Timeline for How exactly does Hawking radiation decrease the mass of black holes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 9, 2021 at 8:38 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | Matt Strassler has an interesting explanation of virtual particles here: profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/… | |
| Jul 15, 2019 at 21:23 | answer | added | SurpriseDog | timeline score: 1 | |
| S Jul 15, 2019 at 18:00 | history | suggested | SurpriseDog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fix spelling and grammar
|
| Jul 15, 2019 at 17:03 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 15, 2019 at 18:00 | |||||
| May 5, 2019 at 23:11 | history | edited | marko-36 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 133 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2019 at 4:55 | answer | added | Alsee | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 26, 2019 at 17:24 | comment | added | Robin Ekman | @Marko36 "virtual particles" are internal lines in Feynman diagrams and should not be reified more than that. QFT never assigns a state to a "virtual particle". They are entirely metaphorical. See the answer by Arnold Neumaier (physics.stackexchange.com/a/252183) and his links. | |
| Apr 26, 2019 at 12:56 | history | edited | marko-36 |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 25, 2019 at 21:04 | answer | added | Steve Linton | timeline score: 9 | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 15:24 | answer | added | user27815 | timeline score: 8 | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 14:43 | comment | added | Steve Linton | This question on physics (and its accepted answer come the closest I have yet found to addressing this question) but they still don't answer it completely. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/251385/…. | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 12:57 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Apr 25, 2019 at 12:53 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | You might like to check out math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html and physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185110/… and other related questions on Physics about virtual particles. | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 12:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAstronomy/status/1121383483039985664 | ||
| Apr 25, 2019 at 10:36 | answer | added | Florin Andrei | timeline score: 31 | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 10:04 | comment | added | Steve Linton | @Marko36 It's not that virtual particles are a metaphor in general (although in a sense they are, all particles, virtual or otherwise are just a way of viewing some aspects of the underlying fields), but they are not really a very good explanation of Hawking Radiation. This, however, doesn't answer your question. I look forward to seeing an answer. | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 9:35 | comment | added | marko-36 | Ok, thanks @Florin Andrei, but virtual particles are commonly accepted as a real thing, so how (much) are they metaphorical? Why? Also, black hole radiation is explicitly explained by them. Should they be a metaphorical concept, what is this black hole radiation, you mentioned, really? Also assuming that "nothing can escape the black hole, not even EM radiation". | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 9:32 | comment | added | Florin Andrei | Forget about virtual particle pairs, that's more like a metaphor. The thing is, black holes emit radiation, regardless of how they do that. Radiation carries energy, which must come from somewhere, there's no free lunch here. But energy equals mass. It all comes out of the black hole's "bank account" of mass, because that's the only thing nearby. | |
| Apr 25, 2019 at 9:20 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 25, 2019 at 9:42 | |||||
| Apr 25, 2019 at 9:15 | history | asked | marko-36 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |