/sci/ - Science & Math

no

Only in worms. Worms have a negative altitude above earth's surface.

Arguably negative numbers can be used in place of subtraction and show up all over the place.

Infinities are also called singularities. They have them in black holes according to certain godless cripples.

>>1700142
Elaborate, please.

any opposite motion can be considered a real-life instance of a negative.

Imagine a car traveling at 60 mph in one direction, then another car travelling at 60 mph in the opposite direction. You can assign one of those cars a negative sign, because when they combine, their speed is not 120mph, it is 0.

>>1700156
If a worm is a foot under the surface, then his altitude above the surface is negative one foot. It's not rocket surgery.

i lul'd

Negative numbers are everywhere. If you want a specific answer, anti-matter has negative mass.

Technically, infinity isn't a thing, it's a limit.

>>1700176
>anti-matter has negative mass.
Not it doesn't, you giant fucking faggot.

>>1700181
>Proton emits positron.
>Becomes heavier.

>>1700168
lol

ITT: Retards who think they know what they are talking about

Gravity has negative energy.
We call this "potential energy," but really imagine objects trading particles back and forth (like photons). They would eventually repel because each bounce causes them to push away. But the gravatons have negative energy, so when they 'bounce' back and forth (emitting absorbing etc) they actually get closer, hence gravity sucks things.
Think about it, things don't inherently have potential energy, they need another object to relate to in order to determine how much "potential energy" it has.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.

Negative is just relative so it is both always present and never present. Negative numbers are only present when you compare one thing to another. Without comparison, everything is 0

>>1700189
Antimatter is identical to regular matter except for having the opposite charge, and I once again call you a giant faggot.

Antimatter has negative engergy.

Blacks holos are infinity.

>>1700212
>Blacks holos
Are you even trying?

Antimatter has negative energy.

Blacks holes are infinity (though some theories think they are n/0, but that is also basically infinity if you think about it).

>>1700217
antimatter has positive energy, you giant faggot. Why does no one know what antimatter is?

Antimatter has negative energy.

Black holes are infinity (though some theories think they are n/0, but that is also basically infinity if you think about it).

>Exotic matter is a hypothetical concept of particle physics. It covers any material which violates one or more energy conditions or is not made of known baryonic particles. Such materials would possess qualities like negative mass or being repelled rather than attracted by gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

BLack holes are the result of god dividing by zero. If there's a god, black holes proove he isn't perfect. No matter what, masses of religions are wrong

>>1700209
I'm guessing you've never heard of the mass energy equivilency.

To clarify, E^2=m^2c^4 for a stationary object. Therefore: E=Sqrt(m^2c^4)
And so: Energy equals plus or minus mc^2. c^2 is always possitive. Which means that e and m can be negative. Hence, anti-matter. Hence, go fuck yourself.

infinity: no, unless you believe in singularities
negative number: depends

>>1700228
Yes, but there's no reason to think that exotic matter exists.

>>1700248
Negative mass exists.

>The closest known real representative of such exotic matter is a region of pseudo-negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect.

>>1700247
Doesn't know how square root works

antimatter has positive mass and positive energy. there are no known particles with negative mass or negative energy. there aren't even any particles theorized by string theory (or any other theory with significant following) that have negative mass or energy. it does not seem possible in this universe according to our current understanding of physics.

>>1700247
Not the same guy as before, but antimatter has neither negative energy nor negative mass. Indeed you are a GIANT fucking faggot.

>>1700244
Umm...you don't have to "believe" shit, mathematically, blackholes ARE singularities. Nothing we know says otherwise. All our theories say they are.

>>1700247
WOW. You are a giant retard. Once again, antimatter is IDENTICAL to regular matter except for having the opposite charge.

>>1700204
>Negative numbers are only present when you compare one thing to another.
any numbers
/pedant

>>1700253
>>1700266
Negative mass does not exist.

>>1700260
You have believe that the theory reflects nature. As we can't observe the singularity, it certainly is a matter of belief. Especially, since in most cases, if your theory turns up a singularity, it means you have a problem with your theory.

>>1700256
see
>>1700253

Antimatter is negative charge, IDIOTS.

Let us consider e.

e=matter

anti=inverse

Let us consider the inverse function of e.

=-e

Antimatter is -e.

>>1700269
Yes it does.

