Negative Energy quantum symmety as Dark Energy

[utesfan100]

Extended Standard Model

For this theory it is proposed that the standard model of QM is doubled by adding particles with negative mass to the existing fermions. The standard bosons remain the same, leaving the electro-weak and strong forces unchanged.

Negative Mass
By definition, classically p=mv, an object with negative mass would propagate in a direction opposite to its momentum. Taking the derivative with time gives us that acceleration is in the opposite direction of the net force.

This complicates our standard vocabulary, which relies on the intuition that mass is positive. Much confusion can be alleviated by clearing up our vocabulary.

Push and Pull should be used when discussion forces and momentum.
Attract and Repel should be used when discussing acceleration and velocities.

For a positive mass push=attract and pull=repel.
For a negative mass push=repel and pull=attract.

For example, let us consider gravity. It has been shown (Bondy 1957) that negative mass is consistent with GR, so long as we maintain the equivalence principle, even in sign.
Like masses will pull each other, while unlike masses will push each other.
Thus, positive masses attract all masses while negative masses repel all masses.

Given an initially uniform even distribution of positive and negative mass, gravity alone could cause the positive mass to condense into the observed gravitationally attracting units surrounded by a uniform density negative energy region similar to the Large Scale Honeycomb structure of the universe and causing the Hubble Flow. We will call this the Hubble Flow Medium (HFM).

Strong Force
The strong force pulls objects together. For positive mass matter this causes a strong attraction. For negative mass matter this would cause a strong repulsion, making even the simplest of negative energy baryonic matter very short lived. Since quarks are unstable in isolation, the HFM should be expected to be composed solely of negative mass leptons.

Electro-Weak Force
Eventually the parity breaking Electro-Weak force is required to explain the abundance of matter relative to anti-matter we presently observe. Currently, the known parity breaking mechanisms are far less than what is required.

With gravity condensing the positive mass matter, this could result in an amplification of the weak force's parity breaking mechanism that works to produce a repulsion between matter and anti-matter. This would result in a pattern of isolated matter and anti-matter dominated gravitationally bound regions, reducing the need for eliminating large amounts of anti-matter.

Obviously, we live in a gravitationally bound region dominated by the Shapely Supercluster that is composed of matter.

Tired Light
Aside from the lack of scattering, one of the biggest obstacles for tired light is that the predicted Hubble redshift is not observed in stars within our local group of Galaxies.

This model of the universe allows this to be explained by the fact that negative matter is not expected to be found within gravitationally bound regions, with the slowing down of light being a property of the HFM.

Constraints
The mechanism for slowing down light can not be Compton scattering, the medium absorbing and re-emitting the photons, as this would disperse the light until it appeared as a uniform glow in all directions. The CMBR is such an illuminescence, and its deviations from a thermal distribution may be due to the emission lines and resonances of the HFM.

Gravitational lensing is also not an option, because gravity is conservative and the redshift would be restored.

The spin of a photon suggests that the weak force may be non-trivial on a Hubble scale, providing a mechanism to transfer momentum from the photons to the HFM, causing the light to slow down with distance.

Thus our universe need not be expanding, although this theory does meld well with the dispersion cosmology previously described by Icarus2 to explain repulsive peculiar velocities relative to the Hubble Flow.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...f-Hubble-s-Law
Indeed, his work justifies my claim above that positive and negative mass would produce the Honeycomb structure of our universe.

[Shaula]

With gravity condensing the positive mass matter, this could result in an amplification of the weak force's parity breaking mechanism that works to produce a repulsion between matter and anti-matter.

Can you explain in detail how you think this would work? As far as I know CP violating terms are not density dependent.

[utesfan100]

Can you explain in detail how you think this would work? As far as I know CP violating terms are not density dependent.

Suppose we have gravity accelerating charged objects. This will cause a change in the electro-weak's magnetic field. The CP violating terms would appear as a small perturbative difference in the magnetic fields of the matter and anti-matter components.

I don't have an order of magnitude estimate for this effect, nor even an argument as to why the perturbation should be repulsive. The idea is that this could be repulsive enough to drive them apart on a Hubble time scale.

