Scientists at the University of Oxford may have solved one of the biggest questions in modern physics, with a new paper unifying dark matter and dark energy into a single phenomenon: a fluid which possesses 'negative mass." If you were to push a negative mass, it would accelerate towards you. This astonishing new theory may also prove right a prediction that Einstein made 100 years ago.
Our current, widely recognised model of the Universe, called LambdaCDM, tells us nothing about what dark matter and dark energy are like physically. We only know about them because of the gravitational effects they have on other, observable matter.
This new model, published today in Astronomy and Astrophysics, by Dr. Jamie Farnes from the Oxford e-Research Centre, Department of Engineering Science, offers a new explanation. Dr. Farnes says: "We now think that both dark matter and dark energy can be unified into a fluid which possesses a type of 'negative gravity," repelling all other material around them. Although this matter is peculiar to us, it suggests that our cosmos is symmetrical in both positive and negative qualities."
The existence of negative matter had previously been ruled out as it was thought this material would become less dense as the Universe expands, which runs contrary to our observations that show dark energy does not thin out over time. However, Dr. Farnes' research applies a 'creation tensor," which allows for negative masses to be continuously created. It demonstrates that when more and more negative masses are continually bursting into existence, this negative mass fluid does not dilute during the expansion of the cosmos. In fact, the fluid appears to be identical to dark energy.
Dr. Farnes's theory also provides the first correct predictions of the behaviour of dark matter halos. Most galaxies are rotating so rapidly they should be tearing themselves apart, which suggests that an invisible 'halo' of dark matter must be holding them together. The new research published today features a computer simulation of the properties of negative mass, which predicts the formation of dark matter halos just like the ones inferred by observations using modern radio telescopes.
Albert Einstein provided the first hint of the dark universe exactly 100 years ago, when he discovered a parameter in his equations known as the 'cosmological constant," which we now know to be synonymous with dark energy. Einstein famously called the cosmological constant his 'biggest blunder," although modern astrophysical observations prove that it is a real phenomenon. In notes dating back to 1918, Einstein described his cosmological constant, writing that 'a modification of the theory is required such that "empty space" takes the role of gravitating negative masses which are distributed all over the interstellar space." It is therefore possible that Einstein himself predicted a negative-mass-filled universe.
Dr. Farnes says: "Previous approaches to combining dark energy and dark matter have attempted to modify Einstein's theory of general relativity, which has turned out to be incredibly challenging. This new approach takes two old ideas that are known to be compatible with Einstein's theory—negative masses and matter creation—and combines them together.
"The outcome seems rather beautiful: dark energy and dark matter can be unified into a single substance, with both effects being simply explainable as positive mass matter surfing on a sea of negative masses."
Proof of Dr. Farnes's theory will come from tests performed with a cutting-edge radio telescope known as the Square Kilometre Array (SKA), an international endeavour to build the world's largest telescope in which the University of Oxford is collaborating.
Dr. Farnes adds: "There are still many theoretical issues and computational simulations to work through, and LambdaCDM has a nearly 30 year head start, but I'm looking forward to seeing whether this new extended version of LambdaCDM can accurately match other observational evidence of our cosmology. If real, it would suggest that the missing 95% of the cosmos had an aesthetic solution: we had forgotten to include a simple minus sign."
Explore further: Dark matter clusters could reveal nature of dark energy
More information: J. S. Farnes. A unifying theory of dark energy and dark matter: Negative masses and matter creation within a modified LambdaCDM framework, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2018). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832898 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962
Bizarre 'dark fluid' with negative mass could dominate the universe – what my research suggests
RNP
Link here; https://arxiv.org...12.07962
I particularly like the closing sentence of the abstract which says that "the compelling puzzle of the dark Universe may have been due to a simple sign error."
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
- This is not the cosmology we live in. It makes a bouncing universe with the wrong topology (AdS instead of approximately dS) and a time varying Hubble constant in the current era.
- This is not the physics we live in. It has creation of particles out of nothing (shades of Hoyle's static universe), and suggest "negative mass" while gravity is unipolar.
- This is insufficient in competition with LCDM. It is explaining a fraction of the dark matter/dark energy effects. So no prediction of seeing the DM peak in the CMB spectra (instead it notes that new phenomena should be seen - why?) or DM lensing.
Nothing to see here; moving on.
antialias_physorg
Yeah. (Seems to be popular, too...I'm having a hard time downloading it).
My initial reaction is: what about (energy) conservation laws? Doesn't that contradict a creation tensor? But maybe once I get it that will be explained.
On the upside: If there is indeed negative mass (and it can be contained and/or manufactured) then an Alcubierre type warp drive might actually be feasible.
ted ted
not to mention belief in an all powerful supernatural being seems less ridiculous
the science cult rules, ok
poksnee
FredJose
https://creation....osmology
Its puts an interesting spin on what the researchers in the article call the combination of dark matter and dark energy.
For those who understand the math it makes for an interesting point of discussion. For people like porksnee it will be just another nonsensical theory that s/he doesn't understand.
