FullOf Detemmienation!!! Did you watch the whole video?, he said that scientists didn't create negative mass, but effective negative mass (which indeed have mass but acts like if it was negative). Nobody knows if elemental negative mass does even exist.
curious thing, with negative mass we can just "hack" the universe, basic mass on front and negative mass on back, and you can movement being stationary. Just the space moving
rest assured, light a.k.a. bundles of photons do have mass as a photon, which is a 'matter', has a mass. Funny thing is photons often act like waves, transporting energy and not the matter itself. So light if seen as a transportation of energy could mean that negative mass could just be seen as reversed energy.
+The Dane Honestly, schools is obviously great, it is the teachers that are shit. Look at countries like Norway and Denmark, they have teachers who actually care and they're graduates are therefore superb. Nonetheless, broken school is still better than no school. No school is how we get flat-earthers and so on.
but how can someone know that a mass-less thing traveled if it cannot give any information for the experience. Faster than light but the velocity cannot be measured.
A lot of people are confused with the chasing scenario, hopefully this helps: While you need mass to generate a region of high gravity, YOU DO NOT NEED MASS TO BE INFLUENCED BY GRAVITY. So, if you have some +mass orb floating in space, it will generate some gravitation region. Thus, anything (even massless photons or -mass orbs) will drift towards it! Now, imagine another orb nearby of equal and opposite (so having negative) mass. This -mass orb, again, will drift toward the +mass orb. However, this -mass orb will also generate some (loosely-speaking) negative gravity region. This negative gravity region will push objects away REGARDLESS OF THE PROPERTIES OF THOSE OBJECTS (because you don't need mass to be affected by gravity!). As a result, the +mass orb will drift away from the -mass orb.
Altair No I doubt it just based on his explanation, more likely it would reach a limit velocity based on its positive/negative Mass as it would still follow the laws of physics with exception perhaps to some that are based of positive Mass. But if possible it would be used for long distance travel although I'm interested on how it would behave since energy cannot be destroyed, perhaps the faster it moves the more positive/negative mass should dissipate
Maybe since positive mass HAS to be slower than light, and zero mass (eg. light) HAS to be at lightspeed, then perhaps negative mass HAS to be faster than lightspeed. But then it would experience reverse time too (experienced time works like mass: positive mass=forward time, zero mass=no time, so negative mass=reverse time.) So I guess Tachyons would have negative mass. Look them up.
No, objects faster then the speed of light have complex mass due to the Lorentz factor. (Faster then light simplifies down to an operation involving a negative square root, thus a complex Lorentz factor, thus complex mass) Negative Mass would still be limited to less then the speed of light. The Lorentz factor's exponential increase is solely from relative velocity and not the mass (energy).
If something moves faster than light then the gamma factor is imaginary. Since energy = mass*gamma*c^2 and energy should be real, it suggests that only imaginary mass is allowed to move faster than light, and, always move faster than light
i say this because positive mass attracts positive mass and negative mass should theoretically attract negative mass. So wouldn't positive and negative mass repel? Also in a video about wormholes I heard that in order to keep a theoretical wormhole stable there would have to be negative mass in it in order to exert this repulsive force to keep the wormhole from collapsing
Negative mass, or un-mass, repels negative mass because the gravity equation is mg = GMm/r2. If either of the masses are negative, the things are repelled.
I think the illustration was wrong. the +mas would have +gravity and attract the -mass. Pulling it toward the +mass. However because the -mass responds to repel an oncoming force, in this case being pulled toward by the +gravity, the -mass then pushes away. The +mass would be chasing the -mass, not the other way around. Also two -masses repel each other as the respond oppose each other. each -mass would attract each other by -gravity, but they would by -force, repel each other. essentially sitting there doing nothing as long as both has equal -masses. It one has a larger -mass, it will repel tie lesser -mass. So if you want true anti-gravity, you need to create-mass or something that can behave in such a manner.
i would think that negative mass could never really accumulate to more than just a molecule since negative mass would repel, and be repelled by positive mass. Positive mass is attracted to positive mass by gravity, but negative mass is repelled by positive mass and by itself. Negative mass would end up being a fluid, or gas trying to stay as far away from everything else as it can. If negative mass came in contact with positive mass, it would "latch on" to a positive mass and rocket it for eternity... if it came in contact with negative mass, it would just bounce off.
Megan Rivera I was thinking the same thing. No idea if those numbers match up at all though. I know the current idea is that the space in between is what's expanding but I'm not sure if the idea that its the galaxies are being flung away has been completely ruled out.
Negative mass is different than negative gravity. 2 objects with positive gravity will attract each other. The same happen with 2 negative gravity objects. But a positive gravity object will be repelled by the negative gravity object. No physics laws are violated for this case. But for negative mass, yes he is right, some laws are violated.
+Luis FF Yes. I think you are right. Assuming that Newton's law of gravitation holds good for negative mass, F=Gx(+m1)x(-m2)/r2 (where m1 is positive mass and m2 is negative one), considering only the signs, the resultant force F should be negative. Hence, a repulsive force will act between the objects. The guy in the video spoke about some chasing effect without any acceptable reasoning.
I had John as my physics professor and I learned he was researching time travel or at least something necessary for it. He always a bad throat clearing habit when he spoke and made him hard to understand. me and my friends believe he is researching time travel to go back and tell his younger self not to smoke so much.
If 2 objects of equal mass collided, one being positive mass and the other negative mass, then the combined object would have an effective mass of zero. Since it is effectively massless, shouldn't it go poof in an instant, disappearing at light-speed? GR would seem to suggest so. All massless particles travel at light-speed.
Damn that would be crazy, I mean imagine if In an instant the earths gravity 9.8m/s/s turned into -9.8m/s/s I mean everything would shoot up into the sky or maybe the earth would just explode lol
In an electrical engineering class about how electrons behave in a half semi-conductor the lecturer said that there are holes (the absence of paired electrons) that have a positive Q and together with the (negative charged) electrons create a circuit. It can be said that these holes have negative mass. But still they aren't matter but instead the absence of it even though the clearly have a charge. You can visualize it like you are in a theater and it's full but someone leaves his seat in the front line. Then everyone in the same row can move downwards one seat. So the empty seat seems to go up while the full seats go down.
Since the negative mass will chase the positive mass and accelerate indefinitely, if we invent something that has negative mass, could we coat a spacecraft in negative mass and produce a positive mass that we can control and dissipate at will to guide that spacecraft, and use that as a means of transportation? In addition would that be able to break the Universal Speed Limit of the speed of light, which is really the speed of any massless particle; I mean we are accelerating without bound, so couldn't we reach or exceed light, not to mention if the negative mass surrounding a spacecraft and the positive mass guiding the spacecraft through some kind of interaction be equivalent to a massless or negative mass object as far as the universe is concerned? I am just wondering, I just thought of this idea and am curious if it has been posited or suggested before and if it could work.
ArticBlueFox96 negative mass will still obey special relativity. Just that with it, we get a free propulsion mechanism to reach near light speed travel. The more interesting usage would be to have negative mass to produce stable wormholes and alcubierre drive. then we can go faster than light and have time travel.
Even if we could achieve light-speed, could we make use of it as transportation? There would be no reaction time to steer away from an object and even if you could it would definitely sling it's passengers to their death. Even if securely buckled in, the g-forces alone would kill them. Imagine a spacecraft traveling at light-speed hits a small space rock. What do you think would happen? Would the rock disintegrate or penetrate through the hull of the craft?
"negative mass will still obey special relativity". But this special relativity will still obey to the temperature parameter. Therefore what ever negative mass nature , the temperature will affect its nature. So there is a limit when this mass vaporises or burns to become Energy. So far negative mass doesn't interract with positive mass because the gravity repulsion. To be capable moving faster than light, the universal constants must be different where we could find it. Otherwise the physic equations can't be applied. Which means the C constant for negative photon sould be much higher to avoid desintegration on the negative mass when reach C constact to positive photon. That impose the metric of space time for negative mass is different. And that can be proved by the fact 96 % of the universe is repulsive force. If not, THIS will impose the universe sould be made from 50% mass positive and 50% mass negative. mastering negative mass let us imagine to travel faster than C+ light without risk of desintegration. The problem is Time will be as well much slower for the travelers than the one on Earth. Means we could never meet again our family.
For those who think positive and negative mass should repel, here is the explanation of why they should not. Consider 2 positive mass, A and B. Gravity would make A experience force towards B and vice versa. Positive inertia mass means their acceleration is the same direction as the force acting on them, making them attract towards each other. Switch B's mass to negative, force acting on A is away from B. Force acting on B is away from A. A starts moving away from B, but B has negative inertia mass so it moves in the opposite direction of the force applied to it. Thus B moves towards A.
So if someone to create mass it will cause a lot of mess, Earth is rotating and translating a star, this is star is translating the galaxy, the galaxy is moving away from Bigbang. Therefore something with negative will move at speed of light until do not be negative anymore. Am i wrong?
Doesn't that analogy of the negative mass being attracted to the positive mass and accelerating as the positive mass is repelled show perpetual motion?, which ive always understood to be impossible. Im confuzzled. :s
yes it does imply violation of conservation of energy. that's ok because it doesn't exist. they didn't make negative mass, they made something that behaved like it, even though it was made of normal atoms.
He is wrong. Mass likes to stay near other mass, hence gravity. Just like + and - attract each other. Negative mass would be pushed away from gravity, just like + and + or a - and -. Thus, negative mass and possitive mass would be pushed away from each other and would not cause perpetual motion.
+VolTer Gravity is not a force, it doesn't attract anything, gravity is merely the curvature in space-time created by mass. Since the space near the mass is curved, the direction of any object within the curved space will be curved towards the mass, creating the illusion of attraction. Negative mass would negatively curve space-time and thus curve the direction of any nearby objects away from the negative mass. So, since all objects travell within space, all objects, no matter whether or not their mass is positive or negative, will be effected the same way, thus negative mass will be "attracted" to the positive mass, and the positve mass will be "repelled" by the negative mass.
Oh, really? Well, if the theory of relativity is right which is almost for sure; I can accuse the classic physics we study at school for this. Screw it, lemme get all the imagination I have. I got an idea that may be an analogue. You seem to understand more, so shall you explain if I'm in a wrong direction? (Warning, it's all stuff I just made up) Say, we have a blanket (space) and we put a heavy ball (say, Earth) on top of it; it bends the blanket, and everything nearby that is also on the blanket, goes towards the heavy ball, just like Earth's gravity. However, if we take an "anti-Earth" it should bend the blanket the same way, up. Doesn't that mean, we can imagine it as a ball that is also put on the blanket, except on the opposite side with it pushing up rather than down? Negative Earth will behave the same as Positive Earth, except in the other side. As the curvature that is bended down for the side with positive Earth is bended up for the side with negative Earth, and vice versa, the two Earths will push away each other. Right?
I don't think if a negative mass chases a positive mass forever that it will violet laws of physics... after all... although it may seem like violating the conservation of energy and momentum, it really doesn't since kinetic energy = 0.5m*v^2 (where m is the mass of the object and v is the speed), and if you add both kinetic energies of the two bodies you will get Ek1+Ek2 = 0.5mv^2 - 0.5mv^2 = 0, since one mass is negative therefore the kinetic energy is negative, while the other is positive, same with momentum p1+p2 = mv - mv = 0. no violation at all!
You shouldn't think of mass as a measurement of quantity, but as a different kind of charge, like an electric charge or a color charge or spin of particles. Thease charges cause the particles to interact in different ways. While negative and positive electric charges attract each other, negative mass particle would have a reversed gravitational effect.
I didn't understand the part why positive particles repel negative ions ? If negative ions get attracted to positive ions, so should the positive ions...
Rajesh Malladi These aren’t ions which are charged particles...we are talking about positive mass and negative mass. Picture it like this: positive mass creates a hole in space time so everything around it rolls to it and for negative mass it’s like a mountain where everything that approaches the mountain rolls back. Negative mass is attracted to positive mass because positive mass creates a hole that negative mass falls into and then the negative mass repels the positive because of the mountain so they constantly chase each other.
Antigravity is definitely possible. How UFOS work is that they create a bubble of antigravity around the ship. Inside the bubble, inside the ship, there is neutral gravity. Meaning that a being inside the bubble has no inertia regardless of external movement. Also the ship has sensors all around it that can detect and correct for black holes, etc. We don't yet know the machinations of it fully, ( maybe ), but we have a good idea of how UFOS work. I have an idea but I'm waiting for the rest of the info.
Let's clarify the difference between mass and weight for a moment here. Mass - a pile, heap or just stuff packed closely together. Weight - the heaviness of mass, or downward force in mass created by gravity of the Earth. so negative *mass would technically be matter, that doesn't exist, defies the law that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This should be correct unless I have the concept down terribly wrong.
If you push a ball with ordinary mass, you will change its velocity by X amount. If you push just as hard on a ball with 1/1000th the mass of the first ball, you will change its velocity by 1000X. If you push just as hard on a ball with no mass, the change in velocity is infinite. In a universe where nothing is infinite (even the expanse of the universe is better described as "all" than "infinite"), it's just a bunch of abstract mathematics with no chance for practical application to even bother with the idea of negative mass.
You are absolutely right about the gravitational properties of negative mass. This doesn't even violate the conservation of energy nor the conservation of momentum. Relativistically speaking, the two masses will, as they are getting faster and faster, get heavier and heavier, so their acceleration will even increase over time - progressive acceleration. This is the perfect warp drive. But can there be negative mass? What about antimatter? The gravitational properties of antimatter are completely unknown. It could be possible that antimatter has the same charge as matter but negative mass. Or does something speak against that idea? It turns out that this would violate the conservation of charge when out of a high energy photon a pair of particle and antiparticle arise. So, sadly, there will be no negative mass anytime soon...
I was always bad at physics and this video flew way above my brain. But just one point- if the positive and negative masses both attract and repel each other at the same time can we use it to create energy.
as i imagine it, negative mass would be affected by the usual laws of physics, but in the reverse way, for example, gravity from positive mass would repel it, causing it to fall away from the object rather than towards it. thats just my understanding of it anyway.
At 3:05, it makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER that negative mass would be attracted to positive mass. Since we already know that like masses attract each other, opposite masses should REPEL each other!
That is magnets matter is the opposite. Positive attacks positive and opposites repeal earth has positive gravitational pull or is "positive mass" and so are people we are positive matter witch allows us to influenced by earth gravity to walk in the surffus. Our gravitational pull is not enough to feel.
I'm hearing about negative mass for the first time and oh yeah it hit me in my head that negative mass should exist. Just like magnetic dipole or the +ve and -ve attraction, we do experience mass and we consider it to be positive. So my opinion is that, this positive mass is attracted towards its negative counterpart we all call "gravity". As we all know gravity acts on matter in relation to their masses. So i think this negative mass is gravity itself.
So what they created is a super cooled fluid composed of 10,000 atoms of a rubidium isotope that acted as had negative mass and as such they have negative EFFECTIVE mass or EFFECTIVE negative mass. That means that negative mass particles were not created from nothing, but that they induced negative mass into already existing rubidium atoms. Therefore the rubidium atoms, having negative mass moved in a direction opposite to that of any force directed upon them.
Basically, when you're chasing your crush, you are the negative mass, because no matter how hard you are chasing, you can never get close to your positive mass, am I right?
Nick Zuckerman But dark matter came to be because galaxies don’t have enough “normal” mass (the one we see with our own eyes) to hold together by the laws of gravity so dark matter was conceived to make up for the loss of mass. Dark matter holds things together not just accelerate expansion which is why it would most likely be positive mass and not negative.
lets all recall what we learned in basic high school science class..."These two forces are called action and reaction forces and are the subject of Newton's third law of motion. Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects." therefore the supposition that gravity exists, there must be an equal and opposite reaction..
Well, what makes mass pull is it's on space. If negative mass is possible, then what makes it repel would also be it's equal and reverse distortion on space. Therefore, if equal negative and positive masses encountered, then they would anullate one another, not violating Newton's laws.
A. But mass and charge are not necessarily related... B. How can negative mass exist, and behave like negative mass when admittedly we've never observed negative mass C. How to measure when our measurements only measure positive mass..
So if MASSIVE objects pull other things with a smaller mass than that. Would a NEGATIVELY-MASSIVE object puss anything with more mass away.... So if that might be the case that cpuld mean a theoretical white hole whole would have a "large" negative mass. So if a black hole had a mass of about 4×10^31 an "equivalent" opposite white hole wpuld have a mass of (-4)×10^31 weighing a lot less than nothing. But what would be a the center of a white hole and how wpuld they form? (theoretically)
Yes, but negative mass wouldn't just push away positive mass, it would also push away other negative mass, making it immpossible for a white hole to form. This is because mass positively curves space-time, therefore it causes the direction of all other objects to be curved towards the mass, creating the illusion of attraction. Negative mass, however, would negatively curve space-time, thus causing the the direction of all objects near the negative mass to be curved away from the negative mass.
Colliding with something that has a 'negative mass' would be like the equivalent of the turbo/booster strips in racing games. The positive mass object in motion wouldn't encounter a 'resistant force' equal to the stationary objects mass + any static/dynamic friction factors, which leads to the object in motion imparting it's energy into the stationary object (which is now also in motion) and experiencing a deceleration in its velocity. Rather, it would encounter an 'induction of an acceleration' due to the negative mass of the object imparting an attractive force instead of a resistant force. This attractive force would also be equivalent to the static objects 'negative mass' and density. The medium surrounding the negative mass would also be a factor and would contribute to the attractive force induced acceleration of the object in motion. *Unfortunately, 'negative mass' would be an attribute more realistically associated with some type of 'anti matter' or matter with 'negative temperature' Regular atomic and elemental matter, comprised of the conventional principles and fundamental that it is manifest from, is constrained by certain inescapable properties and characteristics of this planes laws. *Ie; Thermodynamics (although fundamentally incorrect) is one set of laws such a phenomenon would violate, as any physical comprised of natures 'charge' and dielectric/magnetism building blocks simply cannot operate without the conventional (*although again, fundamentally incorrect) understanding of thermal energy induction concepts. And an inverse harmonic scale for temp/motion of the atomic/elemental realm is not a simple 'overlay' onto the conventional scale... *Ie; they are not linear scales that one may Invision when conceiving a mental image of a 'classical' Euclidian geometry based scale. Rather it is a hyperbolic geometry based scale ,where the minimum and maximum ends of the scale are not a symmetrical match with one another and cannot be rotated and applied to itself inversely to cancel out the factors of the scales points.
If an object has a positive mass, this mass could be described as an amount of matter needed to be subtracted from the object in order to reduce its mass to 0. So maybe negative mass is the amount of matter needed to be added to the object in order to increase its mass to 0. Maybe negative mass exists in higher dimensions?
If you pushed a negative mass it wouldn't move toward you! Your finger would disappear as mass and negative mass cancel each other out to nothing, as opposed to antimatter which at least gives out some energy when disappearing. And that wouldn't contradict the conservation of energy since 1J + -1J is 0J. This also means that to create negative mass you would have to create it from nothing and in the process equal amounts of positive and negative mass would be created. This even happens all the time on a small scale in the quantum vacuum with photons.
This makes sense easily to you if you accept the premise that there are two dynamically opposing universes - a Negative Universe A, and Positive Universe B. Just like magnets, two As will repulse, two Bs will repulse, but and A will attract a B and vice versa. Maybe we are witnessing an effect where matter is crossing over from one of these universes to another! I think of Negative Universe B as a shadow our our Positive Universe B. Just a theory of mine - feel free to rip it apart to shreds if you like.
Hahaha, no. Positive mass positvely curves space-time and thus curves the direction of all objects near it towards the positve mass, wheter or not the object has any mass of it's own, or even if it has negative mass. Negative mass on the other hand negatively curves space-time and thus curves the direction of all objects near it away from the negative mass, thus causing positve mass to move away from negative yet causing the negtive mass to move towards the positive mass.
Cormac B think about positive mass being a iron ball curving the space downwards, and negative mass being a baloon curving the space upwards, but positive mass is above the "space surface" and the negative mass being under, the baloon will atract each other
Think loggically, everything is travelling in space, there is not "Space surface" as you call it otherwise things without mass would not be affected by gravity, which we know is false because photons are massless and yet are affected by gravity. Everthing is travelling in space equally and thus space being curved will affect all objects near the curvature in the same way, regardless of the mass.
Normall mass atracts energy beacuse they are bolth the same. Negaive mass is made when negative energy turns in to -m (negative mass) matter and -m anti-matter, that bends space backwards. In that way mass bends space to atract photons and repel negative energy, and negative mass bends space backwards, atracting more anti mass and negative photons, while doing the oppsite to regular mass and photons. It woud be interesting to know what whoud happen if negative and regular photons colided
But due to E=MC^2 you can view M as equivalent of E which would mean that E would also become negative. The law of energy conservation states that energy can not be created nor destroyed. If negative mass would exist i could -in theory- "undo" energy. So, considering all of that either of those two cases us true: A. Negative Mass does exist but everything we seemed to know about physics is fundamentally wrong or B. Negative mass doesn't exist but we can continue using our old physics models
It is because of the density of the helium, same as say oil and water, (why doesn't oil sink in water and instead "float" on top) , with the theory that helium has negative mass and therefore rises I would assume we would not know that helium existed.
the only way i can see negative mass is by it existing in a negative dimension parallel to our positive dimension, and if both could interact they could effectively cancel each other out. But since mass can neither be created nor destroyed, this notion cancels it self out and therefore concept of negative mass is flawed.
I can think of something that could have negative mass, it just takes gravity into account. Basic water for example. Solid Ice is pulled towards the earth. Liquid water still has mass but once it steams it seemingly floats away into the air. at least for a short time it can have negative mass.
The concept of gravity seems to me like mass is inside the fabric of space-time sort of like bending it, thus changing the tragectory of nearby masses towards it. And that means the mass is actually projecting some kind of force stretching the universe apart. So if maybe something (of negative mass) could project the same kind of force but in the oposite direction, that means it would repeal mass instead of attracting it, and instead of stretching the universe, it would shrink it, and also even attracting other anti_masses.
I think positive mass would repel negative mass like magnets so it wouldn't vialate neutons laws. (1g object + 1g object= attract eachother, 1g o + -1g o = repel eachother, -1g o + -1g object = attract)
Wouldn't a positive mass and a negative mass repel each other? Gravity force is F=GMm/r^2, where G is a constant, r is the distance between two objects, and M and m are the mass of the two objects. For a positive M, negative m, and positive (by necessity) r, the force is negative, which can easily be interpreted as a force in the opposite direction. The is the same if you have a negative M and a positive m. Thus, both masses should be repelled by each other. (Of course, two negative masses would, like two positive masses, be attracted)
2:48 Wrong. When you push something, it's the electromagnetic force making the electric fields of the atoms in your hand push the object's atoms. It would have something to do with gravity if you waited in zero/microgravity for the object to fall into (or in this case, flee from) your hand. The second example is right, though, according to Wikipedia and based on Einstein's electric field equations.
You can "expand your thoughts" in any direction, at the end there will be existence vs non existence. As soon as something part of "non existence" is defined, even roughly conceptualized, enters in "existence". Existence is all that can be an there is. Non Existence is indefinable, infinite and indefinite. the combination of both "IS".
Why do they assume equal masses ? what if the mass of negative one is smaller than the positive one, the acceleration would be different. It will create a seemingly repulsive force (but actually still a "runaway" force, with the negative one is slower than the positive one).
University of Rochester researchers have succeeded in creating particles with negative mass in an atomically thin semiconductor, by causing it to interact with confined light in an optical microcavity
Wait... If a positive mass (M+) meets M+ they attract each other. So if M- meets M- they do the same. If M+ meets M- they repeal. there is no violation of conservation of energy then and theoretical negative mass could exist this way.
Mass is not the amount of matter, the amount of matter is measured in mols, mass is the resistance a body exert to movement under a force, first law of Newton and the amount of gravitational force a body can exert on other. Oddly, the numerical value of both definition are the same.