[utesfan100]

Can you explain in detail how you think this would work? As far as I know CP violating terms are not density dependent.

Suppose we have gravity accelerating charged objects. This will cause a change in the electro-weak's magnetic field. The CP violating terms would appear as a small perturbative difference in the magnetic fields of the matter and anti-matter components.

I don't have an order of magnitude estimate for this effect, nor even an argument as to why the perturbation should be repulsive. The idea is that this could be repulsive enough to drive them apart on a Hubble time scale.

[utesfan100]

Before I start, sorry for the duplicate post. Apparently deleting posts does not work.

I have been considering the impact of supernova observations on this theory. This is the observation that a certain class of supernova have a fixed known duration, and that the change in duration matches the observed redshift for the object they are in.

This confirms that the redshift is velocity related.

If a difference is ever found, the tired light of the HFM could be a suspect, but for now any impact of the tired light HFM weak interaction mechanism presented is negligible.

This returns the cosmology fully to that of Icarus2.

[Shaula]

Suppose we have gravity accelerating charged objects. This will cause a change in the electro-weak's magnetic field. The CP violating terms would appear as a small perturbative difference in the magnetic fields of the matter and anti-matter components.

The CP violating terms are not dependent on the strength of the EM field. The CP violating mechanisms we currently know of are purely based around phases in weak interactions. Electroweak unification only happens at very high temperatures, below this they are not coupled. Your idea requires a hefty rewrite of the Standard model and implies that the mixing angles derived from different accelerators should be different (different magnetic fields used). This was not observed as far as I know.

Plus the 'honeycomb structure' is already pretty well explained by fluid dynamics. Do you have any evidence that your model does a better job at reproducing what we see?

[utesfan100]

The CP violating terms are not dependent on the strength of the EM field. The CP violating mechanisms we currently know of are purely based around phases in weak interactions. Electroweak unification only happens at very high temperatures, below this they are not coupled. Your idea requires a hefty rewrite of the Standard model and implies that the mixing angles derived from different accelerators should be different (different magnetic fields used). This was not observed as far as I know.

Please excuse my use of populist metaphor, as that is all I have really been exposed to. I look forward to expressing my ideas within more scientific language as I see it being used in these challenge.

Apparently my use of Electro-weak force was overly general. The separation of matter and antimatter likely happened early in the universe, when the temperature was higher and the forces were unified, but the P violating mechanisms are entirely within the weak interaction in our environment. My use of the magnetic field to describe the effects of motion on the weak interaction was unfortunate.

My idea would be closer to saying that the effects of these mixing angles could cause condensing positive mass to accelerate matter in one direction and anti-matter the other. This would result in a separation of the mater and anti-matter regions.

Plus the 'honeycomb structure' is already pretty well explained by fluid dynamics. Do you have any evidence that your model does a better job at reproducing what we see?

Short answer: No.

I don't have the computational resources to model these dynamics that have been put into the standard models.

I would, however, be interested in a link to an explanation of the honeycomb structure using fluid mechanics.

[Shaula]

My idea would be closer to saying that the effects of these mixing angles could cause condensing positive mass to accelerate matter in one direction and anti-matter the other. This would result in a separation of the mater and anti-matter regions.

Are you actually talking about parity violation? Rereading your first post that seems to be what you are talking about but then you slip into using the term CP violations (and CKM mixing which is CP violation) after I did.

What is you precise mechanism and how do you propose it works to produce the effect you require? I may have complicated things by confusing what you are saying.

As for the use of fluid dynamics - revist the thread TooMany was running about Dark matter. There were several good links there to projects like the millennium simulation which cover this well.

[utesfan100]

Are you actually talking about parity violation? Rereading your first post that seems to be what you are talking about but then you slip into using the term CP violations (and CKM mixing which is CP violation) after I did.

I did originally intend violations that impact matter-anti-matter independent of time and charge, so this would be P violations (or equivalently CT violations.)

What is you precise mechanism and how do you propose it works to produce the effect you require? I may have complicated things by confusing what you are saying.

It is my job to express myself clearly, which is difficult when the familiarity with the subject is limited.

