If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medium)   Cosmologists prove negative mass can exist in our universe--profound consequences for all-you-can-eat restaurants   (medium.com) divider line 60
    More: Cool, cosmologists, physics, universe, conservation of energy, astronomers, general relativity, negative mass, laws of science  
•       •       •

2364 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Jul 2014 at 6:19 PM (8 days ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-16 04:24:33 PM
The crucial breakthrough by Mbarek and Paranjape is to show that negative mass can produce a reasonable Schwarzschild solution without violating the energy condition. Their approach is to think of negative mass not as a solid object, but as a perfect fluid, an otherwise common approach in relativity.

And when they solve the equations for a perfect fluid, it turns out that the energy condition is satisfied everywhere, just as in all other solutions of general relativity that support reasonable universes.


Modern physics writing is almost incomprehensible, even when you actually understand what is going on.
 
2014-07-16 05:21:12 PM
Today, Saoussen Mbarek and Manu Paranjape at the Université de Montréal in Canada say they've found a solution to Einstein's theory of general relativity that allows negative mass without breaking any essential assumptions. Their approach means that negative mass can exist in our universe provided there is a reasonable mechanism for producing it, perhaps in pairs of positive and negative mass particles in the early universe.

So - and remember, you're talking to an Arts major here - why are physicists so attached to the infallibility of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?  It seems in the literature I read (popular, not professional) that there are lots of mental gymnastics going on to explain observations within the framework of Einstein.  I know there must be a reason.  But it would seem that, as our knowledge of cosmology increases, we may find that any theory can be only a partial explanation.

Or am I just talking crazy?
 
2014-07-16 05:39:25 PM
In the popular literature, there a lot of people who don't quite understand how GR works.  The thing about GR is that it actually reduced the mental gymnastics that were becoming required to match Newton's theories to reality.  Professionals consider GR to be a simple and elegant solution that requires no gymnastics at all.
 
2014-07-16 06:20:55 PM

Lord Jubjub: In the popular literature, there a lot of people who don't quite understand how GR works.  The thing about GR is that it actually reduced the mental gymnastics that were becoming required to match Newton's theories to reality.  Professionals consider GR to be a simple and elegant solution that requires no gymnastics at all.


Except when dealing with newly-observed phenomena that suggest that GR may go the way of Newton.

Again, I know less than Jon Snow, but it seems like Einstein may not explain everything we observe.  Which will be exciting, actually, if a new theory comes out.  I've always wondered what it was like for the thinking public when Einstein's Theory was propagated.
 
2014-07-16 06:37:08 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: So - and remember, you're talking to an Arts major here - why are physicists so attached to the infallibility of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?  It seems in the literature I read (popular, not professional) that there are lots of mental gymnastics going on to explain observations within the framework of Einstein.  I know there must be a reason.  But it would seem that, as our knowledge of cosmology increases, we may find that any theory can be only a partial explanation.


Not crazy, but GR is an astoundingly correct theory. For large scale phenomena (i.e. aside from quantum mechanics) it's the most correct theory there is. It has been described as the most accurate theory in physics, because of how well it agrees with experimental data to the umpteenth decimal point. In fact, GR agrees so well with available experimental data that it's hard to envision that any different theory could substantially improve it under our current conception of how space works. Essentially, without some radically unexpected phenomena (like for example when Edwin Hubble realized that virtually all other galaxies were accelerating away from our own, which was very unexpected), nobody is going to improve upon GR.


whistleridge: The crucial breakthrough by Mbarek and Paranjape is to show that negative mass can produce a reasonable Schwarzschild solution without violating the energy condition. Their approach is to think of negative mass not as a solid object, but as a perfect fluid, an otherwise common approach in relativity.

And when they solve the equations for a perfect fluid, it turns out that the energy condition is satisfied everywhere, just as in all other solutions of general relativity that support reasonable universes.

Modern physics writing is almost incomprehensible, even when you actually understand what is going on.


