Bizarre 'dark fluid' with negative mass could dominate the universe

December 6, 2018 by Jamie Farnes, The Conversation
Bubbles can be modelled as having a negative mass. Credit: Mike Lewinski/Flickr, CC BY-ND

It's embarrassing, but astrophysicists are the first to admit it. Our best theoretical model can only explain 5% of the universe. The remaining 95% is famously made up almost entirely of invisible, unknown material dubbed dark energy and dark matter. So even though there are a billion trillion stars in the observable universe, they are actually extremely rare.

The two mysterious dark substances can only be inferred from gravitational effects. Dark matter may be an invisible material, but it exerts a on surrounding matter that we can measure. Dark energy is a repulsive force that makes the expand at an accelerating rate. The two have always been treated as separate phenomena. But my new study, published in Astronomy and Astrophysics, suggests they may both be part of the same strange concept – a single, unified "dark fluid" of negative masses.

Negative masses are a hypothetical form of matter that would have a type of negative gravity – repelling all other material around them. Unlike familiar positive mass matter, if a negative mass was pushed, it would accelerate towards you rather than away from you.

Negative masses are not a new idea in cosmology. Just like normal matter, negative mass particles would become more spread out as the universe expands – meaning that their repulsive force would become weaker over time. However, studies have shown that the force driving the accelerating expansion of the universe is relentlessly constant. This inconsistency has previously led researchers to abandon this idea. If a dark fluid exists, it should not thin out over time.

In the new study, I propose a modification to Einstein's theory of general relativity to allow negative masses to not only exist, but to be created continuously. "Matter creation" was already included in an early alternative theory to the Big Bang, known as the Steady State model. The main assumption was that (positive mass) matter was continuously created to replenish material as the universe expands. We now know from observational evidence that this is incorrect. However, that doesn't mean that negative mass matter can't be continuously created. I show that this assumed dark fluid is never spread too thinly. Instead it behaves exactly like .

I also developed a 3-D computer model of this hypothetical universe to see if it could also explain the physical nature of . Dark matter was introduced to explain the fact that are spinning much faster than our models predict. This implies that some additional invisible must be present to prevent them from spinning themselves apart.

My model shows that the surrounding repulsive force from dark fluid can also hold a galaxy together. The gravity from the positive mass galaxy attracts negative masses from all directions, and as the negative mass fluid comes nearer to the galaxy it in turn exerts a stronger repulsive force onto the galaxy that allows it to spin at higher speeds without flying apart. It therefore appears that a simple minus sign may solve one of the longest standing problems in physics.

Is the universe really this weird?

One may argue that this sounds a little far fetched. But while negative masses are bizarre, they are considerably less strange than you may immediately think. For starters, these effects may only seem peculiar and unfamiliar to us, as we reside in a region dominated by positive mass.

Whether physically real or not, negative masses already have a theoretical role in a vast number of areas. Air bubbles in water can be modelled as having a negative mass. Recent laboratory research has also generated particles that behave exactly as they would if they had negative mass.

And physicists are already comfortable with the concept of negative energy density. According to , empty space is made up of a field of fluctuating background energy that can be negative in places – giving rise to waves and virtual particles that pop into and out of existence. This can even create a tiny force that can be measured in the lab.

The new study could help solve many problems in modern physics. String theory, which is our best hope for unifying the physics of the quantum world with Einstein's theory of the cosmos, is currently seen as being incompatible with observational evidence. However, does suggest that the energy in empty space must be negative, which corroborates the theoretical expectations for a negative mass dark fluid.

Moreover, the team behind the groundbreaking discovery of an accelerating universe surprisingly detected evidence for a negative mass cosmology, but took the reasonable precaution of interpreting these controversial findings as "unphysical".

The theory could also solve the problem of measuring the universe's expansion. This is explained by the Hubble-Lemaître Law, the observation that more distant galaxies are moving away at a faster rate. The relationship between the speed and the distance of a galaxy is set by the "Hubble constant", but measurements of it have continued to vary. This has led to a crisis in cosmology. Fortunately, a negative mass cosmology mathematically predicts that the Hubble "constant" should vary over time. Clearly, there is evidence that this weird and unconventional new theory deserves our scientific attention.

Where to go from here

The creator of the field of cosmology, Albert Einstein, did – along with other scientists including Stephen Hawking – consider negative masses. In fact, in 1918 Einstein even wrote that his theory of general relativity may have to be modified to include them.

Despite these efforts, a negative mass cosmology could be wrong. The theory seems to provide answers to so many currently open questions that scientists will – quite rightly – be rather suspicious. However, it is often the out-of-the-box ideas that provide answers to longstanding problems. The strong accumulating evidence has now grown to the point that we must consider this unusual possibility.

