I do not mean antimatter, I mean mass that "pushes" instead of "pulls" (to expand space instead of contract it). But it doesn't necessarily have to be negative mass. It can be "negative energy," because it is "energy" that shapes space according to GR, not mass (mass works too because mass is just energy). A "negative energy" is seen in the Casimir effect, and in Hawking radiation (one observed, one theoretical) so it's not without precedence. What we call "Dark Energy" could also potentially be a negative energy and it certainly seems to expand space. Our cosmological models say "it's not negative energy it's negative pressure" (even though it acts exactly like negative energy), but quite frankly, our cosmological models are all wrong. Everyone knows they are wrong, but they hold onto them with both hands and won't let go mostly I think to keep their jobs (paraphrased from my graduate cosmology professor). That's an aside however.

Except for the Casimir effect (which is an observation), these are all "arguments from the model," not arguments from actual evidence. The models we have, have nothing to do with how things really are, they are just models. They are useful, but what can really happen (all possible phenomena) is unknown and unknowable if we rely on the models themselves. Every time we get a new observation that wasn't predicted by a previous model, we make a new model or modify an existing one by injecting new axioms, which is really the same thing an entirely new model. We call it "the same model," (the Standard Model has fundamentally changed numerous times e.g.) but it's really not, because it required completely new premises (and subsequent math) to fit observation.

So yes, I don't have any idea what "negative matter" might mean as an observable, but to create a warp bubble or a wormhole (according to GR) all we really need to be able to do is expand space. We know how to contract space pretty well, just put mass/energy into it. We don't know how to expand space very well, but we have observations that suggest that it does that fairly often on its own. Just because we don't have very good models that allow us to engineer the expansion of space on command, doesn't mean it can't be done, nor does it mean someone else hasn't figured out how to do it.

I do not mean antimatter, I mean mass that "pushes" instead of "pulls" (to expand space instead of contract it). But it doesn't necessarily have to be negative mass. It can be "negative energy," because it is "energy" that shapes space according to GR, not mass (mass works too because mass is just energy). A "negative energy" is seen in the Casimir effect, and in Hawking radiation (one observed, one theoretical) so it's not without precedence. What we call "Dark Energy" could also potentially be a negative energy and it certainly seems to expand space. Our cosmological models say "it's not negative energy it's negative pressure" (even though it acts exactly like negative energy), but quite frankly, our cosmological models are all wrong. Everyone knows they are wrong, but they hold onto them with both hands and won't let go mostly I think to keep their jobs (paraphrased from my graduate cosmology professor). That's an aside however.

Except for the Casimir effect (which is an observation), these are all "arguments from the model," not arguments from actual evidence. The models we have, have nothing to do with how things really are, they are just models. They are useful, but what can really happen (all possible phenomena) is unknown and unknowable if we rely on the models themselves. Every time we get a new observation that wasn't predicted by a previous model, we make a new model or modify an existing one by injecting new axioms, which is really the same thing an entirely new model. We call it "the same model," (the Standard Model has fundamentally changed numerous times e.g.) but it's really not, because it required completely new premises (and subsequent math) to fit observation.

So yes, I don't have any idea what "negative matter" might mean as an observable, but to create a warp bubble or a wormhole all we really need to be able to do is expand space. We know how to contract space pretty well, just put mass/energy into it. We don't know how to expand space very well, but we have observations that suggest that it does that fairly often on its own. Just because we don't have very good models that allow us to engineer the expansion of space on command, doesn't mean it can't be done, nor does it mean someone else hasn't figured out how to do it.

I do not mean antimatter, I mean mass that "pushes" instead of "pulls" (to expand space instead of contract it). But it doesn't necessarily have to be negative mass. It can be "negative energy," because it is "energy" that shapes space according to GR, not mass (mass works too because mass is just energy). A "negative energy" is seen in the Casimir effect, and in Hawking radiation (one observed, one theoretical) so it's not without precedence. What we call "Dark Energy" could also potentially be a negative energy and it certainly seems to expand space. Our cosmological models say "it's not negative energy it's negative pressure" (even though it acts exactly like negative energy), but quite frankly, our cosmological models are all wrong. Everyone knows they are wrong, but they hold onto them with both hands and won't let go mostly I think to keep their jobs. That's an aside however.

Except for the Casimir effect (which is an observation), these are all "arguments from the model," not arguments from actual evidence. The models we have, have nothing to do with how things really are, they are just models. They are useful, but what can really happen (all possible phenomena) is unknown and unknowable if we rely on the models themselves. Every time we get a new observation that wasn't predicted by a previous model, we make a new model or modify an existing one by injecting new axioms, which is really the same thing an entirely new model. We call it "the same model," (the Standard Model has fundamentally changed numerous times e.g.) but it's really not, because it required completely new premises (and subsequent math) to fit observation.

So yes, I don't have any idea what "negative matter" might mean as an observable, but to create a warp bubble or a wormhole all we really need to be able to do is expand space. We know how to contract space pretty well, just put mass/energy into it. We don't know how to expand space very well, but we have observations that suggest that it does that fairly often on its own. Just because we don't have very good models that allow us to engineer the expansion of space on command, doesn't mean it can't be done, nor does it mean someone else hasn't figured out how to do it.