Strange idea for exotic matter

[Muddler]

Strange idea for exotic matter / antigravity

I have spent quite some time on an idea I'd like to present here. Before I start, I'd like to make some points clear (due to some reactions I witnessed on other threads):

1. This theory has not been tested in any way, so I'm not trying to present it as "real" or anything, I just want to discuss it and catch some new ideas on it.

2. So far I don't even know, if this theory is of any use to present problems. I just find the image and consistency it seems to create quite appealing.

3. If you can tell me, why this theory is absolute nonsense I'd be really happy! So I can stop worrying and think about something else!

Let's get started.
The idea is simple and there have been similar approaches in the past:
I propose that by the birth of the universe two different kinds of matters were created, and I do not mean matter and antimatter (!), but matter with positive mass as we have observed so far, and an (nearly?) equal amount of exotic matter, which I will call anti-G-matter (stupid name, I know, but I wasn't able to think of anything better yet...) with the following characteristics:

- anti-G-matter has got a negative mass (the effect of which I understand as a spacetime-warp into the "opposite" direction)

- anti-G-matter attracts its own kind just the way "positive" matter does, but acts repelling to "positive" matter

- anti-G-matter (potentially) exists in the same variety of particles we were able to observe so far (which means matter as well as antimatter, and also "massless" particles like photons, etc.)

- (G-)matter and anti-G-matter are not able to "annihilate" each other or interact in any way, despite the gravitational effects.

I know, all this matter/antimatter/anti-G-matter/anti-anti-G-matter is confusing, but the real weird part is still to come:

Considerations for the structure of the universe:

-there is nothing like "empty space". All space is filled with either G-matter or anti-G-matter.

- distinct (i.e. "shaped") particles of either kind can only exist, when embedded in a surplus of the opposing matterform

which means: we live in a region of the universe where anti-G-matter (in some undefined homogenous form) is the predominate matterform, so G-matter can "condensate" to distinct particles (the way drops of oil form spheres in water, or the other way round - not the best example, but sufficient to form an image).

Consequences:

- the visible universe might only be one region where anti-G-matter (incidently ?) predominates, so stars can form and emit light we are able to
observe

- behind so far undefined areas of transition there might be regions of anti-G-galaxies or anything (I know - that doesn't sound very new...), but anti-G-photons emitted by potential anti-G-stars can't be detected by our G-matter-based technology (ha, ha, good one, ain't it? So you can't disprove it that easily. I know thought-experiments like that don't lead you anywhere, but I just like to think it through. Maybe anti-G-light isn't even able to pass the transition-zones. In fact it shouldn't be able to exist at all in our part of the universe for reasons mentioned above. At this point I have to admit, that I like the idea of http://www.ModelOfReality.org that photons don't exist at all. My homogenous anti-G-mass might be the adequate medium for their idea of pulsar-waves)

-the actual mass of our universe would be optional (we just got to measure it ) from mathematically zero to almost anything (stating that both kinds of mass were created in unequal amounts)

-the proposed expansion of the universe might just be a "solution-effect", caused by both mass-forms' tendency to repell each other. The whole universe might be trying to reach a state of balance, where both forms of mass are totally separated, which would then mean the end of time and space.

Are you still with me??
If not, I can understand.
So what do we gain by such a strange idea?

1. Beauty - I always hated gravity to be a non-dual force

2. Possibilites - This theory might explain, why there is such a discrepancy between the mass in the universe we calculated and the mass we measured.

3. Fun - I just like to develop silly ideas and discuss them with smart people with more experience in physics, who can tell me, where I am awfully wrong...

If some points where not explained properly (which is quite probable) or you have additional questions (there is a lot more to this theory I thought of, but did not post here) -> feel free to ask!

OK, I hope someone managed to read all of this crazy stuff and still likes to talk to me

 

[Entropy]

Theres one big problem with your theory. Negative mass particles are very weird according to theory. Not only do they produce anti-gravity but they have negative inertia, meaning that they require kinetic energy to slow down. These types of theoritical particles are called tachyons and travel faster than the speed of light, sometimes at infinite velocity because they require infinite energy to slow them down to the speed of light. This comes from the equation:

$$E^2 = P^2 + M^2$$

As you can see, if you through in negative masses you get imaginary energies which just leads to a whole lot of trouble. But really all I know about the subject. Maybe someone else can add more.

 

[force5]

Muddler,

A Thought experiment is a great tool. Most good ideas start out this way. But, if you intend to ever produce an effective result, you need to do your own preliminary studies until you get to a point where someone would be willing to devote their time to assist you. Of course the benefits are you build a foundation of knowledge to draw on and expand. The more time you are willing to put into an idea, the more willing people are to support your effort.

just my thoughts...stay active.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Muddler,

You are right in one item at least.
As the Newton's III law is fair on today also, then gravitation should have equal opposite force. It is a force of propagation. Propagation and gravitation are an opposite actions (forces).

 

[Muddler]

Theres one big problem with your theory. Negative mass particles are very weird according to theory. Not only do they produce anti-gravity but they have negative inertia, meaning that they require kinetic energy to slow down. These types of theoritical particles are called tachyons and travel faster than the speed of light, sometimes at infinite velocity because they require infinite energy to slow them down to the speed of light. This comes from the equation:

$$E^2 = P^2 + M^2$$

As you can see, if you through in negative masses you get imaginary energies which just leads to a whole lot of trouble. But really all I know about the subject. Maybe someone else can add more.

Thanks for your answer. I think I have to explain some more of my theory:
anti-G-mass should not be identical to tachyons. Negativ mass does not mean that (imaginary) anti-G-mass particles travel faster than light. Of course negative inertia does not make much sense, therefore I have the following proposals (or explanations):

1. Theoretically an equal amount of energy should be needed to accelerate anti-G-mass to a certain speed as well as G-mass.

The meaning of the negative sign in energy might be something that has to be discussed in a non-mathematical way: if we assume that mass and energy can be transformed into each other (as Einstein stated), then anti-G-mass would be connected to an "own kind" of energy. That would mean, "positive" energy can only influence "positive" mass in a direct way and have only indirect (gravitational) influence to anti-G-matter and anti-G-energy.

So it can be argued that "negative energy" is not the mathematical opposite of energy (in a way that "negative energy" + "positive energy" would annihilate each other), but can be understood to be just that "anti-G-kind" of energy.
To my eyes it is impossible to talk about energy without taking the corresponding type of matter into consideration. I know this is quite a hard step, because energy always seems to be something universal and untouchable. But this is just the natural consequence of this whole anti-G-matter-idea.

2. The formula you gave contained M in the square - so the sign is no of importance anyway (which would perfectly fit into my understanding of this matter)

I know that as long as we lack the real understanding of the connection between mass and energy (which means to me the very nature of the physical event that occurs on the transition from energy to mass), this whole stuff I'm talking about seems not very useful.
It might be in the future, I'll surely keep working on it...

 

[Entropy]

Read this article: http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw61.html. Its about a possible "Tachyon Drive" but it tells a lot about tachyons.

Thanks for your answer. I think I have to explain some more of my theory:
anti-G-mass should not be identical to tachyons. Negativ mass does not mean that (imaginary) anti-G-mass particles travel faster than light. Of course negative inertia does not make much sense, therefore I have the following proposals (or explanations):

First off, negative masses would have negative energy, not a whole new unique type of energy or something.

Sorry but you really don't have anything to support what you just said. I'm not trying to shut you down but the truth is you just can't say this doesn't or that does without some shread of support. Thats the difference between a theory and a postulate.

Postulate is some idea that is assumed to be true or is self-evident in some way although techniquely it can't be proven. Take for example the Triangle Postulate which states: "the sum of the angles of a triangle is two right angles." Common sense tells you that of course this is true, its obviously right? You're never seen a triangle that didn't follow this rule. But that fact is that there is no mathematical proof for this and because its impossible to test every possible triangle because there are an infinite amount of different triangles. But we just assume its true, and it works.

A theory, theorem or a law (laws a little different but very similiar) on the other hand is based off of postulates or experiments which are assumed to be true. From a few postulates arise many theories and laws which leads to unique ways of thinking. Take for example the Euclid's Five Postulates which in turn give raise to Euclidian Geometry, a completely unqiue prespective on the universe that can explain very complex things with five simple assumptions.

You see you just claim negative-mass particles do not travel faster than light but why? Because they don't make sence? How doesn't it make sence? Explain.

Anyways don't be discouraged. You've got a creative mind and all you need to do is research. If you see a word you don't understand, look it up! Thats what I do. If I'm really interested in a subject I have to know more about it that any of my peers, or even teachers sometimes. Like in my physics class when we studied quantum physics (something I hope to suriously get involved in my adulthood) I had to know and understand everything about it, but that's just me. But still stating your mind is a good thing because it does help you learn.

 

[Muddler]

Hi Entropy!

Thanks for your answer and the link to the "tachyon-drive"-page, really interesting to read!

I know, I am bit fast in saying what should be and what doesn't. All I can talk about is the concept of my theory and what should be according to that theory. All I can do at the moment is assume. I am constantly trying to match my assumptions to current physics and logic (through your help! - thanks for that!).

First off, negative masses would have negative energy, not a whole new unique type of energy or something.

Of course negative mass means negative energy! That's not the point. What I am trying to do is, to explain what negative energy means. There is no problem doing mathematical operations with negative energy, but that doesn't tell us much about the nature of negative energy.
Can you really imagine, what negative velocity means? How can something move less than being inert? I am just proposing a new way to look at the "-" sign.

I hope you agree with me, that mass and energy are equivalent. Therefore I can't speculate about the properties of negative masses without doing the same for negative energy. And that's just what I am trying to do: form a picture of our universe that allows negative masses without twisting one's mind.

You see you just claim negative-mass particles do not travel faster than light but why? Because they don't make sence? How doesn't it make sence? Explain.

I don't say it doesn't make sense in general. I don't have a problem with i.e. tachyons traveling faster than light.
But my concept of negative mass would not necessarily be combined with velocity greater than c. Just the contrary! I think, that negative mass would require negative kinetic energy to gain a positive velocity.Thus the effect when coming near c would be comparable to positive mass: the energy would go against (negative) infinity!

All the speculations about tachyons through E²=P²+M² never deal with E being < 0, so I don't see why negative mass would inevitably lead to velocity above lightspeed.

My problem is, that I claim positive and negative masses to be tightly interwoven. Remember: I state that we are completely surrounded by anti-G-matter. That is why anti-G-matter should then (at least to our perception) have the same kinetic properties as positive matter.

The idea is, that positive energy can not be directly applied to negative mass, for that is something "that wouldn't make sense" to me.

I know this is really strange, but I do not intend to criticize the mathematical value of negative mass. All I want to say is, that not all mathematical considerations can be usefully applied to reality (whatever "reality" may be).
Sometimes it is the interpretation of formulas that leads to a deeper understanding and I only want to understand.
This whole issue may be a bit too philosphical, but I'm really working on the physical part of it...

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Some effects should define properties of anti-G-matter. If G-matter is object having mass then it is necessary to define what effects creates mass and then to invert them. Whether exist anti-G-matter as well as whether it is necessary for the universe this is another question.

 

[force5]

Hi Muddler;

I've also done some thinking about Dark(exotic) Matter. Some of my ideas are just as speculative as yours. First of all, I think dark matter is no different than regular matter. With one exception, regular positive matter is emerged in negetive energy with a very high frequency. From what I've read on the subject, most dark matter is either in black holes or in the halo area around the outer edges of galaxies. Therefore, most of the radiation that dark matter is exposed to is of a wave length that has little or no effect.

My theories predict that;

1. Dark matter attracts dark matter.
2. regular matter/mass attracts regular matter.
3. dark matter repells regular matter.

In other words, I think we are wittnessing a separation of dark matter and dark energy from normal matter as a result of the decay process. B. green and I differ on this point. He speculates that the cosmos lacks enough mass to reverse the expansion process. Whereas, I postulate that in the end, we will have only dark matter and dark energy. Other words, normal matter will no longer exist. The dark matter will then consume most of the dark energy resulting in the BIG Crunch.

Just my thoughts...Stay active

 

[Muddler]

Hi force!

Glad to see someone with similar ideas!

...regular positive matter is emerged in negetive energy with a very high frequency.

Huh? I am sorry, but I'm not getting this one. Could you please explain a little more here ? Where does the negative energy come from? And what do you mean by "very high frequency"? I'd like to understand, so please tell me!

My theories predict that;

1. Dark matter attracts dark matter.
2. regular matter/mass attracts regular matter.
3. dark matter repells regular matter.

Great! That's exactly what I state! So if you like, tell me a little more about your concept. This way I might see where mine is flawed or might need modification!

Hope to hear from you!


P.S. If you like to know more about my theory - I'll be happy to tell you!

 

[Lama]

Some analogy:

The right side of our brain is connected to the left side of our body.

The left side of our brain is connected to the right side of our body.

From outside our body looks like that it has a simple left right symmetry.

But from inside we get the left down to right and right down to left symmetry.

Now let us go back to G-matter and anti-G-matter.

If you use my inside outside form of symmeties, then what relations can be found between G-matter and anti-G-matter?

 

[Muddler]

...If you use my inside outside form of symmeties, then what relations can be found between G-matter and anti-G-matter?

I am sorry, but I am not sure I understand what your question is.

It might very well be, that the relations I like to assign to matter and anti-G-matter are conversed in some way, but my main point is, that there are two sides (no matter which "side" is connected to which effect).

So far I only like to find out if there is a symmetry for gravitation at all. My suggestion might provide a possible image for such a symmetric connection.

If you could be a little more specific with your question, I would be happy to answer it!

 

[Lama]

Let us ask it in this way:

Is there any symmetrical relation between G and anti-G in your thought experiment?

 

[Muddler]

Let us ask it in this way:

Is there any symmetrical relation between G and anti-G in your thought experiment?

Yes, there is!
In fact, the whole idea is all about symmetry!

I simply suggest, that the properties of gravitation we observe are a combined effect of G-matter/ant-G-matter interaction, thus making the curvature of spacetime a symmetric instead of a singlesided phenomenon.

My idea would not contradict the current concept of gravitation, it would only add some conceptional freedom to explain possible problems (at least that's what I hope... So far I don't know if any current mass/gravitation problem can be more easily solved using my theory).

 

[force5]

Hi Muddler;

Hi force!

Glad to see someone with similar ideas!

Huh? I am sorry, but I'm not getting this one. Could you please explain a little more here ? Where does the negative energy come from? And what do you mean by "very high frequency"? I'd like to understand, so please tell me!

