By Hari Kumar Nair
On December 5th, this year a paper was published on arXiv by an Oxford scientist named Jamie Farnes, which has attracted much attention. Reading the paper & articles on it, I was startled to note the striking similarities between his paper and mine that I published in July 2012. I had posted my DM/DE hypothesis on Scribd, blogged about it on my blogspot page a couple of times, created two Youtube videos, published powerpoint presentations, wrote an article on Medium on it, had online discussions with other scientists, emailed several scientists working on DM/DE. My papers on Scribd have been viewed over 50,000 times and my Youtube videos, generated about 11,000 hits. They’re all still available for scrutiny. Links are given at the end of this post.
As soon as I read the phys.org report (https://phys.org/news/2018-12-universe-theory-percent-cosmos.html) on Dr. Farnes’ paper, I wrote a blog post (noting the striking similarities) that you can find below this one. Besides emailing to Dr. Farnes, I had also tweeted to him, phys.org and a few others.
The similarities are as below:
As can be seen from above, the similarities cover the gist of Farnes’ theory. However, there are some differences as well.
My model proposes the continuous creation of negative mass matter in the form of, what I call, spatial perforations. Spatial perforations are somewhat like closed 2-dimensional bubbles in 3-dimensional space. Normal matter is trapped in a closed 2-dimensional bubble, rendering the insides of the bubble (that is 3-dimensional) completely cut-off from the outsides (our 3-dimensional universe). Since the 2-dimensional bubble has a positive spatial curvature (gravity hill) with respect to our universe, they will be gravitationally repulsive with the normal matter (that causes a gravity well) in our universe. This 2-dimensional barrier enclosing the trapped 3-dimensional matter, causes this matter to be not a part of our universe, though technically within it. The only way that we can experience this trapped matter is through its (repulsive) gravitational influence on normal matter.
As an aside, I think the only defining characteristic of our universe is that it’s spatially 3-dimensional. Two points can be said to lie in the same universe if there exists an unbroken path, however long (need not be straight) that connects them which does not pass through a region that has a different spatial dimension. Thus points at the two ends of the universe separated by billions of lightyears (with no hope of light ever reaching from one point to the other considering the inflating universe) can still be of the same universe. Yet, a space that is right at the tip of our nose, but fully enclosed in a closed 2-dimensional membrane, will not be a part of our universe.
To further illustrate, if the coffee cup weighing around 600 gms that is on my table is suddenly enveloped by a closed 2-dimensional (membrane) bubble, it completely disappears from this universe. No instrument, however sophisticated will be able to detect it apart from its gravitational effect. It’s no longer a part of our universe although the 2-dimensional bubble is technically within our universe. It’s not part of our universe since any path that connects me to my cup must go through the bubble that is 2-dimensional. It literally creates a hole (or perforation) in our universe (this hole should not be confused with a black hole).
I will experience this 2-dimensional bubble that has trapped my cup only as an invisible “repulsive force cloud.” Due to the earth repelling it, this force cloud will fall up and stop at the ceiling like a helium balloon. We can know that this “force cloud” exists by observing that the ceiling is now 600 gms lighter. With respect to our universe, this force cloud has truly a negative gravitational mass.
Now, how are these spatial perforations (or 2-dimensional bubbles) created? They are created by quantum fluctuations just like elementary particle pairs are created. However, unlike the particle pairs, the spatial perforations have a longer life, since they don’t have an anti-particle that can annihilate it.
As soon as they are created, if they are near a massive body like a planet or a star, they get repelled outwards. With the stellar, planetary and galactic dynamics a good portion find their way to the outer peripheries of galaxies where they are met by the perforations that are already (created) there. These growing deposits of perforations create a soft gravity hill (like the circular hills around a crater) at the outer peripheries (galactic halos) of the galaxies. This soft shell of perforations at the periphery is what keeps the galaxy together and the outer stars from flying off. The gravity hill created at the periphery acts somewhat like the greater banking angles on highways, necessary at the outer end of turns to allow for greater vehicular speeds.
Within galaxies, these perforations will get deposited in gravitationally neutral spaces such as the Lagrange points.
