General Relativity and Hawking Radiation at the Event Horizon

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the apparent conflict between General Relativity (GR) and Hawking Radiation (HR) regarding black holes. GR suggests that an object falling into a black hole appears to freeze at the event horizon, extending this observation to infinite time. In contrast, HR indicates that black holes evaporate over a finite time, implying that the falling object would eventually disappear. The conversation highlights the need for a unified understanding of these theories, especially under extreme conditions where they intersect. Ultimately, the resolution lies in recognizing that the predictions of GR and HR apply under different conditions.
Chris11235
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The question is to resolve a logical conflict.

GR says as we fall into a black hole, an outside observer will see that event come to a stand still as if the falling object is hovering at the horizon. This stand still extends to infinite time. Unfortunately, I've read and hear the term "infinite" time used to describe this through experiment from a number of respectable physicists. Assuming that is the correct term then it conflicts with another effect about black holes; the Hawkin radiation (HR). If HR predicts that the black hole eventually evaporates in finite amount of time, that must predict the falling object at some time disappears. The conflict is GR predicting infinite time while HR predicts finite time.

While I'm not a Physics/Mathematician, I still think that these extreme conditions of the experiements should at least converge to the same logical result. What am I missing?
 
Science news on Phys.org
GR predicts infinite time, IF the BH were to stay as is. Clearly you are right in that when it evaporates, this no longer holds because you are talking about different conditions.
 
phinds said:
GR predicts infinite time, IF the BH were to stay as is. Clearly you are right in that when it evaporates, this no longer holds because you are talking about different conditions.

Aahha, of course. The "If stay as is" is the condition I overlooked. thanks.
 
I think you are expecting a lot from the current understanding of both GR and Quantum Theory. This is an extreme case in both theories where they meet.
 
I was watching a Khan Academy video on entropy called: Reconciling thermodynamic and state definitions of entropy. So in the video it says: Let's say I have a container. And in that container, I have gas particles and they're bouncing around like gas particles tend to do, creating some pressure on the container of a certain volume. And let's say I have n particles. Now, each of these particles could be in x different states. Now, if each of them can be in x different states, how many total...
Thread 'Why work is PdV and not (P+dP)dV in an isothermal process?'
Let's say we have a cylinder of volume V1 with a frictionless movable piston and some gas trapped inside with pressure P1 and temperature T1. On top of the piston lay some small pebbles that add weight and essentially create the pressure P1. Also the system is inside a reservoir of water that keeps its temperature constant at T1. The system is in equilibrium at V1, P1, T1. Now let's say i put another very small pebble on top of the piston (0,00001kg) and after some seconds the system...

Similar threads

Back
Top