A Universe of Negatives...negative-height, negative-width, negative-depth...

It seems to me, that if Einstein's Energy/Mass Conversion Theory can allow for Negative Energy and Negative Mass...why not extend that to other realms of reality? The only two left are Space and Time...what the heck?

I DO have a concern with Negative Space and Inverse Space. What's the difference between a Negative and an Additive Inverse...unless you're multiplying, I mean...are we mixing Mathamatical metaphores here?

[Edited on 15-5-2004 by Toelint]

To explain negative space, imagine a spaceship facing "forwards" but moving in the opposite direction. Thats a very basic answer and probably not the best way to put it. I'm not even going to begin to try to explain inverse space.

[Edited on 5/15/04 by xenophanes85]

I was thinking..

Is Energy and Mass symmetric in the case of 'Matter can neither be created or destroyed'?
So it would read 'Matter can be created and destroyed'
An example of this would be hawking radiation; a pair of virtual (fermoins?) are created(particle and its anti self
), but one falls into black whole so the other one is here to stay forever I guess. So its energy been created!

No, it wasn't created..

Anything that falls into a black hole raises its mass, and therefore its event horizon grows, which is like a measure of the entropy, or the amount of energy contained within the black hole. Matter equates to energy in that oh-so-loveable equation, E=mc^2, which is what gives us the atom bomb. In a _tiny_ amount of matter, we have a _massive_ amount of energy. They do equate, but with a large difference in between.



Something not being fully addressed here are dimensional polarities. Let me elaborate.

+/-, positive/negative, anti/norm - our 3 well known polarities. Well, let's think about this a moment, we have the simplest, +/-, this could be like a line, everything on one side is +, on the other, -. We add a perpendicular line, we now have our + and - separation, but in addition, on one side of this new second line we have anti+ and anti- instead of norm+ and norm-. Add yet another perpendicular, and we may now have positivenorm+, positivenorm-, positiveanti+, positiveanti-, negativenorm+, negativenorm-, negativeanti+, and negativeanti-. Now that's a lot of different types, but it is representable by a triple sign. ---, --+, -+-. -++. +--, +-+, ++-, +++. Note, we have 3 dimensions, now. We began with a one dimensional polarity, +/-, it became 2 dimensional, ++/--, and finally 3 dimensional, +++/---. I think that this may actually be my own theory, I'm not sure if it is already a discussed and opened book in the field of physics, but the point is, you should be thinking of this. It has an affect on TCP, but it also affects natural thought and philosophy. Very fun to muse on when bored. Good day!

Actually, it can't be any harder to explain than Imaginary-Inverse-Matter/Time/Energy...Hmmm...

I was just wondering, would a universe existing in Negative Time, occupied by Negative Matter, rush backward on itself, to it's birth? Would a Baseball player in such a universe throw a ball by pulling it into his chest?

Just a thought...

Dang, Vienden! Honestly, I never even considered a third polarity...THANK YOU!

[Edited on 16-5-2004 by Toelint]

An answer to your question: Yes.

You don't need the negative matter.

There's three symmetries. Whether time is moving forward/backward, which is really defined as the motion of particles, there's whether the particles are anti or not, and there's what would happen if it was the exact mirror image. That's the TCP symmetries. If you were to reverse the motion of particles, you would in effect reverse time. This can work both ways - were you to literally reverse time you would have to reverse the motion of particles. Therefore, in this world, (to steal from A Brief History Of Time) a broken glass on the floor would fly back together, fill back up with water, and come to rest on the table, entropy in the universe would lower, you would know what was about to happen, but wouldn't be able to remember what just happened a second ago, and the universe would eventually collapse on itself.

Quite a bit of concern was spent over this in the time that scientists believed in a 'big cycle', essentially a big bang, big crunch, big bang, repeat. They felt that particles would move normally until gravity began to pull them back, then they would move perfectly in reverse. This was very shortly feared to be the topsy turvy world of remembering the future and watching things fix themselves. Until they discovered that the T symmetry wouldn't really be broken in this case.. And that that isn't going to happen to our universe.. Ah well, twas fun in lasting.

