Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

ImaFungi
All the fundamental forces are intimately connected. I dont think you can get what occurs with one missing

We ignore gravity all the time in electric circuits because it's over a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than electromagnetism, which means it's close enough for me. There may be a gravitational effect but in a typical electric circuit we get what happens pretty well even if we ignore gravity.

they are all results of each other, and different aspects of the hierarchy of fundamental energy/matter and how it is split up amongst itself and how this splitting forces it to obey.

Either you got a Nobel prize I didn't hear about yet, or else we still don't have a proven unified field theory.

So bodies contain massive amounts of electrons right, and protons dont really have anything to do with electricity

In plasma, protons and electrons are both accelerated by electric fields, but because the charge to mass ratio of electrons is so much greater than protons, the electrons are much more mobile. In typical electric circuits though we generally consider that only the electrons move. Even when analyzing the movement of quasiparticle positive charges in semiconductors called "electron holes", it's still the result of the movement of electrons.

well now I have some personally ignorant questions admitingly, like do electrons need protons and/or neutrons to create electricity, do they depend on their electrical inertness to exist in relative relation to in order to produce the phenomenon of electricity?

I don't understand the question except I can say no neutrons are needed. But if you had helium plasma in an electric field, the neutrons would go for a ride along with the protons they are attached to.

Also im wondering, an entire planet moving through space, the sum of the electrons that compose the planet are neutralized by protons and neutrons so that there is no greater extended influence or interaction with the surrounding EM field of the planet, or your only argument is that the hierarchy of orders of power suggest that tiny electron electric power and force is of lower magnitude then other forces?

as I said above, gravity is over a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than electromagnetism so I don't know where you get the idea that there's anything weak about the forces on an electron. The strong nuclear force is stronger but I think by only about two orders of magnitude.

So when taking it to the sun, which is also composed of many electrons right, which is why it is so bright, because light comes from electrons right, well I admit I dont really know the argument or whats being discussed, but are you certain you are not arguing semantics?

Seems like you're rambling.

Arbitrageur
We ignore gravity all the time in electric circuits because it's over a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than electromagnetism, which means it's close enough for me. There may be a gravitational effect but in a typical electric circuit we get what happens pretty well even if we ignore gravity.

I was referring to the more macro scale of planets and stars. But my statement of all the forces being intimately linked and depending on one another still holds true, without gravity could you make electric circuits? And is it not in largely (or totally) do to the electron and existence of charged particles that gravity exists or is able to and does do what it does, and the force that brings atoms themselves together, and the forces that bring and hold atoms together to other atoms, and the forces that bring and hold a planet together is gravity. So yes the nature of gravity may depend on the nature of space the stuff is in and the mass of the stuff, while the nature of electric force depends on the electric nature of stuff and the nature of space a bit too.

We ignore gravity all the time in circuits, this is got me thinking about mass, and the lightness of air, the relative layers and massive quantities of atoms that is the atmosphere. Nestled in between the compact hard ground and the light but still gravitationally obedient air, is us, the half hard, half light, half smooshy stuff. Is it possible we can disregard gravity because it is the most immediate and ever factored in component, only to be noted when we wish to disobey its presence? It sorts all masses in its hierarchical order, so the only time we would need to consider gravity when dealing with circuits is if they all started to float away.

Either you got a Nobel prize I didn't hear about yet, or else we still don't have a proven unified field theory.

Not saying I know how its unified, just asking the question how/why wouldnt it be? Which is more likely, and what would even be the meaning or possibility of non unified fundamental forces? Like a machine build from two different realities with completely foreign natures of energy and matter about them and laws, and they just deal with working each other? Our material universe is just passing by this foreign gravity zone and the nature of the material universe is the result of this interaction?

In plasma, protons and electrons are both accelerated by electric fields, but because the charge to mass ratio of electrons is so much greater than protons, the electrons are much more mobile. In typical electric circuits though we generally consider that only the electrons move. Even when analyzing the movement of quasiparticle positive charges in semiconductors called "electron holes", it's still the result of the movement of electrons.

So in relation to a wire or something, is plasma like an area of electrical material, that could generate electricity? If electricity is 'electrons moving in a certain relation to one another', in what way is plasma not electricity or closely to
a little beyond closely related to the term electricity?

