See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51891447

Physics of Extreme Gravitomagnetic and

Gravity-Like Fields for Novel Space Propulsion
and Energy Generation

Article · April 2011

Source: arXiv

CITATIONS READS

5 258

2 authors, including:

J. Häuser
Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences
80 PUBLICATIONS 266 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gravity beyond Einstein? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by J. Häuser on 21 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 presented at SPESIF, Univ. of Maryland, March 2011

Physics of Extreme Gravitomagnetic and Gravity-Like Fields

for
Novel Space Propulsion and Energy Generation

Jochem Hauser 1 , Walter Dröscher 2 ∗

arXiv:1104.3247v1 [physics.gen-ph] 16 Apr 2011

1 Faculty H, Ostfalia Univ. of Applied Sciences, Campus Suderburg, Germany

2 Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, 6010 Innsbruck, Austria

Gravity in the form of Newtonian gravity is the weakest of the four known fundamental forces, though there
is no proof for the existence of exactly four fundamental interactions. In 2006 Tajmar et al. reported on the
measurements of extreme gravitomagnetic fields from small Nb rings at cryogenic temperatures that are about 18
orders of magnitude larger than gravitomagnetic fields obtained from GR (general relativity). Cifuolini in 2004
and the NASA-Stanford Gravity Probe-B experiment in 2007 confirmed the Lense-Thirring effect as predicted
by GR (gravitomagnetic fields generated by a rotating massive body, i.e. Earth) within some 10%. In 2007
gravitomagnetic fields generated by a rotating cryogenic lead disk were measured by Graham et al. Though
these measurements were not conclusive (the accuracy of the laser gyrometer was not sufficient to produce a
standard deviation small enough) their experiment seems to have seen the same phenomenon reported earlier by
Tajmar et al., termed parity violation. This means that gravitomagnetic fields produced by the cryogenic rotating
ring or disk vary substantially and change sign for clockwise and counter-clockwise directions of rotation. The
experimental situation therefore occurs to be contradictory. On the one hand GR has been confirmed while
at the same time, there seems to be experimental evidence for the existence of extreme gravitomagnetic fields
that cannot be generated by the movement of large masses. If these experiments can be confirmed, they give
a clear indication for the existence of additional gravitational fields of non-Newtonian nature. As was shown
by the GP-B experiment, measuring gravitomagnetic fields from GR poses extreme difficulties. In GP-B overall
measuring time was about 10 months and the mass of the Earth acted as a test body. In contrast, Tajmar et al.
measure for a few seconds only and the mass of the ring is some 400 g. Their gravitomagnetic field generated
is equivalent to that of a white dwarf. Therefore a novel physical mechanism should exist for the generation
of gravity-like fields, which might also provide the key to gravitational engineering similar to electromagnetic
technology. Furthermore, gravity-like fields may be the long sought enabling technology for space propulsion
without fuel. In addition, a combination of axial gravity-like fields and magnetic induction fields might stabilize
the plasma in a magnetic mirror and thus could lead to to a realizable fusion reactor.
Keywords: Six Fundamental Physical Forces, Three Different Gravitational Fields, Ordinary And Non-Ordinary Mat-
ter, Generation Of Gravity-Like Fields In The Laboratory, Interaction Between Electromagnetism And Gravitation,
Propellantless Propulsion, Extended Heim Theory (EHT), Energy Generation.
PACS: 03., 11., 77., 04.80 Cc

∗1 Prof., Faculty H, Ostfalia Univ. of Applied Sciences, Campus Suderburg, Germany, Senior member AIAA, Member AIAA NFFPTC
∗ 2Senior Scientist, Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, 6010 Innsbruck, Austria
 2

Nomenclature
1 e2
α= = 1/137 = coupling constant for electromagnetic force, fine structure constant
4πε0 h̄c

1
αgp = √ = 1/212 = coupling constant for gravitophoton force
π λ

αg2 = 1/672 = ratio of coupling constants of Newtonian gravity and gravitophoton force
αq = coupling constant (weak) for the force mediated by quintessence particle νq
αeth = radiative correction used in Lande factor
γ, γIR , γI = photons (interaction real-real matter), imaginary-real, imaginary-imaginary
λ = coupling constant for quartic term of potential V
01 , ν 01
νgp = two types of neutral gravitophotons (gravitational gauge boson)
gp

01 → ν + + ν −
νgp = positive (attractive) and negative (repulsive) gravitophoton (Heim experiment)
gp gp

02 → ν + ν
νgp = graviton (attractive) and quintessence particle (repulsive) (Tajmar experiment)
g q
νg = graviton (gravitational gauge boson, attractive)
νq = quintessence particle (gravitational gauge boson, repulsive)
ρD , ρ0D , hD , h0D , AC , A0C = density and geometric parameters for disk in Heim experiment, Eq.(22)
φ = scalar function in Lagrangian, real or complex
ωI = quantum mechanical angular velocity of imaginary electrons

AeI = electromagnetic vector potential from bosons by coupling of imaginary electrons

BG = general gravitomagnetic field vector
BGN = gravitomagnetic field vector from moving masses
B+
gp = attractive gravitomagnetic field in Heim experiment, interaction with OM
B−
gp = repulsive gravitomagnetic field in Heim experiment, interaction with spacetime
Bgp = gravitomagnetic field vector from gravitophotons
EG = general gravitoelectric field vector
EGN = gravitoelectric field vector from stationary masses
Egp = gravitoelectric field vector from gravitophotons

eBeI = electric charge of boson formed by coupling an

even number of electrons of imaginary mass by phase transition at cryogenic T
g = 2(1 + αeth ) = Lande factor
G = gravitational constant comprising three parts, GN , Ggp , Gq
gg = axial gravitophoton acceleration: Heim experiment
ggp = tangential gravitophoton acceleration: Tajmar and GP-B (quartz gyroscopes)

H8 = Heim space, eight-dimensional internal space attached to each point of spacetime

IL = 416 A = limiting real electric current in disk in Heim experiment, Eq.(24)
jgp = current density resulting from imaginary bosons (London equation)
L = Lagrangian density
R3 , T1 , S2 , I2 = subspace structure of H8 (mass, electric charge, organization, information)
N = number of turns of superconducting coil : Heim experiment
nBeI = number density of bosons formed by coupling an even number
of electrons of imaginary mass by phase transition at cryogenic temperature
V (φ ) = potential function in Lagrangian, sometimes denoted as Φ(φ )
v = circumferential velocity of rotating disk or ring
vA = average circumferential velocity of rotating disk or ring
I INTRODUCTION TO THE PHYSICS OF EXTREME GRAVITOMAGNETIC FIELDS 3