3:03 I feel like this could actually work, only if each lump of mass, and the anti mass maintain a constant momentum, what I mean by that is that although they will accelerate, and gain speed over time, I believe the positive lump of mass would decrease its mass, and the negative lump of mass would increase its mass, and eventually they would reach the speed of light when they got a mass = 0, essentially becoming pure radiation or photons, effectively radiating away, like black holes that emit hawking radiation do, and if you add their momentum together, you should end up with 0 if they never would reach each other, that is to say you released them from rest, since 0=mv+(-mv), for their momentum, and also mv and -mv = a constant. it's also important to note that only if they got exactly the same mass, and that they had the exact same initial velocity then they will accelerate forever without meeting and annihilating.
just some thoughts, feel free to correct me if i am wrong. so if "matter," or "mass," bending space time, is what causes "time" as we know it to move forward. (remember this is just a brainstorm i have not done any looking into it.) by pulling in on the "fabric of space time and the universe", and negative matter were to push out then wouldn't negative mass essentially allow travel back in time. just some brainstorms from a 13 year old.
Well as I understand it, negative energy has been created. So, using e=mc^2 it is possible to create negative mass. Say we have negative energy. That equation looks like -5=m186000^2 (if you were doing actual physics the equation would look different but for the purposes of imaginary values this works fine). So solved, m = -1.4452538e-10. So we can, at least theoretically, create negative mass.
I think this would be a good method or at least an idea of use achieveing lightspeed or a portion of it. example - say we are able to get a material and remove the made from it by changing it's form, in the video he said it couldn't be a soild so if we can either create a new martial or change the molecular structure of an object this " negative mass" will be attracted to all the positive mass around it . Now if we are able to guide this force it will be unlimited energy the negative will try to always chase the positive .
mass is an effect that is the result of electromagnetic pressure. take away pressure and mass starts to "get negative" it's not really negative it's just unaffected mass
Seeker just describe my dating strategy "The negative mass{ME} is attracted to the positive mass {Crush}, and the positive mass is repelled by the negative mass"
I don't follow the reasoning with the positive and negative mass balls. Why would a negative mass be attracted to a positive mass? The gravitational force is supposed to be proportional to both the mass being pulled and the mass pulling it, so I would expect both objects to repel each other.
Mass is a vectorless measurement so I don't understand how it could be negative or positive. I could see negative weight (matter that reacts opposite to gravity), but mass is more comparable to volume and you couldn't have a negative volume.
If amount of force(j) applied at 6kgs of mass by gravity to attract it. The same amount of force(j) will be used in repultion of -6 kgs of negative mass By gravity. Hence Gravity will attract positive mass and repell negative mass. Think deeply.
If we could obtain sources of negative mass, because of the reaction of mass and negative mass repelling and attracting each other, couldn't we theoretically create a perpetual motion machine? If we put one ball made of normal mass on a pole made out of mass, and on the other side we put a ball of negative mass put on a pole of negative mass, gave it a little push, and boom, there's (theoretically) how to make a perpetual motion machine from mass and negative mass.
You couldn't call it a "perpetual motion machine" because no motion would be created, positve mass curves the direction of all nearby objects towards itself, while negative mass would curve the direction of all nearby objects away from itself. So, no, it would not actually create any motion.
hmm if the universe is rapidly expanding and constantly accelerating; and Anti-mass is attractive to positive mass while positive mass is repelled by anti-mass forcing it to constantly move, then doesn't that mean that anti-mass could possibly be dark energy?
If everything consist of neutrons and electrons which make up atoms then negative mass would never be a thing. We need to put a thing on a scale in order to measure its weight and the fact that that thing shows that it has negative mass would never be possible since it needs to have atoms to be considered as a thing.
I don't think the positive mass / negative mass pair will accelerate endlessly, i think it will cancel any gravitational pull between the two objects, creating a forced 0 gravity region between the objects.
The description at 3:00 does not make sense. Why is it assumed that "the negative mass is attracted to[ward] the positive mass"? In fact, the attractive force would be negative, equal on each, according to Newton's law of universal gravitation; i.e. the objects would simply repel one another. This seems to me to be the simpler explanation.
Mass is a subjective value in reference to effective gravity between two objects. so if weight pushing down on space creates gravity and thereby mass, fabric being pulled up would create negative gravity and negative mass.
Negative mass is dimension we cant see. As scientists say, particles come and leave from nowhere. Nobody creates them and nobody erase them. But, if this is not true. What if they just pass other dimension and then come back.
So there's NEGATIVE MASS, ANTIMATTER, & DARK MATTER? Could there theoretically be "Negative-Antimatter" or even "Dark-Negative-Antimatter?"
FullOf Detemmienation!!! Did you watch the whole video?, he said that scientists didn't create negative mass, but effective negative mass (which indeed have mass but acts like if it was negative). Nobody knows if elemental negative mass does even exist.
antimatter opposite is matter they both destroy each other if they touch
Negative- Dark - Antimatter- Mass
Well two negatives make a positive so wouldn't it just end up being matter that has a weight?
Dark, anti and negative - 3 negatives keep it a negative
Ive read somewhere that something with 0 mass can travelling at the speed of light..
Can Negetive mass break the laws and go past the speed of light?
Though isn't it that speed is relative, because that would mean that the speed of light isn't a real thing at all.
curious thing, with negative mass we can just "hack" the universe, basic mass on front and negative mass on back, and you can movement being stationary. Just the space moving
@@EduardoRFS that is how wrap drive works in theory.
No. You need no rest mass to travel at last speed.
rest assured, light a.k.a. bundles of photons do have mass as a photon, which is a 'matter', has a mass. Funny thing is photons often act like waves, transporting energy and not the matter itself. So light if seen as a transportation of energy could mean that negative mass could just be seen as reversed energy.
How excited were those scientists again?
1:38 thats how much
that much that THEY made "laws of UNIVERSE"
@@margaretthatcher8246 👉🏽👌🏽👈🏽🤣🤣
Well it's the weekend and I'm in my room watching UA-cam for 48 hours. I haven't eaten anything so I'll classify myself as a negative mass
Whenever I asked my physics teacher this she got angry
Totally justified.
How dare you think about stuff in school!
Tactix get a new much qualified teacher or tutor
+The Dane Honestly, schools is obviously great, it is the teachers that are shit. Look at countries like Norway and Denmark, they have teachers who actually care and they're graduates are therefore superb. Nonetheless, broken school is still better than no school. No school is how we get flat-earthers and so on.
we get flat-earthers with or without schools, and that makes it depressing.
luckly my teahcer sais "i have no idea, but i'll look it up"
1:38 when the hottest teacher slaps you
ok
XD
U dirty dog
Lmao
Oof
bose einstein condensates are kickass
they can create a medium in which photons travel faster than the value of c, or the speed of light in a vaccum.
How is that even possible?! Isn't c the maximum speed at which information can travel?
Yes, anything mass-less can travel faster than light, though it won't carry any information.
but how can someone know that a mass-less thing traveled if it cannot give any information for the experience. Faster than light but the velocity cannot be measured.
ram baca massless in terms of energyless? Because light is massless, too (kinda)
And massless in terms of energyless is simply nothing...
A lot of people are confused with the chasing scenario, hopefully this helps: While you need mass to generate a region of high gravity, YOU DO NOT NEED MASS TO BE INFLUENCED BY GRAVITY. So, if you have some +mass orb floating in space, it will generate some gravitation region. Thus, anything (even massless photons or -mass orbs) will drift towards it! Now, imagine another orb nearby of equal and opposite (so having negative) mass. This -mass orb, again, will drift toward the +mass orb. However, this -mass orb will also generate some (loosely-speaking) negative gravity region. This negative gravity region will push objects away REGARDLESS OF THE PROPERTIES OF THOSE OBJECTS (because you don't need mass to be affected by gravity!). As a result, the +mass orb will drift away from the -mass orb.
so something with negative mass could go faster than lightspeed?
Altair No I doubt it just based on his explanation, more likely it would reach a limit velocity based on its positive/negative Mass as it would still follow the laws of physics with exception perhaps to some that are based of positive Mass. But if possible it would be used for long distance travel although I'm interested on how it would behave since energy cannot be destroyed, perhaps the faster it moves the more positive/negative mass should dissipate
Theoretically yes since nothing with positive mass can move faster than light.