I don't understand the question except I can say no neutrons are needed. But if you had helium plasma in an electric field, the neutrons would go for a ride along with the protons they are attached to.

hm, I suppose I was asking whether a universe of pure electrons who create electricity, or if particles like protons and neutrons are needed for the phenomenon of electricity to exist? Like does electricity exist because of and in relation to non electrical materials?

as I said above, gravity is over a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than electromagnetism so I don't know where you get the idea that there's anything weak about the forces on an electron. The strong nuclear force is stronger but I think by only about two orders of magnitude.

I think I get the idea its weaker, even though im not even sure thats what I meant (I suppose I meant in scale and this is also a problem of my two sides of a same coin argument), because how many electrons of earth is the force of gravity keeping in place? Or are electrons of the ground constantly flying off into space? Or your point is the only reason they dont because any free electrons closer to the center of mass will be picked up by local strong forces at the atomic scale?

Seems like you're rambling.

Oh yes I was. Is electricity an electromagnetic phenomenon, or does the term electricity pointing only to a certain event of electromagnetic phenomenon including exclusively 2 or more electrons? Electricity is; Electrons moving in relation to one another? In a plasma are electrons moving in relation to one another?

ImaFungi
my statement of all the forces being intimately linked and depending on one another still holds true, without gravity could you make electric circuits?

I haven't tried, but if you are asking for my guess, I suppose it's comparable to trying to have sex in zero-G, meaning it's probably possible, but harder to do. Gravity does have its advantages.

the only time we would need to consider gravity when dealing with circuits is if they all started to float away.

Because it's so weak. If gravity was stronger and/or electromagnetism was weaker, we might have to worry about pumping electrons "uphill".

Not saying I know how its unified, just asking the question how/why wouldnt it be?

A lot of brilliant people including Einstein have worked on such a unified field theory so there's nothing wrong with the idea. Nature may in fact work that way.

My point was that I'm going to let nature tell me how nature is, and I'm not going to try to tell nature how it's supposed to behave based on some preconceived notion I might have that all its forces should be unified somehow. If they are, fine, and if not, that's fine too, but I'm open to either possibility.

Which is more likely, and what would even be the meaning or possibility of non unified fundamental forces?

To answer this look at two forces that have been unified into the "electro-weak force"; electromagnetism and the Weak Force. Before we unified them we considered them two different fundamental forces. Now that they've been unified, has that much really changed in their application?

So in relation to a wire or something, is plasma like an area of electrical material, that could generate electricity? If electricity is 'electrons moving in a certain relation to one another', in what way is plasma not electricity or closely to a little beyond closely related to the term electricity?

This has been discussed in great detail in this thread so I suggest reading it. Nobody is saying there's not a relationship, but it's important to define terms and understand exactly what is meant by electricity, and it also clarifies things to talk about specific aspects of electricity like voltage or potential, current, etc.

Think of it this way. We don't say a slab of metal is electricity, right? But it does have electrical properties if it's subjected to an electric field. I think of plasma similarly; I don't call it electricity, but when exposed to an electric field it has certain properties.

hm, I suppose I was asking whether a universe of pure electrons who create electricity, or if particles like protons and neutrons are needed for the phenomenon of electricity to exist?

Electrons aren't attracted or repelled by neutral particles, but they repel each other, so you could have some electrical effects like electron repulsion. But I'm not sure of the benefit of spending a lot of time thinking about another universe, since we are having enough trouble figuring out ours without making up imaginary universes to also figure out.

I think I get the idea its weaker, even though im not even sure thats what I meant (I suppose I meant in scale and this is also a problem of my two sides of a same coin argument), because how many electrons of earth is the force of gravity keeping in place? Or are electrons of the ground constantly flying off into space? Or your point is the only reason they dont because any free electrons closer to the center of mass will be picked up by local strong forces at the atomic scale?

It's pretty apparent that Mars once had liquid water, maybe for its first billion years, meaning it also had a denser atmosphere to allow liquid water to exist in such quantities on the surface. It's thought that Mars' lower gravity is a contributing factor in why the upper atmosphere was largely lost into space, when compared to Earth's higher gravity where it wasn't, but that's not the only reason. It's also got a weaker magnetic field.

Is electricity an electromagnetic phenomenon, or does the term electricity pointing only to a certain event of electromagnetic phenomenon including exclusively 2 or more electrons? Electricity is; Electrons moving in relation to one another? In a plasma are electrons moving in relation to one another?

