Cosmologists Show Negative Mass Could Exist In Our Universe

The idea of negative mass has fascinated scientists since it was first used in the 16th century to explain why metals gain weight when they are oxidized. Since then, theoretical physicists have shown how it could be used to create exotic objects such as wormholes and the Alcubierre warp drive. But cosmologists’ attempts to include negative matter in any reasonable model of the cosmos have always run into trouble because negative mass violates the energy conditions required to make realistic universes with Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Now a pair of cosmologists have found a way around this. By treating negative mass as a perfect fluid rather than a solid point-like object, they’ve shown that negative mass does not violate the energy conditions as had been thought, and so it must be allowed in our universe. That has important consequences. If positive and negative mass particles were created in the early universe, they would form a kind of plasma that absorbs gravitational waves. Having built a number of gravitational wave observatories that have to see a single gravitational wave, astronomers might soon need to explain the absence of observations. Negative mass would then come in extremely handy.

links from the article

Quantum Setback For Warp Drives

Negative mass bubbles in de Sitter space-time

Cosmologists Prove Negative Mass Can Exist In Our Universe

you’re in form

I’m wondering

What if the big bang created galaxies and matter

but didn’t create the dark matter that exists that we can detect

what I’m thinking is that the dark matter was already there when the big bang happened and the big bang so to speak is pushing the dark matter around?

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’m wondering

What if the big bang created galaxies and matter

but didn’t create the dark matter that exists that we can detect

what I’m thinking is that the dark matter was already there when the big bang happened and the big bang so to speak is pushing the dark matter around?

thought provoking

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’m wondering

What if the big bang created galaxies and matter

but didn’t create the dark matter that exists that we can detect

what I’m thinking is that the dark matter was already there when the big bang happened and the big bang so to speak is pushing the dark matter around?

Would that be comparable to the vacuum having a different value without matter than it does with it?

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’m wondering

What if the big bang created galaxies and matter

but didn’t create the dark matter that exists that we can detect

what I’m thinking is that the dark matter was already there when the big bang happened and the big bang so to speak is pushing the dark matter around?

Would that be comparable to the vacuum having a different zero point value without matter than it does with it?

fixed

what I’m thinking is that the dark matter was already there when the big bang happened and the big bang so to speak is pushing the dark matter around?

so what universe was this dark matter in? seems like you’re saying this universe was created within an already existing universe. which isn’t what is thought.

ChrispenEvan said:

what I’m thinking is that the dark matter was already there when the big bang happened and the big bang so to speak is pushing the dark matter around?

so what universe was this dark matter in? seems like you’re saying this universe was created within an already existing universe. which isn’t what is thought.

I had the impression that there is substantial room for debating whether space was a part of what was produced with the BB or if it pre-existed……

don’t think so.

ChrispenEvan said:

don’t think so.

at least in our universe.

ChrispenEvan said:

don’t think so.

Well if space was produced by the BB then there seems to be significant elements not significantly quantified. The way I understand the BB suggests that it involved the creation of mass in it’s various forms but says nothing on the nature of space in this regard………

in the bbt space and time are linked, spacetime, they are not separate entities.

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

don’t think so.

Well if space was produced by the BB then there seems to be significant elements not significantly quantified. The way I understand the BB suggests that it involved the creation of mass in it’s various forms but says nothing on the nature of space in this regard………

expansion and contraction. without it you have no chance of existing.

So is the possibility, impossible?

I haven’t read anything that says so

who knows?

the bbt tells us that in the past the universe was hot and dense. there was space and energy. it says nothing about pre-existing conditions. we can go back to about T= 10^-45sec. everything that we see today was contained within that space that existed at that time.

ChrispenEvan said:

in the bbt space and time are linked, spacetime, they are not separate entities.

My understanding of the term spacetime is entirely particle-centric, ie,particles show spatial elements and time elements. I haven’t seen any evidence that zero vacuum space cannot exist without baryonic matter……….

…zero vacuum space…

what’s this? ref too please.

No one knows what dark matter is

so why the fast dismissive?

