Light From Black Holes: GR vs QM

In summary, the discrepancy between GR and QM regarding black holes emitting radiation can possibly be explained by incorporating a theory of quantum gravity. Another approach is to consider the effects of quantum mechanics in curved space-time, such as the Unruh effect, which suggests that an accelerated particle detector in a vacuum will detect particles. This can provide insight into how black holes may emit radiation despite GR's prediction that they do not. Ultimately, further research and understanding in this area is needed to fully reconcile these two theories.
  • #1
kent davidge
933
56
How should we deal with the fact that GR predicts light not scaping from a BH while QM states BHs radiate?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
By realizing that GR cannot be a completely correct theory without some sort of quantum correction. I think this has been well known for a long time.
 
  • #3
Also, the radiation is not just light. It consists of all sorts of particles and its origin is related to the Unruh effect.
 
  • #4
kent davidge said:
How should we deal with the fact that GR predicts light not scaping from a BH while QM states BHs radiate?

I would think that the problem would best be dealt with by a theory of quantum gravity, which AFAIK we don't have. But possibly some insight can be gained by looking at the theory of quantum mechanics in curved space-time, in particular Unruh radiation, a theory that we do have.

I'm afraid while I've read some on the topic (mostly from Wald, IIRC), I'm not really confident in my understanding. I believe it is correct to say that if we consider a quantum mechanical model of a particle detector, if such a detector is in a vacuum and not accelerated it will not detect particles. Furthermore, there will be no Killing horizon. However, if the detector does accelerate in the same vacuum, it will detect the presence of particles and the space-time will have a Killing horizion, the Rindler horizon.
 
  • #5
pervect said:
I believe it is correct to say that if we consider a quantum mechanical model of a particle detector, if such a detector is in a vacuum and not accelerated it will not detect particles. Furthermore, there will be no Killing horizon. However, if the detector does accelerate in the same vacuum, it will detect the presence of particles and the space-time will have a Killing horizion, the Rindler horizon.

Yes, this is correct. More precisely, if we are in Minkowski spacetime and the quantum field is in the appropriate vacuum state--basically the state which looks like vacuum (zero amplitude to detect particles) to inertial observers--then an accelerated particle detector will have a nonzero amplitude to detect a particle. The detection process, as viewed by an observer moving with the detector, will look like the detector absorbing energy from the quantum field and transitioning from its ground state to an excited state (this is just another way of saying it detects a particle). To an inertial observer, however, this process will look like the detector emitting a particle and transitioning from an excited state to its ground state. Also, of course, the quantum field's state changes--to the accelerated observer it looks like a particle is being removed (because it was absorbed by the detector), but to an inertial observer it looks like a particle is being added.
 
  • Like
Likes Imager and Dale

1. What is the difference between the general theory of relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) when it comes to understanding light from black holes?

The general theory of relativity describes the behavior of gravity and the curvature of space-time, while quantum mechanics explains the behavior of particles at the subatomic level. When it comes to understanding light from black holes, GR describes how gravity affects the path of light near a black hole, while QM explains how particles of light (photons) behave at a quantum level.

2. How does general relativity explain the phenomenon of gravitational lensing around black holes?

According to GR, the massive objects such as black holes warp the fabric of space-time, causing light to follow a curved path around them. This results in the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, where light from distant objects is bent and distorted as it passes near a black hole.

3. What is the event horizon and how does it relate to the escape velocity of light?

The event horizon is the point of no return around a black hole, where the gravitational pull is so strong that not even light can escape. According to GR, the escape velocity at the event horizon is equal to the speed of light, which is why nothing, including light, can escape from a black hole once it crosses the event horizon.

4. Can quantum mechanics explain the phenomenon of Hawking radiation from black holes?

Yes, according to QM, particles are constantly appearing and disappearing in the vacuum of space, known as virtual particles. When this happens near a black hole, one of the particles can be pulled into the black hole while the other escapes as Hawking radiation. This phenomenon is predicted by QM and has been observed in experiments.

5. How do GR and QM come together in the theory of quantum gravity to explain light from black holes?

The theory of quantum gravity is an attempt to combine GR and QM to explain the behavior of gravity at both the macroscopic and microscopic level. In this theory, gravity is described as a force carried by particles called gravitons, and it is believed that these particles can interact with both space-time (described by GR) and matter (described by QM) to explain the behavior of light from black holes.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
388
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
67
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
573
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
617
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
538
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
2K
Back
Top