Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

superconductivity question


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 hoola

hoola

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 610 posts
  • Locationcolorado, usa

Posted 22 December 2016 - 05:21 AM

is there any known link of superconductivity to virtual particle behavior? Would the exclusion of virtual particles tend to reduce the "noise" in the system if that were possible? If not, would it be possible to exclude the particles from a given region under any condition ?
  • 0

#2 Bender

Bender

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 631 posts

Posted 22 December 2016 - 10:45 AM

It is possible to exclude at least some virtual particles by placing two conductive plates very close together.


  • 0

#3 hoola

hoola

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 610 posts
  • Locationcolorado, usa

Posted 22 December 2016 - 02:30 PM

thanks bender, the casimir experiment does reduce the appearances of some wavelenghts, but is there a theoretical prohibition against removing them completely ? If they are separated at BH horizons, what happens in the interior?
  • 0

#4 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 36,097 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 22 December 2016 - 02:42 PM

thanks bender, the casimir experiment does reduce the appearances of some wavelenghts, but is there a theoretical prohibition against removing them completely ? If they are separated at BH horizons, what happens in the interior?


Hawking radiation stems from the addition of energy making the virtual particles real, so that's not an example of excluding them.
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#5 hoola

hoola

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 610 posts
  • Locationcolorado, usa

Posted 22 December 2016 - 05:56 PM

yes, hawking at the horizon is not an example, but I am referring to the interior of the hole. What happens inside the horizon to a pair, should they show up, or are they excluded?
  • 0

#6 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,461 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 22 December 2016 - 06:17 PM

yes, hawking at the horizon is not an example, but I am referring to the interior of the hole. What happens inside the horizon to a pair, should they show up, or are they excluded?

 

 

We would probably need a theory of quantum gravity to answer that, but as far as I know, current theory says that virtual particle pairs will behave the same inside the event horizon as outside.


  • 0

#7 hoola

hoola

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 610 posts
  • Locationcolorado, usa

Posted 23 December 2016 - 05:53 AM

Thanks strange.....the idea of the interior of a black hole having no matter seems problematic. So, the gravity field does not require a carrier or some sub-structure to manifest the field? A gravitational "monopole" with no counterpart? . The earth has a 1G field strength at the surface. I would presume that gravity drops off as you near the center with a matching pressure increase. Would the pressure at a BH interior cause infalling matter and energy to be crushed to strings, trading QM derived gravitational pressure maximized at the horizon, for classical compression as you approach the center? Casimir demonstrates a reduction of particle expression in some circumstances. It would seem the super density of the interior would exclude pair formation in a sort of casimir-exclusion principle.

Edited by hoola, 23 December 2016 - 06:28 AM.

  • 0

#8 Strange

Strange

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 12,461 posts
  • Location珈琲店

Posted 23 December 2016 - 10:34 AM

Thanks strange.....the idea of the interior of a black hole having no matter seems problematic. So, the gravity field does not require a carrier or some sub-structure to manifest the field? 

 

 

Not until we have a theory of quantum gravity (in which case it should  be the [hypothetical] graviton).

 

 

 

The earth has a 1G field strength at the surface. I would presume that gravity drops off as you near the center with a matching pressure increase.

 

Correct (Newton's Shell theorem).

 

 

 

 Would the pressure at a BH interior cause infalling matter and energy to be crushed to strings, trading QM derived gravitational pressure maximized at the horizon, for classical compression as you approach the center? Casimir demonstrates a reduction of particle expression in some circumstances. It would seem the super density of the interior would exclude pair formation in a sort of casimir-exclusion principle.

 

Again, we won't know until we have a theory of quantum gravity!

 

String theory has a model called the fuzzball: https://en.wikipedia...(string_theory)


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users