Tell me what you know about Black holes

[Kuciwalker]

Eh, my question was poorly worded. If one of the pair created is "matter", the other will be "antimatter," correct?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Eh, my question was poorly worded. If one of the pair created is "matter", the other will be "antimatter," correct?

Yes. That's pretty much what particle-antiparticle pair means.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And if the anti-particle has negative energy, wouldn't it also have negative mass and be repelled by the black hole?

Negative energy in what frame of reference?

That's the key question.

Once the "negative energy" part of the pair crosses the event horizon it has local positive energy as long as it continues to move radially inward because of the coordinate singularity across the event horizon. Then both of the pair have local positive energy, so are allowed modes.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Eh, my question was poorly worded. If one of the pair created is "matter", the other will be "antimatter," correct?

My point is simply that antimatter and matter are sort of useless labels outside "normal" particles...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala

You guys should stop developing your field for a while so that the rest of the world can catch up .

Actually, what we should stop doing is attempting to write popularised books about complicated physics.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Actually, what we should stop doing is attempting to write popularised books about complicated physics.

QFT

[KrazyHorse]

The public has an endless appetite for such gobbledygook, though...

[Heresson]

We should ban physics

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Spec
if it grows non-stop, than surely it will consume the whole universe someday or another...Its only logical.
Spec.

Nothing logical about what you said.
Take the function (x-1)/x
When x gets larger it gets larger, but always stays smaller than 1.
So it's not clear at all that something that always grows must necessarily get big.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Actually, what we should stop doing is attempting to write popularised books about complicated physics.

You've brought up this point many times, and I'm going to come out and disagree with you.

YES! people have a great appetite to hear about the latest happening in science, and don't have years to spend or even the capacity to understand everything so they want the chewed up version. So what?
The main downside is that you get to correct them if you want in threads such as this. I agree with you that these books don't give proper understanding of the matter involved.

But what if that is not the (only) goal?
For example, I read many "popular math" books as a kid, and even though I now know that my understanding was far less than I thought at the time, it gave me interest in the subject and I became a mathematician.
From a practical point of view, it also sparks many people's imagination and may increase chances of funding to these fields.

To be honest, I think if most scientists shared your "nothing scientific should ever be published that does not meet research level" mentality, science's future would be in dire trouble, luckily that is not the case.

[Last Conformist]

If no popsci were written, even more people would get their scientific knowledge from the X-Men. Given that perspective, I'm positively happy about the sort of misunderstandings people get from reading Paul Davies, Dawkins, or Hawking's popular books.

[KrazyHorse]

Dawkins writes about stuff which is much more comprehensible to laymen. They might get a simplified view, but it's at least somewhat accurate. Trying to write to layman about Hawking radiation, for instance, is generally an exercise in futility. You might as well just make **** up. It'll contain the same amount of useable knowledge.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
If no popsci were written, even more people would get their scientific knowledge from the X-Men. Given that perspective, I'm positively happy about the sort of misunderstandings people get from reading Paul Davies or Hawking's popular books.

Another good point.
For example, I don't have extensive physics training.
If I posted regularly in threads like this, you would get the opportunity to correct me pretty often.
Yet I still think that people having my level of understanding is way preferable to having no understanding at all, where science=magic.

[Last Conformist]

I wouldn't've been in physics without popsci books on QM. But I supposed you'd think that a good thing.

[Kuciwalker]

I thought you were an EE.