SACRED GEOMETRY: ‘Quantum Gravity’, The Journey of the Future Begins

Source – quantumantigravity.wordpress.com

  • “…Negative inertial mass” suggests a possibility of “negative gravity” that could also be described as  “repulsive gravity”,  which has been popularly known as antigravity.  And that would make an ideal candidate for a propellantless field propulsion method for the purpose of industrial-scale space propulsion…I would imagine that the reason for you not being aware of these above mentioned experimental observations could be that they were solicited by the United States Department of Defense, and performed by former University of Alabama in Huntsville experimental physicists, within their privately-held R&D company”

THE FOURTH AND FINAL ROAD TO QUANTUM GRAVITY, WITH IMMEDIATE APPLICATION TO SPACE PROPULSION.

Last year, I learned from Prof. A.K.T. Assis that the XIX-th century Weber‘s theory of electrodynamics predicts existence of precisely such physical causes and effects, described in more detail down below, that I expect to observe in my proof-of-concept experiment:

My idea of scale-invariant atomic mass generation mechanism involves a combination and proper orientation of the following 3 factors:

  1. Electric dipole moment – EDM  
  2. Magnetic dipole moment – MDM  
  3. Angular momentum – AM  

The main factor is EDM. It is a directional factor, and as explained in my paper, it constitutes a measure of mass, according to my scale-invariant mass generation mechanism:

When we have a classical macroscopic separation of charges in a simple electric capacitor with flat plates it can be illustrated as follows:

” A quantitative calculation is made of the electric-dipole moment
on a free one-electron atom which would result from the existence
of a non-zero moment on the electron. It is shown that in the non-relativistic
approximation the atomic moment is zero, but that relativistic effects
allow a non-zero value. For the ground state of hydrogen the atomic moment
is found to be -2Z2α2de, while for the 2s state it is of order de/α; de  is the electron
moment and α is the fine-structure constant.”  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3700/1/3/326

See: Atoms as Electric Capacitors (down below). We can speak of atomic electric dipole moment, and  we can think of a hydrogen atom as an electric capacitor, but its “plates” are not flat :

Therefore in case of anti-hydrogen atom, EDM is directed outward, as opposed to inward, in a hydrogen atom (see above). According to my conjecture, this would suggest an attractive mass for hydrogen, and a repulsive mass for anti-hydrogen, an anti-mass. Therefore we could expect to observe anti-gravity as a result of anti-mass.

What makes anti-mass as opposed to mass, is the direction of EDM, as per my scale-invariant mass generation mechanism explained in my paper:

In case of atoms, there are only two directions of EDM possible. The inward direction for atoms of matter, and the outward direction for atoms of anti-matter.

What is critically important, as Weber predicted, is the geometry. For an electric capacitor with flat plates, there is neither inward nor outward, when it comes to the direction of EDM. However, for EDM to function as mass, or anti-mass, it needs to be always properly combined with MDM and angular momentum.  

When we want to move over from natural quantum anti-gravity to macroscopic artificial anti-gravity generation, then the factor of angular momentum becomes critical for the purpose of amplifying the anti-gravity effect. The EM momentum and EM angular momentum of EM thrusters is simply too weak for industrial-scale space propulsion. 

So much for my short and simple conjecture.

Now, let’s take a closer look at the Biefeld-Brown effect:

The following is the famous electro-gravitic capacitor of T.T. Brown :

Over decades, it has been observed to move upward 
in countless independent experiments performed by credible 
mainstream experimental physicists and research engineers,
and even by the U.S. Army Research Lab.  NASA patented it.

Let’s take a look at the above T.T. Brown’s experiment
from the perspective of my above conjecture.   

What we have is essentially a section of a spherical capacitor, 
with EDM directed outward, like in anti-hydrogen atom.   BINGO!

This is the anti-mass resulting in macroscopic artificial anti-gravity. 

Hey,  but where are MDM and AM ?!

In this case, macroscopic MDM is provided by Earth’s magnetic field, 
by quantum magnetic moments, and by atomic magnetic moments
of capacitor’s dielectric.  Another critically important condition to note here
is that EDM of the device, ideally, needs to be perpendicular to its MDM 
for the maximum effect. 

And AM is provided by elementary particles’ spin, and also by atomic spin. Not enough. That is why everybody knows by now that the Biefeld-Brown effect is too weak for industrial-scale space propulsion.

And now enters the unique insight from my research:

We need to amplify the angular momentum in a macroscopic manner. 
The obvious thing to do is to spin something heavy, the capacitor.   
The following is the complete and final concept
of (artificial, macroscopic) anti-gravity propulsion engine 
for industrial-scale space travel :

On 24 November 2020, A.K.T. Assis wrote:

Dear Zbigniew Modrzejewski,
thanks for sending your conjecture with all the links.
Please, keep me informed of future developments.
Best regards, Andre Assis

Andre Koch Torres Assis
Homepage: http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assi
UNICAMP, Institute of Physics University of Campinas 
Rua Sergio Buarque de Holanda 777
13083-859 Campinas, SP, Brazil
Email: assis@ifi.unicamp.br
Telephone: (+55) (19) 35215515
Skype: AndreKochAssis

Dear Prof. Andre Koch Torres Assis, Ph.D.,

Hello, and warm greetings from Canada,

Thank you so very much for your very kind message.
Much appreciated.

Thank you so very much for sending me links to your research papers.
They are extremely valuable for me, as you shall see below. .  

  ” Our goal here was only to show a specific limitation of Weber’s law:
the prediction that charged particles can attain velocities as large
as we wish, in a limited space, with finite voltage differences. Since this
has not been confirmed by experiments we can conclude that Weber’s law
should not be applied to velocities near the light velocity.”  https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Phys-Lett-A-V160-p25-30(1991).pdf

Completely agree.   But there is hope:

  ” It should be emphasized that Helmholtz’s criticism
of Weber’s law has never been proven wrong.  […] 
Although Phipps overcame Helmholtz’s criticism,
this was only possible modifying Weber’s potential energy.  […]
Phipps proposed a modified Weber’s potential to overcome
Helmholtz’s criticism of Weber’s law. Essentially he proposes
a potential energy given by U= (qlq2/4neor12)(1 –/’122/C 2) 1/2.
As this is a modification of Weber’s original potential
we will not consider it here.”  https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Phys-Lett-A-V160-p25-30(1991).pdf

Fair enough.  Now comes the most important part that I am going to address:

  ” A topic discussed in the paper was an alternative interpretation
of these results of Weber’s electrodynamics as indicating a variation
of the inertial mass of a charged particle with electrostatic potential.
This is somewhat similar to the gravitational redshift (a variation of mass
with the gravitational potential) and reminds us of the Einstein mass-energy
relation E=mc 2, because rnw=qV/2c 2 (the energy being here a potential energy).
However it should be pointed out that this analogy has limitations because
according to Weber’s model the value of the effective mass will depend
on the geometry of the problem and not only on the value of the potential.
For instance if the charge were inside a spherical shell charged to the voltage V
it would behave as if it had an inertial mass given by m+qV/3c 2 [9],
and not m+qV/2c 2 as when it is inside of a capacitor (Weber’s model).
According to relativity theory there is no such dependence on the geometry.
Anyway this effect predicted by Weber’s theory is an essential part of the model.
To our knowledge no experiment has been designed to test this effect.”  https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Phys-Lett-A-V160-p25-30(1991).pdf

And: 

  ” According to Weber’s model a charge could behave under some conditions as if it had a negative inertial mass or as having an equivalent inertial mass going to zero, even with non-relativistic velocities.To our knowledge this has never been observed experimentally, which casts some doubts on the feasibility of applying Weber’s forces even for slow velocities.” https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Phys-Lett-A-V160-p25-30(1991).pdf

I would like to respectfully inform you that multiple independent experiments have been already performed that have conclusively observed both:

  1. the value of the effective mass depends on the electrodynamic geometry ;
  2. massive charged bodies could behave as if they had a negative inertial mass, or as having an equivalent inertial mass going to zero, even with non-relativistic velocities, and also with zero velocity.