Maybe since positive mass HAS to be slower than light, and zero mass (eg. light) HAS to be at lightspeed, then perhaps negative mass HAS to be faster than lightspeed. But then it would experience reverse time too (experienced time works like mass: positive mass=forward time, zero mass=no time, so negative mass=reverse time.)
So I guess Tachyons would have negative mass. Look them up.
No, objects faster then the speed of light have complex mass due to the Lorentz factor.
(Faster then light simplifies down to an operation involving a negative square root, thus a complex Lorentz factor, thus complex mass)
Negative Mass would still be limited to less then the speed of light.
The Lorentz factor's exponential increase is solely from relative velocity and not the mass (energy).
If something moves faster than light then the gamma factor is imaginary. Since energy = mass*gamma*c^2 and energy should be real, it suggests that only imaginary mass is allowed to move faster than light, and, always move faster than light
Why does mass and anti-mass attract? shouldn't they repel?
i say this because positive mass attracts positive mass and negative mass should theoretically attract negative mass. So wouldn't positive and negative mass repel? Also in a video about wormholes I heard that in order to keep a theoretical wormhole stable there would have to be negative mass in it in order to exert this repulsive force to keep the wormhole from collapsing
Negative mass, or un-mass, repels negative mass because the gravity equation is mg = GMm/r2. If either of the masses are negative, the things are repelled.
I think the illustration was wrong. the +mas would have +gravity and attract the -mass. Pulling it toward the +mass. However because the -mass responds to repel an oncoming force, in this case being pulled toward by the +gravity, the -mass then pushes away.
The +mass would be chasing the -mass, not the other way around.
Also two -masses repel each other as the respond oppose each other. each -mass would attract each other by -gravity, but they would by -force, repel each other. essentially sitting there doing nothing as long as both has equal -masses. It one has a larger -mass, it will repel tie lesser -mass.
So if you want true anti-gravity, you need to create-mass or something that can behave in such a manner.
Because Opposites repel.
or is it attract? i forgot :/
Then why doesn't normal mass repel itself?
420 runtime. this means something.
It means it ran 20 seconds past 4 minutes or a total of 260 seconds.
Torin I am always compelled to click the video when it's a 4:20 run time, actually happens quite regularly with seeker
I FIGURED IT OUT IF MASS GOES DOWN THEN NEGATIVE MASS MEANS "GOING UP" or "GETTING HIGH" SEEKER 420 BLAZE IT CONFIRMED
It means the video was 4 minutes and 20 seconds long.
*Plays conspiracy theory music*
i would think that negative mass could never really accumulate to more than just a molecule since negative mass would repel, and be repelled by positive mass. Positive mass is attracted to positive mass by gravity, but negative mass is repelled by positive mass and by itself. Negative mass would end up being a fluid, or gas trying to stay as far away from everything else as it can. If negative mass came in contact with positive mass, it would "latch on" to a positive mass and rocket it for eternity... if it came in contact with negative mass, it would just bounce off.
Maybe negative mass's reaction to positive mass is why the universe is speeding up as it's expanding?
Megan Rivera I was thinking the same thing. No idea if those numbers match up at all though. I know the current idea is that the space in between is what's expanding but I'm not sure if the idea that its the galaxies are being flung away has been completely ruled out.
Negative mass is different than negative gravity.
2 objects with positive gravity will attract each other. The same happen with 2 negative gravity objects.
But a positive gravity object will be repelled by the negative gravity object.
No physics laws are violated for this case.
But for negative mass, yes he is right, some laws are violated.
+Luis FF Yes. I think you are right. Assuming that Newton's law of gravitation holds good for negative mass, F=Gx(+m1)x(-m2)/r2 (where m1 is positive mass and m2 is negative one), considering only the signs, the resultant force F should be negative. Hence, a repulsive force will act between the objects. The guy in the video spoke about some chasing effect without any acceptable reasoning.
The expanse of the universe is due to the fabric of space expanding, so it's highly unlikely that's connected in any way at all
Megan Rivera interesting thought
I had John as my physics professor and I learned he was researching time travel or at least something necessary for it. He always a bad throat clearing habit when he spoke and made him hard to understand. me and my friends believe he is researching time travel to go back and tell his younger self not to smoke so much.
Well..if he succeeds ..you had, have and will have him as physics professor...
if you would create a blackhole made of negatieve mass would it behave like a whitehole ?
younes el yahyaoui No. Atleast, not for much more than an extremely small period of time.
Hello _ what do you exactly mean
younes el yahyaoui Every molecule in the "black hole" would repel each other and It would, pretty much, explode.
Hello _ thanks I get it now
what a dissapointment :c
If 2 objects of equal mass collided, one being positive mass and the other negative mass, then the combined object would have an effective mass of zero. Since it is effectively massless, shouldn't it go poof in an instant, disappearing at light-speed? GR would seem to suggest so. All massless particles travel at light-speed.
negative gravity????
Edit - Negative gravity would just be the the repulsion
no
A massive leaf blower?
Globe Grills GG
mass = weight ÷ gravitational field strength.
Damn that would be crazy, I mean imagine if In an instant the earths gravity 9.8m/s/s turned into -9.8m/s/s
I mean everything would shoot up into the sky or maybe the earth would just explode lol
Ibbzy i lol
In an electrical engineering class about how electrons behave in a half semi-conductor the lecturer said that there are holes (the absence of paired electrons) that have a positive Q and together with the (negative charged) electrons create a circuit. It can be said that these holes have negative mass. But still they aren't matter but instead the absence of it even though the clearly have a charge. You can visualize it like you are in a theater and it's full but someone leaves his seat in the front line. Then everyone in the same row can move downwards one seat. So the empty seat seems to go up while the full seats go down.
Since the negative mass will chase the positive mass and accelerate indefinitely, if we invent something that has negative mass, could we coat a spacecraft in negative mass and produce a positive mass that we can control and dissipate at will to guide that spacecraft, and use that as a means of transportation? In addition would that be able to break the Universal Speed Limit of the speed of light, which is really the speed of any massless particle; I mean we are accelerating without bound, so couldn't we reach or exceed light, not to mention if the negative mass surrounding a spacecraft and the positive mass guiding the spacecraft through some kind of interaction be equivalent to a massless or negative mass object as far as the universe is concerned? I am just wondering, I just thought of this idea and am curious if it has been posited or suggested before and if it could work.
ArticBlueFox96 negative mass will still obey special relativity. Just that with it, we get a free propulsion mechanism to reach near light speed travel. The more interesting usage would be to have negative mass to produce stable wormholes and alcubierre drive. then we can go faster than light and have time travel.
Even if we could achieve light-speed, could we make use of it as transportation? There would be no reaction time to steer away from an object and even if you could it would definitely sling it's passengers to their death. Even if securely buckled in, the g-forces alone would kill them. Imagine a spacecraft traveling at light-speed hits a small space rock. What do you think would happen? Would the rock disintegrate or penetrate through the hull of the craft?
"negative mass will still obey special relativity". But this special relativity will still obey to the temperature parameter. Therefore what ever negative mass nature , the temperature will affect its nature. So there is a limit when this mass vaporises or burns to become Energy. So far negative mass doesn't interract with positive mass because the gravity repulsion. To be capable moving faster than light, the universal constants must be different where we could find it. Otherwise the physic equations can't be applied. Which means the C constant for negative photon sould be much higher to avoid desintegration on the negative mass when reach C constact to positive photon. That impose the metric of space time for negative mass is different. And that can be proved by the fact 96 % of the universe is repulsive force. If not, THIS will impose the universe sould be made from 50% mass positive and 50% mass negative. mastering negative mass let us imagine to travel faster than C+ light without risk of desintegration. The problem is Time will be as well much slower for the travelers than the one on Earth. Means we could never meet again our family.
I think that negative mass would behave like negative temperature, in which it can always constantly receive and give energy.
Yes you will believe that when you will see how skinny I am 😐
Don't Read My Profile Picture gimme your body
Have the same problem, as well, I'm way to underweight, and it has affected my growing, so I'm not very tall.
im skinny too......i believe it due to my daily fapping
Hahaha, I am addicted too.
