As white hole should act with positive radiation pressure, shouldn't black hole act with negative?

[exchemist]

You write "again", but I see this this link the first time ... and this is not about virtual photons, but the real ones: absorbed/emitted by atoms, radio telescopes ...

Please explain e.g. why circulating electron loses energy, while in CPT perspective it is also circulating charge, but gains energy instead?
Equations governing physics are CPT symmetric, so this asymmetry has to be in solution - I think it is because of more absorbers than emitters.
Do you have a different explanation for this asymmetry?

View attachment 7129

I gave you that link in my response to the thread you posted on Thursday on the .net forum. (3rd post in the thread).

I'm not getting into any further discussion until you have read that and confirmed you understand the difference between a photon and a so-called virtual photon.

 

[Jarek Duda]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_photon : "Virtual photons are a fundamental concept in particle physics and quantum field theory that play a crucial role in describing the interactions between electrically charged particles. Virtual photons are referred to as "virtual" because they do not exist as free particles in the traditional sense but instead serve as intermediate particles in the exchange of force between other particles."

No, once again, this is not what I am writing about: if e.g. one atom emits photon, and it is absorbed by a different atom (light time later), this is a real not virtual photon ... there is no "virtual photon" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation this thread is supposed to be about.

 

[exchemist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_photon : "Virtual photons are a fundamental concept in particle physics and quantum field theory that play a crucial role in describing the interactions between electrically charged particles. Virtual photons are referred to as "virtual" because they do not exist as free particles in the traditional sense but instead serve as intermediate particles in the exchange of force between other particles."

No, once again, this is not what I am writing about: if e.g. one atom emits photon, and it is absorbed by a different atom (light time later), this is a real not virtual photon ... there is no "virtual photon" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation this thread is supposed to be about.

Have you read the Matt Strassler link?

 

[Jarek Duda]

Yes, and again: this thread is not about virtual photons, but about the real ones like in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

Here is example of virtual pair creation in topological charges: having sufficient energy it would lead to charge-anticharge pair ... but with insufficient energy such process still can start, but cannot finish - would have to return, becoming field perturbation toward pair creation.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, and again: this thread is not about virtual photons, but about the real ones like in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

Here is example of virtual pair creation in topological charges: having sufficient energy it would lead to charge-anticharge pair ... but with insufficient energy such process still can start, but cannot finish - would have to return, becoming field perturbation toward pair creation.

View attachment 7130

Then why were you talking about photon exchange, in post 18?

 

[Jarek Duda]

About one object (e.g. atom, radiotelescope) emitting photons, absorbed by second object - they are exchanging energy by photons.
What in S-matrix formulation: <psi_f | U | psi_i> requires both emitter in psi_i, and absorber in psi_f.

 

[exchemist]

About one object (e.g. atom, radiotelescope) emitting photons, absorbed by second object - they are exchanging energy by photons.
What in S-matrix formulation: <psi_f | U | psi_i> requires both emitter in psi_i, and absorber in psi_f.

No they are not. There is a one way transmission of a photon. That is not exchange.

 

[Jarek Duda]

Ok, linguistically, there is exchange of momentum, angular momentum ... but for energy this is just transfer ... through coupling of two e.g. atoms by photon.
Transfer also needs both from: emitter, and to: absorber.

 

[billvon]

I think you are talking about the matter falling on them?

That's one part of it. When matter falls towards a black hole, some of it is always charged. (Hydrogen nuclei for example.) Moving charges induce magnetic fields, and as they start moving faster and faster as they fall, they generate very intense magnetic fields. Since all black holes rotate to some degree, these magnetic fields rotate as well. These fields concentrate material from the accretion disk into the area near the rotational poles of the black hole, and the material then emerges as a jet of matter on either side of the black hole. These astrophysical jets are incredibly powerful; they are often moving at close to the speed of light and consist of plasma made of of the material that was being sucked towards the black hole.

That is not only positive radiation pressure, it is positive momentum; if you were trying to approach a black hole via its rotation axis, your ship would first be vaporized by the energy in the jet, then blown backwards by the pressure of the material in the jet.

The second part of it is Hawking radiation. This means that black holes steadily emit blackbody radiation. Due to the law of conservation of energy, this means the black hole will get smaller over time until it "evaporates." But while it's shrinking it has the same sort of positive radiation pressure that a blackbody radiator would have.

 

[exchemist]

Ok, linguistically, there is exchange of momentum, angular momentum ... but for energy this is just transfer ... through coupling of two e.g. atoms by photon.
Transfer also needs both from: emitter, and to: absorber.

In absorption of a photon there is a gain by the absorbing atom or molecule in energy, and in both angular and linear momentum. (The angular momentum change is the origin of the "selection rules" in spectroscopy.)

 

[exchemist]

You write "again", but I see this this link the first time ... and this is not about virtual photons, but the real ones: absorbed/emitted by atoms, radio telescopes ...

Please explain e.g. why circulating electron loses energy, while in CPT perspective it is also circulating charge, but gains energy instead?
Equations governing physics are CPT symmetric, so this asymmetry has to be in solution - I think it is because of more absorbers than emitters.
Do you have a different explanation for this asymmetry?

View attachment 7129

A gain in energy by a positron circulating in the opposite sense would be taking place when time also runs backwards, surely? Gain in energy when time runs backwards is equivalent to a loss in energy when time runs forward. So where's the problem? But in any case, as Swansont pointed out, this is a system not a single QFT process, so CPT symmetry does not necessarily apply to it.

 

[Jarek Duda]

When matter falls towards a black hole, some of it is always charged. (Hydrogen nuclei for example.)

Near black hole horizon, the used simulations like MAD, SANE not only assume nearly complete ionization, but moreover that temperature of electrons is like 100 or times lower than of ions ... as would CPT(white hole heating) = black hole cooling do, acting mostly on electrons.

This is for acting from below horizon: as for white hole would be heating, emitting with positive radiation pressure, CPT symmetry says that for black holes it should be cooling, absorbing with negative radiation pressure ... how to save CPT symmetry if it would turn out false?

A gain in energy by a positron circulating in the opposite sense would be taking place when time also runs backwards, surely? Gain in energy when time runs backwards is equivalent to a loss in energy when time runs forward. So where's the problem? But in any case, as Swansont pointed out, this is a system not a single QFT process, so CPT symmetry does not necessarily apply to it.

For me there is no problem: now there are mainly absorbers so emission is dominating (energy lose), while in CPT perspective they become mostly emitters so absorption would dominate (energy gain).
From the discussion I don't see any alternative explanation of this emission asymmetry, nor counterarguments to this one (?)

 

[exchemist]

Near black hole horizon, the used simulations like MAD, SANE not only assume nearly complete ionization, but moreover that temperature of electrons is like 100 or times lower than of ions ... as would CPT(white hole heating) = black hole cooling do, acting mostly on electrons.

This is for acting from below horizon: as for white hole would be heating, emitting with positive radiation pressure, CPT symmetry says that for black holes it should be cooling, absorbing with negative radiation pressure ... how to save CPT symmetry if it would turn out false?


For me there is no problem: now there are mainly absorbers so emission is dominating (energy lose), while in CPT perspective they become mostly emitters so absorption would dominate (energy gain).
From the discussion I don't see any alternative explanation of this emission asymmetry, nor counterarguments to this one (?)

View attachment 7131

The diagram is rather unclear but seems to be a re-statement of what you been told repeatedly on the other forum is wrong, due to your misunderstanding of the applicability of CPT symmetry. That’s why you have been forbidden from discussing it further there.

You can’t reasonably expect people here to agree with you.

 

[Jarek Duda]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry : "The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with a Hermitian Hamiltonian must have CPT symmetry."

So why circulating electron loses energy, but applying CPT symmetry it gains energy instead - violating this symmetry?

 

[billvon]

Near black hole horizon, the used simulations like MAD, SANE not only assume nearly complete ionization

Yes, which makes them subject to magnetic fields.

but moreover that temperature of electrons is like 100 or times lower than of ions

OK. Since electrons mass 2000 times less than those ions (protons in this case) they have almost no influence on the net temperature.

as would CPT(white hole heating) = black hole cooling do, acting mostly on electrons.

But again, since in fact black holes have rather high temperatures (depending on their size) and produce VERY hot and energetic jets of matter, the opposite is true in observed reality.

This is for acting from below horizon

Nothing can act from below the event horizon.

 

[exchemist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry : "The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with a Hermitian Hamiltonian must have CPT symmetry."

So why circulating electron loses energy, but applying CPT symmetry it gains energy instead - violating this symmetry?

An electron spiralling in a magnetic field (which is what you need to make it circulate) is not "a local QFT with a Hermitian Hamiltonian". It is a system with several parts, comprising a field, an electron and a series of randomly emitted photons with a frequency of the orbital frequency of the electron.

As the photons are emitted in random directions, this is a dissipative arrangement, which is thermodynamically irreversible.

At least, that is my understanding.

I think you are reading far too much into the Wiki statement, which strikes me as rather poorly phrased. Here's another, from Oxford university:
"The CPT theorem says, roughly, that every relativistic quantum field theory has a symmetry that simultaneously reverses charge (C), reverses the orientation of space (or ‘parity,’ P), and reverses the direction of time (T)."

From: https://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert2255/papers/cpt.pdf

This means it applies to the QFT processes that comprise the theory, and not to entire physical systems that are also subject to other principles of physics, such as statistical mechanics.

 

[Jarek Duda]

Nothing can act from below the event horizon.

Wouldn't white hole emit "from below event horizon" heating around?
If so, why black hole couldn't symmetrically cool from below horizon - with photons falling into black hole as allowed?

This means it applies to the QFT processes that comprise the theory, and not to entire physical systems that are also subject to other principles of physics, such as statistical mechanics.

Physicists claim that unifying Standard Model with General Relativity would give the complete picture ... and the former is QFT, seen as fundamental level - all processes like synchrotron radiation are a consequence of.
It is why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry starts with "The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena", then elaborates "any Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with a Hermitian Hamiltonian must have CPT symmetry".

 

[exchemist]

Wouldn't white hole emit "from below event horizon" heating around?
If so, why black hole couldn't symmetrically cool from below horizon - with photons falling into black hole as allowed?

View attachment 7134


Physicists claim that unifying Standard Model with General Relativity would give the complete picture ... and the former is QFT, seen as fundamental level - all processes like synchrotron radiation are a consequence of.
It is why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry starts with "The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena", then elaborates "any Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with a Hermitian Hamiltonian must have CPT symmetry".

There seems little point in me repeating my explanation in post 36. If you don’t like it, that is up to you. But I think you will have trouble with your idea if you take it to a physics forum.

 

[Jarek Duda]

Thermodynamics/statistical physics is averaging - of single events, the deepest believed to be described with QFT.
Regarding "As the photons are emitted in random directions" - because absorbers are in all directions, we could also excite some medium symmetrically getting emitters in all directions - what in theory could lead to more synchrotron absorption than emission: electrons gaining energy, spiraling outward.
In CPT perspective they would be switched.

 

[exchemist]

Thermodynamics/statistical physics is averaging - of single events, the deepest believed to be described with QFT.
Regarding "As the photons are emitted in random directions" - because absorbers are in all directions, we could also excite some medium symmetrically getting emitters in all directions - what in theory could lead to more synchrotron absorption than emission: electrons gaining energy, spiraling outward.
In CPT perspective they would be switched.

No you couldn't, because if you made those randomly situated absorbers (of the photons emitted in random directions by your circulating electron) into emitters, they too would emit randomly in all directions, rather than being focused towards your circulating electron. So it would not be a symmetrical reversal of the emission by the electron. You would never recover the energy and direct it all back to the electron.

This is the same mistake, in effect, for which you were picked up on the .net site. What you are trying to do is make every phenomenon in physics reversible. That is not what CPT symmetry says. If it did, that would obviously be incompatible with the uncertainty principle and with statistical mechanics and thus the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.