I was thinking wait a minute. Doesn't the pair production violate the law of conservation of mass/energy? Then I realized that because negative mass enters into the black hole, while positive mass escapes from the black hole the amount of mass lost under the event horizon would be equal to the amount of mass which escapes above the event horizon, thus mass and energy are conserved.
I'm not a physicist but i thought antimatter is an opposite to normal particles in the sense that they have an opposite electric charge, not the opposite mass? Wikipedia says :
"Corresponding to most kinds of particles, there is an associated antiparticle with the same mass and opposite electric charge."
@789123Y Lets not go into learning, idiot. Firstly, this is the internet, and if you give a shit about spelling then you should go back to actual life. Second, there's no such thing as opposite charge. Charge is deteremined by an incredibly rare and heavy particle called the magnetic monopole. Magnetic monopoles cannot have an antiparticle because they interact directly with te higgsfield. Instead where the magnetic monopole would be found on ordinary matter... fuck this i dont have enough word
@789123Y From what I understand, mass is equivalent to energy according to Einstein's famous E = mc^2, so a negative mass, multiplied by a positive number (c^2) will give you a negative amount of energy. Hope that clears things up.
negative mass is wrong. a particle with negative energy?! BBC did not understand this right, when Prof. Carr said it >EFFECTIVELY< has negative mass. But I gotta say, it wasnt explained very well by that professor either. it was misleading. to the people who are wondering about what he meant: one particle of a particle-antiparticle pair crashes into the black hole. by losing potential energy which is given to the other particle, the black hole loses energy and therefore mass.
Mesons are supposed to surround nucleons and I guess they're there to effectively spread out the nucleonic energy, minimize boundary energy difference (minimizing matter-space discontinuity) which it seems also has a lot to do with the so-called holographic principle of gravity, and it seems especially so to me if that mesonic picture involves negative mass, allowing +/- balanced mass waves.
Seems I'm in disagreement with many on BH horizon vs. manmade energy density, on which is stronger. I'll defer, some BH's are wilder than others maybe. Trying to think back on what I've read on this topic ... suppose it's a virtual meson, quark-antiquark pair, that's a step up the scale. I guess it's like a polarized induced mass shielding effect when there's no BH absorbtion, laying the trajectory of the negative-massed quark toward the horizon's near-side as the induced shield.
Sorry, I meant minimum wavelength (maximum frequency), not "minimum frequency." I guess, though, that the practical frequency (energy, E= hf) limit for cosmological BH "fringe" particle phenomenon could correspond to a much lower energy level than accelerators are capable of creating, even though the BH horizon region vacuum energy level is presumably extremely great.
I meant "holographic" in the sense that there can be a self-similarity at two different scales in the picture I outlined. Maybe it's a sort of vacuum energy density Gibbs phenomenon fringe happening at the abrupt boundary transition, suggesting the medium, hot vacuum, has a minimum frequency and this limit manifests itself as transitional oscillations in density moving beyond the event horizon. Interesting to know how it works out at energies corresponding to much less than a proton diameter.
Seems a geometric picture would help. I could draw a horizontal line, make one side black and the other side white, and call it the BH event horizon; I could place a bisected circle (representing the virtual pair) slightly overlapping the black side, and make the overlapping half-circle white. If nature prefers to make the circle overlap on the white side in this way, then the BH is an evaporative thing. Seems the picture there has holographic potential within it but conflicts gravity itself.
If Hawking presented this theory back in 1974, and this is presenting it as if it were fairly certain, why are people still being taught that nothing ever escapes from a black hole?
@Nugeorge It can be created, the net amount has to be -conserved-. As long as it's paired positive/negatives that will erase each other and rebalance the total energy, nothing wrong there.
I still don't get how this would reduce the size of the black hole. Why would probability favor the antimatter falling in? Could these virtual pairs really be created with significant momentum to separate them, and yet we haven't noticed them yet? Do Newton's formulas apply at all here?
@jbxenia because the negative particle should (no, HAS) to delete 1 positive particle of mass from the black hole in order for the positive particle to go on existing.
Smart&Safe headphone conduct the sound from cell phone conversations and music through a hollow tube filled with air, without metal wires. This is scientifically proven to reduce the electromagnetic radiation reaching the user’s sensitive ear and brain area by up to 98%. These headphones are ultra stylish and are available at expressbuy123
@probro9898 yes there will be a repulsive force between the two, but weirdly enough if you push on negative mass it actually accerates tword you because of newton's acceleration equals force divided by mass. so they would push against each other yet the negative mass would accelerate into the black hole.
@CaptainFelixTan1 Yes. That is why hawking thinks his theoretical radiation will be the death of black holes, because the radiation is the 'normal matter' escaping, and the anti-matter falls into the black hole, which cancels out and equal amount of matter contained within the black hole. This could help explain the perplexing asymmetry of matter and anti-matter in the universe. Logically, there should be equal amounts of both, but there is way, WAY more matter than anti-matter. Mystery...
@CaptainFelixTan1 Yes. That is why hawking thinks his theoretical radiation will be the death of black holes, because the radiation is the 'normal matter' escaping (avoiding), and the anti-matter falls into the black hole, which cancels out and equal amount of matter contained within the black hole. This could help explain the perplexing asymmetry of matter and anti-matter in the universe. Logically, there should be equal amounts of both, but there is way, WAY more matter than anti-matter.
@CaptainFelixTan1 no, antimatter is simple elementary particles with the same characteristics of regular matter except the charge is opposite. The electron's antiparticle is the positron, and the photon's antiparticle is the photon because it has no charge to begin with. Negative mass on the other hand has never been directly observed and no particles have been discovered with negative mass, all though with all these types of dark energy and dark matter out there, it might exist.
This is very interesting. I'm no scientist. I'm a business major at a small time university. However, I am very interested in astronomy and physics. I don't really have any desire to take classes, because I prefer to learn on my own. Are there any titles in either subject that one of you would recommend to an interested beginner?
BH evaporation would only occur when the matter/antimatter absorbtion ratio is less than 1. Of course I could have it all wrong, but people here seem to be downplaying the ideas of: 1. negative mass; 2. negative mass absorbtion being required for evaporative mass loss; 3. negative mass particle absorbtion dominance. So what's left for the theory here. 0.
Why it's the negative mass that falls into the black hole and not the positive mass, they do not explain here. Just the fact that one of the pair survives is supposed to be the surprising part, and then one sees it's the one that maybe one would least expect, and it seems treated like it's not really very worthy of note. I suppose the induced pair always has the negative mass particle on the side near the BH, but that seemingly would just increase the repulsion, so to me it's still confusing.
@CACBCCCU Either the virtual positron or electron can fall into the BH. Due to the 1st law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or destroyed), if one of the particle escapes, then the one that falls into the BH has to have negative mass. If the positron escapes, it will almost immediately annihilate with an electron producing high energy photons.
It's interesting that the 1st law of thermodynamics is presumed to be the controlling principle there, not gravity, especially to me because it's the opposite of the gravitationally-driven preference I'm thinking should be operative there.
I think we could agree that as far as energy conservation goes for the mc^2 potential energy of mass:
decreasing hole mass + increasing accretion ring mass
is no worse than:
increasing hole mass + decreasing accretion mass
I think that if antimatter has negative mass then it's repelled by matter, but it's not an idea most people apparently would consider useful, to say the least.
