Astrophysics and Space Science

, Volume 350, Issue 2, pp 777–780 | Cite as

Incompatibility of QED/QCD and repulsive gravity, and implications for some recent approaches to dark energy

  • Marcoen J. T. F. Cabbolet


The measurement of the gravitational properties of antimatter is currently a hot research area in experimental physics. Using an outcome of QED calculations by Alves et al. (arXiv:0907.4110, 2009), this letter proves that QED and repulsive gravity are incompatible by showing that an extension of QED with the assumption of negative gravitational mass for antimatter yields a concrete prediction that is already falsified by the recent Eöt-Wash experiments: if repulsive gravity, and thus negative gravitational mass, would be observed by any of the upcoming experiments, then QED is thus experimentally falsified; the same goes for QCD. An immediate consequence is that virtual particle-antiparticle pairs from contemporary quantum theory cannot be a model for Hajdukovic’s virtual gravitational dipoles, nor for the dipolar medium of Blanchet and Le Tiec. There may be ways to reformulate quantum theory to restore consistency with experiment if repulsive gravity would be observed, but these involve a departure from the framework of four dimensions and four forces of nature: an observation of repulsive gravity would thus provide a reason to reject the quantum paradigm in its entirety and to search for new fundamental physics.


Gravitational repulsion QED QCD Dark energy Quantum gravity 



The author thanks T. Goldman and D.S.M. Alves for their helpful comments. This work was facilitated by the Foundation Liberalitas.


  1. AEgIS collaboration: J. Instrum. 8(02), P02015 (2013) Google Scholar
  2. Alves, D.S.M., Jankowiak, M., Saraswat, P.: (2009). arXiv:0907.4110v1 [hep-ph]
  3. ATLAS collaboration, Charman, A.E.: Nat. Commun. 4, 1785 (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchet, L.: Class. Quantum Gravity 24, 3541–3570 (2007) ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanchet, L., Le Tiec, A.: Phys. Rev. D 78, 024031 (2008) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabbolet, M.J.T.F.: Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 522, 699–738 (2010) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabbolet, M.J.T.F.: Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 523, 990–994 (2011) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capozziello, S., Basini, G., De Laurentis, M.: Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1679 (2011) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hajdukovic, D.S.: Astrophys. Space Sci. 334, 215–218 (2011) ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Hajdukovic, D.S.: Astrophys. Space Sci. 339, 1–5 (2012) ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Kirch, K.S.: Testing antigravity with muonium. Talk at the 2nd International Workshop on Antimatter and Gravity (2013). Submitted to Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser Google Scholar
  12. Nieto, M.M., Goldman, T.: Phys. Rep. 205, 221–281 (1991) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Quint, W.: An antigravity experiment for the future FLAIR facility. Talk at the 2nd International Workshop on Antimatter and Gravity (2013). Submitted to Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser Google Scholar
  14. Schiff, L.I.: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 45, 69–80 (1959) ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Wagner, T.A., Schlamminger, S., Gundlach, J.H., Adelberger, E.G.: Class. Quantum Gravity 29, 184002 (2012) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations