What is the significance of particle-antiparticle radiation near black holes?

AI Thread Summary
Particle-antiparticle radiation near black holes occurs due to vacuum fluctuations that create pairs of particles just outside the event horizon. One particle falls into the black hole with negative energy, while the other escapes, contributing to what is observed as radiation. The discussion proposes a simplified view of these interactions, suggesting that the escaping particle could be seen as a re-emergence of the one that fell in, akin to a time reversal. This perspective raises questions about the nature of particles and their interactions with black holes, particularly regarding the concept of energy conservation. The idea of viewing these interactions through the lens of three particles is a novel approach that invites further exploration and debate.
mesinik
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hi, my name is Mart Vabar.

Wikipedia has this somewhat heavy construction:

Physical insight on the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.
A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole).


Here we have 3 different particles: 2 of these appear near the event horizon; the 3rd one is a part of the black hole and it disappears, when it meets the particle with negative energy.

Could it make sense to simplify it and to see all these 3 as one single paricle:

1)

once upon a time it fell into the black hole,

2)

but for some good reason it cannot fit a "possible place" there anymore.

3)

So, from a viewpoint of an outsider, it seemingly moves "back" in time and when doing so, it looks like an anti-particle (to have some fun with it: like outer planets sometimes move "back")...

4)

... and when seemingly "going back" in time, the particle moves also out of the black hole,

5)

where it looks like a normal radiation with positive energy.


Comments anybody?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org


Are you asking a question or presenting a theory? The concept that the particle that escapes is the same as the particle trapped, but in a different "direction" in its wordline has been put forward, but nothing with 3 particles.
 
Is a homemade radio telescope realistic? There seems to be a confluence of multiple technologies that makes the situation better than when I was a wee lad: software-defined radio (SDR), the easy availability of satellite dishes, surveillance drives, and fast CPUs. Let's take a step back - it is trivial to see the sun in radio. An old analog TV, a set of "rabbit ears" antenna, and you're good to go. Point the antenna at the sun (i.e. the ears are perpendicular to it) and there is...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
How does light maintain enough energy in the visible part of the spectrum for the naked eye to see in the night sky. Also, how did it start of in the visible frequency part of the spectrum. Was it, for example, photons being ejected at that frequency after high energy particle interaction. Or does the light become visible (spectrum) after hitting our atmosphere or space dust or something? EDIT: Actually I just thought. Maybe the EM starts off as very high energy (outside the visible...
Back
Top