Not quite killing it: black hole evaporation, global energy, and de-idealization

IF 1.8 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE European Journal for Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1007/s13194-025-00638-4
Eugene Y. S. Chua
{"title":"Not quite killing it: black hole evaporation, global energy, and de-idealization","authors":"Eugene Y. S. Chua","doi":"10.1007/s13194-025-00638-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A family of arguments for black hole evaporation relies on conservation laws, defined through symmetries represented by Killing vector fields which exist globally or asymptotically. However, these symmetries often rely on the idealizations of stationarity and asymptotic flatness, respectively. In non-stationary or non-asymptotically-flat spacetimes where realistic black holes evaporate, the requisite Killing fields typically do not exist. Can we ‘de-idealize’ these idealizations, and subsequently the associated arguments for black hole evaporation? Here, I critically examine the strategy of using ‘approximately Killing’ fields to de-idealize black hole spacetimes and approximately extend conservation laws to non-idealized cases. I argue that this approach encounters significant challenges, undermining the use of these idealizations to justify the evaporation of realistic – rather than idealized – black holes, and raising questions about the justified use of such idealizations.</p>","PeriodicalId":48832,"journal":{"name":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-025-00638-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A family of arguments for black hole evaporation relies on conservation laws, defined through symmetries represented by Killing vector fields which exist globally or asymptotically. However, these symmetries often rely on the idealizations of stationarity and asymptotic flatness, respectively. In non-stationary or non-asymptotically-flat spacetimes where realistic black holes evaporate, the requisite Killing fields typically do not exist. Can we ‘de-idealize’ these idealizations, and subsequently the associated arguments for black hole evaporation? Here, I critically examine the strategy of using ‘approximately Killing’ fields to de-idealize black hole spacetimes and approximately extend conservation laws to non-idealized cases. I argue that this approach encounters significant challenges, undermining the use of these idealizations to justify the evaporation of realistic – rather than idealized – black holes, and raising questions about the justified use of such idealizations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不完全消灭它:黑洞蒸发、全球能量和去理想化
黑洞蒸发的一系列论点依赖于守恒定律,守恒定律是由全局或渐近存在的kill向量场所表示的对称性所定义的。然而,这些对称性通常分别依赖于平稳性和渐近平坦性的理想化。在非平稳或非渐近平坦的时空中,真实的黑洞蒸发了,必要的杀伤场通常不存在。我们能否“去理想化”这些理想化,以及随后与黑洞蒸发有关的论点?在这里,我批判性地研究了使用“近似杀伤”场来非理想化黑洞时空的策略,并将守恒定律近似地扩展到非理想化情况。我认为,这种方法遇到了重大的挑战,破坏了这些理想化的使用,以证明现实的蒸发-而不是理想化的-黑洞,并提出了关于这种理想化的合理使用的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
European Journal for Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The European Journal for Philosophy of Science publishes groundbreaking works that can deepen understanding of the concepts and methods of the sciences, as they explore increasingly many facets of the world we live in. It is of direct interest to philosophers of science coming from different perspectives, as well as scientists, citizens and policymakers. The journal is interested in articles from all traditions and all backgrounds, as long as they engage with the sciences in a constructive, and critical, way. The journal represents the various longstanding European philosophical traditions engaging with the sciences, but welcomes articles from every part of the world.
期刊最新文献
The value of credit in science. Inductive risk meets engineering risk: Error management and pursuitworthiness in collider physics Can the non-identity theory answer the original criticisms of causal theories of spacetime? Science-based policymaking: the need to think holistically, realistically, and institutionally Two Wrongs Make One Right
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1