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

[The God]

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.

Yes may be, my wordings could be at fault, but to me, my Post 37 looked quite readable and unambiguous.

You have the right to criticize anybody (I generally take a call on the contents) but any civilized person will not criticize anybody when the the other person is not around to defend. You need to instrospect, gentleman.

 

[paddoboy]

Yes may be, my wordings could be at fault, but to me, my Post 37 looked quite readable and unambiguous.

You have the right to criticize anybody (I generally take a call on the contents) but any civilized person will not criticize anybody when the the other person is not around to defend. You need to instrospect, gentleman.

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.
He was also an habitual liar, once inferring that I faslified an E-Mail from Prof Hamilton. Obviously that was criticism against his crazy take on BHs, just as many Professors that replied criticised and rebuked his claims.
What made it all so amazing, was that he still insisted he was right. An amateur by the way, glorified electrician with no qualifications, but a ton of delusions of grandeur.
My criticism of him stands on those grounds.

 

[paddoboy]

Just found a great 30 minute lecture video given by Alex Filippenko PhD on Hawking radiation.
Probably the most simplistic easily understood explanation I have ever heard of, and at the same time all encompassing on the subject.
Interesting moments at the 20 minute and 25 minute mark.
Well worth watching........

 

[paddoboy]

I E-Mailed Prof Link on his thoughts re any of these questions invalidating BHs......
Hi Professor:
I was wondering if you could give me your views on BHs and hawking Radiation in light of the recent ideas from Stephen Hawking.
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-hawking-closer-puzzle-black-holes.html

I am interested primarily in questions of does any of these theoretical applications do anything to [1] diminish the likelyhood of BHs not ever existing,
and [2] On the legitimacy or otherwise of Hawking Radiation.
I’m prompted to ask these due to media sensationalistic headlines of such things highlighted by the last headlines a few months ago re BHs not existing any more
which was of course false.
Of course as far as I know, the effects on matter/energy and spacetime in certain regions of space [like the center of our galaxy, can only be attributed to GR inspired BHs.

You probably remember me as paddoboy, from sciforums and past correspondence.
Whatever info you can supply will be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
Barry


Hi Barry,

No, none of this questions the existence of black holes or Hawking radiation. The question is what happens to the information that accompanied the matter that fell into the black hole. The current explanation is that it leaks out in the form of subtle correlations, essentially undecipherable, in the radiation that is emitted in Hawking radiation as the black hole evaporates.

Hawking is proposing a different solution in which the information is accessible in the images of the matter at the event horizon that persist for eternity. I think Hawking is being very speculative, and has yet to prove that his proposal is viable.

Best,

Bennett Link

 

[The God]

Just an observation:

Based on Hawking radiation it is quite likely (Probablistic) that Universe May evaporate (partcile AntiParticle Annihilation on this side of EH).

Hawking radiation proposes that particle with negative Energy will fall inside the EH while the particle with positive energy escapes out on this side. The negative enrgy of the partcile (Anti Particle) will thus reduce the mass of BH. Now probablistically the anti partcile and particle may switch side, in that case mass of Universe reduces while mass of BH increases. Moreover BHs are already stuffed with huge invisible mass, and they are accreting also, so a mathematically derivation can be given (assuming a large number of existent BHs in the universe) for the life of Universe. At the end of this type of Hawking radiation what will be left over is all BHs around, so even if there is any further fluctuation the partcile antipartcile will be absorbed by a pair of BHs, some kind of mass transfer between two nearby BHs with no possibility of revival.

See it from this point of view, there is nothing in the maths proposed by Hawking which proves or even discusses that why that negative energy particle cannot fall this side, or why more antipartcile on this side and less on the other side, so Hawking if he wanted, instead of evaporating BH, could have evaporated the Universe Mathematically. It was just the matter of direction his pen (symbolically) took and instead of Universe he evaporated BH.

This is a novelty, if it had come from the mouth of Hawking, it would have gotten enormous press and media coverage like all other science fiction stuff coming out of BH stable. Am I convinced that Universe will turn into multiple Black Holes, thanks to Hawking radiation......probably no, because I am not convinced about BH on the first place.

 

[Daecon]

I don't think it works like that.

The particle and antiparticle don't switch sides, they're upgraded from being virtual particles to being real ones. One of the pair falls in, and the other escapes. The one that falls in has to be the antiparticle, and the one that escapes has to be the particle, in order to balance the total energy of the system.

 

[The God]

True on the first part, I agree.

But why the particle that falls inside has to be the antiparticle, I am not able to figure out this deterministic aspect.

 

[Daecon]

It's not an antiparticle in the classical sense of antimatter, it's literally an anti-particle. A particle-shaped hole, if you will.

 

[paddoboy]

Just an observation:

Based on Hawking radiation it is quite likely (Probablistic) that Universe May evaporate (partcile AntiParticle Annihilation on this side of EH).

