Negative Energy & Negative Space - A New Theoretical Model

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 negative energy.

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 for free.

~ 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 geometrical models 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 negative mass.

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.

Negative mass

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 is complicated but it's irrelevant because the solution to this problem can be explained by once again taking into consideration negative space and negative matter.

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.[3] This would need to be cancelled almost, but not exactly, by an equally large term of the opposite sign.

Dark Energy

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.

I find your theory very interesting, and could very well be the truth it not only makes logical sense but also mathematical, another thought i am pondering i wonder what the flow of Time would be like in the Negative universe, would time flow backwards from a big crunch all the way back to a big bang, this may just have a direct correlation between our very own future big crunch, perhaps the two universes are indefinitely joined by a perpetuating cycle of (+) bang, crunch, (-) crunch bang?

reply to post by Craninalbliss

I find your theory very interesting, and could very well be the truth it not only makes logical sense but also mathematical,

It would be funny if my theory is actually onto something, because what kind of physicist is going to work on a model which was proposed on a conspiracy forum. Lol... I may have just set mainstream science back a decade.

another thought i am pondering i wonder what the flow of Time would be like in the Negative universe

I believe time would flow pretty much the same as it does on the positive side, but I can't say for certain how it would work in the negative side. You have to remember that space and time are intricately linked, and the 2D sheet analogy that I gave isn't entirely accurate because obviously space is 3 dimensional with a 4th dimension of time. And I also don't think that time works exactly how modern theorists think it works, but that's a topic for another thread.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Scientists puts things in boxes,

Biology, geology, astronomy, cosmology

All of this is jusy happening randomly. Scientists are chopping up reality into boxes to see how it happenes.

With the newly devoped logical mind that can see patterns, it thinks it can "solve" the randomness of the large ancient universe.

reply to post by arpgme

With the newly devoped logical mind that can see patterns, it thinks it can "solve" the randomness of the large ancient universe.

Indeed. It all comes down to seeing the order in the chaos.

Just want to give this thread a final bump before letting it drift off into the dark pits of ATS. If you have any thoughts or criticisms on this theory do not be afraid to share them!

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Yeah I am kinda disappointed at the lack of interest with this topic, The theory has alot of great ideas and has great potential for discussion, mabey you can post it at a future date.

Craninalbliss
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Yeah I am kinda disappointed at the lack of interest with this topic, The theory has alot of great ideas and has great potential for discussion, mabey you can post it at a future date.

Well I posted a similar thread to this one not that long ago and there was a few pages of discussion, but most of it was off-top discussion about quantum mechanics.

To get the discussion flowing, here is one possible flaw I can see in the idea: if we are describing matter as braided space-time, and we are also describing gravity as the warping of space-time around the particle, then it doesn't seem valid to say that gravity has no energy. When you think it about it like that it becomes clearer why Hawking thinks that gravity is holding the negative energy.

So maybe gravity should have an energy, unlike what I stated in the OP. It really is quite difficult to say whether gravity has positive or negative or zero energy. Upon researching this question further it seems like the answer is anything but simple. For example the following discussion illustrates how complex this issue can be:

In a very real way, our universe is still nothing: its total energy is identically zero. This is clear if we look at the Hamiltonian formalism, which considers not only the energy stored in matter, but also the energy stored in gravitational potential energy. It turns out that the energy stored in gravitational potential energy is negative, and exactly cancels that stored in matter.

I'm curious, have you actually done the calculation? I know people used to say that, e.g. back in the 1980s.
Alan Guth famously conjectured that the universe might be 'the ultimate free lunch' because negative gravitational energy might conceivably exactly cancel positive (matter etc.) energy.
But I haven't seen anybody maintaining that lately, at a scholarly level.

Not personally, no. But it's a well-known result. However, there is a caveat that I did not mention: the result only applies for a closed FRW universe:
www.springerlink.com...