@stevebd1 A negative particle escaping still doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics (I mean it does but I don't see how) If the positive particle is sucked into the black hole, it theoretically becomes more massive, and the rest of space becomes exactly the same amount less massive. None created none destroyed. I know this thinking is incorrect, so could you please correct me
@stevebd1 exactly, something in the universe has to loose 1 electron of mass if one is generated, the positron does this by having negative mass, and deleting 1 electron of mass from the black hole
@CACBCCCU at around 2:20 they say that the reason the positive particle escapes the BH is because it has just enough energy to escape the it, the negative mass particle however would not and therefore fall in.
@nem1i Sure, and if it happens that the positron has enough energy to escape, quick annihilation may ensue. I guess that's where entropy is supposed to take charge. Anyway, supposing, for the sake of grins, a positron has negative mass (regardless of what antihydrogen should show in the near future) the questions I have regard how it would affect Hawking's results, which haven't been stringently verified, as far as I know.
The video says "Hawking realized that the positive particle would have just enough energy to escape the black hole, but the particle with *negative mass* would fall in."
However, "Hawking realized" is not really what I'd call a physical "explanation" for anything going on outside of Hawking. Also, "negative mass" seems like something that should be repelled by the gravity of "positive mass," but what do I know.
The assertion noted at 2:20 (let's not call it an explanation) might make sense to me if the BH has the opposite electric charge to the particle that falls in, because electric force for electrons/positrons is like 10^40 times stronger than gravity force (10^36 for protons/antiprotons, but I think they're probably talking about electrons/positrons here).
FWIW, if the BH has a net (overall) charge, and this charge allows it to draw in a "negative mass" particle because the particle happens to have the opposite electric charge, and this happens enough, then the BH of course eventually loses net charge, making the process self-terminating. Not sure how a BH gets charged to favor positron absorbtion but maybe it's by first absorbing more electrons than protons. IOW, seems it would just slow down the net process of gaining mass.
What do you think the implications of having "negative mass" should be?
I suppose the BH has positive mass. Seems to me that, if anything, opposite-signed masses should repel if the only force exchanged between them is gravity.
Giving a positron a negative mass makes sense to me, but I'm not quite as sure about antiprotons. Supposedly we may all get an answer to the latter question in the news some time this year, using anti-hydrogen.
@CACBCCCU Yeah but by having the positive and negative mass being "pulled" in or sucked into a black hole is actually still unknown. Gravity. Gratity is still our greatest mystery that we still don't really understand. He means if everything is a fabric, suggest's that the laws of attraction can be so different in the event horizon of a black hole, than what we know of today about gravity. Since no one has actually survived a black hole suckage we can only assume. Who knows if he'e even right.
In any case, after doing some researchI have a better idea of what hawkings radiation actually is. Those particles do not have negative mass like the video claims. They are indeed virtual particles, but they are both normal matter and anti matter particles. They are formed from energy in the vacuum and annihilate with each other, conserving energy. Unless one of them falls into a black hole, in which energy is lost so it decreases the mass of the black hole...
conti... but it doesn't actually matter which particle falls in. If the normal matter particle falls into the black hole and fails to annihilate with its antimatter counterpart, the blackhole's mass will decrease.
Shouldn't negative mass repel against mass? I thought this was one of the ideas behind gravity. Gravity attracts mass, but negative mass is repelled...
@EnigmaHood It's more of an antimatter/matter thing. When the two particles collide, they annihilate one another and the combined total mass is converted to pure energy. The idea behind this in a black hole is that it slowly looses mass due to the antiparticles falling into it until it explodes.
@AnimeFanatic5602 That's not true, the video didn't say antiparticles, it said negative mass particles. And antiparticles don't evaporate blackholes, on the contrary, they add to its total mass.
@EnigmaHood negative matter, or anti matter is still matter. Except the charges of the electrons and protons are switched. So the electrons on the orbitals are positive and the protons in the neucleus are negative. It still has mass and stuff like normal matter.
@mcmadbat3 Well yes, you are describing antimatter correctly, but I never heard antimatter referred to as negative matter. And like I said before, antimatter does not cause a blackhole to lose mass. On the contrary, it will increase its mass if you drop antimatter into a blackhole.
@EnigmaHood Yes some people refer it as negative matter, although anti mattter should be used. Also it does lose mass because it collides with normal matter and both evaporates into pure radiation, which is pure energy and has no mass. The blackhole loses mass but retains the energy as the radiation does not escape.
@mcmadbat3 That's not correct. Remember e=mc^2. Energy and mass are equivalent, and nothing, not even light can escape a black hole. If you pour tons of antimatter into a black hole, it's arguable whether it annihilates with anything anyway, but even if it did, all the energy that is released is trapped inside of the black hole and does not escape. It just adds to the mass of the black hole.
@EnigmaHood When you add anti matter to a black hole, it converts itself and postive matter into energy. While energy is equilvilant to matter, it is not matter. It's like how water and ice is that same thing but have different properties. Same with energy and matter. Remember that radiation is pure energy, and pure energy do not have mass.
@mcmadbat3 It's not matter, but (pardon the pun) it doesn't matter. Let me put it to you this way, if you fired a Death Star style laser at a blackhole, its mass would increase.
@EnigmaHood a laser is electromagnetic radiation, just like the ones created by anti matter/matter colliding. And electromagnetic radiation have no mass like matter. It can be converted to matter and then have mass, but as radiation it has no mass.
@mcmadbat3 It doesn't matter, it contains energy which has to be conserved according to the first law of thermodynamics. The singularity of a black hole is not a floating chunk of matter, it has no volume, it's not matter, but it has mass. Let me put it to you this way, there's a difference between rest mass and relativistic mass. If you take a 1kg object and accelerate it to 99% the speed of light, its relativistic mass is greater than 1kg because it contains energy that must be conserved.
@EnigmaHood now i do not know about that but yeah the relative mass do change although no real mass is added but judging from the comments above, you agree that blackholes can lose mass?
@mcmadbat3 Yes of course because of Hawkings Radiation. Like I said before, it's a virtual particle that fails to annihilate with its counterpart, but that particle can either be normal matter or antimatter. Either one will cause a black hole to lose mass.
If matter can freely move in and out of existence, then this should prove that membranes between universes not only exist, but act like sieves, allowing matter to be shared. Any thoughts;)
@hartistry1957 The fact that matter pops in and out of existence has nothing to do with the matter leaving the universe. Matter is condensed out of the enrgy in space, and then expanded back into energy. It doesn't leave the universe, it simply condenses and expands within our universe.
@hartistry1957 Thanks for the response. Can you back that up with a reference source, i.e.: if matter condenses, the energy required would cause photons to be released; therefore, become visible. What states are the particles in when in these two forms?
A black hole exploding? Is this an observed occurrence in our universe or just theoretical? I would wonder what this would have to say for the big bang singularity and the cause of the big bang.
I see many people questioning the mechanics of this, and wondering about more of the detail, which is a good thing, I suppose. But please note this this is a documentary for the layman and isn't incredibly detailed ( at least not this segment ). There is plenty of mathematically detailed information about this, just don't expect to understand it in one sitting.
Gravitational force=G(M1xM2)/r^2. This means that any 1 negative mass would give your a negative force (repulsion). Assuming the black hole has positive mass, it would the negative antiparticle that escapes. Just how did Hawking conclude that the positive antiparticle escaped?
WOW! In other words he is saying that a black hole dissipates if no matter is being consumed, and eventually will explode, releasing the matter that fell into it back out into our universe to create more star forming gases. I would call that the black hole process.
Looks like hawking radiation is simply the synchrotron radiation hawking is a joke and physics is a joke too. `theory of very tiny' give me a break. shut down the BBC!
Is there any clue where these two particle and antiparticle "pop" out from? they just pop out of nowhere? i dont undertand this part.. can anyone shed some light on this for me?
Look up vacuum energy. Even the vacuum of space which is seemingly void of anything contains energy. The energy is equal to the mass of about 3 protons per cubic meter
I dont understand how a particle can have a negative mass. It seems impossible but perhaps theres is something im not fully understanding. can someone explain?
cont. I, like EVERYONE else, apart from a few liars and the ones that got it wrong, don't understand one damned thing about Quantum mechanics. So it wouldn't be to hard to sneak in a thing or two into QM necessary to string a theory together. Is that what is going on here? Can someone please explain to me how stuff appears from nowhere? If it was "appears from somewhere, we just don't know how or where yet", I would be OK with it. Nowhere, no.
Ok, just stop at 1:40. Do these particles exist? And they just appear? Appear from nowhere? What is the scientific term for stuff that appears from nowhere? Magic? Miracle? I though stuff apppearing from nowhere would be against everything physics is based on. How valid is the rest of the video after 1:40, when it starts with "Abrakadabra"?
@MPETE1976 Nothingness in physics actually can make something. its completely well connected with the laws of physics at the quantem level that you can get something from nothing
@Plague413 That's why there's a negative mass particle. In order for energy to be conserved, the positive mass particle must have a counterpart in order for annihilation to occur.
My dog Dexter is licking my elbow right now as I type this! WHy am I telling you this? Because if you think about it, it illustrates symbolicaly the true relationship between Hawking Radiation and dark matter!!!!! Just imagine that my elbow is a Black Hole, and that my dog is actually the dark matter in the universe. Now the dogs fur is like the dimension of space/time. My dog has fleas...now these fleas R very important...they represent EM feilds. Is it obvious yet I am totally full of shit?
@frankensteinmoneymac So, what you are saying is that Dexter is God? Of, course! It's so ovious! DOG=GOD. I feel so stupid. It's just like when I didn't figure out that Neo was "the One" until just at the very end of the Matrix movie.
And another thing, about Hawking Radiation violating conservation of energy. The black hole loses mass yet releases radiation, is not that conservation of energy?
Here is what I don't get. Negative energy particle falls into the black hole causing black hole to lose mass, positive energy particle escapes. Could not the opposite happen, positive energy particle fall into the black hole causing black hole to gain mass, negative particle escape. And if so, would not these 2 events counteract each other. I can find no explanation of this anywhere.
Here we go again, Scientist propaganda repeating the same ole LIE. Out of nothing atoms appear, just like the universe - out of nothing the big band appeared, out of nothing here we are. Out of nothing, nothing happens, and then nothing grows. Nothing happens anytime, this is all just an illusion. It's all String cheese theory. Hawkings is delusional just as all the delusional Darwin based brainwashed scientists.
I never knew big bands came from nothing. I always thought they were composed of individual musicians that were attracted together by the strong vibe force, subsequently they formed band matter, and were grouped into genres. Combine genres in the correct proportions and you form eras.
1. From where the 2 particles come from ? I know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another. I also know that it has something to do with ?"Vacuum energy"?
2. Why only the antiparticle get's sucked ? I think it should equally likely for a matter or antimatter particle to be the one to escape, so black holes should radiate small amounts of antimatter as well as matter.
they come from literally nowhere , their energy can be created and destroyed , they exist for very short periods of time and actually do violate the conservation of mass/energy
thats what space time looks at the smallest scale, its a continuous fluctuating field of particles being created and destroyed.
14 billion years ago nothing blew up and that was the start of space and time - the universe "Uh, ok" Black holes appeared. They suck in everything. Nothing can escape, not even light. "Oh my" Something escapes "You said nothing" ..out of nothing something appears in two parts, destroy each other and return to nothing "what the.." Sometimes one part fly away, the other destroys the black hole and it blows up "..." The earth is 6000 years old "Uh, ok"
What is an anti particle? What happens when a particle meets an antiparticle? Do they disappear without trace? Or do they explode, leaving some kind of matter? I still don't think matter can be negative. Help!!!
@Mangoose95: an anti particle is the anti matter equivalent of a particle. E.g. A positron is an anti-electron. It has the same mass, but opposite (positive) charge. When they meet they annihilate each other, and the mass is converted into energy.
It is best understood if you know that the process is with virtual photons (which are their own anti-particle, and thus can carry negative mass energy)
this video is wrong. nothing has "negative mass" anti-virtual particles, like normal matter, has quantum numbers. antimatter has the opposite numbers (spin, charge, parity, chirality, helicity, etc...) this video is garbage
anything with negative mass would require energy to slow down, which breaks the law of conservation of energy, and would require infinite energy to travel slower than the speed of light.
I don't understand. It is said that the mass of a blackhole decreases. As matter gets sucked inside a black hole, its mass should increase, and therefore, its event horizon should increase too, shouldn't it? as for negative mass, how can mass be negative? It is a scalar quantity.
Not that I don't believe this, but there is a lack of evidence to support this. Hawking essentially makes up a theory to explain something which is not based on observation... which is not science. That is philosophy. And Hawking radiation is based on the theory that particles come in and out of existence. Again there is no direct proof of that. Hawking has a vivid imagination and he might be right on this one. But move evidence is needed to prove this.
You make it sound like he's sitting around playing xbox smoking pot, then pauses the game and says Eureka!!
That is not the case.
Try and understand for a second the intense mathematical proofs that go into coming up with a theory like this.
People said the same thing about the existence of black holes themselves until tech caught up with theory and they could be observed to a small extent, yet now you talk about black holes as a matter of fact.
You missunderstand... I never meant to imply that I was any smarter than anyone. I think the kind of arguments going on here should go on in private. They tarnish such a beautiful concept in physics. I apologize for any missunderstandings involving my post.
Well, aren't you the complete arrogant little wanker. Whatever IQ you have seems to be directly proportionate to the degree your head is up your own arse. By the way what university are you a professor in?
What I dont understand is why would this spontaneously appearing mass come into existence with velocity approaching the speed of light? Why would the negatively charged mass not have enough energy and why wouldn't its electrical attraction help drag the positively charged particle with it into the black hole?
The negative-mass particle has negative energy; it doesn't have enough momentum to escape. However, the positive-mass particle has positive energy, and thus has more momentum than the negative mass particle. Therefore, when one of the particles falls in, the particle with the least momentum falls in, in this case, the one with no momentum.
I hope that answers your questions; it is good to ask questions like these.
You are getting confused with charges. You need to disreguard "charge" and look at it as antimatter. The narrator is using "negative mass" and "positive" mass. Which shouldnt be said for they not need be charged. They appear out of nowhere via photons. Look at the Feynman diagram. e- + positron = 2 photons being created at 90 degrees to another. It supports a non-vacuum space.
