Negative Mass: Possibility of FTL Travel?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of negative mass and its implications for faster-than-light (FTL) travel. Participants explore various theories and models that suggest the possibility of negative mass, its relationship with superluminal velocities, and the theoretical frameworks that might support such ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that negative mass could allow for FTL travel, suggesting that mass must be a pure imaginary number rather than simply negative.
  • Others reference Fred Hoyle's mass field theory, which posits that mass can vary and may become negative, affecting the behavior of photons in the universe.
  • There are discussions about cosmological models involving phantom energy, which may violate energy conditions and imply FTL effects, though some participants express uncertainty about the implications of these models.
  • Some participants argue that imaginary mass or energy is required for FTL velocities, but note that such concepts may lack physical meaning.
  • There is mention of vacuum domain walls with negative gravitational mass density, suggesting that objects made of normal matter would be repelled by such structures.
  • Participants clarify that while negative mass is a theoretical prediction, it has not been demonstrated experimentally, and the requirements for negative mass remain uncertain.
  • Some contributions discuss the historical context of general relativity and the cosmological constant, linking it to the concept of negative mass or anti-gravity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the existence and implications of negative mass, with no consensus reached on its validity or the conditions under which it might occur. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the physical reality of negative mass and its potential for FTL travel.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the speculative nature of the theories discussed, the dependence on mathematical constructs that may not have real-world applications, and the lack of empirical evidence supporting the existence of negative mass.

  • #31
JesseM said:
But what is the pressure a function of?
I wish I knew. I'd be rich! :biggrin:
You're saying the physicists who wrote that article are wrong, and that it's not possible to have negative pressure with a positive energy density?
No. That is not what I'm saying. The active gravitational mass density = energy density + 3*pressure (c=1). For the the active gravitational mass to be negative you must have


energy density + 3*pressure < 0

So the energy density can be positive and if the pressure density is far enough into the negative then it will overwhelm the energy density and make the active gravitational mass density negative.

Pete
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
pmb_phy said:
No. That is not what I'm saying. The active gravitational mass density = energy density + 3*pressure (c=1). For the the active gravitational mass to be negative you must have


energy density + 3*pressure < 0

So the energy density can be positive and if the pressure density is far enough into the negative then it will overwhelm the energy density and make the active gravitational mass density negative.

Pete
Ah, thanks, I hadn't caught the distinction you were making between the energy density and the active gravitational mass. So in the case of dark energy, it's thought that the pressure is negative while the energy density is positive, which I guess would mean the active gravitational mass could be either negative or positive depending on the balance between them.
 
  • #33
JesseM said:
Ah, thanks, I hadn't caught the distinction you were making between the energy density and the active gravitational mass. So in the case of dark energy, it's thought that the pressure is negative while the energy density is positive, which I guess would mean the active gravitational mass could be either negative or positive depending on the balance between them.
Yup. In a vacuum domain wall the active gravitational mass is negative. For an infinitely long straight cosmic string the active gravitational mass is zero!

Pete
 
  • #34
aside---
a negitive mass object would revolutionize weight limmited objects such as aircraft and many many other applications.
this would definitely be usefull. if we can produce a working model though,
until then... happpy theorizing...
you'll never fully know if it will work until you actually do it.
 
  • #35
taylaron said:
aside---
a negitive mass object would revolutionize weight limmited objects such as aircraft and many many other applications.
this would definitely be usefull. if we can produce a working model though,
until then... happpy theorizing...
you'll never fully know if it will work until you actually do it.
That there is a negative active gravitational mass at work in the cosmos cannot be taken to imply that it can be applied to a finite body. No hovercrafts on this account.

Pete
 
  • #36
imaginary fields

Why can't we dualize our "physical" world?
For example imaginary gravitational field would (in my thinking) produce attraction with equal signs and repelling with opposite signs.

Still there might be some "covariance" between real ("physical") and imaginary worlds: if a mass is imaginary then it would produce real positive effetcts by
-im * iField. That would connect dualities to real world and physics.

If we accept dualization principle we could accept negative or imaginary time also.

Or if there were negative masses why should they be here?

So Occams razor wouldn't work with consistent extensions?

If you have a singular point then you can:
a) Try to find a topological compactification.
b) Try to find an topological identification.
c) Try to remember that two finite dimensional spaces can intersect in a point, line, etc.
d) something else.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
matt.o said:
it is imaginary, meaning it has no physical meaning.

How can you say that a point has physical meaning?
I would put at least equal mass for i as for a point.

Wiki:
"Spontaneous symmetry breaking describes the case where the laws are invariant but it appears the system isn't because the background of the system, its vacuum, is noninvariant. Such a symmetry breaking is parametrized by an order parameter. A special case of this type of symmetry breaking is dynamical symmetry breaking.
"

Could we use that for a cosmological constant?
Then if you remove the point of singularity, there might be i times gravitational field lurking through that hole.
 
  • #38
Hello,

I have another question related to negative energy rather than negative mass.
If my understanding of QFT is correct and as far as i can check in a reference QFT book as Weinberg's one, the negative energy quantum field (creating and annihilating negative energy quanta) should be an equally acceptable solution of all field equations as is the positive energy quantum solution. Only the latter is retained because of instability issues and because these remained undetected so far but isn't it illicit to reject half of the possible solutions by hand? Shouldn't this be considered as a serious remaining open issue in physics ?

Rem:
- antiparticles cannot be considered as the solution to the negative energy issue after second quantization.
- Although antiunitary time reversal avoids the time reversal regeneration of negative energy states, this is not sufficient to discard them if we have realized these are equally acceptable solutions of all field equations as the positive ones.


Fred
 
  • #39
Re: Heskam's 1/22/08 note (above) ( and http://www.negative-mass.com/ )
Given: ("KISS" © Physics)
(1) gravitational force law, F is proportional to product of masses divided by distance between squared
(2) Mass 1 plus mass 2 = 10
(3) Distance between is 1.
(Note "duality" about F = 0 )
M 1 M 2 Force
5 5 25
6 4 24
7 3 21
8 2 16
9 1 9
10 0 0
11 -1 -11
12 -2 -24
13 -3 -39
14 -4 -56
15 -5 -65

Do you see anything unusual about this data?
(Hint: I am seeing chemistry! ??)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 145 ·
5
Replies
145
Views
18K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
8K