[questionposter]

If all forces and motion are carried through virtual particles, shouldn't a black hole just suck up all virtual particles that carry forces and motion? I suppose the way kinetic energy works here on Earth is that the electro-magnetism of atoms repel one another with a lot of force when they get into close contact with each other, but a black hole should suck up those virtual force carriers as it does with Hawking Radiation.

Or is there maybe something about a Higg's field that causes only some particles to get sucked up by a black hole and not others?

This post has been edited by questionposter: 24 January 2012 - 03:56 AM

[MigL]

Virtual particles don't carry motion, whatever that means.

All force carrier bosons in quantum field theory are virtual particles, not all virtual particles are force carrier bosons.

Think of virtual particles as surrounding real particles such that they must be included in any calculation of mass, charge, etc. A real world analog would be a baseball moving through a viscous fluid like air, to calculate forces on the baseball you have to include contributions from the boundary layer or entrained air.

Black holes, at least outside the event horizon, are no different than any other gravitating body. They 'attract' other mass/energy.

This post has been edited by MigL: 25 January 2012 - 11:32 PM

[Klaynos]

I don't understand where you link kinetic energy and EM force carriers. It is possible for an object to have KE relative to some rest frame without it interacting with that rest frame.

In the case of black holes the interaction is gravitational, assuming that gravitons exist they would only (if at all) interact very very very weakly with one another they therefore would have no problem escaping the black hole. Discussion of the singularity itself will cause us issues as we don't currently have a working theory for what goes on there.

[questionposter]

Klaynos, on 25 January 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

I don't understand where you link kinetic energy and EM force carriers. It is possible for an object to have KE relative to some rest frame without it interacting with that rest frame.

In the case of black holes the interaction is gravitational, assuming that gravitons exist they would only (if at all) interact very very very weakly with one another they therefore would have no problem escaping the black hole. Discussion of the singularity itself will cause us issues as we don't currently have a working theory for what goes on there.

Well how does motion get transferred? It get's transferred by boson exchange doesn't it? When you touch something, your not actually touching the atoms, the atoms in your hand and of the object are repelling each other by exchanging virtual particles and the repulsion somehow allows for energy transfer.
Also, I notice that based on our current observations, black holes themselves don't have a magnetic field, so it would appear that only certain virtual particles interact with a black hole or at least the singularity.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 26 January 2012 - 12:06 AM

[Klaynos]

questionposter, on 26 January 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Well how does motion get transferred?

Via force interactions. These are either, strong, weak, EM or gravitational.

questionposter, on 26 January 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

It get's transferred by boson exchange doesn't it? When you touch something, your not actually touching the atoms, the atoms in your hand and of the object are repelling each other by exchanging virtual particles and the repulsion somehow allows for energy transfer.

That looks approximately correct. But you do not require an interaction for something to have KE relative to you. And any energy change can be any of the four fundamental forces.

questionposter, on 26 January 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Also, I notice that based on our current observations, black holes themselves don't have a magnetic field, so it would appear that only certain virtual particles interact with a black hole or at least the singularity.

Or they're just non-magnetic and not charged.

I'm no an expert in this area, others on the forum are moreso than I, it is not the area of physics in which I work. But it seems to be reasonable to assume that EM interactions cannot occur between two elements one inside the even horizon and one outside. But this is conjecture and before taking this I'd suggest awaiting anothers response.

[questionposter]

Klaynos, on 26 January 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

That looks approximately correct. But you do not require an interaction for something to have KE relative to you.

How does energy get caused or transferred by those other forces?
Or I guess if your moving away from the black hole, then from your point of reference it seems the black hole is moving away from you, but that's sort of cheating in my opinion because that's just you, I mean more of when you measure like a quasar traveling distance over time.
Er, ok, so we measure kinetic energy based on the energy of the photons we perceive as well as a pattern of the location we perceive of information inside a photon concerning the location of a particular interaction point with that photon, so is kinetic energy simply caused by measurement? Or, how else do forces actually "cause" kinetic energy or it's transfer?

This post has been edited by questionposter: 26 January 2012 - 12:37 AM

[Klaynos]

By the exchange of exchange particles, in the same way em uses photons.

It's not cheating. Motion is relative. Kinetic energy is also relative, it is not frame invariant.

[questionposter]

Klaynos, on 26 January 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

By the exchange of exchange particles, in the same way em uses photons.

It's not cheating. Motion is relative. Kinetic energy is also relative, it is not frame invariant.

Ok, so kinetic energy occurs by the exchange of virtual particles, but nothing except I guess gravity is suppose to escape a black hole...
I suppose we'd have to consider that you'd never actually directly measure photons from a black hole itself, just matter around it.

[Klaynos]

You added a bit more as I was replying.

Forces do not cause kinetic energy. KE is a property of stuff. An interaction is not required to have it. To measure it an interaction is required. This is normally an em interaction but that is because that is easiest for us to work with, not a requirement.

[questionposter]

Klaynos, on 26 January 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

You added a bit more as I was replying.

Forces do not cause kinetic energy. KE is a property of stuff. An interaction is not required to have it. To measure it an interaction is required. This is normally an em interaction but that is because that is easiest for us to work with, not a requirement.

Is a property of kinetic energy that it causes motion unless it get's converted to other energy?

I think it might just be that forces interact with particles, and that causes things to somehow move, and what force we measure that motion with is kinetic energy...

Even at that point though, if you have a black hole, all you have is gravity, so somehow a singularity interacts with gravity or higg's fields or w/e, but how does that interaction generate kinetic energy that can be measured? I guess, how do forces cause motion? How does just virtual particles exchanging cause the property that is kinetic energy?

This post has been edited by questionposter: 26 January 2012 - 01:04 AM

[Klaynos]

questionposter, on 26 January 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Is a property of kinetic energy that it causes motion unless it get's converted to other energy?

Causes motion, no, it is the energy associated with a velocity. I think perhaps before we go on to talk about more complicated concepts it would be worth reading a good text on classical mechanics to understand energies I'd suggest learning the Legrangian formulation of classical mechanics.

questionposter, on 26 January 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

I think it might just be that forces interact with particles, and that causes things to somehow move, and what force we measure that motion with is kinetic energy...

I think you've put some words together there that don't make sense. I think this is because you are trying to run before you can walk. Understanding the fundamentals is required before the complexities will begin to make any sense whatsoever.

questionposter, on 26 January 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Even at that point though, if you have a black hole, all you have is gravity, so somehow a singularity interacts with gravity or higg's fields or w/e, but how does that interaction generate kinetic energy that can be measured? I guess, how do forces cause motion? How does just virtual particles exchanging cause the property that is kinetic energy?

If you can measure a velocity you can deduce the kinetic energy relative to you. The energy is not generated by the field.

It is perfectly possible to envisage two frames, rest frames a, and b, b is at rest with a black hole and a is moving with a velocity relative to b. Therefore in b the black hole has no KE relative to the frame. In a it does have KE relative to the frame.