Perpetual Motion From Negative Mass?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ม.ค. 2019
- PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
↓ More info below ↓
Check out the new Space Time Merch Store!
pbsspacetime.com/
Support Space Time on Patreon
/ pbsspacetime
Email your answers to: pbsspacetime@gmail.com
With the subject heading: Negative Mass Challenge Question
Challenge question: if 1kg of apples is $5 and 2kg is $10, how much is -1kg of apples? The answer? Priceless. Because you could use negative-mass apples to build warp drives, travel in time, and construct a perpetual motion machine. In fact that last one will be today’s actual challenge question.
Tweet at us! @pbsspacetime
Facebook: pbsspacetime
Email us! pbsspacetime [at] gmail [dot] com
Comment on Reddit: / pbsspacetime
Help translate our videos!
/ timedtext_cs
Previous Episode: Why String Theory Is Wrong
• Why String Theory is W...
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Matt O'Dowd
Graphics by Luke Maroldi
Directing by Andrew Kornhaber
Exotic matter - matter with negative mass - has long been the pipedream of science fiction writers, futurists, and certain rather. . . optimistic researchers. It’s the key to faster than light travel because it’s the only stuff that can curve space in the right way to hold open wormholes and construct warp fields. And if you can travel faster than light you can also travel backwards in time. We’ve been over those already. And we also recently covered a very new use for negative mass: as “dark fluid”, a proposed explanation for both dark matter and dark energy. That episode really got me thinking about the subtleties of negative mass and how it should really behave gravitationally. Turns out it’s complicated, and to answer it we really have to question the very definition of mass.
Special thanks to our Patreon Big Bang, Quasar and Hypernova Supporters:
Big Bang
Anton Lifshits
CoolAsCats
David Nicklas
Fabrice Eap
Juan Benet
Justin Lloyd
TIm Davis
Quasar
James Flowers
Mark Rosenthal
Tambe Barsbay
Vinnie Falco
Hypernova
Chuck Zegar
Danton Spivey
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
Jens Theisen
John Hofmann
Jordan Young
Joseph Salomone
kkm
Mark Heising
Matthew O’Connor
Thanks to our Patreon Gamma Ray Burst Supporters:
Alexey Eromenko
Antonio Ruiz
Bradley Jenkins
Brandon Labonte
Buruk Aregawi
Carlo Mogavero
Daniel Lyons
David Behtala
David Crane
David Schmidt
Dustan Jones
Geoffrey Short
Greg Weiss
Jack Frosch
James Hughes
James Quintero
Jinal Doshi
JJ Bagnell
John Webber
Jon Folks
Jonah
Joseph Emison
Josh Thomas
Kenneth F Leonard
Kevin Warne
Kyle Hofer
Malte Ubl
Mark Vasile
Nathan Hitchings
Nicholas Rose
Nick Virtue
Ratfeast
Richard Broman
Sammy J
Scott Gossett
Sigurd Ruud Frivik
Tim Crookham
Tim Stephani
Tommy Mogensen
سلطان الخليفي
![Fc ครับ ขอแนะนำให้รู้จักกับ "น้องเปียโน" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQU6Q_IYTLo/mqdefault.jpg)
Solve the perpetual motion problem and get a free space time t-shirt. HAHA. Love the show.
i laughed more then i should have.
Should be more like solve perpetual motion and become the first trillionaire, time traveller etc, AND (here's the big bit) you get free T-Shirt
Many researchers have a false notion of negative mass.
Negative mass is free from vacuum instability and runaway motion problems. These problems are caused by researchers misinterpreting the nature of negative mass.
Due to differences in mass and gravitational potential energy, no runaway motion occurs.
Perpetual motion problem (The wheel problem with negative and positive masses) is also wrong.
*On Problems and Solutions of General Relativity
www.researchgate.net/publication/286935998
And the video below is a video that I made.
*Is the State of Low Energy Stable? Negative Mass and Negative Energy(2012)
th-cam.com/video/MZtS7cBMIc4/w-d-xo.html
@@hbar108Never-mind, the simulation finally loaded, which is quite interesting. And all my same concerns of GR, someone actually did a good analysis on it. Thanks 🙏
Ideal runaway motion does not occur.
1. As a general conjecture, when positive and negative mass are born, the mass will be exactly the same, but this conjecture is wrong.
In the process of the pair creation of electron and positron, the effect of electromagnetic potential energy could be the same because the two particles had the same kind(+ energy, + energy) of energy. Therefore, the two particles could have the same mass.
However, in the process of the pair creation of negative and positive mass, the effect of gravitational potential energy is different because the two particles have different types(+ energy, - energy) of energy.
In the process of the pair creation of electron and positron,
Mass energy : +10 : +10 ////// +10 : +10
Potential energy : -1 : -1 ////// +1 : +1
--------------------------------------- ////// ----------------
Total energy : +9 = +9 ////// +11 = +11
But, in the process of the pair creation of negative and positive mass,
Mass energy : -10 : +10 ////// -10 : +10
Potential energy : -1 : -1 ////// +1 : +1
---------------------------------------- ////// --------------------
Total energy : |-11| ≠ | +9| ////// | -9| ≠ |+11|
There is at least a gravitational potential energy between the two particles.
E_T = 0 = (-m_-c^2) + (+m_+c^2) - G(m_+)(-m_-)/r = 0
| -m_ | = (m_+) + (Gm_+m_-)/rc^2
In case the negative mass and the positive mass are pair created in the vacuum, according to the Energy Conservation Law, there must be a mass difference between the negative mass and the positive mass.
| - m_- | > m_+
As described in the previous paper, acceleration is determined by the size of the opponent's mass. If the absolute value of the negative mass is greater than the absolute value of the positive mass, there is a repulsive gravitational effect between the two. In this case, the acceleration of positive mass is greater. As time passes, the two masses become more and more distant. In other words, the ideal situation of pairing is broken. Because the distance of the pairing increases, the interaction of the other particles becomes involved. Therefore, runaway motion is not maintained.
This logic may be used as a theoretical basis(energy conservation law, mass difference, repulsive gravitational effect) for the presence of two masses after pair creation without pair annihilation. Please watch( |-m_- | > m_+ case) the linked video.
th-cam.com/video/MZtS7cBMIc4/w-d-xo.html
2. Even when the negative mass and the positive mass are exactly the same, the balance is broken because there is a "positive gravitational potential energy(in this case, U is positive energy. U = -G(+m+)(-m_)/r = + G(m+)(m_)/r " between the two particles. Since all energy is a source of gravity, the gravitational potential energy must also act gravity source.
That is, even if the masses of negative mass and positive mass are exactly the same, the gravitational potential energy between them breaks this ideal situation.
Therefore, ideal runaway motion does not occur.
3. The perpetual motion problem is also wrong.
In 1957, Thomas Gold claimed that perpetual motion could be achieved by hanging negative and positive masses at the end of a wheel. He speculated that the wheel would spin forever because the positive mass would run away and the negative mass would chase it. He raised the problem of perpetual motion as an argument for the assertion that negative mass does not exist, since such perpetual motion should not occur.
However, his claim is completely wrong.
To explain this, you need to see a picture, so please refer to the following paper. (4P~5P)
He should have thought that the momentum had to be transmitted in order for the wheel to rotate.
www.researchgate.net/publication/324525352
I've been watching your videos about 2 years now, I belive. Just wanted to convey my deepest respect and gratitude for your astonishing work. Your channel has the highest production quality of any channel I have seen, as well as the best and constant content, and it's a joy seeing the upload notification from you.
I'm not a physicist, nor a scientist, but over the last two years I have done what I could, practicing maths and studying physics in my spare time, in order to approach at least some of the concepts you present and to try grasp them. It's purely recreational and while much of what you touch upon is still opaque to me, you have aided me in appreciating, at least in some small extent, the miraculous elegance of physics and this noble pursuit of investigating the natural world.
Don't know if you will read this, but I've been meaning to write and say thanks for some time now.
THANK YOU!
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
Compared to the PopSci that Discovery Channel was pumping in the 90s-10s this program does not give the layman the false feeling that he can he have some grasp of the elementary concepts without actual diligent study.
Ivan Yanchev I feel exactly the same way, I’m still in high school, and while I have no plans on actually being a physicist, learning about the universe has led me on a long and fruitful journey that I am incredibly thankful for.
I also confused the heck out of my physics teacher on how the heck I knew this stuff. :)
@BLAIR M Schirmer I sometimes did that with the older videos with Gabe
have been thinking of writing something like this, but really couldnt have said better than this, massive respect guys!!!!!
He's the physics teacher you wish you had in college.
exactly!
LifeStrider He was my cousin’s physics prof!
but then you wouldn't be able to rewind...
More like the one I wish I had in high school considering how good he is at explaining things without going too far into the advanced mathematics
I wish I had him for my modern physics course in college. They guy I had was an older, polish accent and looked like the old man from Up.
Dropped it.
Can't wait to see the results of this challenge. I don't have an understanding physics well enough to take part, but I do find the subject fascinating.
Negative mass apples also sounds like the next big diet food.
My girlfriend had the exact same idea, but as she ran out to buy those negative mass apples, she decided a much healthier choice would be a negative mass BigMac
Wouldn't they start to accelerate you in some direction?
I wonder if small black holes are on a negative mass apple diet, shrinking in size as hawking radiation escapes from just above the event horizon.
I believe negative mass apples sounds like a band name.
I wonder how they compare to negative mass oranges.
Man these videos just keep going and going getting better and better. I can’t stop myself from watching. Keep it up, don’t ever stop!
Perpetual video machine! :D
Is there a negative spacetime channel somewhere? This is getting complicated.
The understanding of what gravity and mass actually are is wrong here. Gravity is actually the sucking of mass. Mass sucks and we feel the sucking as gravity. Think of high pressure / low pressure systems where motion or flow always goes from high pressure to low pressure. Think of a whirl pool. For a correct understanding go here: th-cam.com/video/NTpytbccqgs/w-d-xo.html
The host really bugs me (his voice is grating and he looks like the game of thrones midget) so even though I enjoy the video and content I just simply CANNOT manage watching the video long enough to actually learn anything.
I agree spacetime is the best, from all the channels I know it’s on the highest level and it gave me a real interest and deep understanding in QFT, cosmology and astrophysics
"make them the density of a neutron star"
😂😂😂
Better not be under one of those when it falls
'Neutron Star Delicious' is my favourite apple variety
1) Get bread
2) butter bread
3) get cat
4) tape bread to the cat's back, buttered side up
5) throw in the air
The buttered side will try to force itself down to the ground. The cat will flip over to land on it's feet. All forces would be equal and the cat bread combo would stay on the air spinning forever.
Your idea, perfected: th-cam.com/video/Z8yW5cyXXRc/w-d-xo.html
@CleanerBen: What happens to the butter on the bread? (BTW, thanks for NOT using margarine!)
Don't put the cat in a box. That will complicate things
Except that rotation will not apply any force against gravity
how original
Thank you for saying you don't know. I don't hear that much these days.
Well, you do in the world of science. In science, "I don't know" is how virtually everything starts. It's religion that claims to know things without a shred of evidence to back the claim.
harshbarj, lol and politicians. Ever heard a politician admit they don’t know something?
@@pansepot1490 Yes
@@harshbarj some scientists act like preachers, completely convinced of something, and those are the ones I don't trust
@@harshbarj *fedora tipping intensifies*
All in all I think it's the morons who insist that it's even possible to conclude as to whether or not a god can exist that are insufferable, rather than those who persist to live out their life in the understanding that it is impossible to prove/disprove, and thus you are better off following your own faith as you see fit.
Can you imagine a world where the spin interaction was flipped so that gravity was spin-1 and electromagnetism was spin-2?
I've always wondered whether mass bends space, or if bent space just looks like mass.
Positive Active Mass bends Spacetime and Positive Passive/Inertial Mass is moved by Spacetime. Spacetime is the gravitational field. The movement of Mass(Active Mass which comes from the Higgs Field and Strong Field) in a gravitational field bends Spacetime(possibly by creating Gravitons) while being pushed by a force(possibly absorbed Gravitons) regardless of Mass(Active Mass) to terminal velocity(Kinetic Energy is experienced differently than the absorption and emitting of Gravitons) which changes the location Gravitons are (possibly) absorbed and emitted which bends Spacetime in different locations leading to the appearance of an object moving through and bending Spacetime.
Note:I'm not a physicist and this perspective I have is pieced together from information I've heard in a bunch of random TH-cam videos and is almost definitely incorrect. I also tried describing General Relativity using Quantum Gravity which is an obtuse and almost definitely incorrect way of looking at and explaining it.
TLDR: I think mass bends space which is probably right but my reason for believing that is probably stupid
Thought experiment. If negative masses were allowed, would there be a negative mass equivalent to a black hole? Thinking about how masses warp space time in GR I’m thinking of a hill so tall that even a particle traveling at the speed of light with a path aimed directly normal to the hill wouldn’t have enough momentum to reach the peak. The point at which light speed particles could reach on such a hill would have some kind of strange event horizon like quality in that everything “above” this point would be forever out of contact with the rest of the universe.
Locut0s I get where you’re coming from but condensing that much negative mass into one location would be impossible without involvement from an outside source because negative mass pushes itself away so condensing it into one location would take a lot of energy to do but if you were able to condense it then yeah I think that theory would work
I guess this would create negative gravitational lensing which could be observed. But I guess it would be quite difficult Even if looked for.
In sense that would be like a round mirror in the universe. 🤔
I don't think so: sufficiently negative massive objects would repel themselves into disintegration, just as sufficiently massive objects attract themselves into nuclear fusion or black-holiness.
If negative mass existed, so would the negative photon. That would be bad, since negative photon + photon = destruction of energy. Maybe in another universe separate from us, but not in ours.
Lol...did he say at the risk of getting too technical? Is that something he actually worries about? Lol
read my answer a few above for the answer. apologies. it will be taken terribly. hope im not murdered soon.
Joe Barr ikr? He’s been worrying about that? Lol, Stop worrying man, well past too technical for like 99% of us.
