- #1
ranger
Gold Member
- 1,687
- 2
I'm just curious as to how GR doesn't allow this.
--thanks.
--thanks.
Thrice said:Hmm would it violate the equivalence principle?
ranger said:I'm just curious as to how GR doesn't allow this.
Are you sure? In Newtonian physics, negative mass would fall towards a positive-mass planet just like positive mass would. And both negative mass and positive mass would be repulsed by a negative-mass planet.vanesch said:If you would have some "anti-gravity" matter, and some gravity matter, you would be able to distinguish a "falling elevator" frame from a "free frame in outer space", which is disallowed for in GR.
The anti-gravity matter would fall UPWARD in the falling elevator, while the normal matter would "float in the elevator". On the other hand, in the free frame far away, both matter and anti-grav. matter would remain "inertial".
You are, in GR, not supposed to be able to make such a distinction.
JesseM said:Are you sure? In Newtonian physics, negative mass would fall towards a positive-mass planet just like positive mass would. And both negative mass and positive mass would be repulsed by a negative-mass planet.
I don't think you're right about that, the acceleration of a mass [tex]m_1[/tex] should depend only on the gravitational "polarity" of the mass [tex]m_2[/tex] that it's next to, not on the polarity of [tex]m_1[/tex] itself. Consider the equation you posted:Jheriko said:This is not correct. If we were able to assign polarity to the gravitational masses they would behave much like the charges in electromagnetism, except that the rules for attracting and repelling are reversed. We can see this from Newton's law of gravity if we add signs to the quantities [itex]m_1[/itex] and [itex]m_2[/itex]:
Your equations are correct, but you're forgetting that if both [tex]m_1[/tex] and [tex]m_2[/tex] are negative, this translates to:Jheriko said:]For both +ve or -ve we get:
[tex]F = \frac{G{m_1}{m_2}}{{r^2}}[/tex]
or
[tex]F = \frac{G(-{m_1})(-{m_2})}{{r^2}}[/tex]
which are both the same as
[tex]F = \frac{G{m_1}{m_2}}{{r^2}}[/tex]
i.e. attractive force
JesseM said:Your equations are correct, but you're forgetting that if both [tex]m_1[/tex] and [tex]m_2[/tex] are negative, this translates to:
[tex]-m_1 a = \frac{G{m_1}{m_2}}{{r^2}}[/tex]
This is not an attractive force, because if you divide both sides by [tex]m_1[/tex] you get
[tex] -a = \frac{G{m_1}{m_2}}{{r^2}}[/tex]
or
[tex]a = - \frac{G{m_1}{m_2}}{{r^2}}[/tex]
So, I still don't see why there should be any violation of the equivalence principle if negative masses were possible.
I don't think that makes sense, if you assume "all the other masses in the universe" are repelling the test body, there's no reason they should necessarily push it in exactly the direction of the other massive body.lalbatros said:First thought:
If a test body is attracted by another massive body,
could we not reverse the sentense,
and say that it is repelled by all the other masses in the universe ?
Not exactly, two positive masses will attract each other, but two negative masses will repel each other (so even if negative mass existed, it wouldn't naturally tend to accumulate into concentrated bodies like stars and planets).lalbatros said:Second thought:
For electric charges, same signs imply repulsion.
For masses, it is the contrary.
Antimatter doesn't have anything to do with negative mass, it's just like normal matter but with the charges reversed--for example, regular electrons have a negative electrical charge, while the antimatter version of an electron, called a "positron", would have a positive electrical charge, but would be identical to an electron in terms of other properties like mass (although if the electron has a charge in terms of the other forces besides gravity and electromagnetism, namely the strong and weak nuclear forces, I think those would be reversed in the positron as well). I believe antimatter is required to exist by quantum field theories, and anyway it's been found experimentally.ranger said:This may sound like something I shouldn't be asking. But I can't really grasp your explanations because the term anti-matter and negative mass make no sense to me. Can someone explain?
JesseM said:Are you sure? In Newtonian physics, negative mass would fall towards a positive-mass planet just like positive mass would. And both negative mass and positive mass would be repulsed by a negative-mass planet.
Fair enough, this alternate notion of anti-gravity matter hadn't occurred to me. I think it is reasonable to characterize negative mass as a type of anti-gravity matter though, since even though it would fall downward on earth, its own gravity would have a repulsive effect on other objects...in theory if you had a very dense clump of negative mass, with greater mass than the entire earth, it would appear to fall upward in the Earth's gravitational field, although it would actually be pushing the entire Earth away from it at a greater rate than it was being pulled toward the Earth (pushing the Earth out of its orbit, among other things).vanesch said:Yes, that is why negative mass as such is not "antigravity" stuff by itself. I was talking about "anti-gravity" stuff, which, I took it, must be something which falls upward on the Earth's surface. In other words, something that "goes the other way" as normal matter in a gravitational field. It is *this* which is disallowed for by GR, unless you relax some rather fundamental postulates of it.
I never said that negative mass was anti-gravity stuff. You made this implicit connection...
JesseM said:I think it is reasonable to characterize negative mass as a type of anti-gravity matter though, since even though it would fall downward on earth, its own gravity would have a repulsive effect on other objects...
According to general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses, but rather the curvature of space and time caused by the presence of massive objects. This means that there is no opposing force or "antigravity" acting against the force of gravity. Instead, objects with mass simply follow the path of least resistance in the curved space-time fabric.
No, general relativity does not allow for the creation of antigravity devices or technologies. While the theory does predict the existence of gravitational waves, they are not able to be manipulated or harnessed in a way that would produce antigravity effects.
Yes, there is substantial evidence supporting the absence of antigravity in general relativity. Observations of the orbits of planets, stars, and galaxies align with the predictions of general relativity and do not show any signs of antigravity. Additionally, experiments conducted in space have also confirmed the validity of general relativity.
There are some theories that propose the existence of antigravity, such as string theory and supersymmetry. However, these theories are still hypothetical and have not been proven or widely accepted by the scientific community. General relativity remains the most well-supported and accurate theory for describing the behavior of gravity.
It is highly unlikely that antigravity would be included in any future advancements or modifications of general relativity. The theory has been extensively tested and has consistently shown to accurately explain the behavior of gravity. Any modifications to the theory would need to be supported by substantial evidence and would not likely involve the concept of antigravity.