As for Farnes’ model, it too proposes the creation of negative mass matter that is gravitationally repulsive and ends up at the galactic peripheries exactly like my model. But he calls his negative matter stuff as a “dark fluid.” He explains the creation of this dark fluid by “modifying Einstein’s theory of general relativity.” Besides, his dark fluid has a negative mass both gravitationally and inertially. I am very skeptical about this and don’t believe anything can have a negative inertial mass despite a recent discovery (https://news.wsu.edu/2017/04/10/negative-mass-created-at-wsu/) at Washington State University that sensationally reported the creation of ‘negative mass’ Rubidium atoms that appear to exhibit negative inertial mass properties. But if you read their report carefully, it says, “Now when the rubidium rushes out fast enough, it behaves as if it has negative mass.” Behaves as if. Thus, this is not true negative mass, but merely an illusion of it created by manipulating the spin of the rubidium atoms. It is somewhat like throwing a fast spinning top on the floor and seeing it moving towards you rather than away.
I assume, this whole confusion arose from the interpretation of the famous equation F=ma. The equation F = m × a is certainly true, but with a small change. It should rightfully be F = |m|× a. That is, only the magnitude of mass is applicable here.
I would agree the rubidium atoms had somehow acquired negative mass if they had suddenly “fallen upwards.” But I don’t think that effect was observed in the said experiment at WSU.
I also have a problem with Farnes’ labeling of his negative mass stuff as a “dark fluid.” I am not sure if he means the two words in the same conventional sense that we are all familiar with. That is, “dark” as in non-reflecting and non-emitting light, giving a black appearance. And “fluid” as in liquidy. Both these words are misleading. That’s why I don’t like the term “dark matter” either. But I can tolerate it as a placeholder term to describe its observed effects. It’s not dark but rather invisible. Invisible things are not dark but allows light to pass through unhindered. It’s not liquidy either, well, at least not per my hypothesis. I can’t imagine light from galaxies billions of light years away surviving the journey through all that unimaginably vast and dark-fluid-filled space.
When he explains the continuous matter creations by “modifying Einstein’s theory of general relativity,” I have alarm bells going off in my mind. Let me say at the forefront that I am biased against MOND and think it is complete nonsense. You don’t have to resort to MOND as an explanation for the continuous matter creation. Einstein’s equations are perfect as they are and requires no modification. My hypothesis also proposes the continuous creation of this negative mass stuff (spatial perforations or 2-dimensional bubbles). But that is through a process akin to the particles created due to quantum fluctuations. This, I think, is a far better way than tweaking Einstein’s equations as you please to explain matter creation at large scales.
1. As I mentioned earlier, the negative mass stuff, like my spatial perforations (and even Farnes’ dark fluid) will deposit at the Lagrange points, where the gravitational influence of nearby bodies balances each other out. I refer to the recent discovery of Kordylewski dust clouds in the stable L4 and L5 Lagrange points of the Earth-Moon system. Each of these dust clouds is more than nine times the size of the earth. Even before the discovery, I had predicted that these Lagrange regions must be replete with spatial perforations (or “dark matter”). The discovery of the dust clouds only heightened my suspicions. The very fact that such large amounts of dust haven’t coalesced and compactified (and become large rocks) under their gravity despite being around for millions of years, points to some repulsive force that’s keeping them apart. I suspect that this is the work of my spatial perforations and that the dust is embedded on the repulsive force clouds resulting from the spatial perforations deposited there.
I propose a special probe to be sent to that region of space with a mechanism to entrap an area of empty space in the heart of L4 or L5. When the probe returns to earth, there will be a measurable loss of weight if spatial perforations exist. If it is found that there is no evidence of any negative mass stuff, then my hypothesis is wrong. On the contrary, if the presence of gravitationally repulsive negative mass is confirmed, there will be enormous benefits to humanity. Mining this vast and almost endless supply of gravitationally repulsive stuff can have such tremendous impact on architecture, transportation, aviation, etc.
