Hawking radiation

[The God]

The following quote has been edited for clarity.



If I understand The God's intent in that one statement, aside from any hostile implications contained in his post as a whole.., and that paddoboy's response was a response to that statement....

First, it is my opinion that The God was being theatrical almost to an extreme and his statement could be taken as adding some emphasis to the professor's response other than intended by the professor, but while a theatrical exaggeration, his statement is not wholly inconsistent with the professors comments. Though unless his intent is to incite conflict, he should be more careful with his words... In the following quote of the professor's comments, note the portion I have emphasized in bold.



What I understand the professor to have been saying, is that in an ideal vacuum solution (empty space), which does not exist in reality, a black hole would emit Hawking radiation..., and none of the compact objects we currently believe are black holes, are believed to emit Hawking radiation.

Is that the same as saying Hawking radiation is fantasy? Absolutely not. It puts Hawking radiation in a similar category as say a schwarzchild black hole, we don't know them to exist in our reality, but they play a significant role in our attempts to understand that reality.

Even further when he (the professor) adds in the same quote, "and confirmed by a variety of other approaches to the question.", where I assume (risky I know) that he is referring to some of the analogues earlier discussed, he is raising the issue well above what I would expect of a fantasy.

Hypothetical as it relates to black holes, at present yes! A fantasy, absolutely not!

This HR thing is being discussed for last 2-3 threads. My stand was consistent and unwaivering, as follows..

1. I had raised an objection that this + / - energy particle interpretation is vague and not clear, Schemelzer also had clearly expressed the sloppiness of this, subsequently Q-reeus put it clearly raising the same objection, but Paddoboy continued with his popular cut pastes, finally based on Q-reeus post Tashja organised some responses. Prof Unruh and others clarified that indeed this interpretation is popular one and not exact. That settled this.

2. I also raised an objection that an isolated BH is an impossibility, and the evaporation of BH is possible only if we ignore CMBR and accretion by BH. As usual Paddoboy killed this argument also. Now Prof Misner has confirmed this too that absorption of CMBR is more than HR emission. Its like this if you take a very big tank, and the inflow is more than the outflow, then the Tank is not going to get empty, and dreaming that tank will get empty is only a fantasy. So here also I said 'Evaporation of BH' is a fantasy as long as CMBR absorption is there, and as rightly put by Q-reeus as long as CMBR T > HR T. In this era with HR T being as low as nano kelvin for solar BHs, we never know when CMBR T (2.7 K as of now) will fall below that or otherway round..


Even now Paddoboy is trying to misinterpret what Prof Misner is saying, just to prove me wrong.

Now there is one more issue which got created due to Prof Misner response.....I feel that HR would be there even if there is no complete empty space around, I mean getting the absolute vacuum is not in our realms of possibilities, so if we take his words on face value then that would make even HR unviable, what he probably is referring is presence of CMBR and its absorption and thus impossibility of BH evaporation. I do not think he is trying to say that complete empty space (Without even CMBR) is required around BH for HR emission.

 

[paddoboy]

This HR thing is being discussed for last 2-3 threads. My stand was consistent and unwaivering, as follows..

The only consistency and unwavering in any of your posts, is your apparent delusional facade that you are never wrong, and refusing to supply anything you fabricate.

Prof Unruh and others clarified that indeed this interpretation is popular one and not exact. That settled this.

All anyone has ever claimed in this thread is that HR is a reasonable logical outcome based on quantum physics and that this Yilmaz theory is not causing a stir at all. That is what has been supported by most experts.

2. I also raised an objection that an isolated BH is an impossibility, and the evaporation of BH is possible only if we ignore CMBR and accretion by BH. As usual Paddoboy killed this argument also. Now Prof Misner has confirmed this too that absorption of CMBR is more than HR emission.