So basically what I get from all of that is that gravity only has a negative energy when we are talking about closed space. But of course we are talking about infinite flat space, not closed space. The other information I have read concerning this topic suggests that modern interpretations of general relativity don't apply any negative or positive energy to gravity, which is one of the major problems with trying to justify the validity of the zero-energy universe. But having negative energy in negative space solves that.

This is why you never trust Yahoo Answers. Two "best answer" for the same question argue the opposite thing.

Gravity can have negative energy? How?

Best Answer:

Gravity is a force. It doesn't 'have' energy.

Objects set at a distance can have gravitational potential energy but for objects with positive mass this is always positive. Theoretically an object with negative mass (a class of hypothetical material we call exotic matter) can have negative gravitational potential (repelled from other negative mass, but no one knows which way around the signs might work for regular mass's gravitational attraction/repulsion from exotic matter).

No one is yet quite sure which way around the gravitational attraction/repulsion works for antimatter - gravity is so weak and our supplies of contained antimatter so infinitesimal that the experiments to test have been beyond our sensitivity to measure - though that work is finally being conducted as we speak. It's unlikely but yet possible that antimatter is gravitationally repelled from normal matter.

answers.yahoo.com...

Why does gravity have negative energy?

Best Answer:

Gravity is generated by mass, energy-density (e.g. electromagnetic field), momentum, pressure, and stress. These sources of energy collectively are known as the energy-momentum tensor (also sometimes called the stress-energy tensor) and have been the source of gravity in Einstein's field equations since they were published nearly a hundred years ago. You still retain gravity when you convert mass to energy.

It's easy to show why gravity has negative potential energy with a thought experiment. We have two objects - the earth, and a bowling ball far enough away from the earth that the potential energy of the gravitational field is very close to zero, and the kinetic energy of the bowling ball is zero (initially at rest). Wait. Given enough time, the bowling ball will eventually crash into the earth with significant POSITIVE kinetic energy (1/2mv^2 is always positive). Since energy must be conserved, and the total energy was very near zero initially, the total energy when the bowling ball hits the earth must also be very near zero. That means that we must have extracted NEGATIVE energy out of the gravitational field equal (but opposite sign) to the POSITIVE kinetic energy of the bowling ball when it hits the earth in order to conserve energy.

answers.yahoo.com...

Ironically I do like the answer this guy gave from the second question linked above.

The zero of potential energy has no physical meaning. You can put it anywhere you like. Potential energy is a relative quantity. For many purposes, it's convenient to say that the PE is zero when things are infinitely far away, which makes the energy RELATIVE TO THAT STATE negative.

For other purposes, you define the PE to be zero at the surface of the earth, which would make the PE positive RELATIVE TO THAT STATE as you get off the surface.

In the case of the universe, I'm not sure how they're using it. The universe started out with matter close together, not far apart. The current state would be at a higher PE than the initial state. If you call the initial state 0, then the current state is positive.

Here's a list of interesting physics threads related to the topic of negative energy and energy of gravity for those who want to read further into the issue.

Negative energy?
Negative Energy
Negative Energy/Negative Matter
Negative energy versus positive energy
Gravity and Negative Energy
Gravitational energy : positive or negative ?
why gravitational potential energy is negative?
gravitational waves and negative energy
Negative gravitational energy

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Godd effort Op.
Till mainstream science keeps regarding, Gravity is due to curved spacetime, as
gospel truth, is never gonna get anywhere.
Space is not curved and it does not bend

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Space is not curved and it does not bend

I'm beginning to think you may actually be onto something with that line of thinking. Personally I've always had a very hard time imagining that space-time can be bent, because in reality we don't even have any evidence that gravity waves really exist, we've never detected them, and I don't think if the sun disappeared this very moment that our orbit would stay unaffected until the gravity wave reached us, it would be instant imo... plus in this theory we are defining "nothing" as the empty/neutral vacuum, so how is it logical to imagine nothing as if it were a malleable fabric with physical properties? But on the other hand the theory is also grounded on the very assumption that the vacuum must be able to bend and warp, because that's how all energy and particles are created in the first place. Quite the paradox indeed... and this is why I personally have a hard time fully accepting the "braid" theory, but I just can't see any better mechanism for making this theory work so elegantly.

