# Any research out there.

1. Jan 10, 2006

### ESchwartz20

Has anyone ever done any research into matter and energy being the same thing? What I mean is energy is just the manifestation (in our three dimensions) of matter moving into the hidden dimensions of string theory. The hidden matter thus becoming the elusive "Dark Matter". Then the repulsive "Dark Energy" being the "Dark Matters" way of balancing the universe and coming back to our three dimensions.

What I am thinking is easily thought of like this. Say you have a rubber sheet with a small hole in it stretched out (our 3d universe). On top of the sheet is a small rubber ball (matter) that is just bigger than the hole. On its own the ball won't fall through, but give it a push and the ball will squeeze through and when it pops out the other side (hidden dimesnsion) it will cause all kinds of waves on the rubber sheet (energy waves).

Now turn it over so the ball and hidden dimension are on top. Also imagine the top area now has a finite size and is slowly being filled up by more and more balls being pushed through. eventually the space will fill up and pressure will start to stretch the membrane. On the visible universe side (bottom now) this will appear as reverse gravity (dark energy). Finally when the pressure buids up enough, the membrane will stretch enough to where the small hole finally becomes larger than the balls. Thus a number will come shooting out into our visible universe side.

*******

2. Jan 11, 2006

### Chronos

The short answer is Einstein's equivalency principle. Matter and energy are interchangeable. Pushing the topological model beyond [or even to] 3D+1 is frightfully complicated; and usually results in predictions that cannot be reconciled with observational evidence.

3. Jan 17, 2006

### jhe1984

One question I've got about your model is where does the underlying structure (and its corresponding energy) and an applied force [clearly initial but does it also to be continuous?] and its corresponding energy come from?

Basically the argument is this, how can you start with so many specifically defined things [rubber ball, taut rubber sheet, hole in the rubber sheet]? It seems like a lot of unaccounted for initial structure (initial energy, really) before the model even gets started...

4. Jan 17, 2006

### jhe1984

One question I've got about your model is where does the underlying structure (and its corresponding energy) and an applied force [clearly initial but does it also have to be continuous?] and its corresponding energy come from?

Basically the argument is this, how can you start with so many specifically defined things [rubber ball, taut rubber sheet, hole in the rubber sheet]? It seems like a lot of unaccounted for initial structure (initial energy, really) before the model even gets started.