Questions about black holes and the Hawking radiation.

[Q-reeus]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

...Well, it is obvious you believe GR is wrong, but in that case you don't believe that Hawking radiation can exist so why bother asking about the mechanism? Seems a bit pointless....

I'll respond to just that question. I was hoping to get far enough into any ostensibly credible detail re 'negative energy inflow' to show it lacks self-consistency - from entirely within the GR HR framework. But with so much evasion and sniping, getting even that far proved beyond reach. Cheers.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

'll respond to just that question. I was hoping to get far enough into any ostensibly credible detail re 'negative energy inflow' to show it lacks self-consistency - from entirely within the GR HR framework.

But, as I say, you can't do that based on analogies. The only way you could show an inconsistency would be to analyse the mathematical approach taken and show that it had errors. 

And, as I say, many people are taking different approaches to apply quantum theory to the curved-spacetime around a black hole. I don't know enough about that area of research to say whether they all end up with Hawking radiation or not. But that might be the sort of thing you want to read up on.

[Intrigued]

49 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

For that reason and above assessment of complete absence of expertise on standard HR theory at SFN, I will not pursue the matter further here.

Since you note that expertise on standard HR theory is completely absent here, I take this as an acknowledgement that you also lack any expertise in the matter. Consequently we may safely disregard any thoughts you may have on the matter.

[Q-reeus]

16 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

Since you note that expertise on standard HR theory is completely absent here, I take this as an acknowledgement that you also lack any expertise in the matter.

You failed to note I made that clear in my very first post here. Or you have forgotten already?

16 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

Consequently we may safely disregard any thoughts you may have on the matter.

No point in challenging that kind of 'logic'. If you have a deep, constructive insight on HR to offer, that I would have regard for.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

 

Really? Because every particle pair creation process I'm aware of results in two real particles - never one real plus one virtual. Symmetry requirements!

Then you should become aware of quantum vacuum fluctuations, which give rise to virtual particle pairs.

Which symmetry is broken here?

2 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

Straw man. I have never suggested otherwise. And to repeat, in all such experiments the created particles in all pairs are both real - never one real plus one virtual.

I was providing supporting information for my statement, to show that this is not just a hypothetical process.

2 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

While the math has a reputation for being notoriously difficult, an intelligible physical picture should emerge at the end. We have two standard picture givens - real photons aka HR given off, and a shrinking BH mass accordingly. Just how and what facilitates that shrinkage, in a consistent, believable manner, is what's been my central and unanswered question.

It has been answered. You have complained about the level of detail of the answers.

2 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

Given my complete confidence EH's don't and can't exist, the whole HR enterprise is thus imo an elaborate castle in the air.
For that reason and above assessment of complete absence of expertise on standard HR theory at SFN, I will not pursue the matter further here.

If your understanding is that extensive, you should have no trouble following the journal articles. So why are you asking us?

Unless your “complete confidence” is the confidence of ignorance. That’s another story altogether 

2 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

I'll respond to just that question. I was hoping to get far enough into any ostensibly credible detail re 'negative energy inflow' to show it lacks self-consistency - from entirely within the GR HR framework. But with so much evasion and sniping, getting even that far proved beyond reach. Cheers.

Again, read the paper itself. Go to the source.

[MigL]

I find this line a little funny, Q-reeus...

"Given my complete confidence EH's don't and can't exist"

Saying a mathematical construct doesn't exist is merely stating the obvious; it has no substance.
But stating that there are no consequences to traversing, or position relative to, that mathematical construct would be seriously wrong.

If one was to find themselves below the mathematical construct we call sea-level, they may be drowning or at risk of flooding.
If one was to be first to cross the mathematical construct we call the 100m mark, at the Olympics, they would receive a gold medal and worldwide recognition.
What is any distance where events happen, if not a mathematical construct ?
How substantive do they need to be before they exist ?
How about where there are consequences of their existence ???

[Q-reeus]

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then you should become aware of quantum vacuum fluctuations, which give rise to virtual particle pairs.

Some real experts in QFT maintain virtual particles, vacuum or otherwise, are nothing more than mathematical artifacts, e.g.:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/
Regardless, you keep misconstruing things. We were supposed to be talking about generation of HR, which is notionally real quanta. If one, HR particle of a created pair is real, so must be the partner - the one going inside 'EH'. Symmetry principles/conservation laws.
 

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which symmetry is broken here?

Your implied concoction of a real, outgoing HR particle plus a virtual, inward traveling particle - both supposedly created from a vacuum virtual pair.

