It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
With the newly devoped logical mind that can see patterns, it thinks it can "solve" the randomness of the large ancient universe.
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.
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...
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...
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.
Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
Space is not curved and it does not bend
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
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.
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.
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...
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...
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?