For example, I am a bit uncertain as to what would be considered a "precise mechanism." Can you provide a sample standard "precise mechanism" as a template for what you are looking for as an answer?

To be fair, I will likely not be able to meet a rigorous standard.

If you can agree that the weak force MAY have caused separation of positive mass matter into regions of matter and anti-matter, I will agree that I have not yet proved that this is what happened.

As for the use of fluid dynamics - revist the thread TooMany was running about Dark matter. There were several good links there to projects like the millennium simulation which cover this well.

Are you talking about this thread?
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...-of-the-galaxy
I skimmed through it and I saw much on how the observed clusters and Galaxies are formed using standard mechanics.

This has occurred after the Recombination Epoch, and I would expect the gravitationally bound matter and anti-matter regions to have mostly separated by then.

[Shaula]

For example, I am a bit uncertain as to what would be considered a "precise mechanism." Can you provide a sample standard "precise mechanism" as a template for what you are looking for as an answer?

NB: the following is total gibberish but shows the sort of thing I am after.

Matter was trapped in primordial magnetic fields, with most aligning their spins along it. Parity violations in the K1-K0 type decays led to preferential ejection of P1 to the 'left' and P0 to the 'right' which segregated antimatter and matter.

I am after a plausible mechanism, a link with currently observed particle physics and a result consistent with observations.

Plus one big flaw with matter/antimatter dominated regions - we have never seen anything like a domain wall annihilation signature.

[utesfan100]

NB: the following is total gibberish but shows the sort of thing I am after.

Matter was trapped in primordial magnetic fields, with most aligning their spins along it. Parity violations in the K1-K0 type decays led to preferential ejection of P1 to the 'left' and P0 to the 'right' which segregated antimatter and matter.

I am after a plausible mechanism, a link with currently observed particle physics and a result consistent with observations.

That is fair, but my knowledge of the details of non classical interactions is not sufficient to produce such a mechanism.

Is it not plausible that such a mechanism exists?

Plus one big flaw with matter/antimatter dominated regions - we have never seen anything like a domain wall annihilation signature.

The matter and antimatter regions would be separated by the negative mass HFM, so they would not be in direct contact to annihilate at their boundaries.

[Shaula]

Is it not plausible that such a mechanism exists?

As far as I know no. You would require the initial matter to be highly structured and the parity violation to be much stronger than is observed.

[utesfan100]

As far as I know no. You would require the initial matter to be highly structured and the parity violation to be much stronger than is observed.

The gravitational separation of positive and negative mass would drive the development of more initial structure than standard models.

Further, the parity violation required to separate roughly equal matter and anti-matter as this structure develops seems much less than the parity violation required to eliminate anti-matter entirely. In fact, there is no requirement for a violation of Baryon number, as is required for mainstream theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryoge...etry_parameter

[caveman1917]

Can you provide the expansion profile predicted by your positive/negative mass mixture? Preferably in terms of a specific scale factor.

It would appear that, after the initial mixture has settled in seperate positive/negative regions, the profile would be akin to the one we'd get from a de sitter space where we let the cosmological constant drop like . This is not observed, but perhaps i'm misunderstanding the dynamics you propose.

In any case, if you'd derive an actual expression for in your proposal, it would be much easier to check this against observations that in effect constrain that function.

[utesfan100]

Can you provide the expansion profile predicted by your positive/negative mass mixture? Preferably in terms of a specific scale factor.

It would appear that, after the initial mixture has settled in seperate positive/negative regions, the profile would be akin to the one we'd get from a de sitter space where we let the cosmological constant drop like . This is not observed, but perhaps i'm misunderstanding the dynamics you propose.

In any case, if you'd derive an actual expression for in your proposal, it would be much easier to check this against observations that in effect constrain that function.

Icarus2 showed that assuming an initial positive and negative mass mixture produces the mainstream a(t) profile.

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...f-Hubble-s-Law

I am willing to extend his claim to argue that the CMBR anisotropy has a small component due to the peculiar motion of the Earth relative to the HFM, but is largely due to the fact that in this dispersive model of the universe the inward direction should appear warmer than the outward direction.

