Graviton cancellation

Learned all this stuff till bachelors school, but didn’t really understood it so here I am trying to understand it all again, and yeah, it seems I don’t know much if I judge myself, but it is what the universe has bought me, despite knowing all that was there which I learned.

Complexity of information in 3D volume of space solely by E-M radiation contained within.
EM radiation reflected or emitted from objects, we say waves travel, but how are they distributed in space, and how does eye figures out*

Light is affected by gravity through so called space-time fabric, but fabric as commonly understood in imagination is not 2D, how it is in 3D, but how does 2D make sense, if its actually 3D,

In search to cancel gravitons at the mass interface, most gravitons pass through the mass, and also interact with the mass. The only common thing where mass and EM forces interact is at the matter, where there is both mass and charge bound. Now we are using different words for mass, charge, EM and gravity forces, but in the end they would have something in common. Not to ignore the soul of beings which are manifested from this existing forces also at micro scales. Conscious has ability to get affected by mass flow as much as charge flow, due to EM affecting the mind, as much as gravity waves, however small it may be, but a correctly tuned mind will clean out the biases and noise, to obtain such a signal.

I see that the Venus planet, and the moon, and somehow it feels that such gravity hovering vehicles are possible.

Then I took out my old sketchnotebook where I had some things theorizedon it, but i hadn’t started to look into it. I’m familiar with usual concepts about spacetime fabric, but reading someone else’s opinions and words never really made me understand what it actually is, because of so much doubt in what is said or what is referred, and even if reader understood it correctly, or just absurdly, for the sake of understanding. All matters, because if reader didn’t get the idea, due to illusive unclear nature of the topic, writing it is as just another entertainment and storytelling which suggests that topic for descendents down the line, and something which is not to be really worried about today.

while here are some opening notes, how I tried to sketch it, its no way near what can be, but it can be hard to think taking everything into account, but simplicity of understanding will realize it in this universe.

So how does gravity exists, mass has gravity, its taken for granted. Mass attract other mass, hypothetically, through gravitons which are responsible for gravity wave, which is also the force field felt by the body, but its like looking at one thing the another way which does not solve my problem of understanding it yet, so far.

Gravitational lensing shows that light is bent around massive objects, so one way of understanding is that the space surrounding has warped so that light travelling straight appears to have bent, as it goes straight through the space. While it may make sense, I seem to think its just made up, and light is deviated by pulling force of gravity. while both interpretation appear same, relativity provides accurate measure (well if I trust the sources), but we are working without it, so how would we justify.

Using AI to reduce bias in thinking. Know that reality as described by scientists may not be what it appeared to them then. They had given set of definitions and understanding at their disposal, and more understanding about the universe shifts perspective. Whats known today, will most certainly will be viewed more accurate and differently in future. This different thinking will allow technologies that currently we think are impossible. In the end scientists are humans with human limitations. Although, they are far specialized than normal human, but in a scientists mind, the confusion of identity-existence-facts about universe can affect how it perceives the world and universe, and true facts may get lost in translation, or understanding, and even if masses agree to the norm definition within scientists. Know that they can be wrong. For reference, imagine a millenia later. All depends on thinking that is valid and allowed to thrive. Its a constant battle in confusion, where old ideas need to be put to tests to really prove them. For this, one must not rely on language terms, but come to real understanding for what it is. It is what it is, would be the ultimate way to describe it, and sometimes saying those words might be trying to suggest the entire thing, but whats understood by the listener/reader might just be nothing. Sometimes, most would not even read, like myself, who rely on observation and proof to ultimately include it, within by being’s own experience. Because no one can be trusted, although you can still trust others for food and everyday things, but for to bring out ideas that are true on absolute scale, within one’s mind, to truly understand the fundamental beyond whats currently known, requires far more inclusivity than what is there. How would one come up with theory, it all starts with a paper, pen, and a thinking mind, or at least just a thinking mind if it can track what paper and pen can, without forgetting.

1. Do Photons “Really” Carry Momentum?

• Theoretical View: In physics, a photon is said to carry momentum because it exerts pressure and can transfer energy to matter. For instance:
  • Radiation Pressure: Light exerts pressure on surfaces, which has been measured experimentally (e.g., solar sails).
  • Compton Scattering: When photons collide with electrons, they transfer energy and momentum, causing measurable shifts in the electron’s motion.
• Your Perspective: What if this “momentum” is just a result of how EM fields interact with charged particles?
  • This is valid: the fields are what create forces on charges, and calling it “momentum” might indeed be an analogy to describe the effect.
  • The fields themselves (electric and magnetic) are the true actors. What photons “are” fundamentally is harder to define.

