Dark matter is Negative mass!

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

You've been leaving a lot of the wikipedia article on negative mass out - namely the parts that contradict your theory, and that's most of the article

indeed lol

[Mordred]

9 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

Can you link me to some in-depth material on this? I've had some thoughts on DE recently and I could use some non-light reading for the occasional day off. While this thread is about dark matter, I think other contributors might also be interested in this

 

Here is a half decent article dealing specifically on the cosmological constant,

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.12942%2Flrr-2001-1.pdf

another good read

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0r203330 "On the Cosmological Constant Problems and the Astronomical Evidence for a Homogeneous Energy Density with Negative Pressure"

I don't know how much you know on the FRW metric itself, I know your GR knowledge is excellent so here is a couple off handy resources.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde
http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

In this article by Mathius Blau he takes you from GR and some rather advanced GR topics including artifacts of coordinates topics such as involved in numerous so called paradoxes into the FRW metric in its later chapters.

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf

Here is a detail to note under cosmology the universe is modelled as a homogeneous and isotropic fluid. This includes matter, radiation and lambda. A homogeneous and isotropic fluid has no inherent directional component on the average of the global metric.

 A common mistake is to equate pressure as synonymous to gravity however pressure is one component of the stress energy momentum tensor itself which applies the four momentum.

[latex] T^{\mu\nu} =\begin{pmatrix}\rho & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & p & 0 &0\\0 & 0& p & 0 \\0 & 0 & 0&p\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

the [latex]T^{00}[/latex] has a positive energy density using the critical density formula this equates to roughly [latex] 7.0 *10^{-10}[/latex] joules per [latex] m^3 [/latex] however the directional component with regards to pressure is the [latex] T^{0i} [/latex] wich is the flux in the i direction, the 3 momentum density being the [latex] T^{i0}[/latex] and the 3 momentum flux (stress/vorticity) being the [latex]T^{ij}[/latex] component.

Under symmetry charge is treated under vector symmetries, these vector symmetries of all gauge groups follow the right hand rule as taught under Maxwell. This includes the orthogonal Poincare group SO(1.3). However how one deems to designate as positive or negative pressure depends on the orientation of the state being measured.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Mordred

[YaDinghus]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

 

Here is a half decent article dealing specifically on the cosmological constant,

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.12942%2Flrr-2001-1.pdf

another good read

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0r203330 "On the Cosmological Constant Problems and the Astronomical Evidence for a Homogeneous Energy Density with Negative Pressure"

I don't know how much you know on the FRW metric itself, I know your GR knowledge is excellent so here is a couple off handy resources.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde
http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

In this article by Mathius Blau he takes you from GR and some rather advanced GR topics including artifacts of coordinates topics such as involved in numerous so called paradoxes into the FRW metric in its later chapters.

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf

Here is a detail to note under cosmology the universe is modelled as a homogeneous and isotropic fluid. This includes matter, radiation and lambda. A homogeneous and isotropic fluid has no inherent directional component on the average of the global metric.

 A common mistake is to equate pressure as synonymous to gravity however pressure is one component of the stress energy momentum tensor itself which applies the four momentum.

Missing close brace

the T00 has a positive energy density using the critical density formula this equates to roughly 7.0∗10−10joulesperm3 however the directional component with regards to pressure is the T0i wich is the flux in the i direction, the 3 momentum density being the Ti0 and the 3 momentum flux (stress/vorticity) being the T^{ij} component.

Under symmetry charge is treated under vector symmetries, these vector symmetries of all gauge groups follow the right hand rule as taught under Maxwell. This includes the orthogonal Poincare group SO(1.3).

 

 

Thanks, @Mordred. I'll upvote once my reaction rights are restored

[Mordred]

no problem I was editing the mistakes in latex during cross post lol so the quote you have has the initial errors lol

Edited June 5, 2018 by Mordred

[Mordred]

12 hours ago, icarus2 said:

Sorry, but at this point I do not agree with your claim.

I have not proven that a negative mass model can yield an NFW profile, but the result of the negative mass is not proven to be different from the NFW profile.

This is because the density profile has not been calculated precisely through the negative mass model.

Therefore, I disagree with the above confirmation at this point.

 

1. I have explained in the text that negative mass can provide centripetal force.

2. The computer simulation results show that a centripetal force effect exists when the negative mass is located outside.

3. The calculation of the paper is a proof that the centripetal effect exists, which is derived from assuming a uniform density. Below are some actual situations to consider.

4. The density of dark matter by the negative mass model should be determined by placing the profile of the negative mass outside the galaxy, and then calculating the density equation of the centripetal force component (the density equation substituted with the positive mass).

By the way, I seem intuitively difficult to calculate. So, I think that someone with a better knowledge than me should do the actual calculations to see if they match or are inconsistent with the NFW profile.

I also did not try the actual calculation because the calculations seem complicated. 

Do you calculate the density profile with a negative mass model and can you prove that the density equation obtained is clearly different from the NFW equation?

The possibility has not yet been ruled out.

I do not think so.

If the negative mass exerts an additional centripetal force effect on the gas cloud of positive mass, it will naturally promote the formation of galaxies. The same or similar result can be obtained.

 

Fine then prove me wrong, show explicitly that you can generate the appropriate galaxy rotation curves with your model... I don't believe any claim that DM has anti mass.

Lets start with defining what mass is. "resistance to inertia change"

Here is a paper directly involving the NFW profile and early LSS formation.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.0288.pdf

 

Here is a simulation that involves the testing of the NFW profile and behavior of DM as well as DE for that matter. This simulation tested all of the LCDM model under N-body code. It even had the audacity to produce all the known galaxy types. Can you pretend to be as successful with your model?? Note previous link involves thiss simulation.

http://www.illustris-project.org/

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10

here is the published paper containing the details.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1418.pdf

 

Example from simulation of a spiral galaxy fully simulated using LCDM model parameters and NFW profile can you pretend to be able to do the same?

Here is the DM distribution compared to baryonic matter if DM had negative mass then why does it collect along the LSS filaments can you answer that?

 

The gas temperature is hotter where the LSS structure formations occur note the similarities.

 

Here is a little detail under cosmology baryonic matter and dark matter has identical equations of state. This is implicit in the following formula, there is no separate treatment for the two types of matter as there is no need to do so.

[latex] H^2=\overbrace{\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho}^{matter density}-\overbrace{\frac{kc^2}{R^2}}^{curvature}+\overbrace{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}^{Lambda}[/latex]

Edited June 5, 2018 by Mordred

[Mordred]

The first term on the right derives strictly by Newtons laws of inertia and application of the shell theorem. This term includes both DM and baryonic matter. It is also under the Newton approximations that the critical density formula is derived.

[latex] \rho_{crit}=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G} [/latex]

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Mordred

[Mordred]

Here is a question you can answer Hyoyoung Choi.

If DM and DE were identical in terms of negative mass then why does each evolve differently as the universe expands ? In other words explain this

[latex] H^2=H_0^2(\frac{\Omega_m}{a^3}+\frac{\Omega_r}{a^4}+\frac{\Omega_k}{a^2}+\Omega_{\Lambda})[/latex]

Would it surprise you to know that a positive matter only universe can still expand ?

Edited June 5, 2018 by Mordred

[Butch]

On 6/2/2018 at 3:59 AM, Strange said:

Obviously not.

The whole reason that dark matter is proposed is to provide the missing mass in and around galaxies. This requires it to have normal (positive) mass. It causes gravitational lensing, which requires it to have normal (positive) mass.

So your idea is dead in the water.

Which is good because it means I don't have to wade through your incoherent and error filled nonsense.

You are brutal Strange, gotta luv ya for it!

[icarus2]

On 2018. 6. 6. at 4:08 AM, Mordred said:

 

~~~~~

Example from simulation of a spiral galaxy fully simulated using LCDM model parameters and NFW profile can you pretend to be able to do the same?

Here is the DM distribution compared to baryonic matter if DM had negative mass then why does it collect along the LSS filaments can you answer that?

The gas temperature is hotter where the LSS structure formations occur note the similarities.

In the above article, I explained the important characteristics of negative mass. One of them ~

=======

1.The motion of negative mass and positive mass

If the absolute value of positive mass is bigger than that of negative mass, they will meet within finite time(attractive effect),

This property is very important. Negative masses are gravitational bounded to massive positive masses (Galaxy or cluster of galaxies) for massive positive mass has attractive effect on negative mass.

One of problems regarding movement of negative mass, which researchers are likely to misunderstand is that if there are negative mass particles around the earth (or galaxy), large positive mass, they may not fly to the universe, but freely fall to the earth (or galaxy).

~~~

=======

1. Negative masses behave very similar to positive masses on Earth or near the galaxy. Thus, they are gathered into the LSS filaments structure and accelerate galaxy formation and LSS filaments formation by centripetal force effect.

 

Unlike the existing ΛCDM cosmological model,

Dark matter which has negative mass is concentrated near the LSS filaments formed by the positive mass. The negative mass gathered in this way plays a role in accelerating the formation of galaxy or LSS filaments by generating an additional centripetal effect.

Unlike the conventional ΛCDM model, galaxies are not formed where dark matter is located, but positive masses are seeds of galaxy and the LSS.

Negative mass accelerates the formation of these LSS during the process of positive masses forming the galaxy and LSS. Also, dark matter exists outside the galaxy, not the inside.

 

Recently, the Van Dokkum team has reported a completely different phenomenon from the existing theory.(Dark matter serves as a seed for galaxy formation, and galaxies are born in the dark matter structure)

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-dark-galaxy.html

https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.10237

=====

~~~

“NGC1052-DF2 challenges the standard ideas of how we think galaxies form.”

 "If there is any dark matter at all, it's very little," van Dokkum explained. "The stars in the galaxy can account for all of the mass, and there doesn't seem to be any room for dark matter."
 

The team's results demonstrate that dark matter is separable from galaxies. "This discovery shows that dark matter is real - it has its own separate existence apart from other components of galaxies," said van Dokkum.
 

NGC1052-DF2's globular clusters and atypical structure has perplexed astronomers aiming to determine the conditions this galaxy formed under.

 

"It's like you take a galaxy and you only have the stellar halo and globular clusters, and it somehow forgot to make everything else," van Dokkum said. "There is no theory that predicted these types of galaxies. The galaxy is a complete mystery, as everything about it is strange. How you actually go about forming one of these things is completely unknown."

However, researchers do have some ideas. NGC1052-DF2 resides about 65 million light years away in a collection of galaxies that is dominated by the giant elliptical galaxy NGC 1052. Galaxy formation is turbulent and violent, and van Dokkum suggests that the growth of the fledgling massive galaxy billions of years ago perhaps played a role in NGC1052-DF2's dark-matter deficiency.

Another idea is that a cataclysmic event within the oddball galaxy, such as the birth of myriad massive stars, swept out all the gas and dark matter, halting star formation.

These possibilities are speculative, however, and don't explain all of the characteristics of the observed galaxy, the researchers add.

=====

In conventional dark mass models with positive mass, dark matter exists both inside and outside the galaxy. However, it is difficult to explain the mechanism of subtracting only dark matter in the presence of matter and dark matter in the galaxy.

On the other hand, in the negative mass model, the dark matter exists outside the galaxy, so it is possible to subtract only the dark matter.

 

2. In the presence of pair annihilation of negative mass and positive mass, there is a possibility of creating a much faster non-uniformity than the universe model in which only the positive mass exists. This can help shape the Large Scale Structure more quickly than the cosmology where only materials exist.

 

3.The model of negative mass and positive mass pair creation affects the age and evolution of the universe. In other words, the time required to form a large-scale structure changes, and therefore, it has a different explanatory possibility.

 

In any case, the phenomenon of dark matter gathering near the LSS filaments is similar in both cases. The dark matter with positive mass and dark matter with negative mass are similar.

 

I lack computer simulation capability. I did some computer simulations in a slightly crude way. The number of particles is limited to about 2000 by a personal computer.

I hope you will see that the negative mass is clustered outside the galaxy or near the positive mass structure (such as LSS), and the accelerating expansion effect of the universe in this state also appears.

 

1)Dark matter with negative mass is clustered around the galaxy

https://youtu.be/MZtS7cBMIc4?t=279

4m : 40s ~ 7m : 50s

2)Distant six galaxies

https://youtu.be/SRUqQM2FfNU?t=609

10m : 10s ~ 11m : 50s

 

3)distant 2 galaxies

https://youtu.be/71nMvwUhHwE

 

On 2018. 6. 6. at 4:08 AM, Mordred said:

 

Here is a little detail under cosmology baryonic matter and dark matter has identical equations of state. This is implicit in the following formula, there is no separate treatment for the two types of matter as there is no need to do so.

H2=8πG3ρmatterdensity−kc2R2curvature+Λ3Lambda

In your opinion, if dark matter is a negative mass, does not the above equation explain at all?

The above equation is also described as a negative mass model.

Please wait a few days.

Edited June 9, 2018 by icarus2

[studiot]

@icarus2

 

I know it's more attractive to respond only to the guy with the flashy colour pictures, but

 

I am still waiting for a proper response with mathematics to my last posts.

 

May I remind you that the rules of this forum require this?

[Mordred]

I posted that equation so that you can explain how the cosmological constant is always constant under your negative mass model while dark matter is not constant yet according to your model the two are one and the same.

Nothing in your mathematics cover this critical detail. The cosmological constant cannot be a particle of either positive nor negative mass as it does not decrease in density as the universe expands. It stays constant always according to all observational evidence.

Explain this.

 

7 hours ago, studiot said:

@icarus2

 

I know it's more attractive to respond only to the guy with the flashy colour pictures, but

 

I am still waiting for a proper response with mathematics to my last posts.

 

May I remind you that the rules of this forum require this?

Along with the unanswered questions Studiot has asked, there is another unanswered question I posted previously which is left unanswered.

How do you get negative mass from something with a positive energy density such as the cosmological constant. Its energy density is roughly [latex]7*10^{-10} [/latex] joules[latex]/m^3[/latex] How do you explain that and still apply e-mc^2 to the energy to mass relation.

10 hours ago, icarus2 said:

 

 

=====

In conventional dark mass models with positive mass, dark matter exists both inside and outside the galaxy. However, it is difficult to explain the mechanism of subtracting only dark matter in the presence of matter and dark matter in the galaxy.

On the other hand, in the negative mass model, the dark matter exists outside the galaxy, so it is possible to subtract only the dark matter.

 

This does not explain the mass to luminosity relationship that led Zwicky to realize the missing mass problem. When Zwicky applied the mass to luminosity formulas to galaxies, he found that those galaxies had higher luminosity than the baryonic matter content. This led him to realize there is a missing mass problem in the first place. If DM resides outside the galaxies that Zwicky examined this would not be the case.

On ‎2018‎-‎06‎-‎01 at 10:25 PM, icarus2 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Now I am going to get Brutal with you. This image is garbage

Both mass and energy are scalar quantities, this is quantities defined by magnitude only. There is no directional components such as you have in this image which does not work with e=mc^2. It does not work because you have added direction of motion to a field potential. However force is a vector so that in itself is fine but not when it comes to the energy mass relation.

 So if your mimimal and maximal points are field potentials how does lines of direction possibly apply ? This image makes absolutely no sense when describing particles (at rest) for the invariant rest mass term. You have directional components involved. Quite frankly this image also conflicts with how potential and kinetic energy is handled. Even with your personal handling of the kinetic energy term. (for the same reasons, kinetic energy and potential energy are both scalar quantities) yet your applying vector components and calling the reverse direction negative mass.

