Is Negative Mass Prohibited in the Standard Model of Particle Physics?

[Rade]

Anti-matter and negative matter are rather different, of course. Anti-matter is part of the Standard Model, it is 'normal' matter with oppositely electric charged particles which otherwise are the same as their counterparts. Negative matter however would have the same electric charge, but opposite mass value (i.e. a 'negative' mass) and would have different gravitational properties...

Heusdens, I have a question about your comment above:

1. I assume you would agree that "positive matter" would have (a) positive mass + (2) electron.

2. Then, as you state above (in blue), to continue a dialectic argument toward unity, "negative matter" would be (a) "negative mass" + (b) positron. (hence "matter" = dialectic union of [positive+negative mass] and [positive+negative charge])

Now, if the above holds, and seeing how both mass and charge reverse between the two entities, then would it not hold true that:

3. If "matter" would have (a) positive mass + (b) electron

then (finally the "question")

4. "Antimatter" must be (a) negative mass + (b) positron

because, as above, both mass and charge must be reversed. And thus we must conclude that "negativematter" = "antimatter" (which is what I was claiming in the previous post, but only now, also claim, that what we call "antimatter" not only has positive electron (positron) but also negative mass (but this does not seem to be what you hold about antimatter--so I am confused ).

If I error in the logic of the argument or the conclusions, please let me know where. What I say (eg, 1 to 4) appears to follow logically if your statement in blue above holds true.

 

[Rade]

Let me clarify two terms:

positron = positive charge electron
negatron = negative charge electron

Given the great interest today in study of interaction between matter and antimatter, I suggest the term "negatron" take its proper place within the lexicon of physics, as suggested by its inventor many years ago (from wiki:)

The antiparticle of an electron is the positron, which has the same mass but positive rather than negative charge. The discoverer of the positron, Carl D. Anderson, proposed calling standard electrons negatrons, and using electron as a generic term to describe both the positively and negatively charged variants. This usage never caught on and is rarely, if ever, encountered today.

 

[heusdens]

Heusdens, I have a question about your comment above:

1. I assume you would agree that "positive matter" would have (a) positive mass + (2) electron.

2. Then, as you state above (in blue), to continue a dialectic argument toward unity, "negative matter" would be (a) "negative mass" + (b) positron. (hence "matter" = dialectic union of [positive+negative mass] and [positive+negative charge])

Now, if the above holds, and seeing how both mass and charge reverse between the two entities, then would it not hold true that:

3. If "matter" would have (a) positive mass + (b) electron

then (finally the "question")

4. "Antimatter" must be (a) negative mass + (b) positron

because, as above, both mass and charge must be reversed. And thus we must conclude that "negativematter" = "antimatter" (which is what I was claiming in the previous post, but only now, also claim, that what we call "antimatter" not only has positive electron (positron) but also negative mass (but this does not seem to be what you hold about antimatter--so I am confused ).

If I error in the logic of the argument or the conclusions, please let me know where. What I say (eg, 1 to 4) appears to follow logically if your statement in blue above holds true.

I think I made it clear that "anti-matter" as part of the Standard Model is already defined and observed, so is existing matter, which is like normal matter, but only the electric charge is opposite from normal matter.

Now, in this post, we merely theoretize what would be the options for matter to have another variant, which has opposite *mass*.

You are now talking about a third or combined category of both oppositely charged and oppositely massed matter.

---------------------

Just for clarification, here is what I mean with the terms "negative matter" and "antimatter" as opposed to "normal matter" (the stuf that normal atoms are made off).

anti matter = same particles as normal matter, but with opposite charge

(like positron is positive charged electron, the anti-proton is negative charged proton, etc.)

negative matter = same particles as normal matter, but with negative mass

(but, we don't know if that could exist in a form of "particles" and so far, we did not find it)

---------------------

As far as we can conclude however, there are no such "things" as "negative mass" particles. At least not in the form of things like atoms, molecules or anything larger, and as far as I know, neither has any elementary particle been discovered that would behave like having a negative mass.

This is opposed to antimatter which does exist (it shows up in particle accelator experiments), the particles are seen and do exist. Just that atoms are not made from antimatter, since normal matter (for some still unknown reason) dominates. But antimatter atoms etc. could exist, they are merely the same as their counterparts, only we can not create much of this stuff, since it annihilates as soon as it comes in contact with normal matter.

The only viable option for negative mass matter, as concluded from the post with scientific papers, are more like regions of negative mass within an atom itself which explains in part what goes on within an atom. But there are not much papers on this, so I don't know how good a scientific approach this would is.

