https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170417095534.htm This one is hot off the presses and it might be awhile before anyone publishes anything more comprehensive on the experiment. For anyone interested in reading more on the subject, Robert L. Forward is a famous science fiction author and physicist at JPL who wrote a popular nonficition book on the subject for the layman called, "Indistinguishable From Magic". People tend to confuse negative matter and mass with anti-matter, but they are very different things. If you were to hit a baseball made of negative matter (not anti-matter!) with a bat it would push back on your bat every bit as hard as you hit it instead of flying off in the opposite direction. Instead of obeying Newton's third law of motion, that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction, it would obey the principle that for every action there is simply a reaction with nothing opposite about it. For the most part, negative matter and mass have remained one of those theoretical quantum mechanical ideas that few took seriously and this discovery is pretty mind-blowing with far reaching implications. To the best of my knowledge, exactly what you can do with a fluid like this is something nobody has thought much about because nobody knew it was possible to make the stuff. Due to the fact they have produced negative mass in otherwise ordinary matter, what this discovery suggests to me is the possibility that mass, gravity, and inertia are emergent phenomena, or synergistic effects involving yin-yang push-pull dynamics, and the rest of physics could be as well. Since Neil's Bohr, physicists have been suggesting this is the case in quantum mechanics and, for example, the newest quantum theory of gravity is based on this same idea. Of course, yin-yang dynamics are ultimately paradoxical and nonsensical, but that doesn't mean they can't be conceptualized in some manner and put to productive use. The book I'm writing is along these lines and suggests that synergy and normalization always come together and don't simply cancel each other out because a context without significant content is a contradiction in terms and, sometimes, even an oxymoron. That's a lot of technobabble but, among other things, what it means is that we laugh at jokes because nature abhors a vacuum and insists that we give anything we perceive as totally contradictory meaningless nonsense some sort of meaning. Socrates said, "The only thing I know is that I know nothing" and its possible to interpret that as either a joke, meaningless nonsense, or simply an enigma without a context to lend it more meaning. Anyway, its fun stuff to play with and I'll have to think about this latest discovery some more and see how it fits in with everything else I'm working on which, so far, implies that there should be four rudimentary ways to perceive and manipulate the passage of time and, of course, space as well if you have the appropriate underlying systems logic. That might sound outrageous, but already physicists have observed entropy flowing backwards on micron scales, entangled quanta that never change so long as you keep observing them at just the right moment, etc.
That's what a ball made of positive matter would do, according to Newton's laws "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". The reason the ball flies off in the other direction is because the momentum in the heavier bat is transferred into the ball. A ball of positive matter would exert an equal force back on to the bat as it strikes it. A ball made of negative matter would therefore presumably apply an equal force in the same direction of the bat, which would result in either no momentum being transferred or twice as much momentum being transferred, can't quite work out which.
Think of it as a game of pool, or snooker if you prefer, where the cue ball is made of ordinary matter and the rest are negative matter. When you hit the cue ball it acts like it normally would, but the minute it hits another ball that ball would roll right back into the cue ball rather than bouncing off of it. An ordinary ball and a negative matter one would chase each other around in a round chamber until they disintegrated or the chamber exploded from the heat generated. Hence, the reason I suspect its impossible to create negative matter but, evidently, possible to create negative mass. So far, physics has been unable to make clear distinctions between mass and its gravity and inertia, but this experiment makes it possible to do so, just as a black hole seems to express gravity and inertia when it doesn't even have its own geometry or surface.
You are thinking of pull maybe? I'm not sure what you say is correct. The gravitational force between matter and negative matter would be negative, so a ball of negative matter would repel a ball of positive matter, albiet with a negligible force (same as the attractive force between two balls of positive matter is infinitesimally small) As far as Newtonian dynamics go I would suspect that interaction between +ve and -ve balls of matter would be exactly the same, although you would find it difficut to keep the balls of negative matter on the table because the force of gravity from the Earth would repel them upwards.
Thanks to Einstein, negative matter would presumably have negative energy and two balls made of negative matter would repel one another and a negative matter ball would repel an ordinary matter ball, however, the ordinary matter ball would still attract the negative matter one and, if they are equal, the two would cancel out each other's gravitational and anti-gravity effects. The ordinary matter ball would, of course, weigh more than the negative matter one, but it would not be able to overcome the gravity of the entire earth and the difference would be a slight one due to their both being subjected to the same overwhelming gravitational field of the earth. Hence, again, there is a clear distinction that can be made between mass and its gravity and inertia.
