The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is it possible that Negative Gravity is really just a manisfestation of positive  (Read 2440 times)

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Is it possible that Negative Gravity is really just a manifestation of positive Radiant Energy?


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
We suspect an expanding universe (negative gravity) only because we observe that photons expand over time. The easiest way to explain this is to say that space expands. But what if space is what it seems to be. It seems only to have two properties. It seems to have the property of electric permittivity and the property of magnetic permeability. The property of expandability is part of Einstein's conjecture about unnatural relativity phenomena.

But relativity phenomena occurs naturally when matter consists in whole part of electromagnetic phenomena. So, if we want to stay within natures natural rules, we need a better answer for the stretched light we see. The radiation you mention may be a candidate. I am not sure, though, that we can show that enough of the radiation exists to provide the expansion.

 
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
As far as we know, and theorise too, there is no such thing as 'negative gravity'.

Our best understanding of gravity, so far, comes from relativity, which describes it as being the curvature of space-time, caused by the presence of mass.  This is rather contrary to the idea of gravity being a force.

For example, in the oft quoted example of a person falling off of a roof, the person who is falling feels no acceleration as they fall, and apart from the air rushing past them, they actually feel no forces at all.  It is only when they hit the ground that any deceleration, or force, is felt.

The important thing about gravity though, is that the curvature of space-time that it causes is always 'towards' the mass.  The 'rubber-sheet' illustrations of gravity, where four-dimensional space-time is represented by a two-dimensional flexible surface that is distorted, or 'dented' by any objects placed on it, shows this pretty well.  All our understanding, evidence and theories indicate that space-time always distorts in this way.  With negative gravity though, instead of the sheet being 'dented' by the mass placed upon it, the sheet should rise up beneath the mass, leaving it perched up above the surrounding surface.  You can probably guess what would happen then: the mass would fall down the slope created by its own gravity, except of course, that the space-time that it rolled to would immediately try to raise it up again.

As an absence of mass just leaves the space-time sheet flat, what you'd really need for negative gravity is something that has negative mass (anti-matter doesn't help us here because although the particles that comprise it have opposite charges to those in 'normal' matter, they still have positive mass).

In practice, if there were anything in the universe that had negative mass, it could only exist in in its smallest possible form i.e. it would tend to repel itself, so large amounts of it could never aggregate.  Now although this may sound a bit like what is happening with the expansion of the universe, it would mean that there would have to be more negative mass than positive mass, for it would have to exceed the opposite effects of gravity.

In fact, what seems to be happening with the expansion of the universe is not that the matter within it is being forced apart but rather that new space-time is created between matter.  You can try imagining it this way:  take an empty bucket and then place something that floats in water, in the bucket.  While the bucket has no water in it the object just sits on the bottom of the bucket and for it to move further away from the bottom you'd have to pick it up and lift it.  However, if you start pouring water in to the bucket, the rising level of water will lift the object up and away from the bottom of the bucket.  In this illustration, the water represents space-time and the bottom of the bucket, and the floating object, represent matter (and anti-matter) in the universe.  Now to represent negative mass and gravity, what you would need in this illustration is something that normally floats above the bucket when it's empty, but sinks to the bottom as you start to fill the bucket with water.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Thanks for the input LeeE. I can attest to the accuracy of it. You provide a very good assessment of the current thinking of most physicists. When I was still working for a living and had to atone to the powers that be, I too espoused such. But now that I am out of the funding loop, I can realize what is reality.

Reality is that the most probable cause for relativity phenomena is that the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. This universe is a photon-only construct.

Well; after all; we are here in the new theories forum. We can speculate. But when I look at probability theory and see that there are some 20 or more things that match to the extended decimal and agree with the contention of a photon-only construct for the universe, it is difficult to imagine that it is otherwise.

Especially when you do imagine otherwise you must give up the idea of cause and effect.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Heh - personally, I think we're a long way from saying anything is the probable cause for anything and we're still just at the possibilities stage ;)

I'm afraid that I feel a bit of antipathy towards fields too.  This is a) because they don't seem to describe what they are, except in terms of their effect, and b) because they seem to be a consequence of something else, and hence are not fundamental.

Cause and effect is an important concept and is without it we couldn't have logic.  However, cause and effect, as we normally experience it, is defined by the direction of time, which being a dimension, has two directions.  Thus our notion of cause and effect depends upon which direction we're moving in and you can, theoretically, move in either direction along an axis.  In practice though, one of the significant features of our time axis is that the conditions, or states, change as you move, so while it may be possible to change from state A to state B, it may not be possible to move back to state A once you're in state B.  This is pretty much what the concept of entropy is all about.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums