Thread 16773814

>black holes are so powerful that they even suck photons in...
>b-but particles can still somehow escape. TRUST. THE. SCIENCE!!!!!!!

So, since mass and energy are "equivalent" with equal amounts E to MC^2 then one might ask: does this mean if you have enough energy E for some existing electrically neutral particle with mass M, that energy can spontaenously convert to it and vice versa?

According to black science man aka the hallway chirp monitor: YES

However these vritual particle pairs have total energy = 0. By implication, one of these particles have negative mass. Does that make sense? Wouldn't a negative mass be pushed away from the black hole?
So why arent we seeing all these negative mass particles?

Makes me ThUnk

>>16773814 (OP)
The analogy goes that the pair spontaneously formed outside the event horizon so they weren't in the part that light couldn't escape.

The analogy is wrong though. Hawking radiation isn't particles. It's basically a really weird phase shifting in quantum fields as they pass around the black hole. It corresponds to an increase in energy and that energy had to come from somewhere so we assume it came from the black hole.

>>16773952
there is no such thing as quantum fields

>>16773954
Yeah okay. I was just addressing the retarded argument OP was making and telling him why it's retarded. Don't fret too much about it.

>>16773954
>discrete fields dont exist
sure they dont libtard

>>16773814 (OP)
black holes have finite gravity wells so every photon can escape.

>>16773932
>So why arent we seeing all these negative mass particles?
because they are too small and far away, chud

>>16773965
not according to the standard copenhagen interpretation

>>16773814 (OP)
this is basically how the graviton works anyway

>>16773932
it has negative charge, not negative mass. the blackhole exchanges energy for the new particle.

>>16774026
Uh no I seem to remember every observed black hole being electrically neutral so that can't be it.

>>16773814 (OP)
it doesn't say hawking radiation is a particle you retard

Binary stars do this and the partner star gets ejected at a million miles an hour

>>16773814 (OP)
...says the brainlet filtered by quantum tunnelling trusting a computer with flash memory

>>16774848
it'll just attract a virtual particle of the opposite charge

>>16774023
rippin

>>16773814 (OP)
Black holes are so powerful they can suck virtual particles out of empty space.

>>16773978
When you speak IRL, is it just diarrhea noises and shit flying out of your mouth?

>>16775107
the support of the wavefunction just magically vanishes instantly everywhere in space when you measure?

>>16774848
The virtual particles have the positive and negative charge, not the black hole.

>>16775208
so charge isnt conserved? then momentum isnt conserved either right? so why dont photons spontaenously turn into single particles in vacuum

>>16773814 (OP)
a better question is how this process which should also cause particles to go into the black hole somehow results in mass loss overall.

>>16773814 (OP)
There is no such thing as black holes.
Just another dipshit theory like dinosaur oil

>>16775218
trust. the. science.

>>16775218
>omnipresent electromagnetic waves that cause attraction between objects in a vacuum caused by undetectable particles annihilating themselves
>somehow pulling mass out of a black hole
idgi

>>16775344
>but they're not real particles, they're disturbances in the quantum field

>earths gravity is so powerful that we can't leave it
>BUT ROCKETS CAN STILL SOMEHOW ESCAPE HURDYDURRRR
this is you btw

>>16775623
that is not the same thing at all. dont reply to threads about things you dont know anything about

>>16773814 (OP)
so photons are actually 2 particles stuck together?

>>16775631
seethe more brainlet

>>16773814 (OP)
What if the photon just escapes and it is not some "virtual particle" bullshit.

>>16773814 (OP)
sucks photons in that go beyond even horizon
particles that escape did not go beyond even horizon
simple as

>>16775801
>even
event fucking t

>>16775659
well it's not a photon at all, I don't know why they're calling them photons when it's essentially a simulated "blip" of electromagnetism. Apparently these blips can create photons and apparently if a blip happens next to a black hole it can trigger a small reaction that causes it to emit radiation. The radiation emitted would be so minuscule it would be less than the background radiation of the universe

>>16775822
why are physkeks fine with this, but they seethe at the aether?

>>16773954
I'm going to need you to learn what a field is.

>>16774023
>Gravitron is totally real
This is your brain on Cult of Einstein.

>>16775825
I guess the main problem of the aether was that you were supposed to be able to measure a particular direction it was "blowing"

>>16775836
>there's 17 different fields in quantum field theory

>>16775864
>In our best conception of the subatomic world using the Standard Model, what we think of as particles aren’t actually very important. Instead, there are fields. These fields permeate and soak up all of space and time. There is one field for each kind of particle. So, there’s a field for electrons, a field for photons, and so on and so on. What you think of as particles are really local little vibrations in their particular fields. And when particles interact (by, say, bouncing off of each other), it’s really the vibrations in the fields

>>16775827
every sign points to gravitons being real, just extremely difficult to detect

>>16775868
put this into tv channel terms

>>16775873
The particles that make up atoms are just intersecting vibrations in these 17 different fields and in the vastness of space these fields fart sometimes and if one farted next to a black hole it would make the black hole let out a little poof of radiation which over time would theoretically drain it of mass like it was "boiling"

maybe

>>16775876
well i meant actual tv channels like different fields being different tv channels and sometimes you get parts of a news channel interfering with my hecking adult swim cartoons but ok

>>16775872
>Spent trillions and decades looking and found nothing
>TOTALLY REAL THOUGH
You're in a cult.

>>16775943
nothing has been built to detect gravitons unlike the higgs particle

>>16775935
These are two different theories essentially. You have things like quantum chromodynamics, which accounts for 99% of the energy in a particle, and then you have quantum fields which are like 1%.

That said the entities like gluons which make up 99% of the mass also have a corresponding field that they apparate from, and they have their own set of laws outside electromagnetism called color change

>>16776106
Honestly learning how electricity works would really help

>>16775825
>>16775864
Quantum fields are relativistic/Lorentz-invariant, luminiferous aether is classical. The people of the past weren't stupid for believing in the aether, the math just didn't work out.

so does every single particle have its own field that overlaps with one another, or is there just one infinite spanning field with excitations representing particles?