[mklauber1]

I think what they're saying is that positive mass galaxies attract the negative mass, even as the negative mass repels the positive mass (and all other negative mass). In a stationary system, eventually the two will reach an equilibrium.

However, the effects of this in a system in which the positive mass galaxy is spinning is that the negative mass counteracts the forces of inertia, allowing the galaxy to spin at higher speeds without shattering like a cd spun too quickly. Now, whether the math of all that makes sense, I'm am not in a position to comment on.

[skykooler]

Wouldn't that allow for a "perpetual motion" setup where a blob of normal mass is in front of a blob of negative mass? The negative mass would push the positive mass forward, and then be attracted to it and follow. What am I misunderstanding?

[TangoTrotFox]

You can't ignore the gravitational force of the normal mass. The two would rapidly reach a zero-value equilibrium at some point where the repulsive force of the negative mass is perfectly cancelled out by the attractive gravity of the positive mass, so you have a net force of 0 at some distance.

For an easier to visualize example imagine placing one magnet positive pole up inside of a tube, and then you place another magnet positive pole down in the same tube. It would create a similar effect. There is a repulsive force being perfectly balanced out by an attractive force and the two reach an equilibrium where the magnet on top is 'floating' with the net of all forces in this closed system being 0.

[Nasrudith]

Screwily to our intuitions negative mass goes in the opposite direction of its acceleration.

It still goes away but the acceleration is in the same direction. It is weird and easy to be confused.

[eutropia]

I think you meant to say that the mass accelerates opposite to forces acting upon it.

An idealized -M + M = 0 pair of particles (one normal, one negative mass) could experience runaway acceleration. Author touches on this in the paper as a potential source for the incredibly high-energy extra-galactic cosmic rays.

Granted, the paper describes a model in which something that acts like a particle with negative mass exerts this force upon things, but has no claims as to what a physical manifestation of this would look like.

[FabHK]

Damn, you're right, there goes the hoverboard.

[jon_richards]

It would be perpetual motion, but momentum and energy would remain the same. Both depend on mass (so negative mass accelerating creates negative momentum and energy).

[skykooler]

That's an interesting point. Thank you!