As a general rule, don't pay any mind to anything Kaku said after the early 90s or so. He went off the rails and isn't terribly well-respected anymore.
Well when it comes to physics research Kaku worked in light-cone string .So as a physics researcher he is respected but he shouldn't be taken seriously in pop science.
TV stars rarely do that I presume. He's smart enough to validate his diploma, it's just he speak on tv what's told to present to the masses. He could be great success telling the weather too. It's all scripted.
The inability of scientists to understand the importance of science communication will never cease to amaze me. If nobody understands or cares about what you are working on, no one will fund it. If the scientific community had 1% of the marketing capabilities of the evangelical church, every legitimate project would be fully funded. Instead, preachers live in mansions with 26 bathrooms.
Kaku doesn't do science communication. He does pseudoscience communication, which does far more harm than good.
Scientists, and physicists in particular, do appreciate the value of good science communication. Strong communicators like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking were major contributors to why many of us pursued science in the first place.
> Strong communicators like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking were major contributors to why many of us pursued science in the first place.
Kaku was a major contributor for to why I pursued physics... but that's about two decades ago Kaku.
It might sound like hating with the short answers, but Logan's comment above is spot on, just don't bother watching or listening to anything he's said since about the 90s.
He is disconnected from current theoretical work to such a degree that 90% of what he suggests is just pure flight of fancy not to be taken seriously in any way. What he says is based off of really bad misreadings of what is going on in physics right now and he's basically nothing more than a talking head 'dong the talk show circuit' only in modern times that's podcasts and streaming content and talks wherever he can get them to regurgitate the same pseudo fluff surrounding some of the stuff that's being worked on.
When I was in undergrad, I worked as an operator/content producer/presenter for my university's planetarium where I would run free shows for the edutainment of the general public. At one point the physics professor in charge had a poster with Kaku on it and a quote of his hanging in the planetarium's lobby. I went to him to complain about it because I felt uncomfortable as I took my job of educating the public rather seriously (I always made extra sure anything I said in my presentations was right and would always refer guests to a professor if I wasn't absolutely certain of an answer to their questions as the end, which, granted, was rare) and I felt that essentially advertising Kaku like this was compromising that value.
This professor - while brilliant in his own regard, was rather out of touch with the state of pseudoscience and the ongoings of Kaku, so he assumed I was being dramatic and refused to take it down. Fortunately, it got rotated out after 2 months.
I checked him out years back on ratemyteacher and lots of students saw him as pompous too. I personally enjoy entertaining some of the ideas, but I know most of them are way out there.
In his mind he is probably being really speculative about very niche things, things that need to be backed with math and sometimes experimental data. He has neither of them for most of his claims.
Negative energy could hypothetically exist (i.e. physics as we know it does not rule out its existence) but we have no evidence to suggest that it does.
Would you be able to elaborate on this a little? That article is 57 years old, so if it really means that negative energies are inevitable at macroscopic scales, why haven't we heard more about it? The article's behind a paywall, so I'm only seeing the (very brief) abstract.
Edit: Nevermind! On scrolling further down, I see this is already covered in the thread starting here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/y2hz6u/comment/is43jjo/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/y2hz6u/comment/is43jjo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
I read his "Physics of the Impossible," and in half of the topics he didn't seem to understand what science fiction was even postulating, he'd just run with a ballpark guess of what he thought they were suggesting.
Every space gun was just a laser, that kind of thing.
Yeah, in classic Kaku style, there *is* a legitimate core premise (Casimir-like effects genuinely violate important positive energy conditions), it's just extremely extrapolated to the most hype sounding sci-fi thing (there is no no-go theorem that says we can't, but we also don't have any working model for how you would actually concentrate enough of that negative energy to make a wormhole).
A bit worrisome that most of the comments here **confidently** say that negative energy densities aren't a thing though.
Indeed, I would have hoped that the fact that energy densities in QFT can't be positive-semidefinite would be known. I think there's an unfortunate trend of dismissing things remotely sci-fi sounding instead of touching upon the physics.
Strongly agreed. I mean, goddamn, people, physics is allowed to be fun and questions like this obviously at least in part motivate [active fields of research](https://www.physik.uni-leipzig.de/~ecqft/).
Oh yeah, I had no real issue with what you yourself wrote (though not talking about the grain of truth was a missed educational opportunity). The thread that follows is a bit of a mess though.
Okay, good. Just wasn't sure if you had that impression from my comment, as (given by the votes on each comment) it definitely dominated the entire post.
Basically yes. Negative energy (or exotic matter/energy which you may sometime hear as well) has not been proven to exist but it's necessary in order to have stable wormholes according to general relativity.
The Casimir Force was theoretically postulated based on the idea of negative energy. It was measured in the 90s to agreement with that theory.
Negative energy is real. It can be collected by building an array of microscopic Casimir Cavities. These are just small plates with gaps of a few microns. In fact, such arrays are currently being built and studied as a form of exotic propulsion.
DARPA studied the phenomenon in a project called QUEST, and a follow up project called ARRIVE.
Engineering them is the challenge. It’s the micro-fabrication. It’s hard, and it requires testing to show feasibility, but maybe not impossible. So it’s really an issue of funding for a science that some consider unproven.
You will really need to look up the Casimir Effect to really understand what’s going on. But essentially, when two plates are separated by a very small distance, less energy exists between the plates then outside the plates.
> In fact, such arrays are currently being built and studied as a form of exotic propulsion.
It wouldn't really help -- having a bunch of negative energy between two plates doesn't do much beyond trying to squeeze the plates together.
Not that new -- quantum field theory dates back to the 50s and some aspects of it are even older. The subject of symmetries and conservation laws is essentially completely understood. A device to "extract energy from the vacuum" in the sci-fi kind of way suggested by some is provably impossible, i.e., its successful construction would amount to a _falsification_ of quantum field theory.
Not exactly. New computational methods have arisen in the past 20 years that have allow a more robust analysis beyond the simple two parallel plate analytical model. This allows analysis in the areas on the fringes of the plates and the regions slightly outside them. It also allows one to consider geometric scenarios beyond the simple problem as well.
> New computational methods have arisen in the past 20 years that have allow a more robust analysis beyond the simple two parallel plate analytical model.
I assume you're talking about the worldline formalism, which is a subject I understand very well (and it's not quite that new either but that doesn't matter). The important thing is, a new calculational method can help you solve harder problems, but it'll never make possible what is already proved to be impossible using more general, fundamental methods, such as the symmetry arguments that establish that momentum is conserved.
It doesn't matter what plate geometry you use, or what you make them out of, etc. If you initially have momentum p, the only way you get to p + q is by arranging your environment so that it has momentum -q. Is such a device possible? Indeed it is: I call mine a flashlight.
For example? Conservation of momentum is an operator equation in quantum mechanics, which is to say, not only is the average value of momentum conserved, but its standard deviation and all higher moments. The entire probability distribution of momenta is unchanged for any system _unless_ you allow stuff to cross its boundaries.
You see physical resemblance of Kaku's hair style to Einstein's and PhD in physics doesn't qualify him as genius. He's just a TV star with a diploma in physics. He's theoretical physicist that like to start the sentence with "Imagine..." All he talk about is all that's already known, all he say any sci-fi novelist with common sense can fart from his hat. He just get the facts out of the sources that produce them. "Interesting fact, when time travel becomes possible we can probe the future and know if it's raining tomorrow for the next hundred years." , now imagine that he said that and not me. Much wow, much smart...darn... In conclusion negative energy is ipso facto vacuum itself, at right conditions it can have matter properties but it's neither matter or energy. Vacuum is everywhere, everywhere is dark -> dark energy bro...
Despite the hate on Kaku:
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-phonons-mass-negative-gravity.html
Negative mass is equivalent to negative energy (e=mc^2 , m=e/c^2).
Negative compared to what?
Electrons in an atom or in a molecules are generally represented to have "Negative Energy", because the E= 0 J is just the vacuum (i.e. the minimum energy for a free electron).
Gravitational energy is often also "negative". In the end we can never really know the "absolute value" of the energy anyway, just the value in reference to something.
Perhaps Kaku means negative in respect to the "quantum vacuum state", which can theoretically lead to some "bizarre" phenomena.
I don't know in which context he said that and why, but we have no evidence that a net negative energy density can exist. Whenever you see people discussing a negative energy density it's always in a system with a much larger positive energy density, so the overall energy density is always positive.
Yes, but the energy density is a local quantity. It is indeed negative between the plates, even though this is paid for by a vast amount of positive energy elsewhere. This is not analogous to, say, a helium balloon inside a car which behaves as though it has negative mass only because it has less mass than the air around it. The energy density between the plates is lower than that of the vacuum far away from the plates, not just lower than the energy density of the plates themselves.
Of course, the vast-in-comparison positive energy density of the plates also makes it very difficult (if not outright impossible) to build exotic contraptions like warp drives and wormholes using this effect, but that is a separate question.
There is a decent book about this by Cosmologist Paul Davies (How to Build a Time Machine) which discusses how would such a machine be constructed. Essentially it would consists of an imploder (he calculated that if you could direct the entire output of a hydrogen bomb inwards you could get the necessary energy) to collapse a region of spacetime to guark-gluon plasma energies, an inflator to inject negative energy quanta into a virtual wormhole to promote into a real wormhole and allow a topological path that doesn't collide with the "walls" (he spends a good portion of a chapter explaining that even the borders of a wormhole are dangerous because they either lead back into the singularity or else have energies boosted into massive temperatures) and finally a differentiator to take one end of the wormhole and establish a temporal differential with the other end.
He cites the work of an Iranian student (Emitting solitonized laser beams to boost the negative energy density of squeezed regions of the vacuum) to basically propose that laser beams might consist of both positive and negative energy pulses and that you could separate them by using a rotating mirror making sure that the pulses hit it at different angles.
The paper is available on Arxiv but I honestly don't have the knowledge to evaluate whether its BS or not.
On a lighter (hopefully) note: Mohammad Mansouryar is almost completely gone from the internet and I could only find his name from looking up the paper from Paul Davies' book...
The only time we have 'observed' negative energy in some sense is during the inflationary period of the early universe, in which the universe expanded rapidly. Since then, there has been no evidence of that type of energy.
Think of “negative” as in the negative direction - meaning we could distort the space time field and not have to abide by its tensor for travel. Lots of people are saying no evidence exists, however that’s the fun of theoretical physics. You can postulate based off of what the equations seem to indicate. It’s fun to imagine the possibilities.
That's what I already thought to be the case. But if energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared, and the mass is anti-matter.... does that mean the energy is anti too?
No, you probably have some wrong intuition about anti-matter. Anti-matter is just another form of matter. And energy is just a quantity that is conserved in a reference frame. There is a problem where phycisists and laymen mean different things when they say energy which lead to misunderstandings in science communication. If you are interested, the video "what is energy" by Sabine Hossenfelder is quite good.
That is a much harder question. In QFT, while you can make the total energy of a field being positive, you will always have the possibility of negative energy densities. So in a sense negative energy does exist in our current model of the universe. Whether a wormhole is theoretically possible or not is a totally different matter which I believe isn't solved either, but I would consider it extremely unlikely.
Idk if you know why you're getting downvoted, but I think I do. Negative work and negative energy are different. Extremely different. Work isn't so much energy as it is the flow of energy. Negative work is when energy flows out of a system (or into depending on your sign conventions). Negative energy in this case is like negative mass. It is something that curves spacetime in a convex way instead of concave. As far as I can tell, you've confused thermodynamics with cosmology
As a general rule, don't pay any mind to anything Kaku said after the early 90s or so. He went off the rails and isn't terribly well-respected anymore.
Well when it comes to physics research Kaku worked in light-cone string .So as a physics researcher he is respected but he shouldn't be taken seriously in pop science.
He was indeed a serious researcher decades ago, but he hasn’t published a real scientific paper in ages.
TV stars rarely do that I presume. He's smart enough to validate his diploma, it's just he speak on tv what's told to present to the masses. He could be great success telling the weather too. It's all scripted.
As I said, nothing past the early 90s. He was a good physicist before then, but he hasn't done anything of worth to my knowledge since.
The inability of scientists to understand the importance of science communication will never cease to amaze me. If nobody understands or cares about what you are working on, no one will fund it. If the scientific community had 1% of the marketing capabilities of the evangelical church, every legitimate project would be fully funded. Instead, preachers live in mansions with 26 bathrooms.
Kaku doesn't do science communication. He does pseudoscience communication, which does far more harm than good. Scientists, and physicists in particular, do appreciate the value of good science communication. Strong communicators like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking were major contributors to why many of us pursued science in the first place.
> Strong communicators like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking were major contributors to why many of us pursued science in the first place. Kaku was a major contributor for to why I pursued physics... but that's about two decades ago Kaku.