As an enthusiast of physics I completely understand the worry of sounding too technical, my experience with it is that if you want to draw in people to topics like this and also keep them interested in it then you need to explain things in a way that doesnt sound so complicated that it scares away those who might've originally wanted to learn more, while also not dumbing down things to the point of becoming significantly inaccurate compared to the original idea
😆 haha, I know right. Almost everything that he explains is overtly techicnic.
I must admit I have no idea what he's talking about sometimes but still enjoy watching the videos in hopes that if I watch them enough times I will be able to grasp the explanatory concept of these fringe theories, and wake up one day and magically understand physics formulas.
This stuff is genuinely great. Props to PBS for putting out content like this.
This is indeed the breakdown I was asking for, thank you so very much.
3:30 I missed the entire discussion because I couldn't help noticing that the apples spin whichever way you decide you want them to spin.
Lutra Nereis You can make out that the hair goes in front of the shadow though.
The blue ones yeah but you can see which way the red ones spin if you watch the stalk closely
bro im retarded i thought they were special "magic inverse apples" that changed shape all the time
What have you done to me?
I wonder if you'll discuss the fringe theory of "quantized inertia"; I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
I second that
@@havocmaverick I call BS. You can't quantize GR into bosons, for what should by now be obvious reasons.
After reading your comment and seeing "quantized inertia" being mentioned in a few other comments, I gave it a look. It definitely sounds interesting though I have no way to see if it really makes sense so here's hoping that Matt will read your comment and talk about this neat idea. If it really is scientific, then this could explain a lot of phenomena apparently.
Oh no!! Now I've watched a video with "perpetual motion" in it's title can you imagine the unmitigated garbage that's about to turn up in my suggestions... I can.
so far i have had.. Flat earth, unexplainable ancient artifacts, the moon landings were faked, the aliens were on the moon when we did land, but fear not, i have a perfect design for a tinfoil hat that none of that can penetrate... lucky i found that one because i have it on very good authority that "THEY" tried to hide it
Makes me smile when I see there is a new 1. 😄 this 1 was especially difficult to keep my mind wrapped around.
What happens if inertial mass is simply the absolute value of the mass? They are equivalent in magnitude, but not sign. Also, why is the equivalence principle true? Is that another way of asking for a unified theory?
I thought the same. Seems like it answers all of the impossibilitys in this Video. And in a universe with only positive mass there wouldnt be a way to determine if gravitaional mass is equivalent to inertial mass or only to its absolute value right?
he said this would violate the equivalence principle. the implication was that you could tell the difference between a gravitational field and an accelerating reference frame by employing a negative mass - in the accelerating frame, the negative mass will fall in the same direction as a positive mass, and in a gravitational field it will fall in the opposite direction
@@MalcolmCooks Ahhh! You are right. Thx
@@MalcolmCooks - It would indeed. Why can't that principle be violated?
@@MalcolmCooks Yes, but if you change the principle, then it all works out. Just takes some white-out on your science book and done.
Negative mass is difficult to achieve ... even Ultra Instinct Shaggy has to use about 5% of his power to create it
Evariste Galois
A+ meme Galois on time as always
So glad Reddit stumbled on a near 2 year old meme and immediately began spamming it everywhere...
Perfection.
The point of memes is to be spread around and shared, idk why tf y’all are acting so surprised finding memes in the TH-cam comments section
No, He only needs 0.99998%
Why can't inertial mass just be the absolute value of gravitational mass? It seems like you've always diverted away from this in the videos.
Exactly, he implied that then never derived a theory from it.
There have been 2 studies that suggest even inertial mass can have an effective negative value. Search google for "WSU negative mass" and "Rochester negative mass". These 2 studies identified 2 different possible methods for generating particles with negative effective inertial mass. Two studies don't warrant rewriting textbooks, but it's interesting. I have to wonder if these particles also have a negative gravitational mass while in this state. The force would be so weak I don't know if they'd be able to tell that over the other forces dominating gravity at these scales.
It would definitely break the equivalence principle -> 6:05.
E.g.: while the negative mass apple with positive inertial mass would be repelled from earth' gravity field, in an accelerated spaceship it would still appear to "fall down". Imagine an external observer: The apple cannot possibly speed up (twice as much as the spaceship), simply because the spaceship does.
@@defenestrator9119 The WSU study was a clever exploitation of the phase diagram, down in the lower left corner from the triple point. Using lasers, they put the atoms under some pressure, then bring the atoms down as close to absolute zero as possible - this moves to the bottom of the phase diagram but a bit to the right of the left axis. Then they release the "laser cage" holding the atoms, and the reduction in pressure causes them to go through a rarely-seen transition - in the phase diagram, releasing the "laser cage" drops them from the floor of the phase diagram to below it, where it has to gather energy from the environment to get itself back to zero. This causes it to effectively have negative mass for a short while, in a way similar to an "electron hole" is effectively antimatter.
Thank you so much for talking about this!!!! ♥️
But what's heavier, -1kg of steel or -1kg of apples?
apples, because because apples are heavien'ter than feathers
@@SahasaV But look at the size of it. That's cheating
It's a trick question. They're both anti-heavy. "Heavier" becomes "not-heavier", so the answer to your question is "yes".
@@user-rh8hi4ph4b wrong!! it's anti... so it's no. duh
:P
either
Space is FLAT
earth is FLAT
jk
Flat Gaia Society.
Jk
Space is flat, Earth is in space, so the Earth is FLAT. Checkmate atheists
Universe is flat, change my mind
So what if she's flat. #flatisjustice
One of the best shows I've seen thx PBS space time
OMG!!! These are next level videos!!! I like these challenge questions.
What if a photon is just a negative mass and a positive mass chasing each other at the speed of causality? 🤔 observing the combined mass it would seem mass less, but it would still pack some energy...
Masses can't reach the speed of causality.
Neat idea but what about delayed photon experiments? You'd expect to see some kind of sign in the pics.
The photon has been labeled as an elementary particle, neat idea but there's hurdles to clear.
MtnTow I'm not certain what experiments you are referring to, can you provide a link?
I like how you think. Mass bends light too. Hmmm, 🤔
What happened to your video on the Holographic Principle Matt? You said "Patience grasshoppers. We will get there" two months ago...
lol
I have a feeling we still need to learn a bit more before that.
Karthik V what’s two months on the cosmic scale? Less than the blink of an eye.
"Ed Gruberman, you must learn patience. Time has no meaning. To a true student, a year is as a day."
Having just found the channel a month or so ago and caught up the past year of videos, he's been promising this video for way longer than two months... lol
TH-cam in 22000: How to build a time machine in 5 minutes.
Gova Murali Many people in that comment section: “We already know how to do this...because of the video” (They’d already traveled back in time and decided to watch the video again just to comment that)
"At home" **not clickbait** XD
Hossenfelder 2008 and Petit 2014 have independently shown that negative mass can be added to cosmology without the runaway motion explained in the video. The particularity of these bimetric theories of gravity: they have a set of two field equations, the first for positive energy species and the second for negative energy particles, each sector having its own family of geodesics.
