All the Laws of Physics distilled down to one Fundamental Law.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

That is a completely invalid comparison for a start. Negative matter (assuming it could exist)...

Assuming it could exist?

There is anti-matter, which is made up of antibaryons and antileptons. It behaves just like ordinary matter. But there is no such thing as negative matter. It does not exist.

The whole idea that dark energy is a positive energy exerting a negative pressure is dependent on certain theories concerning vacuum energy

Nonsense. Dark energy is a postulate intended to explain certain unexpected but well-documented phenomena, such as gravitational lensing. There is no theoretical structure behind it at all. Dark energy is a mystery.

There is a difference between negative potential energy and negative energy.

What is the difference? Please entertain us with your explanation.

That wiki page contains no math to actually prove the claim that the negative energy of gravity is enough to balance out the negative energy of matter

It doesn't balance out. That is why the universe is expanding.

it makes no distinction between negative energy and negative potential energy.

And what, pray, is the distinction between energy and potential energy?

reply to post by projectbane

It seems (ChaoticOrder is) about the only one on here who has some real knowledge.

I strongly advise you not to trust the physics knowledge of anyone who has posted on this thread so far, myself included.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

When anti-matter collides with normal matter it releases energy because they are both forms of positive matter but they are inverses or mirror images, so they annihilate each other and turn into pure energy.

I'm wayyy late to the party...
but, ChaoticOrder,
you prompted a question:

Can you please explain the difference between 'anti-matter', 'negative matter', and 'dark matter'?

KrzYma

ImaFungi

Panic2k11
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Time is infinite.

No it isn't time time-space is relativistic dimensional scale.

edit on 14-1-2014 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

Time never began and will never end. Time is infinite.

depends what you define as time

Time is; The changing of stuff or The fact that stuff changes or The fact that stuff exists and changes.

The fact is; Stuff exists. The fact is; Non stuff is not stuff. The fact is; Stuff cannot come from nonstuff.

The fact is; If stuff can come from non stuff, what is thought to be non stuff, is/was stuff.

The fact is; Since stuff exists, and cannot come from non stuff, stuff has always existed.

The fact is; Since stuff has always existed, time has always existed, and has at least the potential to always exist...most likely will always exist, since there is so much possible time for it to exist, even if for a time it doesnt.

reply to post by Astyanax

But there is no such thing as negative matter. It does not exist.

Just because it doesn't exist as far as mainstream science is concerned doesn't mean that we can't hypothesize about the properties of negative mass.

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.

en.wikipedia.org...

Nonsense. Dark energy is a postulate intended to explain certain unexpected but well-documented phenomena, such as gravitational lensing.

I think you're getting your words mixed up. Dark energy is used to explain the expansion of the universe. Dark matter is used to explain phenomena such as gravitational lensing.

There is no theoretical structure behind it at all. Dark energy is a mystery.

Of course there are theories to explain dark energy. One of the most common theories is that dark energy is the "energy of the vacuum, the cost of having space". In other words dark energy can potentially be explained as the energy of vacuum fluctuations, and it's within this framework that we consider vacuum energy to be a positive energy exerting a negative pressure. The problem with this theory however, is that if you actually calculate how much energy should exist due to vacuum energy it is more than 100 orders of magnitude too large. So in some sense you are correct, we really cannot explain dark energy properly.

What is the difference? Please entertain us with your explanation.

Potential energy is simply a potential for work to be done, not a real physical measurable energy. But of all this is really beyond the point. It is far from clear that gravity really supplies the universe with negative energy, and even if it does it is far from clear that it would provide enough negative energy for a zero-energy universe... just because Hawking and et al postulated such a theory does not immediately make it true.

It doesn't balance out. That is why the universe is expanding.

It needs to balance out in order for the zero-energy universe theory to be correct. The reason the universe expands is because of dark energy, and according to theories of dark energy it is supposed to be a positive energy, it just behaves weirdly and exerts a negative pressure on space.

reply to post by wildtimes

Can you please explain the difference between 'anti-matter', 'negative matter', and 'dark matter'?

Anti-matter: positive matter with normal gravity but an opposite charge to normal particles.
Negative matter: not proven to exist but should have a negative mass and a negative gravitational field.
Dark matter: we don't know what the properties of dark matter are, we can only measure the gravitational affects of it.