I dont have any pot

going up the street for some more wine

CrazyNeutrino said:

I dont have any pot

going up the street for some more wine

why, when pot grows in pots up the backyard?

ChrispenEvan said:

…zero vacuum space…

what’s this? ref too please.

quantum vacuum zero-point energy

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I dont have any pot

going up the street for some more wine

why, when pot grows in pots up the backyard?

Yours maybe. Not mine or CN’s by the look…………

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I dont have any pot

going up the street for some more wine

why, when pot grows in pots up the backyard?

Yours maybe. Not mine or CN’s by the look…………

Look over your neighbour ‘s fence

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

why, when pot grows in pots up the backyard?

Yours maybe. Not mine or CN’s by the look…………

Look over your neighbour ‘s fence

You’ve been out west a while roughy. It’s not the 80s round here anymore.

we may not know what DM is but we know what some of the properties is has to exhibit the effects it does.

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

Yours maybe. Not mine or CN’s by the look…………

Look over your neighbour ‘s fence

You’ve been out west a while roughy. It’s not the 80s round here anymore.

Prolly not but the blue and white helicopters still get work.

ChrispenEvan said:

we may not know what DM is but we know what some of the properties is has to exhibit the effects it does.

Which means tg
hat we know, it is.

eep!

bugger off to the chat thread. sheesh.

ChrispenEvan said:

bugger off to the chat thread. sheesh.

:)

Spacetime

ChrispenEvan said:

Spacetime

From the link:

By combining space and time into a single manifold called Minkowski space, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

As I’ve alluded to, spacetime is a mathematical construction that is only verifiable to the behavior of particles, unless there are experiments that specifically show that a void space has properties of spacetime of which I am not aware?

Can spacetime exist in the absence of matter and energy?

ChrispenEvan said:

Can spacetime exist in the absence of matter and energy?

in the case of expansion and contraction, it is a function of matter.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Can spacetime exist in the absence of matter and energy?

in the case of expansion and contraction, it is a function of matter.

Spatial expansion is a function of matter? I have a hypothesis along that line but I would prefer to hear the one you refer to.

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Can spacetime exist in the absence of matter and energy?

in the case of expansion and contraction, it is a function of matter.

Spatial expansion is a function of matter? I have a hypothesis along that line but I would prefer to hear the one you refer to.

it is pretty simple. contained in two words.

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

in the case of expansion and contraction, it is a function of matter.

Spatial expansion is a function of matter? I have a hypothesis along that line but I would prefer to hear the one you refer to.

it is pretty simple. contained in two words.

So my hypothesis that gravity and spatial expansion may be opposing results of intrinsic particle torque has plausibility.

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

Spatial expansion is a function of matter? I have a hypothesis along that line but I would prefer to hear the one you refer to.

it is pretty simple. contained in two words.

So my hypothesis that gravity and spatial expansion may be opposing results of intrinsic particle torque has plausibility.

That’s more than two words.

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

it is pretty simple. contained in two words.

So my hypothesis that gravity and spatial expansion may be opposing results of intrinsic particle torque has plausibility.

That’s more than two words.

Your 2 words are expletives aren’t they?

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

So my hypothesis that gravity and spatial expansion may be opposing results of intrinsic particle torque has plausibility.

That’s more than two words.

Your 2 words are expletives aren’t they?

not at all.

the days of the gentleman theorist working alone are long gone. if you are not associated with any scientific establishment and talk regularly with your peers then the chance of you making any contribution are, for all intents and purposes, zero.

ChrispenEvan said:

the days of the gentleman theorist working alone are long gone. if you are not associated with any scientific establishment and talk regularly with your peers then the chance of you making any contribution are, for all intents and purposes, zero.

correct as far as it goes unless something changes within that which is said above.

ChrispenEvan said:

the days of the gentleman theorist working alone are long gone. if you are not associated with any scientific establishment and talk regularly with your peers then the chance of you making any contribution are, for all intents and purposes, zero.

Is that a reason to stop pondering things or asking questions?

there is a difference between pondering and asking questions and thinking you have a “theory”.

