Does Hawking Radiation preclude EH formation?

Oh, you mean like a troll who makes claims that he apparently cannot support in any way whatsoever? You are shifting the burden of proof and demanding that others prove your seemingly random claim wrong. It really seems that you would not recognize nor accept a correct answer if it bit you. You certainly have not offered the least scientific support for your claim, other than an appeal to some nameless authority. All of you protestations boil down to, "it's true because I vaguely remember someone somewhere saying it was." And the only defense of your claim is no more than the usual hack tactics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well you will never know because you will never be able to find the correct answer because it doesn't even exist. Even if I did find where exactly I read it, I don't know how to hack that information on the internet where other people could see it. It may have been Leon Lederman that said that. To bad whoever it was didnt publish the theory. It could have come in handy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you have nothing, just as I said. Could be your imagination for all we know, and probably is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am fairly certain that there are no laymans text that say that a value of particle pairs has been discovered, besides one that gives an estimate as to what it would be. Most likely why Hawking did not include that value in his theory. But, knowing that there is particle pair seperation would mean that they would not effect a black hole the same way for any black hole of any size. Especially if you got down to the microscopic scale. We know that it is not a large value or everything would be swiss cheese, and someone could probably make up a lot of crackpot theories claiming that they know what that value would be. The rate of Hawking Radiation on the microscropic scale wouldn't be accurate to any other type of object other than a black hole. If the amount of particle pairs was enough to prevent a microscopic black hole from forming that value would have to be indicative to the black hole itself. There is no way to know that since we do not even have a value that can be agreed upon in a normal vacuum.

 

A lot of unfounded supposition, but still no substance. Your posts are not making any headway at all, so I wonder why you continue to bother.

 

Understood. I've wondered why I get so involved with some of the nonsense but I guess I'll just have to call the interaction fun. Reading your educated comments 'on the physics' is fun for me. The only game I developed any skill at was Monopoly and Chess. The Xbox stuff is really trippy but I'm afraid of making a fool of myself in public.

 

That is a good question. I thought the thread was asking the question, "Does Hawking Radiation preclude EH formation?". So I was answering the question as no, and I am locking that in as my final answer (even though I know it has been a forum topic at least 8 years ago and still hasn't hit the press). I haven't seen any reason why that should be yes, a microscopic black hole would not increase the number of particle pairs outside of it. I know the number of particle pairs has to be low because the antiparticles are not destroying all matter everywhere when they come into contact with something. Think about it, what would it be like if you lost one particle for every meter traveled? What if you lost a particle as much as Hawking Radiation says you would? Antiparticles would annihilate with matter and then leave a particle that was free from a body, any large value of that happening all the time would be insane. I have given it some thought since then and I think it is the best reasoning to stop this nonsense before it is too late.

 

The OP has nothing to do with microscopic black holes, although your answer, that HR does not preclude EF formation, is correct (seemingly for the wrong reasons).

Oh well, since you have given it some thought, based solely on your intuitive incredulity...

HR is not about particle pairs. It is, at most, about virtual particle pairs being boosted into the real particles emitted. There are clouds of virtual particles around every real particle all the time without any untoward consequences. I already told you that you have simply conflated real and virtual particles. But hacks refuse to learn anything that may conflict with their superior intuition, even though science has proven to be very unintuitive.

 

Are you trying to be self referential or did you not realise you're behaving in the bad way you describe?

Firstly there's only so much he can cover, second there's no issue with putting in speculative stuff and thirdly there isn't quite the issue you seem to think there is.

What was that about people just regurgitating things.....

So you don't know the details, you complain about qualitative overviews and you don't bother to check facts before repeating them? Are you deliberately trolling?

It's explained in books. Books. Try reading some. In pop science books it'll just be stated and not shown so if you want a derivation you should go to textbooks or lecture notes. Obviously you don't read either. And you have no knowledge of the theory so what you find hard to believe or not is irrelevant.

More random suppositions?

The problem is you complain about lack of details then don't look up the details. You've given excuses about why you don't read anything.

Ask Google.

And you base this on your extensive knowledge of.....?

And you haven't bothered to check. Good one. One of the major results of Hawking was showing the temperature of a black hole is proportional to its event horizon area. You'd know that even if you read pop science books.

I explained what happens, you are oversimplifying by saying 'maths goes to infinity inside a black hole'. Certain things go to infinity at particular places, it isn't like we cannot say anything about things inside a black hole event horizon.

And I have a PhD in physics. And I was lectured 'Black Holes' by someone who had Hawking as their PhD supervisor and now works with him. What I'm telling you comes from that lecture course (and other places), as close to straight from the horses mouth as you'll get.

There's plenty of published papers, blogs, books and presentations on it, ranging from 'The LHC for kids' up to the latest research. It is out there for you to find but you clearly don't make even the smallest effort. Why should someone else put in the effort for you when you can't even put in the effort yourself?