I. Introduction to the Physics of Extreme Gravitomagnetic Fields

In this paper the physical mechanism for both the qualitative and quantitative description of extreme gravitomag-
netic and gravity-like fields, described in a series of recent papers2–5 , is further refined. In particular, the coupling
constants for the conversion of photons into gravitophotons are calculated and an updated formula for the extreme
gravitomagnetic field is presented. In Sec. III this formula is used to compare theoretical predictions with five re-
cent experiments of extreme gravitomagnetic fields, showing astonishingly close agreement. This is remarkable since
coupling constants are obtained from QFT (Quantum Field Theory) and are not subject to any modification to fit the
experimental data.
The theoretical approach chosen is pragmatic in that no attempt is made to investigate the meaning of three gravity-
like fields with regard to the leading theories of everything like M-theory or loop quantum gravity. None of these
theories foresees additional fundamental forces, however. The focus is exclusively on the enabling technology that
might be achievable from gravitational engineering and its application to (space) transport as well as energy generation,
in a way similar to electromagnetic technology.
In 2006 Tajmar et al. reported on the measurements of extreme gravitomagnetic fields from small Nb rings at
cryogenic temperatures that are about 18 orders of magnitude larger than gravitomagnetic fields obtained from GR. In
2004, Cifuolini and in 2008, the NASA-Stanford Gravity Probe-B (GP-B) experiment confirmed the Lense-Thirring
effect of GR (i.e. gravitomagnetic fields generated by a rotating massive body) within 10-15%. Furthermore, in 2007
gravitomagnetic fields generated by a rotating cryogenic lead disk were measured by Graham et al. Though these
measurements were not conclusive (the accuracy of the laser gyro-meter was not sufficient to produce a standard
deviation small enough) their measurements also saw the phenomenon reported earlier by Tajmar et al., termed parity
violation, that is, gravitomagnetic fields produced by the cryogenic ring or disk vary substantially and are changing
sign for the clockwise and counter-clockwise directions of rotation.
In addition, the GP-B experiment reported a large misalignment of their four gyroscopes (gyro) once they were in
orbit. In this experiment Nb coated quartz spheres are rotated at cryogenic temperatures to use the London effect (i.e.
a rotating superconductor is generating a magnetic induction field along its axis of rotation) to provide a coordinate
system in space oriented toward a fixed star. There were two gyro pairs, with a gyro separation distance of a few
centimeters. When we were analyzing the GP-B experiment in 200818, 19 , employing ideas published since 2002 about
the existence of six fundamental forces (three of them of gravitational nature both attractive and repulsive), it turned
out that an interaction between the gyros in each pair should have occurred. The gravitomagnetic field generated by
one sphere is seen by the second sphere and vice versa. This should have lead to a spindrift anomaly, i.e. in this case
the gyro axis is rotated in a plane perpendicular to its orbital plane, which is given by 1/2 Bgp sin(ψ) where ψ is the
gyro misalignment angle of the gyroscope (the gyroscopes are initially oriented toward the guide star IM Pegasi). If a
spinning sphere (gyroscope) generates an extreme gravitomagnetic field of similar magnitude as observed by Tajmar
et al., this should be leading to a torque, causing a substantial frame-dragging effect, resulting in a spindrift. The
second effect that should have occured, would cause a gravitomagnetic force in tangential direction, slowing down
one sphere and accelerating the other.18 This, in principle should have led to an effect much larger than measured
from the Lense-Thirring effect produced by the rotating Earth. From the GP-B data, however, it cannot be concluded
that such a theoretical effect actually occurred, though there might be room for it. The Stanford scientists attributed
the misalignment to an electrostatic patch effect, i.e., the surfaces of the Nb spheres, not being perfectly spherical
electrically, would have exhibited slight deviations from an equipotential surface, thus leading to electrostatic forces.
Regarding the experimental situation there seems to be an irreconcilable situation. On the one hand GR has
been confirmed, while at the same time there is experimental evidence for the existence of extreme gravitomagnetic
fields that are clearly outside the range of GR. In addition Tajmar et al. reported on the existence of an acceleration
field acting in the plane of the Nb ring in circumferential direction. Such a field occurred when the ring was not rotating
at uniform angular velocity, but was subject to angular acceleration. The gravity-like field produced was acting against
the mechanical acceleration, following some kind of Lenz rule.
Independent and prior to the experiments of extreme gravitomagnetic fields, physical ideas were published predict-
ing the existence of three gravity-like fields under the name EHT (Extended Heim Theory). Recently a comprehensive,
but entertaining to read biography on the scientific work of Burkhard Heim was published by von Ludwiger (2010)6 .
The source of these gravity-like fields, however, is not the mass flux flux of planets or stars, but is supposed to originate
from a new type of matter, namely electrically charged fermions of imaginary mass and their subsequent conversion
into gravitational bosons, see next section and2–5 .
If the above experiments can be confirmed, they would serve as proof for the existence of additional gravitational
fields whose existence is of non-Newtonian nature that is, these fields cannot be generated by the movement of large
masses. As has been shown by the GP-B experiment, measuring gravitomagnetic fields poses extreme difficulties.
II MODIFIED EINSTEIN-MAXWELL EQUATIONS FOR EXTREME GRAVITOMAGNETIC FIELDS 4

For instance, in GP-B overall measuring time was about 10 months and the mass of the Earth acted as test body.
In contrast, Tajmar et al. measure for a few seconds only and the mass of the ring is some 400 g. However, the
gravitomagnetic field reported by Tajmar et al. is equivalent to that of a white dwarf.
The physics of these novel gravity-like fields might provide the key technology for space propulsion without fuel.
Today’s space transportation systems are based on the principle of momentum conservation of classical physics. There-
fore, all space vehicles need some kind of fuel for their operation. The basic physics underlying this propulsion prin-
ciple severely limits the specific impulse and/or available thrust. Launch capabilities from the surface of the Earth
require huge amounts of fuel. Hence, space flight, as envisaged by von Braun in the early 50s of the last century, has
not been possible. Only with novel physical principles, providing the proper engineering principles for propellantless
propulsion, can these limits be overcome.
The concept of gravitational field propulsion represents such a novel principle, being based on the generation
of gravitational fields, not by moving extremely large masses (e.g., planets or stars) around, but by the capability of
building devices providing the technology for the generation of gravity-like fields in a way similar to electromagnetism.
In other words, gravity fields should be technically controllable. At present, physicists believe that there are four
fundamental interactions: strong (nuclei, short range), weak (radioactive decay, short range), electromagnetic (long
range), and gravitational (long range). As experience has shown over the last six decades, none of these physical
interactions, in their present form, are suitable as a basis for novel space propulsion. Furthermore, none of the advanced
physical theories, like string theory or quantum gravity, go beyond these four known interactions. On the contrary,
recent results from causal dynamical triangulation simulations indicate that wormholes in spacetime do not seem to
exist, and thus, even this type of exotic space travel appears to be impossible.
The forces representing the two additional long range gravity-like fields would be both attractive and repulsive,
resulting from the interaction of electromagnetism with gravity. In the following, the physical concepts of Extended
Heim Theory are employed for the explanation of the novel gravitomagnetic experiments. Moreover, the physical ideas
of EHT suggest that it seems to be feasible to generate gravity-like (acceleration) fields that should be strong enough
for general propulsion purposes. Experimental setups along with respective technical requirements for such devices
are outlined in Section IV.

II. Modified Einstein-Maxwell Equations for Extreme Gravitomagnetic Fields

In a series of papers2–5 it has been discussed that none of the four known fundamental forces can explain the
existence of extreme gravitomagnetic and gravity-like fields.
The concept of geometrization of physics as introduced by Einstein was extended by B. Heim15 in the 1950s,
and in2–5 this approach was employed to construct a so called poly-metric with the aim to encompass all known
interactions. Therefore, in the following only a summary is presented. From general physical considerations, it was
argued that four-dimensional spacetime (geometrical symmetries) should be complemented by an inner (gauge) space
H8 (dynamical symmetries) to account for the physical properties of spacetime, for instance, the existence of fermions,
bosons, and fields in general. Therefore this inner space, termed H8 , is attached to each point of the external four-
dimensional spacetime manifold. Moreover, in (EHT), the inner space H8 is comprising four subspaces (representing
matter, charge, organization, and information), whose existence leads to the so called double transformation, see4, 5
. This results in a master metric field that, through specified selection rules, is broken down into a total of 16 sub-
metric fields, each having its proper physical meaning , also providing its own group structure. Such a sub-metric is
also called a Hermetry form, a term coined by B. Heim, because it is describing the hermeneutics (physical meaning)
of geometry. In other words, GR leads to a single metric (mono-metric) that is associated with gravity, while the
presence of inner space H8 together with its sub-space structure leads to a poly-metric, predicting, six fundamental
interactions, three of them of gravitational nature. It should be noted that once the existence of space H8 and its
subspace structure is accepted, the number of fundamental forces and particles (fields) are fixed.

