EnumaElish said:
I for one am curious about Drs. Forward and Brightsen, and would appreciate your time if you post an explanation.
I do not have access to the papers of Dr. Forward, but one of the posts above provides some information--apparently Dr. Forward has published equations to show how positive mass and negative mass can intermingle.
Also, as seen from this discussion on Physlink.com, the concept of negative mass is not considered valid by modern day physicists:
====
Question
How can something have a negative mass, and what does that mean?
Asked by: Jim Larkin
Answer
If a particle could have a negative mass it certainly would be hard to understand. That is why physicists define mass to be always positive. So by definition there is no such thing as 'negative' mass. This is not an arbitrary definition as there are very deep reasons as to why a negative mass could never be physical.
Sometimes, in employing mathematical models to describe Nature, we come across solutions to equations that may allow for negative masses. For example, the formula for the energy of a relativistic particle is
E2 = m2*c4 + p2*c2.
So a particle with a certain positive energy but no momentum could presumably have a positive or negative mass. Dirac interpreted these negative mass states as anti-particles that he hid away in the 'Dirac Sea.' While this anachronistic interpretation still lives on in old-textbooks and new-Age books on quantum mechanics, we now know that this picture is wrong. Anti-particles have positive masses just as any other particle (see http://www.physlink.com/ae247.cfm). These 'negative' solutions are simply not physical and are dropped. Not everything that has mathematical meaning has physical meaning!
Another place where people like to talk about negative masses is in reference to 'tachyons.' The tachyon (whose name comes from the Greek word tachys for swift) was originally any solution to Special Relativity that had a velocity greater than the speed of light. Such a state (like Dirac's 'negative energy' states) are non-physical. These particles would have imaginary masses (that is the mass-squared is negative) and this is just as unphysical as a negative mass or a negative energy. Thus such solutions are always discarded or removed from any theory that claims to describe Nature.
Answered by: Brent Nelson, M.A. Physics, Ph.D. Student, UC Berkeley
=====
As for Mr. Brightsen, his papers are available at this link:
http://www.brightsenmodel.phoenixrising-web.net . Mr. Brightsen passed away in 2001--he left much unanswered about the "dynamics" of this nucleon cluster model. I serve as webmaster for this site to allow for his model to be studied and debated.
The Brightsen Model starts with a basic axiom that unbound protons [P] and neutrons [N] do not exist in beta-stable isotopes--this is what makes his cluster model unique. This is of course counter to the standard shell model which is widely held in nuclear physics. Because his model does not allow for unbound nucleons in isotopes, he has a problem with 1-H-1, the proton. He solves the problem by a hypothesis that the proton [P] is in fact a quantum superposition of different combinations of matter and antimatter nucleon clusters. For example, 1-H-1 can be formed by union of a matter [PNP] cluster + antimatter [N^P^] where ^ = antimatter. If one views each cluster as having a unique wavefunction, then the superposition principle of QM requires that when the two waves meet, their amplitudes add, but no mass is added or taken away. This is just the way QM works--when waves meet they always add because the waves are not "physical things".
Next, applying complex number formalism z = x+y
i the two clusters can form a stable superposition with a real part [P] within the same field as an imaginary part {[NP][N^P^]}. When we collapse the superposed wavefunction at low energy we "observe" what we call "the proton" [P]--when we use high energy in accelerators we observed the quark collapse of the imaginary {[NP][N^P^]}, which always appears as pions (matter quark+antimatter quark). The above is my understanding of how the Brightsen Model may work, it was not discussed by Mr. Brightsen in any of his papers. One will note that the above explains the so-called "missing mass" of the universe--it is not missing, it is found within 1-H-1, the neutron, and deuteron as "antimatter" according to the Brightsen Model.
Another unique prediction of the Brightsen Model is that the stable union between matter and antimatter within 1-H-1 requires the ever presence of a new field force--gravity (from matter) linked with antigravity (from antimatter). When energy is applied to this "proton superposition", the QM superposition principle demands that the two initial wavefunction will separate entirely unchanged in terms of mass. Thus, the Brightsen Model predicts that the source of antimatter in proton interactions with heavy elements such as copper (a very common experiment) is the release of the antimatter [P^] and [N^] that exists within the element 1-H-1. Of great importance is that when the energy used is very low (i.e. cold) the imaginary [NP] and [N^P^] clusters emerge to allow for transmutation of heavy elements--that is, the Brightsen Model predicts one possible "dynamic" for what is called "cold fusion".
Now to question of negative mass. The Brightsen Model predicts that the "effective mass" for "antihydrogen" will always be "negative one". The term effective mass comes from a basic equation for all beta-stable isotopes derived from the Brightsen Model, (NP+NPN) + 2 (NP) = Z, where Z = number of "net positive charge" protons in a nuclei. Z takes the form of "net negative protons" where there are an excess of antimatter (negative) mass units. For example, antihydrogen can be formed by quantum superposition between [P^N^P^] antimatter cluster and [NP] matter cluster, and thus form the "effective negative mass" = (-1) for the antihydrogen.
Finally, here are some comments provided by nuclear physicist Steve Nelson on the "anti-mass" (negative mass) predictions of the Brightsen Model for antihydrogen:
...
The model you mention has a major problem with mass, and I note from one article relies on antimatter having an anti-mass. Anti-hydrogen is being created and trapped at CERN, and a hydrogen interferometer is being constructed by some groups I know. In a couple years, they'll have accurate measurements of the gravitational acceleration of antihydrogen and compare it with hydrogen. If antihydrogen turns out to have the same acceleration as normal hydrogen, there's no room for a model with extra mass. If it's exactly opposite in sign then there's room to return to this model to try and construct some predictive equations ...
In summary, we will just have to wait for these experiments at CERN to see if the Brightsen Model negative mass predictions for antihydrogen hold.