It sounds incomprehensible because they're using jargon (incidentally, the author doesn't seem to fully grasp polar coordinates, so I'm not sure he's the best pick to explain this stuff), not necessarily because it's difficult to grasp. I'm only a weekend-warrior relativity theorist, but I can translate the above for you.

The Schwarzschild "solution" is really just a system of equations that describe space and time (aka spacetime) around a single star, whose mass has been concentrated to a point. In other words, think of our sun, shrink all of it's mass down to a point at the center (to make the math easier), and think of any gravitational object whizzing around it. The Schwarzschild solution describes that two-body system.


So, what I'm guessing they did, based on the description in TFA, is they supposed that the "sun" at the center of their two-body system had some negative mass value, and then showed that such a system is still consistent, in that it doesn't violate any known laws of the universe and isn't self-contradictory.
 
2014-07-16 06:42:49 PM

Fubini: Benevolent Misanthrope: So - and remember, you're talking to an Arts major here - why are physicists so attached to the infallibility of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?  It seems in the literature I read (popular, not professional) that there are lots of mental gymnastics going on to explain observations within the framework of Einstein.  I know there must be a reason.  But it would seem that, as our knowledge of cosmology increases, we may find that any theory can be only a partial explanation.

Not crazy, but GR is an astoundingly correct theory. For large scale phenomena (i.e. aside from quantum mechanics) it's the most correct theory there is. It has been described as the most accurate theory in physics, because of how well it agrees with experimental data to the umpteenth decimal point. In fact, GR agrees so well with available experimental data that it's hard to envision that any different theory could substantially improve it under our current conception of how space works. Essentially, without some radically unexpected phenomena (like for example when Edwin Hubble realized that virtually all other galaxies were accelerating away from our own, which was very unexpected), nobody is going to improve upon GR.


whistleridge: The crucial breakthrough by Mbarek and Paranjape is to show that negative mass can produce a reasonable Schwarzschild solution without violating the energy condition. Their approach is to think of negative mass not as a solid object, but as a perfect fluid, an otherwise common approach in relativity.

And when they solve the equations for a perfect fluid, it turns out that the energy condition is satisfied everywhere, just as in all other solutions of general relativity that support reasonable universes.

Modern physics writing is almost incomprehensible, even when you actually understand what is going on.

It sounds incomprehensible because they're using jargon (incidentally, the author doesn't seem to fully grasp polar coordinates, so I'm not sure he's the best pick to explain this stuff), not necessarily because it's difficult to grasp. I'm only a weekend-warrior relativity theorist, but I can translate the above for you.

The Schwarzschild "solution" is really just a system of equations that describe space and time (aka spacetime) around a single star, whose mass has been concentrated to a point. In other words, think of our sun, shrink all of it's mass down to a point at the center (to make the math easier), and think of any gravitational object whizzing around it. The Schwarzschild solution describes that two-body system.


So, what I'm guessing they did, based on the description in TFA, is they supposed that the "sun" at the center of their two-body system had some negative mass value, and then showed that such a system is still consistent, in that it doesn't violate any known laws of the universe and isn't self-contradictory.


In understand the physics just fine. I'm just not at all sure the writer of that piece does. That, or they're so involved in physics that they've lost the ability to dumb down the jargon for a general audience. And to use simple sentences, to compensate for the complexity of the ideas being presented. Good discovery, bad writing.
 
2014-07-16 06:43:01 PM
And maybe to elaborate a little more on what it means to not "violate any known laws of the universe and isn't self-contradictory."

You might come up with a mathematical model, and find out that it predicts very strange or impossible things. For example, if you try to accelerate a spaceship faster than light, you end up with problems like needing an infinite amount of energy and the spaceship becoming infinitely long and infinitely dense. Stuff like that makes no sense.

I'm guessing that in the case of TFA, this means things like they don't violate the laws of conservation of mass, and nothing becomes infinitely massive or infinitely dense, etc.

Essentially, if there were to somehow exist a chunk of matter with negative-mass, that doesn't necessarily clash with our current worldview.
 
