Stephen Hawking Says 'God Particle' Could Wipe Out the Universe

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by cosmictraveler, Sep 9, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    While it certainly is true that Hawking Radiation has not been fully observationaly verified, its application seems logical.

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    Experimental observation of Hawking radiation[edit]
    Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems this effect is too small to be observed directly. In September 2010, however, an experimental set-up created a laboratory "white hole event horizon" that the experimenters claimed was shown to radiate Hawking radiation,[23] although its status as a genuine confirmation remains in doubt.[24] Some scientists predict that Hawking radiation could be studied by analogy using sonic black holes, in which sound perturbations are analogous to light in a gravitational black hole and the flow of an approximately perfect fluid is analogous to gravity.
    WIKI:
    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    Here's a nice little BBC video explaining the excellent Hawking concept.......

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6srN4idq1E


    As explained in the video, part of the greatness of Hawking was his Imaginative process in being able to link the theories of the very big and the very small for the first time.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    the difference between Hawking and quantum theory is that the formation of a particle/anti-particle under standard quantum theory is of 'virtual' particles than can become real if mass/energy of the mass value of both is imparted to them (e.g. creation of a positron/electron pair). Under Hawking's idea, mass can be negative or positive, and both are real particles formed at the event horizon, with the real negative mass falling in, and the positive mass moving away (at sufficient speed to escape the gravitational attraction).

    But having 'negative mass' is like going north of the north pole. not possible. what does 'negative mass' mean, anyway.

    In any event, it is unproven, notwithstanding the sonic analogy (which does not rely on negative mass).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181
    There is some experimental evidence for negative mass/energy.

    In the Casimir effect, there is a negligibly small amount of pseudo-negative energy. Collect enough of it (theoretically) and it should act like exotic matter.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    I don't know what evidence you were referring to but.... A translation of the portion above in bold, in plain language would be,

    "there is a negligibly small amount of not genuine or sham-negative energy."​

    We may have evidence of energies that work in opposition to one another, but that does not make one a negative energy in the sense it seems you intended.

    But then perhaps you could explain, the comment in the context of the Casimir effect?
     
  8. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    I actually agree with Manifold1 here. As I understand it, (maybe a loose term. Back off, flamers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ), there is no infinite time dilation near the EH, it is undefined at the EH. Above the EH, there are tidal forces for macroscopic bodies, but if I remember correctly there are good maths extant that describe the near neighborhood under various initial conditions.

    Virtual particle pair creation certainly occurs as far as the maths go, BHs have an effective black-body temperature. Read at John Baez' site: Hawking Radiation.

    Dammit, I had more, but the phone rang and I need to go.
     
  9. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    It's meaningless. There are no negative-mass particles, just as there are no negative carpets. Imagine you have a room with an area of say 16m², and you want to buy a carpet. The mathematician says there are two solutions to √16, and proposes a carpet measuring -4m by -4m. But there is no such thing as a negative length. It's a non-real solution.

    It's just less positive energy. And vacuum fluctuations aren't the same thing as virtual particles. The former are random electromagnetic ripplets, like the ripplets on the surface of the sea. The latter are field quanta, where you divide a standing electromagnetic field into chunks and say each is a virtual particle. Google on virtual particle evanescent. Virtual particles don't "pop in and out of existence". That's a popscience myth.

    Dr Toad: re the black hole, the $64,000 question is why doesn't the vertical light beam get out? If you stand on a gedanken planet with a laser pointed straight up, the light doesn't bend round or slow down or fall back. When we make the planet massive, it still doesn't, even when we go all the way and make it so massive that it's a black hole. So why doesn't the light get out?
     
  10. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181


    Just a few ''quirkations'' I have with this.


    As far as I know, vacuum fluctuations are largely virtual in the sense, they don't stick around for long. My [best] (doesn't make it right) but my best understanding of quantum physics is that a virtual particle is just a special class of a shorter lived longer stable fluctuation, which make up observable matter.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Any photons emitted directly radially away from the EH of a BH, does not get any further away, simply because it is moving away at "c", the same as the escape velocity of the EH is at "c"
    Not too hard for anyone with even a limited understanding of physics to realise.
    A useful analogy is imagining a fish swimming up stream against a river current. If he matches the same speed as the current, then in effect he goes nowhere.
    http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw.html

    http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
     
  12. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    They don't stick around for long, but they're real, not virtual. Virtual particles aren't real particles. See Matt Strassler's article which isn't bad: "The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle..."

    No. A real photon isn't made up of short-lived virtual photons. It's an electromagnetic wave aka field-variation. You can make an electron (and a positron) out of the real photon, and its real standing-wave electromagnetic field isn't made up of short-lived virtual photons. Interactions are modelled using virtual photons which are "chunks of field", but there aren't any short-lived real photons popping in and out of existence or flying back and forth between the electron and the proton in the hydrogen atom. Hydrogen atoms don't twinkle, magnets don't shine. Virtual particles popping in and out of existence like short-lived real particles is a pop-science myth.


    Only it's wrong. You know it's wrong even according to your own understanding, because you claim that the speed of light is constant. So light doesn't slow down in that upward laser beam.

    That's Chicken-Little popscience rubbish I'm afraid. The Earth's escape velocity is 11km/s. The upward speed of light is not reduced by that amount. Nor is there any sense in which a current in space is falling down at 11km/s. A gravitational field alters the motion of light through space, it doesn't suck space in.
     
  13. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181
    Hi far, you said '' A real photon isn't made up of short-lived virtual photons.''


    I never actually said that. There is a distinction between a particle and a virtual particle inasmuch, one is a stable fluctuation, the latter only has a real influence for extremely short periods of time.


    It will be an interesting clue for physics to find why this reason is!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    That isn't the distinction, Manifold. The distinction is that one is real, the other one isn't. A virtual particle is a virtual particle. It isn't a real particle in any sense. It isn't a short-lived real particle. That's a popscience myth for kids, only it's a myth that's been around for so long that people think it's true.

    Virtual particles have been referred to as something like the accounting units of QED. Think about your bank balance. Let's say it's £1000. You could say your bank balance is comprised of 100,000 virtual pennies. But there isn't a big heap of coppery coins actually sitting in some room called your bank account. When you get paid £1000 there aren't 100,000 pennies flying through the air from your employer to your bank. And nor are those virtual pennies popping in and out of existence. They just aren't.

    Think of a proton. It's got an electromagnetic field, right? Now think of an electron. It's got another electromagnetic field, right? Only the hydrogen atom doesn't have much in the way of an electromagnetic field. Because the proton's electromagnetic field and the electron's electromagnetic field largely cancel reach other out. It's like as the proton end electron interact, they're cancelling each other's field. A photon is an electromagnetic field-variation. When the proton / electron electromagnetic fields undergo a variation, it's modelled as something called a virtual photon exchange. But a virtual photon isn't a photon. Like I said, hydrogen atoms don't twinkle.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    No its not wrong. It is the accepted mainstream scenario aligning with Einstein's GR.
    Maybe you have comprehension limitations, as no one ever mentioned about light slowing down.
    The photon is moving directly radially away at "c" and spacetime is falling in at "c".
    Another analogy besides the fish swimming upstream is viewing spacetime as a waterfall.





    Wrong again Farsight...The only "chicken little pop science" is what you are hypothesising.
    The photon is always at "c" but at just outside the EH of a BH, gravity [spacetime curvature], is such that it nullifies the "c" aspect of the photon, and in relation to the EH, appears to just hover there.
    Again, this is the accepted mainstream science picture, and not some fairy tale proposal, driven by personal delusions of grandeur.
    You need to forget your delusions Farsight, and climb up on the shoulders of the giants of the past and present, to get a more realistic practical view of reality, other then your own limited mindset.

    http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw.html

    http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html


    The above scenario aligns with Albert's theory of GR, and the interpretation and observational evidence gathered since he formulated his theory.
     
  16. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181
    Well, an electron as far as quantum theory can tell, is just a slowed down photon. Schrodinger, Dirac... and more scientists after them, share the same contention... a photon is a strange particle indeed... it's not just fundamental in the cosmological scale of things, quantum mechanics can allow it to follow a topology giving it a charge and mass.
     
  17. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    If the Williamson - VanderMark model is correct.

    Here's something from another POV still: Torus, from Miles Mathis. :crazy:

    In my humble opinion, neither is reasonable.
     
  18. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    No it isn't. It's popscience trash that has nothing to do with Einstein's GR. It even contradicts your own misunderstanding of Einstein's GR.

    Cringe! Neither spacetime nor space is falling inward where a gravitational field is. A gravitational field is modelled as curved spacetime, and the underlying reality is inhomogeneous space. It alters the motion of light and matter through space, but it doesn't suck space in. That isn't mainstream, it's cargo-cult popscience trash, and it shouldn't be on a physics website. Oh Jeez, a Ren and Stimpy cartoon. You know what? I'm going to have a chat with this Andrew Hamilton.
     
  19. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181
    Cosmologically-speaking, farsight is correct. In any direction we look in space, it's pretty much flat, which is an indication that GR breaks down on cosmological scales, while simultaneously, unable to unify quantum mechanics, other than the famous wheeler de witt equation.
     
  20. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    It doesn't, Manifold. Cross my heart and hope to die. We need to talk about gravity.

    IMHO it's pointing in the right direction, or if you prefer, it's "essentially correct". Check out Dirac's belt and the Moebius strip, and the Dirac spinor. Note that the latter is a bispinor. There's a compound rotation. We make electrons out of light in pair production. We can diffract them. In atomic orbitals "electrons exist as standing waves". The Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that "spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". And in electron-positron annihilation you typically get two photons. There is no magic. What else is the electron if it isn't a photon caught up in closed path? We literally made it out of light. When we annihilated it we got the light back. So what's it made of? Cheese?
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Not at all. It is accepted mainstream application of GR.
    If you have any other "thoughts" hypothesis, I suggest you follow the scientific methodology and get it peer reviewed.
    And please don't cry conspiracy to me.




    It's an analogy...and if you were any sort of a physicist or student of cosmology, you would know that analogies do have limitations.
    Let me explain it to you again.
    Any photon emitted directly radially away from just outside the EH of a BH, will appear to hover there, not quite escaping, and not secumbing to the escape velocity of the EH of 299,792,458 mtrs / sec.
    Now if you see that any different, then get it peer reviewed.
    Oh, and best of luck with your chat.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181
    I'm sorry paddy, but you shouldn't be looking into a crystal ball without seeing your own reflection. Don't inflict such a negative response, some of these responses is the reason why this site is in current turmoil - discuss elements of the subject, don't add insults to justify your own means.
     
  23. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181
    ''It doesn't, Manifold. Cross my heart and hope to die. We need to talk about gravity. ''

    Don't worry friend, we shall get back on those talks soon.
     

Share This Page