Hawking Radiation

[nojocujo]

"Saiph is correct in stating that no known particles have negative mass or energy for that matter. When 'negative energy' is used, it is simply a descriptive tool and not physical in nature. Particles/anti-particles are only opposite in charge or spin of the particle.<br />That clears up a lot."<br /><br />A virtual particle does not really exist except in the math of Quantum mechanics. It represents a transitional state of a particle relative to its' energy state in a system. <br /><br />"Now... when this happens near the event horizon of a black hole, sometimes one of the particles gets boosted away from it's anti-particle." <br /><br />Particles and antiparticles are very similar in that they have mass ans spin and may have charge/color. The antiparticle is the evil twin of the particle which has nothing to do with the virtual particle. The virtual particle represents a simple math problem......... subtract 2 from 4 and the sum is two but and this is the antiparticle where did the other 2 go???<br /><br /> <br />"The particle boosted away becomes real and observable containing mass or energy as it was not destroyed by being annihilated."<br /><br />Here you are talking particle/antiparticle when you say annihilated. Hawking was talking particle/virtual particle and in this sense he was explainging there was a net loss in the vacuum energy in the creation of the particle and hence the virtual particle has to exist even if we can't see it. The problem here is that QM breaks down here as well as GM. We are at the event horizon...... The two systems don't relate well at the energy of an event horizon.<br />Nonetheless, this is not pair prodution and the energies represented at the event horizon should be insufficient for pair production and at the event horizon except for the gravitaional energy density of the BH all other thermodynamic properties are irrelevant as they are hidden from the particle. There are two problems here...... 1 is that there should be no net loss in that

 

[derekmcd]

"<i>Another particle/antiparticle/virtual particle snf mixing apples asnd oranges.</i>"<br /><br />I'm not really clear on what you mean with this statement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[nojocujo]

A virtual particle represents an imbalance of energy in QM relative to a particle which can't last for long.<br /><br />Particle/antiparticle are two actual particles representing matter and antimatter.<br /><br />Apples and oranges. They are not the same thing.

 

[mrcurious]

<font color="yellow">One is a real particle that either fell in or did not fall in to the bh, (QM probalbities) the other virtual particle represents a net energy loss in a QM system but which I don't think applies here since the particle creation would have been within a cosmological system representing the gravitational potential both within and extant to the event horizon of the bh. It is not a local event.</font><br /><br />I was following you up till this point.....I don't full understand what you mean.....<i>Its not a local event.</i>

 

[nojocujo]

If it is the probabilities of QM that you have a problem with so did Einstein...... But based on its' success at predicting new particles and how everything fits except quantum gravity which really can be ignored in a flat spacetime since its' effects are less than measurable and have no meaningful influence on matter or energy. But, don't misconstrue that statement.......... as matter accretes it curves spacetime and additionally affects the Planck units in that they are relative to the curvature of spacetime but gravity is unaffected as spacetime curves effectively increasing its' strenght. Gravity being so weak the change in force is almost immeasurable. The only way to measure a change would be to attempt to monitor the matter influx in known bh of known specific mass and correlate the observed effects. The problem is there may be an inferance that the bh is more massive than it really is.<br /><br />Or <br /><br />I think that you don't understand how i meant local. Everyone thinks that what enters a bh stays there. To a degree that is true but gravitationally speaking this is not true. The total gravitational potential of the system affects particles both above and below the event horizon. Additionally, gravity and the the electro magnetic force both have an infinite range meaning that they exert force beyond the event horizon. Both of these forces dictate that the effects of a bh are not locally constrained relative to gravity and to a lesser degree EMF at great distances and by the inverse it is much stronger than gravity at smaller distances than infinity but both enjoy infinite influence. A function of the wavelength. EMF can be amplified as we already know to strengthen and extend it's influence. We currently don't know how to amplify gravity.

 

[alokmohan]

Black holes radiate is quite a serious thing and not so amateurish..You have to know similarity between entropy and surface of event horizon.Requires lot of reading.

 

[derekmcd]

Isn't the only difference between the two is that one is directly dectable and the other is not?<br /><br />I know, you are correct that the virtual particle is a direct consequence of the HUP. But we do detect the effects of these 'virtual' particles.<br /><br />I though they were only virtual in that they can not be directly observed and only math can describe them.<br /><br />I think when speaking in the context of hawking radiation, using particle/anti-particle is acceptable terminology. I can how my usage of annihilation might be misleading... maybe recombination might have been better, but I think my usage was proper given the context of the discussion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[nojocujo]

Isn't the only difference between the two is that one is directly detectable and the other is not?<br /><br />If a VP is dectected it becomes real. A vp transfers a force or nergy level. They are real in the feynman diagrams as a transitional state. They do effectively violate the law of conservation of energy but are allowed by HUP so are transitional but only briefly in time and space.<br /><br />I know, you are correct that the virtual particle is a direct consequence of the HUP. But we do detect the effects of these 'virtual' particles. <br /><br />The effects are detectable.<br /><br />I though they were only virtual in that they can not be directly observed and only math can describe them. <br /><br />If they are observed they become real. The math helps to describe the effects they will have on other particles within HUP.<br /><br />I think when speaking in the context of hawking radiation, using particle/anti-particle is acceptable terminology.<br /><br />You were using terminology that is perfectly acceptable within the context of Hawking radiation within the scientific community except I personally don't feel it is appropriate and I hope I explained why. I did not object to how you used it. I am sorry if you thought that!<br /><br />I can see how my usage of annihilation might be misleading... maybe recombination might have been better, but I think my usage was proper given the context of the discussion.<br /><br />I have seen annihilation used over and over and it was proper. I do think that recombination is a better term in that I think HUP will not often allow vp/particle to particle/antiparticle often since the mc2 of a vp/p < p/ap. Also pair production of a vp equivalent to an antiparticle/particle would be free energy in the annihilation. <br />Recombination sounds much more sedate but is probably the correct term.<br /><br /> I can how my usage of annihilation might be misleading... maybe recombination might have been better, but I think my usage was proper given the c

 

[alokmohan]

Virtual particle is new way of thinking exploding black holes?

 

[nojocujo]

Are you talking of GRB 060714 where you have the initial GRB and then subsequent in time 5 XRF following indicating the central engine has additional instabilities? I think that Peter Mezaros of Swift/PSU will have a paper in August. I think everyone can now agree that SN GRB and XRF are all associated with a central engine exclusive of the merger which should produce a jet.<br /><br />http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Swift5-2007.htm<br /><br />I expect that the paper will conclude that a jet in certain cases (non merger) does not exist and that the central engine of the gravitational collapse which at sufficient energies would include pair production through cp violation asymmetry which serves to cool the bh to an analogy of the bose einstein condensate. I may be going too far in what the paper will say but the inference will be there I think!<br /><br />The VP would be a transitional energy state in the collapse to a QG plasma. <br /><br />If I am way off base please explain. <br /><br />BTW I really don't think it is possible to explode a BH where the BH is a subset of the system it inhabits. <br /><br />You may be referrng to sn2006aj which may have been a pai production sn. The pair production and whether it serves to enable an explosive event as in sn2006aj and a conversion of energy to mass is gravitational energy dependent.. I think there are more than one horizon and the event horizon will prevent energy from escaping in a static system. I also think that an energy horizon must exist where all energy except gravitational energy is converted to mass thereby cooling the closed system.

 

[nojocujo]

BTW the sn2006aj was an under luminous SN in that its' light did not reach what would be expected for the event and its' distance. This can be explained by the photon traversing a diminishing geometric gravitational well effectively creating a concave lensing effect.

 

[derekmcd]

"<i>I did not object to how you used it. I am sorry if you thought that! </i>"<br /><br />I did. Thanks for the clarification. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Hawking radiation is thermo dynamic in nature.

 

[alokmohan]

Hawking bomb explodes ,black holes explode.

 

[theishugo]

According to Hawking radiation a&nbsp; black hole will evaporate given the time needed, the amount of time&nbsp;is irrelevant in my question wich is : when closing in on the end of life, the mass&nbsp;will be reduced and I wonder if the black hole have a critical mass issue as&nbsp;in the opposite way that of its creation. the black hole need a certain mass to implode, but&nbsp;when loosing mass beyond critical amount, will it explode back into "reality" again ?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re:

Hawking bomb explodes ,black holes explode.

Well good to see you're back with a pointless incoherent post