Theory of the Universe
I postulated this theory about 30 years ago [ I think 3 quarks had been found by then and thought it was too complicated] so started thinking of the ideas given below. Every discovery since then seems to have slotted neatly [usually] into this theory as ive come across them anyway .....
I started out by looking at first principles as it seemed to be a good place to start ....
Well a theory to be accepted , has to predict and explain at least if not more than present knowledge.
We start with 2 assumptions, namely :
The Universe started
The Laws of Thermodynamics hold
Not *too* controversial , or maybe it is [ the first isnt necesarily a prerequisite , but does make it easier to explain]
Why did I thinkof this idea ?
Well, years ago , as quarks were found , it was 3 , then 4 and is now , I believe 12. To my mind, this is excessive and we seem to be missing a stage beyond this level we have found. Im not dismissing quarks , just i feel they are built of other 'stuff'
Nature/physics seem to start off with simple systems and then build up from there into incredible complexity .
The Theory unwinds.....
Based on the above assumptions , it is clear that the nett energy of the UNiverse is zero [ its started thus energy at that point was zero , and laws of THermodynamics hold , thus no extra energy can be made from that point]
As we can see energy in our UNiverse , we must have negative energy to maintain that balance.
Ergo , somewhere away from our known Universe ,negative energy must exist and equal[ish] to the mass of our Universe
If we postulate that positive and negative energy can be produced anywhere in the Universe and just cancel out , then we start to explain matter.
Negative matter/energy must have negative gravity else the laws of Thermodynamics dont hold either .
If these 'subliminal' particles are created/destroyed ina maelstrom throughout the universe , then it is possible that with a certain , very rare configuration that the gravity fields around a group instead of being destroyed instantaneously actually create a stable particle - the negative bits mainly flying off, but with some negative being bound in a lattice . The orientation and mass of these creating a few but distinct particles .
The reason for very rare is quite obvious - as far as I am aware , no-one has detected matter being created or destroyed . Also if its rare then the configuration types for stable particles creates only a few fundamental particles .
Thus here is a mechanism for creating fundamental particles , which can create quarks/whatever .
I used to think that it postulated that the Universe was full of matter being created/destroyed ina regular storm . Apparently this is the case and was when I stated to think of this - I wrote to Prof Hawking in 1975 with this and his colleague confirmed this [although i didnt go into details when I wrote him as I was only excited about this storm] .
So we now have particles being formed happily with discards also around , with both negative and positive stable particles around.
As these particles repel each other , they ar eggoing to gradually keep well away , and with similar energies congregating.
With time these lumps are going to conglomerate into large pieces.
With further time , 2 of these large pieces are going to get attracted to one another .
With lots of further time they are going to be converging at relativistic speeds .
The mass of these objects will be sweeping everything anywhere near them creating an 'empty' space tunnel .
Finally they are going to hit .
BIG BANG
I dont know whether 'normal ' physics applied before this point in time , but physicians seem to be able to describe matter after the explosion .
Prediction : There MUST be more than one UNiverse- and not just one wher matter is positive [im assuming that we're in th epositive one of course]
Prediction: The [3d]Universe isnt sperical but has 2 dimples exactly opposit each other . Think about the explosion pattern .
OK : there is now an expanding 'sphere' of energy moving outwards . This would have had a huge gravitational effect and positive particles would have been stripped away much quicker from the negative than prior to this point in time . Whether this would have created different types of particles i spossible - I'll leave that to physicists .
What would certainly have happened though, is that a huge amount of negative matter would have been formed [ the positive bits being drawn towards the big bang] and these would have only one place to go - to the centre of the Universe where it would have been braked abruptly [ gravity ] .
prediction : The Centre of the Universe is a white hole
A white hole being the opposite of a black hole . This would be a large piece of negative matter which would be stripping the negative parts of transient matter formation - so would be growing with time .
Positive bits of course would be flung out in a steady stream .
Prediction : The apparent mass of the Universe is growing
This could explain why stars are keeping on being borne as new particles still have a way to go before converting to iron
Finally the universe cooled/settled [ but not as settled as theories suggest of course] .
OK so what about particles in our ken .
The above theory mandates that part of each particle are capable of destroying other bits if the stability within those fundamental partticles is removed , for instance within a particle acelerator . I don't know whether this has been proved or not .
If negative matter managed to contain positive , [ positron?] then annihilation using a proton would detroy both , with a small emission of energy [ it has to be positive as there would need to be more positive than negative in the positron else it would be very hard to get them to meet if they repelled each other so much ] . Id always wondered why the 2 destructing didnt balance out , but this explains it quite easily .
Different configurations of these particles can creat different properties , so electrons/protons etc can be explained .
if you get very close to a particle it should be possible to measure some weird gravitational changes as the negative bits would be starting to have an effect . Apparently this is either the case or it has been postulated with other theories - I did read someone measuring or trying to once .
What else ?
The latest revelation is that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing .
The above only predicts it stabilising , of course at first glance - it cant collapse due to the white hole which is growing and pushing it forever outwards , but I don't feel that its responsible for this phenomenom , but maybe ...
Another one is that the Universe is still in it's expansion phase ,ie were still into the explosion. This doesnt feel right either - big bang was BIG , but that Big ??????
Another is that the measurements are wrong. But these observations /calculations were peer reveiwed so shouldnt be an option .
The only explanation if the above are all wrong is that the area of the Universe being measured
are being subjected to an 'outside' gravititational force . I may be wrong , but it strikes me that this is the most likely explanation and that we are being drawn towards another Universe .
Postulations :
If we could find a reliable way of making/containing negative - we'd have one heck of a transport medium , and could even overcome the speed of light possibly ..........
can the above explain any anomolies found with a particle accelrator
Conclusion
Starting with first principles , a holistic description of the history of the universe is described
Feel free to comment , it's seriously contentious , but it feels consistent
I started out by looking at first principles as it seemed to be a good place to start ....
