This topic I originally started in this forum, and here is where I agree it properly belongs if there's to be any more discussion of it. It ended up and evolved at:
I disagree that any of my questions, or that any of my analogies I used to explain why I asked a particular question, in that link goes against mainstream physics. I'm not proposing any new theory, just trying to question what appears to me to be at least one inconsistency of the virtual particle model explanation of how black holes can evaporate. Because I'm not trying to propose a new theory I'm uneasy that this topic area of the forum is the proper arena either, but it seems to be the best of the possible choices.
Because the topic over at that link is closed I cannot use normal forum quote methods, so I'll provide a link to the latest and perhaps best overall answer to my general questions there:
where jfpowell said:
Without re-hashing that entire topic here, I'd hope interested parties would fully read that original topic I provided a link to above, and not comment here until having done so. That's because the topic focus evolved as questions were answered and other answers brought new questions.
One thing that was agreed to was that virtual particles are real while they exist in a "Heisenberg time" period, that they can mediate (interact with) normal particles while they exist, that they must recombine within that time period and return their energy that they borrowed from the vacuum that produced them in the first place, and that it is only the vacuum energy that makes them real during that time period (not black hole energy).
One other thing was agreed to. The tunneling model is equivalent to the virtual particles model as a mechanism for black hole evaporation. That's really all that went unchallenged by more questions. The end result is mathematically the same, a method of removing energy from a black hole. One more directly related question was answered saying that a particle being emitted by a black hole can have sufficient energy to avoid being re-captured by the black hole, although in fairness I'm not sure it was meant to be applied to the tunneling model (due to that clarification not having been specifically stipulated nor asked about). But if it does apply then the general topic question was indeed answered and it was shown that at least by the tunneling model black holes indeed can evaporate.
One last question of mine, just before the topic was closed, was not understood or at minimum I don't see that it was answered regarding something inherent to the virtual particles model for BH evaporation. That question, to paraphrase, was if mainstream theory can allow for the "Heisenberg time", under any circumstance, to be "stretched" beyond what it would be out in a big void of space if the only variable allowed to change is limited only to gravity. I want to know if that time period, the "t" part of the "Heisenberg Picture" (to which a link was provided in the closed topic), can in mainstream theory be modified by the capture (by a black hole) of just one particle of a virtual particle pair. I further but indirectly asked why that would not create a paradox if the BH captures just one of the virtual particles of a pair, but the Heisenberg time is not stretched (perhaps to where "t" becomes infinite) by that quantum act.
Those are my 2 topic opening questions in this ATM area of the forum. Please note that my intent is that this topic is looking for mainstream physics explanations rather than alternative theory replies (thanks!) This area of the forum, by its rules, allows 30 days from topic creation before it gets locked. That should be enough time so that the mathematically inclined curious people, and others, have enough viewpoints for considerations.
Edit 2010Jan12 6:35pm PT: I think a moderator was kind and provided the above quote that I provided a direct link too, I didn't do it because I could not quote from a closed topic. Much appreciated, thanks! I've asked for a link at the closed topic be added there to point to this one, too, so that followers of it don't suspect I was shut down (i.e. so it allows readers continuity to the now relocated topic).