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

Strange idea for exotic matter

  1. Jul 3, 2004 #1
    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).


    - 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

    - 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 :biggrin: ) from mathematically zero to almost anything (stating that both kinds of mass were created in unequal amounts)

    -the proposed expansion of the unverse 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 :rolleyes:

    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 :wink:
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 3, 2004 #2
    Theres one big problem with your theory. Negative mass particles are very wierd 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:

    [tex]E^2 = P^2 + M^2[/tex]

    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.
  4. Jul 3, 2004 #3

    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.
  5. Jul 3, 2004 #4

    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).
  6. Jul 4, 2004 #5
    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...
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2004
  7. Jul 4, 2004 #6
    Read this article: http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw61.html. Its about a possible "Tachyon Drive" but it tells a lot about tachyons.

    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 sence 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 intrested 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 thats just me. But still stating your mind is a good thing because it does help you learn.
  8. Jul 5, 2004 #7
    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!).

    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.

    I don't say it doesn't make sense in general. I don't have a problem with i.e. tachyons travelling 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...
  9. Jul 7, 2004 #8
    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.
  10. Jul 7, 2004 #9
    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 blackholes 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
  11. Jul 9, 2004 #10
    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!

    Hope to hear from you!

    P.S. If you like to know more about my theory - I'll be happy to tell you! :biggrin:
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2004
  12. Jul 9, 2004 #11
    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?
  13. Jul 9, 2004 #12
    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!
  14. Jul 9, 2004 #13
    Let us ask it in this way:

    Is there any symmetrical relation between G and anti-G in your thought experiment?
  15. Jul 9, 2004 #14
    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).
  16. Jul 9, 2004 #15
    Hi Muddler;

    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!
  17. Jul 9, 2004 #16

    Code (Text):

       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<<<<. ...
    What is ? by your theory ?
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2004
  18. Jul 9, 2004 #17
    your very intresting idea

    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
  19. Jul 10, 2004 #18
    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!
  20. Jul 10, 2004 #19
    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 seperate 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).
  21. Jul 10, 2004 #20
    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."
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook