In this series of videos, astrophysicist and cosmologist Jean-Pierre Petit explains the Janus Cosmological Model.JCM is a bimetric theory of gravity based on general relativity with a system of two coupled field equations, involving the presence of positive and negative masses in cosmology.It describes the universe as an M4 manifold with two metrics. The first metric g(+) or "positive sector" refers to a family of geodesics with positive mass and positive energy particles, while the second metric g(-) or "negative sector" refers to another family of geodesics with negative mass and negative energy particles. Negative mass particles emit negative energy photons that follow null geodesics of the metric g(-) hence cannot be seen.The Newtonian approximation provides the interaction laws: particles whose masses own the same sign mutually attract through Newton's law, while particles whose masses have opposite signs mutually repel through anti-Newton's law. This solves the unmanageable Runaway paradox, which arises when one tries to include negative masses in Einstein's model.Like Andrei Sakharov's model, the second sector is a CPT symmetry of the first one, linked together by the Big Bang, and explains the apparent lack of primordial antimatter.Dynamical group theory demonstrates that the reversal of the arrow of time equals energy inversion, and provides the nature of negative species.The negative sector contributes to the gravitational field and negative pressure and replaces both dark matter and dark energy of the concordance model and its six free parameters, without ant ad hoc parameter. The model challenges dark matter as it explains the formation of galactic spiral structures, their confinement and their anomalous rotation curves. It also explains the formation of galaxy clusters and the large-scale structure of the universe, the giant voids and the Dipole Repeller effect. Mirage effects around galaxies and galaxy clusters are due to a negative gravitational lensing effect.The model challenges dark energy, giving an exact solution referring to the matter-dominated era, which exhibits an accelerating expansion process for positive species and fits very well with available observational data. During the radiation-dominated era, the universe undergoes a variable constants regime, with a variation of the speed of light (VSL) and of all the constants of physics, involved in a generalized gauge process. Then the horizon grows like the space scale factor. This explains the homogeneity and isotropy of the primitive universe with no need to resort to the inflation hypothesis and the inflaton field.The two sectors have different speeds of light and scale factors. If a space probe could achieve a mass inversion process and cruise at a relativistic velocity following geodesics of the negative sector, the travel duration could be three orders of magnitude shorter than a corresponding conventional relativistic trip in the positive sector. The model suggests that interstellar travel in a limited time inferior to human's lifespan becomes theoretically possible. The Janus model has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13542.0http://alpha.web.cern.ch/The Alpha experiment at CERN is looking in to anti-matter an how it behaves relative to normal matter and might help in determining whether these theories are possible.
A quick question,what about time dilatation for particle or objects travelling close to the speed of c(-) in the "negative" sector ? ThanksAlex
-Are there any actual testable and falsifiable predictions made? (for example a calculation of how bright the radiation from the "black" part of the image would be and whether that would be distinguishable from the noise in this measurement.)
-What form of matter is the object supposedly made out of?
-Where exactly does this supposed extremely large magnetic field come from, since the object as a whole is almost certainly neutral overall?
-How does such a magnetic field produce the pressure needed to cancel the force of gravity, saying "big magnetic field" isn't enough. The object is less dense than air at sea level, by a factor of around 3 so it really doesn't make sense that such a large radius could be maintained by "magnetic pressure"
-Finally, it seems important to him to claim that it might not be a black hole, why? Does the Janus model fail if it is shown that black holes exist?
I'm extremely sceptical of J. P. Petit's work. He is not a cosmologist, but worked on magnetohydrodynamics.
Years ago he stated that he was in direct contact with "UMMO" aliens. I guess this means that he must have been smoking some good stuff!{troll flooding of unsubtitled, non-dubbed old French TV videos series that have nothing to do with science and the current thread}
On top of that, the equations he is using are not his, but are plagiarised from Sabine Hossenfelder (an established cosmologist in Germany).https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2838v1https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3384v1https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2094
I wouldn't take anything he says too seriously!
The journals he is publishing in are not peer-reviewed journals within the cosmology community, but predatory journals for cranks and crackpots. I don't want to be unkind, but this is really not science, just insane narcissism.
The Janus model is the work of almost one man for more than 40 years (and his small team, more recently) but reading the (now erased) previous biased comment (same trolling goes on and on in the YouTube comments), I should emphasis that this model is not some "lone crackpot theory" as it is somewhat confirmed on its theoretical grounds (i.e. general relativity extended to a bigravity context where repulsive negative mass is at the same time self-attractive) by the work of various researchers around the world that find again same field equations, or develop these ideas independently on the exact same grounds. So let's cite independent yet very similar work:• S. Hossenfelder, "Anti-gravitation", Physics Letters B, 636: 119-125 (May 2006). arXiv:gr-qc/0508013. Open Access.+ an appendix "attached" to the paper as an ArXiv preprint:• S. Hossenfelder, "Cosmological Consequences of Anti-gravitation" (May 2006). arXiv:gr-qc/0605083.• Johan Noldus, Patrick Van Esch, "Rebuttal on “anti-gravitation” by S. Hossenfelder", Physics Letters B, 636: 119-125 (July 2006). Open Access.This work is not so recent (2006) but I cite it as an introduction to show that one cannot introduce negative mass in general relativity while at the same time preventing the runaway motion paradox. Sabine Hossenfelder, a quite famous German physicist, failed to do so in 2006. She tried at that time to introduce the very same interaction laws promoted in the Janus model, i.e. like masses attract while opposite masses repel (that prevent the runaway motion and other inconsistencies of negative masses) in the single-metric framework of general relativity, with sophisticated mathematics. Alas, as shown by Noldus and Van Esch two months only after its publication, Hossenfelder's 2006 model is plagued with inconsistencies. They demonstrate that the line-worlds of her positive masses are necessarily dependent on the a particular frame of the observer, breaking general covariance.Afterward, Hossenfelder solved this problem, reconsidering the situation as a bimetric framework:• S. Hossenfelder, "Bimetric theory with exchange symmetry", Physical Review D, 78: 044015 (August 2008). arXiv:0807.2838. doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.044015.• S. Hossenfelder, "Antigravitation", 17th International Conference on Supersymmetry and the Unification of Fundamental Interactions, Boston (June 2009). arXiv:0909.3456. doi:10.1063/1.3327545.In these newer paper, Hossenfelder introduces two metrics, one set for positive masses, the other for negative masses. Therefore she get a system of two field equations, coupled. This system is very similar to the Janus one, except she introduces additional pull-overs. Newtonian approximation gives the same geodesics and interaction laws as in the Janus model (like masses attract and unlike masses repel). She was the first to propose a Lagrangian derivation in the 2018 paper (so before Petit) from where she finds the metric determinant ratios. So this make some people question the real anteriority of such bimetric model. Petit publishes the twin universes theory in 1977 originally as a Newtonian model, publishes the first field equation referring to the positive sector in 1994, and the second, symmetric one from the negative sector in a conference paper in 2001, giving the first system of two coupled field equations. He also presents this work in 2007 as a bimetric theory of gravity at the CITV, the French workshop annually organized by late mathematician and geometer Jean-Marie Souriau, see arXiv:0712.0067, uploaded 1 Dec 2007. This definitely proves that such idiotic anteriority controversy has no place in this forum nor everywhere else.Alas, in 2008 Hossenfelder only considered a perfect symmetry of her two metrics, noticing such model does not explain observations very well… therefore she gave up, never pursued the route of bigravity after these two papers published ten years ago. She never considered on the contrary a profound asymmetry between the two mass densities, that is the key of all observations according to Petit, especially the missing mass effect (dark matter) and the cosmic acceleration (dark energy). A density asymmetry that is explained not because there would be more negative mass than positive mass in the universe (these values are equal) but because there are two space scale factors depending of the metric considered, i.e. we could say that one of the two "universe radius" is considerably smaller than the other. Then, negative mass drives the positive mass matter distribution in the universe as well as its rate of expansion, as shown in the Janus papers.• G. Manfredi, J.-L. Rouet, B. Miller, G. Chardin, "Cosmological structure formation with negative mass", Physical Review D, 98: 023514 (July 2018). arXiv:1804.03067. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023514.Gabriel Chardin is not the lead author, but is the one appearing in the media, as he is responsible for an experiment aimed to weigh antimatter. He cites Hossenfelder, but never Petit, following the motto given in all French labs. But in 2018 he considers the Janus model (still without citing the name nor their authors) and christens the negative mass PT-symmetric antimatter with the name "antiplasma" in this paper (because the expressed gravitational interaction, i.e. "like masses attract while unlike masses repel" is opposed to the electrodynamic interaction of charged particles) and presents himself and his team in the French media as the proponent of such ideas.• S. A. Rahman, "On the existence of exotic matter in classical Newtonian mechanics", Modern Physics Letters A, 34: (February 2019). doi:10.1142/S0217732319500494. Available on ResearchGate.Sabbir Rahman focuses on computer simulations. He notes the similarity of Petit's model with Hossenfelder's, but in fact he does not consider yet the great asymmetry of the two mass densities in the Janus model vs the exact density symmetry in Hossenfelder's theory. Rahman has also a more complete preprint on ResearchGate, with a similar title.• S. Bondarenko, "Negative mass scenario and Schwarzschild spacetime in general relativity", Modern Physics Letters A, 34: 1950084 (March 2019). arXiv:1807.07412. doi:10.1142/S0217732319500846.Sergey Bondarenko is a Russian researcher working at the Ariel University, Israel. In this paper he considers PT transformation according to Sakharov, Souriau and Petit, to infer that PT-symmetric antimatter has a negative mass and interacts with normal matter from a second dark sector, like the one used in the Janus model, cited. The paper focuses on the Schwarzschild metric according to these hypotheses.• P. Marquet, "Twin Universes: a New Approach", Progress in Physics, 15: 64–67 (July 2019). Published online in Open Access.This is an interesting theoretical paper as the author finds the system of two coupled field equations of the Janus model using a completely different approach (Elie Cartan's equivalence method and the Hodge star operator).N.B.: In this recent bibliography about negative mass in cosmology, I didn't list the "dark fluid" approach of Jamie Farnes that was recently published with a lot of media coverage, as Farnes stays in the single metric framework of general relativity and the lambda-CDM model, thus decides to deal with the paradoxical runaway motion phenomenon and the fact that negative masses repel everything, including themselves. Moreover, Farnes uses a continuous "Creation Field" for his negative mass fluid, like in older disproved steady-state models of gravity, to keep up with and account for the accelerating expansion of the universe. Indeed, without such C-field, his "dark fluid" quickly dilutes over time and cannot account for observations, especially the cosmic acceleration. Such density dilution due to the expansion is also predicted in the Janus model, but as the space scale factor of the second metric is 100× more contracted than the one of the positive sector, and the cosmic expansion is actually decelerating in the negative one, such change in the rate of expansion recedes in the far future of the universe. Since we can observe past and present only, all we can do about future states of the universe is making predictions based on these observations coupled to consistent theories. Nonetheless, a critical paper of Farnes' model has just been published (April 2019) which also lists other approaches about negative mass in cosmology:• H. Socas-Navarro, "Can a negative-mass cosmology explain dark matter and dark energy?", Astronomy & Astrophysics (April 2019). arXiv:1902.08287. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935317.
This article is very interesting.• P. Marquet, "Twin Universes: a New Approach", Progress in Physics, 15: 64–67 (July 2019). Published online in Open Access.I'm interested on the effects of "inversion" on the electromagnetic fields.I've found what can be a "group" where a "inversion at a spherical surface" , together with a "duality inversion" ( wich may be associated with hodge duality) and other transformation, wich preserves the flat spacetime metric.This "inversion at a spherical surface" appears to be a Mobius transformation.As a electromagnetic "toy model", the fields inside a cavity with non zero intrinsic curvature boundary conditions, appears model a "Janus point" as a very narrow electromagnetic "bound state" induced by the curvature.Just look carefully the fields inside the cavity on anexed file ( see it in black and white if necessary). You can see a very narrow bright mode "linking" the antinodes of field at bottom.
The cavity below is the version of "bell cavity" with only impulsive boundary conditions intrinsic curvature at the junctions, been zero at walls.Theorically, it will presents the same narrows modes pointed on previous quote.