Is Hawking any closer to solving the puzzle of black holes?

Schmelzer your thoughts on mainstream generally accepted science [not to mention politics] is well known by now.
At this time I'll stick with my original thoughts re Hawking Radiation and its logical application...If that's OK with you of course.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_theory.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry, but string theory and M theory are not "mainstream generally accepted science", but only a particular speculative approach. This speculative approach is very popular in the mainstream, but even the proponents do not claim that all this is supported by any experimental evidence. Thus, it is not an accepted theory.

Feel free to stick with whatever you want, be it Hawking radiation or UFOs, I couldn't care less. But if you present highly speculative approaches as established scientific theories, I will present counterarguments. Of course, I expect that you will ignore them - this is all you can do. This is simply information for other readers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm speaking on the reasonable logic of Hawking radiation.
And of course as speculative as String theory and its derivatives are, they make far more sense in all respects then your own take on SR/GR time dilation and the like.

And neither is any of your own scientific thoughts and papers.

Wrong and incorrect inferences on all counts.
[1]UFOs are of course real[2]I presented nothing other than Hawking Radiation and some evidence of such an effect.[3]Your counter arguments are never ignored, but rather discarded as unevidenced and simply unlikely due to your lack of access and self confessed Maverick status.[4] This is all simply information for other readers.

 

http://apod.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/bh_pub_faq.html#evaporate

5. What about Hawking radiation? Won't the black hole evaporate before you get there?
(First, a caveat: Not a lot is really understood about evaporating black holes. The following is largely deduced from information in Wald's GR text, but what really happens-- especially when the black hole gets very small-- is unclear. So take the following with a grain of salt.)
Short answer: No, it won't. This demands some elaboration.

From thermodynamic arguments Stephen Hawking realized that a black hole should have a nonzero temperature, and ought therefore to emit blackbody radiation. He eventually figured out a quantum- mechanical mechanism for this. Suffice it to say that black holes should very, very slowly lose mass through radiation, a loss which accelerates as the hole gets smaller and eventually evaporates completely in a burst of radiation. This happens in a finite time according to an outside observer.

But I just said that an outside observer would *never* observe an object actually entering the horizon! If I jump in, will you see the black hole evaporate out from under me, leaving me intact but marooned in the very distant future from gravitational time dilation?

You won't, and the reason is that the discussion above only applies to a black hole that is not shrinking to nil from evaporation. Remember that the apparent slowing of my fall is due to the paths of outgoing light rays near the event horizon. If the black hole *does* evaporate, the delay in escaping light caused by proximity to the event horizon can only last as long as the event horizon does! Consider your external view of me as I fall in.

If the black hole is eternal, events happening to me (by my watch) closer and closer to the time I fall through happen divergingly later according to you (supposing that your vision is somehow not limited by the discreteness of photons, or the redshift).

If the black hole is mortal, you'll instead see those events happen closer and closer to the time the black hole evaporates. Extrapolating, you would calculate my time of passage through the event horizon as the exact moment the hole disappears! (Of course, even if you could see me, the image would be drowned out by all the radiation from the evaporating hole.) I won't experience that cataclysm myself, though; I'll be through the horizon, leaving only my light behind. As far as I'm concerned, my grisly fate is unaffected by the evaporation.

All of this assumes you can see me at all, of course. In practice the time of the last photon would have long been past. Besides, there's the brilliant background of Hawking radiation to see through as the hole shrinks to nothing.

(Due to considerations I won't go into here, some physicists think that the black hole won't disappear completely, that a remnant hole will be left behind. Current physics can't really decide the question, any more than it can decide what really happens at the singularity. If someone ever figures out quantum gravity, maybe that will provide an answer.)


The numbers concerning fatal radii, dimming, and the time of the last photon came from Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's _Gravitation_ (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1973), pp. 860-862 and 872-873. Chapters 32 and 33 (IMHO, the best part of the book) contain nice descriptions of some of the phenomena I've described.
Information about evaporation and wormholes came from Robert Wald's _General Relativity_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984). The famous conformal diagram of an evaporating hole on page 413 has resolved several arguments on sci.physics (though its veracity is in question).

Steven Weinberg's _Gravitation and Cosmology_ (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1972) provided me with the historical dates. It discusses some properties of the Schwarzschild solution in chapter 8 and describes gravitational collapse in chapter 11.

Posted to sci.astro frequently asked questions by Michael McIrvin.

 

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/10553/1/0009083v1.pdf

Information Erasure and the Generalized Second Law of Black Hole Thermodynamics


Abstract

We consider the generalized second law of black hole thermodynamics in the light of quantum information theory, in particular information erasure and Landauer’s principle (namely, that erasure of information produces at least the equivalent amount of entropy). A small quantum system outside a black hole in the Hartle-Hawking state is studied, and the quantum system comes into thermal equilibrium with the radiation surrounding the black hole. For this scenario, we present a simple proof of the generalized second law based on quantum relative entropy. We then analyze the corresponding information erasure process, and confirm our proof of the generalized second law by applying Landauer’s principle.

 

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...Be_Decoded/links/02e7e536683d04b6cf000000.pdf


ABSTRACT :

One of the great difficulties in the theory of black hole evaporation is that the most decisive phenomena tend to occur when the black hole is extremely hot: that is, when the physics is most poorly understood. Fortunately, a crucial step in the Harlow-Hayden approach to the firewall paradox, concerning the time available for decoding of Hawking radiation emanating from charged AdS black holes, can be made to work without relying on the unknown physics of black holes with extremely high temperatures; in fact, it relies on the properties of cold black holes. Here we clarify this surprising point. The approach is based on ideas borrowed from applications of the AdS/CFT correspondence to the quark-gluon plasma. Firewalls aside, our work presents a detailed analysis of the thermodynamics and evolution of evaporating charged AdS black holes with flat event horizons. We show that, in one way or another, these black holes are always eventually destroyed in a time which, while long by normal standards, is short relative to the decoding time of Hawking radiation.


5. Conclusion:

Hawking Radiation Cannot Be Decoded Attempts to settle the question of the unitarity of black hole evolution are plagued by uncertainties connected with quantum gravity. This prompts the question: what can be said if we approach the problem while staying clear, as far as possible, of these uncertainties? The AdS/CFT correspondence permits a definition of a quantum-gravitational system in terms of a well-understood field theory at infinity. That field theory is maximally wellunderstood when the boundary geometry is just flat spacetime. We therefore argue that the most reliable context for discussing these issues is provided by AdS black holes with flat event horizons, since these are dual to a field theory on a boundary which is either locally or even globally flat. We have shown that these black holes have the great virtue of evaporating towards extremality: that is, they become cold. This does indeed allow us to avoid the uncertainties associated with extremely high temperatures. We find that low temperatures tend to destroy such black holes, just as their duality with the quark-gluon plasma would suggest. The destruction takes a long time by normal standards, like the evaporation of most black holes; but compared to the time required to “decode the Hawking radiation”, it happens very quickly. In short, in the best-understood cases, Hawking radiation cannot be decoded, confirming the claim of Harlow and Hayden. It remains to be seen whether the fact that Hawking radiation cannot be decoded really resolves the firewall problem; we hope that our results will stimulate renewed efforts to overcome the objections raised in [10]

 

Given that you have no idea at all about string theory, thus, no base for evaluating its value, all what could justify this belief is simple, primitive rejection of anything outside the mainstream, following the authority.

[1]: Ok, so what, I have said you are free to stick to them? Of course, the meaning was "whatever theory about" them, in case you have not understood this. [2] There is no evidence of such an effect. All you can hope for is some analogon for the radiation which will happen during the collapse, but not for some "Hawking radiation" which will remain after this until the whole BH evaporates. [3] With "ignored" I mean that you do not propose any physical counterarguments. A simple rant, based on nothing but belief in what authorities say, is not an argument, even if you think otherwise. What "lack of access" you are talking about? All important new articles about physics you can find on arxiv.org, many of the past on booksc.org, so in physics the situation is quite nice.

 

Oh I have some idea, but yes most certainly, I prefer to follow mainstream authority take on it, rather than that of a Maverick outcast.

Just about sums up your posts in general.
What questions do you have re UFOs?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You seem rather confused. UFOS are real. :shrug: Or are you inferring UFOs of Alien origin? If so, then sure, we have no convincing evidence of such as yet.

It's a logical outcome of particle pair production near the EH of a BH.
And yes, again I prefer to accept the official theoretical application as per the many links I have given, rather then that of your own.

Ditto again about accepting mainstream thinking, and yes I certainly believe that trumps anything you are liable to come up with.
Of course as we all know, if you had anything of substance, you would not really be here, trying convince us lay people of your version.

Lack of access to all the state of the art equipment that mainstream cosmologists are able to access, like LHC, RHIC, VLA, and other 'scopes, and of course the stuff we have up there.
In essence then, all you are able to do is take note on new discoveries etc, make an opinion, most likely opposite to what mainstream has just for the sake of it, and then run with it on forums like this, in an effort to try and impress lay people such as myself.

 

None at all. Learn to read, and understand the meaning of what is written.

Feel free to believe whatever you like about UFOs, aliens, 911, astrology, Hawking radiation, string theory, JFK, whatever else. Your choices are, of course, predictable, what Big Brother tells you to believe you will believe, but so what?

It is not at all a "logical outcome". Because logic does not tell us anything in the highly speculative domain, and quantum gravity is a highly speculative domain.

I'm not an experimenter, so I would not even touch such equipment if I would have access to it. You may be not aware about such a basic subdivision of labor between theoretical and experimental physicists, but it nonetheless exists. So that theoreticians usually never touch any experimental devices. What theoreticians touch are scientific articles, which are written by members of teams of experimenters. And such articles are accessible for me too. So, my position is as good as that of theoreticians with a job in some scientific institution.

And you are completely wrong if you think that I would be opposite to the mainstream just for the sake of it. I'm not in opposition to the mainstream in any particular issue related with the standard model of particle physics, the standard model of cosmology, and the experimental support of GR. The domains I reject - string theory, M-theory, GUTs, supersymmetry - are not claimed to have any empirical support at all, not even by their proponents. And your speculations about my aims are, as usual, nonsense. Your opinion is far too unimportant to be of any interest for me.

 

Well since it was you who raised the question of UFOs [for some unknown reason] I suppose we can let that red herring go.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So says another conspiracy adherent, while mixing legitimate science with his own unique brand of the weird and wonderful.

While we do not yet have a working validated QGT, we are reasonably certain about some quantum aspects, which like I said, leads to Hawking Radiation being a predictable logical step resulting from pair production near BHs.

Experimenters and theoreticians do confide I'm sure. Otherwise all I see is another effort of you trying to get out from under.

Likewise your opinion to me and the scientific community in general I would think.
Nice to see you accept the standard model and GR...they do fit like a hand in a glove with BB cosmology also...Another reason why the three are on such solid ground.

 

This is, indeed, something some scientists may say. But I think this is a consequence of the unfortunate fact that the trans-Planckian problem is usually ignored in textbooks. And, of course, once something is in textbooks, most scientist will think this is well-established.

And I'm not an exception here, I confide that experimenters do their job appropriately.

Minor correction: I accept the experimental support for GR, but not GR in its most popular spacetime interpretation. My modification of the theory of gravity makes it much more compatible with the standard model.

 

To use your own words, I don't really care what your opinion is, and more importantly, neither does accepted mainstream science.

Is that a fact?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You can delude yourself with that nonsense as much as you like, obviously the accepted mainstream academia do not agree.
And like I said previously, if you had anything of substance, you would not really be here, irrespective of your usual conspiracy claims.

 

It seems to me that you spend far too much time in the debate, for the above to be completely accurate. If anything is, far too unimportant to be of interest, one would expect no comment or discussion.

It is almost as if the sentence was meant as a veiled personalization. When you say that someone's opinion is unimportant, it is almost the same as saying they are unimportant.

Seems you slide down the same rabbit hole here.

If either of you really did not care, there would be no such references.

 

I like to answer all objections made. This is because I care about my ability to find good answers. I recognize that this is, in part, nonsensical. If I would be completely rational, I would answer much less, and leave much more unanswered.

 

Wise words. I just gave myself an uppercut!

 

Someone raised the issue of 'Dumb Hole' here, Dumb Hole is the counter part of Black Hole with sound, but it has no spacetime derivation, the observation on the Dumb Hole does not conclusively establish anything to do with Hawking Radiation. Moreover regarding Hawking presumption for evaporation that no material accretion or no CMBR absorption is neither reasonable nor logical. Its rather ridiculous even to suggest that a few solar mass BH, with evaporation time of trillions of trillions of trillions years will not absorb anything..

 

Hawking radiation as supported by many reputable links, and in line with particle pair production is most certainly a reasonably logical scenario to envisage....Certainly far more reasonable and logical than any Black Neutron Star concept, that a past nut once surmised on this forum and wrote a paper on [although a questionable publication company] and was consequently and totally derided and rebuked by a Professor Link Bennett and also Professor Hamilton and Prof Begalman.

http://apod.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/bh_pub_faq.html#evaporate

 

Pl read the post properly, I have stated that evaporation of BH, assuming that there will not be anything for absorption for trillions of years is not logical and reasonable.

You seem to take vicarious pleasure in name calling and deriding people, not a very healthy quality, because it will pain you a lot if you start receiving the counters.

 

I read your post properly, perhaps its your wording at fault.

My derision of rajesh of course is warranted, as even with threads sent to the fringes, and his paper rebuked and derided, he still insisted [all without any links] that he was right.
My criticism of him stands on those grounds.