1

This question has been asked a few times here in a few different ways but the answers don't quite seem to land for me. Considering the virtual particle pair; one falls in, one escapes, both become real. Okay.

But then my best understanding is that the escaping particle effectively "borrows" energy from the black hole's gravity to escape, while the trapped particle does not impart as much new mass to the hole as is lost to the "borrowed" gravity. Please let me know if I'm not getting that right.

It's the "borrowing" part I don't understand. What actually is that process, and how can gravitational energy be "borrowed;" isn't gravity a fixture produced by the core mass, independent of any new particles created outside the horizon that escape?

Essentially: Are we saying that a little of the hole's mass is lost to the particle as well, thus reducing the black hole's gravity, or that gravity and mass are interchangeable in this case? Or something else I'm just missing entirely.

If possible to answer less in terms of mathematical models and more in terms of describing physical events (as best as we can understand them so far), that would be more helpful to me as I'm still a student.

jazamm
  • 91
  • 7
  • 2
    look at my answer at a similar question here https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/186682/ – anna v Feb 23 '24 at 07:39
  • Thank you, I'm still not quite clear but it sounds like you're saying something to the effect that the gravitons are so interconnected with the other particles at that point that losing one is like losing the other? – jazamm Feb 23 '24 at 07:49
  • 1
    It needs mathematics.The term "graviton" is used for the energy/momentum four vector that can transfer energy and momentum from the black hole gravitational field to the photosphere, which is outside the horizon of the black hole. Once energy and momentum are outside and large enough, it is possible to have the creation of particle antiparticle pairs, one of which falls back in but the other acquires mass and escapes. – anna v Feb 23 '24 at 12:33
  • 1
    The actual issue is that the particle pair picture is misleading for Hawking radiation (he kind of admits it in the original paper where he still proposes it as a popular science tool). What is really going on does require quantum field theory, and I doubt any explanation in terms of particle pairs will make sense for the mass loss. – Anders Sandberg Feb 24 '24 at 07:42
  • Heh, oh well I guess I somewhat had that hunch, along with perhaps the semantic challenge of finding words to describe something that's really only been described by models. Along those lines, do you feel it's possible if you're willing to say a few words about what physically is happening without the misleading aspects of particle pairs? Anything even brief would be a huge help. Thanks so much for chiming in. – jazamm Feb 24 '24 at 10:50

0 Answers0