• Cosmologists Show Possibility of Negative Mass
    79 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Xystus234;45419234]Alcubierre drives use negative mass if I'm not mistaken. Win.[/QUOTE] Hawking Radiation still makes it impracticable unless some means of removing that monkey is solved.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;45419234]Alcubierre drives use negative mass if I'm not mistaken. Win.[/QUOTE] Yes, but the Alcubierre metric also requires negative energy density, which violates the dominant energy condition.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;45419349]Yes, but the Alcubierre metric also requires negative energy density, which violates the dominant energy condition.[/QUOTE] damnit
Would negative cause what is essentially anti-gravity? The analogy for gravity I've been given is the bowling ball on trampoline, so would negative mass create "bumps" rather than dips? Also, how accurate is that analogy? How would this tie in with the Higss particle? As that imparts mass to (baryons?) would there be an anti-higgs particle imparting negative mass?
[QUOTE=QwertySecond;45420689]Would negative cause what is essentially anti-gravity? The analogy for gravity I've been given is the bowling ball on trampoline, so would negative mass create "bumps" rather than dips? Also, how accurate is that analogy? How would this tie in with the Higss particle? As that imparts mass to (baryons?) would there be an anti-higgs particle imparting negative mass?[/QUOTE] the bumps analogy is accurate the Highs particle is a boson, so it doesn't have an antiparticle (or rather, it is its own antiparticle)
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;45418676]You cannot travel faster than light.[/QUOTE] As far as we know*
So, in theory, there could be a planet or asteroid with negative mass?
Even tho it's probably mostly unrelated to this I liked the scifi idea that we could manipulate the mass of a spacecraft while the inertia of it would stay the same, which would mean it would go faster and faster as it would lose mass, go at speed of light when weighting nothing, and then go faster than light when weighting negative. I don't care it's impossible I just love the simple idea of it :c
Hasn't this been known for some time? The universe both has Positive and negative matter. The down-side right now is that we haven't found any negative matter which contradicts our models of the universe.
[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;45417801]Probably never.[/QUOTE] I dont know why people are rating this disagree. Mass cannot exceed the speed of light. We cannot exceed the speed of light. We can trick the system into moving distances farther in which light travels we ourselves will never go FTL
[QUOTE=Code3Response;45421016]I dont know why people are rating this disagree. Mass cannot exceed the speed of light. We cannot exceed the speed of light. We can trick the system into moving distances farther in which light travels we ourselves will never go FTL[/QUOTE] What if we convert ourselves to pure energy?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45420941]Even tho it's probably mostly unrelated to this I liked the scifi idea that we could manipulate the mass of a spacecraft while the inertia of it would stay the same, which would mean it would go faster and faster as it would lose mass, go at speed of light when weighting nothing, and then go faster than light when weighting negative. I don't care it's impossible I just love the simple idea of it :c[/QUOTE] Is this not Mass Effect's system?
I am pretty confused by this, but I'd like to ask something regarding negative masses if I could... Is a negative mass like dark matter, or..?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;45421766]I am pretty confused by this, but I'd like to ask something regarding negative masses if I could... Is a negative mass like dark matter, or..?[/QUOTE] Nope. Dark matter has positive mass. Dark matter is simply the name given to undetectable matter that must exist to account for anomalies in the orbits of stars around their galactic centers. [QUOTE=Superkilll307;45421267]What if we convert ourselves to pure energy?[/QUOTE] [t]http://www.jmlalonde.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Nuclear-Explosion-550x690.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;45421766]I am pretty confused by this, but I'd like to ask something regarding negative masses if I could... Is a negative mass like dark matter, or..?[/QUOTE] The whole [I]point[/I] of dark matter is that it has positive mass i mean come on
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;45421861]The whole [I]point[/I] of dark matter is that it has positive mass i mean come on[/QUOTE] No need to be snarky. These are not intuitive concepts.
[QUOTE=Complifused;45418305]So does it actually do anything for us[/QUOTE]I know, right? If a scientific discovery doesn't immediately give [I]me[/I] something concrete like a handjob or a Cornetto, I don't want to fucking hear about it.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;45420733]the bumps analogy is accurate the Highs particle is a boson, so it doesn't have an antiparticle (or rather, it is its own antiparticle)[/QUOTE] For visual representation (though highly simplified) [IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/mqHlGq.png[/IMG] Essentially the 'warp drive' sci-fi concept can be applied when trying to visualize this principle, by expanding or raising space into a 'hill' behind the vehicle and creating a gravity well ahead of it. [IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/Np8DzK.png[/IMG] The ship is rolling downhill away from the area of 'negative mass' and being pulled towards the area of 'positive mass'. Though it is likely impossible, the warp drive works by having the two distortions be mobile, locked ahead of and behind the space-ship. I'm not asserting that the existence of negative mass would allow us to harness warp drive technology, but the language and imagery used in star trek is oddly applicable when it comes to visualizing it.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;45422320]For visual representation (though highly simplified) [IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/mqHlGq.png[/IMG] [/QUOTE] but where does the gravity come from that makes things roll down the spacetime hills???