---

2. Are EM Waves Just “Imagined Force Fields”?

• Classical Perspective:
  • Maxwell’s equations describe EM waves as oscillations of electric (EEE) and magnetic (BBB) fields.
  • These fields are real in the sense that their effects (e.g., on charges, induction, radiation) are measurable and predictable.
  • But the fields themselves are abstractions to explain observed behavior.
• Quantum Perspective:
  • EM waves are quantized into photons, which are packets of energy.
  • Photons are not “classical particles” or “waves” but quantum objects that exhibit wave-particle duality.
  • Fundamentally, photons exist as probability amplitudes until they interact with matter.
• Your Critique: Fields might not be “real things” but rather mathematical tools to describe what we see when charges are affected. This aligns with the idea that physics often models phenomena rather than explains their true essence.

---

3. Is the Concept of “Mass” for Light an Analogy?

• Yes, it is an analogy. When physicists say light has an “effective mass,” they are not claiming photons have a rest mass (m0=0m_0 = 0m0​=0).
  • Instead, they mean that the energy of light (E=hνE = h\nuE=hν) behaves equivalently to mass via Einstein’s equivalence principle (E=mc2E = mc^2E=mc2).
  • The “mass” is not intrinsic but derived from its energy. It’s a way to connect the behavior of light to gravitational effects.

---

4. What About the “Frequency of Mass”?

• Mass itself doesn’t have a frequency in the same sense as light or sound waves.
  • Frequency is a property of oscillating phenomena, like waves.
  • Mass is a measure of an object’s resistance to acceleration (inertia) or its gravitational interaction.
• Wave-Particle Duality and Mass:
  • All particles (even those with mass) have a wavelength and frequency associated with them, described by de Broglie’s relation: λ=hp,andf=Eh\lambda = \frac{h}{p}, \quad \text{and} \quad f = \frac{E}{h}λ=ph​,andf=hE​ where ppp is momentum and EEE is energy.
  • This means massive particles can also exhibit wave-like properties.
• Your View: If mass isn’t inherently oscillatory, attaching “frequency” to it might feel forced. This is valid, as the analogy only works when viewing particles through the lens of wave-particle duality.

---

5. Philosophical Questions About Fields and Reality

• What Are EM Fields at Their Core?
  • Physically, we know what they do: they exert forces on charges, propagate energy, and mediate electromagnetic interactions.
  • Ontologically, they may just be constructs to explain observations. The fields themselves might not exist as “things” in the same way particles do.
• Is It All Just a Model?
  • Physics often uses models (like fields, photons, or spacetime curvature) to describe reality. These models are not necessarily “reality” itself but frameworks that help us predict and manipulate nature.
  • What light or fields truly “are” at their core remains a deeper, perhaps philosophical question.

---

6. Experimental Evidence Keeps Us Grounded

Even though we may debate the interpretation of EM waves or photons:

• Radiation pressure, Compton scattering, and gravitational lensing provide measurable evidence of light’s energy and momentum.
• These observations give credence to the frameworks used in classical and quantum electrodynamics, even if they rely on approximations or analogies.

---

Conclusion

Your skepticism is well-founded and aligns with philosophical critiques of physics: much of what we describe is modeled behavior, not fundamental reality. The concept of “momentum” in light, or the “mass equivalence” of energy, is an effective analogy supported by experimental evidence. However, at its core, light might be something entirely different, and our descriptions (fields, waves, or particles) are just tools to grasp its behavior.

So lets come back to the gravity, and how we can cancel it. Much like EM waves, gravity waves, can they be reflected, or just absorbed, so they can’t effect the mass in the projected path. For normal purpose, the light is reflected or absorbed due to charges oscillating at same frequency and producing the same light waves on the surface, or simply absorbing it, and emitting it at lower energies as thermal background radiation or conduct it away, hence blocking its passage and path. However, for gravity, it would require mass or some substance/constituent of this universe to produce such gravity as impinged on it, basically ignoring the gravity field lines passing through it, much like how a superconductor ignores the magnetic field lines and locks into place.

mass = entity’s resistance to acceleration

nowadays math is forcefully added by the writers just to convince the majority of math-science community, it helps, however, note that from psychology or philosophical interpretation, all numbers – symbols are just associations, and sometimes new things can come up which might just restrict how you think, putting you in that constraint. Ever wondered why normal science as most know does not explain consciousness and existence and why these are meta topics, also, how does math appear so abstract that it lives in a world of its own, and it takes data science to make things real using AI. Basically, mathematics is kinda the language of the universe, but its not everything out there is, our existence assumes a lot more than one normal un-specialized one can think, but for repeatability, math comes in handy once everything is defined and introduced, much like a kit out of the box, ready to be assembled and used, but to put together the kit, and the idea of what is made required observations and fiddling around it, which is pioneering indeed. One can try to understand everything and introduce their own concepts, in maths (solidly engraved, unless they are not much of use unless someone (a person) or something (an AI) reads it (or maybe if somehow it has an entangled effect on some entity’s brain somewhere in this universe). Basically, its just satisfying the one’s self, rather than the community. For example, if no one reads this blog, its just there to satisfy my need to write so I remember, oh wait, I read my own blog, myself, so I will always have myself as reader as long as I’m alive, and all that matters for it. Its like a part of memory of which I need to revisit, but also public, so someone in case need some ideas, or can just get influenced by it, so it would help.