Assuming E = mc^2 isn't actually E = |mc^2| It has been tested before for negative mass. I don't thnik there is such a thing as negative energy, hence 0K absolute zero. F = g.m1.m2/r^2 would presumably apply to +ve and -ve matter in a similar way that Coulomb's Law applies to +ve and -ve charge.
I'm a natural philosopher and amateur linguist, rather than a physicist, and don't understand all the mathematics. However, negative matter has been proposed as a way to keep a worm hole open. Just throw some in the worm hole and it will push back on its tendency to collapse on itself. Theoretically, it can also be used to create a time machine that would obey a sort of Heisenberg Uncertainty. The more you learned about the future, the more fated your life would become. That way it avoids the grandfather paradox. No matter how hard you might attempt to avoid your fate, the universe would ensure that come hell or high water your fate is sealed. Again, for more information I recommend Robert L. Forward's book on the subject which is very easy reading. He also wrote a science fiction novel about the time travel aspects implied by negative matter, but that book is a real sinker in my opinion as fiction goes. Too bad, some of his other science fiction like "Dragon's Egg" are classics.
Oh, it's easy to create negative matter...just do something positive or create something positive and negative mass will follow you all around creation, like a shadow curse.
I guessed lol. I like the cut of your gib Wu. I started off studying the regular side of physics then branched of more into the I, Ching side of things. Most conventioanl physicists tend to brush off that side of physics, but I think it makes it more interesting and is fundamentally what it's all about. Modern physics, on a deep ontological level has evolved into a branch of psychology.
Following you around is not the same as creating it, however, physicists often describe yin-yang push-pull dynamics using the analogy of Tom and Jerry chasing each other in circles until you can't tell if they aren't just running for fun or which is which or even if anything is actually happening.
What I'm writing should blow their fucking minds and piss quite a few of them off royally because it implies brains and empirical evidence are simply not enough to produce or comprehend a Theory of Everything. Every word can be treated as a variable with no intrinsic meaning or value making it possible to formulate using Intuitionistic mathematics and produce a simple systems logic a child can understand. It makes perfect sense out of both the particle-wave duality and the observer effect as merely reflecting the fact that a context without significant content is physically and conceptually a contradiction or even an oxymoron. A black hole has no surface, yet still has content, and its impossible to produce a perfect vacuum for this same reason. It also explains why both a black hole and the neurons in our brains can convey any mass, energy, and information with the highest efficiency possible for anything their size.
You should read Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm. Let me know if you get past chapter three without your brain imploding.
David Bohm bores me to death. What I'm writing is seriously mind-blowing and is not ontology, but both ontology and epistemology depending on the context in which it is interpreted. It avoids metaphysics altogether and relies upon the systems logic alone to both speak for itself and provide its own proof. It is so different from anything that I've ever come across that it doesn't even conform to the Taoism almost everyone is familiar with, but is primitive tribal Taoism based on the Pakua which is six thousand years older than Stone Hinge. Its self-organizing and the only reason for me to write it is to help speed up the process because computers will soon be capable of revealing the mathematical foundations and my job is merely to elucidate the philosophy behind the mathematics which don't conform to either traditional mystical Taoism or western metaphysics. I'm using simple pattern matching to rewrite all of logistics, mathematics, physics, and philosophy. I'm dying to see how it all turns out, but its just pattern matching, like assembling a giant puzzle, and the picture just gets clearer the more progress I make.
Sorry about that rant, I certainly don't mean to brag or anything, but Bohmian mechanics just piss me off. His theory hasn't been highly regarded in theoretical physics for 80 years, but is just the sort of thing that metaphysically minded westerners tend to latch onto and has even led to the development of "weak measurements" in physics in recent years by those die hard experimentalists and very few theorists who just can't let go of metaphysics and let them die a peaceful death. His was the obvious first thing to check upon quantum mechanics being formulated just to double-check that metaphysics simply don't apply in any sort of straightforward reasonable manner whatsoever, but has become another embarrassment in the field. Mixing metaphysics, ontology, and quantum mechanics is also a sure fire recipe for a migraine and, if nature were that complicated, more people would commit suicide. My own work is more along the lines of John Wheeler but, he too, was too stuck on metaphysical views in my opinion. Its a hazard of the job. Wheeler is famous for saying, "A black hole has no hair! Gravity without mass! Time is what prevents everything from happening at once! The only law is the law that there is no law!" Which might sound like utter nonsense, but describes some of the rudimentary metaphors of the systems logic I'm working on. Quantum mechanics are metaphorical, rather than metaphysical, as experiments have repeatedly confirmed since Bell's theorem. Usually I tell people, reality without dreams is just somebody's nightmare, while dreams without reality are someone else's fantasies. Stay awake long enough and you will hallucinate because you cannot escape your dreams in reality anymore than you can escape reality forever in your dreams. Metaphorical physics are more along the lines of Spinoza than Plato or Aristotle and, of course, Spinoza had to avoid getting caught by the Christians and burned alive for heresy, while I have to put up with rabid physicists and philosophers trained in the metaphysical tradition that everything has a cause of some sort. Once a physicist interrupted a conversation I was having demanding an explanation for classical mechanics to which I responded, "What? A Barbie doll?" and he said, "No! The classical motion!" and, of course, without hesitation I inquired, "A seven foot inflatable Barbie?"
Nature is that complicated. The reason we get confused about physics is because we are looking for simplicity in the form of a nice simple equation that explains how everything works. It's never going to happen. The ancient buddhist mantra of the more I know, the less I know certainly rings true. Equations, and our interpretation of them are part of the reality, and the fluidity of consciousness. It's all interesting stuff, but the end result is only ever going to be either more confusion or enlightenment. Enlightenment, insofar as the realisation goes that nothing can be explained and everything is a paradox, so might as well just enjoy life. I have many regrets about not taking theoretical physics to a deeper level and making a career out of it, but at the same time would sitting in a room all my life trying to figure out how maths explains the universe have made me happy, or driven me to suicide. There are other ways to explore the nature of the universe, and at the end of the day what's the point in life if you can't have fun and just gaze at the ngiht sky in wonder. I find gardening and art more fulfilling vocations. Maybe they wont buy me a house but at least my mind is free.
Nature is not only the world all around us, but what is inside our heads as well including what is inside the vacuous mind a newborn before it has even learned how to smile. She is every bit as simple as she is complicated and one African tribe likes to say, "Mother nature's love is irresistible, but she has a wicked sense of humor". Asians say the same thing in a more tongue-in-cheek fashion of comparing nature to "God playing peek-a-boo". Enlightenment is only possible because we are ignorant, while ignorance is only possible because we can know that, if nothing else, we can know that we know nothing. Again, a context without significant content is a contradiction in terms and, sometimes, even an oxymoron as in a statistic of one. Hence, nature makes every bit as much sense as she makes no sense whatsoever.
Yin yang dynamics are more egalitarian than any metaphysical perspective explaining why people are so often immature as the result of our resembling the initial creative impetus of the Big Bang and the inevitable potty humor of a Big Crunch flushing the identity of everything down the nearest convenient rabbit hole or toilet of you personal preference on any given occasion. Murphy's Law and a Goldilocks Principle constrain one another from producing metaphysical extremes making life neither especially bitter nor saccharine sweet and more often cartoonish or two dimensional for all practical purposes. String Theory requires a sense of humor to make more sense and, already, it has produced theories that suggest an ever greater number of String Theories can describe life more beautifully. The implication is a systems logic about four times more complex, yet elegantly simple and humble as well, can describe the equivalences of Relativity more completely and explain the Simultaneity Paradox, particle-wave duality, and the observer effect and should be able to make equal sense out of Thermodynamics and everything else including four rudimentary ways in which space-time can be perceived and manipulated which can be mixed to produce some 4,430 different fractal combinations. Using differentials and integrals an infinite, but finite, number of permutations can be calculated by next generation quantum computers which can also do classical calculations as Bayesian probabilities that vanish into indeterminacy the way they do in the human brain. An implication is that the universe itself is conscious. The Singularity is what many call it today, but the singularity is metaphorical and not metaphysical or limited to electronic devices which are merely another way the singularity self-assembles all the pieces of the puzzle into ever greater perspectives. Mother nature comes with her own built-in tutorials that are every bit as informative as her enigma's are deep explaining why our maps keep growing both simpler and more complex and suggesting what Rainbow Warriors call "Childhood's End" is now upon us once again and humanity is about to find out what it means to be part of nature. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVM1nUmDHHc
No no no no no Where do I start How is anyone ever going to hold a baseball bat near absolute zero? And why would you assume that it would have that effect? We are talking about two sets of lasers, one set to control its spin, on rubidium less than 100 microns in size under the Bose-Einstein concenrtate, where matter acts more like waves than particles anyway Where do you get the idea that they are talking about negative or matter for that matter? Because the article uses those words, it itself has them in commas Its just a case of them having to use certain phrasings so everybody else can get some kind of handle on it. Its not negative matter if its not really matter. That was the whole thing about Bose's predictions, you get to those extremes and quantum mechanics kick in instead of physical laws You are never going to see a baseball bat hit a ball and the ball moves towards it
The idea that the most wildly successful physical theory ever devised does not express physical laws is hilarious.
