Does Hawking Radiation preclude EH formation?

Prof.Layman

The average density of a Black Hole is about the same as water, but inside the Event Horizon you would find a whole lot of nothing(assuming the BH is not feeding)and a single point of near infinite density, the two environments are not the same. Peat has a higher energy generation rate than the average rate of exactly the same volume of the sun(true). Averages will lead you astray if you try to apply them to different environment within a system is being averaged. Averages tell you little about the conditions within in non-uniform systems.
The same goes for virtual particle density near a BH. Some scientists think that ALL you would find inside the event horizon would be virtual particle foam equal to the entire weight of the hole,(IE that the total mass of VPs extant at any one point in time is equal to the mass of the BH) but that is speculation. Whatever, but the ENERGY that makes up the BH system causes NON-AVERAGE particle pair densities around that BH(in fact, even outside the EH)and the more energy, the more "fizz". Don't try to apply the conditions in non warped vacuum(where VPs may well be a yard apart)with the seething foam of VPs that are formed within highly stressed space(like near a BH), that is like comparing the frequency of raindrops hitting your windshield during a brief, light spring shower to the frequency during a monsoon. More energy=more VPs. And there is no point in our Universe more energetic than the Event Horizon of ANY BH(the Event Horizon is the radius where the escape velocity exceeds light and the energy level of a point on that horizon is exactly the same in EVERY BH, even the microscopic ones, and it is very high indeed).

The odds of any one particle pair being exactly the right distance from the EH are astronomical, probably millions of times higher than your chances of winning a lottery. But every lottery has a winner anyway. When we are talking googleplexes of Particle Pairs, you will get millions at the right distance on every square inch of an EH, every second. Fizz.

I think you are trying to apply what Feynman said about Particle Pair production in the vacuum of empty space to all environments(compared to the environment of a BH, we live in a vacuum). He certainly knew better than that when talking about high energy/mass systems. It is you who needs to read it again, with more understanding, Feynman can be rather dense(as in "Lots of stuff in a small space")and that requires you to remember what he has already covered even while you add new things. And not every physicist agrees with all of Feynman's conclusions(even Einstein was wrong sometimes). He was a great physicist and lecturer, not a perfect one. For the layman, Hawking is a better choice, he may or may not be a better or more accurate physicist, but he can explain complex ideas in a way that the neophyte can understand(assuming little or no previous knowledge in physics). Concerning Hawking Radiation...well, it was named after him and what I have said comes straight from his books.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All just shifting the burden of proof for your claim. "You still haven't given a source that says what distance particle pairs are seperated from each other." and it is your claim. It is a false dilemma evasion that there need be any "exact answer". I am only asking you to support what you said. So far, you seem completely incapable of doing so.

You seem to be conflating real and virtual particle pair production. Guess which one is relevant to HR?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That was exactly what I was doing! I wasn't aware that the number of particle pairs could be different near a black hole. But how could we ever really know for sure? I never liked any of Hawkings books, it seems like they are too dumbed down and there isn't really any new kind of information in them, so I never read them. But one problem is they don't even get into the "woo woo" of particle pairs preventing black holes. I would be surprised to even find that in one of Hawkings books. I don't think the theory has really hit the printing press yet. It all sounds like something out of a Star Trek novel where a civilization tries to progress to quickly and they end up blowing themselves up with some new technology. It would insane to support such a theory, that says we could have an acceptable disaster. Even if the Hawking Radiation did work, I don't think we even know for sure that gravity only travels at the speed of light. Einstein didn't seem to think so...

How could we be certian that what GR is even true about anything in a BH? The "fizz" could just be a result of GR failing to describe a BH correctly. I have read many times that everything goes to infinity in GR when in a black hole. If a mathmatical theory goes to infinity then it is normally thrown out as being a wrong answer. But they don't throw away GR completely because it goes to infinity when applied to a black hole.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prof.Layman

I think we see the problem here. You don't like books you haven't read(but you claim to know what is or is not in them, anyway)and you will continue to be surprised at what is in them. Hawking Radiation does cause all BHs to evaporate(it's in the books), it is higher in proportion for smaller BHs(that's in there too)and Hawking himself explained why we haven't found BHs smaller than stellar size(they evaporate rapidly, the smaller-the faster. Again "It's in there"). Too bad you don't like books you have not yet read, you might not make such a damn fool of yourself on Physics forums if you did, though.