Im taking a guess here that antimatter attracts matter with more force than gust gravity between masses.
matter and antimatter annihilate each other to create radiation energy. and vice versa. and if u look at the extreme end of the boltzman distribution. there will be some radiation with enough energy to form back into matter and antimatter, and also at the same time will they annihilate each other again.
about the 2nd part of your question, its all about quantum mechanics. so asking questions in the form of classical physics makes no sense since the 2 laws are unified yet.
Wow this is the most sane thing I've heard about black holes in several years! Wow someone with intelligence who thinks for themselves! Bravo GingerFish12 you did what these other silly brains could not accomplish! An original thought righteous to mankind!
It's just theoretical physics. Nobody is pointing a gun to your head telling you to believe it nor will you explode or combust or something if you accept it as a theory or not. I don't really see why you would whine about it like this unless you have a political motive.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Never ever have we seen evidence of Hawking Radiation, besides the fact that Stephen Hawking said himself blackholes don't exist , he was wrong, and it was a 30 year long bet he made with his friend that if they did exist we'd be able to prove it in the next 30 years. I have the article its from 2004. People, wake up. Can't you see there's more important stuff to look at instead of make believe phenomenon that hasn't been observed?
Here's the problem, you didn't even consider for one moment what a black hole is by Einstein's definition. PLEASE don't be an idiot and don't be a fraud. You have found no black holes, because they do not exist ESPECIALLY by Einstein and Hawking's definition. If they did you would have a plethora of evidence and I'm sorry but your CLAIM is BASELESS and not even in the realm of sanity. Consider what a singularity and event horizon is and then come back to me.
How do these black holes differ from Einstein's definition? Perhaps you think they do not exist because Einstein mathematically proved their existence but remained skeptical that the universe would allow them to happen? I'm taking a basic Astrophysics course and my teacher has said numerous times that there is now a great amount of evidence of black holes existing. You would do well to phrase your argument in less dramatic terms so as to not offend others who might view themselves as "sane"
Comment removed
avemnevoiesideiarba 4 months ago
It would sound like the BH only eats antimatter... thus eventually self annhilating itself.
We're safe then, right? Earth is positive matter?
I'd say this subject shouldn't be dealt so inconsistently and simplicistically as in this documentary... but then... I wouldn't understand a damn! :-)
GShock112 5 months ago
I was thinking wait a minute. Doesn't the pair production violate the law of conservation of mass/energy? Then I realized that because negative mass enters into the black hole, while positive mass escapes from the black hole the amount of mass lost under the event horizon would be equal to the amount of mass which escapes above the event horizon, thus mass and energy are conserved.
chenalos 5 months ago
btw Quantum Electrodynamics was the first art to join Relativity and Quantum theory. so poned,
BulgarianBombShelter 5 months ago
somehow the postive matter escapes the pull of gravity
Metticus 6 months ago
I'm not a physicist but i thought antimatter is an opposite to normal particles in the sense that they have an opposite electric charge, not the opposite mass? Wikipedia says :
"Corresponding to most kinds of particles, there is an associated antiparticle with the same mass and opposite electric charge."
789123Y 6 months ago 4
@789123Y Why dont you not look at friggin wikipedia, remtard....
Trollz0Be0Trollin 6 months ago
@Trollz0Be0Trollin Learn to read and spell before calling someone names, it will improve your life.
789123Y 6 months ago 4
@789123Y Lets not go into learning, idiot. Firstly, this is the internet, and if you give a shit about spelling then you should go back to actual life. Second, there's no such thing as opposite charge. Charge is deteremined by an incredibly rare and heavy particle called the magnetic monopole. Magnetic monopoles cannot have an antiparticle because they interact directly with te higgsfield. Instead where the magnetic monopole would be found on ordinary matter... fuck this i dont have enough word
Trollz0Be0Trollin 6 months ago
@789123Y lolol tru tru bro
BulgarianBombShelter 5 months ago
@789123Y From what I understand, mass is equivalent to energy according to Einstein's famous E = mc^2, so a negative mass, multiplied by a positive number (c^2) will give you a negative amount of energy. Hope that clears things up.
MrHazZona 4 months ago
@789123Y
I cant help you with the answer but i wouldnt trust wikipedia with such specialised things
Capeau 1 month ago
@Capeau then check on scholarpedia
Narftaxaku200 3 weeks ago
negative mass is wrong. a particle with negative energy?! BBC did not understand this right, when Prof. Carr said it >EFFECTIVELY< has negative mass. But I gotta say, it wasnt explained very well by that professor either. it was misleading. to the people who are wondering about what he meant: one particle of a particle-antiparticle pair crashes into the black hole. by losing potential energy which is given to the other particle, the black hole loses energy and therefore mass.
kerstinfelix 6 months ago
Comment removed
kerstinfelix 6 months ago
Does anyone know what BBC documentary this is from?
XFuncCaRteR 7 months ago
@XFuncCaRteR I'm pretty sure ive seen this on Horizon
ferdianeary92 7 months ago
Mesons are supposed to surround nucleons and I guess they're there to effectively spread out the nucleonic energy, minimize boundary energy difference (minimizing matter-space discontinuity) which it seems also has a lot to do with the so-called holographic principle of gravity, and it seems especially so to me if that mesonic picture involves negative mass, allowing +/- balanced mass waves.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
Seems I'm in disagreement with many on BH horizon vs. manmade energy density, on which is stronger. I'll defer, some BH's are wilder than others maybe. Trying to think back on what I've read on this topic ... suppose it's a virtual meson, quark-antiquark pair, that's a step up the scale. I guess it's like a polarized induced mass shielding effect when there's no BH absorbtion, laying the trajectory of the negative-massed quark toward the horizon's near-side as the induced shield.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
Sorry, I meant minimum wavelength (maximum frequency), not "minimum frequency." I guess, though, that the practical frequency (energy, E= hf) limit for cosmological BH "fringe" particle phenomenon could correspond to a much lower energy level than accelerators are capable of creating, even though the BH horizon region vacuum energy level is presumably extremely great.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
I meant "holographic" in the sense that there can be a self-similarity at two different scales in the picture I outlined. Maybe it's a sort of vacuum energy density Gibbs phenomenon fringe happening at the abrupt boundary transition, suggesting the medium, hot vacuum, has a minimum frequency and this limit manifests itself as transitional oscillations in density moving beyond the event horizon. Interesting to know how it works out at energies corresponding to much less than a proton diameter.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
Seems a geometric picture would help. I could draw a horizontal line, make one side black and the other side white, and call it the BH event horizon; I could place a bisected circle (representing the virtual pair) slightly overlapping the black side, and make the overlapping half-circle white. If nature prefers to make the circle overlap on the white side in this way, then the BH is an evaporative thing. Seems the picture there has holographic potential within it but conflicts gravity itself.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
I don't know about anyone else, but "ying" at 1:50 seems to me to be a sort of comedy high point here.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
If Hawking presented this theory back in 1974, and this is presenting it as if it were fairly certain, why are people still being taught that nothing ever escapes from a black hole?
Yoshi5020 8 months ago
I don't understand how photons or particles can just randomly appear in empty space when laws state that energy/matter cannot be created..
Nugeorge 8 months ago
@Nugeorge It can be created, the net amount has to be -conserved-. As long as it's paired positive/negatives that will erase each other and rebalance the total energy, nothing wrong there.
I still don't get how this would reduce the size of the black hole. Why would probability favor the antimatter falling in? Could these virtual pairs really be created with significant momentum to separate them, and yet we haven't noticed them yet? Do Newton's formulas apply at all here?
jbxenia 8 months ago
@jbxenia because the negative particle should (no, HAS) to delete 1 positive particle of mass from the black hole in order for the positive particle to go on existing.
pivotman64 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Smart&Safe headphone conduct the sound from cell phone conversations and music through a hollow tube filled with air, without metal wires. This is scientifically proven to reduce the electromagnetic radiation reaching the user’s sensitive ear and brain area by up to 98%. These headphones are ultra stylish and are available at expressbuy123
SmartAndSafe 9 months ago
This man has magic :]
ammig 10 months ago
Will the black hole in the centre of our galaxy disappear?
SuzLa1 10 months ago
@SuzLa1 if enough negative mass particles enter it maybe.
RecordsTK6 9 months ago
@SuzLa1 billions and billions of years it would take for a black hole to dissolve.
Hobbzie02 9 months ago
If a particle has negative mass, shouldn't it be REPELLED by the gravity of the black hole?
probro9898 10 months ago
@probro9898 yes there will be a repulsive force between the two, but weirdly enough if you push on negative mass it actually accerates tword you because of newton's acceleration equals force divided by mass. so they would push against each other yet the negative mass would accelerate into the black hole.
fruitytuterjjc 10 months ago
@fruitytuterjjc
kamiahgurl08 8 months ago
All this advanced physics stuff just seems like so much flim flam.
Jcolinsol 10 months ago
if it has negative mass does it means its antimatter?
CaptainFelixTan1 11 months ago
@CaptainFelixTan1 Yes. That is why hawking thinks his theoretical radiation will be the death of black holes, because the radiation is the 'normal matter' escaping, and the anti-matter falls into the black hole, which cancels out and equal amount of matter contained within the black hole. This could help explain the perplexing asymmetry of matter and anti-matter in the universe. Logically, there should be equal amounts of both, but there is way, WAY more matter than anti-matter. Mystery...
morningstomper123 11 months ago
@CaptainFelixTan1 Yes. That is why hawking thinks his theoretical radiation will be the death of black holes, because the radiation is the 'normal matter' escaping (avoiding), and the anti-matter falls into the black hole, which cancels out and equal amount of matter contained within the black hole. This could help explain the perplexing asymmetry of matter and anti-matter in the universe. Logically, there should be equal amounts of both, but there is way, WAY more matter than anti-matter.
morningstomper123 11 months ago
@CaptainFelixTan1 Yes, it is anti matter
morningstomper123 11 months ago
@CaptainFelixTan1 no, antimatter is simple elementary particles with the same characteristics of regular matter except the charge is opposite. The electron's antiparticle is the positron, and the photon's antiparticle is the photon because it has no charge to begin with. Negative mass on the other hand has never been directly observed and no particles have been discovered with negative mass, all though with all these types of dark energy and dark matter out there, it might exist.
fruitytuterjjc 10 months ago
How can the positive mass escape from the black hole? isn't the black hole supposed to suck up everything?
akegenster 11 months ago
She thought black holes were boring? WHO THE FUCK THINKS BLACK HOLES ARE BORING!
ShanemOhanlon 1 year ago
So this is why we're studying singularity behavior at the LHC
hyperplasticity 1 year ago
So if the idea that atoms pop up and disappear randomly is true then how could quantum computers work?
What if one if my qbits just happens to not exist anymore and even more worse some random one's pop up unexpectedly.
DrShpilev 1 year ago
This is very interesting. I'm no scientist. I'm a business major at a small time university. However, I am very interested in astronomy and physics. I don't really have any desire to take classes, because I prefer to learn on my own. Are there any titles in either subject that one of you would recommend to an interested beginner?
Thanks,
Jeff Loy
fretburner18 1 year ago
BH evaporation would only occur when the matter/antimatter absorbtion ratio is less than 1. Of course I could have it all wrong, but people here seem to be downplaying the ideas of: 1. negative mass; 2. negative mass absorbtion being required for evaporative mass loss; 3. negative mass particle absorbtion dominance. So what's left for the theory here. 0.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Why it's the negative mass that falls into the black hole and not the positive mass, they do not explain here. Just the fact that one of the pair survives is supposed to be the surprising part, and then one sees it's the one that maybe one would least expect, and it seems treated like it's not really very worthy of note. I suppose the induced pair always has the negative mass particle on the side near the BH, but that seemingly would just increase the repulsion, so to me it's still confusing.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago 2
@CACBCCCU Either the virtual positron or electron can fall into the BH. Due to the 1st law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or destroyed), if one of the particle escapes, then the one that falls into the BH has to have negative mass. If the positron escapes, it will almost immediately annihilate with an electron producing high energy photons.
stevebd1 1 year ago
@stevebd1 Thanks.
It's interesting that the 1st law of thermodynamics is presumed to be the controlling principle there, not gravity, especially to me because it's the opposite of the gravitationally-driven preference I'm thinking should be operative there.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@stevebd1
"if one of the particle escapes, then the one that falls into the BH has to have negative mass"
I'd think it would be "opposite mass" instead of "negative mass" but maybe that's just me.
Thanks again.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@stevebd1 "Due to the 1st law of thermodynamics"
I think we could agree that as far as energy conservation goes for the mc^2 potential energy of mass:
decreasing hole mass + increasing accretion ring mass
is no worse than:
increasing hole mass + decreasing accretion mass
I think that if antimatter has negative mass then it's repelled by matter, but it's not an idea most people apparently would consider useful, to say the least.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@stevebd1 A negative particle escaping still doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics (I mean it does but I don't see how) If the positive particle is sucked into the black hole, it theoretically becomes more massive, and the rest of space becomes exactly the same amount less massive. None created none destroyed. I know this thinking is incorrect, so could you please correct me
Hobbzie02 9 months ago
@stevebd1 exactly, something in the universe has to loose 1 electron of mass if one is generated, the positron does this by having negative mass, and deleting 1 electron of mass from the black hole
pivotman64 7 months ago
@CACBCCCU at around 2:20 they say that the reason the positive particle escapes the BH is because it has just enough energy to escape the it, the negative mass particle however would not and therefore fall in.
nem1i 8 months ago
@nem1i Sure, and if it happens that the positron has enough energy to escape, quick annihilation may ensue. I guess that's where entropy is supposed to take charge. Anyway, supposing, for the sake of grins, a positron has negative mass (regardless of what antihydrogen should show in the near future) the questions I have regard how it would affect Hawking's results, which haven't been stringently verified, as far as I know.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
@CACBCCCU the video does explain it. at 2:18 +ve particle would have just enough energy to escape the blackhole -ve wont.
lookwhoscomin 8 months ago
@lookwhoscomin
The video says "Hawking realized that the positive particle would have just enough energy to escape the black hole, but the particle with *negative mass* would fall in."
However, "Hawking realized" is not really what I'd call a physical "explanation" for anything going on outside of Hawking. Also, "negative mass" seems like something that should be repelled by the gravity of "positive mass," but what do I know.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
@CACBCCCU you are right. I see what you're saying, even in not sure now
lookwhoscomin 8 months ago
@lookwhoscomin
The assertion noted at 2:20 (let's not call it an explanation) might make sense to me if the BH has the opposite electric charge to the particle that falls in, because electric force for electrons/positrons is like 10^40 times stronger than gravity force (10^36 for protons/antiprotons, but I think they're probably talking about electrons/positrons here).
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
@lookwhoscomin
FWIW, if the BH has a net (overall) charge, and this charge allows it to draw in a "negative mass" particle because the particle happens to have the opposite electric charge, and this happens enough, then the BH of course eventually loses net charge, making the process self-terminating. Not sure how a BH gets charged to favor positron absorbtion but maybe it's by first absorbing more electrons than protons. IOW, seems it would just slow down the net process of gaining mass.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
@lookwhoscomin
What do you think the implications of having "negative mass" should be?
I suppose the BH has positive mass. Seems to me that, if anything, opposite-signed masses should repel if the only force exchanged between them is gravity.
Giving a positron a negative mass makes sense to me, but I'm not quite as sure about antiprotons. Supposedly we may all get an answer to the latter question in the news some time this year, using anti-hydrogen.
CACBCCCU 8 months ago
@CACBCCCU Yeah but by having the positive and negative mass being "pulled" in or sucked into a black hole is actually still unknown. Gravity. Gratity is still our greatest mystery that we still don't really understand. He means if everything is a fabric, suggest's that the laws of attraction can be so different in the event horizon of a black hole, than what we know of today about gravity. Since no one has actually survived a black hole suckage we can only assume. Who knows if he'e even right.
DJSexLeopard 8 months ago
Supposing antimatter has negative mass, the positron/electron radiation ratio in Hawking radiation would have to be a huge number.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
In any case, after doing some researchI have a better idea of what hawkings radiation actually is. Those particles do not have negative mass like the video claims. They are indeed virtual particles, but they are both normal matter and anti matter particles. They are formed from energy in the vacuum and annihilate with each other, conserving energy. Unless one of them falls into a black hole, in which energy is lost so it decreases the mass of the black hole...
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
conti... but it doesn't actually matter which particle falls in. If the normal matter particle falls into the black hole and fails to annihilate with its antimatter counterpart, the blackhole's mass will decrease.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
Shouldn't negative mass repel against mass? I thought this was one of the ideas behind gravity. Gravity attracts mass, but negative mass is repelled...
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood It's more of an antimatter/matter thing. When the two particles collide, they annihilate one another and the combined total mass is converted to pure energy. The idea behind this in a black hole is that it slowly looses mass due to the antiparticles falling into it until it explodes.
AnimeFanatic5602 1 year ago
@AnimeFanatic5602 That's not true, the video didn't say antiparticles, it said negative mass particles. And antiparticles don't evaporate blackholes, on the contrary, they add to its total mass.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood there is no negative mass
mcmadbat3 1 year ago
@mcmadbat3 The video said it's negative mass.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood yes i know but negative mass do not exist as far as we know, i think its talking about negative matter.
mcmadbat3 1 year ago
@mcmadbat3 And what would the difference be exactly?
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood negative matter, or anti matter is still matter. Except the charges of the electrons and protons are switched. So the electrons on the orbitals are positive and the protons in the neucleus are negative. It still has mass and stuff like normal matter.
mcmadbat3 1 year ago
@mcmadbat3 Well yes, you are describing antimatter correctly, but I never heard antimatter referred to as negative matter. And like I said before, antimatter does not cause a blackhole to lose mass. On the contrary, it will increase its mass if you drop antimatter into a blackhole.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood Yes some people refer it as negative matter, although anti mattter should be used. Also it does lose mass because it collides with normal matter and both evaporates into pure radiation, which is pure energy and has no mass. The blackhole loses mass but retains the energy as the radiation does not escape.
mcmadbat3 1 year ago
@mcmadbat3 That's not correct. Remember e=mc^2. Energy and mass are equivalent, and nothing, not even light can escape a black hole. If you pour tons of antimatter into a black hole, it's arguable whether it annihilates with anything anyway, but even if it did, all the energy that is released is trapped inside of the black hole and does not escape. It just adds to the mass of the black hole.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood When you add anti matter to a black hole, it converts itself and postive matter into energy. While energy is equilvilant to matter, it is not matter. It's like how water and ice is that same thing but have different properties. Same with energy and matter. Remember that radiation is pure energy, and pure energy do not have mass.
mcmadbat3 1 year ago
@mcmadbat3 It's not matter, but (pardon the pun) it doesn't matter. Let me put it to you this way, if you fired a Death Star style laser at a blackhole, its mass would increase.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood a laser is electromagnetic radiation, just like the ones created by anti matter/matter colliding. And electromagnetic radiation have no mass like matter. It can be converted to matter and then have mass, but as radiation it has no mass.
mcmadbat3 1 year ago
@mcmadbat3 It doesn't matter, it contains energy which has to be conserved according to the first law of thermodynamics. The singularity of a black hole is not a floating chunk of matter, it has no volume, it's not matter, but it has mass. Let me put it to you this way, there's a difference between rest mass and relativistic mass. If you take a 1kg object and accelerate it to 99% the speed of light, its relativistic mass is greater than 1kg because it contains energy that must be conserved.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood now i do not know about that but yeah the relative mass do change although no real mass is added but judging from the comments above, you agree that blackholes can lose mass?
mcmadbat3 1 year ago
@mcmadbat3 Yes of course because of Hawkings Radiation. Like I said before, it's a virtual particle that fails to annihilate with its counterpart, but that particle can either be normal matter or antimatter. Either one will cause a black hole to lose mass.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood good so we are at an agreement! :)
mcmadbat3 1 year ago
@EnigmaHood there is no negative mass
mcmadbat3 1 year ago
If matter can freely move in and out of existence, then this should prove that membranes between universes not only exist, but act like sieves, allowing matter to be shared. Any thoughts;)
hartistry1957 1 year ago
@hartistry1957 The fact that matter pops in and out of existence has nothing to do with the matter leaving the universe. Matter is condensed out of the enrgy in space, and then expanded back into energy. It doesn't leave the universe, it simply condenses and expands within our universe.
morningstomper123 1 year ago
@hartistry1957 Thanks for the response. Can you back that up with a reference source, i.e.: if matter condenses, the energy required would cause photons to be released; therefore, become visible. What states are the particles in when in these two forms?
hartistry1957 1 year ago
A black hole exploding? Is this an observed occurrence in our universe or just theoretical? I would wonder what this would have to say for the big bang singularity and the cause of the big bang.
HaveFaithInScience 1 year ago
I see many people questioning the mechanics of this, and wondering about more of the detail, which is a good thing, I suppose. But please note this this is a documentary for the layman and isn't incredibly detailed ( at least not this segment ). There is plenty of mathematically detailed information about this, just don't expect to understand it in one sitting.
VanKlaunch 1 year ago
Wasn't Hawking radiation supposed to be observed from spinning black holes?
Samuelwhatshisface 1 year ago
Gravitational force=G(M1xM2)/r^2. This means that any 1 negative mass would give your a negative force (repulsion). Assuming the black hole has positive mass, it would the negative antiparticle that escapes. Just how did Hawking conclude that the positive antiparticle escaped?
vk45de 1 year ago
how were these particles even discovered in the first place?
rloft123 1 year ago
WOW! In other words he is saying that a black hole dissipates if no matter is being consumed, and eventually will explode, releasing the matter that fell into it back out into our universe to create more star forming gases. I would call that the black hole process.
gaynorglowellxsingh 1 year ago
2:00 Negative mass?! I thought there where no such thing. Only negative charge. Please reply :)
luckystrke 1 year ago
@luckystrke
Antimatter. Not negative mass. I dislike that analogy the narrator uses.
MusicalAndTall 1 year ago
why many people doesent like of astronomy
rieygoodieguy 1 year ago
Looks like hawking radiation is simply the synchrotron radiation hawking is a joke and physics is a joke too. `theory of very tiny' give me a break. shut down the BBC!
realscience1 1 year ago
Is there any clue where these two particle and antiparticle "pop" out from? they just pop out of nowhere? i dont undertand this part.. can anyone shed some light on this for me?
longstockings666 1 year ago
@longstockings666
Look up vacuum energy. Even the vacuum of space which is seemingly void of anything contains energy. The energy is equal to the mass of about 3 protons per cubic meter
mhamen2 1 year ago
just imagine if he had the voice of microsoft sam.
Sagemaster00 1 year ago
I dont understand how a particle can have a negative mass. It seems impossible but perhaps theres is something im not fully understanding. can someone explain?
Plague413 1 year ago
@Plague413 i was asking myself that same question. Perhaps they are talking about antimatter...
longstockings666 1 year ago
cont. I, like EVERYONE else, apart from a few liars and the ones that got it wrong, don't understand one damned thing about Quantum mechanics. So it wouldn't be to hard to sneak in a thing or two into QM necessary to string a theory together. Is that what is going on here? Can someone please explain to me how stuff appears from nowhere? If it was "appears from somewhere, we just don't know how or where yet", I would be OK with it. Nowhere, no.
MPETE1976 1 year ago
Ok, just stop at 1:40. Do these particles exist? And they just appear? Appear from nowhere? What is the scientific term for stuff that appears from nowhere? Magic? Miracle? I though stuff apppearing from nowhere would be against everything physics is based on. How valid is the rest of the video after 1:40, when it starts with "Abrakadabra"?
MPETE1976 1 year ago
@MPETE1976 Nothingness in physics actually can make something. its completely well connected with the laws of physics at the quantem level that you can get something from nothing
cabot2jville2010 1 year ago
@cabot2jville2010 what happened to "matter cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms"?
Plague413 1 year ago
@Plague413 That's why there's a negative mass particle. In order for energy to be conserved, the positive mass particle must have a counterpart in order for annihilation to occur.
elfmotat 1 year ago
Baby words can not explain the love for you. Aint gonna be nothin with you, aint gonna be nothin without you.
FilmPA 1 year ago
Full speed into the blackhole Mr. Sulu!
TheRealTaco87 1 year ago
My dog Dexter is licking my elbow right now as I type this! WHy am I telling you this? Because if you think about it, it illustrates symbolicaly the true relationship between Hawking Radiation and dark matter!!!!! Just imagine that my elbow is a Black Hole, and that my dog is actually the dark matter in the universe. Now the dogs fur is like the dimension of space/time. My dog has fleas...now these fleas R very important...they represent EM feilds. Is it obvious yet I am totally full of shit?
frankensteinmoneymac 1 year ago
Wait your dog is licking my elbow. But if you are with your dog... then who is licking my... ARGGH! Mom!
BluCosmos 1 year ago
@frankensteinmoneymac So, what you are saying is that Dexter is God? Of, course! It's so ovious! DOG=GOD. I feel so stupid. It's just like when I didn't figure out that Neo was "the One" until just at the very end of the Matrix movie.
MPETE1976 1 year ago
@MPETE1976 Hmmm interesting....if my dog Dexter is actually God.....then that means that God likes to take craps on my couch!......Makes ya think....
LOL!
frankensteinmoneymac 1 year ago
And another thing, about Hawking Radiation violating conservation of energy. The black hole loses mass yet releases radiation, is not that conservation of energy?
endlesswick 1 year ago
Here is what I don't get. Negative energy particle falls into the black hole causing black hole to lose mass, positive energy particle escapes. Could not the opposite happen, positive energy particle fall into the black hole causing black hole to gain mass, negative particle escape. And if so, would not these 2 events counteract each other. I can find no explanation of this anywhere.
endlesswick 1 year ago
Here we go again, Scientist propaganda repeating the same ole LIE. Out of nothing atoms appear, just like the universe - out of nothing the big band appeared, out of nothing here we are. Out of nothing, nothing happens, and then nothing grows. Nothing happens anytime, this is all just an illusion. It's all String cheese theory. Hawkings is delusional just as all the delusional Darwin based brainwashed scientists.
rajimaji 1 year ago
lol, chill out there Kirk Cameron.
btbrotherton 1 year ago
@rajimaji,
I never knew big bands came from nothing. I always thought they were composed of individual musicians that were attracted together by the strong vibe force, subsequently they formed band matter, and were grouped into genres. Combine genres in the correct proportions and you form eras.
MySiouxieQ 1 year ago
what bbc documentary is this from? and what is the date the documentary was originally released?
MaddieKnight 1 year ago
ok mr spock
bobodd5 1 year ago
at 1:40 - can you buy those particles the professor has?
adilghanty 2 years ago
Those red and blue balls where computer animated when they where glowing.
OverWatchWilly 2 years ago
i know, its a shame though, i was hoping to buy some giant pair produced particles...ah well
adilghanty 2 years ago
2 questions for PhD people:
1. From where the 2 particles come from ? I know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another. I also know that it has something to do with ?"Vacuum energy"?
2. Why only the antiparticle get's sucked ? I think it should equally likely for a matter or antimatter particle to be the one to escape, so black holes should radiate small amounts of antimatter as well as matter.
Arghira 2 years ago
they come from literally nowhere , their energy can be created and destroyed , they exist for very short periods of time and actually do violate the conservation of mass/energy
thats what space time looks at the smallest scale, its a continuous fluctuating field of particles being created and destroyed.
sidewaysfcs0718 1 year ago
Find x
19+x=x+7
STEVEEBEE 2 years ago
@STEVEEBEE There's two x's. One on each side of the =. I don't think they are hard to find.
MPETE1976 1 year ago
MPETE1976 2 years ago
What is an anti particle? What happens when a particle meets an antiparticle? Do they disappear without trace? Or do they explode, leaving some kind of matter? I still don't think matter can be negative. Help!!!
Mangoose95 2 years ago
@Mangoose95: an anti particle is the anti matter equivalent of a particle. E.g. A positron is an anti-electron. It has the same mass, but opposite (positive) charge. When they meet they annihilate each other, and the mass is converted into energy.
dominickearney 2 years ago
they annihilate into photons.
or other particles....
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
i dont know exactly what happens when virtual particles annihilates ..
but when real ones do ..like an electron and a pozitron ...they annihilate into photons ..
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
It is best understood if you know that the process is with virtual photons (which are their own anti-particle, and thus can carry negative mass energy)
blobrana 1 year ago
they dont carry negative mass energy, thier mass is 0, thats how they travel at the speed of light
Adrenalx42 1 year ago
Take my word for it, Wikipedia will probably explain the process of Hawking radiation in better detail.
blobrana 1 year ago
fuck no im not going to "take your word for it"...why should I i have a right to question things
Adrenalx42 1 year ago
this video is wrong. nothing has "negative mass" anti-virtual particles, like normal matter, has quantum numbers. antimatter has the opposite numbers (spin, charge, parity, chirality, helicity, etc...) this video is garbage
Adrenalx42 1 year ago
@Adrenalx42
Cmon man, its not garbage, its just badly worded. You are dead correct though. I agree
MusicalAndTall 1 year ago
anything with negative mass would require energy to slow down, which breaks the law of conservation of energy, and would require infinite energy to travel slower than the speed of light.
Adrenalx42 1 year ago
I believe you're thinking of Tachyons
TheRealTaco87 1 year ago
I don't understand. It is said that the mass of a blackhole decreases. As matter gets sucked inside a black hole, its mass should increase, and therefore, its event horizon should increase too, shouldn't it? as for negative mass, how can mass be negative? It is a scalar quantity.
Mangoose95 2 years ago
in quantum mechanics mass is explained by the higgs mechanism ..so imagine a particle that repells higgs..
sidewaysfcs0718 2 years ago
The pope put his atrophied penis up Stephen Hawking's black hole
mrkvamaster 2 years ago
Nice theory, sounds good.
Not that I don't believe this, but there is a lack of evidence to support this. Hawking essentially makes up a theory to explain something which is not based on observation... which is not science. That is philosophy. And Hawking radiation is based on the theory that particles come in and out of existence. Again there is no direct proof of that. Hawking has a vivid imagination and he might be right on this one. But move evidence is needed to prove this.
skateebee 2 years ago
You make it sound like he's sitting around playing xbox smoking pot, then pauses the game and says Eureka!!
That is not the case.
Try and understand for a second the intense mathematical proofs that go into coming up with a theory like this.
People said the same thing about the existence of black holes themselves until tech caught up with theory and they could be observed to a small extent, yet now you talk about black holes as a matter of fact.
OhmySKoD 2 years ago
the black hole evaporation?.
pablo1835rigel 2 years ago
what documentary is this from?
k0zakinio 2 years ago
The documentary is called "Stephen Hawking: Master of the Universe"
Chilledtea 2 years ago 12
@Chilledtea Stephen Hawking should be knighted by the queen so everyone has to address him as Master of the Universe
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
BBC Horizon I think, about a year ago now...
fl13r 2 years ago
Don't worry about those idiots they are just bring trolls
xXxDrummerStekoxXx 2 years ago 2
You missunderstand... I never meant to imply that I was any smarter than anyone. I think the kind of arguments going on here should go on in private. They tarnish such a beautiful concept in physics. I apologize for any missunderstandings involving my post.
Chilledtea 2 years ago
It's a shame that such unintelligent conversations on the internet tarnish the value of such a beautiful concept in theoretical physics.
Chilledtea 2 years ago 3
Well, aren't you the complete arrogant little wanker. Whatever IQ you have seems to be directly proportionate to the degree your head is up your own arse. By the way what university are you a professor in?
unspecifieds 2 years ago
I am a proffesor at FU.
kenny8331 2 years ago
What I dont understand is why would this spontaneously appearing mass come into existence with velocity approaching the speed of light? Why would the negatively charged mass not have enough energy and why wouldn't its electrical attraction help drag the positively charged particle with it into the black hole?
unspecifieds 2 years ago 2
The negative-mass particle has negative energy; it doesn't have enough momentum to escape. However, the positive-mass particle has positive energy, and thus has more momentum than the negative mass particle. Therefore, when one of the particles falls in, the particle with the least momentum falls in, in this case, the one with no momentum.
I hope that answers your questions; it is good to ask questions like these.
Chilledtea 2 years ago
@unspecifieds NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDD
rubynightfalls 1 year ago
@rubynightfalls loser
CalobTv 1 year ago
@unspecifieds because of the event horizon
McdonaldSpecial 1 year ago
@unspecifieds
You are getting confused with charges. You need to disreguard "charge" and look at it as antimatter. The narrator is using "negative mass" and "positive" mass. Which shouldnt be said for they not need be charged. They appear out of nowhere via photons. Look at the Feynman diagram. e- + positron = 2 photons being created at 90 degrees to another. It supports a non-vacuum space.
Im taking a guess here that antimatter attracts matter with more force than gust gravity between masses.
MusicalAndTall 1 year ago
@unspecifieds
matter and antimatter annihilate each other to create radiation energy. and vice versa. and if u look at the extreme end of the boltzman distribution. there will be some radiation with enough energy to form back into matter and antimatter, and also at the same time will they annihilate each other again.
about the 2nd part of your question, its all about quantum mechanics. so asking questions in the form of classical physics makes no sense since the 2 laws are unified yet.
kennybenny 1 year ago
"People, wake up. Can't you see there's more important stuff to look at instead of make believe phenomenon that hasn't been observed?"
whats more important than having theroy from imagination? Its just an idea
GingerFish12 2 years ago
Wow this is the most sane thing I've heard about black holes in several years! Wow someone with intelligence who thinks for themselves! Bravo GingerFish12 you did what these other silly brains could not accomplish! An original thought righteous to mankind!
SkunkHunt 2 years ago
It's just theoretical physics. Nobody is pointing a gun to your head telling you to believe it nor will you explode or combust or something if you accept it as a theory or not. I don't really see why you would whine about it like this unless you have a political motive.
asalade 2 years ago
It's weird that they use a view from ground zero at the beginning of the vid.
cskillet2003 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Never ever have we seen evidence of Hawking Radiation, besides the fact that Stephen Hawking said himself blackholes don't exist , he was wrong, and it was a 30 year long bet he made with his friend that if they did exist we'd be able to prove it in the next 30 years. I have the article its from 2004. People, wake up. Can't you see there's more important stuff to look at instead of make believe phenomenon that hasn't been observed?
SkunkHunt 2 years ago
Comment removed
Drattus 2 years ago 2
Here's the problem, you didn't even consider for one moment what a black hole is by Einstein's definition. PLEASE don't be an idiot and don't be a fraud. You have found no black holes, because they do not exist ESPECIALLY by Einstein and Hawking's definition. If they did you would have a plethora of evidence and I'm sorry but your CLAIM is BASELESS and not even in the realm of sanity. Consider what a singularity and event horizon is and then come back to me.
SkunkHunt 2 years ago
Comment removed
Drattus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gravitational lensing was also theorized by Einstein. Seems like his theories are not dead and we're still finding out that he was right all along.
UnderManiac 2 years ago
Comment removed
Drattus 2 years ago
How do these black holes differ from Einstein's definition? Perhaps you think they do not exist because Einstein mathematically proved their existence but remained skeptical that the universe would allow them to happen? I'm taking a basic Astrophysics course and my teacher has said numerous times that there is now a great amount of evidence of black holes existing. You would do well to phrase your argument in less dramatic terms so as to not offend others who might view themselves as "sane"
Rivallagher 2 years ago 2