Is Dark Energy Negative Energy? Is There A Negative Side To The Universe? And Not Anti-Matter!

[Atlan0001]

In my modeling I got around to incorporating a negative ('-1) into my conceptualization of the infinite Universe because I realized it would probably be energyless, therefore, as far as my modeling was concerned, timeless.

I've long read here and there, that the Universe's (U) total energy, or total energy content, whatever, has to be '0'. Additional to other reasons I achieved that '0' with my idea of a Big Mirror mirroring ('1') with ('-1') and, voila, binary ('1') and/or ('0'). An infinite Universe (U) which has '0' for its "total energy" (therefore, to my realization, is "energylessness" and, therefore, "timelessness").

That ('-1') side of infinite Universe has nothing to do with 'matter / anti-matter'. Anti-matter universe (u), or side of universe (u), to me is the tachyonic group of matter-energy. To me it is the Universe's guarantee there will never be causality violation, thus there will never be any faster than light travel.... finite locally, relatively, foreground, universe, speaking that is. It is sort of the Universe's 'Causality Violation Prevention Program'. And it has nothing to do with the "negative energy" negative side ('-1') -- or negative entity ('1') -- to the infinite Universe.

From everything I've read about "negative energy", or negative matter-energy, it could be pure gold as far as certain futures most of us want in the universe(s). And, though I've not read this anywhere myself yet, it could be the "dark energy", or dark matter-energy, of the universe (u).

Negative Universe side ('-1') could also mean negative gravity side, or as I've called it the gravity of the infinite non-local, non-relative, Universe (U). It could even be the reality of "inertialessness", allowing the possibility of inertialess drives and travel (warping a pliable four-dimensional bubble space-time (macro-verse)). Or, better yet, permitting the dimensionality of wormholes in the universe to exist (micro-verse). I'm always wondering how those UFOs suddenly come here and just as suddenly go, if they exist all and if they do at all. But if so, it has to either be by warping space or by wormholing space-time and either would require the [co-existence] of negative energy and a [co-existence] of negative universe to form, or help form, hyper spatial-time capabilities. We, as beings of micro-verse makeup, don't transit the micro-verse except by way of an infinity of wormholes. We, as beings of relativistic makeup, don't move through Relativity's macro-verse except by way of warping space-time. Whether by one way or both, actually by both at one and the same time, we deal in positive / negative energies and universe. There shouldn't be that big of a deal in going hyper spatial-time with both at the same time as two sides (micro and macro) of the same universe coin if only, if when, when(!), we realize and develop the means.

"Positive energy", or positive-matter energy (to include matter / anti-matter), is relativistic. "Negative energy", or negative matter-energy, probably is not relativistic.... And it, the [not] relativistic, may just be the "dark energy", the "dark matter-energy", of the universe.

 

[Atlan0001]

"There shouldn't be that big of a deal in going hyper spatial-time with both at the same time as two sides (micro and macro) of the same universe coin, if only, if when, when(!), we realize and develop the means."

Of course, there is always other mud dragging at us we will always have to slog our way through to get there. The deeper mud of those who cannot and will not see. They will always nay-say as they did with Jules Verne, as they did with heavier than air craft getting into the sky to fly, as they did with did with smaller than desk size [personal] computers ever replacing house size mainframe computers and storage devices. As they did with us getting into space. As they did with us getting to the Moon. Daniel Webster was a most listened to naysayer concerning the American West in the 1830s and 40s. That it was environmentally to alien, too harsh, too forbidding, to be opened up to civilization.

Whether concerning Space's environment or concerning Space Age creativity, there will always be the naysayers, by far the harshest environment and worst drag in the universe that a frontier-kind will ever have to face and overcome.

As Henry David Thoreau said, "He is the best sailor who can steer within fewest points of the wind, and exact a motive power out of the greatest obstacles." To mimic Winston Churchill, humankind will end up owing so much, the universe itself, to so few of humankind.... The willing pathfinders, the explorers (including those many, the bark of the tree, who will always risk and die making the way, forcing the opening), and the willing path takers, the pioneers (including those many who will always die risking all fortune and life for a little piece, their own piece, their own ladder up, of a seeming infinite vastness). Positive / negative energies "to go!"

 

[Misha Marchuk]

Wow, you wrote a lot there, I certainly did not go into research as far as you do. Personally, I do not like the fact that dark matter is called so, it seems to imply destruction. I prefer to call it the matter of creation, since it is possible to create from it (be it real)

 

[Catastrophe]

I don't think that dark energy can be described as negative? It is just an invention to try to get current theory to fit observations.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Wow, you wrote a lot there, I certainly did not go into research as far as you do. Personally, I do not like the fact that dark matter is called so, it seems to imply destruction. I prefer to call it the matter of creation, since it is possible to create from it (be it real)

For further research there are also internet articles on 'vacuum energy' you might like to look into.

There is no such thing as infinite energy but there is such a physic as "infinite potential": In Quantum Mechanics it is a physic called "particle in a box".

An infinitely flat-smooth plane of space-verse (timeless.... and energyless) may have all the potential ('-1') in / of the Universe (U ('1')). It automatically is hyperspatial in plane: infinite in planing (depth of planes): infinite in extents. Infinitely flat goes deep, Multiverse-wise also being a dimensionless point. The main thing though is "infinite potential", "infinite" and nothing (of time or energy) ever at all but "potential". The negative side ('-1')?

As I recommend above, look up "vacuum energy" and "infinite potential" (including "particle in a box"), for starters and possible ideas. While doing so think about gravity, which in itself is not a positive or negative mass-energy state, but certainly seems -- between overlapping local and non-local (foreground and background) states of gravity-- to develop positive mass-energy states at the very least.

 

[IG2007]

I am pretty confused after reading all this. What do you mean by "Negative Universe?" Another Universe that exists but has everything negative and exactly the opposite of our Universe? Or, is it merely a part of the Universe which has negative energy? And what exactly is negative energy? The thing we will require to do an Alcubierre Drive?

I do not intend to comment on more posts, unless I get the answers of the questions, otherwise I might get entangled in my own entanglement of entangling thoughts which will lead to strange outcomes which might not match with anyone.

 

[Atlan0001]

I am pretty confused after reading all this. What do you mean by "Negative Universe?" Another Universe that exists but has everything negative and exactly the opposite of our Universe? Or, is it merely a part of the Universe which has negative energy? And what exactly is negative energy? The thing we will require to do an Alcubierre Drive?

I do not intend to comment on more posts, unless I get the answers of the questions, otherwise I might get entangled in my own entanglement of entangling thoughts which will lead to strange outcomes which might not match with anyone.

After all these months of modeling what I see of the biggest picture here-in on the forum, I certainly can't, and most certainly won't, be the one to unconfuse you as to my interpreting that picture. So my suggestion is "do not... comment on more posts", because "answers", and references (to Einstein, Godel. Hawking, and others), are plentiful and in-depth already, if only one reads, can read, knows how to read. Of course my interpretations are my own, just like theirs were, and others are, their own as well. I certainly don't want you to "get entangled in" your "own entanglement of entangling thoughts which will lead to strange outcomes which might not match with anyone." Apparently Einstein, Godel, Hawking, and others I cite along the way do just that, get you "entangled" in your "own entanglement of entangling thoughts" which "lead to strange outcomes" which do not "match with anyone".... anyone who might even have one thought outside the box, or even expansively within the box.

Yes, I can be agreeable with you. I agree with you in this completely. Remain "confused" and "do not..." "comment on more posts" that obviously....

As Stephen Hawking once pointed out, those top and bottom levels of Universe, of Multiverse too, belong to everyone, not just to the professionals. He said that even the old lady who told the philosopher that the Universe sits on top of a turtle and that it was turtles all the way up and down, might just have something there. She could not possibly be denied by science... and, most shrewdly and wisely, was not denied by the pro. Hawking's meaning to everyone, professionals know no more about it today than that old lady long ago. But then, again, Hawking was a brilliant pro.

(** An infinite of 'naked singularity' ('1') is its own Mirror ('-1') self-mirroring. Binary "and/or". The second and/or third dimension of -- in this case -- a binary (('1') ('-1')) 'naked singularity' = '0' (neither infinite nor finite), thus, also existing -- always, always!, existing -- with them and opposed to them, the entity of "finite". ** (Very "confusing "strange outcomes" to some, but not at all to me. And also, to me, ('-1') has nothing to do with 'anti-matter', which I claim is intrinsic, inherent, and is a physic and entity of a specific preventative purpose (regarding 'causality'), to all 'matter'.))

 

[saliceha]

Dark matter could be positive and negative energy, depends if it is out of the antigravity matter or gravity matter, and antimatter is opposite twisted energy, either of positive(antigravity) or negative(gravity) matter.

 

[Catastrophe]

Are there any authentic references to these terms?

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Dark matter could be positive and negative energy, depends if it is out of the antigravity matter or gravity matter, and antimatter is opposite twisted energy, either of positive(antigravity) or negative(gravity) matter.

There is the "relative" and then there is "non-relative". There is "local" and then there is "non-local". There is "foreground" and then there is "background". There is "finite" and then there is "infinite". There is the "set" of "constituent elements" of which the set is no constituent element of the set (A forest of trees of which the forest is no constituent tree of the forest). A gravity regarding which there no center of gravity. Its center of gravity is all, and therefore none in particular, of an infinity of centers of gravity (it is to the outside -- it is outland horizon (a negative) -- to all centers of (positive) gravity). It may exude the negative mass-energy potential of the infinite (set, forest) -- the infinity of... (the negative ('-1')) -- it represents. And it, that negative mass-energy potential, is not antimatter!