2014-07-16 06:43:36 PM
What I don't understand is why we're trusting hair dressers to do high end theoretical physics.
 
2014-07-16 06:47:35 PM
In first year engineering I had to solve a problem to calculate the mass of an object that would roll down an incline and stop after a certain distance.  My equations produced a negative mass value.  The professor gave me a mark of zero on the problem, but I'm going to go back and demand a Nobel prize instead.
 
2014-07-16 06:49:17 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

"The Alcubierre drive or Alcubierre metric (referring to metric tensor) is a speculative idea based on a solution of Einstein's field equations in general relativity as proposed by theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre, by which a spacecraft could achieve faster-than-light travel if a configurable energy-density field lower than that of vacuum (i.e. negative mass) could be created."

Well, that's one of the big "never gonna happen" roadblocks to warp drive.
 
2014-07-16 06:57:38 PM

whistleridge: In understand the physics just fine. I'm just not at all sure the writer of that piece does. That, or they're so involved in physics that they've lost the ability to dumb down the jargon for a general audience. And to use simple sentences, to compensate for the complexity of the ideas being presented. Good discovery, bad writing.


I'm with you.

In particular, the writer of that piece handwaves the "energy condition", which is essential to understanding the work. The purported problem with negative energy is a bit more subtle than potentially violating conservation laws (a big no-no) and the analysis here is a lot more interesting than finding that it doesn't. Based on the article, it's not at all obvious that the author understands what an energy condition is, or why it is important.

Frankly, I wish Fark would stop linking to medium.com. It's articles actually make me nostalgic for io9.
 
2014-07-16 07:08:44 PM
Geez, it's not negative mass, it's mass in a negative direction. Get it right.
 
2014-07-16 07:12:49 PM
After reading a few Mashable articles on topics like this I've concluded that they really have no idea what they're talking about. Or, if they do, they're just really horrible at explaining it.
 
2014-07-16 07:19:30 PM

JonBuck: After reading a few Mashable articles on topics like this I've concluded that they really have no idea what they're talking about. Or, if they do, they're just really horrible at explaining it.


Medium, not Mashable. My bad.
 
2014-07-16 07:20:20 PM

czetie: whistleridge: In understand the physics just fine. I'm just not at all sure the writer of that piece does. That, or they're so involved in physics that they've lost the ability to dumb down the jargon for a general audience. And to use simple sentences, to compensate for the complexity of the ideas being presented. Good discovery, bad writing.

I'm with you.

In particular, the writer of that piece handwaves the "energy condition", which is essential to understanding the work. The purported problem with negative energy is a bit more subtle than potentially violating conservation laws (a big no-no) and the analysis here is a lot more interesting than finding that it doesn't. Based on the article, it's not at all obvious that the author understands what an energy condition is, or why it is important.

Frankly, I wish Fark would stop linking to medium.com. It's articles actually make me nostalgic for io9.


Medium is just a blog host. There's a bunch of different blogs on it and the quality varies.
 
2014-07-16 07:23:10 PM

czetie: Frankly, I wish Fark would stop linking to medium.com. It's articles actually make me nostalgic for io9.


I agree. Medium is not a good website. Plus, WTF is their text twice as big as every other website's text? I can read it from 20 feet away!
 
2014-07-16 07:24:03 PM
Gray Lensman Kimball Kinnison and physicist Sir Austin Cardyne nod approvingly.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-16 07:24:56 PM
Fubini

We have only been able to test GR accurately over a limited range of mass/distance scales, basically from Earth mass up to solar masses. At scales of 10^6 solar masses the evidence is consistent with GR, and I think it is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, but the uncertainty is large. At larger scales observation is strongly inconsistent with both theories of gravity, and that's why astrophysicists invented MOND and dark matter.
 
2014-07-16 07:27:08 PM
StopLurkListen:

Well, that's one of the big "never gonna happen" roadblocks to warp drive.

Not necessarily, negative mass may still provide too much light barrier displacement to achieve a stable warpfield. As it is, this could be as simple as discovering that momentum can be converted into inertia and then into matter especially during fusion reactions, as a function of space storing expansion at the expense of potential energy.
 
