The Year of the Higgs?

Probability of success: Zero.

Even if they find something, it is almost certain that it will answer no question at all, because "something" won't be quite what they expect, and then they'll have to invent something else to explain that. We're all out of dark matter, dark energy, aether, quintescence, and pixie dust.

You don't understand the scientific method. Hope that helps.

It's not about answering questions. It's about proving or disproving a theory. If they expect to find the Higgs Boson, and they do, then the Standard Model will be proven accurate. If they expect to find it and they don't, then they know the model is wrong and they have to revise it.

It's going to be rather embarrassing to admit no Higgs. By running at mid-power for the next couple of years, they can then crank it up to full power for another couple of years. This will buy them four years without embarrassment. There is method in their madness afterall! Wonder why they really cancelled the supercollider? Let the Euros' waste their money.

It's not about answering questions. It's about proving or disproving a theory. If they expect to find the Higgs Boson, and they do, then the Standard Model will be proven accurate. If they expect to find it and they don't, then they know the model is wrong and they have to revise it.

But but but that's unfair! When the bible is wrong all you atheists point it out and that's unfair! We can't revise it! Unfair!

They can always use some trick in the data modeling to make it seem they found something. Who is gonna spend the money to independently verify any finding? Guess we just have faith and take their word for it!

They can always use some trick in the data modeling to make it seem they found something. Who is gonna spend the money to independently verify any finding? Guess we just have faith and take their word for it!

Surprisingly, this isn't necessarily wrong. Multi-million dollar failures are often sold as "successful" with convoluted justifications. No one wants to admit they wasted large amounts of money and resources, for nothing... But, it's too early to tell if this is the case, here. Give it some time.

And if the Higgs is hiding in the missing 5-10% not sampled? If it is found all well and good but if it is not found, we still can't say it doesn't exist. Will the LHC be able to sample the missing region when it goes onto full power?

So, the LHC was built expressly for finding the Higgs boson? All that money was spent for only one task? No one else uses it for anything else? Is that what people are suggesting when they say it's a waste if they don't find the Higgs?

And what gives the Higgs its mass?

But but but that's unfair! When the bible is wrong all you atheists point it out and that's unfair! We can't revise it! Unfair!

The Bible is supposed to be infallible.

And what gives the Higgs its mass?

The Higgs field.

That's a circular argument.

...and I don't think the tribal myths of a particularly aggressive population of Middle Eastern Arab nomads has any place in a discussion on science.

Even if they find something, it is almost certain that it will answer no question at all, because "something" won't be quite what they expect, and then they'll have to invent something else to explain that. We're all out of dark matter, dark energy, aether, quintescence, and pixie dust.

I bet brainiac here would also have pooh-poohed the notion of magnetism - can't see it, can't touch it, can't hear it, can't taste it, can't smell it and yet it can be magically used to stick to or levitate big, heavy chunks of iron? Balderdash!

QC just doesnt understand the difference between making something up and filling in the blanks.

Think of it like a crossword. You have to find the answer using the clue and the words around it. You can't guess just any word simply because it has the right number of letters because then the words around it wont ever quite fit. So, knowing the words around it and the clue to the word itself, physicists guess the answer. You would be right to argue that no answer would ever be 100% right because it is possible that a completely different set of words could fit the puzzle. Possible, but not probable. You can look, but you'll have a hard time ever coming up with a second solution to that solves all of the same problems simultaneously. And, as the complexity of the crossword increases, the probability of finding a second solution decreases.

This is why theories cannot ever be proven true - they can only be proven not false.

Read My Lips: Higgsy = 122.8 Gev

Probability of success: Zero.

Even if they find something, it is almost certain that it will answer no question at all, because "something" won't be quite what they expect, and then they'll have to invent something else to explain that

Probability of success - 100%

Whatever they find, whether it is as predicted or not, or don't find... Then they are advancing the boundaries of human knowledge, taking us all one step further along in our quest to understand our universe. That is what science *is*.

And if you think the theory is incorrect, or 'those idjits are all wrong' as you are wont to say on so many topics, well, I presume you live in a free country, you have a brain; use it. Prove it all wrong. Propose your competing theory, and let it be tested.

Or is sitting on the sidlines maligning those who actually get up and try to do something more your natural level?

It's much easier being an anonymous skeptic Paulie.

"Even if they find something, it is almost certain that it will answer no question at all, because "something" won't be quite what they expect, and then they'll have to invent something else to explain that." - Dingus McGillicutty aka quantum cunundrum

Sounds like ,....