Hawking's books are written so even I-know-nothing-about-physics neophytes such as yourself can start getting a basic understanding of what we currently know about physics. Of course it is "Dimmed down" to the level of high school physics, you wouldn't even grasp the math at that level without a couple of years study, so Hawking left the math out, largely. I don't do math well(dyslexia)but even with that problem, I taught Physics in High School for decades, and even I learned a lot by reading Hawking's books when they came out. "A Brief History of Time" is probably the best basic Cosmological physics primer on the planet, it should be required reading at the beginning of freshman year physics, "The Universe in a Nut Shell" expands on that book, explaining some of the things discovered since "History". These "Books you haven't read but don't like anyway" would go a long way toward disabusing you of the obvious misunderstandings you have displayed in this thread.

I'm just sayin'.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Where to start? You "never read" any Hawking books, but you "never liked" them, know what they "don't even get into", and think they are "too dumbed down". You sure have a lot of opinions about things you admit to not reading. And no wonder you think things are "something out of a Star Trek novel", as you seem to think that the quantum "fizz" "could just be a result of GR". HR is all about taking quantum phenomena into account and has little to do with the actual singularity behind the EH.

 

I just didn't like a Brief History of Time that I did read (didn't take that long), and the other books he wrote seemed to be about the same from a glance. I really have no idea why everyone thinks that was such a great book, there are a lot better ones. It is just all hype. I think the ones here making a fool of themselves is you two. I am thinking I should put you both on my ignore list. Hawking Radiation happens on the outside of a black hole anyways. It is amazing that you cannot consider the density of these particle pairs outside of the black hole, not really because neither of you have a clue what to use there. If the black hole was less than a cubic meter in size it would only be able to come into contact with one of these particles at a time. It is just internet junk science that is made up to be real science by people that are not even real scientist.

 

Who said anything about any of his books being "great"? They are pop-sci, and hence necessarily dumbed-down. Nowhere has anyone based their argument solely on any of these. You might as well put us on your ignore list, as you obviously do not want any truck with facts that may contradict whatever you think you remember from only god knows where. Why point out that HR is external to the EH? That is completely trivial and seemingly nothing but a non sequitur here. Maybe just some arm waving since you have absolutely no references for your asserted particle pair density.

Yes, I agree...it really does sound like all you know is misunderstood "internet junk science". You sure have yet to offer anything that looks like science here.

 

So should I have to apologize for just telling you something that you don't know? Would it make you feel better if I just said it was some unkown value X? Would you be a happier scientist then? Now that I think about it the source may have said it was a rough estimate. But, if it was any value where the seperation of particle pairs was larger than the microscopic black hole, it would ruin the whole theory.

What if I said there was Prof.Layman Radiation. Particle pairs could come into contact with trolls and then their particles would evaporate from annihilating with only the antiparticle. So then the troll would have to eventually evaporate and stop trolling so then information could be conserved.

 

Still nothing but a lot of arm waving.

 

Prof.Layman

No apologies needed, but if you were to apologize it would be for representing the blather you post as something you "know". You don't, obviously. Those of us who did spend 6 or 7 years studying what science does say are understandably miffed when a know-nothing wants to argue about things he is ignorant of. There are lots of things I don't know, but all you have shown is that your ignorance in physics greatly exceeds mine. The claim you have made about the frequency of PP production is bogus crap. No reference you can find from a reputable(non-woo)source will agree with what you say, so you just rely on gibberish, the old "If you can't dazzle them with your wit, bury them in your BS" tactic only works with those equally ignorant of the facts.

