View Single Post
MeLlamoLlama
MeLlamoLlama is offline
#9
Mar7-12, 09:34 PM
P: 5
Quote Quote by Chalnoth View Post
Instead, it is the curvature of space-time itself that forces the infalling particle to have negative energy, whether it is a particle or anti-particle.
I read that the closer a particle is to a large body (in this case a black hole), the less energy the particle has because it would take a lot of energy to allow it to escape from the gravitational field of that body. Is this right, and if so is that what you mean when the curvature of space time "forces the in falling particle to have negative energy?"

Quote Quote by Chalnoth View Post
Anti-particles generally don't have negative energy. If that were the answer, then half the time the particle would fall into the black hole, while the other half of the time the anti-particle would fall into the black hole, so that overall the black hole would radiate but stay the same mass (as just as many negative-mass particles would fall in as positive-mass particles).
So you are saying that generally anti-particles have positive energy? If that were the case, wouldn't the black hole generally gain more energy than it loses energy due to absorbing negative energy? I thought they were supposed to (theoretically) radiate away.

And to tell you the truth, the reason I have been having such a hard time wrapping my head around this is the part about having equal positive and negative energy particles falling into the black hole. In that case, wouldn't the black hole eventually gain mass (by random matter in space) and when it's not gaining this matter it would remain in an equilibrium.

Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
What exactly is "negative energy"?
It's so easy to skip over the small things without thinking :(

It will give me something to think about while falling asleep though :)