Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Pmb on 18/10/2011 16:31:06
-
Mod Note - this thread split from original question to allow discussion of off-topic matter
Hi Kat
The law of conservation of mass simply states that matter can not be created nor destroyed,...
Let us define matter as it was defined by Einstein as well as in other modern text books. Einstein wrote n his 1906 review paper on General Relativity. In the test The Principle of Relativity on page 14. Read section 14 The Field Equations of of Gravitation in the absence of matter. It reads
We make a distinction hearafter between "gravitational field" and "matter" in this way, that we denote everything but the gravitational field as "matter". Our use of the therefore includes not only in the ordinary sense, but the electric field as well.
You might be interested in the following web page of mine at
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/relativistic_mass.htm
... but when we look at any object it had to have come from somewhere ..
Have you considered that it may have come from nowhere? Near the beginning of the Big-Bang event it seems clear to me that the universe started out as a quantum singularity which eventually led to the big bang. It's possible that the universe started out with zero total energy. As the Big-Bang progressed, matter was created in two forms, i.e. matter which had positive energy and that with negative energy, each form having matter.
Best wishes Kat
Pete
-
It's a interesting point Pmb, as if we was at the receiving end of a prism splitting light into different 'types'. Or maybe we are inside a 'fault line' of something else, where our SpaceTime 'doesn't exist', where it comes from?
If we assume it to be 'energy' then we don't have 'negative and positive' energy, because that would break the conservation laws as I see it. It would be very near the way I think 'real antimatter' should work, just silently disappearing in contact with matter, leaving no 'residue' of any kind definable, not even as entropy's 'work done'. What we call 'anti matter' today is not of that kind, when it meets matter we get a lot of 'energy' released.
-
It's a interesting point Pmb, as if we was at the receiving end of a prism splitting light into different 'types'. Or maybe we are inside a 'fault line' of something else, where our SpaceTime 'doesn't exist', where it comes from?
If we assume it to be 'energy' then we don't have 'negative and positive' energy, because that would break the conservation laws as I see it. It would be very near the way I think 'real antimatter' should work, just silently disappearing in contact with matter, leaving no 'residue' of any kind definable, not even as entropy's 'work done'. What we call 'anti matter' today is not of that kind, when it meets matter we get a lot of 'energy' released.
Have you ever browsed through an article I wrote on this subject? It has yet to be published, but that will happen when it happens.
There are two;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/relativistic_mass.htm
Best wishes
Pete
-
I'll read it Pete.
-
Hi Kat
... but when we look at any object it had to have come from somewhere ..
Have you considered that it may have come from nowhere? Near the beginning of the Big-Bang event it seems clear to me that the universe started out as a quantum singularity which eventually led to the big bang. It's possible that the universe started out with zero total energy. As the Big-Bang progressed, matter was created in two forms, i.e. matter which had positive energy and that with negative energy, each form having matter.
Best wishes Kat
Pete
Pete
Presumably you are talking about the creation of matter and antimatter? Both are created from energy (photons) but photons are their own antiparticle, so I don't understand what you mean by negative energy?
Granted, matter and anti-matter (if they gravitationally repel) could be thought of as cancelling.
The big bang accounts for the surplus of matter over antimatter by allowing a very slight lop sided creation favouring matter. This next bit is not a mainstream idea but I mention it as it fits in with the idea of the universe being a free lunch. What if, the creation of matter and antimatter were equal and what wasn't mutually annihilated gravitationally sorted to become two sister universes. Each going different directions in time relative to the other. That would mean that regardless of the time the universes had existed the total time (as a pair) that they had existed would always be zero. That scenario seems to fit in with quantum mechanics nicely.
-
Mike, the negative energy comes about because Einstein's equation for the relationship between energy, momentum and mass in special relativity is (setting c=1 to make it look simple):
E2=m2+p2,
where E is energy, m is (rest or invariant) mass and p is momentum.
To solve for the energy, you take a square root, and that can give positive or negative solutions. Dirac was the first to really work out that these negative energy particles were antimatter--no one had actually seen antimatter, so he was just working out the math. Later on, people saw antimatter and verified that his math was describing real particles by using negative energy.
-
So we set a scale, and then we measure. Under that 0 we call it negative, above we call it positive. Does that mean that energy comes in two qualities?
Not as I see it. If you from a anti particle annihilating with a particle gets a 'positive energy' (as in radiation), sufficient to cover both particles energy/momentum then that last energy is of only one quality.
And that's also what the conservation laws and entropy demands.
-
The real mystery is 'work done' here.
-
Hi Kat
... but when we look at any object it had to have come from somewhere ..
