0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
No it doesn't. If you mean negative charge, then say negative charge. Charge and energy are different things.Gravitational potential energy is the obvious example of negative energy/mass, so it is quite real.
This article from LiveScience does mention it, though: https://www.livescience.com/65683-sonic-black-hole-spews-hawking-radiation.html
However, in all/most of the articles that I have read - The moment of the pair creation is described as pair particlesOne with Positive electrical charge while the other one has a Negative electrical charge.
So, I was wondering what the source is for that Negative Energy and what is the real difference between Negative electrical charge to Negative Energy.
"(Antimatter particles have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.)"So, it is clear to me that when we discuss on Matter and Antimatter, or Particle and antiparticle we actually discuss on: "the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge"
However, if during the moment of creation we get Particle and Antiparticle (both with positive mass) then how suddenly we get the Negative energy out that?
This article gives the answer for this question: "Normally, after a pair of virtual particles appears, they immediately annihilate each other. Next to a black hole, however, the extreme forces of gravity instead pull the particles apart, with one particle absorbed by the black hole as the other shoots off into space. The absorbed particle has negative energy, which reduces the black hole's energy and mass. Swallow enough of these virtual particles, and the black hole eventually evaporates. The escaping particle becomes known as Hawking radiation."So, if I understand it correctly:We consider the Negative energy only when the Negative electrical charge is falling into the BH:
"The absorbed particle has negative energy, which reduces the black hole's energy and mass."Hence, as long as the antiparticle is out of the BH, It is considered as a negative electrical charged particle
However, when this antiparticle (with its negative electrical charge)
Therefore our scientists consider the in falling Antiparticle as it has a Negative energy or Negative mass.Do you agree with that?
Do you have better explanation?
I have found myself very confused with the meaning of Negative energy/mass.
So, if I understand it correctly:We consider the Negative energy only when the Negative electrical charge is falling into the BH:
Hence, as long as the antiparticle is out of the BH, It is considered as a negative electrical charged particle
Why in all/most of the articles when it comes to moment of the creation of pair production they clearly discuss on Positive/Negative electrical charged and not Positive/Negative Energy?
In this article it is stated:"(Antimatter particles have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.)"So, it is clear to me that when we discuss on Matter and Antimatter, or Particle and antiparticle we actually discuss on:"the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge" However, if during the moment of creation we get Particle and Antiparticle (both with positive mass) then how suddenly we get the Negative energy out that?
Normally, the energy of the particle is still positive, but the gravitational field inside a black hole is so strong that even a real particle can have negative energy there.
QuoteIn this article it is stated:"(Antimatter particles have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.)"So, it is clear to me that when we discuss on Matter and Antimatter, or Particle and antiparticle we actually discuss on:"the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge" However, if during the moment of creation we get Particle and Antiparticle (both with positive mass) then how suddenly we get the Negative energy out that?So, those scientists are talking about "normal" circumstances. In this case, both matter and antimatter have positive mass/energy under normal circumstances.
Why do you push that discussion into the direction of none normal circumstances?
So, why those scientists can claim that Both matter and antimatter have positive mass/energy under normal circumstances while you both insist that it is forbidden for me to use the same "normal circumstances"?
The conditions inside of a black hole's event horizon are not normal.
OKBased on that, the conditions outside of a black hole's event horizon are normal.Is it correct?
Then, in 1974, came a great surprise: Hawking inferred as a by-product of his discovery of black-hole evaporation (Chapter 12) that vacuum fluctuations near a hole's horizon are exotic: They have negative average energy density as seen by outgoing light beams near the hole's horizon. In fact, it is this exotic property of the vacuum fluctuations that permits the hole's horizon to shrink as the hole evaporates, in violation of Hawking's area-increase theorem. Because exotic material is so important for physics, I shall explain this in greater detail.Recall the origin and nature of vacuum fluctuations, as discussed in Box 12.4: When one tries to remove all electric and magnetic fields from some region of space, that is, when one tries to create a perfect vacuum, there always remain a plethora of random, unpredictable electromagnetic oscillations- oscillations caused by a tug-of-war between the fields in adjacent regions of space. The fields "here" borrow energy from fields "there," leaving the fields there with a deficit of energy, that is, leaving them momentarily with negative energy. The fields there then quickly grab the energy back and with it a little excess, driving their energy momentarily positive, and so it goes, onward and onward.Under normal circumstances on Earth, the average energy of these vacuum fluctuations is zero. They spend equal amounts of time with energy deficits and energy excesses, and the average of deficit and excess vanishes. Not so near the horizon of an evaporating black hole, Hawking's 1974 calculations suggested. Near a horizon the average energy must be negative, at least as measured by light beams, which means that the vacuum fluctuations are exotic.
Hawking radiation must obviously be formed in a region of space close enough to the horizon where negative energy can exist. That's the only way that the first law of thermodynamics can be preserved. The energy of both particles must add up to zero. The only way to do that if one particle has positive energy would be if the other has an equal amount of negative energy.
It depends on how near the horizon you are.
For one, the normal condition requires the energy to already be there.
ThanksSo, you agree that if there is energy, we will get Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.That is perfectThe question is: What is the source for this energy?
"the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"Hence, the Gravitational energy is already there.So, why can't we assume a Normal circumstances outside the event horizon while the energy is coming from the gravitational energy?
So, why do you consider that the scientists which wrote about the negative energy/mass are much more cleaver than all the others?
"In theoretical physics, negative mass is matter whose mass is of opposite sign to the mass of normal matter, e.g. −1 kg."It is stated: "In theoretical physics..."So does it mean that we have never verified a Negative mass?Do we have any real observation for Negative mass?Actually, it seems to me that even negative energy should have some sort of mass.If it has mass, it must be a positive mass.Did we ever found a Negative mass that sets a negative gravity?If we can't see that Negative mass, why do you push in that direction?
Strictly speaking, gravity is not energy. It is an acceleration field. Earth gravity is expressed as acceleration (m/sec²), not in joules.
An article about pair production isn't even talking about black holes.
QuoteDo we have any real observation for Negative mass?Not real, no. No observation of Hawking radiation either.
Do we have any real observation for Negative mass?
We've never found a real object with negative rest mass, no. Virtual particles are not real objects, but the mathematics of virtual particles has been verified.
Why do you insist that Gravity is not energy?
"the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"So our scientists are fully aware about the energy that BH can create with its Gravitational force.
As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole.
One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.
Do you think that they have no knowledge about that BH, gravity or Energy?
As an example, our scientists are using that gravitational energy to boost space probe on its journey to the moon.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_flyby"Flybys commonly use gravity assists to "slingshot" a space probe on its journey to its primary objective, but may themselves be used as primary means."
Why?In that article it is stated:"the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"So, BH is there and also gravitational energy is fully there!
ThanksSo you confirm that we have never found Negative mass.Therefore, let's take out this unrealistic assumption from our discussion.
There is no way for the pair production activity to generate one particle in negative mass.Negative mass is imagination - let's keep it there.
Gravitational energy is a thing, but gravity itself is not energy. It is a field of force.
If you consider that Wikipedia article accurate, then you need to consider what else was written there:"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole".
That is OK, as long as Gravitational energy represents the requested Energy which is needed to create the "Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge" (as stated in the article).
So, it is stated clearly that this particle–antiparticle radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.Therefore, The creation of the particle–antiparticle does not come from the mass of the BH itself, therefore, there is no mass lost during to that creation process.
Why the in falling particle creates a negative energy?
Let's look again on the starting point of the pair creation. It is stated:"Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge"Do you see any Negative energy in that description?
1. If a particle with a positive electrical charge will fall in, do you see any negative energy?2. If a particle with a Negative electrical charge will fall in, do you see any negative energy?
Could it be that they actually was aiming for Negative electrical charge, but by a typo error they have written it as negative energy?
Because energy cannot be created out of nothing, one of the partners in a particle/antiparticle pair will have positive energy, and the other partner negative energy. The one with negative energy is condemned to be a short-lived virtual particle because real particles always have positive energy in normal situations. It must therefore seek out its partner and annihilate with it. However, a real particle close to a massive body has less energy than if it were far away, because it would take less energy to lift it far away against the gravitational attraction of the body.Normally, the energy of the particle is still positive, but the gravitational field inside a black hole is so strong that even a real particle can have negative energy there. It is therefore possible, if a black hole is present, for the virtual particle with negative energy to fall into the black hole and become a real particle or antiparticle. In this case it no longer has to annihilate with its partner. Its forsaken partner may fall into the black hole as well. Or, having positive energy, it might also escape from the vicinity of the black hole as a real particle or antiparticle (Fig. 7.8 ). To an observer at a distance, it will appear to have been emitted from the black hole. The smaller the black hole, the shorter the distance the particle with negative energy will have to go before it becomes a real particle, and thus the greater rate of emission, and the apparent temperature, of the black hole.The positive energy of the outgoing radiation would be balanced by a flow of negative energy particles into the black hole. By Einstein's equation E = mc2 (where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light), energy is proportional to mass. A flow of negative energy into the black hole therefore reduces its mass.
If the Negative electrical charge particle is falling into a BH with positive charge, than by definition there must be a mass lost.
What is your advice about all of that?
Disagree.
I believe the velocity gradient of a spiral galaxy is due to structure. I think the spirals are helices. And all gravity spirals are slowly releasing.Therefore the mass(gravity)density is not centered. Think of earth's internal gravity gradient.I believe Sol is orbiting something much closer than the galactic center.
QuoteAs an example, our scientists are using that gravitational energy to boost space probe on its journey to the moon.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_flyby"Flybys commonly use gravity assists to "slingshot" a space probe on its journey to its primary objective, but may themselves be used as primary means."That process causes a transfer of energy from the planetary body to the spacecraft, lowering the total orbital energy of the planet afterwards. If anything, that only confirms that energy is being transferred away from the black hole itself.
Does the black hole-accretion disk-jet system increase the total amount of mass-energy in the Universe over time?
drifting outwards due to the lowering total orbital energy.
Therefore, the new creation of the pair-particles by the black hole's gravitational energy increases the total amount of mass-energy in the Universe over time!