Question about Hawking radiation in BH

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Hawking radiation and its implications for black hole (BH) mass over time. Hawking's theory posits that BHs emit radiation due to spontaneous particle pair creation at the event horizon, leading to a reduction in mass when negative-energy particles are absorbed. However, the consensus is that the energy radiated through this mechanism is significantly smaller than the energy absorbed from external sources, such as photons from the universe. Consequently, black holes are expected to gain mass rather than lose it, as demonstrated by Hawking's temperature formula, which indicates that typical black holes are colder than their surroundings and thus absorb more energy than they emit.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hawking radiation and black hole thermodynamics
  • Familiarity with the formula for black hole temperature: T = (ħc³)/(8πGMkB)
  • Knowledge of concepts such as event horizon and particle pair creation
  • Basic grasp of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) temperature
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Hawking radiation on black hole lifespan
  • Explore the relationship between black hole mass and temperature
  • Study the cosmic microwave background radiation and its effects on black holes
  • Investigate advanced thermodynamics related to black holes and energy absorption
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and students of theoretical physics interested in black hole dynamics and the implications of Hawking radiation on cosmic structures.

jnorman
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
i have read about Hawking's theory of BH radiation based on the idea of spontaneous particle pair creation at the EH wherein, on occasion, one of the particles is absorbed by the BH while the other escapes to become real. since the one which is absorbed is always of negative energy (whatever that means), the mass of the BH is reduced, and over time, hawking theorizes that the BH would eventually disappear.

assuming hawking is correct and this mechanism does indeed occur, it seems to me that the effect is rather small. and since every BH in existence is constatnly bombarded with enormous numbers of photons from elsewhere in the universe, which add energy/mass to the BH, it seems that even with the small reduction in mass due to hawking radiation, the BH would always increase in total mass over time.

am i missing something or misunderstanding hawking theory in some way, or did hawking consider this in his theory (ie, the radiation is greater than the amount of energy entering the BH due to absorbption of photons)? or am i correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jnorman said:
did hawking consider this in his theory (ie, the radiation is greater than the amount of energy entering the BH due to absorbption of photons)?

Yes. What Hawking's theories says is that the BH will lose energy, on net, if the amount it radiates due to Hawking's mechanism is greater than the amount it absorbs due to radiation and matter from the rest of the universe falling into the hole. You are correct that, for a black hole of any significant size in our current universe, the energy radiated by Hawking's mechanism is far, far smaller than the amount being absorbed. The easiest way to see this is to look at Hawking's formula for the temperature of a black hole:

T = \frac{\hbar c^{3}}{8 \pi G M k_{B}}

where \hbar is Planck's constant divided by 2 \pi, c is the speed of light, G is Newton's gravitational constant, M is the mass of the hole, and k_{B} is Boltzmann's constant. By simple thermodynamics, a black hole can only lose energy due to radiation if its temperature is higher than the temperature of its surroundings. If you run the numbers, a black hole with a mass of about 10^23 kg would have a temperature the same as the CMBR (2.7 K). That's roughly the mass of the Moon, which is well under the size of any black hole we expect to find out there; so any black hole we would reasonably expect to see would be colder than its surroundings and would be gaining energy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K