THE FOURTH ROAD TO QUANTUM GRAVITY
” The concept of mass, with the concept of gravitational mass identified with the concept of inertial mass, is quantified and defined by gravitational phenomenology. Therefore, on purely logical grounds, the concept of mass so defined cannot then be used in the theories of physics as an explanation of the very phenomenology used to define and quantify it.” — W.F. Heinrich, QuantumGravity.ca
Although we know that atoms are composed of electrical charges, essentially forming small polarized electrical structures, we do not tend to think about massive material bodies, like planets, as composed of electrical structures, or of electrical capacitors.
Let’s try to make a conceptual connection between these small polarized electrical structures composing planet Earth, and Earth’s attractive gravity. For this purpose we will use a simple conceptual indicator, which we shall call B-B vector.
In terms of polarized electrical structures, like atoms or capacitors, their B-B vector shall always point from negative to positive charges, like electric dipole moment.
In respect to their B-B vectors, atoms of ordinary matter are “inwardly” oriented structures, and for this reason are said to have their B-B vectors pointing “down”. Considering atoms composing Earth and Earth’s attractive gravity, B-B vectors to represent these two facts will look (in green) as follows:
Now let’s consider antimatter. Its B-B vectors will be oriented in an opposite way, because these vectors always points from negative to positive. In respect to their B-B vectors, antiatoms of antimatter are “outwardly” oriented structures, and for this reason are said to have their B-B vectors pointing “up”.
We know this for the fact that two macroscopic material bodies in space will exert an attractive force of gravity on each other.
But what would happen if, hypothetically, we have two macroscopic material bodies in space, and one of them would be composed of antimatter?
Assuming that the mass of antimatter must have a positive value, these two bodies would gravitationally attract each other as well, until they would come close enough to annihilate themselves.
To be honest, I can’t imagine how a material body could have a negative mass, even if it were to be composed of antimatter. But what if somehow it could be possible?
Physicists have investigated whether negative mass would violate various laws of the universe, such as the conservation of energy or momentum. These analyses suggest that although the interaction of positive and negative mass produces counterintuitive behaviour, it does not violate these conservation laws. Two Cosmologists at the Université de Montréal in Canada have found a solution to Einstein’s theory of general relativity that allows negative mass without breaking any essential assumptions. Their approach means that negative mass can exist in our universe.
What if we perform such experiment only to discover that matter and antimatter would gravitationally repel each other?
Would that automatically imply that antimatter has negative mass?
Personally, I am not inclined to hastily draw such conclusion, because there may be better alternative explanations.
While most theoretical physicists see no reason for performing such experiment, some experimental particle physicists think that it is worth trying. An experiment was proposed as the first test of the predictions of general relativity in the ultra-relativistic limit by measuring the repulsive gravitational field of protons in the Large Hadron Collider to estimate ‘antigravity beam’ signal strength at a resonant detector.
Three more CERN experiments are preparing to measure the gravitational behaviour of antihydrogen:
Antigravity: Discovering if antimatter falls upwards
Presently, some experimental particle physicists are seriously considering the question, if matter and antimatter are affected differently by Earth’s gravity. Could antimatter fall upward – that is, exhibit antigravity – or fall downward at a different rate?
“ When it comes to antimatter, what goes up doesn’t necessarily come down. In a new study, physicists weighed antimatter in an effort to determine how this strange cousin of matter interacts with gravity. Ordinary matter atoms fall down due to the pull of gravity, but the same might not be true of antimatter, which has the same mass as matter, but opposite charge and spin. Scientists wondered whether antimatter atoms would instead fall up when pulled by gravity, and
whether such a thing as antigravity exists. In the unlikely event that antimatter falls upward, we’d have to fundamentally revise our view of physics and rethink how the universe works, Joel Fajans, a physicist
at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in a statement. The results of the tests weren’t conclusive. “Is there such a thing as antigravity? Based on free-fall tests so far, we can’t say yes, or no,” Fajans said. “This is the first word, however, not the last.” In the future, CERN researchers plan to upgrade their experiment to a stage called ALPHA-2, which should allow them to make more precise tests. The scientists plan to use lasers to cool the antiparticles to reduce their energy while still being held by the trap; then the trap’s magnetic fields could be used to manipulate the cooled antiparticles so they decay more slowly when the trap gets turned off, making measurements easier.”
According to our
This prediction is merely related to the opposite orientation of B-B vectors in matter and antimatter, and as such neither presupposes nor postulates the existence of negative mass.
And here comes another, even more surprising prediction.
Should the orientation of B-B vectors of matter reflect the fact that matter exerts attractive gravity force on other matter and also on itself ; and that there would be a repulsive gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter, then the following question arises: What would happen if we have two macroscopic material bodies in space and both of them would be composed of antimatter?
According to my Quantum Antigravity Hypothesis, antimatter and antimatter would also gravitationally repel each other!
If so, what would that imply?
It would imply that as opposed to matter, antimatter would not be able to aggregate into massive material bodies in outer space.