Edit: The funnest bits of dimensional polarities come when you try to deal with 11 dimensions!

[Edited on 16-5-2004 by Viendin]

Lets imagine the Universe as an event that happens during structure fires: the backdraft. The backdraft is an phenomenon that happens when gas is building up behind a door. The pressure becomes too great, the door explodes, then the gas contracts back into the room. However, backdrafts dont follow the same "path" in contraction as the did in expansion. Is the Universe an "exact backdraft" or is it a "random backdraft"? Would time be reversed, or would space only collpase?

[Edited on 5/17/04 by xenophanes85]

That would be impossible, since mass, velocity, distance are all absolute values, this makes no sense.

Just to humor you, I guess I'll try and think of it. Well, there would be no gravity, unless it was like, things lifting off... we would also be bunches of atoms that could sparatically move around like little mosaics. Music and sound would probably be very strange as well, not sure if it would be flat, sharp, or the same, but still... intriguing!

Humor me all you wish, it isn't my theory, and they've proven it wrong countless ways. It was just an idea that if the universe would end in a 'big crunch', then everything would get to a certain slow point, then stop, then start moving backwards again. It was in 'A Bried History Of Time' - And it no longer counts for diddly, because we know there won't be a bing crunch.

umm! i thought the velocity of something with mass is NOT absolute. Its why we have special relativity.( but light has a fixed velocity)

or maybe im wrong ...

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by quiksilver]

Originally posted by quiksilver
umm! i thought the velocity of something with mass is NOT absolute. Its why we have special relativity.( but light has a fixed velocity)

Light has a Constant Maximum Value within a Vacuum but can have and be measured at various Speeds below it's Max. For example, when light travels through Water or a Prism, the speed changes which is why Light bends and warps in water and is split into colors when going through a prism.

The speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. This is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second, and approximately 186,000 miles per second.

The term mass in special relativity is used in a couple of different ways. Specifically, mass can refer to either the rest mass or the relativistic mass. The rest mass, or invariant mass, is an observer independent quantity, while the relativistic mass, or apparent mass depends on one's frame of reference. In particular, the relativistic mass increases with velocity while the rest mass stays the same.

**EDIT: Interesting Note about the Above Definition for Mass I just noticed. Some will understand better than others about the problem in using the idea of, "The rest mass, or invariant mass, is an observer independent quantity.", within physics. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, do a search for 'Observer Independence within Quantum Physics/Mechanics' or something along those lines.

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by mOjOm]

I was having a problem with all that "absolute" talk. Of course, the reason the speed of light is recognized as "C" (in Einstein's Theory) is because it's the ONLY constant in/of itself. There IS another constant...the maximum amount of Energy you can get out of a given amount of Matter.

ANYWAY...I was wondering...with all these Negatives, Inverses, and Imaginaries, isn't it possible that a Negative Universe might be a Nanoverse? I mean, can it be soooo small that it actually lacks an atomic signature? Let's face it, with our limited powers of perception, how would we know...even if it were right infront of us??

Originally posted by Viendin
Humor me all you wish, it isn't my theory, and they've proven it wrong countless ways. It was just an idea that if the universe would end in a 'big crunch', then everything would get to a certain slow point, then stop, then start moving backwards again. It was in 'A Bried History Of Time' - And it no longer counts for diddly, because we know there won't be a bing crunch.

Ahh, yes 'A brief history of time' -> Stephen Hawking.
A great read not just on the history of physics, but also a great primer for string theory.

Additionally Big Bang/Big Crunch vs The cold universe debate probably won't end for quite some time. How long did the ether/particle duality debate last? I know I am comparing apples to oranges, but I still feel it's too early to say one way or another is 'proven'.

Mayhaps not over, but it looks like there won't be a big crunch - leave it to string theorists though, Ekpyrosis!

I love Ekpyrosis, maybe because it clicked with me the second I heard about it, and from what I read in the magazine article I made a whole bunch of small modifications to their theory - I thought it might have been interesting to bring up my ideas with a physicist.. until I found out that most magazine articles are written on what happened like, 2 years ago in the field, so, when reading a more recent journal, I found out that my changes had already been implemented!

[/tooting of own horn]