Does Hawking Radiation preclude EH formation?

OnlyMe -- that quote says the cavity has less pressure -- (and therefore less energy) than the vacuum -- a good physical interpretation of negative energy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By that definition, there is negative energy outside of every high preassure cylinder.., negative energy over the upper surface of an aircraft wing....

You are correct there is less preassure between the plates. Just as there is a lower preassure over the wing and a lower preassure outside of the cylinder. But to be a true negative preassure it would have to be less than no preassure between the plates.

Besides, without adding some clear definition of just what one intends, talk of negative energy, preassure etc. has little useful purpose. It is not good, to relay on what may be (perhaps) a good physical interpretation. It does not lead to any real clarity or better understanding.

One thing further, the vacuum itself is not empty in this case and cannot be measured by a common everyday classical understanding of the term, vacuum.

On a separate note, the last paragraph I quoted has always given me pause. It seems conflicted in that it begins by describing the Casimir effect as an attractive force (to be sure the generally accepted case).., and then goes on in explanation, "..., there are "more" modes outside to push the plates together by radiation pressure than there are modes between the plates to push them apart.".

That has never seemed a good description of a force of attraction. But then I have only been exploring, and attempting to understand the mechanisms here and in some of the related work on induced inertia and gravity, for the last two or three years, and am by no means an expert.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whether you like it or not there is negative energy in the universe. The Casimir experiment is a perfect example of negative energy.

A paper and a fun Scientific American Article.
Quantum Inequality Restrictions on Negative Energy Densities in Curved Spacetimes
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9805037.pdf

Negative Energy Wormholes and Warp Drives
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/negativeenergy/negativeenergy.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think there would be a continuous fizz of virtual particles in contact with the EH, no matter it's size. The average density of the particle pairs would be about a pair every yard. You even said yourself that the EH has nothing to do with the creation of particle pairs, I don't see where you are coming from with this idea. If there was a particle pair you would expect the next pair to be yard away and so on. There would be no reason why they would have to be at the right distance to be "shaved" by the EH.

Matter and antimatter create photons when they annihilate. I don't think they require photons to be generated. So then wouldn't you be left with extra photons? I thought they could be treated as a normal matter/antimatter collision.

Did I say that? I don't think a particle pair would have a net zero energy. They would create a photon. It would then have a non-zero, non-negative energy.

Photons are not particles!?! Well, I never! I thought they where the only real particles... I think this belongs in alternative theories.

I think in Feynman's book he says that particle pairs only occur randomly about every meter or so, I didn't make it up. I think you should do more research on them and antimatter/matter collisions.

 

My post where not interesting enough for ya so you just decide to let the "woo woo" begin?

"Attempt to circumvent the quantum laws that govern negative energy inevitably ends in disappointment. The experimenter intends to detach a negative energy pulse from its compensating positive energy pulse. As the pulses approach a box (a), the experimenter tries to isolate the negative one by closing the lid after it has entered (b). Yet the very act of closing the lid creates a second positive energy pulse inside the box (c)." - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/negativeenergy/negativeenergy.htm

The increase and decrease of electomagnetic energy in a waveguide is determined by its wavelength, not if the energy is positive or negative. How could this lead to Negative energy Worholes and Warp Drives, if they couldn't even build a functioning radar?

 

The life of an electron is much more complex than that, though. In addition to the usual quantum craziness, where an electron is both a particle and a wave and the position of the electron is generally indeterminate, electrons are surrounded by virtual particles. For instance, an electron can briefly emit a photon. That photon will be reabsorbed quickly in such a way that the energy and momentum conservation laws aren’t violated. But it gets crazier than that. The virtual photon can also turn into a virtual electron/positron pair. Thus, for a brief moment, what was once just an electron becomes an electron plus an additional electron and positron. As long as the virtual particles coalesce before the universe notices, it’s all within the rules. Indeed an electron never exists as a single “bare” electron. Rather, it is always enshrouded in an ephemeral cloud of virtual particles, flickering in and out of existence, and vastly complicating what an electron “really” is. -http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physic...foam-virtual-particles-and-other-curiosities/(emphasis added)


Particles that can interact via a certain kind of interaction continuously emit and absorb virtual particles, the force carriers for that interaction. They are surrounded by a cloud of these virtual particles. -http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module 6/standard_model.htm​

So your claim of the average density of virtual particles would necessarily effect the density of real particles, and we know real particles are much closer than a yard.

 

You begin with an absolute statement unsupported by direct observation and/or experience, giving no reference that supports the claim directly.

Yes I have a problem with absolute statements attached to theoretical discussions. And admit that, I also over step the line on occasion.

Again, no specific reference describing the mechanism as the result of negative energy... Even the weakly associated references below do not provide any clear definition of exactly what is meant by, "negative energy", as it relates to the Casimir effect.

I offered a paper providing some detail of the mechanism involved in the Casimir effect, which does not include negative energy.., there is positive pressure both within the gap and the external surfaces of the plates. That is a description of a pressure differential, within the involved vacuum energies, not a negative pressure or energy.

If you begin by defining negative pressure or energy as a pressure or energy difference.., O.K. but that still only twists the meaning. Instead you reference the following two sources.

A lengthy paper describing worm holes, warp drives and time travel, as the product of negative energy. Have any of these been observed to exist?... And of the two references (I checked) relative to the Casimir effect, cited within the paper, neither mentions negative energy.

This one is even more down the rabbit hole of pop science fiction and offers little in the way of supporting reference. You are right, science fiction is fun, but it is still science fiction.

Yes, there are theoretical models that do involve negative energy, time travel, worm holes and warp drives. I think I have even run across a reference that suggested, that the DOD was funding research into warp drives... None of that represents an observation of negative energy. In fact, since we do not currently see time travel, worm holes and warp drives, while they may lie somewhere in our future, at present the theory is not supported by observation.

The one relevant observed effect in this discussion, the Casimir effect, can be explained as an energy pressure differential, rather than true negative energy, as demonstrated in the paper I referenced earlier. I ask again, because I am interested.., do you have a reference, that explains the Casimir effect in terms of negative pressure, rather than just claims it to be so?

Rpenner's earlier response was constructive, though I believe it emphasized the need for a clear definition of just what one means when they use the term negative energy. Are we talking about a difference in positive pressures, as described in the paper I referenced, or something more exotic, referring to a less than zero energy? This has been my point from the beginning.., a need for a clear definition of what is meant by, negative energy.

 

That wasn't what I was trying to say at all. The cloud of virtual particles around a particle pair could be closer than a yard, but the seperation of the particle pairs from each other with their own clouds would be more than a yard. I talking about the occurance the event of a particle pair would even come into play. You wouldn't have Hawking Radiation if there was no particle pair at the event horizon of a black hole! They don't just say oh there is a black hole we should be sure to be randomly generated next to its event horizon to save the world. If you tried to find out how many particle pairs are in one cubic meter then you would only be able to find about one at any given time. The odds of that pair being on the event horizon would be about how many time the microscopic black hole could fit in a cubic meter. Those are not good odds. Most of the time the particle pair will not be on the event horizon to begin with.

 

The actual density of hydrogen as it exist in interstellar space is on the average of about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. -http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml​

And that is atoms, not the particles which compose them. So how about providing some reference for your claims, instead of making bare assertions?

 

What does the density of hydrogen have to do with any of this? Do you even know what random particle pairs even are?

 

No references? Pity. You are obviously talking out of your ass.

Even if quantum fluctuations did not occur even in otherwise empty space, the fact that they occur around each of these atoms alone refutes your nonsense.

 

The particle pairs in Hawking Radiation have nothing to do with atoms. They are free energy particles that appear randomly in space out of nothing. Nonsense would be saying that a particle pair would magically appear out of nothing and come and save us if we created a black hole in the LHC. This is really a lost cause, I don't even know why I try. I don't even know if one antimatter particle would have enough mass to make a microscopic black hole evaporate.

 

I never said HR had anything to do with atoms. I only used them as an example illustrating your faulty claim that there is any evidence that virtual particle pairs do not exist within your arbitrarily stated proximity. It is only this erroneous claim that I am addressing.

But go ahead a erect straw man arguments and refuse to support you claim in any way (just as you have been). In science, you are wasting your time if you cannot provide any support for your claims.

 

I read about it 15 years ago, and there are copyright laws. It is a complete waste of time anyways, because proving something to someone that doesn't even know anything about it isn't going to make something science anyways. If people are using information from the internet to do real scientific work, they would be in a lot of trouble. You shouldn't even trust anything people say on the internet anyways. Why don't you go look it up yourself and get back to me and let me know the exact answer. I know one thing, there isn't an infinite number of particle pairs filling every point of space, that is good enough for me. I just chat about layman physics in internet forums.

 

Well I certainly do not trust what you say on the internet, especially considering all the excuses you are spewing in lieu of any support at all. Justifications about copyright law is moot, as fair-use more than covers anything needed on a forum. You are also using typical hack tactics to avoid supporting your own claim. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof, even though I have already given you refuting references, and you are presenting a false dilemma, as particle pairs need not be anywhere near infinite to dispute your claim of minimal proximity.

Seriously, quit talking out of your ass.

 

You sure are a rude one. Big words for someone that doesn't even know the answer themselves. It was a long time ago, I just didn't memorize every source of information I learned everything from. It could have been in the book, The God Particle. Ironically I could say the same thing about you. Maybe someone else that always says everything is nonsense or woo woo could let you know, oh but wait, they keep getting banned here recently.

 

So a pop-sci book is all you might have, and even that is not certain. Try again, or quit defending the bare assertion.

 

But for the particle itself E=mc² still holds, or E=hf. That's positive energy. The negative potential energy merely means the particle comprises less positive energy at one location than another.

You show me a particle that's comprised of less than zero energy. Until then, please don't lecture me about what makes sense.

It isn't my premise. Imagine I'm the distant observer and I can see a light clock that's stopped. Then imagine that you go to where this clock is. You think you'll see that it isn't stopped. But you won't. You'll be stopped too, and I and others will bear witness to that. Saying things like isn't entirely accurate or unambiguously true don't get past this the "frozen star" issue.

With Hawking radiation having two significant issues like this, I really don't see how anybody could try to use it to say that black holes can't exist.

 

Exactly. One positive energy is greater than another, but there is no actual negative energy involved. If a particle had negative energy, then annihilation with a positive-energy particle would result in nothing. That isn't physics, that's pseudoscience.

 

It is still better than having nothing to base it on from someone that hasn't ever even read a book on theoretical physics. The only bare assertions here are coming from you. You still haven't given a source that says what distance particle pairs are seperated from each other. If you could give the correct answer I could be willing to say I was wrong, but you never will. It is only an approximation anyways because the generation of particle pairs is random, there is no exact answer. It would be about one particle per square meter at any given time. Forcing the issue that there is even an exact answer to this is just complete nonsense.