Great! That's exactly what I state! So if you like, tell me a little more about your concept. This way I might see where mine is flawed or might need modification!

P.S. If you like to know more about my theory - I'll be happy to tell you!

Sorry I didn't explain it very well. Normal matter is comprised mostly of the elements which in most part have a half life and decay into other lesser elements and give off radiation, with maybe the exception of the proton? I think of all normal matter that eventually radiates away from the source system as negative energy(electro-magnetic).

I don't think of dark matter as "wimps" as some have considered. But, possibly a stable form of matter such as the proton.

I'm sorry, but I'm to old and to lazy to spend anytime documenting all of this stuff. Thats why I like this forum. If I can help stimulate someone with simular common interest, this would be my reward.

Stay active!

 

[Lama]

-there is nothing like "empty space". All space is filled with either G-matter or anti-G-matter.

   G = Gravity                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                
   . = Particle                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                
   - = Anti-Matter                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                
   + = Matter                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                
   E = Enenergy                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                
   > or < = Motion                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                
   [B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B] = Unkown Matter                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                
    Universe n          Universe n+1        Universe n+2        Universe n+3                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                
    -----G-----         --anti-G---         -----G-----         --anti-G---                                                                                     
    |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |                                                                                     
    -> <- +> <+         -> <- +> <+         -> <- +> <+         -> <- +> <+                                                                                     
    .>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.    
    .>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.    
    .>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.    
... .>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<. ...
    .>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.    
    .>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.    
    .>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.<<<<[B][COLOR=Blue]?[/COLOR][/B]>>>>.>>>>E<<<<.

What is ? by your theory ?

 

[jamie]

your very interesting idea

I have spent quite some time on an idea I'd like to present here. Before I start, I'd like to make some points clear (due to some reactions I witnessed on other threads):

1. This theory has not been tested in any way, so I'm not trying to present it as "real" or anything, I just want to discuss it and catch some new ideas on it.

2. So far I don't even know, if this theory is of any use to present problems. I just find the image and consistency it seems to create quite appealing.

3. If you can tell me, why this theory is absolute nonsense I'd be really happy! So I can stop worrying and think about something else!

Let's get started.
The idea is simple and there have been similar approaches in the past:
I propose that by the birth of the universe two different kinds of matters were created, and I do not mean matter and antimatter (!), but matter with positive mass as we have observed so far, and an (nearly?) equal amount of exotic matter, which I will call anti-G-matter (stupid name, I know, but I wasn't able to think of anything better yet...) with the following characteristics:

- anti-G-matter has got a negative mass (the effect of which I understand as a spacetime-warp into the "opposite" direction)

- anti-G-matter attracts its own kind just the way "positive" matter does, but acts repelling to "positive" matter

- anti-G-matter (potentially) exists in the same variety of particles we were able to observe so far (which means matter as well as antimatter, and also "massless" particles like photons, etc.)

- (G-)matter and anti-G-matter are not able to "annihilate" each other or interact in any way, despite the gravitational effects.

I know, all this matter/antimatter/anti-G-matter/anti-anti-G-matter is confusing, but the real weird part is still to come:

Considerations for the structure of the universe:

-there is nothing like "empty space". All space is filled with either G-matter or anti-G-matter.

- distinct (i.e. "shaped") particles of either kind can only exist, when embedded in a surplus of the opposing matterform

which means: we live in a region of the universe where anti-G-matter (in some undefined homogenous form) is the predominate matterform, so G-matter can "condensate" to distinct particles (the way drops of oil form spheres in water, or the other way round - not the best example, but sufficient to form an image).

Consequences:

- the visible universe might only be one region where anti-G-matter (incidently ?) predominates, so stars can form and emit light we are able to
observe

- behind so far undefined areas of transition there might be regions of anti-G-galaxies or anything (I know - that doesn't sound very new...), but anti-G-photons emitted by potential anti-G-stars can't be detected by our G-matter-based technology (ha, ha, good one, ain't it? So you can't disprove it that easily. I know thought-experiments like that don't lead you anywhere, but I just like to think it through. Maybe anti-G-light isn't even able to pass the transition-zones. In fact it shouldn't be able to exist at all in our part of the universe for reasons mentioned above. At this point I have to admit, that I like the idea of http://www.ModelOfReality.org that photons don't exist at all. My homogenous anti-G-mass might be the adequate medium for their idea of pulsar-waves)

-the actual mass of our universe would be optional (we just got to measure it ) from mathematically zero to almost anything (stating that both kinds of mass were created in unequal amounts)

-the proposed expansion of the universe might just be a "solution-effect", caused by both mass-forms' tendency to repell each other. The whole universe might be trying to reach a state of balance, where both forms of mass are totally separated, which would then mean the end of time and space.

Are you still with me??
If not, I can understand.
So what do we gain by such a strange idea?

1. Beauty - I always hated gravity to be a non-dual force

2. Possibilites - This theory might explain, why there is such a discrepancy between the mass in the universe we calculated and the mass we measured.

