Reaching for the Stars: Exploring Anti-Gravity Physics

[Kev20in]

Physics, astrophysics, etc... have always been near to my heart but far from my brain. My math skills are probably nothing compared to many of you out there. But Attaining great feats in science that years ago was science fiction is no greater acheivement to me.

I think anti-gravity or gravity manipulation is attainable to us now. I am reaching out to a lot of you much smarter gents and ladies to educate me a little more - I guess.

Gravity has a base property. What is it? Is it magnetic? Is it something else? What is it? Can it be synthesized or replicated?

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Described by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, gravity is the result of an object following a curved path (geodesic) within the warped space-time geometry in the presence of a massive body. A good analogy is imagine we have a trampoline, if you put a bowling ball in the center the fabric will depress inwards and if you throw a less massive object in, a tennis ball for instance, it will follow a curved path in the presence of the bowling while it is also warping the fabric 'gently'. The more massive the object the more it warps hence the greater the gravitational attraction. But this analogy is partly false because instead of a massive object curving a sheet like a trampoline, it warps 4 dimensional space-time. Both mass and energy interact with something called the stress-energy tensor (the $$T_{\mu\nu}$$ component in the Einstein Field Equations) which essentially tells the space how to curve.

 

[Kev20in]

I like the anaolgies. As dumb as I am (no offense intended) I do understand the rotational tendencies of smaller masses around larger masses in the vacinity of the larger mass.

What I am curious about is can we quantify the actual force of gravity? We can identify and quantify magentism. We can replicate it. How can we do the same for the force of gravity. NO answer is too crazy either...

 

[Kevin_Axion]

What do you mean by quantify? Yes we can measure it, if that is what you mean.

 

[Kev20in]

I hope I don't sound remedial here, but I mean. What are its properties down to the core. What is the base route of gravity? MAss. OK. But how do we capture that? how do we manipulate that?

 

[Steve C]

Ah, that is the nub of the question isn't it. What IS gravity, and can we use it to our advantage like the UFO's do? :c)

There seem to be two distinct camps out there, the true believers that anything is possible, and the people who seem to believe we know it all already. And then there's Podkletnov.

Theory is great, until it conflicts with reality. Given that Podkletnov claims to have measured the propagation speed of his gravity impulse to be a multiple of the speed of light, I suspect that the theory is due for some expansion. In truth humanity currently doesn't understand gravity very well. (Or if anybody does, they are keeping very quiet about it!)

Podkletnov and Townsend-Brown have lifted the lid a little and revealed a connection 'twixt electronics and gravity, and that's about all the real practical knowledge that's available. IF the money was available, AND there was sufficient interest, the engineers could be working the problem right now, simply by duplicating and refining the hardware first created by the above mentioned pioneers. Having made some small effort to get some work done in this field I can understand why people think that the knowledge is held back by a grand conspiracy, but it's more probably apathetic atiitudes and behaviour that are really the hidden enemy... Great question Kev20a, keep asking it until you get a reply that makes sense to you!

 

[Careful]

Physics, astrophysics, etc... have always been near to my heart but far from my brain. My math skills are probably nothing compared to many of you out there. But Attaining great feats in science that years ago was science fiction is no greater acheivement to me.

I think anti-gravity or gravity manipulation is attainable to us now. I am reaching out to a lot of you much smarter gents and ladies to educate me a little more - I guess.

Gravity has a base property. What is it? Is it magnetic? Is it something else? What is it? Can it be synthesized or replicated?

Hi, just to be on the same page: you have to distinguish anti-gravity and negative matter/energy ! In the latter case, nothing would we repelled by the Earth while in the former, people believe that it should be possible. Now if you would ask most physicists, a former theory is just impossible: people have been screwing around with bi-metric theories of gravity and it is all a pile of crap. Now, you can actually realize this idea mathematically but it complicates subtantially standard Einstein gravity and 'screws' with causality as someone else suggested (albeit in a reasonable form).

Hint: think about how Pauli originally solved the quantum mechanical spin problem (which also just was a bi-valued discrete variable people measured) I am not going to say more about it, you should be clever enough now to figure out what to do.

 

[MTd2]

Would negative matter with anti-gravity behave just like normal matter?

 

[Careful]

Would negative matter with anti-gravity behave just like normal matter?

I just said this to make a clear distinction: you can add negative matter to ordinary Newtonian gravity, but it is not going to change the conclusion that positive matter universally attracks and negative matter universally repels. So, any matter whatsoever is going to fall down on the earth. This is not what people mean by antigravitation: they really intend to give gravity itself two charges independent of whether inertial mass is positive or negative. This conflicts directly the weak equivalence principle which is the cornerstone of general relativity. So the mathematics of GR is simply too limited to include anti-gravity. It appears at first sight that antigravity would also conflict with background independence - and it does in ordinary Riemannian geometry. So, if you want to have a theory of anti-gravitation, you have to go beyond Riemannian geometry ... hence, the Pauli matrices come into play.

 

[MTd2]

Any paper from arxiv.org that has something about anti - gravity GR?

 

[Careful]

Any paper from arxiv.org that has something about anti - gravity GR?

Well, there are the papers of Hossenfelder, but those are not good, the mathematics is simply wrong. Look in google for bi-metric theories of gravity combined with anti-gravitation and you might find something. But the suggestion I made here is genuinly new, and is worthwile working out ... I just never did it because I see no reason why anti-gravity should hold (and I have better things to do). But who knows! If you find it interesting, go ahead and find it out. I am afraid the literature won't be of much help though.

 

[MTd2]

Well, there are the papers of Hossenfelder, but those are not good, the mathematics is simply wrong.

Why are they wrong?

 

[Careful]

Why are they wrong?

For two independent reasons: (a) because the math has been explicitely verified by two ''jerks'' who had nothing better to do at that time to point out that it was wrong (and their paper has been published in the same journal where she published her's) (b) because of the general reason I just gave you, Riemannian geometry just cannot accommodate for anti-gravitation. If you find it somewhat unconfortable that an ''established researcher'' can make elementary mistakes, you better get used to it because it happens all the time (and none of us is immune to making them actually). So, take my advise and check out the literature carefully.

 

[MTd2]

These two "jerks" accepted in the final version of Bee's paper that their no go theorem does not apply to her theory:

"Finally we wish to mention the recent comment [27] on this article, where it is argued that the ‘antigravity’ theory of [28] also avoids our no-go theorem. This comes from the simple fact that this theory contains two additional (1,1)-tensor fields besides our two metrics and two copies of the standard model.

The above discussion demonstrates that several ways of circumventing our no-go theorem might exist. Further research now must show whether one of these can be realized, i.e., whether it is actually possible to construct a concrete ‘antigravity’ theory with attractive and repulsive gravitational forces. Once such a theory is available, its physical implications will have to be investigated. It would be particularly interesting to study the predictions of the theory for cosmology, and whether the extra copies of the standard model may serve as an explanation for the dark universe"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.3384v2.pdf

This is Bee's answer to which they agree:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2094

 

[Careful]

These two "jerks" accepted in the final version of Bee's paper that their no go theorem does not apply to her theory:

"Finally we wish to mention the recent comment [27] on this article, where it is argued that the ‘antigravity’ theory of [28] also avoids our no-go theorem. This comes from the simple fact that this theory contains two additional (1,1)-tensor fields besides our two metrics and two copies of the standard model.

The above discussion demonstrates that several ways of circumventing our no-go theorem might exist. Further research now must show whether one of these can be realized, i.e., whether it is actually possible to construct a concrete ‘antigravity’ theory with attractive and repulsive gravitational forces. Once such a theory is available, its physical implications will have to be investigated. It would be particularly interesting to study the predictions of the theory for cosmology, and whether the extra copies of the standard model may serve as an explanation for the dark universe"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.3384v2.pdf

This is Bee's answer to which they agree:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2094

I was not talking about those two kind guys :tongue: I was not even trying to engage in the discussion whether she might have an idea that went beyond some limited no-go theorem. I was saying that her *specific* proposal was wrong. This is not what those kind guys were even adressing... they simply agreed that her 'construction' did not satisfy the premises of their theorem. I am actually sure they did not look into her papers into more detail to figure out whether her proposal made sense or not. So please, your attitude is irrational: what I told you above is a zillion times more advanced than any of these naive attempts try to accomplish. So either, you take my suggestion as it comes, or either you read her papers, recalculate everything and then come and explain why you think it is correct.

Because that is what those two ''jerks'' did !

 

[MTd2]

Well, you told me one of the reasons for her paper was contained in their paper... It was not actually correct. So, they didn't do prove it. And, well, trying to prove she is correct, without a reason why she is wrong, is just asserting a tautology.

And why Riemann cannot hold antigravity? It is just something that would bend curvature positively!

 

[Careful]

Well, you told me one of the reasons for her paper was contained in their paper... It was not actually correct. So, they didn't do prove it. And, well, trying to prove she is correct, without a reason why she is wrong, is just asserting a tautology.

And why Riemann cannot hold antigravity? It is just something that would bend curvature positively!

Huh?? Where did I say that ?! I spoke about two ''jerks'' not about the nice guys Hohmann and Wohlfarth! You did not even try to find out the reason why she *is* wrong :grumpy:
Look for the paper I am talking about, it is just 4 pages thick... that was actually sufficient to give 3 independent proofs why this construction cannot work.

If you are serious about the second question, then you should try to understand general relativity first (that's actually what those ''jerks'' recommended to Hossenfelder to start with). Do you have an imaginary ''relationship'' with this author that you are trying to ''protect'' her without any knowledge whatsoever?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing agains Hossenfelder but if she is wrong somewhere, she simply is.

