The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: can mass be negative?  (Read 18856 times)

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #50 on: 11/03/2015 03:37:57 »
Quote from: alancalverd
Repeating nonsense doesn't turn it into sense, and starting a sentence with "If" doesn't make any of what follows into a fact.
Yep. As you can see above I agree. He just can't fathom that he's wrong. What's bad about it is that he refuses to make an statement about why his claims should be taken as valid nor has he made an attempt to prove that he correct. He also ignores all the proof that he's wrong too. Bad juju.

Quote from: alancalverd
Note for Pete: I can't find any reference to a direct measurement of positron mass, but I've seen a neat proposal for measuring the gravitational force on a positronium atom.
All you have to do is go to a particle accelerator labs website and find a particle physicist. They'll be glad to help you.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #51 on: 11/03/2015 05:13:04 »
Quote from: Courier of darkness
I am not irritating.
Of course you are. Haven't you read the responses to your claims? Can't you see that your thread was moved to the New Theories Forum? That only happens when the claims made by the OP don't conform to mainstream physics like your bogus claims. What I've explained to you is straight out of advanced undergraduate textbooks and graduate textbooks on particle physics as well as textbooks on modern physics. How do I know? I know because I studied modern physics and particle physics and have the equivalent of a Masters Degree in Physics. From your posts I can tell that you have no formal education in physics. That's the source of your false claims and the reasons you're both unable and unwilling to back up your claims either with a proof or with a reference to a textbook on the subject matter. You've been asked to on many occasions and on each occasion you pretend that you haven't been asked. That way you won't be embarrassed when you fail.

Quote from: Courier of darkness
You are just simply wrong ...
Based on what? I'm a well educated physics and I know WHY what I say is true. You on the other hand can't even state where you got that claim. You just spit it out like everyone is simply supposed to accept what you, somebody unknown to everybody here, want everyone to accept based on nothing.

It's quite literally impossible for any tardyon (i.e. a particle that moves slower than the speed of light and is not a virtual particle) to have negative energy E because E is the total energy of the particle which is defined as the sum of kinetic energy and rest energy, both of which are positive quantities.

Quote from: Courier of darkness
..and unable to understand it, therefore you are irritated.
In your dreams. We know a nutcase when we see them because they insult people who explain their errors to them or say that they're wrong and that's all you've been doing since you got here is claiming that you know what's right and we don't because we're ignorant. The fact is that I've been a physicist for 30 years and you're merely an ignorant layman who refuses to state or prove why he thinks he's right.

Quote from: Courier of darkness
It is you who ignore the arguments that I show.
What a load of BS. You've posted nonsense since you arrived. You started with a false assumption and arrived at a paradox not knowing that there's a paradox because you started with nonsense.From the beginning you were unable to understand everything.

In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass because you mistook m  = m0/sqrt{1 - v2/c2} because that was derived on the assumption that the particle is a tardyon, not a luxon. The definition of relativistic mass is given implicitly as the m in p = mv. Therefore m = p/v. Since v = c for a photon m = p/c. Substituting in E = pc or p = E/c we end up with m = E/c2.

You'll have to look up the terms tardyon and luxon because I'm damn sure you don't know what they mean.

That's found throughout all of the relativity literature where relativistic mass is used. E.g.

Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological by Rindler, Oxford Univ., Press, (2001), page 120
Quote
According to Einstein, a photon with frequency n has energy hf /c2, and thus (as he only came to realize several years later) a finite mass and a finite momentum hf/c.

Introducing Einstein's Relativity by Ray D'Inverno, Oxford Univ. Press, (1992), page 50
Quote
Finally, using the energy-mass relationship E = mc2, we find that the relativistic mass of a photon is non-zero and given by
m = p/c.

 Combining these results with Planck's hypothesis, we obtain the following formulae for the energy E, relativistic mass m, and linear momentum p of the photons: 

E = hf             m = hf/c2            p = hf/c

Special Relativity by A. P. French, MIT Press, page 20
Quote
Let us now try to put together some of the results we have discussed. For photons we have

E = cp 

and

 m = E/c2

 (the first experimental, the second based on Einstein's box). Combining these, we have 

m = p/c


Quote from: Courier of darkness
Feynman diagrams I posted. You were unable to learn why the photon is massless.
Nope. Not at all. You only proved that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Feynman diagrams.

