Well I just attempted to post this theory on one of those mainstream science forums in the hopes that I could get some scientifically minded people to
give me feed back on the idea but my thread was removed extremely quickly, I should have known it wouldn't work. I figured that I may as well post it
here instead of putting it to waste. This theory hinges on Loop Quantum Gravity; in particular the concept of "braided" space-time as a mechanism for
the construction of particles, and expands on the theory concerning negative space and
There is a deep paradox in modern day science which is caused by our inability to accept the idea that something can come from nothing. If we cannot
accept the idea that energy is able to appear spontaneously from nothing then we cannot explain where the energy of the Big Bang came from or what
caused it. We get stuck saying that time didn't even exist before the Big Bang and at the very start of everything there was already an infinitely
dense point of energy which existed inexplicably and decided to expand for no apparent reason.
This is not even to mention the problem that all of space-time was supposed to be encompassed by this initial energy point, which begs the question
how can infinitely flat space-time (as our universe seems to be) arise from something which should obviously result in finite curved space. I think
that it's a very egocentric and inelegant point of view to believe that everything started with our Big Bang and that we can never describe anything
before it. It doesn't at all help us answer the question of how something can arise from nothing.
We were taught that you never get something for nothing. But now, after a life time of work, I think that in fact you can get a whole Universe
~ Stephen Hawking
Modern physics is now coming to a point where it is able to attack the problem of how a universe can arise from nothing without the need for some sort
of creator. The most promising theory in my opinion is the idea that the total sum of all energy in the universe adds up to 0 when you take into
account all the "negative energy", because the negative energy cancels out all the positive energy. Energy can be created from nothing; you just need
an equal amount of negative energy to balance it out. But exactly what is negative energy?
Where did all these particles come from? The answer is that relativity and quantum mechanics allow matter to be created out of energy in the
form of particle/antiparticle pairs. And where did the energy come from to create this matter? The answer is that it was borrowed from the
gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy
of the matter.
~ Stephen Hawking
In this above quotation it seems like Hawking begins to imply that virtual particle/antiparticle pairs are a manifestation and example of how positive
and negative energy can be spontaneously created from the vacuum, but most scientists believe that anti-matter has a positive mass and exerts a normal
gravitational pull on all other matter (although still unproven). Presumably knowing this, he goes on to explain that the energy for the matter
actually comes from the negative energy of the gravitational field.
However I would ask does gravity really hold an energy
which can be measured as a
negative or positive value or is it more valid to imagine gravity as a geometric property of space-time and not as a true force at all? I'm going to
assume the latter is true, which means that gravity cannot account for the negative energy required to explain how all the positive energy in our
universe could come from nothing and so we need to find another explanation. The solution I propose is a concept called "negative space".
This idea of negative space will provide the backbone of all concepts to follow. The way we can interpret negative space is through the lense of Loop
Quantum Gravity but taken one step further. First we start with the basic assumption that all matter is the result of space-time being "braided" or
"knotted" at the quantum scale. Einstein told us that "mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing", so if matter can be
treated as a manifestation of braided space-time there is really only one underlying substance: space-time.
The simplest braid possible in Bilson-Thompson's model looks like a deformed pretzel and corresponds to an electron neutrino (see Graphic).
Flip it over in a mirror and you have its antimatter counterpart, the electron anti-neutrino. Add three clockwise twists and you have something that
behaves just like an electron; three anticlockwise twists and you have a positron. Bilson-Thompson's model also produces photons and the W and Z
bosons, the particles that carry the electromagnetic and weak forces. In fact, these braided ribbons seem to map out the entire zoo of particles in
the standard model.
Dreadlocks in Space
Quantum field theory has already done a great job in getting people to consider the idea that all particles can be thought of as a ripple in an
underlying field, and this concept is not too dissimilar from that. However instead of having a separate field for every particle we only have one
underlying field in which all energy and particles exists, and that field is the fabric of space-time its self. Now I have drifted away from the
original question, so you may be wondering how negative space fits into all of this.
