Quantum Particles

Sounds somewhat plausible....but does it work mathematically?

No,I cannot explain it mathematically.

"I don't understand everything I know about that"..grandpa Rednek

Einstein even said that "“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.”

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Einstein-write-Since-the-mathematicians-have-invaded-the-theory-of-relativity-I-do-not-understand-it-myself-anymore-After-all-GR-relies-heavily-on-mathematics?share=1

Yes,another quorum link,but all is not lost there.

Those virtual particles (that's their name) are the fundamental principle of Hawking Radiation. Since Hawking Radiation has now been observed the math and observations confirm the existence of virtual particles. That observation was not from the event horizon of a black hole but an event horizon barrier nonetheless. A phonon analogy of a black hole has produced acoustic version of Hawking Radiation.

Virtual particles have been proposed as evidence of a parallel universe. The jury is still out on that concept.

Since analogies of a black hole produce Hawking (like) Radiation, his Math and Physics theory have been confirmed. (The phonon article explains how difficult it will be to directly observe Hawking Radiation.) However, the virtual particles of these experiments did not rely on the existence of another universe or concurrent media for these virtual particles to originate from. Thus virtual particles in our universe do not have to come from another universe, but they might.

This analogy does not constitute proof of Hawking radiation.

It only used high energy phonons in this analogy,and the low energy phonons did not produce the same results.

Would a black hole not be as likely absorb as many positive charged virtual particles as negative ones,since they are generated in pairs?

This would have a net zero effect.

Why would a black hole prefer negative particles?

Do black holes have a positive charge?I would think they would be neutral or it would repel like charges.

If it does repel positive charges,this effect could be used as a means to navigate close to the event horizon in the distant future.

"We can't detect real Hawking Radiation,but trust us,it's there."

Sounds like the king's clothes to me.

I did not say that it proved Hawking Radiation from a black hole. I said that it proves Hawking's mechanism (Mathematics and Physics) to transfer a small amount of energy across a different event horizon barrier.

My mistake.I saw the link that said that Hawking radiation had been measured,so I presumed it had been proven.

Again,I reiterate,why would a black hole prefer negative particles?

Perhaps I misunderstand the theory.

Can you enlighten me on this matter?

This is pure speculation on my part but since the common carrier of a negative charge has very little mass while the common carrier of positive charge has a lot of mass that might be the difference.

As I understand it virtual partcles are theorized to pop into existence in particle/antiparticle pairs. Meaning there shouldn't be a mass difference between the virtual particle with the positive charge and the one with the negative charge.

Moreover, even if there was a difference in mass a more massive particle should feel the same acceleration due to gravity as a less massive particle.

What little I know about virtual particles is that the pairs can be separated by millions of light years,they do not necessarily appear side-by-side.

The orphaned twin could appear elsewhere in a different place,and consequently,a difference time.

Location cannot be determined precisely without precise time.

Distance from observer=Time.

But that is another whole can of worms,right?

I always liked the flatlander analogy (creatures living in a two-dimensional world). The inhabitants there would often see short and long lines materialize from "nowhere" and then disappear. Those mysterious lines, of course, were 3-dimensional objects passing through their 2-dimensional world. Extending the analogy to 3-dimensional "roundlanders"... etc.

Theorists can't decide on 10 or 11 dimensions of reality,but they agree there are more than the 4 (3 +Time) that we experience.

Here is some interesting info from a good source:

https://phys.org/news/2017-12-secret-movement-quantum-particles.html

This mud puddle is deeper than it looks.

Funny thing,it only comes up the the breast of my ducks.

"Curiouser and curiouser" said Alice.

https://phys.org/news/2006-02-quantum-problem.html

This is kind of a crash course on quantum mechanics:

https://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html

Thanks!I will digest it when I have time.

'Mysterious quantum particles simply pop into and out of our universe in pairs.
They materialize out of "nothing",and come from "nowhere",and go back into "nothingness".'