I think you could say electricity is a subset of electromagnetism, but I think it's not too useful to try to assign any specific significance to such broad terms. If you really want understanding it's helpful to speak in more specific terms, to repeat, such things as voltage and current, which define better what you're talking about.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I agree with most of what you said except for the mars gravity thing i dont think the weaker gravity caused the loss of martian atmosphere at all. It was the weaker magnetic field. This started a process called sputtering where energetic particles coliding with the atmosphere literally knock it out into space. This means that in the distant past it had a stronger magnetic field than today and as we know alot more geological activity. The inner core of mars is all but dead now.

reply to post by dragonridr

Venus has no global magnetic field yet it has a very dense atmosphere.

Arbitrageur
I haven't tried, but if you are asking for my guess, I suppose it's comparable to trying to have sex in zero-G, meaning it's probably possible, but harder to do. Gravity does have its advantages.

No I meant without the existence of the force of gravity in anyway, implying maybe man would have never existed, or a planet that man could evolve on, to the point of being able to mine the parts of a circuit, and build a space ship, to go into space, to try and build a circuit in 0 G.

To answer this look at two forces that have been unified into the "electro-weak force"; electromagnetism and the Weak Force. Before we unified them we considered them two different fundamental forces. Now that they've been unified, has that much really changed in their application?

Im more concerned with truth then application, I suppose thats why we differ on anything. Why were they considered 2 different forces, and what led to them being unified, what is the general idea behind them being unified? If I had to guess it would be the phenomenon detected as two separate qualities and events/activity really have one source? Similar to why Electromagnetism was unified? All particles we know of have charge right? + or -, and neutral is both? So couldnt it be said that if all particles disappeared, there would be no matter, and thus, no gravity? So there is a relationship between all fundamental forces?

Think of it this way. We don't say a slab of metal is electricity, right? But it does have electrical properties if it's subjected to an electric field. I think of plasma similarly, I don't call it electricity, but when exposed to an electric field it has certain properties.

Even when it is not subjected to an electric field, does it have electrical properties? And since plasma is composed of electrically charged particles and "An electric field is generated by electrically charged particles" is plasma not always exposed to an electric field?

reply to post by ImaFungi


The simple answer to your question there doesnt have to be a unified theory we believe there is one because we are starting to see the connections. But if there isnt well thats that as they say. The reason we suspect it is simple originally the electric force and the magnetic force were considered separate things. Than we discovered they are indeed linked and now became the electromagnetic force. As far as now there starting to find links in the electromagnetic force with the strong and weak nuclear force such as Grand Unified Theory. The thing is physicist have a problem with gravity itself it remains separate gravitation is the only fundamental interaction still modeled as (classical/continuous) versus (quantum/discrete). Acting over potentially infinite distance, traversing the known universe, Gravitation is conventionally explained by physicists as a consequence of spacetime's dynamic geometry and is spacetime "curved" in the vicinity of mass or energy. This means Gravity is entirely different from the other forces and may never fit into a box.

I personally see gravity as not of this universe this is why we cant nail it down so to speak. It could easily be an interaction in another universe and we simply see its effects.

reply to post by dragonridr

I'm not sure what would cause you to think that a 62 percent reduction in gravitational attraction would have no effect on the retention of atmosphere.

Now as for the relative importance of the gravitational effect versus the magnetic field effect, perhaps the latter is a larger effect, but I wouldn't expect the gravitational effect to be negligible. Why would you expect that?

Here's a Harvard paper mentioning the size and by implication, gravity, as a widely suspected factor:

How Mars Lost its Atmosphere

There is a widespread suspicion that Mars thin atmosphere is in some way attributable to the planet's size.

That paper is dated but here's a more recent article referring specifically to the 38% of Earth's gravity making it easy for the upper layers of the atmosphere to escape:

Revealed: How Mars Lost Its Atmosphere

Mars’ modern atmosphere is only 1% the density of Earth‘s, but the planet’s watery phase is believed to have lasted for the first billion of its 4.5 billion years, which means its air must have been around that long too. But things were never likely to stay that way. Mars has only half Earth’s diameter, 11% its mass and 38% its gravity, making it easy for upper layers of the original atmosphere to have boiled away into the vacuum of space and been blasted out by meteor hits.

