Is it possible to create a region of negative density that is less than vacuum?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the theoretical possibility of creating a region of negative density that is less than vacuum, inspired by the Casimir effect. Participants explore the concept of negative mass or energy and its potential repulsive effects on gravity, particularly in relation to dark energy and cosmic expansion. There is skepticism about the feasibility of such ideas, with references to their discrediting by the scientific community due to mathematical inconsistencies. Clarifications are made regarding the nature of space expansion, emphasizing that matter does not pull space apart but rather is carried along with it. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the intrigue of contemplating seemingly impossible scientific concepts.
Omegatron
Messages
67
Reaction score
2
So I know you can make a "negative density" region between two plates due to the Casimir effect. I know there's probably not, but is there any theoretically possible way to create a region of such negative density that the total density of the plates and region would be less than vacuum? I had a dream about little personal vehicles with fist-sized negative density regions that were so much less dense than anything that they floated buoyantly through the sky like little hover-scooters. Like a hot-air balloon, but smaller. :-)

If this is not possible, what kind of magic "negative energy" or "negative mass" or whatever would be needed to make it happen?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I've had this same thought experiment too...

Thought about space being so empty and being pulled apart by massive galaxies enough to strain space to the point of "less than nothingness". Of course, I believe this has been thought of many times as a solution to "dark energy" problem where negative density/mass/energy/space would have a force repulsive to gravity thereby having these vast empty "less than nothing" spaces exerting a "pressure" onto super-huge macro objects like galaxies...a macro force to keep the galaxies from flying apart.

That's the concept, but this ultimatly boils down to "Does negative mass/energy exist? If so, will it have a repulsive effect when exposed to gravitational forces?"

I think these ideas have largely been disbanded by the scientific community for good reason I'm sure - but I really don't know - I think it was disproven or at least shown not to fit with the math. Someone more experienced and knowledgeable about this line of thought please exlpain the faults with this idea.
 
topside said:
I think these ideas have largely been disbanded by the scientific community for good reason I'm sure - but I really don't know - I think it was disproven or at least shown not to fit with the math. Someone more experienced and knowledgeable about this line of thought please exlpain the faults with this idea.

Yeah, I'm sure it's impossible, but I'd like to know why. You can learn a lot by considering impossible things.

I know the Casimir effect produces a region which has a lower "energy density" than vacuum, by "restricting the wavelengths of virtual particles" or some nonsense. :-) I wish I knew this stuff better.
 
Last edited:
topside said:
I've had this same thought experiment too...

Thought about space being so empty and being pulled apart by massive galaxies enough to strain space to the point of "less than nothingness".
Hang on just a second here! Yet another misunderstanding of spatial expansion. Get thee to the astronomy/astrophysics forum. Space is expanding, and carrying matter with it. Matter is in no way 'pulling space apart'. The only effect that matter has is to try and bring more matter to it in accordance with the laws of gravity.
My apologies if that sounds harsh; I didn't mean it to be. It's a very common error, that seems to be the result of non-scientists teaching science. I'm certainly no expert, but at least I had very good books to teach me.
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top