2014-07-16 07:31:23 PM

Tobin_Lam: czetie: Frankly, I wish Fark would stop linking to medium.com. It's articles actually make me nostalgic for io9.

I agree. Medium is not a good website. Plus, WTF is their text twice as big as every other website's text? I can read it from 20 feet away!


I think they are optimizing for an iPad, which screws up regular browsers.
 
2014-07-16 07:38:57 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: czetie: whistleridge: In understand the physics just fine. I'm just not at all sure the writer of that piece does. That, or they're so involved in physics that they've lost the ability to dumb down the jargon for a general audience. And to use simple sentences, to compensate for the complexity of the ideas being presented. Good discovery, bad writing.

I'm with you.

In particular, the writer of that piece handwaves the "energy condition", which is essential to understanding the work. The purported problem with negative energy is a bit more subtle than potentially violating conservation laws (a big no-no) and the analysis here is a lot more interesting than finding that it doesn't. Based on the article, it's not at all obvious that the author understands what an energy condition is, or why it is important.

Frankly, I wish Fark would stop linking to medium.com. It's articles actually make me nostalgic for io9.

Medium is just a blog host. There's a bunch of different blogs on it and the quality varies.


OK, then I restrict my comments to whoever is blogging about Arxiv postings on Medium. Let's stop linking to that guy.
 
2014-07-16 07:43:33 PM

ZAZ: Fubini

We have only been able to test GR accurately over a limited range of mass/distance scales, basically from Earth mass up to solar masses. At scales of 10^6 solar masses the evidence is consistent with GR, and I think it is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity, but the uncertainty is large. At larger scales observation is strongly inconsistent with both theories of gravity, and that's why astrophysicists invented MOND and dark matter.


The solar system is inconsistent with Newtonian Gravitation, see for example the Perihelion precession of Mercury.

And sure, GR may be incomplete, but that's different from GR being wrong. An addition to GR will augment our understanding, but it won't invalidate the fundamental model of the universe in GR. To see what I mean, consider the Newtonian worldview versus the GR worldview- the two models are completely different. Newtonian physics can't even begin to describe things like gravitational lensing (and probably gravity waves... we'll see). When GR hit the scene, it completely invalidated Newtonian physics as a worldview. Any modification to GR will most likely  be of the attitude that the warped spacetime model is correct, but the particular way that spacetime warps is slightly different from what we thought it was.
 
2014-07-16 07:51:47 PM

Xxplosiv: Not necessarily, negative mass may still provide too much light barrier displacement to achieve a stable warpfield. As it is, this could be as simple as discovering that momentum can be converted into inertia and then into matter especially during fusion reactions, as a function of space storing expansion at the expense of potential energy


All of these words are real words.  They do not make sense to me in this order.
I am frankly uncertain if you are technobabbling at an extraordinarily high level or not.  Either way, I'm impressed.
 
2014-07-16 07:56:56 PM
I've been saying this all along.  White holes, people.  It's where dark energy comes from.  The total curvature of the universe is zero.  Study it out.
 
2014-07-16 08:10:23 PM

Precision Boobery: I've been saying this all along.  White holes, people.  It's where dark energy comes from.  The total curvature of the universe is zero.  Study it out.


4 sided time cube? I knew it.
 
2014-07-16 08:10:35 PM
So... antigrav-*slapped by physicist*

/sorry.
//won't happen again.
 
2014-07-16 08:21:19 PM

ChubbyTiger: What I don't understand is why we're trusting hair dressers to do high end theoretical physics.


Well their 'Fire' project turned out all right, even though it was the wrong color and couldn't be nasally fitted.
 
2014-07-16 08:22:37 PM

Precision Boobery: I've been saying this all along.  White holes, people.  It's where dark energy comes from.  The total curvature of the universe is zero.  Study it out.