"Facts?!,... psssft,... facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -- Homer J. Simpson, Sectar 7G

Once you have rejected God's creation life becomes just a collision of self-imposed delusions.

Once you have rejected God's creation life becomes just a collision of self-imposed delusions.

As opposed to externally-imposed delusions :)

Once you have rejected God's creation life becomes just a collision of self-imposed delusions.

Is the computer you used to communicate that a delusion or a fact? God has zero to do with acquiring knowledge of the world. For example, one can be a believer and at the very same time make a statement such as,... as is presented to us in our investigations and with what appears as a consistent physical world, the universe may have evolved in such a such fashion,... it appears evolution is the most rational explanation given the constraints of physical law,... etc.

So your premise is false. The very definition of "delusion" is to ignore facts for the sake of dogma.

2012, year of the mini black hole and proof Hawking is wrong with radiation leak.

Radiation is already observed, how can he be wrong?

Radiation is already observed, how can he be wrong?

how can be observed if don't even know if black holes truly even exist the way known?

Radiation is already observed, how can he be wrong?

Oh, PS3 often randomly interjects in such fashion, usually in caps. Standard-issue crank, safely ignored ;-)

Radiation is already observed, how can he be wrong?

Oh, PS3 often randomly interjects in such fashion, usually in caps. Standard-issue crank, safely ignored ;-)

show me proof of hawking radiation. Im sure you have 100% proof like higgs chance LOL.

So, PS3, as persuasive an argument as it is to give everyone else on the thread a rank of "1", how about you provide some kind of detail.

You continuously spout that "Hawking is wrong!!"
What do you propose instead? The non-existence of black holes? Or that event horizons exist, but Hawking Radiation doesn't? Or do you just dislike Hawking?

So, PS3, as persuasive an argument as it is to give everyone else on the thread a rank of "1", how about you provide some kind of detail.

You continuously spout that "Hawking is wrong!!"
What do you propose instead? The non-existence of black holes? Or that event horizons exist, but Hawking Radiation doesn't? Or do you just dislike Hawking?

what detail do you need. Hawking is on video himself saying cern could create mini black holes but don't worry because I made hawking radiation.

What detail? I asked you what, exactly, you are trying to say. Would it be easier if I gave you a multiple choice?

Are you saying

A) That black holes don't exist?
B) That black holes exist, but Hawking radiation doesn't?
C) You aren't sure what you are trying to say?
D) You're a troll?

They'll probably find something because particle physicists are missing it at certain evergy levels, and there has to be an intermidiary particle with a huge mass but which lasts for about a billionth of a billionth of a second before it decays into other particles. They can call it a Higgs boson if they want, or anything else, but the theory that it confers mass on matter particles is bogus. No single particle can do that. Mass is conferred on a particle because of its dynamics. If you send an object travelling at light speed it will have infinite mass - relativity theory. An object at rest has the combined mass of all of its subatomic particles because they are never static. The more dynamic a particle is, the more mass it has. The standard model is for the most part correct. It is just missing a few parameters, like periodic quantum wave pattern reinforcement and destruction, for example. Dynamics keeps reality in place.

I wonder if people realise that increasing the power of the LHC does not effect finding the Higgs -- I think people are under the impression that if you take the LHC up to full power you can find the Higgs faster, and that's very very wrong.

the Higgs if it exists is located at a specific energy level and we are trying to figure out what that level is. the LHC is capable of looking at energy levels much much higher than where the Higgs ought to be. turning up the power to full blast just looks at that highest energy level it says very little if nothing at all about what is at the previous levels

if you listen to the video the scientist to the left makes a reference to God as if he himself believes in the being. some scientists have no issues believing in God and doing real science-- only the real zealots on either side of that arguement refuse to compromise

You continuously spout that "Hawking is wrong!!"
What do you propose instead? The non-existence of black holes? Or that event horizons exist, but Hawking Radiation doesn't? Or do you just dislike Hawking?

Pardon me for interceding here, but Hawking failed to acount for the infalling particle's GP/KE with the black hole, in regards to the total energy of the system.

Pardon me for interceding here, but Hawking failed to acount for the infalling particle's GP/KE with the black hole, in regards to the total energy of the system.

No pardon necessary, I'm always interested in constructive input :)

I'm not familiar with the problems you mention... Have you a link or something I could read up on?

So, the LHC was built expressly for finding the Higgs boson? All that money was spent for only one task? No one else uses it for anything else? Is that what people are suggesting when they say it's a waste if they don't find the Higgs?

Sort of. By design the LHC was built to probe electroweak symmetry breaking. This takes you straight to the Higgs mechanism and, taken together, the origin of mass.

