Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Special and General Relativity
Qs re Hawking Radiation – Part I
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="PeterDonis, post: 5485157, member: 197831"] This is a heuristic description only and does not really correspond to anything in the actual underlying math. It is unfortunate that many pop science sources, even when written by experts in the field (including Hawking himself), use this heuristic language and don't tell you that it's heuristic only. But that is in fact the case. This is not correct. The correct statement is that the EH is a 2-sphere with area ##4 \pi R_c^2##. The EH does not have a physical radius; the singularity at ##r = 0## is to the future of the EH, it is not any spatial distance away from it. No, is isn't. M is a global property of the black hole spacetime. The black hole is vacuum everywhere and does not have any mass or energy inside it. Wrong. See above. Also, there is no such thing as a locally measurable "energy of the GF" in GR, and certainly no such thing that corresponds to the mass M of the spacetime. Since all of the rest of your post is based on incorrect premises, per the above, it is incorrect as well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Special and General Relativity
Qs re Hawking Radiation – Part I
Back
Top