Hawking Radiation – Empty space virtual antiparticle-particle pairs

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on Hawking Radiation and its implications for black hole evaporation, particularly regarding virtual antiparticle-particle pairs in quantum vacuum. While direct observation of black hole radiation remains unconfirmed, there are claims of observed events involving antiparticle-particle creation and annihilation in empty space. Questions arise about the nature of these particles, including the possibility of "anti-photons," which do not exist in reality. The conversation critiques the explanation of why more real particles escape black holes while antiparticles return, suggesting that virtual particles could resolve into real photons, thus carrying away energy. The Casimir effect is mentioned as potential evidence for virtual particle annihilation, indicating a link between theoretical concepts and observable phenomena.
RandallB
Messages
1,550
Reaction score
0
In reviewing explanations on evaporating Black Holes using Hawking Radiation, based on how the black hole might treat Quantum “Vacuum particle pairs”.

Although direct observation of Black Hole radiation has not been confirmed it implied that “Antiparticle – Particle creation, and self destruction” events in empty space has been observed or confirmed!
How and when was this seen or done?
Did they know what the particles were?
Could it have included “Anti-photons”?? as they don't exist in the real world.

It seemed like the explanation was a little weak on why more “real” Particles would escape and the Anti-particles would be the ones to return to the black hole.
But if there were “virtual” Anti-Photons paired with a “virtual” Photons it wouldn’t matter which one came out because once out and was no longer ‘virtual’ even the Anti-photon would resolve into real Photons carrying away mass in the energy of light.
Maybe we’d never see larger particles (not even electrons) radiate from a black hole just energy in the form of light.
Do you think HR would allow for this?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Is a homemade radio telescope realistic? There seems to be a confluence of multiple technologies that makes the situation better than when I was a wee lad: software-defined radio (SDR), the easy availability of satellite dishes, surveillance drives, and fast CPUs. Let's take a step back - it is trivial to see the sun in radio. An old analog TV, a set of "rabbit ears" antenna, and you're good to go. Point the antenna at the sun (i.e. the ears are perpendicular to it) and there is...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
How does light maintain enough energy in the visible part of the spectrum for the naked eye to see in the night sky. Also, how did it start of in the visible frequency part of the spectrum. Was it, for example, photons being ejected at that frequency after high energy particle interaction. Or does the light become visible (spectrum) after hitting our atmosphere or space dust or something? EDIT: Actually I just thought. Maybe the EM starts off as very high energy (outside the visible...
Back
Top