As I posted in another thread, I'm giving the caveat that I am no physicist and have only a rudimentary knowledge of math.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Anyway, I am currently reading a book called "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" by Lee Smolin. I came across a section of the book that confused me. Namely, Dr. Smolin showed that an accelerating observer would register temperatures that were proportional to the rate of acceleration because the greater the rate of the acceleration, the greater the area of the horizon that separates quantum fluctuation photons in her field of measurement from the corresponding pairs on the other side of the horizon, and the greater resulting indeterminateness would yield more randomness in the photons and thus a higher temperature.

What is confusing to me, is that Lee Smolin then compared this situation with that of a black hole which itself has a horizon but then proceeded to quote an equation by Stephen Hawking which stated that the temperature of a black hole isinverselyproportional to its horizon. This lost me, especially since Lee Smolin showed earlier in the book that Einstein brought us the equivalence of gravity and acceleration. And wouldn't a more massive black hole have a stronger gravitational field than a less massive one?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Why is temperature inversely proportional to the horizon's area?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**