All probabilities are nonzero. If something has a 1 in a million chance of happening at a any given time, it is 100% certain to happen if time continues forever. All fractions are large compared to other fractions. People find it amazing that the universe can exist as it does because a lot of things have to happen to make it so with some astronomical probability; let's say something like 1 in a trillion. They say this proves the existence of God. That is human thinking. One in a trillion is nothing compared to one in a quadrillion. The universe is all about scale. It might as well be one out of two. All small numbers are large, and all large numbers are small when compared to other numbers.

reply to post by Adaluncatif


This says nothing about the actual incredibility of the true size, structure, sophistication, various levels and intricacies of the universe. The amount of data of earth alone, the amount of information and energy in your pinky or a grain of sand is astonishing, let alone your body, let alone your house, let alone your neighborhood, let alone your town, let alone your city, let alone your state, let alone your country, let alone your continent, let alone the earth, let alone the solar system, let alone the galaxy, let alone all the galaxies that have been, let alone all the galaxies that are, let alone all the galaxies that will be. This is a relatively, remembering your pinky is a relatively massive amount of stuff that happens to exist and do and be cool things, the universe, known, is a relatively extremely definite massive amount of stuff that happens to exist and is able to do amazing and exquisite things. Its beyond saying there is a probability the universe can exist and be like this, because it does exist and is like this, the somethingness that goes into forming the universe has to have always existed, and just as the potential for barack obama to be president or mozart to compose music always existed, the potential for this universe to form the way it did always existed, and the potential for what the energy of the universe will become in the future exists, as potential, because it will become something, just as the energy that went into forming and is this universe, was something, which was something, which was something, which has always been something, and this something will always be, and it will always be becoming something, because it has potential.

reply to post by mazzroth

mazzroth
In Nature Zero exists everywhere, 4 apples fell off the tree and that left zero apples on the tree

Saying that there are "no" apples on a tree, is a concept. In reality the apples still exist, but on the ground. There is no "zero" in reality, only as a concept. There is always something.

*Clap Clap* hat's off to you OP! You are 100% correct.

I have been in medical and research facilities where this equation is the main one written on the whiteboard. Everything else is a backwards calculation from that one equation. It's difficult for me to write the exact equation but it is something like 0 = 0x0 x infinity and there you have the riddle of the universe, it's a paradox as the equation cannot be solved but it can be written in this way and understood by anyone, just never balanced out because as you said zero does not exist in nature.

EDITED TO ADD:
Where does this leave the average person? a +1 or -1? or are we all +1's?
and, If this was used as a scale to measure level of consciousness where 0 = non-existant and 100 = omnipotent where would we each fall on the scale? where would society fit on the scale? and what happens if your level reaches 100?

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Astyanax
Nonsense. Dark energy is a postulate intended to explain certain unexpected but well-documented phenomena, such as gravitational lensing.

ChaoticOrder
I think you're getting your words mixed up. Dark energy is used to explain the expansion of the universe. Dark matter is used to explain phenomena such as gravitational lensing.

You are right; I got the terms mixed up. But my comment holds true for dark energy as well as for dark matter: it is a name given to the unknown whatever-it-is that causes the universe to expand. Like dark matter, it is invoked as the hypothetical cause of a real phenomenon. It does not derive from theory but from observed fact. And although there are various hypothetical explanations for it, all of them are post hoc in nature.

(The energy in the universe) needs to balance out in order for the zero-energy universe theory to be correct. The reason the universe expands is because of dark energy, and according to theories of dark energy it is supposed to be a positive energy, it just behaves weirdly and exerts a negative pressure on space.

The expansion balances it out. See here.

Potential energy is simply a potential for work to be done, not a real physical measurable energy.

My dear friend: you evidently find physics — particularly the more exotic departments of it — fascinating. Surely a closer acquaintance with the fundamentals of the subject can only enhance your enjoyment? Ask yourself, please — how can you understand what the concept 'dark energy' means when you apparently don't even know what ordinary energy is?

All energy is, ultimately, the capacity to do work. It is so by definition:

Units of measurement for energy are usually defined via a work process. The work performed by a given body on another is defined in physics as the force (SI unit: newton) applied by the given body, multiplied by the distance (SI unit: metre) of movement against the opposing force exerted by the other body. Thus, the energy unit is the newton-metre, which is called the joule. The SI unit of power (energy per unit time) is the watt, which is simply a joule per second.

This, too, may help. How to calculate potential energy: A simple tutorial.

There are other forms of potential energy besides the gravitational; the potential energy of combustion of gasoline, for example, or the stored charge in a capacitor. These, too, can be quite easily calculated. More about potential energy.

Astyanax
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Astyanax
Nonsense. Dark energy is a postulate intended to explain certain unexpected but well-documented phenomena, such as gravitational lensing.

