Yes, and it doesn’t actually matter. The anti-particle will then at some point hit a regular particle of the same type and release energy instead, leaving the universe with more energy which came from the black hole and the destroyed particle.
The majority of Hawking radiation is composed of photons, and photons are their own anti-particle. But black holes should radiate just as many positrons as electrons.
🤷♂️ because when we flip all their quantum numbers we still call them a photon? They have no charge, so if you flip their charge they still have no charge. They have no color, so if you flip their color they are still colorless, etc. The ability of a particle to interfere with itself is a general property of all particles, because all particles are probability waves, so this isn’t special to a photon.
Eh, I think ‘because math’ is a better description than idk, since we do kinda know why (math models), we just don’t necessarily know why (the models work that way) if that makes sense.
Would it be possible for the antimatter particle to be ejected instead of the ‘real’ matter particular?
Yes, and it doesn’t actually matter. The anti-particle will then at some point hit a regular particle of the same type and release energy instead, leaving the universe with more energy which came from the black hole and the destroyed particle.
The majority of Hawking radiation is composed of photons, and photons are their own anti-particle. But black holes should radiate just as many positrons as electrons.
How are they their own anti-particle? Because they destructively interfere or something?
🤷♂️ because when we flip all their quantum numbers we still call them a photon? They have no charge, so if you flip their charge they still have no charge. They have no color, so if you flip their color they are still colorless, etc. The ability of a particle to interfere with itself is a general property of all particles, because all particles are probability waves, so this isn’t special to a photon.
“because math” got it.
I did use a lot of words to say “I don’t know” didn’t I.
Eh, I think ‘because math’ is a better description than idk, since we do kinda know why (math models), we just don’t necessarily know why (the models work that way) if that makes sense.