A BH in isolation is certainly not impossible....Sorry to spoil your party again. And stellar size BH remnant could exist in isolation.
While that is certainly true re the evaporation concept, what isn't true is the fact that this is not what you originally claimed.
And of course the good Professor elaborated about the future in time and how HR is still a logical outcome. A fact that OnlyMe has also already picked you up on.
And as I said in post 380 thus
"The Professor's intent is obvious. HR is logically a minimal scenario. Most BH's by there very nature, will be swallowing far more than what is evaporated due to HR, at this time of course. Just as obvious is the fact that in the far far distant future HR will eventually gain ascendancy and the BH should indeed evaporate.
In a similar vane, all of spacetime is expanding, but over smaller denser scales, the effects of gravity overcome that expansion and systems such as our local group and further afield, are void of any obvious spacetime expansion and are gravitationally bound".
None of that invalidates HR nor demotes it to a fantasy. That is just your own unsupported version of cosmology, which you admit is not mainstream.
Or perhaps this is just more clowning around by you, to use your own words?
Some smart people here my friend, you ain't gonna fool any of them with unsupported claims.

Its like this if you take a very big tank, and the inflow is more than the outflow, then the Tank is not going to get empty, and dreaming that tank will get empty is only a fantasy.

No not a fantasy as your analogy is very limited. HR will in the end take place and evaporate BH's in time and according to what most generally accept.

Even now Paddoboy is trying to misinterpret what Prof Misner is saying, just to prove me wrong.

I do not need to prove you wrong. You are doing a good job of that yourself with your obvious lies and misinterpretations.

You appear to be stuck between a rock and a hard place my friend.
Really your words, sentences, and more words without any support are like dust in the wind.

This matter certainly is settled.
HR is generally supported by mainstream as an application of quantum physics
[2] Yilmaz theory has barely created a ripple and GR still stands as unchallenged at this time.

 

[The God]

A BH in isolation is certainly not impossible....Sorry to spoil your party again. And stellar size BH remnant could exist in isolation.

Can you please give some reference here? You are claiming a BH without CMBR around, without any kind of electromagnetic radiation. Is it possible in reality? Prof Misner has categorically stated that all the possible candidates for BH are absorbing CMBR and their mass is increasing, you are contradicting him.

And what is BH remnant ? A BH is a BH, isn't it?

You don't spoil my party, Son, I just let you drink....

 

[paddoboy]

Can you please give some reference here? You are claiming a BH without CMBR around, without any kind of electromagnetic radiation. Is it possible in reality? Prof Misner has categorically stated that all the possible candidates for BH are absorbing CMBR and their mass is increasing, you are contradicting him.

And what is BH remnant ? A BH is a BH, isn't it?

The BH is a remnant...a stellar remnant.
Stellar BH's certainly are able to exist in isolation. I did not mention "without CMBR around" that's just more of your usual style to confuse.
But speaking of the CMBR and HR, we all know [I think] that the CMBR is diminishing over time. Eventually HR will supercede. Just as the Professor and I explained to you.
So once again saying that HR is a fantasy on that basis, is just plain wrong.

You don't spoil my party, Son, I just let you drink....

Well it was you who said you clown around. Is this more clowning?

 

[paddoboy]

Can you please give some reference here?

Give you reference?
I have been asking you for references since you retired rajesh and assumed the god. You have totally ignored it and are unable to give any credentials as to why anyone should accept your nonsense over professional experts.
And of course Professor Misner's e-mail is the reference anyway.

 

[The God]

You are reported.

You make a statement, that BH can be found in isolation...then cop out.
Thats what you do....because this kind of stuff cannot be found in your popscience...if you had any you would have painted the wall with red all around..

And do not misquote Prof Misner, he never said that a BH can be found in isolation......what a pathetic joke and dishonest troll you are, misquoting the professor too!

 

[paddoboy]

You are reported.

I'm mortified!

And of course Professor Misner's e-mail is the reference anyway.

You make a statement, that BH can be found in isolation...then cop out.
Thats what you do....because this kind of stuff cannot be found in your popscience...if you had any you would have painted the wall with red all around..

Yes my claim that BH's in isolation can be found and supported in many links you claim as pop science. But that's you.

And do not misquote Prof Misner, he never said that a BH can be found in isolation......what a pathetic joke and dishonest troll you are, misquoting the professor too!

I did not claim Professor Misner said anything about isolated BH's...Its common knowledge.
What I said.......
But speaking of the CMBR and HR, we all know [I think] that the CMBR is diminishing over time. Eventually HR will supercede. Just as the Professor and I explained to you.

 

[paddoboy]

As the good Professor Misner said, HR is the general consensus and an application of quantum physics at or near the BH EH.
In time and as often utilised in a futuristic history of the universe, HR and BH evaporation, along with probably proton decay may be the last interactions in a near dead cold universe.
Some time to go as yet.

 

[The God]

Yes my claim that BH's in isolation can be found and supported in many links you claim as pop science. But that's you.

Give at least one.

What I said.......
But speaking of the CMBR and HR, we all know [I think] that the CMBR is diminishing over time. Eventually HR will supercede. Just as the Professor and I explained to you.

[/QUOTE]


Oh!! I see.

And how CMBR is diminishing over time? Mr Paddoboy.

Let me help you, the temperature of a solar mass BH is around 60 Nano Kelvin that is 60 X 10^-9 Degree K......while the present temperature of CMBR is around 2.7 K. Now please tell this forum Paddoboy, how much time it will take for 2.7 K CMBR to cool down to 60 X 10^-9 Degree K.....Any idea or just bluffing? You took the cue from Q-reeus post? Good, you are learning, but you are a straw-man, sunk completely but still holding on to a straw.

I am done with you on these points.

 

[The God]

Avoided the link?? plagiarised?REPORTED.

Muaaaaaahhhhhhh.

 

[paddoboy]

Give at least one.

When you give me links claiming that HR is a fantasy, or that tidal gravity never overcomes the strong nulcear force.

Oh!! I see.

I doubt it.

And how CMBR is diminishing over time? Mr Paddoboy.

Are you saying the left over heat from the BB has always been 2.7K?
Think universal expansion.

Let me help you, the temperature of a solar mass BH is around 60 Nano Kelvin that is 60 X 10^-9 Degree K......while the present temperature of CMBR is around 2.7 K. Now please tell this forum Paddoboy, how much time it will take for 2.7 K CMBR to cool down to 60 X 10^-9 Degree K.....Any idea or just bluffing? You took the cue from Q-reeus post? Good, you are learning, but you are a straw-man, sunk completely but still holding on to a straw.

HR radiation is an accepted application of quantum physics with regards to BH's. I'm not interested in your plaguerised figures please check post 380

I am done with you on these points.

I hope so.

facts. HR is an accepted cosmological quatum physics application as applied to BH's and EH's
Yilmaz theory which has been around for more than 20 years, is hardly worth considering for reasons already given and is barely a ripple in scientific circles.
The last time I looked, GR still holds pride of place as the most overwhelmingly correct theory of gravity that we have.

 

[paddoboy]

Knowing that my friend will not go back to check post 380, here is what I was referring to.
The Professor's intent is obvious. HR is logically a minimal scenario. Most BH's by there very nature, will be swallowing far more than what is evaporated due to HR, at this time of course. Just as obvious is the fact that in the far far distant future HR will eventually gain ascendancy and the BH should indeed evaporate.
In a similar vane, all of spacetime is expanding, but over smaller denser scales, the effects of gravity overcome that expansion and systems such as our local group and further afield, are void of any obvious spacetime expansion and are gravitationally bound.

 

[origin]

Hey, paddoboy and The God, instead of just clogging up the math and physics section with your continuous bitching at each other why don't you take this to the formal debate section and be done with it! I don't think anyone really wants to see this here - I certainly am tired of it.

