imaginary mass

[Dhruba Borah 0101]

Can there be imaginary mass resulting from negative mass instances? And how would it alter the point origin of the universe? Would it bring time before origin into life?

[x(x-y)]

As far as I know, negative mass is physically impossible with respect to current established physics. A negative mass implies that something can have a negative kinetic energy which, in turn, (I'd assume) implies a temperature below absolute zero.

[elfmotat]

Tachyons (nonexistent particles that travel faster than c) have imaginary mass. But they don't actually exist (or there's absolutely zero evidence for them at least), so it's a moot point.

[preeti22]

A hypothetical particle with imaginary rest mass would always travel faster than the speed of light.

[Dhruba Borah 0101]

Tachyons (nonexistent particles that travel faster than c) have imaginary mass. But they don't actually exist (or there's absolutely zero evidence for them at least), so it's a moot point.

What if time does not start the way we think and temperatures below absolute zero are possible in the time preceding time?

 

A hypothetical particle with imaginary rest mass would always travel faster than the speed of light.

Well its not always necessary that it would travel faster than speed of light, if considered that the universal system when during its dynamic processes are changing in such a way that speed of light is continually increasing or decreasing, reducing or fastening the entire processes of the universe, without we even knowing it as the relative speed of c1 would be equal to c2 then, and some particles in he long run are yet having to follow the previous speed of light.

[eytan_il]

Can there be imaginary mass resulting from negative mass instances? And how would it alter the point origin of the universe? Would it bring time before origin into life?

 

Hi, I've already written an answer.

 

links deleted

[swansont]

 

Hi, I've already written an answer.

 

links deleted

!

Moderator Note

 

 

eytal_il, a paper that does not mention imaginary mass really can't be an answer to a question about imaginary mass. As such the links have been deleted. Your previous response was split off into a new thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72247-emergent-time-split-from-imaginary-mass/#entry724209

 

Please review our rules, especially the one on thread hijacking.

 

[eytan_il]

 

Hi, I've already written an answer.

 

links deleted

Dear moderator,

 

Look at the end of the paper Dark Matter at page 28.

 

Please return the link.

 

Kind regards,

Eytan (Ethan).

 

!

Moderator Note

 

 

eytal_il, a paper that does not mention imaginary mass really can't be an answer to a question about imaginary mass. As such the links have been deleted. Your previous response was split off into a new thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72247-emergent-time-split-from-imaginary-mass/#entry724209

 

Please review our rules, especially the one on thread hijacking.

 

Real physics is not dogmatic. I worked on that exact subject for the last 10 years.

[swansont]

Dear moderator,

 

Look at the end of the paper Dark Matter at page 28.

 

Done.

 

 

Please return the link.

 

No.

 

Real physics is not dogmatic. I worked on that exact subject for the last 10 years.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

This is not about physics being dogmatic or not, this is about you following the rules of the forum. You have a thread to discuss the subject matter of your paper. Hijacking a thread to bring attention to your paper, especially with no discussion of how it might possibly be relevant to the topic at hand, isn't going to fly.

 

To prevent further distraction, subsequent discussion of this action should not take place in this thread. You can use the messaging system or bring this up in the suggestions/comments section if you want feedback from other mods.

 

[eytan_il]

As far as I know, negative mass is physically impossible with respect to current established physics. A negative mass implies that something can have a negative kinetic energy which, in turn, (I'd assume) implies a temperature below absolute zero.

By General Relativity, negative rest mass means positive Ricci curvature of space-time. Imaginary wave

functions will not lead to negative rest mass.

if that was the purpose of the original question. My work was on that exact subject for the last 10 years.

It seems that there is a way to use a curvature operator that was part of my work in computerized vision in

2003, such that Matter, Dark Matter and Dark Energy (~Negative mass) will be all solutions of the same

basic equation. Dark Energy as I see it, does not appear as matter and it does not involve purely

imaginary wave functions. I strongly recommend that you read about Chameleon scalar fields to achieve

a more illuminating idea of how dark energy may exist without the need of imagery functions..