0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

In the case of a positron-electron pair, yes, one is negatively-charged and one is positively-charged.

Stephen Hawking himself, for one. He mentions it in his book A Brief History of Time. The reason one particle has positive mass and the other negative mass is specifically because the first law of thermodynamics has to be obeyed. The particles were pulled out of a zero-energy state, so their total mass has to add up to zero. By one being positive and the other negative, this is accomplished.

We've already discussed all of this before, don't you remember? We even discussed why the negative mass particle has to be the one that falls into the hole.

So do you finally agree that we discuss on Negative charged mass and not about Negative mass?

If you still want to hope that Stephen Hawking himself mentioned in his book A Brief History of Time that it is about negative mass (and not about negative charged mass), than please offer a direct web link to his statement.

In the case of a positron-electron pair formed during the Hawking process, one is negatively-charged and the other is positively-charged.

One, however, must also have a negative mass while the other has a positive mass.

This is imagination!!!In the article it is stated:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle"particle and antiparticle must havethe same mass mthe same spin state Jopposite electric charges q and -q."Therefore, both have a positive mass.

Hence, would you kindly stop that none realistic idea of Negative mass, or offer a real article which supports this imagination...

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.

How does this work? Well, you'll find Hawking radiation explained this way in a lot of "pop-science" treatments:Virtual particle pairs are constantly being created near the horizon of the black hole, as they are everywhere. Normally, they are created as a particle-antiparticle pair and they quickly annihilate each other. But near the horizon of a black hole, it's possible for one to fall in before the annihilation can happen, in which case the other one escapes as Hawking radiation.In fact this argument also does not correspond in any clear way to the actual computation. Or at least I've never seen how the standard computation can be transmuted into one involving virtual particles sneaking over the horizon, and in the last talk I was at on this it was emphasized that nobody has ever worked out a "local" description of Hawking radiation in terms of stuff like this happening at the horizon. I'd gladly be corrected by any experts out there... Note: I wouldn't be surprised if this heuristic picture turned out to be accurate, but I don't see how you get that picture from the usual computation.

The absorbed particle has negative energy,

Negative Energy means Negative energy charge.It doesn't mean negative mass as you might hope for.Any Energy - positive or Negative - must have real positive mass.The idea of negative mass is none realistic in my point of view.

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 = mc^{2} (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.

Negative Energy means Negative energy charge.

Any Energy - positive or Negative - must have real positive mass.

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.

Quote from: Kryptid on 23/09/2019 19:30:58In this case, both matter and antimatter have positive mass/energy under normal circumstances.As they are talking about "normal" circumstances, why I also can't talk about "normal" circumstances?Why do you push that discussion into the direction of none 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.

Would you kindly advice clearly when can we get the Normal condition?

Do you agree that in order to get the Normal conditions it must be close enough to the innermost side of the accretion disc (As further away there is no feasibility for the pair production activity)

If you don't agree with that, than please specify exactly the location for Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.

For one, the normal condition requires the energy to already be there.

So, 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.

The question is: What is the source for this energy?

However, If there is an energy, than we don't need to deduct any mass from any nearby object.

The gravitational Energy is an excellent energy source for the new creationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Hence, the Gravitational energy is already there.

Please be aware that it is also stated:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production"the created particles shall have opposite values of each other. For instance, if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron"The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1 e, a spin of 1/2 (same as electron), and has the same mass as an electron. "So, there is a possibility for the pair-production with the same positive mass at each particle, but with opposite electrical charge.

They don't say even one word about negative mass or deduct the mass/energy from the BH.

With regards to Negative mass:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass"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.