A. Fermions and Bosons of Imaginary Mass

Analyzing the various Hermetry forms2–5 lead to the unforeseen conclusion that fermions of imaginary mass (elec-
trons and quarks) should exist. It is argued that these imaginary fermions might be generated experimentally through a
phase transition at cryogenic temperatures in special materials, for instance Nb and Pb as is discussed further in Sec.
A. Similar to the case of superconductivity, imaginary bosons might be formed from an even number of imaginary
electrons together with imaginary quarks that are, however, coupled to the protons of the solid, i.e. remain stationary,
while the imaginary bosons take on the role of the Cooper pairs.
B Origin of Extreme Gravity-Like Fields 5

These imaginary particles are not behaving like Feinberg’s tachyons, since they are interacting with the charged
particles of real mass in the lattice of the solid. As a consequence, this seems to require that for this type of matter grav-
itational and inertial mass could be different. Next, the interaction between the imaginary supercurrent and imaginary
quarks should lead to a real electromagnetic field that subsequently is converted into the extreme gravitomagnetic
or gravity-like field that is eventually measured. The electromagnetic origin of this field explains its strength and be-
havior with respect to the observed Lenz rule character of the acceleration field. Finally, as the Lense-Thirring effect
has shown, the rotating Earth and the surrounding spacetime interact with each other, as spacetime is dragged along
in the direction of rotation of the Earth. Since the gravitomagnetic fields measured by Tajmar et al. are substantially
larger their interaction with the local spacetime should be much stronger, too.
It is claimed that in these experiments, after the phase transition has taken place, the local spacetime field is part
of the interacting physical system with respect to both momentum and energy exchange. This means that energy and
momentum conservation were violated if the local spacetime field was not considered. A detailed discussion of the
conservation of energy and momentum is given in2–5 . The (accelerated) expansion of the Universe therefore seems to
be a direct consequence of momentum conservation.
The cosmological term, Λ, in the Einstein field equations thus should contain a local variation from this interaction
and therefore Λ = Λ(x) where x = (ct, x) is the coordinate four-vector. Modanese11 investigated the interference of
the Lagrangian density of a condensed matter system (superconductor), derived from the Landau-Ginzburg model,
with Λ giving rise to a local change of the amplitude of dipolar vacuum fluctuations, which in turn might produce
a gravitational Casimir effect. This effect, if it existed, would be far to small to explain the existence of extreme
gravitomagnetic fields, since it is produced within the framework of GR. However, in the present paper the Landau-
Ginzburg model is used together with the London equations, while the source term in the Einstein-Maxwell equations
is modified. In the present approach, the source is no longer the traditional mass flux j = ρv where ρ denote mass
density, but the supercurrent of the bosons of imaginary mass formed by the phase transition that is, the source term is
now of electromagnetic origin.

B. Origin of Extreme Gravity-Like Fields

The Tajmar effect (novel gravity-like fields) cannot be explained from GR, which becomes clear in comparing the
GP-B experiment with Tajmar’s experiments. In GP-B, which was orbiting the Earth for more than 10 months at an
altitude of about 640 km, the predicted Lense-Thirring precession of the gyro spin axis (inertial frame dragging by
the rotation of the mass of the Earth), initially pointing at a guide star (locked by a telescope), is some 42 milli-arc
seconds/year. This value is even small compared to the already tiny geodetic effect (spacetime curvature caused by the
mass of the Earth) of 6.6 arc seconds/year. The geodetic precession occurs in the orbital plane of the satellite, while
the Lense-Thirring effect causes a precession of the gyro spin axis in the same direction the Earth is rotating (the gyro
is assumed to be initially in free fall along the axis of rotation of the Earth). For the GP-B experiment an inertial
frame was required with non-gravitational acceleration less than 10−13 m/s2 . Compared to Tajmar’s equipment, his
gyroscopes definitely are not capable to detect accelerations that small. One of the major challenges of the GP-B
experiment was to provide such a drag-free (weightless) satellite.
It is therefore impossible that Tajmar has observed any effect related to GR. His effect must therefore be
outside GR, pointing to a new class of gravitational phenomena, provided, of course, that his measurements are cor-
rect. This were an indication that the standard picture of gravity as manifested in Einstein’s 1915 GR does need
an extension that goes beyond the picture of gravity of simply being the result of the curvature of four-dimensional
spacetime. Therefore, the two additional gravitational fields as postulated in EHT, represented by their messenger par-
ticles, the so called gravitophotons and the quintessence particle, are at least qualitatively supported. In other words,
the nature of gravity is more complex than represented by GR. All predictions of GR are correct, but it seems that it is
GR which is not complete instead of QM (quantum mechanics). Moreover, the geodetic and Lense-Thirring effects
show that an interaction between spacetime and massive bodies exist. This could mean that the Tajmar effect, being
many orders of magnitude larger, should have a much stronger interaction with its surrounding spacetime. This is
exactly what is needed for propellantless propulsion, which can only work if there is an intense exchange of energy
and momentum among space vehicle and spacetime, see the discussions in2–5 .
In order to explain the Tajmar effect, an additional assumption has to be made to characterize the phase transi-
tion that obviously seems to accompany all extreme gravitomagnetic phenomena. As known from superconductivity
the heuristic London equations, representing the material equations, in combination with the Maxwell equations are
essential to calculate both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of superconductivity in a heuristic way.
Therefore, from a physical point of view it is clear that the Einstein-Maxwell equations alone cannot describe
the gravitomagnetic experiments of Tajmar, in the same way the Maxwell equations cannot account for the phe-
C Mathematical Form of Einstein-Maxwell equations for Extreme Gravitomagnetic Fields 6

nomenon of superconductivity.

• The magnitude of the extreme gravitomagnetic field points to an electromagnetic origin, being the only other
long range field with sufficient coupling strength.
• Therefore, the London equations will be added to complement a modified set of Einstein-Maxwell equationsa .
• Moreover, there should be a physical mechanism that converts an electromagnetic into a gravitomagnetic (or
gravity-like) field modeled by a phase transition of Ginzburg-Landau type.
• Such a mechanism is not conceivable within the framework of the four fundamental interactions, which cannot
incorporate additional gravitational fields along with their additional interaction bosons. The standard model
cannot accommodate these additional particles and thus needs to be extended.
• For energy and momentum to be conserved, the interaction of the matter of the rotating disk (ring) with the
surrounding spacetime field must be accounted for.
• In the Tajmar experiments the gravity-like field of the accelerated ring is acting in the plane of the rotating ring,
opposing its origin. In the proposed Heim experiment, the gravity-like field of the disk, rotating at constant
angular velocity, is calculated to be directed along the axis of rotation. Therefore, these two experiments seem
to be based on two different physical mechanisms thta is, there seem to two different ways for the decay of the
neutral gravitophoton2–5 .
• The first neutral gravitophoton, indicated by νgp01 , which is deemed to be responsible for the Heim effect, should
+
decay into the positive (attractive) νgp and negative (repulsive) νgp− gravitophotons. The resulting gravity-like

field is supposed to be pointing in axial direction.