Not finding the Higgs boson would hardly be a waste of time. In fact, finding that there is just one type of Higgs (instead of none or 3, 4, or 5) could be said to be the worst possible outcome. All this would do is trivially complete the last big piece of the Standard Model puzzle without opening the door to a badly needed successor. We know the SM is incomplete because, among other things, it fails to predict-much less explain-Dark Matter and Dark Energy as well as neutrino masses. Just finding the expected Higgs won't help push the theory into any new areas.

No pardon necessary, I'm always interested in constructive input :)

I'm not familiar with the problems you mention... Have you a link or something I could read up on?

No. I figured it out myself. If you look at Hawkings original work here:

http:/prac.us.edu.pl/~ztpce/QM/CMPhawking.pdf

...you'll find he simply doesn't describe this part of the system. He, rather, simply infers that due to the conservation laws, the infalling particle must have negative energy relative to a distant observer. This would only be true of the infalling particle upon separation from the VP pair, but not to the infalling particle/black hole relationship.

It's important to note; even a distant observer will agree there's a GP/KE relationship between the infalling particle and the black hole.

So, the infalling particle subtracts it's negative energy/mass from the black hole, but adds its GP/KE to the black hole.

Voila, matter/energy from nothing (a conservatiion violation).

I think there's something a little boring about the particle equivalent of stamp collecting. Maybe it isn't explained well to the public, but why should I care if they find the triple charm z pi meson quark? What does finding a particle have to do with our picture of reality? How does the standard model explain the world in a way that the layman can appreciate? What possibilities are opened up or closed down by finding the Higgs? What does this say about the fundamental nature of mass? etc.

I think there's something a little boring about the particle equivalent of stamp collecting. Maybe it isn't explained well to the public, but why should I care if they find the triple charm z pi meson quark?

Thanks for the questions.
Nobody denies that the progress of science is one foundation of the progress of societies. No need to enumerate single successes.
The progress of science is the progress of understanding how things work. Observations/measurements lead to falsifiable theories which lead to predictions which lead to new observations and measurements and so on.
Most valuable are not observations which confirm an established theory but observations which might topple established theories.
The falsification of a theory forces scientists to change their model (their understanding how things work).
The change of a physical model opens new opportunities for engineers to invent new technologies.
New technologies bring progress into the idealized global village.

Howbeit a toilsome thing they do:

"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". II Timothy 3:7

And why? Because:

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear". Hebrews 11:3

Voila, matter/energy from nothing (a conservatiion violation).

Nothing of the sort. You don't understand Hawking radiation. The black hole is LOSING mass in the form of the virtual particle that escapes...it's essentially evaporating. There is no matter energy creation. The first law of thermodynamics has never been observed to be violated, and any theory that postulates it should be highly suspect.

Nothing of the sort. You don't understand Hawking radiation. The black hole is LOSING mass in the form of the virtual particle that escapes...it's essentially evaporating.

Obviously, YOU don't understand Hawking Radiation. There's a specific mechanism whereby this "evaporation" supposedly occurs. The problem is, the mechanism as described is incomplete - and when completed, it's a conservation violation.

The infalling particle is a "real particle." Even Hawking says so. It's in his paper which I referenced.

All bodies in motion MUST have relative KE values.

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

There is no matter energy creation. The first law of thermodynamics has never been observed to be violated, and any theory that postulates it should be highly suspect.

Right. That's why Hawking Radiation can't work. If it does, it would be a conservation violation.

The infalling particle is a "real particle." Even Hawking says so. It's in his paper which I referenced.

The infalling particle is made real temporarily. Upon annhilation it returns to its prior state of nonexistence through mutual annihilation.

All bodies in motion MUST have relative KE values.

And comming into being within a segement of non-discrete space doesn't imply motion. All particles, including virtual particles, are affected by the geometry of local space and presence of other virtual and non-virtual particles.

You don't explain why you think Hawking radiation is a conservation violation.

@SH:

First of all, as seen here:

http:/www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-team-asteroid-deflection.html

...you don't even understand the basic physics of rocketry. What makes you think you might have a clue about Hawking radiation?

It appears you're only here (on physorg in general) to instigate controversy. Are you a chatbot?

The infalling particle is made real temporarily. Upon annhilation it returns to its prior state of nonexistence through mutual annihilation.

With what?

And comming into being within a segement of non-discrete space doesn't imply motion. All particles, including virtual particles, are affected by the geometry of local space and presence of other virtual and non-virtual particles.

Uh, all bodies are in motion relative to something. And, it's being accelerated by gravity, into the black hole.

You don't explain why you think Hawking radiation is a conservation violation.

Yes I did. If it worked, we'd get energy/mass from nothing.

you don't even understand the basic physics of rocketry. What makes you think you might have a clue about Hawking radiation?

What makes you think that an understanding of the basic physics of rocketry is a necessary condition in order to have a clue about HR?

It appears you're only here (on physorg in general) to instigate controversy.

Funny rhetoric from one of the most eloquent LHC critics.
The word "only" obviously is wrong. Omitting this word your phrase becomes a praise.

What makes you think that an understanding of the basic physics of rocketry is a necessary condition in order to have a clue about HR?

If you don't have a rudimentary understanding of the laws of motion, you're not very likely to have a proper understanding of relativity.

Funny rhetoric from one of the most eloquent LHC critics.

"Eloquent?" Thanks.

The word "only" obviously is wrong. Omitting this word your phrase becomes a praise.

The statement wasn't meant to either praise or insult. It was merely an observation.

I was alluding to the notion his productivity suggests his association with physorg may be less than casual. And, his posts generally appear peculiarly designed to engender controversy - without necessarily being substantive.

Uvavontuba you have never shown a violation of the conservation of energy or matter or momentum. Just where exactly is it that you think the violation arises. It does NOT arise in the KE. They are equal and opposite in the virtual particles thus the net KE is zero. When one is permanently separated from the other both become real and still you have net energy of zero.

I think I have figured out your mistake but I would to see a confirmation of where you think the imbalance arises. Maybe I found it higher in the thread.

So, the infalling particle subtracts it's negative energy/mass from the black hole, but adds its GP/KE to the black hole.

So. The other particle, the one that escapes black hole, has the opposite GP/KE thus the Universe remains balanced.

Also there is the matter of the particle's gravity field which has negative energy equal to the mass-energy of the particles in question. Perhaps this is what you are missing.

Ethelred

Yes I did. If it worked, we'd get energy/mass from nothing.

No, you didn't. The annihiliation of virtual particles still occurs in the exact same quantity. The only difference is one particle that was virtual becomes real, and one that was real in the black hole is annihilated.

So if you would like to tell us it is a conservation violation, you're going to need to prove it.

And as for your rocketry citation. Apparently you didn't read the whole thread. I made a mistake, it was pointed out to me, I admitted it. It would be the exact same mistake that the person you agree with made on the same thread further above my mistake.

So if you would like ot take pot shots at me, go ahead, but you're not going to like the result. Especially if you go ahead and pull that petulant childish crap you always do in these discussions.

It does NOT arise in the KE. They are equal and opposite in the virtual particles thus the net KE is zero.

This is ONLY true relative to the particles (upon separation) and the distant observer. However, there's an additional body in the system (the black hole) which you are ignoring. Relative to the distant observer, the particle's have GP/KE values respective to the black hole too. One is falling in and being accelerated (by gravity), one is leaving and being decelerated.

I think I have figured out your mistake but I would to see a confirmation of where you think the imbalance arises. Maybe I found it higher in the thread.

Sure. Explain it to me.

So. The other particle, the one that escapes black hole, has the opposite GP/KE thus the Universe remains balanced.

You're missing the particles' respective effects on the black hole, due to their respective GP/KE with the black hole. Hawking didn't include this in his formulations.

cont...

Hawking simply assumes the negative energy particle subtracts energy from the BH, without regard to its potential energy with the black hole. If KE (relative to the distant observer) was the only consideration, this would be correct. However, there's a GP component as well. GP/KE increases for the infalling particle and decreases for the exiting particle. The energy balance shifts.

Also there is the matter of the particle's gravity field which has negative energy equal to the mass-energy of the particles in question. Perhaps this is what you are missing.

Why would you talk about the particle's gravity field, but completely ignore the black hole's? You must remember, the VP particles separate ABOVE the event horizon (if only barely). The acceleration of the infalling particle creates an increasing KE potential.

The only way I see this working is from a clock consideration.

cont...

Relative to the distant observer, the infalling particle is stuck in time. It never really falls in. So it and the BH, combined as a system, appears to have dimished mass. The GP/KE remains in the system, but it's never realized. But technically, since the GP/KE is there, it's still a conservation violation.

As I see it. Hawking used the BH's gravity to split the VP pair, but promptly forgot about it afterward.

Do you see? Even a distant observer will agree that the infalling particle has increasing GP/KE with the BH, whereas the escaping particle's GP/KE with the BH is vanishingly small. they are not opposite and equal anymore (relative to the distant observer).

What am I missing?

No, you didn't. The annihiliation of virtual particles still occurs in the exact same quantity. The only difference is one particle that was virtual becomes real, and one that was real in the black hole is annihilated.

They both become "real" above the event horizon.

So if you would like to tell us it is a conservation violation, you're going to need to prove it.

You'd have to be able to understand it.

And as for your rocketry citation. Apparently you didn't read the whole thread. I made a mistake, it was pointed out to me, I admitted it.

Where? The last post you left was absolutley ludicrous, and it did not contain an admission of error.

It would be the exact same mistake that the person you agree with made on the same thread further above my mistake.

Provide dates and a little text, please.

So if you would like ot take pot shots at me, go ahead, but you're not going to like the result. Especially if you go ahead and pull that petulant childish crap you always do in these discussions.

You mean like you just did?

Look. If you want a serious discussion on this topic, you're going to have to apologize for your rocket mistake AND explain why you were wrong.

Look SH. I like you. It's not that I'm being a brat. It's that if you don't understand concepts like; conservation of momentum, kinetic energy, gravitational potential, and the like, you're simply not going to understand this.

Heck, I'm highly doubtful I understand it.

Look. If you want a serious discussion on this topic, you're going to have to apologize for your rocket mistake AND explain why you were wrong.

Hey dickhead, like I said, read the thread. It was posted there.

Look SH. I like you. It's not that I'm being a brat.

Quite to the contrary.

It's that if you don't understand concepts like; conservation of momentum, kinetic energy, gravitational potential, and the like, you're simply not going to understand this.

And you're saying this to someone who has degrees in the overarching science of the topic. The entire discussion on rocketry started with an inability for you to understand the relevance of frame of reference and force vectoring.

Heck, I'm highly doubtful I understand it.

Which is what we established on that thread you brought up.

So the question here is, do YOU want to have an conversation on an advanced physical cponcept, that unlike the rocket example, doesn't work within reltavistic frameworks?

They both become "real" above the event horizon.

Your ignorance is shown by this statement.

Do you understand what makes a virtual particle virtual?

Hey dickhead, like I said, read the thread. It was posted there.

Again, where? Provide a date and some sample text.

Quite to the contrary.

You're riled. I get it. Why don't you have a nice cup of tea and calm down a little.

And you're saying this to someone who has degrees in the overarching science of the topic. The entire discussion on rocketry started with an inability for you to understand the relevance of frame of reference and force vectoring.

Really? And just where was that? I never even discussed "frame of reference" and "force vectoring." You must be referring to someone else.

As barakn stated on Feb 04, 2011:

"In regards to non-escape velocity fuel particles, the following commenters are wrong:
Skeptic_Heretic

The following commenters are right:
ubavontuba"

Which is what we established on that thread you brought up.

This is just laughable. And proves you STILL don't understand the physics of rocketry.

Your ignorance is shown by this statement.

And yours, by that.

Do you understand what makes a virtual particle virtual?

Yes. Do you? It appears not.

Do you understand the mechanism that makes them "real" in Hawking radiation? No, wait... you'd have to understand things like; conservation of momentum, kinetic energy, gravitational potential, and such... and having a degree, is not the same thing as having an understanding.

Uba,

In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in its energy and momentum due to the uncertainty principle.

Would you like to again tell us your stance on how that particle becomes real?

and having a degree, is not the same thing as having an understanding.

No, but it means I have been able to demonstrate understanding of the material beyond that of a high school student, which as so far appears to be your only frame of reference in this discussion.

I never even discussed "frame of reference" and "force vectoring." You must be referring to someone else.

No, I did, and you ignored it, just as your ignoring things you don't like in this conversation as well.

It is increasingly frustrating to deal with you in these threads. You act as though you are an expect in these topics yet you don't have an ability to quantify anything you say outside of a very very basic understanding. D-K in full effe

Uba,

In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in its energy and momentum due to the uncertainty principle.

Would you like to again tell us your stance on how that particle becomes real?

No, but it means I have been able to demonstrate understanding of the material beyond that of a high school student, which as so far appears to be your only frame of reference in this discussion.

No, I did, and you ignored it, just as your ignoring things you don't like in this conversation as well.

It is increasingly frustrating to deal with you in these threads. You act as though you are an expect in these topics yet you don't have an ability to quantify anything you say outside of a very very basic understanding. D-K in full effe

Like I said: Your posts generally appear peculiarly designed to engender controversy - without necessarily being substantive.

So again, where is your proclaimed admission of error?

