Superconductor-based antigravity effects have never been independently replicated; the vault's original '2011 Boulder Physical Review Letters' attribution is unconfirmed — the actual 2011 primary is Martin Tajmar's own team re-testing its own apparatus

fringe-sciencephysicsantigravitysuperconductivityreplicationnasaprimary-source-verification

Attempts to reproduce a laboratory antigravity effect from rotating or shielded superconductors have consistently failed. Neither Ning Li's own later team nor Martin Tajmar's group confirmed the effect. This note originally attributed the 2011 correction to an outside "University of Colorado Boulder" group publishing in Physical Review Letters, sourced from a Tier-4 Wikipedia summary — no source located on direct re-check confirms that institution, author, or venue, and the sentence has since been edited out of the live Wikipedia article entirely. What the primary record actually shows, per claim-2011-tajmar-retested-own-apparatus-not-independent-boulder-replication, is Tajmar's own team rebuilding its own apparatus in 2011 (published in Superconductor Science and Technology) and attributing its earlier positive readings to acoustic noise — a self-correction, not an outside lab's refutation. (Precision, 2026-09-12: Tajmar's own wording is hedged — the outside-cryostat signals "are most probably noise and data analysis artifacts," and for the large inside-cryostat signals the results "suggest, that the liquid helium expansion during rotation created an acoustic noise environment that may have influenced the gyroscopes. This needs to be confirmed by future measurements.") The related Podkletnov "gravity-shielding" claim met the same fate.

This class of claim also had an institutional graveyard. NASA ran a Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program (roughly 1996–2002, about $1.2M total [unverified-quant — needs primary: the span and "a total investment of $1.2 million" are Wikipedia's (Tier 4), re-fetched 2026-09-12; NASA's own BPP close-out reporting by Marc Millis not read]) that explicitly examined gravitomagnetism, Woodward's transient-inertia effect, and Hooper antigravity coils, and found none of them viable before it was shut down — so the research class was surveyed and set aside by the very agency whose orbit it originated in. (The Wikipedia article as fetched 2026-09-12 names Woodward's transient inertia and "Hooper antigravity coils" among the non-viable approaches; "gravitomagnetism" as a named BPP topic was not located in it and rests on the original capture.)

The pattern connects to the vault's error-correction cluster. Where the Dias superconductivity case ended in a formal Nature retraction, the antigravity claim-family closed the softer way: repeated non-replication and institutional abandonment, with no single document ever declared "the file is closed" — the same non-closure that lets the funded-but-silent shell company persist as an open question decades later. A formal reply does exist somewhere in this claim-family, per claim-harris-1999-rebutted-torr-li-gravitoelectric-coupling-claim, but it targets a different, earlier paper than the 2011 episode this note covers.

Correction history.

• 2026-08-23 — This note originally attributed the 2011 correction to a "University of Colorado Boulder" team publishing in Physical Review Letters, sourced from Tier-4 Wikipedia. Direct reads of Tajmar's own 2011 paper (Tier 1) and an independent 2022 review (Tier 2) found no such institution or venue anywhere; the actual 2011 document is Tajmar's own research group re-testing its own apparatus, published in Superconductor Science and Technology. Found and corrected during promotion of 10-inbox/raw/2026-08-23-what-do-the-primary-sources-say-about-ning.md (resuming question-verify-ning-li-antigravity-primaries). See claim-2011-tajmar-retested-own-apparatus-not-independent-boulder-replication for the full correcting note.
• 2026-09-12 (audit, claude-fable-5-1, cross-model) — The 2026-08-23 correction re-verified on a fresh read: Tajmar's paper via extract_pdf (sha256 142ddf92… matches source_sha_2; 21 pp.), source_quote_2 EXACT from the abstract, "Submitted to: Supercond. Sci. Technol." on the preprint; arXiv 2206.07574 abstract page confirms Gallerati, Modanese, Ummarino, v3 30 June 2022, Frontiers in Physics 10 (2022) 941858. Two precisions added inline, no claim changed: Tajmar's acoustic-noise attribution is hedged in his own text, and the BPP $1.2M / 1996–2002 figures are Tier-4 Wikipedia and now carry an [unverified-quant] flag. The Boulder sentence is confirmed absent from the live Wikipedia article. Not changed here: draft status-exists (status: draft) still states the Boulder/PRL version at its ¶4 — stale against the 2026-08-23 correction, noted for Cali in 90-feedback.