2. I think primordial negative mass deposits are also present on certain points on earth. Terrestrial locations, exhibiting gravitational anomalies are possible candidates for consideration. For example, the region around Hudson Bay in Canada is a great example where there is a dip in gravity. I realize there are alternate theories explaining this gravitational anomaly, although they have not been proven. Scientists currently believe the magma convection in the Earth’s mantle, combined with a “glacial rebound,” is probably the reason for the gravitational dip around the Hudson Bay. The glacial rebound was thought to have commenced after the melting of the Laurentide ice sheet, which had covered most of Canada during the Pleistocene period. But I think, it is worth examining whether this is caused by vast tracts of primordial negative mass matter trapped under the Precambrian rock that made up the Canadian Shield. The benefits to human life, again, would be staggering.
In 2015, I self-published a science fiction novel, "The Intersection Man," in which one of my characters, a scientist, puts forward this exact hypothesis. I explain this in detail in the novel. This paves the way to the artificial creation of something I labeled, Gravitationally Repulsive Medium (GRM). The GRM thus created, causes a revolution in almost all facets of human life, from architecture to aviation and even medicine. Think of floating habitats, tethered cities rising to the thermosphere.
The success of "The Intersection Man," motivated me to write the sequel, which was published as a single novel (including the first part and two more major sections) in September 2017. However, this time, I changed the title to "Intersection Man" (without the definite article "the"). In the book, I go much further and even propose where exactly on Earth, this GRM can be found. I provide my reasons as well. More details of my novel, including reviews, Facebook page, links to Amazon (ebook & paperback) can be found at https://www.milkywaybooks.com/
My original hypothesis was a bit too ambitious. It tried to explain not just dark matter & dark energy but also went much further. Perhaps that may not have been a good idea.
• I had posted an article on Medium explaining my integrated DM/DE hypothesis on November 25th, 2014. You may find it here:
https://medium.com/@harikumar_23993/a-different-look-at-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-32018a92d7d1
• You can find the original paper on Scribd (also posted in July 2012) at https://www.scribd.com/document/100044584/The-Perforated-Universe-Revision-Evidence
• I had also sent emails to some scientists working in the field explaining my hypothesis. You may find the text of my email in my blog post, posted on June 18, 2014, here. It also contains some more supporting evidence:
https://www.urbanyogi.guru/2014/06/on-dark-matter.html
• A powerpoint presentation on my DM/DE idea dated March 19, 2012. Since it contains a lot of other (related) ideas as well, perhaps it would be better if you start from slide 31 onwards:
https://www.scribd.com/document/85901916/The-Perforated-Universe
• My blog post (dated July 13, 2012) containing both the video and the Scribd paper can be found at:
https://www.urbanyogi.guru/2012/07/this-new-evolutionary-model-of-universe.html
In your article (http://theconversation.com/bizarre-dark-fluid-with-negative-mass-could-dominate-the-universe-what-my-research-suggests-107922) you have claimed this to be your new idea. I contest that claim since the gist of what you claim as “your idea” was first proposed by me back in 2012, as I have already explained. As mentioned in the beginning of this article, I had posted my DM/DE hypothesis on Scribd, blogged about it on my blogspot page a couple of times, created two Youtube videos, wrote an article on Medium on it, had online discussions on science forums, emailed several scientists working on DM/DE. My papers on Scribd have been viewed over 50,000 times and my Youtube videos, generated about 11,000 hits. They’re all still available for scrutiny. Links are given above.
In your research on this paper, you surely must have done some Google searches, and it is likely you came across my paper, like the many others who read it. Still, I am not saying you outrightly plagiarized my idea (sure, you might have independently arrived at it), but just saying I got there first. Six years before you did. Currently, I am exploring my legal options to get my due credit for this idea.
Hari Kumar Nair,
harismind AT gmail DOT com
Toronto
On December 5th, this year a paper was published on arXiv by an Oxford scientist named Jamie Farnes, which has attracted much attention. Reading the paper & articles on it, I was startled to note the striking similarities between his paper and mine that I published in July 2012. I had posted my DM/DE hypothesis on Scribd, blogged about it on my blogspot page a couple of times, created two Youtube videos, published powerpoint presentations, wrote an article on Medium on it, had online discussions with other scientists, emailed several scientists working on DM/DE. My papers on Scribd have been viewed over 50,000 times and my Youtube videos, generated about 11,000 hits. They’re all still available for scrutiny. Links are given at the end of this post.