The largest telescope to ever be built – the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) – will measure the distribution of galaxies throughout the history of the universe. I'm planning to use the SKA to compare its observations to theoretical predictions for both a negative mass cosmology and the standard one – helping to ultimately prove whether negative masses exist in our reality.

What is clear is that this new generates a wealth of new questions. So as with all scientific discoveries, the adventure does not end here. In fact, the quest to understand the true nature of this beautiful, unified, and – perhaps polarised – universe has only just begun.

Explore further: Bringing balance to the universe: New theory could explain missing 95 percent of the cosmos

Related Stories

The dark side of cosmology

March 6, 2015

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have ...

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

September 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations in astronomy ...

Recommended for you

Hubble finds far-away planet vanishing at record speed

December 13, 2018

The speed and distance at which planets orbit their respective blazing stars can determine each planet's fate—whether the planet remains a longstanding part of its solar system or evaporates into the universe's dark graveyard ...

Preparing for discovery with NASA's Parker Solar Probe

December 13, 2018

Weeks after Parker Solar Probe made the closest-ever approach to a star, the science data from the first solar encounter is just making its way into the hands of the mission's scientists. It's a moment many in the field have ...

Rosetta witnesses birth of baby bow shock around comet

December 12, 2018

A new study reveals that, contrary to first impressions, Rosetta did detect signs of an infant bow shock at the comet it explored for two years – the first ever seen forming anywhere in the solar system.

18 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Joe1963
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2018
I think gravity reverses and becomes repulsive at approximately 1.5 million light years. It becomes more and more strongly repulsive, reaches a peak, and then decreases trailing off to zero.

This does away both with dark matter and also dark energy. It explains why most galaxies are accelerating away from each other.

It also explains gravitational rotational rates. Galaxies are pushing against each other keeping outer stars in a faster than expected orbit. You may read the justification for this theory here, along with responses to objections at the bottom:
https://www.reddi...tter_is/
General Relativity must be adjusted such that we keep time dilation, BUT ditch curved or dilated space. I.e. we should work with flat, 3D , Euclidean space + time dilation. I explain about this in the notes at the bottom of the article.
valeriy_polulyakh
not rated yet Dec 06, 2018
Recently two papers have been published. The first one deals with the measurement of the speed of rotation of galaxies and, in our view, closes the issue of the existence of dark matter. The second one argues that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. However, this fact does not answer the question as to what in general is the cause of the universe's expansion and does not address the widespread opinion that 70% of the universe consists of dark energy.
https://www.acade...k_Energy
Tri-ring
not rated yet Dec 07, 2018
This theory is interesting but it also suggest that nothing can go out from the galaxy since galaxies will all be surrounded by negative gravity forcing any matter to be contained within that galaxy.
Ojorf
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2018
This theory is interesting but it also suggest that nothing can go out from the galaxy since galaxies will all be surrounded by negative gravity forcing any matter to be contained within that galaxy.

It does not.
The DF densities are so low as to have negligible local impact on anything.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2018
@Tri-ring
@Ojorf.
it also suggest that nothing can go out from the galaxy since galaxies will all be surrounded by negative gravity forcing any matter to be contained within that galaxy.
It does not.
The DF densities are so low as to have negligible local impact on anything.

@Ojorf, can you explain the logic of that counter-argument to @Tri-ring's observation of the logic of the above article's own "suggestion" that:
...the surrounding repulsive force from dark fluid can also hold a galaxy together.
...ie, can you explain what "impact" (other than "local") is "pressurizing" ordinary-matter stars/plasma/dust etc so as to stop it all from escaping the galaxy due to orbital speeds observed?

PS; Now for a 'cheeky' observation: First it was "Spacetime"; then "Quantum Vacuum"; then "Higgs Field"; now "Dark Fluid". Seems mainstream "theorists" STILL trying to come up with ANY OTHER name for UNMENTIONABLE "Luminiferous Aether" as 'underlying medium'. :)
Joe1963
3 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2018
@RealityCheck: The point of my idea (posted above) is to make the case that ultimately dark matter and also dark energy are going to go the way of the Luminiferous Aether and the Heavenly Spheres of old .... I ask that you indulge me a little and take a look.
Tri-ring
not rated yet Dec 07, 2018
Basically there should be a galactic escape velocity but at the same time the faster you try to move away this theory suggest that negative gravity will become stronger to push you in thus no way to escape from the galaxy.
This theory also has a flaw since it does not consider how light will behave within this fluid.
Since light is bent by the forces of gravity, negative gravity should affect light as well in which case we should not be able to observe other galaxies.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2018
Pop-Cosmology, getting nuttier than ever, right Ojorf ?