• The second neutral gravitophoton, denoted as νgp 02 , decays only if the ring is being accelerated, and the result-

ing gravity-like field is in the circumferential direction, and thus this decay route is believed to occur in the
experiments by Tajmar et al., producing an extreme gravitomagnetic or gravity-like field, coined the Tajmar
effect.
• From a technical point of view the axial gravity-like field is the one that could provide the enabling technology
for propellantless propulsion and novel air and land transportation systems as well as green energy generation
etc. Apart from physics, the resulting technology would have major repercussions in the area of transportation
and energy generation, but at present it is not possible to fully assess the technological consequences from the
existence of these fields.
• The two experiments for circumferential (Tajmar et al.) and axial gravity-like fields (Heim experiment) are
fundamentally different, but in both cases a conversion from electromagnetic to gravitational fields seems to
take place, triggered by the generation of imaginary electrons and quarks.

C. Mathematical Form of Einstein-Maxwell equations for Extreme Gravitomagnetic Fields

The fields observed in the experiments by Tajmar et al., Graham et al., and GP-B are small compared to gravitational
fields generated by massive black holes, and thus their curvature only slightly deviates from Minkowski space. Hence
it is justified to use the mathematical structure of the (linear) Einstein-Maxwell (E-M) equations. However, as was
pointed out by Thorne12 , the expansion of the full nonlinear Einstein field equations up to first order does not result
in the analog to the Maxwell equations. Linearizing the Einstein field equations, the metric tensor gµν is replaced by
gµν = ηµν + hµν where ηµν is the well known Minkowski tensor and hµν denotes the small deviation from Minkowski
space. Rewriting hµν = εHµν , inserting the expression for hµν into the Einstein field equations, and expanding up to
O(ε 2 ) gives the linear Einstein-Maxwell equations. However, the expansion up to first order gives no term ∂ B/∂t,
which is of second order in ε. If second order terms are considered, the similarity of the original Einstein-Maxwell
with the Maxwell equations is destroyed, because of the additional terms that enter in the Einstein-Maxwell equations.
However, this expansion is not employed in the present approach. Because of the phase transition that is responsible
for the supercurrent formed by the bosons of imaginary mass, the source term jgp is large, and therefore the term
∂ Bgp /∂t from gravitophoton interaction could become large and thus should not be omitted. In the equation that is
a The modified equations will still be called Einstein-Maxwell equations since the original Einstein-Maxwell equations will not be used in this
paper.
C Mathematical Form of Einstein-Maxwell equations for Extreme Gravitomagnetic Fields 7

∂ Egp
analog to Ampere’s law, the term might play a role, but for the Heim experiment it is set to 0. Since there is no
∂t
mass flux (apart form the spinning disk, which is negligible) in the Heim experiment, the divergence for the Egp is set
to 0. The const in the gravitational Ampere law still needs to be determined. Therefore, the mathematical form of the
E-M equations describing the generation of extreme gravitomagnetic fields, expressed as a set of partial differential
equations, is assumed to be
∇ · Egp = 0 (1)
1 ∂ Bgp
∇ × Egp = − αg (2)
2 ∂t
1 ∂ Egp
∇ × Bgp = const jgp + 2αg3 2 (3)
c ∂t
∇ × Bgp = const jgp (4)
∇ · Bgp = 0 (5)
It should be noted that the gravitomagnetic field Bgp is not imaginary but real, since the product of const and the
supercurrent jgp (obtained from the bosons of imaginary mass) is real. The subscript gp is used to distinguish the
gravitomagnetic field generated by gravitophotons from the two other gravitational fields. The value for αg is given in
Eq. (19) below.
The London equations are derived from the fact that in the superconducting phase the Cooper pairs move without
any friction through the lattice of the solid. This means that Ohm’s law j = σ E is no longer valid. The first London
equation is quite different from Ohm’s law, since now the electric field E is proportional to the time derivative of the
current density j, and no longer to j itself. Forming the curl of this equation and inserting this expression into Faraday’s
induction law, one directly derives the second London equation
ne2
∇×j = − B. (6)
me
which reflects the experimentally well known fact that there is no magnetic induction field B inside a superconductor
and is essential to explain the Meissner-Ochsenfeld effect.
b

Applying the form of Eq.(6) for the gravitophoton interaction and integrating it, gives an expression coming from
the current density of the bosons of imaginary mass
nBeI (eBI )2
jgp = − AeI , (7)
mBeI
which is considered to be the source term for the gravitomagnetic field. Subscripts eI and I stand for electron of
imaginary mass and imaginary, respectively, while superscript B denotes a boson. This term then is inserted as current
density in Eq.(4) leads to a partial differential equation for Bgp which, in analogy to the B field, shows that the
gravitomagnetic field should not penetrate into the ring or disk. The coupling strength for the gravitophoton interaction
is derived from the Coleman-Weinberg potential as shown below.
Furthermore, the London equations provide a relation between the angular velocity of the rotating superconductor
and the generated magnetic induction field
2me
B=− ω. (8)
e
Concerning the formation of fermions of imaginary mass it is assumed that these particles are formed via the
Higgs mechanism, as described in Kaku, Chap. 1016 , and discussed below in Sec.A . Kaku also provides the coupling
constants, see below, in his derivation of the Coleman-Weinberg potential.
The angular momentum carried by a photon is h̄ that is, a photon has spin 1. A spin 1 particle has three orientations
that are independent quantities. A vector is a quantity that posses three independent components. The electromagnetic
field is a vector field, described by field vectors E and B. As can be seen from Eqs. (4) the same holds true for the elec-
trogravitic and gravitomagnetic fields. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the two neutral gravitophotons
are particles of spin 1, too. This would mean, that gravitation in the linear case is described by two spin 1 particles,
which means that the spin 2 structure is only seen in the nonlinear range, with the possibility of breaking down into
two spin 1 particles. This might have far reaching consequences and will be discussed further in2, 3 .
b Because of the coupling of electromagnetism and gravitation it might perhaps be necessary to add coupling terms to the Maxwell equations
that are of gravitational origin (valid at cryogenic temperatures ?), but this topic has not been investigated so far.
III ANALYSIS OF RECENT EXPERIMENTS OF EXTREME GRAVITOMAGNETIC FIELDS 8

III. Analysis of Recent Experiments of Extreme Gravitomagnetic Fields

Since the comparison between gravitomagnetic experiments and theory is fundamental, the results from the five
known gravitomagnetic experiments and the corresponding theoretical predictions obtained from EHT are listed
inTable 1 . This topic is discussed in more detail in two review articles2, 3 . The goal is to calculate the extreme
gravitomagnetic fields observed in recent experiments as accurate as possible. The structure of the formula that was
used in earlier publications remains unchanged, but the coupling constants for the conversion from photons into grav-
itophotons have changed. Coupling constants are needed as accurate as possible, which are now obtained from the so
called radiation corrections for the magnetic moment of the electron that is, from QED (Quantum Electrodynamics).
This is a remarkable fact, since it indicates that QED also seems to be working for the electromagnetic processes of
fermions of imaginary mass. These constants occur in the terms of higher order in Eq. (10).
Therefore, the London equation, Eq. (7) is rewritten utilizing the magnetic dipole moment µ, which is defined as
eh̄
electric current × area. That is, for the electron mass one obtains the Bohr magneton µB = = 9.27400915(23) ×
2me
10−24 J T−1 . The value determined from quantum mechanics, however, is twice as large as the classical one. Moreover,
the value of the magneton, when first measured with high accuracy in 1947 by Kusch and Foley, turned out to be
slightly different from the value 2 as predicted by Dirac in 1928. As was found later by Schwinger in 1948, the reason
for this deviation is that an electron is emitting and reabsorbing virtual photons, see for instance20 . As a consequence
a so called anomalous magnetic moment is added and the Landé g factor has been introduced to account for this effect,
i.e., the magnetic moment of a physical electron is given by