3. Fun - I just like to develop silly ideas and discuss them with smart people with more experience in physics, who can tell me, where I am awfully wrong...

If some points where not explained properly (which is quite probable) or you have additional questions (there is a lot more to this theory I thought of, but did not post here) -> feel free to ask!

OK, I hope someone managed to read all of this crazy stuff and still likes to talk to me

The first point i would like to make is when people like yourself spend good time thinking about this things you are never completely wrong! remember Einstien formulated many theories which were only partly right but what it gave the rest of us was the building blocks of correct theories.Please keep on thinking.
I like your ideas and partly agree with them but would like to sugest to you string theory, especially 10 or 11 dimensional space. Could this be were your exotic matter is?. This would explain why there seems to be a lack of matter/energy in our universe.
It would also explain the lack of interactions with it and lack of observations of it.
also i like your names for it. there is no reason why you should wish to change these names or feel they are not right!
think of the names of quarks, up, down, strange and charmed which are only labels and have no bearing on what they do.

I hope I have not missed your point and this helps/encourages you. If i have please let me know.
many thaks jamie

 

[Muddler]

What is ? by your theory ?

Wow Lama, you are really making me think...(which is good!)
In fact, I still have problems to understand your questions, but this is also good, because it shows the both of us to have very different "thinking styles". By trying to answer your questions, I am forced to rethink my ideas to another level to be able to communicate them.

If I understand your "diagram" right, there is no "unknown matter" were your "?" is. Distinct particles of either matterform are only able to exist, when embedded in a surplus of the opposing matterform.
So your "unknown matter" is what I would call "homogenous matter", which means a maximally compressed form of matter/energy (at this state it is quite hard to make a distinction between matter and energy).
This homogenous state should be equally possible for G-matter as well as anti-G-matter (depending on the local density).
Possibly this homogenous matter might be identical to what black holes are made of, but I am not sure about that yet.
At the moment I am thinking, that black holes might be the state of matter, all matter is somehow trying to reach, thus striving for a state of total homogenity (and minimum information).
Is this answering your question? If not, please don't give up! I really like your challenging mind!

 

[Muddler]

I like your ideas and partly agree with them but would like to sugest to you string theory, especially 10 or 11 dimensional space. Could this be were your exotic matter is?

Thanks jamie!

Actually I have thought of string theory and also the concept of "branes" to be combined with my theory.
I imagine G-matter and anti-G-matter to be not able to interact, despite the gravitational effect.
That brought me to the idea, that both matterforms might be located in separate spacetimes. What I mean by that is two fourdimensional and potentially comparable spacetimes which are "interdented" in each other.
The might then be separated by another 2 or 3 dimensions (leading then to 10 or 11 in total).

 

[geistkiesel]

I have spent quite some time on an idea I'd like to present here. Before I start, I'd like to make some points clear (due to some reactions I witnessed on other threads):

1. This theory has not been tested in any way, so I'm not trying to present it as "real" or anything, I just want to discuss it and catch some new ideas on it.

2. So far I don't even know, if this theory is of any use to present problems. I just find the image and consistency it seems to create quite appealing.

3. If you can tell me, why this theory is absolute nonsense I'd be really happy! So I can stop worrying and think about something else!

Let's get started.
The idea is simple and there have been similar approaches in the past:
I propose that by the birth of the universe two different kinds of matters were created, and I do not mean matter and antimatter (!), but matter with positive mass as we have observed so far, and an (nearly?) equal amount of exotic matter, which I will call anti-G-matter (stupid name, I know, but I wasn't able to think of anything better yet...) with the following characteristics:

- anti-G-matter has got a negative mass (the effect of which I understand as a spacetime-warp into the "opposite" direction)

- anti-G-matter attracts its own kind just the way "positive" matter does, but acts repelling to "positive" matter

- anti-G-matter (potentially) exists in the same variety of particles we were able to observe so far (which means matter as well as antimatter, and also "massless" particles like photons, etc.)

- (G-)matter and anti-G-matter are not able to "annihilate" each other or interact in any way, despite the gravitational effects.

I know, all this matter/antimatter/anti-G-matter/anti-anti-G-matter is confusing, but the real weird part is still to come:

Considerations for the structure of the universe:

-there is nothing like "empty space". All space is filled with either G-matter or anti-G-matter.

- distinct (i.e. "shaped") particles of either kind can only exist, when embedded in a surplus of the opposing matterform

which means: we live in a region of the universe where anti-G-matter (in some undefined homogenous form) is the predominate matterform, so G-matter can "condensate" to distinct particles (the way drops of oil form spheres in water, or the other way round - not the best example, but sufficient to form an image).

Consequences:

- the visible universe might only be one region where anti-G-matter (incidently ?) predominates, so stars can form and emit light we are able to
observe

- behind so far undefined areas of transition there might be regions of anti-G-galaxies or anything (I know - that doesn't sound very new...), but anti-G-photons emitted by potential anti-G-stars can't be detected by our G-matter-based technology (ha, ha, good one, ain't it? So you can't disprove it that easily. I know thought-experiments like that don't lead you anywhere, but I just like to think it through. Maybe anti-G-light isn't even able to pass the transition-zones. In fact it shouldn't be able to exist at all in our part of the universe for reasons mentioned above. At this point I have to admit, that I like the idea of http://www.ModelOfReality.org that photons don't exist at all. My homogenous anti-G-mass might be the adequate medium for their idea of pulsar-waves)

-the actual mass of our universe would be optional (we just got to measure it ) from mathematically zero to almost anything (stating that both kinds of mass were created in unequal amounts)

-the proposed expansion of the universe might just be a "solution-effect", caused by both mass-forms' tendency to repell each other. The whole universe might be trying to reach a state of balance, where both forms of mass are totally separated, which would then mean the end of time and space.

Are you still with me??
If not, I can understand.
So what do we gain by such a strange idea?

1. Beauty - I always hated gravity to be a non-dual force

2. Possibilites - This theory might explain, why there is such a discrepancy between the mass in the universe we calculated and the mass we measured.

3. Fun - I just like to develop silly ideas and discuss them with smart people with more experience in physics, who can tell me, where I am awfully wrong...

If some points where not explained properly (which is quite probable) or you have additional questions (there is a lot more to this theory I thought of, but did not post here) -> feel free to ask!

OK, I hope someone managed to read all of this crazy stuff and still likes to talk to me

Alan Guth, the one time father of the inflationary expansion of the universe in the early moments ofth eBig Bamd postulates that gravity actually repelled mass for a few trilliontrillion doubling of the size of the universe. Consider yourself sitting at an atom in a single crystal lattice. You observe all in front, left, right up, down and back to recede from you at many orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light, yet you feel not the slightest acceleration. It is the space that grew between matter that expanded and still is say some. Gravity was reversed goes the story. Your negative mass isn't even close to being totally wild. They actually pay people very decent salaries that think like what you just scribbled on the computer screen.

But remember the Man, Hondo, America's greatest actor of all time, John Wayne, who said, "Don't apologize, it's a sign of weakness."

 

[Lama]

Dear Muddler,

I like your basic attitude of an opened dialog, which is (in my opinion) the most important thing of any examined (pure or applied) brunch of what is called 'exact science'.

I want to share with you some of my ideas that maybe are connected to your ideas.

First let us start by examine some today's physics points of view of what is called a field and a particle.

If I am not wrong then the concept of a field is used to describe the common foundation of some particles with particular properties.

Each particle which belongs to some distinguished collection of properties, its existence is first of all based on its interactions with its particular field.

It means that no measurable particle is totally separated from the other measurable particles that share the same field.

If each particle is also its own field, then a collection of particles cannot have more then one particle, which is not the case by today's physics.

"We should mention two possible points of confusion. Firstly, the aforementioned "field" and "particle" descriptions do not refer to wave-particle duality. By "particle", we refer to entities which possesses both wave and point-particle properties in the usual quantum mechanical sense; for example, these "particles" are generally not located at a fixed point, but have a certain probability of being found at each position in space. What we refer to as a "field" is an entity existing at every point in space, which regulates the creation and annihilation of the particles" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory )

So, quantum particles are described by momentum/position or wave/particle duality.

A Langauge which is based on excluded-middle reasoning is not (in my opinion) the appropriate language to deal with quantum phenomena.

In an excluded-middle reasoning two opposites are simultaneously contradicting each other, and the result is no middle.

In an included-middle reasoning two opposites are simultaneously preventing/defining each other, and the result is a middle.

The best known example is the duality of a photon, which has both a wave and a particle properties that preventing (the measurement of its accurate place prevents the accurate information about its momentum, and vise versa) and defining (one property cannot exist without the other) each other.

For example, please see this picture: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/comp.jpg

As you see the two black profiles and the white vase are clearly preventing/defining each other.

Please also see http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CompLogic.pdf , which is a short paper of mine on included-middle reasoning.

Now let us return to your G anti-G idea.

As you explained in your previous reply to me, ? is considered as some sort of identical energy/matter vagueness, which means nor energy neither position has an exact measurable values.

In this case there is an opposite relation between symmetry degree and information's clarity degree.

It means that the most possible symmetry degree of some system has the lowest information's clarity degree.

A new interpretation of mine of the Natural numbers, which is based on these relations, can be found in:

http://us.share.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN.pdf

There is some problem to open the last attached pdf, so if you are interested then I can send it to your private email.

An old version of my work, which is based on this new interpretation of the Natural Numbers can be found in: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATheory.pdf

So from this point of view ? is the most symmetrical state between, at least, two opposite things.

Another paper of mine that maybe related to your ideas, can be found in:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/No-Naive-Math.pdf

I'll be glade to know if my ideas maybe can help you to develop your interesting theory.

 

[Muddler]

To Lama:



WOW!

This is hard stuff!
But I think your approach to understanding the structure of our universe by mathematical considerations is as well brilliant as simply adequate.
You brought up the question I nearly forgot about (and that still is not answered by my theory): What happens at the transition between NOTHING and SOMETHING? Or, a little more specific for my idea: what is the minimum "amount" of matter being able to exist within anti-G-matter (or vice versa)?

I don't know (yet ?)

Please send me the ONN.pdf, I really like to read it!
I can not truly say, I understood all of what you wrote, but I will surely read it again until I am able to see a little through it.

What really gave (and still gives) me a hard time is your proposal for continuous number systems (if I understood it right). There are at the moment two (discreet ) questions I need a little help with (there is a lot more I am not really understanding, but at the moment I am not even able to tell you exactly what I don't get...)

1. Is there an answer in your considerations for the properties of "numeral space" between {} and {.} (which might be described as {_.} if I got it right). I know, you wrote that such an "numeral object" does not contain valid information, as only one point is given, but what are your ideas so far?

2.What exactly is the benefit of such numeral systems, compared to the "standard" real-system ? How is the aspect of continuity more "displayable" in such systems than by "ordinary" numbersystems?

I am afraid such question do only show my stupidity, but if you would take your time to answer them, I'd be really happy!

 

[Lama]

Dear Muddler,


Your questions show that you have a creative and opened mind.

1. Is there an answer in your considerations for the properties of "numeral space" between {} and {.} (which might be described as {_.} if I got it right). I know, you wrote that such an "numeral object" does not contain valid information, as only one point is given, but what are your ideas so far?

1) {_.} is very important as a basis, but cannot be defined in my system as an interesting input because it cannot be a building-block for a rich information system.

It can be understood as {.}_AND_{_} and it is used as the non-rich basis of {.}_AND_{._.}, which is the rich building-block of my system.

a) {} is the week (unreachable) limit of my system and cannot be developed beyond {} = {}.

b) {_} is the strong (unreachable) limit of my system and cannot be developed beyond {_} = {_} .

Please look at pages 10-11,18-19 (the paper numbers, not the acrobat screen) in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/No-Naive-Math.pdf
to understand better {.}_AND_{._.} .

In short, because {_} is unreachable, {_.} cannot be developed beyond {_.} = {_.} .

We can say the same things about {}_AND_{.} .

But if you have your own ideas about it, then I'll be glad to know them.

2.What exactly is the benefit of such numeral systems, compared to the "standard" real-system ? How is the aspect of continuity more "displayable" in such systems than by "ordinary" numbersystems?

Please read the post that I sent to your personal email address, thank you.



In general, I'll be glade to try my best to response to any question or idea of yours, thank you.

 

[Muddler]

Hi Lama!

Haven't received your mail yet...
Did you get mine??
I would really like to read your ONN paper...

 

[Lama]

The Moderator of this forum do not give me the ability to see my private profile.

So here is my website address http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATpage.html and through it you can send me an email and I will reply to you with ONN.pdf attached to it.

 

[Themuffinman]

ok you say that all space is either G matter or anti G matter. The universe is currently expaning meaning that G matter is not in proportion? if i am not making any sense just ignore me. I haven't even had high school physics yet but i read a lot and i am just tying to make sense of things. One more thing could someone suggest something good to read about physics and astrophysics and quantam mechanics and all that stuff

 

[Muddler]

ok you say that all space is either G matter or anti G matter. The universe is currently expaning meaning that G matter is not in proportion?

Yes and No.

I do not state a general unproportionality, but a local one. (I am not sure if we are able to make valid assumptions on the unverse's mass-distribution in general, but anything is possible...)

What I say is that the current "expansion" of the (visible) universe might also be an effect of "insolubility" as a result of the surplus of anti-G-matter in our "part" of the cosmos, thus not allowing us to determine if the whole universe is expanding or if this in only an effect limited to a certain region.

(In fact I think, behind a so far undefined "area of transition", there might be areas with a surplus of G-matter, which might enable the existence of anti-G-matter based life. The strange thing is, to their eyes their part of the cosmos would very likely also seem to expand... :uhh: )

 

[Muddler]

To Lama:

Thanks for the mail! Your paper is really enlighting! So far I have one question: Do you have a proposal for the representation of fractions? Especially the infinite decimals are worrying me...
Another thing is, I have problems to understand the "colored circles" (pardon me for that expression). I have a rough idea what they are supposed to mean, but I'm not really getting it... Could you try to explain?
Thanks!

 

[Lama]

Hi Dear Muddler,

In ONN.pdf I show that the Most simple definition of a number must be based on cognition/object(s) relations (where 0 is the cardinal of a pre-relation state).

As a result, each Organic Natural Number (ONN) has an internal symmetrical structure that can be ordered by its symmetrical degree, for example:

If you look at pages 5-6 in 'Organic Natural Numbers' paper, then you will be able to easily understand how ONN (Organic Natural Numbers) are constructed and ordered.

At the first level of each ONN we can find standard N members partitions,

which are ordered from the most discrete representation state (for example:1,1,1,1)

to the least discrete representation state (for example:3,1)

4               
--              
(1;1;1;1)----> 1
 V │ V V      + 
(2«┘;1;1)----> 2
 V   V │      + 
(2  ;2«┘)----> 3
 V ┌┤         + 
(3«┘└»;1)----> 3
              --
               9

Within each partition we can find several ONNs, which are ordered by their symmetrical degrees and information clarity degrees.

The complementary relations between symmetrical degrees and information clarity degrees cannot fully expressed by the Natural numbers, because each natural number is based only on ONNs private case where 0_redunduncy_AND_0_uncertainty can be found.

Also if we use only standard notations to express ONNs, then multiplication and addition operations have complementary relations and they must be inseparable from any used Natural number notation, otherwise an ONN cannot be written.

As for the infinitely many decimal places:

ONNs system already includes in it the base value expansion method, for example we shall use number 26 represented by base 10 and base 3:

Number 26 represented by base 10:

          ^0- 0123456789
              ||||||||||
              |_||||||||
              |__|||||||
              |___||||||
Base 10 =     |____|||||
              |_____||||
              |______|||
              |_______||
              |________|
          ^1- |
              |                1      0
                         ( 2*10 + 6*10 )
^0- 012345678901234567890123456
    |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    |_|||||||||_|||||||||_|||||
    |__||||||||__||||||||__||||
    |___|||||||___|||||||___|||
    |____||||||____||||||____||
    |_____|||||_____|||||_____|
    |______||||______||||__...
    |_______|||_______|||__...
    |________||________||__...
^1- |    0    |    1    |  2
    |_________|         |   
    |___________________|   
    |_ ...
    |



Number 26 represented by base 3:

          ^0- 012
Base 3 =      |||
              |_|
          ^1- |         3     2     1     0
                   ( 0*3 + 2*3 + 2*3 + 2*3 )
^0- 012012012012012012012012012
    |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    |_||_||_||_||_||_||_||_||_|
^1- |0 |1 |2 |0 |1 |2 |0 |1 |2 
    |__|  |  |__|  |  |__|  |  
    |_____|  |_____|  |_____|  
^2- |  0     |  1     |  2     
    |________|        |        
    |_________________|        
^3- |        0                 
    |_ ...
    |

By Standard Math only these kinds of 0_redunduncy_AND_0_uncertainty broken symmetrical structural forms are used, on infinitely many levels of different scales, which produce the decimal standard representation.

I also use each R member as a unique member of the Real-Line and as a scale factor over the entire real line (please see again http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/No-Naive-Math.pdf) but my R member is constructed by more structural symmetrical building-blocks, that give us the possibility to represent a much more rich and accurate model, which is not only quantitative but also structural.

As for the colored-circles, they are an example of how the entire set of ONNs quantitative/structural members is defined by its own self symmetrical interferences, which can lead us to develop a cybernetic models of self-aware systems (http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CK_ONN.pdf)

 

[Muddler]

To Lama:

Ahh! I think now I'm getting it! (Hooray! Enlightment!)
That's terrific!

Still I don't understand the "colored circles"... (But I like the "forked" line-diagrams! I wonder how long it takes, until they are taught at school...)

Why are there two "versions" for the green CK2 ? Is there a difference between 1 and 1*1 ? Or what do the red and yellow arcs mean?

Excuse my slow understanding!

 

[Lama]

The colored circles are the same ONNs that you can find at page 5 of ONN.pdf

Please compare between each tree-like representation of ONN5 (in page 5 of ONN.pdf) and each colored circle representation of ONN5.

As you see, this is the same symmetry but with a different representation.

Also please compare between ONN1 to ONN4 in page 5 and ONN1 to ONN4 in pages 7,8 of ONN.pdf

Another representation of ONNs 1 to 5 can be found in page 20 of ONN.pdf

The Advantage of the colored-circlers in this case is that they are the best way to show a model of a cybernetic evolution of a complex phenomena.

The colored-circle is based on what is called Archimedean spiral (http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/university/scit/modules/mm2217/int.htm )

And I used this simple spiral to write some little story:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/O-Harp.pdf

 

[woodysooner]

brilliant idea

Just wanted to comment both of you for your brilliant and enlightening ideas i like you Mudder are always picturing thoughts and trying to solve lifes most mysterious problems yet i never meet people quite as good at it as both you and lama so thanks for this post!

Justin

 

[Muddler]

Thanks!
It is always nice to see, that there are some people with similar attitudes!
I don't know if my ideas are of any use at all, still I have to think them through for my own sake...
(God, this is emberassing - whish I could turn that damn brain off :tongue2: )

 

[Lama]

My Dear Muddler I missed you like a cool breeze in the middle of a summer none :tongue2: , how are you doin' ?

And to you dear woodysooner , a big THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart!

Come and join us if you wish.