ChaoticOrder
I think you're getting your words mixed up. Dark energy is used to explain the expansion of the universe. Dark matter is used to explain phenomena such as gravitational lensing.

You are right; I got the terms mixed up. But my comment holds true for dark energy as well as for dark matter: it is a name given to the unknown whatever-it-is that causes the universe to expand. Like dark matter, it is invoked as the hypothetical cause of a real phenomenon. It does not derive from theory but from observed fact. And although there are various hypothetical explanations for it, all of them are post hoc in nature.

(The energy in the universe) needs to balance out in order for the zero-energy universe theory to be correct. The reason the universe expands is because of dark energy, and according to theories of dark energy it is supposed to be a positive energy, it just behaves weirdly and exerts a negative pressure on space.

The expansion balances it out. See here.

Potential energy is simply a potential for work to be done, not a real physical measurable energy.

My dear friend: you evidently find physics — particularly the more exotic departments of it — fascinating. Surely a closer acquaintance with the fundamentals of the subject can only enhance your enjoyment? Ask yourself, please — how can you understand what the concept 'dark energy' means when you apparently don't even know what ordinary energy is?

All energy is, ultimately, the capacity to do work. It is so by definition:

Units of measurement for energy are usually defined via a work process. The work performed by a given body on another is defined in physics as the force (SI unit: newton) applied by the given body, multiplied by the distance (SI unit: metre) of movement against the opposing force exerted by the other body. Thus, the energy unit is the newton-metre, which is called the joule. The SI unit of power (energy per unit time) is the watt, which is simply a joule per second.

This, too, may help. How to calculate potential energy: A simple tutorial.

There are other forms of potential energy besides the gravitational; the potential energy of combustion of gasoline, for example, or the stored charge in a capacitor. These, too, can be quite easily calculated. More about potential energy.

edit on 18/1/14 by Astyanax because: of dangerous potential.

According to Loop Quantum Gravity mass itself is directly derived by space-time density... as in how much space-time is required to form stable braids x how many braids there are.

So we can conclude that energy = the vibration constant of space-time at it's fundamental level (quantum fluctuations). These fluctuations of space-time at the Planck scale are caused by the very rule I proposed. Zero is a non valid value. In other words space-time itself can never be truly still.

Do you follow?

Korg.

reply to post by Astyanax

The expansion balances it out.

Right... so now we need an "inflaton field" to help balance out these equations. Sounds like complete nonsense to me, there is a much simpler explanation for dark energy which allows a zero-energy universe without all these elaborate patch jobs.

There are other forms of potential energy besides the gravitational; the potential energy of combustion of gasoline, for example, or the stored charge in a capacitor.

There is a very crucial difference between these examples of potential energy and the potential energy created by gravity. You can measure the energy contained in the gasoline using quite simple equations if you know the exact quantity of gasoline. In a capacitor you can measure the charge by measuring the build up of electrons on the cap plates. In both of these cases there is a physical representation of the energy which can be measured. Gravity is completely different. When a plane flies high into the sky it doesn't gain energy/mass because it's higher in the earths gravitational field, there is nothing at all different about that plane compared to when it is on the ground (apart from the time dilation and length contraction but that's a whole other story). The point is that there no measurable energy difference, the gravitational force which is trying to pull that plane to the ground is a consequence of the space-time geometry around the Earth being warped by the large positive mass of the Earth, and it's absolutely debatable whether that geometry actually represents a state of negative energy, especially when viewed through the lense of LQG.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I alos have a " Hairbrained Theory " . Before our Universe was Created , it's Total Value was Zero . Afer our Universe came into being , it's Value was 1 . As our Universe Exspanded , all Matter and Energy became Fractions of 1 . When our Universe finally comes to an End due to the Theory of Entrophy , it's Value will return to Zero . How's that Sound ? ............

ChaoticOrder
When a plane flies high into the sky it doesn't gain energy/mass because it's higher in the earths gravitational field, there is nothing at all different about that plane compared to when it is on the ground (apart from the time dilation and length contraction but that's a whole other story). The point is that there no measurable energy difference, the gravitational force which is trying to pull that plane to the ground is a consequence of the space-time geometry around the Earth being warped by the large positive mass of the Earth, and it's absolutely debatable whether that geometry actually represents a state of negative energy, especially when viewed through the lense of LQG.

edit on 18/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Cant it be viewed as the plane is higher in earths gravity as like a surfer getting closer to the top of a wave, and then getting to outer space, escaping, would be passing over the wave. Because the earth is moving linearly (around the sun) through space its pulling its 'shell' of gravity with it, this pulling and the constant collapsing of the gravity field on the earths trail like a wave that is collapsing or like those movies where the walls slowly move inward on a room, except the earth is causing the walls to be separated so it is constantly as the earth travels through space this tunneling which then closes, and it is that closing that is the gravity field that compels the lighter elements to not all drift off into space maybe?