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

~ Nikola Tesla

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Tesla was a brilliant engineer, and more often than not engineers
are always right about science. lets take a very physical aspect,
I weigh 77 Kg and I do not feel any curved space pressing me down to the
earth. Do you?
All expts to date to chk the validity of GR have been interpreted to suit GR.
Even if Einstein had consulted a single engineer, he would have told Einstein
intuitively that he was barking up the wrong tree, with his curved spacetime.

ChaoticOrder
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 negative energy.

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.

I wish I had as much time to invest in such an elegantly written way

The first thing that caught my eye was Loop Quantum Gravity... The idea that mass is not suspended within space-time but is in fact a variable of space-time density. That matter is made of space time was mind blowing when the white paper was released.

If you think about String theory almost hit the nail on the head but only visualised the crest of the wave, as opposed to the ocean beneath those waves.

There is much evidence to validate LQG such as Entaglement. The so called spooky action at a distance doesn't seem so spooky when considering that the braids that represent the particles are all direcly connected. A twist in one braid equates to a twist in the entangled braid.

That led me to discover spin faom networks, which is a way to visualise how braids could be interconnected to create a kind of network structure.

I find your concept of negative space a logical expansion to M-theory or membrain thoery. The idea that the big bang was caused by two or more membrains coliding to create the fluctuations at the planck scale, it's logical to assume that the membrain has a reverse side.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that the universes values when added together would equate to Zero... I too have come tot his conclusion when taking into accouunt all of matter and energy, but more than that it's a logical conclusion of quantum wave thoery.

It is for this reason that I think the mathematic form of Zero is a non posibility, in fact given quantum mechanics and probabilities it is the only value that has a zero chance of occuring.

Given the infinte nature of quantum reality, it could be argued that there must be aninfinity of zero's out there, but I firmly believe that when conserning our universe zero as in true nothingness is an impossibily.

Which is why I now fully believe that the theory of a big rip as a possibily of an end to the universe even in light of constant accelation in expasnsion is now out of the picture.


I suspect the universe creates a big bang of matter when the univsers values reach close to zero due to expanding infintly, in a kind of pulse method. In other words our big bang is one of an infinite series that have happaned and will happen. So the multiverse concept cour be right but not as in multiple universes floating out there in some kind of sub space... more that they are out there on our same space-time just expanded out beyond our ability to detect.

More likely the universe will continue to expand indefinatly and infinatly, with more and more matter being generated as a result of the fundimental law that any value is valid except zero.

I am currently working on a computer model with one rule... zero is null, so far the results look very interesting... that is before it crashes out... Needs more work

Enough for now,

Peace,

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

That led me to discover spin faom networks, which is a way to visualise how braids could be interconnected to create a kind of network structure.

I have heard of spin foam networks before but never really looked into it much because it all sounds very complex. Personally I think there's a hidden factor to LQG which we don't yet understand properly, but for now it's the best theory we have imo for explaining how energy and matter is created. And it's especially useful with respect to this theory of negative energy.

I find your concept of negative space a logical expansion to M-theory or membrain thoery. The idea that the big bang was caused by two or more membrains coliding to create the fluctuations at the planck scale, it's logical to assume that the membrain has a reverse side.

I really don't buy into any of those membrane theories. I prefer to start from the most fundamental level and then work my way up, and membrane theories appear to start from a high level of abstraction rather than from the most fundamental level. My theory of negative space has nothing to do with membranes, it's simply an extension of LQG which says that space-time can ripple into a "negative dimension" (explained with the sheet analogy) which is outside our scope of observation and that's why we cannot detect negative energy directly.

EDIT: removed irrelevant commentary.