µ = −gµB with g = 2(1 + αeth ) (9)

with αeth taken from20

1 α α α α
αeth = ( ) − 0.328478965( )2 + 1.181241456( )3 − 1.7366160( )4 + · · · = 0.001159651535(240) (10)
2 π π π π
where α is the well known fine structure constant. The magnetic moment is increased by the radiation correction,
because the electron is surrounded by virtual photons, which are continuously emitted and reabsorbed. The energy of
these photons is taken from the rest mass of the electron, which is therefore reduced, thus increasing the ratio e/m.
The London equation is rewritten in the form
B = µ −1 h̄ω. (11)
It is believed that radiation corrections are important for all gravitational conversion processes. There might exist
a duality between weak and strong coupling for QED and gravitational conversion processes (s=1). Here, further
investigations are required.
The subsequent comparison between theory and experiments considers the data from five different experimental
scenarios :
1. Gravitomagnetic field Bgp for the cryogenic rotating Nb ring of Tajmar et al.
It is assumed that the gravitomagnetic field is generated through the conversion of the photon into a gravitopho-
ton that is γ → γI → νgp02 , for details see2–5 . The coupling constants for these conversions are the fine structure

constant α = 1/137 and the coupling constant αgp = 1/212 determined from the Coleman-Weinberg potential
Eq. (13).
2. Gravitomagnetic field Bgp for the cryogenic rotating Pb disk of Graham et al.
3. Anomalous spin drift from NASA-Stanford Gravity Probe-B experiment.
4. Acceleration field ggp in azimuthal direction for the cryogenic rotating Nb ring of Tajmar et al.

5. Acceleration field ggp in azimuthal direction for the NASA-Stanford Gravity Probe-B experiment.
For the sake of clarity experimental and theoretical data are summarized in the table below.
A Symmetry Breaking Revisited 9

Table 1. The table shows a comparison of the magnitude of the computed (EHT) and measured extreme gravitomagnetic
fields from Tajmar et al. and Graham et al. in rows one and two. In row three the anomalous spin drift of the Nb coated
quartz gyroscopes utilized in the Gravity-Probe B experiment is shown. The difference of theoretical and measured values
for the minimum spindrift results from the fact that the theory uses a straight line for the spindrift as an approximation. In
row four the gravitational acceleration field in azimuthal direction as measured by Tajmar et al. is depicted. In row five the
tangential acceleration of the quartz gyroscopes of GP-B is presented. All values were normalized by the angular frequency
ω of the rotating ring (Tajmar), disk (Graham), or sphere (GP-B).

A. Symmetry Breaking Revisited

The nature of the physical mechanism responsible for the generation of extreme gravitomagnetic fields remains to be
further clarified. It is assumed that the well known phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking plays a crucial
role, manifesting itself, however, in an entirely different way as experienced in superconductivity or ferromagnetism
etc.
A superconductor or a ferromagnet are models for spontaneous symmetry breaking that is, the potential energy of
the electron gas (superconductor) or the spin system (ferromagnet) changes abruptly at a critical temperature Tc , and
the associated potential V (φ ) is changing its shape from the left to the right curve as depicted in Fig. 1. As a result, a
novel physical phenomenon might occur on the macroscopic scale.
For the subsequent discussion, the salient general characteristic features of symmetry breaking are listed below:

(i) Order parameter Spontaneous symmetry breaking is controlled by an order parameter, very often temperature.
At a certain critical temperature, a completely novel and unexpected behavior of the physical system appears.
All experiments for extreme gravitomagnetic and gravity-like fields fall under this category.
(ii) Particles of imaginary mass If spontaneous symmetry breaking does not take place, the alternative is that parti-
cles of imaginary mass (m2 < 0, right part of Fig. 1) are created, which is consistent with the Hermetry forms
representing fermionic matter of imaginary mass2 . Furthermore, if a magnetic field is present, the Ginzburg-
Landau potential becomes asymmetrical, and its two minima are different. As a consequence, particles of
imaginary mass of different magnitude are being produced. For instance, as is possible in EHT, both electrons
of imaginary mass eI and quarks of imaginary mass qI can be generated.
(iii) New Bosons A phase transition is associated with the formation of a new type of bosonic particles that, in general,
are correlated. For instance, in superconductivity, Cooper pairs (two electron interaction, boson like) are formed.
In the extreme gravitomagnetic experiments it is surmised that six electrons of imaginary mass form a boson of
imaginary mass, but the mechanism is not that well understood.
(iv) Novel Physical Phenomenon At the macroscopic scale a novel, completely different physical behavior may oc-
cur. In superconductivity, electric resistivity becomes effectively zero at TC . In the case of extreme gravitomag-
IV GENERATION OF AXIAL GRAVITY-LIKE FIELDS 10

netic fields, a conversion from electromagnetic into gravitational fields seems to occur.
(v) Dynamical Mechanism The gauge symmetry is broken by a dynamical mechanism (self-interaction). The super-
conductivity current is described as a single correlated system obtained from the interaction of the many electron
wave functions, which is responsible for the gauge symmetry breaking.

Figure 1. Instead of symmetry breaking, particles of imaginary mass are produced and thus symmetry breaking does not happen. The
shape of the left potential function (depicted is V on the ordinate, m2 and λ have the same sign) displays a unique ground-state (or vacuum
state), which is defined as the state that possesses the lowest energy. This potential belongs to a particle of mass m that is described by a
Klein-Gordon field. At a critical temperature, Tc , whose magnitude depends on the physical system (e.g., superconductivity, superfluidity,
ferromagnetism, condensed matter phenomena etc.), so called spontaneous symmetry breaking sets in. The ground state becomes degen-
erate and the system assumes a lower energy state by selecting one of the two minima, and thus is breaking the symmetry. An alternative
mechanism is that the system retains its symmetry even in the case that m2 and λ have different signs. However, as a consequence if, for
instance m2 is going from positive to negative as depicted in the picture on the right-hand side, particles of real mass are transformed into
particles of imaginary mass. It is assumed that in the gravitomagnetic experiments both electrons of imaginary mass eI and quarks of
imaginary mass qI are formed while total charge is preserved.

When a phase transition occurs, e.g. by reducing the temperature of the system, the potential curve changes shape,
moving from the left to the right picture in Fig. 1. The left shape is symmetric with respect to its single minimum (at
φ = 0). For m2 < 0, the minima correspond to φ = ±v. If spontaneous symmetry breaking sets in, the field settles
at one of these minima for the self-interaction has lowered the energy of the ground state (or vacuum state). Thus
the new shape (right picture) no longer reflects this symmetry, since the potential was shifted along the abscissa by
±v. In other words, the symmetry has been broken spontaneously, i.e., by the physical system itself through its self-
interaction potential triggered by the critical temperature. The original vacuum state is no longer the correct vacuum
state, and the system has to assume a new vacuum state at φ0 = ±v that is of lower energy. There is, however, an
alternative to this mechanism. Instead, the system decides to regain its symmetry and particles of imaginary mass
are generated. It is postulated that this is the mechanism for generating particles of imaginary mass and real
charge whose subsequent conversion by gravitophotons is deemed to be responsible for the generation of the large
observed gravitomagnetic fields.

