I Hawking radiation and energy-negative energy pair production

[Rocha]

A black hole evaporates through hawking radiation, what I don't get is the requirement for an energy-negative energy pair production. Since it's the black hole's gravitational energy that's responsible for the pair production, even if one of them escapes, the black hole would lose energy anyway. Also, if it's gravitational energy is not responsible for pair production, it's still responsible for "boosting" the virtual pair into real particles, and then too if one escapes, the black hole would lose energy. So what's the requirement of a negative energy particle entering the black hole?

 

[phinds]

A black hole evaporates through hawking radiation, what I don't get is the requirement for an energy-negative energy pair production. Since it's the black hole's gravitational energy that's responsible for the pair production, even if one of them escapes, the black hole would lose energy anyway. Also, if it's gravitational energy is not responsible for pair production, it's still responsible for "boosting" the virtual pair into real particles, and then too if one escapes, the black hole would lose energy. So what's the requirement of a negative energy particle entering the black hole?

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.

 

[Rocha]

Is it because hawking radiation is quantized?
And is the fact that gravity is sometimes referred to as negative energy relevant here?

 

[Rocha]

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?

 

[phinds]

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

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.