I'm trying to imagine something with negative mass and utterly failing
Instead of gravity, it would have antigravity (repulsive instead of attractive) IIRC
White-hole vs Black-hole sort of mechanic
Yeah, but I mean more visually, though the white/black hole concept helps somewhat.
Because if you can see something then it has mass, right? Light is bouncing off it, so it has a physical presence, which means it has at least some mass. So if something has negative mass, what does that look like? Can we see it or perceive it?
0
Options
DepressperadoI just wanted to see you laughingin the pizza rainRegistered Userregular
edited August 2019
I don't care if we never get FTL so long as I can go
it is one of my fondest desires that maybe someday I'll get to liquidate all my assets and buy a little freighter and do the trip from Earth to one of the Lagrange Stations and then to Luna-2 (my favorite lunar city), and haul Helium 3 back to Earth.
maybe when I get tired of that, I can stock up on dehydrated food and carbon scrubbers and go to Jupiter and slide into atmosphere and look at my wake in the gas and then fly down as far as I can go before the pressure crushes Icarus (that's what I named my freighter).
I'm trying to imagine something with negative mass and utterly failing
Instead of gravity, it would have antigravity (repulsive instead of attractive) IIRC
White-hole vs Black-hole sort of mechanic
Yeah, but I mean more visually, though the white/black hole concept helps somewhat.
Because if you can see something then it has mass, right? Light is bouncing off it, so it has a physical presence, which means it has at least some mass. So if something has negative mass, what does that look like? Can we see it or perceive it?
I don't think mass is an indication of sight, air is a thing but we can't "see it" but liquids and gases interact with light still. Antimater will still have a mass too because you're just changing the charge of particles, antiprotons and positrons wouldn't be this negative matter thing.
Might be easier to conceptualize how you feel around positive and negative pressure to kind of feel how negative mass and positive mass would be in terms of each other?
I'm definitely not a physics anything so I'm sure someone better can answer these questions.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I'm trying to imagine something with negative mass and utterly failing
Instead of gravity, it would have antigravity (repulsive instead of attractive) IIRC
White-hole vs Black-hole sort of mechanic
Yeah, but I mean more visually, though the white/black hole concept helps somewhat.
Because if you can see something then it has mass, right? Light is bouncing off it, so it has a physical presence, which means it has at least some mass. So if something has negative mass, what does that look like? Can we see it or perceive it?
Photons specifically bounce off the electric charge of atoms, not the mass.
This graphic on Wikipedia illustrates how an object with negative mass would react around other objects with negative mass or regular mass
Basically two objects with negative mass would repel each other, but if you pair an object with "regular" mass and one with negative mass, the regular-mass object would be repelled and the negative-mass object would be attracted
The problem with all of this is that mass is not an intrinsic quality of particles, this is for example why antimatter doesn't have negative mass - mass is an emergent property and negative mass would be like pulling something towards you by pushing against it
+1
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
This graphic on Wikipedia illustrates how an object with negative mass would react around other objects with negative mass or regular mass
Basically two objects with negative mass would repel each other, but if you pair an object with "regular" mass and one with negative mass, the regular-mass object would be repelled and the negative-mass object would be attracted
The problem with all of this is that mass is not an intrinsic quality of particles, this is for example why antimatter doesn't have negative mass - mass is an emergent property and negative mass would be like pulling something towards you by pushing against it
Yes, but in a purely mathematical sense antimatter does have negative mass, because when you add it to matter, you get less matter.
I was under the impression that adding antimatter to matter is like adding dynamite to a block of ice
as long as the anti-matter is kept in a tube of some sort (plastic will do, but glass is probably better for safety) anti matter is perfectly safe to play with, even for very young children
Antimatter and matter particles that touch each other turn into pure energy, which translates into an explosion. They both have normal, positive mass. Energy and mass are equivalent, you can convert mass into energy and energy into mass under the right conditions (such as an anitmatter-matter reaction). So the total amount of energy and mass combined remains constant in the universe.
