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

Another hawking radiation question

  1. Oct 31, 2007 #1
    i am trying to understand hawking radiation. in wikipedia, it states:

    "In order to preserve total energy, the particle which fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process the black hole loses mass, and to an outside observer it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."

    please explain why the particle which falls into the BH must have negative energy. thanks.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 31, 2007 #2

    Chris Hillman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Not a good way to think about it

    Shouldn't this be in the "astrophysics" forum?

    (I added a crucial word which you omitted.)

    The idea is to invoke conservation of energy, but you can look for some past discussions in sci.physics.research (from years ago when that group was populated by knowledgeable physicists) of why this "argument from virtual particles", often quoted in popular books, is deprecated by most knowledgeable theorists. Look for posts by Bill Unruh in particular.

    Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information and should never be used by nonexperts except to gather keywords for searching the index of a conventional printed encyclopedia such as Encylopedia Britannica.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Another hawking radiation question
  1. Hawking's radiation (Replies: 11)

Loading...