Yet on both sides of that rolling hill above the zero baseline you have a positive field potential.....yet call one side negative while the other side positive this doesn't make sense at all.

Your model lost all crediblility with me as soon as I saw this image and how you applied it. In essence you have switched the roll of the force and mass terms. Via switching the vector quantities of force with the scalar quantities of mass. (particularly when you applied it to f=ma which goes against the treatments under the laws of inertia once you switched the rolls of the scalar and vector quantities. The laws of inertia will not work properly with those rolls are switched once you apply those laws under a coordinate treatment. ( which I do not see yet) Then attempted to build a model around it but are ignoring key OTHER relations that argue against that practice. Much like you read entire articles that argue against your model but you see one or two lines that might support it so you instantly assume it works with your model. When the rest of the article doesn't.

For example you have referred to the rubidium tests previously but completely ignored the following mentions in the wiki link you posted.

Quote

Physicist Peter Engels and a team of colleagues at Washington State University claimed to have observed negative mass behavior in rubidium atoms. On 10 April 2017 Engels team created negative "effective" mass by reducing the temperature of rubidium atoms to near absolute zero, generating a Bose-Einstein condensate. By using a laser-trap, the team were able to reverse the spin of some of the rubidium atoms in this state, and observed that once released from the trap, the atoms expanded and displayed properties of negative mass, in particular accelerating towards a pushing force instead of away from it.^[22][23] This kind of negative effective mass is analogous to the well-known apparent negative effective mass of electrons in the upper part of the dispersion bands in solids.^[24] However, neither case is negative mass for the purposes of the stress–energy tensor.

Some recent work with metamaterials suggests that some as-yet-undiscovered composite of superconductors, metamaterials and normal matter could exhibit signs of negative effective mass in much the same way as low temperature alloys melt at below the melting point of their components or some semiconductors have negative differential resistance.^[25][26]

This is the danger of randomly searching the web for support without taking the time to properly understand those tests in the first place....

Videos on youtube does not tell me how those programs are in actuality programmed in the first place. A 2000 point to point N-body code is quite involved but I cannot confirm you integrated your own formulas or those of standard N-body point to point applications without access to the source code itself. No I do not merely accept someone word on it.

(if this is part of your mathematical support, then the physics community should have access to confirm the source code so they can confirm those results by running the program themselves.)

Note they specifically mention "effective mass" this is mass that is effective to a NON ZERO energy baseline of a higher than zero energy density average of the material being tested. The global field condition is a positive energy density in this test.

edit strange I can't fix the section I got on my own wording in that quote box,,,, anything after the 25 and 26 reference numbers in that box is my own additives for some reason I can't fix this.....

Edited June 9, 2018 by Mordred

[Mordred]

On ‎2018‎-‎06‎-‎05 at 5:31 AM, studiot said:

I see you

Whilst at the same time they usually seem to want to make things needlessly complicated, rather than check their ideas on simple completely known examples first. +1

icarus2

Why do you not want to show how you can compare gravity (positive or negative) with electrostatic effects?

If you work it out you can see the differences as well as the similarities.

 

But let us go back to your claim about negative mass.

There are two distinct and separate effects of mass in Physics that can be modelled by force.

Inertia and gravity.

 

Now the forces are different.

 

Inertia produces a directed line vector - the classic push or pull with a specific point of application and line of action.

Gravity produces a distributed force a so called 'body force'

 

So it is easy to see what happens when a body force is applied to a mass with a negative sign.

Repulsion.

 

But what happens to a classic line vector force for instance a poke with a stick, which is a contact force?

A mass with a positive sign moves in the direction of the poke in response, as it is pushed by the stick

But

Which way do you think the mass with a negative sign moves in response to such a poke?

 

 

I too am waiting for your answer to Studiot's post

[icarus2]

 

On 2018. 6. 4. at 10:32 PM, studiot said:

 

This is complete and utter nonsense.

But since you chose to sneer at the rest of my input, even though I was the only one who has not flatly rejected your propositions,  I will leave you to work out for yourself the plainly obvious reasons why you can't compare an assemblage of charges to and assemblage of masses.

 

On 2018. 6. 5. at 6:31 PM, studiot said:

icarus2

Why do you not want to show how you can compare gravity (positive or negative) with electrostatic effects?

This is only your idea, and the situation I see is different.

 

The situation I see is that I explained it without any problems,

By the way, you say "utter nonsense" without any explanation, after that, you say, "You give me a chance"… This time, "Why do not you want to show ~"

You are doing the show alone, so I was hesitant about what to say.

 

My answer is that if my explanation is wrong, you can explain it specifically ~

 

On 2018. 6. 5. at 6:31 PM, studiot said:

But what happens to a classic line vector force for instance a poke with a stick, which is a contact force?

A mass with a positive sign moves in the direction of the poke in response, as it is pushed by the stick

But

Which way do you think the mass with a negative sign moves in response to such a poke?

There is no problem with the movement, and there is no logical contradiction.

Only you have a problem with it, but the laws of physics, such as the laws of conservation of energy or conservation of momentum, do not have problems.

 

The dislike you feel is because you have been accustomed to the world of positive mass for a long time.

 

What do you think is a false or forbidden phenomenon in the universe?

The actual situation is complicated, but if simply argue, I think that~

A false or forbidden phenomenon is not a phenomenon contrary to common sense, but a phenomenon contrary to various laws of physics.

If a phenomenon is a phenomenon that holds various conservation laws, including the laws of conservation of energy and the laws of conservation of momentum, such phenomena are not unreasonable.

 

Take a look at the thoughts of researchers at the University of Washington.

=====

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/19/physicists-create-mind-bending-negative-mass-accelerates-backwards/

“Washington State University physicists explained that this mass, unlike every physical object in the world we know, accelerates backwards when pushed.”

~~~~~

Our everyday world sees only the positive effect of the law: if you push an object, it moves away from you.

“That’s what most things that we’re used to do,” said Michael Forbes, a WSU assistant professor of physics and astronomy and an affiliate assistant professor at the University of Washington. “With negative mass, if you push something, it accelerates toward you.”

 ~~~~~

“Once you push, it accelerates backwards,” said Mr Forbes, who acted as a theorist analysing the system. “It looks like the rubidium hits an invisible wall.”

~~~~

The heightened control gives researchers a new tool to engineer experiments to study similar behaviours in astrophysics, such as neutron stars, and cosmological phenomena like black holes and dark energy, where experiments are impossible.

=====

What they claim is not a negative gravitational mass, but a negative inertial mass.

 

You can defend your existing knowledge system through the notion of effective mass.

Except for the idea of effective mass, see the fact that they explain the phenomenon through the negative inertial mass.

Have they considered that objects with negative inertia mass cannot exist and said their experiments were wrong?

Not at all ~

I do not know if they have any idea about the existence of negative mass (total energy is negative), but see that they are embracing the concept or phenomenon of negative inertial mass unlike you -

 

Not all scientists think like you.

 

You can think of it as a strange phenomenon about the negative mass. However, the tool to determine whether it is a strange phenomenon to be prohibited should be the law of physics, not your stereotype.

This is because you are not a god of physics.

Edited June 10, 2018 by icarus2

[studiot]

1 hour ago, icarus2 said:

 

 

This is only your idea, and the situation I see is different.

 

The situation I see is that I explained it without any problems,

By the way, you say "utter nonsense" without any explanation, after that, you say, "You give me a chance"… This time, "Why do not you want to show ~"

You are doing the show alone, so I was hesitant about what to say.

 

My answer is that if my explanation is wrong, you can explain it specifically ~

 

There is no problem with the movement, and there is no logical contradiction.

Only you have a problem with it, but the laws of physics, such as the laws of conservation of energy or conservation of momentum, do not have problems.

 

The dislike you feel is because you have been accustomed to the world of positive mass for a long time.

 

What do you think is a false or forbidden phenomenon in the universe?

The actual situation is complicated, but if simply argue, I think that~

A false or forbidden phenomenon is not a phenomenon contrary to common sense, but a phenomenon contrary to various laws of physics.

If a phenomenon is a phenomenon that holds various conservation laws, including the laws of conservation of energy and the laws of conservation of momentum, such phenomena are not unreasonable.

 

Take a look at the thoughts of researchers at the University of Washington.

=====

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/19/physicists-create-mind-bending-negative-mass-accelerates-backwards/

“Washington State University physicists explained that this mass, unlike every physical object in the world we know, accelerates backwards when pushed.”

~~~~~

Our everyday world sees only the positive effect of the law: if you push an object, it moves away from you.

“That’s what most things that we’re used to do,” said Michael Forbes, a WSU assistant professor of physics and astronomy and an affiliate assistant professor at the University of Washington. “With negative mass, if you push something, it accelerates toward you.”

 ~~~~~

“Once you push, it accelerates backwards,” said Mr Forbes, who acted as a theorist analysing the system. “It looks like the rubidium hits an invisible wall.”

~~~~

The heightened control gives researchers a new tool to engineer experiments to study similar behaviours in astrophysics, such as neutron stars, and cosmological phenomena like black holes and dark energy, where experiments are impossible.

=====

What they claim is not a negative gravitational mass, but a negative inertial mass.

 

You can defend your existing knowledge system through the notion of effective mass.

Except for the idea of effective mass, see the fact that they explain the phenomenon through the negative inertial mass.

Have they considered that objects with negative inertia mass cannot exist and said their experiments were wrong?

Not at all ~

I do not know if they have any idea about the existence of negative mass (total energy is negative), but see that they are embracing the concept or phenomenon of negative inertial mass unlike you -

 

Not all scientists think like you.

 

You can think of it as a strange phenomenon about the negative mass. However, the tool to determine whether it is a strange phenomenon to be prohibited should be the law of physics, not your stereotype.

This is because you are not a god of physics.

 

Still the full frontal attack on others rather than listen to what they are saying and attempt to engage with them.

One thing I did not say was that there is or there is not such thing as negative mass.

I did ask you (not Washington State University) a practical question.

And I have received no answer in this thread, as required by the rules here.

 

Perhaps you did not understand it, so here is a simple diagram.

 

A ball of negative mass is pushed with a pushrod that has a cup shaped end as shown.

What happens if the rod is (a) positive mass (b) negative mass ?

 

Please do not offer that claptrap about it accelerating towards the rod.
This is plainly impossible unless the rod penetrates the mass.

 

Some verifiable mathematics would be even better.

[Mordred]

You still refuse to acknowledge the difference between effective mass in a semi conductor and the rest mass of a free electron. Perhaps this simplified lesson on semiconductors will help.

 http://www1.gantep.edu.tr/~bgonul/dersnotlari/sc/CHAPTER_2.pdf

This is NOTHING LIKE THE WAY YOU HANDLE NEGATIVE MASS in your model.

This is a hydrodynamic effective mass of an electron in a BEC medium which is compared to k which is the propogation constant of a plane wave of the superconductor medium being examined.

specifically it is the interactions with the valence bands via equation describing the e-k curve [latex] m^*=\frac{\hbar^2}{d^E/dk^2}[/latex] see thee formula in the link itself.

This is nothing Earth shattering that requires the body of physics to rewrite all our LAWS OF KINEMATICS such as your model proposes.

This is a specific type of mass treatment associated with the properties of a medium. It is not the mass of free particles. IT is NOT the REST MASS of any electron.

This effective mass is identical to the Rubidium experiment. BOTH articles are describing EFFECTIVE MASS which involves medium interactions.....

NOT INVARIANT/REST MASS of a particle.

Instead of posting the POP media coverage of some test. Lets look at its actual article.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.04055.pdf

Here is your negative effective mass article you  keep posting as evidence for your model.

 Did you not see the part describing k as being the Ramen wave vector ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy

notice that polarities are highly involved. as shown on equations 1a and 1b of the article you keep quoting.

ie it is describing vibrational modes in a semiconductor as the electron propagates past other electron configurations. THIS is NOT negative rest mass.

IT is the EFFECTIVE MASS used in solid state physics.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_(solid-state_physics)

Now lets get back to how your model handles mass and not how other models handles it which you apparently never took the time to distinguish the differences.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by Mordred

[icarus2]

On 2018. 6. 10. at 11:56 PM, studiot said:

 

so here is a simple diagram.

 

A ball of negative mass is pushed with a pushrod that has a cup shaped end as shown.

What happens if the rod is (a) positive mass (b) negative mass ?

 

Please do not offer that claptrap about it accelerating towards the rod.
This is plainly impossible unless the rod penetrates the mass.

 

Some verifiable mathematics would be even better.

 

Negative mass cannot make a ball because it does not interact with electromagnetic interaction. It is also difficult to make macroscopic objects because of the repulsive gravity interaction.

 

The collision of macroscopic objects is due to electromagnetic interaction in microscopically. This is well known to many people.

If any particles do not interact with the electromagnetic force, the particles will easily penetrate the rod.

Neutrino and neutron do so. And it is assumed that WIMP, one of the candidates of dark matter, also assumes such an action.

Since negative masses are assumed not to have electromagnetic interactions, the behavior of negative masses is similar to that of WIMP and neutrino.

 

Therefore, ball collision is impossible, and direct collision at the particle level is possible.

 

(a) Positive mass

It is uncertain whether the negative mass will interact strong interaction. However negative masses are more likely to avoid strong interaction, since the mediator of strong interaction has positive energy.

Assuming that negative masses are only gravitational interactions,

Both masses can disappear in collision. The process will take place in the form of energy conservation law, momentum conservation law and other conservation laws.

 

In short, if the absolute value of the negative mass is greater than the positive mass, the negative mass will remain, and if the absolute value of the negative mass is smaller than the positive mass, the positive mass will remain. And the remaining mass has a total momentum.

However, due to various conservation laws, pair annihilation may not occur. In this case, negative mass will be transmitted through positive mass or scattered.

 

For example, consider the charge conservation law.

When a positive mass with charge collides with negative mass, they may undergo pair annihilation, from the perspective of energy. However, if a positive energy (for example proton) disappears, where should charge go? In that case, the conservation law of electrical charge may be invalid. If the conservation law of electrical charge should be held, such a pair-annihilation may be prohibited.

In other words, the pair-annihilation is unlikely to occur even when negative mass meets positive mass.

 

(b) Negative mass

Although it is uncertain whether a rod of negative mass can be made,

The above problem is the problem of the direct collision of negative mass and negative mass.

 

In this case, the pair-annihilation process does not exist, and there is a repulsive effect between negative masses.

 

On 2018. 6. 9. at 7:38 PM, studiot said:

@icarus2

May I remind you that the rules of this forum require this?

 

On 2018. 6. 10. at 11:56 PM, studiot said:

 

And I have received no answer in this thread, as required by the rules here.

 

 

I do not speak English well. So, my understanding of your writing may be lacking, and my opinion may not be adequately expressed. I'm sorry.

But if you have the intention of asking pure questions, do not threaten ~

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by icarus2

[studiot]

18 minutes ago, icarus2 said:

Negative mass cannot make a ball because it does not interact with electromagnetic interaction. It is also difficult to make macroscopic objects because of the repulsive gravity interaction.

Is this is a new proposition, if not can you point me to where you enunciated it before please?

18 minutes ago, icarus2 said:

nd do not threaten ~

 

How can quoting the rules be threatening to any rule abiding member?

[Mordred]

Are you not aware antimatter has no negative mass, electric charge doesn't depend on negative or positive mass. So why should negative mass affect electromagnetic charge ?

 I keep asking you the same question.

How can you have negative mass and have a positive energy density value. When are you going to address this question I have asked several times now? How can this question be a lanquage barrier when  your familiar with those two physics terminology ie they are in your article....

[swansont]

13 hours ago, icarus2 said:

 

Negative mass cannot make a ball because it does not interact with electromagnetic interaction. It is also difficult to make macroscopic objects because of the repulsive gravity interaction.

 ...

 For example, consider the charge conservation law.

When a positive mass with charge collides with negative mass, they may undergo pair annihilation, from the perspective of energy. However, if a positive energy (for example proton) disappears, where should charge go? In that case, the conservation law of electrical charge may be invalid. If the conservation law of electrical charge should be held, such a pair-annihilation may be prohibited.

In other words, the pair-annihilation is unlikely to occur even when negative mass meets positive mass.  

Pair annihilation would not occur because the two are not antiparticles of each other. As far as we know, particle-antiparticle pairs have regular mass. A proton's charge is balanced by the antiproton's charge when they annihilate; the net charge is zero, both before and after the interaction. The charge doesn't have to "go" anywhere. A proton does not annihilate with any other negatively charged particle.

Charge would be moot, though, because you have already claimed that negative mass particles do not interact electromagnetically. They cannot have a charge.

[icarus2]

On 2018. 6. 6. at 4:08 AM, Mordred said:

 

Here is a little detail under cosmology baryonic matter and dark matter has identical equations of state. This is implicit in the following formula, there is no separate treatment for the two types of matter as there is no need to do so.

H2=8πG3ρmatterdensity−kc2R2curvature+Λ3Lambda

 

On 2018. 6. 6. at 7:43 AM, Mordred said:

Here is a question you can answer Hyoyoung Choi.

If DM and DE were identical in terms of negative mass then why does each evolve differently as the universe expands ? In other words explain this

H2=H20(Ωma3+Ωra4+Ωka2+ΩΛ)

Would it surprise you to know that a positive matter only universe can still expand ?

In short, the current mainstream model is a model based on one kind of gravitational source(positive  mass or energy; mainstream physics describes matter, radiation, dark matter as objects with a positive energy density). By the way, if there are two kinds of gravitational sources, we have to establish new equations.

In addition, some of the existing core reasoning may not be established.

 

I think and insist on the following.

1) The source of dark matter and dark energy is the negative mass.

2) In the galaxy scale, the dark matter effect (an additional centripetal force effect) is the centripetal force effect produced by the negative mass existing outside the galaxy.

3) The accelerating expansion of the universe is an antigravity effect by negative mass.

4) In the cosmology, dark matter and dark energy correspond to U-- and U-+ terms, respectively. The negative and positive masses have different kinetic characteristics, so the U- - and U-+ values change differently.

5) The expansion of the universe must reflect the change in total gravitational potential energy.

 

1. Implications from the Friedmann equations

Friedman equation can be induced from 00 component of field equation. But we can also induce this from conservation of energy in classical mechanics, which helps capture the situation definitely.

The dark energy term can be explained by adding a form of potential energy term to the mechanical energy conservation equation.

These are the contents of this book.( Bradley W. Carroll, Dale A. Ostlie. Introduction to Modern Astrophysics.)

We do not know what the sources of dark matter and dark energy are. However, we know that "assuming or introducing something can explain their terms."

 

The above derivation suggests that, in addition to the potential energy of a material, one attraction term and one repulsion term can explain dark matter and dark energy. Therefore, we should study the properties of gravitational potential energy in the presence of negative mass and positive mass.

 

2. When negative mass and positive mass co-exist, gravitational potential energy

There are other problems here than in the case of positive mass.

For example, analysis by total mass, which was established in existing positive mass models, is not appropriate or requires extreme caution. When M and -M are uniformly distributed in an arbitrary radius R, the gravity acting on the outside of the system by a total mass in this radius is described as zero. It is possible to arrange the particles so as to have the same size as the center of gravity in terms of the total mass without overlapping the positions of the particles. So there is no change in this analysis.

However, when negative mass and positive mass exist together, the situation is changed because of the existence of U-+ term of gravitational potential energy. There is a kind of internal energy, positive gravitational potential energy. Expansion occur even if the total energy is zero.

Also, the movements of the positive mass and negative mass, the negative and negative mass, and the negative mass and positive mass are different. There are also other heterogeneous situations that are different from when only positive mass exists.

 

I think that to get accurate results in cosmology, we should consider the total gravitational potential energy rather than a single potential energy such as GMm / r.

Since the distribution of negative mass and positive mass varies and the location of all galaxies changes, the expansion of the universe should reflect the change in total gravitational potential energy.

Gravitational potential energy in the presence of negative mass and positive mass

Now consider U- - term. In cosmology, let us suppose that we do not know what the source of this term is. And we are thinking of objects with a positive mass as a component of the universe.

How do we interpret this term when we observe a negative gravitational potential energy term such as the term U- - , without knowing the source of the gravitational potential energy term? Removing the symbol removes this form –Gmm/r.

Is this interpreted as -8πGρ/3 ? Or interpret it like +8πGρ/3?

 

In other words, in cosmology based on existing positive mass, the negative gravitational potential energy term U- - seems likely to appear in the Friedmann equation in the form of -8πGρ/3 shape.

There are more complicated things, but anyway, back to the logic of this model, I assert that

The present cosmological constant can be obtained by adding potential U_Λ = - (1/6)Λ m(cr)^2 to mechanical energy conservation equation. If we insert "new potential energy term" into mechanical energy conservation equation, we will get a dark matter term and dark energy term. At this time, let's insert the above new gravitational potential energy(When there is a negative mass and a positive mass, the gravitational potential energy term U_T=U++ + U-- + U-+) term into it.

 

If U++, U- -, U-+ has a ratio(4.9% : 26.8% : 68.3%) between each other, maybe, we will estimate that ratio of energy density such as 4.9% : 26.8% : 68.3% exist.

 

This model can prove the energy composition(Matter : Dark matter : Dark energy) ratio of the universe and CCC (Cosmological Constant Coincident) Problem.

Average of WMAP and Planck - Matter : Dark Matter : Dark Energy = 4.75% : 25.05% : 70.20%

Average of Negative Mass Model - Matter : Dark Matter : Dark Energy = 4.75% : 25.00% : 70.25%

*This ratio is based on the assumption that the ΛCDM model(only positive mass(energy) model) is correct. If the model based on only positive mass is wrong, there is a possibility that this ratio will change. At present, others are interested in this value, so I have proved this value with a Negative Mass Universe Model (or Pair Creation Universe Model).

 

For further proof, please refer to the following article.

Is the State of Low Energy Stable? Negative Energy, Dark Energy and Dark Matter

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263468413

P17~25

Edited June 22, 2018 by icarus2

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, icarus2 said:

 

In short, the current mainstream model is a model based on one kind of gravitational source(positive  mass or energy; mainstream physics describes matter, radiation, dark matter as objects with a positive energy density). By the way, if there are two kinds of gravitational sources, we have to establish new equations.

 

That really is a cop out response to my question. So lets clarify show in mathematical detail how your model can keep the cosmological constant with an expanding volume.

I already read your article I don't need you to repeat the details contained within it. What I would like to see is you perform empirical tests that you can predict the expansion rates as a function of redshift comparing the scale factor today to the scale factor then.

Then predict the galaxy rotation curves on a graph generated by your model. Not a collection of other works that you think support your model when they have nothing to do with your model.

There is a lot of maybe's and ifs in your last post.

Her is the problem you fail to recognize BOTH dark matter and dark energy have completely different dynamics, influences and equations of state. Yet you falsely claim to solve both by simply conjecturing a negative mass but have still not addressed an extremely important question.

I repeat.....

How can you have a positive energy density and have a negative mass ? This is in itself an impossibility.

Now keep in mind I haven't even begun to start challenging your model. I am still waiting for a proper answer to the last question....

Edited June 22, 2018 by Mordred

[icarus2]

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

I repeat.....

How can you have a positive energy density and have a negative mass ? This is in itself an impossibility.

I do not understand your question. 

 

On 2018. 6. 10. at 12:59 AM, Mordred said:

 

How do you get negative mass from something with a positive energy density such as the cosmological constant.

 

1.Do you want me to explain the above question?

 

2. Do other people use your ID(Mordred)?

 

Edited June 23, 2018 by icarus2

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, icarus2 said:

I do not understand your question. 

 

1.Do you want me to explain the above question?

The average energy density for the Cosmological constant which is constant despite the volume, is [latex]7.0 *10^{-10}[/latex]  joules per cubic meter. This is a positive energy density, (all energy density values are positive....) explain how this gives negative mass ? Its a fairly simple question. Though would be incredibly difficult to answer. ( you would need to rewrite the energy momentum tensor for example). Provide a proper mathematical answer to how negative mass can arise from a positive energy density.

NO I am not talking negative effective mass. that is easy using lattice gauge. We are talking about an invariant/rest mass.

I wouldn't be surprised if other use my call sign. Though I haven't encountered any others doing so on science based forums. I often encounter others in various video games. Mordred is the evil son of King Arthur so its probably a common used call sign by those familiar with the King Arthur legends.

So as you insist the above equations for the constant or proportionality [latex]\kappa=-\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}[/latex] then show how you can take a positive energy density and get a negative mass term. You simply cannot add minus signs arbitrarily where you choose when you involve tensors. Such as those of the Einstein field equations.

How do you get the energy momentum stress tensor involved in deriving the constant of proportionality to give a negative mass value from a positive energy density.

start with [latex] G^{\alpha\gamma}=\kappa T^{\alpha\gamma}[/latex]

The only you can get the below is to suddenly have a negative gravitational constant which is now adding yet another speculation argument to make your model work.

Edited June 23, 2018 by Mordred

[Mordred]

What in the world are you doing with these unit vectors I,j ? Lord only knows what your doing in that box considering you didn't even start with the correct force law.

How in the world is the above expression suppose to define total potential energy it makes absolutely no sense. You really need to study how potential energy and kinetic energy is defined

http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/modules/chapter14.pdf

You can't tell me the above works even ignoring the negative mass terms.

[latex] a\times b=(a_yb_z-a_zb_y)i+(a_zb_x-a_xb_z)j+(a_xb_y-a_yb_x)k[/latex]  the notation of the determinant is, this is a cross product

[latex]\begin{bmatrix}i&j&k\\a_x&a_y&a_z\\b_z&b_y&b_z\end{bmatrix}[/latex]

lets say you have a vector representing 10 Newtons of force at 30 degrees.

[latex] F_y=(10N)sin(30)=5N[/latex], [latex]F_x=(10N)cos(30)=8.7 N[/latex]

then [latex]\vec{F}=(8.7N)\hat{I}+(5N)\hat{j}[/latex]

see the rules for dot and cross products

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_product

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product

this equation is just plain wrong no matter how you look at it. You obviously don't know how mass is derived if you have this expression.

[latex]E_t=\underbrace{(+E)-(-E)}_{pair creation}=\underbrace{\sum +m_{+c^2}}_{positive mass}+\underbrace{\sum-m_{-c^2}}_{negative mass}+\underbrace{\sum K_{+m}+\sum K_{-m}}_{kinetic}+\underbrace{\sum U=0}_{potential}[/latex] How  does this possibly describe the conservation of energy when you have the terms that describe mass being added to the existing mass ? Your adding the potential and kinetic energy twice for total mass even ignoring the negative mass terms.

The more I read your article the more errors I find...

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2018 by Mordred

[studiot]

icarus,

Since you have been unable to provide an answer to my question about the interaction of negative mass with forces, perhaps you can offer soemthing on the question os mass density.

(I note Mordred has already mentioned energy density, which is, of course different)

Mass density play an important role in cosmological evolution equations, including Friedmann's solutions so can you offer an expression to calculate the mass density of universe, including the proposed negative mass?

What is the result/effect when existing measurements are put in for the constants involved?

Mordred has also offered you a large number of references an no doubt you have many of your own.

I would therefore council you to beware of sign conventions which can produce unexpected negative signs, for example this warning by DF Lawden.

Edited June 23, 2018 by studiot