4 ms·
Would this be only gravitational mass that's negative or would it be both gravitational mass and inertial mass? Because negative inertial mass is zany and wier
by Pxtl 8y ago
Would this be only gravitational mass that's negative or would it be both gravitational mass and inertial mass? Because negative inertial mass is zany and wierds me out. Negative gravitational mass behaves in a way that makes sense to me.
- jperras 8y agoIt's explained in the paper.
- contravariant 8y agoSurely its inertial mass is going to remain the same? In the same way that positive and negatively charged objects behave more or less the same way.
- walrus1066 8y agoHas to be gravitational only. Otherwise positive mass is repelled from negative mass, but the negative mass accelerates towards it. So both masses accelerate in the same direction, until they have infinite kinetic energy! Conservation of energy & momentum would still hold, because negative mass would have negative energy & momentum, cancelling out that of the positive mass. But the above surely would be an 'unphysical' situation.
- jon_richards 8y ago>Negative masses are a hypothetical form of matter that would have a type of negative gravity – repelling all other material around them. Unlike familiar positive mass matter, if a negative mass was pushed, it would accelerate towards you rather than away from you. Pretty sure the author means both. A continuously accelerating system seems "unphysical", but we have an example already: the accelerating expansion of the universe.
- OscarCunningham 8y agoThe paper uses the version where both gravitational and inertial mass is negative. This means that everything wants to accelerate towards positive mass and away from negative mass. So positive mass naturally forms clusters (galaxies) and negative mass naturally spreads out evenly but concentrates around the galaxies (forming the dark-matter halos).