>>1700260

not me you are responding to but black holes are only known as singularities because we don't know of any force that would stop them from becoming a singularity after the quark degeneracy force is overcome by gravity. we don't know for a fact that they become singularities, we just don't know why they wouldn't so we assume that they do.

What an interesting troll question.

But no

The mass of a positron is 9.10938215*10^−31 kg
see it is 9 to the power of MINUS 31, so it has negative mass.

dumb-asses

Negative absolute temperatures exist. This exists when you use quantum optic systems to force energy states to be shared. It is unlike a Bose-Einstein condensate, as that thermodynamics breaks down. In fact, the specific heat at constant pressure becomes negative and in such, increasing the energy of the system only make the temperature more negative. When this happens, thermodynamic equilbrium force the energy states to seperate and therefore you must add energy via the laser system to prevent purterbations from bringing the system above absolute again.

If antimatter contained negative mass or negative energy, then when matter and antimatter interacted, they would release no energy, but cancel out completely. What actually happens, is both masses are converted to energy and released as two highly energetic gamma rays.

>>1700275
>>1700286
Bravo

>In QED renormalization theory this is handled by adding an infinite
negative mass term to compensate the infinite positive coulomb term. Though such
renormalization can be carried out in QED in an unambiguous and invariant way, from
the standpoint of a semiclassical model it appears sufficiently ad hoc as to merit a search
for an alternative.

>As a result, to the degree that this result of
the semiclassical analysis carries over to QED renormalization, it would appear that the
additive infinite negative mass in the QED approach finds its source in a negative
vacuum energy contribution as proposed in the Casimir model.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0610/0610042.pdf

>H. E. Puthoff, Institute for Advanced Studies

>>1700286
the 10^-31 just meants its really fucking small it the negative would be before the 9 if it was negative

0/10 shitty troll im not even mad

>>1700350
Does not know how minus sighs work

>>1700350
Why'd you rate a 0 if you fell for it nimrod?

>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191
>>1700191

/thread

>>1700380
why'd you admit to being a troll!? Now you are a 0.

Infinity and negative numbers are used to keep our heads imploding at the realization that none of us know what the fuck we are talking about and that somewhere out there, there is someone who no matter how hard you work, will still know more about not knowing than you do.

>>1700280
What about the maximum information density?
I was under the impression the event horizon enclosed the area corresponding to the amount of information contained. There's also the fact that the surface area of the event horizon is exactly proportional to the entropy of the black hole.

Maybe at that maximum information density the gravitational time dilation hits infinity and the collapsing matter just stops and sits there as a solid ball. But then again, I have no idea, obviously. Just speculating.
>>1700362

>>1700591
ignore that last link :/

>>1700516
>Caught falling for a troll
>Accusing the non-gullible of trolling

>are there any naturally-occuring instances of infinity

the staircase in mario 64

Yes, an electron has has infinity possibilities for its position around an atom.

>>1700613

no it doesn't, thats impossible

>>1700616
Except that it's both possible and necessary.

>>1700148
laughed

Well negative is kinda relative, like for ex being below ocean level is -distance, antimatter has -charge, etc.

Photons actually have negative mass (it's why they can travel at light speed velocities).

>>1700690
Uh, nope. They can only travel at lightspeed because they have ZERO mass.

A single atom demonstrates both of OP's questions:
An electron can be in one of an infinite number of positions around its atom. It and a proton have opposite charges, so labeling one as "positive" makes the other one "negative."

No, photons have a positive mass, due to their velocity, but have 0 rest mass.

>>1700700
But they can only travel at c and can never rest. They always have 0 mass; rather, under no conditions do they have a mass that is not 0.

>>1700700
Relative mass -- if you're unscientific enough to use the term -- is a multiple of rest mass depending on velocity. So you are completely wrong. Photons never have mass.

>>1700720
>Photons never have mass.

so they're atheists?

>>1700707
>But they can only travel at c
Speed of light changes depending on the medium, bro.

>>1700767
>Speed of light changes with the medium
It sure doesn't. Photons ALWAYS travel at c. But when light propagates through different materials, there is a delay factor as the photons are absorbed and re-emitted within the material. Photons are still going at c in the interim.

Better question yet, are there any instances where zero exists?

