Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The virtual particle explanation of Hawking radiation is a simplified "cartoon", it shouldn't be taken too literally. Your answer is better, but please see physics.stackexchange.com/a/252236/123208 Virtual particles are a useful mathematical device, but they don't have the same physical status as real particles. You may enjoy profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/… $\endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    Commented May 26, 2020 at 23:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm sure there is a great answer here, but the phrasing and detail could be improved. Can you give some details on how "curved spacetime has a different minimum energy for a moving object than flat spacetime." What is the moving object here? The black hole? but HR doesn't require the BH to move (relative to what?) Is HR predicted around other massive objects, or is the event horizon significant in some way. If it is just "energy flowing out of curved spacetime" then surely everything with mass would produce HR. Saying "I don't believe" greatly weakens the answer, belief doesn't count. $\endgroup$
    – James K
    Commented May 27, 2020 at 9:08