It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bimetric Relativity, Twin Universe Cosmology, Negative Energy

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Those of you who read through the science forum on a regular basis may have seen some of my threads concerning negative energy and negative space. This thread will be discussing some major breakthroughs and realizations I recently had in this area of research. For those of you who enjoy reading about cutting-edge theoretical physics, well you wont find much more cutting edge than this. Even though some of the concepts I'm going to talk about have existed for several decades, they are little known even in the scientific community.

A very brief summary of the negative energy theory would go something like this: it's impossible to get something from nothing, therefore negative energy must exist in order to balance out the positive energy of our universe. When you add up all the negative energy and the positive energy the result is zero because the negative energy cancels out all the positive energy. What this implies is that an equal amount of negative and positive energy were created during the Big Bang, and that we live in a zero-energy universe.

Many prominent physicists believe in the idea of a zero-energy universe because it explains why the curvature of the universe appears to be perfectly flat and it doesn't violate any laws of energy conservation, so it can explain how our universe might have arose from nothing. However it gets tricky when we begin to ask "where is this so called negative energy"? According to Einstein energy is equivalent to mass, so if negative energy exists then negative mass should exist, and negative mass should have negative gravity, which should make negative matter easy to detect in experiments.

The problem is that negative matter has never been detected in a laboratory. Even anti-matter seems to be composed of positive mass and not negative mass according to all the evidence we currently have. One of the best reasons for thinking that anti-matter is not negative matter is because when anti-matter collides with normal matter they annihilate and release a burst of gamma radiation. However if negative matter were to collide with an equal amount of positive matter they should cancel each other out and produce no energy.

Before we get to the really good stuff there are two more popular candidates for negative energy which need to be examined first. One effect that people often look to when they want an example of negative energy is the Casimir effect. It is a rather basic experiment in which a force is generated between two flat plates which are placed very close together. The gap between the plates is so small that it restricts the wavelengths of the vacuum fluctuations which can manifest in the space between the plates, which causes a pressure differential.

Since there is a wider variety of fluctuations occurring outside of the plates the pressure is higher outside the plates than it is between the gap. The difference in pressure causes a force which acts to "suck" the plates together. Since the energy density between the plates is lower than the normal vacuum and the force is attractive it is often said that the Casimir force is an example of negative energy. This is a common misconception, because it is only negative relative to the ordinary vacuum energy.

Many physicists seem to agree that the Casimir effect is actually not a real world example of negative energy, it's just a good example used to conceptualize the idea of negative energy/pressure. Yet other physicists still seem to promote the idea that it really is negative energy at play, when it clearly isn't. The last candidate for negative energy is in fact gravity, or to be more precise, gravitational potential. This view is actually espoused by some very prominent physicists such as Hawking.

This is the basic idea:


The general expression for gravitational potential energy arises from the law of gravity and is equal to the work done against gravity to bring a mass to a given point in space. Because of the inverse square nature of the gravity force, the force approaches zero for large distances, and it makes sense to choose the zero of gravitational potential energy at an infinite distance away. The gravitational potential energy near a planet is then negative, since gravity does positive work as the mass approaches.

Gravitational Potential Energy


The first red flag here is the arbitrary choice of when the potential energy equals zero. When I lift an object into the air I'm doing work which requires positive energy, when I let go of the object that energy is converted into kinetic energy as the objects accelerates back down towards the ground. There is no good reason I can't say that the potential energy is zero when the distance is zero, and as I move the objects apart the potential energy grows, but the growth decays at the same rate the gravitational field decays.


Why choose a convention where gravitational energy is negative?

As with all potential energies, only differences in gravitational potential energy matter for most physical purposes, and the choice of zero point is arbitrary. Given that there is no reasonable criterion for preferring one particular finite r over another, there seem to be only two reasonable choices for the distance at which U becomes zero: r=0 and r=∞. The choice of U=0 at infinity may seem peculiar, and the consequence that gravitational energy is always negative may seem counterintuitive, but this choice allows gravitational potential energy values to be finite, albeit negative.

Gravitational potential energy


In reality gravitational potential energy is very much like the Casmir effect, it's an attractive force created by a potential/difference between two different energy levels. I can say that the force is a negative vector when I'm calculating it using r=∞ but it's not valid to state that the potential energy is a real world example of negative energy because it's only negative relative to your zero point. Now I could go into a range of other reasons for why I believe that gravitational potential energy is not a real world example of negative energy but lets move on.

