- #1
Silverious
- 52
- 0
I think I have the general idea of how it works.
But how does one particle get negative energy when it falls into the event horizon?
But how does one particle get negative energy when it falls into the event horizon?
Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
However, again expanding on Lurch, there is another possibility. BOTH particles (particle/antiparticle) are capable of escaping the Black Hole’s Event Horizon and becoming REAL!
I can expand on it, if anybody’s interested.
Because the distance between them, with high velocity during their 80 attosecond "virtual" existence, doesn't leave them close enough to each other to interact. So then, you have two "real" particles. There is no loss of energy, or "negative" energy since the mass of the BH decreases as per e = Mc2Originally posted by LURCH
I am! How can the virtual particles avoid annihilating with one another, without the event Horizon to separate them?
Originally posted by Labguy
Because the distance between them, with high velocity during their 80 attosecond "virtual" existence, doesn't leave them close enough to each other to interact. So then, you have two "real" particles. There is no loss of energy, or "negative" energy since the mass of the BH decreases as per e = Mc2
Originally posted by Silverious
I think I have the general idea of how it works.
But how does one particle get negative energy when it falls into the event horizon?
No, I didn't make that up! Sometimes a single virtual particle "escapes" and sometimes both particles escape, as someone mentioned above. Each and every release of Hawking radiation is not identical to every other particular release. Sometimes it is Photon pairs, sometimes Positron-Electron pairs, and even more massive pairs if enough energy is available at the EH. A few quotes from a few HR sites:Originally posted by Ambitwistor
You made that up. There isn't any equation for that process within the framework of quantum field theory in curved spacetime. LURCH is correct: the net energy of a vacuum-produced pair is required to be zero in QFT; that's why a positive-energy escaping particle has to be balanced by a negative-energy infalling particle. (If you disagree, present the calculation: handwaving not accepted.)
For a somewhat more detailed answer to the original question, see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=aic1qh$sdn$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu
Originally posted by Labguy
No, I didn't make that up! Sometimes a single virtual particle "escapes" and sometimes both particles escape, as someone mentioned above.
Each and every release of Hawking radiation is not identical to every other particular release.
A few quotes from a few HR sites:
I'm not going to wade through them all for you, but a few to browse are here:
In addition, I happen to own a few, small books; you know, those paper things where you don't read off of a CRT.
So, if two virtual particles just happen to travel at V=c, and if lifetime is long enough (based on Hz) for separation to be enough for no "mutual annihilation", then (1) one particle escapes and one re-enters the EH, or, (2) both escape. If you are saying that there is not enough time for (2) to take place, then you would also be saying that (1) cannot happen. That would be incorrect.
And, some of the citations could be incorrect, Hawking could be incorrect, Lurch could be incorrect, Einstein could be incorrect and I could be incorrect, but I certainly don't just make this crap up without at least looking about to see what other, more qualified scientists write in their books or post to various websites!
I'm not good enough to transfer them from "there" to here accurately. The latter can happen around an EH with high energy. Either way, the "lost" energy comes from the BH mass, as in the website quote I used above. The formula is e = Mc2, isn't that familiar?Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Like I said: prove it. Write down the equation for the latter process.
Sure it does, it only is meant to show that all HR is not just virtual photons. Other, more massive particles can be created, depending again on the energy at the EH.So? That has nothing to do with the previous statement.
Yes they do. The second quote I listed specifically, again, mentions the BH losing energy by the loss of mass.Those quotes don't support your point. In fact, they support mine: they all speak of the black hole losing energy when one particle falls in.
Same story, the second quote I listed.Maybe you should have waded through them all. I did, and none of them support your contention either.
No, my books are more on the order of "Dick and Jane See Black Holes".Do you own a few of these paper things that might happen to perform the actual calculation you're claiming exists? You know, like Birrell & Davies's Quantum Fields in Curved Space, or Wald's Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime? I do. If so, can you quote the relevant calculation that shows Hawking radiation producing a pair of particles from vacuum that both escape to infinity, because I didn't see it in my copy.
Yes, it is a matter of time. Allow no time and you would always have instant annilihation and no HR at all. Why do you think the third quote I posted was from a site explaining HR?It's not a matter of time; it's a matter of the fact that vacuum pair production produces real particles whose total energy is zero. If one escapes and has positive energy, the other falls in and has negative energy, relative to the same external observer. No observer ever sees a pair of real particles produced from vacuum.
No it wouldn't, because there is no strong gravitational "tug" away from an EH to separate the particles and prevent mutual wipeout. It is the strong gravity, the defined "EH" radius, and the time allowed that can create two particles and eat one of them. Isn't that what you said?(If that could happen, then it would be able to happen away from a horizon too, but you don't get real radiation from vacuum in the absence of some kind of horizon -- black hole event horizon, cosmological horizon, Rindler horizon, etc. It's the existence of a horizon which can divide the pair that allows for real radiation to be produced.)
Start at:I hate to break it to you, but none of your sources actually said what you claimed. So can you tell me where this claim actually came from, if not from you? Maybe all the books and papers I've read are wrong, but I'd like to see an actual calculation, by you or anybody else, that demonstrates what you claim.