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

I alos have a " Hairbrained Theory " . Before our Universe was Created , it's Total Value was Zero . Afer our Universe came into being , it's Value was 1 . As our Universe Exspanded , all Matter and Energy became Fractions of 1 . When our Universe finally comes to an End due to the Theory of Entrophy , it's Value will return to Zero . How's that Sound ? ............

Sounds bad. The parts about zero at least.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

There is a much simpler explanation for dark energy which allows a zero-energy universe without all these elaborate patch jobs.

Indeed there is, but it is one of several competing explanations. Being simple doesn't make it the right one.

Concerning gravitational potential energy, I've already shown you how it is calculated. Perhaps you didn't bother to look at the link?

*

reply to post by Korg Trinity

According to Loop Quantum Gravity mass itself is directly derived by space-time density... as in how much space-time is required to form stable braids x how many braids there are.

So we can conclude that energy = the vibration constant of space-time at it's fundamental level (quantum fluctuations). These fluctuations of space-time at the Planck scale are caused by the very rule I proposed. Zero is a non valid value. In other words space-time itself can never be truly still.

Do you follow?

No, I don't. To say that energy is 'the vibration constant of spacetime' (whatever that is) makes no sense, since energy is a variable quantity, and constants are constant. LQG is one of many speculative hypotheses attempting to unite quantum theory and relativity. Unfortunately, it has yet to make a testable prediction that is not already made by existing physical theories, so there is no way of determining whether it is 'true'. Of course, that need not stop us from invoking it to sound impressive and learned to people who don't know any physics — what do you say?

Astyanax
No, I don't. To say that energy is 'the vibration constant of spacetime' (whatever that is) makes no sense, since energy is a variable quantity, and constants are constant. LQG is one of many speculative hypotheses attempting to unite quantum theory and relativity. Unfortunately, it has yet to make a testable prediction that is not already made by existing physical theories, so there is no way of determining whether it is 'true'. Of course, that need not stop us from invoking it to sound impressive and learned to people who don't know any physics — what do you say?

I'm quite sure that for many people LQG is very hard to fathom, and certainly any physicist that is clinging on to the standard model it is nothing more than a construct of imagination.

I didn't start this thread to discuss, argue or impress lesser learned people. If the thread was difficult to understand it's probably because you need to have a decent level of physics education to pick up from.

It looks like we have had to go back and cover quite basic physics here before people could even grasp what LQG is or how it means that energy even though it is a varying quantity is indeed a constant when considering space-time at the Planck scale. If I wanted to here I could spout the equations for the planck constant or

My above statement is exactly the same statement as stating that Zero is a non valid quantity.

For those that don't even know what the planck scale is we are talking about the very smallest of possible scales....

10 to the power of -35 of a meter.....

Let's look at just how small that actually is shall we?



This is what John Hagelin has to say about space-time at this size...



You could also watch the following as an introduction to the concepts of loop quantum cosmology..



Perhaps when you have watched the above you can understand what it is I am at least saying if not the math involved.

Peace,

Korg.

reply to post by Astyanax

Indeed there is, but it is one of several competing explanations. Being simple doesn't make it the right one.

I very much agree with that statement actually, but in this case it's clear that their patch job theories of what constitutes negative energy and how it balances out the positive energy is wrong. Based on what I've read around the internet on this topic it seems that even the majority of physicists are not satisfied with the explanation you have put forward in this thread.

Concerning gravitational potential energy, I've already shown you how it is calculated. Perhaps you didn't bother to look at the link?

You've shown how to calculate it using abstract math, but that wasn't my point. My point was that there is no physical representation of the energy in the system. There is nothing you can directly isolate and measure as the energy storage mechanism. In all the other examples you gave there is a physical representation and a clear mechanism for how the energy is stored.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

When anti-matter collides with normal matter it releases energy because they are both forms of positive matter but they are inverses or mirror images, so they annihilate each other and turn into pure energy.

This above is the way I view our REAL energies housed in the vessel called a body here on Earth. The science of the being as pure energy dwellers -- as a mirrored image -- seems to fit.