Negative Mass exists, Newton's Laws opposite

[7icarus7]

Most people have a very negative view of the existence of negative mass. When negative numbers first appeared in this world, there were many people who could not accept it. It seems that negative mass is such a state for some people.

However, times change, and sometimes objects that seemed impossible to exist come into existence. The universe is currently expanding at an accelerating rate, and since gravity is the dominant force on a cosmic scale, a repulsive force or anti-gravity is needed for the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, which is a phenomenon that can be explained by the existence of negative mass.

The current standard cosmology is the ΛCDM model. This model explains the dark energy problem by introducing a entity that has positive energy density and exerts negative pressure.
However, cracks in this ΛCDM model have been increasing recently, and accordingly, the time is approaching when other possibilities and interpretations should be seriously examined.

The ΛCDM model consists of Λ(Lambda) and CDM(Cold Dark Matter), but it has not succeeded in explaining the source of Λ, which is the core, and the vacuum energy, which was a strong candidate, has an unprecedented error of 10^120 between the theoretical value and the observed value.
CDM has also not been discovered despite continued experiments. In addition, particle accelerator experiments, which are a completely different approach from WIMP detectors, have not found a candidate for CDM.

Furthermore, the existence of the Hubble tension problem has recently become clear, and in January 2024, the DES (Dark Energy Survey) team raised the possibility that the cosmological constant model may be wrong, and in April 2024, the DESI (Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument) team announced results suggesting that the cosmological constant model may be wrong. Since it is only the first year of results, we will have to wait a little longer for the final results.

1)Dark Energy Survey team
https://noirlab.edu/public/news/noirlab2401/?lang

The standard cosmological model is known as ΛCDM, or ‘Lambda cold dark matter’. This mathematical model describes how the Universe evolves using just a few features such as the density of matter, the type of matter and the behavior of dark energy. While ΛCDM assumes the density of dark energy in the Universe is constant over cosmic time and doesn’t dilute as the Universe expands, the DES Supernova Survey results hint that this may not be true.

An intriguing outcome of this survey is that it is the first time that enough distant supernovae have been measured to make a highly detailed measurement of the decelerating phase of the Universe, and to see where the Universe transitions from decelerating to accelerating. And while the results are consistent with a constant density of dark energy in the Universe, they also hint that dark energy might possibly be varying. “There are tantalizing hints that dark energy changes with time,” said Davis, “We find that the simplest model of dark energy — ΛCDM — is not the best fit. It’s not so far off that we’ve ruled it out, but in the quest to understand what is accelerating the expansion of the Universe this is an intriguing new piece of the puzzle. A more complex explanation might be needed.”

2)Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument team
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/#gsc.tab=0

"It's not yet a clear confirmation, but the best fit is actually with a time-varying dark energy," said Palanque-Delabrouille of the results. "What's interesting is that it's consistent over the first three points. The dashed curve [see graph above] is our best fit, and that corresponds to a model where dark energy is not a simple constant nor a simple Lambda CDM dark energy but a dark energy component that would vary with time.

Through the acceleration equation, we know that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

In the acceleration equation, (c=1)

(1/R)(d^2R/dt^2) = -(4πG/3)(ρ+3P)

In order for the universe to accelerate, the right side must be positive, and therefore, (ρ+3P) must be negative. Here ρ is the mass density, so for the universe to expand acceleratingly, (ρ+3P)<0, and by dimensional analysis, this requires a negative mass density.

This is a phenomenon that can be explained if there is a negative mass density or negative pressure. Currently, the mainstream explains the accelerated expansion of the universe by assuming an entity with negative pressure.

However, we still do not know what the source of dark energy is. So, the cosmological constant model and the vacuum energy model are also just hypotheses and models. Therefore, an entity that has positive energy and exerts negative pressure is also just a hypothesis and a model.

ΛCDM model assumes an entity with positive energy density but exerting negative pressure. However, there is a serious problem with this negative pressure claim.

1)Positive energy density (positive mass density) and negative pressure are logically contradictory because the source of pressure is kinetic energy

Note that the effect of the pressure P is to slow down the expansion (assuming P>0). If this seems counterintuitive, recall that because the pressure is the same everywhere in the universe, both inside and outside the shell, there is no pressure gradient to exert a net force on the expanding sphere. The answer lies in the motion of the particles that creates the fluid’s pressure. The equivalent mass of the particle’s kinetic energy creates a gravitational attraction that slows down the expansion just as their actual mass does.
- An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics P1161)

Pressure in the kinetic theory of gases

3P=(Nmv^2)/Volume

In order to exert negative pressure, a negative kinetic energy component is required, and in order to have negative kinetic energy, it appears that one must have a negative mass or imaginary velocity. However, because it assumes positive mass density (from the positive energy density), it seems to be a contradictory claim in itself.

2)Even in the case of light with the greatest kinetic energy component relative to the total energy, the pressure is P=(1/3)ρ. Expressing the mainstream argument slightly differently, we can express it as follows:

P= -ρ = -3((1/3)ρ)

The claims of the vacuum energy model require a being with a kinetic energy three times (P_Λ=−ρ_Λ=−3((1/3)ρ_Λ)) greater than that of light.

There are other problems with the claim that it exerts negative pressure while having positive energy density. I will skip over them because they are not important to this article. In any case, the negative pressure claim is not yet a confirmed truth, and it is also a hypothesis and a model.

The accelerated expansion of the universe can also be explained by negative mass or negative energy. In other words, negative mass or negative energy is one of the candidates for the accelerated expansion of the universe.

 

[7icarus7]

Since the accelerated expansion of the universe was reported in 1998, we have heard many claims about dark energy.

But were you at the scene of the event (observing the accelerated expansion of the universe)?
Did you see the scene of the event?

If we think about it, we didn't see the scene of the accelerated expansion incident, but heard the explanation of the incident through someone (a scientist or researcher). What we observe is not the cosmological constant, but the redshift, and the cosmological constant or the vacuum energy model is only one hypothesis for the observed redshift. Of course, this is the most supported hypothesis at present. However, the description of a specific incident can be a simple description of the facts, or it can include the observer's claims and opinions about the observed facts.

Let's go back to the scene of the incident in 1998!

This is because the observers in this incident may not have only reported the observation facts about the incident, but may have added the observer's claims or opinions.


1.The first result of Friedmann equation for accelerated expansion was negative mass density

Nobel lecture by Adam Riess : The official website of the Nobel Prize
Refer to time 11m : 35s ~
https://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/?id=1729

=====
Negative Mass?
Actually the first indication of the discovery!
=====

HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team : if Λ=0, Ω_m = - 0.38(±0.22) : negative mass density
SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team : if Λ=0, Ω_m = - 0.4(±0.1) : negative mass density
*This value is included in a paper awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe.

In the acceleration equation, (c=1)

(1/R)(d^2R/dt^2) = -(4πG/3)(ρ+3P)

In order for the universe to expand at an accelerated rate, the right side must be positive, and therefore (ρ+3P)must be negative. In other words, a negative mass density is needed for the universe to expand at an accelerated rate.

They had negative thoughts about negative mass (negative energy). So, they discarded the negative mass (density). They corrected the equation and argued that the accelerated expansion of the universe was evidence of the existence of a cosmological constant. However, the vacuum energy model has not succeeded in explaining the value of dark energy density, and the source of dark energy has not yet been determined.

They introduce negative pressure, which hides the negative mass density in the negative pressure, but this does not mean that the negative mass density has disappeared.

ρ_Λ + 3P_Λ = ρ_Λ + 3(-ρ_Λ) = - 2ρ_Λ

If we expand the dark energy term, the final result is a negative mass density of -2ρ_Λ.