[QUOTE=Falubii;45421855]Nope. Dark matter has positive mass. Dark matter is simply the name given to undetectable matter that must exist to account for anomalies in the orbits of stars around their galactic centers. [t]http://www.jmlalonde.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Nuclear-Explosion-550x690.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] So is dark matter just matter that's somewhere we can't see it, or is it different to vanilla matter?
[QUOTE=Falubii;45422413]but where does the gravity come from that makes things roll down the spacetime hills???[/QUOTE] What physicists call the 'higgs boson field' (I may be completely wrong). The hills are above 'neutral space', which is where objects with mass are attracted to and push into. Merely the act of staying above the space-field requires energy, so the ball is naturally repelled away from it. A well in space-time (as created by a normal object) requires no energy to move into and energy to escape. It is the opposite for a 'gravity mound', where it takes energy to move into it but none to be repelled away from it. Think of it this way - There are two sheets of the universe, one above the other. The one which we know and the one which objects are attracted towards to gain mass. Objects that are massive are drawn downwards through the sheet of our universe towards the boson field, thus creating mass. The well may be wide or very very narrow depending on the density and the size of an object. For example - Earth has a steep, narrow, but shallow gravity well where Saturn, being a gas giant, has a much less uniform density and produces an incredibly wide and deep gravity well. This may explain why the gas giants have such a massive 'zone' of stable orbits around them where moons can settle. This is all purely unsubstantiated theory on my part though, based off of old scientific literature. If anyone has a better grasp of the concept, feel free to correct me.
[IMG]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/teaching_physics.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Eltro102;45422536][IMG]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/teaching_physics.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] One of my favorite xkcd's, but the alt text is the best part: [I]"Space-time is like some simple and familiar system which is both intuitively understandable and precisely analogous, and if I were Richard Feynman I'd be able to come up with it."[/I] [editline]17th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Falubii;45422413]but where does the gravity come from that makes things roll down the spacetime hills???[/QUOTE] It's a useful visualization, you just can't push it too far.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;45422637]One of my favorite xkcd's, but the alt text is the best part: [I]"Space-time is like some simple and familiar system which is both intuitively understandable and precisely analogous, and if I were Richard Feynman I'd be able to come up with it."[/I] [editline]17th July 2014[/editline] It's a useful visualization, you just can't push it too far.[/QUOTE] Did I do ok? :v: I'm by no means a physicist or anything that can be called near a physicist, so it'd be helpful if someone with more knowledge on the subject gave me a rough analysis of what is right or wrong in how I visualize the concept.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;45418676]You cannot travel faster than light.[/QUOTE] Women run away from facepunchers faster than light. You're wrong sir.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;45417901]Everything is attracted to positive masses and repelled from negative masses. So two negative masses would repel away from each other. Also, a negative mass would essentially chase a positive mass. The positive mass is trying to move away from the negative and the negative is trying to move toward the positive.[/QUOTE] So could we do some sort of anti-gravity with this?
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;45421861]The whole [I]point[/I] of dark matter is that it has positive mass i mean come on[/QUOTE] I was kicked out of highschool within the first month of being there, and do to an arrest in the 7th grade, I was disallowed from attending any Science classes up until the 8th Grade. I am legitimately clueless regarding most things.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;45421016]I dont know why people are rating this disagree. Mass cannot exceed the speed of light. We cannot exceed the speed of light. We can trick the system into moving distances farther in which light travels we ourselves will never go FTL[/QUOTE] If we "trick the system into moving distances farther in which light travels" and then this is observed from earth, would we not observe it as going FTL?
[QUOTE=Sio;45423087]If we "trick the system into moving distances farther in which light travels" and then this is observed from earth, would we not observe it as going FTL?[/QUOTE] Moving a laser pointer across the surface of the moon could also be observed as FTL even though it isn't. It's relative.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;45422458]What physicists call the 'higgs boson field' (I may be completely wrong). The hills are above 'neutral space', which is where objects with mass are attracted to and push into. Merely the act of staying above the space-field requires energy, so the ball is naturally repelled away from it. A well in space-time (as created by a normal object) requires no energy to move into and energy to escape. It is the opposite for a 'gravity mound', where it takes energy to move into it but none to be repelled away from it. Think of it this way - There are two sheets of the universe, one above the other. The one which we know and the one which objects are attracted towards to gain mass. Objects that are massive are drawn downwards through the sheet of our universe towards the boson field, thus creating mass. The well may be wide or very very narrow depending on the density and the size of an object. For example - Earth has a steep, narrow, but shallow gravity well where Saturn, being a gas giant, has a much less uniform density and produces an incredibly wide and deep gravity well. This may explain why the gas giants have such a massive 'zone' of stable orbits around them where moons can settle. This is all purely unsubstantiated theory on my part though, based off of old scientific literature. If anyone has a better grasp of the concept, feel free to correct me.[/QUOTE] The higgs field is not related to gravity, I think you mean space-time. The higgs boson is a small ripple in the higgs field and plays no part in mass giving Thinking of space-time as 3d space is just an analogy as shown in the xkcd. You are correct that objects with a greater density have greater space-time curvature Feel free to correct me JohnnyMo1 [QUOTE=cartman300;45423127]Moving a laser pointer across the surface of the moon could also be observed as FTL even though it isn't. It's relative.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say relative, the point of the laser is just imaginary, the photons are still travelling at the speed of light
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.