MWresearch

Well I'm aware of bosonic exchanges in the standard model between two real particles, but virtual particles in the vacuum of space near a black hole don't seem like typical bosons.

If you have a flooring or ceiling function somewhere, how do you differentiate it and integrate it?

So what type particle is in a virtual particle then? Is it...a photon? So how does it collide with itself again if it doesn't have electric charge? Is it...an electron and positron? Why don't they produce a photon anyway?

The question is somewhat broader, but it's asking I guess if someone would see themselves touching something before they actually felt it due to time dilation in the hand.

Oh wait, never mind, there's still something that doesn't add up. I asked why the particle-antiparticle pair doesn't produce a photon as in a normal matter-antimatter collision. Someone told me they don't collide, they just cease to exist, which would seem to only make sense if one had negative mass thereby not producing a photon. But if that were true that both particles had properties of regular mass-bearing particles, then why would the pair need to consist of a particle and an antiparticle? Why not a neutral particle and a neutral particle or a positive and a positive non-antimatter particle?

How can anyone answer? Probably by physicist using physics. Simplify the biological system. Instead of it being a person, simplify it to an electric signal traveling through a copper wire. That's a start. And why would you pass through an object? Even I have to ask "seriously?" I just said that you wouldn't pass through an object and that I was trying to avoid that scenario. I guess this is some kind of time travel paradox where trying to prevent an action ends up causing it?

Well, is there anyone who does? It's too bad there's no experienced members who have studied relativity. I guess it would be possible for someone to touch something without feeling it, I was trying to avoid a scenario where someone was physically passing through another object because they didn't feel it, like saying you can't pass through a wall just because you're drunk.

I think what the OP is trying to say suggest if a car made of photons could exert a force on a person in the car, shouldn't it carry them at the speed of light? I don't know, because photons don't exert an electromagnetic force capable of pushing anything. A car made of photons would just pass through someone as far as I'm concerned.

I guess I don't see how that Cauchy integration is used in place of the Lagrange Inversion theorem. Also, which technique are you referring to when you say it's hard to determine the coefficients?

Oh wait, I think I finally figured out Hawking radiation, it comes from the fact that virtual pairs need energy to become real. When a virtual particle tunnels out from the event horizon of a black hole, it becomes real, and that act steals energy from the black hole. But, I don't really know how the energy is transferred. I could see how no new information is obtained from within the black hole since the virtual pairs themselves are random, but I can't see how the energy moves from within the black hole to this tiny particle virtual particle. I also don't understand how its possible to tunnel out of a black hole, because that concept was created before there was a formal quantized model of space, Hawking Radiation must be using the version of a black hole where space is infinitely contracted and time ends at the event horizon.

That's perfect, there's a time component usable for time dilation effects, but since the rate is both in the numerator and denomitor they cancel out leaving a dimensionless ratio. Would the cross section be initially vefire the final calcilation becaffected by any sort of length contraction? I mean a cross section is only two dimensional, but the material would uniformly decrease in volume which might make the object seem like it his a higher number of nuclie in a given slice.

Well I don't know that its extra picoseconds or that its extra anything it all. What calculations was I suppose to have shown by asking a question on whether or not there are any extra calculations at all? I can't figure it out, maybe you could explain.

Oh yeah, is Wolfram citable? Or rather, is it formally citable?

But that's exactly the point. Would a person observe, with photons, that they are touching an object before they feel they are touching it? Or at least, would they observe a highly significant delay? Because their hand is relatively more dilated than their head, but at the same time, it's not their hand that is interpreting the sense of touch, so...

In in the more classical relativistic theories, the only way for matter in the future to affect matter in the past is to be traveling faster than the speed of light. Particles which do this are called tachyons which have not been measured and are becoming seemingly less likely to exist as time goes on. Less likely as in, we see less and less evidence for them.

But you're explanation still doesn't explain the anti symmetry anyway. Even if black holes lose mass through virtual pairs containing real mass and then tunneling out which later produces a real effect that upholds conservation laws, why aren't there an equal number that stay trapped inside the black hole? That question is relevant regardless of if there's negative mass or not, because in either scenario there's still some particles that are trapped inside and anothers that aren't. You didn't address that main point of the paragraph.

But, the particles only exist for a short time because they annihilate each other over a time interval dictated by that uncertainty. If they annihilate each other and they still possess the properties of charged particles such as positive mass and opposite charge, they must emit photons upon annihilation. You're not showing me anything anywhere that shows the addition of matter and antimatter ads up to total nothingness. Existing for a short time doesn't mean they can violate every single possible aspect of physics, just a very limited part.

Which would make sense but only if negative mass exists within the pairs and if John was wrong, that they aren't just typical matter-antimatter pairs that annihilate each other, because that type of interaction releases photons which virtual pairs obviously don't do. As pointed out, the virtual pairs can only violate conservation laws for brief periods of time and if they aren't interacting. If they interact with an object measurably, then conservation laws have to be upheld.

From what I see, the "rate" that neutrons are produced plays a role in the equation. In terms of mathematical arguments, I think saying that the gamma factor divides itself out of the equation is the same as saying it was never there. But, thanks for your help so far, I will have to research the equation more before I can make any final decisions.

Right, virtual particles themselves can violate physics because they aren't directly measured while they are virtual. But, when they become real, the ultimate effect abides by the laws of physics, like the conservation of energy. So, if both virtual particle possess positive mass which would be modeled by matter-antimatter annihilations, why aren't there measured violations in the conservation of energy all the time?

But if there's no negative mass despite article upon article upon article upon article stating that there is, what is the mechanism for a black hole losing mass, seeing as how no new information can ever escape a black hole? And, if virtual pairs are both positive mass, why isn't the vacuum of space constantly emitting gamma rays?

What you are describing seems to me much like a closed cosmological model of the universe. In that model, the energy density of the universe creates a cumulative attractive force that is greater than the force of dark energy, causing the universe to eventually contract to an infinitely dense point after a certain amount of time. However, measurements of space-time curvature on a cosmological scale show that we live in either a flat or hyperbolic universe, meaning that time will not end, space will keep expanding forever, possibly to a big rip but most likely a heat death. In that model, matter does not lose mass as it travels through time towards convergence of an infinitely small point. Frankly, nonexistence doesn't make much sense. In singularity big bang models, there was still mass, but since there was 0 space over which it could be distributed over, it occupied an infinitely dense point. But, even that model is coming into question. Recent models and observation suggest there is a limit to how small space and time can get. In those models, infinitely small and infinitely dense objects can't exist, so the universe may never have been completely contracted.

I kind of wanted you to elaborate more on why it's "no," hence me saying "...well how?" Also, there are multiple articles stating that a black hole can in fact absorb negative energy from a virtual particle pair that is created near the event horizon leading to its eventual evaporation. A black hole absorbing positive mass would cause it's mass to increase, not decrease. Even in the tunneling model whereby somehow the distribution of the virtual pair exceeds the infinite time dilation and length contraction of a black hole, there is still positive mass and negative mass. A black hole must lose mass in order to keep the conservation laws the same if a real positive mass particle escapes. Furthermore, opposite charged positive mass particles annihilating each other still have net energy. Matter and anti matter that collide leave photons behind. Yet, we are not seeing gamma rays everywhere despite that virtual particles exist almost everywhere. Although it is primarily in a vacuum that virtual pairs exist, but virtual pairs don't produce gamma rays, their net measured effect is usually 0 as with other virtual particles that are not measured.

Suppose there is a stationary person near rapidly changing curvature in space time, near a black hole. Ignoring tidal forces that would kill them and the force of intense force of gravity against whatever was holding them stationary also cause their own weight to crush them, I have a scenario I can't quite complete. Let's say the person sticks their hand out closer to the black hole. Their hand experiences a much greater gravitational effect, modeled by tidal forces. But, suppose a person were to touch another object while they reached their hand out. How would the impulse of touch travel? From the frame of reference of the person at their head, the hand's time should be dilated, but the person's brain isn't and furthermore the person can see when they think they are touching the black hole, so he delay can't be great enough such that a person is visually observing that they are touching something before the force of the touch is felt, because that would imply the electromagnetic repulsing between atoms isn't affecting their hand, thus creating a violation in the exclusion principal. So, would a person measure the sense of touch as highly delayed or...what would happen involving the time it takes for a person to know they touched something?

Hawking Radiation, where virtual particles form near the event horizons of black holes, normally posing no measurable effect due to annihilation can be sucked into the black hole. Since energy must be conserved, if positive mass escapes the black hole's gasp outside the event horizon, then the black hole must lose energy. But, in all of this, is there not a 50/50 chance of a black hole absorbing either a positive energy particle or negative energy particle? If there is, why would a black hole shrink over time? Shouldn't it stay the same size because of positive and negative energy gain have the same probability? If they don't have the same probability, well how?