This answer not for this question. Answer for question - no we don't have QFT definition for BH, as we don't have *working* quantum gravity theory. Not working, could be fuzzballs from the string theory - quite interesting BH description, but as the whole string theory - hardly proved.
That depends on what definition of "definition" you use. The high definition images of black holes we've been seeimg are partly due to emitted Hawking radiation.
@@ZeroOskulthat is not true, it is entirely due to matter circulating around the supermassive black hole. The amount of Hawking radiation for that mass would be undetectable even if the accretion disk was not there.
Gets worse when they respond to *EVERY* question with that. Although I did see one youtube where it would be deserved. The questions being incredibly complex.
It's not that new particles are being sucked in. The idea is that the black hole is degrading into radiation emitting virtual photons and neutrinos at the event horizon in pairs, of negative and positive matter, (think anti matter vs matter) As they appear so close to the event horizon sometimes the negative particals of the pair passes beyond the event horizon and is re-absorbed into the black hole and the other half escapes and that re-absorbtion of only the negative half causes the deterioration of the black hole. In theory, eons later, the black hole will have lost all its mass due to this process and actually explode into a massive burst of radiation before fizzling having redistributted all of its mass as these particles across the cosmos. But again this is all just one of steven hawking theories and has never been definitively proven, there's enough publications about it and enough correlation that it's commonly regarded as true especially after the findings of observing 2 black holes collide in 2019
@LeoStaley Yes. The "virtual particles, half falling into black hole" story so often repeated is _not_ actually how Hawking Radiation works. It's really much more like Unruh radiation, and the full explanation involves QFT in accelerating coordinate systems.
they're not really virtual particles.. As I know it, all the time everywhere due to Feynman interactions, a matter and an antimatter particle appear out of nowhere, and then disappear. when the antimatter particle from that is too close gets pulled into the black hole, it collides with matter from the black hole, making it that much smaller, and if the matter part escapes, it's referred to as hawking radiation. So technically nothing 'leaves' the event horizon, just some (antimatter) goes in, and some (matter) comes out. I always wondered why this doesn't happen as often with the matter going in, and antimatter coming out though, I would think that theoretically it should happen just as often?
The "virtual particles, half falling into black hole" story so often repeated is _not_ actually how Hawking Radiation works. It's really much more like Unruh radiation, and the full explanation involves QFT in accelerating coordinate systems.
Thank-you! Of course this process is balanced in this manner and thus is not the basis for Hawking Radiation and I don’t know why people telling us that it is.
Because negative-energy particles can't exist for longer than h/E (i.e. until recombination) => it is always the positive-energy particle that "escapes" the BH. It may seem like a nonsensical answer, but if you really go deeper into the theories, you will understand.
Yes, those particles that arise in space are called "virtual particles". From Britannica: *Hawking proposed in 1974 that subatomic particle pairs (photons, neutrinos, and some massive particles) arising naturally near the event horizon may result in one particle’s escaping the vicinity of the black hole while the other particle, of negative energy, disappears into it. The flow of particles of negative energy into the black hole reduces its mass until it disappears completely in a final burst of radiation.* To be clear, Hawking used "negative energy" to refer to "antimatter". From PhysicsForum: *The processes that create Hawking radiation are agnostic about the types of particles created, and the distinction between positive and negative energy becomes irrelevant for photons. The concept of negative energy in field theory is interpreted as antimatter, which does not violate the weak energy condition.*
that doesn't really answer the question
This answer not for this question. Answer for question - no we don't have QFT definition for BH, as we don't have *working* quantum gravity theory.
Not working, could be fuzzballs from the string theory - quite interesting BH description, but as the whole string theory - hardly proved.
It's so annoying when they don't answer the question and just ramble about some unrelated tangent. 😒
That depends on what definition of "definition" you use.
The high definition images of black holes we've been seeimg are partly due to emitted Hawking radiation.
@@ZeroOskulthat is not true, it is entirely due to matter circulating around the supermassive black hole. The amount of Hawking radiation for that mass would be undetectable even if the accretion disk was not there.
@@seriousmaran9414 Undetectable, sure, but noninteractive? Reality is not your imagination. Your mind is your imagination.
@ZeroOskul undetectable means it is unproven and not actual science. You might as well include God, demons and fairies.
I really hate when asking someone the first answer is: that’s a great question
Gets worse when they respond to *EVERY* question with that.
Although I did see one youtube where it would be deserved. The questions being incredibly complex.
That is not how Hawking Radiation works, and they really should stop telling people that. Damn.
Right? That's the worst explanation of Hawking radiation I've ever heard... and it wouldn't have answered her question even if he got it right!
@@Grrrnthumb To be fair, though, Hawking himself popularised this idea in his book "A Brief History of Time".
Please make more of these shorts
Is "emitting" really the best term of art here. Mightn't "leaves a wake" be more accurate?
Could you guys make the subtitles a little higher i cant read them at my phone
That's not how hawking radiation works. Notice thr if a particle falls in, that makes it grow.
it is how it works wdym
Bro is arguing with an actual quantum physicist about particle physics
It's not that new particles are being sucked in. The idea is that the black hole is degrading into radiation emitting virtual photons and neutrinos at the event horizon in pairs, of negative and positive matter, (think anti matter vs matter)
As they appear so close to the event horizon sometimes the negative particals of the pair passes beyond the event horizon and is re-absorbed into the black hole and the other half escapes and that re-absorbtion of only the negative half causes the deterioration of the black hole.
In theory, eons later, the black hole will have lost all its mass due to this process and actually explode into a massive burst of radiation before fizzling having redistributted all of its mass as these particles across the cosmos. But again this is all just one of steven hawking theories and has never been definitively proven, there's enough publications about it and enough correlation that it's commonly regarded as true especially after the findings of observing 2 black holes collide in 2019
@@misourfluffyface1417 I'm literally just repeating other physicists have said about that explanation.
@LeoStaley Yes. The "virtual particles, half falling into black hole" story so often repeated is _not_ actually how Hawking Radiation works. It's really much more like Unruh radiation, and the full explanation involves QFT in accelerating coordinate systems.
Do particles ever tunnel out?
No. Every direction beyond the event horizon is inward, toward singularity.
✌️
Isn't this actually an incorrect analogy? I dunno I get all my physics from PBS SpaceTime
I don't like this Q/A format at all.
The answers don't really explain anything.
Better let Don Lincoln do his hilarious videos.
Incorrect
they're not really virtual particles.. As I know it, all the time everywhere due to Feynman interactions, a matter and an antimatter particle appear out of nowhere, and then disappear. when the antimatter particle from that is too close gets pulled into the black hole, it collides with matter from the black hole, making it that much smaller, and if the matter part escapes, it's referred to as hawking radiation. So technically nothing 'leaves' the event horizon, just some (antimatter) goes in, and some (matter) comes out.
I always wondered why this doesn't happen as often with the matter going in, and antimatter coming out though, I would think that theoretically it should happen just as often?
The "virtual particles, half falling into black hole" story so often repeated is _not_ actually how Hawking Radiation works. It's really much more like Unruh radiation, and the full explanation involves QFT in accelerating coordinate systems.
Thank-you! Of course this process is balanced in this manner and thus is not the basis for Hawking Radiation and I don’t know why people telling us that it is.
Because negative-energy particles can't exist for longer than h/E (i.e. until recombination) => it is always the positive-energy particle that "escapes" the BH. It may seem like a nonsensical answer, but if you really go deeper into the theories, you will understand.
@@jaroslavjandek8365 yeah, it is a nonsensical way of describing quantum tunneling.
Yes, those particles that arise in space are called "virtual particles".
From Britannica:
*Hawking proposed in 1974 that subatomic particle pairs (photons, neutrinos, and some massive particles) arising naturally near the event horizon may result in one particle’s escaping the vicinity of the black hole while the other particle, of negative energy, disappears into it. The flow of particles of negative energy into the black hole reduces its mass until it disappears completely in a final burst of radiation.*
To be clear, Hawking used "negative energy" to refer to "antimatter".
From PhysicsForum:
*The processes that create Hawking radiation are agnostic about the types of particles created, and the distinction between positive and negative energy becomes irrelevant for photons. The concept of negative energy in field theory is interpreted as antimatter, which does not violate the weak energy condition.*
Man....
This channel specializes in not answering the question.
Better writing please. That's horrible presentation.