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

 

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

I find this line a little funny, Q-reeus...

"Given my complete confidence EH's don't and can't exist"

Saying a mathematical construct doesn't exist is merely stating the obvious; it has no substance.
But stating that there are no consequences to traversing, or position relative to, that mathematical construct would be seriously wrong.

If one was to find themselves below the mathematical construct we call sea-level, they may be drowning or at risk of flooding.
If one was to be first to cross the mathematical construct we call the 100m mark, at the Olympics, they would receive a gold medal and worldwide recognition.
What is any distance where events happen, if not a mathematical construct ?
How substantive do they need to be before they exist ?
How about where there are consequences of their existence ???

The distinguishing feature of a supposed gravitational EH is causal disconnection. Once trapped inside, it's impossible for anything to exit back out (barring perhaps conjectured QM tunneling events). A feature of GR not present in some other theories.
Have you so readily forgotten that peer reviewed article on horizonless gravity theory by Anatoly Svidzinsky, that was the subject of my very first post at SFN? I'm sure you can find it readily.
It's not the only one e.g. Yilmaz gravity. This is getting considerably off-topic. And I really do want to leave off this topic.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

Some real experts in QFT maintain virtual particles, vacuum or otherwise, are nothing more than mathematical artifacts

That argument can be made about pretty much every aspect of physics. I think most physicists would agree that "virtual particles" are not particles.

If you have nothing but an argument from incredulity, I think you should do as you said and stop posting. No one cares about your unsupported beliefs that science is wrong.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

Some real experts in QFT maintain virtual particles, vacuum or otherwise, are nothing more than mathematical artifacts, e.g.:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/
Regardless, you keep misconstruing things. We were supposed to be talking about generation of HR, which is notionally real quanta. If one, HR particle of a created pair is real, so must be the partner - the one going inside 'EH'. Symmetry principles/conservation laws.

Your implied concoction of a real, outgoing HR particle plus a virtual, inward traveling particle - both supposedly created from a vacuum virtual pair.

I’m not sure how you got that from what I said, but no. The interaction turns them both into real particles, as in the link I provided.

Regardless, virtual vs real, by itself, is not a conservation law/symmetry 

 

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

I'll respond to just that question. I was hoping to get far enough into any ostensibly credible detail re 'negative energy inflow' to show it lacks self-consistency - from entirely within the GR HR framework. But with so much evasion and sniping, getting even that far proved beyond reach. Cheers.

No such inconsistency at all, and so far three [or is that four] papers have been linked to, with regards to various descriptive methods of what is or should be happening.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

If you have nothing but an argument from incredulity, I think you should do as you said and stop posting. No one cares about your unsupported beliefs that science is wrong.

Bingo! I mean if this was just a crusade against Hawking Radiation, one may understand somewhat it ,ay be due to ignorance or misinterpretation, but this is or seems to just be a crusade against mainstream science in general, including GR. 

 

I must apologise for a previous comprehensive account of Hawking Radiation by Stephen Carlip that I posted without a link......here is that link.....http://carlip.physics.ucdavis.edu/#Hawkrad

Edited April 17, 2019 by beecee

[Q-reeus]

What a shit of an experience participating at SFN has turned out to be. Copping defamations ,distortions, and outright lies on a regular basis. If only hindsight was foresight.... Sigh.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Q-reeus

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

What a shit of an experience participating at SFN has turned out to be. Copping defamations ,distortions, and outright lies on a regular basis. If only hindsight was foresight.... Sigh.

Most people don't find that. Maybe you need to think about where the problem might lie. But feel free to leave.

[beecee]

36 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

What a shit of an experience participating at SFN has turned out to be. Copping defamations ,distortions, and outright lies on a regular basis. If only hindsight was foresight.... Sigh.

??? Wow! I believe you have the Bull by the wrong end. It is you railing against mainstream science and opinion...mainstream science and opinion that is continually and progressively more and more supported by observational evidence, particularly as per GR and BH's. Yet you still deny such evidence. This is mainstream science that stands sturdy and steadfast, based on those current observations and evidence, yet you want everyone to drop any and all adherence to such accepted models, and accept what you so arrogantly put as "gospel" simply based on your own interpretation and say so? I smell an agenda in actual fact, similar to many agendas that others that like to conduct crusades against current mainstream science and ignore the supportive evidence also have. Such crusades are a dime a dozen, and changes nothing, either that of the opinions of the experts on forums such as this, or the scientific community in general. If you feel so strongly about what you claim, if you believe that mainstream has it wrong, if you have any supportive evidence to support that criteria, then there are pathways and methods available to you...write up a professional paper for professional peer review. That won't happen though, because simply put, you would not accept any other opposing view, just as you have shown here.

As I have said before, the proof of mainstream science being continually progressive, is there for all to see, everyday. I post articles at times, supporting that progression. Science has absolutely no reason to be "stuck in the mud" or have any recalcitrant attitude. We test GR every day. The BB is critiqued every day. HR though not observed directly, has as I have shown, been evidenced indirectly. If observational evidence ever surfaces to falsify any of those models, it will be researched thoroughly, just as thoroughly as the BB was, as GR was, as HR was. That's what science does. That's what you have been told many times before. That's what you need to accept in humility.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by beecee

[MigL]

If, by 'horizonless gravity' you mean vector gravity, I thought GWs were putting nails in its coffin with each new observation.
( and I don't like its flat Minkowsky background )

But since 'horizonless' implies no Black Holes, how then do you explain the recently released photos ?
Photoshopped maybe ??? Or is the 'theory' more valid than observation ???

You are right, one side is making is making a sh*tty argument, that goes against all observations.
( care to guess which side I'm talking about ? )

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Q-reeus said:

What a shit of an experience participating at SFN has turned out to be. Copping defamations ,distortions, and outright lies on a regular basis. If only hindsight was foresight.... Sigh.

You should ask for your money back. And then you can leave.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Q-reeus said:

What a shit of an experience participating at SFN has turned out to be. Copping defamations ,distortions, and outright lies on a regular basis. If only hindsight was foresight.... Sigh.

I take it you did not learn a damn thing...

[Q-reeus]

9 hours ago, Strange said:

That argument can be made about pretty much every aspect of physics. I think most physicists would agree that "virtual particles" are not particles.

If you have nothing but an argument from incredulity, I think you should do as you said and stop posting. No one cares about your unsupported beliefs that science is wrong.

Distort on, it's evidently a sacred tradition here at SFN. And btw, how about showing some personal integrity and finally owning up to your clear error as per:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118740-black-hole-why-do-we-believe-that-matter-could-be-such-dense/?do=findComment&comment=1101387
Since you like dishing it out, be prepared to receive some too.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If, by 'horizonless gravity' you mean vector gravity, I thought GWs were putting nails in its coffin with each new observation.
( and I don't like its flat Minkowsky background )

I don't like it's (unobservable) flat Minkowski background either - a point I made at the outset. But no GW's have NOT 'put a nail in it's coffin' and that author & co-author maintain the opposite is true. The matter has yet to be properly resolved - in no small part due to the ongoing failure of LIGO_Virgo consortium crowd to publicly engage on the controversy. Telling imo. And btw if you're up to it, I linked there to articles where detailed calculations backing Svidzinsky's claims (on GW polarizations) are there for you to scrutinize for any errors. Good luck.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

But since 'horizonless' implies no Black Holes, how then do you explain the recently released photos ?
Photoshopped maybe ??? Or is the 'theory' more valid than observation ???

Refresh your memory, and try and sort the ubiquitous hype from reality re EHT images:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118686-first-real-black-hole-image-10-april-2019/?do=findComment&comment=1100700

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You are right, one side is making is making a sh*tty argument, that goes against all observations.
( care to guess which side I'm talking about ? )

See my above comment to Strange. In your case, a particular personal integrity issue relevant here is failure to defend your personal, non-standard scenario as per:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118748-questions-about-black-holes-and-the-hawking-radiation/?do=findComment&comment=1101508
Again - where is that link to a reputable article backing your personal notions of how it goes?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You should ask for your money back. And then you can leave.

How gracious of Your Majesty. But I'm not feeling gracious towards you. Consider NOT living up to your signature line for a change. As for instance your LYING here:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118748-questions-about-black-holes-and-the-hawking-radiation/?do=findComment&comment=1101610
To cover up your contradictory claim (any virtual particle) further back here:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118748-questions-about-black-holes-and-the-hawking-radiation/?do=findComment&comment=1101530
And need I remind you of my disgust at your self-serving BS over in that 'Particle in a Box' thread?

One expects high standards of those wielding authority. In too many instances, like here at SFN, reality is a cold bucket of water to that one.

Here's a simple formula few here will agree with - but at least it's easy to follow:
SFN = Neo-Marxist overrun shithole.
That should be good for more red (me) and green (righteously indignant hostiles) - with nothing in between.

Have a nice day folks - and I really mean that btw.

[beecee]

14 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

 But no GW's have NOT 'put a nail in it's coffin' and that author & co-author maintain the opposite is true. The matter has yet to be properly resolved - in no small part due to the ongoing failure of LIGO_Virgo consortium crowd to publicly engage on the controversy. Telling imo. And btw if you're up to it, I linked there to articles where detailed calculations backing Svidzinsky's claims (on GW polarizations) are there for you to scrutinize for any errors. Good luck.

Total nonsense! and some advice, if you want to indulge in conspiracy theories, and personal biased opinion, take it to the appropriate section. 

[MigL]

The link you provided sends me to a post where you are confused about how a BH absorbing one part of a virtual particle pair can lose mass/energy, while a real particle is emitted as Hawking radiation.
I thought I, and others, had explained that.

I guess the real lack of integrity is not reading other's replies in a discussion forum.

[beecee]

44 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

But no GW's have NOT 'put a nail in it's coffin' and that author & co-author maintain the opposite is true. The matter has yet to be properly resolved - in no small part due to the ongoing failure of LIGO_Virgo consortium crowd to publicly engage on the controversy. Telling imo. And btw if you're up to it, I linked there to articles where detailed calculations backing Svidzinsky's claims (on GW polarizations) are there for you to scrutinize for any errors. Good luck.

A vast number of scientific papers, totally invalidating the emotional nonsense above......

https://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/ppcomm/Papers.html

And actually the "ongoing failure [as you sarcastically put it] of LIGO/Virgo to publicly engage in this non event you call a controversy, is akin to them engaging creationists or any number of the many other alternative hypothetical pushers, that claim superiority over GR. Those hypotheticals fall of there own free accord, or die in the course of time simply because they do not predict more the GR, or fail and are falsified in aspects of cosmology that GR passes with flying colours. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by beecee

[Q-reeus]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

The link you provided sends me to a post where you are confused about how a BH absorbing one part of a virtual particle pair can lose mass/energy, while a real particle is emitted as Hawking radiation.
I thought I, and others, had explained that.

I guess the real lack of integrity is not reading other's replies in a discussion forum.

I doubt you believe what you wrote there, but sadly, others here may swallow it. Again - that link to a reputable article backing your non-standard take on HR process?

[MigL]

Here you go...

https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Hawking%20Particle%20Creation.pdf

Is the 'father' of Hawking Radiation credible enough for you ?

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Here you go...

https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Hawking%20Particle%20Creation.pdf

Is the 'father' of Hawking Radiation credible enough for you ?

and to again supplement that........

ttps://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-stimulate-hawking-radiation-from-optical-analogue-of-a-black-hole/

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.010404

https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00913

 

[Q-reeus]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Here you go...

https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Hawking%20Particle%20Creation.pdf

Is the 'father' of Hawking Radiation credible enough for you ?

No thanks for being so damn lazy in not pointing to relevant passages. That likely strategy - hoping I would bog down in the withering math, has backfired on you. Check out p202 2nd para. The heuristic summary there directly contradicts your own stated non-standard position - as I have pointed out now several times.
You can keep asserting otherwise if you wish, but your earlier post forms a permanent record that hopefully not even here at SFN would mods stoop to conveniently back edit.

As for the goading opportunist laughably elevated recently to title 'scientist', I continue to bite tongue re point-by-point responses, in deference to StringJunky's advice given elsewhere.

[beecee]

Here's an interesting paper re Hawking Radiation...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08426-4

Decoherence of black hole superpositions by Hawking radiation: 

 

Abstract:

An environment interacting with a system acquires information about it, e.g. about its location. The resulting decoherence is thought to be responsible for the emergence of the classical realm of our Universe out of the quantum substrate. However, this view of the emergence of the classical is sometimes dismissed as a consequence of insufficient isolation and, hence, as non-fundamental. In contrast to many other systems, a black hole can never be isolated from its Hawking radiation which carries information about its location, making this lack of isolation fundamental. Here we consider the decoherence of a “black hole Schrödinger cat”—a non-local superposition of a Schwarzschild black hole in two distinct locations—due to its Hawking radiation. The resulting decoherence rate turns out to be given by a surprisingly simple equation. Moreover, and in contrast to known cases of decoherence, this rate does not involve Planck’s constant ħ.

 

and an interesting extract.....

"Hawking radiation defies the classical expectation that nothing can be emitted from a black hole. It was initially hoped that this result would pave the way to quantization of gravity. However, Hawking radiation has instead deepened the mystery by implicating entropy (and, hence, information) in questions involving quantum theory and gravity (e.g., the black hole information paradox)."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>