Even though on atomic scales, nuclear forces are much stronger than gravity, and elementary antiparticles can naturally form antiatoms and molecules, and perhaps even nano-size specks of solid antimatter, they will not be able to form neither anti-planets, anti solar systems, nor anti-galaxies.
According to my Quantum Antigravity Hypothesis, antimatter in outer space could be able to form vast antigravity regions composed of clouds of antimatter “dust” :
That would perfectly explain very important issues: the mystery of missing antimatter, and gravitational expansion of the Universe. The antimatter is not missing. We simply cannot easily observe it because it does not form massive bodies in outer space, and perhaps also due to the nature of interaction between antimatter (repulsive gravity) and light, as opposed to matter (attractive gravity) and light. The invisible Dark matter is really nothing else than vast clouds of antimatter “dust”, and the Dark energy is simply the repulsive gravity (antigravity) of these vast regions of antimatter.
We can have asymmetric capacitors of various sizes, from atoms to planets, and everything in between, to experiment with the interactions between them.
In the case of a spherical (asymmetric) capacitor, the smaller (or the bigger) plate can be either negatively or positively charged, akin to the difference between the atom of hydrogen and the antiatom of antihydrogen.
AN EXAMPLE OF A CHARGED ASYMMETRIC CAPACITOR, AND ITS OUTWARDLY ORIENTED B-B VECTORS INDICATING REPULSIVE GRAVITY (ANTIGRAVITY) :
In general, for quantum gravity, or quantum antigravity, to be generated naturally, or artificially, we need the following 3 components properly combined, oriented, and tuned:
Ideally, the electric and magnetic field lines should be perpendicular. Also ideally, the vector of angular momentum should be in a plane perpendicular to the lines of the electric field. Deviations from the 90′ angle will weaken the effect.
Atoms as capacitors
Two oppositely charged ellipsoid ends of polarized bipolar atoms, work the same as the parallel plate capacitors. If the voltage (energy/charge) is constant, while the area of the plates or the charged area of the ellipsoid ends increases, then the charge goes up. As an atom becomes more polarized the opposite charges at each end of the ellipsoid increases as the atoms charges become more separated. The charged area increases. The distance between the ends of neighbor atoms decreases as the atoms become more ellipsoid. An increase in the area of the charge or a decrease in the distance apart of the charges on neighbor atoms both increase the capacitance. The energy required is converted to additional charge stored between the plates or ellipsoids. Where we see forces or accelerations we see charge. Charge is starting to look like a placeholder for force on the plates. Energy is conserved.
Charged concentric spherical shell atoms
Binary orbits in a plane are stable in isolation. Stable atoms, which we see in photos, require the spherical symmetry which they acquire by the precession of their orbits out of the plane. The electrons and protons are not confined to the two dimensions of a plane. They orbit in three dimensions. Atoms are spherical spinning precessing dipoles. This is how medical scanners and microwave ovens work. In a proton-electron binary atom, the proton is close to the center of mass where it orbits and precesses. This is seen as a charge spread over a spherical surface traced out by the orbiting and precessing proton. The electron across the center of mass from the proton and farther out but orbiting with the same angular velocity as the proton is also like a charge spread over a spherical surface traced out by the orbiting and precessing electron. Is this an electron cloud? How can a cloud-like electron become a negative ion particle? What you see depends on the metaphors you use. The surface of the atom, the electron orbit, is negative for circular orbits. Negative spherical surfaces of atoms repel each other and do not clump together without being polarized. The positive surface of a positive ion would be attracted and pulled into the negative surface of an atom. They would merge until the ion and atom were at equilibrium, until the ion reached the region of charge neutrality within the atom which is halfway between the electron spherical surface and the much smaller proton spherical surface. The positive ion would be repelled by the proton within the atom beyond the region of charge neutrality. This leaves us with the familiar image of bonding as overlapping spherical atoms.
An atom as a concentric spherical capacitor
This is another approach to charge separation. Aren’t the electron and proton in the Bohr atom somewhat like the oppositely charged parallel plates of a capacitor? Or the oppositely charged concentric spherical plates of a capacitor? The proton orbit is like a sphere of charge surrounded by the much larger sphere of charge of the electron orbit. While they are neutral they are spherical and concentric. As the charges separate the spheres become ellipsoids. The ellipsoid ends become oppositely charged. Their area increases. Their capacitance increases.
The electron orbit is considered as a negatively charged sphere with a radius of re = 5.2889E-11_m.
The proton orbit is considered as a positively charged sphere with a radius of rp = re*me/mp = 2.8804E-14_m.
The distance between the spheres is re-rp = 5.28602E-11_m apart.
Q/V = C = Farads = 4*pi*e0*r = charge2/energy = a2*s4/(kg*m2), This is the capacitance of a isolated spherical capacitor. We can use this formula for a concentric spherical capacitor with r defined in a special way. Here,
r = 1/(1/(rp) – 1/(re)) = re*rp/(re-rp) = re*me/(mp-me) = 2.88159E-14_m, this r is only slightly larger than the proton sphere rp.
C = 4*pi*e0*r = 4*pi*e0*2.88159E-14_m = 3.2061E-24_Farads, additional charge could be imposed by electrostatic gravity with or without a change in geometry.