[Shaula]

Further, the parity violation required to separate roughly equal matter and anti-matter as this structure develops seems much less than the parity violation required to eliminate anti-matter entirely. In fact, there is no requirement for a violation of Baryon number, as is required for mainstream theories.

But we have observed direct CP violation. Probably not enough yet but we know it happens. So objecting on the grounds that this is required by the mainstream seems an odd position to take. We know it happens. Just need to refine the theories to get it to be the right amount.

I don't really see that you have much more than a few speculations so far. Any maths to back it up? Any toy models to show it is feasible?

[caveman1917]

Icarus2 showed that assuming an initial positive and negative mass mixture produces the mainstream a(t) profile.

He produced a youtube video showing that profile, that is still not a derivation. There are some derivations in the first few posts, but the only worked out one is about deriving hubble's law in a "central-explosion" universe (which is quite obvious by itself).

In any case, that thread is locked, and since you are making the claim in this thread, i'll still ask you to rigorously derive the form of from first principles within your proposal.

[utesfan100]

He produced a youtube video showing that profile, that is still not a derivation. There are some derivations in the first few posts, but the only worked out one is about deriving hubble's law in a "central-explosion" universe (which is quite obvious by itself).

In any case, that thread is locked, and since you are making the claim in this thread, i'll still ask you to rigorously derive the form of from first principles within your proposal.

He studied and simulated in great detail the consequences of a centralized concentration of equal but opposite positive and negative masses. This is identical to the first principles of my theory.

His presentation suffered from a lack of English skills, but I consider his derivations rigorous enough to justify the computer simulations he ran, justifying his four phases of the expansion profile of the universe. I read his papers and had some off-line communication with the author at the time. Here is his paper.
http://vixra.org/abs/1110.0019

Phase 1: The repulsion of the negative mass dominates and the concentrated distribution accelerates rapidly outwards.

Phase 2: The positive mass begins to condense into separate regions, decelerating the acceleration.

Phase 3: Negative mass binds to the exterior of the positive mass regions, producing a net repulsion and accelerating expansion at a near constant rate, as seen today.

Phase 4: Eventually this process stalls and we reach the state you describe thus:

It would appear that, after the initial mixture has settled in separate positive/negative regions, the profile would be akin to the one we'd get from a de sitter space where we let the cosmological constant drop like .

Phase 1 and Phase 2 produces gravitational dynamics that accelerates matter more than the standard cosmological models. I am discussing with Shaula whether it is reasonable to suspect that this motion and P/CP violations can produce separated regions of matter and anti-matter.

So far I have introduced four parts of this theory. Let me clarify what they are and the level of convincing I aim to achieve. I will order them by the universe's chronologically. Indeed, these ideas are somewhat isolated concepts.

1) Expansion profile due to positive and negative mass. I plan to rest on his work, clarifying his dynamics and models. Observations contradicting these models will be taken as evidence against the preferred location this model introduces.

2) The existence of the HFM. I assert that a sea of negative mass leptons is consistent. This is really the focus on what I am wanting to look at in this thread. If this is shown to not be consistent, this theory is disproved.

3) HFM Tired light mechanism. If such a mechanism exists, this has already been shown to be negligible.

4) Positive mass separate matter and anti-matter into isolated regions. Shaula and I are discussing the feasibility of the mechanism, and I am suggesting that the added Icarus2 dynamics should produce motion that enhances the separation. My goal here is plausibility and self education. So far I seem to be having more luck with the latter.

[utesfan100]

But we have observed direct CP violation. Probably not enough yet but we know it happens. So objecting on the grounds that this is required by the mainstream seems an odd position to take. We know it happens. Just need to refine the theories to get it to be the right amount.

I don't really see that you have much more than a few speculations so far. Any maths to back it up? Any toy models to show it is feasible?

Let's try a toy model, following your model mechanism.

As the positive and negative masses separate random variations in velocity will give each region an angular momentum. Since the particles are charged there would also be a magnetic moment. The Barnett effect could also contribute to enhancing the magnetic field. With time the quantum spin axis of the positive mass matter would tend to align with the magnetic field.

As you pointed out, kaon physics could then provide a difference in force to separate the matter from anti-matter.

In a high temperature early universe, it is more likely that the magnetic field alone could separate the baryons. This is especially true in the very early universe when the temperature was so hot the electro-weak force had not yet differentiated.

http://phys.org/news188211977.html

[caveman1917]

He studied and simulated in great detail the consequences of a centralized concentration of equal but opposite positive and negative masses. This is identical to the first principles of my theory.

Yes i know, that's why i asked you to provide the derivation here.
The mere fact that someone studied it in great detail doesn't prove much, there have been plenty of people that have studied perpetuum mobile devices.

His presentation suffered from a lack of English skills, but I consider his derivations rigorous enough to justify the computer simulations he ran, justifying his four phases of the expansion profile of the universe. I read his papers and had some off-line communication with the author at the time. Here is his paper.
http://vixra.org/abs/1110.0019

I consider his derivations greatly lacking. Also his paper has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal so cannot be simply taken as evidence. Given that his lack of English skills may have an influence, and given your statement that you had some extra off-line communication, would it in any case not be more prudent for you to clarify any necessary derivations?

What i see in his paper is a couple of equations on the basic effect of negative mass in general (ie repels positive mass) and then a statement basically saying "so i ran a computer simulation and made a youtube video out of it". I'll give you some examples of why a more rigorous derivation is needed:

Phase 1: The repulsion of the negative mass dominates and the concentrated distribution accelerates rapidly outwards.

Why? At this point we are in a presumably uniform distribution[*]. Given that the net gravitational force (under newton) on any particle is an integral over the mass distribution, we can approximate this by summing over small cubes. But since the distribution of positive/negative is approximately uniform, the net mass in every little cube will add to zero, and thus we would see no net forces at all.

CM1a: Please rigorously derive the result that it "accelerates rapidly outwards".

Phase 2: The positive mass begins to condense into separate regions, decelerating the acceleration.

Given that this configuration seems about equivalent to having a uniform negative mass distribution with randomly spaced "specks" of concentrated positive mass, it would appear that settling into this configuration would actually accelerate the expansion (and start it up in the first place).

CM1b: Please rigorously derive the result that this configuration would "decelerate the acceleration".

Phase 3: Negative mass binds to the exterior of the positive mass regions, producing a net repulsion and accelerating expansion at a near constant rate, as seen today.

It appears that this is saying something akin to a configuration of specks of concentrated positive mass surrounded by a shell of negative mass. The same argument as in phase 1 applies. Given the large distances between these "specks of mass", and given that higher moments drop off in strength quicker, it would again seem that any speck would feel no net force because the positive and negative mass cancel for each of the surrounding specks.

CM1c: Please rigorously derive that this configuration has a "near constant accelerating expansion".

Phase 4: Eventually this process stalls and we reach the state you describe thus:

CM1d: Also please rigorously derive that this process stalls and exactly which state it then settles in.

So far I have introduced four parts of this theory.

Yes i know, i'm challenging the first part. It's simply not enough to point to a (non-published) paper that doesn't even derive the dynamics.

My goal here is plausibility and self education.

If your goal is self education, it would not be a bad idea to actually work through the derivations, even though you may already believe in the result because of someone else's computer simulation. I for one am not buying it, at least anything other than a configuration akin to a uniform negative mass distribution with specks of concentrated positive mass which would produce dynamics akin to a cosmological constant dropping off over time. Certainly not this "four phases" model. But i'm willing to be shown wrong, but with math and rigour, not with a statement basically saying "i believe his computer simulation is correct".

* I suppose you're going to say that we have slight deviations from perfect uniformity, like the quantum fluctuations that we, through inflation, presume to have seeded large-scale structure formation. But note that you are explaining inflation from this basis, so your deviations from uniformity will be at the quantum scales and not larger. The question then is: given that the deviations are at that scale, is that enough to produce the needed effect, given that the other forces will have a much greater influence at those scales than gravity? Is it reasonable to presume that gravitational dynamics will dominate (since that's all that's being modelled)?

[utesfan100]

Your specific questions on the Icarus2 model will take some time. I plan to address these questions, but ask for patience in the work.

If your goal is self education, it would not be a bad idea to actually work through the derivations, even though you may already believe in the result because of someone else's computer simulation. I for one am not buying it, at least anything other than a configuration aking to a uniform negative mass distribution with specks of concentrated positive mass which would produce dynamics akin to a cosmological constant dropping off over time. Certainly not this "four phases" model. But i'm willing to be shown wrong, but with math and rigour, not with a statement basically saying "i believe his computer simulation is correct".

While I will enjoy examining the math of this model, I am more interested in the unexpected consequences of the proposed HFM.
The education I am seeking is in the QM aspects of this model.

This supposes that a negative mass lepton region with net neutral charge dominates fills the significant volumes of our universe with negligible impact on the light traveling through this medium.

* I suppose you're going to say that we have slight deviations from perfect uniformity, like the quantum fluctuations that we, through inflation, presume to have seeded large-scale structure formation. But note that you are explaining inflation from this basis, so your deviations from uniformity will be at the quantum scales and not larger. The question then is: given that the deviations are at that scale, is that enough to produce the needed effect, given that the other forces will have a much greater influence at those scales than gravity? Is it reasonable to presume that gravitational dynamics will dominate (since that's all that's being modelled)?

Actually, I am going to say that a large amount of equal but opposite mass-energy emerged in a region at quantum mechanical scale. Modeling this as individual particles shows that expansion begins due to gravity.

Observing that, relative to this preferred frame, the outermost regions are moving relativistically, they should be time dilated. Thus, if we look at a region that has aged to a certain phase it will have traveled farther, giving the appearance of rapid inflation.

The anthropic principle suggests that we should not assume a preferred place at the center of the universe. This raises the question of in which direction is the center of the universe, and how far away is it?

The center should appear hotter and denser than the outer direction. Based on the observable uniformity in matter distribution we should expect to be in the outer rim of the universe. Based on the fact that the CMBR variance is 1 part in 100,000, I would suggest that the center of the universe is at z>100,000 in the direction of the CMBR hot spot.

I will concede that it is reasonable to question whether gravity is the dominant force at the earliest timescales, as is assumed by this model.

[Shaula]

The anthropic principle suggests that we should not assume a preferred place at the center of the universe. This raises the question of in which direction is the center of the universe, and how far away is it?

The center should appear hotter and denser than the outer direction. Based on the observable uniformity in matter distribution we should expect to be in the outer rim of the universe. Based on the fact that the CMBR variance is 1 part in 100,000, I would suggest that the center of the universe is at z>100,000 in the direction of the CMBR hot spot.

There is no need for a centre and doesn't have to be one. What leads you to assume there is one?

Which hot spot? Why in your model are there more than one?

[caveman1917]

Your specific questions on the Icarus2 model will take some time. I plan to address these questions, but ask for patience in the work.

Sure, no problem, take your time. Let's just not lower the bar on the necessary rigour expected from theories trying to replace some standard physics, that's all i'm saying.

[utesfan100]

There is no need for a centre and doesn't have to be one. What leads you to assume there is one?

Which hot spot? Why in your model are there more than one?

I have evoked the Icarus2 cosmology, which has a center.

The hotspot I refer to is the hottest direction in the primary dipole anisotropy.

[Shaula]

The hotspot I refer to is the hottest direction in the primary dipole anisotropy.

Question remains - why are there other hot and cold spots in this cosmology? Why do you define the primary dipole to be so different? What evidence do you base this difference on (e.g. distribution of temperatures in it, variance etc)?

[utesfan100]

Question remains - why are there other hot and cold spots in this cosmology? Why do you define the primary dipole to be so different? What evidence do you base this difference on (e.g. distribution of temperatures in it, variance etc)?

Why do I define the primary dipole to be so different?
This cosmology requires a hotter center of the universe. Given the data supporting a homogeneous universe, an argument that such a center exists should at least provide an estimate for where it is. The primary dipole of the CMBR gives me a finger hold to this argument.

Why are there other hotspots?
The variations about the primary dipole are due to the fact that the CMBR is attributed to the properties of the HFM, not a specific event in the evolution of space. It appears largely uniform because the HFM is largely uniform, but some variation should exist causing local hot spots.

