IF ENgative Mass Falls Up Why Don't We Build a No-Fuel to orbit Rocket?

[megatiger78]

so if negative mass is safe could we do this?

[Kryten]

We don't know if negative mass is even possible, nevermind how to produce it.

[RainDreamer]

Exactly. If we have negative mass, we could possibly build such a thing. We can control gravity. We can generate infinite power. We can build warp drives (skip the whole going to orbit thing, we can frigging go anywhere by contracting and expanding space with that kind of matter). The problem is, we haven't found it yet, and we aren't even sure if it exists anywhere.

Edited December 14, 2014 by RainDreamer

[lajoswinkler]

Exactly. If we have negative mass, we could possibly build such a thing. We can control gravity. We can generate infinite power. We can build warp drives (skip the whole going to orbit thing, we can frigging go anywhere by contracting and expanding space with that kind of matter). The problem is, we haven't found it yet, and we aren't even sure if it exists anywhere.

I don't get it. How does a negative mass object give you "infinite power"?

[RainDreamer]

I don't get it. How does a negative mass object give you "infinite power"?

Perpetual motion engine.

[ZetaX]

Perpetual motion engine.

That's not an answer.

If it's only the gravitational mass that is negative there will definitely no problems with Newtonian physics and no infinite energy. Also having negative inert mass might have weirder effects.

Edited December 14, 2014 by ZetaX

[magnemoe]

If you assume negative mass react to gravitation with pushing away it will let you get to space easy, However once is space you would not be able to get into orbit you would simply go away from earth, sun and finally the galaxy, accelerating all the way. Yes you could drop the negative mass but then it would work like fuel and its cheaper rocket fuels

[Ralathon]

That's not an answer.

If it's only the gravitational mass that is negative there will definitely no problems with Newtonian physics and no infinite energy. Also having negative inert mass might have weirder effects.

The problem is that something with negative mass reacts very counterintuitively with the rest of the universe. Think about it; F=m*a. So if you have a ball of normal matter that hits a wall it will experience a force away from the wall and accelerate away from the wall. If you do the same with a ball of negative mass the force will still aim away from the wall, but since the mass is negative the ball will accelerate towards the wall. This increases the force, increases acceleration etc etc.

So using this concept you could build something like this:

Make a big wheel with a nook on it, toss a bit of negative mass into the nook and the wheel will start to spin ever faster. This isn't breaking physics, since conservation of energy is preserved. For every joulle of kinetic energy you drain by spinning the wheel you also pump -1 joulle of kinetic energy into the negative mass. So the total energy of the system is always 0. But since there is no upper limit to how much kinetic energy something can contain you can just keep draining ever more energy without ever running out.

[ZetaX]

That's why I explicitely talked about gravitational mass. Negative inertial mass would not only wreck Newton's laws, but also come necessarily with negative energy and whatever other strangenesses.

[trekkie_]

I suspect all negative matter and energy, if exists, are long since pushed to the outer reaches of the universe...if there is such a thing as the outer reaches of the universe. sort of like a surfactant does to particles in water.

The only place we could find some, would be rare places where it would be trapped because its surrounded on all sides by matter since its inception, which would effectively bottle it up. but that's a tall order, because the mass of its surroundings would have to be equal from all directions otherwise there would be an imbalance, allowing it to push and escape. and that matter would also have to be quite dense. I'm not sure if it's even possible since if there is a mass differential, it will be shifted out of the center of the sphere, and then due to its new position, there would be an even greater imbalance in the mass surrounding it. this would be true regardless of how dense or thick the matter surrounding it is. so the only way to trap negative particles, would be to literally encase it in the absolute center of a 100% perfect sphere at the instance of its creation, or a very powerful magnetic field.

[magnemoe]

That's why I explicitely talked about gravitational mass. Negative inertial mass would not only wreck Newton's laws, but also come necessarily with negative energy and whatever other strangenesses.

Yes I thought negative gravitational mass.

I also found out how to use it. Simply to get the dry weight of your rocket to 1 kg, if you have return cargo you can set dry weight including cargo to 1 kg.

You don't want an negative mass but you want it low. In this setting the dry weight itself don't matter so you could add stuff like atmospheric engines to increase ISP as you are only lifting fuel. Landing the SSTO would also be simple as its so light.

This would work even better for planes, you could build them ship sized and only have to lift the fuel for the trip, you would have to fill up with ballast if you had no cargo.

[SolarLiner]

Under some theories, matter with negative masses exists ... in wormholes. They are here to "repell" the "walls" of the wormhole and help it not collapse.

In fact, thise "negative mass matter" is only here to fill holes on those wormhole theories, so that a theorical thing on a hypotetical theory.