IV. Generation of Axial Gravity-Like Fields

In the framework of the current paper a full discussion of the implications of imaginary matter cannot be given,
which is deemed fundamental for the conversion from photons into gravitophotons.
The presence of matter with imaginary mass is extending the picture of physical reality, in that it seems that not only
particles and their anti-particles, but, under certain conditions, also particles and their ghost or shadow particles
(i.e. particles of imaginary mass) exist, or, at least, can be created under well defined experimental constraints.
IV GENERATION OF AXIAL GRAVITY-LIKE FIELDS 11

At temperatures low enough for the respective phase transition to occur, it is postulated the imaginary electrons
being produced are forming bosons, comprising an even number (six) of these electrons eI . The imaginary current due
to these bosons is deemed to result in an imaginary vector potential AeI whose interaction with the stationary quarks qI
(protons) in the rotating disk is eventually leading to a real physical interaction which appears in the form of extreme
gravitomagnetic or gravity-like fields. The physical mechanism is complex, but, as can be seen from the experimental
setup of Tajmar et al., the generation of the circumferential gravity-like field is surprisingly simple. The same should
hold true for the axial gravity-like field experiment.
Any propellantless space propulsion technology therefore would be substantially simpler and much more effective
and efficient than currently used chemical propulsion as well as inherently safer. Most important such a technology
would be far more economical.

Figure 2. Heim experiment: in this experiment the gravity-like field generated should be directed along the axis of rotation.
The second component is in the azimuthal direction and should accelerate the ring or disk. Therefore, energy does not
need to be supplied to keep the angular velocity of the ring or disk constant. The experimental setup could serve as field
propulsion device. The axial acceleration should be easily detectable. Though the experiment seems to be easy in principle,
the support of the disk might cause mechanical vibrations that could overlay the gravity-like field. The question therefore
arises can the experiments by Tajmar et al. and the Heim experiment be carried out using using micro- or nano-disks or
rings that are assembled in an array.

The experiment for the axial field, termed Heim experiment after the German physicist B. Heim who came up with
the idea for a poly-metric already in 1952, first published in a series of three articles in a less known German journal,
comprises a cryogenic disk comprised of a given material, denoted as MD having a diameter of about 0.2 m which
is rotating at constant circumferential velocity v. Below the disk a superconducting coil is placed, made of material
MC , that comprises N turns. The disk may also reside inside the coil. It should be noted that disk and coil material
need to be complementary. In the experiments by Tajmar et al. a Nb ring and an Al sample holder seem to give the
best results. The third part is a simple device to ensure that the current of the bosons of imaginary mass is coupled
into the coil. In order to achieve this the wire of the coil is cut through and a non-superconducting disk of about 1
mm thickness is introduced. The Cooper pairs cannot tunnel through this layer, since its thickness by far exceeds the
10 Å of the Josephson effect. However, the Compton wave length of the electrons of imaginary mass is much larger,
IV GENERATION OF AXIAL GRAVITY-LIKE FIELDS 12

despite the fact of the weak coupling that is forming the bosons of imaginary mass, because of the small limit velocity
cI in solids for particles of imaginary mass, and thus the eBI should be capable of tunneling through, leading to the
imaginary current II that gives rise to the imaginary vector potential AeI c .
The gravitomagnetic mechanism of GR cannot be the mechanism that occurs in the Heim experiment or in the ex-
treme gravitomagnetic field experiments. As these experiments demonstrate, the process is a solid state phenomenon,
depending on a phase transition, triggered by temperature. Therefore, the generation of the gravitomagnetic field
follows a totally different mechanism different than GR. Hence, the gravitomagnetic field Bgp must be calculated by a
different physical model as stated above. According to EHT, in the Heim experiment,
• The origin of the Bgp is the imaginary electromagnetic field of the supercurrent,
• the conversion from electromagnetism to gravitomagnetism seems to follow the reaction chain starting from
photons γ → γIR → γI → νgp01 → ν + + ν − → ν + ν , producing new types of bosons, termed gravitophotons,
gp gp g q

• eventually the νg graviton confers the momentum to the space vehicle, the νq quintessence particle provides
negative momentum to the surrounding spacetime which therefore expands, the total momentum of this physical
system remains unchanged, i.e. remains zero. In this regard momentum is transferred from the local spacetime
to the space vehicle, whose magnitude is determined by the strength of the generated Bgp field.

For the Heim experiment, the imaginary current needs to be coupled into the superconducting coil by some kind of
tunnel effect as stated above. The Cooper pair current is not important by itself, it only acts as the source for the
accompanying imaginary current. The imaginary current follows from the London equation, Eq. (7), but the magnetic
induction field is imaginary, the coupling constant is the fine structure α, and the factor 2π indicates that the bosons eBI
have imaginary mass of magnitude 4π 2 me (4π 2 results from the double conversion γ → γIR → γI that does not occur
in the experiments by Tajmar et al.)
4π 2 me
BeI = −i α ωI (12)
e
where ωI denotes the angular frequency of the bosons formed by the coupling of the eI . d . It is important to ensure
that in the experiment the imaginary current is flowing in the coil, i.e. an experimental mechanism must be provided
to couple this current into the coil, once the real super-current sets in. It should be mentioned that the chain of
formation of the three types of photons γ → γIR → γI → νgp 01 takes place only below a certain critical temperature.

The question arises how to couple the electromagnetic field to the gravitomagnetic field. The value of the coupling
1
constant αgp ≈ is related to the radiative correction of the Higgs field, described by the parameter λ in Kaku16
√ 212
pp.353, via λ ≈ αgp . Kaku also discusses using the Coleman-Weinberg potential to numerically calculate λ , treating
the Higgs field as the radiative correction of the electromagnetic field. This means that in the Lagrangian, Eq.(17), the
potential V contains a fourth order term with coefficient λ to account for the so called self-interaction of the field. This
term is generally inserted by hand to model the symmetry breaking that is, the phase transition process that, in the
case of the gravitomagnetic experiments, generates the charged particles of imaginary mass. Therefore, in general no
relation between the two parameters m (mass) and λ occurring in the Lagrangian can be specified. For instance, if λ
changes sign, according to the theory of Landau and Ginzburg, a phase transition will take place. This phase transition
is supposed to occur in the form of new particles of imaginary matter. Kaku then shows (see Figs. 10.4 and 10.5 in16 )
that if the so called radiative correction is used in order to calculate the effective potential by summing up over all one
loops in the Feynman diagram, a relationship between the fine structure constant α = w2ph = e2 /4πε0 h̄c and the value
λ can be established. The following expression was found

2 33 1 e4
αgp =λ = ∼ α 2. (13)
8π 16π ε0 h̄2 c2
2 2 2

The coupling constant for QED is the well known fine structure constant, which has the small value α = 1/137 ≈
7.3 × 10−3 .
The Lagrange densities before and after phase transition for the conversion from electromagnetism to gravitation
are assumed to be related in the following way
c It is not known if the direct imaginary current is superimposed by a high frequency alternating imaginary current as observed for Cooper pairs

in the Josephson effect.

d The charge of the imaginary electron e and electron −e are the same.
I
IV GENERATION OF AXIAL GRAVITY-LIKE FIELDS 13

ie 0.328αgp v · AeI + m p v · Agp = 0 (14)

where v is the velocity of the rotating disk above the coil. The decay of the neutral gravitophoton of the first type,
01 , into ν 01 → ν + + ν − leads to the real gravitophoton potential A . From the above equation a constraint on the
νgp gp gp gp gp
direction of the resulting Bgp is obtained, which is of the form

