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

[Vaporo]

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

So it would interact with regular mass normally? In other words, if I give a piece of negative mass a shove, it goes in the direction I shoved it?

In case you can't tell, I haven't taken a physics course yet. I'm not sure what all those variables stand for.

[Kryten]

In case you can't tell, I haven't taken a physics course yet. I'm not sure what all those variables stand for.

E=energy, p=momentum, m=mass, c=the speed of light (3*10⁸m/s)

[ZetaX]

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

Yes, but it also cannot tell the difference between m and -m. Any solution to it should give us another solution with negative m (and p). So how do you get that conclusion¿

So it would interact with regular mass normally? In other words, if I give a piece of negative mass a shove, it goes in the direction I shoved it?

In case you can't tell, I haven't taken a physics course yet. I'm not sure what all those variables stand for.

No, K^2 is only talking about energy there, not momentum.

Edited December 15, 2014 by ZetaX

[K^2]

Yes, but it also cannot tell the difference between m and -m. Any solution to it should give us another solution with negative m (and p). So how do you get that conclusion¿

That's why I said "Without getting into field theory." The short of it is that mass behaves like a norm of a vector, so it's always non-negative. Unless something really strange is going on.

[megatiger78]

I have no idea what half of this is....

[merendel]

That's why I said "Without getting into field theory." The short of it is that mass behaves like a norm of a vector, so it's always non-negative. Unless something really strange is going on.

I dont know I'd kinda consider finding a substance with negative mass a rather strange situation. Its all theory though as we have no empirical evidence that negative mass is even possible. Just a theory that states it might be an explanation for another poorly understood theory and we could be totally off the mark and there's another phenomenon at work.

[Superfluous J]

If unicorn horns can be ground up into a powder that - when consumed - cures every ailment, why do we still build hospitals?

Same answer as the answer to your question. We haven't found a way to mass produce it. Or even find it. Or even prove it exists. Or even think it exists.

[tomf]

K^2 for the type of neagative mass you are talking about how would it move if

- I prodded it with a stick?

- I gave it a charge and attempted to attract it with an opposite charge or used a magnet to attract it? (i.e. electormagnetic interation)

- I placed it near a large normal mass? (i.e. gravitational interaction)

I guess the direction of the force experienced by the normal object being intercted with is also relevant.

[ZetaX]

You are aware that K^2 essentially said that it should not exist for theoretical reasons¿ Anyway, all your answers follow from Newton's laws as already discussed in this thread.

[LaydeeDem]

This thread:

EDIT:

Edited December 16, 2014 by Nutt007