Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: "A unifying theory of dark energy and dark matter"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5

    "A unifying theory of dark energy and dark matter"

    My theory is that space itself is made of true antimatter particles (as opposed to what I am calling "antipolarmatter," made in labs using oppositely charged particles) that interacts with matter, and even itself, by having a very slight anti-gravitational charge.

    1) Quantum Electrodynamics treats points in space as a quantum state in which each particle interacts with, and creates it's own 'individual field' that only one fundamental particle at a time can exist in. We therefore observe matter to be electromagnetically bound particles of gravitationally bound energy through a field of 'empty' space. If matter is gravitationally bound to itself, then the true opposite would have an anti-gravitational energy, even against itself because if the nature of matter is to fall in on itself, then it's opposite would push away from itself into a point of equilibrium with itself; where they stop interacting with themselves to a point of equal balance.

    2) Expansion theory describes light being slowed down and red-shifted due to the well known Doppler effect that the current theory is because space is "expanding" and time itself slows the light down due to being stretched with space being equal constants to each other. Instead this could be explained by space itself having a minuscule anti-gravitational charge ever slightly slowing, and therefore red-shifting, the photon itself. We can see that matter itself has an effect on light through gravitational lensing, so therefore antimatter should have the opposite effect, and so an effect none-the-less.

    3) According to the double-split quantum mechanics experiments we also observe photons to act like a wave in the vacuum of space and the current theory states that a photon is both a particle, and a wave of possibilities, which is even understood to be baffling that it exists as both. If we treat space itself as made up of invisible antimatter particles, then this explains how it exists as both because the packets of energy are being slightly effected by space itself, which is also acting in a predictable manner.

    4) Dark energy and dark matter make up 95% of the observable universe, and we see it in the formulation of galaxies in how they manage to stay together at such stellar masses, and not flung about in a giant mess of material, and this could be the effects of space on a grand scale attempting to keep itself at it's equilibrium state by slightly trying to condense matter into it's most compact form possible. A recent study publicized "suggests that both dark phenomena can be unified into a single negative mass fluid," and could also be explained if we look at space as true antimatter.
    Source: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/ab...a32898-18.html

    Original Post
    "A unifying theory of dark energy and dark matter: Negative masses and matter creation within a modified ΛCDM framework"

    I've had a theory that was confirmed by this publication and I didn't know where else to share it. I was thinking that space itself is true "anti-matter." If the main property of matter is being gravitationally bound to itself, then true anti-matter would repel even itself, therefore space itself has a tiny push on everything. If you think of matter as a physical thing, space itself is the true opposite property (the true opposite, as compared to anti-mater particles made in the lab with opposite charged particles).
    There is further evidence if we look at the expansion theory differently as well; the red shift caused by particles slowing down is caused by the very tiny push space itself gives. With even quantum physics giving further proof when particles that are shot through empty space show a wave function, because it's traveling on the waves caused by the push of space. And what this publication confirmed, is that the 95% of "dark energy/matter" we couldn't identify in the universe, is caused by this slight push on all matter.
    Last edited by Captain Stone; 2018-Dec-30 at 10:17 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,067
    Captain Stone

    First, welcome to CQ.

    Second, you are advocating a non-mainstream idea, what we call Against The Mainstream (ATM). For such advocacy, we have a special section of the forum called ATM. I have moved your thread to this section.

    I would strongly suggest you review the stickies at the top of the ATM section, as it has some special rules that you are required to follow.

    I would also point out the fact that the idea has been published in a journal does not change the fact that this is not a currently mainstream idea. It also doesn't matter if it is your own idea, someone else's, or some combination of the two; you are presenting the idea here and it is up to you to answer questions put to you about it and to defend the idea.

    If this defense is more than you are prepared to handle, please say so in your next post. We will close the thread - no harm, no foul. But if you want to continue you, you will be expected to follow these rules.

    Lastly, there is a third option - if you ONLY wish to ask questions about the paper you linked to, but not advocate those ideas, we can move the thread to Q&A. People can give you mainstream answers to your questions, but you may not promote non-mainstream ideas in Q&A; only ask about them. Again, if that is your desire, please say so in your next post.

    Thanks, and have fun.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5
    Thank you for the welcome, I am happy to have found this place being an astronomy space geek, and am a fan of Fraser and his YouTube channel. That's what gave me the idea that this would be the best place to bring up these theories here.

    After reading the stickies, I feel I could present the ideas in a clearer manner for discussion and am going to edit for clarity and to break it down cause it's all currently one paragraph. My honest intentions were to just have a place to be like, I told ya so, when down the line this is what they discover, but I am totally open to the idea of discussion and continuing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Stone View Post
    My theory is that space itself is made of true antimatter particles (as opposed to what I am calling "antipolarmatter," made in labs using oppositely charged particles) that interacts with matter, and even itself, by having a very slight anti-gravitational charge.....
    This is a bad start. You are defining a new particle, but you're giving it the same name as an old, existing particle, and you're renaming the old, existing particle! You should just give your "new particle" a new name and leave the old, existing particle (antimatter) alone!

    As you know, "regular" antimatter is oppositely charged but has positive gravitational effect.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5
    Okay yeah, I can see why that would be an issue with renaming things... I've just personally always had an issue with what scientists currently call 'antimatter' because it's still made up of particles of matter, and like you mentioned, with still having a gravitational effect on other matter. Calling the new particle "space" may also be kind of confusing as well, and specially when trying to describe is as to be what space is made of. Maybe just pull a Tesla and call the particle "ether?"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Stone View Post
    Okay yeah, I can see why that would be an issue with renaming things... I've just personally always had an issue with what scientists currently call 'antimatter' because it's still made up of particles of matter, and like you mentioned, with still having a gravitational effect on other matter.
    Strictly speaking, antimatter is made up of particles of antimatter (or anti-particles, if you prefer).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5
    I am really just using the term in attempts to describe my theory. Maybe we can call it antimass?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Stone View Post
    I am really just using the term in attempts to describe my theory. Maybe we can call it antimass?
    When hypothetical matter that interacts with matter by having a repulsive gravitational effect has been postulated before, it's usually called something like "negative mass" or "negative matter" (the paper you linked does this, as well). So that's probably the best choice of a term. We've discussed possible hypothetical versions of negative matter a couple times here on CQ. I note that to behave in the same way as dark energy, which is not "diluted" as the universe expands, the authors here need to postulate negative matter that is continuously created. The author raises some interesting ideas, but I think they'd need significantly more analysis to show that this really works for a broad range of galaxies. It would also need to address some of the additional evidence for dark matter beyond just rotation curves (for example, gravitational lensing, cluster dynamics, temperatures of intracluster gas, and so forth).
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,067
    22 days with nothing further... we're done.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •