Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.physics.research    |    Current physics research. (Moderated)    |    17,520 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 16,149 of 17,520    |
|    Steven Carlip to Jos Bergervoet    |
|    Re: A question about Hawking radiation    |
|    18 May 18 07:17:59    |
      From: carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu              On 5/8/18 7:21 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:       > 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..)              The fact that a generic quantum field theory contains states with       regions of negative energy has been known for decades. The earliest       paper I know (there may be earlier ones) is by Epstein, Glaser, and       Jaffe, Nuovo Cimento 36 (1965) 1016, whose abstract states, "It is       shown that a positive definite local energy density is incompatible       with the usual postulates of local field theory." States with       regions of negative energy can be created by moving mirrors (the       shape of a negative energy pulse can be controlled by the acceleration)       -- see Fulling and Davies, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A348 (1976) 393.       Squeezed states of light can have regions of negative energy -- see,       for example, section III.B of Kuo and Ford, gr-qc/9304008       for a proof. Section III.A of the same paper has an extremely       simple example of a superposition of the vacuum and a two-particle       state that has regions of negative energy.              A "single particle state" in the usual sense doesn't have negative       energy. But the standard definition of a single particle state is       completely nonlocalized -- a momentum eigenstate has a completely       undetermined position -- while negative energy can exist only in a       finite region (the total energy must still be positive). But a       compact particle-like pulse is easy to construct from a moving       mirror.              >> provided there is a larger positive energy fluctuation elsewhere.              > Why larger and not equal?              This is the "quantum interest conjecture," due to Ford and Roman,       gr-qc/9901074. There are also bounds on the amount of negative       energy related to entanglement (the quantum null energy conjecture,       which has recently been proven for a large class of theories --       see Leichenauer, Levine, and Shahbazi-Moghaddam, arXiv:1802.02584).              > 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!)        A negative fluctuation is a state for which there is a region in       which the time-time component of the quantum stress-energy tensor       has a negative expectation value. The simplest example I know is       the one I mentioned above, a superposition of the vacuum and a       two-particle state of a massless scalar field.              You can actually do better in some cases, and find an actual exact       probability distribution of fluctuations of energy in a region       specified by a "smearing function." For the case of a two-dimensional       conformal field theory, this is done by Fewster, Ford, and Roman,       arXiv:1004.0179, with a generalization by Fewster and Hollands in       arXiv:1805.04281. For four dimensions, I think the best we have       at the moment is a set of estimates and bounds, in Fewster, Ford,       and Roman, arXiv:1204.3570, and Fewster and Ford, arXiv:1508.02359.              Steve Carlip              --- 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