Thread: Black Hole-Particles-Speed of light

So has anyone seen Hawking's paper on black holes and things that are escaping from the gravity waves?
I would like to know if im understanding this right, Since he said that microscopic particles are leaving the hole and light inst since the light is unable to move fast enough. Does this mean that those microscopic particles are moving faster than light and if that is true wouldn't Albert Einstein be wrong since most of his work was around the fact that there is nothing faster than light?
I hope that i am just misunderstanding this paper since both Albert and Steven are my idols so if someone could clear things up for me I would be grateful

Thanks,
Redic

Originally Posted by Redic

Does this mean that those microscopic particles are moving faster than light and if that is true wouldn't Albert Einstein be wrong since most of his work was around the fact that there is nothing faster than light?
I hope that i am just misunderstanding this paper since both Albert and Steven are my idols so if someone could clear things up for me I would be grateful

Nope.
And yes, you're misunderstanding it.
Nothing is escaping from the black hole itself.
What's happening (at least according to Hawking - it's not been observed yet) is that a particle-antiparticle pair are formed just outside the event horizon (i.e. just "before" the no-escape zone).
One of the pair falls into the hole, the other moves away.
A high velocity is required (because the gravitational pull is strong), but certainly not faster than light.

PS it's spelt "Stephen".

Oh, Ok thanks alot makes more sense now

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

What's happening (at least according to Hawking - it's not been observed yet) is that a particle-antiparticle pair are formed just outside the event horizon (i.e. just "before" the no-escape zone).

Surprisingly that is the pop-sci version of Hawking radiation but is no way related to what the physics says (not that we really know the correct physics here). Its more a result about smooth pasting QM and GR and then creating a justification post hoc - welcome to modern Physics I guess.

Originally Posted by river_rat

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

What's happening (at least according to Hawking - it's not been observed yet) is that a particle-antiparticle pair are formed just outside the event horizon (i.e. just "before" the no-escape zone).

Surprisingly that is the pop-sci version of Hawking radiation but is no way related to what the physics says (not that we really know the correct physics here). Its more a result about smooth pasting QM and GR and then creating a justification post hoc - welcome to modern Physics I guess.

I suppose that often the "pop-sci" version, of other parts, of modern science bears no relation to the real facts.
That is not encouraging when many of us can only understand explanations designed for the layperson.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by river_rat

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

What's happening (at least according to Hawking - it's not been observed yet) is that a particle-antiparticle pair are formed just outside the event horizon (i.e. just "before" the no-escape zone).

Surprisingly that is the pop-sci version of Hawking radiation but is no way related to what the physics says (not that we really know the correct physics here). Its more a result about smooth pasting QM and GR and then creating a justification post hoc - welcome to modern Physics I guess.

I suppose that often the "pop-sci" version, of other parts, of modern science bears no relation to the real facts.
That is not encouraging when many of us can only understand explanations designed for the layperson.

Are you guys sure? What the Duck said is a pretty direct paraphrase in one of Hawkings books or another. The most recent version of brief history, maybe, or something else but I'm fairly sure I've read it from Hawking himself.

I am not quite clear about this myself but I understand there are a few models dealing with Hawking radiation and quantum tunneling is involved in one of them.
The idea is that quantum uncertainty allows particle pairs from inside the event horizon to appear outside of it instead of just from quantum vacuum effects.

I want to know whether all stars above the Chandrashekhar Limit form black holes. Just a minute back I read that stars which formed just after the Big Bang were massive and exploded in a supernova eventually. These stars were about 150-300 times massive than our Sun. I am doubtful of the fate of stars as per theory.

Originally Posted by parag29081973

I want to know whether all stars above the Chandrashekhar Limit form black holes. Just a minute back I read that stars which formed just after the Big Bang were massive and exploded in a supernova eventually. These stars were about 150-300 times massive than our Sun. I am doubtful of the fate of stars as per theory.

What about stars are you doubtful of? Not all of the first stars were that massive. Some were so big that the black holes they formed were huge, but some weren't quite big enough to become a black hole and seeded other stars.

~ Before you go much deeper into the ' What of Stars. ' You ought to be aquipped with some information of type's and sizes of mass of Stars.. From the Black Hole through to Neutron Stars, Fast rotating Pulsars and Red Dwarfs.. White Dwarfs... Research..