Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
You mean like, flat-tone frequencies, or specific sounds?
Science questions not worth a thread I: I'm a moron!
- Thread starter The Imp
- Start date
- Status
madviking
north american scum
Huh, haven't thought about that. But I guess it might have to deal with the matter/anti-matter imbalance in the universe; so in the long run, more particles escape than anti-particles...
Mise
isle of lucy
Are you sure it needs to be an antiparticle that falls in? Do antiparticles have a negative energy? I thought they just had a negative charge?
EDIT: Don't the particle-antiparticle pair sort of "share" the total mass/energy of the radiation that causes the particle-antiparticle pair to come about? So they both have energy? I don't think it's possible to have a particle with negative energy.
EDIT2: Isn't it just "whichever one falls in has negative energy, otherwise energy conservation would be violated"?
EDIT: Don't the particle-antiparticle pair sort of "share" the total mass/energy of the radiation that causes the particle-antiparticle pair to come about? So they both have energy? I don't think it's possible to have a particle with negative energy.
EDIT2: Isn't it just "whichever one falls in has negative energy, otherwise energy conservation would be violated"?
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Antiparticles do not have negative energy as far as we know. If they did, they would have antigravity and would not be attracted to black holes in the first place (I think). The only way to generate teeny tiny amounts of negative energy is through the Casimir Effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47922/can-negative-energy-be-created-by-the-casimir-effect
The reason why I don't say definitively that they don't have negative energy is because to date no one has made enough antimatter at once to be able to conduct experiments to measure this, but it is assumed they have positive energy. This could be out of date though as I know this is an experiment they are actively trying to set up.
I have never heard that only the positive particle of a positive-negative pair falling into a black hole but I could be mistaken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47922/can-negative-energy-be-created-by-the-casimir-effect
The reason why I don't say definitively that they don't have negative energy is because to date no one has made enough antimatter at once to be able to conduct experiments to measure this, but it is assumed they have positive energy. This could be out of date though as I know this is an experiment they are actively trying to set up.
I have never heard that only the positive particle of a positive-negative pair falling into a black hole but I could be mistaken.
No, anti-particles have mass, like normal particles (the same mass, in any reasonable theory)
The difference between particle and anti-particle is largely a definition. Electrons are way more common than positrons, so it makes sense to say that the electron is the particle, but for the more exotic ones this is not always the case.
I would expect black holes to also produce anti-particles via Hawking radiation.
'negative energy' isn't really something to talk about, since the only thing we're interested in are energy differences. For example, the 1s electron in Hydrogen is usually considered to have -13.6 eV (or something, I'm not a chemist...).
Now, energy differences with the vacuum do give you some absolute scale. But for fermions, you can still define them away by a particle <-> hole transformation. For bosons, all energies should be positive, otherwise an infinite amount of these bosons will be created.
Bluemofia
F=ma
It's not quite particle - anti-particle annihilations that is what is driving it, it is the need to pay back an energy deficit brought upon by the uncertainty principle in empty space.
Whatever is absorbed annihilates with its corresponding partner within the black hole, and pays back the energy deficit created with that. So you end up with one formerly virtual particle with no more energy deficit to pay back, and that then escapes into the universe.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Negative energy is actually a thing though - it's supposed to be the cosmological constant that is driving the expansion of the universe itself. It's also different from negative in the sense of being lower on the scale - it's actually a repulsive force, it exists and we can indirectly see it though we understand very little of it.
It's a similar noise to warning calls in primates. If that's the answer or not is another question.
The term your looking for isn't negative energy. You can talk about anti gravity, but that doesn't mean negative energy -- far from it, since it would do work.
Bluemofia has the right answer to Bluemofia's question. Hawking radiation, as it's called, should emit particles and anti particles in equal measure. Or changeless particles, like photons, which can be considered their own anti-particles.
Bluemofia has the right answer to Bluemofia's question. Hawking radiation, as it's called, should emit particles and anti particles in equal measure. Or changeless particles, like photons, which can be considered their own anti-particles.
madviking
north american scum
Isn't negative energy possible through this?
E2 = m2c4 + p2c2
Set p = 0:
E2 = m2c4
Take the square root of both sides:
±E = mc2
Right?
E2 = m2c4 + p2c2
Set p = 0:
E2 = m2c4
Take the square root of both sides:
±E = mc2
Right?
Bluemofia
F=ma
It is believed that WIMPs annihilate with their corresponding anti-particle similar to how matter/anti-matter annihilations work. Basically, their corresponding flavors, spins, and charges are equal and opposite. When interacting, you have to conserve all of these things*, and since they add up to zero, you can make whatever you want with it, assuming you have enough energy to do so.
*To a point. Things like the weak interaction don't quite conserve flavor or parity (handedness), and electromagnetic processes don't conserve isospin (personally I think it is a stupid historic hybrid version of quark flavor, but whatever), but the more fundamental things like spin, color charge, weak isocharge, electrical charge, and energy are always conserved.
Bluemofia
F=ma
That "negative" energy is interpreted as an anti-particle in the solutions. And indeed, you get anti-particles from it.
Negative energy in the modern context is very different from anti-matter. If you bring anti-matter and matter together, you annihilate them both, and create energy. Anti-matter has equal amounts of energy as regular matter, and not negative.
If you bring matter and negative matter together, you get nothing. No photons, no energy.
Now hypothetically, tachyons are particles that are made up of negative energy, or imaginary energy (different from virtual energy). This is to allow the Lorentzian transforms to allow solutions to velocities greater than c. A problem though, is that if they have negative energy, they would create Cherenkov Radiation as they pass through vacuum, and lose energy... Becoming more negative, as you stripped positive energy out of it. Which they then travel faster, losing more and more energy, and you start to approach negative infinite velocities. Not sure about imaginary, because I've only taken 4th year undergraduate particle physics, and I'm not sure how the math works with that.
The fact that squaring is not a 1 to 1 reversible function is not evidence that anything that is true about an formula with a square, is necessarily true about both positive and negative roots of that formula.
However, the math of E=mc2 does allow E to be negative, if m is negative. The broader physics of this imply that such objects would move faster than light, and other strange properties. No evidence of such "tachyons" has been found though, they're purely a theoretical possibility of Relativity.
Mise
isle of lucy
I'm so glad I didn't do a Masters.
No, I don't know. It took me quite awhile to figure out why a bright light causes actual pain, since neuroanatomically it's not intuitive.
- Status
Similar threads