Quote from: Courier of darkness
I have told how physicists agree with me that during the Big Bang there were
equal amounts of antimatter and matter and their sum was -E + E = 0
And I just showed you a portion of a text by one of the worlds leading experts on the subject saying that you misinterpreted what you believe and thus you're clueless again. Unless you're too scared to read for fear of being proved so darn wrong?

I am listening if you have a point but I don't intend to bend according to your will.
The battle cry of the ignorant.

The rest is more of the same stupid garbage. You don't deserve any help because you're not intelligent enough to grasp it.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 05:15:04 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #52 on: 11/03/2015 06:04:49 »
Quote from: JohnDuffield
I'm afraid does antimatter fall up? is just a soundbite to attract the attention of the popscience media.
Antimatter most certainly doesn't fall up since it behaves dynamically like matter. However have you read the Bondi article on negative mass? I forget what it says since its been many years since I've read it but it's surely not popscience media, that's for sure.

See http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/Bondi.pdf
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #53 on: 11/03/2015 06:07:56 »
Quote from: Bill S
There seems to be a general assumption, at least in Pop. Sci. that tachyons accelerate.
There's actually nothing surprising about tachyons accelerating just as there's nothing surprising about tardyons accelerating. It's simply that, theoretically, tachyons are created moving faster than c, the speed of light, and can move at any speed faster than c and can change velocity too so long as the speed is always greater than c.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #54 on: 11/03/2015 06:29:46 »
Quote from: Courier of darkness
You are just simply wrong and unable to understand it, therefore you are irritated.
Tell me something Mr. Rude. If I'm so wrong why does the following say what it does? From Ask a Mathematician/Physicist
http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/02/q-whats-the-difference-between-anti-matter-and-negative-matter/
Quote
Physicist: Anti-matter is exactly the same as matter, but different.  If you, and everything else on the planet, were suddenly turned into anti-matter, you’d never know the difference.  While the “anti-” of anti-matter may seem to give it an air of mystery, it still acts just like ordinary matter in essentially every respect.  Specifically, anti-matter carries positive energy and mass , just like regular matter, while negative matter carries negative energy and mass.
while you, on the other hand, keep refusing to demonstrate your claim with a proof or a reference to a text which says you're right? Several of us have asked you to do so and you've ignored all of us. You've presented nothing anywhere which agrees with you and you refuse to state not only where you got that nonsense but what the physical meaning of negative energy is for a particle. And you keep ignoring the fact that what's called a particle and an antiparticle is arbitrary so you have no right saying that one has negative energy and the other one has positive energy.

All of us in these forums know that when someone refuses to back up their claim its because they're unable to as is the case here.

On the other hand I can back up any claim I make and have shot down every claim you've made, including your flawed interpretation of the zero energy universe. The real explanation is here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf

READ IT this time!!
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #55 on: 11/03/2015 18:17:39 »
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Not true. Because physicists seem to agree that:

During the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter  and regular matter
and their sum was -E + E = 0
I'll tell you what I'm going to do. Alan H. Guth, an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist and winner of the 2014 Kavli Prize in Astrophysics, is a good friend of mine. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/2014-astrophysics-citation

He's author of the book The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins which I showed you part of when
I posted this portion of it which proves you wrong: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf

From page 289
Quote
      APPENDIX A

Since the negative energy of a gravitational field is crucial to the notion of
a zero-energy universe, it is a subject worth examining carefully. In this
appendix I will explain how the properties of gravity can be used to show
that the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative. The argument
will be described in the context of Newton's theory of gravity,
although the same conclusion can be reached using Einstein's theory of general
relativity.

I'm visiting him
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #56 on: 11/03/2015 18:49:49 »
Quote from: Courier of darkness
Not true. Because physicists seem to agree that:

During the Big Bang there were equal amounts of antimatter  and regular matter
and their sum was -E + E = 0
Before the Big Bang there was an un equal amount of matter and antimatter. The annihilation caused a balance to ensue

Alan H. Guth is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist at MIT, winner of the 2014 Kavli Prize in Astrophysics. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/2014-astrophysics-citation

He's also the author of the book The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins which I showed you part of when I posted this portion of it which proves you wrong: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/guth_grav_energy.pdf
From page 289
Quote
      APPENDIX A

Since the negative energy of a gravitational field is crucial to the notion of a zero-energy universe, it is a subject worth examining carefully. In this appendix I will explain how the properties of gravity can be used to show that the energy of a gravitational field is unambiguously negative. The argument will be described in the context of Newton's theory of gravity, although the same conclusion can be reached using Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Guth uses that fact that the relativistic mass of a photon (not to be confused with its rest mass) is non-zero and finite in his cosmology lecture notes on his Early Universe course at MIT. That part of his lecture notes is online at
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/guth.jpg
« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 18:35:53 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #57 on: 15/03/2015 16:22:45 »
Tell me CD. Was
Quote
Can you read my name? What do you think it suggests? Might I rather be a bringer of darkness instead of a joker that you seem to think I am?
meant to be a threat? Why don't you tell us what its supposed to suggest in the context of an internet discussion forum?

Also, why have you yet to state any source which defines an antiparticle of a particle has having either negative mass or negative energy? And why have you ignored the fact that since its impossible to say one is an antiparticle and the other is a particle neither can have negative energy?
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #58 on: 20/03/2015 18:08:49 »
Antimatter most certainly doesn't fall up since it behaves dynamically like matter. However have you read the Bondi article on negative mass? I forget what it says since its been many years since I've read it but it's surely not popscience media, that's for sure.

See http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/Bondi.pdf
Yes I've read it. It isn't popscience, but with respect, it's bad science that results from a lack of understanding of mass and gravity, along with a touch of "lost in math". And I will reiterate: the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. If you take away all the energy, the body does not exist, and you can't take away more energy. Ditto if you shorten a pencil to 0cm. It no longer exists, and you can't make it shorter.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #59 on: 20/03/2015 18:24:42 »
Quote from: JohnDuffield
Yes I've read it.
I'm not interested in your opinion because your opinion is always based on the very poor understanding of physics that you demonstrate in nearly all of your posts, such as this one in fact.

Quote from: JohnDuffield
It isn't popscience, but with respect, it's bad science that results from a lack of understanding of mass and gravity, along with a touch of "lost in math".
Nonsense yet again. We're all pretty much used to the fact that in cases such as this it's always been your lack of understanding of the physics. This is easily seen in the fact that you were unable to make a definite statement of why you claim that the author, one of the actual contributors to the general theory of relativity in fact, doesn't understand gravity. What a load of BS.

Quote from: JohnDuffield
And I will reiterate: the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.
Correction: The mass of an isolated body at rest is a measure of its rest energy.

Please stop posting in the threads I create. I have no interest in what you have to say since you're understanding of physics is just that poor.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #60 on: 21/03/2015 03:12:16 »
Consider the electron-positron annihilation


If the positron has a negative mass -m, and the electron has a positive mass +m, their sum is
-m+m=0

Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?
Is it 0 because the photon is the particle into which the pair positron-electron is transformed in the annihilation?
Going back to the start of this thread I see that we all missed the obvious error in this post and I'm ashamed to admit that I missed it myself too.

Conservation of mass: If the mass of anti-particle was actually negative like CD asserts then the total mass would be zero. However the total mass after the annihilation is not zero regardless of how one defines mass as invariant mass or relativistic mass. The invariant mass of a photon is zero but it has both energy and momentum and the energy and momentum of two identical particles traveling in opposite directions (which will be the case in these reactions). In that case the invariant mass of the system is non-zero. It actually has the value of the (total energy of the electron + positron)/c2.

Conservation of energy: If the energy of the antiparticle was negative the mass of the particle then the sum of the two is zero. However there are to photons after the reaction which have a non-zero total energy. Therefore the energy is not conserved. This means that the assumption of negative energy is false.
 

Offline Courier of darkness

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #61 on: 17/06/2016 11:07:40 »
Courier of darkness is back with a vengeance.
 

Offline Courier of darkness

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #62 on: 29/06/2016 07:06:40 »
Consider the electron-positron annihilation


If the positron has a negative mass -m, and the electron has a positive mass +m, their sum is
-m+m=0

Can we explain why the photon mass is zero (its rest-mass is 0)?
Is it 0 because the photon is the particle into which the pair positron-electron is transformed in the annihilation?
Going back to the start of this thread I see that we all missed the obvious error in this post and I'm ashamed to admit that I missed it myself too.

The problem is, there is no error in my post.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #63 on: 29/06/2016 14:02:22 »
m=A word that explains something we dont understand that we weigh in kg that is equal to newtons of force in an inertial reference frame.


 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #64 on: 29/06/2016 14:30:17 »
Antimatter most certainly doesn't fall up since it behaves dynamically like matter. However have you read the Bondi article on negative mass? I forget what it says since its been many years since I've read it but it's surely not popscience media, that's for sure.

See http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/Bondi.pdf
Yes I've read it. It isn't popscience, but with respect, it's bad science that results from a lack of understanding of mass and gravity, along with a touch of "lost in math". And I will reiterate: the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. If you take away all the energy, the body does not exist, and you can't take away more energy. Ditto if you shorten a pencil to 0cm. It no longer exists, and you can't make it shorter.

The mass of a body is not a measure of its energy content. The mass of a body is a metric unit of quantifiable ''weight'' represented in kg on a set of scales, the intentions of the word mass was to represent the summation of all energies within a body, but the intentions are lost somewhere.


Mass should be represented m=c0efbb5b854cd77c8e02a069d69d41b9.gif=Eσ

However m represented by kg is a direct indistinguishable relationship to Newtons of force and F=ma.



« Last Edit: 29/06/2016 14:34:38 by Thebox »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #65 on: 01/07/2016 13:29:46 »
   According to my theory in my book, the property of mass is the result of a spherical momentum oscillation. An electron has an oscillation within its radius. The positron has a 180 degree phase difference in its oscillation as compared to the electron.. In addition both have degrees of linear and angular momentum. When you add an electron to a positron, you get a cancellation of the spherical momentum. This results in two photons. The energy is conserved and the photons now have high amounts of linear momentum. 
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #66 on: 01/07/2016 13:39:21 »
   According to my theory in my book, the property of mass is the result of a spherical momentum oscillation. An electron has an oscillation within its radius. The positron has a 180 degree phase difference in its oscillation as compared to the electron.. In addition both have degrees of linear and angular momentum. When you add an electron to a positron, you get a cancellation of the spherical momentum. This results in two photons. The energy is conserved and the photons now have high amounts of linear momentum.

Mass is entropy related, I do not know why you mention the above which I do not understand to mean anything, can you simplify that into layman terms?
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #67 on: 02/07/2016 00:30:38 »
Mass is entropy related, I do not know why you mention the above which I do not understand to mean anything, can you simplify that into layman terms?

   The physics that we learn has two types of basic wave motion. A photon has linear motion and at the same time has a degree of spin motion.  thus it has both linear and angular momentum.  There is one other type of motion which causes mass and inertia. If we take a ball of energy and compress and expand it, it will have spherical motion. This form of momentum is responsible for mass. This form of energy was left out of the scientific discussion because we readily measure linear and orbital forms of energy but we do not readily measure the energy of a spherical compression/expansion oscillation. thus mass and gravity are spherical forms of forces and energy which have been overlooked.
 

Offline Courier of darkness

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #68 on: 03/07/2016 09:41:48 »


This joker is way beyond help since he refuses to address all the proofs I've leveled against his bogus claims. If you have any questions or wish to discuss it let's take it to our private forum. Okay?
Agreed.................
At least this is in the forum where it belongs. I.e. this thread was moved here because it's outside the domain of mainstream physics meaning that what the OP claims are all WRONG.