Have you considered that it may have come from nowhere? Near the beginning of the Big-Bang event it seems clear to me that the universe started out as a quantum singularity which eventually led to the big bang. It's possible that the universe started out with zero total energy. As the Big-Bang progressed, matter was created in two forms, i.e. matter which had positive energy and that with negative energy, each form having matter.
Best wishes Kat
Pete
Pete
Presumably you are talking about the creation of matter and antimatter? Both are created from energy (photons) but photons are their own antiparticle, so I don't understand what you mean by negative energy?
Granted, matter and anti-matter (if they gravitationally repel) could be thought of as cancelling.
The big bang accounts for the surplus of matter over antimatter by allowing a very slight lop sided creation favouring matter. This next bit is not a mainstream idea but I mention it as it fits in with the idea of the universe being a free lunch. What if, the creation of matter and antimatter were equal and what wasn't mutually annihilated gravitationally sorted to become two sister universes. Each going different directions in time relative to the other. That would mean that regardless of the time the universes had existed the total time (as a pair) that they had existed would always be zero. That scenario seems to fit in with quantum mechanics nicely.
Actually I was thinking about positive energy and negative energy. The positive energy comes from matter, the negative energy comes from the gravitational field. I'm not 100% sure about this though. I thinkk I read it in either a cosmology text or an article.
-
JP
Thanks
So negative energy is something that can appear by taking the square root, ok but I think I am correct in believing that we don't actually know of anything that is negative energy other than the gravitational field?
Pmb
I agree that gravity can be thought of as negative energy and it is easy to see why the negative energy of gravity would cancel the positive energy contained in matter. However that still leaves energy that is not contained in matter and it is difficult to see how negative gravitational energy can cancel that?
-
JP
Thanks
So negative energy is something that can appear by taking the square root, ok but I think I am correct in believing that we don't actually know of anything that is negative energy other than the gravitational field?
Pmb
I agree that gravity can be thought of as negative energy and it is easy to see why the negative energy of gravity would cancel the positive energy contained in matter. However that still leaves energy that is not contained in matter and it is difficult to see how negative gravitational energy can cancel that?
I'm starting a self study of cosmology so by next year I should know much more about things like this.
Note - Please take notice that using educated guesses here.The universe is so enormous that the energy of the negative gravity is enourmous. Same can be said about the energy in matter (including the EM fields).
-
To me it's a mathematical function. SpaceTime does not have a 'negative energy' because if it had the conservation laws would be wrong. Neither would an outcome between a anti particle and a particle reflect both energies (as a 'positive' function/radiation of them).
Which either makes me believe that my thoughts about what 'anti' something should be seen as is wrong, and so can't exist, or that the definition we use is one describing 'symmetries', but not 'negative energy'.
==
What would happen if we could run 'clocks' backward?
With 'energy'?
It wouldn't turn 'negative', but it would reverse.
-
JP
Thanks
So negative energy is something that can appear by taking the square root, ok but I think I am correct in believing that we don't actually know of anything that is negative energy other than the gravitational field?
Pmb
I agree that gravity can be thought of as negative energy and it is easy to see why the negative energy of gravity would cancel the positive energy contained in matter. However that still leaves energy that is not contained in matter and it is difficult to see how negative gravitational energy can cancel that?
I'm starting a self study of cosmology so by next year I should know much more about things like this.
Note - Please take notice that using educated guesses here.The universe is so enormous that the energy of the negative gravity is enourmous. Same can be said about the energy in matter (including the EM fields).
Pmb
What I was getting at is gravity is created by mass, so presumably the gravitational negative energy is balanced by the positive energy contained in matter. That still leaves a surplus of positive energy that is not contained in matter. For the universe to have zero net energy what balances this surplus of positive energy?
-
JP
Thanks
So negative energy is something that can appear by taking the square root, ok but I think I am correct in believing that we don't actually know of anything that is negative energy other than the gravitational field?
Pmb
I agree that gravity can be thought of as negative energy and it is easy to see why the negative energy of gravity would cancel the positive energy contained in matter. However that still leaves energy that is not contained in matter and it is difficult to see how negative gravitational energy can cancel that?
It's the gravitational field that the negative gravity comes from, on a uiversal level. Even on the human level, if you were at rest on earth then you youself have negative gravity.
I'm starting a self study of cosmology so by next year I should know much more about things like this.
Good man my friend. I too am doing the same thing. What text are you using?
Pmb
[quote[
What I was getting at is gravity is created by mass, ...
The gravitational field which is the cause of the universal acceleration, and that might not be caused by matter as we know it.
[quote
...so presumably the gravitational negative energy is balanced by the positive energy contained in matter.
Why? More matter then the greater the negative pat of the field.
Newtonian wise it's like this. If we let g[/g] represent the gravitational field then g = -Mn/d^2. The negative sign represents the negstive part of the megative field.