Theoretical Model Explaining Dark Matter and Dark Energy

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Quite some time ago I created a thread titled before the big bang, which describes one of my theories on what caused the big bang. The basic idea is that energy can only be created in a big bang type event if an equal amount of negative energy is also created at the same time. This allows us to explain how energy can be created from nothing, since 1 plus -1 equals 0, so in some sense we still finish with nothing. The energy is caused by quantum mechanical fluctuations, but there is always an equal amount of positive and negative energy created in these fluctuations.

You may have heard of this weird thing called "negative energy" when scientists talk about such things as the warp drive. Any physicist will tell you that for the warp drive to work you need negative energy, but we aren't sure that it even exists. The reason we need negative energy for the warp drive mechanism is because it works by expanding space at the front of the ship and contracting it at the back of the ship. The only thing which can cause space to expand is some type of energy which exerts a negative pressure on space.

The reason why negative energy is considered an exotic and theoretical form of energy is because such energy must have a negative mass. All energy has mass, since e=mc^2, so negative energy must have negative mass. So it's obviously very hard to imagine you can have negative mass, it's like having -1 apples in your fruit bowl. But that's basically what we need in order for the warp drive to function. Unfortunately, the theory I presented in my "before the big bang" thread doesn't say we can harvest dark energy, because it tells us that the negative energy exists only in "negative space".

Negative space is essentially a whole other dimension which is something like a mirror of our own dimension. It's a completely theoretical idea and impossible to prove that this hidden dimension actually exists because we have no way of directly interacting with anything that exists inside the negative space. However, we can infer that it exists by the influence the negative matter exerts on the positive matter in our dimension. Some forces are able to extend between our dimension and the "negative space", which creates the illusion of "dark energy" and "dark matter".

What I'm starting to discuss now is a theory which was developed as a natural consequence of my early theory about negative energy and negative space. What it tells us is that dark matter and dark energy would simply be the result of interactions between these dimensions, but not actually things we will ever see with our own eyes. That is why we cannot detect these so called WIMP dark matter particles despite our best efforts, yet we can clearly see the gravitational effect exerted by the dark matter. But here's where it starts to get a little bit more complicated.

It isn't actually the negative matter which is behind the dark matter phenomena. Let me backtrack a little bit so I can explain. In negative space things would look much different to our space. In our space all the matter is clumped together into dense galaxies, however in negative space the exact opposite would occur. Since negative matter exerts negative gravity, all negative matter would be repelled away from all other negative matter. So we can imagine that it would form something like an evenly dispersed gas/cloud of negative matter throughout the entire negative universe.

Since negative matter is the opposite of positive matter in every conceivable way (even more so than anti-matter), we should also expect that the negative matter is repelled away from the positive matter (via forces which extend into both dimensions). So we can imagine that this negative gas cloud has large cavities in it where our galaxies are positioned in positive space because our galaxies push away the negative matter and leave a void of negative matter. The following picture helps to demonstrate the idea (galaxies in yellow and negative matter in blue).



This is basically what I think we would see if we could see negative matter in the negative dimension. Now remember, negative matter exerts a negative pressure on space and causes it to expand, so what we end up with is an expansion of space between the galaxies but less expansion inside the galaxies because there is less negative energy and also because the positive energy of the galaxies has positive pressure and pulls the galaxy together. And this is exactly what we observe in reality, the space expands between the galaxies but not inside the galaxies.

We attribute this expansion to dark energy, what I am saying is that it's actually caused by negative matter in negative space. But hold on a minute, wasn't I just talking about dark matter? Well this also helps us to explain dark matter when you look at it carefully. If you take away a negative something, you end up with more of that something then you started with. So what happens when you create a cavity of negative matter around a galaxy... presumably it would create an effect very similar to increasing the mass of the galaxy, thus we get dark matter.

What's more, is that dark matter actually seems to "accumulate" around galaxies in precisely this fashion. It seems to form a spherical "halo" around the galaxies but it's super smooth, it doesn't seem to be clumpy at all. If the dispersion of dark matter through the galaxy wasn't extremely smooth it would be possible to actually feel the gravitational effects of dark matter in our every day lives. But we never actually feel this invisible mass floating around, so it must be some sort of extremely smooth ocean of dark matter to not be felt, considering how heavy and pervasive dark matter is supposed to be.



