Most people would answer this question ad hoc: What a redundant question, of course a negative energy density cannot exist. But all these “ad hoc “-people oversee that the gravitational field around a mass indeed has a negative energy density. The next ad hoc remark is then, what is the sense of this question if the negative energy density of gravitational fields is fact.
After this remark we get closer to the point. The only possibility to avoid a negative energy density around a mass is the existence of a gravitational field with positive energy density, which overlays all gravitational fields around masses.
The existence of such a gravitational field, omnipresent, with a positive energy density, and nearly homogenous in the whole universe, now has consequences, which we consider with the following points.
(1) The existence of such a field requires a closed finite universe. A positive energy density cannot fill an infinite volume.
(2) A gravitational field with a positive energy density X allows the propagation of gravitational waves with a wave pressure p and an energy density E with p=√(EX). This is a result of wave theory.
(3) Every grain of mass, including atomic nuclei, electrons, and photons moves a small dent through the homogenous background field with energy density X. This movement leads to post pulse oscillations. “Generation of post pulse oscillations” is a wave excitation mechanism completely different from “quadrupole radiation”, which currently is proposed as mechanism for gravitational wave generation.
(4) The post pulse mechanism is much more efficient. It leads to the general effect that any mechanic or electrodynamic activity generates gravitational waves. This means that X in a closed universe, is continuously growing.
(5) X as a medium, which supports wave propagation has a density, a wave pressure component, and a kinetic component. The pressure and the kinetic component are the result of wave excitation.
(6) What is the current amount of X? This amount is presumably above the range of the gravitational field around a neutron star. The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff-limit determines the value.
(7) Black holes slightly exceed this limit. But they cannot really exceed it because there remains nothing to be exceeded.
(8) Black holes become clouds of matter in a strange condition surrounded by a zone of zero gravity.
(9) The zone of zero gravity shields the cloud of matter from the oscillating background field with energy density X.
(10) The field X penetrates all kinds of matter except the extremely dense matter inside black holes. The energetic interaction of field X with normal matter including neutron star matter is a small one-way street towards X. But the matter inside a black hole is in a much denser state, susceptible for excited matter X with a pressure- and a kinetic component.
(11) The excitation of field X with gravitational waves shrinks the zone without gravitation around black hole matter. If the field X reaches the matter, the port of energy flow from X to the black hole matter is open.
(12) The consequence is that after a few million years the black hole matter becomes transformed into a widespread cloud of atomic hydrogen which provides new star fuel for the next life cycle of the universe.
If nature does not allow a negative energy density, the points (1) to (5) above are mandatory consequences. The points (6) to (12) are speculations about the amount of the gravitational energy density which surrounds us. However, the most remarkable point is that the “nonexistence of negative energy density” leads to a new model of the universe, fundamentally different to the big bang theory.
Dear Wolfgang,
None, since there is no negative energy.
It is only possible for the minus sign to appear according to the choice of potential, but since energy is the generation of force (motion) in the present (kinetic) or future (potential), a negative energy would mean a generation of force (motion) in the past even though that force (motion) never has happened
Dear Sergio Garcia Chimeno
The gravitational field around masses clearly has a negative energy density. The only question is if this negative value is compensated by an omnipresent static field of positive energy density.
If you consider two separated masses, which attract each other, you see they gain kinetic energy and gravitational field strength. Energy conservation is only possible if gained gravitational field strength corresponds to a negative gain of gravitational field energy.
Dear Wolfgang,
I have not answered you well, energy is defined with respect to space, not time and it could be positive or negative indistinctly according to your choice.
Any other interpretation is simply not defined.
Dear Wolfgang Konle,
Greetings, I think that negative energy is a unproven subject in science yet. But my prediction is that if negative energy can not exist, The energy level of universe will increase infinity, and finally every thing will explode!
Regards, Saeed
Dear Sergio
Do you know an example where negative energy density occurs, except gravitation?
Dear Saeed,
thank you for your contribution. What do you think is the source of the energy which will drive everything to explosion?
Dear Wolfgang,
For example, if I am on a boat and I toss a coin in the air it would be a positive energy, if I were to toss it into the water, it would be a negative energy. As long as I didn't use a direction for the force vector.
I assume you mean something similar for the gravitational field.
In passages of particles through potential wells there are similar examples of negative energies.
But you have to bear in mind that in all these cases, no direction has been given to the force vector, because as you will understand, applying a force in one direction to obtain a distance in the opposite direction is not possible.
The notion negative energy can be linked with the in principle new system of decription of the world. We are only the part of another world, which we can until study only theoretically. We posses 3-dimensional physical bodies which can move only with the velocity v
Larissa Borissova
We do not put our imagination of energy “bottom up”. Our understanding remains as it is. The only question is if positive and negative field energy density can coexist.
All energy existing in t material world is positive because it acts on material objects and phenomena. We consider energies of material world as positive and negative but lectron and positron possess energies of material world. Forces of attraction and repulsion existing in our material world are positive energies acting in material world. Human material bodies possess material energies of material world. But our consciousness is the part of non-material (energetic) worrld and we can choise the system of explanations of different phenomena nature. Every material object including our Universe is materialized (maximally concentrated) energy of non-material world --- the Time. Just the Time creates every moment all material structures of material world. Just every moment because the present is onle short moment between the past and the future. The Time creates our world and the structurs where every structure and its parts possess the own periodes in material world. What is negative energies& It is the end of every periode of different structurs. Negative energies destroy all strctures after the end of periode of this structure. But this action is determined from the creating of every structure --- particles, human, planet,... the Universe. The priodes of the life of every structure is determined at the moment of itheburth.
Dear Larissa Borissova
I tend to your opinion that a negative energy density cannot exist in nature. However I would not express this opinion in the same theatrical way as you do it.
Some thoughts about a negative energy density
According to m=E/c² a negative energy density corresponds to a negative mass density. The problem of a negative mass is a negative inertia. A negative inertia would lead to a reverse acceleration force. This means that the negative mass once accelerated, would on its own increase the acceleration.
Sergio Garcia Chimeno
What you are mentioning, coins in water or air , does not make a difference. The coins in both cases have a higher specific weight as the surrounding medium.
But we can compare bubbles of air or bowles of lead in water if the vessel becomes accelerated. They move in opposite directions.
But this has nothing to do with a negative energy density or a negative mass.
We only see the mass density relative to the mass density of the surrounding medium.
Dear Wolfgang,
It was a quick example of Energy as force for distance, the medium is indifferent. If you want density, divide it by volume and that's it.
All the negative energies that you have seen will be something similar, it is not a true negative energy in which the distance goes in the opposite direction to the force.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Waves