Thesis: Atomic charge denotes gravitational mass/nuclear attractive bond force
Known Theory: Known atomic masses gravitate based on negative electron orbital charge
Inverse Theory: Unknown atomic masses repel (antigravity) based on positive positron orbital charge
Application: Positron antigravity repulsion can explain “dark energy” forces attributed to universal expansion between galaxies
Experiment: Synthesize positron orbital isotopes (antimatter) at CERN for the purpose of testing for repulsive antigravity properties to verify orbital charge gravity theory
Electromagnetic charge couples to a spin-1 vector field (the photon), which arises from a local U(1) gauge symmetry. Because vector fields interact with conserved currents, spin-1 exchange produces forces that can be either attractive or repulsive, depending on the relative sign of the charges involved.
Gravity couples to the stress-energy tensor via a spin-2 symmetric tensor field (the graviton). Field-theoretic derivations demonstrate that any consistent, Lorentz-invariant quantum theory of a massless spin-2 field must interact universally with all forms of energy and momentum. Because energy density is strictly positive-definite, spin-2 exchange always results in a purely attractive interaction, manifesting geometrically as the curvature of spacetime.
This fits into the broader classification of fundamental fields by their spin:
• Spin 0: Scalar fields (such as the Higgs field) associated with mass generation and vacuum expectation values, producing non-gauge scalar interactions. • Spin 1: Vector gauge fields (such as photons for electromagnetism and gluons for the strong force) responsible for forces governed by charge-like source terms and polarity. • Spin 2: Tensor fields (such as gravity) governing spacetime geometry and coupling universally to the total stress-energy tensor.
Recent experiments at CERN (specifically the ALPHA-g collaboration studying antihydrogen) have directly measured the effect of gravity on antimatter and confirmed that antihydrogen falls downwards, experiencing attractive gravity just like normal matter, rather than repelling.
CERN already conducts leading-edge research on antimatter gravity (such as creating and trapping antihydrogen). However, these experiments were designed to test fundamental symmetries, and current data shows that antimatter is gravitationally attractive, directly contradicting the premise of this charge theory.
wait wouldn’t they destroy each other if attracted together, how would you first stabilize such an interaction "to avoid them annihilating themselves once together?
Am I missing something else? ~QS
I comprehend the observation; the positively charged dark matter (antimatter) appears to gravitate towards our negatively charged matter. That is the expected outcome of the observation. Positive attracts negative charge.
My question is: Do the positively charged dark atoms repel each other due to positive orbital charge?
If they do repel then this gives us insight into what gravity actually is and what charge denotes. It would mean the following:
Negative charged Electron orbital matter exhibits self attraction = gravity
It is an observed explanation as to why we dont observe entire galaxies comprised of dark antimatter.
It would also explain universal expansion and suggest that dark matter is impacting the physics of galaxy rotation gravity; perhaps giving insight into our black hole at sagitarius A.
Why Mass-Energy Differs Fundamentally from True Charges
While mass-energy acts as the source of gravity, it lacks the defining characteristics of standard quantum charges:
Universality vs. Selectivity: Electric charge only affects particles that possess it (neutral particles ignore electric fields). Gravitational “charge” (mass-energy) is completely universal; because photons and kinetic energy possess energy, they too generate and respond to gravity.
No Negative Charge: Electric charges come in two opposite signs (positive and negative), allowing for both attraction and repulsion. In standard physics, mass-energy is strictly positive, meaning gravity is universally attractive with no repulsive counterpart.
Self-Interaction: Electric fields do not carry electric charge, so electromagnetic fields pass through each other without interacting. Gravitational fields do carry energy, which means gravity itself acts as a source of gravity, introducing a profound non-linearity into the equations.
Antimatter is frequently misunderstood as having negative mass or negative energy, but it actually possesses positive mass-energy. For example, a positron has the exact same positive rest mass as an electron, and an antiproton has the exact same positive rest mass as a proton.
Because mass-energy is positive, antimatter behaves just like ordinary matter in a gravitational field:
It Generates Gravity: Because it possesses mass-energy and contributes to the stress-energy tensor, a clump of antimatter would create an attractive gravitational field around itself.
It Responds to Gravity: It is pulled downward by gravity in the exact same manner and at the same rate as ordinary matter.
This has also been confirmed experimentally. High-precision physics experiments, such as the ALPHA collaboration at CERN, have successfully trapped antihydrogen atoms and measured their behavior in Earth’s gravitational field, confirming directly that antimatter falls down rather than floating or repelling.
This attraction operates through two primary mechanisms:
Gravitationally: Because antihydrogen possesses positive mass-energy, it generates and responds to gravity in the exact same way ordinary matter does. Two antihydrogen atoms will pull toward one another due to mutual gravitational attraction.
Electrostatically: Antihydrogen is electrically neutral as a whole, being composed of a negatively charged antiproton orbited by a positively charged positron. On a macroscopic scale, there is no net electric charge to cause repulsion or attraction. However, just like ordinary neutral hydrogen atoms, antihydrogen atoms experience weak quantum-mechanical dispersion forces, such as van der Waals forces, which are also fundamentally attractive at close range.
We do not observe antimatter galaxies, stars, or planets because the observable universe is overwhelmingly composed of matter, with no evidence of macroscopic pockets or domains of antimatter anywhere in space.
According to our understanding of cosmology and particle physics, this absence is explained by a combination of three main factors:
Baryogenesis and CP Violation: In the extremely hot, dense conditions of the early universe, matter and antimatter should have been created in nearly equal amounts. However, fundamental physical laws (specifically charge-parity violation, or CP violation) allowed matter to survive annihilation. For every one billion pairs of matter and antimatter particles that destroyed each other, a tiny excess of about one matter particle remained. That surviving fraction formed every star, planet, and galaxy we see today.
Gamma-Ray Constraints at Domain Boundaries: If large regions of antimatter existed alongside regions of matter, they would inevitably meet at cosmic boundaries. At the interface where a matter galaxy and an antimatter galaxy collided or interacted via the intergalactic medium, intense particle-antiparticle annihilation would occur. This process produces a very specific, high-energy gamma-ray signature (specifically 511 keV photons from electron-positron annihilation and characteristic neutral pion decay signatures from proton-antiproton collisions). Space telescopes like Fermi have searched deep space for these boundary emissions and found nothing, proving that no such domains exist within our observable universe.
Primordial Asymmetry: Because the universe expanded rapidly during inflation, any initial microscopic fluctuations that favored matter over antimatter were locked in globally. Once annihilation cleared out the antimatter, matter became the sole building block for all subsequent cosmic structures.
Well, all we really need is particle accelerators, high-purity germanium or BGO detectors, & cryogenic systems built by one of the major research institutions & engineering firms to help us get some struff to study them ourselves & the people with the technical know~how to program & read those data!
We got this!
Or… we could rent Cern? I got two bucks, what’s anyone else got? I mean they aren’t using it for now. What could possible go wrong???
Plus they can make like at least two bucks! “so far”
Don’t worry, I will peak my head in “from time to time” while it is running “with my helmet on, of course & Attenutech leaded or my Wiley X radiation glasses on” to make sure it is working just fine… also, even if some parts are being changed out… i am not stupid! & Your Welcome… to All!
Doing my part one post at a time!
I know some of you may have concerns with me doing this, but as long as my I’mma real picklesticker… never falls off, the helmet & glasses are on, all will be… just fine!
I do know how to look at struff! ~QS
Note: I want to smash two micro~machines together first! Then you can all test the other “also” just as important struff! The things are like massive race tracks!
No? Vrooom! Vrooom! Smash!
This Ge crystal from Canberra Semiconductor (CSI) was unusable (impurity concentration?) but looked pretty and was used for display.
I know we can’t afford it all ourselves, what what harm is there into looking into this struff ourselves. I found a connection to GE already, now… how strange is that!!! ~QS
Note: I did not know you could even get crystal semi~conductors from GE? Let alone they were already related at all to this type of work!
Note 2: This was in the 2000 & before! What else is GE involved in before/since then. I may need to open my own thread just to delve into them on a whole more thoroughly!
Gravity fails to work like a “charge” in the gauge-theory sense because the two are conserved quantities of fundamentally different kinds. In electromagnetism, charge is tied to an internal symmetry of the field (phase rotations, mathematically), and Noether’s theorem turns that symmetry into a conservation law. Particles can carry zero charge and simply ignore the force, charge comes in both signs, and nothing forces charge to track inertial mass. Energy-momentum, gravity’s source, arises instead from symmetry of spacetime itself — invariance under translations — which is a different category of conservation law tied to the arena physics happens in, not to some internal property particles can lack.
That distinction shows up empirically in ways ordinary charge never does. Every form of energy and momentum gravitates, including massless photons, so there’s no way to be “gravitationally neutral.” Inertial and gravitational mass are exactly equal for everything ever tested, not merely proportional through some coupling constant — this is the equivalence principle, and it has no analog in electromagnetism, where charge-to-mass ratio varies freely across particles. That exact equality is what let Einstein reinterpret gravity as geometry rather than as a force acting on a charge at all.
The structural mismatch goes further. EM charge is a single number per particle; gravity’s source is the full stress-energy tensor — energy density, momentum density, pressure, and stress together — which is why the gravitational field is a rank-2 tensor (the metric) rather than a vector, and carries spin-2 character rather than spin-1. Ordinary matter has positive energy density, so gravity is always attractive, with no analog of like-charges-repel and no way to shield it the way opposite charges cancel. And because the gravitational field itself carries energy, it sources more gravity — Einstein’s equations are nonlinear, while Maxwell’s are linear. Gravity gravitates; charge doesn’t charge.
That’s also why treating gravity as just another gauge force — a spin-2 field coupled to a stress-energy “charge” on a fixed background — runs into serious trouble, non-renormalizability chief among them. The mismatch isn’t a technical inconvenience to be patched over; it’s a signal that gravity’s relationship to its source is categorically different from how charge relates to the forces it generates.
~QS
& Your Welcome… to All!
~QS
Smash! 
