Negative Energy & Negative Space - A New Theoretical Model

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by TheDualityExperience

 

Thank you for posting your thoughts. This was a fascinating read.

No problem.

It got me thinking, what if consciousness was similar to gravity in that it permeated the positive and negative matter.
Could this lead everyone to have an "anti-version" sharing the same consciousness?

No not really. According to this theory the negative space is not necessarily like a mirror image of our positive space.

edit on 14/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

I was not referring to a mirror image more like if intelligence exists here would it exist there in this theory

reply to post by TheDualityExperience


Oh I see... it's possible that life could exist in negative space and be made of negative matter, but it's highly unlikely because all the negative matter is spread through space like a gas cloud due to its repulsive gravity. Which means that planets cannot form in negative space, which makes it highly unlikely that any type of negative energy life forms could exist.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I cant see why 'thought' waves couldn't exist in negative space in some capacity. Anyway that is a topic for the philosophy thread perhaps.

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

It would also explain why it is dark in the first place...

Well of course, that is one of the major points I was trying to make in my opening post. I'm honestly amazed that scientists are still trying to detect dark matter particles, they just don't know when to give up and admit that their theory of WIMPS is wrong. They'll keep trying for decades until they get the data they want. I can see it now... one day their computers will experience a small glitch and they'll be like "at last we have finally detected a single dark matter particle! This verifies everything we said! Mwahahaha!".

Much like the so called Higgs... isn't it incredible that because of the Higgs blunder we now have set off down the completely wrong direction... but isn't it also a massive coincidence that the Higgs is another brick in the standard model wall of resistance??

Peace,

Korg.

TheDualityExperience
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

I cant see why 'thought' waves couldn't exist in negative space in some capacity. Anyway that is a topic for the philosophy thread perhaps.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "thought waves", but thought generally requires a brain, and brains generally require a body, and bodies generally require a planet and some sort of stable habitat to live within. So my estimation would be that there are no life forms in negative space.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Much like the so called Higgs... isn't it incredible that because of the Higgs blunder we now have set off down the completely wrong direction...

Well the methods they used to detect the Higgs is a lot more robust then the methods they use in their attempts to detect dark matter. I don't deny that they have discovered a new type of high energy particle which they have called the Higgs, but what I'm skeptical of is that it does what they say it does. It's some what like the theorized graviton, a particle which is supposed to be responsible for gravity... but the graviton particle its self is also supposed to have a gravitational field. That just seems so completely absurd and paradoxical.

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Much like the so called Higgs... isn't it incredible that because of the Higgs blunder we now have set off down the completely wrong direction...

Well the methods they used to detect the Higgs is a lot more robust then the methods they use to detect dark matter. I don't deny that they have discovered a new type of high energy particle which they have called the Higgs, but what I'm skeptical of is that it does what they say it does. It's some what like the theorized graviton, a particle which is supposed to be responsible for gravity... but the graviton particle its self is also supposed to have a gravitational field. That just seems so completely absurd and paradoxical.

edit on 14/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Don't you see?? the whole premise of smashing particles together to find the fundamental particles is flawed.

If all all particles are made of space-time, when smashing particles together at ever increasing energy levels they will be able to record ever increasingly exotic yet fleeting particles...

In effect the total number of possible exotic particles they could detect is infinite...

When the particles collide it unravels some of those braids and space-time ripples and causes a resonance cascade at the Planck scale... it is this that causes space-time to create unstable braids that exhibit very odd properties, but due to their instability decay almost as quickly as they appear.

Do you follow?

Peace,

Korg,

reply to post by Korg Trinity

If all all particles are made of space-time, when smashing particles together at ever increasing energy levels they will be able to record ever increasingly exotic yet fleeting particles...

In effect the total number of possible exotic particles they could detect is infinite...