As soon as I read the phys.org report (https://phys.org/news/2018-12-universe-theory-percent-cosmos.html) on Dr. Farnes’ paper, I wrote a blog post (noting the striking similarities) that you can find below this one. Besides emailing to Dr. Farnes, I had also tweeted to him, phys.org and a few others.
The similarities are as below:
My hypothesis
|
Dr. Farnes' theory
|
|
| Proposes an integrated model of both dark energy and dark matter |
Yes
|
Yes
|
| Proposes Gravitational Repulsion as the driving force that causes the observed effects |
Yes
|
Yes
|
| Proposes the continuous generation of this gravitationally repulsive substance |
Yes
|
Yes
|
| Proposes the presence of dark matter in halos, which hold together the galaxies |
Yes
|
Yes
|
As can be seen from above, the similarities cover the gist of Farnes’ theory. However, there are some differences as well.
My model proposes the continuous creation of negative mass matter in the form of, what I call, spatial perforations. Spatial perforations are somewhat like closed 2-dimensional bubbles in 3-dimensional space. Normal matter is trapped in a closed 2-dimensional bubble, rendering the insides of the bubble (that is 3-dimensional) completely cut-off from the outsides (our 3-dimensional universe). Since the 2-dimensional bubble has a positive spatial curvature (gravity hill) with respect to our universe, they will be gravitationally repulsive with the normal matter (that causes a gravity well) in our universe. This 2-dimensional barrier enclosing the trapped 3-dimensional matter, causes this matter to be not a part of our universe, though technically within it. The only way that we can experience this trapped matter is through its (repulsive) gravitational influence on normal matter.
As an aside, I think the only defining characteristic of our universe is that it’s spatially 3-dimensional. Two points can be said to lie in the same universe if there exists an unbroken path, however long (need not be straight) that connects them which does not pass through a region that has a different spatial dimension. Thus points at the two ends of the universe separated by billions of lightyears (with no hope of light ever reaching from one point to the other considering the inflating universe) can still be of the same universe. Yet, a space that is right at the tip of our nose, but fully enclosed in a closed 2-dimensional membrane, will not be a part of our universe.
To further illustrate, if the coffee cup weighing around 600 gms that is on my table is suddenly enveloped by a closed 2-dimensional (membrane) bubble, it completely disappears from this universe. No instrument, however sophisticated will be able to detect it apart from its gravitational effect. It’s no longer a part of our universe although the 2-dimensional bubble is technically within our universe. It’s not part of our universe since any path that connects me to my cup must go through the bubble that is 2-dimensional. It literally creates a hole (or perforation) in our universe (this hole should not be confused with a black hole).
I will experience this 2-dimensional bubble that has trapped my cup only as an invisible “repulsive force cloud.” Due to the earth repelling it, this force cloud will fall up and stop at the ceiling like a helium balloon. We can know that this “force cloud” exists by observing that the ceiling is now 600 gms lighter. With respect to our universe, this force cloud has truly a negative gravitational mass.
Now, how are these spatial perforations (or 2-dimensional bubbles) created? They are created by quantum fluctuations just like elementary particle pairs are created. However, unlike the particle pairs, the spatial perforations have a longer life, since they don’t have an anti-particle that can annihilate it.
As soon as they are created, if they are near a massive body like a planet or a star, they get repelled outwards. With the stellar, planetary and galactic dynamics a good portion find their way to the outer peripheries of galaxies where they are met by the perforations that are already (created) there. These growing deposits of perforations create a soft gravity hill (like the circular hills around a crater) at the outer peripheries (galactic halos) of the galaxies. This soft shell of perforations at the periphery is what keeps the galaxy together and the outer stars from flying off. The gravity hill created at the periphery acts somewhat like the greater banking angles on highways, necessary at the outer end of turns to allow for greater vehicular speeds.
Within galaxies, these perforations will get deposited in gravitationally neutral spaces such as the Lagrange points.
As for Farnes’ model, it too proposes the creation of negative mass matter that is gravitationally repulsive and ends up at the galactic peripheries exactly like my model. But he calls his negative matter stuff as a “dark fluid.” He explains the creation of this dark fluid by “modifying Einstein’s theory of general relativity.” Besides, his dark fluid has a negative mass both gravitationally and inertially. I am very skeptical about this and don’t believe anything can have a negative inertial mass despite a recent discovery (https://news.wsu.edu/2017/04/10/negative-mass-created-at-wsu/) at Washington State University that sensationally reported the creation of ‘negative mass’ Rubidium atoms that appear to exhibit negative inertial mass properties. But if you read their report carefully, it says, “Now when the rubidium rushes out fast enough, it behaves as if it has negative mass.” Behaves as if. Thus, this is not true negative mass, but merely an illusion of it created by manipulating the spin of the rubidium atoms. It is somewhat like throwing a fast spinning top on the floor and seeing it moving towards you rather than away.
I assume, this whole confusion arose from the interpretation of the famous equation F=ma. The equation F = m × a is certainly true, but with a small change. It should rightfully be F = |m|× a. That is, only the magnitude of mass is applicable here.
I would agree the rubidium atoms had somehow acquired negative mass if they had suddenly “fallen upwards.” But I don’t think that effect was observed in the said experiment at WSU.
I also have a problem with Farnes’ labeling of his negative mass stuff as a “dark fluid.” I am not sure if he means the two words in the same conventional sense that we are all familiar with. That is, “dark” as in non-reflecting and non-emitting light, giving a black appearance. And “fluid” as in liquidy. Both these words are misleading. That’s why I don’t like the term “dark matter” either. But I can tolerate it as a placeholder term to describe its observed effects. It’s not dark but rather invisible. Invisible things are not dark but allows light to pass through unhindered. It’s not liquidy either, well, at least not per my hypothesis. I can’t imagine light from galaxies billions of light years away surviving the journey through all that unimaginably vast and dark-fluid-filled space.
When he explains the continuous matter creations by “modifying Einstein’s theory of general relativity,” I have alarm bells going off in my mind. Let me say at the forefront that I am biased against MOND and think it is complete nonsense. You don’t have to resort to MOND as an explanation for the continuous matter creation. Einstein’s equations are perfect as they are and requires no modification. My hypothesis also proposes the continuous creation of this negative mass stuff (spatial perforations or 2-dimensional bubbles). But that is through a process akin to the particles created due to quantum fluctuations. This, I think, is a far better way than tweaking Einstein’s equations as you please to explain matter creation at large scales.
A proposal of a test to falsify/confirm my hypothesis & the enormous benefit to humanity:
1. As I mentioned earlier, the negative mass stuff, like my spatial perforations (and even Farnes’ dark fluid) will deposit at the Lagrange points, where the gravitational influence of nearby bodies balances each other out. I refer to the recent discovery of Kordylewski dust clouds in the stable L4 and L5 Lagrange points of the Earth-Moon system. Each of these dust clouds is more than nine times the size of the earth. Even before the discovery, I had predicted that these Lagrange regions must be replete with spatial perforations (or “dark matter”). The discovery of the dust clouds only heightened my suspicions. The very fact that such large amounts of dust haven’t coalesced and compactified (and become large rocks) under their gravity despite being around for millions of years, points to some repulsive force that’s keeping them apart. I suspect that this is the work of my spatial perforations and that the dust is embedded on the repulsive force clouds resulting from the spatial perforations deposited there.
I propose a special probe to be sent to that region of space with a mechanism to entrap an area of empty space in the heart of L4 or L5. When the probe returns to earth, there will be a measurable loss of weight if spatial perforations exist. If it is found that there is no evidence of any negative mass stuff, then my hypothesis is wrong. On the contrary, if the presence of gravitationally repulsive negative mass is confirmed, there will be enormous benefits to humanity. Mining this vast and almost endless supply of gravitationally repulsive stuff can have such tremendous impact on architecture, transportation, aviation, etc.
