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

[heusdens]

High energy physics and the standard model have unequestionable come up with all kind of different particles, which are unlike the matter of which our own world exists (well they exist of course in our own world, but ordinary atoms is made of only some of those particles). As for instance the concept of anti-matter, which are existing forms of matter, but are very rare (since they annihilate with normal matter).

However, all particles are either having a zero mass or a positive mass.

In which way are particles with negative mass "forbidden" by the standard model and the known laws of physics?
How would such particles behave, if they could exist?
(what if similar particles, but one with positive mass and other with negative mass would annihilate? It would not leave any energy, unlike matter - anti-matter annihilation).

(I assume for instance the negative matter - i.e. matter with a negative mass - are in many ways the same, also exert gravitational force, but only in the interaction with normal (positive mass) matter, they would behave repulsive.)

I assume that if negative matter could exist, we would sure detect it.

But what "forbids" nature to have negative mass particles?

 

[heusdens]

No response by anyone?

Is there no scientific explenation to give why particles with negative mass do not arise?

 

[Demystifier]

In relativity, the relevant quantity is the SQUARE of the mass. Therefore, there is no substantial difference between positive and negative masses. Instead, one can talk about positive and negative - energy. In gravity, negative energy creates negative curvature.

 

[rtharbaugh1]

Heusdens, there appears to me to be a need for more definition in your question. You have begun by asking about "negative mass," which you later define as having two qualities: one, an annihilation reaction would produce no energy, and two, the "negative mass" would repel "positive mass."

I think you have coined the term "negative mass" yourself, from a combination of the mathematical operation of subtraction and the physical notion of mass. I would suggest rephrasing your question without this neologism, which may be confusing your inquiry.

So, taking the liberty to rewrite your question, I would take out the words "negative mass" and replace them with the actual qualities you have defined. Then your question becomes:

In which way are particles with "the following qualities" "forbidden" by the standard model and the known laws of physics? One, they leave no energy residue upon annihilation, and two, they repel mass.

It may also be helpful to state this question in a simpler form by asking if they can exist rather than why they cannot exist. So I would restate your question something like the following: Can a particle exist (under the standard model and the known laws of physics) which leaves no energy upon annihilation and which repels mass?

First, how would we know if such a particle did exist? If it leaves no energy upon annihilation, how would we detect it? And if it repels mass, would it not quickly accelerate to light speed? All the mass in the known universe would be pushing it away from us.

So it seems you may be asking for a particle which moves at light speed and has no energy...a seeming conflict, not with the laws of physics and the standard model, but internal to itself. Mass moving near light speed would have near infinite energy. The combination is not so much a violation of physics as a violation of the definition of "particle."

It seems to me then that you are asking if a particle can exist that is not a particle.

To go further I think you need to ask, "what is gravity?" and "what is energy?" And then, "what is a particle?" These are all behaviors of physical things. Can anything exist which has no physical behaviors?

I wish you good fortune in your quest.

Richard

 

[heusdens]

It could be restated as why can charges be positive and negative, but masses only positive.

Positive and negative charges attrack one another, and positive masses attract each other.

From that one might conclude that negative masses also attract each other, but a negative and positive mass repell each other.

General relativity might not explicitly forbid negative mass or energy, but does the Standard Model forbids negative masses?

 

[grant9076]

From that one might conclude that negative masses also attract each other, but a negative and positive mass repell each other.

I am no expert on the subject but here is one thing that I have considered:

If you have a test particle in the gravitational field of a planet, it will experience a "force" that tries to push it away from the planet. However, since it has a negative mass, it will react in the opposite direction of that force. As a result, it will accelerate toward the planet just like a particle with a positive mass. This tells me that whether a particle as a positive mass, a negative mass, or any mass in between (including no mass), it will have the same acceleration in a gravitational field. This seems to me like strong evidence that gravity is the curvature of spacetime itself.

 

[rtharbaugh1]

One might look at the history of negative numbers for some guidance here. There was a time, not so long ago, when the idea of negative numbers was hotly disputed. One might count the number of objects in a category, maybe for example the number of sheep in a flock, but what is the meaning of a negative one sheep? We now rather easily separate the math part from the object part, and think of a "negative sheep" as the effect of removing one sheep from the group. You see that the negative one sheep is not an object, but an operation.

So for mass, if mass can be counted as we count objects, (say if mass is related to some number of Higgs interactions or some other number of smallest mass reactions), we might think of negative mass not as an object but as an operation, as of removing some of the interactions or reactions from a system.

I hope you see that I am trying to accept and make some sense of your insistance on using the term "negative mass," even though you have not yet said what you imagine mass to be. It is by no means clear if mass is a countable quantity at all. Are we to think of mass as a collection of little hard objects in some sort of a container, like marbles in a sack? Or may we think of mass in some kind of field terms, where mass is to be thought of as some sort of interaction, such that position can affect mass just as position affects the strength of the force on electric charges? You have noticed of course that magnets attract or push away with more force when they are closer together. Yet we do not think of the amount of charge on an electron changing with its position, but only the strength of the charge interaction.

Gravitational force has the same property, increasing with position, so should we not also think of gravitational force in terms of a field, where the force changes with position, not with a number of gravitational "charges?" An object close to the surface of the Earth experiences more gravitational force, but is not said to have more mass.

I am trying here to separate the math from the object being counted. There is not an object called a "negative sheep," the idea of which was and still is rightly considered absurd. Yet you seem to be insisting that there should be an object, a particle, a negative mass particle, which can be counted as if it were a pebble. Yes, a handful of pebbles has more mass than a single pebble (where all are about the same size and density anyway), but neither the single pebble nor the handful has more or less mass by virtue of its position.

I must ask you again, if you insist on carrying this conversation futher, to define mass in some way that can resolve the particle/field duality. Your question cannot be answered until you do so, or rather, it can be answered either way, depending on your resolution.

You have an ability to think about these abstract things, and an ability to communicate your thoughts, and that is good. But really you must be more careful of your logic. Start with the definitions, and then work on the relationship between the defined objects.

best,

Richard

 

[heusdens]

I agree with the remarks given that a "negative" mass concept is very strange indeed. I do not hold it possible that such exists.
Yet intuition might be wrong sometimes, since neither would I hold it possible that negative energy densities could exist, or repulsive gravity, for instance.
Yet these latter are notions which are hold to exist and manifest themselves in the early universe.

It is also a remarkable fact that, while other properties of matter, like (electric or color) charge, exists in both positive and negative quantities, mass on the other hand does not have this feature.
At least not that we have ever detected.

There are more strange feautures. A monopole (a particle with only one magnetic pole or magnetic charge) would be equally strange, and has never been found. Yet, there are theories that allow for the existence of monopoles (so they are not theoretically excluded), and in fact some theories would give rise to their existence as an artefact of the early universe.

So, although I don't hold it possible for mass to be negative, it is not much stranger imo as having monopoles.
What disallows (within he theoretical framework of the Standard model) particles for having a negative mass?
And supposing that particles could exist, just like normal material particles, with the only difference that they contain a negative mass, in what way would they react differently?
As argued above, they would not even be repelling each other, since although the force between a positive mass and a negative mass would yield a negative force, at the same time this negative force yields a positive acceleration.
On the other hand however, the gravitational interaction between negative masses, would yield a positive gravitational force, and this would yield a negative acceleration. Which means negative masses repel each other.
If all other interactions would be the same as for positive mass, atoms of negative matter could be possible as well as objects bound by the electrical force, but larger gravitationally bound objects could not exist.
And unlike anti-matter, which would annihilate with normal matter and would convert to energy (E=mc2), an annihilation of positive mass and negative mass particles would have a zero sum mass, and would not convert to energy. Which would mean, neither would it cost energy to create a positive mass particle and it's negative mass anti-particle...
If that were so, we would be literally drowned in them...

So, it's not likely they could exist.

 

[rtharbaugh1]

Again, Heusdens, I think you are confusing mathematics with physics. For example, you speak of 'negative' acceleration as if it were somehow qualititatively different from 'positive' acceleration.

