Could fractal spacetime models explain why we observe no negative-mass objects in nature?

Your question asks whether fractal spacetime models could explain an observational fact—why we don't see negative-mass objects. Let me work through what the archive says.

The fractal spacetime approach is intriguing but doesn't directly solve the "absence" puzzle. [AG-2024.01-439] models anti-gravity as an *effective* description emerging from vacancy-dominated fractals (like a Menger Sponge), where reduced local "substratum density" mimics a negative-mass Schwarzschild metric. This is clever: it reinterprets negative-mass geometry in purely geometric terms. But it's a *reframing*, not an explanation for why nature avoids negative mass in the first place.

The real constraint appears to be dynamical instability. [AG-2024.07-629] argues that classical general relativity itself disfavors negative masses without invoking quantum theory: negative-mass "stars" are dynamically unstable across many models, and *any* barotropic negative-mass star must be unstable. This is the key: negative-mass objects may be mathematically possible solutions to Einstein's equations, but they collapse or blow apart before we could observe them.

Supporting this, [AG-2026.01-618] shows that mixed positive-negative mass configurations are always unstable, with growth rates that increase at shorter wavelengths—driving the system toward strong coupling and breakdown. So even if negative masses could exist transiently, they wouldn't cluster or persist long enough to form observable objects.

The fractal model doesn't address this instability question directly—it sidesteps the issue by claiming apparent negative mass is really just sparse geometry. Whether that sidestep is physical remains unclear; the archive notes [AG-2024.01-439] it lacks a microscopic derivation from a stress-energy tensor.

The preprints don't directly connect fractal spacetime stability to the observed absence of negative-mass objects.