It has occurred to me that this theory can also help explain new observations concerning galactic collision events which cannot be easily explained by the standard dark matter theories:

It was the result no one wanted to believe. Astronomers observed what appeared to be a clump of dark matter left behind during a bizarre wreck between massive clusters of galaxies.

The dark matter collected into a "dark core" containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies hung together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. This result could present a challenge to basic theories of dark matter, which predict that galaxies should be anchored to the invisible substance, even during the shock of a collision.

The initial observations, made in 2007, were so unusual that astronomers shrugged them off as unreal, due to poor data. However, new results from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope confirm that dark matter and galaxies parted ways in the gigantic merging galaxy cluster called Abell 520, located 2.4 billion light-years away.

Now, astronomers are left with the challenge of trying to explain dark matter's seemingly oddball behavior in this cluster.

"This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California, Davis, leader of the Hubble study. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. Theories of galaxy formation and dark matter must explain what we are seeing."

hubblesite.org...

If we stop thinking of dark matter as actual particles with a mass, and instead conceptualize the effect of dark matter as a gravitational illusion caused by a cavity of negative matter in and around our galaxy, it becomes much more plausible and easier to understand how the supposed dark matter could separate from the galaxies they are attached to; what is really happening is that the cavities are becoming dislocated from their parent galaxy, and this can happen rather easily because the galaxy only stays at the center of the cavity via a rather unstable gravitational balancing act and an extreme collision event could end up dislocating the galaxies from their dark cores. But I predict that if the cavity were to become completely dislodged from the galaxy that it would shrink and disappear, and a new cavity should eventually form around the galaxy as it repels the negative matter around it. This also helps explain why the dark matter cores appear to pass through each other undisturbed, because what you really have are two cavities passing through each other.

ChaoticOrder
EDIT: removed irrelevant commentary.

It has occurred to me that this theory can also help explain new observations concerning galactic collision events which cannot be easily explained by the standard dark matter theories:

It was the result no one wanted to believe. Astronomers observed what appeared to be a clump of dark matter left behind during a bizarre wreck between massive clusters of galaxies.

The dark matter collected into a "dark core" containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies hung together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. This result could present a challenge to basic theories of dark matter, which predict that galaxies should be anchored to the invisible substance, even during the shock of a collision.

The initial observations, made in 2007, were so unusual that astronomers shrugged them off as unreal, due to poor data. However, new results from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope confirm that dark matter and galaxies parted ways in the gigantic merging galaxy cluster called Abell 520, located 2.4 billion light-years away.

Now, astronomers are left with the challenge of trying to explain dark matter's seemingly oddball behavior in this cluster.

"This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California, Davis, leader of the Hubble study. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. Theories of galaxy formation and dark matter must explain what we are seeing."

hubblesite.org...

If we stop thinking of dark matter as actual particles with a mass, and instead conceptualize the effect of dark matter as a gravitational illusion caused by a cavity of negative matter in and around our galaxy, it becomes much more plausible and easier to understand how the supposed dark matter could separate from the galaxies they are attached to; what is really happening is that the cavities are becoming dislocated from their parent galaxy, and this can happen rather easily because the galaxy only stays at the center of the cavity via a rather unstable gravitational balancing act and an extreme collision event could end up dislocating the galaxies from their dark cores. But I predict that if the cavity were to become completely dislodged from the galaxy that it would shrink and disappear, and a new cavity should eventually form around the galaxy as it repels the negative matter around it. This also helps explain why the dark matter cores appear to pass through each other undisturbed, because what you really have are two cavities passing through each other.

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

It would also explain why it is dark in the first place... Which is let's be honest the white elephant in the room.

Korg.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


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

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!".

If dark matter really was made up of weakly interacting particles there is no reason for the dark matter particles to not clump up into large bodies of dark matter because they still have normal gravitational fields. They need to be asking themselves why we have never detected invisible clumps of matter exerting measurable gravitational fields. The apparent smoothness of dark matter throughout our galaxy is a dead giveaway that dark matter is not actually made up of particles.

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.