Negative mass (edited and gravedug)

Can somebody please help me by telling me what is wrong, if there is anything, with the following? This took a while to type, as, for some reason, posting a topic with 'greater than' and 'less than' symbols is sure to mess the whole thing up, so, though I've done my best to check, there may be some typos.


Consider an observer (O) and an observer-block (O'). When x'=x and t'=t, the observers are at the same point. However, after t seconds, Galileo gives the relative transformation x'=x-vt. Both instances give the volume of the block as 'n' cubic meters, where



However, shows that t' does not equal t, and x' does not equal x-vt, as an observable speed should increase and decrease when related to two different velocities. The constant speed of light (c) gives x'=γ(x-vt), where , by the Lorentz transformation.

Galileo gives m=m'; however, by Lorentz, m' exceeds m after t seconds where v is greater than zero. Increasing v to a velocity greater than lightspeed produces a complex number, and gives
, where n is a rational number and .

If moving in three dimensions, the particle's volume is



As V is relative to v, as is m, v=c gives m=∞ and V=0, where the contraction by Lorentz produces an approach of the particle's density towards infinity, with v approaching c. So V<0 gives m<0, when moving faster than lightspeed.

Therefore, m'=- γm, when traveling over 299,792,458m/s, and the particle has negative mass.

F=ma gives, for a negative-mass particle, an acceleration towards the force (F) and not away from it, as with a regular, positive-mass particle. However, Lorentz gives
In this region of spacetime, t' is a complex number and the particle travels in the -t direction (back in time); this transformation necessitates the negative-mass particle's acceleration in the direction of -F.

Edit:

Further proof arises of negative mass as we examine the four dimensional volume of the particle, which is positive; so V becomes larger than zero when traveling below lightspeed, zero when traveling at lightspeed, and less than zero above lightspeed; and this must be inversely true for mass (as mass becomes infinite at v=c, not 0).

Edit 2:

If anybody was actually interested, it turns out that this is already a hypothesis for a subatomic particle called a tachyon, so far as I can see.

 

On a more serious note, while I have a feeling that I'm not qualified enough to take part in this discussion, I have to ask: isn't contemplating exceeding the speed of light as purposeless as contemplating dividing by zero?

In both cases crazy values are received, but it's little more than a slightly entertaining curiosity, seeing how those values are but a side effect of calculating something that simply cannot be done.

Or am I wrong?

 

I'm certainly not qualified to speculate on any of this crap! They have mathematical reasons why we can't exceed the speed of light; but, aside from being interesting theoretically, if the 'problems' can be solved, then it's not impossible.

For example, the funny, counter-intuitive behavior of negative-mass particles that I said something about near the end is one of the reasons people say that negative mass can't exist; but if what I said is even nearly right, then that's not a problem at all, and the reason people say that is merely a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept.

To prove a point, when you say it's impossible to divide by zero, it's not. If you divide ten apples into one part, you get ten apples; if you divide ten apples into five parts, you get two apples; however, if you divide ten apples by one half part, you get twenty. But where do the other ten apples come from? Obviously it can't be twenty apples; it's twenty half-apples. So if you divide ten apples into zero parts, you get an infinite amount of infinitely small apple-parts.

 

If you'd have needed help in nearly any field of medical chemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmacotherapy or pharmacology I'd have been more willing to help.

Physics was a class I passed with a B and moved on from about 7 years ago. I'm too lazy to sift though that mess and apply logic when Cataclysm was released a day ago.

 

It probably looks very complicated; but it's quite elementary and almost certainly flawed!

 

It's been over 10 years since I've done any calculus or physics...

 

My head has also expoded. What came out is:

If t becomes negative, and therefore a is negative, towards the Force, then in our perception of time, running forwards, the acceleration is still away from the force. By the schrapnel of equations left after my head exploded, I would say that when the v>c then time reverses BUT a negative mass moving backwards in time behaves the same as a positive mass moving forwards. My conclusion = Ow, my brain!

 

No, cause if you were in the process of exceeding lightspeed, time would seem to be playing backwards, as you're constantly traveling ahead of light, which makes the accelerations seem to go against the force, because they'll differ by a factor of -1.

