2 speculative energy fields of reality

[Randolpin]

This speculation is all about space being a negative energy field while matter is a positive energy field which allows matter to change since the space around it is negative.In other words, space is the southpole while matter is the northpole.

For me ,this would reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity since quantum mechanics lies in the positive energy field of matter while general relativity lies in space which has negative energy field.Gravity is the pseudoforce as a result of the interaction of matter and space.

 

After all it is only my speculation, but who knows?

Edited November 12, 2016 by Randolpin

[Mordred]

Lets start from the beginning. Space by itself is just a volume. Energy is a property, it does exist on its own.

Then recognize that energy density is always a positive value unless it is compared to a higher energy density state.

Thirdly not all particles constitutes matter. Only fermionic particles are considered matter particles.

 

Finally you require the math to support your conjecture.

 

In other words you require showing this with the 4 momentum/velocity without violating the conservation of energy/momentum. Which you will not be able to do.

 

Lets start with a VERY BASIC question. If Spacetime is negative energy. How could matter form in the First place?

 

Rather impossible, the fermionic particles would never combine to form matter. End of theory.... your momentum vectors would be in the wrong direction for matter particles to collapse. Negative pressure or positive pressure still equals positive energy/density.

 

Energy is the ability to perform work. So negative energy means a lower ability to perform work from a higher energy potential. You cannot have a base negative energy state at least not globally.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[Randolpin]

First I will provide the math. I am not sure if this is enough to support my conjecture.

 

let's assume space= 0 and matter=1.

 

 

It's just a simple math.No tedious calculations.

Here it is:

 

0+0=0 or 0-0=0 or 0*0=0 or 0/0=math error (assume= 0).

As what you observed no matter what operation is conducted, it is always 0. It is like space. When it is all space so the energy field is 0 or negative.Meaning no distortion of space bec. there is no matter within it.

 

But if there is matter.It makes now sense.

 

0+1=1,0-1=-1,0*1=0,0/1=0

 

We see here that if there is matter it distorts space (0+1=1) or a blackhole form if the energy of matter is so intense and the size is so small (0-1=-1) and so on.

 

I hope that you understand it.

[Mordred]

no the math above is incorrect as it does not follow the definition of energy and the conservation laws.

 

Energy is literally the ability to perform work. Nothing else is acceptable. It is a property of particles or objects does not exist on its own

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[Randolpin]

Sorry,

 

First I will provide the math. I am not sure if this is enough to support my conjecture.

 

let's assume space= 0 and matter=1.

 

 

It's just a simple math.No tedious calculations.

Here it is:

 

0+0=0 or 0-0=0 or 0*0=0 or 0/0=math error (assume= 0).

As what you observed no matter what operation is conducted, it is always 0. It is like space. When it is all space so the energy field is 0 or negative.Meaning no distortion of space bec. there is no matter within it.

 

But if there is matter.It makes now sense.

 

0+1=1,0-1=-1,0*1=0,0/1=0

 

We see here that if there is matter it distorts space (0+1=1) or a blackhole form if the energy of matter is so intense and the size is so small (0-1=-1) and so on.

 

I hope that you understand it.

 

 

This are only speculative calculations..

Lets start with a VERY BASIC question. If Spacetime is negative energy. How could matter form in the First place?

 

As far as science is concerned.No one knows.

It could be that both matter and space arose at the same moment in the past from absolute nothingness.

[Mordred]

no you must follow the definitions used on physics. Otherwise you are not doing physics.

 

Energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms.

 

If there is any capacity to perform work it is a positive value. Plain and simple. It does not matter which direction your momentum vectors are going.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[Randolpin]

What I mean is space itself has negative or zero energy field and in matter,positive energy field in the form of mass.

Space itself is the arena for matter.There is no energy or capacity to do work if there is no space, so space like in electrical wirings, is the neutral or the ground for the energy in every matter behave in the way it is.

[Mordred]

space by itself by definition is just volume. It isn't some fabric with its own mysterious particles. If you want to apply a spacetime energy the term is potential energy. Which is always a positive value.

 

Unless you are comparing it to a higher vacuum potential ie false vacuum ( inflation by Allen Guth.) the lowest possible energy state by Quantum mechanics is a positive value.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

 

anything less is either absolute zero which according to zero point energy is impossible. You cannot have a state below absolute zero. Energy density is always positive.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[Randolpin]

Space itself has energy.Probably dark energy is the energy of space which is almost 0.This observation would suggest that the characteristic of the energy field of space is very different than that of matter. A little amount of energy field of space, for example 0.000000001 would have a strong impact unlike the energy field of matter in 0.000000001 which has a weak impact.

What I mean of a negative energy field of space is just a result of the analogy to southpole.Actually,I agree there is no negative energy but what I really mean is Zero.

[Mordred]

Incorrect space is just volume. Study your basic physics definitions. The cosmological constant does not change this fact. The cosmological term correlates to roughly 7.2×10^-10 joules/m^3. We may not know the cause of the cosmological constant but physics does not treat it as space itself despite pop media articles poor wording.

 

If you wish to properly model under physics. The terminology potential energy and kinetic energy appropriate. Or negative vacuum is acceptable but only if you apply those terms correctly

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[Randolpin]

This is only my new look on space, so I speculated about it.

[Mordred]

Understood but one of the biggest misconceptions in GR is people thinking space has substance. It is merely the volume that the SM particles reside in. This includes quantum virtual particle production. Spin foam and string theory doesn't change this key detail.

 

The time component is simply treated as a vector under the spacetime.

 

Spacetime by definition is any metric with time as a vector. By definition

 

(truthfully I wish more ppl paid closer attention to the definitions used in physics lol) it would stop a lot of misconceptions lol

 

Just like mass by definition is resistance to inertia change. Thats it thats all folks

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

First I will provide the math. I am not sure if this is enough to support my conjecture.

 

let's assume space= 0 and matter=1.

 

 

It's just a simple math.No tedious calculations.

Here it is:

 

0+0=0 or 0-0=0 or 0*0=0 or 0/0=math error (assume= 0).

As what you observed no matter what operation is conducted, it is always 0. It is like space. When it is all space so the energy field is 0 or negative.Meaning no distortion of space bec. there is no matter within it.

 

But if there is matter.It makes now sense.

 

0+1=1,0-1=-1,0*1=0,0/1=0

 

We see here that if there is matter it distorts space (0+1=1) or a blackhole form if the energy of matter is so intense and the size is so small (0-1=-1) and so on.

 

I hope that you understand it.

 

 

How would you use that to calculate the precession of Mercury, or the change in the path of light as it passes a mass? Can you do anything useful with this? Is it testable?

 

No. So it is not even a scientific hypothesis.

[Mordred]

Now what is the correct metric for a 4d volume with time as a vector? (ct,x,y,z)

 

Three volume components +1 of time using the constant c×t for a measuring rod. The ct component just gives the dimensional equivalence to length.

 

No particles added at this point. Thats spacetime that's it thats all.

 

Thats spacetime without any particles. This is your ground state metric until you add mass.

 

Your transformations is x=x', y=y'z=z',t=t'. When you have velocity or gravitational potential this is when the Lorentz transformations take place. However there is no curvature until you add SM particles.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[Sensei]

This speculation is all about space being a negative energy field while matter is a positive energy field which allows matter to change since the space around it is negative.In other words, space is the southpole while matter is the northpole.

Can you translate it to English?

I don't even understand what are you writing here..

What does even mean "positive energy field"? "negative energy field"?

How it's emanating in the real world this "positive energy field" of matter, and "negative energy field" of space?

Please show me some experiment.

 

Electrostatics:

If you have positively charged particles (no matter if they are matter or anti-matter) they repel each other,

if you have negatively charged particles (no matter if they are matter or anti-matter) they repel each other,

but if you have negatively and positively charged particles (no matter if they are matter or anti-matter) they attract each other.

Their mass-energy defines how fast they move, after acceleration.

Massive particle of proton/antiproton after accelerating to 100 keV kinetic energy will move slower than less massive electron/positron, even though their kinetic energy is equal.

(it's used in mass spectrometer to separate particles depending on their mass and charge)

 

Gravity:

If you have matter or anti-matter, neutrally charged, they attract each other, but tremendously less powerful than in electrostatics.

(one can make thought experiment and replace one object mass to negative value, and see what happens in equations, but so far there is no way to perform this experiment in the real world)

 

If you join both electrostatics and gravity in one experiment,

you will have oil drop experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

Positively charged oil drop ¹⁾ will be attracted by negatively charged top plate ²⁾, and it will levitate.

 

¹⁾ because of absence of electrons on oil drop.

²⁾ because of abundance of electrons on plate.

 

For me ,this would reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity since quantum mechanics lies in the positive energy field of matter while general relativity lies in space which has negative energy field.

You don't even understand why they are not unified..

 

Gravity is the pseudoforce as a result of the interaction of matter and space.

 

If it's pseudo-force how come if somebody will jump through window will be dead?

How come there is electric power from water dams?

Pseudo-force converted to the real force, the real acceleration of electrons in wires, and then the real photons emitted by light bulbs, LED/LCD, and the real heat (photons at lower energy infra-red/microwave) ?

Edited November 12, 2016 by Sensei

[Randolpin]

Mr./Mrs./Ms. Sensei, as what I have said, the energy field I mean of matter is it's mass, while the energy field of space is the space itself.For me, dark energy only suggest that the energy field of space is not uniform.The cause of this un-uniformity could be trace back during the beginning of the universe.

[Strange]

Mr./Mrs./Ms. Sensei, as what I have said, the energy field I mean of matter is it's mass, while the energy field of space is the space itself.For me, dark energy only suggest that the energy field of space is not uniform.The cause of this un-uniformity could be trace back during the beginning of the universe.

 

 

You have yet to present any evidence to support this.

 

For example, as far as I know, there is no evidence that dark energy is non-uniform, so why do you claim it is?

 

What experiment could be done to test your idea?

[Randolpin]

 

 

You have yet to present any evidence to support this.

 

For example, as far as I know, there is no evidence that dark energy is non-uniform, so why do you claim it is?

 

What experiment could be done to test your idea?

You misunderstood me, dark energy is only part of the energy field of space, it is not dark energy which is not uniform but the energy field of the whole space itself.

[Strange]

You misunderstood me, dark energy is only part of the energy field of space, it is not dark energy which is not uniform but the energy field of the whole space itself.

 

 

Again: what evidence do you have for this?

 

Or can we just ignore this as some sort of fairy tale?

[Randolpin]

The evidence is already there.Consider the observations of astronomers that our universe is expanding because of the central force in the center of the universe which is the D.E.

[Strange]

The universe is not expanding because of dark energy.

 

There is no centre of the universe.

 

You are proposing a new idea, therefore you need evidence for your idea. If you claim dark energy is evidence for your idea then you need to demonstrate that this is the case - preferably using maths.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Strange

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

This has not met the threshold of what we expect from a speculations discussion

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/