I'm not good enough to transfer them from "there" to here accurately. The latter can happen around an EH with high energy. Either way, the "lost" energy comes from the BH mass, as in the website quote I used above. The formula is e = Mc2, isn't that familiar?
Sure it does, it only is meant to show that all HR is not just virtual photons. Other, more massive particles can be created, depending again on the energy at the EH.
Yes they do. The second quote I listed specifically, again, mentions the BH losing energy by the loss of mass.
Yes, it is a matter of time. Allow no time and you would always have instant annilihation and no HR at all. Why do you think the third quote I posted was from a site explaining HR?
No it wouldn't, because there is no strong gravitational "tug" away from an EH to separate the particles and prevent mutual wipeout.
Start at: http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm?tqskip1=1&tqtime=0602
then click on "The core" and then "virtual particles" and keep on clicking around long enough to find something useful. Back up and go to "Hawking Radiation" and click around again. These are called links. They even have some really neato formulae, considerably more than on the sub-Dick & Jane "Google" link you last provided.
"One of the virtual photons has to fall into the black hole in order to produce Hawking radiation."
You have several times demanded proof in the form of formulae, but I can't seem to find the formulae you posted here.(?)
I noticed that your last reply with my quotes did not quote my last paragraph. Why not?
If you know the citations or sources offhand, it would save me a lot of time from searching around what I already know is out there somewhere, but don't remember where.. (Duh!) However, I wouldn't blame you at all if you wern't exactly wild about jumping back in on this one, now.Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
<snip>
However, again expanding on Lurch, there is another possibility. BOTH particles (particle/antiparticle) are capable of escaping the Black Hole’s Event Horizon and becoming REAL!
I can expand on it, if anybody’s interested.
Originally posted by Labguy
Interesting, and long. You didn't post one, single thing that hasn't already been agreed upon,
I can state at least two examples of this happening, but I know you will come back with a "show me the math" response.
It might be easier if you "showed the math" that it can't.
Gee, I see that you did finally have to agree that time does have to be considered...
Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
For the Second Scenario (which I started, and seems to have caused a bit of agro between a couple of members). I would put forward that the creation of virtual pairs of particles/antiparticles will not violate any conservation of energy laws. Why? Because they exist for periods way below Planck Time and tidal forces will be inconsequential.
Just because virtual particles do not become ¡°observable¡±, does not mean that their existence cannot be detected. A theoretical effect, similar to the Casimir Effect can reveal their existence by observing miniscule changes in pressure.
Hawking Radiation and Black Holes violate numerous physical laws (eg. Baryon Number Conservation, ie. ¡°they consume information¡±). A new Special Theory of Relativity or completed String Theory like Susskind¡¯s) is needed to resolve these paradoxes.
As for Labguy¡¯s calculations, I agree.
Originally posted by Labguy
http://www.alcyone.com/max/physics/laws/h.html
where it states:
"Hawking radiation (S.W. Hawking; 1973)
The theory that black holes emit radiation like any other hot body. Virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are constantly being created in supposedly empty space. Occasionally, a pair will be created just outside the event horizon of a black hole. There are three possibilities:
both particles are captured by the hole;
both particles escape the hole;
one particle escapes while the other is captured."
In that simple quote, the "both particles can escape" stands out like a sore thumb. The apparent problem is that most sites, like the one above, always mention that case # 2 is resolved by all that has been described so far, with one of the particles re-entering the EH and returning the "borrowed" energy, just like Ambitwistor has been saying all along. On that most common description I will agree 100%.
(1) Two virtual particles are created just outside the EH, very short-lived based on frequency and seperation; they exist for a very short time.
(2) Both particles re-combine and annihilate. No energy has yet been "returned" to the BH and is still unaccounted for at this point.
(3) On annihilation, the energy gained from the BH is converted into an electron and a positron, each traveling away in different directions. The BH is still waiting for equilibrium. The electron and positron are now real particles.
(4) Any "lost" energy caused by the escape of the real particles is then returned to equilibrium by the loss of mass of the BH equivalent to the energy of the escaping real particles.
That scenario is as much as I can remember on the subject. I might have left out an important point or three, or it could be that this has since been dumped or disproven. Either way, that is as far as I can go on this subject without more references.
Hawking radiation is a theoretical concept proposed by physicist Stephen Hawking that suggests that black holes emit radiation over time, eventually causing them to evaporate.
Hawking radiation is based on the principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity. According to the theory, particles and anti-particles are constantly being created and destroyed near the event horizon of a black hole. In some cases, one particle may escape the black hole while the other is pulled into it, resulting in a net loss of mass and energy from the black hole.
Hawking radiation has significant implications for our understanding of black holes and the laws of physics. It suggests that black holes are not entirely "black" and can eventually disappear, which was previously thought to be impossible. It also provides a way to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity, which have been difficult to reconcile in the past.
Hawking radiation is very difficult to observe directly, as it is extremely faint and occurs in the region around a black hole that is beyond our ability to observe. However, there are ongoing efforts to detect the effects of Hawking radiation using advanced telescopes and other instruments.
While Hawking radiation is widely accepted among scientists, there are still debates and ongoing research regarding its exact mechanisms and consequences. Some scientists also question whether it is truly possible for black holes to evaporate completely as predicted by the theory.