0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If you believe in negative mass, than you have to find it.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:05:51How can you protect your theory without real observation of Negative mass particle?It's in the math.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:05:51How can you protect your theory without real observation of Negative mass particle?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:05:51If you believe in negative mass, than you have to find it.No.I only need to find evidence for it.If my mill grinds corn, I don't have to see the wind to know it's there.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:05:51If you believe in negative mass, than you have to find it.
A theory needs to explain things, and it needs to be internally consistent, and it needs not to contradict reality.BBT ticks all those boxes; your idea does not.
Based on those assumptions/manipulations the sky is the limit.Tell me what you need and the math is there for your support.
However, is it correct to assume that at any condition the Universe is homogenous and isotropic?
Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.
Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas.So, how can you claim that BBT ticks all the boxes?
1. Negative mass-energy particleQuote from: Kryptid on 22/07/2020 05:50:12The internal environment of the black hole is what allows that particle to have negative mass to begin with. Space-time is extremely distorted there.Quote from: Malamute Lover on 22/07/2020 16:52:29Virtual particles pairs can exist because they are balanced in every way even to the point of opposite mass-energy values. They add up to zero.Outside the surface of the BH it is all about gravity (At least based on Hawking concept). So, how the internal environment of the black hole can generate at the event of horizon (high above its surface) a negative mass particle? Virtual particles can't be considered as real particles.So, does real Negative mass-energy particle exist in our Universe?The idea that you need it for your theory does not necessarily convert it to reality.If you believe in negative mass, than you have to find it.Have you ever found any sort of negative mass (or its impact as negative gravity) around a BH or elsewhere?
The internal environment of the black hole is what allows that particle to have negative mass to begin with. Space-time is extremely distorted there.
Virtual particles pairs can exist because they are balanced in every way even to the point of opposite mass-energy values. They add up to zero.
Quote from: Kryptid on 22/07/2020 05:50:12The existence of negative mass is required in order to keep the conservation of energy. The black hole can't radiate positive mass without losing an equal amount of mass itself.If based on our modules it is there then why we have never ever found it?Could it be that it is only exist in our wishful list?How can you protect your theory without real observation of Negative mass particle?As there is no Negative mass-energy particle in our universe, then don't you agree that this theory is none relevant? Why are you so sure that a black hole can't radiate positive mass without losing an equal amount of mass itself?Do you claim that there is only one theory for that radiation?Sorry, if you need a negative mass for your theory, you must observe it.If you can't observe it, then it's the time to change disc and look for better theory.
The existence of negative mass is required in order to keep the conservation of energy. The black hole can't radiate positive mass without losing an equal amount of mass itself.
2. Perfect creation particles systemHow do we know for sure that the total energy in the new created particles is absolutely zero?If one particle is located even one micro of a Pico mm to the left with regards to the other one, than already its energy is different from the other particle.In any real system, there is no perfect match. Even a very small difference of 10^1000 is still a difference.So, how can you believe is such a perfect creation system?
3. Negative kinetic energyYou claim that the negative kinetic energy of the falling negative mass particle into the BH, can evaporate extra mass from the BH.I can accept the idea that a negative mass particle can evaporate positive mass particle.However, how its negative kinetic energy can evaporate any sort of mass?Can you please prove it?How could it be that a negative mass particle that is falling at velocity V can evaporate more mass than the same particle falling at a velocity V-v.?Please be aware that the surface of the BH might not be so smooth.Therefore, the same falling particle could collide with the surface of the BH at different H.Hence, its velocity during the impact could be changed based on the location of the collision point.Therefore, the same particle could collide with the surface of the BH at a different velocity (or kinetic energy).This by itself sets a key violation in energy conservation - as you see it.
4. Gravity EnergyHawking is specifically discuss on Gravity Energy. Not gravity force but gravity energy:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"If the gravity force is not energy than why he specifically highlights that the pair was produced by that gravitational energy?So, why he is using the word energy instead of force for the key phase of pair production process?Could it be that he knew that energy is needed to produce anything in our universe including new particle–antiparticle pair?Therefore, why can't we understand that without investing energy, there will be no particle–antiparticle pair?As he had no idea for the source of energy, he had selected the available gravity force as the source of the requested energy in that process.If you claim that the gravity force has no energy, than how the universe could create this pair without investing energy?
