- #1
jnorman
- 316
- 0
i have posted a few questions regarding Hawking radiation in the past, regarding the assumption of "negative energy" of the particle which falls into the BH. i have tried to do as much reading as i can on the topic, since i have had a very hard time absorbing the concept of negative energy.
my question originally revolved around the idea that a photon is its own anti-particle, that all particles possesses energy, that the concept of negative energy is therefore moot, and thus HR is based on erroneous assumptions. further reading about HR which details the equations involved (no, i can't really follow it all the way) demonstrates that the equations require that the particle falling into the BH MUST have negative energy to provide for energy conservation since the particle pair was created from vacuum fluctuations. i can follow that.
however, when the particle pair is created, both the particle and anti-particle have positive energy. and while i have read comments to the effect that the negative energy state of the particle which falls in is in relation to infinity, that concept is a bit difficult. ie, at what point does the energy state of the particle which falls in change from a positive energy state to a negative energy state? well, apparently it doesn't change - the particle falling in remains positive energy from a local perspective. it is only recognized as negative energy from a universal perspective, ie, from the overall energy balance within the entire universe (have i stated that correctly?).
my current question is: why do we require this kind of total energy balance for BH's, when we accept the idea that for some reason in the early universe, the number of particles was no longer exactly balanced by the number of anti-particles (ie, where is all the antimatter?). if this imbalance (and the process which resulted in that imbalance) is part of our reality, for whatever reason, why can we not assume that something similar may explain that HR may not be correct?
sorry if this is confused - i am an idiot just trying to learn little by little. thanks.
my question originally revolved around the idea that a photon is its own anti-particle, that all particles possesses energy, that the concept of negative energy is therefore moot, and thus HR is based on erroneous assumptions. further reading about HR which details the equations involved (no, i can't really follow it all the way) demonstrates that the equations require that the particle falling into the BH MUST have negative energy to provide for energy conservation since the particle pair was created from vacuum fluctuations. i can follow that.
however, when the particle pair is created, both the particle and anti-particle have positive energy. and while i have read comments to the effect that the negative energy state of the particle which falls in is in relation to infinity, that concept is a bit difficult. ie, at what point does the energy state of the particle which falls in change from a positive energy state to a negative energy state? well, apparently it doesn't change - the particle falling in remains positive energy from a local perspective. it is only recognized as negative energy from a universal perspective, ie, from the overall energy balance within the entire universe (have i stated that correctly?).
my current question is: why do we require this kind of total energy balance for BH's, when we accept the idea that for some reason in the early universe, the number of particles was no longer exactly balanced by the number of anti-particles (ie, where is all the antimatter?). if this imbalance (and the process which resulted in that imbalance) is part of our reality, for whatever reason, why can we not assume that something similar may explain that HR may not be correct?
sorry if this is confused - i am an idiot just trying to learn little by little. thanks.