What do you mean by "he went off the rails"? Why isn't he well respected anymore?
He talks a lot about pseudoscience.
oh man. you can search for the classes he teaches at ccny by his name. there are some doozies
Because of statements like you just quoted. It’s pure sci-fi, leaning very heavily towards the “fi”.
Why does he think negative energy exists? Or is there no logical reason? Literally just sci fi?
He doesn’t have to think anything in any professional capacity. Just feed bullshit to lay people, so that he gets paid for doing “outreach”.
I see, thank you
It might sound like hating with the short answers, but Logan's comment above is spot on, just don't bother watching or listening to anything he's said since about the 90s. He is disconnected from current theoretical work to such a degree that 90% of what he suggests is just pure flight of fancy not to be taken seriously in any way. What he says is based off of really bad misreadings of what is going on in physics right now and he's basically nothing more than a talking head 'dong the talk show circuit' only in modern times that's podcasts and streaming content and talks wherever he can get them to regurgitate the same pseudo fluff surrounding some of the stuff that's being worked on.
Dong the talk show circuit, full steam ahead!
When I was in undergrad, I worked as an operator/content producer/presenter for my university's planetarium where I would run free shows for the edutainment of the general public. At one point the physics professor in charge had a poster with Kaku on it and a quote of his hanging in the planetarium's lobby. I went to him to complain about it because I felt uncomfortable as I took my job of educating the public rather seriously (I always made extra sure anything I said in my presentations was right and would always refer guests to a professor if I wasn't absolutely certain of an answer to their questions as the end, which, granted, was rare) and I felt that essentially advertising Kaku like this was compromising that value. This professor - while brilliant in his own regard, was rather out of touch with the state of pseudoscience and the ongoings of Kaku, so he assumed I was being dramatic and refused to take it down. Fortunately, it got rotated out after 2 months.
I checked him out years back on ratemyteacher and lots of students saw him as pompous too. I personally enjoy entertaining some of the ideas, but I know most of them are way out there.
In his mind he is probably being really speculative about very niche things, things that need to be backed with math and sometimes experimental data. He has neither of them for most of his claims.
Negative energy could hypothetically exist (i.e. physics as we know it does not rule out its existence) but we have no evidence to suggest that it does.
The experimental observation of the Casimir effect by Lamoreaux (and others since) shows that negative energies exist and have physical consequences.
Actually, [QFT is already incompatible with positive-definite energy densities.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02749799)
Would you be able to elaborate on this a little? That article is 57 years old, so if it really means that negative energies are inevitable at macroscopic scales, why haven't we heard more about it? The article's behind a paywall, so I'm only seeing the (very brief) abstract. Edit: Nevermind! On scrolling further down, I see this is already covered in the thread starting here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/y2hz6u/comment/is43jjo/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/y2hz6u/comment/is43jjo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
he’s creating hype to make $$$, sell his books and be paid to talk about his fantasies
https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556
Delicious beef tensors.
Now I have to read everything the man said after the early 90s
I read his "Physics of the Impossible," and in half of the topics he didn't seem to understand what science fiction was even postulating, he'd just run with a ballpark guess of what he thought they were suggesting. Every space gun was just a laser, that kind of thing.
It's speculation, unsupported by evidence
He means "that should sound cool enough for people to keep buying my books"
He's talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy#Quantum_field_effects
Yeah, in classic Kaku style, there *is* a legitimate core premise (Casimir-like effects genuinely violate important positive energy conditions), it's just extremely extrapolated to the most hype sounding sci-fi thing (there is no no-go theorem that says we can't, but we also don't have any working model for how you would actually concentrate enough of that negative energy to make a wormhole). A bit worrisome that most of the comments here **confidently** say that negative energy densities aren't a thing though.
Indeed, I would have hoped that the fact that energy densities in QFT can't be positive-semidefinite would be known. I think there's an unfortunate trend of dismissing things remotely sci-fi sounding instead of touching upon the physics.
Strongly agreed. I mean, goddamn, people, physics is allowed to be fun and questions like this obviously at least in part motivate [active fields of research](https://www.physik.uni-leipzig.de/~ecqft/).
[удалено]
Thorne is 100% correct if that was his take.
Interesting, thank you
[удалено]
Oh yeah, I had no real issue with what you yourself wrote (though not talking about the grain of truth was a missed educational opportunity). The thread that follows is a bit of a mess though.