Negative mass is basically just another one of those byproducts of the math not actually ruling it out. However, as mentioned, it would result in odd behaviors, the biggest being the runaway effect. Negative mass would repel both positive and negative masses, and when you combine that with positive mass attracting both positive and negative mass, putting a positive mass near a negative mass would allow both to accelerate away up to the speed of light with no energy input and zero momentum. Basically, you've just created a perpetual motion machine. And if the two equal but opposite mass particles interacted, they would annihilate each other, but release no energy, yet would leave a surplus of momentum, which isn't allowed by our current understanding. The implications of the runaway effect mean it's unlikely negative mass exists.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Negative mass is basically just another one of those byproducts of the math not actually ruling it out. However, as mentioned, it would result in odd behaviors, the biggest being the runaway effect. Negative mass would repel both positive and negative masses, and when you combine that with positive mass attracting both positive and negative mass, putting a positive mass near a negative mass would allow both to accelerate away up to the speed of light with no energy input and zero momentum. Basically, you've just created a perpetual motion machine. And if the two equal but opposite mass particles interacted, they would annihilate each other, but release no energy, yet would leave a surplus of momentum, which isn't allowed by our current understanding. The implications of the runaway effect mean it's unlikely negative mass exists.
At least if inertial mass and gravitational mass have to have the same sign, but...
Negative mass is basically just another one of those byproducts of the math not actually ruling it out. However, as mentioned, it would result in odd behaviors, the biggest being the runaway effect. Negative mass would repel both positive and negative masses, and when you combine that with positive mass attracting both positive and negative mass, putting a positive mass near a negative mass would allow both to accelerate away up to the speed of light with no energy input and zero momentum. Basically, you've just created a perpetual motion machine. And if the two equal but opposite mass particles interacted, they would annihilate each other, but release no energy, yet would leave a surplus of momentum, which isn't allowed by our current understanding. The implications of the runaway effect mean it's unlikely negative mass exists.
At least if inertial mass and gravitational mass have to have the same sign, but...
This idea kinda breaks my brain, but if we roll with it, it wouldn't really change anything because we'd still end up with negative energy
Negative mass is basically just another one of those byproducts of the math not actually ruling it out. However, as mentioned, it would result in odd behaviors, the biggest being the runaway effect. Negative mass would repel both positive and negative masses, and when you combine that with positive mass attracting both positive and negative mass, putting a positive mass near a negative mass would allow both to accelerate away up to the speed of light with no energy input and zero momentum. Basically, you've just created a perpetual motion machine. And if the two equal but opposite mass particles interacted, they would annihilate each other, but release no energy, yet would leave a surplus of momentum, which isn't allowed by our current understanding. The implications of the runaway effect mean it's unlikely negative mass exists.
Momentum is mv though.
So speeding negative mass up with positive mass should have no net momentum change.
particle accelerators can create a tiny amount of antimatter I think? I might be mixing up video games with real life though. It's definitely a real substance that exists in the universe and has been experimented with.
The problem with that is you start trying to make antimatter with a particle accelerator and next thing you know some alien head crab thing is eating your face and that one quite dude has to save you. I may be mixing that up with videogames, but in pretty sure that's what I read in a textbook.
First, the easy bit. Early cell membranes were built from fatty acids—molecules that look like lollipops, with round heads and long tails. The heads enjoy the company of water; the tails despise it. So, when placed in water, fatty acids self-assemble into hollow spheres, with the water-hating tails pointing inward and the water-loving heads on the surface. These spheres can enclose RNA and proteins, making protocells. Fatty acids, then, can automatically create the compartments that were necessary for life to emerge. It almost seems too good to be true.
And it is, for two reasons. Life first arose in salty oceans, and salt catastrophically destabilizes the fatty-acid spheres. Also, certain ions, including magnesium and iron, cause the spheres to collapse, which is problematic since RNA—another key component of early protocells—requires these ions. How, then, could life possibly have arisen, when the compartments it needs are destroyed by the conditions in which it first emerged, and by the very ingredients it needs to thrive?
