A little logical doubt on Hawking radiation

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of hawking radiation and its explanation through particle-antiparticle pairs. However, this explanation is not entirely accurate and is just a heuristic used by Hawking. The actual process involves one particle falling into the black hole and the other escaping, adding to the mass of the black hole. The conversation also acknowledges a misunderstanding of this concept and seeks clarification.
  • #1
Archmundada
3
0
TL;DR Summary
As hawking radiation is based on quantum fluctuations, can they cancel out each other due to equal probabilities of a particle remaining in or drifting away?
Summary: As hawking radiation is based on quantum fluctuations, can they cancel out each other due to equal probabilities of a particle remaining in or drifting away?

I recently learned how hawking radiation actually works. It is based on quantum fluctuations which happen randomly in space. So when one of them happens on the edge of a black hole's event horizon, there is a chance that the anti-particle drifts away and the particle stays inside or gets pulled inside the black hole, and the opposite can happen too. This results in an extra particle or anti-particle which annihilates the opposite part inside the black hole.

So, shouldn't there be an equal chance of a particle drifting away or getting pulled in by the black hole? In each case, the opposite would happen to the anti-particle. So, suppose that in an instance two fluctuations happened at the edge of event horizon. In the first one the particle drifted away and in the second one, the anti-particle drifted away. So that leaves one particle and anti-particle outside the black hole, and one set inside. So, both sets can cancel out each other and the particle or anti-particle inside the black hole won't annihilate an extra particle or anti-particle.

This means that hawking radiation shouldn't happen, logically.

I might have made a big error in this, as I don't know a lot about physics. But, please correct me if you find any mistake (which there surely must be). Thanks for reading!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
You have made TWO big errors in this. The first error is thinking that the particle-antiparticle pair explanation of Hawking Radiation is the actual explanation. It is not. It is a heuristic that Hawking came up with because, as he described it, he could not find any simpler way using English to describe something that really can only be described with math. It is not to be taken literally (although it always is by pop-science presentations)

Second, you have misunderstood even the heuristic. I can't explain it well myself but there are dozens (probably hundreds) of threads here on PF in which it is explained that in the heuristic, whichever particle falls in adds to the mass of the BH and the escaping particle just, well, escapes.
 
  • Like
Likes Archmundada
  • #3

That's where I learned that
I don't know how I misunderstood it,

Edit: yes, I get my mistake, thanks a lot for the answer.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Archmundada said:

That's where I learned that
Yes, but this still just explains the heuristic, which, again, is NOT really what happens, so it does not correct the first of your two errors.
 

1. What is Hawking radiation?

Hawking radiation is a theoretical concept proposed by physicist Stephen Hawking. It suggests that black holes emit radiation due to quantum effects near the event horizon, causing them to gradually lose mass and eventually evaporate.

2. How does Hawking radiation relate to black holes?

Black holes are objects with such strong gravitational pull that not even light can escape from them. According to Hawking radiation, black holes emit radiation because of the quantum effects happening near the event horizon. This radiation causes the black hole to lose mass and eventually evaporate.

3. How is Hawking radiation different from regular radiation?

Hawking radiation is different from regular radiation in that it is emitted from the event horizon of a black hole, whereas regular radiation is typically emitted from the surface of an object. Additionally, Hawking radiation is a result of quantum effects, while regular radiation is a result of thermal energy.

4. Is Hawking radiation proven to exist?

Currently, Hawking radiation is still a theoretical concept and has not been directly observed. However, there is strong mathematical and theoretical evidence to support its existence. Scientists are still working on ways to detect and observe Hawking radiation.

5. How does Hawking radiation impact our understanding of black holes?

Hawking radiation has significant implications for our understanding of black holes. It suggests that black holes are not truly "black" and can eventually evaporate, which challenges the traditional notion that black holes are eternal. It also provides insight into the relationship between quantum mechanics and gravity, which is a major area of study in physics.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
432
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
981
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
959
Replies
3
Views
847
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
302
Back
Top