[magnemoe]

I suspect all negative matter and energy, if exists, are long since pushed to the outer reaches of the universe...if there is such a thing as the outer reaches of the universe. sort of like a surfactant does to particles in water.

The only place we could find some, would be rare places where it would be trapped because its surrounded on all sides by matter since its inception, which would effectively bottle it up. but that's a tall order, because the mass of its surroundings would have to be equal from all directions otherwise there would be an imbalance, allowing it to push and escape. and that matter would also have to be quite dense. I'm not sure if it's even possible since if there is a mass differential, it will be shifted out of the center of the sphere, and then due to its new position, there would be an even greater imbalance in the mass surrounding it. this would be true regardless of how dense or thick the matter surrounding it is. so the only way to trap negative particles, would be to literally encase it in the absolute center of a 100% perfect sphere at the instance of its creation, or a very powerful magnetic field.

Worse, it would accelerate away from where it was created, the stronger gravity the faster, then it would accelerate away from its galaxy, accelrating all the time it would go relativistic pretty soon, making it very hard to find, also if it hit something it would probably break down because of the energy.

[lajoswinkler]

Perpetual motion engine.

I still don't get it. How would that machine work? If you're aiming for something that rotates under a mass and negative mass, it will not rotate just like "magnet motors" don't work. Stuff comes to equilibrium of forces and stops when initial kinetic energy is spent on friction.

[YourEverydayWaffle]

Under some theories, matter with negative masses exists ... in wormholes. They are here to "repell" the "walls" of the wormhole and help it not collapse.

In fact, thise "negative mass matter" is only here to fill holes on those wormhole theories, so that a theorical thing on a hypotetical theory.

That's one of the big reasons that traversable wormholes are impossible (or so we think). Non-traversable ones are fine, which supports a lot of theories about entanglement, but the -energy crisis is keeping traversable ones from being possible.

[Vaporo]

I still don't get it. How would that machine work? If you're aiming for something that rotates under a mass and negative mass, it will not rotate just like "magnet motors" don't work. Stuff comes to equilibrium of forces and stops when initial kinetic energy is spent on friction.

I'll explain the diagram posted on the previous page:

I'm no physicist, though, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

First thing though, negative matter and antimatter are NOT the same thing (but you probably knew that). Antimatter is essentially just regular matter, but in an opposite state. Negative matter behaves very, very differently from regular matter.

The first thing about negative mass is that it reacts oppositely to applied forces from normal mass. In other words, If I try to push on a piece of negative matter, it will try to fly back into my hand. If you were to launch a piece of negative matter into a wall, it would accelerate towards the wall (And most probably destroy it.) Therefore, to safely hold a piece of negative mass, you would need some kind of magnetic box that can apply forces in whatever direction is needed to keep it still inside the box.

Now, for the diagram. The purple ball represents a negative mass. The little hook on the bottom represents a magnetic "trap" that can hold the negative mass on the wheel (or else it would fly off into space if it hit the physical top or bottom of the trap). However, the box only applies forces in the up or down direction, allowing the mass to be pushed to the left side of the trap. Since the negative mass applies force in the opposite direction as the force being applied to it, it continues to push to the left, applying ever-increasing force and causing the wheel to turn. If you don't attach some kind of generator to the center of the wheel to disperse the ever-building momentum, the device will eventually tear itself apart due to centrifugal forces.

Did I explain it good enough?

As for the OP, we don't build an energyless flight-to-orbit system because we don't actually have any negative mass. We haven't generated any of it, haven't observed it anywhere in nature, and aren't even sure whether it can exist.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Vaporo

[mckamx]

I think there is a design flaw in your negative mass motor. Because it is moving in a circle, the outer "hook" of your negative mass compartment will apply a force vector on the negative mass directed towards the center of the circle. However, because this is negative mass, it will respond with an acceleration directly away from the center of the circle. The normal mass hook will resist this acceleration, leading to a positive feedback loop that will break the hook.

[Vaporo]

I think there is a design flaw in your negative mass motor. Because it is moving in a circle, the outer "hook" of your negative mass compartment will apply a force vector on the negative mass directed towards the center of the circle. However, because this is negative mass, it will respond with an acceleration directly away from the center of the circle. The normal mass hook will resist this acceleration, leading to a positive feedback loop that will break the hook.

Hence the magnetic box in my example. The magnets apply attractive force from the outside of the wheel (or repulsive force from the inside), causing the mass to be pushed inward.

[rtxoff]

Hence the magnetic box in my example. The magnets apply attractive force from the outside of the wheel (or repulsive force from the inside), causing the mass to be pushed inward.

That is not going to work, this trick would also work without negative mass if it would actually work but it doesn't.

Also the thing with negative mass is big nonsense. Mass can't be negative. It's against everything we know about what mass actually is and how it manifests itself.

It's easy to assume that antimatter would create negative mass but unfortunately it's complete nonsense.

[Vaporo]

That is not going to work, this trick would also work without negative mass if it would actually work but it doesn't.

How so? How would this perpetual motion machine (supposedly) work with regular mass?

Edited December 14, 2014 by Vaporo

[rtxoff]

How so? How would this perpetual motion machine (supposedly) work with regular mass?

Just turn your aparatus upside down and you are simulating negative mass with regular mass, you get it?

[ZetaX]

The whole idea should work. Essentially, yours is just one of many ways to generate energy and negative energy from nothing; and there is no reason why this should not be possible: E+(-E)=0 surely is correct. But I have some nitpicky engineering detail for you:

If you don't attach some kind of generator to the center of the wheel to disperse the ever-building momentum, the device will eventually tear itself apart due to centrifugal forces.

You would also need to somehow disperse the momentum of the negative mass. To make things worse, friction won't work as it would accelerate it even more, just as about anything else with normal matter.

You need to another magnet or something like that.

[lajoswinkler]

I'll explain the diagram posted on the previous page:

I'm no physicist, though, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

http://i.imgur.com/wC9VqTo.png

First thing though, negative matter and antimatter are NOT the same thing (but you probably knew that). Antimatter is essentially just regular matter, but in an opposite state. Negative matter behaves very, very differently from regular matter.

The first thing about negative mass is that it reacts oppositely to applied forces from normal mass. In other words, If I try to push on a piece of negative matter, it will try to fly back into my hand. If you were to launch a piece of negative matter into a wall, it would accelerate towards the wall (And most probably destroy it.) Therefore, to safely hold a piece of negative mass, you would need some kind of magnetic box that can apply forces in whatever direction is needed to keep it still inside the box.

Now, for the diagram. The purple ball represents a negative mass. The little hook on the bottom represents a magnetic "trap" that can hold the negative mass on the wheel (or else it would fly off into space if it hit the physical top or bottom of the trap). However, the box only applies forces in the up or down direction, allowing the mass to be pushed to the left side of the trap. Since the negative mass applies force in the opposite direction as the force being applied to it, it continues to push to the left, applying ever-increasing force and causing the wheel to turn. If you don't attach some kind of generator to the center of the wheel to disperse the ever-building momentum, the device will eventually tear itself apart due to centrifugal forces.

Did I explain it good enough?

As for the OP, we don't build an energyless flight-to-orbit system because we don't actually have any negative mass. We haven't generated any of it, haven't observed it anywhere in nature, and aren't even sure whether it can exist.

No, just no.

You pushing a piece of negative mass is interacting with it via electromagnetic force, not gravity. An iron cube made of negative mass iron is supposed to be the same, only it would be repelled by gravity. It would accelerate upwards at 9.81 m*s^-2. That's it. I could catch it with my hand and tie it to a cube of normal iron of the same, but positive mass and that system would be floating (disregarding the buoyancy now).

You couldn't make any perpetual motion machine using negative mass. Similar to repelling and attracting magnet poles, these things move while there's enough kinetic energy to overcome friction. Negative mass wants to go up, positive down. You could turn that into rotation, but briefly. Then equilibrium wins and motion stops. That's the case with any "magnet motor" out there. It's all crap made by frauds, btw.

[Vaporo]

Just turn your aparatus upside down and you are simulating negative mass with regular mass, you get it?

Huh? The device has nothing to do with gravity.

No, just no.

You pushing a piece of negative mass is interacting with it via electromagnetic force, not gravity. An iron cube made of negative mass iron is supposed to be the same, only it would be repelled by gravity. It would accelerate upwards at 9.81 m*s^-2. That's it. I could catch it with my hand and tie it to a cube of normal iron of the same, but positive mass and that system would be floating (disregarding the buoyancy now).

You couldn't make any perpetual motion machine using negative mass. Similar to repelling and attracting magnet poles, these things move while there's enough kinetic energy to overcome friction. Negative mass wants to go up, positive down. You could turn that into rotation, but briefly. Then equilibrium wins and motion stops. That's the case with any "magnet motor" out there. It's all crap made by frauds, btw.

The magnets don't create perpetual motion, the just contain the negative matter, as it would not interact safely with regular matter. The perpetual motion comes when the negative mass interacts with the regular mass of the wall of the container.

Am I missing something here?

You would also need to somehow disperse the momentum of the negative mass. To make things worse, friction won't work as it would accelerate it even more, just as about anything else with normal matter.

And I think you're right about that.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Vaporo

[K^2]

That's why I explicitely talked about gravitational mass. Negative inertial mass would not only wreck Newton's laws, but also come necessarily with negative energy and whatever other strangenesses.

Negative energy still has positive inertial mass. Without getting into field theory, E² = p²c² + (mc²)² has the same solutions for ±E.