0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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/sec˛), 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?
It depends on how you define it. Gravitational energy in the form of the potential energy of a mass in a gravitational field is a thing.
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!
You have it backwards. A lowering of orbital energy results in a decrease in the size of the orbit, not an increase.
Moving away from a source of gravity requires an input of energy because you are moving against a gravitational potential. It's the same reason that energy input is required to lift something off of the ground, but not required to drop something.
I don't agree with that.
Lowering of orbital energy means lowering the orbital velocity and lowering the gravity force!
The formula for gravity is:F = G m1 m2 / r^2
As there is no change in the mass or the G, than the only way to decrease the gravity is by increasing the radius.
The gravity energy is a direct outcome of the orbital velocity which means - kinetic energy and not potential energy.
As the radius of the orbital object is smaller, its orbital velocity is faster.
If we set the moon at a distance of 1000 Ly away from the Earth, does it mean that the gravity energy is stronger?What will be its orbital velocity?At this distance, the gravity force between the two objects will be virtually zero.
Therefore, loosing orbital energy means increasing the orbital radius and decreasing the orbital velocity.
QuoteTherefore, 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!Then we can end the thread right here, as that violates the first law of thermodynamics. Your model has falsified itself.
There is no violation for the first law of thermodynamics!
The black hole's gravitational energy is for free
Since -1.5468635 x 1017 joules is larger than -3.80658 x 1027 joules, the Moon would have more total energy if it was 1,000 light-years from Earth than if it were in its current orbit. So energy has to be put into the system in order to increase the distance between two gravitating bodies.
QuoteThe gravity energy is a direct outcome of the orbital velocity which means - kinetic energy and not potential energy.It's both, actually. You can't ignore potential energy.
Do you agree that the creation of those particles must come from the BH's potential energy?As it is stated: "the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"If so, how that BH's Potential Energy is converted into real pair of particle?Can you please explain it?
Do you agree that the creation of those particles must come from the BH's potential energy?