@@cezarcatalin1406 if you read my comment you would know magic is clearly involved here. maybe it's for the reason you described, maybe it is something else I don't understand. but there is clearly some kind of sorcery
Something interesting to think about is that stationary objects with negative mass actually have potential energy relative to when they're moving, so you can extract energy from them with accelerating them.
@@cubing7276 I mean, you could pull off the same trick by switching to a reference frame where a positive mass object is always moving, and hence always has kinetic energy. It'd fall down because the things around it wouldn't be still enough for any energy to be extracted, likewise in the negative mass reference frame the objects around it would all be moving really fast, and then I /think/ you can't extract energy. Like, similar to how you need a big speed difference in positive mass to extract energy, you need a /small/ speed difference to extract energy from an object with negative mass.
It's weird. The two objects would have 0mass. So moving at Lightspeed is ok. But the more momentum they had still is lost since they can't go faster then Lightspeed and have 0mass. So... They turned into some wave?
perhaps they turn into a wave and go light speed and all the extra energy and momentum that's "lost" is converted into some other form like heat or something
7:30 It seems when + and - masses collide inelastically, the masses cancel, leaving only the sum of the mass remaining. So if + and - masses were exactly equal, you would have 0 mass remaining to go infinite (or light) speed, which is fine.
This is sort of what happens when an electron and a positron collide. Usually when those two particles combine, they form 2 or more photons that split the combined momentum of both particles and the two 0.511MeV rest masses. All of that energy is spread amongst the photons such that momentum and everything else that must be conserved, is conserved. The massless photons leave the scene of the collision at the speed of light. Photons with that much energy are called gamma rays. If attempted with 5kg masses of matter and antimatter, this would result in a much larger explosion than the nuclear blast shown in the video. Antimatter has positive mass. So far everything known has a positive mass. If an electron collided with a hypothetical negative mass electron, they couldn't simply annihilate, as there would be no particles to carry the momentum and charge away from the collision. They would have to bounce.
@@hamjudo well not a physics student here but from my understanding negative mass meeting a positive mass would complete "annihilate". in the sense both would simply cease to be. I guess in a way the example im thing about is when a positive mass and a negative mass spontaneously appear and then disappear due to the conservative of energy. you started with no energy and are left with no energy.
@@memesterjohnson1402 That's anti matter and normal matter, not negative mass and positive mass. I mean maybe it would, it's not something we can test (as far as we know), but our equations don't predict annihilation.
8:00 So the universe devs just said "Well we ain't gonna fix this division by 0 bug here with negative masses because the chance of it happening is too low"? I wouldn't trust my universe with such slackers.
“2023 update change log: - division by zero bug when two opposite mass blocks collided was fixed. They now explode the same way matter and antimatter annihilate, because making them stay still was boring and changing the speed of light is too much work for us”
@@ewanstewart2001 Newton's theory contains a divide by 0 singularity, in the gravitational law. If two particles could be at the same place, no matter how weak the gravitational force is and no matter how small the masses are, r would be 0 and you get an infinite force. These singularities are useful to point out where the theory breaks down, turns out no massive particles (fermions) can occupy the same volume, due to Pauli's exclusion principle. Same in black holes, they don't contain an infinitely dense singularity at their center, we just don't know the correct theory for describing that region.
@@ewanstewart2001 but also that its unlikely for the singularity to be a point because we also have quantum physics. But doesn't Hawking Radiation involve a negative energy in its entangled pair?
Criminally undersubbed. You took a concept that is inherently complex and reduced it to a level that everyone can access. A mark of a great teacher to be sure!
At 9:58, you say that they're identical, but that's only because you assumed that the negative mass block would change direction upon hitting the infinite mass block. Nothing in the equations of conservation of momentum and energy says which way the blocks have to move after the collision (a solution where the blocks pass through each other is equally valid under these equations). This is fine with regular physics, since there's obviously only one direction that prevents the blocks from going through each other, but when that's literally the question we're asking, all we've done is assume our conclusion.
From what I gathered, he showed this result as a limit from the colision between an object with negative mass and a *very large object* and the result seems pretty reasonable from the limit of the equations of conservation of momentum.
at a given negative mass. the repulsive forces, assuming that all harmonic oscillators are symmetrical the energy would overpower the forces binding the matter together. If the forces assumed don't fall apart. then the negative mass and/or energy would just cause a sign flip and a mirrored curvature to the higgs field. 1kg and -1kg traveling parallel, would stay parallel because the positive curve would attract toward the negative mass at an equal rate that the -1kg mass would repel. The limit would be that mass and negative mass of equal values traveling parallel would stay parallel but the result is 2 parallel circle paths. When you increase the positive mass to 100kg vs -1kg. The energy bound in the mass by comparison is basically negligible. Also, of course it would hit the wall, and repel the same as positive mass would. plus the added fraction of the repulsive force. It wouldnt travel through it. Its matter still, fermionic matter. meaning half integer spin with the election, or position. or Xtron imagined up to compose the matter. Fermion/ 1/2 integer spin cannot occupy the same point in space. and matter is million times more large in volume than the wave function itself in order to tunnel, so that is ultimately, basically impossible. You're making odd assumptions about Mass itself.
@@DerpMuse Of course the negative mass wouldn't occupy the same space as the regular mass. It would either punch a hole through it, vaporise itself leaving negative and positive mass gas and a small crater, or, if we assume everything to be indestructible, press against the positive mass object irremovably. That last one's a bit odd since if the normal force accelerates the object toward the positive mass, what stops the object from accelerating into it? The answer to this also lies in atoms, specifically the protons in the nucleus. Electrons are responsible for the normal force because they're on the outside of the atom, but eventually the electron clouds will get compressed by, and maybe merged into, each other, and the force of the nuclei on the electrons will provide a cancelling attractive force as the electrons get pushed closer to them. If we assume no elasticity to the atoms all we've done is provided a model that simply doesn't work. If we're going to be that inaccurate we might as well assume no quantum degeneracy pressure, an assumption you've made your stance on quite clear. The major problem with this video is it does things the wrong way around. They've done some calculations (the conservation of momentum and kinetic energy), cherry-picked the solution (there are multiple because of the absolutes) that doesn't cause too many problems (i.e. avoids the blocks going through each other) without confirming it with any actual physics, and then tried to rationalise it (oh it's a negative mass so it can apply a negative pushing force, right?) Something they did mention at the end of the video, which I hope they explain at some point because I will be in no way convinced of any of this until they do, is that these forces are caused by electrons. Negatively charged electrons. This is charge, it has nothing to do with the mass of the objects, so the forces applied will be the same as in a regular mass collision, so the direction of acceleration of the negative mass will be toward the positive mass.
The clicky sound returns! Thank you for showing the math for every collision. Your explanations were good enough that I didn’t have to read them, but if I was ever confused by an interaction, having the Physics 1 math available is a good second chance to understand what’s happening. I’ve been going through the SoME1 submissions, giving people feedback, and honestly, your video didn’t have any problems I noticed. It’s well paced, everything is clear, and if someone started talking to me about negative mass interactions, I think I could explain the main points of the video to them. You stuck to 3B1B’s video format rather closely, but he uses it for a reason. It works well.
