Hawking Radiation

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by The God, Mar 10, 2017.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    In fact the disagreement started with your support to the idea that something gets exported from inside the EH. With this incorrect notion as base, I do not feel that one can dismiss HR.

    You moved on to preferential treatment given to the negative particle. None of your subsequent posts touches upon Hawking original paper, as supplied, on this issue. Clearly suggesting that this point is not clearly understood. So pl tell what common ground is there for agreement on this? May be you can tell.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    These are secondary objections. Actually they were just questions posed, and Hawking's original paper does not address the preferential treatment of negative particles...but it isn't relevant.

    My main problem with HR is the following:

    1) HR requires an event horizon
    2) HR causes BH evaporation
    3) An evaporating BH has a finite life
    4) A BH with a finite life cannot contain an event horizon
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,497
    Incorrect. If one assumes GR version of BH having Schwarzschild metric, even for the case of a symmetrically collapsing spherical shell of dust, for an external observer an EH is asymptotically approached in a very short time. HR theory in one interpretation merely requires that any infalling 'negative energy' quanta are tidally separated from the 'positive energy partner' for a time longer than uncertainty principle formally permits. I have already pointed out the overwhelming preponderance of 'particles' claimed will be photons which always have positive energy.

    In #54 it was stated the whole argument rests on accepting GR's Schwarzschild metric thus 'inevitability' of BH & EH. But actually a crucial additional factor is accepting the notion of 'vacuum fluctuations'. In numbers of earlier threads I referred to L Jaffe's powerful critique of the popular notion that Casimir force is 'proof' of such vacuum fluctuations aka vacuum ZPE (zero-point energy) - particularly that in EM field: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158
    Fact is, as Jaffe shows, Casimir force is 100% accounted for by known to exist Van der Waals electronic interactions between matter distributions. Which leaves exactly ZERO contribution from 'vacuum fluctuations'/ZPE. More recently another researcher has backed that conclusion via a different line of attack:https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143
    And once again, more convincing reasons to reject notion of vacuum fluctuations is here: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuation-myth/
    So imo Hawking's entire argument rests on two pillars with foundations of sand. With a very fishy rationale for obtaining 'negative energy quanta' thrown in.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Q-reeus, please tell me which of the numbered items is incorrect and why you think so. From what I can interpret you seem to just be giving your own personal objections to Hawking radiation, which is fine, but that does not make them mutually exclusive to my logical contradiction objection.
     
  8. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,828
    This seems to be an argument between deafmutes, beating on one another with no perceivable reason.
     
  9. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,497
    4) May be technically correct IF in addition to playing along with validity of GR thus Schwarzschild metric, Author's work you cite elsewhere:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0550321316301274
    Is correct. But it's mute since HR is found to exist in that case anyway.
    Your logical contradiction is refuted by the findings of above author you quote elsewhere! My objections rest on more fundamental considerations. Namely GR thus Schwarzschild metric thus BH & EH is wrong, and so is notion of vacuum ZPE/fluctuations. The latter ruled out by findings of Jaffe et al.
     
  10. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,497
    You have something technically useful and relevant to contribute? Or just living up to your name and nicely appropriate avatar?
     
  11. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Q-reeus, please tell me which of the numbered items is incorrect and why you think so...
     
  12. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,497
    ????? Did both in #66.
     
  13. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    No, its incorrect. You may like to read this highly bombed paper by Laura Mercini Haughton, will be helpful otherwise too.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1837

    If you call that as evaporation!! For evaporation the mass/energy radiated away is of the object. In this case the positive energy particle is not the part of BH, nonetheless mass of BH reduces on this score. So intent appears ok.

    Yes, if a stage comes when there is no increase in mass due to any kind of accretion or absorption. But this finite for stellar mass BH or higher is as good as infinite.

    You must appreciate that as long as EH is present, there is no causal influence of anything inside EH to outside. There is no concept of time inside EH which is comparable with time outside.
     
  14. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    If Hawking radiation requires an event horizon, which is something that is always mentioned (even in the original HR paper), then any radiation coming from a black hole is not strictly Hawking radiation (unless we relax the definition).
     
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Why are you insisting that HR requires event horizon?
     
  16. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Because that's the way it has always been described. Hell, Hawking's original paper, the one you linked to yourself, refers to the event horizon 66 times.
     
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    By whom?

    Please read the paper I linked you in earlier post..The abstract itself will clarify that Hawking radiation is possible during collapsing star even before it falls below its event horizon.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1837

    Hawking himself states (although no clarity if full text is read)

    The question is about definition, please note that Hawking was mainly talking about BH, so the reference to event horizon is natural. We can classify Hawking radiation in two categories.....One during collapsing stage (prior to BH formation) and second after EH is formed..It is the later you are talking about, which by "definition requires EH".
     
  18. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    I'm personally fine with accepting that some type of radiation occurs without an event horizon. I think it resolves all issues, including the information loss paradox. Let's just agree to agree on this.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Acting smart?
     
  20. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    I think you've made it pretty clear in this thread that defending your ego is more important than discussing physics..."The God"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    False..

    1. You are making an argument from the clear position of ignorance. First you harped on export from inside EH and now you are insisting on HR requires EH. I feel your ego is not letting you step back. I proposed nothing, these two were your claims. Sorry but incorrect claims, I was giving you a way out.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I think Rpenner was on the point when he rightly commented on the context paper of yours...

     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  22. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    This whole thread is curious. You link to Hawking's paper and then you're surprised to learn that he refers to the event horizon dozens of times in it -- and you still seem to think Hawking radiation doesn't rely on it? You clearly went on a google hunt, unsuccessfully, to figure out what preferential treatment negative particles might get in order to reduce the mass of a black hole...only after you realized that this was indeed a problem. You even insisted that there was no problem, and that the likelihood of positive and negative particles tunneling into the black hole were equal (initially, until you realized why that doesn't work). You keep throwing around terms like "profound ignorance" but it's clear that you're trying to give the impression that you had all the answers, the thread's content notwithstanding, before this discussion even began. Incredibly odd, almost a Trump-level delusion.

    Anyway, it's been real. When a thread offers me no interesting info I unsubscribe. Good luck "The God"
     
  23. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    Another dishonest attempt; Quite bad, but then you may be like that only.


     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017

Share This Page