Until you provide a reference where Feynman states plainly what you claim he said about PP production rates near a BH(and not in a pure vacuum or an average for all space)you will be dismissed and ignored as another ignorant troll who THINKS he knows it all(hint, you don't). Off to the quote mines with you, come back when you think you have a nugget.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And you don't even know because it hasn't even been discovered yet, and it is just one missing detail in a crackpot theory. Do you think you could name one of these pop-physics books people tend to talk a lot about on the internet forums? All the ones I could find all say the same thing. It would be nice to find one that says something totally different with a little more pizazz. When you find one let me know, maybe you will come across the one that says what I mentioned.

 

Make sure you read The formation and growth of black holes by Kevin Brown:

"...Incidentally, I should probably qualify my dismissal of the "frozen star" interpretation, because there's a sense in which it's valid, or at least defensible. Remember that historically the two most common conceptual models for general relativity have been the "geometric interpretation" (as originally conceived by Einstein) and the "field interpretation" (patterned after the quantum field theories of the other fundamental interactions). These two views are operationally equivalent outside event horizons, but they tend to lead to different conceptions of the limit of gravitational collapse..."

Kevin Brown sides with the most common description of a black hole which features a point singularity in the centre. I think this is wrong myself. But whatever I or anybody else thinks, the important point is that two different interpretations of GR lead two two different descriptions of a black hole.

 

Lovely debate, but I was unaware that there was any experimental proof for Hawking Radiation. In-fact much here is pure conjecture. Who is to say that the EH (confounded lazy acronymizers) is a sphere. Mindbogglingly more disconcerting is that we are arguing over a theoretical stationary object at a quantum scale. (come now you know that's not the way to look at it).

So with little evidence as to to the true nature of the theorized Vacuum energy, with assumptions of a perfect spherical event horizons, (could be rough as my last girl friend) and postulating an argument in conditions impossible to exist is this not just a mute argument.

Matter collapsing via massive pressure/energy

So this thing is moving, all things move. So must we note. Modify Mass to accommodate general relativity. Please dont burn me I am just new at this stuff. Event horizon is dependent on mass, mass is reliant on momentum


Now it gets even more crazy as we are looking at a collapsing mass As the thing shrinks the mass distribution of the system will accordingly change, we are past the point of no return, black hole is now here. But nothing can go faster then light the collapse has a finite speed. But the total energy of the system E is dependent on the sum of it parts. All that potencial energy is free, spinning (lets assume that inside the even horizon shit still smells like shit) So we have a mass accelerating ( theoretically for ever) to a singularity. So this unbounded acceleration (only controlled by spin now) is in fact increasing mass. I cant be bothered but would there not be a net gain in invariant mass. We are lucky all holes rotate or it would be doom to us all. At some stage there is a balance where spin limits the inward acceleration, the invariant mass has a limit, thus the radius of the EH has a limit mostly determined by spin.

Does it oscillate, do the rules of general relativity break down. Who knows, I know no one here does. But what I know is that the event horizon is fluctuating in its radius. Just as HR (hawking radiation) can remove mass it can also add mass to a oscillating event horizon, if it expands fast it can swallow the vacuum energy in such a way that annihilation can not occur inside as there is no way for annihilation to be instigated.. Then lets consider the fact that the mass is not symmetrical, thus the event horizon is not symmetrical. I postulate that in fact the event horizon is a turbulent chaotic surface.

So now we have a chaotic surface, with waves and ripples. Bear in mind that the even horizon is not a physical thing and it can move independent of general relativity. It cant grow at any speed and shrink thus as well.

Basically WTF dudes you are playing with simple math not real systems.

And I am a fool in a fools playgound. Have fun.

 

I think at the beginning of the chapter he is just asking the wrong question. What is the relativistic velocity? Has it been discovered yet? How is it any different than Newtonian velocity? How is it that he found that the velocity is different because of spacetime dialation? I don't think the relativistic velocity is really any different than just plane old velocity.