I don't think there are. All cases you would normally assume to be zero are actually just astronomically small numbers. For example: How many oranges am I holding? If my palm only contains air you might say zero but really how much of an orange is air? Since air is slightly orangelike, for example both are matter, it can be said the real answer is some tiny number such as one hundred quintillionth. We say zero because functionally there is zero, you cannot operate on one hundred quintillionth of an orange and thus it is ignored and treated as zero. In the real world because the forms do not exist other than as abstract concepts all states are connected to one another through an infinite number of non zero values and thus everything is everything, the only question is how much.

*holding

>>1700828
How many chocolate bars am I hold? 0.

>>1700828
But to be an orange its atoms have to be arranged in a certain way with a certain proportion. Air is not any part of an orange.

Here's a zero for you. You put negative charges near each other, and there will necessarily be at least one point in space where there is a net electric field generated by the charges that is zero. More specifically, there is no electric field at that point.

>>1700828
The net energy of the universe must equal zero.

>>1700858
What makes you say that?

>>1700865

not being an idiot

>>1700840

But what is an orange? When does an object stop being an orange and start being air? Orange is a concept invented by humans to describe a number of objects with similar properties. The boundaries which divide it from other objects are all arbitrary human creations based on our need for functionality. These definitions have no bearing on actual physical reality. There are an infinite number of conglomerated atomic configurations in between orange and air and these objects all share the universal property known as being orangelike. It is then arguable that because air is orangelike that it is at least partially an orange, be it a very very small part.

Humans use binary reasoning to describe their world because it works for them. Reality is far more complex than this elementary view on reality.

Regarding the electric field that is a good question. Maby it really is zero.

>>1700887

or·ange
   /ˈɔrɪndʒ, ˈɒr-/ Show Spelled[awr-inj, or-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a globose, reddish-yellow, bitter or sweet, edible citrus fruit.

If it is not that, there is ZERO of them. FAGGOT.

>>1700887

>I'm still in high school

>>1700889

But air is all of those things. It just isn't very much of them. Where do you draw the boundary and how can you justify objects on either side being defined as such when they are 1/infinity different in degree of variable satisfaction?

>>1700906

air is an edible citrus fruit? Wow, I had no idea!

>>1700906
>1/infinity

so, 0?

>>1700906
Stop being a faggot, seriously you aren't sounding smart.

>>1700922

You just called an anonymous person a faggot on the internernet and you are worried about my looking smart?

OP here. I don't entirely see a definitive answer in this thread. Is there something we can all agree upon?

>>1701204
Infinity, no. Never. Just isn't possible, at least that we can observe.

Negative numbers, yes. They happen all the time in quantum physics.

>>1700887
Consider that if oranges (and other plant matter for this case) had enough in common to be airlike and vice versa, how is it that it continues to be discretely identifiable compared to it in our view? How has organic matter been able to organize itself into complex forms, unlike air? There is enough difference in the characteristics of the matter which makes up oranges and other plant matter to respond differently to application of energy than air would.

Not to mention, there are also phases—solid, liquid, and gas—that each have their own qualities which a sample of matter can only assume the qualities of one at one time. There is no state between liquid and solid; in normal circumstances, solid ice can't just gain a little bit of the ability to fill containers though some energy may be applied.

Human perspective is of course subjective and arbitrary in the long run, but its senses are precise enough to make oranges and air look at least ostensibly different. Maybe there are oranges with a bit of extra air in it and air with citrus odors, but people have a generalized schematic of what oranges and air are. They might share some characteristics to a modest degree, but their differences are significant enough that the human senses perceive the two as different things.

Really, you can eat oranges but not air. That's remarkable enough to give the two different names, as arbitrary as their unshared traits may be. Also, the orange is conceived as a product of relations between certain molecules rather than the sum of the parts' traits. Ergo, while air and orange may have components that could be arguably similar in orangeness, but the relations of the parts in oranges differs from the interactions between the parts in air.

Just posting to clarify stuff. Your elocution is really more the 420chan philosophy board's style in subject matter. Oh, and pic is my face at all this.

>>1701204
OP is a fag.

>>1701224
I agree, OP is a fag.

I think the best answer is "God invented natural numbers, the rest is human invention", give or take a theological deity.

>>1701224
>>>/b/

photons gain negligible mass in superconductors, but, whatever.