|
negative energy
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-05-07 19:00:24
|
|
Snice there was no new thread in physics ill create one, ... lets discuss negative energy and possibly negative mass, with these we would be able to create true antigravity devices and warp engines and free energy (by displacing equal amounts of negative and positive energies from ntohing, obeys law of conservation). But sadly it doesnt get much attention at all. But im just rambling cause I have to write a term paper about it
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: negative energy
|
| You'd need a LOT of negative energy if you were gonna defy gravity on Earth. And I have no clue what you mean by warp engine.. |
|
Re: negative energy
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-05-11 11:28:50
|
|
Well negative mass would have anti gravity properties already... if it exists, such that it would repluse form normal mass instead of being attracted. And a true warp drive, not the Antimatter drive from Star Trek uses a good amount of negative engery to form a tear drop shaped bubble that bends space time around the craft rather than moving. this could achive faster than light travel. This all heavily speculated, but most likly deserves more than one or two labs that are working on it.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: negative energy
|
|
if it exists thats right, a mass will always be a positive unless something is done to it, however if that happened it could no longer be classified as a mass. you can have a mass with a negative charge but it will still have some sort of mass to attract. But then we come to space where a mass, without gravity has effctivly no mass, so with an ammount of energy released at one point will judge the speed at which you travel, so a machine that could charge energy and release it could allow us to surpass the speed of light, so a random guess a formula... E=C (e for energy and c for the speed of light) the exponents are unknown, an example: E*some exponent*=*some number x the speed of light*C so a certain amomunt of energy will give you double the speed of light or so. this is just an idea. So how would you deal with stoping...? accuracy would be thrown right out the door... ok in all of this i got lost, im trying to say that i believe that a negaitve mass would be impossible to find or create, my views only. 
Endless |
|
Re: negative energy
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-05-16 07:58:50
|
|
Negative mass and energy have true negative properties not like negative charge. Negative charge isnt negative it is used to discribe the flow of charge fields, there are very few things that are truly negative or a lack of something. Negative mass would be a certain point of space-time that is lacking mass. When an object approachs near light velocitiesit gains mass.. by the time you reach half the speed of light your mass will double and its an exponential gain with a aysmptote at the speed of light that so that you need a more and more energy to reach light speed but never reaching it. Thats why warp drives would be critical, the craft wont move, but space its self.. its a nice workaround to relativity
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: negative energy
|
|
wouldnt a negative mass just implode on itself?...
Endless |
|
Re: negative energy
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-05-17 08:35:48
|
|
Same reason why a postive mass doesnt just dissipate into space.. and that reason is completely unknown
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: negative energy
|
|
O_O That's really weird. That'd mean that there's a space that contain less than nothing. I should ask my physics teacher about this. |
|
Re: negative energy
|
|
would a negative mass just suck every thing into itself until it was balanced? like a black hole? 
|
|
Re: negative energy
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-06-16 15:20:23
|
|
Well math says it would do the oppisite by having a reverse affect on gravity and push all positive mass away
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: negative energy
|
|
doesnt it repels negative mass and cancel the efect of positive mass? what i mean is that if theres more positive mass than negative it will be atracted, anyway if theres more negative it will repel positive but because of its nature it does not create big clusters of mass cause it repels itself therefore it can never be in higher concentration than positive mass. |
|
Re: negative energy
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-06-19 20:14:23
|
|
Well I would think that negative/postive mass reactions would be similar to nueclear and electric charge reactions only that it would be oppisite that postive mass atracts postive mass, so negative mass would atract itself and positive and negative would repel regardless of which mass would be greater.. that nature of negative mass is completely unknown as that none has ever been made/found... but this is based on previuos knowledge of the other forces in which positive and negative aspects are around to test
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: negative energy
Link |
by shadybones
on 2005-06-22 19:15:42
|
|
I think some are confused with the terms anti and negative. The anti's are physical opposites, in that when combined, they physically = 0, where as negatives are energetic opposites, and when combined have energy = 0. I have also thought about negative mass as a means to travel accross land and space, but sadly, I believe it to be a waste of time and thought. The fact of the matter is that gravity is too weak a force, and thus...um...negative gravity would be just as weak. For earthbound applications, just think of the difficulty in controlling something that perminantly wanted to float away. For space travel, again, not a strong enough force to accomplish anything. As for warping, I dont see how a perminant repelling mini-force gets you anywhere closer to jumping accross space. I think mono-poles are a much more interesting and valuable technological advance to research. They're conceptually the same as nega/regular mass, but 1000X stronger.  |
|
Re: negative energy
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-06-22 20:23:32
|
|
Gravitational force is the weakest.. but it does cost us 14 billion to launch 4-5 people out of the Earths field. Negative mass would leave Earths gravitational field on its own. Plus using negative energy fields is the only mathmactically proven(wormholes dont work.. time=0 in the center, impossible to travel) method of travel faster than the speed of light which is almost a critical element in humans desire to roam the stars. It works out by creating a field of negative engery surrouding the craft in a rain drop like shape so that it bends space that distance in front of it would reduce in size and behind it growing in size, effectivly not moving the craft but space itself. Mono-poles should eb studyied along with negative energy Plus with this new alternative energy thing people are fixed on, how cool would it be to creat a simple device that would take nothing and seperate it into equal amounts of negative and positive energies.. free never ending energy.. the the prospect of it should have hundreds of scientists working on it, but rather they all choose to debate particles
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: negative energy
Link |
by shadybones
on 2005-06-24 22:33:49
|
|
Could you post a link to a study or report on negative mass/energy? I'm not really informed on the subject so I can only comment so much. But I do know the basics, and the most important principle of the universe is that you cannot get something from nothing. Wormholes, warping, and what you describe negative energy doing all sound like beliefs to me, rather than theories. Like cave men dreaming of going to the moon. Sure, it might be possible/correct, but either way it makes absolutely no difference; cave men aren't going to space, and we aren't traveling among the stars. A waste of thought, just like the particle debates you mentioned earlier. I personally think physicists have take a wrong turn somewhere and have ended up in an area where no other study explores: the impracticle and totally useless. Great, we discovered the origins of the universe, but we still dont have a moon base. Teriffic, we've just proven the string theory, but I still drive off 200 yr old technology and get 60% of my energy by burning coal. |
|
Re: negative energy
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-06-25 11:53:43
|
|
Yes you can not get something from nothing, but from nothing you can get something and something less than nothing. Last I checked there were only two or three labatories devoted to the experimentation of negative energy. Right now the progress is like, a cave man doing all the math of figuring out how much trust is needed to escape from Earths atmosphere but cant becuase he doesnt know how to forge steel. To just not study something becuase it might not happen in your lifetime is an excuse physicists dont know of, we dont care. If you study deeply in the history of physics you find that for most time it is physicists thing they know everything about the world and study weird little things here and there like we are know, but then someone finds something truly amazing in that little thing. ALSO the rate of technogical progress in this century is AMAZING not ever before has there been such a dramatical diference in culture and technogoly in 100 years as this past 100. To be a physicist is to study the things no one cares about, if you dont like it, be an engineer
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: negative energy
Link |
by shadybones
on 2005-06-25 13:16:10
|
|
Engineers make usable the technology that scientists discover. Discovery is the goal, but why not discover things that will acutally effect people? There are liturally an infinite number of discoveries to make, we just have to think of the questions. Why today we choose the miniscule over the life-sized problems, I dont know. Again, I speak in general. And sure, you might be able to get + and - =nothing, but it will take energy to separate them, so it's not really 'nothing', is it? |
|
Re: negative energy
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-06-25 13:21:38
|
|
well it might not take energy to pull energies apart, there could be away to create some theing that naturally atracts energy to it.. and have some weird field thing going on and bam seperation.. who knows.. and that was the least scientific post i made.. plus I believe that the others sciences are more in to discovering usefull effective items, like chemistry.. cause the physics of how to make a bluiding and of the sort are already done and being left to the engineers
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|