ChrispenEvan said:

there is a difference between pondering and asking questions and thinking you have a “theory”.

a great deal.

ChrispenEvan said:

there is a difference between pondering and asking questions and thinking you have a “theory”.

I specifically referred to having a hypothesis. As it hasn’t been disproven it is acceptable as a hypothesis. If you simply wish to dissuade people from discussing something you cannot provide a meaningful answer to perhaps you should be questioning your own motives rather than assuming others ‘think they have a theory’ when they are more than likely simply seeking discussion on a complex subject.

fuck off with this shit postie. you’re reverting to type once again.

ChrispenEvan said:

fuck off with this shit postie. you’re reverting to type once again.

My “type” is not cowed by know it alls who like to make assumptions regarding others they know nothing about beyond not liking questions they ask. I don’t intend to go anywhere simply because you don’t like not being able to shut down my questions with your less than mediocre responses. Make as much effort as PM or KJW or someone who actually has meaningful knowledge in these areas and perhaps I’ll show you enough respect simply to ignore you.

go back to one of those science forums you posted to a while back. you were told there the same as you’re told here. putting sciecey sounding words into one or two sentences is not a hypothesis it is make believe. go get some physch help you’re going off your trolley again.

ChrispenEvan said:

go back to one of those science forums you posted to a while back. you were told there the same as you’re told here. putting sciecey sounding words into one or two sentences is not a hypothesis it is make believe. go get some physch help you’re going off your trolley again.

if you say so. Does that go for CN seeing as you have displayed the same dismissive attitude to his questions? How about you stop answering questions you haven’t got answers for. Not knowing isn’t something to be ashamed of(it’s why CN and I ask questions) but it is something you should be conscious of…………

i answered cn questions with the current science.

ChrispenEvan said:

i answered cn questions with the current science.

if you say so. Spacetime isn’t an answer with any substance in my book. Unless you can empirically show that there was no space before BB(which others have only been able to speculate about) I maintain you gave no answer but only sought to shut down a subject you have nothing to add to simply because others seek answers where you don’t and it shits you. Get over yourself. Your answers on these subjects are amateur and loaded with your own bum fluff. Who the fuck are you to discourage others discussing a subject of their interest mate?

Two quick comments. One, when astronomers calculated that the mass of the universe was negative, based on Hubble telescope observations of supernova brightness, the solution turned out not to be negative mass at all, but a form of anti-gravity that has become known as dark energy.

Two, often in quantum mechanics problems, such as the calculation of the mass of the neutrino implied by oscillation between different neutrino flavours, the results only give the square of the mass, saying nothing about whether the actual mass is positive or negative. The bring this into sharper focus, if quantum mechanics predicts that the square of the mass is negative then the mass is imaginary and the particle is a tachyon. Even in general relativity, the equation usually written E = m c^2 is more correctly written
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 where p is momentum.
Note that this allows negative mass solutions.

mollwollfumble said:

Two quick comments. One, when astronomers calculated that the mass of the universe was negative, based on Hubble telescope observations of supernova brightness, the solution turned out not to be negative mass at all, but a form of anti-gravity that has become known as dark energy.

Two, often in quantum mechanics problems, such as the calculation of the mass of the neutrino implied by oscillation between different neutrino flavours, the results only give the square of the mass, saying nothing about whether the actual mass is positive or negative. The bring this into sharper focus, if quantum mechanics predicts that the square of the mass is negative then the mass is imaginary and the particle is a tachyon. Even in general relativity, the equation usually written E = m c^2 is more correctly written
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 where p is momentum.
Note that this allows negative mass solutions.

Not that it disallows expansion requiring a contraction.

>Note that this allows negative mass solutions.

and negative energy solutions?

i don’t think you have a clue what you’re talking about roughie.

ChrispenEvan said:

i don’t think you have a clue what you’re talking about roughie.

you think I don’t know it.. but simply put.

mollwollfumble said:

Two quick comments. One, when astronomers calculated that the mass of the universe was negative, based on Hubble telescope observations of supernova brightness, the solution turned out not to be negative mass at all, but a form of anti-gravity that has become known as dark energy.

Two, often in quantum mechanics problems, such as the calculation of the mass of the neutrino implied by oscillation between different neutrino flavours, the results only give the square of the mass, saying nothing about whether the actual mass is positive or negative. The bring this into sharper focus, if quantum mechanics predicts that the square of the mass is negative then the mass is imaginary and the particle is a tachyon. Even in general relativity, the equation usually written E = m c^2 is more correctly written
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 where p is momentum.
Note that this allows negative mass solutions.

On the first note, wasn’t it explained as spatial expansion which was subsequently hypothesised as involving dark energy?(just checking I’m referencing the same events as you Moll).

Point two has more than just imaginary significance.

and tachyons are thought not to be real in more ways than one.

Before we get to negative mass in our universe can we sort out dark mass first?

19 shillings said:

Before we get to negative mass in our universe can we sort out dark mass first?

could we find they may be one and the same?

19 shillings said:

Before we get to negative mass in our universe can we sort out dark mass first?

The Inquisition did it’s best to wipe out dark mass practices. There are still covens and satanic gatherings but most people have realised these people aren’t particularly threatening.

could we find they may be one and the same?

no. DM manifests itself as positive mass.

ChrispenEvan said:

and tachyons are thought not to be real in more ways than one.

You don’t seem particularly capable of picking out the point I make CE. I was referencing the maths practices involved and the comment had nothing to do with tachyons. Try making less assumptions.

ChrispenEvan said:

could we find they may be one and the same?

no. DM manifests itself as positive mass.

OK

so For example of edumicating my positive mass. explain how different, just for the masses like, what is so incorrect about assuming that to be able to expand, mass must first contract?

i was actually responding to moll use of them.

i haven’t a clue what you are on about roughie. we are talking about the expansion of the universe which is the metric expansion of space. the masses within that space aren’t expanding.

ChrispenEvan said:

i haven’t a clue what you are on about roughie. we are talking about the expansion of the universe which is the metric expansion of space. the masses within that space aren’t expanding.

it is basically a simplistic thing.. I know I keep harping on about it but it is really outside any experience so is otherwise inexplicable.

ChrispenEvan said:

i was actually responding to moll use of them.

then I accept I’ve become overly sensitive tonight. apologies

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i was actually responding to moll use of them.

then I accept I’ve become overly sensitive tonight. apologies

funny when watching, how many of us respond in such ways.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i haven’t a clue what you are on about roughie. we are talking about the expansion of the universe which is the metric expansion of space. the masses within that space aren’t expanding.

it is basically a simplistic thing.. I know I keep harping on about it but it is really outside any experience so is otherwise inexplicable.

I think at times about statements like the above.
“the masses within that space aren’t expanding”
and I look at the tiny seeds that become immense woody structures otherwise known as forest giants.
and again become seeds.
I look at my lungs and my heart and I can only wonder.

that is why science tries to objective rather than subjective.

ChrispenEvan said:

that is why science tries to objective rather than subjective.

fair enough.

> On the first note, wasn’t it explained as spatial expansion which was subsequently hypothesised as involving dark energy? (just checking I’m referencing the same events as you Moll).

Yes. Same events.

> Before we get to negative mass in our universe can we sort out dark mass first?

Agree. I still haven’t any sensible idea as to what that may be. I used to think it was supersymmetry until that idea was disproved by CERN.

mollwollfumble said:

> On the first note, wasn’t it explained as spatial expansion which was subsequently hypothesised as involving dark energy? (just checking I’m referencing the same events as you Moll).

Yes. Same events.

> Before we get to negative mass in our universe can we sort out dark mass first?

Agree. I still haven’t any sensible idea as to what that may be. I used to think it was supersymmetry until that idea was disproved by CERN.

I get the impression that symmetry on a global scale would be unstable, possibly being the sort of thing that triggers a BB. Would a momentary state of global supersymmetry result in a lopsided BB in which more electrons/protons would be created than positrons and anti-protons?