In the old days people spoke of acceleration as opposed to deceleration. This is no longer the fashion. There is no difference between acceleration and deceleration. In this case the negative mathematical term merely is an indicator of direction in space. As you probably know, the known laws of physics all operate the same no matter which direction you choose to point your apparatus.

It is a logical inconsistancy, not a physical or mathematical one, to assert that there is a category (I use that term loosely because I have not had the honor of becoming acquainted with Catagory theory) which contains a definable object called 'negative mass' which can be said to exist, or to not exist.

It seems to me that you have tried to define an object which cannot logically be itself. If I may paraphrase, it is as if you have said: 'Aristotle is a man. All men are located inside the orbit of Mars. Aristotle lives on Io, a moon of Jupitor.'

If you know your solar geometry, you will see immediately that one or more of the statements above has to be false. I think it is the same with your attempt to define a particle which cannot be a particle. The qualities which make a particle are contrary to the amphigory which you describe. It is internally inconsistant to talk about a particle which travels at the speed of light. Such a particle would have to have infnite energy, not zero energy as you describe.

What you have done, imo, is to set up a paradox and then challenge passers by to explain why it cannot be so. Paradox is not flawed thinking, it is, formally, not thinking at all. Can an object be larger than itself? I challenge you to prove that there is no such object.

I don't think I can explain this any more clearly.

Keep thinking.

Richard

 

[mjsd]

In your particle/anti-particle example, let's say e- and e+ each with mass m_e are annihilated. giving just a some photons which are MASSLESS. So, where has the mass gone? ok, so we say mass has been turned into kinetic energy. now, negative mass idea seems more subtle, cancellation of this type is not what you really mean by negative mass (as you said) but what do you actually mean? you said you want cancellation of energy!

common sense says if A+B =0 then A = -B, so in the annihilation example, you could in a sense interpret it as anti-particle having a negative mass... but we all know that that's wrong because +ve mass simply means +ve energy. So, if you insist that you talk about negative mass (in your definition), then negative energy must come in somewhere... but unfortunately no one really know what's negative energy is... perhaps some new physics is needed!

 

[LukeD]

Unfortunately, the intuition that something with negative mass would have negative energy is not necessarily true.
Afterall, according to relativity, E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, which simply reduces to E = mc^2 at rest. This says nothing about what it would mean to have negative mass. If something would have negative mass then, it could still have positive energy and simply act differently as far as gravity and inertia are concerned.
On the other hand, according to GR (though I do not know why since I have not studied GR. This is only what I've read), a particle with negative energy would necessarily move at superluminal speeds (i.e. be a tachyon). These have never been observed (nor do we know if it would be possible to observe them if they would exist), and in most theories, the existence of them would cause the entire theory to break down. Therefore, if negative mass would necessarily yield negative energy, the existence of it would cause the majority of modern theories to break down.

 

[Rade]

See this link:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw14.html
Where it is stated:
"The conclusion that we can draw from all of this is that Einstein's general theory of relativity does seem to have a loophole which would allow for the possibility of negative gravity from an object with a negative mass."

Then:
"Fortunately for this discussion general relativity was used in the late 1950's by the British physicist Sir Hermann Bondi to investigate the effects of negative mass. Bondi pointed out that when general relativity is considered purely as a theory of gravity, mass never actually appears. It first appears when the equations are solved in a way devised by the German physicist K. Schwartzschild. Then mass appears as a constant of integration. Bondi noticed that this mass constant could be made either positive or negative. He was able to show that when m is made negative, both the inertial and the gravitational mass effects are reversed. The results of Bondi's calculations can be summarized in a few words: a positive mass attracts all nearby masses whether positive or negative; an negative mass repels all nearby masses whether positive or negative."

See:
Hermann Bondi, "Negative Mass in General Relativity", Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 423 (1957).

 

[mjsd]

Unfortunately, the intuition that something with negative mass would have negative energy is not necessarily true.
Afterall, according to relativity, E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, which simply reduces to E = mc^2 at rest. This says nothing about what it would mean to have negative mass.

mmm... you have E = mc^2 wouldn't -ve m then gives -ve E?

anyway, I wasn't talking in those lines at all. I was simply referring to the original poster's comment on what he may think negative mass should behave... namely, annihilation of +ve and -ve mass gives no energy... ie.. energy is somehow destroyed! such bizarre phenomenon is analogous to the having "negative energy" object annihilate some "positive" energy object. that's all. But one must be very careful when trying to interpret what negative energy really means.

 

[LukeD]

mmm... you have E = mc^2 wouldn't -ve m then gives -ve E?

No, when p=0 the equation is E^2 = m^2c^4, which is completely ambiguous as far as the sign of energy.

 

[mjsd]

I am aware of that... that's why the

 

[rtharbaugh1]

Rade, this link took me to an article by John G. Cramer in Analog Science Fiction and Fact magazine. He references "Hermann Bondi, "Negative Mass in General Relativity", Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 423 (1957)” His Wiki Bio. is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Bondi

It seems he died in September 2005, and was responsible for the steady state theory of the universe. There is also a link to sites where his papers may be found. Here is one which offers the referenced paper:

http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PHY&author=bondi,+h.

Here is a link from the above site which offers the paper in PDF:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v29/i3/p423_1

It appears the paper is not available to the general public. You need a username and password from the organization. They do offer to sell you a copy for $60.00.

It seems the paper has 38 refereed citations, including one by Kip Thorne.

Cramer's paper is entertaining but I wouldn't rate it for reliability. Note that he says there is a loophole in Einstein's theory...that is somewhere short of trying to determine the existence or non-existence of negative matter. I scanned the article and did not notice any mention of annihilation without release of energy.

However I will have to retract my thought that the OP had created a neologism. It does appear the idea has been given some serious attention. I still think it is a logical error and belongs at best in the zoo of imaginary creatures.

Thanks, Rade, for the interesting side track.

Richard

 

[heusdens]

Again, Heusdens, I think you are confusing mathematics with physics. For example, you speak of 'negative' acceleration as if it were somehow qualititatively different from 'positive' acceleration.

In the old days people spoke of acceleration as opposed to deceleration. This is no longer the fashion. There is no difference between acceleration and deceleration. In this case the negative mathematical term merely is an indicator of direction in space. As you probably know, the known laws of physics all operate the same no matter which direction you choose to point your apparatus.

Yes, pardon my incorrect statements. But you know that force and acceleration are in fact vectors. So, while positive mass would accelerate in the direction of the applied force, negative mass would accelerate in the opposite direction.

Which would be quite absurd, I absolutely agree with that.

It is a logical inconsistancy, not a physical or mathematical one, to assert that there is a category (I use that term loosely because I have not had the honor of becoming acquainted with Catagory theory) which contains a definable object called 'negative mass' which can be said to exist, or to not exist.

It seems to me that you have tried to define an object which cannot logically be itself. If I may paraphrase, it is as if you have said: 'Aristotle is a man. All men are located inside the orbit of Mars. Aristotle lives on Io, a moon of Jupitor.'

If you know your solar geometry, you will see immediately that one or more of the statements above has to be false. I think it is the same with your attempt to define a particle which cannot be a particle. The qualities which make a particle are contrary to the amphigory which you describe.

It is internally inconsistant to talk about a particle which travels at the speed of light. Such a particle would have to have infnite energy, not zero energy as you describe.

The idea that 'negative mass' particles travel with the speed of light, was not implied by me.
Are photons particles? They do travel the speed of light.
So, I think your argument would have to state that particles with a non-zero rest-mass can not travel the speed of light.

What you have done, imo, is to set up a paradox and then challenge passers by to explain why it cannot be so. Paradox is not flawed thinking, it is, formally, not thinking at all. Can an object be larger than itself? I challenge you to prove that there is no such object.

That is quite obvious.
But what in the definition of a negative mass particle is so obvious paradoxical?
For a property of charge it works perfectly well, we can define a charge to have either negative quantity or positive quantity, without running into any paradoxes.
If it were for logic, we could also say that magnetic monopoles are absurd, or paradoxical, yet higher energy physics sees these particles as quite possible...(apart from the fact, they have never been observed contrary to their possible existence, which is [or was], if I recall well, some problem for the hot big bang scenario, which has only been fixed by the cosmological inflation scenario which gets rid of these monopoles).I think it is (sometimes) more subtle then the paradox you present.

And be aware of the fact that 'formal logic' has some problems explaining quantum mechanics, if we use our normal sense of formal logic - based on every day experience and macroscopic objects - we must conclude that the quantum world is paradoxical and contradictionary.

Does that imply that the quantum world is not 'real' because it is paradoxical?

And pls. be aware, I do not claim that such a thing as negative massed particles can exist, I just wanted to explore the reason why this would not be the case.

 

[heusdens]

See this link:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw14.html
Where it is stated:
"The conclusion that we can draw from all of this is that Einstein's general theory of relativity does seem to have a loophole which would allow for the possibility of negative gravity from an object with a negative mass."

Then:
"Fortunately for this discussion general relativity was used in the late 1950's by the British physicist Sir Hermann Bondi to investigate the effects of negative mass. Bondi pointed out that when general relativity is considered purely as a theory of gravity, mass never actually appears. It first appears when the equations are solved in a way devised by the German physicist K. Schwartzschild. Then mass appears as a constant of integration. Bondi noticed that this mass constant could be made either positive or negative. He was able to show that when m is made negative, both the inertial and the gravitational mass effects are reversed. The results of Bondi's calculations can be summarized in a few words: a positive mass attracts all nearby masses whether positive or negative; an negative mass repels all nearby masses whether positive or negative."

See:
Hermann Bondi, "Negative Mass in General Relativity", Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 423 (1957).

This is quite interesting. At least it shows it has been investigated.

There is one thing lacking, how does a negative and positive mass behave, do they attract or repel each other?

Edit:
Well, that has been calculated also, they negative and positive masses would accelerate both in the same direction.

From the paper: http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw14.html

There is a curious corollary of this result, which Bondi pointed out in his paper. Consider a pair of equal and opposite positive and a negative masss placed close to each other. The negative mass is attracted to the positive mass, while the positive mass is repelled by the negative mass. Thus the two masses will experience equal forces and accelerations in the same direction (in violation of Newton's third law) and the system of two particles will accelerate, seemingly without limit. The negative mass will chase the positive mass with constant acceleration.

The idea that negative mass can be made to chase positive mass (or vice versa), producing uncancelled forces and free acceleration, sounds as if it has the makings of a space drive. However, the problem mentioned above of attaching the rope to m- applies here too. When we try to hitch up the negative mass to the floor of our spaceship to make use of this free acceleration, its negative inertial mass produces a force in the opposite direction from that from the positive mass. The forces on the ship are equal and opposite, just as Newton said, and the spaceship doesn't go anywhere.

About the mass-energy the paper says:

What about the mass-energy of a negative mass like m-? Bondi doesn't deal directly with this point, but the answer is implied by his calculations. It was mentioned above that if a positive mass m+ were lowered into a black hole on a strong massless rope that turned a generator, the energy from the generator by the time the mass reached the event horizon of the black hole would be m+c2. We can try the same trick with a negative mass m- and use this to measure it's mass-energy. Since m- is also attracted to the black hole, it would appear that it should have the same mass-energy as m+. But the problem comes in attaching the rope to an object with negative inertial mass. If we want to slowly lower m- into the black hole we have to support it by pushing it down, not pulling it up. Therefore, we have to do work against gravity to slowly lower m- into the black hole, and so its mass-energy is -|m-|c2. In other words, a negative mass will have negative mass-energy. It costs energy to get rid of it. The net mass-energy of equal positive and negative masses will be zero.

