Slashdot Mirror
Bizarre 'Dark Fluid' With Negative Mass Could Dominate the Universe (theconversation.com)
One of the most galling mysteries in physics is that of the dark matter and dark energy. Scientists believe that together, these could account for up to 95 percent of the total mass in the universe. Now, a researcher at the University of Oxford says a new theory could explain all that "dark phenomena." From a report: The two mysterious dark substances can only be inferred from gravitational effects. Dark matter may be an invisible material, but it exerts a gravitational force on surrounding matter that we can measure. Dark energy is a repulsive force that makes the universe expand at an accelerating rate. The two have always been treated as separate phenomena. But my new study, published in Astronomy and Astrophysics, suggests they may both be part of the same strange concept -- a single, unified "dark fluid" of negative masses.
Negative masses are a hypothetical form of matter that would have a type of negative gravity -- repelling all other material around them. Unlike familiar positive mass matter, if a negative mass was pushed, it would accelerate towards you rather than away from you. Negative masses are not a new idea in cosmology. Just like normal matter, negative mass particles would become more spread out as the universe expands -- meaning that their repulsive force would become weaker over time. However, studies have shown that the force driving the accelerating expansion of the universe is relentlessly constant. This inconsistency has previously led researchers to abandon this idea. If a dark fluid exists, it should not thin out over time.
In the new study, I propose a modification to Einstein's theory of general relativity to allow negative masses to not only exist, but to be created continuously. "Matter creation" was already included in an early alternative theory to the Big Bang, known as the Steady State model. The main assumption was that (positive mass) matter was continuously created to replenish material as the universe expands. We now know from observational evidence that this is incorrect. However, that doesn't mean that negative mass matter can't be continuously created. I show that this assumed dark fluid is never spread too thinly. Instead it behaves exactly like dark energy.
Negative masses are a hypothetical form of matter that would have a type of negative gravity -- repelling all other material around them. Unlike familiar positive mass matter, if a negative mass was pushed, it would accelerate towards you rather than away from you. Negative masses are not a new idea in cosmology. Just like normal matter, negative mass particles would become more spread out as the universe expands -- meaning that their repulsive force would become weaker over time. However, studies have shown that the force driving the accelerating expansion of the universe is relentlessly constant. This inconsistency has previously led researchers to abandon this idea. If a dark fluid exists, it should not thin out over time.
In the new study, I propose a modification to Einstein's theory of general relativity to allow negative masses to not only exist, but to be created continuously. "Matter creation" was already included in an early alternative theory to the Big Bang, known as the Steady State model. The main assumption was that (positive mass) matter was continuously created to replenish material as the universe expands. We now know from observational evidence that this is incorrect. However, that doesn't mean that negative mass matter can't be continuously created. I show that this assumed dark fluid is never spread too thinly. Instead it behaves exactly like dark energy.
Step 1: Write a peer reviewed article challenging accepted cosmology. Leave open the option that it may be nonsense, so no one can say you're a total crackpot and can pass peer review.
Bonus step: resuscitate a long dead competitive cosmology model.
Step 2: Write an opinion piece to generate publicity and buzz for your crazy theoryle (helpful if on Slashdot).
Step 3: Sit back and watch the refutations publish over and over, thus generating citations for your article and increasing your H-Index.
Step 4: Leverage H-Index to qualify for further grant awards, thus pushing up your value to the University and increasing your salary. Profit!
My theory is debunked only if H-Index isn't the major factor in grant awards they way it is in the US; not sure about the UK. But honestly, this strikes me as being written because bad publicity is better than no publicity.
While all the material we see in our universe is due to one big bang, my theory is that the larger universe of truly far away objects is the result of a collection of as many big bangs as there are stars. These big bangs are far enough away that they are unobservable (with current tech) and distributed in such a way that our observable material is pulled apart by them.
This has the benefit of explaining why our universe is accelerating outwards, and gets away with the fools assumption that the big bang is the one thing in the universe that is unique (hit anything that happens can happen over and over again. Additionally we have no need for some fancy jumping though hoops to explain why we cant see some dark matter that would have to comprise the vast majority of our IMMIDATE surroundings (on a astrophysics scale)
There it is, give me my Nobel prize. That darn Hawking stole my other one for his obvious theory that black holes decay (nothing lives forever)
At the edge of knowledge, you will always find strange concepts. That is nothing new. It never was different. Wave-particle-dualism, morphing spacetime, magnetism, electricity and light being the same thing -- all of those have been fringe ideas at first (or as Max Planck once put it: acts of desperation). Only in hindsight, when they are long established in the scientific community, we consider them matters of course.
Anonymous troll posts have existed on Slashdot for as long as I've been reading, but the sheer volume of them started climbing dramatically a few years ago.
Back in the day, I used to read with my threshold at 0 because you would see a fair number of thoughtful comments which were anonymously posted for whatever reason - I was willing to tolerate the crap posts in order to see the good ones. But the sheer number of garbage posts we see nowadays drove me to change my mind - nowadays my "one line comment threshold is set to 1. I know I'm missing some things which probably deserve consideration, but I am unwilling to slog through the cesspool.
#DeleteChrome
creimer's underwear juice runs the whole universe!
because math allows it. But not everything is real what math allows. Just look at the epic failure of SUSY or read "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" from theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder.
True, but you can also look at anti-matter which was shown to exist mathematically but dismissed, only to be found later. I've skimmed over the original paper and it seems pretty good. The author admits that it is just a "toy model" based on the assumption that negative matter exists, but that several known constants can be derived from that model and several observations explained. They go on to list more than a half dozen experimental tests for the same model. Even if just a gedanken experiment that will later prove to be false, it seems they have done better than any of the MOND people with their theories or any of the string theorist people for that matter.