Gravity is neither a fundamental force, nor a spacetime curvature. There are no physical, empirically detectable graviton particles, for the same reason that there are no magneton particles of the magnetic field. Magnetons and gravitons are at best virtual particles only.
As we shall see below, quantum gravity and quantum antigravity are essentially not so much different from electromagnetism. This would explain the reason why there has not been a successful unification of Einstenian gravity with electromagnetism. Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism, or quantum mechanics, with gravity, when gravity is not properly understood.
The theoretical basis for quantum gravity and quantum antigravity are the Minkowski’s equations.
In general, for quantum gravity (or 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, as per the Minkowski-Feigel effect. 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.
Let’s illustrate it with a simple example.
As the example, we will consider the anomalous behavior of a gyroscope. What keeps the spinning gyroscope from falling under the force of gravity while it is rotating (precessing) horizontally? Could this really be antigravity? Let’s see.
The spinning gyroscope provides the first component — angular momentum. This vector of angular momentum should be perpendicular to the lines of the electric field. Earth happens to be an asymmetric (spherical) capacitor, as required by the Biefeld-Brown effect.
Except in magnetic pole regions, Earth’s magnetic field lines are generally perpendicular to Earth’s electric field lines, as required by the Minkowski-Feigel effect.
Let’s summarize the above example.
We have the 3 above components: the angular momentum of the spinning gyroscope, and Earth’s electric and magnetic fields. Earth’s electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular, and the angular momentum of the spinning gyroscope rotating (precessing) horizontally is generally always in the plane perpendicular to the lines of Earth’s electric field. Therefore, what keeps the spinning gyroscope from falling under the force of gravity while it is rotating (precessing) horizontally is antigravity, which perfectly explains the following serious experimental anomalies:
But, shouldn’t antigravity be also acting on the gyroscope when it spins vertically? When the gyroscope spins vertically, the angle between its vector of angular momentum and the lines of the electric field is zero degrees, therefore the strength of interaction between them is zero. The function for this interaction is a modulus sinusoid, |sin|. At zero degrees the value is zero, at 90′ the value is maximum, and at 180′ the value is zero, again.
In a paragraph on the Biefeld-Brown page, we have a similar example of an antigravity effect with a capacitor.
In the above case, the gyroscope (from its own side) provides only its angular momentum, while perpendicular electric and magnetic fields are provided by Earth.
In the case of the capacitor, it provides its own electric field (with inhomogeneous charge density distribution in the dielectric) that is aligned with Earth’s electric field. Magnetic field is provided by Earth. But where is the third component, the angular momentum?
In the case of the capacitor, it is the combined angular momentum of those dielectric’s elementary particles that happen to have their angular momentum oriented perpendicular to the internal lines of capacitor’s electric field, which explains the reason why the Biefeld-Brown effect is very weak, despite that it requires extremely high voltage. It is weak, because the third component, the angular momentum, is very weak. Comparatively, the angular momentum of the gyroscope is very powerful. That is why gyroscope exhibits a far more spectacular antigravity efect than the capacitor.
So far, so good. But these were just two simple examples. Now, let’s see if we can explain everything else.
We have examined antigravity effects related to gyroscope and capacitor. It is relatively easy to experiment with both of them. Now, let’s consider another case.
The Earth is a complete macro-scale example of an antigravity device. It is an asymmetric capacitor with positively charged plate being larger; its electric and magnetic field lines are perpendicular (except in magnetic pole regions); and its angular momentum is perfectly perpendicular to the electric field lines around the equator, declining from the 90′ angle to zero degrees angle towards magnetic poles. The Biefeld-Brown vector is “up”. This way we have the complete 3 antigravity generation components combined, oriented, and tuned.
Earth as a complete example of an antigravity device?! Here comes the “quantum” part of gravity and antigravity.
Isn’t it obvious that Earth is a “gravity device” only? Yes, Earth is a gravity device, and it is also an antigravity device at the same time. How is it possible?
Above, I explained how Earth is a complete example of a macro-scale antigravity device. Now, let’s find out how Earth at the same time can also be a quantum-scale gravity device.
Earth is composed of atoms. Atom can be conceptualized as a spherical asymmetric electric capacitor, but this time with negatively charged plate being larger.
The direction of the Biefeld-Brown vector is always from negative to positive plate. In the case of an atom, its negative plate is larger, so the B-B vector is said to be “down” (towards nucleus), indicating attractive gravity.
