Hawking Radiation Inside a Black Hole: Theory & Possibilities

In summary, it is known theoretical prediction that Black Holes must emit radiation. There is a need for a boundary (Horizon) to split particle-antiparticle, and inside Black Hole there is differential between different points respect to center (tidal force) and it just grows as r -> 0.
  • #1
PSR1257II
4
0
TL;DR Summary
Can Hawking radiation be emitted inside Event Horizon and prevent point-singularity?
It is known theoretical prediction that Black Holes must emit radiation "... its temperature and surface gravity are proportional to its mass divided by its area" (Kip Thorne). This is applied to Event Horizon (rg).

But one can imagine inner Black Hole (e.g. inside r' < rg), it does not have Event Horizon in common sense (e.g. radiation created at r' must inevitably fall back) but still can? emit Hawking radiation. As r'->0 this radiation must have Temperature -> infinity (see above), therefore making superhot and finite (not point) singularity.

?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
PSR1257II said:
one can imagine inner Black Hole (e.g. inside r' < rg), it does not have Event Horizon in common sense

No, one can't. The definition of a black hole is that it has an event horizon.

Your question is meaningless because it is based on a mistaken premise.
 
  • #3
I believe it is important to note that there is another type of Hawking-like radiation - emission made by spinning Black Hole out of quantum fluctuations outside of Event Horizon. E.g. there is no particular need for "boundary" (Horizon) to split particle-antiparticle.

This theoretical prediction was made prior Hawking's discovery in 1973 by Zeldovich.
 
  • #4
PSR1257II said:
. E.g. there is no particular need for "boundary" (Horizon) to split particle-antiparticle

Have you read Hawing's paper? That is not his argument.
 
  • #5
PSR1257II said:
emission made by spinning Black Hole out of quantum fluctuations outside of Event Horizon. E.g. there is no particular need for "boundary" (Horizon) to split particle-antiparticle.

You are incorrect that there is no need for a "boundary" (Horizon). Zeldovich's prediction does depend on the presence of a horizon. His discovery amounted to the claim that a spinning black hole emitting gravitational waves due to quantum fluctuations is analogous to a spinning metal sphere emitting electromagnetic waves due to quantum fluctuations. The hole's horizon is analogous to the boundary of the metal sphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superradiance
 
  • #6
PeterDonis said:
You are incorrect that there is no need for a "boundary" (Horizon). Zeldovich's prediction does depend on the presence of a horizon. His discovery amounted to the claim that a spinning black hole emitting gravitational waves due to quantum fluctuations is analogous to a spinning metal sphere emitting electromagnetic waves due to quantum fluctuations. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superradiance

"It is also sometimes described as the consequence of an "effective" field differential around the body (e.g. the effect of tidal forces)." (c) Wiki

Can you please be exact about where the need for boundary (Horizon) raises? I do see only need for differential (tidal force) and strong gravitational field.

Back to original conjecture - inside Black Hole there is differential between different points respect to center (tidal force) and it just grows as r -> 0.
 
  • #7
PSR1257II said:
Can you please be exact about where the need for boundary (Horizon) raises?

Zeldovich's argument wasn't exact. He was just drawing an analogy between a spinning metal sphere and a spinning black hole. In the analogy, the hole's horizon was analogous to the surface of the sphere. Since the analogy is all we have, we can't just eliminate the hole's horizon because then there is no analogy.
 
  • #8
PSR1257II said:
inside Black Hole there is differential between different points respect to center (tidal force) and it just grows as r -> 0

And in the spacetime where this is the case, there is an event horizon. The two things go together.

PSR1257II said:
Back to original conjecture

Your conjecture is personal speculation and is off limits for PF discussion. Thread closed.
 

1. What is Hawking radiation?

Hawking radiation is a theoretical type of radiation that is predicted to be emitted by a black hole. It is named after physicist Stephen Hawking, who first proposed its existence in the 1970s. According to the theory, Hawking radiation is created when pairs of particles and antiparticles are created near the event horizon of a black hole. One particle falls into the black hole, while the other escapes as radiation.

2. How does Hawking radiation affect black holes?

Hawking radiation is thought to have a significant impact on black holes. As the black hole emits radiation, it loses energy and therefore mass. This means that over time, black holes are expected to gradually shrink and eventually evaporate completely. This process is known as "black hole evaporation."

3. Can Hawking radiation be observed?

Currently, Hawking radiation has not been directly observed. This is because it is expected to be very weak and difficult to detect. However, scientists are working on ways to potentially observe Hawking radiation, such as using advanced telescopes and detectors.

4. Is Hawking radiation a proven concept?

Hawking radiation is based on theoretical physics and has not yet been proven through direct observation. However, it is widely accepted by the scientific community and is supported by mathematical equations and other evidence.

5. Could Hawking radiation be used as a potential energy source?

At this time, Hawking radiation is not considered a viable energy source. The amount of energy emitted by a black hole through Hawking radiation is expected to be very small and would not be practical for use. Additionally, the technology to harness this energy does not currently exist.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
189
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
434
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
619
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
510
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
826
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
575
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
Back
Top