Most scientists who believe in the zero-energy universe idea accept the naive idea that gravity holds negative energy and they don't look any further than that, they think it answers all the questions about where the negative energy is located. Now I don't think Einstein would like that conclusion very much himself, because according to his mass-energy equivalence principle, all energy has a mass associated with it, so negative energy should have a negative mass, and it doesn't make much sense at all to say that gravity fields have a negative mass.

edit on 26/4/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Einstein would say that all energy has a mass, and it's that mass which causes the fabric of space-time to be curved. Moving objects are affected by the curvature of space and that creates the effect of gravity. Therefore anything with negative mass should cause space-time to curve in the "opposite dimension" as compared with normal mass, and therefore it should produce "negative gravity". In other words negative matter would be repelled from other negative matter.

The theory about negative mass and negative space which I have been posting about the last few years is essentially based on that simple idea: it says that during the period of the Big Bang, an equal amount of positive and negative energy was created, and that these two types of energy/mass could only interact through the force of gravity because the negative energy exists only in this so called "opposite dimension". Using that theory I was able to solve several major unsolved problems in cosmology including dark energy and dark matter.

However some of you keen observers may have noticed that there were two major flaws with my theory as I had proposed it. The first problem was that while it could explain the overly intense lensing effect we observe around galaxies and galaxy clusters, it couldn't explain the flat rotation curves we observe when we measure the rotational velocity of stars orbiting at different distances from a galactic core. The second problem was the mathematical trick I had to use in my simulations to get the results I wanted.


Although no particles are known to have negative mass, physicists (primarily Hermann Bondi in 1957,[3] William B. Bonnor in 1989,[9] then Robert L. Forward[10]) have been able to describe some of the anticipated properties such particles may have. Assuming that all three concepts of mass are equivalent the gravitational interactions between masses of arbitrary sign can be explored, based on the Einstein field equations:

* Positive mass attracts both other positive masses and negative masses.
* Negative mass repels both other negative masses and positive masses.

Negative Mass


In my simulations I always used basic Newtonian gravity, which behaves the same way that Hermann Bondi first predicted. The issue was that I had to shift the sign of the result when dealing with two different types of masses in order to get the simulation to behave the way I wanted it to. Although I tried to justify that action I always felt it was a bit of a hack and ruined the otherwise organic and self-consistent nature of this theory. I was starting to lose faith in my theory until one day I decided to watch the only technical lecture I could find on negative mass.

The lecture was good but it was actually the very last comment which gave me a clue. The commenter mentions that in General Relativity the mass of an object will increase to infinity as it reaches the speed of light, and he asks if negative mass might be able to travel faster than light. I found this idea interesting, because I've often heard scientists say that if an object were to travel faster than light it would be traveling into the past. This got me thinking that maybe negative mass moves backwards through time.

I decided to check out the Wikipedia page on negative mass because I hadn't looked at it in a few months and to my utter surprise there was a new section in the article titled "Arrow of time and space inversion". This is what it said:


In 1970, Jean-Marie Souriau demonstrated, through the complete Poincaré group of dynamic group theory, that reversing the energy of a particle (hence its mass, if the particle has one) is equal to reversing its arrow of time.[12][13]

The universe according to general relativity is a Riemannian manifold associated to a metric tensor solution of Einstein’s field equations. In such a framework, the runaway motion prevents the existence of negative matter.[3][9]

Some bimetric theories of the universe propose that two parallel universes instead of one may exist with an opposite arrow of time, linked together by the Big Bang and interacting only through gravitation.[14][15][16] The universe is then described as a manifold associated to two Riemannian metrics (one with positive mass matter and the other with negative mass matter). According to group theory, the matter of the conjugated metric would appear to the matter of the other metric as having opposite mass and arrow of time (though its proper time would remain positive). The coupled metrics have their own geodesics and are solutions of two coupled field equations: [equations removed to reduce snippet size]

The Newtonian approximation then provides the following interaction laws:

* Positive mass attracts positive mass.
* Negative mass attracts negative mass.
* Positive mass and negative mass repel each other.

Those laws are different to the laws described by Bondi and Bonnor, and solve the runaway paradox. The negative matter of the coupled metric, interacting with the matter of the other metric via gravity, could be an alternative candidate for the explanation of dark matter, dark energy, cosmic inflation and accelerating universe.[17][18]


It turns out that the properties of negative matter had been described as early as 1970, and as early as 1980 there were already "bimetric theories of the universe" which are essentially identical to the theory I have been developing over the last few years. I followed some of the Wikipedia references and came across an absolutely amazing paper from 1995 titled Twin universes cosmology. In this paper it describes "inverse gravitational lensing" as I described it and it also contains pictures of simulations which look extremely similar to my own simulations.

Needless to say I was shocked to discover that there is a little known area of science called Bimetric Cosmology which deals with everything I have been researching for years. It essentially postulates that at the moment of the Big Bang, an equal amount of negative and positive energy was created, but because the negative energy is moving backwards through time it actually creates two different "twin universes" which sprout out from the big bang. In a sense they are like parallel universes which are able to interact via the force of gravity.

The real breakthrough though is realizing that negative mass travels backwards through time. Using "Bimetric Relativity" instead of the naive Newtonian approach, we get new rules for how positive mass interacts with negative mass and it's possible to solve the problems in my theory. Instead of positive mass repelling negative mass and negative mass being attracted to positive mass, now the positive and negative mass both repel each other and that can explain the flat rotation curves because the negative mass surrounding a galaxy pushes against the objects in the galaxy.

edit on 26/4/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
As an object in the galaxy moves further away from the galactic core it gets closer to the halo edge and experiences an increasingly stronger force trying to push it back towards the core. This can explain why objects rotating at a high speed near the edge of a galaxy can stay in orbit around the galactic core without reaching escape velocity. Furthermore, since positive and negative matter both repel each other now, there's no need for any sign flipping to determine which will repel and which will attract, and it also increases the width of the dark halo.

So it would seem that by realizing how negative mass travels through time I have solved the two major problems with my theory. But I guess I shouldn't really call it my theory anymore since I haven't really done much to develop the theory since 1995, lmao. However there are still some problems with the theory as it exists, the most obvious of which seems to be that negative matter now attracts negative matter with the new rules, and that seems to prevent the even distribution of negative matter that is required to explain dark matter and dark energy.

However it turns out there may be a very elegant, albeit sophisticated, method for solving this problem. According to some research conducted last year if negative energy does exist it should take the form of a super fluid:


Nobody knows whether negative mass can exist but there have nevertheless been plenty of analyses to determine its properties. In particular, physicists have investigated whether negative mass would violate various laws of the universe, such as the conservation of energy or momentum and therefore cannot exist. These analyses suggest that although the interaction of positive and negative mass produces counterintuitive behaviour, it does not violate these conservation laws.

Cosmologists have also examined the effect that negative mass would have on the structure of space-time and their conclusions have been more serious. They generally conclude that negative matter cannot exist because it breaks one of the essential assumptions behind Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Today, Saoussen Mbarek and Manu Paranjape at the Université de Montréal in Canada say they’ve found a solution to Einstein’s theory of general relativity that allows negative mass without breaking any essential assumptions. Their approach means that negative mass can exist in our universe provided there is a reasonable mechanism for producing it, perhaps in pairs of positive and negative mass particles in the early universe.

---

The crucial breakthrough by Mbarek and Paranjape is to show that negative mass can produce a reasonable Schwarzschild solution without violating the energy condition. Their approach is to think of negative mass not as a solid object, but as a perfect fluid, an otherwise common approach in relativity.

And when they solve the equations for a perfect fluid, it turns out that the energy condition is satisfied everywhere, just as in all other solutions of general relativity that support reasonable universes.

Cosmologists Prove Negative Mass Can Exist In Our Universe


This basically solves our whole problem with the negative matter clumping together because it forces the negative matter to remain in a plasma type of state. If there were large clumps of negative matter such as negative stars we would notice their gravitational effects, so there's more than one reason we don't want the negative matter to clump together. Modeling the negative matter as a fluid also had the added bonus that many physicists already like to model dark energy as a super fluid they call the "dark fluid", yet another organic fit with our current theories.