Next they'll be proposing infinite gravity wells can exist on a finite stellar mass, and we know nobody wants to go up against the immutable Inverse Square Law, right Ojo?
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2018
Deliciously contradictory or Milkydromeda
Joe1963> I think gravity reverses and becomes repulsive at approximately 1.5 million light years. It becomes more and more strongly repulsive, reaches a peak, and then decreases trailing off to zero.
This does away both with dark matter and also dark energy. It explains why most galaxies are accelerating away from each other.

Ti's the festive season
and Andromeda at 2million Lys
is 500,000Lys further than the 1.5million Lys

So as not to spoil a good theory at this festive time of year
the Andromeda and Milkyway
are joining in holy matrimony
in a stable on their way to the Israelite to be counted
our two galaxies attractively join in holy matrimony
as in keeping with Galactic accord
are to be baptised
in the name
of
Milkydromeda
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2018
My first question to Prof. Farnes would be; 'What is your explanation for gravitational lensing observations hinting at DM? Such as that in the Bullet Cluster, and elsewhere? Does this hypothesis account for that? Can it account for that?"
The gentleman is obviously better qualified than I am to suggest cosmological hypotheses, but I would think this needs to be dealt with before it could go forward.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2018
Pop-Cosmology, getting nuttier than ever, right Ojorf ?

Next they'll be proposing infinite gravity wells can exist on a finite stellar mass, and we know nobody wants to go up against the immutable Inverse Square Law, right Ojo?


Get back in your cave, you uneducated tosser.
Joe1963
5 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2018
Hi Granville, velocity does not determine which direction gravity is working. When you throw a ball up in the air, as it is rising, and its velocity is upward, that does not change the fact that gravity is still pointing downward.

Likewise, galaxies have an "initial velocity." Andromeda's velocity is towards us. But that is not the question. I do not know if our equipment has the sensitivity to answer this question, but the real question is this: Is Andromeda's velocity increasing or decreasing? Is the change in velocity (i.e. its acceleration) what we expect or isn't it?

I think that measuring the change in velocity of a specific galaxy is computationally more challenging than you are letting on.

Also, my guess of 1.5 million light years as the distance where gravity reverses -- is exactly that: A guess. The actual distance may be quite different. I used this as an initial guess because it is the approximate radius of the largest known galaxy -- so I started there.
Joe1963
5 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2018
@jonesdave: I have looked at the algorithm for the lensing in the bullet cluster and I found a very interesting thing: Up to 80% of the data is thrown out because it seemed to be non-sensical; i.e. according to much of the data bending of light was occuring in a way that did not make sense -- so the researchers understandably chalked it up as some kind of a mistake. Either interference from gas and dust on the way here, or whatever. So only data that confirmed the lensing they were expecting was kept.
GhostParticle
not rated yet Dec 09, 2018
I'd love to see someone launch a cubesat above the ecliptic and take measurements of Casimir force as it moves away into deeper space. From looking around at the literature it seems we take for granted that it is the same everywhere. What if away from a massive body it is different? This could be a test for Dr. Farnes theory or no? It wouldn't be that expensive compared to other experiments.
katesisco
not rated yet Dec 09, 2018
Waiting for thorough exploration of the ionosphere and the massed energy. While we continually expand on conjectures, the answer found in electromagnetism is ignored.
JaxPavan
not rated yet Dec 11, 2018
@Joe1963

All odd numbers are prime if {9, 15, . . . } are experimental error.

Time to get back to the drawing board on the origin of the universe, the current Big Bang Theory comes with too much buffoonery to be true.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 11, 2018
@jonesdave: I have looked at the algorithm for the lensing in the bullet cluster and I found a very interesting thing: Up to 80% of the data is thrown out because it seemed to be non-sensical; i.e. according to much of the data bending of light was occuring in a way that did not make sense -- so the researchers understandably chalked it up as some kind of a mistake. Either interference from gas and dust on the way here, or whatever. So only data that confirmed the lensing they were expecting was kept.

@Joe I asked several times for links to show this and you never provided any. Do you have them now?
Joe1963
not rated yet Dec 12, 2018
@Da Schneib, I am very sorry; If I missed your question, it was not deliberate. BUT your statement is ironic considering that it was you that gave me the algorithms! All I did was read the algorithms that you provided. Do you still have them? The last time that I looked at them was way back when you gave them to me.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.