 

That's if we're not using a loophole to create a bubble around ourselves and take our space with us as we travel superluminally. It's in effect, a portable spacetime that allows contraction ahead of the bubble and expansion behind it, while the inside suffers no inertial effects. Called Alcubierre drive.
Of course there's no current way to create a bubble so right now that's a hypothesis.
Are you sure we'd witness anything while traveling that fast naked? Our bodies and minds aren't made to witness things happening faster than light. There would never be a moment where anyone was about to go over the edge and did it unless the space around them was moving too, so you'd still see light traveling at 186000 mps in your relative space.
Seeing time go backwards? I can't assume we'd sense much of anything going faster than light. It would be over in less than a second, who knows how much time we'd lose in scale.
Indeed, traveling so fast would involve you getting to your destination before you even left.

 

Who cares if we wouldn't actually see anything actually? The point is that it's measurable. If we were only working with things that we could physically see, we'd be stuck with little more than classical mechanics; and we could chuck out things like quantum theory and studies of atomic structure &c. because they're just too small.

 

Well that's fairly obvious, but who are you to tell people what they see when they travel faster than light? Admittedly, I get it, but seriously. If time is ticking backward all around you as your negative mass hurtles through space faster than light, is your movement considered spacial or temporal? Or both? Will this allow us to alter the flow of time in some way, other than a rag-tag band of survivors in a dystopic future?

 

So from which point of view are equations measuring? Is the observer breaking lightspeed or a negative mass object which is being observed?

I still think an object travelling backwards in time and towards the force is the same event as an object travelling forwards in time away from the force. Then again, my brain exploded, so what do I know?

 

I think it would be both spacial and temporal, because it's moving in four dimensions rather than one, two, or three; and I was just speculating on what might happen: that's the point.

The equations measure the movement of the object from a reference frame that isn't the object's frame of reference itself. That's why it has velocity &c.

Sorry, I must've misunderstood what you were saying, earlier. Yes, I think that it's the same event that had happened previously; but it's occurring backwards this time; so it's the same event, but not from the same point of view.

 

Gravedig in case anybody was actually interested in the idea. It turns out (so far as I can tell) that this is already an established theoretical hypothesis for a subatomic particle called a tachyon. So much for that.

 

Is it the same an anti-photon? Travelling backwards in time at the speed of light? The existence of the backward-time particle is also theorised to explain the superluminal speed of gravity, so it may be the same as a graviton.

The way light waves shone through parallel slats harmonise with each other even when the individual photons are separated by time is explained as interference from all possible antiphoton wavelengths, meaning the event in the future has happened and a time negative influence reaches back to affect the past.

By George, I think you've mathematically formalised the mechanism behind Grossenschwamm's prescience!

 

It could be that certain events happen faster than light registers them, so they go into the past and are viewed in dream format. I still don't see how causality is broken. As far as I can tell, having knowledge of a future event and not realizing that it is in fact the future is the same as not having knowledge of a future event.

 

If light traveling backwards through time mathematically formalizes his prescience, and according to the double slit experiment where a particle of light observed will not pass through both slits, does that mean that once he tells us about the prescience (thereby observing it) he's no longer prescient?

 

I would say that all events create a ripple in space time, backwards as well as forwards, and causality includes some prescience now and again.

The conclusion is that you can't change the future if you know it, otherwise you wouldn't know it and it wouldn't be the future. Prescience is a echo of an event that has already (will have) happened, or else it's not prescience at all.

 

The disturbing thing is I'm fueling the events that happen in my dreams. This is where my god dilemma enters into the picture. I'm in control of every aspect of my dreams; the events in the shows or movies I watch mirror the tempo of my own desires, my own ideas. All of the 14th of April happened in a dream; the soapstone hippo I tried to make, the Wes Craven movie I watched...I don't think I know what's real anymore. I mean, is what we see real? Or is it just in my head?

 

The undefined term in that sentence is "I". If your identity is eternal and omnipotent and omniscient, how can you think in terms of "I" and "my"?

Everything is a soup of component particles: you, me, the sun, time, space... and every particle is god. Any reflection of the whole is an imitation of the divine, including any consciousness at all, mosquito or monkey.

It's a paradox and a dilemma but the solution is simple: your ego and your sense of the divine are mutually exclusive. Thus, to behold the face of god is to be destroyed utterly.

Hmm, I think I just surpassed you in crazy talk today, Gross. We are like a couple of hobos under a bridge.