To popularize and explain the underlying principle, this set of two coupled field equations describes the universe a a 4D hypersurface with a "frontside" and a "backside" (one for positive energy species and the other for negative species); unlike the "unilateral" 4D hypersurface of Einstein's general relativity. The negative sector is then invisible but populated by negative mass acting on the positive content of our universe: negative mass then exists and is almost everywhere. It _is_ the "dark matter".
The Newtonian approximation shows that negative mass becomes self-attractive, and that a positive mass and a negative mass are mutually repulsive. In other words, _like mass attract and unlike mass repel_ → No runaway motion paradox.
May I add that it is worth noting that, like Einstein's general relativity reduces to Newtonian dynamics in the local weak-field approximation, in bimetric theories, the system of two coupled field equations reduces to the Einstein field equations of general relativity for regions of spacetime where positive mass density largely dominates, i.e. where almost all negative mass has been repelled away by local concentration of positive mass matter, e.g. on Earth or in the solar system.
Therefore, the bimetric theory of gravity fits with local relativistic observations and measurements.
This scheme also explain dark matter and dark energy, as well as the lacunar large scale structure of the universe… all being effects of the negative mass density on the distribution of positive mass.
See januscosmologicalmodel.com for references.
Contact Hossenfelder, and have her write an *anonymous* answer to PBS Spacetime about negative masses. Maybe she will get picked as the winner.
@Hose2wAcKiEr This is because in bimetric theories, there are two couples: two kinds of matter and two kinds of antimatter:
1) Our positive mass matter and its positive mass antimatter (C-symmetry, the antimatter after Dirac) on one side;
and
2) Negative mass matter (CPT-symmetry) and its negative mass antimatter (C×CPT=PT-symmetry, the antimatter after Feynman) "on the other side" (literally).
It is time reversal (T-symmetry) which produces energy inversion, when the T operator is taken linear and unitary. Hence mass inversion, as -m = -E/c².
Incidentally, this follows directly from Andrei Sakharov's seminal idea on baryogenesis (the "Sakharov conditions") who considered that spacetime existed before the Big Bang at _t_ < 0, with an opposite arrow of time and a growing entropy going further away from the initial singularity. Two opposite CP violations in these two spacetimes, with a complete CPT symmetry crossing the surface throat at _t_ = 0.
Therefore, the positive (orthochronous) sector is populated by a remnant of positive mass matter "here",
while the negative (antichronous) sector is populated by a remnant of negative mass antimatter "there" after each matter-antimatter annihilation in the early universes.
Bimetric theories of gravity like the *Janus model* make these two populations, positive mass matter vs negative mass antimatter, located in their own _sheet_ or _sector_ (their own metric, more exactly) move along their own family of geodesics, and mutually interact (anti)gravitationally, which Sakharov didn't do.
I've been looking into the JCM ever since I found your forum post on nasaspaceflight sometime last year. Very interesting stuff (if the math holds up). I would love for more American pop-science content creators like this to get a good look at it. I personally think it sounds too simple and easy to be true, like a new Copernican revolution. But until I have a legitimate scientist show my why and where it doesn't hold up to the Concordance Model, I prefer it to all its competitors. Not only is the JCM is just such an elegant solution to all this dark science, (dark matter, dark energy, black holes, dark flow- it's nonsense!), JPP is excellent at conveying his ideas clearly even though English is not his primary language. He uses simple examples and illustrations to demonstrate extremely difficult ideas. That deserves a lot of respect.
And JPP is quite something! Again, I don't judge the science by the scientist. If the math holds up, JPP can claim whatever he wants about ETs and WMDs. Newton was trying to develop the philosopher's stone, after all. They say even a broken clock is right twice a day so why not a mad scientist?
@Hose2wAcKiEr You didn't catch the whole thing : in the Janus M4 riemannian manifold, there are 2 metrics. Each metric take into account all law of physics like matter/antimatter interactions. But Janus explains why antimatter in geodesics of metric A cannot interact with matter in geodesics of metric B. There is no mystery, no paradox, no hidden law or exotic matter. Only geometry.
-1kg apples = debt of 1kg apples :D an iou.
The only thing worse than an accountant is an accountant who works for the gov't.
@@archenema6792 What would a debt of mass be in our universe?
Black holes have hawking radiation. Virtual particles pop into existance. Its real particle escapes carrying away mass while its partner falls inside the event horizon and reduces the blackhole's mass. But is it always the negative mass that falls in?
I think the analogy with negative numbers works better with animatter
if you put matter and animatter near each other they destroy each other
if you take positive and negative mass, they chase each other ad infinitum. so negative mass is more like infinity then debt
@@francescosorce5189 They destroy each but leave behind high energy gamma ray photons with positive energy and mass. Besides, if a positron enters a black hole, it gains a positive charge but still increases in mass.
@@kreynolds1123 it is indeed true, I was just saying that that is probably the closest equivalent, since you can't really destroy stuff in the universe like that
Love this channel! Looking forward to seeing some perpetual motion machines 🌠
peace all
nice chapter! I started seen your videos a moth ago, now I'm finally up to date :D
This is by far the best/most interesting show on youtube/the internet
im not slightly even a scientist.
but could that cuase the expansion of space?
is there away to actually measure if that were the case?
Eric Bolduc holy shit I had the exact same thought come to my mind the negative mass could be between the galaxies pushing them apart till they reach equilibrium just a thought you can tear me apart in replys to this if you think I’m wrong i like input
Not a bad idea IMO. Dark energy might be analogue to negative matter in some aspects but probably not exactly the same thing: there are no dark energy apples.
But there could indeed be a connection between dark energy and gravity, it's not outside the scope of reasonable thought. Harder is to write it down in a meaningful way, both mathematically and logically according to data, to observations, subsuming previous research into that new model. We'll need a super-Einstein for that.
A recent video was about that exact hypothesis, and the short answer is that it's as good a guess as anyone has.
damn makes me feel good my stoned ideas arent too dumb
Matt should move out of Manhattan to get a kg of apples for much less than $5
Very informative video, thankyou
The closing piece is infectiously mellifluous! Encore! The soundtrack to any perpetually self-sustaining device... or third act wherein our protagonist first recognises her place in the grand design, finding in this moment her want of free will and ultimate folly, beautiful.
🤔That challenge question has me thinking Matt has a negative mass apple and he is looking for the best way to profit off of it
Yeah, like why an apple?
wait a second.
if an object with positive mass and an object with negative mass would accelerate each other indefinetely, wouldn't it be possible that the presence of negative mass is what is driving the acceleration of the expansion of the universe?
think about this, it wouldn't take a lot of negative mass either, on al arge enough time scale even a seemingly miniscule ammount of negative mass could have drastic effects even on very massive objects in the vacuum of space.
additionally a negative mass object would curve light away from it so a significantly negatively massive object would, by it's nature, avoid detection and since we could only see the light it curves towards us, someone who is not actively considering negative mass objects, could very easily mistake it for a positive mass object on the other side of the photons path curving it our way.
thats why the scientist recently come up with negative mass fluid theory the wanted to explain dark energy.
Great explanation
His videos make me think of new ideas but they are secretly kept in my brain
Can someone explain to me why the space time of negative mass wouldnt just cancel out the positive space time curvature of positive mass? Wouldnt that result in basically just weaker force onto each other until it reaches 0 when they touch? It should basically remove gravity in that place
That's what Matt means when he clarifies that the model works for very small particles in a very large gravity field.
What you predict might be valid in the special case of 2 identical masses approaching each other in a specific way (if their shape was irregular, you would get "noise" that could become more significant than the "signal" produced by the center of mass)
I had the same thought: intuitively, wouldn't the negative and positive mass effects on space-time cancel themselves out (assuming same magnitude), meaning no force between them? Only when one mass magnitude is greater than the other is there an effect; either attraction or repulsion. Likewise, in the case of two positive masses, attraction, and in the case of two negative masses, repulsion.
except that you can not put both masses in the same place. So there would always be a difference in gravitational potential. The negative mass produces a bulge, and the negative mass a hole, so the negative mass tries to move down the slope, which shifts the center of the hole in the direction of motion, causing the postive mass to fall to that lower level, and so forth.
@@pensiring7112 they cannot be in the same place, of course, it was just an exaggeration. I think its pretty simple positive mass contract space time and negative mass does the opposite. Put them next to each other and space bending weakens. Thats it
For starters Negative mass cannot exist. That said if there are two separate objects (one with negative mass), and each is located in a separate location they will produce separate fields. Much like dropping two stones into a pool of water. There might be a few small areas that cancel out like when the waves intersect and cancel out. If the two masses were equal and you mixed them together than the forces could cancel each other out. Its seems extremely improbably negative matter exists. Even antimatter is attracted to matter. If negative mass did exist it probably could only exist in negative space, since matter and space are linked. Gravity is an asymmetric force, That said gravitational reflection *might* be possible, which might be able to provide a similar effect as negative mass.I always wondered is a rapidly spinning mass could reflect gravity at a 90 degree angle between the two objects. I would imagine the force would be proportional to the mass of the spinning object (ie infinitesimal for a small spinning mass (ie a 1Kg * gravitational constant/(some value of the rotational velocity & radius). Thus detecting or measuring a reflection would be extremely difficult, and also be useless for transportation.
What if negative mass is just an inverse universe that we can’t see pushing tho opposite direction on the fabric of space and time? And it’s also repelling our positive mass, which is why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Also, does a straw have two holes or just one?
We thought out! Nice
Mailed you the solution that I can thought of hope it's clear and correct !
14:30 "tune in next week to collapse the wave function" that would've been a movie quote
• Historically, Hermann Bondi was the first to show in 1957 this *perpetual motion from negative mass* described in the video, in his seminal paper "Negative Mass in General Relativity".
• William B. Bonnor coined the term *"runaway motion* used nowadays, in his 1989 paper (which has the same title BTW).
• Discussing with Bondi at the 1957 Chapel Hill conference, astrophysicist Thomas Gold showed that this runaway motion violates the laws of physics, as it could be used to create a "perpetual motion machine" indeed, that would also be an over-unity device:
_"What happens if one attaches a negative and positive mass pair to the rim of a wheel? This is incompatible with general relativity, for the device gets more massive."_ - Thomas Gold.
All is said and done.
Negative mass would have negative momentum, so it would transfer momentum to a positive-mass wheel in the opposite direction of the positive mass. The wheel would stay still or continue rotating at the same speed.
Positive mass would be repelled away by the negative gravitational potential produced by the negative mass, which would itself fall in the gravity well induced by the positive mass and chase it. The couple would uniformly accelerate up to a relativistic speed, while its total kinetic energy would stay constant (equal to zero).
Robert Forward showed in 1990 that because of such runaway motion, a negative mass attached to a spaceship made of positive mass would make propellantless propulsion, so the ship would not "stay still" or continue on its way at the same velocity. But this is equal to say the spaceship is a perpetual motion and overunity machine.
The paper from Forward: ayuba.fr/pdf/forward1990.pdf
Why not jettison the equivalence principle at least to explore the math and see if it works? Seems like the story ended when we said, "nah, can't violate the equivalence principle."
you sound like an eve player when you mention jettison
Agreed. We should not think of inertial and gravitational mass being the same only because that's what we've seen - we've only seen positive mass so far. Negative mass curving the space the opposite way while still reacting to push like positive matter, that'd be an interesting thing, not to mention keeping the flame of hope for warp drives alive :3
There will always be hope for warp drives. Even if they turn out to be impossible.
@@Silanael Actually that's not what we've seen. There's a huge difference between what we predict on a large scale and what we observe. The motion of stars through a galaxy doesn't match what we predict should happen. That's why they invented dark matter, to close the gap. And the hope for warp drives isn't dead without negative mass.
They've done that. It's called QI, or quantized inertia. The math does work.. In fact it's far more elegant than with the equivalence principle, and does away with the need for makebelieve particles like dark matter to reconsile the differences between what we observe and what we predict. Dark matter is the modern equivalent of evil spirits and dragons making volcanos erupt, and sea monsters swallowing ships whole. Any physicist of any calibur should be ashamed to believe such nonsense.
Yes finally a crystal clear explanation of mass
This channel just never disappoints me
How to make dark fluid:
Step 1. Eat cookie dough ice cream.
Step 2. Wait.
That is all.
oh jesus
is there a way to do this without becoming miserable?
I need minus 1Kg of apples as fast as possible.
It's not incoherent if in Vision to star ships with negative mass and space around them .the ships crash and go back and energy goes to the aside were the ships didn't crash. It might look like posar . Could Hockings radiation be negative Mass. Molecules become to dense and accelerated to to high enough speed in a fluid. So even space between the molecules get snugged together with the molecular it might produce negative mass. Again is Hockings radiation negative mass. And could be the Dark energy.
And speak of incoherent did you more people have been abducted by aliens then raped by Bill Cosby. And was even found not guilty but the judge sent them to reconsider after second not guilty verdict he declared a miss trial
@@osmosisjones4912 can't tell if trill3oe not...
eat a few apples then
Can I pay for them with negative money? Finally, a use for all my college loan debt.
I'm not a physician, actually, I'm an economist so this is not the body of knowledge that I'm used to. But the subject fascinates me so much and the PBS Space Time is a channel that I love to watch. I have questions to make about negative energy and negative matter. In General Relativity, is predicted that space and time are intrinsic to each other. One can not function without the other. Actually, the configuration of the fabric of the cosmos compelled matter and energy to walk through both simultaneously in a codependent state. How fast you move through space, slowly you move through time; and it seems more intrinsic than that, the more strong the gravity is, the less will be the perception of time from the observer perspective that stood under the influence of such gravity in comparison with a second observer in a weak gravitational pull. That concludes that the gravitational distortion of space is a distortion in time too. My question rests in the fact that can a negative mass, with a negative gravitational distortion of space, be apart from negative time dilation, or a time contraction, as the whole episode seems to drawn?