There is also this options from the "dark energy" (or cosmological constant) which at some point "looks like" negative mass (excerts a repelling gravitational force).

So, it "looks like" that space itself, outside of matter, more or less acts like "negative matter" as we can conclude from the expansion of space.

 

[Chronos]

There is a very logical explanation for 'anti-matter' [a charge thing], but nothing that resembles 'negative matter' in the standard model. I might bite on imaginary matter - which is mathematically permitted in the bestiary of tachyon physics.

 

[heusdens]

There is a very logical explanation for 'anti-matter' [a charge thing], but nothing that resembles 'negative matter' in the standard model. I might bite on imaginary matter - which is mathematically permitted in the bestiary of tachyon physics.

Indeed there isn't. But for what reason? (is it for observational reasons only, or also theoretical reasons, and if so, which?)

But apart from that, we do have repulsive gravitation, which is not the same as negative matter, just that it excerts a repulsive force of gravity.

So the closest we can get to this weird concept of 'negative matter' is stuff that excerts a repulsive gravitation.

Btw. here is a lecture that proposes a totally different solution to cosmological problems of dark matter/dark energy, by tweaking the gravitational constant (Newton's G gravitational constant).

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=b8d4f242-0e11-459f-b47e-f02a3adf93ca

 

[Chronos]

What observational evidence suggests the existence of repulsive gravity?

 

[heusdens]

What observational evidence suggests the existence of repulsive gravity?

Supernovae data, accelerated expansion of the universe.

(and the idea of a repulsive force of gravity is also built into the model of cosmological inflation)

 

[Chronos]

Exansion and inflationary theories do indeed incorporate a 'repulsive' force. But no reputable theorist has, to my knowledge, proposed a model based on matter that exerts negative gravitational force. The notion is very ATM. A theory that explains fringe observations is suspect when it defies mainstream interpretations of the bulk of existing observational evidence. The burden falls upon the ATM proponent to harmonize any revolutionary new theory with existing observational evidence.

 

[heusdens]

I'm not proposing a model or concept of negative matter, this thread just explores why 'negative matter' can or can not exist.

The conclusion so far is that it most likely can not exist in the form of particles, but that space itself in some manner 'acts' like negative matter, that is, it comes with a repulsive gravity field.
This is not a conclusion based on my 'weird' idea of negative matter, but is a conclusion based on observations (space expansion, acc. expansion). But the observation has not yet a theory, which explains this phenomena.

 

[rjavaheri]

Attention Dear Rade

Dear Rade

Greetings;
With regards, in answer to your comment and questions, regarding the negative mass of proton and positive mass of electron, I have a feeling that you have nor read the full article (on pages 7-9).
Please do so and kindly share your views with me again. To tell you the truth your attention to my article energized me. I sincerely look forward to your further comments.
We are not accepting the effect of gravity and anti-gravity in these hypotheses.

Very truly yours
R. Javahery
rjavaheri@ut.ac.ir

In this paper,what I find of great interest is this claim from abstract:
..."In the hydrogen atom, a part of the negative mass of proton interacts with the positive mass of the electron, the total mass energy lost in this interaction changes into electromagnetic energy, and then the two particles bond together..."

Now, I ask, what in the world can he mean "...a part of the negative mass of the proton...(where could this mass be ??). So I consider the not so well discussed "proton sea" (but known experimentally)--a spatial area of the proton outside the 3 valence quarks--and this leads me to consider what seems a logical possibility derived from the paper by Dr. Javahery that the "negative mass" of the proton being discussed may be within the "proton sea".

Next--note the statement from the paper that there is a predicted interaction between (1) negative mass of proton, and (2) positive mass of electron--again, how ?? If it is true that the negative mass is within the proton sea and outside the valance quarks, then, yes, a high probability of interaction is possible because also is found the electron outside valance quarks of proton with possible position within proton sea.

But, what can be a proposed mechanism of the dynamics of this interaction ? Here I offer one hypothesis. Let us assume that within the "proton sea" we have the proton negative mass in the form of anti-matter proton, which we know would be required to have a positron (e+) attached. So, when the paper says ...In the hydrogen atom, a part of the negative mass of proton interacts with the positive mass of the electron, the total mass energy lost in this interaction changes into electromagnetic energy, and then the two particles bond together..., I suggest it may be an interaction between a positron (e+) with negative mass plus an electron (e-) with positive mass, with the net result being the "bonding" mentioned (and from previous post we read possibility that negative mass is coupled with negative gravity, so a type of gravity--antigravity interaction may also exist?). Now, it is not a crazy idea that positron + electron can form union--it is called positronium. Nor a crazy idea that proton and antiproton can form union--it is called protonium. Classically both of these "alone" are very unstable with short half-life, but this paper suggests possibility the two may be combined to form a type of dialectic union of dual opposites (that is, a quantum superposition of positronium + protonium).

In summary, I suggest that one hypothesis (open to experimental falsification) to explain the conclusion of the above paper by Dr. Javahery is that what we observe as the "proton" {[P]e-} as a metaphysical entity may have a veiled reality due to an interaction between asymmetrical mass entities of matter with positive mass, and antimatter with negative mass--and here is another paper where such a model of the atomic nucleus of the proton and neutron is presented: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-04-03.PDF I hope that someone can apply the predictions of this paper to predictions in Dr. Javahery paper about existence of negative mass.

 

[rjavaheri]

Respond to the Questions

In this paper,what I find of great interest is this claim from abstract:
..."In the hydrogen atom, a part of the negative mass of proton interacts with the positive mass of the electron, the total mass energy lost in this interaction changes into electromagnetic energy, and then the two particles bond together..."

Now, I ask, what in the world can he mean "...a part of the negative mass of the proton...(where could this mass be ??).
The answers to these questions have been explained in the text http://www.wbabin.net/science/javaheri.pdf and not in the abstract.
So I consider the not so well discussed "proton sea" (but known experimentally)--a spatial area of the proton outside the 3 valence quarks--and this leads me to consider what seems a logical possibility derived from the paper by Dr. Javahery that the "negative mass" of the proton being discussed may be within the "proton sea".

Next--note the statement from the paper that there is a predicted interaction between (1) negative mass of proton, and (2) positive mass of electron--again, how ?? The answers to these questions have been explained in the text http://www.wbabin.net/science/javaheri.pdf and not in the abstract. If it is true that the negative mass is within the proton sea and outside the valance quarks, then, yes, a high probability of interaction is possible because also is found the electron outside valance quarks of proton with possible position within proton sea.

But, what can be a proposed mechanism of the dynamics of this interaction ? Here I offer one hypothesis. Let us assume that within the "proton sea" we have the proton negative mass in the form of anti-matter proton, which we know would be required to have a positron (e+) attached. So, when the paper says ...In the hydrogen atom, a part of the negative mass of proton interacts with the positive mass of the electron, the total mass energy lost in this interaction changes into electromagnetic energy, and then the two particles bond together..., I suggest it may be an interaction between a positron (e+) with negative mass plus an electron (e-) with positive mass, with the net result being the "bonding" mentioned (and from previous post we read possibility that negative mass is coupled with negative gravity, so a type of gravity--antigravity interaction may also exist?). Now, it is not a crazy idea that positron + electron can form union--it is called positronium. Nor a crazy idea that proton and antiproton can form union--it is called protonium. Classically both of these "alone" are very unstable with short half-life, but this paper suggests possibility the two may be combined to form a type of dialectic union of dual opposites (that is, a quantum superposition of positronium + protonium).

In summary, I suggest that one hypothesis (open to experimental falsification) to explain the conclusion of the above paper by Dr. Javahery is that what we observe as the "proton" {[P]e-} as a metaphysical entity may have a veiled reality due to an interaction between asymmetrical mass entities of matter with positive mass, and antimatter with negative mass--and here is another paper where such a model of the atomic nucleus of the proton and neutron is presented: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-04-03.PDF I hope that someone can apply the predictions of this paper to predictions in Dr. Javahery paper about existence of negative mass.

I do not accept the effect of gravity and antigravity in this hypothesis.

 

[Chronos]

rjavaheri [and welcome to PF!], it appears you realize the concept is misguided - or that modern physics is a house of cards that should have fallen a century ago. Some of the difficulty arises in the words. For example: 'charge' is not a good way of describing the difference between matter and anti-matter. The terminology is intended to convey an idea, which unfortunately twists it into some some rather bizarre ideas - like the 'electric universe'. Spin is a better [albeit still less than satisfactory] description. I also agree this explanation looks leaky. To anyone who has 'done the math', mainstream models appear bullet proof - unless Maxwell and Lorentz totally screwed the pooch. And that seems highly improbable given the derivative theories of SR and GR have passed every experimental test to date with flying colors.

 

[Rade]

I do not accept the effect of gravity and antigravity in this hypothesis.

Question--is the "negative mass" you discuss within the "proton sea" -- yes or no ? and please explain answer. Thank you--from this answer we can move forward.