This is ONLY true relative to the particles (upon separation) and the distant observer.

It is true relative to anything.

to the particles (upon separation) and the distant observer. However, there's an additional body in the system (the black hole) which you are ignoring.

No. I took it into account. They are equal and opposite to the BH as well. To the Universe for that matter.

One is falling in and being accelerated (by gravity), one is leaving and being decelerated.

And both started with equal and opposite energies. What happens afterwards is what makes them real instead of virtual.

You're missing the particles' respective effects on the black hole, due to their respective GP/KE with the black hole.

They started out equal and opposite. And that is all that matters to their existence.

More

No. I took it into account. They are equal and opposite to the BH as well. To the Universe for that matter.

No they're not. Hawking radiation is based on the position of potential virtual particles. One inside the event horizon, one outside. Meaning they are not "the same" to the Black hole.

Hawking simply assumes the negative energy particle subtracts energy from the BH, without regard to its potential energy with the black hole.

The potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. The best I can figure is that you think virtual pairs can't form in a gravity field and the Casimir effects tests were done on Earth in a gravity field.

GP/KE increases for the infalling particle and decreases for the exiting particle.

Mistake. GP/KE not GP TIMES KE. As the KE increases the GP decreases. The total is constant for both particles.

The energy balance shifts.

No. It is constant.

Why would you talk about the particle's gravity field, but completely ignore the black hole's?

I didn't. I have never ignored the BH's field.

? You must remember, the VP particles separate ABOVE the event horizon

SH disagrees I see, in between parts of this post. Not a problem either way.

More

The acceleration of the infalling particle creates an increasing KE potential.

Not quite. KE isn't potential its actual and the GP which IS potential decreases. You are forgetting that the total is constant.

But technically, since the GP/KE is there, it's still a conservation violation.

By that thinking virtual particles are impossible in a gravity field. Yet we have evidence that they exist on Earth. The key would be that the negative energy of the gravity of the particle cancels the positive energy of the mass-energy of the particle.

As I see it. Hawking used the BH's gravity to split the VP pair, but promptly forgot about it afterward.

The way I see it is that since virtual particles CAN exist in a gravity field I don't see the problem. The BH looses energy-mass and the negative energy of the BH's gravity decreases in a manner that is equal to the total energy, both positive and negative, of the escaping particle.

More

When a particle, any particle, moves up in a gravity field that particle has and increase in potential energy. Energy had to be expended to do that. In this case the energy was the KE which decreases. But there is more going on. This process also effects the gravity field the particle is moving through. When the pair popped into existence the field must loose energy to the match the GP of the particle pair. At least I think that has to happen.

Even a distant observer will agree that the infalling particle has increasing GP/KE with the BH

No. The total remains constant. I don't see why you think it increases. The only problem I see is the pair popping into existence in the first place and I think the energy of the Gravity field has to change opposite to the GP energy of the pair.

What am I missing?

GP/KE TOTAL does not increase. It remains constant.

Ethelred

SH

Meaning they are not "the same" to the Black hole.

Equal and opposite is what I was talking about. That should be true in any reference frame. Maybe the GP would be different but that would still have an effect on the BH's gravity field that should produce the opposite change in energy.

Ethelred

It is true relative to anything.

We have two frames of reference (FoR); the black hole and the distant observer. I'm refering to the distant observer's FoR. Please do not mix the FoR's.

No. I took it into account. They are equal and opposite to the BH as well. To the Universe for that matter.

This isn't true ...and leads to a whole 'nuther discussion about their repective energies relative to various observers and additional conservation violations. Remember, the infalling particle is a "real" particle. Relative to an observer centrally located between them, except for one be antimatter and the other matter, they are the same.

And both started with equal and opposite energies. What happens afterwards is what makes them real instead of virtual.

Are you referring to the capture of one by the black hole? This is what makes them real.

cont...

They're separated (permanently) by gravity and therefore cannot cancel. Energy is supposedly added to one, and subtracted from the other (relative to the distant observer).

They started out equal and opposite. And that is all that matters to their existence.

The potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. The best I can figure is that you think virtual pairs can't form in a gravity field and the Casimir effects tests were done on Earth in a gravity field.

What? I didn't suggest that at all. Where are you getting that?

Mistake. GP/KE not GP TIMES KE. As the KE increases the GP decreases. The total is constant for both particles.

