- #1

- 6

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter Rocha
- Start date

- #1

- 6

- 0

- #2

- 16,809

- 7,576

Hawking has stated that the "virtual particle pair" explanation of "Hawking Radiation" is not actually correct, it's just the only way he could think of to express in English what can really only be expressed properly in the math. Unfortunately, the popular press ALWAYS describes it as particle pairs, which is where I'm sure you got your information. So in short, your question is based on an incorrect assumption.

- #3

- 6

- 0

And is the fact that gravity is sometimes referred to as negative energy relevant here?

- #4

- 6

- 0

Hawking has stated that the "virtual particle pair" explanation of "Hawking Radiation" is not actually correct, it's just the only way he could think of to express in English what can really only be expressed properly in the math. Unfortunately, the popular press ALWAYS describes it as particle pairs, which is where I'm sure you got your information. So in short, your question is based on an incorrect assumption.

So basically there's no way to understand this conceptually without dealing with the mathematical aspect of it, you mean?

- #5

- 16,809

- 7,576

That is my understanding, yes. The "particle pair" explanation is reasonable at the non-detail level but you can't extrapolate that concept in ways that you would be able to if it was the actual explanation.So basically there's no way to understand this conceptually without dealing with the mathematical aspect of it, you mean?

Share:

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 3K