Hawking Radiation from All Gravitational Sources?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between Hawking radiation and the Unruh effect, specifically questioning whether Hawking radiation can be considered a property of all gravitational sources, not just black holes. Participants explore the implications of acceleration on temperature and the nature of surface gravity in the context of these phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the formula for Hawking radiation is related to the formula for Unruh radiation, suggesting a connection between acceleration and temperature.
  • Others clarify that the "g" in the Unruh case refers to proper acceleration, while in the Hawking case, it refers to surface gravity, which is not directly observable.
  • It is proposed that the Unruh effect occurs at all accelerations, leading to the question of whether Hawking radiation is applicable to all gravitational sources.
  • Some participants argue against the idea that Hawking radiation applies to all gravitational sources, emphasizing that the Hawking formula is specific to black holes with horizons.
  • A participant questions the meaning of "surface gravity of the horizon" and discusses the concept of diverging proper acceleration at the horizon.
  • Reference is made to a "cancelling infinities" effect, where the temperature near the horizon diverges, but the redshift of escaping photons results in a finite temperature as measured by distant observers.
  • Another participant explains that the surface gravity can be interpreted through the concept of an object being held at a constant altitude above the horizon, discussing the forces involved and their relationship to redshift.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the applicability of Hawking radiation to all gravitational sources. While some argue for a broader interpretation, others maintain that it is limited to black holes with horizons.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the definitions of surface gravity and the implications of acceleration on temperature, as well as the nuances of the relationship between the Unruh effect and Hawking radiation.

bcrelling
Messages
69
Reaction score
2
I see that the formula for hawking radiation is related the the formula for unruh radiation. The accelleration experienced by a body yields an unruh temperature equivalent to a black holes hawking temperature with an equivalent value of g. The unruh effect happens at all accelerations, therefore is hawking radiation a property of all gravitation sources(not just black holes?)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Matterwave and PAllen
Physics news on Phys.org
bcrelling said:
The accelleration experienced by a body yields an unruh temperature equivalent to a black holes hawking temperature with an equivalent value of g.

This doesn't mean quite what you think it means. The "g" in the Unruh case is the actual proper acceleration of the body. The "g" in the Hawking case is not; it's the "surface gravity" of the black hole, which is the "redshifted proper acceleration" at the hole's horizon. This is not a direct observable the way the proper acceleration of the body in the Unruh case is. So, although the two formulas are related, they are not physically equivalent.

bcrelling said:
The unruh effect happens at all accelerations, therefore is hawking radiation a property of all gravitation sources(not just black holes?)

No. "All accelerations" in the Unruh case corresponds (with the caveats given above) to "all black hole masses" in the Hawking case. As noted above, the "g" in the Hawking formula is the surface gravity of the horizon, so the formula doesn't apply to gravitating bodies that don't have a horizon.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bcrelling
PeterDonis said:
No. "All accelerations" in the Unruh case corresponds (with the caveats given above) to "all black hole masses" in the Hawking case. As noted above, the "g" in the Hawking formula is the surface gravity of the horizon, so the formula doesn't apply to gravitating bodies that don't have a horizon.

What does the "surface gravity of the horizon" mean? If it means the proper acceleration of an object hovering at the horizon, then doesn't that diverge?

Okay, according to Wikipedia, there's sort of a "cancelling infinities" effect going on here. The temperature goes to infinity near the horizon, but also photons emerging from near the horizon and escaping to infinity undergo an infinite red shift. The two effects combine to give a finite photon energy, corresponding to a finite temperature, as measured by an observer far from the black hole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
 
stevendaryl said:
What does the "surface gravity of the horizon" mean?

It means the "redshifted proper acceleration" of an object at the horizon. The easiest way I know of to physically interpret what that means is to imagine an object being held at a constant altitude above the horizon by a rope, with the other end of the rope being held by an observer at infinity. The observer has to exert a force on the rope to hold the object static, and this force increases as the altitude at which the object is held approaches the horizon; but it does not diverge because the force required at infinity is "redshifted", relative to the force required at the object itself. So the limit of this force as the altitude of the object approaches the horizon is finite, and therefore so is the limit of the force at infinity divided by the invariant mass of the object, which is the "redshifted proper acceleration" of the object. The latter limit is the surface gravity of the horizon.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K