Explain evaporation Videos

+SalemElectro7 I know i just finished reading hawkings book. This video is just more simplified i believe becausw it doesn-t properly explain hawking radiation

What they were discussing is the vanishing of black holes and what happens at those areas, not space In general. When a black hole is created, it is when the balance of forces is tipped one way so it collapses into something with enormous gravity (a black hole). With that enormous gravity it pulls matter into it. When the black hole vanishes, it's kind of the opposite and it produces these as an escaped after effect. So if you were sucked into a black hole and then it vanished, all of your particles would still exist after the fact.

+Antonio Martin Indeed.

Everything in this Universe is amaizing my friend, even the simplest & most monotonous objects around us are beautiful in their atomic structure.

+Veon1 Wow! Thanks for the knowledge bomb there! lol

They don't evaporate suddenly, they radiate their energy slowly. In fact the bigger they are, the more slowly they lose mass. Super massive black holes at the centre of galaxies aren't losing mass at all, since for every little amount of radiation they emit, they eat a star or two as well :){Fun fact: currently only a black hole with roughly the mass of the Moon or less would be small enough to evaporate completely. Larger black holes can sustain themselves simply eating the cosmic background radiation! The universe will have to cool a lot before massive black holes actually start shrinking.}

+Veon1 This thermal radiation, which is light, just outside the horizon is not yet part of the Black Hole. How does energy, not part of the Black Hole make it smaller?

+D . Mentia Correct, that is an oversimplification, or better yet, you should think of it as just an analogy, a picture to compensate for our lack of intuition for relativity and quantum field theory. It should not be taken as literal. (and well done finding some inconsistencies with that explanation, here's another: most of the radiation is actually photons/light, which do not have anti-partners!)

+BlueBlauquaProductions In high energy space, particle/antiparticle pairs are constantly generated from gravitational energy and immediately annihilate each other.  At the edge of the event horizon, though, there's a chance that an antimatter particle appears inside the horizon and a matter particle outside of it.  Since these particles otherwise move at the speed of light, the matter can escape but the antimatter falls in, annihilating one pre-existing particle of matter in the black hole.  Thus, hawking radiation.I do wonder why it's always matter that escapes, and not antimatter, though.  If antimatter escaped, the black hole would gain mass rather than lose it... but, then again, this explanation is an oversimplification of some crazy quantum physics that I don't understand, so I shouldn't question it :P

+BlueBlauquaProductions Everything is subject to gravity.The best way to think about it imho is as the black hole being 'hot'. Things that have heat radiate energy, right? It turns out that if you do the maths of black hole horizons taking into account quantum field theory, they too have a 'temperature', which is inversely proportional to their size. So just outside the horizon you have this 'thermal radiation' that it is emiting, causing it to lose energy (assuming that the outside is colder than the black hole). As it emits this heat, the black hole shrinks, and as it shrinks it becomes even hotter, emits even more heat, and then eventually just evaporates completely. Does this help?

+BlueBlauquaProductions They are, as is everything in the universe. As I understand the video, matter is created in the black hole, but with enough energy to make it past the event horzinon, and presumbly enough energy to escape the blackhole and go somehwere else.

So subatomic/broken particles/atoms aren't subject to a black holes gravitational pull that lies beyond the point of no return (event horizon)?

As Neil mentioned, the radiation is created just outside the horizon, so it can still escape.

Good one, you should send that question directly to the show.

thanks!

You can get the podcast here://www.startalkradio.net/

+RnBandCrunk Thanks! :D

+Rodemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AntimatterIt doesn't get hotter. The 'hotness' is just a lot of energy escaping.

+Tomly i said that they dont have mass

+Ultra light They have momentum, but not mass.

+Greg Queen of Everything no they dont

+Greg Queen of Everything light dowant have mass.

+Greg Queen of Everything Lmao, i think the word you are looking for is "energy" look up the photoelectric effect to see how photons can interact with different things. And money is not the requisite to having a PhD, it can only get you to start the course, finishing the course is where brains come in handy.

It's cool

+troy mcelreath maybe we can just wait a few billion years until the black hole can be viewed in isolation and the hawking radiation is not overwhelmed by the stuff falling in. Then we may test the evaporation.

+Pete Gilbert Oh right, thanks for helping out :)

+3P1CN355 Gaming There are no particles with Negative mass. There is only hypothetical "exotic matter" which hasn't been even nearly proven to exist. Anti-particles are like positrons, which are the same particle but with the opposite charge. A positron is an electron with a positive charge, however it shares the other characteristics.

I assumed that anti matter had negative mass since it cancels out mass, I thought that it would act similar to a photon, which can be created or destroyed... I'm sorry if I sound irrational its just that my knowledge is very limited in this case and I would certainly like to learn more about it

+3P1CN355 Gaming I thought that even an antiparticle had positive mass (created from energy thus m=e/c2). what particle has negative mass?

+troy mcelreath What he means to say is that positive mass attracts the negative mass and is then destroyed, we are not talking about negative and positive charges here, but negative and positive mass

+troy mcelreath I seem to remember reading a more in-depth explanation somewhere. It suggested that both the particles were created from energy in the quantum field- the energy is converted to matter. If these particles "appear" with one just on the inside the event horizon and the other on the outside, one will be drawn in and the other not- meaning the black hole loses mass/energy equal to that of one of the particles. I wonder if this is why they were so cautious about the term "negative" mass?

+Ultra light sorry for the wording in my reply. did not intend to offend but said it badly. but, don't understand your reply about 'weakness' of gravity. gravity is the weakest overall but dominant in black holes. and what is your mysterious force that grabs the anti particles more strongly. if the black hole is electrically neutral and the strong and weak forces are not applicable, is there a fifth force I am unaware of?

+troy mcelreath You're writing this like you want to insult me. Youre are right, its gravity, but gravity is one of the weakest fundamental force there is and like said in the video, they have enought energy to escape.

+Ultra light positive matter also attracts positive matter, it's called gravity

+troy mcelreath A black hole is, made out of positive matter, this positive matter black hole attrackts those anti particles