Negative mass ??

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

I have come across a speculation regarding negative mass.

 

Could it be a scientific speculation?

 

Or, true mainstream scientists do not speculate about the possibility

of physical existence of negative mass, because negative mass

could imply repulsive gravitational interactions?

[Raider5678]

I have come across a speculation regarding negative mass.

 

Could it be a scientific speculation?

 

Or, true mainstream scientists do not speculate about the possibility

of physical existence of negative mass, because negative mass

could imply repulsive gravitational interactions?

Do you have some mathematical proof of negative mass either being possible or existing?

[swansont]

I have come across a speculation regarding negative mass.

 

Could it be a scientific speculation?

 

Or, true mainstream scientists do not speculate about the possibility

of physical existence of negative mass, because negative mass

could imply repulsive gravitational interactions?

 

 

 

What's your model? Does it actually imply repulsion?

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

Do you have some mathematical proof of negative mass either being possible or existing?

 

 

It is not my speculation, but yes,

there seems to be a mathematical proof of negative mass being possible.

 

What's your model? Does it actually imply repulsion?

 

 

It is not my model, but yes,

repulsive gravitational interaction is being speculated

as a strong possibility.

Do you have some mathematical proof

 

First of all, we are in the "Speculation" topic,

so I do not think that in regards to scientific speculation

we need any mathematical proof.

 

Does a scientific hypothesis need a mathematical proof.

 

Is there a difference between: scientific speculation and scientific hypothesis ?

Edited March 27, 2017 by zbigniew.modrzejewski

[Strange]

I have come across a speculation regarding negative mass.

 

Could it be a scientific speculation?

 

 

To answer that, we would have to see the nature of the speculation.

First of all, we are in the "Speculation" topic,

so I do not think that in regards to scientific speculation

we need any mathematical proof.

 

Without mathematics, how is it scientific?

[OldChemE]

Yes, there is a difference between speculation and hypothesis. In the Scientific Method, a Hypothesis is formed after first collecting observations. The purpose of the hypothesis is to explain the cause of the existing observations in a manner that permits a prediction that can then be verified by further experimentation. This is more rigorous than speculation. If there are actual observations of events that might imply negative mass, then it would be appropriate to attempt to develop a hypothesis that would predict the conditions necessary to achieve negative mass, and then one would construct experiments to verify this prediction. A speculation need not form the basis for an experiment, while a hypothesis is not proper unless it is sufficiently structured to permit an attempt at verification. However, a speculation based on actual observations might be a good starting point for more detailed work to form a hypothesis.

[Lord Antares]

 

 

there seems to be a mathematical proof of negative mass being possible.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

so I do not think that in regards to scientific speculation

we need any mathematical proof.

 

 

So do you have evidence or do you not need evidence? Pick one.

 

 

 

 

First of all, we are in the "Speculation" topic,

so I do not think that in regards to scientific speculation

we need any mathematical proof.

 

Here is some more evidence that I was right about the Speculations forum. This is directed primarily at Swansont.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

Yes, there is a difference between speculation and hypothesis. In the Scientific Method, a Hypothesis is formed after first collecting observations. The purpose of the hypothesis is to explain the cause of the existing observations in a manner that permits a prediction that can then be verified by further experimentation. This is more rigorous than speculation. If there are actual observations of events that might imply negative mass, then it would be appropriate to attempt to develop a hypothesis that would predict the conditions necessary to achieve negative mass, and then one would construct experiments to verify this prediction. A speculation need not form the basis for an experiment, while a hypothesis is not proper unless it is sufficiently structured to permit an attempt at verification. However, a speculation based on actual observations might be a good starting point for more detailed work to form a hypothesis.

 

 

 

So, to rephrase my question in a hope for straight answer :

 

Could a speculation about negative mass be a scientific speculation?

 

Or maybe true mainstream scientists do not ever speculate

about the possibility of physical existence of negative mass?

[Lord Antares]

Several people in your other thread unnecessarily answered the same question, have you not read that?

 

It is scientific only if it is backed up by evidence. If you're throwing a wild guess about it (and it seems like it), it is anything but scientific. You can call it a speculation, a guess, or imagination, but until there is some mathematics, evidence or predictions, it remains unscientific.

 

I can't answer it in a more straightforward manner. People speculate about everything. It is when they gather evidence and make models that it becomes something scientifically valid.

[Strange]

So, to rephrase my question in a hope for straight answer :

 

Could a speculation about negative mass be a scientific speculation?

 

 

It depends.

 

It isn't the subject that makes an idea scientific on non-scientific. It is the method.

 

 

 

Or maybe true mainstream scientists do not ever speculate

about the possibility of physical existence of negative mass?

 

Of course they do. And then they test it, scientifically.

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/weighing-implications-negative-mass-antimatter

Edited March 27, 2017 by Strange

[studiot]

Are you sure you do not mean negative effective mass?