What evidence do I base this on?
None. The idea is, however, falsifiable.

The distribution of latitude temperatures from the dipole poles due to aberration in SR are well known, and can be used to verify whether the primary anisotropy are due to peculiar velocities. I have not worked out, and do not plan to, such a distribution for a this model. It is likely to be different.

Once the magnitude of the differences are known we would be able to examine which is a best fit. If any large scale variation from the effects of peculiar velocities are found, some new mechanism will be needed (even if my model is not a fit).

This model would expect the dipole to be a composite of the two effects, with a component due to our peculiar velocity relative to the HFM, a component due to the temperature gradient, a focal points on the celestial sphere for each with the primary dipole at the weighted average along the great circle connecting the two.

Observations independent of the CMBR suggest the Milky Way is moving towards Virgo at 630 km/s, while the CMBR frame is suggests a motion of 552 km/s towards Hydra. Given the angles between these constellations, this would put an estimate on the effects due to temperature at about 1/3-1/6 the effect due to peculiar velocities, and at an obtuse angle.

[caveman1917]

While you are going through the derivations i asked for above, there is one thing extra that i'd like you to show.

Even if we accept the premise of the model that the only relevant dynamics are gravitational, how do you know that you'll end up with galaxy-cluster size concentrations of positive mass, rather than say a bunch of seperated tennis ball size concentrations.

If you're starting at the level of individual particles that coalesce, at some point you'll reach (if you even get that far) a state where you have tennis balls of positive mass seperated by a fairly uniform background of negative mass. The distance between those tennis balls will be several times higher than their radius, and they'll all be accelerated away from eachother. I don't see how they'd continue to coalesce up until galaxy cluster size. So if you could specifically pay attention to showing that the coalescence doesn't stop early?

ETA: or that it stops late for that matter, ie that the entire observable universe would coalesce.

[utesfan100]

While you are going through the derivations i asked for above, there is one thing extra that i'd like you to show.

Even if we accept the premise of the model that the only relevant dynamics are gravitational, how do you know that you'll end up with galaxy-cluster size concentrations of positive mass, rather than say a bunch of seperated tennis ball size concentrations.

If you're starting at the level of individual particles that coalesce, at some point you'll reach (if you even get that far) a state where you have tennis balls of positive mass separated by a fairly uniform background of negative mass. The distance between those tennis balls will be several times higher than their radius, and they'll all be accelerated away from each other. I don't see how they'd continue to coalesce up until galaxy cluster size. So if you could specifically pay attention to showing that the coalescence doesn't stop early?

ETA: or that it stops late for that matter, ie that the entire observable universe would coalesce.

The question of the fairly regular size of gravitationally interacting units would need to be explained for this theory to replace the mainstream ideas. I can not show that the gravitationally interacting units predicted by this model would be larger than a tennis ball.

Conceptually, we would need to examine a hot early universe, and determine the scale where gravity becomes the dominant force. This would be the scale the gravitationally interacting units would be expected to appear. Since the universe would be denser then, a smaller distance in the early universe would have expanded to represent a fairly large mass compared to densities in the current era of the universe.

I agree that once they are separated the positive mass gravitationally interacting units would not coalesce. Otherwise we would occasionally see the radiation from a collision of a matter and an anti-matter regions.

Clearly, at our temperature and density a tennis ball scale object is dominated by gravity and inertia. At a much warmer temperature and denser environment, the range of the other forces could be greatly extended.

[utesfan100]

I will now address the first phase of the Icarus2 cosmology, as seen by me.

His presentation suffered from a lack of English skills, but I consider his derivations rigorous enough to justify the computer simulations he ran, justifying his four phases of the expansion profile of the universe. I read his papers and had some off-line communication with the author at the time. Here is his paper.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...-negative-mass
http://vixra.org/abs/1110.0019

Phase 1: The repulsion of the negative mass dominates and the concentrated distribution accelerates rapidly outwards.