All atoms composing Earth have their B-B vectors “down”, and atoms composing material bodies on Earth also have their B-B vectors “down”, therefore Earth will attract these material bodies, and material bodies will attract Earth — an attractive gravitational interaction.
On the quantum-scale, Earth and material bodies on Earth are composed of many “capacitors” (atoms) that have their Biefeld-Brown vectors “down”, while on the macro-scale, Earth is just one big planet-size capacitor that has its Biefeld-Brown vector “up”, meaning directed away from its “nucleus”, i.e. from the ground up towards ionosphere. In this way, from the quantum-scale perspective, Earth is a gravity device, and at the same time, from the macro-scale perspective, Earth is an antigravity device.
The reason that almost all material bodies on Earth do not experience any detectable antigravity effects should be clear now. Just consider the difference between the two above examples of spinning gyroscope and charged capacitor, and all other material bodies. Most of the material bodies on Earth are neither highly electrically charged, nor do they possess any sufficient angular momentum in order to experience any detectable antigravity effects inside Earth’s macro-scale perpendicular electric and magnetic fields.
In order to illustrate this new idea that from the quantum-scale perspective, Earth is an attractive gravity “device,” and at the same time, from the macro-scale perspective, Earth is a repulsive antigravity “device,” let’s view the following short video:
In the above video, the magnetic device composed of one big central magnet, and six smaller “flipped” (or “inverted”) magnets is clearly capable of magnetic attraction and repulsion at the same time. Just because the large magnet attracts, and small magnets repel, it does not follow that these two opposing effects cancel each other out, and that is the reason for the unexpected and particularly important “side-effect”: STABILITY.
Let’s imagine what could happen between the Sun and the Earth, when Sun is gravitationally attracting Earth, but Earth is both gravitationaly attracting and repelling the Sun at the same time. Would it be possible that Earth could have a stable orbit around the Sun as a result of this unexpected “side-effect” ?
This could, in principle, explain the stability of the entire Solar system, including all the moons of all the planets.
Look at these two cute little spherical “capacitors” above !!
In the case of an atom of our ordinary matter, its negative plate is larger, so the B-B vector is said to be “down” (towards nucleus), indicating attractive gravity.
But in the case of antiatom of antimatter, its B-B vector is “up”, indicating repulsive gravity (i.e. antigravity).
I am afraid that we will have to answer a few more difficult questions.
To repel, or not to repel, that is the question!
Antigravity: Discovering if antimatter falls upwards
Presently, 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.”
In order to answer the above question: Will antimatter be repelled by Earth’s gravity?, we need to consider a few nuanced scenarios.
According to my quantum gravity hypothesis, the shortest answer is: YES.
According to Albert Einstein’s GTR, the answer was a short, unqualified: NO.
However, recently, surprizingly, it seems like it may be: YES! — https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.05128.pdf
At CERN, the experiments are of two kinds only. The simpler one uses anti-protons, and the other one will use anti-hydrogen atoms.
In my opinion, from the results of antiproton experiments it will be very difficult to draw the final decisive conclusion. Is antiproton a piece of antimatter? Yes, and no. It depends on the definition of matter and antimatter. In my opinion, antiproton is only an elementary particle of antimatter, and only antihydrogen atom is a proper “piece” of antimatter. The most important difference between antiproton particle and antihydrogen atom is that antihydrogen atom is electrically neutral, while antiproton is not.
But let’s speculate anyway. Because Earth is at the same time both gravity and antigravity device, I think that antiproton would be attracted by Earth’s atoms (small “capacitors”) because antiproton has a positive mass, while at the same time it would also be repelled by Earth (planet-size capacitor) because it has charge and angular momentum. As a matter of fact, such experiments with antiprotons have already been performed at CERN, and produced inconclusive results. However, this seems to be nonsense because the same argument applies to ordinary proton, too. According to my hypothesis, proper gravity-antigravity interactions begin on the scale of single atoms, as they are “capacitors” possessing well defined B-B vectors. In the case of ions, like antiproton, electromagnetic forces are naturally much stronger than gravity. Perhaps the inconclusive results have something to do with the orientation of antiproton’s angular momentum that should ideally be most of the time generally in the plane perpendicular to the lines of Earth’s electric field, which unfortunately cannot be guaranteed. What would be helpful, and I am pretty sure it has not been done, would be to perform the same experiment with protons that were done with antiprotons in order to see if in the case of protons results would be clearly conclusive. I suspect that the results with protons would also be inconclusive, exactly like with antiprotons, and perhaps for the same reason.