Of course it is infinite... when they smash particles together it's not like they are really breaking apart the particles into smaller bits. The particles actually collide with such a huge energy that they fuse and turn into pure energy, and the particle that comes out of it contains the total energy of both particles and the energy of their momentum, and then they measure the decay products of that particle. That is why they needed an accelerator like the LHC in order to create the Higgs, because the Higgs is supposed to be a very high energy particle and it can only be created by putting enough energy into the collision. It's obvious that they can keep creating higher and higher energy particles if they keep putting more energy into the collisions, and it's possible that we could learn something by doing that. I'm just skeptical of the importance of these particles if they don't naturally exist in nature and can only be created by such high energy mechanisms, only to quickly decay back into non-existence.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Your theory makes sense to me. I don't exactly like it, but it makes sense. It would make it impossible to collect negative energy though, it would disperse.

I always thought of negative matter as structureless and one dimensional. Where you have the strucuture of regular matter creating mass and crystalline shapes of protons and neutrons and electrons, I felt the negative matter would be exactly the opposite of what you see it to be. Instead of being equally dispersed through space it would be in one dimensional clumps with no strucutral forces holding it in a shape. If no structures are holding it together in any shape then there is no space for gravity to build up, thus negative matter has no gravity. Gravity could be derived from the spaces in between particles exerting a force to hold it together aganist the pressure to collapse. Maybe that's negative gravity. I think all four universal forces would be effected by negative matter. I'm interested in how your theory would tie in to show that there is a equality that all forces show no sign of negative matter.

How would you feel if we found dark matter axions in the halo of the Milky Way? They wouldn't be dispersed...
www.thealmagest.com...

reply to post by ChefSlug

I always thought of negative matter as structureless and one dimensional.

I don't think negative matter has to be the opposite of positive matter in every conceivable way, and even if it was I don't see why 1 dimensional matter is the opposite of 3 dimensional matter.

How would you feel if we found dark matter axions in the halo of the Milky Way?

I guess I would feel wrong and disappointed. Lol... but I seriously doubt they will detect anything.

It's tricky though. The negative space or matter might not be "needed" if it's virtualized. How is this?

If you can express certain functions of interactions in terms of complex number sets, then the squared values of those properties produce a negative value for the product. This also applies in expressions involving vector math. So in certain cases a result of some interaction wouldn't produce an observable positive and an (unobservable?) imaginary value, but a resulting sum of a positive and negative. Normally interactions involving squares can only produce positive values (and gravity is expressed as a squared function), so with complex interactions you could have negative values arise where you wouldn't normally expect them. Thus if not accounted for, you'd see behaviors appear in a large scale system that you can't explain readily.

Most classical physics doesn't delve with complex number sets, however physics that define electrical and magnetic properties are very much orientated around vectors and complex sets. So some of the "electric universe" stuff which is mostly considered fringe may have revealed some truths about defining various propeties of the universe. (Some of the mega-multi-galactic-structures in the universe seem similar to Lichtenburg figures.) But since the majority of "electric universe" fans push their idea exclusively it alienates those working on the traditional models which seem to mostly work.

Quantum physics may bridge the gap. It's approach seems to be more statistical, but vector properties are expressed as spin, color, or various tensors. (Mostly because energy states are expressed in definite levels or binary values.) Most still stick closely to the more traditional models (but described in quantum terms), yet their approach would allow for either.

I think there should be some work done to consolidate multiple approaches instead of having only one or another being fully exclusive. There are some properties of spin or polarization that are important and will make interactions more "electric" as if a charge carrier, but there are other states where things are definitely charge-neutral and more traditional definitions of gravity would apply. Electrogravitics and scalar stuff needs to be revisited, but with consideration that their properties only apply in specific states. Likewise not everything exists in a charge-neutral state, more traditional approaches seem to neglect them and interactions that could be easily explained with electro-magnetic behaviors are completely left out.

I'd almost bet that somebody clever enough could write a curve function to define whether matter is more of a charge carrier and/or plasma (including a "cold cathode state") or a more base "neutral" matter, then propose a model that combines both "electric" and more traditional approaches in a way that works fairly smoothly.

Sometimes I wish I knew a person with a background in both physics and electrical and/or electronics engineering. I think they'd have the best background to really look into this idea and define it concretely where my level of understanding and abstractly visualizing it only scratches the surface.