Well a theory to be accepted , has to predict and explain at least if not more than present knowledge.
We start with 2 assumptions, namely :
The Universe started
The Laws of Thermodynamics hold
Not *too* controversial , or maybe it is [ the first isnt necesarily a prerequisite , but does make it easier to explain]
Why did I thinkof this idea ?
Well, years ago , as quarks were found , it was 3 , then 4 and is now , I believe 12. To my mind, this is excessive and we seem to be missing a stage beyond this level we have found. Im not dismissing quarks , just i feel they are built of other 'stuff'
Nature/physics seem to start off with simple systems and then build up from there into incredible complexity .
The Theory unwinds.....
Based on the above assumptions , it is clear that the nett energy of the UNiverse is zero [ its started thus energy at that point was zero , and laws of THermodynamics hold , thus no extra energy can be made from that point]
As we can see energy in our UNiverse , we must have negative energy to maintain that balance.
Ergo , somewhere away from our known Universe ,negative energy must exist and equal[ish] to the mass of our Universe
If we postulate that positive and negative energy can be produced anywhere in the Universe and just cancel out , then we start to explain matter.
Negative matter/energy must have negative gravity else the laws of Thermodynamics dont hold either .
If these 'subliminal' particles are created/destroyed ina maelstrom throughout the universe , then it is possible that with a certain , very rare configuration that the gravity fields around a group instead of being destroyed instantaneously actually create a stable particle - the negative bits mainly flying off, but with some negative being bound in a lattice . The orientation and mass of these creating a few but distinct particles .
The reason for very rare is quite obvious - as far as I am aware , no-one has detected matter being created or destroyed . Also if its rare then the configuration types for stable particles creates only a few fundamental particles .
Thus here is a mechanism for creating fundamental particles , which can create quarks/whatever .
I used to think that it postulated that the Universe was full of matter being created/destroyed ina regular storm . Apparently this is the case and was when I stated to think of this - I wrote to Prof Hawking in 1975 with this and his colleague confirmed this [although i didnt go into details when I wrote him as I was only excited about this storm] .
So we now have particles being formed happily with discards also around , with both negative and positive stable particles around.
As these particles repel each other , they ar eggoing to gradually keep well away , and with similar energies congregating.
With time these lumps are going to conglomerate into large pieces.
With further time , 2 of these large pieces are going to get attracted to one another .
With lots of further time they are going to be converging at relativistic speeds .
The mass of these objects will be sweeping everything anywhere near them creating an 'empty' space tunnel .
Finally they are going to hit .
BIG BANG
I dont know whether 'normal ' physics applied before this point in time , but physicians seem to be able to describe matter after the explosion .
Prediction : There MUST be more than one UNiverse- and not just one wher matter is positive [im assuming that we're in th epositive one of course]
Prediction: The [3d]Universe isnt sperical but has 2 dimples exactly opposit each other . Think about the explosion pattern .
OK : there is now an expanding 'sphere' of energy moving outwards . This would have had a huge gravitational effect and positive particles would have been stripped away much quicker from the negative than prior to this point in time . Whether this would have created different types of particles i spossible - I'll leave that to physicists .
What would certainly have happened though, is that a huge amount of negative matter would have been formed [ the positive bits being drawn towards the big bang] and these would have only one place to go - to the centre of the Universe where it would have been braked abruptly [ gravity ] .
prediction : The Centre of the Universe is a white hole
A white hole being the opposite of a black hole . This would be a large piece of negative matter which would be stripping the negative parts of transient matter formation - so would be growing with time .
Positive bits of course would be flung out in a steady stream .
Prediction : The apparent mass of the Universe is growing
This could explain why stars are keeping on being borne as new particles still have a way to go before converting to iron
Finally the universe cooled/settled [ but not as settled as theories suggest of course] .
OK so what about particles in our ken .
The above theory mandates that part of each particle are capable of destroying other bits if the stability within those fundamental partticles is removed , for instance within a particle acelerator . I don't know whether this has been proved or not .
If negative matter managed to contain positive , [ positron?] then annihilation using a proton would detroy both , with a small emission of energy [ it has to be positive as there would need to be more positive than negative in the positron else it would be very hard to get them to meet if they repelled each other so much ] . Id always wondered why the 2 destructing didnt balance out , but this explains it quite easily .
Different configurations of these particles can creat different properties , so electrons/protons etc can be explained .
if you get very close to a particle it should be possible to measure some weird gravitational changes as the negative bits would be starting to have an effect . Apparently this is either the case or it has been postulated with other theories - I did read someone measuring or trying to once .
What else ?
The latest revelation is that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing .
The above only predicts it stabilising , of course at first glance - it cant collapse due to the white hole which is growing and pushing it forever outwards , but I don't feel that its responsible for this phenomenom , but maybe ...
Another one is that the Universe is still in it's expansion phase ,ie were still into the explosion. This doesnt feel right either - big bang was BIG , but that Big ??????
Another is that the measurements are wrong. But these observations /calculations were peer reveiwed so shouldnt be an option .
The only explanation if the above are all wrong is that the area of the Universe being measured
are being subjected to an 'outside' gravititational force . I may be wrong , but it strikes me that this is the most likely explanation and that we are being drawn towards another Universe .
Postulations :
If we could find a reliable way of making/containing negative - we'd have one heck of a transport medium , and could even overcome the speed of light possibly ..........
can the above explain any anomolies found with a particle accelrator
Conclusion
Starting with first principles , a holistic description of the history of the universe is described
Feel free to comment , it's seriously contentious , but it feels consistent
Comments