#1
|
|||
|
|||
negative masses?
negative masses?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1205093716.htm Bringing balance to the universe: New theory could explain missing 95 percent of the cosmos paper is he http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-63 Not sure what to make of it... Would be fun. creating negative mas sin the lab? Propulsion? :-) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
negative masses?
Dear Jan Panteltje:
On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 10:39:37 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote: negative masses? https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1205093716.htm Bringing balance to the universe: New theory could explain missing 95 percent of the cosmos paper is he http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-63 Not sure what to make of it... Would be fun. creating negative mas sin the lab? Propulsion? :-) Is crap, it seems to me. Scientists name in arxiv.org bring up a single-author paper in 2017. He has published on arxiv since, but never on this topic. Any black hole terminates all the fun. David A. Smith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
negative masses?
On 06/12/2018 19:49, dlzc wrote:
Dear Jan Panteltje: On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 10:39:37 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote: negative masses? https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1205093716.htm Bringing balance to the universe: New theory could explain missing 95 percent of the cosmos paper is he http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-63 Not sure what to make of it... Would be fun. creating negative mas sin the lab? Propulsion? :-) Is crap, it seems to me. Scientists name in arxiv.org bring up a single-author paper in 2017. He has published on arxiv since, but never on this topic. Any black hole terminates all the fun. It was accepted for A&A' so it has survived peer review. I can't quite get my head round it yet but somehow the creation of a negative mass fluid to fill an expanding universe feels wrong somehow. But that might just be my old school prejudice showing. Having said that the idea seems to fit the data, has an appealing symmetry and is a testable hypothesis so time will tell whether or not it pans out when tested. The author has a credible pedigree. https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962 Is the version on Arxiv. The author is more usually associated with observational astronomy and the square kilometre array eg. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript...15/v2/download I wouldn't be too quick to condemn it as junk. Even if it is wrong it is still an interesting new (actually old and revisited) take on lambdaCDM. I have asked for opinions about it on sci.astro.research in the thread on "dark matter hypothesis" but it is awaiting moderator approval. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
negative masses?
Martin Brown wrote
I have asked for opinions about it on sci.astro.research in the thread on "dark matter hypothesis" but it is awaiting moderator approval. I see your posting there now, will follw the discussion. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
negative masses?
Dear Martin Brown:
On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 2:51:31 PM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote: .... It was accepted for A&A' so it has survived peer review. I can't quite get my head round it yet but somehow the creation of a negative mass fluid to fill an expanding universe feels wrong somehow. But that might just be my old school prejudice showing. Having said that the idea seems to fit the data, has an appealing symmetry and is a testable hypothesis so time will tell whether or not it pans out when tested. The author has a credible pedigree. https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962 Is the version on Arxiv. The author is more usually associated with observational astronomy and the square kilometre array eg. Not saying he is a crank. Saying "publish or perish" is not high quality Science. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript...15/v2/download I wouldn't be too quick to condemn it as junk. Even if it is wrong it is still an interesting new (actually old and revisited) take on lambdaCDM. New is not always better. He is following a lead that is probably a mistake. But to not follow it, is NOT Science. I have asked for opinions about it on sci.astro.research in the thread on "dark matter hypothesis" but it is awaiting moderator approval. Excellent plan. My two cents, a Velikovskian argument... * gravity is not a force, so Dark Energy, or in this case negative energy, does no work in expanding the Universe, it only increases entropy. * galactic superclusters have been shrinking over time. The record sized superclusters are far away / long ago, and granted our "near is now" myopia limits what of the Universe we experience, the Laniakea supercluster was at one time gravitationally bound, and is not longer. How did this stuff that is repelled by "positive stuff", manage to get in between, manage to shred the Laniakea supercluster... as it probably has all the large superclusters? It SHOULD have compressed superclusters, if this model was at all correct. * if the second being however many clock ticks it is, can be adjusted and generate / duplicate Universal expansion (not gravitation binding, just expansion) by being 1 part in 10^18 "shorter" with each passing second, what need is there of Magic stuff, just because someone decided the Cosmological Constant was not constant, and whatever we formulated, needed to be presented as an energy term? One problem is, another Q&A site has been suffering under a "superfluid or supersolid Dark Matter" spammer, and this will be just more gist for his mill. Another is, the SciFi guys will thank that this negative energy can be captured and harnessed into Alcubierre drives, and we will stop looking for alternative approaches... David A. Smith |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
negative masses?
In article ,
Jan Panteltje writes: negative masses? https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1205093716.htm Bringing balance to the universe: New theory could explain missing 95 percent of the cosmos paper is he http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-63 The A&A site has been flaky for me, but it eventually served up the paper. I agree with Martin: highly unconventional but seems mathematically consistent. It requires _two_ unconventional hypotheses -- existence of negative mass and continuous creation of it -- so skepticism on that basis is warranted. I'll follow further discussion in sci.astro.research . -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
we're negative | 4HEAD[_3_] | Misc | 8 | July 26th 13 04:37 AM |
Metal deposit discovered: 30 million solar masses of chromium, 8million solar masses of manganese | Yousuf Khan[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 6 | December 10th 09 05:45 PM |
What are the two kinds of Masses ?? | Christopher | Policy | 0 | May 6th 06 02:33 PM |
Bz now negative!! | Brian O'Halloran | UK Astronomy | 3 | October 29th 03 08:22 PM |
Mars for the masses | Terry B | Amateur Astronomy | 17 | September 9th 03 06:59 AM |