere by Jan Hendrik Schon who was subsequently fired for fraud, and\nthe journal Science issued a statement saying that at least 8 of\nSchon\'s papers could not be assumed to be valid.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>clovis.de.matos@esa.\int (clovis de Matos) wrote in message news:

> Therefore the precession motion to be measured in the
> GP-B experiment should not be affected by any anomalous GM momentum
> due to the anomaly in Tate's Cooper pair mass measurement.

Thank you for your reply. Someone in this newsgroup had earlier asked
about why the GP-B's shells were made of niobium which reminded me of
the Tate result. I had never read anything about the technical
specifications of GP-B which is why I was asking.

Likewise, I do not know if the GP-B will be able to make measurements
sensitive enough to confirm or exclude the presence of any Casimir-
like effects.

Do you also happen to know or think that the theoretical work of Ning
Li concerning rotating superconductors and GM fields should contain
any valid ideas?

Also, Urs Schreiber wrote:

"From quantum gravity some people expect that on extremely small
scales
spacetime will show some sort of foamy structure, maybe being
topologically
non-trivial. An old idea by Percival and collaborators is that atom
interferometry, e.g. the 2-slit experiment with heavy stuff such as
Buckminster Fullerenes (Nature Vol. 401, No. 6754, p. 680 (1999).) as
done
by Zeilinger's group
(http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/zeilinger.html), may
be sensitive to such a spacetime grabularity.

I had mentioned that in the past from time to time

http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=9a4m0g%24bvq1%40rs04.hrz.uni-essen.de
http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=3E5A1BAC.F2755C1B%40uni-essen.de

giving some references."

The C_{60} (buckyball crystals) which Zeilinger above has used can be
made superconductive, but I don't know if this is possible at higher
temperatures because the initial claims of superconductivity at 117 K
were by Jan Hendrik Schon who was subsequently fired for fraud, and
the journal Science issued a statement saying that at least 8 of
Schon's papers could not be assumed to be valid.