5. Banking system EnergyQuote from: Dave Lev on 22/07/2020 05:32:25Sorry, our Universe is not a banking system. If something is created in our Universe, the payment in energy must come in advance and in cash.Nothing would be created without payment in real energy in ADVANCE!So, don't you agree that new particles/photons could be created just after a transformation of real energy (in advance) from the BH to that creation process (whatever it is)?Therefore, if you believe in BH mass evaporation process, than first the BH must evaporate some of its mass-energy and just then it can hope to get real particle/photon.Quote from: Malamute Lover on 22/07/2020 16:52:29I have also mentioned the time order issue earlier. I do not have an answer. If we ever get a viable quantum gravity theory, it might make sense. Especially if that involves a new concept of spacetime, which looks like it may very well be the case.ThanksSo, you also see a problem in this creation process.The question is very simple:When do we have to pay for in energy for the creation of the pair?If it is just after the creation of the pair, than this is clearly a banking energy system.Sorry, nothing in our universe would be created without a payment in energy in advanced.I assume that even hawking knew it. Therefore, he called it Gravity Energy:Therefore, in any production system, you must invest energy before you get something - even if you think that its energy is zero.So, do you agree that without first investment with real energy - nothing could be created?
Sorry, our Universe is not a banking system. If something is created in our Universe, the payment in energy must come in advance and in cash.Nothing would be created without payment in real energy in ADVANCE!So, don't you agree that new particles/photons could be created just after a transformation of real energy (in advance) from the BH to that creation process (whatever it is)?Therefore, if you believe in BH mass evaporation process, than first the BH must evaporate some of its mass-energy and just then it can hope to get real particle/photon.
I have also mentioned the time order issue earlier. I do not have an answer. If we ever get a viable quantum gravity theory, it might make sense. Especially if that involves a new concept of spacetime, which looks like it may very well be the case.
6. Energy waste/efficiencyIn any system, there is no zero waste.The sun converts Hydrogen to helium by fusion process. In that process we get some of the extra energy waste as heat. Even in our car the energy efficiency is less than 100%.Therefore, in any creation/transformation of energies some of the energy must be converted to heat and waste.Therefore, in order to create a particle and antiparticle (even if we claim that their total energy is zero) the BH must invest more energy than zero.However, you introduce a theory with 100% efficiency.So, don't you agree that the idea that a BH creates real particles with total zero, with investment of zero energy, at zero waste of energy should be zero.How can we accept/believe in such hypothetical idea?
Real negative mass-energy particles do not exist in our universe. Virtual ones do, paired with positive mass-energy particles. The net sum is zero mass energy.
In Hawking’s model, the negative energy does not collide with the event horizon. It tunnels through it. It is just outside the event horizon then it is inside. No falling involved. It is already right there.
Hawking’s model involves what can happen in the extreme curvature near the event horizon. He concentrates on photons in his discussion
In an asymptotically flat space, not deep in a black hole, it is reasonable to deal only with positive frequencies, that is, photons as we know them.However, in the extreme curvature of space-time very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real.
Recall that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. A negative frequency translates to negative energy.
As I noted above, Hawking did not use the phrase ‘gravity energy’.
Gravity definitely has energy, which means that it modifies gravity force. This is one of the things that makes GR math so nastily non-linear and solving GR problems so hard. Luckily the interaction of gravity energy with other gravity energy is convergent, that is, the end result is finite.
But it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles. It is the extreme spacetime curvature near the event horizon that makes virtual real by shifting the vacuum energy state.
Virtual particles have real effects in the time they exist. One example is fine tuning electron energy levels a touch away from what is expected. Willis Lamb got a Nobel Prize for demonstrating that one. Quite a few other things like that by now including the really exotic Casimir effect. There are those who like to say that in quantum field theory, virtual particles are just fluctuations in a field. What they do think real particles are in quantum field theory?
This allows negative energy to be real but it does not supply the energy.
BBT doesn't need any of those things.Why tell that lie?
How can you raise the flag of energy conservation law while you totally ignore that law when it comes to the BBT?There is big difference between theory D to BBT.
Correct or incorrect?
