Do someone knows how to create negative energy?? because based on my experimentation... i need a negative energy in order to trap a positive energy to annihilate with the positive energy so i can create an anti-matter in which i plan to present in our Science investigatory project... i dont know what will be the effect if my anti-matter succeeds but hope it will... if this will be destructive then i'll stop this... just post your comments guys!!!
First of all calm down. I think I can help you with collecting negative energy. When a group of people get together and come up with ideas, like seeing a movie or going to a bar, there will always be one guy who doesn't want to go with the crowd. This guy is producing negative energy. If you can get around 13 of these guys together and have then stand real close together you may be able to attain a critical mass and a critical geometry of negative energy. If you do this in sunlight then the negative energy of these guys will annihilate the positive energy of the sunlight resulting in an explosion of zero energy. The energy produced in the explosion is zero because of the + and - energy canceling each other.
Origin's response notwithstanding, energy, like mass, is an unsigned variable. The total amount of mass and energy in the universe is a constant--although I have never seen an estimate of that total. Matter can be changed into energy, and (presumably) energy can be changed into matter, but the total is always the same. There is no such thing as "negative" or "positive" energy.
What makes you think that +ve and -ve energy annihilate, yielding antimatter? It sounds like a garbled recollection of matter and antimatter annihilating to produce (+ve) energy. Are you perhaps thinking of this? As FR says, the idea of -ve energy is problematic. You can always define an energy level to be below an arbitrarily chosen zero level and hence -ve with respect to that level, but really that it is just a way of comparing relative degrees of energy. If you think about kinetic energy for a moment (and that includes heat energy, which is just the kinetic energy of molecules in motion), the formula for this is E = 1/2 mv². It is fairly obvious that you cannot get a -ve quantity from this at any real velocity. So having a kinetic or thermal energy level <0 is impossible. And in fact the same goes for other forms as well.
The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is actually zero!
That would be a prediction of inflation theory. The hypothesis is the - of the gravitational field cancels out the + which represents all the matter in the expanding universe. From what I've read confirming this isn't empirically possible. In Guth's book he uses Newton's theoretical model for the description. He chose Newton since the description is more accessible for the folks his book was written for. IE you and I.
Yes there is since energy is frame dependent. In the local proper frame where the Casimir experiment is conducted between the uncharged plates the energy density is negative. Your claim that there is no such thing as negative or positive energy is an absolute statement.
Normally that is so. But where were you when I was battling alone in arguing that the chic notion of 'negative energy quanta' a la Unruh's picture of Hawking radiation, was inconsistent garbage?: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hawking-radiation.152642/ See e.g. posts #15, #20, #34, but then an Authority Figure is weighed-in at #66, and followers of such just, well, followed. I responded in #76 and later. Maybe folks feel freer to opine here as no Authority Figure has so far weighed-in to 'set it all straight'. Highly debatable and there is no clear consensus within GR community on that - just opposing camps that pretend for the appearance of unity it's just a matter of 'interpretation' (not true at all). Likely most though do not agree with 'zero energy universe' - Noether's theorem does not apply when gravity is figured in, particularly on a cosmological scale. See above. I have often seen QFT experts fundamentally disagree over whether negative energy states genuinely physically exist. And whether such states have an absolute vs relative context.
Wrong inference. If as is 'normally' so, an invariant 4-momentum has a +ve energy as one term (strictly, E/c), it remains +ve in all other frames. That's standard SR. Similarly for any notional -ve rest energy. And that conclusion is absolutely wrong. Purported reduction of always net +ve ZPE between plates, wrt exterior levels, is not '-ve energy'. Any more than withdrawing say 2 apples from a barrel of such, has created 'negative apples' in the barrel. But further, the popular belief Casimir effect is really owing to ZPE is contested. For the umpteenth time: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158
I haven't the foggiest idea what negative energy would be. A black hole would probably be the closest equivalent of someplace you can squirrel away energy in a way that it is a very long time before it returns to the universe that existed outside before it collapsed. Positive energy combined with an equal amount of negative energy would sum to zero energy, which would violate conservation of energy. Matter-antimatter annhilation doesn't violate conservation of energy either. Even a black hole does not violate conservation of energy indefinitely. When it eventually evaporates, you get all the energy back. But all the antimatter in the universe evidently went somewhere and did not come back. This definitely violates conservation of energy.
It's the stuff that HR (Hawking radiation) believers believe allows for HR, as per link to posts in #10. Not to go over existence or not of 'BH's' again, but in standard GR, mass M of a BH is always +ve and corresponds to the quantity of stellar mass swallowed (standard stellar-mass BH). ????? No, don't try and explain your reasoning there. But consider a rough analogy - annihilation of electron-positron pair -> neutral gamma rays. Is conservation of charge violated somehow? [see below for spoiler answer] Indeed, and analogously, neither does it violate charge conservation in electron-positron annihilation. Can't think of anyone familiar with GR who believes it ever violates it, at any stage. In semi-classical Hawking GR picture, the BH mass/energy M finally completely converts to radiation. Without at any time a net gain or loss of mass/energy. [Well actually, there is an issue when the entire SET (stress-energy-tensor) is taken into account. But let's not complicate things too much here.] Standard BB/inflation picture is quite clear on that. Owing to some yet to be discovered beyond-standard-model physics, matter/anti-matter annihilation was slightly asymmetric by ~ 1 part in 10^10, the vast bulk annihilating to form the present enormously redshifted CMBR. In a roundabout way, that annihilation to radiation, plus Hubble expansion, paved the way for one aspect of what most consider cosmological scale failure of conservation of energy - redshifting of primordial radiation. Lets see, 0 out of 4 (or 5, or 6, depending). About par for you, danshawen.
Since charge, mass, and energy, all sum to zero over the long run anyway, that score works just fine for me, and also for Michau Kaku, who passed along that observation along with an admonition that we should just enjoy the free lunch. Maybe a nice baseball game as well. Keeping score there is important too, although I dont't really understand why. How could this be true without negative energy to cancel out the positive?
