If a particle had negative mass where would it go?

[WhyIsItSo]

but that is not correct. two neutrally charged masses, one of +M, the other of -M will accelerate, but they will accelerate in the same direction. the -M mass will acclerate toward the +M mass and the +M mass will accelerate away from the -M mass.

...and there will be some net acceleration. Assuming you are correct of course. I have no idea on this issue, yet I question your certainty about the behavior of +M and -M. From the discussions so far, I don't see that any negative mass (or negative matter even) is known. On what do you base your assurance concerning their behavior?

 

[Hurkyl]

If they had a net curvature then wouldn't a photon have mass?

I don't see why.

I do think they curve space-time, but with equal amonts of positive and negative curvature.

I'm not really sure that that means -- but I will point out that "light in a box" will gravitate almost identically to a massive object with the same total energy. (Because the momentum terms will roughly cancel out. I'm not really sure what to think of the momentum flow terms, but I suspect that would be negligible too)

this mass causes the same amount of curvature in space-time as would any other mass of the same quantity

No, it wouldn't. The 0,0 components of the stress-energy tensor would be the same, but at least the other momentum terms would be very different.

the reality of negative mass leads to perpertual motion machine and the obsolesence of the conservation of energy.

Conservation of energy still holds -- the kinetic energy of the particle with negative mass will be negative.

 

[NoTime]

you've also done nothing to support your use of an absolute value function to apply to either gravitational mass or inertial mass.

Don't know that I have, don't know that I havn't.

the reality of negative mass leads to perpertual motion machine and the obsolesence of the conservation of energy.

Math works fine. No problem with conservation of energy.
But, no one has told me what force is acting on the -inertia.

 

[NoTime]

I'm not really sure that that means -- but I will point out that "light in a box" will gravitate almost identically to a massive object with the same total energy. (Because the momentum terms will roughly cancel out. I'm not really sure what to think of the momentum flow terms, but I suspect that would be negligible too)

I don't know how to put light in a box.
At least not enough to make more than electron or two worth of weight change.
Don't think anybody else does either.
Won't argue with the math, but like negative mass I'd have to see it done.
Trouble is a lot of mathamatical solutions are non physical.
I suspect that negative mass/inertia is one of them.

 

[Andrew Mason]

i think that gets answered when you come to the conclusion that there ain't no negative mass. ...

Rbj, you seem to be coming around on this (although I would not be emphatic that negative mass actually exists).

AM

 

[firstme]

Hey guyz, what are you talking about?
Antimatter or Negative matter?
Why can't you understand this all is a foolishness! what's is good with giving matter a sign? it is signless, just like mass.
just think, can you give sign to an Apple? (Negative apple and positive apple, what thiz means?)
i'm sorry if I'm wrong, ok?