<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>baez@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote in message news:<c6cfca\\$m38\\$1@glue.ucr.edu>...\nsnip\n> >Presumably an accelerated observer very,very\n> >close to the horizon (< 1 fm) would see virtual Hawking radiation\n> >"red" quarks promoted to real red quarks. So that observer would say\n> >that the black holes "hair" included colour, although for all other\n> >observers obviously the black hole would be colourless like everything\n> >else.\n>\n> This insane observer would see Hawking radiation containing all\n> sorts of crud, but no lone quarks (color is confined) and more\n> importantly, the character of this radiation would be independent\n> of everything but the mass, angular momentum and charge of the\n> black hole - we think.\n\nBut I deliberately chose an observer so small & close to the horizon\nthat from their point-of-view colour is _not_ confined. Colour is only\nconfined on distance scales longer than that where the energy (rising\nlinearly with distance) is less than the creation of a quark-antiquark\npair.\n\nSo I still think that this observer should observe a BH which is\ncolourless on average but with fluctuations. Every time the observer\nsees the Hawking radiation containing a "red" quark ("crud") the BH is\ntemporarily "anti-red". Until some considerable time later (~10^-23\nsecs later) they see an "anti-red" quark emitted. In fact, just like\nwhen they observe a normal proton.\n\nI don\'t know why that observer is "insane". Since when have\nfundamental laws of the universe, such as which quantities are\nconserved, depended on the size of the person who wrote the textbook?\n\nSimilarly, on lepton number. An observer very close to the horizon\nshould observe "all sorts of crud". Including for example electrons\nand anti-protons. Now, if lepton-number really isn\'t conserved, then\nthis observer will say that if the BH remains charge-neutral then for\nevery electron observed there should be exactly one anti-proton or\npositron. But it would only be statistically true that the number of\nelectrons equalled the number of positrons.\n\nBut if lepton-number is conserved, the number of leptons emitted\nexactly equals anti-leptons. These are actually two genuinely\ndistinguishable statistical distributions. If we took a histogram of\nnumber of leptons emitted then:\nif lepton number not conserved, then leptons minus antileptons on\naverage diverges as n^1/2 as number of particles detected increases.\nBut if lepton number is conserved then it doesn\'t diverge quite as\nmuch (put your hand into bag of 100 red & 100 green balls, after you\nhave withdrawn 60 red & 40 green, what are the odds you draw a red one\nnext time).\nSo this is a scientifically valid, falsifiable question, albeit very\ndifficult experiment. Observe all the particles emitted by Hawking\nradiation from a BH over at least half of its lifetime, and histogram\nover time.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>
baez@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote in message news:<c6cfca$m38$1@glue.ucr.edu>...
snip
> >Presumably an accelerated observer very,very
> >close to the horizon (< 1 fm) would see virtual Hawking radiation
> >"red" quarks promoted to real red quarks. So that observer would say
> >that the black holes "hair" included colour, although for all other
> >observers obviously the black hole would be colourless like everything
> >else.
>
> This insane observer would see Hawking radiation containing all
> sorts of crud, but no lone quarks (color is confined) and more
> importantly, the character of this radiation would be independent
> of everything but the mass, angular momentum and charge of the
> black hole [itex]- we[/itex] think.
But I deliberately chose an observer so small & close to the horizon
that from their point-of-view colour is _not_ confined. Colour is only
confined on distance scales longer than that where the energy (rising
linearly with distance) is less than the creation of a quark-antiquark
pair.
So I still think that this observer should observe a BH which is
colourless on average but with fluctuations. Every time the observer
sees the Hawking radiation containing a "red" quark ("crud") the BH is
temporarily "anti-red". Until some considerable time later [itex](~10^-23[/itex]
secs later) they see an "anti-red" quark emitted. In fact, just like
when they observe a normal proton.
I don't know why that observer is "insane". Since when have
fundamental laws of the universe, such as which quantities are
conserved, depended on the size of the person who wrote the textbook?
Similarly, on lepton number. An observer very close to the horizon
should observe "all sorts of crud". Including for example electrons
and anti-protons. Now, if lepton-number really isn't conserved, then
this observer will say that if the BH remains charge-neutral then for
every electron observed there should be exactly one anti-proton or
positron. But it would only be statistically true that the number of
electrons equalled the number of positrons.
But if lepton-number is conserved, the number of leptons emitted
exactly equals anti-leptons. These are actually two genuinely
distinguishable statistical distributions. If we took a histogram of
number of leptons emitted then:
if lepton number not conserved, then leptons minus antileptons on
average diverges as [itex]n^1/2[/itex] as number of particles detected increases.
But if lepton number is conserved then it doesn't diverge quite as
much (put your hand into bag of 100 red & 100 green balls, after you
have withdrawn 60 red & 40 green, what are the odds you draw a red one
next time).
So this is a scientifically valid, falsifiable question, albeit very
difficult experiment. Observe all the particles emitted by Hawking
radiation from a BH over at least half of its lifetime, and histogram
over time.