Quote from: Malamute Lover on 25/07/2020 01:53:01Real negative mass-energy particles do not exist in our universe. Virtual ones do, paired with positive mass-energy particles. The net sum is zero mass energy. Thanks for this important confirmation.As long as we keep the negative mass at the virtual imagination, than it is OK with me.
Quote from: Malamute Lover on 25/07/2020 01:53:01In Hawking’s model, the negative energy does not collide with the event horizon. It tunnels through it. It is just outside the event horizon then it is inside. No falling involved. It is already right there.If no falling involve, a negative particle with velocity V should have the same impact as a negative particle with higher or lower velocity.In other words, its velocity is none relevant.Therefore, the energy that is evaporated from the BH is exactly E=mc^2 as was stated by hawking.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation"When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc2)"He doesn't say even one word about the velocity of the new created particle.Hence, Hawking does not claim for the potential or kinetic energy of the particle that falls in.Therefore, the kinetic/potential energy of the escaped particle isn't part of the mass evaporation process.
Quote from: Malamute Lover on 25/07/2020 01:53:01Hawking’s model involves what can happen in the extreme curvature near the event horizon. He concentrates on photons in his discussionSo, hawking concentrates on PhotonsI assume that you specifically mention the Photon as it is considered as mass less particle.If this is the case, than you have to agree that Hawking doesn't offer a real solution for a particle with real mass.
Quote from: Malamute Lover on 25/07/2020 01:53:01 In an asymptotically flat space, not deep in a black hole, it is reasonable to deal only with positive frequencies, that is, photons as we know them.However, in the extreme curvature of space-time very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real.Thanks for this informationSo, in the extreme curvature of space-time very near an event horizon, negative frequencies can become real.The question is: what could be the impact of those negative frequencies?You claim that a negative frequency might be translated to negative energy:Quote from: Malamute Lover on 25/07/2020 01:53:01Recall that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. A negative frequency translates to negative energy.This might be one possibility for mass less photon.However, I think on a different aspect.
Quote from: Malamute Lover on 25/07/2020 01:53:01As I noted above, Hawking did not use the phrase ‘gravity energy’. Yes he does.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy..."In any case, you confirm that gravity has energy!
Quote from: Malamute Lover on 25/07/2020 01:53:01Gravity definitely has energy, which means that it modifies gravity force. This is one of the things that makes GR math so nastily non-linear and solving GR problems so hard. Luckily the interaction of gravity energy with other gravity energy is convergent, that is, the end result is finite.I wonder what could be the impact of that gravity energy under the extreme negative frequency and under the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon on a real mass particle? Again, not mass less photon, but real mass particle?We will come to that key issue soon.
Quote from: Malamute Lover on 25/07/2020 01:53:01But it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles. It is the extreme spacetime curvature near the event horizon that makes virtual real by shifting the vacuum energy state.So, how the extreme space-time curvature had been created?Don't you agree that without the mighty BH gravity force there will be no space-time curvature near the event horizon.I also agree with you that "it is neither gravity energy nor gravitational force that creates the particles".So, there must be other energy source that sets this activity.However, what do you mean by: "shifting the vacuum energy state"?Is there any energy in the vacuum due to the Mighty BH gravity force that is shifted?Hence do you agree that the Mighty BH gravity force can shift that vacuum energy near the event horizon, in order to "makes virtual real" (as you have stated),
Quote from: Malamute Lover on 25/07/2020 01:53:01Virtual particles have real effects in the time they exist. One example is fine tuning electron energy levels a touch away from what is expected. Willis Lamb got a Nobel Prize for demonstrating that one. Quite a few other things like that by now including the really exotic Casimir effect. There are those who like to say that in quantum field theory, virtual particles are just fluctuations in a field. What they do think real particles are in quantum field theory?Well, I don't claim that virtual particles are unrealistic.I just say that real negative mass particle is a pure imagination.You have stated that theoretically negative particle could be ejected outwards. So, if it was real, we had to monitor the impact of the negative gravity.
You also have stated:Quote from: Malamute Lover on 25/07/2020 01:53:01This allows negative energy to be real but it does not supply the energy.This is the most important message in your answer!!!You clearly claim that it "does not supply the energy".Any real mass particle can't be created without investment of real energyAll it says that virtual particles can become real - but somehow they must get the energy in their mass from other real energy source.Therefore, I don't accept the concept that virtual particles could be converted to real mass particles without real source of energy (even if you claim for positive and negative mass).If you wish to get real mass particle - than you have to offer a real source of energy.The source for that activity is called - Electromagnetic field/energy.So, how it really works by theory D:We all know that around the BH/SMBH there is a strong electromagnetic fieldThat electromagnetic field sets the energy that is requested to transform a mass less virtual particle pair into real mass particle pair.Therefore, the BH gravity force/energy sets the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon which "makes virtual real" by shifting the vacuum energy state. However, the energy in the particles mass is transformed from the electromagnetic field.Therefore, there are two key elements that are working on converting the virtual mass particles to real particles.The energy in their mass is given by the electromagnetic field, while their transformation from virtual to real is a result of the mighty BH's gravity force + the extreme space-time curvature near the event horizon + the shifting the vacuum energy state + negative frequencies that contribute the orbital velocity of the new created particle.Therefore, they get their ultra high velocity due to that "shifting the vacuum energy state".So, as the virtual mass particles become real they keep their orbital velocity. The negative frequency or/and the vacuum energy is the source for that.So, we get two particles with real mass (in both) but with reverse charged polarity orbiting at ultar high velocity in the same direction.At the moment of their creation they directly affected by Lorentz force.Therefore, they immediately splitted by this force that works according to their polarity.One is shifted inwards, falls into the BH, while the other one is ejected outwards and join the other particles in the photon sphere or the accretion disc.Hence, the falling particle increases the total mass of the BH.The energy for the particle pair mass is taken by the magnetic field from the spin/heat of the BH.However, the falling particle increases the heat/rotation of the BH due to its collision with the BH surface, while the one that is ejected contribute some energy to the BH by tidal force.In total, all the BHs are increasing their mass over time, while the Universe gets more new particles.Please be aware that nothing can fall into a BH or especially a SMBH.The BH/SMBH magnetic field is so strong that any particle that will dare to come closer to the accretion disc will be boosted upwards/downwards at almost the speed of light.Therefore, we clearly see the two molecular jet steams above and below the poles of our SMBHIn any case, without the BH's magnetic field there is no way to convert virtual mass particle into real particle.Try to shut down the BH's magnetic field and you shut down the radiation.
The researchers have two main theories about what caused Sgr A* to erupt in this extreme way. The first is that an asteroid came too close to the supermassive black hole and was torn apart by gravity. The debris from such a tidal disruption became very hot and produced X-rays before disappearing forever across the black hole's point of no return, or event horizon.“If an asteroid was torn apart, it would go around the black hole for a couple of hours – like water circling an open drain – before falling in,” said co-author Fred Baganoff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “That’s just how long we saw the brightest X-ray flare last, so that is an intriguing clue for us to consider.”If this theory holds up, it means astronomers may have found evidence for the largest asteroid to produce an observed X-ray flare after being torn apart by Sgr A*.A second theory is that the magnetic field lines within the gas flowing towards Sgr A* could be tightly packed and become tangled. These field lines may occasionally reconfigure themselves and produce a bright outburst of X-rays. These types of magnetic flares are seen on the sun, and the Sgr A* flares have similar patterns of intensity.https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-s-chandra-detects-record-breaking-outburst-from-milky-way-s-black-hole
You are correct that there is a problem with particles with mass being emitted from a black hole.
Negative mass-energy particles with non-zero negative mass tunneling through the event horizon can account for the existence of a real positive mass-energy particle with positive mass outside. But it does not provide them with kinetic energy.
In any case, it does appear that magnetic field activity is larger in larger black holes.
A second theory is that the magnetic field lines within the gas flowing towards Sgr A* could be tightly packed and become tangled. These field lines may occasionally reconfigure themselves and produce a bright outburst of X-rays. These types of magnetic flares are seen on the sun, and the Sgr A* flares have similar patterns of intensity.https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-s-chandra-detects-record-breaking-outburst-from-milky-way-s-black-hole
If the second theory is correct, it would point to the accretion disk as the source of the coherent magnetic field that creates the jets,
No, it's irrelevant.Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."It wasn't true.So, why did you tell that lie?Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.You need to answer the question.Why did you say something that's not true?
What you are saying is that black holes magically create mass.Even if it was true it wouldn't help.Because you need to explain where the first black hole came from.
We can compare that first BH to the first living cell by Darwin theory.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 27/07/2020 12:41:28We can compare that first BH to the first living cell by Darwin theory.Or we can, more sensibly compare it to the BB.It's an uncaused cause. In any event, the physics couldn't work.~Even if your magic trick for making mass worked (spoiler alert; it doesn't) then it could only produce matter that was moving fast enough to escape the BH gravity. So any matter produced would spread out into space never to be seen again.Any that was not going fast enough to escape would, obviously, fall in and so it too would never be seen again.But now we have got that out of the way, perhaps you can reply to this- as the rules require.Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/07/2020 11:17:26No, it's irrelevant.Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."It wasn't true.So, why did you tell that lie?Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.You need to answer the question.Why did you say something that's not true?
With regards to the SMBH magnetic filed:Quote from: Malamute Lover on 26/07/2020 00:19:20In any case, it does appear that magnetic field activity is larger in larger black holes. Thanks
Quote from: Malamute Lover on 26/07/2020 00:19:20A second theory is that the magnetic field lines within the gas flowing towards Sgr A* could be tightly packed and become tangled. These field lines may occasionally reconfigure themselves and produce a bright outburst of X-rays. These types of magnetic flares are seen on the sun, and the Sgr A* flares have similar patterns of intensity.https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-s-chandra-detects-record-breaking-outburst-from-milky-way-s-black-holeSo, it is clear that the flares are due to the mighty magnetic field around the Sgr A*In our earth the Magnetic field drifts the solar wind to the poles of our planet.So, the Erath' magnetic field prevent from the solar wind to hit our planet.In the same token, the SMBH' magnetic field protects the SMBH from any falling matter.If any Atom from outside will dare to come closer, it will be boosted by that mighty magnetic field at almost 0.8c to about 27,000LY above/below the SMBH poles and be part of the molecular jet stream.
Black holes do not themselves have an inherent magnetic field, having no magnetic pole. Black holes have no hair as the saying goes. They are characterized entirely by mass, angular momentum and electric charge. Magnetic fields do appear to be associated with black holes because of the plasma jets they emit. Magnetic fields have been detected and studied in detail very near the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Parts are orderly, other parts chaotic and it changes substantially very often. This is not a simple dynamo effect. https://www.sciencealert.com/the-magnetic-field-just-outside-our-black-hole-has-been-studied-for-the-first-timeHowever, observation of another black hole showed much less magnetic activity than models indicated.https://www.sciencealert.com/black-hole-magnetic-field-weaker-than-expected-v404-cygni
Accretion discQuote from: Malamute Lover on 26/07/2020 00:19:20If the second theory is correct, it would point to the accretion disk as the source of the coherent magnetic field that creates the jets,What is the radius of the accretion disc?
Why can't we extract the real SMBH' mass directly from the accretion disc?
How do we know for sure that the mighty magnetic field is due to the accretion disc instead of the SMBH core rotation?
The total mass in the accretion disc is estimated at three Sun mass.How that limited mass could generate the mighty magnetic field that is needed for the Molecular jet stream - of 0.8c up to 27,000L
I do recall that in one of the articles that you have offered it was stated that the polarity of the SMBH' magnetic field is changed at relatively high frequency (few hours?)As the accretion disc rotates in one direction, how could it change the polarity without changing the orbital direction?However, the SMBH can do it as the Earth is also changing the magnetic field polarity from time to time.
The accretion disc has an outside radius of about 88 billion km. The hot spot inner region has a radius of 130-220 million km. The disc cuts off at about 11 million km at the innermost stable circular orbit. Anything below that point is going to fall into the black hole. Temperature in the inner part of the accretion disc reaches 10 million K.https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.12641
Can we assume that the orbital velocity of the plasma at the accretion disc (R=88Bkm) is 0.3c?
Based on this data, what is the estimated mass of the SMBH?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/07/2020 11:17:26No, it's irrelevant.Because, when you said this "Sorry, in order to support the BBT, we need a help from Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas."It wasn't true.So, why did you tell that lie?Smoke and mirrors are not going to help you here.You need to answer the question.Why did you say something that's not true?