Well that just about wraps it up for this thread, I apologize for the length but it was necessary. If you're still reading then I applaud you for your curiosity. To finish up I just want to reiterate my disgust at mainstream science for ignoring this theory and running with the faulty idea that "gravitational potential is negative energy". It really amazes me how hard it is t find information concerning Bimetric Cosmology even though it seems to explain more than any other theory in cosmology. For example look at this article from last year:


From that low-complexity state, the system of particles then expands outward in both temporal directions, creating two distinct, symmetric and opposite arrows of time. Along each of the two temporal paths, gravity then pulls the particles into larger, more ordered and complex structures—the model’s equivalent of galaxy clusters, stars and planetary systems. From there, the standard thermodynamic passage of time can manifest and unfold on each of the two divergent paths. In other words, the model has one past but two futures. As hinted by the time-indifferent laws of physics, time’s arrow may in a sense move in two directions, although any observer can only see and experience one. “It is the nature of gravity to pull the universe out of its primordial chaos and create structure, order and complexity,” Mercati says. “All the solutions break into two epochs, which go on forever in the two time directions, divided by this central state which has very characteristic properties.”

Although the model is crude, and does not incorporate either quantum mechanics or general relativity, its potential implications are vast. If it holds true for our actual universe, then the big bang could no longer be considered a cosmic beginning but rather only a phase in an effectively timeless and eternal universe. More prosaically, a two-branched arrow of time would lead to curious incongruities for observers on opposite sides. “This two-futures situation would exhibit a single, chaotic past in both directions, meaning that there would be essentially two universes, one on either side of this central state,” Barbour says. “If they were complicated enough, both sides could sustain observers who would perceive time going in opposite directions. Any intelligent beings there would define their arrow of time as moving away from this central state. They would think we now live in their deepest past.”

2 Futures Can Explain Time's Mysterious Past


Like me it seems these researchers haven't discovered the field of Bimetric Cosmology/Relativity, because if they had they would have released what they are proposing is a simplified model of everything I have discussed here; notice the part in bold stating they haven't even incorporated general relativity into their model and they probably haven't even considered the topic of negative mass or how it behaves. They're essentially reinventing ideas developed in the 80's and 90's much like I did, which goes to show not many people know about this stuff.

edit on 26/4/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

wow! that was interesting..

have you seen the zero theorem?

...Zero must equal 100 precent..

thanks for the read!



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Thankyou very much for the post, very well written without pretencious sentences and easily accessible. Only read the first post so far but very interesting as I have recently watched a documentary on Einstein. I will continue reading and try to further edumacate myself



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
have you seen the zero theorem?

Yeah I watched it a few months ago actually, very whacky film, but I found it oddly enjoyable. I think one reason it gets sub par ratings is because a lot of people fail to see the deeper philosophical messages.
edit on 26/4/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

So the fluid state of negative energy would allow clumping without the effects of that curvature dramatically disturbing positive mass?

And from what I understand, this fluid negative energy halo probably being smooth around galaxies explains both why objects spin so fast at the edge of galaxies without violating laws, and why negative energy only shows as large voids. These voids are repelling the positive into the endless thick and thin strands we see as the basic structure of the universe where it begins to look homogeneous.

scienceblogs.com...

Does that sound anything like what the theory would predict or am I babbling in the wrong direction



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Btw it's worth mentioning that the lecture on negative energy which I linked to is from lecture series from Michigan Technological University called Extraordinary Concepts in Physics (Physics-X). It's right up the alley of ATS folk, it covers many topics right on the fringe of modern science. The last two videos on virtual particles are well worth watching imo.


Physics-X is a one of a kind course taught at Michigan Technological University, for credit. The course is aimed at upper level undergraduate students in Physics, however the concepts involved in the course are easily accessible to everyone.

The course deals with some of the most extraordinary concepts in physics, most of which try to provide the Physics background behind some cool phenomena and theories like Time Travel, Special Relativity, Worm Holes and Black Holes, Quantum Mechanics, Parallel Universes, etc.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: iFloButta

I don't think you're fully understanding how the model works. The basic idea is that positive matter clumps together and forms galaxies with structure whereas the negative energy remains in a fluid/plasma state and doesn't form any large structures. Since the negative matter/fluid is gravitationally repelled from the positive matter you end up with cavities in the negative matter/fluid where the positive galaxies are located. This creates the inverse gravitational lensing effect we normally attribute to dark matter and can also explain the expansion of space which we normally attribute to dark energy (the negative energy filling the space between all galaxies causes space to expand between the galaxies).

