4 ms·
Thank you for your comments. I might have at least one other misconception in need of clearing up. My impression from reading about it somewhere was that the Ha
by gradschool 4y ago
Thank you for your comments. I might have at least one other
misconception in need of clearing up. My impression from reading about
it somewhere was that the Hawking radiation is predicted to happen as
a consequence of vacuum fluctuations. When an electron-positron pair
spontaneously forms close to the event horizon, and one particle falls
in but the other doesn't, they can't annihilate so the one that's left
outside appears to emanate from the black hole. Is that not the
consensus, or if it is, why should the amount of radiation depend on
anything but the surface area of the event horizon?
- platz 4y agoYour description of hawking radiation isn't quite accurate. It's a popular misconception. the actual process is not as easy to understand. see below: https://youtu.be/qPKj0YnKANw https://youtu.be/qPKj0YnKANw That said, what the OP said about "borrowing" electrons I am not sure about.
- at_a_remove 4y agoIt's more of an accounting deal. There's mass where there didn't used to be, and it was pretty near here so ... we gotta make the books balance.
- at_a_remove 4y agoYou are pretty close. It's the curvature of the surface area. Smaller black holes have a less ... homogenous orbital space near the event horizon. More tidal forces, etc, so a particle-antiparticle production would be more likely to be torn apart.