# Particles near black holes

That cannot happen. Energy isn't like a liquid you can squeeze out of objects like water from a sponge.
I agree. Energy is in fact a source of gravity so if that was squeezed out then you’d also be squeezing out the gravity source as well.

This is similar to the quantum vacuum not being empty, it always has matter and energy in it even if you remove everything you can, as particles flitter in an out of existence due to the uncertainty principle and the relativity relation $$E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}$$.
It’s a common misconception that the uncertainty principle allows for that. Most people/authors/physicists misread the so-called time-energy uncertainty principle. In fact it’s not really an uncertainty principle in the normal sense since it doesn’t give a relationship between two uncertainties since the delta t isn’t an uncertainty but a time interval. See http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/qm/time_energy_hup.htm

pmb said:
It’s a common misconception that the uncertainty principle allows for that. Most people/authors/physicists misread the so-called time-energy uncertainty principle.
Isn't it the usual reason given for virtual particles, where the delta t is the very short existence that is "allowed", and the delta E is explained as energy "borrowed from" the vacuum? I've also seen virtual particles explained as amplitudes of half-waves, so that there are no full-waves.

Isn't it the usual reason given for virtual particles, where the delta t is the very short existence that is "allowed", and the delta E is explained as energy "borrowed from" the vacuum? I've also seen virtual particles explained as amplitudes of half-waves, so that there are no full-waves.

Yes. It's a very popular reason. It also happens to be wrong. Griffiths explains this on page 51-52 in his text Introduction to Elementary Particles. It's too long to quote though buy he concludes
The uncertainty principle does not license violation of the conservation of energy (nor does any violation occur in this process; we shall see later how this comes about).

He comments regarding the time-energy uncertainty principle.
In general, when you hear a physicist invoke the uncertainty principle, keep a hand on your wallet.
Lol!!

I agree. Energy is in fact a source of gravity so if that was squeezed out then you’d also be squeezing out the gravity source as well.

It’s a common misconception that the uncertainty principle allows for that. Most people/authors/physicists misread the so-called time-energy uncertainty principle. In fact it’s not really an uncertainty principle in the normal sense since it doesn’t give a relationship between two uncertainties since the delta t isn’t an uncertainty but a time interval. See http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/qm/time_energy_hup.htm

I'm having trouble with the bolded part.

How can you not have an uncertainty in the time? You say it is a time interval, but you say $$\Delta t$$ is not an uncertainty. But what if you know $$\Delta E$$ to a high precision wouldn't that conclude an uncertainty in the time interval?

I know that $$\Delta E \Delta t$$ aren't true complementary observables, simply because time is not an observable.