That article certainly implies the 62% reduction in gravity could be a contributing factor.

Phage
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Venus has no global magnetic field yet it has a very dense atmosphere.

Good point.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Ok let me rephrase i stand corrected i wont say it had no effect i just dont think it was the main cause. The magnetic field i think was the primary reason though perhaps there is a minimum size for a planetary body to maintain an atmosphere. though as i mentioned Venus kind of throws all that out the window as well being smaller and no magnetic field though co2 is a heavier element.

reply to post by dragonridr

The magnetic field i think was the primary reason though perhaps there is a minimum size for a planetary body to maintain an atmosphere.

Combination of the two...or three...or four.
Hypothesis: With a given level of solar wind (of an average density and velocity) and a body lacking a global magnetic field, there is a minimum mass required to retain an atmosphere of a given density.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Without gravity the universe as we know it wouldn't be here no stars no planets no plasma. All we would have is energy transversing the galaxy be a very quite place and rather dull.

Phage
reply to post by dragonridr

 

The magnetic field i think was the primary reason though perhaps there is a minimum size for a planetary body to maintain an atmosphere.

Combination of the two...or three...or four.
Hypothesis: With a given level of solar wind (of an average density and velocity) and a body lacking a global magnetic field, there is a minimum mass required to retain an atmosphere of a given density.

edit on 4/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well as i think about it we have Titan as well even smaller with a very dense atmosphere so im thinking maybe the key importance is the atmosphere must be replenished.possibly its dependant on what constitues the atmosphere that makes all the diffrence there may be certain balances that may need to be maintained but were drifting off topic so ill stop goodnight all.

dragonridr
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Without gravity the universe as we know it wouldn't be here no stars no planets no plasma. All we would have is energy transversing the galaxy be a very quite place and rather dull.

Yes but my point is its impossible for there not to be gravity because it is associated with energy/matter. Well this brings me to something I dont get I suppose. In the beginning, you are saying there would only be energy, so gravity needed to exist for this 'energy' to materialize? What is the energy like, thats non material? Was that just a pure energy of the same quality? Would it be bits of energy, particles? Or just one attached 3d sheet of ~solid energy? And no 'space' between any points, perfectly dense?

Well anyway, it appears whatever 'space' the material and energy of the universe exists in, is some 3d substance of energy, and is the reason the phenomenon of gravity exists...which is or is not a problem...It is a problem for us because its confusing and mysterious, but its not a problem because reality itself is always the solution, it is tautological, as in objective truth is what it is and thats all that is. So even though it makes me mad thinking about how possibly the universe and space, and is space infinite, and is space an energy dense manifold that creates gravity, and does that truly go on forever, but just in this one local space is the material universe? Or is there infinite purely non energetic, vacuum, that is nothing nothing. DO YOU KNOW HOW CRAZY THAT IS...NOTHING. Do you know? Can you even consider how crazy either way is? Either infinite nothingness, or finite nothingness? Surrounding, finite somethingness,in, what appears to be nothingness, which we call space, but that is actually something. We need to agree that space, in between solar systems, is a medium, that is contortable, the only other excuse for gravity would be if the universe is fake, and there is spooky illogical physical actions that can occur because its a contrived creation of some sort.

I dont know if the gravity field exists between galaxies, because the act of galaxy separation from one another, may be pulling the energetic density of gravity field that did exist there when everything was close together, maybe the 'increased acceleration/expansion' is pulling the gravity field thin. The brings up another point, about fields, are they quantized particles stuck together like molecules, or is it somehow, something we are not used to in the classical world (accept maybe plasma which I dont know much about or einstein condensate), a material/energy that takes up an area but has no parts. Yes the electron does this and fundamental particles, but for it to be the entire size of the universe, the gravity field, would be weird wouldnt it? Or just as weird, or not as weird, as a near infinitely quantized substance of gravity field, like the finest grain 'liquid/gas/solid/plasma' combo, which contorts to a masses motions and can receive momentum, and like a self correcting thing (cant think of a good example like jello or putty, but those arent good, something where you touch it and displaces and then remove your finger and it fills back in...water) so that covers gravity, and also would cover light, because light follows gravity curves, so that means the field of EM is connected to the gravity field.

