Does Hawking Radiation preclude EH formation?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, Dec 11, 2012.

  1. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    It's not just opinion. See the two photon physics article on wikipedia? It concerns actual gamma-gamma pair production, and is fairly representative of what you've been taught. Now pay attention to this excerpt:

    "From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple."

    This says pair production occurs because pair production occurs. It's a non-answer tautology, and I'm afraid it's wrong. Gamma-gamma pair production occurs because photons do interact. We have direct evidence of gamma-gamma pair production. What we have no evidence of, is single photons spontaneously morphing into an electron-positron pair which then miraculously annihilates back into a single photon.

    What you've been taught misinterprets QED, disregards what Feynman said, and treats a calculation method as reality when it isn't. Do you seriously think an electromagnetic field consists of short-lived photons flitting back and forth? Do you seriously think there are tiny flashes of light within a hydrogen atom, or that a magnet shines? Virtual photons are field quanta, or "chunks of field". Like you've divided a field up into little cubes. They aren't actual particles flittering around, and they aren't the same thing as the vacuum fluctuations of the very weak Casimir effect. And I reiterate, we have no evidence of single photons spontaneously morphing into an electron-positron pair which then miraculously annihilates back into a single photon.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    You have no idea what I've been taught, given you don't understand it.

    It isn't attempting to explain pair production. That comes about from the fact the quantum field in question is a superposition of many different configurations. Due to the coupling between the electron and photon fields (and likewise for any charged particle there's a particle-photon coupling) there is a change of a transition from a system state of a photon to a system state of a positron and electron and also in the opposite direction.

    You don't know what QED actually says or any of the mathematical details so all you can do is warp and misrepresent/misunderstand wordy explanations on places like Wikipedia. How many times do you need to be corrected before you learn this isn't a very good way of learning things?

    We do not have evidence of direct photon-photon interactions. We have evidence of photon-photon scattering but it is inline with the QED view of the photon -> electron+positron -> photon process. It is a well known scattering process, known as the 'box diagram' when written using Feynmann diagrams.

    Actually we do. As I said, the photon -> electron+positron -> photon process affects the propogator of the photon within QED. Likewise processes like electron -> electron + photon -> electron + electron + positron -> electron + photon -> electron alter the electron propogator. ALL loop Feynmann diagrams pertain to these sorts of things, the production of pairs and then their recombinations in various ways.

    What you can then do is compute what QED predicts if you don't allow any loops (known as 'tree level' as all the diagrams form trees) and then compute what QED predicts when you add in all 1 loop contributions, then 2 loop, then 3 etc. If you only go to tree level then QED is not accurate for things like the computation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. When you start adding in the loop contributions the QED prediction gets better and better.

    We've calculated up to something like 5 loop and the prediction matches experiment to parts per trillion. It is the most accurate prediction in any part of science ever. So I would say that your claim we have no evidence of such things is mistaken. If we don't include those processes in our calculations then QED is wrong but the errors are made smaller and smaller as more and more loops are included.

    But you wouldn't know this, having never studied QED, having never dealt with experimental data, having never compared predictions with experiments that you've processed yourself. Instead you can only go to Wikipedia, look at a wordy simplification someone else wrote for you and then misunderstand it.

    Again, you're basing this on your own extensive knowledge and experience of QED? I think I'll take the professors who taught me and examined my knowledge over you.

    I'm not treating the calculation as reality. I know you like to keep saying that but you really should pack it in, given the number of times I've had to correct you on this. The fact the calculations obtained by including in the model processes which represent pair production become more and more accurate shows that there is a viable explanation for the observed values of various things and the dynamics of particle systems and QED is a viable model.

    As for what Feynmann said you have never looked at his actual work. Reading his pop science books only gets you so far. I've read them too, so have many other physicists. But unlike you I've looked at his quantitative work, the stuff which actually got him the Nobel Prize. I doubt you have and even if you have you lack the mathematical capabilities to understand it.

    Why should anyone think you have the right understanding of what Feynmann thought and everyone else is wrong? You have no source of information unique to you and in fact you ignore or cannot understand many sources of information about Feynmann which others do understand.

    You have no idea what virtual particles really are within field theory, given you cannot do any of the actual field theory pertaining to them. I know you want to think you have this magical insight but as I've just illustrated, that isn't the case. No, I don't think magnets shine, I never said that, it was purely your assumptions about my interpretations of work you cannot grasp but think you do.