 

[MTd2]

Look, this is the only paper with 2 authors that cited her:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep?c=PHRVA,D78,044015

And these are the only blogs that cite her:

http://arxiv.org/tb/0807.2838

Simone Speziale took her seriously:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4701

It is cited as [150] on the paper "Critical Overview of Loops and Foams", which has 2 authors. But there is no judgement of merit regarding the theory itself, but for the quantization procedure by Simone Speziale (p. 56, footnote 26).

 

[Careful]

Look, this is the only paper with 2 authors that cited her:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep?c=PHRVA,D78,044015

And these are the only blogs that cite her:

http://arxiv.org/tb/0807.2838

Simone Speziale took her seriously:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4701

It is cited as [150] on the paper "Critical Overview of Loops and Foams", which has 2 authors. But there is no judgement of merit regarding the theory itself, but for the quantization procedure by Simone Speziale (p. 56, footnote 26).

Yes of course, those ''jerks'' had the courtesy not to put their paper on the arxiv and only publish it in a journal because they where somehow hoping that this was sufficient to stop this ''theory''. Google on ''Hossenfelder and Anti-gravitation'' and you should find what I am talking about. It doesn't mean sh*t that someone takes her seriously, some people also take Eric Verlinde's theory and Garret Lisi's ''construction'' seriously. This is not an indication of the validity of their work.

 

[MTd2]

It doesn't seem that the theory in http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605083, or here, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=118641 is the same of the bi metrical gravity. Sabine doesn't even cite this work later.

 

[labinojha]

(it's just an imagination) Maybe we could surf over the space time fabric.We could pull it up. The depressions are supposed to have created gravity. the pulled up fabric may be antigravity.

 

[Careful]

It doesn't seem that the theory in http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605083, or here, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=118641 is the same of the bi metrical gravity. Sabine doesn't even cite this work later.

Well that may be true, but I know for sure that work was very wrong (and Sabine showed some very deep misunderstandings there). Now, you probably want generic arguments why such bi-metric theories should also be killed off. I never gave it much thought, but here are some easy reasons : if you would write an action principle for matter, then you agree that matter must couple to *both* metrics right? Indeed, you may think that g is the gravitating world and h the antigravitating one: for g a positive mass is attractive and for h such mass is repelling (and the other way around for particles of negative mass). Suppose you do not allow direct interactions between both metrics, then such theory looks like

- integral R_h sqrt(-h)d^4x + integral R_g sqrt(-g) d^4x -
m \int d t' \sqrt((g^{ab} + h^{ab}) z'^{a}(t') z'^{b}(t'))

where I have ignored the gravitational coupling constants and m is the particle mass. Actually, you have two possibilities: you may take g - h and put a plus sign for the Ricci term or h. Anyhow ... you should add another particle to the action, from one particle you are not going to learn anything. Now, it has to be like this since if a planet of positive mass were only to couple to say $g$ and not to $h$, there would be no way that something could fly away from earth. That is $h$'s job. So any (test) particle is going to feel as well $g$ as $h$ generated by the same planet (so the physically relevant connection for test particles is the Levi-Civita connection determined by g+h), so probably there would happen very little. You effectively would shut off gravity in this way. Indeed the metric g + h would be just twice Minkowski to a very good approximation. So, at this point you would have to give up (a) either action principles or (b) assume that test particles do not gravitate (so you would give up universality of gravitation)!

So here you have a quick and dirty argument why I would not look into this direction. I actually don't know what the arguments of these nice guys are.

 

[Careful]

(it's just an imagination) Maybe we could surf over the space time fabric.We could pull it up. The depressions are supposed to have created gravity. the pulled up fabric may be antigravity.

You put it in a rather poetic way but you seem to suggest that one could transform something in some way so that it would respond differently to gravitation (which is equivalent to saying that gravitation would change). Well this is precisely what I propose by generalizing Riemannian geometry by means of the Pauli matrices. In the dirac equation, you can rotate the spin of a particle so that it responds differently to a magnetic field. But yeh, you need some imagination and computational power to understand that I give away a very cool idea, provided you are interested in it.

 

[MTd2]

I will think about what you said but Simone Speziale, which is a guy that surely knows his stuff (Maybe Marcus can confirm this ), did not think that theory as wrong.

 

[MTd2]

BTW, can you recommend a specific paper about generalizing Riemann geometry by means of Pauli matrices?

 

[Careful]

BTW, can you recommend a specific paper about generalizing Riemann geometry by means of Pauli matrices?

Of course not, it is a new idea. People have been obsessed so far with the real and complex number field. Well, I don't know Simone Speziale; neither do I know the reasons why he would endorse such line of thought.

 

[BlackLeaf]

What about the theory of using spinning mercury to create anti gravity? It is said that it won't work cuase it salitifies at -40 degrees. In the article it said that the mercury would need to be under 50,000 bls of pressure or something like that. If its under that much pressure and is spinning, woulnt that create enough energy to bring the temerature up above -40 degrees?