Hawking Radiation


A clip from a BBC documentary explaining Hawking radiation around black holes.

Negative mass??


7 thoughts on “Hawking Radiation

  1. When they say “negative mass” they mean anti-matter – that is simply sloppy work on part of the journalists making this documentary. So in an vacuum you get e.g. an proton-antiproton pair out of nothing, and both the proton and antiproton annihilate the next time they meet with an counterpart (which can be unrelated antiprotons or protons). Or you can get e.g. an electron-positron pair. But it must be two particles that cancel each other out – these pairs come from nothing, and they go to nothing.

    Don’t ask me why and how, for that my understanding is not enough…

  2. Tony, negative mass is NOT anti-matter. Negative mass is still largely theoretical; anti-matter is scientific fact and has measurable mass. An object large enough having negative mass would possess gravitational repulsion instead of attraction.

  3. Hawking’s theory is intriguing, but it assumes a lack of inflowing matter into the black hole. But, if the influx of matter is greater than the spontaneous creation and annihilation of virtual particles, then the black hole will continue to grow. However, the theory gets interesting when one considers the universe at its end with all available matter having been used up and nothing but black holes left. Still, Hawking’s theory does not account for the collapse (collapse, not reversal) of time, or more correctly space-time, under such circumstances.

  4. My point *was* that anti-matter is not negative mass. My point is that when the documentary says negative mass, they mean anti-matter – because that is what happens when pairs of particles pop out of the vacuum. My point is that the word used in documentary are wrong. Sloppy work in this TV production.

    I never had the intention to imply that anti-matter has negative mass, and I don’t see how you have read that in my words.

Leave a Reply