Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Hawking - vacuum fluctuations

  1. Mar 28, 2008 #1
    vaccum fluctuations are happening everywhere and so the negative energy photon can decrease its near by object not only blackhole and the other photon exists as radiation..but this doesnt happen i think... then why it should happen near event horizon...i think i explained what i thought...
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 28, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The vacuum fluctuations only serve as an (misleading in my opinion) intuitive way to "explain" what is going on. In actual calculations this is not how one really describes the Hawking radiation.

    See, e.g., the review
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0609163 [Found. Phys. 37 (2007) 1563]
    especially Secs. 9.3, 9.5 and 9.6.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2008
  4. Mar 29, 2008 #3
    In almost all websites,they use the vacuum fluctuations to explain hawking radiation..and even hawking himself explains radiation emitted from blackhole using vacuum fluctuations near event horizon in his book"A brief history of time"..do u mean that hawking radiation can be explained using other than vacuum fluctuations near event horizon...
  5. Mar 31, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    1. That is true.

    2. Exactly. For example, even if you read the original paper of Hawking himself, you will see that the explanation does not involve vacuum fluctuations. But it is not easy to read it if you are not a specialist. Therefore, in popular explanations for non-specialists, the writers do not know how to explain it in simple terms, so they use an intuitive (but not well justified) picture of vacuum fluctuations.
  6. Mar 31, 2008 #5
    Now,I think, am confused...

    You say that vacuum fluctuations are not there in hawking paper...i dont know about that..then why everyone is explaining using vacuum fluctuations... isnt it contradictory...how can explanation changes for non-specialists?
  7. Apr 1, 2008 #6
    "But it is not easy to read it if you are not a specialist." man, that is an understatement if i ever read one. hawking is almost impossible to follow.

    i remember reading "nature of space and time" by hawking and penrose. while penrose's essays were coherent and readable, hawking's contributions were some of the most convoluted, difficult to follow, and abstruse writings i think i have ever run across. i think i pretty much lost all respect for hawking after reading that book, because i was expecting so much more from him. i truly got the feeling, inspired by feynman's remark that "if you cant explain it to a freshman, you dont understand it well enough yourself", that hawking perhaps doesnt understand what he is talking about either, and tries to cover it up with theoretical-babble...
  8. Apr 2, 2008 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Are you talking about this?
    Trust me, this is still much easier to read than the original Hawking papers.

    I agree, Penrose is much better popularizator of physics than Hawking. Hawking is either too difficult or too trivial. Penrose is somewhere in between.
  9. Apr 8, 2008 #8
    When did this manuscript enter the public domain? Looks like an unauthorized publication, am I wrong?
  10. Apr 9, 2008 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It is a common practice in high energy physics. :wink:

    But look at it this way:
    Who writes the scientific papers? Scientists.
    Who are the referees for these papers? Scientists.
    And who earns a lot of money by publishing these papers? Someone else.
    Do you think it's fair? I don't.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Hawking - vacuum fluctuations
  1. Vaccum fluctuations? (Replies: 1)

  2. Quantum Fluctuations (Replies: 7)

  3. Quantum Fluctuations (Replies: 2)

  4. Quantum Fluctuations (Replies: 9)