The above image was created by astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope. By mapping the distribution of mass they were able to reveal the hidden distribution of dark matter (highlighted in the pinkish/purple color) around several super clusters. It's quite an amazing thought to think that what we may actually be looking at here is a void of negative matter around the super clusters, and it explains a whole lot in my opinion. It explains why the dark matter seems to be dispersed so smoothly and why it's seemingly impossible to detect dark matter particles.

The reason I really find this theory so amazing is because it just arose naturally from my original theory about negative space and negative energy. I had no idea at that it would lead to a theory capable of explaining both dark matter and dark energy. I've been sitting on this idea for quite a while now but this is the first time that I've actually written anything detailed about it. I'm really hoping that some one smart finds this thread and develops the idea further, because I am certainly no expert on astronomy or cosmology, or any field of physics for that matter.

Next post will continue on with some extended discussion concerning the dark energy element of negative energy with respect to an accelerating universe, because I know some people are going to have some questions about that.
edit on 2/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
As we move back closer to the moment of the big bang, we can explain the period of hyper inflation as the fact that all the negative matter was highly condensed and created a large and sudden expansion. However, the negative energy will be dispersed and diluted as it causes space to expand, and this would not appear to be consistent with an accelerating universe. We must remember however, that the universe only seems to be "accelerating" in size because the space between the galaxies is literally stretching out, not because the galaxies are actually zooming away from each other with a high velocity.

Any amount of consistent expansion of space will cause the illusion of expansion, because the further away an object is, the more space there is between us and that object, and thus there is more space undergoing simultaneous expansion. What this theory predicts, is that as the negative matter becomes diluted, the rate of cosmological expansion will get slower, but from our frame of reference it will still look like the universe is expanding. Or put a better way: an object twice as far away as a 2nd object will seem to be accelerating away from us twice as fast as the 2nd object.


Why is the energy density of the dark energy component of the same magnitude as the density of matter at present when the two evolve quite differently over time; could it be simply that we are observing at exactly the right time?

List of Unsolved Problems in Physics

The essence of the cosmic coincidence problem is that while radiation and matter densities drop very rapidly and at different rates as the Universe expands, a dark energy density described by a cosmological constant stays constant throughout the entire history of the Universe. Thus there is only one unique time in the long history of the Universe where the DE density and matter density are roughly equal. The cosmic coincidence is that this occurred very recently at around a redshift of z  0.39. If this current epoch of cosmic acceleration had started even slightly earlier, the DE dominance would have stopped structure formation, and galaxies, stars, and life on this planet would not exist. If this epoch had been even slightly later, we would not have discovered the current accelerated expansion

Anti-Anthropic Solutions to the Cosmic Coincidence Problem


Lets re-frame this "coincidence" from the perspective of the theory presented here. If the density of dark energy is exactly the same as the density of matter what does that tell us? It tells us that negative matter and positive normal were created in equal amounts, like we predicted at the very start. It is certainly no coincidence that the densities match, they have always matched and will always continue to match. But regardless of that space will expand because the positive energy is highly condensed, but the negative energy is evenly distributed and covers a huge surface area.
edit on 2/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Negative matter only exists on chalkboards, and there's absolutely no indication that anyone's ever detected that negative mass, negative matter, and negative energy exist. For a theory to be a theory, it must be "falsifiable" (attributed to Karl Popper) which means that it must be connected enough to reality to be capable of being eventually debunked by either new discoveries or new theories. Anything based on stuff that only exists in the imaginary world of theoretical mathematics might be described by the tech media as a theory, but in the real world, it's just imaginary musings.

Sadly, physics and metaphysics have become blurred within the last 30 years or so.
edit on 10/2/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Terribly sorry if I misunderstood your post, but does your theory (which I BTW find well-thought) imply that dark matter is caused by negative space?

One must not forget that dark matter has mass, and not negative mass.

S&F for the thought-provoking OP.

edit on 2-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Negative matter only exists on chalkboards, and there's absolutely no indication that anyone's ever detected that negative mass, negative matter, and negative energy exist.

There is no need to be so condescending. I agree that we will never detect it directly, but that is because it exists in a whole other "dimension". I would suggest reading the whole thread if you haven't. You have to agree that this theory seems to explain a whole lot of unsolved problems whilst being founded on a very simple and realistic set of assumptions?



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 



Terribly sorry if I misunderstood your post, but does your theory (which I BTW find well-thought) imply that dark matter is caused by negative space?

One must not forget that dark matter has mass, and not negative mass.

It implies that dark matter is caused by a void/cavity of negative matter around the galaxies.


But hold on a minute, wasn't I just talking about dark matter? Well this also helps us to explain dark matter when you look at it carefully. If you take away a negative something, you end up with more of that something then you started with. So what happens when you create a cavity of negative matter around a galaxy... presumably it would create an effect very similar to increasing the mass of the galaxy, thus we get dark matter.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Hm, really interesting suggestion. I'll definitively think this one out.

Thanks for the clarification!

In the meanwhile, I'd like to invite you to check out my theory about matter and energy: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just hoping you'll find it just as thought-provoking. Your feedback will be most welcomed.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Just responding to your first paragraph because its all ive read so far; You say the big bang created positive and negative energy, and this is how energy can come from no energy, you may explain in subsequent paragraphs but I have to ask, where/what was the energy used to start/propel/create the negative and positive energy. Basically im saying you are wrong, energy can never come from nothing/nowhere. There has to be a cause, that causes the cause to cause, because. And a cause is always something.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


K I read the rest. Seems like you are describing an aether or an energy stress tensor of space. Like where there is mass in space, there is a proportional amount of space displaced where that mass is, and this is gravity. But you are saying the mass displaces local space, but also there is space being displaced exactly where the mass is immediately? Like the equivalent of matter in your body right where it is, is causing a constant indent in space, and that is 'negative space'?

I did read all your writing in this thread, but I dont understand (as theoretical as it is, doesnt mean you can just make things up, if all we care about is what is real and true) how you posit this existing, you are saying these things with words but creating no visual or mental pictorial analog. where and how does negative space and energy exist, you say other dimensions, where and how? outside the universe, a whole mirror universe on top of this universe, what do these things mean, and how are they possible?



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



Basically im saying you are wrong, energy can never come from nothing/nowhere. There has to be a cause, that causes the cause to cause, because. And a cause is always something.

lol. In the world of quantum mechanics there doesn't need to be a cause, one thing does not need to lead to the next. Things can just happen according to pure chance. And this is not just my personal theory, most physicists agree with the idea that quantum fluctuations where responsible for the energy of the big bang. The twist I'm putting on it is negative energy, which the standard models never seem to account for.

But I don't know why you keep bothering to argue this subject with me, you know that you will never get me to agree that the energy has always been here all along. It's just not going to happen, my line of logic cannot follow that. What do we have exactly this amount of energy and what is your take on the big bang if all the energy has always been here? It's obvious from all the evidence that a big bang type of event did happen and it begun in a state of perfect thermal equilibrium.
edit on 2/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I prefer to believe that dark matter is mostly shadow matter whose unified superstring force is governed by E8' symmetry, the second sector of E8xE8' heterotic superstring theory, whilst dark energy is simply the energy of the gauge fields of E8' (or, rather, those surviving after its spontaneous symmetry breaking). This is a falsifiable prediction of E8xE8' heterotic superstring theory - at least in principle (just a little difficult to test experimentally).



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



you are saying these things with words but creating no visual or mental pictorial analog. where and how does negative space and energy exist, you say other dimensions, where and how? outside the universe, a whole mirror universe on top of this universe, what do these things mean, and how are they possible?

I tried to avoid that subject as much as possible in this thread because that is described as best as I can in the "before the big bang" thread. If you wish to really understand this concept of "negative space" a bit more then read that thread. You probably already read it a while ago, but read it again. This thread isn't concerned with explaining the details of negative space, it is concerned with displaying the evidence and correlations which indicate that such a negative space does exist, and that it can explain a whole range of weird phenomena very easily. Whether negative space exists in the way I have described in my other thread is not the point, the point is that if we just assume it exists in some sense, we can explain a whole lot of weird stuff very easily.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

swanne
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Thanks for the clarification!

