Exotic Energy/Matter: The Current State of The Art

So the purpose of this thread if I resist the urge to go off on tangents is to outline what is known WRT exotic matter and energy; especially negative energy and negative mass even though there are other forms of exotic matter and energy. I want to focus on negative energy and mass because those are necessary for FTL schemes and wormholes to be physically real solutions to SRT or GRT. Also because people who it seems they should know better often flat out state that there is no such thing and that science has never produced any.

To start with Classical electrodynamics, Quantum electrodynamics and the standard model all require negative energy and mass in order to arrive at the values and properties of standard matter and energy. The field equations would be unsolvable without it. The universe would collapse into a singularity and disappear if there were not negative energy and mass taken into account in those basic fundamentals of physics and cosmology. From these we note the bare mass of all matter including the matter than makes up your own body is negative mass/energy.

Next up is Casimir forces. Casimir forces have been demonstrated in many labs and the conditions inside the boundary area of a casimir cavity is negative compared the condition of space outside the casimir cavity.

next up is squeezed light. the bottom part of a wave form of squeezed light is negative. There are restrictions that apply though. the negative portion compared to the positive side is much always smaller in magnitude and duration. This appears to be a natural law. But never the less it is negative energy and it is very real because it persists for longer than the plank limit and of a magnitude at least slightly larger than the plank length.

The presence of normal energy and mass in certain configurations like toruses generates a perturbation in space that alters the probabilities of energies in the quantum vacuum such that negative energy densities appear inside the interior region (in the hole) of the torus. This is the source of the negative energy in Dr White's Warp interferometry experiment.

When particles group together in loose association- though the individual masses of all involved particles is positive; negative energy conditions must be present because the aggregate mass can be effectively zero. the only way this can happen is via the presence of negative energy or mass.

Jack Sarfatti says that for metamaterials with negative indexes of refraction to behave as they do there must be a real negative energy/mass present or the behavior of the system would be impossible. This is not yet fully accepted. his claim is subject to skepticism in the science community so far though some scientists allwo that he may be correct.

So these instances of negative energy and mass are real and are (with the above exception) part of accepted physics. Anyone from an armchair skeptic to a credentialed scientists that says differently is mistaken. There may be more. My intent was to be comprehensive but i may not be aware of some citable research or I may have forgotten some.

So for now i will go on to the next aspect of the state of the art on negative energy and mass: quantity.

The problem with some of these known sources of negative energy and mass is the quantity available from technology. This is aside from the bare mass issue because thus far there is no way to access the bare masses of fundamental particles. But for the ones we can the amount is always tiny and the duration is always small. exponentially smaller than the amounts needed to do interesting things like power a warp or a wormhole or an anti gravity device.

This problem would have appeared hopeless just a few years ago. But in 2012 through 2013 work on a diametric photon drive system appears to have come a ways towards solving the duration of a negative energy mass event. What they did was create a pair of circular tracks so that a laser beam was made to travel in a closed loop. then the squeezed light condition was applied to this laser beam. The squeezed light condition results in a portion of each cycle of the waveform dipping into the negative energy region. so in very tiny time intervals there are multiple negative energy regions around the interior of the track. But at the wavelengths and time intervals involved in the propagation of light essentially there is a contiguous and persistent region of negative energy/mass equivalence in the interior of the ring. So it appears to me that the problem of persistence of negative energy states is effectively solved or close to it. That leaves the problem of quantities because much more is needed according to current theories to produce large scale warp or wormhole effects even though there are techniques purported to greatly reduce the requirements. This remains to be seen. but the problem may see progress as rapidly as the generation and then the persistence problem has.

At the very least i (intuitively) expect the laser ring thing to produce enough negative energy to favorably alter the signal to noise ratio in warp, gravity, and wormhole experiments such that spurious signals as an explanation can be decisively ruled out in the near future. Remember that a wormhole need not be much bigger than an atom to be useful. a microscopic wormhole can be used for communications, observation, a power source, a source of endless exotic energy mass conversion, monopoles, sample return missions probing anything anywhere... and stuff that slips my mind at the moment if they are real.

I would argue that none of the things you mentioned are examples of real negative energy with a negative mass, they are all examples of relative negative energy, when something appears negative when compared to something else. For example the pressure generated by the Casimir effect is only negative relative to the pressure of the normal vacuum, it's not truly an example of negative energy which would produce a negative mass. The squeezed light and the torus example are exactly the same.

When particles group together in loose association- though the individual masses of all involved particles is positive; negative energy conditions must be present because the aggregate mass can be effectively zero. the only way this can happen is via the presence of negative energy or mass.

In what situation would a group of particles have zero mass and how do we know they have zero mass? I've never heard of such a phenomena, I'm very skeptical such a thing really exists. Here's a thread I created a few days ago in which I discuss some ideas relating to negative energy and negative mass: Bimetric Relativity, Twin Universe Cosmology, Negative Energy.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
I would argue that none of the things you mentioned are examples of real negative energy with a negative mass, they are all examples of relative negative energy, when something appears negative when compared to something else. For example the pressure generated by the Casimir effect is only negative relative to the pressure of the normal vacuum, it's not truly an example of negative energy which would produce a negative mass. The squeezed light and the torus example are exactly the same.

When particles group together in loose association- though the individual masses of all involved particles is positive; negative energy conditions must be present because the aggregate mass can be effectively zero. the only way this can happen is via the presence of negative energy or mass.

In what situation would a group of particles have zero mass and how do we know they have zero mass? I've never heard of such a phenomena, I'm very skeptical such a thing really exists. Here's a thread I created a few days ago in which I discuss some ideas relating to negative energy and negative mass: Bimetric Relativity, Twin Universe Cosmology, Negative Energy.

The arument has been made with reference to Casimir cavities but as far as i know not any of the other examples. plus it has to be said that if the states have the same effects or properties as the real article then there is no point in quibbling over it as it makes no difference. on top of that the bare mass thing has to be real. if it weren't we would not be here to argue about it

Now the physical universe is plainly prejudiced against negative energy and mass and goes to lengths to hide it. So you above question seems to be answered that the negative energy masses exactly equal but at least seem to never exceed the regular energy and mass components. i don't know if you read the article on that aggregate behavior but i will see if i can find the cite. and thanks for the link to your thread

a reply to: stormbringer1701

plus it has to be said that if the states have the same effects or properties as the real article then there is no point in quibbling over it as it makes no difference.

It does make a difference when it comes to Cosmology, you need to know what is actually negative energy and what just behaves like negative energy. Also it may make a difference when it comes to building actual warp drives because we will probably need real negative energy to actually warp space-time, emulations of negative energy most likely wont work in practice.

on top of that the bare mass thing has to be real.

What you are talking about is a renormalization process used to deal with infinities, and depending on the theory you use the bare mass may also be positive or negative, so it seems anything but clear to me.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Also it should be pointed out that the recent optical diametric drive experiment is not really a "drive" at all because it produces no usable thrust, it merely demonstrates a reversal of action–reaction symmetry by making the photons interfere with each other in a clever way. However it does not demonstrate the runaway motion which the diametric drive was designed to exploit, so it can hardly be called a diametric drive at all.

Furthermore, runaway motion is usually thought to be forbidden within general relativity, so there's a high chance the diametric drive is impossible to create. In my Bimetric Relativity thread I discuss one way that you can make negative energy compatible with general relativity by examining how the arrow of time is reversed for negative energy, eliminating the runaway paradox in the process.

WRT to negative mass or energy hidden in the aggregate properties of massive particles the search term is unparticles. I do not think this is the article i had in mind but it has the basic concept in it even though it is too brief to go into detail:

phys.org...

Its not a sum of negative dimensions. the sum is zero. but the zero aggregate mass from positive mass components seems to require negative energy and mass to balance the proven positive mass of the component particles.




instances of negative energy and mass seem to be popping up like weeds in the science lately.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: stormbringer1701

plus it has to be said that if the states have the same effects or properties as the real article then there is no point in quibbling over it as it makes no difference.

It does make a difference when it comes to Cosmology, you need to know what is actually negative energy and what just behaves like negative energy. Also it may make a difference when it comes to building actual warp drives because we will probably need real negative energy to actually warp space-time, emulations of negative energy most likely wont work in practice.

on top of that the bare mass thing has to be real.

