Can anyone explain Hawking radiation?
Author : Iam
Submitted : 20170617 18:20:16 Popularity:
Tags: explain Hawking radiation
I don t get it. Why would the negatively massive particals be more likely to appear inside the event horizon? Why would they be "sucked into"the back hole? If they have negative mass, shouldn t the black hole s gravity repel them?
When a virtual particle pair form at the event horizon of a black hole there is plenty of gravitational energy for the two particles to absorb and become real particles. If one of those particle falls into the black hole while the other is ejected the ejected particle will carry away the absorbed energy. E = mc²; likewise, m = E/c². Carrying the energy away is equivalent to carrying mass away. The black hole loses that much mass.
Electrons have a negative electrical charge. That does NOT mean electrons DO NOT have mass OR negative Mass., They CAN go through the event horizons of Black holes just like protons and neutrons which and positrons. Positrons are electrons that have positive electrical charge but have the SAME MASS as an electron. NO particle had NEGATIVE mass.. VIRTUAL articles can pip into AND OUT OF existence, randomly.
Here's an explanation that i understand that makes sense to me. Quantum mechanics is NOT logical or intuitive like classical Newtonian mechanics. Paraphrasing Einstein. God DOES play dice with the Universe at subatomic scales of size.
"...In 1975 Hawking published a shocking result: if one takes quantum theory into account, it seems that black holes are not quite black! Instead, they should glow slightly with "Hawking radiation", consisting of photons, neutrinos, and to a lesser extent all sorts of massive particles. This has never been observed, since the only black holes we have evidence for are those with lots of hot gas falling into them, whose radiation would completely swamp this tiny effect. Indeed, if the mass of a black hole is M solar masses, Hawking predicted it should glow like a blackbody of temperature
6 × 108/M kelvins,
so only for very small black holes would this radiation be significant. Still, the effect is theoretically very interesting, and folks working on understanding how quantum theory and gravity fit together have spent a lot of energy trying to understand it and its consequences. The most drastic consequence is that a black hole, left alone and unfed, should radiate away its mass, slowly at first but then faster and faster as it shrinks, finally dying in a blaze of glory like a hydrogen bomb. However, the total lifetime of a black hole of M solar masses works out to be
1071 M3 seconds
so don't wait around for a big one to give up the ghost. (People have looked for the death of small ones that could have formed in the big bang, but they haven't seen any.)
How does this work? Well, you'll find Hawking radiation explained this way in a lot of "popscience" treatments:
Virtual particle pairs are constantly being created near the horizon of the black hole, as they are everywhere. Normally, they are created as a particleantiparticle pair and they quickly annihilate each other. But near the horizon of a black hole, it's possible for one to fall in before the annihilation can happen, in which case the other one escapes as Hawking radiation.
In fact this argument also does not correspond in any clear way to the actual computation. Or at least I've never seen how the standard computation can be transmuted into one involving virtual particles sneaking over the horizon, and in the last talk I was at on this it was emphasized that nobody has ever worked out a "local" description of Hawking radiation in terms of stuff like this happening at the horizon. I'd gladly be corrected by any experts out there... Note: I wouldn't be surprised if this heuristic picture turned out to be accurate, but I don't see how you get that picture from the usual computation.
The usual computation involves Bogoliubov transformations. The idea is that when you quantize (say) the electromagnetic field you take solutions of the classical equations (Maxwell's equations) and write them as a linear combination of positivefrequency and negativefrequency parts. Roughly speaking, one gives you particles and the other gives you antiparticles. More subtly, this splitting is implicit in the very definition of the vacuum of the quantum version of the theory! In other words, if you do the splitting one way, and I do the splitting another way, our notion of which state is the vacuum may disagree!
This should not be utterly shocking, just pretty darn shocking. The vacuum, after all, can be thought of as the state of least energy. If we are using really different coordinate systems, we'll have really different notions of time, hence really different notions of energy—since energy is defined in quantum theory to be the operator H such that time evolution is given by exp(itH). So on the one hand, it's quite conceivable that we'll have different notions of positive and negative frequency solutions in classical field theory—a solution that's a linear combination of those with time dependence exp(iωt) is called positive or negative frequency depending on the sign of ω—but of course this depends on a choice of time coordinate t. And on the other hand, it's quite conceivable that we'll have different notions of the lowestenergy state...."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Re...
Virtual , NOT VERTICAL, particle defrinition:
"...A shortlived subatomic particle whose existence briefly violates the principle of conservation of energy. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics allows violations of conservation of energy for short periods, meaning that even a physical system with zero energy can spontaneously produce energetic particles.
Virtual particle  Define Virtual particle at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/virtualparti...
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/virtual...
Sarcasm FAIL: and FALSE PREMISES.
Ok, I'll just email Stephen Hawking and tell him he's got it wrong.
They are not massive particals they are vertual particals. It has to do with time dilation. At the event horizon things with negative mass fall into the black hole.


Article Source:
www.answer.cool