The 1995 Twin Universes Cosmology paper I linked to contains a section which gives quite a good description of what large scale structure in the Twin Universe Model should look like. They provide the following image and description:




The matter of the twin fold forms big stable clumps, which repel the matter of our fold of the universe, this last taking place in the remnant space. By opposition to the pancake model numerical simulations, this pattern is fairly non-linear. After its formation, corresponding to the Jeans time of the high density system (2.10 9 years) , there is no significant evolution of the general pattern over a time comparable to the age of the Universe so that this model could be a good candidate to explain the observed spongy aspect of our fold of the Universe, at large scale.


It's not exactly clear to me how the author produced the cellular structure given that they thought negative mass would attract negative mass (it's not explained well in the paper) but that is the same structure I predicted in my earlier theory. Also, here is a picture I made with my simulation program some time ago, I added some text which helps to further illustrate the idea:


One of the topics I didn't get into is the exact nature of the Big Bang, all I said was that it must have created an equal amount of positive and negative energy. But there are many good reasons I think it didn't begin as a singularity. I believe the large scale isotropic and homogeneous structure of the universe is possible in a bimetric model where an infinite amount of positive and negative energy is released throughout an infinite flat space-time. But that is the topic of another thread which I will probably make soon.
edit on 26/4/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
Please do a thread on your perspective of the big bang. It will definitely be an interesting read.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




The basic idea is that positive matter clumps together and forms galaxies with structure whereas the negative energy remains in a fluid/plasma state and doesn't form any large structures. Since the negative matter/fluid is gravitationally repelled from the positive matter you end up with cavities in the negative matter/fluid where the positive galaxies are located. This creates the inverse gravitational lensing effect we normally attribute to dark matter and can also explain the expansion of space


This is what I was mixed up with but I now understand. So no large structures form in this negative fluid and cavities is a far better description than "strands" but I think were mainly on the same page once you explained how the cavities relate to the inverse gravitational lensing effect.




The matter of the twin fold forms big stable clumps, which repel the matter of our fold of the universe, this last taking place in the remnant space.


remnant space=cavities correct? This is where we find "our fold of the universe". So "our fold" is constantly being pushed against by the negative void surrounding it.
I think somewhere in your posts it says the repelling force is greatest near the edge and that's why the stars rotate so quick around the galaxy, which would imply the closer you get to the center of the galaxy, the closer you get to the highest point of positive energy.. A singularity. Interesting how small a black hole is compared to the vast voids of negative energy.

Well hopefully i'll be involved in this Big Bang thread too!
Great read, very thought provoking.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: iFloButta


This is what I was mixed up with but I now understand. So no large structures form in this negative fluid and cavities is a far better description than "strands" but I think were mainly on the same page once you explained how the cavities relate to the inverse gravitational lensing effect.

Well in the standard model dark matter is modeled as weakly interacting particles with a normal positive mass. As the universe evolves the dark matter forms a web like structure and it is within those dark matter strands (called cosmic filaments) that galaxies and other normal matter reside. The basic idea is that the dark matter dictates the overall structure and placement of the normal matter which we can see through our telescopes.

The idea here is quite different because we don't actually have any dark matter to speak of, the dark matter is merely an illusion created by the cavity of negative matter. It explains why all the galaxies seem to be distributed throughout the galaxy in a surprisingly isotropic fashion but it's not so clear how it can explain cosmic filaments. I think it's possible to explain but it really depends on the initial conditions of the Big Bang, which is why I avoided that topic.


remnant space=cavities correct? This is where we find "our fold of the universe". So "our fold" is constantly being pushed against by the negative void surrounding it.

Ok after rereading the paper what they are doing is actually more complicated than I had first assumed. In that diagram they are saying the negative matter clumps together and the positive matter in our "fold" of the universe creates the cloud which surrounds those clumps. Further along in the paper they provide a diagram which shows the positive matter clumping together and the negative matter remaining in a cloud state (what I have been talking about in this thread).


The problem of the gravitational lensing must be reconsidered. As suggested in the previous paper [1], in the present model the confinement of the galaxies is mainly due to the action of the surrounding antipodal matter, located in the twin fold, to be consistent to the strong missing mass effect. Numerical simulations provided some description of a galaxy, surrounded by halos of antipodal matter [1]. See figure 7:

edit on 27/4/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Do you know a way of deriving a formula which combines the energy mass equation with the inverse law of gravity?



