5:10 the element you are missing here is entropy. Endothermic processes are generally able to proceed because they are favoured by entropy. You may wish to add this to your work calculations and see if that would create a favourable situation.
I am so interested in the idea of negative mass, and the potential of it being a component of natural matter. I believe it could be an intuitive answer for dark energy or dark matter. Most interesting to me, is the idea that everyone treats negative mass as though it would create an equal force vector in the opposite direction, but I think that negative mass would create a deceleration force instead of an acceleration force. So instead of pushing an object in the opposite direction when they connect, it would either cause them to become stuck together like magnets or would increase the heat in one of the objects.
Thermal energy is just kinetic energy on a microscopic scale, so the negative thermal energy could be the negative object's atoms increasing in velocity which seems like it'd make a lot of sense
Yes, I was going to say the same thing. And this continues the pattern whereby negative-mass objects interacting with negative-mass objects act just like positive-mass objects interacting with positive-mass objects; it's just interactions between the two that get weird.
From what I've examined, mass is really just the magnitude of the 4-momentum vector, so negative mass doesn't really make sense. _Imaginary_ mass on the other hand _can_ result if an object's momentum through space is greater than its momentum through time, yielding a negative squared mass. I suspect that tachyons, if they exist (which they almost certainly don't) would best be modelled as having imaginary mass. Quaternionic mass doesn't really make much sense for the same reasons as negative mass (mass is just a magnitude). In some ways though, the 4-momentum vector itself could be modeled as a quaternion (though there are much better ways to model it), so you could say _everything_ has "quaternionic mass," though it's more like "quaternionic momentum."
1:16 The point people usually miss when they talk about conservation of energy is that most of the time what's equally importent is the second principle of thermodynamics : wouldn't those free-motion infinitely accelerating motors break entropy, since they allow positive / negative energy to be stored in one place instead of slowly dissipating ? I mean, just use the ever-accelerating couple particles until you no longer need to, and then let em negative energy particle shoot up on the moon alone, you effectively made a higher concentration of energy in one place, and a much lower in another without ever needing any external source of low-entropy energy… completely breaking thermodynamics in the process !
0:47 the bit here with the two moving circles reminds me of a site that’s now down that explored the idea of negative mass (in the broader pursuit of a possible theory of everything with one force but negative mass and negative reaction to force as options, i think among other stuff), where light was explained as i think two different combinations of two particles that would accelerate to the maximum speed
What if the equality principle (inertial mass = gravitational mass) isn't correct and needs modification for negative mass. Something like the square of inertial mass equals the square of gravitational mass. And maybe either gravitational mass or inertial mass (or both) can't be negative. That could be theoretically explored (there are four options: +/+, +/-, -/+ and -/-) And some other thing, if negative masses would exist, then the creation of two equal but opposite masses (with other quantum numbers being equal and opposite to preserve those quantum properties) would cost no energy, wouldn't that mean the universe would be filled with equal amount of negative mass matter and positive mass matter? Also, when negative mass matter and positive mass matter meet, they would cancel out, leaving nothing behind. So it would give rise to a universe that on average creates as much positive/negative mass pairs as cancelations of them. Which does not seem to resemble the real world.
A thought-experiment that may be interesting: Consider your negative-mass object resting on a positive-mass surface, but suppose that surface is made of thin layers that aren't attached, like a stack of paper. Does the negative mass lift the top layer off, or multiple layers, or...? What if the negative-mass object is also made of thin disconnected layers?
2:22 ok, bad news, no perpetual motion. The negative mass object is getting negative energy, and therefore more negative mass. (E=mc^2). So infinite negative mass, infinite negative gravity, blowing the universe apart. No thank you.
Hey I have a model for negative mass that you might be interested in. It is inspired by p-doted semiconducturs. I am interested, if you would agree or disagree with my interpretation. Is there any way I could send you a pdf?
I went back to your Part 1 video to see how you were treating elastic collisions, and I think I found a problem -- or at least something interesting. You swept the "what if the two masses sum to zero" question under the rug, which to me feels like taking a Giant Large Clue and ignoring it. Obviously the division by zero problem is because you solved the equations by assuming that it was allowed to divide by m1+m2, and then violated that assumption -- a technique that is the crux of the standard proof that 1=2. That's just wrong math, not interesting physics. So, let's avoid that. If you start with the conservation of momentum equation alone, and plug in m1=-m2, and divide by m1 (which _is_ ok), you get u1-u2 = v1-v2. That, on its own, is a fascinating equation -- it says that after the interaction, the velocity of the first object with respect to the second must be unchanged. There is no momentum-conserving interaction -- that is to say, no interaction that does not involve external forces -- that can change it. Thus, according to Newtonian mechanics, an object of positive mass cannot interact with an object of equal negative mass in a way that preserves the identity of the objects, unless they have no relative motion. Or, more precisely, the force between the two objects must be exactly zero. Now, consider an object A with positive mass M and another object B with negative mass -2M. We can split the negative-mass object into two objects B1 and B2 each of mass -M, which (by the definition of "object") are not moving with respect to each other and will continue in that vein ... and thus they are effectively not interacting so we can consider them independently. We have proved that A is not interacting with B1, and A is not interacting with B2, and in sum this means that A is not interacting with B as a whole. I'm pretty sure this generalizes to any mass ratio, because that argument works just as well if the parts B1 and B2 are not separate parts (i.e., they both include some of the same parts of B), and it definitely works if there are more than two parts of B. So, I think that means that we can go back to the very beginning of Part 1, where you start with the implied assumption that it is possible for an object of negative mass to apply a force to an object of positive mass, and we can say that that assumption is false under Newtonian physics. This contradicts the gravitational-force equation (and, for that matter, Coulomb's law for electrostatic force), and from there it would be tempting to say that we have proved that negative masses cannot exist. However! If we leave that contradiction aside for a moment and consider the system of two objects of opposite mass as a whole, it has what I think is a really interesting property: The system has zero mass, but nonzero momentum. We know that there is another type of object that definitely exists in our reality, and has this property: Photons. They also break Newtonian physics, and require special relativity to explain. So perhaps it would be enlightening to consider this case using the Einsteinian equations for momentum, especially since those equations are where we get gravitational force from. There is also something really weird with the conservation-of-energy equation when m1=-m2, if we assume that all the energy before and after the interaction is kinetic energy. You get u1^2 - u2^2 = v1^2 - v2^2, which has several possible solutions. There are the "trivial" solutions where u1=+/-u2 and v1=+/-v2, and if we have initial conditions where those don't apply then we can divide by the momentum equation and get u1+u2=v1+v2. This is a fascinating thing to fall out of this, because it is the same as the momentum conservation equation for two positive masses -- it basically says the midpoint between the two must end up moving at the same velocity at which it started. That's nice if kinetic energy is completely conserved, but otherwise it's intuitively bizarre because it suggests that interactions between them that convert kinetic energy into some other form will speed up or slow down their midpoint! (But perhaps that's sensible; for photons the kinetic energy is proportional to the momentum, and so perhaps that also has to be true for object-pairs with equal-and-opposite mass.) The assumption that all of the energy before and after the interaction is kinetic energy is basically an assumption that they start out and end up far enough apart that the potential energy is zero (which means it doesn't apply "in the middle of an interaction"), and that nothing gets converted into "internal energy" within the objects. Given this, it may be enlightening to consider how the potential energy of a negative-mass object changes when it's moved near a positive mass, and vice-versa.
Edit: The conclusion with momentum alone is slightly wrong, due to editing -- I initially came to the "no interaction is possible" conclusion based on conserving kinetic energy (and it is correct under that assumption), but if the kinetic energy can change, an interaction is possible that does not affect their relative velocity but affects the velocity of their midpoint. I didn't notice I needed to correct that conclusion when I remembered that kinetic energy is not necessarily fixed. This does have the result that, if two objects of opposite mass (and thus, I think, any two objects with mass of opposite signs) are on a collision course, they must either interpenetrate, avoid each other in a way that does not end up changing their relative velocities after the interaction, or remain permanently in close proximity in a state where the "lost" kinetic energy is converted to some other form.
This is very interesting although I'm struggling to understand this entirely. I will leave this comment so that hopefully it will be seen and taken into consideration for the next video.
This is something I have found interesting, as it relates the force of gravity in a way similar to magnetism. I disagree with the assumption that objects of negative mass would push into each other, instead i believe it would create a negative force as deceleration rather than an opposite angled acceleration force, which would cause objects of negative and positive mass to stick together like magnets and be harder to pull apart. The conservation of the normal force also ignores the potential for the energy to be converted into thermal energy, similar to the way magnets hest up or even explode when they smash together. Moreover, i think it is naive to assume that an object could only have negative or positive mass, and that our measurements of mass may be naive in this assumption by not taking this into account. For instance, using the analogy of magnetism, a magnet is effected by the force of gravity and magnetism, so in the case of a levitating magnet from a certain point of view it would appear to have forces balanced even though there are simply antagonistic forces being equalled out. Another comparison would be to electron spin in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, and the mistaken belief that it proved the Bohr model of quantum mechanics when it shown to later support Dirac. They got to a working answer for the wrong reason, and only further investigation revealed it. What would be really interesting, is if it could be explained by the matrix mechanics of Dirac and Heisenberg and more precisely predict gravitational movement like in the 3-body problem.
Negative mass is a standard accepted phenomena, it's called anti-matter. You probably want to know why it does not produce ant-gravity. As soon as we find out what is gravity, we will find that out. The secret is going in A Short Treatise on the Space Time Continuum by Piankh. Mass does not exist as a thing, it is a measure of inertia. And what is that?
Science meets friction.
Underrated comment
Shit really?
5:10 the element you are missing here is entropy. Endothermic processes are generally able to proceed because they are favoured by entropy. You may wish to add this to your work calculations and see if that would create a favourable situation.
I am so interested in the idea of negative mass, and the potential of it being a component of natural matter. I believe it could be an intuitive answer for dark energy or dark matter. Most interesting to me, is the idea that everyone treats negative mass as though it would create an equal force vector in the opposite direction, but I think that negative mass would create a deceleration force instead of an acceleration force. So instead of pushing an object in the opposite direction when they connect, it would either cause them to become stuck together like magnets or would increase the heat in one of the objects.
Thermal energy is just kinetic energy on a microscopic scale, so the negative thermal energy could be the negative object's atoms increasing in velocity which seems like it'd make a lot of sense
yeah that's what I thought it'd be
Yes, I was going to say the same thing. And this continues the pattern whereby negative-mass objects interacting with negative-mass objects act just like positive-mass objects interacting with positive-mass objects; it's just interactions between the two that get weird.
Finally! Would love to see the series continued :)
Cool. Once you’re done with part 4 you can finally get onto imaginary and complex masses, then quaternions!
From what I've examined, mass is really just the magnitude of the 4-momentum vector, so negative mass doesn't really make sense. _Imaginary_ mass on the other hand _can_ result if an object's momentum through space is greater than its momentum through time, yielding a negative squared mass. I suspect that tachyons, if they exist (which they almost certainly don't) would best be modelled as having imaginary mass. Quaternionic mass doesn't really make much sense for the same reasons as negative mass (mass is just a magnitude). In some ways though, the 4-momentum vector itself could be modeled as a quaternion (though there are much better ways to model it), so you could say _everything_ has "quaternionic mass," though it's more like "quaternionic momentum."
the madlad is back
Oh, sweet. You're back!
i have been waiting for this video for so long !!! i'm so happy
I'm so excited
ITS FINALLY HERE
he is back. The hero we needed in our darkest times is here!
1:16 The point people usually miss when they talk about conservation of energy is that most of the time what's equally importent is the second principle of thermodynamics : wouldn't those free-motion infinitely accelerating motors break entropy, since they allow positive / negative energy to be stored in one place instead of slowly dissipating ?
I mean, just use the ever-accelerating couple particles until you no longer need to, and then let em negative energy particle shoot up on the moon alone, you effectively made a higher concentration of energy in one place, and a much lower in another without ever needing any external source of low-entropy energy… completely breaking thermodynamics in the process !
0:47 the bit here with the two moving circles reminds me of a site that’s now down that explored the idea of negative mass (in the broader pursuit of a possible theory of everything with one force but negative mass and negative reaction to force as options, i think among other stuff), where light was explained as i think two different combinations of two particles that would accelerate to the maximum speed
i think the url was something like dirac-was-right but idr the extension, afaik it’s on that archive site (no url because youtube removed it before)
Thank you for this, i will have to check it out!
there's about as many parts in this series as there is speed coming off of a 5kg block hitting a -5kg block I think.
I've waited so long but it's finally here
part 4 when?
Amazing video! As always.
Imagine if the breakthrough allows you to answer quantum gravity by providing insights, thus bridging quantum theory and cosmology
i woudn't bet on it
What if the equality principle (inertial mass = gravitational mass) isn't correct and needs modification for negative mass. Something like the square of inertial mass equals the square of gravitational mass. And maybe either gravitational mass or inertial mass (or both) can't be negative. That could be theoretically explored (there are four options: +/+, +/-, -/+ and -/-)
And some other thing, if negative masses would exist, then the creation of two equal but opposite masses (with other quantum numbers being equal and opposite to preserve those quantum properties) would cost no energy, wouldn't that mean the universe would be filled with equal amount of negative mass matter and positive mass matter? Also, when negative mass matter and positive mass matter meet, they would cancel out, leaving nothing behind. So it would give rise to a universe that on average creates as much positive/negative mass pairs as cancelations of them. Which does not seem to resemble the real world.
Ooh, Part 3!
Underated channal
A thought-experiment that may be interesting: Consider your negative-mass object resting on a positive-mass surface, but suppose that surface is made of thin layers that aren't attached, like a stack of paper. Does the negative mass lift the top layer off, or multiple layers, or...? What if the negative-mass object is also made of thin disconnected layers?
My mind is boiling , I'm turning this off
Bad thing you rarely make this kind of videos
Good luck with the SoME3 :)
Another solution to the conservation of energy problem is that masses of opposite sign might always repel.
2:22 ok, bad news, no perpetual motion. The negative mass object is getting negative energy, and therefore more negative mass. (E=mc^2). So infinite negative mass, infinite negative gravity, blowing the universe apart. No thank you.
Hey I have a model for negative mass that you might be interested in. It is inspired by p-doted semiconducturs. I am interested, if you would agree or disagree with my interpretation. Is there any way I could send you a pdf?
I went back to your Part 1 video to see how you were treating elastic collisions, and I think I found a problem -- or at least something interesting. You swept the "what if the two masses sum to zero" question under the rug, which to me feels like taking a Giant Large Clue and ignoring it. Obviously the division by zero problem is because you solved the equations by assuming that it was allowed to divide by m1+m2, and then violated that assumption -- a technique that is the crux of the standard proof that 1=2. That's just wrong math, not interesting physics.
So, let's avoid that. If you start with the conservation of momentum equation alone, and plug in m1=-m2, and divide by m1 (which _is_ ok), you get u1-u2 = v1-v2. That, on its own, is a fascinating equation -- it says that after the interaction, the velocity of the first object with respect to the second must be unchanged. There is no momentum-conserving interaction -- that is to say, no interaction that does not involve external forces -- that can change it.
Thus, according to Newtonian mechanics, an object of positive mass cannot interact with an object of equal negative mass in a way that preserves the identity of the objects, unless they have no relative motion. Or, more precisely, the force between the two objects must be exactly zero.
Now, consider an object A with positive mass M and another object B with negative mass -2M. We can split the negative-mass object into two objects B1 and B2 each of mass -M, which (by the definition of "object") are not moving with respect to each other and will continue in that vein ... and thus they are effectively not interacting so we can consider them independently. We have proved that A is not interacting with B1, and A is not interacting with B2, and in sum this means that A is not interacting with B as a whole. I'm pretty sure this generalizes to any mass ratio, because that argument works just as well if the parts B1 and B2 are not separate parts (i.e., they both include some of the same parts of B), and it definitely works if there are more than two parts of B.
So, I think that means that we can go back to the very beginning of Part 1, where you start with the implied assumption that it is possible for an object of negative mass to apply a force to an object of positive mass, and we can say that that assumption is false under Newtonian physics.
This contradicts the gravitational-force equation (and, for that matter, Coulomb's law for electrostatic force), and from there it would be tempting to say that we have proved that negative masses cannot exist.
