# Dark matter is Negative mass!

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

1. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,468
Excellent point.

But I presume there should be 2 roots when solving for E: E= +/- √(p²c² + m²c⁴). Do we know what, if anything, the -ve root signifies?

2. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
3. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,583
You're perhaps right, and I called it "wrong" too quickly, but it certainly is a jump to a conclusion that is not supported by the reasoning provided. I don't know what the negative root signifies, so let's see what icarus2 say about it.

Edit: Also interesting, is that this isn't a new idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass#In_general_relativity
I especially like the line: "Indeed, the Schwarzschild solution for negative mass parameter has a naked singularity at a fixed spatial position."

Edit 2: Or the "runaway motion" section. It ends with a very firm conclusion. I guess icarus2 has a response to this?

Last edited: May 4, 2018
4. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
5. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,468
My observation about the -ve root does not say anything in favour of -ve mass though, since it is, as you pointed out, all squared up in Einstein's formula anyway. I suppose if one had imaginary mass, one could get a -ve quantity under the square root and hence an imaginary energy....but I don't see how this would help.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

6. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
7. ### icarus2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
121
I'm sorry. I do not speak English well.

In my sentence,
“Not at all” means that I do not agree with your opinion at all.

8. ### Michael 345Bali tonightValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,527
Is there a difference between
• Negative mass
• Mass with a negative charge
• Anti matter?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

9. ### icarus2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
121

I do not agree with your opinion. All energy is expressed as mass. $m = \frac{E}{{{c^2}}}$ ,
If you use a natural units c=1, m=E

It is your illusion to think that $E = mc^2$ applies only to rest mass. By the way, many people seem to think so. However, consider the rest mass of a proton, since it is a rest mass, you will think that this equation holds true. $E = {m_0}{c^2}$

By the way, what is the rest mass of a proton?

The rest mass of a proton is the sum of all the energies of that a proton has, such as the mass of the quark that constitutes the proton, the kinetic energy (mass) of the quarks or meson, the energy (mass) of the electromagnetic field due to charge, the binding energy (mass) of the quarks, etc.

That is, the rest mass of a proton is the sum of all the energies possessed by the proton divided by c ^ 2.
The rest mass is also the total energy of some system. That is, the equation E = mc ^ 2 applies not only to rest mass but also to total energy.

$E = (quark's - rest - mass - energy) + (quark's - KE) + (quark's - binding - energy) + ... = \sum {{m_i}{c^2}} = {m_0}{c^2}$

In relativistic energy equation,
${E^2} = {({m_0}{c^2})^2} + {(pc)^2}$

You are considered that the equation shape of $E = m{c^2}$ is established only when p = 0,
However, what the mass energy equivalent says is

${E^2} = {({m_0}{c^2})^2} + {(pc)^2} = {(m{c^2})^2}$

The total energy is also energy, so $E = mc^2$ applies.

About photons, If rest mass ${m_0} = 0$

${E^2} = {({m_0}{c^2})^2} + {(pc)^2} = {(pc)^2}$
$E = pc = m{c^2}$

About photon,
$m = \frac{p}{c}$

So, even though the rest mass of the photon is zero, it is possible to define the mass corresponding to the energy of the photon, which also matches the observation.

Another reason is that, in essence, energy has a dimension of mass multiplication speed^2.

Mass energy equivalence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

=========

In a similar manner, even photons (light quanta), if trapped in a container space (as a photon gas or thermal radiation), would contribute a mass associated with their energy to the container. Such an extra mass, in theory, could be weighed in the same way as any other type of rest mass. This is true in special relativity theory, even though individually photons have no rest mass. The property that trapped energy in any form adds weighable mass to systems that have no net momentum is one of the characteristic and notable consequences of relativity. It has no counterpart in classical Newtonian physics, in which radiation, light, heat, and kinetic energy never exhibit weighable mass under any circumstances.

~~~~~

In relativity, all the energy that moves with an object (that is, all the energy present in the object's rest frame) contributes to the total mass of the body, which measures how much it resists acceleration. Each bit of potential and kinetic energy makes a proportional contribution to the mass. As noted above, even if a box of ideal mirrors "contains"light, then the individually massless photons still contribute to the total mass of the box, by the amount of their energy divided by c2.

~~~~~

Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass:

· A spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring.

· Raising the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass. For example, consider the world's primary mass standard for the kilogram, made of platinum/iridium. If its temperature is allowed to change by 1 °C, its mass changes by 1.5 picograms (1 pg = 1×10−12 g).[37]

· A spinning ball weighs more than a ball that is not spinning. Its increase of mass is exactly the equivalent of the mass of energy of rotation, which is itself the sum of the kinetic energies of all the moving parts of the ball. For example, the Earth itself is more massive due to its daily rotation, than it would be with no rotation. This rotational energy (2.14×1029 J) represents 2.38 billion metric tons of added mass.[38]

============

Last edited: May 5, 2018
10. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,583
I don't think that, and have even given a clear example of why I don't (the full formula), so I have no idea where you got that idea from? I've also mentioned the stress-energy tensor in this thread, another example of my explicitly not thinking that.

(Small obvious addition: of a proton at rest.)

Yeah, you are talking about the relativistic mass. Many people avoid it, as it is easily confused with (non-relativistic) mass, and it doesn't serve a real purpose in GR.

See, right there. The equation you've written down strongly suggests photons are massive particles. Only upon closer examination it becomes clear that it doesn't, but this is one of the main reasons it's better to avoid relativistic mass.

Well, that's the thing. You don't need to use the relativistic mass to match theory to observation: GR can be done just fine without using the relativistic mass.

But two quantities matching in units doesn't mean they are equal, so that's fallacious reasoning.

Any chance you are going to address some of the questions I've posted?

11. ### icarus2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
121
In general relativity, the pressure term can also be defined in terms of mass.

Physicists and astronomers have a sense of rejection of negative mass (energy), so they use a trick to introduce negative pressure, but if you look at the essence ~

P = - ρ, the pressure term of the vacuum energy, suggests that the pressure P is the energy density -ρ, and its dimension is the energy density. That is, the mass term. Though scholars use the word negative pressure to make it seem like this is not a negative energy, but the essence of negative pressure is the energy(mass) density of the negative.

Dimensional analysis reveals its essence.

Energy and mass are equivalent except for the proportional constant. The same relationship holds for negative energy and negative mass.

As exchemist already explained ~

${E^2} = {({m_0}{c^2})^2} + {(pc)^2}$

Solution is ~
${E_ + } = + \sqrt {{{({m_0}{c^2})}^2} + {{(pc)}^2}} = + m{c^2}$

${E_ - } = - \sqrt {{{({m_0}{c^2})}^2} + {{(pc)}^2}} = - m{c^2}$

1. The solution of the negative mass was abandoned because physicists had the wrong stereotype.

All this time, the field of Physics did not seriously consider the possibility of existence of negative mass (energy) in a general state. The standard explanation of negative mass is that the state of low energy is stable when a negative energy level exists and that the lowest state of energy is minus infinity. Thus, this means that all positive mass emits energy and it will transit to the energy level of minus infinity and the universe will collapse.

However, at the present, our universe exists without collapsing, so the explanation for this has become strong proof of the nonexistence of the negative mass and negative energy level of. However, this logic is wrong.

One of physics' fundamental principles, "lower energy state is associated with stability" can be only applied to positive mass. However, both negative mass and negative energy level have been denied, as it has been wrongly applied to negative mass.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Figure 1. When there is negative mass in potential which has a point of maximum value and a point of minimum value.

$\begin{array}{l} \vec F = - {m_ - }\vec a\\ ({m_ - } > 0) \end{array}$

$\vec a = - \frac{{\vec F}}{{{m_ - }}}$

When negative mass exists within potential with maximal and minimal points, different directions of force and acceleration should be considered for negative mass.

The acceleration of negative mass is opposite to the direction of force. Therefore, the negative mass has harmonic oscillation at the maximum point and it is also stable at the maximum point.

In the case of positive mass, it was stable at the minimum point at which energy is the low. However, in case of negative mass, stable equilibrium is a point of maximum value, not a point of minimum value.

It is stable at a low energy state in the case of positive mass. However, it is stable at a high energy state in the case of negative mass. Due to this, "the problem of transition to minus infinite energy level" does not occur, therefore negative mass(energy) and positive mass(energy) can exist stably in our universe.

2. In the discovery of accelerated expansion of universe in 1998, negative mass and negative energy were the first result of the field equation.

From the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe, people generally claim the existence of cosmological constants or vacuum energy. However, by borrowing their logic, the accelerating expansion of the universe can be interpreted as evidence for the existence of negative mass.

However, since those who received the first result had the wrong stereotype of negative mass and negative energy, so they rather modified the field equation to their taste. They resurrected the cosmological constant and modified the equation.

Nobel lecture by Adam Riess
https://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplay...ex.php?id=1729

Refer to 10m : 50s ~

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Negative Mass?
Actually the first indication of the discovery!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Days later… What does this mean?
There cannot be negative mass, but would Einstein’s Cosmological Constant explain this acceleration?

Removing his prejudice and looking at the facts, the universe is accelerating expansion, this suggesting that negative mass (density) exists or a positive cosmological constant exists.

But what if they had a problem because they had the wrong knowledge of negative mass or negative energy levels?

From the observance of the HSS team and SCP team in 1998, they gained the mass density of the negative, using field equation (and Friedman eq. and acceleration eq. ) which do not have the cosmological constant.

The first findings were as follows:
HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team :

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team :

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is the originally value they got. They were surprised at the results, and thus revived the cosmological constant.

Anyway, negative mass (negative energy) is a valid solution for accelerating expansion of the universe.

However, the two teams concluded that negative mass could not exist in our universe. So they revised the field equation by inserting the cosmological constant.

We have to know that not the field equation has disposed the value, but our stereotype disposed that value.
What if he was a P.A.M. Dirac, who trusted more of the results from the formula than he himself? Did he just throw the result of the equation?
And we have to know that negative logic of negative energy(mass), which is the root of stereotype, is wrong.

Moreover, we considered vacuum energy as the source of cosmological constant

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, but the current result of calculation shows difference of

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

times between the two(observation value and calculation value), which is unprecedented even in the history of Physics.

Last edited: May 5, 2018
12. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,583
Except they do recognize that, so this point is moot.

False. Dimensional analysis can be used to show an equation is wrong, or that two quantities might be connected. It cannot prove it.

Not really. In classical mechanics, this is obviously wrong. In GR, they are very much related (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum ), but certainly not equivalent.

Aah, hold on a minute. Are you talking about negative relativistic mass or negative rest mass?

This suggests you're talking about negative relativistic mass. Is that true?

I've already proven this wrong in this thread. Please stop lying.

That's incorrect: mass doesn't emit energy.

Also false. Look up the term "ground state". A system often has a minimum energy level that's not minus infinity.

Why would the universe collapse under such conditions?

Does it? How do you know it's not in the process of collapsing?

(I can't really comment on this at this time, because your above reasoning is missing crucial information.)

(No comments for now; please address my questions.)

13. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
Total energy of the white empty space = $0 = ( + mc^2 ) + ( - mc^2 ) = 0$, right, it proves mattre may create continuously from space

14. ### heyuhuaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
432
I had already proven the pressure as gravitational source is the negative value of average density in a celestial body, thus when it is used to universe we have P = - ρ, the pressure term of the vacuum energy may still be regarded as zero, is in consistency with usual concept, see my introduction http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ch...ting-wrongs-to-rights-in-astrophysics.160778/

15. ### Xelasnave.1947Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,033
P=P I cant help you more than that.
Alex

16. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,583
Are you claiming credit for Yang's work now?

You've asserted many things, and have been unable to address many counter arguments. You have provided no evidence, so you haven't done any proving whatsoever.

Note to other readers in this thread: Yang's work is at least a minus sign off in the derivation of the partially contracted Ricci tensor, and heyuhua knows this. Be aware of this mistake when reading through Yang's material.

Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
17. ### icarus2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
121
1. You might think that this is proof, that is your illusion.
What did you prove? You did not prove it, you just claimed it.

2. All middle school students and more know that there are two answers to this equation ${E^2} = {({m_0}{c^2})^2} + {(pc)^2}$.

${E_ + } = + \sqrt {{{({m_0}{c^2})}^2} + {{(pc)}^2}}$

${E_ - } = - \sqrt {{{({m_0}{c^2})}^2} + {{(pc)}^2}}$

You are not proving that a negative energy solution cannot exist, but just applying your own stereotype.

3. P.A.M. Dirac did not think so about negative energy solution.

Dirac thought that a negative energy solution existed, and that when negative energy levels exist, spontaneous transition becomes a problem. Thus, he tried to prevent the collapse of the material world by introducing the assumption that negative energy levels are all filled with electrons with negative energies. And, he predicts the presence of an antiparticle. (Dirac sea model)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation
======
The negative E solutions to the equation are problematic, for it was assumed that the particle has a positive energy. Mathematically speaking, however, there seems to be no reason for us to reject the negative-energy solutions. Since they exist, we cannot simply ignore them, for once we include the interaction between the electron and the electromagnetic field, any electron placed in a positive-energy eigenstate would decay into negative-energy eigenstates of successively lower energy.
======

4. Scientists studying negative mass, including Hermann Bondi professor, do not think so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass#In_general_relativity
=======
In 1957, following Luttinger's idea, Hermann Bondi suggested in a paper in Reviews of Modern Physics that mass might be negative as well as positive. He pointed out that this does not entail a logical contradiction, as long as all three forms of mass are negative, but that the assumption of negative mass involves some counter-intuitive form of motion.
=======

5. Edward Tryon, Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Alexei V.filippenko, Jay M. Pasachoff, and Lawrence Krauss etc. are argued that positive mass energy could be offset by the gravitational potential energy.

Stephen Hawking’s book "A Brief History of Time"
==========
~~~~~
In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. This does not happen in the normal expansion of the universe in which the matter energy density goes down as the universe gets bigger. It does happen, however, in the inflationary expansion because the energy density of the supercooled state remains constant while the universe expands: when the universe doubles in size, the positive matter energy and the negative gravitational energy both double, so the total energy remains zero.
~~~~~
==========

So how does negative gravitational potential energy offset (exactly cancels) the mass energy $+ mc ^2$ of matter?

