26 ms·

Pauli exclusion is a QM thing. Black holes are a GR thing. Famously, we don’t know how to mix the two.

• eru 23d ago
  We don't know how to mix the two in general. There are plenty of tame enough special cases where we know how a mixture has to look like. Finding a tame enough special case was how Hawking discovered his radiation.
  • ben_w 19d ago
    > Finding a tame enough special case was how Hawking discovered his radiation. It's how it was formulated, but the radiation is far too weak to measure to know it's a real thing on an actual black hole; from this calculator, a 1 solar mass black hole has a Hawking radiation power of 9e-29 W: https://www.vttoth.com/CMS/physics-notes/311-hawking-radiation-calculator https://www.vttoth.com/CMS/physics-notes/311-hawking-radiati... We do see analogous effects in physical analogues of black holes, but we don't know for sure that Hawking radiation actually comes off of actual black holes. Worse, when they're small enough(!) to be luminous enough to actually observe, they should be hot enough to be spewing out a whole load of exotic nonsense particles (not just photons) that we don't really know how to model correctly with regards to Hawking radiation even if it is part of whatever ends up unifying QM and GR. Given even the event horizon of a BH doesn't play well with QM, it's probably best to wait for some physicists to work out how to combine QM and GR better.