Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.physics.research    |    Current physics research. (Moderated)    |    17,516 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 16,137 of 17,516    |
|    Jos Bergervoet to Steven Carlip    |
|    Re: A question about Hawking radiation    |
|    08 May 18 14:21:29    |
      From: bergervo@iae.nl              On 5/6/2018 10:33 PM, Steven Carlip wrote:       > On 5/5/18 11:06 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:       >       >> Two questions:       >> First, if negative-mass black holes don't exist, can one by the same       >> argument rule out negative-mass hammers?       >       > With very high probability. In principle, a quantum fluctuation       > could create a negative mass hammer (with a *very* short lifetime),              Why do you think that is possible? How would the field look like       (at some point in time during that short lifetime?)              Can you give the wave functional for any negative energy "fluctuation"       (No need to make it a hammer, something at the complexity level of a       single particle state suffices! Feel free to simplify things to 1+1       dimensions and/or with just a scalar field. But please show how it's       possible..)              > provided there is a larger positive energy fluctuation elsewhere.              Why larger and not equal? Anyhow, I'm merely interested in what the       negative fluctuation conceptually is in your picture. (If you can't       give it's wave functional, then please show in occupation number       representation how it can be defined!)              > It's a safe bet that this hasn't happened, though there are people       > who argue that if the universe is asymptotically de Sitter, such       > a fluctuation is inevitable eventually.              Like the Boltzmann brain, presumably, if you wait long enough. And       if you can define what a negative fluctuation actually means!              With positive definite energy operator (or at least non-negative,       let the Clay Millennium prize wait..) it seems odd to even use the       concept of something with negative energy. What is it?               ..       > total energy would remain zero -- but it's still not good: it's       > an illustration of the fact that a system that allows long-lived       > negative energy excitations is never stable.              So if we rule them out completely both of us can be happy!              --       Jos              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca