3 ms·
This is Hawking radiation, which I'm sure wikipedia can explain better than me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha
by adzm 6y ago
This is Hawking radiation, which I'm sure wikipedia can explain better than me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
> A pair of virtual waves/particles arises just beyond the event horizon due to ordinary quantum effects. Very close to the event horizon, these always manifest as a pair of photons. It may happen that one of these photons passes beyond the event horizon, while the other escapes into the wider universe ("to infinity"). A close analysis shows that the exponential redshifting effect of extreme gravity very close to the event horizon almost tears the escaping photon apart, and in addition very slightly amplifies it. The amplification gives rise to a "partner wave", which carries negative energy and passes through the event horizon, where it remains trapped, reducing the total energy of the black hole. The escaping photon adds an equal amount of positive energy to the wider universe outside the black hole. In this way, no matter or energy ever actually leaves the black hole itself. A conservation law exists for the partner wave, which in theory shows that the emissions comprise an exact black body spectrum, bearing no information about the interior conditions.
- tzs 6y ago> The amplification gives rise to a "partner wave", which carries negative energy and passes through the event horizon, where it remains trapped, reducing the total energy of the black hole Is that the same kind of negative energy that comes up in talk of stabilizing wormholes and building Alcubierre drives?
- PeterisP 6y agoThe big question to me is whether Hawking radiation is actually a real thing? I mean, the hypothesis is interesting and the math seems to work out, but at least according to that page there is no experimental evidence yet of it actually existing; we have some experiments that might provide some data about the existence of Hawking radiation in the future, but as of now it seems just an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Is there any observational data that requires Hawking radiation to explain it? It's not my field, so I really don't know and I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Does it make sense to worry about paradoxes created by black holes evaporating, if we have no evidence that they actually do evaporate in our physical reality?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]