I have a different theory with similar results. I believe that your 'negative space' is the inflation of space, and that matter hampers that inflation, causing inflation to occur at a lesser rate. Outside the influence of matter (galaxies, planets, stars), space inflates at a 'normal' rate, and causes a constant pressure wave that presses against matter, keeping clusters and galaxies intact, rather than fly apart due to their rotational (angular) momentum.

The idea of something from nothing stems from our inability to observe the quantum and sub-quantum scale. Farnsworth and Tesla proved with their inventions that they could create conditions under which space would inflate at a much greater rate than normal, creating electrons from 'nothing'. It has been called cosmic induction.

Our science is observational. We describe with numbers only that which we can see. That which we cannot see, we use as a cancelling number, and label that number an object, such as dark matter or dark energy. The force which causes galaxies to remain intact despite their rotation, is simply pressure from the inflation of space around the galaxy, and is also what causes the effects of gravity.

originally posted by: Mon1k3r
I have a different theory with similar results. I believe that your 'negative space' is the inflation of space, and that matter hampers that inflation, causing inflation to occur at a lesser rate. Outside the influence of matter (galaxies, planets, stars), space inflates at a 'normal' rate, and causes a constant pressure wave that presses against matter, keeping clusters and galaxies intact, rather than fly apart due to their rotational (angular) momentum.

Your idea about the pressure accounting for the extra rotational speed of galaxies is faulty because it doesn't explain high speed orbits close to the galactic center, only extra invisible mass can explain it (aka dark matter). Apart from that, what you said is essentially the mainstream view on expansion. The most prevalent view is that empty space has an intrinsic energy due to vacuum energy, meaning empty space has what you might call a 'normal' expansion rate in the absence of any matter, and it remains constant because the process of creating new space also creates more vacuum energy with it. The problem with that theory is the numbers don't add up and you get terrible predictions from it. I highly suggest you read Understanding the Cosmological Constant Problem if you haven't already. It helps build the foundation for this thread and makes it easier to understand the logic I use in this thread. I also recently created a follow up to this thread where I ran some simulations to help illustrate and substantiate the idea: Unmasking Dark Matter and Dark Energy (with simulation results).

a reply to: Mon1k3r

The idea of something from nothing stems from our inability to observe the quantum and sub-quantum scale.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, my goal is to simply provide a scientific explanation for how the universe could come from nothing without the need for a god. The idea that something has always been here seem logically flawed in my mind, so I seek a solution which can solve the problem of why we have something rather than nothing. The only reasonable solution is that we live in a zero energy universe, where there is an equal amount of positive and negative energy which cancel each other out, thus energy is always conserved and no laws of thermodynamics are broken.

The fact we also appear to live in an infinite flat universe is very good reason to believe the universe contains zero total energy, only a flat universe can come from nothing. My theory is simply a way to solve all of these related issues in the most fundamental way possible, and introducing negative energy/mass is the most organic and obvious approach when all things are considered. The fact that the end result and the predictions of this theory line up so well with reality and solve many major problems in cosmology makes it even more likely that there is some truth to these ideas.

I don't know if I have a valid question here or not, because my understanding of physics is really limited...

(Also, this question is in no way an attempt to introduce 'God'' into the picture, it is a sincere query related to the 'concept' of whether the universe needed some sort of 'kick start')

So, question: In order to get something from nothing, wouldn't there still have been a need for an initiating 'cause' to begin the process of nothing becoming something?

originally posted by: lostgirl
So, question: In order to get something from nothing, wouldn't there still have been a need for an initiating 'cause' to begin the process of nothing becoming something?

You are right, the raw randomness of quantum mechanics is required to allow the process to occur. Coincidentally, I also created I thread on that topic not long ago: The Intrinsic Necessity of Quantum Mechanics. However there may be some ways to get around the problem, like if time is infinite (no start or end) and the formation of the universe is cyclic. The more I think about these issues the more I lean towards the idea of a quantum vacuum collapse as described by CLPrime here and here. Such a vacuum collapse process could be cyclic, it may reoccur when the universe totally evaporates into photons or something like that.

