Please stop accusing people of this; it's being observed as radiating from your own commentary by multiple people, which might explain why others are responding in kind. I called out the gaslighting elsewhere, and the fact that you're persisting with it against multiple parties hampers constructive discussion.
And you are misrepresenting the wiki page. There is a large number of "though experiments" and a few actual experimental observations that make antigravity look implausible. Yes, there are loopholes (like in virtually any statement about fundamental physics) and we should devise experiments to test the loopholes, but when these loopholes are already implausible it is not unreasonable to put the majority of your resources in more interesting experiments.
P.S. None of my comments have anything to do with the Standard Model and I do not see why you are bringing it in this conversation.
If I'm misrepresenting that wiki page, then how about actually getting specific for once in your comments. It shouldn't be so hard to point out one example with actual details and questions if there such a large number of them.
P.S. If you think your comments about what is considered likely and not likely to CERN have nothing to do with the Standard Model then you really do need to read that wiki page again.
I don't see a single substantial and actually relevant argument in your comments so far. If I'm missing something, again, let's get specific so I have something that tells me you know what we're even talking about here. Are you representing "tensor interactions" as somehow capable of sufficiently explaining gravity and its interactions with antimatter? And are you saying that CERN is using constraints on "tensor interactions" as their reasoning to deprioritize such an experiment?
What are your qualifications in physics, by the way?
About the Standard Model: None of this has to do with the particularities of the Standard Model. Most quantum field theories have that structure.
Tensor interactions: We have two unrelated arguments for why gravity is a tensor field: one comes from quantum field theory where to have a similar attractive force you need it to be a tensor one; the other one comes from general relativity (the premise of the theory). This is again not a proof, but all of physics is built on such cute "coincidences". (Edit to add: point being, the coincidence is that attraction as we have it requires a tensor force, which happens to be the case for completely unrelated reasons)
Qualifications: Graduate student at the Yale Quantum Institute (through Yale's Physics Department). Hopefully I will be graduating this academic year :) (fingers crossed)
By the way, it's old news by now that Standard Model is incomplete. But let's just go back to passive aggressively condescending to people we don't know on the internet by implying they've never studied so much as modern QFT because we're not prepared to understand their original argument.