2. Logical structure of the standard cosmology
We need to look at the logic behind the success of standard cosmology.
Let's look at the equation expressing (ρ+3P) as the critical density of the universe.

(1/R)(d^2R/dt^2) = -(4πG/3)(ρ+3P)

Matter + Dark Matter (approximately 31.7%) = ρ_m ~ (1/3)ρ_c
Dark energy density (approximately 68.3%) = ρ_Λ ~ (2/3)ρ_c
(Matter + Dark Matter)'s pressure = 3P_m ~ 0
Dark energy’s pressure = 3P_Λ = 3(-(2/3)ρ_c ) = -2ρ_c

ρ+3P ≃ ρ_m +ρ_Λ +3(P_m +P_Λ)= (1/3)ρ_c +(2/3)ρ_c +3(−2/3)ρ_c = (+1)ρ_c + (-2)ρ_c = (−1)ρ_c

ρ+3P ≃ (+1)ρ_c + (-2)ρ_c = (−1)ρ_c

The logic behind the success of the ΛCDM model is a universe with a positive mass density of (+1)ρ_c and a negative mass density of (-2)ρ_c. So, finally, the universe has a negative mass density of “(-1)ρ_c”, so accelerated expansion is taking place.

The current universe is similar to a state where the negative mass (energy) density is twice the positive mass(energy) density. And the total mass of the observable universe is the negative mass state.

 

[7icarus7]

Dear jhixon,

I am an amateur researcher, but I have been studying negative mass for a long time.

If you are interested in negative mass,
I recommend you read some of the papers I have written.
The negative mass model you are thinking of may have already been studied by someone, and you may gain more knowledge about the properties of negative mass.

1.Computer Simulation of the Kinetic Properties of Negative Mass

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZtS7cBMIc4


2.Pair Creation Model of the Universe From Positive and Negative Energy
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275056453
A paper that tried to explain dark matter and dark energy simultaneously with negative mass

3.Dark Matter is Negative Mass
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324525352
This is a paper that tried to explain dark matter with negative mass.
In particular, the part that counters the wrong claims about negative mass that exist in the academic world is worth reading.

False claims about negative mass
1) The vacuum instability problem
2)The runaway motion problem
3) Perpetual motion problem (wheel problem)

4.Dark Energy is Gravitational Potential Energy or Energy of the Gravitational Field
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360096238
This paper claims or proves that the source of dark energy is gravitational potential energy with a negative value. Therefore, this paper explains the dark energy problem using negative equivalent mass.

 

[jhixon]

Since the accelerated expansion of the universe was reported in 1998, we have heard many claims about dark energy.

But were you at the scene of the event (observing the accelerated expansion of the universe)?
Did you see the scene of the event?

If we think about it, we didn't see the scene of the accelerated expansion incident, but heard the explanation of the incident through someone (a scientist or researcher). What we observe is not the cosmological constant, but the redshift, and the cosmological constant or the vacuum energy model is only one hypothesis for the observed redshift. However, the description of a specific incident can be a simple description of the facts, or it can include the observer's claims and opinions about the observed facts.

Let's go back to the scene of the incident in 1998!

This is because the observers in this incident may not have only reported the observation facts about the incident, but may have added the observer's claims or opinions.


1.The first result of Friedmann equation for accelerated expansion was negative mass density

Nobel lecture by Adam Riess : The official website of the Nobel Prize
Refer to time 11m : 35s ~
https://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/?id=1729

=====
Negative Mass?
Actually the first indication of the discovery!
=====

HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team : if Λ=0, Ω_m = - 0.38(±0.22) : negative mass density
SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team : if Λ=0, Ω_m = - 0.4(±0.1) : negative mass density
*This value is included in a paper awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe.

In the acceleration equation, (c=1)

(1/R)(d^2R/dt^2) = -(4πG/3)(ρ+3P)

In order for the universe to expand at an accelerated rate, the right side must be positive, and therefore (ρ+3P)must be negative. In other words, a negative mass density is needed for the universe to expand at an accelerated rate.

They had negative thoughts about negative mass (negative energy). So, they discarded the negative mass (density). They corrected the equation and argued that the accelerated expansion of the universe was evidence of the existence of a cosmological constant. However, the vacuum energy model has not succeeded in explaining the value of dark energy density, and the source of dark energy has not yet been determined.

They introduce negative pressure, which hides the negative mass density in the negative pressure, but this does not mean that the negative mass density has disappeared.

ρ_Λ + 3P_Λ = ρ_Λ + 3(-ρ_Λ) = - 2ρ_Λ

If we expand the dark energy term, the final result is a negative mass density of -2ρ_Λ.

2. Logical structure of the standard cosmology
We need to look at the logic behind the success of standard cosmology.
Let's look at the equation expressing (ρ+3P) as the critical density of the universe.

(1/R)(d^2R/dt^2) = -(4πG/3)(ρ+3P)

Matter + Dark Matter (approximately 31.7%) = ρ_m ~ (1/3)ρ_c
Dark energy density (approximately 68.3%) = ρ_Λ ~ (2/3)ρ_c
(Matter + Dark Matter)'s pressure = 3P_m ~ 0
Dark energy’s pressure = 3P_Λ = 3(-(2/3)ρ_c ) = -2ρ_c

ρ+3P ≃ ρ_m +ρ_Λ +3(P_m +P_Λ)= (1/3)ρ_c +(2/3)ρ_c +3(−2/3)ρ_c = (+1)ρ_c + (-2)ρ_c = (−1)ρ_c

ρ+3P ≃ (+1)ρ_c + (-2)ρ_c = (−1)ρ_c

The logic behind the success of the ΛCDM model is a universe with a positive mass density of (+1)ρ_c and a negative mass density of (-2)ρ_c. So, finally, the universe has a negative mass density of “(-1)ρ_c”, so accelerated expansion is taking place.

The current universe is similar to a state where the negative mass (energy) density is twice the positive mass(energy) density. And the total mass of the observable universe is the negative mass state.

So based on the information you provided, the current models do show positive mass with a negative pressure may not completely work? I'm not saying that negative mass is the answer, as it has not been proven, just a possibility. I believe it will require some work to do before we will know whether or not this may work. I believe that this solves time working both ways, and many other issues. Not sure how time can be proved at this point, but the more I consider this bridging the gap, it may be possible. Would it be fair to say that if this is proven correct, that E=E can then be proven? Also, did you perform all the math you included?

 

[Gibsense]

I have only just noticed this thread and have quickly skimmed it as best I can. My contribution may be irrelevant but -

• Black Holes spin (mostly) is this relevant to the discussion on 'arched disk' pointing up not down (can't say I understood the problem)
• Time backwards and Time opposite are not the same thing. The opposite direction is what it says. Backwards implies a reversal
  • e.g. if the universe is spherical then on the opposite side the direction of time is opposite even though it is always positive
  • If backward is regarded as reversal then the universe should shrink
• The accelerating universe may be illusionary depending on the shape of the universe
  • astronomers tend to assume all time points the same way whereas, in a closed universe, time points every way depending on position.
• Negative mass would have an analogy of a hump instead of a gravity well and be slightly time displaced

Or maybe imagination is not enough.

 

[jhixon]

The arched ring going above a black hole is what we were discussing. In "normal gravity" the ring would point downward as normal gravity pulls everything down due to gravity, however the ring has an upward trajectory which is in reverse of how gravity should work. Also the center of a black hole (the dark part in the middle) also bulges up in a hump which also goes against normal laws of gravity. At this point only negative mass has been shown to work in reverse from normal gravity. The real issue is that Nasa renders these drawings, so they are not actual photos. Still the gravity is working in reverse. Yes it would be reverse and not opposite. Poor choice of words on my part. Yesterday I found some information showing that negative mass can exist in our universe under those conditions, so only a few questions to confirm before this would be a working theory. Although scientists have viewed space expanding, like you said depending on our view this could be false. Time will tell....

