>>13655877>>13655849Hawking radiation is an unconfirmed theory deerived from an unconfirmed theory, so eh.
You have the gist of it, according to whatever limited knowledge I myself could interpret from Wikipedia.
According to the theory, particle-antiparticle pairs are constantly forming in quantum foam, however they never achieve "reality" because they need enormous quantities of energy to be boosted into actual particles, so they disappear into the foam.
The gravitational potential right at the event horizon is high enough to "boost" these particles into being real, and in some cases, one will be catapulted from the horizon into space, carrying away energy from the gravitational field of the black hole. The other ... idk becomes sort of "negative energy"? and falls inward, thereby reducing the mass of the black hole.
In synthesis, it's a process where the black hole donates part of its gravitational potential and mass to a particle that is allowed to escape into space.
Some problems:
We don't know if it's real that virtual pairs spontaneously form from quantum foam
If that was real, we don't know wether the mechanism would execute like that, boosting a particle and making the black hole "evaporate"
If we wanted to find out, Hawking radiation is predicted to be a lot, a lot, a lot less energetic than even the CMBR, in fact if a stellar remnant black hole existed in a space complete devoid of matter and energy except the CMBR, it would still gain more energy from it than it would evaporate, currently, and for hundreds of trillions of years still
With a caveat: the less massive a black hole is, the faster and more energetically it is expected to evaporate; so what we are looking for is intense, heavily redshifted gamma ray bursts; these would be the Hawking radiations from (hypothetical again) primordial black holes, formed in the first years of the universe from direct matter/energy collapse, with mass far below stellar class
