Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can someone tell me why this doesn't make sense?

  1. Dec 16, 2011 #1
    Can someone tell me why this doesn't make sense? I got this far out notion in my head and can't seem to get it out.

    Based on what I've learned about physics over the years, specifically including theories that suggest our universe may be the equivalent of a black hole in another universe, which would also seem to fit with observations that the universe is made up of significantly more dark energy/mater than observable mater. In addition, this dark energy is suspected to be exerting the negative pressure that causes galaxies to be accelerating away from each other faster than the speed of light. The following occurs to me:

    What if photons are not particles, but the absence of particles. My understanding of the way electricity travels through a conductor is that the electrons are not actually moving at the speed of light, rather they are moving to fill the holes left by their neighboring electrons as the electro-magnetic wave travels. Wouldn't it make sense that photons operate on the same principle but perhaps at a more fundamental level?


    If the universe is actually the equivalent of a black hole in another universe. Wouldn't it make sense the the vacuum is actually a tightly packed, uniformly ordered substrate of these particles?

    Part of the reason I can't get this out of my head is that this would seem to have significant implications and potentially explain gravity along with it. I recognize the big leaps here, but if this substrate is related to the dark mater in the universe, gravity might then be explained as a push by the dark energy on the observable mass/energy that displaces the uniform quanta of the vacuum.


    The other reason I can't get it out of my head is that it seems to fit well with everything I know about physics, it's seems much more intuitive, and most of all, it seems to provide a simple and testable explanation. Lastly, it also seems to fit with other significant ideas in physics that challenge our basic human nature --similar to not being the center of the universe, or our reference frame being the single universal reference frame in which all things happen simultaneously, in this case, it's that all the observable mater/energy in the universe is not what makes up the universe, but might instead be what's missing from the universe.


    I've obviously given way more thought to this than anyone who's not a physicist should. If you've read this far, I greatly appreciate it. If you can identify which observations in physics conflict with this line of thinking, I would appreciate it even more so that I can potentially stop thinking about it and focus on what I'm good at.

    Is it possible I'm just restating what quantum physics already describes in a more naive way here?


    Some notes:

    I recognize that this echos the theory of the Light Aether which most people seem to think was vanquished by general relativity. However my understanding is it's association with a universal reference frame is what died and Einstein even still pursued the idea of a relativistic aether: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Contemporary_Ideas (yes, I use Wikipedia for most my research on this, forgive me.)

    Perhaps I'm incorrect, but it's also my understanding that quantum theory basically views the vacuum as a sort of foam bubble surface, from which particles can be extracted with enough energy.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 16, 2011 #2
    In general, you've got a whole bunch of ideas without experimental [observational] evidence.... It's good to think outside the box, although that is not the main purpose of these forums, but if anyone doesn't understand existing physics anyone would be really hard pressed to provide alternatives that address weaknesses of current theory. This forum is full of "new and unique" superficial ideas. Intuition needs to be followed with hard work: The old adage along the lines of "1% inspiration and 99% persperation" fits.

    I'll make just a few comments:

    How about thinking about and studying real physics instead? It's akin to convincing yourself
    "clouds consist of visible photons"....and then leaving your thought there.

    I'm not an expert on black holes nor dark matter, but I've not read of anything unique about dark matter inside black holes. I'd expect it would be sucked in just like other energy and matter. I can't imagine that observations support such a hypothesis since, for example, in a black hole gravity has a rather uniform direction...towards the singularity.

    Now that would be an unusual for observers inside a black hole.
  4. Dec 16, 2011 #3
    Do you refer to the holographic principle in the form of the AdS/CFT correspondence? If yes, then you should be more careful. It is a conjectured mathematical equivalence that allows one to map thermal states of quantum fields in a lower dimensional space to thermal black holes in a lower dimensional space. It works for a number of non-realistic models like supersymmetric yang mills theories but also for more "realistic" ones like in the case of superconductors or even quark gluon plasma. But one is not as far to draw definite conclusions for the whole universe, the whole story might as well remain at the state for providing nice toy models in simple scenarios.

    Why would this fit the observations?

    Why would electrons move at the speed of light in the first place? They carry mass and therefore cannot do that. Also, electrons and electromagnetic waves are two distinct concepts.

    Again, why is this? A black hole can contain large regions of "empty" space, in which no particles are "packed".

    This sounds quite speculative.

    What you're referring to is the idea of quantum field theory that even vacuum is filled with quantum mecchanical fields in their ground states. Providing enough energy might now create particles from that vacuum. However, I don't see how one could visualize this through some kind of "foam bubble surface".
  5. Dec 16, 2011 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Personal theories, particularly overly-speculative ones, are not allowed. Feel free to use this site to learn the physics you need to know before trying to come up with your own explanations.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook