Adding a huge electric charge to a black hole?

[mfb]

You can derive the Lamb shift and the Casimir effect without virtual particles (example). The mathematics of Hawking radiation has nothing that could be interpreted as virtual particles - this is purely a pop-science myth.

Does the number 3 exist as physical object? Clearly not - it is a mathematical tool. Same for virtual particles. If you think virtual particles are physical objects, then the number 3 should be a physical object as well. I think that is a very strange view.

 

[256bits]

Number 3 may not be physical, but it certainly is real.
Virtual particles are not physical, but are they real?
That's why I am wondering if it is a PF thing, or a general physics thing, in an attempt to de-evaluate the concept.
Perhaps, until better mathematical tools come about that do not produce such an artifact, virtual particles are here to stay.

PS.
You definitely misinterpreted the use of my word "thing". I should not be so colloquial.

 

[DaveC426913]

Perhaps, until better mathematical tools come about that do not produce such an artifact, virtual particles are here to stay.

I think they are a shortcut.
Rigorously, the math can be done without them, but it is much more complex.

Likewise: Some electrical equations are defined and solved using imaginary numbers, because they are a useful tool. But the equations can be done without them, they're just much harder. The imaginary numbers do not represent any real counterpart in the phenomenon itself.

Caveat: I do not speak with any authority on this.

 

[phinds]

Virtual particles are not physical, but are they real?

What do you think is the distinction between "physical" and "real". Do you think virtual particles are like love or hate?

 

[256bits]

Caveat: I do not speak with any authority on this.

Same here.
It's the chosen word that sows confusion I believe.
Kind of like virtual image - not a real image, but an image nevertheless.
By that analogy, virtual particles should be not a real particle but a still particle.
Imaginary might have been more palatable for understanding at the outset.

Physics does have its problems with descriptive terms.
Black hole was objected to due to the obvious connotations for some, but the name stuck.

 

[256bits]

What do you think is the distinction between "physical" and "real". Do you think virtual particles are like love or hate?

See the above post - virtual image.

 

[Chronos]

Dealing with the kinowns - a black hole is believed to have 3 intrinsic properties a] mass b] angulatr momentum c] charge. Our experience with nature suggests these properties have a maximal finite limit.. In the case of a black hole, calculations suggest the area of the event horizon dictates the maximal limit of its intrinsic properties. So it follows the area of the event horizon must increase to accommodate an increase in the value of any intrinsic property beyond its maximal limit.. It's like trying to stuff 10 pounds of crap into a 5 lb sack. Either the sack expands or you get a pile of crap on the floor.

 

[mfb]

Number 3 may not be physical, but it certainly is real.

It is a "real number" in mathematics, but I wouldn't assign it any "physical reality". Pick 3+2i if you like that comparison more.
Anyway, this is getting philosophical.