 

[7icarus7]

If Adam Reiss, 2011 Nobel Prize winner says negative mass must exist in our universe and published this in his Nobel winning paper, then why is mainstream science not on board?
He not only shows that it's negative mass that is causing the reverse effects, but they also determined space was expanding due to this. Link posted below. You will find negative mass proof just past the halfway point.
https://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/?id=1729

You are misunderstanding the situation now.
Adam Riess obtained the negative mass value through the acceleration equation. However, Adam Riess thought that there was no such thing as negative mass, so he revived the cosmological constant and claimed that the accelerated expansion of the universe was evidence for the existence of the cosmological constant.

The fact that Adam Riess had negative thoughts about negative mass is also shown in the video.

Refer to 12m 35s ~

Days later... What does this mean?
There cannot be negative mass, but would Einstein's Cosmological Constant explain this acceleration?

He and his team discarded the negative mass density that resulted from the acceleration equation. And now, he (who failed to accept negative mass) is one of the mainstream representatives.

 

[jhixon]

You are misunderstanding the situation now.
Adam Riess obtained the negative mass value through the acceleration equation. However, Adam Riess thought that there was no such thing as negative mass, so he revived the cosmological constant and claimed that the accelerated expansion of the universe was evidence for the existence of the cosmological constant.

The fact that Adam Riess had negative thoughts about negative mass is also shown in the video.

Refer to 12m 35s ~



He and his team discarded the negative mass density that resulted from the acceleration equation. And now, he (who failed to accept negative mass) is one of the mainstream representatives.

Einstein's cosmological constant, is a coefficient that Albert Einstein initially added to his field equations of general relativity. He later removed it; however, much later it was revived to express the energy density of space, or vacuum energy, that arises in quantum mechanics.

So if Einstein removed it, then why are they still using it?

 

[billslugg]

Einstein did not predict the expansion of the universe, so he had to fudge his equation. Once determined to be a quantum effect, which Einstein did not deal with, the concept was revived and applied to the vacuum energy of space as it expands.

 

[jhixon]

Einstein did not predict the expansion of the universe, so he had to fudge his equation. Once determined to be a quantum effect, which Einstein did not deal with, the concept was revived and applied to the vacuum energy of space as it expands.

So if Einstein removed the cosmological constant from his theory, then the calculations of the universes mass being a negative value according the Adam Riess, would not show that negative mass is needed? He uses that to prove space expanding which is why he won a Nobel prize.

 

[billslugg]

Einstein was confused by Hubble's discovery the universe was expanding. The Cosmological Constant was added to account for it.
Then, it was found that space itself was expanding due to quantum effects, which explained it.
Then, much later on, in the late '90's, Adam Riess discovered that the rate of expansion was increasing very far away.
We already knew it was expanding but he saw an increase in the rate.
This increase in rate is attributed to Dark Energy, resulting from the expansion of space.
There is no need for negative mass.

 

[jhixon]

Einstein was confused by Hubble's discovery the universe was expanding. The Cosmological Constant was added to account for it.
Then, it was found that space itself was expanding due to quantum effects, which explained it.
Then, much later on, in the late '90's, Adam Riess discovered that the rate of expansion was increasing very far away.
We already knew it was expanding but he saw an increase in the rate.
This increase in rate is attributed to Dark Energy, resulting from the expansion of space.
There is no need for negative mass.