Don't Read My Profile Picture just eat shit
For those who think positive and negative mass should repel, here is the explanation of why they should not.
Consider 2 positive mass, A and B. Gravity would make A experience force towards B and vice versa. Positive inertia mass means their acceleration is the same direction as the force acting on them, making them attract towards each other.
Switch B's mass to negative, force acting on A is away from B. Force acting on B is away from A. A starts moving away from B, but B has negative inertia mass so it moves in the opposite direction of the force applied to it. Thus B moves towards A.
this channel is a negative mass.
#BringDNewsBack
remember the sourcefed thing. You want that to happen.
Why are you everywhere
gay
What is souls were made of negative mass?
So if someone to create mass it will cause a lot of mess, Earth is rotating and translating a star, this is star is translating the galaxy, the galaxy is moving away from Bigbang.
Therefore something with negative will move at speed of light until do not be negative anymore.
Am i wrong?
Doesn't that analogy of the negative mass being attracted to the positive mass and accelerating as the positive mass is repelled show perpetual motion?, which ive always understood to be impossible. Im confuzzled. :s
yes it does imply violation of conservation of energy. that's ok because it doesn't exist. they didn't make negative mass, they made something that behaved like it, even though it was made of normal atoms.
Mass doesn't attract other mass, it merely curves space and thus curves the direction the object is moving creating the illusion of attraction.
He is wrong. Mass likes to stay near other mass, hence gravity. Just like + and - attract each other. Negative mass would be pushed away from gravity, just like + and + or a - and -. Thus, negative mass and possitive mass would be pushed away from each other and would not cause perpetual motion.
+VolTer
Gravity is not a force, it doesn't attract anything, gravity is merely the curvature in space-time created by mass. Since the space near the mass is curved, the direction of any object within the curved space will be curved towards the mass, creating the illusion of attraction. Negative mass would negatively curve space-time and thus curve the direction of any nearby objects away from the negative mass. So, since all objects travell within space, all objects, no matter whether or not their mass is positive or negative, will be effected the same way, thus negative mass will be "attracted" to the positive mass, and the positve mass will be "repelled" by the negative mass.
Oh, really? Well, if the theory of relativity is right which is almost for sure; I can accuse the classic physics we study at school for this. Screw it, lemme get all the imagination I have. I got an idea that may be an analogue. You seem to understand more, so shall you explain if I'm in a wrong direction? (Warning, it's all stuff I just made up)
Say, we have a blanket (space) and we put a heavy ball (say, Earth) on top of it; it bends the blanket, and everything nearby that is also on the blanket, goes towards the heavy ball, just like Earth's gravity. However, if we take an "anti-Earth" it should bend the blanket the same way, up. Doesn't that mean, we can imagine it as a ball that is also put on the blanket, except on the opposite side with it pushing up rather than down? Negative Earth will behave the same as Positive Earth, except in the other side. As the curvature that is bended down for the side with positive Earth is bended up for the side with negative Earth, and vice versa, the two Earths will push away each other. Right?
I don't think if a negative mass chases a positive mass forever that it will violet laws of physics... after all... although it may seem like violating the conservation of energy and momentum, it really doesn't since kinetic energy = 0.5m*v^2 (where m is the mass of the object and v is the speed), and if you add both kinetic energies of the two bodies you will get Ek1+Ek2 = 0.5mv^2 - 0.5mv^2 = 0, since one mass is negative therefore the kinetic energy is negative, while the other is positive, same with momentum p1+p2 = mv - mv = 0. no violation at all!
your hair looks weird in mirror effect
The more I look at his hair the weirder it looks
Soy David ikr 😄
I feel like he could have such a clean cut, if he just faded the sides instead of leaving them long
The hair apparently does not preserve parity. This is a bit surprising, as the cosmetological constant is tuned to one part in a 10^120.
You shouldn't think of mass as a measurement of quantity, but as a different kind of charge, like an electric charge or a color charge or spin of particles. Thease charges cause the particles to interact in different ways. While negative and positive electric charges attract each other, negative mass particle would have a reversed gravitational effect.
I didn't understand the part why positive particles repel negative ions ? If negative ions get attracted to positive ions, so should the positive ions...
Rajesh Malladi These aren’t ions which are charged particles...we are talking about positive mass and negative mass. Picture it like this: positive mass creates a hole in space time so everything around it rolls to it and for negative mass it’s like a mountain where everything that approaches the mountain rolls back. Negative mass is attracted to positive mass because positive mass creates a hole that negative mass falls into and then the negative mass repels the positive because of the mountain so they constantly chase each other.
Antigravity is definitely possible. How UFOS work is that they create a bubble of antigravity around the ship. Inside the bubble, inside the ship, there is neutral gravity. Meaning that a being inside the bubble has no inertia regardless of external movement. Also the ship has sensors all around it that can detect and correct for black holes, etc. We don't yet know the machinations of it fully, ( maybe ), but we have a good idea of how UFOS work. I have an idea but I'm waiting for the rest of the info.
Comment please.
2:29 we could use that as a new type of propulsion system for traveling into deep space
Let's clarify the difference between mass and weight for a moment here.
Mass - a pile, heap or just stuff packed closely together.
Weight - the heaviness of mass, or downward force in mass created by gravity of the Earth.
so negative *mass would technically be matter, that doesn't exist, defies the law that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
This should be correct unless I have the concept down terribly wrong.
I thought negative mass was the unit of weight measurement for antimatter
Antimatter has opposite charge, not mass.
Mass is not weight
Weight is gravity's effect on mass.
Cameron B lol ty, learned this about a month ago, sry about that
It's exciting, though! Keep on learning!
If you push a ball with ordinary mass, you will change its velocity by X amount. If you push just as hard on a ball with 1/1000th the mass of the first ball, you will change its velocity by 1000X. If you push just as hard on a ball with no mass, the change in velocity is infinite. In a universe where nothing is infinite (even the expanse of the universe is better described as "all" than "infinite"), it's just a bunch of abstract mathematics with no chance for practical application to even bother with the idea of negative mass.
Ayyyy lmao the video is 4:20 long
ikr xd
Emile Verhagen shiiiiiit
Profile pic matches comment perfectly
Emile Verhagen blaze it
Emile Verhagen Oye shrug gimmie a blunt
You are absolutely right about the gravitational properties of negative mass. This doesn't even violate the conservation of energy nor the conservation of momentum.
Relativistically speaking, the two masses will, as they are getting faster and faster, get heavier and heavier, so their acceleration will even increase over time - progressive acceleration. This is the perfect warp drive.
But can there be negative mass? What about antimatter?
The gravitational properties of antimatter are completely unknown. It could be possible that antimatter has the same charge as matter but negative mass.
Or does something speak against that idea? It turns out that this would violate the conservation of charge when out of a high energy photon a pair of particle and antiparticle arise.
So, sadly, there will be no negative mass anytime soon...
I was always bad at physics and this video flew way above my brain. But just one point- if the positive and negative masses both attract and repel each other at the same time can we use it to create energy.
as i imagine it, negative mass would be affected by the usual laws of physics, but in the reverse way, for example, gravity from positive mass would repel it, causing it to fall away from the object rather than towards it. thats just my understanding of it anyway.
when the length of the video is 4:20
At 3:05, it makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER that negative mass would be attracted to positive mass. Since we already know that like masses attract each other, opposite masses should REPEL each other!
That is magnets matter is the opposite. Positive attacks positive and opposites repeal earth has positive gravitational pull or is "positive mass" and so are people we are positive matter witch allows us to influenced by earth gravity to walk in the surffus. Our gravitational pull is not enough to feel.
1 like = 1 no fap day
havent missed a stroke
Thats almost a week without fapping, better live up to your words lol
And that was the moment he realised, he fucked up.
JQuery your balls are gonna pop
JQuery 65 days....one moment of silence for our fallen brother
I'm hearing about negative mass for the first time and oh yeah it hit me in my head that negative mass should exist. Just like magnetic dipole or the +ve and -ve attraction, we do experience mass and we consider it to be positive. So my opinion is that, this positive mass is attracted towards its negative counterpart we all call "gravity". As we all know gravity acts on matter in relation to their masses. So i think this negative mass is gravity itself.
well... we really should give a thought over what you said!!