So instead of three dimensions splashing together inside the universe that time unfolds within, you're saying that there is an object emitting such energy that its precise whereabouts are scrambled in the static distribution of forces that combine to present the dilution effect of gravity in self-infinitely looping patterns so as to allow the force of gravity within an infinite timespan to coexist with similar forces while displaying similar characteristics that do not overlap or cancel out at potential incursions of chaotic exchange processes?
 
2014-07-16 08:25:59 PM

whistleridge: The crucial breakthrough by Mbarek and Paranjape is to show that negative mass can produce a reasonable Schwarzschild solution without violating the energy condition. Their approach is to think of negative mass not as a solid object, but as a perfect fluid, an otherwise common approach in relativity.

And when they solve the equations for a perfect fluid, it turns out that the energy condition is satisfied everywhere, just as in all other solutions of general relativity that support reasonable universes.

Modern physics writing is almost incomprehensible, even when you actually understand what is going on.


They are running out of made up words to explain the alien technology they are reverse engineering.
 
2014-07-16 08:27:42 PM

Xxplosiv: Precision Boobery: I've been saying this all along.  White holes, people.  It's where dark energy comes from.  The total curvature of the universe is zero.  Study it out.

So instead of three dimensions splashing together inside the universe that time unfolds within, you're saying that there is an object emitting such energy that its precise whereabouts are scrambled in the static distribution of forces that combine to present the dilution effect of gravity in self-infinitely looping patterns so as to allow the force of gravity within an infinite timespan to coexist with similar forces while displaying similar characteristics that do not overlap or cancel out at potential incursions of chaotic exchange processes?


Finally, someone who speaks English!
 
2014-07-16 08:34:39 PM
Whatever you say Poindexter

img.fark.net

I just want to go.
 
2014-07-16 08:39:42 PM
Running a-puck:

All of these words are real words.  They do not make sense to me in this order.
I am frankly uncertain if you are technobabbling at an extraordinarily high level or not.  Either way, I'm impressed.


Negative mass as a point, used on some sort of spatial tractor beam as a lightning rod would in my mind still have too much matter-stench to get the proper warping effects we would like, as I would guess we would need some sort of massless chain to make our accelerative torques have the intended effects of a warp drive aside from the complete loss of friction-imposed traction from reality.

the inability to actually speed up because of some sort of unforseen force at work with a stable warp field could probably be circumvented with some sort of large inertial motor-bell that when rung, accelerates the spacecraft at least up to its former space-faring velocities and patterns of trajectories, like bender throwing away his treasures from his loot bag, first to stop his forward motion and then secondly to stop rotating, the bell would act as a momentum-balloon, a sort of spatial leveling system that 'floats' the spacecrafts matter to higher velocity-energy potentials, like a gas dissipating out of a liquid while retaining fluid properties by having a distinct pattern of surface.
 
2014-07-16 08:46:37 PM

Running a-puck: All of these words are real words. They do not make sense to me in this order.
I am frankly uncertain if you are technobabbling at an extraordinarily high level or not. Either way, I'm impressed.


Reminds me of this passage from A Short History of Nearly Everything:

"By introducing extra dimensions, superstring theory enables physicists to pull together quantum laws and gravitational ones into one comparatively tidy package, but it also means that anything scientists say about the theory begins to sound worryingly like the sort of thoughts that would make you edge away if conveyed to you by a stranger on a park bench. Here, for example, is the physicist Michio Kaku explaining the structure of the universe from a superstring perspective: "The heterotic string consists of a closed string that has two types of vibrations, clockwise and counterclockwise, which are treated differently. The clockwise vibrations live in a ten-dimensional space. The counterclockwise live in a twenty-six-dimensional space, of which sixteen dimensions have been compactified. (We recall that in Kaluza's original five-dimensional, the fifth dimension was compactified by being wrapped up into a circle.)" And so it goes, for some 350 pages.

String theory has further spawned something called "M theory," which incorporates surfaces known as membranes-or simply "branes" to the hipper souls of the world of physics. I'm afraid this is the stop on the knowledge highway where most of us must get off. Here is a sentence from the New York Times, explaining this as simply as possible to a general audience: "The ekpyrotic process begins far in the indefinite past with a pair of flat empty branes sitting parallel to each other in a warped five-dimensional space. . . . The two branes, which form the walls of the fifth dimension, could have popped out of nothingness as a quantum fluctuation in the even more distant past and then drifted apart." No arguing with that. No understanding it either. Ekpyrotic, incidentally, comes from the Greek word for "conflagration."

Matters in physics have now reached such a pitch that, as Paul Davies noted in Nature, it is "almost impossible for the non-scientist to discriminate between the legitimately weird and the outright crackpot." The question came interestingly to a head in the fall of 2002 when two French physicists, twin brothers Igor and Grickha Bogdanov, produced a theory of ambitious density involving such concepts as "imaginary time" and the "Kubo-Schwinger-Martin condition," and purporting to describe the nothingness that was the universe before the Big Bang-a period that was always assumed to be unknowable (since it predated the birth of physics and its properties).

Almost at once the Bogdanov paper excited debate among physicists as to whether it was twaddle, a work of genius, or a hoax. "Scientifically, it's clearly more or less complete nonsense," Columbia University physicist Peter Woit told the New York Times, "but these days that doesn't much distinguish it from a lot of the rest of the literature."
 
2014-07-16 08:53:12 PM

Fubini: And maybe to elaborate a little more on what it means to not "violate any known laws of the universe and isn't self-contradictory."

You might come up with a mathematical model, and find out that it predicts very strange or impossible things. For example, if you try to accelerate a spaceship faster than light, you end up with problems like needing an infinite amount of energy and the spaceship becoming infinitely long and infinitely dense. Stuff like that makes no sense.

I'm guessing that in the case of TFA, this means things like they don't violate the laws of conservation of mass, and nothing becomes infinitely massive or infinitely dense, etc.

Essentially, if there were to somehow exist a chunk of matter with negative-mass, that doesn't necessarily clash with our current worldview.


Anti-gravity?
 
2014-07-16 08:57:22 PM
I refuse to take anything seriously that was said by somebody who studies Cosmopolitan Magazine.
 
2014-07-16 09:13:37 PM
RedVentrue:

Anti-gravity?

No. Mass is a property that governs effects on a gravitational scale. antigravity is still outside the range of effects that our gas-shielded universal torch provide.

think of the word, then think of its implication versus the word, weight. mass is to gravity as weight is to,, well, measurement? that is way too simplified of a perspective to be making such analogies teeming with gravitas...
 
2014-07-16 09:17:10 PM
Okay, cheater map-mipping legend says weight of the world is to gravity as mass is to velocity, depending on the apocalypse sought for the wrought of the writ of adventurous searches for resources to convey powere against.

revered pirate-alien paul, would of course keep the momentum of the sea going through the duality of landing on the move, for free.
 
2014-07-16 09:41:03 PM
Cosmologists prove negative mass can exist in our universe

Interesting, but not too much. Does would be more fascinating.
 
2014-07-16 09:44:20 PM

Xxplosiv: Okay, cheater map-mipping legend says weight of the world is to gravity as mass is to velocity, depending on the apocalypse sought for the wrought of the writ of adventurous searches for resources to convey powere against.

revered pirate-alien paul, would of course keep the momentum of the sea going through the duality of landing on the move, for free.


Well of course.
 
2014-07-16 09:46:53 PM
www.containsmoderateperil.com

Negative mass, you say?
 
2014-07-16 10:31:05 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: So... antigrav-*slapped by physicist*

/sorry.
//won't happen again.



No no no no no, not antigravity... Negative gravity! Huzzah!
 
2014-07-16 10:36:40 PM
I'm not reading this. This is Relativity, which means I don't understand it. And also it's just a theoretical result.

This is about as serious a result as me demonstrating that a negative energy density should allow me to reach warp 9 with a lightbulb and a wall socket. Nice math but where is the real thing?
 