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Do you know a way of deriving a formula which combines the energy mass equation with the inverse law of gravity?

Is it even logical to combine those equations? What would be the purpose of such an equation?



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Very good presentation, and much thought-provoking theory! These are some really interesting propositions right there, S&F! ATS needs more posts like yours


I am currently reading through the rest of the text, but I just want to ask a question before I continue: What matter has negative mass? It cannot be antimatter, because antimatter has positive energy.


As an object in the galaxy moves further away from the galactic core it gets closer to the halo edge and experiences an increasingly stronger force trying to push it back towards the core.

This reminds me of Dragan Hajdukovic's proposition that between the galaxies there exists a sea of virtual gravitational dipoles which polarize to push positive masses back into the galaxies.

Here, read some more: phys.org...

Now, if I get your theory correctly, you are saying that negative energy can only be achieved by object traveling back in time, which would make them carry a negative mass for obvious reasons. Now, it is usually agreed that FTL is impossible, thus there exist no mechanism for the reversal of a particle's time arrow. Which mean, any particle with a time arrow which is discovered in our universe must have its (reversed) time arrow already created that way, aka, come from a reversed universe.

Do I get your theory correctly?

Thanks again for the thought-provoking posts!



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Light and gravity.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne


I am currently reading through the rest of the text, but I just want to ask a question before I continue: What matter has negative mass? It cannot be antimatter, because antimatter has positive energy.

In the first post I talk about candidates for negative energy, including anti-matter, the Casimir effect and gravitational potential. My conclusion is that none of those things are a form of real negative energy. We will probably never actually have a chance to directly experiment on negative matter because it only exists between galaxies, not inside of galaxies.


Now, if I get your theory correctly, you are saying that negative energy can only be achieved by object traveling back in time, which would make them carry a negative mass for obvious reasons.

Well I guess that's one way of saying it, but it makes more sense to say it in the reverse fashion: if we assume that negative energy must exist in order to produce a zero-energy universe, we can use the mass-energy equivalence principle to calculate that negative energy should possess a negative mass. And if an object were to have a negative mass, the math tells us that it should be traveling backwards through time. Therefore if we model the Big Bang as an instantaneous creation of an equal amount of positive and negative energy, the two forms of energy will travel in opposite directions through time and cause the universe to split into two parallel universes which can only interact through the force of gravity. I suggest reading the rest of my post because I explain all of this fairly well.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: AthlonSavage

The two are hardly related. Photons have no mass.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder


I suggest reading the rest of my post because I explain all of this fairly well.

I just did. I am with mild dyslexia, sorry if it took me some time getting my head around it.



if we assume that negative energy must exist in order to produce a zero-energy universe, we can use the mass-energy equivalence principle to calculate that negative energy should possess a negative mass. And if an object were to have a negative mass, the math tells us that it should be traveling backwards through time. Therefore if we model the Big Bang as an instantaneous creation of an equal amount of positive and negative energy, the two forms of energy will travel in opposite directions through time and cause the universe to split into two parallel universes which can only interact through the force of gravity.

I concur. It all holds up indeed.

Hm. Really interesting indeed.

Now we know that some galaxies have no rotational curve anomaly - can your theory support such events?




posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Now we know that some galaxies have no rotational curve anomaly - can your theory support such events?

Well there's good reason to be skeptical of that result:


So could the new analysis be faulty? "One really needs excellent data to pull this off," says Stacy McGaugh of the University of Maryland in College Park, US, an expert in galaxy formation and evolution. "I'm afraid my grumpy first impression is that I just don't buy it."

McGaugh points out that other galaxies have shown declining rotation curves, but later observations have always shown that beyond a certain distance, they flatten out, which can't be explained by ordinary gravity from visible stars and gas. "If we believe this decline, it seems like the exception and not the rule," he says.


But assuming they did detect a galaxy with no dark matter, that would have to mean one of two things in the Twin Universe Model. The first reason is that there is no negative matter close to the galaxy, the second reason is that the negative matter hasn't had time to move away from the galaxy. Both of those situations are highly unlikely within this theory but not impossible. There are actually many aspects of dark matter which this theory can explain which the standard model cannot explain (cuspy halo problem, missing satellites problem, etc). I will try to make a thread on that topic some time soon.
edit on 27/4/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join