Why am I watching this at 5AM?
So what they created is a super cooled fluid composed of 10,000 atoms of a rubidium isotope that acted as had negative mass and as such they have negative EFFECTIVE mass or EFFECTIVE negative mass.
That means that negative mass particles were not created from nothing, but that they induced negative mass into already existing rubidium atoms.
Therefore the rubidium atoms, having negative mass moved in a direction opposite to that of any force directed upon them.
Is positive mass female? and as a male am I negative mass, all this chasing around seams familiar!
lol
Cringe
What?
Other way round... only girl chase boy this day like kpop fans
no man it's the female who is negative mass and the male who is positive mass.
Basically, when you're chasing your crush, you are the negative mass, because no matter how hard you are chasing, you can never get close to your positive mass, am I right?
Is it dark energy?
it is not. if it was, they would be calling it dark energy.
Maybe they just haven't made the connection yet.
But since dark energy expands space, and regular matter contracts space, maybe it could be?
Can people who don’t understand relativity stop commenting on videos about relativity?
Nick Zuckerman But dark matter came to be because galaxies don’t have enough “normal” mass (the one we see with our own eyes) to hold together by the laws of gravity so dark matter was conceived to make up for the loss of mass. Dark matter holds things together not just accelerate expansion which is why it would most likely be positive mass and not negative.
lets all recall what we learned in basic high school science class..."These two forces are called action and reaction forces and are the subject of Newton's third law of motion. Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects." therefore the supposition that gravity exists, there must be an equal and opposite reaction..
Could this negative mass be the cause of the Expansion of the Universe by accelerating the positive galaxys?
Wilco Verhoef when you try to sound smart
Well, what makes mass pull is it's on space.
If negative mass is possible, then what makes it repel would also be it's equal and reverse distortion on space.
Therefore, if equal negative and positive masses encountered, then they would anullate one another, not violating Newton's laws.
You know he was hoping there was negative mass.. and he could eat some.
A. But mass and charge are not necessarily related... B. How can negative mass exist, and behave like negative mass when admittedly we've never observed negative mass C. How to measure when our measurements only measure positive mass..
So if MASSIVE objects pull other things with a smaller mass than that. Would a NEGATIVELY-MASSIVE object puss anything with more mass away.... So if that might be the case that cpuld mean a theoretical white hole whole would have a "large" negative mass. So if a black hole had a mass of about 4×10^31 an "equivalent" opposite white hole wpuld have a mass of (-4)×10^31 weighing a lot less than nothing. But what would be a the center of a white hole and how wpuld they form? (theoretically)
Yes, but negative mass wouldn't just push away positive mass, it would also push away other negative mass, making it immpossible for a white hole to form. This is because mass positively curves space-time, therefore it causes the direction of all other objects to be curved towards the mass, creating the illusion of attraction. Negative mass, however, would negatively curve space-time, thus causing the the direction of all objects near the negative mass to be curved away from the negative mass.
Mighty Miner in Minecraft?
a negative mass black hole isn't a black hole, basic that just don't concentrate gravity it's repel mass
Mighty Miner I cant take you seriously with a minecraft name im sorry. . .
Colliding with something that has a 'negative mass' would be like the equivalent of the turbo/booster strips in racing games. The positive mass object in motion wouldn't encounter a 'resistant force' equal to the stationary objects mass + any static/dynamic friction factors, which leads to the object in motion imparting it's energy into the stationary object (which is now also in motion) and experiencing a deceleration in its velocity. Rather, it would encounter an 'induction of an acceleration' due to the negative mass of the object imparting an attractive force instead of a resistant force. This attractive force would also be equivalent to the static objects 'negative mass' and density. The medium surrounding the negative mass would also be a factor and would contribute to the attractive force induced acceleration of the object in motion.
*Unfortunately, 'negative mass' would be an attribute more realistically associated with some type of 'anti matter' or matter with 'negative temperature' Regular atomic and elemental matter, comprised of the conventional principles and fundamental that it is manifest from, is constrained by certain inescapable properties and characteristics of this planes laws. *Ie; Thermodynamics (although fundamentally incorrect) is one set of laws such a phenomenon would violate, as any physical comprised of natures 'charge' and dielectric/magnetism building blocks simply cannot operate without the conventional (*although again, fundamentally incorrect) understanding of thermal energy induction concepts. And an inverse harmonic scale for temp/motion of the atomic/elemental realm is not a simple 'overlay' onto the conventional scale... *Ie; they are not linear scales that one may Invision when conceiving a mental image of a 'classical' Euclidian geometry based scale. Rather it is a hyperbolic geometry based scale ,where the minimum and maximum ends of the scale are not a symmetrical match with one another and cannot be rotated and applied to itself inversely to cancel out the factors of the scales points.
"-2 kilograms"
Is that an SCP reference?
If an object has a positive mass, this mass could be described as an amount of matter needed to be subtracted from the object in order to reduce its mass to 0. So maybe negative mass is the amount of matter needed to be added to the object in order to increase its mass to 0.
Maybe negative mass exists in higher dimensions?
Real life Slimtea?
If you pushed a negative mass it wouldn't move toward you! Your finger would disappear as mass and negative mass cancel each other out to nothing, as opposed to antimatter which at least gives out some energy when disappearing. And that wouldn't contradict the conservation of energy since 1J + -1J is 0J. This also means that to create negative mass you would have to create it from nothing and in the process equal amounts of positive and negative mass would be created.
This even happens all the time on a small scale in the quantum vacuum with photons.
3:01 Like my love life.
This makes sense easily to you if you accept the premise that there are two dynamically opposing universes - a Negative Universe A, and Positive Universe B. Just like magnets, two As will repulse, two Bs will repulse, but and A will attract a B and vice versa. Maybe we are witnessing an effect where matter is crossing over from one of these universes to another! I think of Negative Universe B as a shadow our our Positive Universe B. Just a theory of mine - feel free to rip it apart to shreds if you like.
actually, negative mass and positive mass woud repel each other
negative atracts negative, and positive atracts positive
Hahaha, no. Positive mass positvely curves space-time and thus curves the direction of all objects near it towards the positve mass, wheter or not the object has any mass of it's own, or even if it has negative mass. Negative mass on the other hand negatively curves space-time and thus curves the direction of all objects near it away from the negative mass, thus causing positve mass to move away from negative yet causing the negtive mass to move towards the positive mass.
Cormac B think about positive mass being a iron ball curving the space downwards, and negative mass being a baloon curving the space upwards, but positive mass is above the "space surface" and the negative mass being under, the baloon will atract each other
Think loggically, everything is travelling in space, there is not "Space surface" as you call it otherwise things without mass would not be affected by gravity, which we know is false because photons are massless and yet are affected by gravity. Everthing is travelling in space equally and thus space being curved will affect all objects near the curvature in the same way, regardless of the mass.
Not "anti mass" but negative mass...
Normall mass atracts energy beacuse they are bolth the same.
Negaive mass is made when negative energy turns in to -m (negative mass) matter and -m anti-matter, that bends space backwards.
In that way mass bends space to atract photons and repel negative energy, and negative mass bends space backwards, atracting more anti mass and negative photons, while doing the oppsite to regular mass and photons.
It woud be interesting to know what whoud happen if negative and regular photons colided
But due to E=MC^2 you can view M as equivalent of E which would mean that E would also become negative.
The law of energy conservation states that energy can not be created nor destroyed.
If negative mass would exist i could -in theory- "undo" energy.
So, considering all of that either of those two cases us true: A. Negative Mass does exist but everything we seemed to know about physics is fundamentally wrong or B. Negative mass doesn't exist but we can continue using our old physics models
isn't helium technically negitive mass?
that was my first thought aswell, scrolled all the way down here to look for someone with the same thought.
Joseph Drouin Why would you think that?
Joseph Drouin Do you think that because if you had a balloon with helium in it, it'd go upwards? Well that's because helium is lighter that air.
No. Helium has mass..