Zelaron
mollycruz
timetreks
place - space is the reality - matter the phantom. . matter is but a local disrupttion of space. Space is probably colaspsing at half the speed of light while the phantom matter appears to expand. Space synchronizes everything and its behavior is what creates time. Time is a property of the behavior of space.
Benni
Just more of the usual wacko stuff brought to you by the purveyors of Pop-Cosmology.
dogbert
Now we expect to trade our magic matter and energy for a magic fluid which has negative mass, negative gravity and which, when pushed, pushes back.
When may we expect floating airplanes and rockets which need hardly any push to reach escape velocity?
ted ted
cortezz
You start sounding like a true science hipster. Like hipster hate everything too popular in music, you do it to science: "This is just wacko popular science stuff", "I liked this theory before it was so pop" etc
timetreks
"Matter" or the local distortion may have inertia because it becomes unbalanced when influenced my other distortions or changes in the ethereal state.
theredpill
"with both effects being simply explainable as positive mass matter surfing on a sea of negative masses"
This is hilarious to anyone who actually works with magnetic fields. Add the word "charge" before mass and replace the masses with fields...as close as the above can get to reality.
Dr. Farnes says: "We now think that both dark matter and dark energy can be unified into a fluid which possesses a type of 'negative gravity," repelling all other material around them.
....because the fact that pretty much all matter in space carries a charge is irrelevant to any kind of repulsion phenomenon. Yeah...that's it.
Responding to the forthcoming barrage from the usual suspects....now we have repulsion in the equation...bye bye gravity math, hello new gravity math...it's a start.
theredpill
Actually, in 1955 Einstein wrote a book in which he expressed his understanding of the applicable physics at that time, "There can be no energy without a field to bind it". It took the smartest man to live in the 20th century 37 years to figure it out and say it after his 1918 musing mentioned above. Farnes working off what Einstein said in 1918...must have got the advice from Jones....
Protoplasmix
theredpill
theredpill
Wow...maybe gravity isn't responsible for that phenomenon. baby step # 2 has been tabled...
coastaljon
Nik_2213
Have they suggested any practicable way to falsify their notion ?
RNP
Can you give us some references for these claims please?
Protoplasmix
Um, cosmos, as in cosmology, so spacetime expansion; but also the spacetime geometry of general relativity where light is red-shifted climbing out of a gravity well, and also that light would curve away from dark energy regions (and dark matter?) rather than curving around them-- it's not like dark energy and dark matter are the only criteria that have to be satisfied...
theredpill
pepe2907
If negative mass is when something, pulled by gravity accelerates in a direction opposite to the direction to the center of the pull /accelerating in a direction opposite to the gradient of the increasing of the field/, but pushed by /the proposed/ antigravity would accelerate towards the "center" /moving in the direction of increasing field gradient/... and if most of the matter, being dark matter, is with negative mass, and predominant field, permeating the Universe is that of antygravity... wouldn't that actually result in a contracting, instead of expanding universe?
And how about the property of actually being "dark"? I mean - nothing in seems to explain why this negative mass matter is completely indifferent to electromagnetism /note that it does not create "antilight" as may properly be expected from "negative energy matter"/.
Bob West
The galaxy clusters which have been pushed for longer than we have are accelerating outward and away from us. We are accelerating outward and away from the galaxy clusters which have been pushed for less time than we have. From our perspective most of the galaxy clusters are accelerating away from us.
Protoplasmix
Here's an easy way: find a mirror image of any galaxy. Sort of like the opposite of an Einstein ring, with the galaxy adjacent (as it appears in the sky) to a region of dark energy but much farther away than that region... finding such a mirror image (even distorted) would support their notion.
KBK
Very very slightly asymmetrical.
137, or...0.00729927007299270072992700729927
and thus, unidirectional time, gravity, mass, etc.
With big ass (seeming) energy available on breakdown.
It's not really, it's just separated or torn from the backdrop support structure of the given dimensional bubble.
Like the speed of light, not really a limit but a limit in and of the dimensional bubble.
And when the thing is seen as the bubble of resonance that it is (infinity boundaries on both ends), then you can see enough of the shape of it to curve fit the quantum into the scenario.
One can use the mathematics if they wish but that is not the fundamental, the point of understanding is the fundamental.
carlossantacruz
It is incredible as with the adjective "Oxford University" one creates whatever they post. Our theory is more solid, but without the "support" of universities.
Theory of Empty Universe
rrwillsj
The question I have is. If the DM/DE combo produce "Negative" Gravity?
Why are the larger galaxies, in general, spiral shaped? Wouldn't the effect of NG from a surrounding sphere of DM pushing the on the structures from all directions, result in spherical galaxies?
And, as t_b_g_l asked. Where is the DM lensing effect?
Other questions I have are. If NG is a product of DM & DE? Centered (anchored?) around galaxies? How could there be any inter-galactic mass, such as gas streamers to be observed?
Many galaxies outer arms consist of extensive gas & dust clouds. Wouldn't the NG have rudely shoved all that low-mass debris deep into the cores of the larger galaxies?
And how would it be even possible for the ancient, low-mass dwarf galaxies to exist as satellites of the larger galaxies?
pepe2907
They are not.