Say, v = d/t, then you would think the relativistic velocity would be, v = (d * sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)) / (t * sqrt (1 - v^2 / c^2)). Then sqrt (1 - v^2 / c^2)) would just cancel, so then you would just end up with v=d/t. So then how would spacetime dialation result into a different velocity? If v = c then you would end up with zero divided by zero, so then the equation isn't valid for when v = c. Does Alice falling into a black hole just say no, no, no, my time is dialated too much so then I can no longer move into the black hole because of this huge force of gravity? I just fail to see how velocity can be different because of time dialation alone.

 

Can we therefore conclude you have read the more detailed technical versions of such work, given you consider Hawking's books too dumbed down and thus not worth reading? I don't read pop science books for precisely that reason but then I know a fair amount of the details of the theories themselves. For someone who hasn't spent as much time doing graduate level physics as myself then the pop science overviews are sufficient to grasp the qualitative side of the work.

Given the highly technical and somewhat speculative nature of the work that isn't surprising.

The impact on black hole evolution due to various phenomena has considerable amount of literature devoted to it. Within a purely general relativistic frame work the results are well developed (ie the 'A black hole has no hair' theorem) but when you include quantum fields it is harder but still the subject of considerably many published papers.

Citation needed. The speed of gravity within general relativity is the speed of light. This is a clear implication of the Einstein Field Equations and is experimentally confirmed to a few percent. The speed of gravity is definitely approximately the speed of light, with GR saying they are identical.

You can make such a statement about practically anything in science.

Well the 'fizz' is due to the inclusion of quantum field theory. In a GR only model there is no fizz and the collapse of a star into a black hole is well understood not just in 3+1 dimensions but many others. It's practically a homework problem for a graduate student to show how black holes in 3+1 dimensions fall into a very small number of categories, again due to the No Hair Theorem.

I guess that answers the question I asked you earlier.... Clearly you are not familiar with even the qualitative overview of the work, which makes me wonder how you could say the pop science books are too basic for you, it seems you haven't read anything relevant, hard or not.

The view that all the maths goes to infinity inside a black hole is a commonly held misconception in people who don't know the maths in question. The event horizon causing things to go to infinity is a coordinate singularity. Just like spherical coordinates break down at r=0 even when describing flat space the Schwarzchild coordinates break down on the event horizon. If you choose different coordinates, such as Kruskal or Eddington-Finklestein then you can mathematically describe in a consistent and smooth manner the motion of something as it crosses the event horizon. Inside the event horizon even the Schwarzchild coordinates are valid again, at least until you hit the singularity which really is a singularity and not just due to using bad coordinates.

If you don't know the maths in question and, by your own admission, don't read the simplified overviews about the maths in question then please don't go around pretending you understand it and trying to explain why it is wrong (likewise if you were saying it is right for no reason other than your own personal view). It isn't physicists keeping things, despite being infinite (which they aren't in many cases anyway), because they like it. Staggering amounts of research is done into dealing with such things in consistent ways. Kruskal and Eddington-Finklestein coordinates were major break throughs, as was renormalisation in quantum field theory. Palming them off because you're too apathetic to bother to find out how they actually work, instead just assuming you've filled in the gaping holes in your knowledge in a vaguely valid way, is not a terribly wise or honest thing to do.

 

Hope you had a great holiday. I was glad to see your post.

 

I haven't been on holiday (in the sense of my job), I'm actually on holiday now for Christmas and New Year. I suddenly lost the desire to look at the forums and rather preferred to switch off my mind in another fashion (such as via my Xbox 360). Having had a bit of a break I'm now willing to look at the forum again. I guess it just felt like a bit of a chore for a while.

 

Wow, it is starting to sound like someone has actually read a few instead of just regurgitating a popular false internet opinion. In a few I have read they warn about internet physics, and how the false misconceptions of people on the internet determine what is and isn't really physics rather or not it is accepted by the scientific community or not.

I was left wondering why Stephen Hawking didn't mention Hawking radiation in his own book. I think that it may be because it really is the most well known theory that other scientist do not agree with. So I think he tried to keep it so that it only had things in it that was really known science.