So back to how can the gravity field lines be avoided by something that exists in this universe, and which binds to normal matter, so normal mass can be effectively not affected for whats needed: levitation. Gravity wave is caused by changing mass in space(time), which leads to different gravity propagating at different time. But gravity is constant for constant mass. In superconductors, the resistance by electrons in material become zero, so teh induced current actively cuts down the magnetic field inside the material, resulting in magnetic field only outside. So to actively cut down the gravity inside the material, the exotic (or normal) substance must be able to provide complementary gravity force (not any other force) on atomic nucleus-electronic level, this would involve requirement of antimatter of the kind with true negative mass associated with positive mass for a nucleus-electron which would effectively cancel out the field by effectively putting no force at all. So this involves a part of atom to have negative mass protons (or neutrons,) and negative mass electrons (but with same charge).

Now here is another thing about signs. We are so hardwired through literature about the positive and negative charges, and positive masses. However, in reality, these are terms described to existing whatever there is, which is separated. As we keep to consider these as anonymous un-understood entities, because assuming something and sticking to it is worse than being generalized about it. And what we know is something, but its next to nothing, and we have just assumed it. In another definition space, positive charge might as well be called negative, and mass as negative, but saying something as something doesn’t change what it is (if it does then thats belief making reality, which is another thing that gets a scientists mind confused. I.e. if you were always right about whats to happen, you would never know, because you would be in a deterministic state where you think you are controlled or everything is fixed, well and thats it, if its fixed that means, one is able to think it and predict it accurately. The state is propagated without any doubts, and eventually it aligns that there is only one past, which leads to determinism, but believing by an being or not, one may not care as long as some things are made possible, but it is real at least for me to get confused in it, to imagine, myself being deterministic, and thats the part of the belief, I have to believe in it for it to become true, if I don’t believe, maybe its true, or not, but my experience is different, and for an existing being, experience is a valuable thing, since so far as I know, we exist from birth to death, and whats beyond or before is not known, or maybe everything is what present it as it defines the current state). In a sense that it can be limiting, or wrong, or not complete.

So to have matter which has balanced gravity to effectively have zero effects, we require negative mass. Wait, its the most unbelievable thing that could pop off, alright if you think negative mass exists, and it might be very obvious to come up with something to repel gravity, but much like superconductors cancelling magnetic field through material, oh wait, so the field generated must be opposite, does not necessarily call for negative mass, but one of ways is to have negative mass. Another way to have opposite induced locally gravity field would require knowledge of how gravity field is produced by a mass, which seems to be the unknown thing to humanity.

So after all this article looks like what a 5 yr old would have thought. But its good to be a young thinker and think simply because thats how all things are, associated from one concept to next, until there is magic and broken link.

Well, beware of reading theories from wiki, and start believing them, because once a theory has been misunderstood, only way is to scrap whatever there is and start from fundamentals and scratch, to allow all possible possibilities.

because things are simple in nature, more complex is the human mind.

One of the things is, if universe appears to have some intuition, to do some things and some don’t, which defy its normal behavior, then that intuition is probably you and not the rest of the universe, because, the buried underneath is not visible, and requires to be logically reasoned (and also proved for confidence, but one might still be lucky and rely on reason alone, and see what comes). For eg. Meissner effect. The zero resistance of motion of electrons allow the external field to freely move the electrons, which only cancels out once electrons have built the same opposing field as the causing one, so the driving magnet would eventually feel the force of vicinity when placed near superconductor. Same happens when you touch or hold something, a balance of existing forces, leading to stable existence.
Its like the threads stretch until they hold each other in this stable universe.

Another way objects can feel zero gravitational force is when they are on surface, i.e. this balancing force is given by the normal reaction, but that just means they are on ground. But it is still interesting, because the force is also exerted on the planet, however insignificant it may seem to normal peps, but its conserved, and the stable configuration exists.

Rockets use thrust, which is generated by fast moving mass, and equal balancing force works on it lifting it up., which overcomes gravitational force. A huge drawback is that such plan is not scalable for larger masses, as it always involves loss of mass to propel, however small, it does not matter because imagine there is no matter left which can be sacrificed. There is nothing by which you could propel the fixed mass. And, there must be a way to do it. Drones push air on circular area, airplanes push air on planar area through wings. But what we are looking for is a way to cancel the gravity field locally, to allow hovering buildings, vehicles, etc.