What you are talking about is a renormalization process used to deal with infinities, and depending on the theory you use the bare mass may also be positive or negative, so it seems anything but clear to me.

I think you are mistaken that negative energy shown so far is not cosmic. if it produces even a tiny effect that is also present in the ideal cosmological negative mass or energy such as a negative index of refraction or a negative curvature of space as is the case in Dr White's toroid test article in the warp interferometry experiment then there is nothing to gainsay it's cosmic nature. it's only a matter of degree not of kind.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

First, let me say that, this being ATS and all, I am always extremely hesitant to click on any thread dealing with negative energy/mass, zero point energy, speculative FTL technology, etc. But, considering that it's you, stormbringer, I figured I would give it a shot. And you did not disappoint. Most of these threads usually turn out to be people attempting to push YouTube 'science' that has long been debunked. But you unfailingly do your due diligence when you get scientific on us.
I wanted to add one thing that you didn't bring up. NASA's recent experimentation with EM drive tech has seemingly caused light to break it's own speed limit. In the resonance chamber of their experimental design, it appears that the EM waves are propagated across certain areas at +C. This, of course, must be verified, and they are planning to conduct several tests in different conditions (vacuum chamber, etc.) to see if they have actually interpreted these initial findings correctly. But causing light to exceed C has a vast range of very interesting implications. Especially if it is happening the way they think it is. The only theoretical explanation that fits so far is that in the areas of the resonance chamber where this appears to be occurring the fabric of spacetime is being locally and very slightly altered to allow the apparent violation of Relativity.
In other words, it is being contracted at the leading edge of the wave and expanded behind it. This, my friends, it the very essence of the Alcubierre FTL (warp) Drive Theory. Basically, in relation to it's local piece of real estate, the photons are not exceeding C. But to an observer outside of the affected area of spacetime, the photons are going from point A to point B in a shorter amount of time than would be possible according to SRT and GRT.
This could explain why the EM drive technology produces thrust when, according to current understanding of the laws of Nature, it shouldn't.

Of course, this is all subject to verification of the apparent violation of C. I'm sure most of us recall the erroneous Neutrino experiment at Gran Sasso in Italy, where they initially reported a seeming violation of C in the speed of the particles they were detecting from the beam source at CERN. Ultimately, is was a faulty cable connection that caused the false readings. NASA has been very forward about stating that they have not actually confirmed their findings, and that much more testing is needed. Which is obviously the smart move. But, if confirmed, this would be as groundbreaking as penicillin, splitting the atom, the discovery of radiation, or bacon. It could potentially open up the entire Galaxy to mankind.
Personally, I haven't seen enough about it yet to develop a real opinion as to the veracity of the observations. There hasn't been a great deal of coverage concerning it because NASA is seriously downplaying it at this point. Which is the wise move. It is being considered nothing more than an interesting interpretation of the data, and worth follow-up to see if it is repeatable. And that's exactly how good science works. So, until it's confirmed or proven to be an error, all we can do is wonder. But it still makes me think of the potential technological outgrowth. Altair 6, here I come!

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: stormbringer1701

First, let me say that, this being ATS and all, I am always extremely hesitant to click on any thread dealing with negative energy/mass, zero point energy, speculative FTL technology, etc. But, considering that it's you, stormbringer, I figured I would give it a shot. And you did not disappoint. Most of these threads usually turn out to be people attempting to push YouTube 'science' that has long been debunked. But you unfailingly do your due diligence when you get scientific on us.
I wanted to add one thing that you didn't bring up. NASA's recent experimentation with EM drive tech has seemingly caused light to break it's own speed limit. In the resonance chamber of their experimental design, it appears that the EM waves are propagated across certain areas at +C. This, of course, must be verified, and they are planning to conduct several tests in different conditions (vacuum chamber, etc.) to see if they have actually interpreted these initial findings correctly. But causing light to exceed C has a vast range of very interesting implications. Especially if it is happening the way they think it is. The only theoretical explanation that fits so far is that in the areas of the resonance chamber where this appears to be occurring the fabric of spacetime is being locally and very slightly altered to allow the apparent violation of Relativity.
In other words, it is being contracted at the leading edge of the wave and expanded behind it. This, my friends, it the very essence of the Alcubierre FTL (warp) Drive Theory. Basically, in relation to it's local piece of real estate, the photons are not exceeding C. But to an observer outside of the affected area of spacetime, the photons are going from point A to point B in a shorter amount of time than would be possible according to SRT and GRT.
This could explain why the EM drive technology produces thrust when, according to current understanding of the laws of Nature, it shouldn't.

