Relation between quantum fluctuations and vacuum energy?

In summary, the non-zero vacuum energy attributed to a quantum field is due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the quantization of energy at each point in space-time. This causes the value of the field to fluctuate, resulting in a constant vacuum energy. The term "quantum fluctuations" refers to the uncertainty in the value of a field, not to its change over time. The expectation value of a field is a distribution rather than a fixed value, meaning that repeated measurements will not give the same result. In quantum gravity, the concept of vacuum energy becomes meaningless.
  • #71
Yeah, real big, because otherwise we have no chance to detect Hawking radiation. However, if we come too close (which I guess we should to detect the radiation), maybe we have no time to write the paper publishing the discovery ;-)). Anyway, I guess Hawking radiation is a safe place to make theoretical predictions, because it's very unlikely to be disproven empirically ;-).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
vanhees71 said:
Yeah, real big, because otherwise we have no chance to detect Hawking radiation

But the Hawking temperature of a black hole is inversely proportion to mass, and power radiated goes as T^4. The temperature of a solar mass black hole is far, far lower than the 2.7 K CMB temperature, so something much, much less massive is needed in order to be detectable.
 
  • #73
George Jones said:
But the Hawking temperature of a black hole is inversely proportion to mass, and power radiated goes as T^4. The temperature of a solar mass black hole is far, far lower than the 2.7 K CMB temperature, so something much, much less massive is needed in order to be detectable.
Far away from a black hole of typical astrophysical size, Hawking radiation is indeed completely swamped by the microwave background radiation, while small black holes that have a higher Hawking temperature are not radiating enough to be detectable from far away. Since the intensity of Hawking radiation decays with distance like ##r^{-2}## it is not detectable unless one is reasonably close to the black hole and a lot of radiation is produced, which in turn requires a high gravitational field and hence a big black hole.

But one can study in the lab Hawking radiation in so-called analogue black holes, optical analogues where nonlinear optics simulates a quantum metric; see Hawking radiation from ultrashort laser pulse filaments:
the same physics that underlie black hole evaporation in the form of Hawking radiation may be found and studied in other, more accessible systems. Our measurements highlight spontaneous emission of Hawking radiation from an analogue event horizon generated by an “evaporating” refractive index perturbation and suggest a path towards the experimental study of phenomena traditionally relegated to the areas of quantum gravity and astrophysics.
There are also acoustical analogue black holes; see, e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.0238.
 
  • #74
Well that are analogues but not the true thing. In this sense you could say that we have discovered all kinds of "exotic" particles like anyons, magnetic monopoles, Majorana and Weyl fermions,... However all these are, of course, no elementary particles but quasiparticles in condensed matter physics :-).
 
  • Like
Likes A. Neumaier
  • #75
A. Neumaier said:
We can be lucky, it would require a very big black hole close to us...
Well, Hawking radiation is much easier to detect for a small black hole.

EDIT: Now I have seen that George Jones already said that.
 
  • #76
Demystifier said:
Well, Hawking radiation is much easier to detect for a small black hole.
But only when you are very close by. And we don't have experimental evidence of small black holes close to us.
 

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
816
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
952
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
786
Replies
1
Views
750
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
449
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
2K
Back
Top