Like any theory, this one need testing. And one "test" has already been done and seems to agree with the predictions of the theory. This test was not a new experiment but a re-analysis of the Eötvös Experiment, the famous experimental comparison of inertial and gravitational mass performed by a Hungarian count in the early decades of this century and published only after his death in 1922. Fischbach and his collaborators realized that Eötvös should have seen some evidence for the hypercharge force. The reason is that the hypercharge of a nucleus depends strictly on the number of neutrons and protons in the nucleus, while the mass of a nucleus depends also on the binding energy of the system. Thus an iron nucleus with large binding energy has a larger hypercharge-to-mass ratio than does a hydrogen nucleus. To put it another way, a kilogram sphere of water contains fewer neutrons and protons and has a smaller hypercharge than a kilogram sphere of iron. Therefore the sphere of water should fall slightly faster in vacuum than the iron sphere because there would be a smaller hypercharge force acting on the water than on the iron. The Eötvös experiment should have shown the effects of these small modifications of the force of gravity. And Fischbach's re-examination of the Eötvös data reveals that indeed the predicted effect does seem to be present in the old data.

This new theory has had its first experimental confirmation. Much more work in testing for the hypercharge force needs to be done, of course, before it can be considered as established. This is a "hot" topic and many experimental groups, including one in my own laboratory, are swinging into action to do the testing.

But in the nature of this column, let's assume for the moment that the hypercharge force is real and consider its science fiction implications. First, by damn, we have antigravity! But no dancing in the streets just yet, please! For use in the "normal" antigravity way in science fiction, the hypercharge force does have a few problems: (1) it's too weak, and (2) it only works over a few hundred meters of distance. So we need some hypercharge "amplifier", some way for getting more hypercharge without getting more mass. That might be possible if there were massless particles (maybe hyper-photons or neutrinos), that had hypercharge without having a proton-size mass, but none-such are known. Or perhaps there are "hyper-magnetic" effects when a hypercharged object is moved at a goodly velocity.

Anyhow, suppose we can overcome this obstacle and produce vehicles using hyper-repulsion. How might they work? Well, first of all the range is a problem. At 600 meters above the ground, the range effect will cut down the hyper-repulsion to only 5% of what it is at the surface. So the vehicle would be most effective at distances of 50 meters or less above the surface. It would resemble the "floaters" and "grav sleds" which are common SF techno-props, but it would not be directly useful in space travel or propulsion.

It's worth considering also that in the process of repelling the ground, the hyper-force on our hypothetical floater would also tend to repel the passengers. This unpleasant side effect might be avoided by placing the repulsion sources for minimum effect on the passengers, perhaps at many points which lie on the same spherical surface. But passenger-repulsion might also be turned into an advantage by using it to reduce or nullify the forces of acceleration. With a suitable hyperfield system high-performance spacecraft or aircraft might might, by balancing inertial forces with hyper-repulsion, be able to accelerate at many g's without squashing pilot and passengers. Free-fall space habitats might produce simulated gravity with hyperfield units mounted in the ceilings, with hyper-repulsion pushing the occupants toward the floor.

Anyhow, stay tuned to this column for further developments on the hypercharge force. The definitive tests of the theory will be well in progress by the time you read this column.

REFERENCES:

G Measurement Anomaly:
S. C. Holding and G. J. Tuck, Nature 307, 714 (1984).

Kaon Anomaly:
S. H. Aronson, G. J. Bock, H. Y. Cheng, and E. Fischbach, Physical Review D28, 476 (1983).

Fifth Force Theory:
E. Fischbach, D. Sudarsky, A. Szafer, C. Talmage, and S. H. Aronson, Physical Review Letters 56, 3 (1986).

Eötvös Experiment:
R. von Eötvös, D. Pekár, and E. Fekete, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 68, 11 (1922).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_/ai_4101363