# Dark matter is Negative mass!

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by icarus2, May 2, 2018.

1. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
Are you claiming that the Newtonian worldview is violating energy conservation? (Mass deficit being something that's not present in a Newtonian worldview.)

If you are talking physical objects, I agree with you, but you'll have to ask Icarus2.

"You cannot have fewer than zero electrons, so positive charges do not exist."
But what if it's made out of different stuff? Something with negative mass? (Again, talk to Icarus2.)

So you agree with me there are cases where it appears there's negative energy? Good! Glad we got that cleared up!

And some valued senior forum members too!

3. ### icarus2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
121
No. The meaning of Einstein's words is not to say that the gravitational field has a positive energy. Since General Theory of Relativity was built on the equivalent principle of inertial mass and gravitational mass, a major concern was whether this equivalence principle applies to other energies. Therefore, the meaning of Einstein's words is that the energy of the gravitational field also holds the equivalent principle of inertial mass and gravitational mass as any other kind of energy. .

Experiments to confirm the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass of the gravitational potential energy were performed continuously~

Gravitation and Spacetime – by Hans C. Ohanian and Remo Ruffini
https://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-S...+and+spacetime

======
The experiments listed in Table 1.2 have tested the ratio $m_{G}/m_{I}$ for a wide variety of materials. Thus, Eotvos compared copper, water, copper sulfate, asbestos, snakewood, and so on with platinum; the later, more precise experiments tested gold, platinum, aluminum, copper, titanium, and beryllium. The results of these tests indicate that $m_{G}/m_{I}$ to within the experimental errors. The nucleus of the atom contains appreciable amounts of energy in its electric, magnetic, “strong,” and “weak” interaction field, and the results can therefore be interpreted to mean that different kinds of energy contribute to the gravitational mass of a system in the same amount as they contribute to the inertial mass; that is, $m_{G}/m_{I}$ is valid not only for the samples of materials tested in the experiments but also for the various kinds of energy

Table 1.3 Different forms of energy as sources of gravity*
Form of Energy |mG − mI|/mI
Rest mass, protons + electrons 0 (by definition)
Rest mass, neutrons <8 × 10^−12
Strong fields in nucleus <3 × 10^−10
Electric fields in nucleus <4 × 10^−10
Magnetic fields in nucleus <2 × 10^−7
Weak fields in nucleus <5 × 10^−3
Kinetic energy of nucleons <10^−9
Gravitational energy in Earth<5 × 10^−4
* Adapted from Will (1993), with corrections.

~~~~~~~~

If we want to discover whether gravity gravitates, we must examine the behavior of large masses, of planetary size, with significant and calculable amounts of gravitational self-energy. Treating the Earth as a continuous, classical mass distribution (with no gravitational self-energy in the elementary, subatomic particles), we find that its gravitational self-energy is about 4.6 × 10^−10 times its rest-mass energy. The gravitational self-energy of the Moon is smaller, only about 0.2 × 10^−10 times its rest-mass energy.

If gravitational self-energy does not contribute in the normal way to the gravitational mass, then the Earth and the Moon would fall at different rates in the gravitational field of the Sun. The difference in the rates of fall is effectively equivalent to a uniform extra force field pulling the Moon toward the Sun (if gravitational energy gravitates less than normal) or away from the Sun (if gravitational energy gravitates more than normal). Such an extra force leads to a distortion of the orbit of the Moon relative to the Earth, a distortion called the Nordvedt effect. As Fig. 1.12 shows, the orbit is elongated, or polarized, in the direction of the Sun. Although the distortion effect is small, very precise measurements of the Earth-Moon distance have been performed by the laser-ranging technique already mentioned in Section 1.2, with a pulse of laser light sent from the Earth to the Moon and reflected back to the Earth by the corner reflectors installed on the Moon during the Apollo mission. Measurements of the travel time of the pulse determine the distance to within an uncertainty of a centimeter, and recent improvements are reducing this to a millimeter. If the uncertainty is taken as 1 cm, the analysis of the orbital data places a direct limit of 5 × 10^−4 on the fractional difference between the contributions of gravitational energy to the inertial and the gravitational mass. Thus, these experiments indicate that gravitational energy gravitates in the normal way.

Their main concern is whether the equivalence principle ($m_{G}/m_{I}$) holds for other energies.
Therefore, the meaning of Einstein's words is that the energy of the gravitational field also holds the equivalent principle of inertial mass and gravitational mass as any other kind of energy.

Alan Guth’s lecture: Inflationary Cosmology

Gravitational fields has negative energy density.

From the equation K + U = const. we obtain such equation as

, which can explain motion with variation(ex.) gravitational potential energy U= + mgh), however, this does not guarantee that the gravitational potential energy is positive.

Let's consider the following case that the value of gravitational potential energy has a negative value.

Even though, as above, gravitational potential energy has the negative value of energy defined for r= 0 to r= infinity from gravitational source, we can obtain the right result.

Last edited: May 9, 2018

5. ### icarus2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
121
I'm sorry. I did not see the full article, that's my guess ~

Last edited: May 9, 2018

7. ### RainbowSingularityValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,629
is it possible for it to be relative ?

i was recently pondering how we apply energy to an object to get it off the earth.
once the object is off the earth it is still containing that energy as speed ?
unles it gets just enough energy to exit the earth gravity...
then it is what ?
where does the enery go ? back to the earth or is it lost ?
i am of the mind that after brief reading the energy can not be created or destroyed... per say.
so i was wondering...
how does it work that the energy is given back to earth when it is taken from the earth (fuel)
is this a process of exchange ? if so what is it exchanging energy with ? the object ?
soo... the object must take more energy(than the energy it has on earth) from the earth to leave the earth AND give it back.

soo... my question was, kinda is this an exchange of energy, is the object a conduit of energy in general.
considering the object must use more energy than what it has to remove its self from the earth...
it does seem perplexing in a relationship to relative mass & energy given rise to my question, thus
can an object(in space with no opposing force) simply become an energy conduit to use energy to gain momentum ... err-go light speed... if the object is borrowing energy, why cant it go faster than light ?
(excuse any typos its been a long day)

8. ### icarus2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
121
Writing this sentence is a very bad act.
By treating all studies involving negative masses as being the same, it is dismissing the efforts of someone.

About 99.99% of physics papers are about positive mass, so is there no new idea?

Naked singularity is inferred when a negative mass has a singularity. It is a peculiar phenomenon, but it is not a problem. By the way, they have achieved such results by assuming a black hole of negative mass.

In my opinion, I think that massive mass structures (planets, stars, black hole) of negative mass are hard to exist. Because of that there is a repulsive gravitational effect between negative masses, and therefore, massive mass structure formation is difficult. In principle, it is possible if there is repulsion between them.

Refer to 3m 47s ~

"Runaway motion" is one of the research topics I have left, I do not want to open it ~

1. Since "runaway motion" assumes a very ideal situation, an unusual movement occurs, but in the real world, this ideal situation may be broken by external factors (forces or fields by other objects …)

Nevertheless, we can still force the external conditions themselves to be in ideal conditions.

2. There is a possibility that the gravitational potential energy stops the ideal situation

Although the absolute values of the masses of two objects are exactly the same, there is a gravitational potential energy between them.

$U = + \frac{{G{m_ - }{m_ + }}}{r}$

This gravitational potential energy has a positive value and exists in a system containing two objects or two objects.
And, since all energy is a source of gravity, the gravitational potential energy must also act gravitty source.

When quoting the text of the major book, ~
=======
Table 1.3 Different forms of energy as sources of gravity
Form of Energy |mG − mI|/mI
Rest mass, protons + electrons 0 (by definition)
Rest mass, neutrons <8 × 10^−12
Strong fields in nucleus <3 × 10^−10
Electric fields in nucleus <4 × 10^−10
Magnetic fields in nucleus <2 × 10^−7
Weak fields in nucleus <5 × 10^−3
Kinetic energy of nucleons <10^−9
Gravitational energy in Earth <5 × 10^−4
* Adapted from Will (1993), with corrections.

If we want to discover whether gravity gravitates, we must examine the behavior of large masses, of planetary size, with significant and calculable amounts of gravitational self-energy.

Thus, these experiments indicate that gravitational energy gravitates in the normal way.

In setting these limits on how the strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational energies gravitate, we have ignored the self-energies locked up within the rest masses of electrons, protons, and neutrons.~
=======

That is, even if the masses of negative mass and positive mass are exactly the same, the gravitational potential energy between them breaks this ideal situation.

3. I do not even know if someone's claim is true. "all such interactions would leave a surplus of momentum"

Above that, the (or some) writer insisted that this movement was a movement in which momentum was preserved.

=======
Such a couple of objects would accelerate without limit (except relativistic one); however, the total mass, momentum and energy of the system would remain 0.
=======

But the one who wrote the last sentence,
=======
“all such interactions would leave a surplus of momentum, ~“
=======

The two sentences seem to be in conflict.

4. Considering general relativity, a new solution may come up.

Not at all!
It is not only the opinion of the person, but also even after the 1970s, research papers on negative mass continue to emerge.

Try searching in the arXiv : “negative mass”
And, the prediction of mainstream physics was not always right.

Last edited: May 10, 2018
9. ### icarus2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
121
What do you think of the existence of positive and negative charges? Why is not energy (mass) ?

Does this have positive energy?
$U = k\frac{{( + e)( + e)}}{r}$

So this?
$U = k\frac{{( + e)( - e)}}{r}$

How can a positive energy, positive mass exist by itself?

All new discoveries were called new discoveries because they were not found until then. Throughout the history of science, among the things that have not yet been discovered, new discoveries have had many examples.

In other words, it does not guarantee that undiscovered findings of any physical object will be undiscovered in the future. The history of physics, and even the history of science.

Some phenomena of relativity and quantum mechanics are against common sense. Already, accelerating expansion itself is not what we expected. It is a phenomenon contrary to common sense prediction.

Also, now we need a something to generate repulsion or anti-gravity, and negative mass is also a solution of the accelerating expansion.

Gravitation and Spacetime – by Hans C. Ohanian and Remo Ruffini
https://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-S...+and+spacetime
=========
We recognize that the term in Einstein’s equation corresponds to a uniform effective mass density

${\rho _{eff}} = - \frac{\Lambda }{{4\pi G}}$

Thus, if $\Lambda$ is positive, the effective gravitational mass density of the vacuum is negative.