After I watched Tenet, Cristopher Nolan's movie about time travel, the inverted entropy that he describes in his work gave me a new frame to reasoning the matter. The way he depicted the concept is complex and interesting. It just made it possible for me to think imaginatively about the concept and its coherences and incoherences. Incoherences and incongruences with reality itself aside, my imagination became able to work with the idea of entropy better than before. And then, cames the most important question: with the second law of thermodynamics establishing that entropy tends to grater than 0 in a closed system, and that law establishing simultaneously the arrow of time, could a negative mass, resulting in a time contraction, convoluting into a negative-entropy-driven particle influence into the system? (maybe solving the inertial energy issue - obviously, this thought experiment and its intuitive conclusion, "maybe solving the inertial energy issue", is the result brought to a mind lacked from relevant knowledge required to deliberate within this logic and distorted by the depiction of negative entropy in this movie. It is most likely an incoherent depiction of our reality, but it might be an interesting thought experiment to make and raised a few interesting questions, for me at least)
I love these videos.
Crackpot science idea for ya:
Build a counter spring between two galaxies and let the expansion of the universe (negative mass driving the expansion?) create positive energy (?)
"Give me a spring and I'll move the Galaxy!" Anti-Archimedes.
I could be a physicist; the number of crackpot moments I have in a month approaches infinity...
Good idea!
I for one really appreciate this follow-up, having read the paper and checked out the python models part of me was thinking, 'well, maybe.' Now, notsomuch. Yay and thanks!
I would be interested in Space Time's thoughts on Mike McCulloch's quantized inertia. Could there be a video on the horizon?
In the amazing Space Time ❤️
Can you make a video about "Quantised Inertia"? Could it replace dark matter?
so at what level where the bits,the pixels or the fractals dance?
There's another video out there right now that claims exactly that. The theorist in it suggests that hawking radiation is actually produced by quanta being separated permanently at the event horizon. Basically, they were making the claim that dark matter isn't really a thing, and this is what the observations are actually picking up. I tend to agree with it. But I've always thought the concept of "dark matter" or "dark energy" arose from an error in measurement, rather than a real phenomenon. Something about our current model of the cosmos is wrong. But it feels like we might figure it out in the next decade or two. It's an exciting time to follow discoveries in physics.
@@goodkarma82 We need some good theories like that, which we can test If dark matter or energy can't be observed, than it is an incompleted theory.
@@goodkarma82 I agree with you.
i recently found out about the theory of quantized inertia, and i've been reading about that since. it seems to make a lot of sense and explains a lot of weird things that are usually "explained" by dark matter and dark energy.
i humbly suggest making a video on that, since you explain things a lot better than other channels, and would likely spot what's wrong with it, if there is anything, because it's such a fringe theory.
Interesting video indeed
All motion is perpetual.
Unless acted upon by an equal and opposite force.
ExaltedDuck How can a force be equal and opposite to momentum?
@@axelandersson6314
apply any force for p/F time
edit: he could've worded it better though, also, of course I mean a force in the same general direction but opposite sign (the arrows point at each other)
Francesco Sorce We agree.
Constant motion is indistinguishable from rest according to Einstein so are you really moving if no force is acting on you?
You're all forgetting the most powerful force: love. It lets you move watch hands 30 years ago and escape a black hole's event horizon. Matthew McConaughey proved this.
Could you please make a video on Sir Roger Penrose’s theory that inflation didn’t happen and the supposition of past aeons.
You have my vote
It would be really nice to see this in a few different physics engines
Your rotating apples are the first time I've been able to reverse the direction of rotation of such an image at will.
Have never been able to do it with the spinning dancer.
Are you sure they didn’t do that?
Why do we say that the equivalence principle holds when we can conduct an experiment that measures the difference between constant acceleration and gravitation by checking for a gravitational gradient?
That's a very good question! Unlike being accelerated in a box where there *is* no gradient -- there is always a gradient in a gravitational field. So there *ARE* experiments you can design to differentiate between acceleration and gravity.
There are gradients both perpendicular to and tangential to a spherical body producing a gravitational field. Always. The only thing that wouldn't experience a gradient would be a point-like object (which doesn't exist).
So the equivalence principle is only true in very limited ideal imaginary conditions -- not in the physical world.
@@calinculianu Can't black holes be treated as point-like objects?
@@iankrasnow5383 - In principle, if they are not rotating, yes. If rotating they should be treated as infinitesimally thin and very small rings. That's what the wise ones say at least.
The singularity sometimes is -- but the problem is that would be an object of infinite density and the math breaks down. We really have no idea if point-like anything can exist. Quantum physics says it can't.
Would it not work just to say that inertial mass is the absolute value of gravitational mass?
If you assume that, you can tell the difference between a gravitational field and acceleration. And not being able to do that is kinda the corner stone of general relativity.
But for all positive masses they would still be identical, so the predictions of general relativity would still hold for all the cases we've had to test it against so far. It would just make it predict something different, and less catastrophic, about negative masses.
Lol your the second one to say that. Quick discover it and BOOM your rich
@@Pfhorrest hence why negative masses break GR. Until we transfer that absolute value sign into the equivalence principle, it won't work.
That creates a point of non-differentiability (a corner). Changing gravitational mass by k once caused inertial mass to change by k, but all of a sudden it changes by -k after gravitational mass hits zero. It also means
that adding 2k masses to a -k gravitational mass object does not change the inertial mass.
This is so cool
We’d observe the force being applied in response to the negative mass because since you’re dealing with negative masses, retrocausality applies 10:28
All this talk of negative and positive matter...
In the year 2148, explorers on Mars discovered the remains of an ancient spacefaring civilization. In the decades that followed, these mysterious artifacts revealed startling new technologies, enabling travel to the furthest stars. The basis for this incredible technology was a force that controlled the very fabric of space and time.
They called it the greatest discovery in human history.
The civilizations of the galaxy call it...
MASS EFFECT
I think you mis-clicked and watched the wrong video Paul, may i suggest you stick to those with either "THEY" or "TRUTH" in the titles, it will ensure you do not stray to far out of your echo chamber.
@@spindoctor6385 Its the intro to Mass Effect, a science fiction video game relax. I thought it was funny that the properties of negative matter sounded very similar to the "element zero" in the game, which allowed the fictional species to have artificial gravity and FTL travel. My intention was that other scifi fans would get the reference.
@Mai Mariarti you must be fun at parties
sorry Paul, i never played the game you were referencing, unfortunately there is way to many people who would/could believe that what you typed is reality, so i am the one who missed my target, not you.. no offence intended
@@a.f.nik.4210 . If they are the only 2 options you can come up with then i choose... something
5:22 : it's the Runaway Effect, right ?
I'm French, so i like the work of Jean-Pierre Petit.
His cosmologic theory "Janus" says that : our positive Universe has a twin, which is a negative universe, superimposed to ours. So, our universe J+ has matter and light both with positive mass and positive energy ( i call it MJ+ and LJ+), and our twin universe J- has matter and light both with negative mass and negative energy (MJ- and LJ-).
But : i'm not a scientist, so i understand Janus with my own thought. In my opinion, we are wrong here : positive mass is the result of the movement of the matter (Big Bang = matter + movement = Space-Time creation = positive mass, because of inertia). So, negative mass, to my mind, is the mass of completly static object. But, static from what ?
IMO, our twin universe J- is a black hole, where the matter is "infinite negative mass and zero negative energy" (black hole, so mass over the Schwarschild radius = infinite ; and static, so energy = zero), and where the light is "zero negative mass and infinite negative energy" (same : if it's a black hole, the light is everywhere at the same time, because everything is condensed in on point, so the light is weightless and at infinite speed).
I think this theory is seducing, because maybe it can anwser to some quantum physics paradox : the wave-particle duality, because in J+, light is a wave, as everything else, and in J-, it's a dot...
And the quantum entanglement : because J- and J+ are superimposed, and because LJ- is with infinite energy (infinite speed), every particle of both universes are constantly superimposed with LJ-. Other quantum physics paradox seems to be answered, but i give you here the summeray (not the english level to talk confortably, and i don't know if my theory is interesting or just a waste of time).
So, in this theory, J+ is the field of expression of positively polarised matter and light, wich can be expressed between an energy "quantum" and the Schwarschild radius / speed of light.
Also : if our light is positively polarised light from J- (so, we apply at least a positive energy "quantum" , on a "zero negative mass and infinite negative energy"), so, our light (in J+) has to have a minimum weight... it result by the appliance of the "transfert energy quantum". This weight is about the "inferior Planck's limit" ?
If it's right, our speed of light is 300.000 km.s "because" of the weight of photon : if we take of this weight, without changing its "
Gravity requires mass differential to work. If you assume an infinite universe with infinite density at any one point in all directions, no gravity will be felt anywhere.
Or more accurately, the same gravity would be felt in all directions, completely canceling out.
Your negative universe descriptions has 0 negative energy, which would imply that it never expanded, so it should still be infinitely small. However, you must remember that infinity is NOT a number, so I think that assuming extremely large (and small) values can be done instead.
The overlap thing is funny, because if it doesn't exist INSIDE our universe, there's no rule saying that any one coordinate in the negative universe has to correspond to any one coordinate in our universe. So you COULD say that the infinitesimally small negative universe is simultaneously overlapping with out entire positive universe, despite their sizes not being equal. This could give a source for our negative energy, too.
The thing you got wrong though is C depending on the mass of the photon. Because it's actually completely unrelated to the photon in any way, shape or form. It's just that photons travel at the maximal speed they possibly can, which just so happens to be the speed of 'light'.
@@Mernom Thank you for your contructive answer, the first I had in almost 2 month since I had this idea and try to ask people !
Do you know JPP's work with Janus ? Because it would answer to the first question about gravitational interaction far better than me (in fact, i'm not sure i'm visualising well this part).
My vision of J- is a black hole of "zero negative energy matter", yes, but it's filled with "infinite negative energy light", so, I thought it was ok ? I also recommend JPP's work ( my "theory" differs only about the black hole J- , because if i understood correctly Janus, J+ and J- are "enantiomorph" by the Big Bang... with CPT symetry etc.)
IMO, J- is infinitly small, like was the Universe at the Time T of the Big Bang.
Also, when our positive matter reaches Schwarzschild radius, it transmute in J-, and there's a gravitational footprint put on the fabric of the Space-Time*. Maybe it's the same phenomenon with mass atribution with Higgs field. When matter transmute from an universe to the other, it pass throught the Higgs field, which put mass on the particle / fabric of ST.
*really not sure, but I think JPP uses a similar explanation to state about the galactic cohesion, and other things, and that's why, in his view, his theory doesn't need ad hoc supplements as Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
For the speed of C, i'm not confortable with this thing i stated, but i found it starting from the premise our positive matter and light comes from J-. If it's the case, "we" have to import this matter/light, so we have to polarize it in positive way, even with only a quantum of energy.. to make that matter/light "appears" on J+. And if it's the case, photons would have a minimal mass... no ?
[ ( infinite negative energy / zero negative mass ) + positive quantum = ( < infinite positive energy / > 0 positive mass ) ... no ? ]
(for the photon, maybe its because of its very high amount of speed (= energy) that there's electromagnetic radiation, resulting in light...?)
Edit : WOW, i just discovered "CodeParade", and he blew my mind with his "Marble Marcher", and the next video i watched was this : th-cam.com/video/kEB11PQ9Eo8/w-d-xo.html
So, if my version of Janus is true, we're in a non-Euclidian Universe, and that's the knowledge of the ability to switch from one twin to another, which will get us rid of "Fermi's Paradox". Maybe this knowledge is really universal, and every civilisations who understand it reachs "Type 1" of Kardashev "modified" Scale...
Lol, i know i'm most probably wrong, but still... it's dreamy !!!!
im pleased to say u nailed it. but whothe hell am i? hopefully nobody.
@@minusninus2028 Well.. thank you, Mr... Nobody ? All the pleasure is on me :p
Janus in french : fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le_cosmologique_bi-m%C3%A9trique
I think the trick behind perpetual motion with positive mass and negative mass has to do with how respective interactions with the fabric of space-time interact with each other. An "inward-curving space-time area" interacting with an "upward-curving space-time area" that causes the combined space-time area of the two masses to move in whichever "direction" the positive and negative mass are lined up because their gravitational influences - regular and anti-gravity - "cancel out" on the sides closest to each other. That leaves only one side of the positive mass object producing an "inward space-time curve" while only one side of the negative mass produces an "upward space-time curve".
To put it another way, one side of the positive mass "pulls" on space-time while one side of the negative mass "pushes" off of space-time. In normal circumstances, this "push" and "pull" is omnidirectional, leaving whatever momentum that could be produced by this "pull" or "push" on space-time as "0". But you put equal positive and negative masses together, the combined system stops being "0" as the positive and negative mass system "pushes" and "pulls" itself along the line of orientation of the two masses. In other words, imbalance of the curvature of space-time drives "perpetual motion from negative mass" and generates energy.
Good luck with that!
Supposing a negative mass apple did exist (and acted according to Newton's equations), surely it would tear itself apart, and then would proceed to distribute itself as evenly as possible around the universe? The only way to get an apple's worth of negative mass is if there was an even stronger force holding it together. Electromagnetism wouldn't work, and the weak and strong nuclear forces have too short a range, so I guess it's not possible except at a subatomic level. (It's possible that gravity itself could hold itself together, such as if a 'shell' of positive mass was placed around the negative mass, but that would eliminate all of the effects of negative mass, so would be pointless.)
That would not be entirely pointless. Negative mass pushes you around and should be contained. Negative mass is kind of a jerk if you ask me.
Why wouldn't electromagnetism work?
I think you are forgetting that gravity is pretty weak and all the other forces are much, much stronger.
I don't see why electromagnetism wouldn't work. The binding energies from EM are orders of magnitude higher than gravitational forces.
Thats a key issue. I don't think large body negative mass can exist outside of some sort of blackhole.
There's nothing in the laws of physics that says I'm not the coolest dude in the universe, so I'm gonna roll with it.
No, but Occams razor favors the notion that you are not.
chbrules I don’t know... absolute zero or zero kelvin should be cooler than you... if you are able to move...
That perpetuatual motion machine is soooooo trippy.
I agree with Parekh, Hopper and Palin (all posted 1 year ago). Just add absolute values to the 'm' in F=ma i.e. F=|m|a and voila, problem solved! Same goes with E = (1/2)|m|v2. Then rethink the equivalence principle and what the implications are for a -ve mass.
i need a negative mass apple in my backpack, and i jump.