In the meanwhile, I'd like to invite you to check out my theory about matter and energy: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was reading that thread the other day actually. Interesting stuff, I agree with the premise that things should be broken down in the simplest possible units. That's why I personally tend to lean towards theories such as loop quantum gravity. But I'm not really much of an expert of particle physics and your thread was a bit beyond my knowledge so I can't really comment on your theory. I tend to focus more on cosmology and the "bigger picture". But often the bigger picture is described by the smallest things, so understanding the true nature of particles is also extremely important in understanding the bigger things.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I like to imagine all of Space and Time as cloths hanging out on a backyard lawn. I imagine an infinite number of them lined up side by side. Each side of a cloth represents a dimension or reality. As the cloths move in the wind, sometimes the fabrics touch each other. It is within this touching that the big bang may have occurred. The interaction of the separate cloths create another cloth that will join it's brethren along the infinite sea of clothes blowing in the wind.

This continues exponentially so in essence new 'clothes' are created every fraction of every second. At least that is how I try to simplify something as tremendously complicated as something like the creation of reality.

I wish we had a shiny golden book that told us all the answers and we didn't have to stumble our way through existence trying to grasp reality the best we can with our tiny hands.

But in the meanwhile it can be fun to speculate!

S&F Op.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


You dont just get to say your idea is logical and it be logical. Its not, stuff coming from no stuff is impossible and nonsensical and illogical. It is wrong, there is no way of language trickery that can make it possible. Even a digital program that can generate space and pseudo material at any interval the program allows, requires an energy input for each increment of time it is operating. You dont get stuff from nothing. You dont get something from nothing. Something is not nothing. Something is something.



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   

NorEaster
Negative matter only exists on chalkboards, and there's absolutely no indication that anyone's ever detected that negative mass, negative matter, and negative energy exist.


Isn't negative matter anti-matter? Anti-matter has been discovered and created in the lab for a few decades now, if I'm not mistaken.



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mcx1942
 



I like to imagine all of Space and Time as cloths hanging out on a backyard lawn. I imagine an infinite number of them lined up side by side. Each side of a cloth represents a dimension or reality. As the cloths move in the wind, sometimes the fabrics touch each other. It is within this touching that the big bang may have occurred. The interaction of the separate cloths create another cloth that will join it's brethren along the infinite sea of clothes blowing in the wind.

Personally I have many problems with that brane theory of cosmology. Can you explain how the branes are created in the first place and what supplies them with the energy to move around violently? That theory takes us back multiple steps in my opinion. I just really have a hard time accepting something which is so abstract and starts from such a high level. The whole mechanism of branes is like a world in its own with it's own laws of physics and all sorts of complicated things are going on. How can you ever hope to understand the true nature of reality if you're already starting from a foundation which is such a high level abstraction of clearly much simpler rules?



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   

ImaFungi
You dont get something from nothing. Something is not nothing. Something is something.

lol I've been waiting for a good time to use this pic:



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   

MrInquisitive
Isn't negative matter anti-matter? Anti-matter has been discovered and created in the lab for a few decades now, if I'm not mistaken.

No anti-matter is not negative matter because anti-matter doesn't have a negative mass and it exerts a normal gravitational pull (well that hasn't been proven experimentally yet but most scientists believe anti-matter has normal mass and gravity).

The reason I believe anti-matter clearly has a normal mass and not a negative mass is because when you collide anti-matter with normal matter you get a release of 100% energy, the matter is transformed into pure energy, and that is the best way to harvest energy from matter, assuming you've got some anti-matter handy.

However what should actually happen if you collide negative matter with normal matter is that the negative mass cancels out the positive mass and they would annihilate each other, except they would produce no energy what so ever. If there is an equal amount of negative matter and an equal amount of positive matter, you'd end up with nothing.

Since they are exactly opposite they cancel out perfectly and destroy each other without producing energy. But what this theory says is that it's impossible to actually collide negative matter with positive matter because they exist in inverse dimensions and will never directly interact, they will only interact through forces which propagate between both dimensions.
edit on 3/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


ggood logical progression of thought you have there, it seems to me that the proposed solution to the question is only one of many possible scenarios. The idea that deep space is really negative space pockets seems ludacris to me but it made me think about negative black holes. white holes? Well either way I feel we have done enough theorizing about the universe and need to go on a little sight seeing trip. I want to see what the universe looks like from the point in space that the Big Bang happened. I feel it will answer all the questions. There is three ways to find the place. The first is the cosmic backround radiation map, the second is the idea that the light barrier presents the direction of expansion, the third i just theorized on Evans Warp Core thread. Either way we spend too much time thinking and not enough acting, life is too short for what ifs.





top topics
 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join