Infinite Acceleration, Conservation of Energy, and Negative Mass

Raze
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
I've read that the Alcubierre Drive depends on the existence of negative mass, but I've seen that physicists say it could violate the conservation of energy. Their reasoning is that basically a negative mass and positive mass would interact in a perpetual motion sort of way that eternally decreases entropy, that they'd accelerate infinitely.

I was wondering if someone here could help do a kinematics demonstration of that and why such perpetual motion would come of it and why it violates conservation of energy.

I guess I'll start my own attempt to understand with Newton's gravitational law. Suppose these two particles (one with negative mass) are close enough that if they were normal they'd attract.

F = -Gm1m2/r2

except m2 < 0, so I'll add a negative sign.

Then F = Gm1m2/r2

which should mean they repel away from each other, right? If that negative sign were still there, we could have

a = -F/m1 = -Gm2/r2,​

which would mean they would accelerate at a constant rate until they hit each other, right? If the negative is removed, that means they'd accelerate at a constant rate away from each other, right? Then how is this infinite acceleration? It seems it's just a constant acceleration away from each other.
Or is it that merely adding a negative sign isn't enough to describe how negative mass would behave? If it were more like negative mass always repels negative mass, and positive mass always attracts positive mass, then would mixing the two would result in a repulsive AND attractive force? If so I can see why that could be a conundrum.

But if the masses were of different magnitude, wouldn't either the repulsive or attractive force win out, resulting in more or less "normal" energy situations? And if the masses were of equal magnitude, wouldn't the repulsion and attraction exactly cancel in this scenario? (resulting in a net of zero kinetic energy)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top