Hawking radiation

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by hardalee, Sep 16, 2015.

  1. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Really? Let's check for this time around. Date stamp of my #77 - 8:42AM. Date stamp your response in #80 - 11:02AM. Massive improvement - less than 3 hrs reaction time. But that's still weird - because you have been logged in all that interval. No don't bother trying to explain it. A uniquely Daecon thing I guess.
    Given how long you have been here at SF and how many scores of times you must have been exposed (and not just here at SF) to the notion of HR from BH's, it's strikes me as, well, strange exposure to alleged mass-temperature relation was not long ago a boring familiarity. Akin to an adult asking where the North Pole is. But hey, that's just my opinion.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    I post from my Playstation Vita. I usually just turn the screen off when I'm doing something else, so perhaps the forum software just keeps me logged in regardless of inactivity. I'll have to check that.

    Anyway, OnlyMe asked for a reference for black holes radiating a thermal spectrum, I linked to the Wikipedia article on black-body radiation as that reference. Then you somehow got the idea that I was claiming that black bodies were the same thing as black holes.

    Maybe I just forgot that the temperature was inversely proportional to the mass, or maybe it never occurred to me to check. I don't remember. Either way, brucep corrected me without being condescending about it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    This is called take away from scratch, not give away... The fun part is that both Daecon and Paddoboy have the uncanny ability of finding out who is wrong and who is right, (Empahsis on 'Who' not on what) without knowing abc of anything....
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    'Onlyme'

    (Bruceps comment for you)
    "For somebody who doesn't know much about this science you sure have a lot of irrelevant opinions."


    I feel sad for you on this, you are trying your level best to come in the hatch of Brucep (Paddo, Daecon already are in), no need man, both Paddo and Daecon are kids in science and maths better off with their playstations, Brucep is abusive and uncivilised fool. You are much better off out of that hatch.
     
  8. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    I see. Fair enough then. AFAIK one remains logged in until choosing otherwise, though there may be an automatic boot-out time limit.
    My reaction was tempered by noting your predominantly hostile, negative postings. 'Putting in the boot' seems to be a recreational activity for you. I dislike tearing down attitudes. Intelligent, constructive input, technically right or wrong, gets a far warmer response from myself.
     
  9. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Are you Rajesh?
     
  10. hardalee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    384
    I think I have solved my misunderstanding. The particle pair is created inside the BH. One tunnels out causing energy loss to the BH and the other remains inside. Both particles have positive energy, no negative energy is required.

    Thanks for the suggestions.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You are obviously still fuming in being once again, shown to be wrong...me, bruce, now Deacon and OnlyMe...how about James, or anyone else that dares question the antics of two anti GR science cranks in this thread. You did though forget Professor Unhru and Professor Link, and Hamilton and quite a few others who have over a number of months shown you to be nothing more than a total fraudster.
    Again my friend, your antics will in time be judged by your peers, just as mine will, and bruce's and OnlyMe.
    Now don't forget to keep clinging to Qreeus's apron strings! You would both be lost without each other.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You proceed under the mistaken idea that anyone really cares about what you think or believe.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Or WIKI may help!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    With such an interesting question Deakon, and bruce's answer, I found this.....
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
    A black hole of one solar mass (M) has a temperature of only 60 nanokelvin (60billionths of a kelvin); in fact, such a black hole would absorb far more cosmic microwave background radiation than it emits. A black hole of 4.5 × 10*22 kg (about the mass of the Moon, or about 13 micrometers across) would be in equilibrium at 2.7 kelvin, absorbing as much radiation as it emits. Yet smaller primordial black holes would emit more than they absorb and thereby lose mass.

    Professor Merrifield gives a reasonably simple assessment at post 78.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Besides the excellent reply from Professor Unruh himself, I think it is appropriate to post the Abstract of his paper that bruce gave,

    Has Hawking radiation been measured?
    It is argued that Hawking radiation has indeed been measured and shown to posses a thermal spectrum, as predicted. This contention is based on three separate legs. The first is that the essential physics of the Hawking process for black holes can be modelled in other physical systems. The second is the white hole horizons are the time inverse of black hole horizons, and thus the physics of both is the same. The third is that the quantum emission, which is the Hawking process, is completely determined by measurements of the classical parameters of a linear physical system. The experiment conducted in 2010 fulfils all of these requirements, and is thus a true measurement of Hawking radiation
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2015
  15. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I wasn't intending to correct you. I just wanted to answer your question because I know you're interested in this stuff. BTW it's very interesting to read about black hole thermodynamics. Jacob Bekenstein. Who passed away this December. When Hawking made his theoretical discovery for black holes radiating in the black body spectrum he was thinking he was going show some of the Bekenstein physics was theoretically incorrect. I could conceive of Hawking, Bekenstein, and Unruh sharing a Nobel for this physics.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Read what Professor Unruh said. He explains why the Hawking flux falling back to the event horizon is negative. What was interesting to me was he discussed the dynamics of the entire flux rather than just a component of it.
     
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    The three separate legs. One of the most informative abstracts I've read.
     
  18. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    It's kinda unique for somebody to create a different identity just to get away from himself [everything Rajesh]. Usually it's a sock puppet trying to evade some kind of sanction. Either way they always forget to quit spouting their brand of crankism. If we were all in a room it would be stamped on the collective crank forehead.
     
  19. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    It was the "kid" line that made me suspicious.
     
  20. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    I didn't mean it in any kind of negative way. I had forgotten a basic fact of black hole thermodynamics, and you didn't call me an idiot. Thanks for that.

    No offence intended and no offence taken.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Sure you haven't jumped the gun there? All believers in HR afaik consider only the case of pair-creation, or equivalent description, happening exterior to EH. So yours seems to be a hardalee-unique conjecture. And I'm not seeing consistency to it. If you acknowledge pairs are created with net +ve energy, where do you get an overall and *detailed* book-keeping energy balance? Seems to me your idea has the BH growing in mass while simultaneously ejecting +ve energy quanta.
    While I think not, BH as perpetuum mobile is actually preferable to the implied Unruh picture of real -ve energy (negative gravitational mass!) quanta 'falling' into a BH.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Agreed. The Professor gave a comprehensive outline of Hawking radiation.
     
  23. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    Sorry for the delay in responding. Let's assume that virtual particles are real. How would that help explain the current theory of the expanding universe?

    I would say that constant interaction of virtual particles would create a slight positive pressure to our local universe. This positive pressure is so very slight that it is basically undetectable, But as you start putting millions of light years together the expanding effect of our space starts to become noticeable.
     

Share This Page