0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I've been doing some study on the genius of Paul Dirac, his postulate of the Dirac sea to resolve the issue of negative-energy quantum states for relativistic electrons. Although his postulate as an infinite sea of particles with negative energy hasn't been upheld, he did put forward an equation that really and truly put forward contemporary ideas in relativistic wave and particle theory, despite the idea of an "infinite sea of particles" was too much of a stretch. I understand he used the idea of particles in his negative energy "sea" to accommodate for the issue of negative-energy quantum states, citing them as "anti-particles", giving rise to anti-matter terminology, yet I'm thinking these anti-particles are not considered inclusive in his proposed sea anymore (as the concept of the Dirac Sea has been dropped), giving anti-particles notoriety of their own in the elementary particle realm separate to his proposed Dirac Sea negative-energy realm. I understand the reason for this is the problem of an infinite positive charge (as the opposite to the electron) filling all of space.Is it though possible to consider that the Dirac Sea is still plausible without including the idea of particles (as they are now annexed in the elementary particle realm), yet suggesting space alone has a negative-energy potential? I think the question also is whether or not anti-particles fully fix the negative-energy issue of quantum states for relativistic electrons. The idea of anti-particles addresses the "feature" of a relativistic particle that requires negative-energy adaptation (such as mass, charge, and spin), yet does it actually address the underlying energy? We can say, "yes, let's build an anti-particle realm that neutralises the increase in energy in relativistic situations, such that a particle and anti-particle in these events neutralise", yet is this solving the problem of "energy", energy which can neither be created or destroyed ad-hoc, from nothing. Understandably, the annihilation of mass/momentum with a particle and anti-particle collision is meant to propose a "negative-energy" event, but this can only be so in a destruction of "mass" in the mass-realm, which as we know produces energy. "How" that destruction of mass and release of energy using an anti-particle, I'm suggesting, would still require a "negative-energy" realm. It thus doesn't seem enough to propose anti-particles to accommodate for the issue of negative-energy quantum states for relativistic particles.The proposal here is that space "has" to be a "negative energy" realm, a manifold that harbours "negative-energy", if anti-particles themselves haven't fully addressed the issue of "energy". The nature of that negative energy for space would need clarification of course.
I think so if my theory pans out.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72397.0I'm basically considering Negative Space as a 3D shadow of any given... well anything really. And if Negative Space is a thing where we live, and I believe very quantifiable, then why wouldn't Negative Energy?However, considering my Math ends up as a Sphere in a Cube in a Sphere in a Cube..... I am forced to conclude that "Negative Spacetime" is what you would find between the event horizons of a black hole, and/or outside the furthest reaches of our Universe.That being said, if I am correct, "Stargate" technology isn't very far away.
Quote from: opportunity on 20/02/2018 09:28:40Thebox: I have looked at space before and ruled out a negative energy of space, my reason is things would not be able move.That's why the ideas of anti-matter and so on were presented, subsequent to Dirac's proposed idea. Those ideas addressed "anti-matter" and not "negative-energy" though, and technically the idea of "negative energy" thus wasn't "fully" addressed I'm thinking (as per my statement above), and more important to this, the "arrow of time". Addressing the mass negation works in theory, yet solving Dirac's postulate with anti-matter alone suggests anti-matter is everywhere with any moving object. That's an oversight we've shared. Time freezes there, right?I agree with you, as per the standard linear time model, nothing would move. It's perhaps no secret I'm working on an idea of the golden ratio as time when applied to space. Using the Golden Ratio can create a gradient of before>after movement while harbouring negative-energy space. I can speed up that paper if necessary.Anyone would be doing me a great service to go through my papers and write this negative-energy paper up themselves, the keys are all there, yet in the absence of that I'm looking at ~3-4 weeks to have it in pre-press.It's hard even for me, as the papers I've written account for a standard time process; plugging in sub-space time (the other result of the golden ratio) as a negative-energy summary of those 6 papers, as a process of explaining the "Dirac sea", while being as diplomatic as possible with Cambridge's own hold on the idea of singularities and dark-energy theory, that's the challenge.I'll do what I can.Who wants to wager me a 50% hold of the patented tech associated to the theory if they can write the negative-energy proposal stated here up before I can? For me that's fair. I'm one person. People can team up here. Many hands make light work. Otherwise I'm held to explaining something, like I had to because I won the bet.I've already done itx=xy=yz=zx=y=zf(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)"1/0=π" translates to "Yes/No=Maybe"xyz/0=πf(xyz)=πTurns the traditional binary number line into a trinary number web.Giving you "+(1)Spacetime" superimposed over "-(1=0)Spacetime" equaling "πSpacetime" Positive Energy ± Negative Energy = ± All Energy Ever (f(x)=x) ± (f(x)≠x)±(π) = ±0
Thebox: I have looked at space before and ruled out a negative energy of space, my reason is things would not be able move.That's why the ideas of anti-matter and so on were presented, subsequent to Dirac's proposed idea. Those ideas addressed "anti-matter" and not "negative-energy" though, and technically the idea of "negative energy" thus wasn't "fully" addressed I'm thinking (as per my statement above), and more important to this, the "arrow of time". Addressing the mass negation works in theory, yet solving Dirac's postulate with anti-matter alone suggests anti-matter is everywhere with any moving object. That's an oversight we've shared. Time freezes there, right?I agree with you, as per the standard linear time model, nothing would move. It's perhaps no secret I'm working on an idea of the golden ratio as time when applied to space. Using the Golden Ratio can create a gradient of before>after movement while harbouring negative-energy space. I can speed up that paper if necessary.Anyone would be doing me a great service to go through my papers and write this negative-energy paper up themselves, the keys are all there, yet in the absence of that I'm looking at ~3-4 weeks to have it in pre-press.It's hard even for me, as the papers I've written account for a standard time process; plugging in sub-space time (the other result of the golden ratio) as a negative-energy summary of those 6 papers, as a process of explaining the "Dirac sea", while being as diplomatic as possible with Cambridge's own hold on the idea of singularities and dark-energy theory, that's the challenge.I'll do what I can.Who wants to wager me a 50% hold of the patented tech associated to the theory if they can write the negative-energy proposal stated here up before I can? For me that's fair. I'm one person. People can team up here. Many hands make light work. Otherwise I'm held to explaining something, like I had to because I won the bet.