Based on what are atoms or particles chosen to be deleted in a blackhole when hawking radiation happens?
>virtual particle pair appears near the event horizon>one particle escapes and one falls into the black hole>now black hole has negative energy and one particle needs to be deletedwhich one???
>>17034313God's playing dice.
>>17034302Based on owning the libs and quantum fluctuation.
>>17034302Hawking radiation isn't real, black holes lose mass because they're solid objects and sometimes the gravitational field gets so warped that some of that mass is ejected from the black hole. Think of it like sunspots but only the size of subatomic particles due to the extreme compression of the gravitational field. You also can't detect any of it near black holes because the gravitational distortion is so extreme, violent and fast that the particles get launched millions of km away in an instant, so you're essentially looking for a needle in a haystack the size of a large solar system.
>>17034302Based!
>>17034302Nobody knows and hawking radiation is just a theory it’s not proven and won’t be proven for a long time or ever
>>17034302Particles? Ask the CERN about it. But...In a gravitational and extreme environment like a black hole, it's probably the mass or the lack of it, wich determines their supposed end and posterior residual radiation.
>>17035169Ever. It conveniently describes a phenomenon that would be almost impossible to observe.
>>17034302Inside a blackhole are a lot of cliquish groups who feel they have the right to vote other particles out of the hole.Groups vote. Tribes speak.The challenges are funny sometimes too. CBS shows them on loop.
A black hole is a 3D hole right? Has anyone ever had the thought that if a black hole gets too big... the blackhole sinks into where-ever but the entrance collapses and locks the blackhole from our universe forever?
>>17037177hmm yes it's very convenient that someone came up with a theory to explain a very difficult to explain phenomenonthey should have came up with a theory for a phenomenon that's already explainable and measurable instead
>>17037199What we perceive of as a slow shrinking due to “evaporation” is really a pinching off of a fat, massy section of the universe.This matches all observational data and explains away the information paradox in one fell swoop.Publish, bro.
>>17037223I never graduated highschool
>>17037250>I never graduated highschoolAs if we cared or asked. Publish or don’t. It’s your Nobel to lose.
>>170374914chan credit is all the reward I want.
>>17034313>virtual particleAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH that's a good one.light is a wave kiddo.
>>17034302QTF amplitudes, you gotta do the maffs
