Does Negative Mass Exist in the Universe?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the existence of negative mass in the universe and its theoretical implications. While some mathematical models suggest that negative mass would behave oppositely to positive mass, such as repelling like masses and attracting opposite ones, there is no empirical evidence supporting its existence. Antiparticles, often confused with negative mass, actually possess positive mass but have opposite charge characteristics. The conversation also touches on the role of antiparticles in quantum mechanics, where their existence is inferred from theoretical frameworks rather than direct evidence. Overall, the consensus remains that negative mass is not established in physics, and its properties continue to be a topic of debate among scientists.
superweirdo
Messages
156
Reaction score
0
does negative mass exists?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
it says it hasn't been proven if it is exist however, by mathematics, it is supposed to react just like electromagnetism except that like masses would attract and opposite would repel. Now, does anybody think he can explain the exception?
 
An antiparticle would have a negative rest mass
 
actionintegral said:
An antiparticle would have a negative rest mass

Ah... any proof for that? Antiparticles do not have negative rest mass.
 
So is that it, there are no more theories on negative mass?
 
According to the feynman's theory of positrons, the proper time for an antiparticle the reverse of the proper time for matter. The proper mass would be reversed as well. All invariant quantities would be reversed for
antiparticles.
 
but we aren't sure that antiparticle exists either. As far as I know, the only reason we even believe in antiparticles is b/c of them, we laws make sense b/c when you exclude them from theory, our physics seems flawed, still a lot of physicist don't believe in it though coz we don't have a brute evidence for it.
 
superweirdo said:
but we aren't sure that antiparticle exists either. As far as I know, the only reason we even believe in antiparticles is b/c of them, we laws make sense b/c when you exclude them from theory, our physics seems flawed, still a lot of physicist don't believe in it though coz we don't have a brute evidence for it.


Boy, if the antiproton doesn't exist, the Tevatron physicists must have made up all of that data they've published. You think?
 
  • #10
superweirdo said:
but we aren't sure that antiparticle exists either. As far as I know, the only reason we even believe in antiparticles is b/c of them, we laws make sense b/c when you exclude them from theory, our physics seems flawed, still a lot of physicist don't believe in it though coz we don't have a brute evidence for it.
We are sure they exist. CERN even has an antimatter factory. :!)
 
  • #11
actionintegral said:
According to the feynman's theory of positrons, the proper time for an antiparticle the reverse of the proper time for matter. The proper mass would be reversed as well. All invariant quantities would be reversed for
antiparticles.

Only reversed in time. It has the same mass. Check out the http://pdg.lbl.gov" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Hi Norman,
Sorry to appear obtuse, but once I learned that antiparticles were reversed in time, I jumped to the conclusion that all invariant quantities were reversed for antiparticles. Please follow me to the QM forum where I
re-posed my question.
 
  • #13
actionintegral said:
Hi Norman,
Sorry to appear obtuse, but once I learned that antiparticles were reversed in time, I jumped to the conclusion that all invariant quantities were reversed for antiparticles. Please follow me to the QM forum where I
re-posed my question.

Try googling on CPT Theorem.
 
  • #14
I'll check it out - Thanks!
 
  • #15
I didnt even know that antiproton exist, I guess I shouldn't argue you guys about these things, so far, I am only aware of 3 anti things, antimatter, antiparticle, and anti proton. Are there anymore?
 
  • #16
superweirdo said:
I didnt even know that antiproton exist, I guess I shouldn't argue you guys about these things, so far, I am only aware of 3 anti things, antimatter, antiparticle, and anti proton. Are there anymore?

Antimatter is the collective name for the antiparticles. The modern way of looking at it is, every particle has a corresponding antiparticle, but sometimes the particle is its own antiparticle. This is like saying every quadratic equation has two solutions, but sometime the solutions coincide; it's perhaps just a manner of speaking but it makes thinking about antiparticles a little smoother.

So all the particles in the standard model come with antiparticles. That's six quarks, six leptons, four electroweak bosons (including the photon) and eight QCD bosons, the gluons. Therefore all those numbers I gave except one should be doubled. The one exception is the four electroweak bosons. It is required that an antiparticle have opposite charge to its particle; so for example the electron is electrically negative and therefore the positron (as the antielectron is called for historic reasons) has to be electrically positive.

The electroweak bosons consist of the photon, which is electrically neutral, the W+ and W- particles, which are each other's antiparticle (guess which one is positive and which one negative), and the Z0 particle, which is also electrically neutral. Since they have no charge to reverse, the photon and the Z0 are their own antiparticles.

The point about charge reversal applies not only to the familiar electrical charge, but to the triple "color charge" of QCD; each of its three varieties comes in a "positive and negative" form (the "negative" one is called an anticharge), and the gluons which are elctrically neutral each carry a pair, consisting of one of the three color charges and one of the three anticharges, but not the anticharge of its charge. And that gluon's antigluon carries the opposite one of each of that pair. So if they meet and annihilate, the total QCD charge of the event comes out to zero, as it should.
 
  • #17
Every known particle has an antiparticle.

- Warren
 
  • #18
What you said completely made sense to me selfadjoint but the analogy you gave didn't sound right to me, rather I'd like to use the analogy that every equation has an inverse but for the equation that don't, here though, their inverse is the same equation.(this isn't mathematically correct but seems more logical to me)

btw, I also heard something about antiparticles that they have inverse time and space(guessing this one) too which didn't make sense to me, could you guys explain this to me?
 
  • #19
superweirdo said:
What you said completely made sense to me selfadjoint but the analogy you gave didn't sound right to me, rather I'd like to use the analogy that every equation has an inverse but for the equation that don't, here though, their inverse is the same equation.(this isn't mathematically correct but seems more logical to me)

You are driving the analogy too hard. I wasn't trying to model antimatter in high school algebra, just the community habit of treating the exceptional case as a normal case with an asterisk.

btw, I also heard something about antiparticles that they have inverse time and space(guessing this one) too which didn't make sense to me, could you guys explain this to me?

In the math, you can do a transformation t -> -t and that transforms the expression for a particle into one for its antiparticle. People with gee-whiz aspirations can read into that whatever they like but it's emphatically just a symmetry of the math, not a fact of nature.
 
  • #20
so you don't believe that it have has inverse time and maybe space?
 
  • #21
yes. anti-perspirant.
 
  • #22
superweirdo said:
so you don't believe that it have has inverse time and maybe space?
Being meaningless, that's a question that can not be answered.
 
  • #23
I am not sure if I follow your metaphor Gokul.
 
  • #24
superweirdo said:
I am not sure if I follow your metaphor Gokul.

He means your statement

"so you don't believe that it have has inverse time and maybe space?"

has no semanttic content that anyone else can detect. Consider recasting it.
 
  • #25
I would offer to superweirdo: Please do not be confused with the term "anti"
An anti-particle is only "anti" in certain respects, NOT ALL RESPECTS. For example, a positron(which is an anti-electron) has opposite charge but the exact same mass, and that mass is not "negative mass"; its just the same, regular type of mass. Just the charge is "anti"

Anti-matter DOES NOT mean or infer anti-mass in any respect. As such, there is no "anti-time" or "anti-space" associated with anti-particles.
 
  • #26
Sadly, the most commonly observed occurrence of a "negative mass", the effective mass of charge carriers in a crystal, has gone unmentioned.
 
  • #27
There is an old paper by Bondi about negative mass. Since I only have negative money, can someone send it to me?
 
  • #28
Gokul43201 said:
Sadly, the most commonly observed occurrence of a "negative mass", the effective mass of charge carriers in a crystal, has gone unmentioned.

I was waiting to see how long before someone would say something about this, Gokul. I suppose if isn't from one of us, no one would even be aware of such a thing existing in other parts of physics.

Zz.
 
  • #29
Gokul43201 said:
Being meaningless, that's a question that can not be answered.

1/s = frequency
1/m^3 = ?
 
  • #30
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K