 

No I did not realize that, I thought I was the one basing my opinions on what was real science.

I haven't seen anything covered in this thread. What speculative stuff and issue's are you referring to?

"But since in daily experience the weight of bodies meets us as something constant, something not linked to any cause which is variable in time or place, we do not in everyday life speculate as to the cause of gravity, and therefore do not become conscious of its character as action at a distance." - Einstein

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Sounds like you need a vacation. I don't know where all this is coming from. I am sorry you had to respond to over six thousands idiots before we had this conversation.

I just haven't read anything in a long time, I just decided that I would go back to my hobby of theoretical physics, but I had already read all the books on it at the library. (hence the name Prof.Layman, still didn't help not having to read this bs nonsense).

Layman text and their description of particle pairs and Hawking Radiation. I don't see anyone doing any real scientific work here I thought that should be sufficient to talk about it.

What book would that be in? It is actually hard to find information on Hawking Radiation. I think your just dodging the point I was trying to get at. It says nothing about the distance between particle pairs and its influence on it.

So then would this statement prove that you are not a PhD and that you haven't worked with someone that worked with Hawking? I said I read layman text, so then everyone rants that I don't read them. You tell me what one is more believable...

Correction, no one you ever met in the past has made such an effort. Take another vacation.

 

But you admit you don't read the pop science books and obviously you don't read the detailed literature. So where are you getting the science from?

The specifics of Hawking radiation, ie the thing you said there is considerable discord in the community over.

Firstly you didn't have a reference when I asked, you just said you'd read someone else say it. Secondly that doesn't have anything to do with the question of what GR says about the speed of gravity. You repeated something without checking its validity, which is precisely the sort of thing you have been complaining about in others.

The fact you're doing precisely the things you complain about in others.

Are we even having the same conversation? I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, your unwillingness to check facts, your regurgitating of things without verification and your willingness to make assertions without knowing either the qualitative overview or the quantitative details. As for as I can see you're not going about things in a good way so I don't know why you think there's some distinguishing factor between you and those 'six thousand idiots'.

Either you're aware you've got a flawed memory of those books and you just don't care or else you don't realise it. Either way the result is the same; you are behaving like those you complain about.

There's a few of us who do 'real scientific work' but it isn't done on forums. Real research isn't going to get done by forum discussions, as the input of laypersons isn't going to be of much use when you're trying to compute things like a 2 loop scattering cross section in electroweak theory. Do you think this discussion is of the level of 'real scientific work'? Don't kid yourself, talking in a wordy way about a topic considered advanced by the community isn't doing 'real scientific work'.

If you wish to discuss the quantitative derivation of Hawking radiation or how to extract the speed of gravity being the speed of light then we can do so but I suspect it'll be very one way since you're unfamiliar with the details and thus would have to have pretty much a postgraduate course in differential geometry and field theory given to you.

Textbooks on field theory in curved space-time will cover it. Lecture courses in black holes will cover it. You can either do it using normal mode expansion or periodicity in Euclideanised space-time. There are tons of books on quantum field theory in curved space-time.

I wasn't talking about that anyway.

I didn't say I worked with him, I said I was lectured by him. As for the truth of my claims about my education others can corroborate what I said is true.

You complained there's not enough details so you didn't read his book(s).

I work with plenty of people who have made such efforts. I've put in the effort for myself too. During my PhD my supervisor took maternity leave and I had to motivate myself for 6+ months. If I hadn't done it, I'd have not completed it. Working with people who can and do put in such effort, who go out of their way to find things out for themselves, put in effort to learn it for themselves, means I know what the product of such actions are and you aren't displaying them.

You can kid yourself and decide I must be lying about myself but it doesn't change the fact you're obviously too lazy to help yourself and expect others to do it for you. If you'd tried and failed then I'd help but you've tried nothing and you're all out of ideas.

 

Okay, why don't we start with just one thing at a time. I didn't get an answer yet as to what the distance between particle pairs would be. I read that it was on avearage of one meter apart, but that was just an estimate. So then say a microscopic black hole is less than one meter in size of its event horizon (or just less than the real value of particle pair seperation). The microscopic black hole would be able to fit inbetween the space of two particle pairs and then not have a particle pair on the edge of its event horizon. So then what would be wrong with this reasoning?

 

BS. Here, let me spoon feed you some info on HR readily accessible through a simple Google search. You know: http://bit.ly/WTpFrb

(emphasis added)
Hawking radiation reduces the mass and the energy of the black hole and is therefore also known as black hole evaporation. Because of this, black holes that lose more mass than they gain through other means are expected to shrink and ultimately vanish. Micro black holes (MBHs) are predicted to be larger net emitters of radiation than larger black holes and should shrink and dissipate faster. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation


Indeed, if the mass of a black hole is M solar masses, Hawking predicted it should glow like a blackbody of temperature
6 × 10-8/M kelvins

...The most drastic consequence is that a black hole, left alone and unfed, should radiate away its mass, slowly at first but then faster and faster as it shrinks, finally dying in a blaze of glory like a hydrogen bomb. -http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html


Bigger black holes are colder and dimmer: the Hawking temperature is inversely proportional to the mass, while the Hawking luminosity is inversely proportional to the square of the mass. -http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html​

And that is just the first three Google hits. Maybe you just do not understand that more radiated energy means higher temperature. Either way, I agree with Alphanumeric that you seem like the worst sort of lazy hack, trolling those who have actually bothered to find out some of this for themselves. Lucky, with the above info, you no longer have that excuse, and you will be forced to rely on nothing but your blind stubbornness.

 

So you didn't care to comment on my post #92? Why is it that a smaller black hole would shrink and dissipate faster? Does this mean that microscopic black holes actually increase the number of particle pairs? I think it is because the distance between particle pairs is not included in the theory. Say you had a balloon with dots marked on it, the dots being the particle pairs and the balloon is the event horizon of a black hole. You then shrink the balloon, the dots then become closer together. So then there would be an increase in the number of particle pairs at the event horizon. I think this is what the mathmatics of Hawking Radiation does, and I don't think it is correct. The dots should stay in the same locations regardless of the size of the black hole. The mathmatics cannot be put into a scientific theory because it hasn't been truely discovered yet. So then there is no option to prove it mathmatically. I could find probably a dozen sources that say not agreeing with Hawking Radiation is science. You are hacking my credibility by saying everything I say is wrong, but then you agree with me that Hawking Radiation does not preculde event horizon formation. I would have never been able to realize this from your comments myself.

 

This is complete nonsense. Seems you are conflating Hubble expansion (even using the balloon analogy) with particle pair production with virtual particle pairs. You obviously have no idea what HR does, so it is no wonder that you do not think it is correct. The only thing incorrect here is your abysmal lack of comprehension.

Virtual particles are popping in and out of existence all the time, everywhere. The more energetic the environment, the more energy there is to boost virtual particles into the real particles emitted from a black hole. As a black hole shrinks its gravity lessens, meaning fewer of these real particles are recaptured. The more emission the greater the energy and the more virtual particles are boosted adding to the energy.


It is really no surprise that you could not understand my comments.

 

No, you have confused the balloon analogy I used with Hubble expansion, and that is because all you understand is flaming people for being ignorant. I in no way shape or form said anything about the expansion of the universe. You just automatically assume things are false with no basis at all whatsoever. It is really no surprise that you could not understand my comments.

The variables in Hawking Radiation do not say anything about the energy of individual particle pairs. Now who is just making stuff up? It wouldn't even matter if a particle was "boosted" if it did not even encounter the microscopic black hole to begin with. The entire point of my argument that you still have somehow missed.

 

"Virtual particles are popping in and out of existence all the time, everywhere." You still have yet to provide any reference for this supposedly low virtual particle density you keep claiming.

 

The library was closed down, so you would have to deal with it until at least sometime next year. All it would take is just a little uncommon sense (that you seem to have in abundance), antiparticles from particle pairs on any surface would annihilate with normal matter. You could move back into your cave and notice that there are not very many photons being created from this and it will still be pitch dark.

 

What you think is irrelevant since you don't have a clue what the science predicts. That's my short version of what Alphanumeric told you in detail. In Schwarzschild coordinates the event horizon is a frame dependent measurement from remote coordinates. In this case it's a coordinate singularity. When measured from local proper frame coordinates it doesn't exist as real natural phenomena. What exists, measured in the local proper frame, are real coordinates where 'stuff' on the -r side can't pass over to the +r side. The reason is the distance -r to +r is spacelike. Did you ever figure out what that means? So concluding that the distance between virtual pairs would rule out the existence of a part of the universe is ridiculous. The real science is very interesting. It's important as science works toward a complete understanding of our universe natural phenomena. Irrelevant bs from uninformed sources is a bore.

Lets add this. The Hawking radiation is predicted to exist for all horizons [spacelike boundaries] not just those associated with black holes. Recently Crunchy Cat [I'm fairly sure it was CC] linked an experiment where the Hawking Radiation was detected. This is a cool experiment. Recognize the importance of the link between theory and experiment. I learned that while reading my first text on GR.
Hawking radiation from ultrashort laser pulse filaments
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4634

 

Leornard Susskind claims that Stephen Hawking has withdrew his theory because of the Holographic Principle. The information would then be stored on the event horizon because anything that falls into it would become frozen in time. I think Stephen Hawking has been had because of this. Time dialation doesn't affect velocity. I tried to support Hawking Radiation in this respect but I still get flamed for not knowing anything. So then if I was to hold you up to your own standards then wouldn't anything you think be irrelevant?