# Tag Info

0

I'm pretty sure this question has been asked before, Here and Here and a non stack exchange explanation can be found Here and another, perhaps the easiest read of the bunch: Here Now, I've read (not word for word), but I've read a chunk of those answers and I still find it a little confusing without a clear and concise "yes" or "no" - which would be nice, ...

0

Firstly particles can reach event horizon in finite time in the frame of an observer at infinitely far away (This is the frame of reference for describing black hole radiation). But the above phenomenon of particle reaching to the event horizon in finite time has nothing to do with black hole radiation. Hawking radiation is a quantum effect. The pair of ...

1

Hawking radiation is indeed usually calculated as a semiclassical effect (classical gravitational field and quantum matter), which is invalid at high energy ($\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle >> 1$) and high fluctuations ($\langle T_{\mu\nu} T^{\mu\nu} \rangle - \langle T_{\mu\nu} \rangle \langle T^{\mu\nu}\rangle >>1$). Still, it is a result that is ...

0

Q: How reasonable it it to conclude that, from a remote observer’s frame, matter falling towards a black hole never crosses the event horizon, because ∆ t → 0 as v → c (according to the Lorentz transform)? This is not reasonable at all because the property of the equivalence principle indeed does say that the infalling object falls into the black hole. The ...

Top 50 recent answers are included