Ooh I love this! Another interesting thing to think about is if inertial mass and gravitational mass are not intrinsically equal to one another. Such a notion isn’t compatible with GR as it violates the equivalence principle, but hey we can dive into the world of science fiction whenever we please. If you define that exotic matter has a normal inertial mass but an inverted gravitational mass, you get normal conservation of momentum and a rather nice coulomb-like negative gravitational force. Normal inertial mass with small perturbations from its normal gravitational mass on the other hand would give you a hard time noticing the difference in the first place, and an even harder time trying to seperate them since centrifuges won’t do anything. Also I want to see plausible physics behind gravitational flux expulsion, because that could give some much more interesting antigravity.
Wow this is really good! I thought you were another big channel like 3Blue1Brown or something based on the quality. I wish you the best for your youtube success.
If you could have a mass/antimass object in 50/50 ratio it almost seems like a dipole. When measuring that object as a whole it has net zero mass and would only be able to travel at the speed of light. But could it carry any momentum? Wouldn’t there be energy there? Or would anti-mass have some kind of negative energy that interacted with space. Would negative mass push space apart?
Note that net zero mass does not mean "speed of light", it means "infinite speed", which is a fair bit higher. From my perspective (i.e, that of a layman), this sounds impossible, which lends credence to the idea that anti-matter (which anhilliates in contact with normal matter) also has negative mass.
@@pkmnfrk Speed of light is infinite speed to the perspective of the object moving. No time is experienced en route to your destination if you travel at c.
@@lukerennie4457 Mass and energy are equivalent and it's why light bends around black holes despite lacking what we would call "mass" Its momentum gives it a virtual mass and thus its affected by gravity
Well, negative mass is not antimatter. Humans have created antimatter but not negative mass. Antimatter is just matter with charge signs reversed. Take positron which is electron with positive charge. But their mass (however small it may be) is still positive.
From this illustration it seems like these divide by zero errors will just resolve themselves in practice. That is if they could occur, they would and then immediately arrive at a point in space so far isolated from the res of things that they cease to matter.
7:54 about the divide by zero error. Isn't this just a case of Newtonian physics failing at relativistic speeds? Using the equations for relativistic elastic collisions, maybe you'd find that the final velocity is just c. All massless objects (5 plus -5 kg) always move at c, anyway. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision#One-dimensional_relativistic someone run the numbers, I didn't bother - I'm just guessing.
One useful way to analyze collisions is to look at the center of mass motion, thereby taking out the issue of interaction between the objects. It might simplify some of this "weirdness".
7:36 i like how he explains that a perfect world is really bad and how big bang happened and how it was before big bang and how its after big bang in the same time
9:00 You are making a mistake here: you're assuming this force would exists for negative matter when it would not. The Normal force is a consequence of Pauli's exclusion principle which state that there can't be two fermion in the exact same quantum state, in our case the surface electrons of your hand and the one of the object. But negative matter can never be in the same quantum state as positive matter since they can't have the same energy. So yes, negative matter should phase through positive matter (neglecting the fact that it would probably annihilate with the positive mass it come close enough to)
You're talking about degeneracy pressure and it only comes into play at extreme pressures (it's why low mass neutron stars don't collapse into black holes - the neutrons can't get any closer together). The normal force is due to electromagnetism - specifically the repulsion between electrons orbiting the atoms that make up the object. We can assume that the negative mass matter is the same as normal matter in every way other than having negative mass (like how antimatter is the same in every way other than having opposite charge). This means it's interactions with matter not due to mass would be exactly the same. It's electrons would be repelled by matter's electrons, and the Pauli exclusion principle would still act (even if it's not needed here). I don't see any reason for normal matter to annihilate with negative mass matter, in fact this would break conservation of charge, since a negative mass electron annihilating a positive mass one would destroy -2e of charge.
That divide by zero scene should have resulted in the blocks ceasing to move, the window turning pale after a few seconds, and a dialog box saying "Unfortunately, the Universe has stopped. Details: Math error - Division by zero".
I'm researching Alcubierre FTL Drives for a science fiction novel, and things like this make me realize why the genre is normally either very limited or basically magic when it comes to technology. Ah, if only we knew everything about the universe so I could keep my facts 100% accurate while still being able to go wacky wild with it...
I don’t really get why negative mass should be attracted to mass while mass is repelled. If you imagine gravity in the same way as everyone has seen, as a ball on a rubber field pushing down, positive and positive mass are attracted to each other. If you’d place a negative mass ball on the underside it would push the field up. Now in this experiment, no matter from which side of the field you would look, both mass and negative mass would look like a hill to the other pushing it away, wouldn’t it?
It's true that the force is opposite but at the end the acceleration ends being the same. That's because gravitation mass it's supposed to be the same as inertial mass. I'm sure you've heard that a bowling ball and a feather fall at the same acceleration even if the mass is different. Well, go to the extreme and put an object with negative mass. The mass is different but the acceleration is the same. Light, with mass zero, curves too, by the way. But that only works if gravitation mass and inertial mass is the same thing. Science is not sure about that, yet. If you take inertial mass as being an absolute value then it happens what you said, I guess.
I think the best way to explain it within the confines of the rubber sheet analogy is to say don't flip the perspective. Negative mass is inherently weird because it will generate that upward force and create a weird dimple like you're saying... but negative mass will still try to roll downhill. It's more like it's stuck to the underside but still affected by gravity, so it tries to roll downhill towards the positive mass. Negative mass really doesn't work within this analogy, but that's the best way I can make it work.
consider 2 black holes of equal mass but one negative mass, and they are close together. they can never enter each other's event horizon, they can never merge. strange
I've conducted thermodynamics simulations involving interacting gases of positive and negative masses. What happens is infinite energy flows between the gases so the positive massed fraction goes to ∞ K and the negative massed fraction goes to -∞ K. So the imagery of a nuclear explosion happening when positive and negative masses meet isn't quite accurate. What would really happen would actually rip the local chunk of crust and atmosphere off the face of the planet while sending a superheated shock wave through the rest of the planet. I had been wondering if negative mass could hypothetically be used to destroy entropy. Needless to say, it does the exact opposite. Nowadays I'm confident that negative mass isn't real, though that's more due to me coming across the theory of electromagnetic inertia and no longer believing in mass as a result. What's actually responsible for inertia is electromagnetic energy. In order to have negative inertia, you need negative energy, which requires complex, not real, electromagnetic fields. I'm not sure if those can actually interact much with positive energied things. Given that dark energy is equivalent to a universe-wide negative energy density, I wouldn't be surprised if it existed.
so ive never taken all the classes youve taken but what you say seems to make some form of logic sense. Im unconvinced that negative mass can exist it just seems like bullshit.
A few thoughts: * When we extend F=ma to negative mass, how do we know to keep F=ma rather than f=|m|a? Both are the same in the positive mass domain that we are used to. This would get us back to positive and negative mass repelling us as some other people say. However, if we keep F=ma intact, then: * You showed some examples of inelastic collisions. It makes sense that a large mass hitting a small one will speed up, because there is now less mass. * When the masses are equal, you get a divide by zero and infinite speed for blocks. What if this hints at annihilation? Afterall, -1kg and +1kg is 0kg, so perhaps if they truly collide we should end up with no mass whatsoever. We therefore should perhaps apply that 'infinite speed' to 0kg mass, i.e. *nothing* moving at an infinite speed. In Newtonian physics, we ignore relativity, so no speed limit c, and no E=mc^2. So we can have zero particles moving at limitless speed. I therefore wonder what happens if you apply special relativity to these collisions. Do you perhaps get light-speed particles with all the energy of the block's mass flying off in all directions?
If negative mass exists, then so does negative energy. So theoretically, by some process it could be possible to create as much energy as you like in a closed system, given you created an equal amount of negative energy. Net energy would still be zero and conservation of energy is conserved. That just feels wrong to me.
Point of order, there is a difference between inertial and gravitational mass. It's valid to consider it as something having a negative gravitational mass, but a positive inertial mass. They aren't side stepping the issue; it's a separate thing. An easy way to consider how they can be out of lock-step (though this is not the same, clearly) is to imagine a huge metal block in space. You push it, it pushes you back. But it's floating. To be clear though, thus far there are no examples of there being a difference between gravitational and inertial mass.
Have you looked into the work of Jean Pierre Petit ? He proposed a cosmological model with negative mass, and 2 field equations. (Einstein’s field equation + the equivalent equation for negative mass) so that : - positive mass attracts positive mass - negative mass attracts negative mass - positive repel negative. Considering this, if you have a negative mass and a positive mass, they no longer both accelerate in the same direction indefinitely. they simply repel each other like 2 opposite sign magnets. This model provides an explanation for the large scale structure of the universe, that is, why there are large, completely empty regions, that repel all the galaxies around it. (great repeller) (λ-cdm dosen’t provide any to my knowledge. a lack of matter that creates negative pression is not an explanation as to why it is empty in the first place). It,s not actually empty space, it’s filled with negative mass. Where λ-cdm needs to come up with dark matter to explain why galaxies are not exploding (to add more gravity force to keep it in one piece) in his model it’s simply because the surrounding negative mass is adding enough pressure from the outside. A very fascinating and refreshing rabbit hole to explore.
If you look at the content want to pour out acn of ground meat sauces and hit in the Back one only loosens the content. The Tomato mince Sauce stays in the tin because the ground beef Sauce in the direction of momentum drives the measure reacts negatively to the Impulse. You hit the open side of the can the mass moves towards the opening ,minus the empty can by the inertia of the crowd. Because the dimensions of the can are only afraction of the total mass amount the can moves positive to the Impulse. So to speak :when the can is opposite to the Impuls themselves moves.
One way of picture this for me is like when two people run towards each other holding a big ball. Probably I'm wrong like always but I kinda see it like that
And because of that, that’d mean all negative mass would move away from itself, not even two units would be able to stay near each other and all negative mass would spread apart further and further indefinitely Wait a second, that sounds a LOT like dark matter…
@@youtubealt243 no, dark matter definitly makes positive gravity and clusters around galaxies, so its not negative mass Also, eletric and nuclear forces are trillions of times stronger than gravity, so 2 pieces of negative mass would be able to stay together if those other forces were stronger than their gravity
Weight is the force felt by mass in a gravitational field. Mass is how much mass an object has. A volume of helium within another fluid in the presence of a gravitational field can measure negative weight, but still has positive mass.
I don't believe that the division by zero is a problem. Yes you do have infinite speed, but zero mass, and the overall implication of this for me is that there is nothing there. In other words, after the collision, the positive and negative mass cease to exist. The thing is that if you have infinite speed, then you could say that object would immediately leave any finite appearing universe, and hence from our perspective, cease to exist. I don't know how well this comment communicates how I understand it, but trying to grasp the idea of infinity does that sometimes.
I guess the question of where all the energy that went into the matter goes. I guess the negative-mass is made up of negative energy? That cancels out?? Does that make sense???? I suspect that's not how energy works, but I'm only a guy in youtube with a question mark key????????
@@pkmnfrk I mean, I you think about it mathematically, it makes sense: 5+-5=0 But you are right to question eg. Is all the energy in the block negative? Because if not my explanation does not work, as if for example the negative mass block has positive kinetic energy (ke), because if so then according to this then there is suddenly no mass for the ke to act on, and then presumably that energy must no longer exist breaking the conservation of energy. But as another TH-cam commenter that is probably all I can say
I'd like to see negative anti matter. Now that is some crazy stuff. Then have negative matter and negative anti matter interact. I bet that would be like dividing by zero and infinity at the same time.
If you think about it on a microscopic level it seems fairly intuitive, if you consider collisions as a result of exchanges of momenta between negatively charged electrons (as opposed to an entirely instantaneous force) which push eachother away. But if one of the objects has a negative mass then the motion is reversed and the objects will attract eachother (minus from negative mass and negative charge of one object cancel) when briefly within range of eachother's forces. In any case it shouldn't produce anything classically too contradictory, it's all very analogous to classical electromagnetism whereby a negative mass charged particle subject to the Lorentz force behaves exactly like a positive mass particle of the opposite charged. In that sense perhaps the division by zero really is an early classical foretelling of anti matter, in early quantum mechanics positrons were regarded as negative energy electrons.
The thing is negative mass would also have negative time since the negative mass would repel positive mass it would also have negative gravity. For instance a negative mass black hole would be the theoretical white hole due to its negative mass and time. The inverse acceleration problem is negated by the negative time.
Starting from the simplest model, would two negative-mass atoms stick together having started from a primordial (hot) state? When placing two negative charges together, their negatives do not cancel? Oxford hypothesized negative accelerations instead of negative masses?
Maybe when most physicists talk about negative mass, they only mean the *gravitational* mass that appears in Newton's law of gravity F = -G*m1*m2/r^2 but not the *inertial* mass that appears in the law of motion F = m*a. If I'm not mistaken, these are initially thought of as being distinct concepts but both "kinds" of mass turn out to be the same and that's why we just use m to refer to both of them?
the reason objects don't go through each other is the electrons repel each other. if negative mass electrons have positive charge then they would attract towards normal electrons and they would both disappear in a puff of 0 total energy logic (protons too, but fission of positive matter to split out a proton would take energy ... not sure even what that means in a negative energy context.). if negative mass electrons have negative charge then they would repel, and 'normal' material science has a chance of occurring.