There are many other reasons a vacuum collapse makes sense, like the fact a normal big bang event shouldn't be able to expand due to the immense gravitational forces. It's also very difficult for the theory I propose in this thread to explain how an equal amount of positive and negative energy can spontaneously appear at the same point in space and expand to form the universe we observe today. My simulations suggest that a quantum vacuum collapse which spreads energy evenly throughout the entire vacuum of space is much more likely than a highly condensed big bang event.

I hope you don't mind the questions (one tends to lead to another), it's just you're good at expelling in a way I can understand...

It seems to me from your description of "negative energy" and "negative space" that it might be more accurate to use the terms 'opposite energy', 'opposite space'?

Also, it seems that Hawking is saying that the universe 'equals' zero, because the negative energy cancels out the positive matter, but if I've got that right - what he's saying doesn't seem right...

I mean, in math it is accurate to say negative 1 plus positive 1 = zero

But in the physical 'realm' (hence 'physics') 1 negative apple plus 1 positive apple = 1 apple

So (considering the above example), since mathematics is sort of the 'language' used to describe the physical, do you think that sometimes physicists might be getting things wrong because they are (in a manner of speaking) getting bogged down in ideas which result from being too literal in their 'translations'?

originally posted by: lostgirl
It seems to me from your description of "negative energy" and "negative space" that it might be more accurate to use the terms 'opposite energy', 'opposite space'?

No I think negative energy is the most accurate term, because I'm talking about negative mass which is represented by negative numbers in equations. It is in some sense the most opposite form of normal energy, it's even more opposite than anti-matter is to normal energy. Anti-matter is just like a mirror image of another particle with opposite charge, where as a negative particle is literally like having -1 particles.

originally posted by: lostgirl
Also, it seems that Hawking is saying that the universe 'equals' zero, because the negative energy cancels out the positive matter, but if I've got that right - what he's saying doesn't seem right...

Yes that's also what I'm saying: all the positive energy cancels out the negative energy and we are left with nothing, meaning we live in a zero energy universe. The part where I disagree with Hawking is about where the negative energy comes from. He says that gravity must hold the negative energy, but I don't agree with that position for multiple reasons, some of which will become clearer if you read my thread about the Cosmological Constant Problem. I think that there must be a literal real world manifestation of negative matter/energy, and when you follow that line of logic it very naturally leads to the theory I've described in this thread.

originally posted by: lostgirl
But in the physical 'realm' (hence 'physics') 1 negative apple plus 1 positive apple = 1 apple

In what physical realm would 1 negative apple plus 1 positive apple equal 1 apple? If you have an equal amount of negative apples and positive apples the final answer is always 0 apples. We can't test this in our physical realm because we have not detected negative matter, it's a theoretical form of matter. But we know anti-matter is not negative matter because it has a normal gravitational field, meaning it has a positive mass. And also think about what happens if you collide anti-matter with normal matter, they release a huge amount of energy. However if anti-matter was negative matter then they should cancel each other out and not release any energy at all, just vanish into nothing.

originally posted by: lostgirl
So (considering the above example), since mathematics is sort of the 'language' used to describe the physical, do you think that sometimes physicists might be getting things wrong because they are (in a manner of speaking) getting bogged down in ideas which result from being too literal in their 'translations'?

No I'm saying the opposite actually, I'm saying that we need to take the mathematics very literally, and we need to assume that negative apples can actually exist. I'm saying that negative matter actually exists in reality, although we can't easily interact with it or see it for the reasons I discussed in the opening post, all we can do is infer its existence based on its gravitational interaction with the rest of the universe.

Re: negative apples-
You stated to one poster that you didn't think it would be possible for 'negative' matter (apples included presumably) to exist in 'this' universe...So, when I used the term negative apple, I assumed you would understand my meaning, i.e. in the physical ('not' mathematical) sense in which we would say that one "negative" apple is the same as zero apples, (0 + 1 = 1), which is the point I was making in the way that mathematical equations don't always 'translate' literally to physical reality...
My point being that yes, in mathematics 1 negative 'energy' + 1 positive 'matter' can = zero, but in physical reality it doesn't seem logical, because the 'terms' negative and positive are qualitative not quantitative in physical reality..

Sorry, one more -

In the case of an 'infinite time, cyclic' universe formation:

What springs to mind is an analogy with a perpetual energy device - i.e. It still needs a defined 'initiator', a source 'factor'...

So, wouldn't a vacuum collapse universe still require a cause for it's collapsing? Or, even if that would be an inevitable process happening over time - Wouldn't there still be a question of how the vacuum itself came to 'be'?

I know it must look as if I am trying to force a 'creator' agenda, but honestly I really am not...

It's just that it seems to me that physicists are not being truly scientific when they use mere 'terminology' to claim 'proof' that the universe has/needed no 'primary cause' - and again, I'm not implying 'God' here....

....It is science, after all, and scientists should hold themselves accountable for being honest and just saying, "yes, the laws of cause and effect indicate that there is a high probability that 'something' originated the initiating factors which caused the universe to be formed"...?

originally posted by: lostgirl
You stated to one poster that you didn't think it would be possible for 'negative' matter (apples included presumably) to exist in 'this' universe...So, when I used the term negative apple, I assumed you would understand my meaning, i.e. in the physical ('not' mathematical) sense in which we would say that one "negative" apple is the same as zero apples, (0 + 1 = 1), which is the point I was making in the way that mathematical equations don't always 'translate' literally to physical reality...
My point being that yes, in mathematics 1 negative 'energy' + 1 positive 'matter' can = zero, but in physical reality it doesn't seem logical, because the 'terms' negative and positive are qualitative not quantitative in physical reality..

Why do you assume 1 negative apple would be the same as 0 apples when you have no physical experience of negative matter? I realize that negative matter is a very weird and abstract concept, but just because it doesn't abide by our common sense notions of physical reality doesn't mean negative matter isn't real. If reality followed only common sense notions then quantum mechanics wouldn't exist. The theory I propose here is just one way that negative energy could exist, and that is by introducing a negative "dimension" to space-time, so that negative energy can only exist in negative space, and that explains why we cannot directly see it.

In the case of an 'infinite time, cyclic' universe formation:

What springs to mind is an analogy with a perpetual energy device - i.e. It still needs a defined 'initiator', a source 'factor'...

If the universe has zero total energy as I suggest then energy is always conserved and no laws of physics are violated. If time is infinite and the formation of the universe is cyclic then you don't necessarily need an initiator because there is no start to time, and so the cycle never really had a start. It's a bit of a mind boggling concept but it may be true. Even if you have some sort of initial source, like a god or anything else, then you need to explain where that came from or what caused it. It's a redundant problem with no solution, which is why I think we need a cohesive explanation which can explain everything and anything.

So, wouldn't a vacuum collapse universe still require a cause for it's collapsing? Or, even if that would be an inevitable process happening over time - Wouldn't there still be a question of how the vacuum itself came to 'be'?

The idea of my theory is that a perfectly neutral vacuum is the equivalent of nothing, so there is no need to explain where the empty vacuum comes from. Another nice thing about a quantum vacuum collapse is that it may be an inevitable consequence of certain vacuum states, like a totally neutral vacuum state, and that is why it may reoccur cyclically when the universe eventually evaporates and goes back to a neutral state, causing it to collapse once again and create a new universe.

....It is science, after all, and scientists should hold themselves accountable for being honest and just saying, "yes, the laws of cause and effect indicate that there is a high probability that 'something' originated the initiating factors which caused the universe to be formed"...?

Yes I agree with the point you are making, scientists tend to avoid the problem of an 'initial cause', their theories always have an intrinsic need for quantum mechanics to be true in the midst of complete nothingness. I can't claim to have an exact answer to this problem, maybe a cyclic universe theory holds the solution or maybe some other theory will help solve this problem. But it's important for science to attempt to answer this problem in a cohesive fashion and without introducing an intelligent creator into the framework, and the zero energy universe concept is definitely on the right track.