Advanced search

Answers


How does Hawking Radiation transmit negative mass to a singularity?

If you define an arbitrary plane in free space, then the mass, momentum, and energy of virtual particles crossing the surface will balance (statistically over a given time period). If this plane is parallel to and very close to an event horizon, then an imbalance occurs as some of the virtual particles are lost to the event horizon, making re-combination impossible and thus creating a surplus. The net surplus at the other side of the surface in terms of the mass, momentum and energy of the orphaned particles is then balanced by the mass, momentum and energy of the particles that strayed far enough from the original plane to cross the nearby event horizon. This implies that if an event horizon occurs, it will leak energy (mass and momentum from orphaned virtual particles) into the "real particle" universe.

 

My problem is that this model leaks from the "vacuum energy", and creates Hawking Radiation in equal, statistically interchangeable, forms on both sides of the gap between the arbitrary plane, and the event horizon. Everything you loose on one side, you have therefore gained, as an orphan, on the other. You get opposite charge, but still the same individual mass and overall momentum. So the total vacuum energy erodes (very slowly) but the black hole expands (also very slowly).

 

Even if you invoke negative energy particles, they are either repelled by the gravitational field (making things much worse) or at best they cancel the in-falling Hawking Radiation, and produce some very strange external emissions, but no net loss of mass from the black hole. I can’t create a bias, as it implies a bias in free space. Besides, I can’t tell in advance which virtual pairs will become separated, or which individuals orphaned, so there is no biasing mechanism available.

 

If this was the case then black holes would remain stable. Can someone please explain what is missing from this model? How does it differ from the accepted model of Hawking Radiation and the decay of Black Holes?

sssss
 (no votes)

submit an answer
  • Asked by mcquillp
  • on 2010-07-08 18:46:00
  • Member status
  • none

Categories: Our universe.

Tags: ouruniverse, blackhole, relativity, quantum, cosmology, Event-horizon, HawkingRadiation, QED, vacuumenergy, casimir.

 

Report abuse


2 answer(s)


Reply

markeagleone says:

First of all, don't take for granite what someone says about something they know nothing of. You can state all the ideas you want, but without a way to prove them, it is still an idea. Einstein had ideas that have been proven to this date, but how in this world can you prove a blackhole has a lifespan, emits energy(ergo, loses mass) from beyond the event horizon, and also keeps with physical laws that are in place in the micro and macro universe is beyond me. It also is beyond me that blackholes are concidered to have great mass. Einstein refined gravity to say that more or less it's a bend in the fabric of space dependant on the mass. That being said, I wonder if anyone concidered the fact that a blackhole could be a tear, or a hole, through this universe into another. Gravity would not be a direct result from mass, such as our sun to the earth, but a result of the size hole through the fabric of space. The size hole would only be in relation to what has passed through. Maybe our loses are the beginnings of a brand new universe.

As far as negative mass, that makes no sense to me in the physical world. My theory of blackholes themselves would be negative mass. A hole through space, like a hole on a golf coarse, where a ball can enter, but has no effect on what else ends up in the hole. Even in antimatter, there are units of matter that have mass. Like I said, prove that there is something there that isn't there and that blackholes are getting smaller if they aren't feeding and will eventually die. For now, I would say they exist and anyone's theory is as good as anothers. They won't know anytime soon. It's hard to prove in physics that something conforms to physical laws when, by its very nature, has no physical rules that we can apply beyond the event horizon.

sssss
 (no votes)

Tags: ouruniverse, blackhole, relativity, quantum, cosmology, Event-horizon, HawkingRadiation, QED, vacuumenergy, casimir.

top

posted on 2012-02-06 21:33:49 | Report abuse

Reply

tbrucenyc says:

"Granted, "don't take for granted".

sssss
 (no votes)

Tags: ouruniverse, blackhole, relativity, quantum, cosmology, Event-horizon, HawkingRadiation, QED, vacuumenergy, casimir.

top

posted on 2012-02-07 23:20:40 | Report abuse


The last word is ...

the place where you ask questions about everyday science

Answer questions, vote for best answers, send your videos and audio questions, save favourite questions and answers, share with friends...

register now


ADVERTISMENT