I saw it a couple weeks ago while chatting on these forums. I didn't really want to get into that here. I know that gravity is supposed to be the speed of light and that is the accepted theory. But, I don't really know why or where that comes from. I find it very hard to believe and it doesn't help that it hasn't really been explained anywhere I know of. So I could ask the same from you. (Tends to be the going theme in this thread, but I think it would be better topic in the fringe section). I think if gravity did affect things FTL that if Hawking Radiation did work we would still be in a lot of world of hurt because of it.

I have noticed that being the main argument of people that don't agree on something in forums that can't be proven either way. Sometimes I worry if dragging out all the details could create more errors than what it prevents. (for example, does time exist?)

What is the No Hair Theorem? I don't think a microscopic black hole created in a lab would be the same as normal black hole created out in space. From what I can tell in the equations from post #1 there is nothing that relates the size of the black hole to how much Hawking Radiation there is around the black hole. So then for a large black hole the amount of Hawking Radiation would be mostly the same around the edge, because there is enough room to take an average amount. But a microscopic black hole would be smaller than the distance between particle pairs. So then the value of the amount of Hawking Radiation couldn't be the same. I don't see how fizz inside of a black hole proves that the amount of Hawking Radiation is the same for black holes of all sizes, and from what I can tell the mathmatics of this just isn't in the theory.

It is like reading a one liner of people that say the same one liners on nova or something. Why bother with the one liners if you have already read books four times it size?

Well, the view that math goes to infinity inside of a black hole is commonly printed in books written by Ph.D.'s in physics. The fact that it doesn't would be news to me. Maybe you should try and let them know?

I am still left hanging here not knowing why what I said was wrong. I don't see anything here that explains that. I would have tried to learn some of the maths but people that write these books always say they will do me the favor of not including them, then I sigh in awe. I don't see how I could if no one is willing to make that information available. I was just hoping someone that works at the LHC would go, DOUGH!, I didn't consider the distance between particle pairs in this hair brain theory, so then they wouldn't suck the entire planet into a black hole. I think they should be able to find the answer for themselves, and they don't need me to tell them how to do it, if they did we could be in a lot of trouble. I think it would be a far worse fate for them to read internet psueodoscience that was not in psueodoscience and begin thinking it was actually science.

 

Prof.Layman

Wow, I'm wondering how you have the gall to say that, after doing exactly that thing in this thread. You are the woo factor in this discussion.

Which one? "A Brief History of Time" was about time and the Big Bang, not Black Holes and whether they have hair.

Hawking Radiation IS accepted science, they are building satellites and telescopes as we speak that will likely confirm them the same way Eddington confirmed Einstein in 1909, by gathering evidence. There are few physicists that do not provisionally accept HR, though you could probably find binders full of internet loons that do not.

Relativity. The Universe has a speed limit for ANY phenomena, lightspeed in a vacuum. Even entanglement hints at other dimensions, not faster than light travel of information, forces or matter in the three dimensions of space+one of time we can sense.

Einstein explained it over a century ago, ignorance of it will let you believe or disbelieve anything. If you do not know and understand General Relativity you know and understand nothing about the Universe.

The physics are the same, only the mass and size are different. All BHs have left our Universe's physics behind(except for gravity and maybe charge and spin), they are not particles nor do they behave like them. The Event Horizon is the only part of a BH that interacts with our Universe, Hawking Radiation is one of those interactions between Particle Pair production, their vectors and a void that swallows everything closer than that radius(that radius exists ONLY because of the gravity of the BH), high energy particles(or antiparticles)are radiation, thus Hawking Radiation. ANY POINT on ANY BHs EH has EXACTLY the same energy flux as any other point on any other EH on any size of BH. Points with high energy flux(and there is none higher in our Universe)will have a lot of high energy PPs fizzing in it's vicinity, those separated by the EH become radiation, smaller EHs have higher curvature and therefore more escape vectors, so higher ratios of radiation in smaller BHs, the smallest, microscopic BHs(many probably formed soon after the BB)have all evaporated in flashes of radiation billions of years ago or clumped together as seeds for bigger BHs, even planetary mass BHs would be gone several billion years and we are unlikely to find any BHs left with less than ~1.4 times the mass of our sun.