Okay, but I wanted to make it clear in as few words as possible that KE increases for the infalling particle and decreases for the exiting particle - and the reason why (gravity). Hawking ignores this, completely.

cont..,

As you state. GP/KE is real energy. Energy which must remain constant, in the system. If you include GP/KE for the particles (relative to the black hole), you'll find the particles must remain equal and opposite to the distant observer (and everyone else). And by equal and opposite, I mean two mirror particles with the same energy. Therefore Hawking's perception of the infalling particle having negative energy (relative to a distant observer) is wrong.

I didn't. I have never ignored the BH's field.

I don't see where you discussed it.

SH disagrees I see, in between parts of this post. Not a problem either way.

He's probably getting confused with a quantum tunneling version of HR.

Not quite. KE isn't potential its actual and the GP which IS potential decreases. You are forgetting that the total is constant.

No. This is actually my point. If the energy is constant, there can't be any "negative energy."

cont...

If a particle is moving away from you equal and oppositely to a mirror particle moving toward you, they both have the same energy relative to you. This is always true, even ff they move equally and opposite toward and away from a black hole.

By that thinking virtual particles are impossible in a gravity field. Yet we have evidence that they exist on Earth. The key would be that the negative energy of the gravity of the particle cancels the positive energy of the mass-energy of the particle.

When did i say that? I'm saying they have no net effect on a black hole, is all.

The way I see it is that since virtual particles CAN exist in a gravity field I don't see the problem. The BH looses energy-mass and the negative energy of the BH's gravity decreases in a manner that is equal to the total energy, both positive and negative, of the escaping particle.

And when you properly include ALL the energy of the system, you'll find the net energy escaping is zero.

When a particle, any particle, moves up in a gravity field that particle has and increase in potential energy. Energy had to be expended to do that. In this case the energy was the KE which decreases. But there is more going on. This process also effects the gravity field the particle is moving through. When the pair popped into existence the field must loose energy to the match the GP of the particle pair. At least I think that has to happen.

No. That's not how gravity works. In GR, gravity isn't energy. It's topology. you can diminish a gravity field only by removing mass from the source. You can't subtract energy from the field itself.

No. The total remains constant. I don't see why you think it increases. The only problem I see is the pair popping into existence in the first place and I think the energy of the Gravity field has to change opposite to the GP energy of the pair.

Sorry, I was trying to avoid long chains, like this.

cont...

The problem is the GP/KE is there, and it's equal in both particles from the beginning, and therefore must remain equal in both particles for their duration.

GP/KE TOTAL does not increase. It remains constant.

Again, bad semantics. The KE increases and decreases opposite to the GP, making both particle's energies equal at all times. There is no negative energy. Hawking only surmised it based upon his expectation there'd be a net energy loss to the black hole. There can't be an energy loss to either particle without causing a conservation violation. Therefore, there can't be a net energy loss to the black hole. Therefore, Hawking radiation can't work.

In reading his work, it looks like he considered KE only, and missed the GP component.

P.S. Sorry about all the posts.

I'm trying to understand the core argument here, but must confess I'm not getting it. So in a nutshell ubavontuba, what claim are you making and is it against the mainstream view, in your opinion?

@DamienS:

I'm trying to understand the core argument here, but must confess I'm not getting it. So in a nutshell ubavontuba, what claim are you making and is it against the mainstream view, in your opinion?

I'm making the argument that Hawking failed to account for all the energy in the system he described in his original work.

As Hawking's original work is the basis for subsequent Hawking radiation hypotheses, yes, my argument is "against the mainstream view."

I didn't intend for this to happen though. I was just doing a little research and something about the paper nagged at me...

As Hawking's original work is the basis for subsequent Hawking radiation hypotheses, yes, my argument is "against the mainstream view."

So you're saying that because Hawking's original work (according to you) didn't account for total energy, that it is flawed, and that all subsequent research up to the present day is equally flawed because no one else saw Hawking's error and therefore they haven't attempted to correct for it? Is that right?

So you're saying that because Hawking's original work (according to you) didn't account for total energy, that it is flawed, and that all subsequent research up to the present day is equally flawed because no one else saw Hawking's error and therefore they haven't attempted to correct for it? Is that right?

Yeah, I know. It sounds nutty. So go ahead and take your shots.

However, if you Google: "GP/KE" Hawking radiation, you only get eight hits which all return you to letters I've written.

A Google Scholar, 'Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science search' for "Hawking radiation" "Kinetic energy" "gravitational potential" - gets 193 hits, but I can't find any relevant returns.

"Hawking radiation" "Kinetic energy" - gets 723 hits, but again, I don't see any relevant returns.

allintitle: gravitational potential Hawking - gets no Scholar hits.

allintitle: kinetic energy Hawking - no hits.