However! If we leave that contradiction aside for a moment and consider the system of two objects of opposite mass as a whole, it has what I think is a really interesting property: The system has zero mass, but nonzero momentum. We know that there is another type of object that definitely exists in our reality, and has this property: Photons. They also break Newtonian physics, and require special relativity to explain. So perhaps it would be enlightening to consider this case using the Einsteinian equations for momentum, especially since those equations are where we get gravitational force from.
There is also something really weird with the conservation-of-energy equation when m1=-m2, if we assume that all the energy before and after the interaction is kinetic energy. You get u1^2 - u2^2 = v1^2 - v2^2, which has several possible solutions. There are the "trivial" solutions where u1=+/-u2 and v1=+/-v2, and if we have initial conditions where those don't apply then we can divide by the momentum equation and get u1+u2=v1+v2. This is a fascinating thing to fall out of this, because it is the same as the momentum conservation equation for two positive masses -- it basically says the midpoint between the two must end up moving at the same velocity at which it started. That's nice if kinetic energy is completely conserved, but otherwise it's intuitively bizarre because it suggests that interactions between them that convert kinetic energy into some other form will speed up or slow down their midpoint!
(But perhaps that's sensible; for photons the kinetic energy is proportional to the momentum, and so perhaps that also has to be true for object-pairs with equal-and-opposite mass.)
The assumption that all of the energy before and after the interaction is kinetic energy is basically an assumption that they start out and end up far enough apart that the potential energy is zero (which means it doesn't apply "in the middle of an interaction"), and that nothing gets converted into "internal energy" within the objects. Given this, it may be enlightening to consider how the potential energy of a negative-mass object changes when it's moved near a positive mass, and vice-versa.
Edit: The conclusion with momentum alone is slightly wrong, due to editing -- I initially came to the "no interaction is possible" conclusion based on conserving kinetic energy (and it is correct under that assumption), but if the kinetic energy can change, an interaction is possible that does not affect their relative velocity but affects the velocity of their midpoint. I didn't notice I needed to correct that conclusion when I remembered that kinetic energy is not necessarily fixed.
This does have the result that, if two objects of opposite mass (and thus, I think, any two objects with mass of opposite signs) are on a collision course, they must either interpenetrate, avoid each other in a way that does not end up changing their relative velocities after the interaction, or remain permanently in close proximity in a state where the "lost" kinetic energy is converted to some other form.
This is very interesting although I'm struggling to understand this entirely. I will leave this comment so that hopefully it will be seen and taken into consideration for the next video.
This is something I have found interesting, as it relates the force of gravity in a way similar to magnetism. I disagree with the assumption that objects of negative mass would push into each other, instead i believe it would create a negative force as deceleration rather than an opposite angled acceleration force, which would cause objects of negative and positive mass to stick together like magnets and be harder to pull apart. The conservation of the normal force also ignores the potential for the energy to be converted into thermal energy, similar to the way magnets hest up or even explode when they smash together. Moreover, i think it is naive to assume that an object could only have negative or positive mass, and that our measurements of mass may be naive in this assumption by not taking this into account. For instance, using the analogy of magnetism, a magnet is effected by the force of gravity and magnetism, so in the case of a levitating magnet from a certain point of view it would appear to have forces balanced even though there are simply antagonistic forces being equalled out. Another comparison would be to electron spin in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, and the mistaken belief that it proved the Bohr model of quantum mechanics when it shown to later support Dirac. They got to a working answer for the wrong reason, and only further investigation revealed it.
What would be really interesting, is if it could be explained by the matrix mechanics of Dirac and Heisenberg and more precisely predict gravitational movement like in the 3-body problem.
You can get something kind of similar to a "negative spring" in real life with a bistable spring
It has been more than 1.5 years...
Some3 has started
Based
Alkaline
Under 40 comments
Negative mass is weird enough, so it doesn't have to obey our physical laws.
Negative mass is a standard accepted phenomena, it's called anti-matter. You probably want to know why it does not produce ant-gravity. As soon as we find out what is gravity, we will find that out.
The secret is going in A Short Treatise on the Space Time Continuum by Piankh. Mass does not exist as a thing, it is a measure of inertia. And what is that?
Nope. Anti-matter has positive mass. Its electric charge is flipped instead
Antimatter still has a positive mass. Negative mass is a completely different thing.