You ignore the most blatantly obvious. This happens to a lot to people with an agenda.
Hawking Radiation as you should well know is a very slow tedious affair, and in the death of the Universe, BH evaporation will be the very last thing to happen....with SMBHs for example we would be looking at 10 to 100th power.
It follows then logically that taking in the reverse, of the Universe evaporating [which may possibly be infinite] but millions of times more massive then BHs anyway, that we can multiply that effect again, which puts it far beyond the reach of the predicted lifetime of the Universe anyway, mathematically or otherwise. Of course basically this is just more pedant nonsense I suggest.

...probably no, because I am not convinced about BH on the first place.

The agenda I spoke of, and what my old illogical friend rajesh also pushed.
All you need to do is come up with something or other that produces the effects which cosmologists attribute to BHs anyway.
Other than BNSs which have been invalidated totally, what would you suggest.

 

[The God]

Paddoboy,

Again you have offered nothing worthwhile on the content.

Although I ignored your continued pestering/trolling despite James R warning to you, but no more.

It is apparent that you lack sound knowldege of the subject, but thats ok, what is problematic on the public forum is your continued obsession with individuals rather than on the subject. It is also apparent that this guy rajesh has badly bruised you and you are still nursing that hurt, he seems to have left an indelible mark on your psyche that you are trying to see his signatures here and there. Leave it man, leave it, time neutralizes everything. See someone bruises you,you bruise someone else; someone hurts you, you hurt someone else; someone insults you, you insult someone else; some one screws you, you screw someone else; Someone cheats you, you cheat smeone else.....Mostly they come in pair, the problem with most of people is that they remember the former part of pair, not the later part, and suffer throughout life grudging.....get over with it, bruises will go over the period of time.

 

[The God]

It's not an antiparticle in the classical sense of antimatter, it's literally an anti-particle. A particle-shaped hole, if you will.

...Some kind of Black Hole affinity towards another hole...Hole-Hole attraction. I feel like dressing up and move on.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy,

Again you have offered nothing worthwhile on the content.

Except you don't decide that...your peers on this forum decide that as well as the content of your own posts.

Although I ignored your continued pestering/trolling despite James R warning to you, but no more.

I will continue to address you as the god, although I believe you most certainly are rajesh, and what's more, the evidence is adding up.

It is apparent that you lack sound knowldege of the subject, but thats ok, what is problematic on the public forum is your continued obsession with individuals rather than on the subject. It is also apparent that this guy rajesh has badly bruised you and you are still nursing that hurt, he seems to have left an indelible mark on your psyche that you are trying to see his signatures here and there. Leave it man, leave it, time neutralizes everything. See someone bruises you,you bruise someone else; someone hurts you, you hurt someone else; someone insults you, you insult someone else; some one screws you, you screw someone else; Someone cheats you, you cheat smeone else.....Mostly they come in pair, the problem with most of people is that they remember the former part of pair, not the later part, and suffer throughout life grudging.....get over with it, bruises will go over the period of time.

No rajesh bruised no one else but himself, and has only himself to blame for his threads being moved to the fringes due to his nonsensical claims and the continued refuting of experts. In fact he eventually left claiming another paper that was going to verify his BNS fairy tale, but that said paper died another death as his first one did.
And speaking of adding anything worthwhile, you have yet to express why you do not accept BHs or at least give us a viable alternative that matches the effects we observe.

I say it again, Hawking radiation although a quantum effect, is based on good logic and what we already theorise.

 

[paddoboy]

...Some kind of Black Hole affinity towards another hole...Hole-Hole attraction. I feel like dressing up and move on.

What are you on about?
Hawking radiation speaks of virtual particle pair creation near the EH of a BH.
Before they become real one is swallowed...the positive particle escapes escapes and becomes real [as it has nothing to annihilate with] and the one that seccumbs to the BH, being negative status due to the laws of conservation of energy, thus detracting from the overall mass of the BH.

rajesh also had a stupid habit of avoiding and generally deriding reputable links.
Here is one describing Hawking Radiation narrated by Prof. Alex Filippenko

or hear is a more basic description

at the 2min 10 sec mark he describes Hawking explaining that the particle pair creation near the EH could see the positive particle with enough energy to escape, while the negative mass particle may fall in.

 

[Schmelzer]

This picture of Hawking radiation with a virtual particle pair is quite popular but misleading. The problem is that it would work in the same way for a stable star too. But stable stars do not Hawking-radiate.

 

[paddoboy]

This picture of Hawking radiation with a virtual particle pair is quite popular but misleading.
The problem is that it would work in the same way for a stable star too. But stable stars do not Hawking-radiate.

Why is it misleading?
You have expressed your doubts re hawking Radiation and I have offered reputable links supporting the HR concept.
I do not at this stage see your comments offering anything new other than negativity due to your personal unsupported agenda re BHs and GR.

 

[Schmelzer]

Why is it misleading?
You have expressed your doubts re hawking Radiation and I have offered reputable links supporting the HR concept.
I do not at this stage see your comments offering anything new other than negativity due to your personal unsupported agenda re BHs and GR.

Nobody expects that you will post anything except what you name "reputable link". The really funny thing in this case is that you have initially responded with a "reputable link" to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html which I know because it was copied into the email notification about your posting. Strangely, this link has disappeared. Hm, why? Was there anything wrong with it? Yes, of course,

Modified by Ilja Schmelzer 1997.
Original by John Baez 1994.

thus, it cannot be reputable by definition The link is, anyway, quite irrelevant, 1997 I was not aware of the trans-Planckian problem and, so, the article is not about this problem at all.

Whatever, nobody expects that you see anything in any argument against a popular mainstream position except an anti-mainstream agenda. Which you will, of course, name unsupported, independent of the amount of argumentation which has been given, and independent of the fact that you have not even tried to explain why you think that the support which has been given is insufficient.

Despite this hopelessness, I will try to explain the argument already given in some more detail. So, we have this mystical virtual particle pair, similar to the popular explanations given for Hawking radiation, outside the star. One of the particles is flying away, as in Hawking radiation, the other one, with negative energy, falls down toward the star, and obtains enough energy by falling down into the black hole or onto the star. What is the difference between the two situations, one with the stable black hole, the other one with a stable star? There is none, at least none which seems relevant for considering this story as an acceptable explanation.

But there is an important difference in the prediction about Hawking radiation. Namely, that a stable star does not Hawking-radiate, even according to the mainstream of Hawking radiation theorists. And even if there is a collapse, and the collapse stops at some finite distance, Hawking radiation stops too. See Paranjape, Padmanabhan, Radiation from collapsing shells, semiclassical backreaction and black hole formation, Phys.Rev.D 80:044011 (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1768v2 which is much more reputable than anything you have linked, because Phys. Rev. is one of the most prestigious journals of mainstream physics, if not the most prestigious one at all. (I will, by the way, not publish in this journal, out of principle, because to publish there one has to pay. Mainstream scientists do not have to care about this, because anyway their institute will pay. But even if not, they would pay, because this would be a good investment for their future scientific career.)

Thus, the "explanation" based on virtual particle pairs should be rejected because it suggests wrong predictions about Hawking radiation for stable stars.

 

[paddoboy]

Nobody expects that you will post anything except what you name "reputable link". The really funny thing in this case is that you have initially responded with a "reputable link" to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html which I know because it was copied into the email notification about your posting. Strangely, this link has disappeared. Hm, why? Was there anything wrong with it? Yes, of course,

thus, it cannot be reputable by definition The link is, anyway, quite irrelevant, 1997 I was not aware of the trans-Planckian problem and, so, the article is not about this problem at all.

Sorry Schmezer you are totally wrong. I have used that link before and I have never really noticed your name. Whether you believe me or not is up to you.:shrug:
I didn't find the article in agreement was the only reason I left it out, I don't suppose you or anyone else has ever done that?

But on reading further I suppose I should have woken up and noticed your touch.
I see HR as reasonably logical as many other reputable physicists also find.
Yes it is still rather theoretical and has not been validated, but it is based on already accepted cosmology of particle pair creation.
Your own paper was highly theoretical also, the point in that paper that showed you up as a fraud was claiming it could/should replace GR.

Now you can rant and rave as much as you like to me, but I would suggest you concentrate that ranting and raving to the sources of my links and other physicists that find it still a reasonable outcome.
As a lay person I reject your last sentence as nothing more than wishful thinking.
Or are we going to continue your game of my reputable links beat your reputable links?
The point in question is debatable, I have never denied that. But I see logic supporting the concept.

 

[Schmelzer]

but I would suggest you concentrate that ranting and raving to the sources of my links and other physicists that find it still a reasonable outcome.

The problem is that most of your links have the usual weak points of popular presentations, in particular oversimplification and some inaccuracies, but are usually not plainly wrong, thus, there is not much worth to object. What is much more horrible is your presentation of them as supporting some of your claims, when they have usually nothing to do with them.

But I see logic supporting the concept.

Your use of the word "logic" is one of the most funny things in your claims. What you probably mean is that the argumentation seems plausible to you.

 

[paddoboy]

http://www.sciencepubco.com/index.php/ijbas/article/view/607

The problem is that most of your links have the usual weak points of popular presentations, in particular oversimplification and some inaccuracies, but are usually not plainly wrong,

Yet plenty of physicists, the real ones I mean, the ones with their noses to the grindstone, still working, theorising and constructing outcomes, see it as a reasonable outcome.
You of course would rather spend your time here arguing with me. That actually says it all my friend.

 

[paddoboy]

Here is Stephen Hawking's paper on particle pair creation near BH's

http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~giulini/papers/BlackHoleSeminar/Hawking_CMP_1975.pdf

Abstract.
In the classical theory black holes can only absorb and not emit particles. However it is shown that quantum mechanical effects cause black holes to create and emit particles as if they were hot bodies with temperature ~ ~ 10 where ~ is the surface gravity of the black hole. This thermal emission leads to a slow decrease in the mass of the black hole and to its eventual disappearance: any primordial black hole of mass less than about 10 is g would have evaporated by now. Although these quantum effects violate the classical law that the area of the event horizon of a black hole cannot decrease, there remains a Generalized Second Law: S+¼A never decreases where S is the entropy of matter outside black holes and A is the sum of the surface areas of the event horizons. This shows that gravitational collapse converts the baryons and leptons in the collapsing body into entropy. It is tempting to speculate that this might be the reason why the Universe contains so much entropy per baryon.