Here before -1 views
We might more easily visualize the interplay between differently charged masses by imagining our 2-D planetime analog as having positive mass on one side and negative mass on the other. That way, positive and negative masses distend the sheet in opposing directions, such that two masses on the same side of the sheet will always fall into each other's wells, but on opposite sides, they repel, and even under extreme acceleration there always will be at least the sheet itself between them.
Quick Challenge Question Answer:
Put the two masses in a box attached to a rod coming off a driveshaft.
Align the two masses in the box such that motion of the box corresponds to rotation of the driveshaft.
Attach whatever needs infinite power to your driveshaft (electric generator, water pump, ass slapping machine).
Success! You have infinite power.
I'm not trying to be negative, but I'm positive than negative mass is a negatory!
Where is the challenge winner episode?
If you like theoretical work, check Jean Pierre Petit's Janus model about negative mass and energy with dual Einstein equations.
Answer: Neutral mass in conjunction with - m & +m (like that of [3v~] 3rd variable dark energy [-m=1v~ {central void volume.}]) | Not to be confused with the mass of Dark Matter which would obviously be +m. | 2v~ would have only a slight negative m ratio in comparison to neutral mass, but it's there in much lower quantities (just think of it as a membrane.) Remember, the expansion of space/time is indeed a perpetual force that changes velocity as volumes of Dark Energy~ increase via quantum funneling of matter in Black Holes. HTH! ;O)-
5:42 _More likely you're having a crackpot moment._
If it's a "crackpot moment", doesn't that mean that Stephen Hawking was a crackpot? Hawking radiation is based on negative masses falling into the blackhole. How about Dirac, who won the Nobel prize for predicting antimatter from a sea of negative energy? Seems like this is a huge physics breakthrough waiting to happen.
You didnt account for all the crackpot hypothesis' which were false. Crackpot conjecture is true for the most part. Doesnt mean that you shouldnt be playing around with crazy ideas. It is fun to imagine.
Also, straight up pathological behaviour which lead to infinities are a very very bad sign pretty much always.
Hawking radiation is still in crackpot theory territory.
@@davidrock7488 hawking radiation is not based of negative mass?.. can you give me a source for that
@@Josecannoli1209 Yes, it is! Hawking radiation requires virtual particles, with a negative mass.
See e.g. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30597/black-holes-and-positive-negative-energy-particles Virtual negative mass particles in physics are completely normal, and ubiquitous, although Matt doesn't seem to understand that!
We know that the escape velocity of a neutron star is about 1/3rd c. If a neutron star accumulated enough mass from a companion star to achieve an escape velocity of 1c, could an event horizon form without *necessarily* requiring a singularity to exist inside?
think about it: singularity means "we don't know what's happening there!", if it was a system with a regular neutron star, still emitting light, how wouldn't the photons perpenducular to the event horizon escape its gravitational well? they surely can't slow down, stop, and turn around, do they? yet black holes are completely black, nothing escapes, so there is no bright star at its center. Also something with stopped time, but DIO helps us on that, i have no idea
If a neutron star accumulated that much mass density it would collapse the space time into a singularity.
Do the maths. Not possible to achieve 1c.
Escape velocity will always be a fraction of C.
Edit: If escape velocity = C .. it becomes a black hole. So if it is not a black hole escape velocity will be a fraction of C
@ Even if photons are going perpendicular, they will still experience gravity. Gravitational force doesn't depend on direction of motion.
@@blackpearl2341 what does that mean? they "experience" gravity and...? they either go straight outta the black hole or they should come back, but to do so, photons should slow downand turn back... Which is impossible, photons always move at c. I may not have been clear, so please, tell me what trajectory does a photon shot from the center of the event horizon perpendicular to it take?
I would love to time travel to see how the science book would look in 300 years from now.
2 years late but epic farris wheel time
I find the more interesting idea to be charged negative mass particles:
Assume 1) one particle with negative mass and positive electric charge
and 2) another with negative charge and positive mass
the result is that particle 1 is repelled by particle 2 while 2 is attracted to 1.
for an observer far enough from the pair it appears this pair has no mass or charge and is accelerating until it reaches lightspeed.
Of course the particles can never reach lightspeed but they will surpass any velocity lower than c at some point.
Furthermore if we assume that 1 is the anti particle of 2 and 2 is assumed to be an electron, this would have interesting similarities to a photon.
Also if anti particles have in fact negative mass this would explain why we see no evidence of large scale anti matter collections.
Whats are your thoughts?
Anti particles display the same gravitational properties as normal particles iirc. But I guess that it's difficult to gauge, as gravity has extremely little presence when talking about individual particles.
However, I do believe that it would make anti-atoms impossible, since the different charges' attractive force would be flipped. As we've seen anti-atoms, it's probably not the case.
Gravity is much, much weaker than electromagnetism, so on atomic level gravity is negligible.
When you combine an electron with a positron you get two photons. So I think if this was the case that light would be unaffected by Gravity as it would produce both positive and negative gravitational masses in about equal amounts, but light is effected by Gravity in the same way that positive gravitational masses are effected by Gravity. So I don't think anti matter would have negative gravitational mass.
@@someone2973 Actually the pair of particles of positive and negative mass is attracted to large amounts of positive mass, since both constituents are attracted. The fact the pair has no discernable mass to a far observer would only mean that such pairs do not attract anything themselves.
@@Mernom Good point about the anti-atoms, though i would not say impossible since for negative mass particles like charges attract. I do know too little about the experiments to guess if that possibility can be ruled out right away.
Didn't M. A. Khamehchi show something with negative mass back in 2017? It was something about Negative-Mass Hydrodynamics in Bose-Einstein Condensates.
Found it PhysRevLett.118.155301
Interesting
So is this real negative mass or just something acting like it has negative mass?
Was this replicated?
@@chloroformlogic3047 I'm not sure. I don't even know if you could know the difference.
Always gold at PBS space time
4:08 what's that property called, numbering spin ? Have they made a video on it ?
I tried to build a perpetual motion machine for my school project. It worked. But then I came to know about something called the "second law of thermodynamics"...
Oh man. How long were you in for?
it doesn't mess around, kiddo
I guess that's the reason why nobody is able to make perpetual motion machine, they successfully make it then the school comes to know and teaches them "second law of thermodynamics" and boom absolute failure
It worked until it stopped.
"Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
This video just made my kidney stone pain feel much better :)
Without watching it?
Penr0se You commented on this video BEFORE the video has even been up for a minute, stop lying
@@johnchesterfield9726 The fact that I was about to watch it was what made feel feel better you jerks, hope you both have kidney stones.
@@charlestwoo
Commenting before you've watched a video and thumbing up your own comment is what gave you a kidney stone in the first place.
Penr0se "I hope both of you have kidney stones"
Destruction 100*
Using negative mass in my science fiction story for FTL teleportation
1. Set up sphere around ship so you got it all
2. Set up sphere at space station so you don't end up at the other end of the universe
3. Vanish ship with negative mass
4. Reappear ship in sphere 2 because mass can be neither gained nor lost in the universe
the craft would have to be powered by a number of these devices so they can be pointed in different directions so the force and acceleration could be controlled, or the mass would have to be able to somehow shift in the device