+13
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
Turning Earth Into a Telescope | The Terrascope https://youtu.be/jgOTZe07eHA 29:51 When it comes to telescopes, bigger is better. That's why we're investing billions of dollars into a new generation of "extremely large telescopes", such as the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT). But is 30 meters truly extreme? Could it be possible to ever build a telescope on the scale of a planet? In a new research paper by our very own Professor David Kipping, a solution for turning the Earth into a "Terrascope" is presented. Join us on a journey though the history of telescope inventions as well David's own personal journey to devising this new radical approach to the telescope.
Posts
Instead of gravity, it would have antigravity (repulsive instead of attractive) IIRC
White-hole vs Black-hole sort of mechanic
Yeah, but I mean more visually, though the white/black hole concept helps somewhat.
Because if you can see something then it has mass, right? Light is bouncing off it, so it has a physical presence, which means it has at least some mass. So if something has negative mass, what does that look like? Can we see it or perceive it?
it is one of my fondest desires that maybe someday I'll get to liquidate all my assets and buy a little freighter and do the trip from Earth to one of the Lagrange Stations and then to Luna-2 (my favorite lunar city), and haul Helium 3 back to Earth.
maybe when I get tired of that, I can stock up on dehydrated food and carbon scrubbers and go to Jupiter and slide into atmosphere and look at my wake in the gas and then fly down as far as I can go before the pressure crushes Icarus (that's what I named my freighter).
I don't think mass is an indication of sight, air is a thing but we can't "see it" but liquids and gases interact with light still. Antimater will still have a mass too because you're just changing the charge of particles, antiprotons and positrons wouldn't be this negative matter thing.
Might be easier to conceptualize how you feel around positive and negative pressure to kind of feel how negative mass and positive mass would be in terms of each other?
I'm definitely not a physics anything so I'm sure someone better can answer these questions.
Photons specifically bounce off the electric charge of atoms, not the mass.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Give me a quality pepperoni stromboli and I will demonstrate
Time travel maybe?
Basically two objects with negative mass would repel each other, but if you pair an object with "regular" mass and one with negative mass, the regular-mass object would be repelled and the negative-mass object would be attracted
The problem with all of this is that mass is not an intrinsic quality of particles, this is for example why antimatter doesn't have negative mass - mass is an emergent property and negative mass would be like pulling something towards you by pushing against it
I can't even comprehend that
It has to do with basically getting a double negative. The force of gravity is reversed, but so is the acceleration (because F=ma).
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Yes it would
Yes, but in a purely mathematical sense antimatter does have negative mass, because when you add it to matter, you get less matter.
E=mc^2
and m in this case would be the masses of the matter and antimatter particles, they're added to each other, not subtracted
Only in the end
as long as the anti-matter is kept in a tube of some sort (plastic will do, but glass is probably better for safety) anti matter is perfectly safe to play with, even for very young children
At least if inertial mass and gravitational mass have to have the same sign, but...
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
This idea kinda breaks my brain, but if we roll with it, it wouldn't really change anything because we'd still end up with negative energy
Momentum is mv though.
So speeding negative mass up with positive mass should have no net momentum change.
We have trapped it and studied it but not made any
She's real, she just doesn't come to the forums any more
But to be fair this is very useful for laboratory work
Also android brains
29:51
When it comes to telescopes, bigger is better. That's why we're investing billions of dollars into a new generation of "extremely large telescopes", such as the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT). But is 30 meters truly extreme? Could it be possible to ever build a telescope on the scale of a planet? In a new research paper by our very own Professor David Kipping, a solution for turning the Earth into a "Terrascope" is presented. Join us on a journey though the history of telescope inventions as well David's own personal journey to devising this new radical approach to the telescope.
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
Skyfall is an insane and horrible and deeply unsettling idea, like project Pluto/SLAM.