Bgp = γBeI + β v × BeI . (15)

This is the most general solution. It can be seen immediately that in the experiments by Tajmar et al. Bgp k BeI , since
there is a coupling between velocity v and the imaginary field BeI that is, BeI is parallel to the axis of rotation of the
disk. Because of this coupling, β = 0 and this is actually seen in the experiments of the gravity-like field. Therefore the
resulting acceleration field always is in circumferential direction in this type of experiment. In the Heim experiment
we need to have
Bgp ∼ v × BeI , (16)
which means that, if the BeI of the London equation is directed along the z-axis, the resulting Bgp is pointing in eˆr
direction, if cylindrical coordinates are used.
For the extreme gravitomagnetic field to be generated, two types of decay occur, first the photon is converted
into an imaginary photon γ → γI . Then the neutral gravitophoton is produced according to γI → νgp 01 . The coupling

constants of these decays are the fine structure constant α and the gravitophon coupling constant αgp , determined
from the Coleman-Weinberg potential, respectively. This is an extraordinary fact, since it indicates that the process
of gravitomagnetic field generation is governed by quantum electrodynamics, in contradiction to our earlier
assumption where coupling constants were calculated from number theory, see14 . In other words, once the existence
of fermions with imaginary mass is accepted, i.e., the concept of matter has been extended, the basic machinery of
current physics seems to apply.
As mentioned above, the Lorentz equation also holds for the gravitophoton force (it should be remembered that the
nonlinear Einstein field equations are only of interest in the direct neighborhood of black holes or for distances com-
parable to the diameter of the Universe). From the
1
L = mv2 + eV (φ ) + v · AeI (17)
2
it is obvious that the gravity-like force is given by

F = m v × Bgp ∼ m v × (v × BeI ), (18)

which means that the resulting force is in the direction of the BeI field, which, in the Heim experiment is the axial
direction. In the Heim experiment the neutral gravitophoton is supposed to decay according to νgp 01 → ν + +ν − → ν +
gp gp g
νq : αg , αq , where αg represents a strong general coupling constant for gravitational processes and αq is the respective
coupling constant that corresponds to the quintessence particle νq . From conservation principles as discussed above,
since the spacetime field does exchange energy and momentum in all experiments of extreme gravitomagnetic fields,
the force exerted by the gravitons acts on the rotating disk or ring and the force by νq is locally pushing against the
spacetime field, acting as a repulsive force that in principle leads to an acceleration of the spacetime field, though,
most likely, the effect cannot be measured. It is like a cosmic Mössbauer effect. There are no ideas at present what
causes the inertia of the spacetime field and how large it is. The gravitophoton field B+ gp of the rotating disk or ring
then has the form

4π 2 me v
B+
gp = ααgp αg × ωI (19)
mp c
GN 1/2
 
1
with αg = = = 67. Since v is the circumferential speed of the rotating disk, the average velocity of
Ggp παgp
the particles in the disk is given by
1
vA2 = v2 (20)
3
and the B+gp field is
4π 2 me vA
B+gp = ααgp αg × ωI . (21)
2m p c
V FUSION ENERGY FROM AXIAL GRAVITY-LIKE FIELDS ? 14

Since the acceleration is eventually caused by gravitons, which requires one more gravitational conversion process,
the additional factor αg is introduced in the equation below. Furthermore Eq. (19) does not contain the dependence on
the material that is, it is valid only for Nb. The factor in the middle of Eq. (22) accounts for the material in relation to
the reference material. The new variables appearing in the following equation are specified in the numerical example
below. The final form for the magnitude of the gravitomagnetic acceleration in z-direction (vertical) is

0.328 2 0.328 4π 2 me ρD hD AC v2
gg = αg v × B+
gp = ααgp αg3 N ωI (22)
1.18 1.18 3m p ρ0D h0D A0C c
α2
where the factor αg2 comes from the two conversions, namely B+ 3
gp → Bg and Bg → gg . Since ααgp αg ∼ 3 a mul-
α
tiplication with the form factors of the α terms of Eq. 10 takes place. Quantities hD and h0D denote the respective
hD h̄
penetration depths of the Bgp field with respect to the disk or ring. The ratio ∼ 1 and h0D = ≈ 9 × 10−3 m
h0D me cI
and cI is the propagation speed of the electrons of imaginary mass in the disk. This would mean that gravitophotons
in analogy to photons of a superconductor would gain mass.
As an example for a laboratory experiment to producing a sizable axial field a disk of d = 0.2m diameter together
me 1 ρD hD
with the following parameters is used: = , = 0.19, = 1, where ρ0D and h0D are reference density and
m p 1836 ρ0D h0D
reference penetration depth for the disk or ring, and N = 50 is the number of turns of the coil. A value of AC /A0C = 5
is chosen, where AC and A0C are the cross section and the so called reference cross section of the coil, respectively.
The circumferential speed of the disk is v = 50 m s−1 and ωI = 7.5 × 105 s−1 . Inserting these values results in
0.328 1 1 13.16 2.5 × 103 1
gg = × × 673 × × 0.19 × 50 × 5 × × 7.5 × 105 × g = 0.62g (23)
1.18 137 212 1836 3 × 108 9.81
where g denotes the acceleration of the Earth. This value denotes a fairly strong acceleration given the modest technical
requirements for the experiment. For the limit of the real current IL one finds
2πR AC 4π 2 me
 
I < IL = ωI ≈ 416 A. (24)
µ0 A0C e
We end this section with a caveat: the derivation of the acceleration formula contains several assumptions that
cannot (yet) be proven mathematically. In practice it may turn out that the acceleration field is substantially smaller.
But even a field a thousand times lower would be counted as a strong gravity-like field. Eq. (22) allows to determine
the scaling of the effect, which depends of the number of turns, N, of the coil and the circumferential speed of the
disk as well as on the material. There seem to be better materials than Nb. An open question is whether it will be
possible to find materials that will work at higher temperature, which is similar to the search for high-temperature
superconductors. Perhaps there is an advantage to spatially reduce the scaling of the experiment to the micro- or nano-
scale and to use arrays of micro- or nano-disks and coils. In general, materials of higher density seem to result in higher
acceleration fields. In other words, materials science and condensed matter physics would be of prime importance in
future gravitational technology.

V. Fusion Energy from Axial Gravity-Like Fields ?

As stated by Moyer21 in his recent article in Scientific American, there is a high probability that a fusion reactor
in form of a tokamak may not be feasible at all, because of fundamental physical difficulties. Fusion machines in the
form of tokamaks (toroidal geometry) need very complex magnetic field configurations to counter the various plasma
drift modes, resulting from the gradient of the magnetic induction field, the drift caused by geometric curvature, by
gravitation etc. A stellerator, see Fig.V, would be a much easier configuration, since it is linear, but the magnetic
mirror cannot be completely closed. Could a vertically generated gravitational field, at least in principle, be used to
reduce the mirror losses so far that controlled fusion would be possible ? Such a field could also be used to heat the
plasma.

VI. Conclusions and Future Experiments

From the 1930s on numerous magazines and books, see Kakalios22 , predicted that the rule of gravity would be
overcome within the next fifty years, and von Braun’s vision of spaceflight and spacestations would become reality.
VI CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE EXPERIMENTS 15

Figure 3. Gravity-like fields to aid fusion energy generation. The picture shows the usage of vertical gravitational fields at 45 °. At each end
of the mirror only two of the four vertical gravitational fields are shown. The other two fields would act in the horizontal plane, in order to
produce some kind of a quadrupole field. Particles moving close to the axis would gain a radial component and should be hold back by the
mirror. However, a detailed analysis would be needed to find out whether this configuration can have any practical relevance. Green curve
shows charged particle trajectories.

