I Hawking Radiation Extrapolation: A Conjecture

Mike Holland
Messages
114
Reaction score
1
The intense gravity near the event horizon causes complementary particles to pop into existence spontaneously. As local space-time is continuous through the EV, the same would be happening just inside the EV, only more so as the gravity field and gradient is greater. So near the singularity particles would be appearing at a very high rate, and there would be a fuzz of particles appearing and then disappearing down the plug hole. All these particles would borrow a little of the singularity mass, so at any one time a proportion of the mass would be in these particles and not in the singularity. Perhaps there is no singularity, and just a fuzz of particles.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mike Holland said:
Perhaps there is no singularity, and just a fuzz of particles
Perhaps. But we currently have no theory about it, so we will have to wait a considerable time to discuss it here.
 
  • Like
Likes dsaun777 and topsquark
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top