Of course, this is all subject to verification of the apparent violation of C. I'm sure most of us recall the erroneous Neutrino experiment at Gran Sasso in Italy, where they initially reported a seeming violation of C in the speed of the particles they were detecting from the beam source at CERN. Ultimately, is was a faulty cable connection that caused the false readings. NASA has been very forward about stating that they have not actually confirmed their findings, and that much more testing is needed. Which is obviously the smart move. But, if confirmed, this would be as groundbreaking as penicillin, splitting the atom, the discovery of radiation, or bacon. It could potentially open up the entire Galaxy to mankind.
Personally, I haven't seen enough about it yet to develop a real opinion as to the veracity of the observations. There hasn't been a great deal of coverage concerning it because NASA is seriously downplaying it at this point. Which is the wise move. It is being considered nothing more than an interesting interpretation of the data, and worth follow-up to see if it is repeatable. And that's exactly how good science works. So, until it's confirmed or proven to be an error, all we can do is wonder. But it still makes me think of the potential technological outgrowth. Altair 6, here I come!

I am following that thread and to tell the truth sometimes the math and theorizing causes my eyes to cross and glaze over due to the dense nature. And it is possible i may have missed it but the only FTL waves i can recall that were brought up as a potential cause for the results was evanescent waves when the RF penetrates the skin of the material of the dialectric or the frustrum. evanescent waves can go FTL but only in a tiny region under specific conditions and they cannot themselves transfer this FTL state to other objects. the way they were being discussed was that they could be the working fluid that imparts a bit of thrust (on the order of a measly photon rocket) to the system. I'm not sure that went anywhere and it was brought up as an alternate explanation to Dr white's own explanation.

But you are correct that Dr White does say that at it's heart the EM drive is also a warp drive. Just an introverted one.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Well, NASA did just test the basic drive tech in hard vacuum. While I have not seen anything relating to follow-up observations of the potential FTL issue, I'd imagine that was a parameter they were observing. And you make a good point about evanescence, I hadn't considered that. I'm honestly expecting it to be a miscalculation or instrumentation error, like the OPERA fiasco, but either way, it certainly gets the imagination going.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

but the zero aggregate mass from positive mass components seems to require negative energy and mass to balance the proven positive mass of the component particles.

My problem with this idea is that you're basically saying every particle contains positive and negative energy, which is why many physicists seem to believe that the negative energy is held in the gravitational field. If you read the thread I linked to then you already know why I don't agree with that idea. There's a reason why the worste prediction in physics is the number you get when calculating the total vacuum energy created by virtual particles. I think there is a simple solution which comes naturally with bimetric cosmology; you model virtual particles as not only happening in our universe but also occurring in equal amounts in the twin universe. Since they occur in equal amounts on large scales they cancel each other out and there is no vacuum catastrophe. There is also no need to say the bare mass of a particle such as the electron is negative because the virtual particles don't add as much mass as expected.

i failed to mention that Dr James Woodward of UC Fullerton thinks that the energy of the bare mass of leptons may actually be accessible due to the the way the equation for Mach interactions is structured. He has had some success working with the first term of his formulation of the mach inertial gravity equation and he believes that this term may allow for the separation of events leading to the renormalization of the sources terms of the equation.

*IF* this really is valid then the problem of availability of negative energy and mass would be easily solved.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

I think you are mistaken that negative energy shown so far is not cosmic.

You may be right, but I prefer a much more literal approach to negative energy because I think bimetric cosmology explains more than any other theory in cosmology. According to general relativity real negative energy should possess a negative mass and it should therefore be possible to detect negative matter particles which repel positive matter particles. None of the phenomena you mentioned actually exhibit signs of real negative mass, they are all approximations/emulations of negative energy. We have never actually detected negative matter with repulsive gravity, but if it exists we should never expect to find any since it will all be repelled away from our huge positive mass galaxy.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: stormbringer1701

but the zero aggregate mass from positive mass components seems to require negative energy and mass to balance the proven positive mass of the component particles.

