bcw (08/09/82)
From: Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University Re: Vacuum & "Quantum Ether" Actually it's not quite true that there is a necessity for a super-heavy nucleus in the near vicinity in order for particle pairs to form in vacuum. The only requirement is for a source of energy - for example, a black hole or the cosmic background radiation (obviously the amount of energy is going to affect the number of particles which can be generated). Hawking for example showed that particles can be formed near the Schwartzchild radius of a black hole and that it is possible for them to leave the vicinity of the black hole, taking the energy (in the form of their mass) away from the black hole and reducing its mass. When enough of this has happened (it requires cosmological time), the black hole will come unstuck - its escape velocity will become too low to keep it as degenerate matter and it will decompose into something else - say a neutron star or (if the decomposition is violent enough) a hydrogen nebula. A similar process happens though at a much lower rate anywhere in the universe where any- thing like gravitation or radiation provide the requisite energy. This is essentially coextant with the entire universe, hence it is really not possible to have a true vacuum anywhere in the known universe. Some authors have referred to the phenomenon of the particles blinking in and out of existance as the "quantum ether" to distinguish it from the classical ether - though it *does* have some properties reminiscent of the classical ether... Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University