Taking the Mechanics out of Space-Time and Putting it Back Into Quantum Mechanics by Randy Wayne

For the observation or evidence of negative mass(energy)

In 1998, an observation by both the HSS team and SCP team obtained a negative mass density from inspected field equations over 70years.(field eq. has a Lamda=0)

SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team : If Lamda=0, Omega_M= - 0.4(±0.1)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201 refer to 7P

HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team : If Lamda=0, Omega_M = - 0.38(±0.22)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201 refer to 14P

However, the two teams which judged that negative mass and negative energy level could not exist in our universe based on "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" and they instead revised the field equation by inserting the cosmological constant.

We must to know that not the equation has disposed the value, but our thought disposed the value.

Moreover, we considered vacuum energy as the source of cosmological constant Lamda, but the current result of calculation shows 10120, which is unprecedented even in the history of Physics.

However, if "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" does not occur, and thus negative and positive mass can coexist, what would happen?

It is well known that a cosmological constant can respond to the negative mass density.

peff = -Lamda/4piG

Lamda is positive, so peff is negative.

Please view to my article and simulation video

Dear Hyoyoung Choi,

I think that your thoughts on negative mass are very reasonable and well presented in your essay. Good luck in the contest. Your graphics were also very illustrative. Physics requires that some quantities be positive and some be negative. It seems to me that having positive and negative mass, along with positive and negative charge, and north and south magnetism provides the more realistic and testable symmetry than asserting that mass can only be positive and introducing the negative sign in terms of time (e.g. Feynman's idea that antimatter is equivalent to matter going backwards in time). I have recently published a couple papers on negative mass in the Turkish Journal of Physics (Thermodynamics of Negative Mass and Thermodynamics of Positive Mass). In one paper (Negative Mass and Antimatter), I identify negative mass with antimatter.

Dear Randy Wayne!

I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

Thank you very much!

I am glad to read your paper ("Symmetry and the order of events in time. A proposed identity of negative mass with antimatter")

I really happy because of read your paper!

I have a background paper on my essay.

=======

We set up each model from the birth of universe to the present, and calculated gravitational potential energy using computer simulation in each level.

As a result, we could verify that "pair creation model of negative energy and positive energy" explains inflation of the early universe and decelerating expansion, and present accelerating expansion in time series.

This simulation is showing incredible results.

It not only explains the total energy of the universe, flatness, and the essence (Total zero energy, pair creation of negative energy and positive energy) of the process of birth of the universe, but it explains inflation, decelerating expansion in the early stage, accelerating expansion in the late stage, and dark matter through the only term, negative energy. Moreover, this negative energy is one that is essentially required by the law of energy conservation.

Paper : The change of Gravitational Potential Energy and Dark Energy in the Zero Energy Universe.

http://vixra.org/abs/1110.0019

=========

Have a nice day!

--- Hyoyoung Choi

I'm sorry! Link error!

http://vixra.org/abs/1110.0019

Have a good time!

Dear Randy,

I do not understand why in your formula (8) there is not total kinetic energy but only 1/4 of it? In theory of gravitation in kinetic energy also rest energy is included which is absent in your calculation.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Sergey,

The orbital energy is only composed of the total kinetic energy and the total gravitational binding energy when the orbiting body is a translating corpuscle (or cannonball or planet) whose translational kinetic energy is equal to (or approximated by) its total kinetic energy. This is true of a Newtonian light corpuscle and using the total kinetic energy in this formula would give a "single deflection."

When some of the total kinetic energy (like in a rotating photon or a bullet) is involved in rotational motion, then the rotational kinetic energy component must be subtracted from the photon's or the bullet's total kinetic energy when determining the orbital energy.

In the case of a photon whose total energy is known and that has a spinning motion, we only use the translational part of the total kinetic energy when we calculate the orbital energy. If we assume that the total kinetic energy is equipartioned between the translational energy and the rotational energy, only one half of the total kinetic energy should be used to calculate the orbital energy. This results in a "double deflection." The fact that Eddington observed a "double deflection" can be interpreted to mean that the photon is not just a spin-1 geometrical point, but a real entity with extension and rotational motion. This is consistent with the interpretation of the selection rules of atomic spectra proposed by Arnold Sommerfeld.

By assuming that the photon has mechanical properties like translational motion and rotational motion, there is no need to look at space and time as a four-dimensional spacetime continuum which has the property of being able to be warped by matter.

Thanks for your question and I hope that this explanation helps.

Thanks,

Randy

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Randy Wayne,

A very impressive essay. Thank you for contributing it.

I hope you can read my essay "Rethink the Double Slit Experiment," which also discuss the scattering of particle with space time.

Yours,

Ke Xiao

Dear Randy Wayne,

I have read your essay and I am surprised that it is languishing relatively low down in the ratings with few comments. Perhaps because of your biologist biography. Or maybe because you are questioning the curvature of space-time from the outset. It was very readable until the maths (which I'll admit I skimmed over, -my loss.)

You are making a very important point that curved space-time is not necessary to account for the observations that have been made.I don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to evaluate the model you put forward. However I'm thinking that though it might account for the observation of gravity I don't really understand how it could also give rise to the experienced force of gravity, but maybe that is a different consideration.

I also say that curvature of space-time is not foundational in my essay. My suggestion is that apparent curvature is due to an affect upon the 'pre-space-time' environment, due to unaccounted for motion of the masses (not the nature of individual photons alone).Though my very brief mention of Joy Christian's recent work and Roger Penrose' quaternion description of the light Cone was indicating that the way in which light propagates through the 'pre-space' time environment has a very important part to play in what space-time reality is observed where and when.

It was interesting to read your point of view. Regards Georgina

It might also have just been chance. As there are so many entries this year. I wonder what is most influential on potential readers choice?...Title, abstract, biography, topic, appearance eg. size of text or number of formulae, prior acquaintance with author, or similar ideas, public profile, participation, reciprocation, current ranking, other's comments?It could be useful information! (Some competitors have complained about perceived social influences upon an essay's ranking.) Whatever the reason its a pity you didn't get more feedback : )