I understand, so if we are observing reverse gravity at black holes, and negative mass is the only thing to date that explains reverse gravity, then wouldn't it have to exist? Or another property having the exact same effects as negative mass? Dark energy is just a word for the unknown, it tells you nothing

 

[billslugg]

I am not aware of any such "reverse gravity at black holes".
The "thing" that has an "anti-gravity" property, on the scale of the universe, is the "energy in the vacuum", whatever that is.
For now, we call it "Dark Energy" as a placeholder until we figure out exactly what it is.
The fact we don't know what it is, does not mean it does not exist.

 

[jhixon]

I am not aware of any such "reverse gravity at black holes".
The "thing" that has an "anti-gravity" property, on the scale of the universe, is the "energy in the vacuum", whatever that is.
For now, we call it "Dark Energy" as a placeholder until we figure out exactly what it is.
The fact we don't know what it is, does not mean it does not exist.

I guess that's why Nasa is creating a negative mass engine...because it doesn't exist?https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20200000366/downloads/20200000366.pdf

 

[billslugg]

Right, but it is not matter as we know it. It operates only at the quantum level and at the cosmic level. It also does not fall upwards in a gravitational field. It's all in your article. Also, citing NASA is not a real good convincer these days. just sayin

 

[jhixon]

Right, but it is not matter as we know it. It operates only at the quantum level and at the cosmic level. It also does not fall upwards in a gravitational field. It's all in your article. Also, citing NASA is not a real good convincer these days. just sayin

So in the last section "conclusions of negative mass"
Nevertheless, some objects with the properties of negative mass are now being accepted in mainstream physics• But it’s not ”matter as we know it

 

[Classical Motion]

E=Mc2. This formula is not an amount conversion equation. It’s a scale conversion.

E has a slope. M has steps. E and M are the same, it’s just motion. State of change.

Energy motion can be graduated, continuously scaled. But mass motion only comes in chunks.

Mass motion can be independent from mass velocity. So mass motion momentum and mass velocity momentum can have a cosine quality. It depends on the state of the matter.

 

[jhixon]

Yes we agree on the state of the matter, as we really don't understand how this would even work. We do know that photons don't seem to be given off when dealing with negative matter, so the change in charge giving off photons apparently works different in reverse than in normal gravity/EM, so EM must also work in reverse and this is why no photons are given off so hence dark matter.

I wonder if the Higgs field that appears to give positive mass it's weight before disappearing, works in reverse. It appears and gives negative mass it's weight? Since this is also in a m field in reverse?

 

[Classical Motion]

In your context negative EM is absorption. With a motion gain, a mass gain. Emission is a mass loss.

Reverse EM, absorption occurs all the time.

Inverse EM. Negative EM. Negative motion. But only because you give motion a positive direction in the first place.

A change in reference does not change the dynamic, only the sight and measurement changes, not the action.

 

[jhixon]

In your context negative EM is absorption. With a motion gain, a mass gain. Emission is a mass loss.

Reverse EM, absorption occurs all the time.

Inverse EM. Negative EM. Negative motion. But only because you give motion a positive direction in the first place.

A change in reference does not change the dynamic, only the sight and measurement changes, not the action.

It absorbs the mass gain, so how would negative mass still be negative? So in a Higgs field vibrating higher gives mass, so less vibration could assign negative mass?

 

[Classical Motion]

Is absence a negative presence? It depends on how you assign your concepts.

 

[Atlan0001]

Is absence a negative presence? It depends on how you assign your concepts.

There is speed in the universe vastly slower, vastly more negative in speed, than you standing at rest next to a stop sign next to a railroad track on Earth.

Oops, maybe I'm thinking time reversal in thinking negative velocities to "stopped" on Earth! Or maybe there is no difference between +186,000mps to '0' and -186,000 to '0' except sign (+|-).

Do we have any instruments than can measure speed negative to '0' on Earth (thus measuring 'time dilation'?) . . . other than possibly atom smashers?!

 

[Classical Motion]

The quantum state is found thru-out this cosmos.

The quantum state can not exist without a constant time and a constant length.

The quantum states proves that SR and GR are not possible.