Just because my thread was moved here does not mean that my claims are all
WRONG.

in fact, my claims are correct.
 

Offline Courier of darkness

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #69 on: 04/07/2016 06:25:04 »
He just can't fathom that he's wrong. What's bad about it is that he refuses to make an statement about why his claims should be taken as valid nor has he made an attempt to prove that he correct. He also ignores all the proof that he's wrong too.

I am not wrong.

Of course you are. Haven't you read the responses to your claims? Can't you see that your thread was moved to the New Theories Forum? That only happens when the claims made by the OP don't conform to mainstream physics like your bogus claims.

I repeat:

just because my thread was moved here, does not mean that my claims are bogus. You have presented no evidence against me except that my thread was moved here.


We know a nutcase when we see them because they insult people who explain their errors to them or say that they're wrong and that's all you've been doing since you got here is claiming that you know what's right and we don't because we're ignorant. The fact is that I've been a physicist for 30 years and you're merely an ignorant layman who refuses to state or prove why he thinks he's right.

I have not insulted anyone. It is you who is insulting. You don't know who I am. You did not explain my error, you only said that I must be wrong because my thread was moved here.

 

Offline Courier of darkness

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #70 on: 04/07/2016 14:51:08 »
The rest is more of the same stupid garbage. You don't deserve any help because you're not intelligent enough to grasp it.
I don't need any help. I did not ask for any help. It is you who needs help.
 

Offline Courier of darkness

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #71 on: 06/07/2016 12:08:34 »
this thread was moved here because it's outside the domain of mainstream physics meaning that what the OP claims are all WRONG

Using this kind of logic, one can say that all the claims in all the threads here are all WRONG, the threads were moved here because they are all WRONG, all the new theories are WRONG.
 

Offline Courier of darkness

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #72 on: 06/07/2016 19:50:59 »
In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass because you mistook m  = m0/sqrt{1 - v2/c2} because that was derived on the assumption that the particle is a tardyon, not a luxon. The definition of relativistic mass is given implicitly as the m in p = mv. Therefore m = p/v. Since v = c for a photon m = p/c. Substituting in E = pc or p = E/c we end up with m = E/c2

Lets examine more closely whether photons really have a well defined momentum:

The relativistic mass formula is m= m0/edb6a6bacced2e463106149a7c62b733.gif

The relativistic momentum is 5ab5b5a9a1080263077dbffe7aecad2f.gif

for a photon v=c and 47f11df513283aecd0f7f6ad10973d84.gif

the problem is,  for a photon m0 = 0 and therefore we end up with p =ecc045f9ab1f4dfc0007a7a04cefa5b8.gifc


So, are you implying that p = mc = ecc045f9ab1f4dfc0007a7a04cefa5b8.gifc is well defined?

 

Offline Courier of darkness

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #73 on: 09/07/2016 06:13:04 »
In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass because you mistook m  = m0/sqrt{1 - v2/c2}

I did not make an error, the relativistic mass formula is m= m0/edb6a6bacced2e463106149a7c62b733.gif

Are you going to explain why do you think that photons have well defined relativistic mass?

I told that photons have relativistic mass m = ecc045f9ab1f4dfc0007a7a04cefa5b8.gif


 

Offline Courier of darkness

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #74 on: 11/07/2016 13:04:57 »
He just can't fathom that he's wrong. What's bad about it is that he refuses to make an statement about why his claims should be taken as valid nor has he made an attempt to prove that he correct. He also ignores all the proof that he's wrong too.

You are ignoring the proof that you are wrong:


In fact you were unable to grasp the fact that photons have a well defined relativistic mass

It is you who is unable to grasp that photons don't have a well defined relativistic mass:

photons have relativistic mass m = ecc045f9ab1f4dfc0007a7a04cefa5b8.gif
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: can mass be negative?
« Reply #74 on: 11/07/2016 13:04:57 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums