QFT interpretation of Hawking Radiation

AdvaitDhingra
Messages
51
Reaction score
22
Hello,

So I was reading about Hawking radiation and I read a QFT interpretation of it. It went something like this:

A vacuum contains virtual particles (vacuum energy), which in qft can be described as waves that are out of phase and cancel each other out (matter and antimatter). I a black hole, this out-of-phase state is disturbed and the waves do not cancel each other out, thereby converting virtual particles into particles that seem to originate from the Black Hole.

My question is, how does a Black Hole merely "disturb" the waves of the field and not simply suck them in? I mean, isn't that what Black Holes do? Here is an image of what I'm talking about from a video by PBS Space Time:

(I'm 15 by the way, so please tell me if there are flaws in my explanation)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot from 2021-04-30 11-38-17.png
    Screenshot from 2021-04-30 11-38-17.png
    39.8 KB · Views: 265
Physics news on Phys.org
AdvaitDhingra said:
So I was reading about Hawking radiation and...
Reading where? You will get much better answers if we know what you've been reading.

There may not be any simple answer to your question. You can find Hawking's paper here and there is a somewhat more friendly explanation here.
 
  • Like
Likes AdvaitDhingra
  • Like
Likes AdvaitDhingra
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top