Furthermore, a revolution in energy generation could be expected and transportation would be completely different.
Comparing these predictions with the reality of today, it is obvious that nothing comes close. On the contrary, fusion
seems to be out of reach, the U.S. does no longer have a vigorous space program, and it seems to be a very long way to
an all electric car. The energy density of batteries is very limited, depending on the basic physical properties of atoms
and molecules that cannot be changed.
The reason is that in the 1930s all the laws of physics that we are knowing and using today, were already in
place, and during the last six decades their usage has been refined and converted into technology. Indeed, the informa-
tion revolution took place. In order to turn the vision of von Braun into reality, novel laws of physics concerning the
nature of gravity need to be found. Evidence that these laws might exist has been presented in this paper and some
of the technological aspects with regard to transportation in general and energy generation have been discussed.
In 2006 the generation of extreme gravitomagnetic and gravity-like fields generated in the laboratory by rotating
cryogenic rings or disks of small mass have been reported. As the analysis in this paper showed, these fields, if
confirmed, would be definitely outside GR, requiring novel physics beyond the four known physical interactions.
Since 2002 ideas of a geometric approach for describing physical interactions, termed Extended Heim Theory
(EHT), have been published. This approach predicts six fundamental physical interactions, namely three gravita-
tional fields, electromagnetism as well as the weak and strong interactions2 . Gravitational fields can be both attractive
and repulsive.
In addition to the existence of ordinary matter (fermions and bosons), non-ordinary matter in the form of stable
neutral leptons should exist as well as particles of imaginary mass, which might be accountable for dark matter.
Together with the three gravitational fields and the particles of imaginary mass the conversion of an electromag-
netic into a gravitational field, under experimental conditions at low temperature that give rise to a phase transition,
should be possible.
Such a conversion would have the potential to generate extreme gravitational fields without having to move large
masses around, for instance in the form of planets or stars. Thus the engineering of gravitational fields might be
achievable, though such an advanced technology at present appears to be magical. But as the history of modern
technology has shown, as science is developing further, things that appeared impossible in the past are commonplace
REFERENCES 16

today.
A technology based on gravitational fields would be similar in importance to electromagnetic technology, having
a profound impact on transportation in general and spaceflight in particular as well as in the area of energy generation
(fusion), but in many other fields, too.
Naturally, if six fundamental interactions existed, the standard model of theoretical physics had to be extended
along with the meaning of matter, and the symmetries (groups) that exist beneath the observed physical phenomena
have to be reconsidered.

Acknowledgment
The assistance by M.Sc. O. Rybatzki, Computing Center, Ostfalia Univ. of Applied Sciences, Germany in prepar-
ing the figures is gratefully acknowledged.
The authors are grateful to Dr. M. Tajmar, now at KAIST, Seoul, Korea for providing measured data as well as for
numerous comments regarding comparisons between EHT and gravitomagnetic experiments.
The authors are most grateful to Prof. P. Dr. Dr. A. Resch, director of the Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft
(IGW), Innsbruck, Austria for his support in writing this paper.
The first author is indebted to his colleague Prof. Dr. Thomas Waldeer, Ostfalia Univ., Campus Suderburg for
discussions and proofreading the paper as well as suggesting improvements.
The first author is particularly grateful to Prof. K. Jiang, College of Engineering and Science, Univ. of Birming-
ham, U.K. for discussions of the design of a gravitomagnetic experiment in the micro- or nano-scale range.

References
1 Ciufolini, I. et al.:
Determination of frame-dragging using earth gravity models from CHAMP and GRACE, New Astronomy
11 (2006) 527-550.
2 Dröscher, W., J. Hauser: Review of Emerging Physics for Novel Space Propulsion Science: Physics of Extreme Gravitomag-

netic and Gravity-Like Fields, submitted to Journal of Progress in Aerospace, 2010, under review.
3 Hauser, J., W. Dröscher: Review of Emerging Physics for Novel Space Propulsion Science: Experiments and Technology of

Extreme Gravitomagnetic and Gravity-Like Fields, submitted to Journal of Progress in Aerospace, 2010.
4 Hauser, J., W. Dröscher: Coupled Gravitational Fields A New Paradigm for Propulsion Science, AIAA 2010-021-NFF-1,

46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASE, Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Nashville, Tennessee, 25-28 July 2010, 15 pp.
5 Hauser, J., W. Dröscher: Emerging Physics for Novel Field Propulsion Science, Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences

International Forum SPESIF-2010, American Institute of Physics, Conference Proceedings, 978-7354-0749-7/10, 15 pp.
6 von Ludwiger, I.: Burkhard Heim: Das Leben eines vergessenen Genies, Scorpio Verlag, München, Germany, 2010,

478pp.
7 Tajmar, M. et al.: Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603033

(2006).
8 Graham, R. D. et al.: Experiment to Detect Frame Dragging in a Lead Superconductor, www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/ phys-

rin/papers/SuperFrameDragging2007.pdf (2007).
9 , M. et al., Measurement of Gravitomagnetic and Acceleration Fields Around Rotating Superconductors, STAIF AIP, (2007).
10 Tajmar, M. et al.: Anomalous Fiber Optic Gyroscope Signals Observed above Spinning Rings at Low Temperature, 25th

Inter- national Conference on Low Temperature Physics (LT25), IOP Publishing, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 150 (2009)
032101.
11 Modanese, G.: Local Contribution of a Quantum Condensate to the Vacuum Density, Modern Physics Letters, Vol. 18,

Number 10, World Scientific pp. 683-690.

12 Thorne, K.: Gravitomagnetism, Jets in Quasars, and the Stanford Gyroscope Experiment in "Near Zero: New Frontiers

of Physics, Editors, J. D. Fairbank, B. S. DeiIVW, Jr., C. W. F. Everitt, P. F. Michelson, Copyright 1988 by W. H. Freeman 2nd
Company, New York.
13 Tajmar, M. et al.: Anomalous Fiber Optic Gyroscope Signals Observed Above Spinning Rings at Low Temperature,

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603033 (2008).
14 Heim. B., Dröscher, W.: Strukturen der Physikalischen Welt und ihrer nichtmateriellen Seite, Resch Verlag, Innsbruck,

Austria, 1996, 2nd ed. 2007.

15 Heim, B.: Vorschlag eines Weges einer einheitlichen Beschreibung der Elementarteilchen, Zeitschrift für Naturforschung,

32a, 1977, pp. 233-243.

16 Kaku, M.: Quantum Field Theory, Oxford, 1993.
 REFERENCES 17

17 Dröscher,W., J. Hauser: Gravitational Field Propulsion, AIAA 2009-5069, 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASE, Joint Propulsion

Conference & Exhibit, Denver, CO, 2-5 August 2009.

18 Dröscher, W., J. Hauser: Gravity-Like Fields and Space Propulsion Concepts, AIAA 2008-5124, 44th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASE, Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Hartford, CT, 20-23 July 2008, 19 pp.
19 Everitt, C.W. F. et al.: The Gravity Probe B Experiment Science Results, NASA Final report, http://einstein.stanford.edu,

December 2008, 80 pp.

20 Henley, E. M., A. Garcia: Subatomic Physics, World Scientific, 2007, Chap. 6.
21 Moyer, M.: Fusion’s False Dawn, Scientific American, March 2010, pp.50-57.
22 Kakalios, J.: The Amazing Story of Quantum Mechanics, Gotham Books, 2010.

View publication stats