Negative mass

  • Thread starter us40
  • Start date
  • #1
29
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

Hello, we know that according to special relativity nothing in the universe go faster than speed of light,but space can.Now according to E=mc^2 entity with mass can not reach speed of light and photon is mass less with mass=0.So it can reach speed of light so its meaning that space contain negative mass so it has speed greater than speed of light,and why special relativity does not put any constrain on speed of space.Thanks in advance.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,550
4,324
Hello, we know that according to special relativity nothing in the universe go faster than speed of light,but space can.
Please provide a source that says this.

Zz.
 
  • #3
29
0
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
BruceW
Homework Helper
3,611
119
In general relativity, two distant objects can move away from each other at greater than the speed of light. (I think that is what you mean).
 
  • #5
BruceW
Homework Helper
3,611
119
In special relativity, (and also general relativity at short distances), objects with mass are always moving at less than the speed of light relative to each other. This is really an experimental fact, as far as I know. (although, you could use it as a postulate of special relativity if you wanted, I guess).
 
  • #6
29
0
@BruceW

Yes space is expanding greater than speed of light currently and after some (Billions) years we can not see speed of light from nearby galaxy clusters.So can we say that space contain negative mass so it posses speed greater than light????
 
  • #7
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,550
4,324
Hello, we know that according to special relativity nothing in the universe go faster than speed of light,but space can.Now according to E=mc^2 entity with mass can not reach speed of light and photon is mass less with mass=0.So it can reach speed of light so its meaning that space contain negative mass so it has speed greater than speed of light,and why special relativity does not put any constrain on speed of space.Thanks in advance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_universe

In it metric expansion paragraph


and

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575 [Broken]
Then there are a few problems with your conclusion here that space "contain negative mass".

1. Why should something moving faster than c has negative mass? You can actually solve the SR equation for v>c and get, say, imaginary mass, not negative mass.

2. We actually know what negative mass do! In solid state physics, negative effective mass occurs often (i.e. in holes). They do not more faster than c.

Space isn't an object. It is a concept in which we frame location or position.

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
BruceW
Homework Helper
3,611
119
us40 said:
Yes space is expanding greater than speed of light currently and after some (Billions) years we can not see speed of light from nearby galaxy clusters.So can we say that space contain negative mass so it posses speed greater than light????
'not really' is my answer.

edit: I think this is a case of putting two and two together and getting five. don't be disheartened, it's good to keep thinking.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
15,935
5,646
us40, your problem is that you do not understand the difference between MOVING at some rate and RECEDING at some rate. Look up "metric expansion". Space is not MOVING at > c, objects IN space are receding from each other faster than c, which is not at all the same thing.
 
  • #10
362
26
us40, your problem is that you do not understand the difference between MOVING at some rate and RECEDING at some rate. Look up "metric expansion". Space is not MOVING at > c, objects IN space are receding from each other faster than c, which is not at all the same thing.
I also do not understand this difference. Please enlighten me.

Thanks
 
  • #11
1,948
200
It's very simple. Suppose space expanded and doubled in size after 1 billion year. An object that was 1 lightyear away before will be 2 lightyears away afterward, and receded at the rate of 1 lightyear per billion year. Another object that was at 1 billion lightyear away before is 2 billion lightyears away afterwards. That is, it recedes at a rate of 1 billion lightyear per billion year = c!. An object that was more than a billion year away receded faster than the speed of light. How is that possible. That's possible because we are talking about comoving coordinates in a cosmological scale. That is not you garden variety distance between objects.
 
  • #12
362
26
It's very simple. Suppose space expanded and doubled in size after 1 billion year. An object that was 1 lightyear away before will be 2 lightyears away afterward, and receded at the rate of 1 lightyear per billion year. Another object that was at 1 billion lightyear away before is 2 billion lightyears away afterwards. That is, it recedes at a rate of 1 billion lightyear per billion year = c!. An object that was more than a billion year away receded faster than the speed of light. How is that possible. That's possible because we are talking about comoving coordinates in a cosmological scale. That is not you garden variety distance between objects.
So the object at 1 billion ly moves at v=c away from us. An object further away would move faster than c relative to us. That contradicts SR.
 
  • #13
BruceW
Homework Helper
3,611
119
In general relativity, two distant objects can move away from each other at greater than the speed of light. (I think that is what you mean).
this.
 
  • #14
362
26
this.
So SR appears to be not applicable or so.
I have another question. At what scale of space does the expansion take effect?
I do not believe a hydrogen atom or the solar sytem are expanding. What about the local cluster of galaxies? Is it expanding or is the expansive motion thermalized by mutual exchange of momentum by gravitation?
 
  • #15
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
15,935
5,646
us40 and my2cts, Google "metric expansion" for a discussion.
 
  • #16
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,746
4,457
So SR appears to be not applicable or so.
I have another question. At what scale of space does the expansion take effect?
I do not believe a hydrogen atom or the solar sytem are expanding. What about the local cluster of galaxies? Is it expanding or is the expansive motion thermalized by mutual exchange of momentum by gravitation?
Any objects bound together through gravity or one of the other fundamental forces of nature do not expand/recede. Gravity finally falls off enough for expansion to occur somewhere around the Supercluster level, which is on the scale of millions of light-years. Clusters and superclusters of galaxies are the largest "structures" that can stay together. Past that, things are receding from each other.
 
  • #17
362
26
Following phinds' advise I read on wikipedia, the first google hit:
"metric expansion is defined by an increase in distance between parts of the universe even without those parts "moving" anywhere"
The distance between two non-moving objects can increase, even with v>c.
That is not understandable.
 
  • #18
362
26
Any objects bound together through gravity or one of the other fundamental forces of nature do not expand/recede. Gravity finally falls off enough for expansion to occur somewhere around the Supercluster level, which is on the scale of millions of light-years. Clusters and superclusters of galaxies are the largest "structures" that can stay together. Past that, things are receding from each other.
That makes more sense. But how could Hubble have discovered the expansion if this is true?
 
  • #19
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,746
4,457
That makes more sense. But how could Hubble have discovered the expansion if this is true?
We can measure the redshift of spectral lines in distant supernovas to determine that they are receding from us. It turns out that the further away a supernova was, the more redshifted its spectrum was. Lots of observations and math have led us to believe that this redshit is the result of the expansion of the universe causing objects to recede from us.

I'd elaborate, but I have to head to class.
 
  • #20
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
15,935
5,646
Following phinds' advise I read on wikipedia, the first google hit:
"metric expansion is defined by an increase in distance between parts of the universe even without those parts "moving" anywhere"
The distance between two non-moving objects can increase, even with v>c.
That is not understandable.
I assume you mean YOU do not understand it. Since many of us do understand it, perhaps you should give it some more thought.
 
  • #21
362
26
I mean a cluster of galaxies interacts at a timescale of millions of years, which should short enough to wipe out the effect of a big bang having occurred more than 10 billion years ago.
 
  • #22
362
26
I assume you mean YOU do not understand it. Since many of us do understand it, perhaps you should give it some more thought.
If you understand it so well, and thanks for distorting my typeface, then you are the perfect individual to explain this once and for all to the rest of us, thoughtless, people.
 
  • #23
362
26
I assume you mean YOU do not understand it. Since many of us do understand it, perhaps you should give it some more thought.
POerhaps you should also take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_constant#Redshift_velocity
The Fizeau-Doppler formula tells me that z goes to infinity when v goes to c.
No v>c needed.
How's that for "giving it some more thought".
 
  • #24
BruceW
Homework Helper
3,611
119
Following phinds' advise I read on wikipedia, the first google hit:
"metric expansion is defined by an increase in distance between parts of the universe even without those parts "moving" anywhere"
The distance between two non-moving objects can increase, even with v>c.
That is not understandable.
hehe, this is the problem when you want to write a short article for the layperson, without using any specific terminology.
 
  • #25
362
26
hehe, this is the problem when you want to write a short article for the layperson, without using any specific terminology.
Please elaborate what the problem is.
 

Related Threads on Negative mass

  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
Replies
71
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
608
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
570
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Top