Area counts, big EHs have much more radiation in total due to having so large an area. But smaller BHs have more curvature, thus more escape vectors and higher radiation per unit area. Microscopic BHs approach infinite curvature, thus virtually infinite escape vectors and proportionally exponentially higher rates of radiation per unit area. Thus "POOF!"

No, it is still much larger than the virtual particles and it's EH surface is just as energetic as that of a huge BH on a unit area basis, thus just as many PPs in contact with that area as in any other BH. You are simply wrong(stubbornly so)in your claim about distance between PPs. One per cubic yard per second may be a rate you would see in empty space or it could be an average over the entire volume of space, but it isn't a patch to the frequency on a BH's EH where it could be billions per square inch of particles of every size and energy level, even quark pairs for microscopic holes. Any microscopic hole formed by the LHC will evaporate in a flash of particles(radiation) in milliseconds.

Math is a tool to aid in understanding, it is not relevant without a base understanding of the system being studied. In classic Relativity the math does go to infinity, but Quantum physics comes into play any time a system gets small enough, even BHs. Classic physics predicts a point as the BH, but Quantum physics says there are no points, only probabilities. In Nature, where our math points at infinity, we find that there are principles that prevent those infinities from happening. Time is not infinite, even if it stretches forever into the future it had a beginning and we will never reach that infinite future. You can approach lightspeed closer and closer, but you gain mass, slow in time, shorten in length and expend more and more energy to gain less and less speed and you will never reach it. Like vacuums, Nature seems to abhor infinities, no matter what our math says.

So no one pointed out that your claim about one PP per cubic yard was wrong? Really? Seems to me you have been told multiple times, just by me. You are trying to apply what you think you remember about what someone claimed was the frequency of PP production in empty space(average, evidently)to the most energetic real estate anywhere in the Universe, the radius of the EH. That is like comparing the density of water droplets in a light fog to that of a monsoon, pure idiocy and ignorance of the subject, IOW. More energetic space has more PPs created in it, empty space(low energy vacuum)has much fewer PPs created in the same space. It really is a simple to understand principle, once you get it, it is easy to see where you went wrong.

What do you think the LHC was constructed to study? Do you really think that the scientists, engineers and financiers of it's construction knew nothing about the study of subatomic particles, despite years of study on dozens of smaller accelerators and colliders, that they would make such a basic mistake? That they don't know much more than you do and that your understanding about particle pairs and their frequency is crap?:facepalm:

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It makes it really easy when someone just complains about what you say without even giving the correct answer. I don't understand how someone with a scientific mind could just know something is wrong without even being able to give the correct answer.

That is the only one I have claimed to have read. Have you not paying attention to anything I have said after insisting on it again and again.

Have you never heard of the Black Hole wars? In almost any book that mentions the theory it also mentions other scientist not agreeing with it.

There is action at a distance when particles do not travel down half wave length guides.

Einstein made up the phrase "spooky action at a distance". I don't know of any reference where he proved there was not action at a distance.

I still don't see why a black hole should increase the number of particle pairs outside of it. There cannot be that many particle pairs in a normal situation. If there was everything would be completely filled with holes like swiss cheese, like a lot of your claims of false information that you don't even know the answer to.

So why doesn't everything else go Poof along with it?

That is because no one has been able to give a correct answer to my "false" clame. You have proven that your claim that my claim is not scientific because you fail to give the correct answer. I didn't even say it was an exact value, I also already said that the book I read it in said that it wasn't a proven thoery and is yet to be discovered. So I know that you don't know the answer and you are completely full if it when you keep saying this. So then if this hasn't been discovered then you really would have no idea what this value is inside of a black hole.

So how do you plan to prove your side of this crackpot theory when some of the mathmatics that would affect it do not even exist yet?

Again, if someone would like to correct me with a correct answer then I could replace the value I gave with that one, and then the theory would still have the same problem.

I think internet trolls like yourself would make such a basic mistake like I have seen many times in the past. Everyone has ranted about someone being a no nothing regradless if they are or not, even without any real basis. I could never trust anything someone said that was that way.