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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between black hole radiation and mass loss, specifically referencing the E=mc² equation. It explains that black holes emit thermal radiation, leading to mass loss due to the negative energy of particles that fall into the event horizon. The conversation also clarifies that the speed of light (c) remains constant and is not a variable in this context. Participants emphasize the significance of particle-antiparticle pairs and their behavior near the event horizon in understanding this phenomenon.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of black hole thermodynamics
  • Familiarity with the concept of particle-antiparticle pairs
  • Knowledge of the speed of light (c) in physics
  • Basic grasp of the conservation of energy principle
NEXT STEPS
  • Research black hole thermodynamics and Hawking radiation
  • Study the implications of E=mc² in quantum physics
  • Explore the behavior of particles near event horizons
  • Learn about the conservation of energy in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, astrophysicists, and students interested in black hole physics and quantum mechanics will benefit from this discussion.

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 :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K