The way gravity works mentioned at 2:26 would man that, if you drop -1kg (of negative mass) towards a planet, it still drops down - except that the planet moves unnoticably AWAY from the negative mass, instead of moving unnoticably TOWARDS it. And even stranger, if you (try to) drop +1kg towards a planet with negative mass, the positive mass will fall AWAY from the planet. While the negative mass planet will still unnoticably move towards it, like a normal planet should. Of course, all these considerations about gravity rely on the assumption that gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass. And I'm not 100% sure you can just assume that for such exotic concepts as negative mass.
wouldnt when a positive mass particle conides with a negative massed particle they would become a new particle with the energy added together. and when a particle collides with a particle with an equally opposite energy would cancel out.
Very interesting thought experiments. As a mathematical prospect it seems fine to explore the question as far as we can. However - and I'm about to merely state my opinion rather than some positive claim so, take it with a grain of salt - it's less than reasonable to explore it from a physics perspective: as far as I know negative mass _isn't_ predicted by any working or accepted theory, contrary to what you think. My understanding is that negative mass is an odd result of mathematical games played with some equations that aren't supposed to be used that way in the first place. For example, the Alcubierre Metric requires negative mass to produce its proposed geometry of spacetime. But the way Alcubierre arrived at his metric is by taking Einstein's field equations for getting the spacetime geometry given an observed distribution of mass-energy, and plotting a particular spacetime geometry in the equations in order to get what kind of mass-energy distribution would produce it... The problem is, of course, that these equations are part of a theory that use them in the opposite way, to make predictions the Alcubierre one isn't, and couldn't be part of. It's merely a sandbox type of play, not unlike this set of thought experiments. In other words, there is exactly *zero* reason to think it could possibly describe a real, physical state of affairs. Rather, its result strongly suggests that it is in fact a wrong and useless approach from physics perspective (much like searching for some kind of 'life force carrier' because of baseless vitalist assumptions). In physics it seems we're supposed to approximate real phenomena in order to explain them, not approximate hypothetical explanations in order to make-believe phenomena that have never been observed or predicted. So, mathematically speaking it's fine and fun; philosophically speaking it makes for interesting metaphysics; but physically speaking it makes no sense and clearly pertains to pseudoscientific thinking.
You get it at 2:40 & 7:35! "Exotic" matter need to invent the physic that "rule" it. You could imaging that positive and negative matter don't interact with each other via the electromagnetic interaction. Then there is no more collision. And for gravitation you could also imagine that there is no interaction OR (and this is more fun) tweak the Einstein field equation to get masses with the same signe attract each other and masses of different signe repulse each other. Put some negative masses AROUND a galaxies to get the "dark matter effect" and some negative masses in between the galaxies to get the "dark energy effect". Remember that all the law of physics are CPT symmetric and as demonstrated by Jean-Marie Souriau using the complete Poincaré group, including backward in time ("antichronous") motions, arrow of time reversal equals mass inversion of a particle. With negative masses and energy you get plenty of new physics.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
I didn't understand most of the stuff in this video but I really liked when the blocks went "Clack" and then magically started changing directions
The model is not accurate !
The blocks clacking actually makes the collision not perfect because some energy is lost to sound waves aka phonons.
@@cezarcatalin1406 if you read my comment you would know magic is clearly involved here. maybe it's for the reason you described, maybe it is something else I don't understand. but there is clearly some kind of sorcery
@@cezarcatalin1406 It’s because of MAGIC
*UH DUH*
@@rascal6543 True intellectual
th-cam.com/video/jsYwFizhncE/w-d-xo.html
Here’s more blocks and math sruff
"How can you have less than zero stuff?"
Credit card debt is one way
The money in a credit card doesn't exist physically
It was a joke :)
Students: In terms of mental health we have negative Health Points.
@@user4241 yes it does, its stored in bits and im pretty sure bits exist irl
Social credit
Something interesting to think about is that stationary objects with negative mass actually have potential energy relative to when they're moving, so you can extract energy from them with accelerating them.
Change reference frame so that the negative mass is sitting still and now you can extract infinite energy
That... actually makes a ton of sense?
@@cubing7276 I mean, you could pull off the same trick by switching to a reference frame where a positive mass object is always moving, and hence always has kinetic energy. It'd fall down because the things around it wouldn't be still enough for any energy to be extracted, likewise in the negative mass reference frame the objects around it would all be moving really fast, and then I /think/ you can't extract energy. Like, similar to how you need a big speed difference in positive mass to extract energy, you need a /small/ speed difference to extract energy from an object with negative mass.
@@tsawy6 mmm /thisdoesn'tdoathing/
@@JorgetePanete Ya, it's notation, not code, intended to convey emphasis in a generalised way that isn't dependent on the capacities of text editors
Imagine you get a block of negative mass object and you walk into it and fall over backwards.
So by walking on it its just gonna move up depending on how heavy each footstep and if you fall on it it just goes up
sounds like something id see in a chirs nolan movie
or when you throw a ball it pulls you towards it
@@generalgrievous5667 ender pearl
Mans gonna get rotated on the W axis
I just really like the idea of a real life div/0 error popping up if somebody ever were to collide two opposite masses in the future
It's weird. The two objects would have 0mass. So moving at Lightspeed is ok.
But the more momentum they had still is lost since they can't go faster then Lightspeed and have 0mass.
So... They turned into some wave?
They would cancel out and just stop moving
perhaps they turn into a wave and go light speed and all the extra energy and momentum that's "lost" is converted into some other form like heat or something
7:30 It seems when + and - masses collide inelastically, the masses cancel, leaving only the sum of the mass remaining. So if + and - masses were exactly equal, you would have 0 mass remaining to go infinite (or light) speed, which is fine.
An Artificial Photon!!
This is sort of what happens when an electron and a positron collide. Usually when those two particles combine, they form 2 or more photons that split the combined momentum of both particles and the two 0.511MeV rest masses. All of that energy is spread amongst the photons such that momentum and everything else that must be conserved, is conserved. The massless photons leave the scene of the collision at the speed of light. Photons with that much energy are called gamma rays.
If attempted with 5kg masses of matter and antimatter, this would result in a much larger explosion than the nuclear blast shown in the video.
Antimatter has positive mass. So far everything known has a positive mass. If an electron collided with a hypothetical negative mass electron, they couldn't simply annihilate, as there would be no particles to carry the momentum and charge away from the collision. They would have to bounce.
@@hamjudo well not a physics student here but from my understanding negative mass meeting a positive mass would complete "annihilate". in the sense both would simply cease to be. I guess in a way the example im thing about is when a positive mass and a negative mass spontaneously appear and then disappear due to the conservative of energy. you started with no energy and are left with no energy.
@@mrpedrobraga not exactly
@@memesterjohnson1402 That's anti matter and normal matter, not negative mass and positive mass. I mean maybe it would, it's not something we can test (as far as we know), but our equations don't predict annihilation.
8:00 So the universe devs just said "Well we ain't gonna fix this division by 0 bug here with negative masses because the chance of it happening is too low"?
I wouldn't trust my universe with such slackers.