So, it certainly doesn't appear to be a common topic.

...continuing:

"gravitational potential" Hawking - gets 2,840 hits. And I'll admit I haven't checked them all, but I gave up. Reading too many papers with titles like: "Hawking-Unruh thermal radiance as relativistic exponential scaling of quantum noise" ...gets rather tedious.

If you have some material on the topic to which I may not be aware, I'd be pleased if you shared it with me. :)

@DamienS:

It's been a week. Have you no further comment? No disparagement ...or encouragement?

Have you had any luck finding any relevant information, yourself?

I thought of something, while my PC was wonky the last two days, that you are missing.

You are fixating in a single virtual pair. Since we know they exist and there is rather a lot of them occurring at all times pretty much anywhere the AVERAGE potential energy of all pairs forming at the Event Horizon is ZERO.

They don't just form on one side of the Hole. This could explain why Dr. Hawking ignored the potential energy. It averages to zero.

Ethelred

I thought of something, while my PC was wonky the last two days, that you are missing.

You are fixating in a single virtual pair. Since we know they exist and there is rather a lot of them occurring at all times pretty much anywhere the AVERAGE potential energy of all pairs forming at the Event Horizon is ZERO.

They don't just form on one side of the Hole. This could explain why Dr. Hawking ignored the potential energy. It averages to zero.

Ethelred

You do realize you just said: "...the AVERAGE potential energy ...is ZERO." right?

How's that any different than what I've been saying?

Wrote this up yesterday then an electrical storm hit while I was still going over it and then no connection till today.

You do realize you just said: "...the AVERAGE potential energy ...is ZERO." right?

Yes. That was the point. Was. But there is more having thought further and now further yet while typing this.

How's that any different than what I've been saying?

Then what the hell is your problem? There IS no problem if there is no potential energy. No PK no reason for it to be in the equations. That isn't the further or further yet. It is the What the Bleep was that part? As you have been complaining about PK all along. No PK no problem but, the on further thought part but not the further yet part, PK IS there when the particles pop into temporary existence. Total KE is zero, at the start, so only initial PK matters. That one I am sure on and I said it before on this.

More

So now you have problem. YOU just said the average PK is zero. KE is irrelevant as that IS zero at the time the virtual particles pop into temporary existence, anywhere, then-there the two particles have equal and opposite KE. The PK is all that matters and you just implied you thought it averages to zero. Which means you were literally arguing over nothing as NO PK NO PROBLEM.

The further part:
What I said in the previous post isn't true, except for the 'further yet part', from one point of view. There is PK, for virtual particles, WITH MASS, as I made a mistake. Thinking about things in the bathroom does not always cover all the bases. Center oriented vector sets are not always the same as zero, and that is what the PK is, a vector. The potential momentum vector is zero on average. Energy is scalar and NOT a vector and it adds up rather than cancels. So the PK would not be zero. Which is why I don't understand why you just agreed with my MISTAKEN thought that it was zero.

Ethelred

Then what the hell is your problem? There IS no problem if there is no potential energy.

Let's go back a step:

...the AVERAGE potential energy of all pairs forming at the Event Horizon is ZERO.

The average potential energy for VP's is always zero. They cancel each other out. This is all I agreed to. So, where did you get all this other stuff from?

This may be the point of confusion:

...This could explain why Dr. Hawking ignored the potential energy. It averages to zero.

It looks like you're mixing up GP and KE without understanding their balance and without understanding their relationships in the context of the system.

KE is irrelevant...

KE is at the heart of Hawking's hypothesis!

cont...

KE is irrelevant as that IS zero at the time the virtual particles pop into temporary existence, anywhere, then-there the two particles have equal and opposite KE. The PK is all that matters and you just implied you thought it averages to zero. Which means you were literally arguing over nothing as NO PK NO PROBLEM.

Well, then you have a problem. Where's the energy balance come from for HR? In this case, it can't come from the black hole, as there's no negative energy to absorb it.

There is PK, for virtual particles, WITH MASS, as I made a mistake.

Okay, I see a problem here...

Thinking about things in the bathroom does not always cover all the bases.

LOL! Been there myself more often than I care to admit.

So the PK would not be zero. Which is why I don't understand why you just agreed with my MISTAKEN thought that it was zero.

So "PK" is momentum now, and not the "potential energy" of your earlier letter?

cont...

It looks like you're mixing up your concepts.

Energy and momentum have a relationship, but they aren't the same thing. They are conserved separately.

Some suggested reading:

http://en.wikiped...f_energy

http://en.wikiped...momentum

http://www.euclid...ndex.htm