    Rather than making up things about what you hope other people think why don't you spend your time more constructively? Like actually learning how to do some of the stuff Feynmann developed in QED? Why don't you learn how to understand wavefunctions, quantum fields, scattering matrices, decay widths and all that? That way you'd actually know what QED says rather than having to make it up.

    I really hope you're aware that you're doing this, at least that would mean you're just somewhat dishonest and unwilling to admit gaps in your understanding (no matter how clearly they are highlighted). The alternative is considerably worse.

    And I reiterate we do as QED provides an explanation for why the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron isn't exactly 2, the corrections due to this flittering. Likewise for many (if not all) other objects within quantum field theory.

    I feel I should also point out that we have absolutely no evidence that any of your work is even vaguely close to reality. QED is accurate, that is undeniable, and thus it is not unreasonable to consider the physical interpretations it has as possible. Your claims are utterly without basis, lacking any ability to model ]anything and yet you claim its worth multiple Nobel Prizes. This is why I consider so little of you, the hypocrisy is mind boggling.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    No, it says pair production occurs because of quantum fluctuations. Virtual particles are, by definition, incapable of being measured with any precision.

    Cite your reference on "what Feynman said".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    You said pair production happens all the time all over the place and you have no evidence whatsoever to support that. And you deliberately ducked the issue of single photons spontaneously morphing into an electron-positron pair which then miraculously annihilates back into a single photon. Ad-hominems directed at is no substitute for that evidence.
     
  8. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Just like PL, Farsight seems to conflate pair production with virtual pair production. Guess which one is relevant to HR.
     
  9. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Sorry, I missed this one.

    The explanation is quite straightforward. We don't see pair production happening all the time all over the place. Alphanumeric's assertion totally lacks evidential support. Look in a cloud chamber or the modern equivalent. Do you see tracks like this o o o o o o o o as photons pass through, spontaneously morphing into electrons and positrons which miraculously defy conservation of momentum to morph back into single photons? No of course not. Do you see some photons going slower than others which don't have the energy to morph into a 511keV electron and 511keV positron which can't travel at the speed of light? No.

    You might think that, but note that Akphanumeric is defending Hawking radiation. We have no experience of it, and it's built on the idea that pair production is happening all the time all over the place.

    No you don't. Pair production typically occurs when a gamma photon of over 1022keV interacts with a nucleus. That's where you see it. You don't see pair production occurring when you "look" at a region of empty space. If you think you do, then provide the supporting evidence. You can't because there isn't any.
     
  10. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    I'm not conflating anything Syne. And I'm not confusing virtual particles with short-lived real particles like many people do. Nor am I kidding myself that I'm surrounded by a seething mass of transient electorns and positrons, or that photons or electrons or positrons convey "negative energy" into a black hole causing its evaporation. Or that the infinite time dilation at the event horizon doesn't matter a damn.

    ETA:

    Pair production occurs because of real particle interaction. It doesn't just happen all on its own, spontaneously, like magic, in empty space. Because of virtual particles, which "by definition" cannot be measured. Or seen. You might just as well ascribe pair production to invisible dancing angels. Why can't we see these angels? the scientist asks. Why, because they're invisible! That's not science. That's cargo-cult science. I'll get back to you on the Feynman reference. Right now, I have to go.
     
  11. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    "Negative energy" is only a descriptive heuristic.

    Pair production occurs in environments that virtual particles can have their energy "boosted" into becoming real particles. The gravitation of a black hole is such an energetic environment. And we have plenty of indirect evidence for the existence of virtual particles.

    This is probably one of the best descriptions of HR I have read:
    If a virtual particle/anti-particle pair is created near the event horizon of a black hole, the tidal gravity can be so strong that the pair gets separated for a long enough time so that the gravitational field give the particles energy and then they can become real particles. Then one of the particles might be sucked into the hole so that it can't annihilate the other. While the other one escapes and moves away from the hole. So now the hole will have lost half the energy it put into making the two virtual particles real particles. -http://www.physlib.com/black_holes.html

    It does not matter one wit whether the absorbed particle has negative energy or not. Due to the conservation of energy, any energy carried away could only be that of the BH.
     
  12. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    The Hawking radiation is predicted to exist for all horizons [spacelike boundaries] not just those associated with black holes.

    From the experimental paper

    Hawking radiation from ultra short laser pulse filaments
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4634

    "It was soon realized that the essential ingredient of Hawking radiation was not the astrophysical black hole itself but rather the space-time curvature associated to the event horizon."

    A simple derivation of the Hawking Temperature from the Unruh Temperature. The prediction that an accelerated observer will observe black body radiation [Unruh radiation] while the free falling inertial observer will observe none. Same as the prediction at the event horizon.

    T_Unruh = h*g_conventional/4(pi)^2*k_Boltzmann*c [eq.1]

    g_conventional/c^2 = (M*c^2/r^2)(1-2M/r)^-1/2

    g_shell = g_conventional/c^2 = (M_meters*c^2/r^2)(1-2M/r)^-1/2 [eq.2]

    Substituting [eq.2] into [eq.1]

    T_Unruh = [h*M_meters*c] / [4(pi)^2*k_B*r^2 (1-2M/r)^1/2)]

    Let r > 2M the Schwarzschild event horizon. Account for the redshift measured from remote coordinates
    (1-2M/r)^1/2 / 1-2M/r)^1/2 =1

    T_Hawking=[h*c*M_meters/4(pi)^2*k_Boltz*(2M_meters)^2]

    T_Hawking = h*c/16(pi)^2*k_Boltz*M_meters

    Based on the experiment results it would be a confirmation of Hawking radiation? Is Professor Hawking empirically confirmed prediction worthy of a Nobel in physics? What about Jacob Bekenstein? Curious what others think about this experiment.
     
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Farsight, do you think if you misrepresent a post of mine directly below said post then people will not read my post and not notice how you misrepresent me?

    I didn't 'deliberately duck the issue of single photons.....', I specifically addressed it. In quantum field theory we can calculate predictions for such things as scattering cross sections, coupling constants, anomalous magnetic moments, decay widths etc both when we don't include the photon -> charged pair -> photon processes and then when we do include them. This amounts to turning off the couplings between particles and photons or not. If we turn off that in the model then QED predicts invalid things. When we turn them on then we obtain the most accurate physical model in the history of science. If you could actually do QED you'd know this, you've be able to see the calculations for yourself.

    This leads to the evidence, which I also gave. We see 'jitter' in lone particles, as they interact with the background fluctuations. Beta decay occurs by a fluctuation in a quark causing it to convert into a different quark and a W boson. The W boson is more massive than the quark and then rapidly decays into an electron and neutrino. It is this fluctuation which alllows the decay, just as a fluctuation in nucleon energies allows alpha particles to tunnel out of a nucleus to cause alpha decay.

    Quantum field theory is formed when you combine quantum mechanics and relativity but it isn't just 'quantum mechanics with Lorentz invariance', accounting for velocity issues. Instead it extends to allow particle fluctuations and conversions. We can take the non-relativistic limits of quantum field theory calculations to see what impact they have on the calculations. We can also shut down the 'quantumness' by taking the classical limit or shut down the impact due to particular interactions. When we do this in the calculations (I say 'we' but I'm not talking about you, since you can't do this) we can explore the impact certain processes within quantum field theory have on predictions. The quantum fluctuations related to pair production and reconversion are significant and require a considerable amount of effort to explore mathematically but they provide us with ways to test the predictions because we get values for physically measurable things with and without the fluctuation contributions. The fluctuation contributions are always the accurate ones.

    Now you could turn around and say "But you haven't observed them directly!!" but this is a red herring. We haven't observed the centre of the Earth directly but earthquake data is evidence for the notion of a liquid core, since the data is consistent with such a notion. Evidence is not required to be direct. Proof is, hence why it is impossible to prove certain things in science (often the proof of a negative). Therefore we have evidence for the fluctuations and pair conversions, as without them the extremely successful and accurate models of subatomic physics we have wouldn't be so. The fluctuations, according to the model, occur all the time and all over the place. If we remove this from our models, enforcing by hand that they occur only rarely and only at certain scales, then the models become wrong. We cannot impose our preconceptions on the model, not without fundamentally breaking it by contradicting some of the initial postulates. This is how actual science differs from your work, in that your 'work' is nothing but a sequence of assertions you have made taped together without justification and sound scientific work follows in a non-arbitrary way from a few of initial starting postulates.

    Now if you can provide a model of subatomic physics which is comparable with evidence but which doesn't have such fluctuations then that'd be worth talking about. But until then your repeated blanket assertions about how things work are little more than trolling. You cannot provide evidence for your position. Nor are you in any position to be telling anyone how QFT works when you have no working understanding of it.

    You like to call such things as the last sentence an ad hom but it isn't, rather it is a statement of fact. You do not have a working understanding of quantum field theory since you lack the necessary mathematical abilities and knowledge, as well as a working grasp of the perquisites of quantum field theory. Such as the workings of quantum mechanics and relativity. At best you can only interpret what Wikipedia and other pop science resources say and then hope your assumptions about the details you haven't or cannot read are valid. I and I'd imagine every single other person you've ever interacted with who has a PhD in this stuff have told you you're mistaken.

    As usual you're a coward and you hide behind an excuse "You've done somead homs, therefore I can ignore all points where you show I'm wrong, as if they magically go away". If you're wrong it doesn't matter whether I'm the nicest person in the world or spitting ad homs 4 times a sentence, the fact remains you're shown to be wrong.

    I'm now going to ask you a number of direct questions of relevance. I'd like you to answer so that perhaps this issue doesn't need to come up again. A 'basic working understanding' I'd define as the ability to solve quantitative problems, such as those presented in university exams. Do you believe yourself to have a 'basic working understanding' of (1) special relativity? (2) Non-relativistic quantum mechanics? (3) Newtonian mechanics? (4) Electromagnetism? (5) Quantum field theory? (6) General relativity? For example, if someone describes a scenario such as a particular setup involving magnetic fields and particles moving through them while interacting could you give the precise solution for their dynamics? What about mathematical stuff? Do you have a 'basic working understanding' of (a) vector calculus? (b) Linear algebra? (c) Tensor calculus? (d) Differental geometry? (e) Hilbert spaces? (f) Asympotics? (g) Integral systems? This isn't an unreasonable amount of stuff, it would all sum up to maybe 40% of what a 3rd year gradating student of mathematical physics might be capable of.

    I believe you cannot do any of those and thus this constant habit you have of telling people how their details work is little more than trolling. It also explains why your own work is devoid of any quantitative detail. If you please lay out the bounds of what you think you're capable of then we can discuss it in more detail and we can stop going over the same tired thing of me pointing out where you cannot have any justification for your claims.

    Thank you for showing you haven't read what QED says, as that isn't what it says it does. The flittering between states happens much quicker than that. As I commented on earlier, the smaller the time scale you look the more the flittering activity occurs (due to the uncertainty principle). Over time scales involved in moving 1mm in a particle detector the flittering isn't apparent in the way you describe and QED never claimed it was. This is an example of you either misrepresenting or simply not knowing what the science says and instead making a straw man.

    QED didn't say it does. If you did the calculations you'd see that it is entirely possible (nay, essential) that the flitterings do not alter the speed of light. Yes, it is a counter intuitive result but counter intuitive results happen a lot in science, not that you'd know.

    See, this is a prime example of how if you knew how to do the calculations and either done them yourself or gone through other people's calculations you'd see you're mistaken about how you represent what QED says. The fact you haven't bothered to check shows you're dishonest. Any intellectually honest person would first check that his assumption about what science says is accurate. You haven't done that and not for the first time.

    I wouldn't necessarily say I am certain HR exists and regardless of whether or not it does both you and Professor Layman have been misrepresenting what the models say. If someone is wrong about what a model says then correcting them doesn't mean the model is necessarily true. If you said Newtonian gravity behaved like 1/r and not 1/r^2 then me correcting you wouldn't mean I think Newtonian mechanics is exact.

    You really need to stop with this warped view of reality you have. People can go back through discussions and see for themselves how you twist and misrepresent people and physics.

    How do you 'look' at a region of empty space? You fire particles into it and see what happens. What happens is consistent with the QFT notion of pair fluctuations occurring and inconsistent with QFT if we turn off the fluctuations in the calculations. This, coupled with the success of QFT modelling subatomic systems, is evidence for such things. As I said, it isn't proof, it is evidence.

    I notice you cannot provide any evidence for your claims. That you cannot provide even a single working model of this.That you cannot explain how you know how the physical world works when you have no access to raw experimental data. That you also cannot explain how it is you supposedly know so much about quantum field theory when you cannot do it and cannot understand it and thus do not have access to the models which accurately describe said raw data.

    I'll ask you to explain those things please. If you cannot explain how you just 'know' how subatomic systems work without having access to data and no understanding of the models which others have developed to describe said data then I'll consider your posts here little more than random assertions and trolling and give you a warning for them. Enough is enough, if you cannot do more than just assert you have some kind of superior knowledge, when all signs point to the direct opposite, then you are to be considered a troll.
     
  14. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    According to pop science the electron-positron pair would come from nothing, not even single photons. Then that pair would annihilate into a single photon. But, what would I know I only read pop physics books? How would I know what pop sciences books say?
     
  15. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    I looked it up and it said that virtual particles are just called virtual because they don't last that long. Particle pairs would not last that long so then they would be virtual particles. I can't seem to make a good guess as to why the difference between them being virtual particles or not makes any difference as to what happens in Hawking Radiation. The antiparticle would go into the black hole, the other particle would not, they don't annhiliate so then they would last longer. So how would they still be virtual particles?
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Another response to myself.

    Even with all the bright and knowledgeable moderation this site is still 90% crank driven. Many knowledgeable members but this site is pretty much crank driven. It's not as screwed up as physforum which is unmoderated and 100% crank driven. Nobody seems to find any interest in the experimental component of the scientific method. To boring. Or actually making an opportunity to increase knowledge of the scientific literature. Whatever.
     
  17. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    You should really stop eroding your own credibility, unless you have finally decided you have something to learn here.

    Real particle pairs are never assumed to annihilate prior to an opportunity to measure, so the distinction between them and virtual particles is significant. The energy of a BH is what provides the extra energy necessary for a virtual particle pair to become real, so if any of these newly created real particles escape the EH, they are doing so with some contribution of energy from the BH.

    They start as virtual, but the fact that the BH energy makes them real is how the BH evaporates. It is virtual pair production, with each independently becoming real particles.
     
  18. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    There are two ways in which virtual pairs arise; either at intermediate states of particles and scattering processes or as 'out of nothing' fluctuations in the background vacuum field. The former are what must be considered to calculate the corrections to scattering processes quantum field theory predicts. The latter can be completely separated from the scattering processes in quantum field theory thanks to some beautiful mathematical methods which show that the 'bubble diagrams' (they have no legs since they don't involve external particles coming in or going out) factorise completely and thus we don't have to waste calculation time considering them. Furthermore it can be shown in quantum field theory that the bubble diagrams cannot lead to the magical production of a single lone particle, which then becomes 'real', a fact consistent with experiment. Another piece of evidence the description of virtual particles by quantum field theory is a reasonable one.

    No, virtual particles are 'virtual' because we do not directly observe them. In Feynmann diagrams they arise in loops, not the external legs (which are the particles we observe). However, despite Farsight's claims, we can deduce their effects and properties because without their inclusion models like QED would be horrifically inaccurate. This isn't proof they exist, you can rarely prove things by inference, but it is evidence. Virtual particles, by virtue of not being external particles, need not satisfy certain 'physical' conditions, namely \(E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}\) from relativity. This is because the uncertainty principle can mess with it, causing particles to go 'off shell' (it is known as the 'on shell condition'). External legs must satisfy physical requirements, such as the on shell condition.

    Hawking radiation separates the bubble diagrams, causing them to become external particles. This is due to the modification of certain things within the calculations via the curved space-time. In otherwise empty space there is no way to make the virtual bubble diagrams real. In the case of HR there is another entity, the black hole, and via the interaction via the gravitational field the bubbles are modified by the black hole and this is what leads to the radiation.

    Hawking radiation makes them real, they are no longer virtual. All the issues with conservation of energy, momentum, spin etc is taken care of via interactions with the gravitational field.
     
  19. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    So are you saying that the virtual particle pairs in Hawking Radiation are not these "out of nothing" virtual particles?

    Did I miss something? I thought the was the same point I just made.

    Oh, really! I thought virtual particle pair production didn't obey conservation laws. Why don't you go lie to someone else that even cares about conservation of energy and momentum. I don't know of any theories where a gravitational field can add or take away energy from a system, besides my own realization that valcanoes will never sieze to exist.
     
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    What I described was about pure quantum field theory, not including gravitational fields. Hawking radiation applies to these bubble processes, as the interaction with the gravitational field allows them to split. This is why a black hole can radiate energy even when there isn't any other matter nearby, it is interacting with the quantum vacuum. The gravitational field is able to alter the energy and momenta of the virtual particles and causes them to become real.

    And it was what I said.

    Lie? Where did I lie? Would you care to elaborate, without the indignation if possible.

