Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A different point of view about this Zeldovich-Starobinsky-Bekenstein-Hawking stuff

  1. Sep 20, 2010 #1
    Hi, my name is Mart Vabar.

    Wikipedia has this somewhat heavy construction:

    Physical insight on the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.
    A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole).

    Here we have 3 different particles: 2 of these appear near the event horizon; the 3rd one is a part of the black hole and it disappears, when it meets the particle with negative energy.

    Could it make sense to simplify it and to see all these 3 as one single paricle:


    once upon a time it fell into the black hole,


    but for some good reason it cannot fit a "possible place" there anymore.


    So, from a viewpoint of an outsider, it seemingly moves "back" in time and when doing so, it looks like an anti-particle (to have some fun with it: like outer planets sometimes move "back")...


    ... and when seemingly "going back" in time, the particle moves also out of the black hole,


    where it looks like a normal radiation with positive energy.

    Comments anybody?
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 21, 2010 #2
    Re: A different point of view about this Zeldovich-Starobinsky-Bekenstein-Hawking stu

    Are you asking a question or presenting a theory? The concept that the particle that escapes is the same as the particle trapped, but in a different "direction" in its wordline has been put forward, but nothing with 3 particles.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook