0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
The combination of ultra high gravity of the SMBH + the mighty magnetic fields sets the creation of new particle/atom.
I say "almost" as our scientists consider that it is totally free.We have already discussed deeply about the impact on the gravity force in the long run.Let's look again on the Sun/Earth gravity system.If I recall it correctly, you assume that the gravity stays at the same amplitude over time (assuming that there is no reduction in the mass).So, you don't see any reduction in the gravity force while the sun holds the Earth in its orbital momentum by gravity.You have stated that the Earth is drifting outwards not due to gravity force reduction but due to tidal.So, you actually claim that the gravity is there for free for ever.I have stated that there must be a "friction" or reduction also in gravity over time.So, the Earth is drifting outwards over time as the gravity is reducing due to the orbital activity.
Why when it comes to pair production there is a reduction in the gravity force, while when it comes to any gravity system (as the orbital path of the Sun around the galaxy) there is no gravity force reduction?
I don't agree with that as there must be also a reduction in gravity over time (even if it is a very low reduction).
Our scientists assume that the Sun stays exactly at the same radius from its first moment.Therefore, they claim that the Sun orbits around the galaxy for the last 6 billion years exactly at the same radius.
In any case, if you assume that the sun is not losing gravity force due to its orbital momentum around the galaxy, than I can claim that a new created particle is also do not set any reduction in the gravity force of the SMBH (close to the Event Horizon).
I claim that the SMBH is losing much less than 1.022 keV in order to form an electron-positron pair as the activity of that creation is based on Gravity + Magnetic Energy.
As the Gravity comes almost for free,
than the total reduction in the Gravity + Magnetic Energy must be less than 1.022 keV/2
For this explanation let's assume that the total reduction in the Gravity +Magnetic Energy of the SMBH that is needed to create electron-positron pair is 1.022 keV/4.
This is a win win situation.
The total (black hole + particle pair) has the same mass as the original black hole before the formation of the pair.
When a particle pair forms, the mass that formed the pair was taken out of the black hole.
That is absolutely correct.Please look at the following article: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."So, we get the pair-production without any effect on the SMBH mass as the total mass of the Pair is zero. (One is positive while the other is negative.
That is totally incorrectAs I have proved the total mass of the pair is Zero, therefore, the pair production doesn't take any mass out of the black hole.
The SMBH is not losing any mass due to this production process.
I claim that as the SMBH is made out of negative polarity mass, the in falling negative particle must increase its mass, while the other positive particle is squirted outwards into the accretion disc.
The gravity effects of Negative mass are identical to a positive mass.
That's not how math works. Making a negative number more negative is a decrease, not an increase. Going from -10 to -20 is a decrease. So the black hole is still losing mass if it's eating negative-mass particles.
You didn't learn in 3rd grade that -11 is less than -10? Adding a negative number to any number (positive or negative) decreases the value.Also, other masses (both positive and negative) will accelerate away from negative mass and thus cannot form gravitationally bound objects like a planet or black hole. If you actually worked through the trivial equations of Newton's gravitational force and resulting acceleration (F=GMm/r² and F=ma, or a=GM/r²), this would be apparent.
Why you don't agree with that?
Let's look at the following: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."In our case, we do not discuss on a Negative mass.We actually discuss on a negative charged mass.Let's look on a pair particles (Positron/Electron)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, the mass of the Positron is equal to the mass of the electron.We don't have a negative mass, but we have a negative charged mass.Therefore, the mass is there even for electron.In gravity, we do not count the polarity of the mass charged.We only monitor the total mass.So, the total mass of one billion positrons is equal to the total mass of one billion electrons.It is a mistake to assume that the mass of electron is –M Kg while the mass of the positron is +M kg.Both have a positive mass, while their charged polarity is different.So, the total mass of an object with only one billion electrons will be M, while the total mass with one billion electrons will also be M.Again, both will be represented by real positive mass (and not negative mass).Therefore, the gravity force of an object which is fully made with positrons should be identical to an object which is full made with the same numbers of electrons.
The gravity effects of Negative mass are identical to a positive mass.Therefore, while the SMBH increases its negative mass, the accretion disc gets for free the positive particle.
If you propose that a black hole can become heavier by eating some of the mass that was taken out of it, you are absolutely are proposing such a violation. Let's say that the magnetic field transfers 1.022 keV of mass-energy out of the black hole into order to form an electron-positron pair. The black hole must now weigh 1.022 keV less than it did before. Now, one of those particles (0.511 keV) is thrown either into the accretion disk or into the jet, while the other 0.511 keV particle falls back into the black hole. The black hole lost 1.022 keV by forming the particle pair and only got 0.511 keV back by eating one member of the pair. That's still a net loss of 0.511 keV. Elementary school arithmetic demands that the black hole has lost mass, not gained it.
Now you are contradicting yourself, because you explicitly said:QuoteThe gravity effects of Negative mass are identical to a positive mass.Therefore, while the SMBH increases its negative mass, the accretion disc gets for free the positive particle.
In any case, from the SMBH point of view, those new created particles has an opposite charged and therefore, they do not have any effect on its mass at the moment of their creation.
Actually if one second later on they will meet with each other, they will eliminate each other:"When a positron collides with an electron, annihilation occurs."So, the creation of the pair-production does not change the total mass of the SMBH as the annihilation does not change its mass.
If the needed mass-energy to create the electron-positron pair didn't come from the black hole, then where did it come from? It has to come from somewhere. Whatever that source of mass-energy may be, the source must lose mass-energy in the process of creating that particle pair because that particle pair has a positive net mass-energy. That mass-energy cannot come from the gravitational or magnetic field themselves, as fields can only transform or transfer mass-energy, not create it.
Based on what data do you set this assumption?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiationIn the following article it is stated:"Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle–antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This 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.""An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole."It is stated clearly that the particle–antiparticle radiation/creation does not come directly from the black hole itself.Therefore, the BH doesn't lose any mass during this creation process.In the article it is stated also:"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"So, the creation itself has no effect on the BH mass. As the positive charged particle is ejected outwards, the Negative charged particle must fall in. Our scientists estimate that the BH is made out of positive charged mass; Therefore, this in falling Negative charged particle should reduce its total mass.So, again - the creation of the pair particles do not have any impact on the total mass of the BH.Therefore, how could it be that you both are so sure that the creation of the Pair- production must decrease the BH mass while in this article it is stated clearly that it does not come directly from the mass of the black hole itself?If you still believe that the creation of the pair-production must decrease the mass of the BH than please prove it by real article.
The particle pair created from the Hawking process does not come directly from the black hole, no, but the net result of the process is the removal of mass from the hole. Adding a negative mass particle (take careful note that I said negative mass and not negative charge, because charge is not what this is about) to a positive mass black hole must necessarily result in the reduction of the black hole's mass.
Where do you get the idea of negative mass and not negative charge???Did you read the article?It is stated clearly:"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle"In particle physics, every type of particle has an associated antiparticle with the same mass but with opposite physical charges (such as electric charge). For example, the antiparticle of the electron is the antielectron (which is often referred to as positron). While the electron has a negative electric charge, the positron has a positive electric charge, "So it is stated clearly that the antimatter is a negative charged mass.
What is your source for negative mass?Why do you insist on this none realistic idea?
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 = 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.