The vacuum has energy, so it's not nothing. I would say they pop out of and go back into the vacuum energy. Here is a very interesting article that gives FIVE answers to how much energy the vacuum has:

www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

Here is an answer from a site HTRN likes:

https://www.quora.com/How-do-virtual-particles-appear-from-nothing

Most of this is far too complex for my feeble mind, but could you explain this statement to me, "When a rubber balloon inflates the internal pressure decreases and it expands quicker."

If you're inflating it with helium?....or perhaps quantum particles?

Ok,try this for yourself.

Blow up a balloon.

It is very hard to get started,and the internal pressure is very great.

As it expands,the pressure drops,and it is easier to inflate.

The volume increases,but the pressure drops.

Take 2 inflated balloons,a large one and a small one, same material, and the smaller balloon will have the higher pressure.

"The volume increases,but the pressure drops."

From the following site: "The pressure in a rubber balloon increases gradually as it is inflated then usually rises more rapidly just before the burst as you reach the elastic limit of the rubber."

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38813/relationship-between-balloon-size-and-pressure

You say,"The volume increases, but the pressure drops."

I say, as the volume increases, the rubber stretches and loses strength. If your postulation (pressure drop) were correct, the balloon would shrink. Keep blowing and the balloon pops. As, I now see, Standards Guy said.

The difficulty in starting the balloon to inflate is dependent on the strength of your (and my) lungs.

I don't presume to dispute anything else offered here.

The volume increases,but the internal pressure is less, due to the rubber becoming thinner and less resistant to stretching.

Comparing a smaller inflated balloon,the rubber is thicker,and the pressure is higher compared to the same balloon as it is inflated.

Notice how it gets easier to inflate as it gets larger?

The rubber is compensating for the increase in Volume,while the pressure stays about the same,once the initial starting pressure is exceeded.

The balloon is hard to start because the rubber is very thick.

After it has been inflated once,it becomes easier to start the second time.

Put a pressure gauge on them and you will see.

Sure,if you release pressure after it is fully inflated,it will shrink,because of the rubber memory.

Perhaps space time is stretching,and becoming less "thick" as it expands?

Here is a link that answers the question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-balloon_experiment

That's not the same thing. I proved you wrong in post 20, but you failed to read it or failed to comprehend it. It has a link to a you-tube site where a teacher measured it and made a graph. You said "try it yourself". He did that and proved you wrong.

The link I provided shows mathematically what happens to the internal pressure as the diameter of the balloon expands,and the effects of surface tension,and provides the math to prove it.See fig. 1 of the link,and the graph in fig.2.

It shows 2 balloons connected by a valve.

When the valve is opened,the larger balloon inflates somewhat,and the smaller one deflates somewhat.This is exactly an example of what I stated.

It depends on the size of the balloons involved,and the balloons must be the same.

If not for the elastic characteristics of of the rubber,it would be a different story.

I read and understand the link you provided,but I had rather go with the math instead of a test rigged up by a high school teacher.

But that is just my opinion,of course.

You may be right;I may be wrong.

I claim foul.

You said, "When a rubber balloon inflates the internal pressure decreases and it expands quicker."

Then you attempt to prove your point with an irrelevant Two balloon experiment.

From the link I provided:

I think it is relevant.

"Fig. 2. Pressure curve for an ideal rubber balloon. When air is first added to the balloon, the pressure rises rapidly to a peak. Adding more air causes the pressure to drop."

The situation for a balloon and bubble are different.

In a bubble, soapy water has a constant surface tension T (dynes/cm). If you pass an imaginary plane through a bubble and consider the forces, the force holding it together is proportional to the circumference length, 2πrT. The force trying to pull it apart is πr² x ΔP.

Force out= pressure difference x area = πr² x ΔP

Force in = T x 2πr

Force in = Force out = 2 x T x 2πr = πr² x ΔP

ΔP = (2πrT / πr²) = 4T/r

Hyperphysics explains it better than I can...

"The pressure difference between the inside and outside of a bubble depends upon the surface tension and the radius of the bubble. The relationship can be obtained by visualizing the bubble as two hemispheres and noting that the internal pressure which tends to push the hemispheres apart is counteracted by the surface tension acting around the cirumference of the circle.

For a bubble with two surfaces providing tension, the pressure relationship is:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/surten2.html

The surface tension of rubber is not constant. It is zero up to an initial radius, then increases linearly until the tangled polymer molecules straighten out and then increases quickly beyond that point. This increase causes an additional increase in pressure with radius. So you have a variable amount of increase that opposes the normal decrease in pressure with radius.

Depending on the "stretchiness" of the rubber, there will be regimes where the pressure increases with radius and where the pressure decreases with radius. Where it increases, two connected balloons will equalize. Where it decreases, the smaller balloon will inflate the larger.

Here is a research paper that plotted phase diagrams for different situations:

Two rubber balloons: Phase diagram of air transfer

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8464072_Two_rubber_balloons_Phase_diagram_of_air_transfer

Bottom line: With bubbles, the smaller always inflates the larger. With balloons, it can go either way, depending on conditions.

The theory of Hawking radiation applies to non rotating,uncharged(neutral charge) black holes.

If a black hole is neutral,it would have no preference for a particular charge.

Like any other object,a black hole will try to keep it's charge in balance and neutral,attracting opposite charges,and repelling like charges.

A charge cannot build up because of this balancing act.

A virtual particle on this side of the galaxy,with it's twin on the other side would have to communicate by entanglement to avoid the time delay.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the OP, but it's your thread, so you can do what you want.

you said "A virtual particle on this side of the galaxy,with it's twin on the other side would have to communicate by entanglement to avoid the time delay."

Virtual particles are temporary and are created in the same spot, so they won't be across the galaxy. There are many physicists who say there is no communication as shown in this Quora site. It has 12 answers. I like this one:

"Paul Camp, Ph. D. in theoretical physics and 30 years experience Answered Jul 20, 2019 · Author has 3.3k answers and 555.3k answer views

That’s exactly what we do know. There is no communication between entangled particles. I know there are tons of popularizations that say otherwise, but they’re all wrong.

You have to adjust your perspective. There are not two independent particles whose states are entangled. There is a single state, so no need for communication. At each end of the entanglement experiment, measurements show a particle that is not interacting with anything. Entanglement only appears when you compare the measurements, and that does involve communication, but at less than the speed of light.

This is what makes it weird. You can prove that no information can be transferred by entanglement."

Here is my understanding (if "understanding" applies to quantum phenomena):

Energy and time duration are complementary attributes in the same way as are position and momentum. If the time duration is short enough, the energy is uncertain, and if the time duration is extremely short, the energy can exceed the rest mass of a pair of particles (matter/antimatter), and so these particles flash into existence for a very short period of time.

"The Uncertainty Principle

The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of the energy and time.

This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html#c2

"Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which explains the virtual particle phenomenon, is most commonly stated as follows: It is impossible to exactly and simultaneously measure both the momentum and position of a particle. There is always an uncertainty in momentum and an uncertainty in position. More importantly, these two uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero together.

One consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that the energy and duration of a particle are also characterized by complementary uncertainties. There is always, at every point in space and time, even in a perfect vacuum, an uncertainty in energy and an uncertainty in duration, and these two complementary uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero simultaneously.

The meaning of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that "something" can arise from "nothing" if the "something" returns to the "nothing" after a very short time—an interval too short in which to be observed. These micro-violations of energy conservation are not only allowed to happen, they do, and so "empty" space is seething with particle-antiparticle pairs that come into being and then annihilate each other again after a very short interval. Although these particles cannot be observed individually, their existence can be demonstrated."

https://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html

A corollary is that you can embezzle money if you put it back before you get caught.

"... There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of the energy and time. ..."

"... More importantly, these two uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero together. ..."

If the product of the uncertainties has some minimum (nonzero) then not only can these not be reduced to zero together, there cannot even be reduced to zero individually without something like infinite uncertainty for the other.

.

On a different note, if these particle pop back out of existence via pair annihilation where are the resulting photons?

As an example in the actual world,, when an energetic photon (>1.02 MeV) travels very close to a massive nucleus, pair production can occur forming a positron/electron pair. When these two come together and annihilate, two photons of at least 0.51 MeV each are generated traveling in opposite directions.

If virtual particles can be made real simply by separating for sufficient time and if otherwise their typical exit is via annihilation, sbouldn't we be measuring a fairly strong background of energetic photons everywhere?

The photon went that away, and pretty fast.

All joking aside, the photon becomes just part of the background energy found in all space.

One of the links compared the ZPEF to a simmering ocean of energy that is like carbonated water,with some particles popping up and then falling back down into the ocean.

Ok,if I use that analogy,then perhaps some of the particles do not fall back,but "evaporate',not necessarily due to a black hole effect,but due to the differential "Pressure" of our spacetime dimension and the ZPEF.

These particles assume a higher energy state,like steam boiling out of water.

This would result in an expansion of our spacetime boundaries.

I realize this is not a perfect analogy,but it is the best I can come up with without being redundant.

That would be extremely strong background radiation.

For reference, a photon on the higher energy side of the visible spectrum might be around 3 eV. The energy of a typical CMB radiation photon is around 7 ^×10^-4 eV.

If there are positron electron pairs popping into existence all the time and leaving via pair annihilation the resulting pair of photons are of at least 0.51 Mev (not eV but MeV a million times higher).

Radiation of this type is fully ionizing and would be problematic for life if it were ubiqitous.

Moreover, wouldn't this be adding a lot of mass/energy equivalent to the universe if these photons produced from virtually nothing stayed in the universe? What happens to the first part of 'energy/mass being neither created nor destroyed'?

It has not been destroyed,it is subtracted from the "virtual" universe and added to ours.

Even if we can settle for conservation of energy/mass being merely virtually true, there is still the issue of all these photons from annihilation.

Photons of half a megaelectron volt should be quite easy to detect, hard to miss even even with a rudementary geiiger counter.

This 'seething sea' of virtual particles popping into existence and exiting via pair annihilation, at what kind of rate is this supposed to be occuring in say a cubic meter? Just curious if anyone has any figures suggested by proponents of this idea in something like annihilations per second per cubic meter.

Here is a link if you wish to dig deeper.Deeper than we can go here.

Follow and understand all of the links provided within the text and it will enlighten you on virtual particles.

I know some will disparage the source,but there is good info and links here,you have to be selective in the articles you choose.

https://www.quora.com/Do-virtual-particles-actually-come-out-of-nothing?share=1

Here is another link to feed your curiosity:

https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model

A true scientist will not try to prove that anything is true,but will challenge the current theories and try to prove them wrong.

This will provoke an argument between the two camps,and both sides will dig deeper into the subject and may discover new theories that will enlighten the science for a while.

If you really want to understand any subject,teach it to a group of students that are unafraid to ask questions and make you defend your position.Every class has at least one student of this type.

You will probably learn more than the students.

Thank you for the links, especially the second. The links lead me to believe the theory proposes the photons generated from annihilations of virtual particles do indeed retain the same uncertainty combo in time/energy, meaning that these are no ordinary photons, but are instead of the not lasting virtual type.

This makes the idea of hawkings radiation even mote curious. How strange that if the annihilation were to occur the resulting photons would be of the fleeting virtual type, but merely separating the pair to prevent annihilation somehow keeps the particles from being subjezt to the time/energy uncertainty.

This thread has degenerated into a ballooning argument. <unsubscribe>