2. I think primordial negative mass deposits are also present on certain points on earth. Terrestrial locations, exhibiting gravitational anomalies are possible candidates for consideration. For example, the region around Hudson Bay in Canada is a great example where there is a dip in gravity. I realize there are alternate theories explaining this gravitational anomaly, although they have not been proven. Scientists currently believe the magma convection in the Earth’s mantle, combined with a “glacial rebound,” is probably the reason for the gravitational dip around the Hudson Bay. The glacial rebound was thought to have commenced after the melting of the Laurentide ice sheet, which had covered most of Canada during the Pleistocene period. But I think, it is worth examining whether this is caused by vast tracts of primordial negative mass matter trapped under the Precambrian rock that made up the Canadian Shield. The benefits to human life, again, would be staggering.
Some Science Fiction 😊
In 2015, I self-published a science fiction novel, "The Intersection Man," in which one of my characters, a scientist, puts forward this exact hypothesis. I explain this in detail in the novel. This paves the way to the artificial creation of something I labeled, Gravitationally Repulsive Medium (GRM). The GRM thus created, causes a revolution in almost all facets of human life, from architecture to aviation and even medicine. Think of floating habitats, tethered cities rising to the thermosphere.
The success of "The Intersection Man," motivated me to write the sequel, which was published as a single novel (including the first part and two more major sections) in September 2017. However, this time, I changed the title to "Intersection Man" (without the definite article "the"). In the book, I go much further and even propose where exactly on Earth, this GRM can be found. I provide my reasons as well. More details of my novel, including reviews, Facebook page, links to Amazon (ebook & paperback) can be found at https://www.milkywaybooks.com/
Links and References:
My original hypothesis was a bit too ambitious. It tried to explain not just dark matter & dark energy but also went much further. Perhaps that may not have been a good idea.
• I had posted an article on Medium explaining my integrated DM/DE hypothesis on November 25th, 2014. You may find it here:
https://medium.com/@harikumar_23993/a-different-look-at-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-32018a92d7d1
• You can find the original paper on Scribd (also posted in July 2012) at https://www.scribd.com/document/100044584/The-Perforated-Universe-Revision-Evidence
• I had also sent emails to some scientists working in the field explaining my hypothesis. You may find the text of my email in my blog post, posted on June 18, 2014, here. It also contains some more supporting evidence:
https://www.urbanyogi.guru/2014/06/on-dark-matter.html
• A powerpoint presentation on my DM/DE idea dated March 19, 2012. Since it contains a lot of other (related) ideas as well, perhaps it would be better if you start from slide 31 onwards:
https://www.scribd.com/document/85901916/The-Perforated-Universe
• My blog post (dated July 13, 2012) containing both the video and the Scribd paper can be found at:
https://www.urbanyogi.guru/2012/07/this-new-evolutionary-model-of-universe.html
Lastly, a note to Dr. Jamie Farnes
In your article (http://theconversation.com/bizarre-dark-fluid-with-negative-mass-could-dominate-the-universe-what-my-research-suggests-107922) you have claimed this to be your new idea. I contest that claim since the gist of what you claim as “your idea” was first proposed by me back in 2012, as I have already explained. As mentioned in the beginning of this article, I had posted my DM/DE hypothesis on Scribd, blogged about it on my blogspot page a couple of times, created two Youtube videos, wrote an article on Medium on it, had online discussions on science forums, emailed several scientists working on DM/DE. My papers on Scribd have been viewed over 50,000 times and my Youtube videos, generated about 11,000 hits. They’re all still available for scrutiny. Links are given above.
In your research on this paper, you surely must have done some Google searches, and it is likely you came across my paper, like the many others who read it. Still, I am not saying you outrightly plagiarized my idea (sure, you might have independently arrived at it), but just saying I got there first. Six years before you did. Currently, I am exploring my legal options to get my due credit for this idea.
Hari Kumar Nair,
harismind AT gmail DOT com
Toronto