As a consequence,  “negative inertial mass” suggests a possibility of “negative gravity” that could also be described as  “repulsive gravity”,  which has been popularly known as antigravity.  And that would make an ideal candidate for a propellantless field propulsion method for the purpose of industrial-scale space propulsion, which  Univ.-Prof. Dr. Techn. Martin Tajmar, Ph.D., the Chairperson of Space Systems at the Institute for Aerospace Engineering of Dresden University of Technology in Germany, is a world-famous pioneer of. 

I would imagine that the reason for you not being aware
of these above mentioned experimental observations could be
that they were solicited by the United States Department of Defense, 
and performed by former University of Alabama in Huntsville 
experimental physicists, within their privately-held R&D company:

tajmar

The Chairperson of Space Systems at the Institute for Aerospace Engineering of Dresden University of Technology in Germany, Univ.-Prof. Dr. Techn. Martin Tajmar, Ph.D.

In parallel to the development of Maxwell’s equations, Wilhelm Weber proposed a force that also covered all known aspects of electromagnetism (Ampere, Coulomb, Faraday and Gauss’s laws) and incorporated Newton’s third law in the strong form, that is that the force is always along the straight line joining two charges (which also implies the conservation of linear and angular momentum). However, Weber’s electrodynamics also gives rise to new effects such as longitudinal forces or the change of the effective inertial mass of a charge inside a charged spherical shell which we could exploit for negative matter propulsion.

Weber’s force and the related potential energy is given by […] where q1 and q2 are the respective charges and r is the distance between them. If we now consider a single charge inside a charged spherical dielectric shell (in order to ignore eddy currents or mirror charges), we must integrate the force and sum up all the interaction between the single charge inside the shell and all other charges along the shell.

Surprisingly, a net force remains that acts on the single charge when it accelerates inside the shell given by […] where Q is the charge on the shell, R the shell’s radius and V the electrostatic potential inside the shell.

Classically, no force is expected on a charge inside a charged shell as the electric potential is constant and therefore no electric and no force acts on charges inside. According to Weber’s electrodynamics, this force is proportional to acceleration of the charge and therefore influences the charge’s inertial mass. If the total inertial mass is now the sum of the unaffected mass and the Weber mass, we may express the effective mass of the charge as […]

The equation predicts that a change in mass should be quite observable in a dedicated laboratory experiment. Considering a dielectric shell with a radius of 0.5 m charged up to 1.5 MV, we could expect to double an electron’s mass – or reduce it to zero depending on the shell’s charge polarity. Mikhailov published a number of experiments were such an effect was indeed observed. First, he put a neon glow lamp inside a glass shell that was coated by a thin layer of Ga-In and an RC-oscillator inside a Faraday shield below. The coated glass shell imitates the charged dielectric shell as originally proposed by Prof. A.K.T. Assis. The frequency of the lamp is directly proportional to the electron’s mass. Indeed he observed that the lamp’s frequency changed if he charged the sphere as predicted by Equ. (4) within a factor 3/2. In a second experiment, the neon lamp was replaced by a Barkhausen-Kurz generator leading to similar results. Finally, the neon-lamp experiment was repeated with two charged concentric shells showing that the frequency/mass effect from charging up the first shell can be counterbalances by oppositely charging the outer shell.

Junginger and Popovich repeated the neon glow lamp experiment and implemented an optical counter instead of electrically measuring the frequency of the lamp – and observed a null result. Also Little et al performed a similar replication and observed a null result with optical counters and observed that the electric measurement of the lamp’s frequency may be influenced by the Faraday’s shield potential depending on the coupling capacitor used (however the signature of the effect was a parabola instead of the linear relationship as obtained by Mikhailov).

However, both replication teams used only a metallic Faraday cage to surround the neon lamp and the RC-oscillator and not a dielectric (glass) shell covered with a metallic layer. As outlined by Prof. A.K.T. Assis already in his original derivation of the effect, it is crucial to use a dielectric charged shell as mirror charges or eddy currents may completely shield the effect. A new replication attempt using a metal-covered dielectric glass shell similar to Mikhailov’s approach and using both electric and optical counters is currently underway at TU Dresden in order to finally prove or disprove the effect.