 

This is a well documented and respected concept that can be used to explain some results for example in the Hall Effect.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

So, where can we find negative mass?

 

There is no consensus in the physics community

if negative mass is even allowed to exist,

referring to the so-called positive energy theorem

that prohibits negative gravitational masses.

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Forward was an American science fiction writer.

His literary work was noted for its scientific credibility.

 

Robert Forward first pointed out that a gravitational dipole,

consisting of ordinary and negative matter, would be self-accelerating

thus creating the ultimate propellant-less propulsion system.

 

Up to now, the key ingredient, negative matter,

has not been found to exist in natural form.

 

However, since E=mc², negative matter may be created in a laboratory

using negative energies. Previous studies showed that effective negative inertia

exists for neutrons and also for electrons in short transient time intervals.

 

Let's consider two possibilities to create stationary, charged

negative effective masses that could be used to test

Robert Forward’s self-propulsion effect.

 

One is based on the assumption that Weber’s electrodynamics is correct

predicting a negative mass regime for electrons inside a highly charged

dielectric sphere.

 

The other possibility is using asymmetric charge distributions

that could be realized using electrets. With proper geometry and charge densities,

negative mass regimes are derived which could lead to negative energies

many orders of magnitude larger than those obtained from the Casimir effect.

 

Based on these concepts, a negative matter space-drive

could be realized in a laboratory environment.

 

From an engineering perspective, maybe the most straight-forward concept

is called negative matter propulsion, or diametric space drive.

It consists of a pair of masses, one with an ordinary positive

and the other one with a negative mass. Although Robert Forward assumes

that the negative mass has both a negative gravitational and inertial mass,

we can only concentrate on the effect of negative inertia.

 

According to Newton’s second law, the acceleration of a mass

is always in the direction of the force that acts on it: F=ma

Negative inertia would therefore always accelerate in the opposite direction

of the applied force. If both types of masses are now coupled with a spring

that tries to attract both masses to each other, it is straight-forward to show

that this gravitational (or inertial) dipole is self-accelerating.

 

This self-acceleration propulsion system does not need propellant or energy.

It should therefore be able to move at any arbitrary speed, even faster than the speed of light,

since no energy is involved. Robert Forward showed in his analysis

that negative matter propulsion does not violate the conservation of momentum

or energy as negative mass also carries negative momentum and energy

and hence the total energy of the self-accelerating dipole is zero -- self-acceleration is its ground state.

This argument could be even proven for the case if the amount of negative and positive mass is not equal.

[studiot]

 

So, where can we find negative mass?

There is no consensus in the physics community

if negative mass is even allowed to exist,

referring to the so-called positive energy theorem

that prohibits negative gravitational masses.

 

 

So are you only referring to gravitational mass or did you miss my post?

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

 

So are you only referring to gravitational mass or did you miss my post?

 

 

You missed the rest of my post

[Strange]

So, where can we find negative mass?

 

 

There is no evidence that negative mass exists.

 

 

However, since E=mc², negative matter may be created in a laboratory

using negative energies.

 

There is no evidence that negative energy exists.

 

 

One is based on the assumption that Weber’s electrodynamics is correct

predicting a negative mass regime for electrons inside a highly charged

dielectric sphere.

 

I don't know much about Weber's theory, but it appears to be wrong and so not a good place to start from.

 

 

With proper geometry and charge densities,

negative mass regimes are derived which could lead to negative energies

many orders of magnitude larger than those obtained from the Casimir effect.

 

Citation needed.

 

 

Negative inertia would therefore always accelerate in the opposite direction

of the applied force.

 

This kind of paradox is one of the reasons to believe that negative mass (or energy) does not exist.

 

 

Robert Forward showed in his analysis

that negative matter propulsion does not violate the conservation of momentum

or energy as negative mass also carries negative momentum and energy

and hence the total energy of the self-accelerating dipole is zero -- self-acceleration is its ground state.

 

You should find science to support your position, not science fiction.

 

 

 

It should therefore be able to move at any arbitrary speed, even faster than the speed of light,

since no energy is involved.

 

Energy has nothing to do with it. It still can't move faster than the speed of light.

[swansont]

Science fiction ≠ science

 

You've shown no math to support this, and need to square it with Noether's theorem and Newton's laws of motion, and possibly other established science.

 

Or, if you are claiming these are wrong, show evidence of this effect.

 

Which path are you going to follow?

[JohnLesser]

Taking a step back, do you have a link to this idea?

 

 

By negative , what negative are you on about? negative charge, negative velocity ,

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

The OP is no longer with us, mainly for his inability to provide supportive evidence, along with a similar inability to follow the rules.

 

If someone wants to explore facets of this concept and has questions, start a thread in a mainstream section. If someone wants to defend the OP's assertions with supportive evidence, start a thread in Speculations (no more sockpuppets, z). This thread is closed.