excuse me, and i know it's rude of me to just barge in after so much time but - since you identified yourself as a physics prof i dont really know where to ask this at six in the morning. I was just listening to an old bit by someone on gravitons and string theory (not claiming to understand but trying and i think scientific ebooks or casts make for great soothing background noise) - i do weird things all the time after all.
Turns out gravitons as i google it , like 95% of reality according to what i read here some time before ;-) , are not proven to exist due to some mathematical problem but it says its masless and therefor travels at the speed of light (in theory) and it just got in my head "negative mass"
Is there anything you know of that writes about negative mass or has anyone taken it into account (mathematically speaking) in a way that i might be able to read or understand lol.
I mean what does that do to einsteins most famous and what does that do to the whole universe if 95% is already missing ? That would mean even more because the negative mass would have to be subtracted from the numbers but the particles would be there ? or not ?
just wondering, right, totally okay if you dont answer, its been a while after all .. i hope you dont get beeps on your phone from steemit at 6am
and i hope you're ok ...
and i'm sure you're very busy, have a great day !!
Graviton are hypothetical since they have not been observed yet. Actually, their properties are such that we cannot observe them with the experimental setups of today. However, theoretically, in the framework of quantized gravity (which is also an open problem), they are well-defined.
So in short, you are right with the graviton.
On the other hand, there is no such a thing as a negative mass. One could get 'effective masses' that would act as 'negative masses' in some context, but the word 'effective' is important.
For the rest of the question, I didn't get it :D
why does everyone keep telling me that , lol, even physics professors "i dont get what you're saying"
i always felt like i was born on proxima centauri and fell through a hole in space to a place that's alien to me but it seems to get worse lately :p
i meant actually purely hypothetical and mathematical, just for the sake of the thought what would it do the formulas like when you introduce infinity to einsteins pretty one i personally read that "all you need to propel at the speed of light - or faster - is infinite energy"
which has had me nailed to the cross and burned to the stake but im used to that since the dark ages , cats and witches and all that, purely as a mathematical concept
if you introduce the minus sign to mass
its nothing important, just one of my
thoughts :)
thanks for replying despite my total lack of presence and late to the post !!!!
For the fun fact: So far there is no way to get faster than the speed of light. But if you just want to get to the speed of light, you indeed need some infinite amount of energy. If you want to be more reasonable and get very very very... very close to the speed of light, you only need so much gas that there is no way to build a ship large enough :D