# Do somebody study negative energy particle ?

## Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Sorry, I understand but then :  a none particle would probably emit "none-photons" (not ANTI photon which I KNOW are the same as photon) with negative energy (leaving positive kinetic energy)

I wonder, is there a symmetry that "reverse" energy ?

A 'none-photon' would have mass 0, and thus its energy would be proportional to its frequency, like ordinary photons. For this energy to be negative, the frequency has to be negative. What is negative frequency?

##### Share on other sites

On 5/16/2022 at 11:40 AM, Edgard Neuman said:

Hi,

I'm curious about a type of particle that WOULD NOT be anti particles, but real negative energy particles : They would be define as :

P + None(P) = nothing

( instead of P + None(P) = (energy / mass of both) )

all the charges would be opposite, and also mass... is it possible ? I suspect it contradict some equations..

I am going to start by giving you +1 for understanding that an anti particle does not have negative energy, it has the same kind of energy as a particle.

Unfortunately after that good start, your understanding has failed you.

exchemist (+1) has explained that is energy not a particle, but a properties of particles.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Steady on. Particles are not "made of" energy. Both mass and energy are properties of physical systems. Particles have energy and mass, but they are not made of them, any more than they are made of spin, momentum or electric charge.

You can say mass is energy at rest, if you like, but you have always to be aware that these are just properties of some system. Particles do not annihilate into energy. They annihilate into radiation - which has energy, along with other properties (frequency, amplitude, angular momentum....).

But here's the thing.

The energy of a single isolated particle is meaningless.

Energy is a property of a system of particles (and perhaps other things as well).

Here's another thing.

The terms positive and negative have more than one meaning.

They are often used to indicate direction.

Chemists have no problem with negative energy, when used in this manner.

So if a system evolves (gives off) energy (to another system), that energy is classed as negative.

And if energy receives energy from another system, that energy is classed as positive.

But there is no such thing as a 'particle of energy', negative or positive.

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, swansont said:

Physics works, and it’s all intertwined. For me to explain why it works one way and not another would require you to meet me partway and have an understanding of physics; I don’t know what that level is, but I’m not prepared to teach you several semesters’ worth of it. Absent that, you just have to defer to folks who give you the big picture: Energy isn’t a substance. That’s been tried and it failed (e.g. caloric theory)

“I have no understanding and I reject your science with no basis” isn’t an argument, either.

BTW, convertibles and roofless cars exist. We could discuss how roofs keep rain out, because I presume you have an understanding of rain.

"BTW, convertibles and roofless cars exist."

You don't seem to get my metaphor. Convertibles exist, therefor, in that metaphor, your model (your "car with roof") isn't the law because it works.
You're telling me I don't undertand things, by not giving me the detail of the argument, I supposedly don't understand ? You didn't give me any science by saying "that's how the model is build". If anything, if it's a choice of the model, it ain't a proven fact.
Why does the model require energy to be "a property" and what does that even mean is my question. I don't understand that rule. That's why, because you pretend to do, you can answer me. Right ?
Science I believe, but you're not science until you have arguments. Science is proven by experiments, not model.
I don't have to "trust" you.

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

I am going to start by giving you +1 for understanding that an anti particle does not have negative energy, it has the same kind of energy as a particle.

Unfortunately after that good start, your understanding has failed you.

exchemist (+1) has explained that is energy not a particle, but a properties of particles.

But here's the thing.

The energy of a single isolated particle is meaningless.

Energy is a property of a system of particles (and perhaps other things as well).

Here's another thing.

The terms positive and negative have more than one meaning.

They are often used to indicate direction.

Chemists have no problem with negative energy, when used in this manner.

So if a system evolves (gives off) energy (to another system), that energy is classed as negative.

And if energy receives energy from another system, that energy is classed as positive.

But there is no such thing as a 'particle of energy', negative or positive.

"The energy of a single isolated particle is meaningless"

OK,  WHY DO YOU EVEN BELIEVE THAT ?
A single particle doesn't exist, does not a rest mass ?
Maybe you don't understand me, because you don't understand that mass IS energy.
A rest mass isn't convertible into energy ?
Is that "science" of yours written somewhere  ?
Give me the article of Wikipedia, or the link, that demonstrate that a single particle with its rest mass (that is SIMPLY CONVERTIBLE INTO ENERGY.. "massless" particles, using it's antiparticle) isn't measurable..

Let's take a time to think about it. How many photons does a particle and a antiparticle annihilation. One ? Two ? Three ? Do you believe there is a "photon" charge that is conserved and we don't know about ?  Saying that energy has to be in forms of Particles.. OK. but saying more than that, imply particle are more than there charge and that something more exists IMPLY a conservation law.. and so some type of charges.. so no, I'm definitely NOT buying your apparent "property" thing.

I read books, scientific revues on a daily basis, and nowhere I have ever somebody write that energy (Not kinetic energy of course.  I speak about MASS/ENERGY) is relative. Matter EXISTS.  In opposite you can read ANYWHERE that matter is a form of energy. Have you heard of particle accelerator ? Are the particle emitted not real ? What are they made of ? What did we use to make them ?
So I'm really curious to understand why you are all convinced of that.

The fact that I apparently have to explain MASS/ENERGY equivalence is really weird.

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

But this is a state of modesty saying "we don't know if there is something else", not saying "we know there is something else".
Energy is conserved, so the fact that energy must take a form (of particles), doesn't imply that everything isn't made of energy.
It's like saying "A rock always have a shape so there's something else than just rock"..
Let's agree by saying that "information" imply energy must have some shape (that you call system) withing constrained form that are particles.
But then that's why I ask the question : can there be "true" negative system, that would completely cancel positive ones

No that's wrong. You have fallen into the "Star Trek trap". Energy is a property, an attribute not an entity. You are making a category mistake. This will lead you into nonsense if you are not careful. I fear it is already doing so.

It is nonsense to talk of energy having a shape. A physical system that has energy may also have a shape. That is different. A physical system may consist of  particles and/or fields. Those are the entities that physically exist. They can have energy as one of their properties.

But if you start talking about energy on its own, as if it has some kind of independent existence, you are not doing science any more but talking nonsense.  It's like talking about the shape of the colour blue.

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No that's wrong. You have fallen into the "Star Trek trap". Energy is a property, an attribute not an entity. You are making a category mistake. This will lead you into nonsense if you are not careful. I fear it is already doing so.

It is nonsense to talk of energy having a shape. A physical system that has energy may also have a shape. That is different. A physical system may consist of  particles and/or fields. Those are the entities that physically exist. They can have energy as one of their properties.

But if you start talking about energy on its own, as if it has some kind of independent existence, you are not doing science any more but talking nonsense.  It's like talking about the shape of the colour blue.

"This will lead you into nonsense if you are not careful. I fear it is already doing so.  "

OK. HOW ? WHY ? I'm sorry I need arguments. I'm not buying your "vision of things"..
" a category mistake" ? What does that even mean ? There is a "category law" in the universe?

". A physical system that has energy may also have a shape."
Uh thank you. I wasn't talking about the "shape" of a solid object, I was talking about differents forms mass/energy can take.

I am really really astonished. You know about how quantum physics works. RIGHT ?
You throw 2 protons against each other. AND BY CHANGING THE ENERGY YOU PUT INTO, YOU GET MORE AND MORE PARTICLE OF VARIOUS NATURE.
Supposing that "something more" is needed to make a particle than energy, would physically  imply particle accelerators don't work..

You had "energy" and now you have "various particles". How does that even work according to you ? In that scenario, how can you not agree that mass is energy and that there is no additional charge that are conserved that the one that are opposite to each other.

"Everything is made of energy" is a Einstein quote. You understand it when you understand the meaning of e=mc². I assumed every physist know that mass is a form of energy. There's tons of video explaining to everybody that a majority of the mass of a proton is the potential energy of strong force. Don't you know about that ?

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

"This will lead you into nonsense if you are not careful. I fear it is already doing so.  "

OK. HOW ? WHY ? I'm sorry I need arguments. I'm not buying your "vision of things"..
" a category mistake" ? What does that even mean ? There is a "category law" in the universe?

Terms in physics have quite precise meanings. Energy is one such term. If you decide you want to ignore the meaning of that term, you will not be able to talk to anybody about your ideas, because nobody will be able to understand what you mean.

If you think energy is "stuff" you are making a category mistake, confusing a property of entities with an entity. It's like thinking you can have a jug of blue, or a bottle of angular momentum. Both are nonsensical.

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

"The energy of a single isolated particle is meaningless"

OK,  WHY DO YOU EVEN BELIEVE THAT ?
A single particle doesn't exist, does not a rest mass ?

Is there any need to shout ?

I note that you have degraded my 'isolated single particle' to any old single particle.

Single particles undoubtedly do exist, lots of them, as far as anything can be said to exist.

That is how they can form systems of single particles.

Some have them have zero rest mass.

What is the kinetic energy of an isolated single particle ?

What is its potential energy ?

When there is nothing whatsoever around that particle in any direction all the way to infinity.

Both questions are meaningless.

By the way I did not say that an isolated particle does not exist, I said its energy is meaningless.

I accept that English is not your first language, so try to make sure you actually understand what is said to you beofre you start shouting the odds.

Edited by studiot
##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, studiot said:

Is there any need to shout ?

I note that you have degraded my 'isolated single particle' to any old single particle.

Single particles undoubtedly do exist, lots of them, as far as anything can be said to exist.

Some have them have zero rest mass.

What is the kinetic energy of an isolated single particle ?

What is its potential energy ?

When there is nothing whatsoever around that particle in any direction all the way to infinity.

Both questions are meaningless.

By the way I did not say that an isolated particle does not exist, I said its energy is meaningless.

I accept that English is not your first language, so try to make sure you actually understand what is said to you beofre you start shouting the odds.

Ok as I suspect, you are not understanding me.
ALL OF YOU.

READ THIS MASS IS ENERGY. I'm talking about negative rest energy that is negative mass.
You talking to me about RELATIVE FORM OF ENERGY is meaningless.
You may not "understand" that, but that's a very known fact. Energy you get from the sun, that make you leave.. comes from mass of hydrogen..

21 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Terms in physics have quite precise meanings. Energy is one such term. If you decide you want to ignore the meaning of that term, you will not be able to talk to anybody about your ideas, because nobody will be able to understand what you mean.

If you think energy is "stuff" you are making a category mistake, confusing a property of entities with an entity. It's like thinking you can have a jug of blue, or a bottle of angular momentum. Both are nonsensical.

Evoking a "category mistake", that is about logic, that is the representation of things and not the things itself..  is .. a category mistake.
I'm not even trying to be funny. You're talking to me about the name you give things and how you categorize them. That's not physics, that's philosophy.
Energy is the name you give to a quantity that can change form in many process. Mass is a property of object that is observable by how they bend space time. It appear that rest particle have rest mass. NOW. You can convert mass into energy and energy into mass. EVEN THE REST MASS. So the law of conservation is the law of conservation of "MASS/ENERGY". If you could split a atom, you have part of the mass of the atom (that was really strong force energy) converted into OTHER FORMS of energy.
I don't make a category mistake : your categories are wrong.

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

No, it isn't.

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

No, it isn't.

Yeah it is. So really you all don't understand mass / energy equivalence ?
http://ifsa.my/articles/mass-energy-one-and-the-same

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

READ THIS MASS IS ENERGY. I'm talking about negative rest energy that is negative mass.

If that is the case are talking about inertial mass or gravitational mass ?

##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

By implying that "category mistake", that is about logic, that is the representation of things and not the things itself.. is a category mistake. I'm not even trying to be funny. Your talking to me about the name you give things and how you categorize them. That's not physics, that's philosophy.

If you can't respect the meaning of established terms, you are not going to get very far. Here is a definition of energy: https://physics.info/energy/

A property of a system.

It is thus meaningless to speak of the property as if it were able to exist on its own. That would be like trying to talk about a bottle of momentum, or a jug of the colour blue.

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, studiot said:

If that is the case are talking about inertial mass or gravitational mass ?

That's a trap. You answering my original question doesn't require me to dive into this question. (I know there are studies and as far as we know it's the same.). I have no reason to doubt that the thing that provoke both effects and measurements (the gravitationnal field and the resistance to forces)  is one unique thing.

8 minutes ago, exchemist said:

If you can't respect the meaning of established terms, you are not going to get very far. Here is a definition of energy: https://physics.info/energy/

A property of a system.

It is thus meaningless to speak of the property as if it were able to exist on its own. That would be like trying to talk about a bottle of momentum, or a jug of the colour blue.

I know what energy is. I know what mass is. I'm explaining to you that it's the same stuff that make both. Have you heard of nuclear reactions and particle accelerators ? Do you even understand relativity ? That a particle gain apparent mass when accelerating ?

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Yeah it is. So really you all don't understand mass / energy equivalence ?
http://ifsa.my/articles/mass-energy-one-and-the-same

What that link states is garbage.

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What that link states is garbage.

You know that it's originally Einstein's idea ? That's "mass energy equivalence" .

There was, once a "law of conservation of mass". And then a "law of conservation of energy". AND THEN, in 1905, Einstein discovered the TRUE LAW :
the conservation of mass/energy.
Maybe you don't read enough of what I write. You suppose there is "something" else than energy, that go into particles. OK.

I take 2 protons. I accelerate them. They have rest mass of two protons and a lot of kinetic energy, but in opposite direction. They interact. A thousand of various particle are created. What are the new particles made of ? Is there something else we had to add to the system to make those particles ? You may talk to me about "particle / anti particles" pair from the void. The particle / antiparticle annihilation is giving energy. So the opposite reaction need energy. (Virtual pair may exist a short time but can't last (I don't believe it, but it's how your physic model works).. )
Particles physics doesn't work if you don't accept mass/energy equivalence. Sorry for your "caterogy".

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

If that is the case are talking about inertial mass or gravitational mass ?

Does one of them creates problem ? I read about the problem of negative inertia. There's good articles about the trouble with negative mass, and I know there's various analysis with different results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

You know that it's originally Einstein's idea ?

Einstein said nothing of the kind.  Let's go through it. I quote the text of the link below:

When Albert Einstein posits that energy and matter are one and the same, and one can be converted into the other, most people could not wrap their heads around the idea. They can imagine burning a piece of wood (matter) to get heat and light (energy), but the workings of chemical reactions (in this case oxidization) is well-established. But the idea that the stuff of matter itself (neutrons, electrons, protons) is made of this ethereal, barely-understood thing called energy, flies in the face of conventional wisdom and reasoning.

We've come a long way since then...

- Einstein never posited that energy and matter are one and the same. What E=mc² says is that mass is associated with energy and vice versa. Not matter, mass. Note that mass is another property of matter, just as energy is. Confusing mass with matter is a similar category mistake to the one you have been making.

- And he did not say that they are the same, as quite clearly they are not, having completely different units. There is an "equivalence" between the two: when you multiply mass by the square of the speed of light, you find the associated energy.

- It is rubbish to say one is "converted into" the other and Einstein never suggested that. Both are present together. When you charge a battery its mass increases, although not enough to measure. That is what E=mc² means: the chemical potential energy added to the battery when you charge it increases its mass. Just as the mass of an atomic nucleus depends on the potential energy of its constituent sub-particles, as revealed in the "mass defect" when you split a heavy nucleus into two parts in fission.

- The fundamental particles of matter are not "made of energy". They have energy.

Whoever wrote that passage on the website is incompetent. Why did you use it, when there are competently written sources all over the internet?

Edited by exchemist
##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Einstein said nothing of the kind.  Let's go through it. I quote the text of the link below:

When Albert Einstein posits that energy and matter are one and the same, and one can be converted into the other, most people could not wrap their heads around the idea. They can imagine burning a piece of wood (matter) to get heat and light (energy), but the workings of chemical reactions (in this case oxidization) is well-established. But the idea that the stuff of matter itself (neutrons, electrons, protons) is made of this ethereal, barely-understood thing called energy, flies in the face of conventional wisdom and reasoning.

We've come a long way since then...

- Einstein never posited that energy and matter are one and the same. What E=mc² says is that mass is associated with energy and vice versa. Not matter, mass. And not that they are the same, as quite clearly they are not, having completely different units. There is an "equivalence" between the two: when you multiply mass by the square of the speed of light, you find the associated energy.

- It is rubbish to say one is "converted into" the other and Einstein never suggested that. Both are present together. When you charge a battery its mass increases, although not enough to measure. That is what E=mc² means: the chemical potential energy added to the battery when you charge it increases its mass. Just as the mass of an atomic nucleus depends on the potential energy of its constituent sub-particles, as revealed in the "mass defect" when you split a heavy nucleus into two parts in fission.

- The fundamental particles of matter are not "made of energy". They have energy.

Whoever wrote that passage on the website is incompetent. Why did you use it, when there are competently written sources all over the internet?

So I repeat once again, because you don't seem to think. I've written this 3 times now. SO PLEASE, READ AND THINK.

Your model  : particle = "matter" with properties " mass"  and "energy".

I understand that. Thank you. That's how you see things. And you have a lot of people that write books that think the same. OK.
So you think there is something called "matter" that exists. and IT CAN have mass and energy.
NOW.

I have 2 proton. SO that's "2 proton matter" what ever that means (and "rest mass" property ).
I accelerate them. SO That "2 proton matter" that have "a lot kinetic energy" as properties,
(like their position, speed, that are also properties. I know what a property is thank you, I have 25 years of software development)

THEY MEET.
Now you have 1000 particles. That's " 1000 particle matter" and "some mass and energy" (that is according to the conservation of mass energy).
IF "particle matter" is something that "EXISTS", where does the "1000 particle matter" comes from ?
Was it in the two proton ?
Does "2 proton matter"/ 1000  = 1000 heavy particles ?
I'm sorry, you're saying that "something" exists by itself, but that thing doesn't obey a conservation law. So maybe you're just wrong.

(By the way, if you knew logic, you would now that if something is "constant" it's usually indicate that it's not a "true" property, but the result of a law. Like PI isn't a property of circle of radius 1...  that's too meta.. in that case, we can agree that a property is an aspect of the way something exists and interacts with the rest of the universe)

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

So I repeat once again, because you don't seem to think. I've written this 3 times now. SO PLEASE, READ AND THINK.

Your model  : particle = "matter" with properties " mass"  and "energy".

I understand that. Thank you. That's how you see things. And you have a lot of people that write books that think the same. OK.
So you think there is something called "matter" that exists. and IT CAN have mass and energy.
NOW.

I have 2 proton. SO that's "2 proton matter" what ever that means (and "rest mass" property ).
I accelerate them. SO That "2 proton matter" that have "a lot kinetic energy" as properties,
(like their position, speed, that are also properties. I know what a property is thank you, I have 25 years of software development)

THEY MEET.
Now you have 1000 particles. That's " 1000 particle matter" and "some mass and energy" (that is according to the conservation of mass energy).
IF "particle matter" is something that "EXISTS", where does the "1000 particle matter" comes from ?
Was it in the two proton ?
Does "2 proton matter"/ 1000  = 1000 heavy particles ?
I'm sorry, you're saying that "something" exists by itself, but that thing doesn't obey a conservation law. So maybe you're just wrong.

(By the way, if you knew logic, you would now that if something is "constant" it's usually indicate that it's not a "true" property, but the result of a law. Like PI isn't a property of circle of radius 1...  that's too meta.. in that case, we can agree that a property is an aspect of the way something exists and interacts with the rest of the universe)

In a high energy collision, the original particles may be annihilated and both some new ones and some radiation may be created by the interaction. Energy, electric charge, linear momentum and angular momentum will be conserved.  Objects, i.e. bits of matter, don't obey conservation laws, fairly obviously*. Some of their properties do.

But you have not answered my question. Why did you choose to quote that obscure and incompetently written link as a source, when there are so many competently written ones available on the internet?

* If I crash my car into another one, I may end up with 2 crumpled cars, 2 hub caps, a headlight, a wing mirror and some fragments of windscreen. So the number of objects is not conserved, but some properties (energy, momentum) will be.

Edited by exchemist
##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Yeah it is. So really you all don't understand mass / energy equivalence ?

I do understand.  Mass is not energy.  Mass can directly be converter to photons, but photons are not energy.  It is along the lines of graphite and diamond, graphite can be converted into diamonds but graphite is not diamond

##### Share on other sites

Matter is definitely not energy.
In the example given by Edgard Neuman, the proton he considers, is a volume occupied by three quarks, fundamental fermions, which make up approximately 2 % of its mass. The other 98 % of its mass is binding energy.
So yes, one can certainly make the argument that mass is energy.

While not true for rest mass, which is mass in the specific frame where it is at rest, one could consider mass and kinetic energy the 'same' property measured in differing frames.

##### Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

"BTW, convertibles and roofless cars exist."

You don't seem to get my metaphor. Convertibles exist, therefor, in that metaphor, your model (your "car with roof") isn't the law because it works.

Physics describes how nature behaves, and since the theories match the observations and also allow us to make successful predictions, we can say the theory works. Using a metaphor where you aren’t matching observations is a bad metaphor.

17 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

You're telling me I don't undertand things, by not giving me the detail of the argument, I supposedly don't understand ? You didn't give me any science by saying "that's how the model is build". If anything, if it's a choice of the model, it ain't a proven fact.

Actually, you’re telling me you don’t understand. If you did, you wouldn’t need to ask some of these underlying questions.

17 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Why does the model require energy to be "a property" and what does that even mean is my question. I don't understand that rule. That's why, because you pretend to do, you can answer me. Right ?

Treating it as a substance didn’t work.

17 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Science I believe, but you're not science until you have arguments. Science is proven by experiments, not model.
I don't have to "trust" you.

"The energy of a single isolated particle is meaningless"

OK,  WHY DO YOU EVEN BELIEVE THAT ?
A single particle doesn't exist, does not a rest mass ?

There is kinetic energy, which depends on speed, which is relative to something else. You can’t assign a kinetic energy without that information

17 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Let's take a time to think about it. How many photons does a particle and a antiparticle annihilation. One ? Two ? Three ? Do you believe there is a "photon" charge that is conserved and we don't know about ?  Saying that energy has to be in forms of Particles.. OK. but saying more than that, imply particle are more than there charge and that something more exists IMPLY a conservation law.. and so some type of charges.. so no, I'm definitely NOT buying your apparent "property" thing.

Perhaps there is, but we have no evidence of it. The “charge” would also be a property of the photon (along with its energy, linear momentum and angular momentum)

You may not buy the property thing, but what’s the evidence that it’s a substance?

17 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I read books, scientific revues on a daily basis, and nowhere I have ever somebody write that energy (Not kinetic energy of course.  I speak about MASS/ENERGY) is relative. Matter EXISTS.  In opposite you can read ANYWHERE that matter is a form of energy.

Mass and matter are distinct concepts. Matter has mass. Mass is a form of energy.

16 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

IF "particle matter" is something that "EXISTS", where does the "1000 particle matter" comes from ?

“exist” and “conserved” are distinct concepts. Lepton number is a conserved quantity. Boson number is not. You can create particle-antiparticle pairs if you have sufficient energy

##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry but I have no more time for this.
Does anybody have a valid reason to believe negative rest energy/mass (if you think it's not the same thing, that's not my problem) particle can't exist ?

18 hours ago, exchemist said:

* If I crash my car into another one, I may end up with 2 crumpled cars, 2 hub caps, a headlight, a wing mirror and some fragments of windscreen. So the number of objects is not conserved, but some properties (energy, momentum) will be.

So "being an object" isn't a real thing, just like "being a particle". The metal of you cars "change its shapes", just like the energy of your particle "change its shapes".
And the quantity of object that depend of kinetic energy of the cars, isn't frame dependent. Think about that.
(I would have no problem explaining to you how it is possible, it's one of the thought experiment you have to understand to really understand the beauty of special relativity.. you would need to think about "inner" kinetic energy (frame independant; that can be generalized as thermal energy as long as you accept it can be macroscopical as in your cars) and "outer" kinetic energy (frame dependant, that is indeed the kinetic energy of the center of mass)... and then when you understand the "hierarchy" of systems, you would naturally conclude that obviously "inert mass" IS most certainly the inner kinetic energy of particles 🤷‍♂️)

Edited by Edgard Neuman
##### Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/19/2022 at 11:59 PM, Edgard Neuman said:

Sorry but I have no more time for this.
Does anybody have a valid reason to believe negative rest energy/mass (if you think it's not the same thing, that's not my problem) particle can't exist ?

I am a person working on negative mass. I'm not a pro, but I think my research will contain some useful information for you.
The negative mass I studied is a particle with both inertial and gravitational masses having negative values.

In 2009 and 2012, I wrote papers explaining dark matter and dark energy through negative mass.

Hypothesis of dark matter and dark energy with negative mass
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228610043

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

After that, I did some more research,
Introduce at least 2 papers and 1 video that you should read,

1)On Problems and Solutions of General Relativity
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286935998
2) Dark Matter is Negative Mass
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324525352
3)Is the State of Low Energy Stable? Negative Mass and Negative Energy

The above papers contain contents related to the errors of mainstream academics related to negative mass.

False claims or misconceptions about negative mass
1) The vacuum instability problem is wrong.
2) The runaway motion problem is wrong.
3) Perpetual motion problem(Wheel problem with negative and positive mass) is wrong.

So, if you are interested in negative mass, I think the above 2 papers and 1 video will be helpful.

Edited by icarus2
##### Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, icarus2 said:

I am a person working on negative mass. I'm not a pro, but I think my research will contain some useful information for you.
The negative mass I studied is a particle with both inertial and gravitational masses having negative values.

Are these peer-reviewed papers? Where were they published?

## Create an account

Register a new account