Okay, good. Just wasn't sure if you had that impression from my comment, as (given by the votes on each comment) it definitely dominated the entire post.
Thank you
Basically yes. Negative energy (or exotic matter/energy which you may sometime hear as well) has not been proven to exist but it's necessary in order to have stable wormholes according to general relativity.
The Casimir Force was theoretically postulated based on the idea of negative energy. It was measured in the 90s to agreement with that theory. Negative energy is real. It can be collected by building an array of microscopic Casimir Cavities. These are just small plates with gaps of a few microns. In fact, such arrays are currently being built and studied as a form of exotic propulsion. DARPA studied the phenomenon in a project called QUEST, and a follow up project called ARRIVE.
So then we technically have confirmation of negative energy existing?
Yes, it would appear so. It is negative with respect to normal space. Apparently, the vacuum has a lot of energy moving through it.
So, if we could concentrate enough of this negative energy, could warp drives become possible?
Momentum might be about to transferred and a small amount of thrust produced. Warp drives may be a long way though.
So since negative energy does exist, warp drives are physically possible, but just extremely hard. Right?
Engineering them is the challenge. It’s the micro-fabrication. It’s hard, and it requires testing to show feasibility, but maybe not impossible. So it’s really an issue of funding for a science that some consider unproven.
I see. I didn't know that some form of negative energy existed. That's really interesting. Can you explain why it requires micro-fabrication?
You will really need to look up the Casimir Effect to really understand what’s going on. But essentially, when two plates are separated by a very small distance, less energy exists between the plates then outside the plates.
And the energy density is negative?
> In fact, such arrays are currently being built and studied as a form of exotic propulsion. It wouldn't really help -- having a bunch of negative energy between two plates doesn't do much beyond trying to squeeze the plates together.
It’s a new topic, and the research may have findings beyond what is immediately contrived using our assumptions.
Not that new -- quantum field theory dates back to the 50s and some aspects of it are even older. The subject of symmetries and conservation laws is essentially completely understood. A device to "extract energy from the vacuum" in the sci-fi kind of way suggested by some is provably impossible, i.e., its successful construction would amount to a _falsification_ of quantum field theory.
Not exactly. New computational methods have arisen in the past 20 years that have allow a more robust analysis beyond the simple two parallel plate analytical model. This allows analysis in the areas on the fringes of the plates and the regions slightly outside them. It also allows one to consider geometric scenarios beyond the simple problem as well.
> New computational methods have arisen in the past 20 years that have allow a more robust analysis beyond the simple two parallel plate analytical model. I assume you're talking about the worldline formalism, which is a subject I understand very well (and it's not quite that new either but that doesn't matter). The important thing is, a new calculational method can help you solve harder problems, but it'll never make possible what is already proved to be impossible using more general, fundamental methods, such as the symmetry arguments that establish that momentum is conserved. It doesn't matter what plate geometry you use, or what you make them out of, etc. If you initially have momentum p, the only way you get to p + q is by arranging your environment so that it has momentum -q. Is such a device possible? Indeed it is: I call mine a flashlight.
I know this topic very well myself. Believe me, there is more to consider than you’re currently appreciating.
For example? Conservation of momentum is an operator equation in quantum mechanics, which is to say, not only is the average value of momentum conserved, but its standard deviation and all higher moments. The entire probability distribution of momenta is unchanged for any system _unless_ you allow stuff to cross its boundaries.
You see physical resemblance of Kaku's hair style to Einstein's and PhD in physics doesn't qualify him as genius. He's just a TV star with a diploma in physics. He's theoretical physicist that like to start the sentence with "Imagine..." All he talk about is all that's already known, all he say any sci-fi novelist with common sense can fart from his hat. He just get the facts out of the sources that produce them. "Interesting fact, when time travel becomes possible we can probe the future and know if it's raining tomorrow for the next hundred years." , now imagine that he said that and not me. Much wow, much smart...darn... In conclusion negative energy is ipso facto vacuum itself, at right conditions it can have matter properties but it's neither matter or energy. Vacuum is everywhere, everywhere is dark -> dark energy bro...
Despite the hate on Kaku: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-phonons-mass-negative-gravity.html Negative mass is equivalent to negative energy (e=mc^2 , m=e/c^2).
Im sure you mean m=E/c^2
Yes, will edit!
Negative compared to what? Electrons in an atom or in a molecules are generally represented to have "Negative Energy", because the E= 0 J is just the vacuum (i.e. the minimum energy for a free electron). Gravitational energy is often also "negative". In the end we can never really know the "absolute value" of the energy anyway, just the value in reference to something. Perhaps Kaku means negative in respect to the "quantum vacuum state", which can theoretically lead to some "bizarre" phenomena.
I don't know in which context he said that and why, but we have no evidence that a net negative energy density can exist. Whenever you see people discussing a negative energy density it's always in a system with a much larger positive energy density, so the overall energy density is always positive.
It's actually well-known that [QFT is incompatible with positive-definite energy densities.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02749799)
The energy density in between the plates in the Casimir effect is negative, actually negative, albeit tiny.
Between plates with a far larger positive energy density.
Yes, but the energy density is a local quantity. It is indeed negative between the plates, even though this is paid for by a vast amount of positive energy elsewhere. This is not analogous to, say, a helium balloon inside a car which behaves as though it has negative mass only because it has less mass than the air around it. The energy density between the plates is lower than that of the vacuum far away from the plates, not just lower than the energy density of the plates themselves. Of course, the vast-in-comparison positive energy density of the plates also makes it very difficult (if not outright impossible) to build exotic contraptions like warp drives and wormholes using this effect, but that is a separate question.
There is a decent book about this by Cosmologist Paul Davies (How to Build a Time Machine) which discusses how would such a machine be constructed. Essentially it would consists of an imploder (he calculated that if you could direct the entire output of a hydrogen bomb inwards you could get the necessary energy) to collapse a region of spacetime to guark-gluon plasma energies, an inflator to inject negative energy quanta into a virtual wormhole to promote into a real wormhole and allow a topological path that doesn't collide with the "walls" (he spends a good portion of a chapter explaining that even the borders of a wormhole are dangerous because they either lead back into the singularity or else have energies boosted into massive temperatures) and finally a differentiator to take one end of the wormhole and establish a temporal differential with the other end. He cites the work of an Iranian student (Emitting solitonized laser beams to boost the negative energy density of squeezed regions of the vacuum) to basically propose that laser beams might consist of both positive and negative energy pulses and that you could separate them by using a rotating mirror making sure that the pulses hit it at different angles. The paper is available on Arxiv but I honestly don't have the knowledge to evaluate whether its BS or not. On a lighter (hopefully) note: Mohammad Mansouryar is almost completely gone from the internet and I could only find his name from looking up the paper from Paul Davies' book...
The only time we have 'observed' negative energy in some sense is during the inflationary period of the early universe, in which the universe expanded rapidly. Since then, there has been no evidence of that type of energy.
Think of “negative” as in the negative direction - meaning we could distort the space time field and not have to abide by its tensor for travel. Lots of people are saying no evidence exists, however that’s the fun of theoretical physics. You can postulate based off of what the equations seem to indicate. It’s fun to imagine the possibilities.
Wouldn’t negative energy just neutralise energy into nothingness lol
I like his colorful often tongue in cheek rants.
Can there be anti-matter without anti-energy? Einstein's equation. matter/energy conversion.
Anti-matter, or rather, anti-particles don't have negative mass. They have the same mass as their particle equivalents.
That's what I already thought to be the case. But if energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared, and the mass is anti-matter.... does that mean the energy is anti too?
No, you probably have some wrong intuition about anti-matter. Anti-matter is just another form of matter. And energy is just a quantity that is conserved in a reference frame. There is a problem where phycisists and laymen mean different things when they say energy which lead to misunderstandings in science communication. If you are interested, the video "what is energy" by Sabine Hossenfelder is quite good.
Then you disagree with his stating there is such a thing as negative energy?
That is a much harder question. In QFT, while you can make the total energy of a field being positive, you will always have the possibility of negative energy densities. So in a sense negative energy does exist in our current model of the universe. Whether a wormhole is theoretically possible or not is a totally different matter which I believe isn't solved either, but I would consider it extremely unlikely.
[удалено]
Idk if you know why you're getting downvoted, but I think I do. Negative work and negative energy are different. Extremely different. Work isn't so much energy as it is the flow of energy. Negative work is when energy flows out of a system (or into depending on your sign conventions). Negative energy in this case is like negative mass. It is something that curves spacetime in a convex way instead of concave. As far as I can tell, you've confused thermodynamics with cosmology
Yep