Why should radiation lead to loss in mass @ Black holes?

AI Thread Summary
Black holes emit thermal radiation, leading to mass loss due to the principles of E=mc². The discussion explores the concept of particle-antiparticle pairs forming near a black hole's event horizon, where one particle may fall in while the other escapes. This results in the escaping particle having positive energy, while the infalling particle is considered to have negative energy, thus reducing the black hole's mass. The speed of light (c) remains constant and does not represent a change in velocity in this context. Overall, the conversation clarifies misconceptions about mass loss and energy conservation in black hole physics.
Astro.padma
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
According to theory of black hole radiation, black holes are expected to emit a thermal spectrum of radiation, and thereby loss mass, owing to the E=mc2 equation. Well, everything was clear to me till I got to the last point. why should there be loss only in mass?? couldn't the mass be same and velocity change, in order to satisfy the above equation?? Let me know if am going anywhere wrong and what does the "c" represent to in this case? I mean...velocity of what??
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
c is the speed of light - it doesn't change.
 
From the little I understand, the following is a drastic oversimplification, and is somewhat untrue, but it is a good way to visualize the process.

As you might have heard, at the quantum level, you can have particles pop out of the vacuum (a particle-anti particle pair), and then quickly combine and dissipate. This does not violate the Law of the conservation of Energy because of how fast that process happened, and in the end when they disappeared the total energy was the same as before (also an oversimplification, but take my word). Another thing you need to know is that anti-particles and particles both have positive mass and energy.

Now imagine one of these particle - anti-particle pairs appeared right on the edge of an event horizon in a black hole, now they broke free, but when they tried to recombine one of the particles was in the event horizon, and one was not. Because of this, they could not recombine and even out the total energy. But because physics says that can't happen, the way you explain the increase of total energy (represented by the particle which didn't fall into the black hole), is that the particle that did fall in had a negative energy, and when that negative energy entered the black hole it reduced the total mass of the black hole.
 
mathman said:
c is the speed of light - it doesn't change.

LOL am soo sorry for the question...I was into some thing...m really sorry...such a stupid question ! Don't know what made me think its SOME velocity at that time thankz anyways :)
 
Vorde said:
From the little I understand, the following is a drastic oversimplification, and is somewhat untrue, but it is a good way to visualize the process.

As you might have heard, at the quantum level, you can have particles pop out of the vacuum (a particle-anti particle pair), and then quickly combine and dissipate. This does not violate the Law of the conservation of Energy because of how fast that process happened, and in the end when they disappeared the total energy was the same as before (also an oversimplification, but take my word). Another thing you need to know is that anti-particles and particles both have positive mass and energy.

Now imagine one of these particle - anti-particle pairs appeared right on the edge of an event horizon in a black hole, now they broke free, but when they tried to recombine one of the particles was in the event horizon, and one was not. Because of this, they could not recombine and even out the total energy. But because physics says that can't happen, the way you explain the increase of total energy (represented by the particle which didn't fall into the black hole), is that the particle that did fall in had a negative energy, and when that negative energy entered the black hole it reduced the total mass of the black hole.

This is not what my doubt was ! but the interesting thing is you have provided an even better point...never heard this before...thx for that :)
 
No problem, I read the title of the topic and assumed what you were asking without reading the body in enough detail, whoops :)
 
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...
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...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top