If you imagine space time as a flat 2D sheet (for the sake of this analogy) you can think of the braids or ripples in that sheet like waves in the
sheet. But you will notice that waves can form on both sides of the sheet, and the positive bumps on the sheet will never be aware that the negative
dimples exist on the other side of the sheet. So you have what are like two opposite "dimensions" which are in some sense hidden from each other. This
is essentially how you can imagine the idea of negative space.
Of course what this implies is that negative matter only exists in negative space and that it will be very difficult for us to directly observe it.
Now going back to the theory of the Big Bang, what we can say is that a negative big bang took place in negative space and it created exactly the same
amount of negative energy as positive energy created by the positive big bang in our positive side of space, such that they exactly cancel each other
out and allow us to explain how it was all able to arise from nothing.
It may be that there aren't really any quantities which are constant in time in the universe. The quantity of matter is not constant, because
matter can be created or destroyed. But we might say that the energy of the universe would be constant, because when you create matter, you need to
use energy. And in a sense the energy of the universe is constant; it is a constant whose value is zero. The positive energy of the matter is exactly
balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. So the universe can start off with zero energy and still create matter.
~ Stephen Hawking
Exactly what do I mean when I use the term "nothing"? I think of nothing as the absolute neutral state of the vacuum. Another reason for why I think
anti-matter is not negative matter is because when you collide anti-matter with negative matter they release 100% energy. What should actually happen
if negative matter were to collide with positive matter is that they completely cancel each other out and leave "nothing" because they are like
opposite wave forms canceling each other other, leaving neutral space-time in their place.
It's misleading to imagine it like that though, negative matter will never actually collide with positive matter because waves in a single medium tend
to pass through each other unharmed (although they may briefly experience destructive interference). So we don't have to worry about the negative
matter in negative space annihilating all our positive matter. Now at this point you may also be wondering how this flat sheet analogy of negative and
positive space can fit in with our understanding of the Big Bang event.
As I hinted at earlier, I'm not a fan of an infinitely flat universe arising from a finite space which should be highly curved. There are
such as the triple torus which can explain how a
finite space can also hold flat space but I find that some what inelegant and hard to believe. I think the idea of starting with infinite empty flat
space is much simpler and much more appealing, especially if "nothing" is being defined as a completely empty and neutral/flat vacuum, it would seem
natural for it to be infinite.
We can now conclude that our big bang was something like a spontaneous release of energy in infinite flat space and not responsible for creating all
of space-time. Meaning that things did exist before our own big bang and will always continue to exist. Now you might also find the idea of infinite
space expanding a little bit of a mind warping concept, but it is actually a fairly mainstream concept that infinite space can have more space added
to it, so I don't really think it's necessary to get into that discussion.
Let us now consider the theoretical warp drive
mechanism. In order for such a mechanism to work we would need to be able to get our hands on some form of negative energy. The negative energy is
used to expand space behind the craft because it exerts a negative pressure on space and causes it to expand, where as normal/positive matter or
energy exerts a positive pressure and "pulls" space in. The reason why negative energy is considered an exotic and theoretical form of energy is
because such energy must have a negative mass
Obviously it's very hard to imagine you can have negative mass, it's like having -1 apples in your fruit bowl. And we have never actually detected
that such a thing as negative mass really exists in the physical world. But that's basically what we need in order for the warp drive to function.
Unfortunately, if negative matter only exists in negative space we will most likely never be able to harvest it because we have no easy way of
interacting with it, let alone even observing or detecting it in the first place.
So if we have no easy way of interacting with anything in negative space it is essentially impossible to directly prove that negative space actually
exists. However, we can infer that it exists by the influence the negative matter exerts on the positive matter in our dimension. Some forces (only
gravity as far as I can tell) are able to extend between our dimension and negative space, which creates the illusion of "dark energy" and "dark
matter". Dark energy and dark matter are not what we think they are.
The following concept was developed as a natural consequence of my negative energy and negative space theory. 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. Now 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. 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.
Although no particles are known to have negative mass, physicists (primarily Hermann Bondi and Robert L. Forward) 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.
For two positive masses, nothing changes and there is a pull on each other causing an attraction. Two negative masses would produce a pull on one
another, but would repel because of their negative inertial masses. For different signs there is a push that repels the positive mass but attracts the
Bondi pointed out that two objects of equal and opposite mass would produce a constant acceleration of the system towards the positive mass object.