(emphasis mine)

Purely theoretically, if negative mass particles could exist, we would be drowned in them, since it costs no energy to create a positive and negative particle pair.
As soon as they exist, they would accelerate away with a constant acceleration, and bump into other particles, created in the same way as a pair of positive and negative particles.
If a positive mass particles bumps into a negative mass particle of the same mass (or vice versa) they would annihilate, leaving no energy.
In the long run, the particles not bumping into each other would split into portions were positive mass particles reside (which attract each other) while the negative mass particles repell each other, so they would not clutter together but would spread out maximally.
A pair of positive mass and negative mass of which both would not bump into anything, would go on accelerating, and near the speed of light..
On the whole, this whole process starts and ends with no nett-energy...

Of course, this scenario does not account for any of the other forces, so it would be far from realistic...

 

[heusdens]

Here are some more webpages, exploring the hypothetical idea of 'negative mass'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_matter


http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/negative_mass.html


http://www1.shore.net/~ewall/


http://www.concentric.net/~pvb/negmass.html

 

[heusdens]

The last webpage (http://www.concentric.net/~pvb/negmass.html )mentions effects of gravity on the hypothetical 'negative mass' in Earth gravity:

If there were some form of matter with a negative mass, how would it behave? The first insight is that it would move in a direction opposite to that in which it is pushed. So, if we have a lump of mass of, say -3 grams, and we push it (i.e. apply a force) to the right, it will move (i.e. accelerate) to the left. The harder we try to push it to the right, the more fervently it would move to the left. This follows from Newton's Law, F = ma, which clearly shows that if a positive force, F, is applied to a negative mass, -m, the acceleration, a, must be negative (i.e. opposite to the direction of the force) for the equation to hold.

Even if one asserts that the Newton equation: F = ma is the inertial definition of mass (i.e. m = F/a), then if a piece of matter accelerates in a direction opposite to the force applied to it, then its mass is negative.

But, how would a negative mass behave in the Earth's gravity? Some may be surprised to know that a lump of negative mass, would fall down at the same rate as any positive mass. The influence of gravity is an acceleration, not a force. This was known by Galileo, who demonstrated that objects of different masses accelerate toward the Earth at the same rate regardless of their size or weight in his legendary experiment from the Tower of Pisa. Perhaps it is unfortunate that we have come to speak of the "force" of gravity, when we should speak of the "acceleration" of gravity

However, in order to restrain a negative mass from falling down, we would need to apply a downward force to it. Thus, it would rest under a table, rather than on top of one. Unfortunately, the balance of forces could not stay in equilibrium, for any small perturbation in the restraining force, such as from a puff of wind, would cause the object to either fall or to bore its way upward through the table-top. Once it hits the floor, the upward force exerted by the floor on this object would result in its downward acceleration that would cause it either to disintegrate or to bore its way all the way to the center of the Earth.

If a negative mass were resting in equilibrium under a table and the table were on a scale, the weight of the table would be reduced by the negative mass under it, just as it is increased by the weight of ordinary masses on top of it. Even if the negative mass under the table had a greater absolute value of mass than the table itself, the ensemble would be restrained by holding it down, but when let go it would still fall downward because the free-fall acceleration is in the direction of the restraining force, rather than opposite to it as in ordinary matter.

If an entire planet were made of negative mass, its gravitational acceleration would be upward from its surface rather than downward. All objects, of either positive or negative mass would be accelerated away from such a planet, and it would self-disintegrate. Even if atomic forces, such as those that hold atoms together in crystals were to oppose the disintegration of the rocks on the planet, each negative mass atom would be met by an ever stronger acceleration opposite to these attractive forces, with the consequence that all negative-mass matter would disintegrate into separate atoms, and perhaps into subatomic particles.

At least this tells us that - if at all - negative mass particles could exist, we would not find them on macroscopic scales, so there are not 'negative mass' galaxies, stars, planets or even rocks or dust. Maybe not even atoms.

This is also interesting:

Clearly, negative-mass matter is an untenable concept in Newtonian Physics. Negative-mass matter will not be found resting among the wads of chewing gum under tables. It will not be found orbiting the Earth or Sun, nor is it likely to be found at the center of the Earth or Sun. If it exists, it would self-disintegrate from an unstable equilibrium of internal forces. Matter, as-we-know-it, cannot have negative mass.