My problem with this idea is that you're basically saying every particle contains positive and negative energy, which is why many physicists seem to believe that the negative energy is held in the gravitational field. If you read the thread I linked to then you already know why I don't agree with that idea. There's a reason why the worste prediction in physics is the number you get when calculating the total vacuum energy created by virtual particles. I think there is a simple solution which comes naturally with bimetric cosmology; you model virtual particles as not only happening in our universe but also occurring in equal amounts in the twin universe. Since they occur in equal amounts on large scales they cancel each other out and there is no vacuum catastrophe. There is also no need to say the bare mass of a particle such as the electron is negative because the virtual particles don't add as much mass as expected.

your post really did remind me of something i both forgot and if i hadn't i may have left it out anyway because there is no way to take advantage of it. It goes like this:

The energy of gravitation in a system of two gravitationally bound masses of different values is negative because in order to maintain the distance between the two positive energy must be constantly added to keep them apart.



As to the values of energy available from the vacuum the math says it is infinite. but practically you can only get really low values out of it. according to White and Woodward as well this is a result of probabilities and statistics. getting the low energy stuff out is simply the most probably outcome with even slightly more moderate amounts of energy being extremely improbable.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I think you are mistaken that negative energy shown so far is not cosmic.

You may be right, but I prefer a much more literal approach to negative energy because I think bimetric cosmology explains more than any other theory in cosmology. Real negative energy should possess a negative mass and it should therefore be possible to detect negative matter particles which repel positive matter particles. None of the phenomena you mentioned actually exhibit signs of real negative mass, they are all approximations of negative energy. We have never actually detected negative matter with repulsive gravity, but if it exists we should never expect to find any since it will all be repelled away from our huge positive mass galaxy.

It is literal. if you are bending space into an unatural curvature that is a cosmic level effect no matter the magnitude.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

The energy of gravitation in a system of two gravitationally bound masses of different values is negative because in order to maintain the distance between the two positive energy must be constantly added to keep them apart.

Hm, intriguing indeed.

But I believe the "force" that keeps these bodies apart is angular momentum? And since angular momentum is technically related to acceleration, then it is not an actual force, it is a fictitious force.

One must not confuse scalar fictitious forces with actual forces, otherwise one will indeed end up with all the negatives that arise from vectors.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Well, NASA did just test the basic drive tech in hard vacuum. While I have not seen anything relating to follow-up observations of the potential FTL issue, I'd imagine that was a parameter they were observing. And you make a good point about evanescence, I hadn't considered that. I'm honestly expecting it to be a miscalculation or instrumentation error, like the OPERA fiasco, but either way, it certainly gets the imagination going.

he has a signal. it is slightly above the expected Signal to noise level. but it is a vulnerable claim until he gets a bigger signal. skeptics can always claim he has overlook a source of spurious signal or made a measurement error when the signal and noise level are so close even though it rises marginally above noise level.

OTOH too big a gap between signal to noise is also vulnerable to crticism that an error has been made. This happened to Dr Martin Tajmar when his anomoulous gravity coupling signal was a billion times greater than predicted by General relativity. The first thing out of the critics was the large signal was a clear sign he was wrong. (He apparently was wrong BTW)

The upshot is if your S/N is low you get claims of spurious effects or experimental error. If your signal to Noise is to high you get charge with spurious signals and experimental error. Kind of damned if you do damned if you don't.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

The energy of gravitation in a system of two gravitationally bound masses of different values is negative because in order to maintain the distance between the two positive energy must be constantly added to keep them apart.

Hm, intriguing indeed.

But I believe the "force" that keeps these bodies apart is angular momentum? And since angular momentum is technically related to acceleration, it is not an actual force, it is a fictitious force.

Ooooh boy! now you've done it. You need to ask Dr Woodward his opinion on fictitious forces. some fictitious forces are more real than fictional. it does not always mean the same thing in physics that it does to the average person. some fictitious forces really are fictitious and some aren't fictitious at all

a reply to: stormbringer1701

So, in your opinion, acceleration constitutes a fifth Force?

Surely you realize how absurd this sounds to a physicist's ears.