It is because of the density of the helium, same as say oil and water, (why doesn't oil sink in water and instead "float" on top) , with the theory that helium has negative mass and therefore rises I would assume we would not know that helium existed.
the only way i can see negative mass is by it existing in a negative dimension parallel to our positive dimension, and if both could interact they could effectively cancel each other out. But since mass can neither be created nor destroyed, this notion cancels it self out and therefore concept of negative mass is flawed.
english please
I used an idea like this in my SF novels. When ships go faster than light they find tachyons with complex mass and negative gravity.
if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough
Vivek Joshi not all things can be explained simply, not everything is simple.
Laurens Houweling but wasn’t it Einstein who said that
I can think of something that could have negative mass, it just takes gravity into account. Basic water for example. Solid Ice is pulled towards the earth. Liquid water still has mass but once it steams it seemingly floats away into the air. at least for a short time it can have negative mass.
The concept of gravity seems to me like mass is inside the fabric of space-time sort of like bending it, thus changing the tragectory of nearby masses towards it. And that means the mass is actually projecting some kind of force stretching the universe apart. So if maybe something (of negative mass) could project the same kind of force but in the oposite direction, that means it would repeal mass instead of attracting it, and instead of stretching the universe, it would shrink it, and also even attracting other anti_masses.
.
I think positive mass would repel negative mass like magnets so it wouldn't vialate neutons laws. (1g object + 1g object= attract eachother, 1g o + -1g o = repel eachother, -1g o + -1g object = attract)
Wouldn't a positive mass and a negative mass repel each other?
Gravity force is F=GMm/r^2, where G is a constant, r is the distance between two objects, and M and m are the mass of the two objects. For a positive M, negative m, and positive (by necessity) r, the force is negative, which can easily be interpreted as a force in the opposite direction. The is the same if you have a negative M and a positive m. Thus, both masses should be repelled by each other.
(Of course, two negative masses would, like two positive masses, be attracted)
2:48 Wrong. When you push something, it's the electromagnetic force making the electric fields of the atoms in your hand push the object's atoms. It would have something to do with gravity if you waited in zero/microgravity for the object to fall into (or in this case, flee from) your hand. The second example is right, though, according to Wikipedia and based on Einstein's electric field equations.
You can "expand your thoughts" in any direction, at the end there will be existence vs non existence.
As soon as something part of "non existence" is defined, even roughly conceptualized, enters in "existence".
Existence is all that can be an there is. Non Existence is indefinable, infinite and indefinite. the combination of both "IS".
Why do they assume equal masses ?
what if the mass of negative one is smaller than the positive one, the acceleration would be different. It will create a seemingly repulsive force
(but actually still a "runaway" force, with the negative one is slower than the positive one).
University of Rochester researchers have succeeded in creating particles with negative mass in an atomically thin semiconductor, by causing it to interact with confined light in an optical microcavity
Wait... If a positive mass (M+) meets M+ they attract each other. So if M- meets M- they do the same. If M+ meets M- they repeal. there is no violation of conservation of energy then and theoretical negative mass could exist this way.
Mass is not the amount of matter, the amount of matter is measured in mols, mass is the resistance a body exert to movement under a force, first law of Newton and the amount of gravitational force a body can exert on other. Oddly, the numerical value of both definition are the same.
At the edge of a black hole a virtual particle falling in has negative mass. that is why it decreases the mass of the black hole.
So you have a case where mass simulates negative mass proposed properties?
It takes energy to move something that has mass. So would we gain energy if we move negative mass?
3:03 I feel like this could actually work, only if each lump of mass, and the anti mass maintain a constant momentum, what I mean by that is that although they will accelerate, and gain speed over time, I believe the positive lump of mass would decrease its mass, and the negative lump of mass would increase its mass, and eventually they would reach the speed of light when they got a mass = 0, essentially becoming pure radiation or photons, effectively radiating away, like black holes that emit hawking radiation do, and if you add their momentum together, you should end up with 0 if they never would reach each other, that is to say you released them from rest, since 0=mv+(-mv), for their momentum, and also mv and -mv = a constant.
it's also important to note that only if they got exactly the same mass, and that they had the exact same initial velocity then they will accelerate forever without meeting and annihilating.
just some thoughts, feel free to correct me if i am wrong.
so if "matter," or "mass," bending space time, is what causes "time" as we know it to move forward. (remember this is just a brainstorm i have not done any looking into it.) by pulling in on the "fabric of space time and the universe", and negative matter were to push out then wouldn't negative mass essentially allow travel back in time.
just some brainstorms from a 13 year old.
It sounds like you just described Dark Matter / Dark Energy. isn't the universe expanding? Moving faster?
Well as I understand it, negative energy has been created. So, using e=mc^2 it is possible to create negative mass. Say we have negative energy. That equation looks like -5=m186000^2 (if you were doing actual physics the equation would look different but for the purposes of imaginary values this works fine). So solved, m = -1.4452538e-10. So we can, at least theoretically, create negative mass.
I think this would be a good method or at least an idea of use achieveing lightspeed or a portion of it.
example - say we are able to get a material and remove the made from it by changing it's form, in the video he said it couldn't be a soild so if we can either create a new martial or change the molecular structure of an object this " negative mass" will be attracted to all the positive mass around it . Now if we are able to guide this force it will be unlimited energy the negative will try to always chase the positive .
mass is an effect that is the result of electromagnetic pressure. take away pressure and mass starts to "get negative" it's not really negative it's just unaffected mass
Seeker just describe my dating strategy "The negative mass{ME} is attracted to the positive mass {Crush}, and the positive mass is repelled by the negative mass"
I don't follow the reasoning with the positive and negative mass balls. Why would a negative mass be attracted to a positive mass? The gravitational force is supposed to be proportional to both the mass being pulled and the mass pulling it, so I would expect both objects to repel each other.
Would the negative and positive mass create a speed faster then light itself? Making us be able to almost teleport
Mass is a vectorless measurement so I don't understand how it could be negative or positive. I could see negative weight (matter that reacts opposite to gravity), but mass is more comparable to volume and you couldn't have a negative volume.
If amount of force(j) applied at 6kgs of mass by gravity to attract it. The same amount of force(j) will be used in repultion of -6 kgs of negative mass By gravity.
Hence Gravity will attract positive mass and repell negative mass. Think deeply.
If we could obtain sources of negative mass, because of the reaction of mass and negative mass repelling and attracting each other, couldn't we theoretically create a perpetual motion machine? If we put one ball made of normal mass on a pole made out of mass, and on the other side we put a ball of negative mass put on a pole of negative mass, gave it a little push, and boom, there's (theoretically) how to make a perpetual motion machine from mass and negative mass.
You couldn't call it a "perpetual motion machine" because no motion would be created, positve mass curves the direction of all nearby objects towards itself, while negative mass would curve the direction of all nearby objects away from itself. So, no, it would not actually create any motion.
hmm if the universe is rapidly expanding and constantly accelerating; and Anti-mass is attractive to positive mass while positive mass is repelled by anti-mass forcing it to constantly move, then doesn't that mean that anti-mass could possibly be dark energy?
If everything consist of neutrons and electrons which make up atoms then negative mass would never be a thing. We need to put a thing on a scale in order to measure its weight and the fact that that thing shows that it has negative mass would never be possible since it needs to have atoms to be considered as a thing.
Using negative mass would
It be possible to travel back in time (think rocketing far away and returning in the past?)
I don't think the positive mass / negative mass pair will accelerate endlessly, i think it will cancel any gravitational pull between the two objects, creating a forced 0 gravity region between the objects.
The description at 3:00 does not make sense. Why is it assumed that "the negative mass is attracted to[ward] the positive mass"? In fact, the attractive force would be negative, equal on each, according to Newton's law of universal gravitation; i.e. the objects would simply repel one another. This seems to me to be the simpler explanation.
Mass is a subjective value in reference to effective gravity between two objects. so if weight pushing down on space creates gravity and thereby mass, fabric being pulled up would create negative gravity and negative mass.
Negative mass is dimension we cant see. As scientists say, particles come and leave from nowhere. Nobody creates them and nobody erase them. But, if this is not true. What if they just pass other dimension and then come back.
“To obtain, something of equal mass must be destroyed.”
Einstein: I’m about to negative mass this mans whole career.