Can you destroy energy?

[yevaud]

Just to throw in here, it's not a Virtual Particle that constitutes Hawking Radiation; it's a Virtual Pair that becomes real (non-virtual). By definition, Virtual Particles appear and self-annihilate so quickly, we can't even measure them. Well, not directly anyways.

Usually a Virtual Pair (non-Hawking Radiation) can become non-virtual via a chance encounter with a Photon, which breaks the pair and thus they become "real." In the case of Hawking Radiation, it's proximity to the Event Horizon (in short, intense gravity) that does effectively the same thing.

 

[KickLaBuka]

it's a Virtual Pair that becomes real

AxB=cheese Why? Because we see cheese.

 

[yevaud]

An odd thing...our scientists keep being right.

Frame-dragging and time-dilation now experimentally proven? Check.
Quantum Effects in the form of the Josephson Junction (electron making a Quantum jump, without traversing the intervening distance between two points)? Check. (This is how a Transistor works, btw)
Black Holes (first proposed many decades ago)? Effects detected.

Etc.

 

[KickLaBuka]

Frame-dragging and time-dilation now experimentally proven? Check.

A + B = C,
C - B = A,
therefore B.

Quantum Effects in the form of the Josephson Junction (electron making a Quantum jump, without traversing the intervening distance between two points)? Check. (This is how a Transistor works, btw)

Motions in packets is not a verification of quantum mechanics as true or necessary. Packets are the basis of quantum. Quantum deals in these step functions because of the observed, and it is very accurate; but Quantum is just math, to draw reality, not be reality. Nothing in quantum mechanics denotes the function of reality. And it is quite useless at any reasonable scale.

Black Holes (first proposed many decades ago)? Effects detected.

A-->B=True,
B=True.
Therefore A is true. It's just bad logic.

etc.

go on.

 

[yevaud]

go on.

No, you are (in 2 posts) hijacking this conversation. Please cease.

 

[KickLaBuka]

My first post was directly related to the conversation, and my second was directly related to your own drift. The topic began regarding creation of energy, and if I'm permitted to return to that topic, I agree that conservation of energy is the most well established principle in accepted physics; and that energy can be converted from one form to another.

 

[yevaud]

Pardon me, but your first post a few minutes ago was about cheese, and the one that followed was some triteness about logic.

Now cease, please.

 

[csmyth3025]

...the one that falls into the hole is actually a particle with negative energy ... so from the outside it appears the black hole loses mass.

What is a particle with negative energy?

Chris

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

What is a particle with negative energy?

Chris

I believe positrons are the negatives of electrons. Don't know if this helps at all.

 

[MeteorWayne]

It doesn't

That's not negative energy, it's an antiparticle, and we know every particle has an antiparticle.

 

[csmyth3025]

It doesn't

That's not negative energy, it's an antiparticle, and we know every particle has an antiparticle.

Sooo..... can you help me out with darkmatter4brains' description that the particle that falls inside the event horizon has negative energy and the one that's ejected has positive energy?

Chris