 

[paddoboy]

Hey, paddoboy and The God, instead of just clogging up the math and physics section with your continuous bitching at each other why don't you take this to the formal debate section and be done with it! I don't think anyone really wants to see this here - I certainly am tired of it.

OnlyMe expressed the same correct view the other day.
As i told him, I am trying to avoid insults and abuse and such, and the possibility of both of us being banned.
Which puts "the god" at a distinct advantage as he would than just resurrect rajesh.
Along with avoiding insults and his abuse, I suppose its also time to ignore his pedant and idiocy.
I'll certainly keep stating the mainstream case and highlight any pseudoscience interpretations from him supported with links.
For the rest of the crap, I can only apologise.

 

[brucep]

OnlyMe expressed the same correct view the other day.
As i told him, I am trying to avoid insults and abuse and such, and the possibility of both of us being banned.
Which puts "the god" at a distinct advantage as he would than just resurrect rajesh.
Along with avoiding insults and his abuse, I suppose its also time to ignore his pedant and idiocy.
I'll certainly keep stating the mainstream case and highlight any pseudoscience interpretations from him supported with links.
For the rest of the crap, I can only apologise.

Origins asking you to moderate yourselves. That's a problem for this place and you won't get any help until you get fed up and use inappropriate language. The moderator for this type of extended bullshit is the ignore function. That's what we have. That's a fact which is empirically confirmed every time this type of crap is allowed to run 150 pages.

 

[tashja]

Have you attempted to contact Alley or Robertson btw? It might be interesting to get their side of this matter. Not that it is needed.

Hey, Q, guys. Sorry for the delay. I just got Prof. Robertson's reply:

[ ]... Yilmaz' main thrust is to add gravitational field energy into the stress-energy tensor on the right hand side of Einstein's equation. But Einstein's equation already contains the laws by which gravitational field energy gives rise to Newtonian-like gravitational fields produced by this energy.

[ ]... So one cannot improve upon Einstein's equation by adding (or subtracting?) further terms to represent gravitational field energy. The gravitational field energy hidden in the nonlinearities of Einstein's equations is already producing the effects that a dose of gravitational wave energy would be expected to produce.

Hi Tashja,

The conventional GR view that the Einstein field equations already correctly include the gravitational field energy is simply wrong. These field energy-like terms of GR show up in the Einstein tensor in the left member of the field equations. These are entirely geometric in nature and originate from the Ricci tensor without reference to anything gravitational at all. Where gravity enters the discussion is in the source terms of the right member. Einstein eventually decided to consider gravity as entirely spacetime geometry rather than as possibly existing also as a (quantum) field. By fiat he excluded this possibility by not having any gravitational field stress-energy source terms in the right member of the field equations.

I consider it to be an open question as to whether such field energy terms should be included and if so, whether Yilmaz has correctly formulated them. What is certain is that the current Einsteinian GR is only a first order theory and needs corrections in the right member of the field equations. This can be seen most simply by taking special relativity and the principle of equivalence as correspondence limits that must be satisfied by the metric coefficients. Then if one compares the gravitational redshift of photons moving within an accelerating frame to that of an inertial frame with an equivalent static gravitational field, one finds that the gravitational redshift must be an EXACT exponential function of the gravitational potential interval that was traversed by the photon. (I somewhere have this worked out in some notes and will find them and send them along later if you wish.)

In 1907 Einstein was aware of this exact requirement, but he later weakened it to retain only the first order term of the exponential function in developing the final form of GR. As a consequence, his theory remains correct to only first order. It is unfortunate that gravity is so weak as to essentially remove any opportunities to test higher order terms.

So even without any explicit inclusion of gravitational field energy as source in the field equations, there are some parts of gravity that are already represented by spacetime curvature effects. The Yilmaz forms of the gravitational field energy have an anti-curvature effect. For example, in the case of a classical point particle, the Yilmaz metric coefficients are exponentials rather than Schwarzschild terms that agree only to first order. The exponential metric essentially moves the point particle singularity back to r=0, whereas the Schwarzschild metric is too strongly curved and gravitational forces become infinite out at the Schwarzschild radius, where there is neither mass nor curvature singularity. Why so many physicists think this to be acceptable is baffling to me.