    You don't understand what I was saying. The virtual pair is altered by the interaction with the gravitational field. The black hole must provide some energy and momentum via this interaction so that the virtual pair can become real, as they (in an arm wavy sense) owe an energy debt to the quantum field, normally paid off by them annihilating. This is made more elaborate by the fact \(E^{2} = m^{2} + p^{2}\) might not be true for the particles, they can be 'off-shell'. By the interaction with the gravitational field the pair have their energies and momenta modified, at the expense of the black hole. Then as the pair move apart, one falling into the black hole and the other being emitted, further interactions with the black hole are such that the infalling particle is effectively the 'debt' the black hole is paying to cover the emission of the out going particle. When all is said and done energy and momentum conservation are satisfied.

    So I wasn't saying the energy of the pair and the black hole together was altered, I was explaining how energy and momentum is exchanged between the pair and the black hole and in such a way that no conservation laws are broken. This is an obvious requirement but showing it is the case is highly non-trivial.
     
  21. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    Virtual particle pair production doesn't obey conservation laws, I don't see how it could be much clearer than that without doing a bunch of arm waving. These particles would then become "real" and then add to the total energy of the system. I beleive there could be a free energy mechanism behind the production of these particle pairs. I have no idea what that mechanism is but I think such mechanism exist, and we could not exist unless there was at least one. But, I think that when this mechanism would not be present then conservation laws would be true, and I don't think this is the free energy mechanism behind the Big Bang.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection


    "Under "ordinary conditions" it is true that the creation of an evanescent wave does not affect the conservation of energy, i.e. the evanescent wave transmits zero net energy. However, if a third medium with a higher refractive index than the low-index second medium is placed within less than several wavelengths distance from the interface between the first medium and the second medium, the evanescent wave will be different from the one under "ordinary conditions" and it will pass energy across the second into the third medium. (See evanescent wave coupling.) This process is called "frustrated" total internal reflection (FTIR) and is very similar to quantum tunneling. The quantum tunneling model is mathematically analogous if one thinks of the electromagnetic field as being the wave function of the photon. The low index medium can be thought of as a potential barrier through which photons can tunnel."

    I beleive this is a free energy mechanism but I don't see how it could be the same mechanism behind virtual particle pair production. So I am unbiased against the theory because of conservation laws.
     
  22. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Read what I said. I said that once the interaction with the black hole is complete, with the pair split apart and one going into the black hole and the other away, then conservation of energy and momentum is statisfied, ie the black hole loses some energy and momentum precisely equal to the amount carried by the outwardly travelling particle. Inside scattering processes/interactions fluctuations allow for violation of plenty of things but that isn't what I was talking about. Perhaps if you have some experience with this stuff rather than having to piece it together from snippets of Wikipedia you find googling for terms you don't understand then you'd understand rather than misinterpreting and then getting all indignant.

    You believe? Are you trying to remember something from quantum field theory or is this just your own view? I suspect the latter since you don't know the former, in which case your random guesses based on ..... nothing .... couldn't be less relevant if it tried.

    So which is it, are you trying to tell me how quantum field theory and GR describe things or are you telling me your personal opinion? And whichever one it is why should I or anyone else think you're remotely accurate?

    Tell me, can you actually model said systems? Do you know how to compute tunnelling rates in a quantum system?

    If 'have no idea how any of the models work and have no experience with experimental data' is to be considered 'unbiased' then true but that doesn't equate to rational or remotely right.
     
  23. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    I came up with the idea that internal reflection could cause an increase in energy on my own, and then I have recently came across something similar on the wiki. I did this by performing my own mind experiments as I delusionaly thought about traveling the speed of light but then assuming I was at rest. (Just like the pop physics books tell you to do).

    I went over some of this while you where away, but no one seemed to be able to have a conversation on it. Someone also found a way to link Brian Greenes new book where he says that the quantum jitters inside of a box came out to be infinite in energy. I think the increase in energy would be more efficient if the wavelengths matched up. And when they don't match up they are said to have precognition at an action at a distance to not travel in that direction, that is the most detail I got from the workings of radar theory that I took. I think the particles frame of reference is contracted so it "sees" itself along the whole waveguide as being at one point at the same time. So then it can in effect cancel itself, if that is what really is going on there then they could also intensify themselves as well. That is like particle jumping. The particle will vanish when the wavelengths of its worldline don't match up. So then since this happens in the particles frame then we see it as a particle jump in our frame.
     

Share This Page