What is your take on Hawking radiation?

  • 2 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Online yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12331
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is your take on Hawking radiation?
« on: 29/01/2010 13:32:23 »
Assuming that Hawking Radiation exist...
How does it work in form of entanglement?

Mine take is that there can't be an entangled state after one part of the pair goes pass the EV of the BH. When I look at SpaceTime it seems as a self consistent 'bubble', where all 'forces' go into each other. And a Black Hole is a singularity, existing 'outside' our SpaceTime, more reminding me of a 'break' in our reality than something interacting. This wiki discuss the BH paradox.

So, will Hawking radiation keep the entanglement intact?
And why do you think so?

« Last Edit: 29/01/2010 13:43:15 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."


Offline billferguson

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
What is your take on Hawking radiation?
« Reply #1 on: 27/03/2011 03:52:51 »
I'm sorry but, I think there is no one more full of crap that Stephen Hawking. 


Offline JMLCarter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 143
    • View Profile
What is your take on Hawking radiation?
« Reply #2 on: 27/03/2011 11:09:23 »
First the singularity is a theoretical point in the black hole, not something that extends all the way to the event horizon.

Just behind the event horizon, then (not that we have verified this, obviously), the physics of our reality is not so 'broken'. Assuming that neither of the pair of virtual particles interact with anything I see no reason why the entanglement should not be preserved.

This I think allows information about the black holes interior to escape? I don't understand why  that's such an issue for BH theory, after all the gravity, charge and spin escape. This would provide a possible mechanism for force carriers to escape.
An alternative and fairly recent theory is the holographic principle in which information is encoded in the event horizon, giving it some properties like a real object. This seems not unlike nonsense to me, no more sensible than thinking that a log falling over a waterfall leaves ripples at the top of the waterfall that fully describe the log.