Virtual particule and event horizon

In summary, the conversation discusses the behavior of virtual particle pairs around the event horizon of a black hole, with one member of the pair being absorbed by the black hole and the other being released into space as Hawking radiation. There is a discussion about whether it is always the anti-particle that gets sucked into the black hole and the potential influence of macroscopic fields on virtual particle orientation. It is mentioned that the presence of mass can increase the number of virtual particle pairs produced, and a question is raised about what would happen if a black hole was made out of anti-matter. The conversation also touches on the idea of the event horizon being able to pass information on a quantum level. In summary, the conversation covers various aspects of black holes
  • #1
Mean-Hippy
24
0
Was wondering: In Hawkins's " Univers in a nutshell" book, he talks about the behavior ov virtual particule pairs around the event horizon of a black hole. My understanding is that one of the antiparticule of the pair can be absorbed by the black hole. This makes for the release of the particule ( which is then sort-of materialized out of "nothing" ) into space and for the black hole loosing some mass from the absorbtion of anti-matter particule. If my understanding is correct, what I am really curious about in this case is: Would it always be the anti-particule that gets sucked in the black-hole and if so then WHY ?
Very much apreciate any input on this , Thank you !

Hippy :confused:
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
So ?!?

Anybody workin' on this ??
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Pair creation is the simple and obvious solution. At the 'event horizon', virtual particles [a quantum physics thing], which normally annihilate each other in a Planck second, get separated. The black hole sucks one in and gives the other a free pass to become a 'real' particle... aka, Hawking radiation.
 
  • #5
It's always been my understanding that virtual particles are so "virtual", that the determination of which is the particle and which is the interparticle is indefinite. If a virtual particle pair forms near the event horizon of a black hole, and one member of the pair falls in, the one that escapes then becomes the "particle", and the one that fell in becomes the "antiparticle".
 
  • #6
In this post, I raised the question of whether macroscopic fields could influence the alignment of virtual particle pairs. Labguy says no, because the pairs exist for such a very short time.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=28868

Is there any work you can cite to support your statement that: "If a virtual particle pair forms near the event horizon of a black hole, and one member of the pair falls in, the one that escapes then becomes the "particle", and the one that fell in becomes the "antiparticle"." I would be very interested in reading such paper(s) and would be very appreciative of any links you can provide. I have looked for evidence that someone (besides me) is thinking about preferential orientation of virtual pairs due to the effects of fields in the macro universe. At some point, Quantum Theory and Relativity must reconcile, and it seems to me that this may be a productive area of inquiry.

As a related query, does anyone here know if there is any work being done to determine if the presence of mass in a locality has an effect on the *numbers* of virtual pairs being produced there? Just a passing thought - could the distortion in space-time caused by the presence of a large mass inhibit or promote the creation of virtual particles?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
According to Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", and Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe", the member of the virtual particle pair that falls into the black hole is always the antiparticle, and the one that escapes is always the particle.

Also according to both of these authors, and many others, the presence of a mass which curves space-time (and more specifically the stress that this curvature places on space-time) does indeed increase the number of virtual particle pairs produced in a given area. In particular, the gravitational differential is cited as a cause of virtual pair formation. Because of this, and somewhat paradoxically, more virtual particle pairs would be formed near the event horizon of a small black hole than that of a large one. If we view gravitation as a curvature of space-time, the curve is sharper near a small black hole, placing more stress on the fabric of space-time, which infuses that area with more energy for the production of more virtual particles.
 
  • #8
what would happen if you made a black hole out of anti-matter- would hawking radiation actually make it grow since only anti-matter can fall in? or would it actualy radiate anti-matter?


___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
LURCH said:
According to Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", and Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe", the member of the virtual particle pair that falls into the black hole is always the antiparticle, and the one that escapes is always the particle.
I was under the impression that the closer particle (either particle or antiparticle) always falls in (since both have positive mass) and that the particle that that escapes (either particle or antiparticle) becomes a REAL particle, at the expense of the black hole's mass. Am I mistaken?
 
  • #10
Event horizon can pass information on quantum level

As a follow-up, when one half of a virtual pair crosses the event horizon, BOTH halves (particle and antiparticle) must become real. The detection of a particle or antiparticle popping into existence just outside the event horizon tells us that its analog has emerged as a real particle inside the event horizon, thus giving us information about an event inside the event horizon. Practical value = nil. :smile:
 
  • #11
setAI said:
what would happen if you made a black hole out of anti-matter- would hawking radiation actually make it grow since only anti-matter can fall in? or would it actualy radiate anti-matter?


___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com

That is a very good question. My guess is it should evaporate, but I'm not sure why.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related to Virtual particule and event horizon

1. What is a virtual particle?

A virtual particle is a particle that exists only for a very short period of time and does not have a physical existence. It is created by the fluctuation of energy in a vacuum and quickly annihilates itself, returning the borrowed energy back to the vacuum.

2. How are virtual particles related to the event horizon?

Virtual particles play a role in the phenomenon of Hawking radiation, where they are created at the event horizon of a black hole. One particle falls into the black hole while the other escapes, resulting in a net loss of energy and causing the black hole to gradually evaporate.

3. Can virtual particles be observed?

No, virtual particles cannot be observed directly as they exist for such a short time. However, their effects can be observed through various experiments and calculations in quantum mechanics and cosmology.

4. What happens when a virtual particle and its antiparticle meet?

When a virtual particle and its antiparticle meet, they annihilate each other, releasing the borrowed energy back into the vacuum. This process is known as pair annihilation.

5. Are virtual particles responsible for all forces in the universe?

Virtual particles play a role in the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces, but they are not the sole cause of these forces. The fundamental particles that carry these forces, such as photons and gluons, are considered virtual particles in certain situations. However, the existence and behavior of virtual particles are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics and do not fully explain the forces in the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
46
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
412
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
39
Views
3K
Back
Top