In the case of antihydrogen atom, it would be definitely repelled by Earth’s atoms (small “capacitors”) because their B-B vectors are “down” as opposed to antihydrogen’s B-B vector being “up”. Now, the question remains: How antihydrogen atom would also antigravitationally interact in CERN lab with the planet-size (antigravity) Earth capacitor at the same time? I am not sure at the moment; I will have to think about it. I am afraid that both kinds of experiments at CERN, with antiproton particles and with antihydrogen atoms, might turn out to be inconclusive.
From a somewhat realistic point of view it seems that we do not have to worry about how Newton’s anti-apple would fall from a tree — up, or down — because in Earth atmosphere no piece of antimatter would survive long enough to make the difference.
The only realistic hypothetical scenario to consider seems to be one where a proper body of antimatter is beyond Earth’s ionosphere, in orbit. This is not very realistic either, due to the fact that there are many space “dust” particles and other space debris floating around in the Solar system. And, how could a body of antimatter be able to penetrate into the Solar system deep enough for us to observe its gravitational interaction with it?
Well, then, let’s imagine an ideal scenario where we have just one small planet made of conventional matter, but a planet which has neither magnetic nor electric field around it. In this case Newton’s anti-apple would be repelled (fall upward), as opposed to being attracted like a normal apple. It would beautifully fly up, up and away, like a balloon, assuming of course there was no atmosphere and no contact with the ground. That brings us to the following possibility:
Dark matter is an illusion, new Antigravity theory says —
Above, I was not sure how a single antihydrogen atom would antigravitationally interact in CERN lab with the planet-size (antigravity) Earth capacitor. This uncertainty stems from the fact that gravity, as we know it so far from Newtonian-Einsteinian theories acts differently in the Solar system, and differently in a cluster of galaxies. As GTR is seriously off in a cluster of galaxies (desperately in need of finding upwards of 80% of the “missing” Universe allegedly made of some dark stuff that nobody has ever seen nor at least theoretically predicted, like Paul Dirac did with antimatter) new gravity theories are put forward, one of them being MOND — Modified Newtonian dynamics:
I suspect that interactions between few antihydrogen atoms in CERN lab and Earth’s gravity&antigravity at the same time will be much different than interaction between our galaxy and a distant and vast antimatter region in outer space: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.05128.pdf
Despite genuine oppeness of particle physicists at CERN to a posiblity of detecting antigravity effect of antimatter, I am afraid that searching for antigravity using antimatter in CERN lab will most likely be inconclusive.
My final guess
if CERN physicists will experiment with antihydrogen atoms, then in addition to my above prediction that antihydrogen atom would be definitely repelled by Earth’s atoms (small “capacitors”) because their B-B vectors are “down” as opposed to antihydrogen’s B-B vector being “up”, I predict that the antihydrogen atom will also be repelled at the same time by Earth as one big antigravity device, on condition that this antihydrogen atom, after being released from the electromagnetic Penning trap, will find itself inside Earth’s perpendicular electric and magnetic fields, as per the Minkowski-Feigel effect, and also its angular momentum will be most of the time generally in the plane perpendicular to the lines of Earth’s electric field, which unfortunately cannot be guaranteed. Under these condition there would be a definite double repulsion effect, i.e. a full antigravity effect.
Unfortunately, I suspect that after being released from the Penning trap, antihydrogen atom will not only find itself inside Earth’s perpendicular electric and magnetic fields, but likely also inside some local stray electromagnetic field generated by equipment inside or around the CERN lab, which may unpredictably influence the results, making them, most likely, inconclusive.
So, let’s keep our fingers crossed, because, as Prof. Joel Fajans remarked, “in the unlikely event that antimatter falls upward, we’d have to fundamentally revise our view of physics and rethink how the universe works.”
The whole point of the above antimatter-antigravity exercise was to see if we can draw some sensible conclusions and predictions from my quantum antigravity hypothesis. Let’s leave the antimatter alone, as we are not going to use it in order to design the G-engine. Finally, we are ready to consider practical implications of the above hypothesis.