Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4570228" data-attributes="member: 710">For more details on Hawking radiation see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation" target="_blank">wikipedia</a> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Basically, the radiation doesn't come from the black hole, but is created at its event horizon.They are a result of the uncertainity priniciple, basically. Just as we can't determine position and speed of a particle both at the same time with 100 % precision (because the act of measurement changes them), we also can't determine the number of particles and the rate of change in the number of particles at the same time. So even in vacuum, there can't be no particles and no change of the number of particles at the same time. This leads to the theory that there are actually "virtual" pairs of elemental particle (one regular, one anti-particle) that annihalte each other in a very short time frame - but nearby black holes, one partner in this pairing can fall into the event horizon while the other barely escapes, so the particle escapes as a radiation. The energy inherent to these two particles can't come from nothing, so the black hole must be losing it.The result is a radiation (that gets stronger the smaller the black hole is, interestingly) that makes the black hole smaller. Black Holes as they result from novas or in the center of galaxies are so large that they gain more energy from the cosmic background radiation then from this radiation, so the effect is neglible.I don't know about any rebuttals. I always thought the problem was that the black holes we have identified as such would just not emit any noticeable amounts of radiation.</blockquote>

Verification