(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The question of whether Hawking radiation under quantum theory is fully compatible with a classical interpretation shows utself in the polaraisation problem.

In thr popular description of hawkign raidation, the region of space around a black hole is filled with particle-pairs that usually self-annihilate before they get a chance to interact with anything ... but the tidal forces around arotating or stationary black hole can rip the two particles aprt to prevent this happenning.

Since the shearign forces are greater nearer a smaller hole, smaller holes emit Hawkign radiaiton more vigorously.

we can also suggest that the tidal forces preferentially pull apart pairs that are aligned with the force gradient, so ther eis an element fo natural selection going on. The rest of the description then says that a particl eis emitted and its antiparticle absorbed.

However, for the overall radiation signiture of a QM black hole ot agree with the classical indirect radiaiton effect ... for the two to show the same statistical behaviour ... the QM case has to show a forther degree of polarisation.

Suppose that the radiation cosists of electron-positron pairs. if the orientation of those pairs is random, the n the hole shoul absorb abd emit roughtly similar amount sof matter and antimatter, and the region around the hole should be emitting extra gamma radiation as the anitmatter component annihilates with conventional matter in the region.

In the classical description there is no antimatter beign emitted (unless the region is predominantly composed of antimatter - the chirality of the HAwkign radiation matches that of the local environment, because the radiation emitted is essentially the same material (or developed form the same material that fell into a hole. so a matter black hole needs ot preferentially emit matter over anotimatter, and an antimatte rblack hille needs ot preferentially emit antomatter.

If quantum mechanics turns out to predict this effect, then since matter and antimatter are supposed to behave int he same way in a simple gravitaitonal field, and the pair-production description seems ot iffer no explanation for why tidal forces shoudl preferentially wrench apart virtual particle pairs with one rientation rather than the other, it woudl seem that perhaps the simplest expanation might be that the underlying physics is actually classical, and that the particle-pair description is an intuitive description of the satisrtical behaviour, but is perhaps not as powerful in this situation as the classical approach.