~~~~~~

Expressed in another way, the inertial mass density for the cosmological term is positive, but the gravitational mass density is negative.
=========

"The inertial mass density for the cosmological term is positive, but the gravitational mass density is negative."
It violates the principle of equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass, which is the basis of general relativity theory.

$\frac{{{d^2}R}}{{d{t^2}}} = - \frac{{4\pi G}}{3}(\rho + 3P) = - \frac{{4\pi G}}{3}({\rho _\Lambda } + 3( - {\rho _\Lambda })) = - \frac{{4\pi G}}{3}( - 2{\rho _\Lambda })$

The inertial mass density is +1 and the gravitational mass density is -2, rather than just the opposite sign.
Do these monsters really exist? Do not make a decision now, why not watch it?

IMO,
In physics, negative mass is not a worse idea than cosmological constant or vacuum energy.

Last edited: May 10, 2018
10. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
The article is about the concept of negative mass. All negative masses are the same in that they are negative masses. That's trivially true. You may have a previously not thought of type of negative mass, but it's still a negative mass. All types of negative mass fall under the category of negative mass, which is what that article is about. So obviously your type of negative mass also discussed in that article, even if not explicitly. Thus, I'm not dismissing anyone's efforts.

The first paper talking about the Higgs boson fell in the same category when it was published. This is once again trivially true. And since it was a new idea, your statement is thus incorrect.

Please explain why it isn't a problem, because from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularity :

And of course most physics papers talk about positive masses, because that's all we currently have evidence for.

Who is "they"? And evidence please.

Sure, but who claimed otherwise?

So you have no idea why the concept of runaway motion is so problematic, and why it completely eviscerates your negative mass hypothesis unless properly addressed. And no, waving your arms about saying that the ideal situation isn't likely to arise naturally is not addressing the issue.

Please learn the distinction between fundamental particles and quasiparticles first. Then please point me to some articles that are discussing fundamental particles with negative rest masses without dismissing their possibility.

Sure, but you need to provide proof that that's the case here. Thus far, you've failed to even address the very first of my questions.

11. ### icarus2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
121
Do not be bullshit ~!
What you need to look at in my paper is a description of the properties of dark matter in terms of negative mass.

I started my writing like this ~

======

Dark Matter is Negative Mass

Negative mass is an object whose existence is required by the law of the conservation of energy. The fundamental properties of negative mass can explain important characteristics of dark matter.
2) explanations derived from fundamental principles about the reason why dark matter does not have electromagnetic interaction,
3) repulsive gravity ensuring almost even distribution and lower interaction of dark matter,
4) gravitational lens effect,
5) accelerating expansion of the universe can be explained with negative mass.
======

Do not you see this phrases?
In the study of negative mass, who has this explanation?

Last edited: May 11, 2018
12. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,708
Explain to me how your negative mass is different from "matter whose mass is of opposite sign to the mass of normal matter, e.g. −1 kg", which is what that Wikipedia article is about.

You keep claiming that. Can you please explain why?

(We'll get to those whenever you finally start answering the most basic questions.)