Ok so, The space field. Matter that exists there. Forget about multiple universes because there is an end somewhere. What does it mean for there to be a non essence of nothingness that material can take up, and move about, and theoretically move in a direction for ever and if it started at apple point A, it would actually be able to get exponentially infinitely further away from it (though its a great time for someone like you, please do not bring up "well the universe is most likely curved so hyuhhyuh if you kept going in one direction youd curve around and end up on the other side of the universe, Mickhu Kochu told me that, isnt that awesome!"). So yes that is bizarre. This notion has led me to believe that there is some reason (I am of the firm belief that a finite quantity of something has always existed and always will, you will find it difficult to even propose one argument that would even start to tarnish that proposition even slightly) that the totality of stuff has not spread thin to the farfarfarfarfarfarfarfar infintely far reaches of every direction of infinite nothingness space over infinite time...or if this is the first time the universe ever happened, maybe it is true that it will just keep going forever.

But it might be self contained, and keep itself from drifting off and thinning out, into that infinite expanse surrounding it. Or... the infinite expanse might have some physical property (kill me) some ultimate pressure where its difficult for the totality of the energetic/material universe to expand and continue, so the universe is like a wave pool or machine and it just collapses in on itself, like its not really expanding, so much as everything inside it is changing size...that is a stupid notion. When its all said and done, or all said and just starting, its absolutely amazing, that all those galaxies exist. That this planet and we exist.

ImaFungi

dragonridr
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Without gravity the universe as we know it wouldn't be here no stars no planets no plasma. All we would have is energy transversing the galaxy be a very quite place and rather dull.

Yes but my point is its impossible for there not to be gravity because it is associated with energy/matter. Well this brings me to something I dont get I suppose. In the beginning, you are saying there would only be energy, so gravity needed to exist for this 'energy' to materialize? What is the energy like, thats non material? Was that just a pure energy of the same quality? Would it be bits of energy, particles? Or just one attached 3d sheet of ~solid energy? And no 'space' between any points, perfectly dense?

Well anyway, it appears whatever 'space' the material and energy of the universe exists in, is some 3d substance of energy, and is the reason the phenomenon of gravity exists...which is or is not a problem...It is a problem for us because its confusing and mysterious, but its not a problem because reality itself is always the solution, it is tautological, as in objective truth is what it is and thats all that is. So even though it makes me mad thinking about how possibly the universe and space, and is space infinite, and is space an energy dense manifold that creates gravity, and does that truly go on forever, but just in this one local space is the material universe? Or is there infinite purely non energetic, vacuum, that is nothing nothing. DO YOU KNOW HOW CRAZY THAT IS...NOTHING. Do you know? Can you even consider how crazy either way is? Either infinite nothingness, or finite nothingness? Surrounding, finite somethingness,in, what appears to be nothingness, which we call space, but that is actually something. We need to agree that space, in between solar systems, is a medium, that is contortable, the only other excuse for gravity would be if the universe is fake, and there is spooky illogical physical actions that can occur because its a contrived creation of some sort.

I dont know if the gravity field exists between galaxies, because the act of galaxy separation from one another, may be pulling the energetic density of gravity field that did exist there when everything was close together, maybe the 'increased acceleration/expansion' is pulling the gravity field thin. The brings up another point, about fields, are they quantized particles stuck together like molecules, or is it somehow, something we are not used to in the classical world (accept maybe plasma which I dont know much about or einstein condensate), a material/energy that takes up an area but has no parts. Yes the electron does this and fundamental particles, but for it to be the entire size of the universe, the gravity field, would be weird wouldnt it? Or just as weird, or not as weird, as a near infinitely quantized substance of gravity field, like the finest grain 'liquid/gas/solid/plasma' combo, which contorts to a masses motions and can receive momentum, and like a self correcting thing (cant think of a good example like jello or putty, but those arent good, something where you touch it and displaces and then remove your finger and it fills back in...water) so that covers gravity, and also would cover light, because light follows gravity curves, so that means the field of EM is connected to the gravity field.

Ok so, The space field. Matter that exists there. Forget about multiple universes because there is an end somewhere. What does it mean for there to be a non essence of nothingness that material can take up, and move about, and theoretically move in a direction for ever and if it started at apple point A, it would actually be able to get exponentially infinitely further away from it (though its a great time for someone like you, please do not bring up "well the universe is most likely curved so hyuhhyuh if you kept going in one direction youd curve around and end up on the other side of the universe, Mickhu Kochu told me that, isnt that awesome!"). So yes that is bizarre. This notion has led me to believe that there is some reason (I am of the firm belief that a finite quantity of something has always existed and always will, you will find it difficult to even propose one argument that would even start to tarnish that proposition even slightly) that the totality of stuff has not spread thin to the farfarfarfarfarfarfarfar infintely far reaches of every direction of infinite nothingness space over infinite time...or if this is the first time the universe ever happened, maybe it is true that it will just keep going forever.

But it might be self contained, and keep itself from drifting off and thinning out, into that infinite expanse surrounding it. Or... the infinite expanse might have some physical property (kill me) some ultimate pressure where its difficult for the totality of the energetic/material universe to expand and continue, so the universe is like a wave pool or machine and it just collapses in on itself, like its not really expanding, so much as everything inside it is changing size...that is a stupid notion. When its all said and done, or all said and just starting, its absolutely amazing, that all those galaxies exist. That this planet and we exist.

Yes not knowing can indeed drive you crazy i like to think one day we will truly understand gravity but who knows. Even crazier is the fact that the total energy in the universe is zero. Everytime we look at it we get a total energy of the universe as zero. Energy created by mass is cancelled by the negative energy of gravity.

dragonridr


Yes not knowing can indeed drive you crazy i like to think one day we will truly understand gravity but who knows. Even crazier is the fact that the total energy in the universe is zero. Everytime we look at it we get a total energy of the universe as zero. Energy created by mass is cancelled by the negative energy of gravity.

There is no such thing as negative energy.

ImaFungi

dragonridr


Yes not knowing can indeed drive you crazy i like to think one day we will truly understand gravity but who knows. Even crazier is the fact that the total energy in the universe is zero. Everytime we look at it we get a total energy of the universe as zero. Energy created by mass is cancelled by the negative energy of gravity.

There is no such thing as negative energy.

Cool. I'm hip. But what causes bad vibrations if not negative energy? Can you dig it?

ImaFungi
There is no such thing as negative energy.

Wisegeek has a write-up on it:

Negative Energy
Have you got a better source?

Arbitrageur

ImaFungi
There is no such thing as negative energy.

Wisegeek has a write-up on it:

Negative Energy
Have you got a better source?

edit on 14-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Well you beat me to it however in particle physics things are a little different and zero energy refers to vectors. "Positive" and "negative" are terms for the direction an energy or the vector of energy. Any object which attracts another also is attracted itself by that object, no matter if the force is magnetic, electrical or gravitation. If shown by vectors, one force is "positive", one is "negative", no matter how large or how small the force is.And as we discovered this balance is always zero.

reply to post by dragonridr

I did ask for a better source; have you got one? I don't think that source I posted was very good, however if I understand what you're talking about, I hadn't considered it negative energy, because simply flipping the spatial coordinate system can change the signs meaning the negative changes to positive and vice versa, so I considered them vector signs, and not a type of energy. The type of energy discussed in that link I posted doesn't flip signs when the spatial coordinate system is flipped. However according to this negative energy can be viewed in terms of a positive energy solution moving backward in time:

``Negative Energy'' Solutions: Hole Theory

Another way to look at the ``negative energy'' solution is as a positive energy solution moving backward in time. This makes the same change of the sign in the exponential. The particle would move in the opposite direction of its momentum. It would also behave as if it had the opposite charge.

Arbitrageur
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I did ask for a better source; have you got one? I don't think that source I posted was very good, however if I understand what you're talking about, I hadn't considered it negative energy, because simply flipping the spatial coordinate system can change the signs meaning the negative changes to positive and vice versa, so I considered them vector signs, and not a type of energy. The type of energy discussed in that link I posted doesn't flip signs when the spatial coordinate system is flipped. However according to this negative energy can be viewed in terms of a positive energy solution moving backward in time:

``Negative Energy'' Solutions: Hole Theory

Another way to look at the ``negative energy'' solution is as a positive energy solution moving backward in time. This makes the same change of the sign in the exponential. The particle would move in the opposite direction of its momentum. It would also behave as if it had the opposite charge.

I hate to do this because i hate giving people math homework but this will give you an idea of why the unverse has zero energy or well close to it as we can tell.

www.curtismenning.com...