“2023 update change log:
- division by zero bug when two opposite mass blocks collided was fixed. They now explode the same way matter and antimatter annihilate, because making them stay still was boring and changing the speed of light is too much work for us”
If we look close enough there would be some negative mass particles, or even quarks, so in the end everything would have to annihilate on touch
We actually have zero mass objects in current physics. They pretty much just travel at the speed of light 24/7.
1.) No game is perfect, free of bugs.
2.) Even if such game exist, some players would just complain something anyway.
@@tresnonugroho6397 we don't really know if someone complains because we're just npcs
the modle: 7:32
me: oh the bottom one just moves two cubes move twice as fast
the cubes: *deletes them selves*
me:
The cubes: YEETUS DELETUS
It would be massless soo
Them:
Maybe they go infinitely fast?
@@lelduck6388 nop)
Imagine making a piece of clothing like a belt out of negative mass and it gives you a boost to your real life speed stat
just make sure said belt isn’t _too_ heavy
un-heavy? what’s the term for very negative
@@thatoneguy9582 light
@@thatoneguy9582 Anti-heavy? Anheavy? Imheavy? Nonheavy? Counterheavy?
@@thatoneguy9582 "crippling debt"
@@VS-Violet
yeah you win
"If physics starts throwing 'divide by 0' errors, then there's a good chance you're doing something wrong."
Well said
Mind you, black holes do that.
And we've proven them to exist, at least somewhat.
@@ewanstewart2001 there's something wrong, but something is right.
Good enough to get the evidence of a blackhole
@@ewanstewart2001 Newton's theory contains a divide by 0 singularity, in the gravitational law. If two particles could be at the same place, no matter how weak the gravitational force is and no matter how small the masses are, r would be 0 and you get an infinite force. These singularities are useful to point out where the theory breaks down, turns out no massive particles (fermions) can occupy the same volume, due to Pauli's exclusion principle. Same in black holes, they don't contain an infinitely dense singularity at their center, we just don't know the correct theory for describing that region.
@@ewanstewart2001 but also that its unlikely for the singularity to be a point because we also have quantum physics. But doesn't Hawking Radiation involve a negative energy in its entangled pair?
@@ewanstewart2001 really and what's the proof?
Criminally undersubbed. You took a concept that is inherently complex and reduced it to a level that everyone can access. A mark of a great teacher to be sure!
My expression during the 5kg Vs -5kg collision.
Oh... Oh no...
Me when seeing it: *m a n i a c l a u g h t e r*
I now want to see someone punching a negative mass punching bag and seeing how they react when it punches back
Great video! the Nuclear explosion made me laugh out loud. Please continue making these videos
Scared me. Lord
I feel like a 3D first person puzzle game with this kind of this would be such a cool idea
that's a good idea
Mass:*flees*
Antimatter:get your ass back here
more like "get your *mass* back here"
At 9:58, you say that they're identical, but that's only because you assumed that the negative mass block would change direction upon hitting the infinite mass block.
Nothing in the equations of conservation of momentum and energy says which way the blocks have to move after the collision (a solution where the blocks pass through each other is equally valid under these equations). This is fine with regular physics, since there's obviously only one direction that prevents the blocks from going through each other, but when that's literally the question we're asking, all we've done is assume our conclusion.
From what I gathered, he showed this result as a limit from the colision between an object with negative mass and a *very large object* and the result seems pretty reasonable from the limit of the equations of conservation of momentum.
at a given negative mass. the repulsive forces, assuming that all harmonic oscillators are symmetrical the energy would overpower the forces binding the matter together. If the forces assumed don't fall apart. then the negative mass and/or energy would just cause a sign flip and a mirrored curvature to the higgs field. 1kg and -1kg traveling parallel, would stay parallel because the positive curve would attract toward the negative mass at an equal rate that the -1kg mass would repel. The limit would be that mass and negative mass of equal values traveling parallel would stay parallel but the result is 2 parallel circle paths. When you increase the positive mass to 100kg vs -1kg. The energy bound in the mass by comparison is basically negligible.
Also, of course it would hit the wall, and repel the same as positive mass would. plus the added fraction of the repulsive force. It wouldnt travel through it. Its matter still, fermionic matter. meaning half integer spin with the election, or position. or Xtron imagined up to compose the matter. Fermion/ 1/2 integer spin cannot occupy the same point in space. and matter is million times more large in volume than the wave function itself in order to tunnel, so that is ultimately, basically impossible.
You're making odd assumptions about Mass itself.
@@DerpMuse
Of course the negative mass wouldn't occupy the same space as the regular mass.
It would either punch a hole through it, vaporise itself leaving negative and positive mass gas and a small crater, or, if we assume everything to be indestructible, press against the positive mass object irremovably.
That last one's a bit odd since if the normal force accelerates the object toward the positive mass, what stops the object from accelerating into it? The answer to this also lies in atoms, specifically the protons in the nucleus. Electrons are responsible for the normal force because they're on the outside of the atom, but eventually the electron clouds will get compressed by, and maybe merged into, each other, and the force of the nuclei on the electrons will provide a cancelling attractive force as the electrons get pushed closer to them.
If we assume no elasticity to the atoms all we've done is provided a model that simply doesn't work.
If we're going to be that inaccurate we might as well assume no quantum degeneracy pressure, an assumption you've made your stance on quite clear.
The major problem with this video is it does things the wrong way around. They've done some calculations (the conservation of momentum and kinetic energy), cherry-picked the solution (there are multiple because of the absolutes) that doesn't cause too many problems (i.e. avoids the blocks going through each other) without confirming it with any actual physics, and then tried to rationalise it (oh it's a negative mass so it can apply a negative pushing force, right?)
Something they did mention at the end of the video, which I hope they explain at some point because I will be in no way convinced of any of this until they do, is that these forces are caused by electrons. Negatively charged electrons. This is charge, it has nothing to do with the mass of the objects, so the forces applied will be the same as in a regular mass collision, so the direction of acceleration of the negative mass will be toward the positive mass.
did this guy actually watch the video
The direction of the resulting velocity is determined through the equations. In 1 dimension it's just the positive/negative sign
The clicky sound returns!
Thank you for showing the math for every collision. Your explanations were good enough that I didn’t have to read them, but if I was ever confused by an interaction, having the Physics 1 math available is a good second chance to understand what’s happening.
I’ve been going through the SoME1 submissions, giving people feedback, and honestly, your video didn’t have any problems I noticed. It’s well paced, everything is clear, and if someone started talking to me about negative mass interactions, I think I could explain the main points of the video to them. You stuck to 3B1B’s video format rather closely, but he uses it for a reason. It works well.
Ooh I love this! Another interesting thing to think about is if inertial mass and gravitational mass are not intrinsically equal to one another. Such a notion isn’t compatible with GR as it violates the equivalence principle, but hey we can dive into the world of science fiction whenever we please. If you define that exotic matter has a normal inertial mass but an inverted gravitational mass, you get normal conservation of momentum and a rather nice coulomb-like negative gravitational force. Normal inertial mass with small perturbations from its normal gravitational mass on the other hand would give you a hard time noticing the difference in the first place, and an even harder time trying to seperate them since centrifuges won’t do anything.
Also I want to see plausible physics behind gravitational flux expulsion, because that could give some much more interesting antigravity.
"Negative mass chases positive mass"
Explains my dating experiences AND physics in one statement. This channel is efficient as well as informative!
Wow this is really good! I thought you were another big channel like 3Blue1Brown or something based on the quality. I wish you the best for your youtube success.
This video is incredible! A very well reasoned approach to this topic. Thank you!
It's crazy to see an upload that can so clearly be called the moment a Channel blew up. Congrats man it was a good video
The video that nobody asked for but the video that everyone needed
I like how you can go for excellent science channels but for unknown masterpieces too
Finally some interesting shit to watch at 3 am
I loved the dividing by 0 joke that was perfect
If you could have a mass/antimass object in 50/50 ratio it almost seems like a dipole. When measuring that object as a whole it has net zero mass and would only be able to travel at the speed of light. But could it carry any momentum? Wouldn’t there be energy there? Or would anti-mass have some kind of negative energy that interacted with space. Would negative mass push space apart?
Note that net zero mass does not mean "speed of light", it means "infinite speed", which is a fair bit higher. From my perspective (i.e, that of a layman), this sounds impossible, which lends credence to the idea that anti-matter (which anhilliates in contact with normal matter) also has negative mass.
@@pkmnfrk Net zero mass does mean speed of light according to relativity.
@@pkmnfrk Speed of light is infinite speed to the perspective of the object moving. No time is experienced en route to your destination if you travel at c.
I don't know about the other questions, but there is no issue with a mass less object gaving momentum, photons carry momentum whilst having no mass
@@lukerennie4457
Mass and energy are equivalent and it's why light bends around black holes despite lacking what we would call "mass"
Its momentum gives it a virtual mass and thus its affected by gravity
I knew about antimatter before but never thought that negative mass could be exploited in this way. Nice video!
Well, negative mass is not antimatter. Humans have created antimatter but not negative mass. Antimatter is just matter with charge signs reversed. Take positron which is electron with positive charge. But their mass (however small it may be) is still positive.
I learned more science here than my science online class.
so excited for part 2! the concept of negative mass is just so amusing
I didn't even know you submitted to SoME1, I just found you the other day by your Cursed Conlang submission getting recommended to me!
0:13
The comedic timing and complete lack of acknowledgement was absolutely impeccable.
From this illustration it seems like these divide by zero errors will just resolve themselves in practice. That is if they could occur, they would and then immediately arrive at a point in space so far isolated from the res of things that they cease to matter.
or simply would never happen. the probability of two things have the exact same mass is practically impossible.
The exotic matter plot in Andromeda was the best part of the last two seasons. I'm very surprised it's a real thing. Thanks!
so glad you made this series. i have always wondered these questions.
What a great video!
I like this analysis. Looking forward to the next part.
Wait, how did you get that verified?
@@JulianoFonseca7557 I watch all the way to the end of the ads instead of skipping them
"sets my cup on another cup and it fades out of existence"
*That may be a problem*
*divides by zero to get a velocity*
"Soooo that's a bad sign..."
Really great video. I love SF thought experiments! Can't wait for the next one.
7:54 about the divide by zero error. Isn't this just a case of Newtonian physics failing at relativistic speeds? Using the equations for relativistic elastic collisions, maybe you'd find that the final velocity is just c. All massless objects (5 plus -5 kg) always move at c, anyway.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision#One-dimensional_relativistic someone run the numbers, I didn't bother - I'm just guessing.
I actually understand all of it! Years of PBS Space time and loosing my mind have prepared me for this video. 😎
I wanna see a puzzle game based on negative mass
Ah I see you are a man of mathematical horror puzzles as well.
This is super insteresting to think about! I hope the next part comes out soon
Negative mass is like negative emotion. The rule is: -1 + infinity = -1; -infinity + infinity = -infinity. That's it.
One useful way to analyze collisions is to look at the center of mass motion, thereby taking out the issue of interaction between the objects. It might simplify some of this "weirdness".
"And when they're exactly equal and opposite..."
*Clack*
7:36 i like how he explains that a perfect world is really bad and how big bang happened and how it was before big bang and how its after big bang in the same time
9:00 You are making a mistake here: you're assuming this force would exists for negative matter when it would not. The Normal force is a consequence of Pauli's exclusion principle which state that there can't be two fermion in the exact same quantum state, in our case the surface electrons of your hand and the one of the object. But negative matter can never be in the same quantum state as positive matter since they can't have the same energy.
So yes, negative matter should phase through positive matter (neglecting the fact that it would probably annihilate with the positive mass it come close enough to)
You're talking about degeneracy pressure and it only comes into play at extreme pressures (it's why low mass neutron stars don't collapse into black holes - the neutrons can't get any closer together).
The normal force is due to electromagnetism - specifically the repulsion between electrons orbiting the atoms that make up the object.
We can assume that the negative mass matter is the same as normal matter in every way other than having negative mass (like how antimatter is the same in every way other than having opposite charge). This means it's interactions with matter not due to mass would be exactly the same. It's electrons would be repelled by matter's electrons, and the Pauli exclusion principle would still act (even if it's not needed here).
I don't see any reason for normal matter to annihilate with negative mass matter, in fact this would break conservation of charge, since a negative mass electron annihilating a positive mass one would destroy -2e of charge.
I'm amazed by the video quality!
good work :D
That divide by zero scene should have resulted in the blocks ceasing to move, the window turning pale after a few seconds, and a dialog box saying "Unfortunately, the Universe has stopped. Details: Math error - Division by zero".
The clacking.
[Flashbacks to a certain quartet of mathematic constants]
3 blue 1 brown?
@@regulate.artificer_g23.mdctlsk Bingo. (lol)
Great and satisfying video.
What?? How do you have under 300 subs? I thought I was watching something from a well established channel with at least 100k!
I love the concept of negative mass and negative energy.
Please do the second part.
I'm researching Alcubierre FTL Drives for a science fiction novel, and things like this make me realize why the genre is normally either very limited or basically magic when it comes to technology. Ah, if only we knew everything about the universe so I could keep my facts 100% accurate while still being able to go wacky wild with it...
I don’t really get why negative mass should be attracted to mass while mass is repelled. If you imagine gravity in the same way as everyone has seen, as a ball on a rubber field pushing down, positive and positive mass are attracted to each other. If you’d place a negative mass ball on the underside it would push the field up. Now in this experiment, no matter from which side of the field you would look, both mass and negative mass would look like a hill to the other pushing it away, wouldn’t it?
By attraction, negative mass is attracted to positive mass it's the positive mass that was repelled.
The rubber sheet analogy is just an analogy, its not actually how gravity works!
It's true that the force is opposite but at the end the acceleration ends being the same.
