Understanding Hawking Radiation: Energy Subtracted from Black Holes

AI Thread Summary
Hawking Radiation involves the concept of virtual particles at the event horizon of black holes, where one particle falls in and the other escapes, leading to energy loss from the black hole. The discussion raises questions about the nature of these particles, particularly how an antiparticle can interact with a particle from a different pair and what constitutes negative energy. It emphasizes that the traditional explanation of virtual particles is merely an analogy and that the underlying mathematics is more complex. The physical process of how negative energy particles affect the black hole remains unclear, but it is acknowledged that this energy removal results in a decrease in the black hole's mass. Ultimately, Hawking Radiation is understood as the mechanism through which mass is lost from black holes.
jaydnul
Messages
558
Reaction score
15
Something I don't understand is how the energy is subtracted from the black hole. So let's say one pair of virtual particles pop up on the event horizon, the particle goes in, the antiparticle goes out. Then let's say that a second pair does the opposite.

My first question is why is the antiparticle from the first pair colliding with the particle from the second pair any different than colliding with its original partner? Has it just had enough time to become a real particle and therefore emits a photon to conserve energy?

If so, wouldn't the two particles colliding inside the event horizon give off light as well? How is the energy removed from the black hole?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I find this very weird myself. The standard "explanation" I have heard several times on this forum is that it doesn't matter which particle falls in, it automatically has negative energy and thus reduces the mass of the black hole.

More significantly, the whole issue of "virtual particles" as the mechanism for Hawking Radiation is bogus. Hawking said that this "particle pair" thing is JUST an analogy that was the closest he could come to describing in English something that really can only be described in the math.

As to another part of your post, anything that happens inside the event horizon is irrelevant to the rest of the universe and does not cause any loss of mass to the black hole.
 
But what is the physical process. What does a particle with negative energy actually do to the black hole (other than just saying it takes away energy)?
 
Jd0g33 said:
But what is the physical process. What does a particle with negative energy actually do to the black hole (other than just saying it takes away energy)?
Taking away energy is equivalent to taking away mass and that is what Hawking Radiation IS ... the removal of mass from a BH.

EDIT: I think I stated that a bit awkwardly. Taking away mass from a BH is the EFFECT of HR, not quite "what it is" as I said originally).
 
Last edited:

Thread 'Potential biosignature found in Mars rock'

Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
View full post »

Thread 'Does it make sense to build new radio telescopes?'

TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
View full post »
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'

Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'

This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Can Hawking Radiation Exist If Nothing Escapes a Black Hole?
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Methods of Hawking radiation generation
Replies
2
Views
1K
B A little logical doubt on Hawking radiation
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Hawking radiation and energy-negative energy pair production
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Do Black Holes Exist? | Physics & Stephen Hawking
Replies
4
Views
2K
Hawking Radiation and the Decay of Black Holes
Replies
6
Views
3K
Is there vacuum at the Event Horizon of a Black Hole?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Hawking Radiation: Explaining the Evaporation Effect
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Does Hawking Radiation Cause Black Holes to Evaporate?
Replies
24
Views
2K
Hawking radiation from not-a-black-hole?
Replies
1
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top