Assuming that Weber electrodynamics hold, we could realize negative matter propulsion by putting a charged capacitor inside a positively charged dielectric shell as shown in Fig. 3. We are considering only a positively charged shell because the electron’s mass is much smaller than the proton’s. It may also work with a negatively charged outer shell but at significantly higher potential. The positive electric potential from the charged shell would decrease the electron’s mass on the negative side of the capacitor and increase the mass of the electron’s hole (the proton) on the positive side of the capacitor. Moreover, the Coulomb force between the capacitor charges would act as a spring. The effect should occur once the outer potential is high enough to make the electron’s effective mass negative. The thruster’s force is then only determined by the spring / Coulomb force on the capacitor plates and therefore by the capacitor’s area A, capacity C and potential V on the plates. By using high-k dielectrics, the critical voltage on the outer shell may be reduced and the effect would start to occur probably at already lower voltages.

Considering the force between two plates of a capacitor […] and using realistic values for off-the shelve high voltage capacitors, the force can easily get several hundred Newtons or higher which should be readily measureable using a balance.

But is this realistic? The Coulomb force should act as a spring to exert a force on the charges and Equ.(3) assumed that the effective mass changes for charges under acceleration inside the sphere. However, the charges in a capacitor are not accelerating, nor moving in a steady state, they accumulate on the side of the plates and are counterbalanced by internal mechanical forces so that they are standing still. We may expect forces during charging and discharging of the capacitor when the charges move and accelerate, with proper positioning by putting the capacitor plates apart and charge them while removing the mechanical fixation, due to thermal vibrations, the charges will in fact oscillate a little and feel acceleration and the Coulomb force, however the resulting force should be much less than expected from Equ.(5) and even level out to zero.

Maybe the implementation of a spring between one capacitor plate and the dielectric could solve this issue, however the acceleration of the charge carriers will be much smaller than in the Coulomb attraction-spring case. The exact amount of force is therefore difficult to calculate, however the large maximum value according to Equ. (5) should be stimulating enough to investigate such an effect experimentally.

RICHARD FEYNMAN: 

” Where does the mass come from? In our laws of mechanics we have supposed that every object “carries” a thing we call the mass—which also means that it “carries” a momentum proportional to its velocity. Now we discover that it is understandable that a charged particle carries a momentum proportional to its velocity. It might, in fact, be that the mass is just the effect of electrodynamics. The origin of mass has until now been unexplained. We have at last in the theory of electrodynamics a grand opportunity to understand something that we never understood before. It comes out of the blue—or rather, from Maxwell and Poynting—that any charged particle will have a momentum proportional to its velocity just from electromagnetic influences.Let’s be conservative and say, for a moment, that there are two kinds of mass—that the total momentum of an object could be the sum of a mechanical momentum and the electromagnetic momentum. The mechanical momentum is the “mechanical” mass, mmech, times v. In experiments where we measure the mass of a particle by seeing how much momentum it has, or how it swings around in an orbit, we are measuring the total mass. We say generally that the momentum is the total mass (mmech+melec) times the velocity. So the observed mass can consist of two pieces (or possibly more if we include other fields): a mechanical piece plus an electromagnetic piece. We know that there is definitely an electromagnetic piece, and we have a formula for it. And there is the thrilling possibility that the mechanical piece is not there at all—that the mass is all electromagnetic. […] We only wish to emphasize here the following points: (1) the electromagnetic theory predicts the existence of an electromagnetic mass, but it also falls on its face in doing so, because it does not produce a consistent theory—and the same is true with the quantum modifications; (2) there is experimental evidence for the existence of electromagnetic mass; and (3) all these masses are roughly the same as the mass of an electron. So we come back again to the original idea of Lorentz—maybe all the mass of an electron is purely electromagnetic, maybe the whole 0.511 MeV is due to electrodynamics? ”

Atoms as Electric 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 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.

“ There is only one thing more powerful, and more explosive, than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.” — Victor Hugo

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/nutshell/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s