However, the total mass, momentum and energy of the system would remain 0.
So a negative mass will repel other negative masses, but a very strange thing happens when a negative mass is near a positive mass. The negative mass
is pulled towards the positive mass by its positive gravity and the positive mass is pushed away from the negative mass because of its negative
gravity. This sets up a very strange situation where the system could accelerate infinitely, and is the basis behind theoretical propulsion systems
like the diametric drive
which requires no energy
input and no reaction mass.
Taking this strange behavior into consideration, what would happen if we placed a positive galaxy into a smooth gas cloud of negative energy? Well the
answer should be fairly mundane actually, I would expect to see large cavities in the negative gas cloud where our galaxies are positioned in positive
space. This is because our galaxies are surrounded by negative matter and it is exerting a negative gravitational force from all directions,
presumably resulting in a cavity of negative matter around the galaxies.
The following picture helps to demonstrate the idea (galaxies in yellow and negative matter in blue):
This is what I think we would see if we could see negative matter in negative space. 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 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 the illusion of 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.
Consider how heavy and pervasive dark matter is supposed to be, if it truly does account for most of the mass in our galaxy it's kind of hard to
imagine how we don't feel the gravitational affects of it unless it's a very static and smooth cloud of dark matter. Or could it be that there really
is no such thing as dark matter and the reason it seems so isotropic in nature is because it's actually a gravitational illusion caused by a cavity
around our galaxies which are almost perfectly void of negative matter?
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. It explains why the dark matter seems to be dispersed so smoothly and why it's seemingly impossible to
detect dark matter particles.
At this point you may be wondering how I jumped to the conclusion that gravity can extend between both these dimensions. Well if all matter and energy
can be described as warped or condensed space-time then they will influence the shape of the space-time around them (keeping in mind that negative and
positive matter both travel through the same space-time medium like inverse waves), once again illustrating my earlier assumption about gravity being
a geometrical property of space-time and not a force in the way we imagine it.
Now let us go back to the issue of dark energy (recall that I am claiming negative energy is essentially dark energy). Another one of the major
unsolved problems in physics is why doesn't the calculated vacuum energy cause a dramatic expansion of space as we would expect. The reason for
why positive vacuum energy is supposed to expand space
complicated but it's irrelevant because the solution to this problem can be explained by once again taking into consideration negative space and
A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum,
more than 100 orders of magnitude too large. This would need to be cancelled almost, but not exactly, by an equally large term of the opposite
The answer to this problem is that vacuum fluctuations are not just creating energy in positive space, there are also negative fluctuations happening
in negative space in identical quantities, and they cancel each other out perfectly. This is the huge opposite term physicists are looking for.
However if they cancel out perfectly then what remains to cause space to expand? The gaseous cloud of negative matter between all the galaxies of
course. But is this consistent with the idea of accelerated expansion?
The negative matter should be dispersed and diluted as it causes space to expand, and at first glance this would not appear to be consistent with our
observations of 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. This is why
all galaxies (beyond a certain distance) appear to be moving away from us.
Any amount of consistent expansion of space will cause the illusion of accelerated 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 accelerating. 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
Let us 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 normal matter what does that tell us? It tells us that negative matter and positive matter were created in equal amounts, as was 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 then why does
negative energy cause space to expand if there's an equal amount of positive energy?
The answer to this problem might come down to the way negative energy and positive energy are distributed throughout space. Keep in mind that the
negative energy is spread out like a gas. Unlike the positive energy which condenses into galaxies, the negative energy is evenly distributed and
covers a huge surface area. Because the negative energy exerts a force over such a large surface area of space-time compared to the positive energy it
outmatches the pull of positive energy and causes space-time to expand (between galaxies).
There you have it, a theory of negative space and negative energy which allows us to explain dark energy and dark matter and explain how energy can
created from nothing without the need for an intelligent creator. I know this was a fairly long thread but I hope it sparks some interesting
discussion and maybe some of you will have time to see if the numbers add up. This theory should be fairly easy to disprove because I have made many
bold claims and predictions about the nature of dark matter and dark energy which should be testable.
edit on 24/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder
because: (no reason given)