However, if we accept the equivalence of mass and energy through the equation , E = mc^2, there is an equivalent negative mass associated with the energy of a gravitational field.

(emphasis mine)

So, we can at least theoretically claim that the 'negative mass' concept can be based on something, namely the negative energy of a gravitational field.

Although, pure speculative, this next page goes into some more detail about the consequences of that speculative thought about 'negative mass' in the form of the gravitational field.

http://www.concentric.net/~pvb/conseq.html

 

[heusdens]

And http://www.wbabin.net/science/javaheri.pdf I found a remarkable scientific paper which claims that negative masses *do* exist!

 

[Rade]

And http://www.wbabin.net/science/javaheri.pdf I found a remarkable scientific paper which claims that negative masses *do* exist!

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.

 

[heusdens]

Rade,

Thanks for this great contribution. Now, I'm wondering, are these researchers really up to some new perspective on material interactions, and how come there aren't much more publications on this?

btw. I assume you mean with 'antimatter' in fact negativematter, as the term 'anitmatter' is taken by the Standard model, meaning particles with opposite electric charge.

It might be this can totally change our understanding of the atom!

[and most physicist have the outlook that we already and completely understand it, in their point of view they have "almost" got a "theory of everything" (the "holy grail" of contemporary physics), but it seems they might miss something very elementary! ]

I'm most convinved that the inner working of nature is dialectic in essence.

 

[Chronos]

Anti-matter, which we know exists, is a good starting point. But, anti-matter does not exhibit negative gravitational effects. How else would you propose we distinguish negative matter from anti-matter?

 

[heusdens]

Anti-matter, which we know exists, is a good starting point. But, anti-matter does not exhibit negative gravitational effects. How else would you propose we distinguish negative matter from anti-matter?

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.

I might not be detected seperate, but only as part of normal matter, in which regions of normal particles or particle constellations (like a nucleus or atom) posses regions of negative mass/energy.

 

[Chronos]

Electrical charge has nothing to do with the difference between matter and anti-matter.

 

[heusdens]

Electrical charge has nothing to do with the difference between matter and anti-matter.

What's the difference between an electron and it's anti-particle, the positron?

 

[Rade]

Anti-matter, which we know exists, is a good starting point. But, anti-matter does not exhibit negative gravitational effects. How else would you propose we distinguish negative matter from anti-matter?

According to this paper, "there has never been a direct measurment of the gravitational force on antimatter":

Antimatter gravity studies with interferometry
T.J. Phillips
Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0305, USA
Journal Hyperfine Interactions
Issue Volume 109, Numbers 1-4 / August, 1997
DOI 10.1023/A:1012686324139
Pages 357-365

Abstract : There has never been a direct measurement of the gravitational force on antimatter. This paper describes a possible measurement of this force by measuring the phase shift of neutral antimatter in a transmission-grating interferometer caused by the Earth’s gravitational field. This experiment avoids the severe problem of shielding stray electromagnetic fields necessary for making a gravity measurement with charged particles, and also avoids the need to trap neutral particles. The neutral antimatter for this experiment could be either antihydrogen, positronium, or antineutrons.

====

This paper was 10 years ago. Is there now in Jan. 2007 such experimental evidence of gravitational force on antimatter ? If, not, I would think it is not clear that gravity would effect matter and antimatter the same. Some argue that when we finally understand how gravity interacts with antimatter we will find violation of equivalence principle--it appears to be an open question "experimentally". I want to see the results of such experiments before I make up my mind on this issue--it is too important of a topic.

 

[Rade]

Here are links that explain some differences between matter and antimatter:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/8/1
http://www.positron.edu.au/faq.html
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/4/6/1

 

[Rade]

Rade, Thanks ... I assume you mean with 'antimatter' in fact negativematter, as the term 'antimatter' is taken by the Standard model, meaning particles with opposite electric charge...

Yes, the model I study would conclude that antimatter and what you call negativematter would be the same concept--both have positron as opposed to electron. I do not know the term "negativematter"--imo, better to use "antimatter".

See here an argument against "negative-mass":
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0308/0308038.pdf

 

[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