If they are $-mc^2$, the offset is done ~

You are not proving that a negative energy solution cannot exist, but just applying your own stereotype.

18. ### icarus2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
121

The anthropic principle is an excuse created by the obsessions of scientists who must explain everything of nature at the present time, and a drug to forget the pain of a moment.

Although anthropic principle itself seems plausible, they first create almost infinite universes, and avoid problems with infinite universes for all problems.

Just as theology turns the answer to God on all problems, they can do the same.

Those who actively advocate (anthropic principle can be used to reduce the range of variables. But, people who answer the anthropic principle) anthropic principle are those who forget the mission of scientists.

At this point in time, we may not be able to explain something. In such a case, we have to go forward with the belief that there is an answer and that we will find it, not to hide behind anthropic principle.
Even if our generation fails to explain, our descendants will explain it. In the past we have numerous examples of finding and explaining the principles of the problems that were only explained by the notion of "God".

In addition, they must change from the name of anthropic principle.
I know much more beautiful and powerful principles than anthropic principle.

[ Cockroach principle ]
"Why is the earth 150 million km away from the sun?" Can be explained by the cockroach principle. If the Earth is farther or farther than that, life would have been born on Earth and could not have evolved into a cockroach-like life. This earth is far from the sun to the extent that cockroaches are alive. ~~~

Cockroaches have existed longer than humanity, and survival is much stronger than human beings. So, many people say that cockroaches will survive on earth longer than humanity. Therefore, the cockroach principle is a principle which will apply for a much longer time than the anthropic principle, far superior to anthropic principle.

Now, let's call followers of anthropic principle the followers of the cockroach principle.
Do they fervently advocate the cockroach principle?

The anthropic principle is an excuse, and an excessive empathy.

19. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,583
Well, that would mean we're on equal footing here: you have no proof for your claim, and I (according to you) have none for mine.

And I have never claimed otherwise.

1) I'm not trying to prove negative energy cannot exist; I'm merely skeptical about negative rest mass.
2) Applying a stereotype? What do you mean?
3) You have so far utterly failed to prove negative rest mass exists.

Quite irrelevant, because we're talking about negative rest mass, not negative energy.

If true, then this was obviously superseded by my Wikipedia link, which states that negative rest mass concepts were abandoned in the 1970's.
Edit: Actually, I see you're quoting the same article. Just keep on reading, till the last sentence of the "Runaway motion" section below that.

Irrelevant; we're talking about negative rest mass, not positive mass energy.

You keep repeating that I have no proof, while you have provided none for your own claim. How about you carry your burden of proof?

False; you clearly have not understood the anthropological argument. It doesn't need almost infinite universes; it works just fine for one.

False. Science is incompatible with such dogmatic believes.

You indeed have not understood the anthropological argument. May I suggest you figure out what it really is about, because calling scientists religious zealots?

(More misunderstanding of the anthropological argument.)

Are you claiming to be a cockroach? Because only if you are, this entire rant would make sense. Whether cockroaches exist or not has no bearing on the anthropological argument. Whether a conscious observer does, is what matters.[/B]

Last edited: May 8, 2018
20. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
As you are to Icarus2, so am I to you. Gravitational field energy is positive. As Einstein said in 1916, "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy". Those people who claim that gravitational field energy is negative and that the total energy of the universe is zero, are talking garbage.

21. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,583
So, what's that minus-sign doing here then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy#Newtonian_mechanics
Heck, the article even states it explicitly: "Conservation of energy requires that this gravitational field energy is always negative."

(And before you say anything, yes, I've seen the section below this issue in GR being complicated.)

So, none of these exist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy
Evidence please!

So Icarus2 is talking garbage? Your words, not mine!

22. ### Farsight

Messages:
3,492
It's wrong. In Newtonian physics the zero point for gravitational potential energy is at infinity, and it reduces as you approach the gravitating body. So, near the gravitating body it's said to be negative. The correct treatment is to say potential energy is mass-energy and then refer to the mass deficit. When you drop a brick, gravity converts some of its mass-energy aka potential energy into kinetic energy. This typically ends up getting dissipated, so you're left with a mass deficit. The same applies to an electron. When you lift that electron you do work on it. You increase its mass. There is also an effect on the Earth, but it's very small and we tend to neglect it. It's like bullets and sleds where momentum is equal and opposite but kinetic energy is not.

There are no objects that consists of less than zero energy, just as there are no pencils less than 0cm long. Sorry if I can't prove that with "evidence".

Some respected cosmologists are talking garbage.

23. ### RainbowSingularityValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,407
need a feature that allows members to queue a thread to the "to be read" list