In the case of gravitational waves, I should first say that the Einstein quadrupole radiation formula cannot be correctly derived from GR. Nevertheless, GR permits gravitational waves of infinitesimal amplitude, but this is again a result of spacetime curvature effects and has nothing to do with the nonlinear terms in the GR equations. So I do not agree with the statement that you quoted.

I have both applied the Yilmaz theory to some calculations and tried to modify in some small ways. I am still not satisfied with it, but I think that it is an improvement on GR.

Thanks for the link. I will have a look at your discussion. I might join it if I can find the time, but I am very busy with other things for a few weeks.

Best regards,
Stan Robertson

 

[The God]

Stellar BH's certainly are able to exist in isolation. I did not mention "without CMBR around" .

Another of your lies, Paddoboy......

If CMBR is around, how the BH is in Isolation?

You will recall everything you posted if you read the Post# 37 to 55 in your "Is Hawking any closer to solving the puzzle of black holes?" thread. There also you abused my post which mentioned CMBR absorption, you dishonestly changed your stand only after Prof Misner post.

 

[Q-reeus]

Hey, Q, guys. Sorry for the delay. I just got Prof. Robertson's reply:

Thanks tashja for that feedback from Prof. Robertson - better late than never! A direct reply from Carroll Alley re Misner's side of their clash would be even better, but I'm not sure if Alley is still breathing.
In regards to Prof. Robertson's response, obviously I agree with his general thrust, particularly regarding false claims EFE's 'correctly' incorporate field self-gravitation. And despite what one poster here claimed, whether or not in vacuo Ricci curvature is zero precisely covers the essence that case. It nicely agrees with e.g comments in #361, #370. Also agree that redshift *must* be an exponential function of Newtonian potential - and that really inevitably paves the way right there for Yilmaz theory - as per my #260.

The ppt article (downloadable version now non-corrupted) I have linked to numerous times: http://www.powershow.com/view/1bbc8-ZjhlZ/P1246341516SeoJH_flash_ppt_presentation
sketches out the logical development of Yilmaz gravity, including derivation of that exponential redshift expression, which just in that aspect alone, is a dagger to the heart of GR.

Stan Robertson may be correct that Yilmaz theory is perhaps merely a superior approximation than GR as a classical gravity theory, although I have yet to see any other viable contender having the same level of self-consistency.
[hints he may take issue with my stand re GW's is a separate thing that I well understand. The ultimate reason to reject possibility of the GW's both GR and many other rival theories including Yilmaz theory predict, is quite surprising.]

 

[OnlyMe]

Hey, Q, guys. Sorry for the delay. I just got Prof. Robertson's reply:

Once again Tashja, very nice. Prof. Robertson was generous with his comments and when placed in the context of Prof. Misner's full comment earlier provides a great deal of.., food for thought.

 

[paddoboy]

Another of your lies, Paddoboy......

If CMBR is around, how the BH is in Isolation?

No, no lying at all, at least not on my part. What we do have though is a total misunderstanding of the English language by yourself. When people talk of "in isolation" as I was speaking of, they speak of a mass or object in spacetime [as it currently is] with no other massive body around...eg: An isolated star that has been kicked out of a galaxy....likewise a stellar size BH that has formed from such a stellar object.
The CMBR is a uniform microwave aspect of all spacetime, with only very slight minimal near uniform temperature variations.
Of course you can refute that if you like by supplying a reputable reference or link.

You will recall everything you posted if you read the Post# 37 to 55 in your "Is Hawking any closer to solving the puzzle of black holes?" thread. There also you abused my post which mentioned CMBR absorption, you dishonestly changed your stand only after Prof Misner post.

Would you like to reference where I changed my stance?
I didn't think so.
And you wonder why so many here have you on ignore!