2014-07-16 10:38:55 PM

Xxplosiv: Okay, cheater map-mipping legend says weight of the world is to gravity as mass is to velocity, depending on the apocalypse sought for the wrought of the writ of adventurous searches for resources to convey powere against.

revered pirate-alien paul, would of course keep the momentum of the sea going through the duality of landing on the move, for free.


Are you one of the people that keeps sending me spam?
 
2014-07-16 10:51:07 PM

Fark like a Barsoomian: I'm not reading this. This is Relativity, which means I don't understand it. And also it's just a theoretical result.


Every time you use a GPS navigation device, you are demonstrating the astonishing accuracy of Relativity. Otherwise, your position would be off by tens of kilometers every day.
 
2014-07-16 10:51:12 PM

Xxplosiv: RedVentrue:

Anti-gravity?

No. Mass is a property that governs effects on a gravitational scale. antigravity is still outside the range of effects that our gas-shielded universal torch provide.

think of the word, then think of its implication versus the word, weight. mass is to gravity as weight is to,, well, measurement? that is way too simplified of a perspective to be making such analogies teeming with gravitas...


You find gravity where you find mass.

So a negative mass would have an abscence of gravity?
 
2014-07-16 10:53:22 PM
"You can't prove a negative." -Fark Athiests
 
2014-07-17 12:15:31 AM

Xxplosiv: StopLurkListen:

Well, that's one of the big "never gonna happen" roadblocks to warp drive.

Not necessarily, negative mass may still provide too much light barrier displacement to achieve a stable warpfield. As it is, this could be as simple as discovering that momentum can be converted into inertia and then into matter especially during fusion reactions, as a function of space storing expansion at the expense of potential energy.


I feel a little bad that it took until the second sentence for me to realize you were just making up nonsense.
 
2014-07-17 12:46:02 AM
We've discovered element zero?
 
2014-07-17 01:21:55 AM
So in a sense, negative mass could be considered a type of 'anti-mass'.

Which means you'd need to measure its properties using an anti-mass spectrometer.

And we all know what that leads to.

Do you want a Resonance Cascade? Because that's how you get Resonance Cascades.

/They're waiting for you, Gordon. In the Test Chamber.
//Major fracture detected.
///Morphine administered.
//Major lacerations detected.
/User death imminent.
///User death imminent.
 
2014-07-17 03:05:24 AM
RedVentrue:
You find gravity where you find mass.

So a negative mass would have an abscence of gravity?


negative mass is similar to weight when speaking of gravity, it is an attribute of its physical parameters existing within gravity. Negative mass would be anchored to positive mass, giving an absolute effect that in certain circumstances repel gravity(doubtfully) but that technically, would still account for influencing the local gravitation pattern towards registering as if saturated only in positive mass. Think of giving a single point on an object, a portal gun for escape velocity, all of the negative mass is within that portal gun or its targeted source of gravity, that 'weighs' what a gun to a tool abuser would feel as if, but if it truly simulated negative mass, simply holding the weapon would be like trying to balance a tap dancing top on two rotating dice sliding down a parabolic mirror in a la grange point between two huge and closely orbiting bodies, it would be like your motion suddenly had fluidic inertia, basically you'd be afraid of smacking yourself from any angle by the flailings of your body from pulsations of your blood pressure to your arm, you'd likely be unable to ride the mechanical bull.

Delta1212:

I feel a little bad that it took until the second sentence for me to realize you were just making up nonsense.

Mostly nonsense because of the impracticality of returning such an idea to realistic scales. Warp fields are an attempt to prism gravitys effects on velocity, simply speeding up a water balloon to its terminal velocity won't allow it to pass through a sheet of glass even if it would shatter it without its hydrocarbon container. That's why I mentioned a massless chain, plausibly giving some traction versus photons and their derivative energy barriers, allowing the lighter than 'there' craft to actually speed up to relatively efficient velocities, otherwise the warp field generators would simply be spatial ballasts, that might be handy in terms of space weather for avoiding unwanted traction against the exploratory mediums.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report