That's because gravitation mass it's supposed to be the same as inertial mass.
I'm sure you've heard that a bowling ball and a feather fall at the same acceleration even if the mass is different. Well, go to the extreme and put an object with negative mass. The mass is different but the acceleration is the same.
Light, with mass zero, curves too, by the way.
But that only works if gravitation mass and inertial mass is the same thing. Science is not sure about that, yet. If you take inertial mass as being an absolute value then it happens what you said, I guess.
I think the best way to explain it within the confines of the rubber sheet analogy is to say don't flip the perspective. Negative mass is inherently weird because it will generate that upward force and create a weird dimple like you're saying... but negative mass will still try to roll downhill. It's more like it's stuck to the underside but still affected by gravity, so it tries to roll downhill towards the positive mass. Negative mass really doesn't work within this analogy, but that's the best way I can make it work.
consider 2 black holes of equal mass but one negative mass, and they are close together. they can never enter each other's event horizon, they can never merge. strange
Wouldn't the negative mass black hole just be a white hole? Or am I missing something here
Im imagining the blocks as ppl on skates and the ones with negative mass are just very exited to pull someone else along with them
I've conducted thermodynamics simulations involving interacting gases of positive and negative masses. What happens is infinite energy flows between the gases so the positive massed fraction goes to ∞ K and the negative massed fraction goes to -∞ K. So the imagery of a nuclear explosion happening when positive and negative masses meet isn't quite accurate. What would really happen would actually rip the local chunk of crust and atmosphere off the face of the planet while sending a superheated shock wave through the rest of the planet. I had been wondering if negative mass could hypothetically be used to destroy entropy. Needless to say, it does the exact opposite. Nowadays I'm confident that negative mass isn't real, though that's more due to me coming across the theory of electromagnetic inertia and no longer believing in mass as a result. What's actually responsible for inertia is electromagnetic energy. In order to have negative inertia, you need negative energy, which requires complex, not real, electromagnetic fields. I'm not sure if those can actually interact much with positive energied things. Given that dark energy is equivalent to a universe-wide negative energy density, I wouldn't be surprised if it existed.
so ive never taken all the classes youve taken but what you say seems to make some form of logic sense. Im unconvinced that negative mass can exist it just seems like bullshit.
A few thoughts:
* When we extend F=ma to negative mass, how do we know to keep F=ma rather than f=|m|a?
Both are the same in the positive mass domain that we are used to.
This would get us back to positive and negative mass repelling us as some other people say.
However, if we keep F=ma intact, then:
* You showed some examples of inelastic collisions.
It makes sense that a large mass hitting a small one will speed up, because there is now less mass.
* When the masses are equal, you get a divide by zero and infinite speed for blocks.
What if this hints at annihilation?
Afterall, -1kg and +1kg is 0kg, so perhaps if they truly collide we should end up with no mass whatsoever.
We therefore should perhaps apply that 'infinite speed' to 0kg mass, i.e. *nothing* moving at an infinite speed.
In Newtonian physics, we ignore relativity, so no speed limit c, and no E=mc^2. So we can have zero particles moving at limitless speed.
I therefore wonder what happens if you apply special relativity to these collisions. Do you perhaps get light-speed particles with all the energy of the block's mass flying off in all directions?
If negative mass exists, then so does negative energy. So theoretically, by some process it could be possible to create as much energy as you like in a closed system, given you created an equal amount of negative energy. Net energy would still be zero and conservation of energy is conserved. That just feels wrong to me.
Him: How can you have less than zero stuff?
Me: Bankruptcy
bankruptcy is just a status not something that is subtracts stuff from you
@@user-qw9yf6zs9t Thank you for that I actually did not know
@@The698thRat np
Congrats, you've earned a follower
Point of order, there is a difference between inertial and gravitational mass. It's valid to consider it as something having a negative gravitational mass, but a positive inertial mass. They aren't side stepping the issue; it's a separate thing.
An easy way to consider how they can be out of lock-step (though this is not the same, clearly) is to imagine a huge metal block in space. You push it, it pushes you back. But it's floating. To be clear though, thus far there are no examples of there being a difference between gravitational and inertial mass.
Have you looked into the work of Jean Pierre Petit ?
He proposed a cosmological model with negative mass, and 2 field equations. (Einstein’s field equation + the equivalent equation for negative mass)
so that :
- positive mass attracts positive mass
- negative mass attracts negative mass
- positive repel negative.
Considering this, if you have a negative mass and a positive mass, they no longer both accelerate in the same direction indefinitely. they simply repel each other like 2 opposite sign magnets.
This model provides an explanation for the large scale structure of the universe, that is, why there are large, completely empty regions, that repel all the galaxies around it. (great repeller) (λ-cdm dosen’t provide any to my knowledge. a lack of matter that creates negative pression is not an explanation as to why it is empty in the first place).
It,s not actually empty space, it’s filled with negative mass.
Where λ-cdm needs to come up with dark matter to explain why galaxies are not exploding (to add more gravity force to keep it in one piece) in his model it’s simply because the surrounding negative mass is adding enough pressure from the outside.
A very fascinating and refreshing rabbit hole to explore.
If you look at the content want to pour out acn of ground meat sauces and hit in the Back one only loosens the content. The Tomato mince Sauce stays
in the tin because the ground beef Sauce in the direction of momentum drives the measure reacts negatively to the Impulse.
You hit the open side of the can the mass moves
towards the opening ,minus the empty can by the inertia of the crowd. Because the dimensions of the can are only afraction of the total mass amount the can moves positive to the Impulse. So to speak :when the can is opposite to the Impuls themselves moves.
2'40 Imagine that the negative mass is one of the ghosts, and the positive mass is Pac-Man.
One way of picture this for me is like when two people run towards each other holding a big ball. Probably I'm wrong like always but I kinda see it like that
Being an engineer, this is very....... Perplexing, to say the least, you certainly have attention
haven’t watched the video yet but i really just thought “since mass generates gravity, wouldn’t negative mass have reverse gravity?”
And because of that, that’d mean all negative mass would move away from itself, not even two units would be able to stay near each other and all negative mass would spread apart further and further indefinitely
Wait a second, that sounds a LOT like dark matter…
hmm “White hole”
@@youtubealt243 solved dark matter 😎😏🔥🔥
@@youtubealt243 no, dark matter definitly makes positive gravity and clusters around galaxies, so its not negative mass
Also, eletric and nuclear forces are trillions of times stronger than gravity, so 2 pieces of negative mass would be able to stay together if those other forces were stronger than their gravity
@@dabs4270 Here’s another fun fact:
We all knew that!
I was making a joke…
The apparent paradoxes are easily resolved by accounting for the differences between inertial and non-inertial frames of reference.
Sounds easier said than done
5:17 the Negative Block looked like he agrovated the Positive 5 block after giving it a Tap
Weight is the force felt by mass in a gravitational field. Mass is how much mass an object has. A volume of helium within another fluid in the presence of a gravitational field can measure negative weight, but still has positive mass.
"so, that's a bad sign" HAD ME LAUGHING.
I don't believe that the division by zero is a problem.
Yes you do have infinite speed, but zero mass, and the overall implication of this for me is that there is nothing there. In other words, after the collision, the positive and negative mass cease to exist.
The thing is that if you have infinite speed, then you could say that object would immediately leave any finite appearing universe, and hence from our perspective, cease to exist.
I don't know how well this comment communicates how I understand it, but trying to grasp the idea of infinity does that sometimes.
I guess the question of where all the energy that went into the matter goes. I guess the negative-mass is made up of negative energy? That cancels out?? Does that make sense???? I suspect that's not how energy works, but I'm only a guy in youtube with a question mark key????????
@@pkmnfrk I mean, I you think about it mathematically, it makes sense:
5+-5=0
But you are right to question eg.
Is all the energy in the block negative?
Because if not my explanation does not work, as if for example the negative mass block has positive kinetic energy (ke), because if so then according to this then there is suddenly no mass for the ke to act on, and then presumably that energy must no longer exist breaking the conservation of energy.
But as another TH-cam commenter that is probably all I can say
This video is gonna blow up.
I think we found a new 3B1B successor
7:35
Blocks on the bottom upon touching: "ight we gon head out"
7:32 I literally died when the cubes disappeared.
I'd like to see negative anti matter.
Now that is some crazy stuff.
Then have negative matter and negative anti matter interact.
I bet that would be like dividing by zero and infinity at the same time.
If you think about it on a microscopic level it seems fairly intuitive, if you consider collisions as a result of exchanges of momenta between negatively charged electrons (as opposed to an entirely instantaneous force) which push eachother away. But if one of the objects has a negative mass then the motion is reversed and the objects will attract eachother (minus from negative mass and negative charge of one object cancel) when briefly within range of eachother's forces.
In any case it shouldn't produce anything classically too contradictory, it's all very analogous to classical electromagnetism whereby a negative mass charged particle subject to the Lorentz force behaves exactly like a positive mass particle of the opposite charged.
In that sense perhaps the division by zero really is an early classical foretelling of anti matter, in early quantum mechanics positrons were regarded as negative energy electrons.
The thing is negative mass would also have negative time since the negative mass would repel positive mass it would also have negative gravity. For instance a negative mass black hole would be the theoretical white hole due to its negative mass and time. The inverse acceleration problem is negated by the negative time.
4:00 When those blocks hit, all I can think to say is: "Noice."
Starting from the simplest model, would two negative-mass atoms stick together having started from a primordial (hot) state? When placing two negative charges together, their negatives do not cancel? Oxford hypothesized negative accelerations instead of negative masses?
This could be a good basis for some new sci-fi propulsion: negative mass engines
Maybe when most physicists talk about negative mass, they only mean the *gravitational* mass that appears in Newton's law of gravity F = -G*m1*m2/r^2 but not the *inertial* mass that appears in the law of motion F = m*a. If I'm not mistaken, these are initially thought of as being distinct concepts but both "kinds" of mass turn out to be the same and that's why we just use m to refer to both of them?
7:32 like that moment when object piercing through the whole universe
Nooooooooo the next video isn't out yet.
the reason objects don't go through each other is the electrons repel each other. if negative mass electrons have positive charge then they would attract towards normal electrons and they would both disappear in a puff of 0 total energy logic (protons too, but fission of positive matter to split out a proton would take energy ... not sure even what that means in a negative energy context.). if negative mass electrons have negative charge then they would repel, and 'normal' material science has a chance of occurring.
The way gravity works mentioned at 2:26 would man that, if you drop -1kg (of negative mass) towards a planet, it still drops down - except that the planet moves unnoticably AWAY from the negative mass, instead of moving unnoticably TOWARDS it. And even stranger, if you (try to) drop +1kg towards a planet with negative mass, the positive mass will fall AWAY from the planet. While the negative mass planet will still unnoticably move towards it, like a normal planet should.
Of course, all these considerations about gravity rely on the assumption that gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass. And I'm not 100% sure you can just assume that for such exotic concepts as negative mass.
7:26 why am I laughing at the blocks zooming off screen help 😭
7:37 hey, maybe that's how the big bang happened. An exotic particle collided with a normal opposite particle and the universe divided by zero
2:43 Negative mass: I'M GONNA GET'YA!!!
Positive mass: NOOOOOOOOOOO
wouldnt when a positive mass particle conides with a negative massed particle they would become a new particle with the energy added together. and when a particle collides with a particle with an equally opposite energy would cancel out.
Very interesting thought experiments. As a mathematical prospect it seems fine to explore the question as far as we can.
However - and I'm about to merely state my opinion rather than some positive claim so, take it with a grain of salt - it's less than reasonable to explore it from a physics perspective: as far as I know negative mass _isn't_ predicted by any working or accepted theory, contrary to what you think.
My understanding is that negative mass is an odd result of mathematical games played with some equations that aren't supposed to be used that way in the first place. For example, the Alcubierre Metric requires negative mass to produce its proposed geometry of spacetime. But the way Alcubierre arrived at his metric is by taking Einstein's field equations for getting the spacetime geometry given an observed distribution of mass-energy, and plotting a particular spacetime geometry in the equations in order to get what kind of mass-energy distribution would produce it...
The problem is, of course, that these equations are part of a theory that use them in the opposite way, to make predictions the Alcubierre one isn't, and couldn't be part of. It's merely a sandbox type of play, not unlike this set of thought experiments. In other words, there is exactly *zero* reason to think it could possibly describe a real, physical state of affairs. Rather, its result strongly suggests that it is in fact a wrong and useless approach from physics perspective (much like searching for some kind of 'life force carrier' because of baseless vitalist assumptions).
In physics it seems we're supposed to approximate real phenomena in order to explain them, not approximate hypothetical explanations in order to make-believe phenomena that have never been observed or predicted. So, mathematically speaking it's fine and fun; philosophically speaking it makes for interesting metaphysics; but physically speaking it makes no sense and clearly pertains to pseudoscientific thinking.
when is part 2 coming out?
Now someone has to come up with an engine that works by slamming stuff into a negative mass object to gain speed pretty much from nowhere
You get it at 2:40 & 7:35! "Exotic" matter need to invent the physic that "rule" it.
You could imaging that positive and negative matter don't interact with each other via the electromagnetic interaction. Then there is no more collision.
And for gravitation you could also imagine that there is no interaction OR (and this is more fun) tweak the Einstein field equation to get masses with the same signe attract each other and masses of different signe repulse each other.
Put some negative masses AROUND a galaxies to get the "dark matter effect" and some negative masses in between the galaxies to get the "dark energy effect".
Remember that all the law of physics are CPT symmetric and as demonstrated by Jean-Marie Souriau using the complete Poincaré group, including backward in time ("antichronous") motions, arrow of time reversal equals mass inversion of a particle. With negative masses and energy you get plenty of new physics.