Essentially, his original analysis is similar to the two-fluid plasma physics, treating the positive and negative masses as separate but overlapping fluids. This allows us to define three potential energies, the self potential of the negative masses U--, the self potential of the positive masses U++, and the mixed potential U+-.

Icarus2 demonstrated that for a uniform distribution U-- ~ U++ ~ -U+-/2.

For both fluids the mixed potential dominates. This generates a push on both fluids. For the positive masses this causes a dispersive repulsion from the center of the universe. For the negative masses this causes an attraction, keeping the negative mass near the center.

This would cause U-- to increase, U++ to decrease. Eventually U-- will surpass U+-, causing the negative mass center of the universe to begin expanding due to U--.

Icarus2 went a step further by actually modeling the dynamics using Newtonian mechanics over randomly distributed but equal magnitude positive and negative masses. He demonstrated the difficulty in balancing U-- + U++ + U+-, but verifying that expansion does not depend on the sign of the almost 0 remainder.

His model was intended to show the plausibility of the mechanics, not to closely estimate the early universe. In particular, relativistic effects are ignored. I see nothing that should change quantitatively as long as the PPN limit is justified. I will concede that in the earliest phases of this model the PPN limit will not be applicable. I would suggest that an appropriate definition of the potentials above would show the essence of expansion would still apply.

To a large degree, we should expect the universe to be spherically symmetric relative to the center of the universe, with a negative mass dominating the center and positive mass at the rim.

In fact, based on my previous posts, this justifies the observation that the positive mass visible universe (z<1,100) must have been accelerated to z>100,000 relative to the center of the universe.

At z>100,000 the velocity is almost exactly that of the speed of light. With the age of the universe of 14.6 Billion years, and a z factor of 100,000, this is an age of 1e15 years relative to the center of the universe frame, and in a roughly uniform sphere over 1e15 light years in diameter. Based on the uniformity in the visible universe, and a length contraction from z=100,000, this shell must be uniform over a thickness 300,000 light years, almost negligible to the radius of the sphere.

In the final phase 4 we should see a slowing down with distance, causing an apparent decrease in h along the radial direction. The lack of this observation shows that we are still in stage 3.

[utesfan100]

His presentation suffered from a lack of English skills, but I consider his derivations rigorous enough to justify the computer simulations he ran, justifying his four phases of the expansion profile of the universe. I read his papers and had some off-line communication with the author at the time. Here is his paper.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...-negative-mass
http://vixra.org/abs/1110.0019
Phase 2: The positive mass begins to condense into separate regions, decelerating the acceleration.

I misrepresented phase 2 in this statement.

The slowdown in acceleration is not due to the condensing of positive mass into separate regions, but rather to the beginning of outward motion of negative mass. This was explained in my description of phase 1.

I will now discuss, instead, a model of how mass became condensed.

While I have so far assumed that the distribution was uniform, quantum mechanics allows that we should expect that variations should appear. The dynamics discussed above are purely radial, but the variations would produce additional forces acting along the surfaces of the expanding spheres. These tidal forces allow the matter to condense into the regions we see today.

We have been accelerated radially to z>100,000, and I have suggested that such a relativistic acceleration of charged particles is capable of producing quantum mechanical tidal forces that further separate matter and anti-matter along the surfaces of the expanding spheres and aiding the condensation process.

At the very least, one can picture ions and electrons counter rotating within neutral plasmas, producing significant residual magnetic fields whose weight may contribute to dark matter. This should appear as a preference of galactic axis orientation pointing in the radial direction.

As caveman has pointed out, to become a competitive cosmology extensive simulation would need to be performed showing that this model would produce clumps of matter the size of super clusters, and separated regions of matter and anti-matter this size or larger (possibly larger than the 16.4 Billion light years we can observe, given the >1e15 light year diameter of the spherical shell we are in.) I can't yet answer why the mass is larger than a tennis ball.

Note: I have argued that z>100,000. In particular this does not rule out z=365,000. If this is the actual value, we would have one day in our frame being 1000 years in the preferred frame of the universe, and since SR is reciprocal, one day in the preferred frame of the universe would be 1000 years in our frame.

I am fairly certain, however, that this is not what the author of 2 Peter 3:8 meant.