About evaporating black holes

[Baby Astronaut]

"Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics"

 

Now that we have a theory of how information might be preserved in a black hole, I wonder how all the light that was trapped and couldn't escape wouldn't result in a brilliant cosmic flash when the black hole evaporates.

 

Am I missing something?

[Klaynos]

They evaporate slowly...

[Mr Skeptic]

The mass-energy of the black hole is released as Hawking radiation as the black hole evaporates -- not all at once when the black hole is done evaporating.

[JTankers]

That assumes that black holes radiate which is not at all certain (several papers conclude that black holes do not radiate).

 

Have you read Dr. Hawking's prediction that black holes radiate? Not entirely convincing.[1]

 

[1] S. W. Hawking, Particle Creation by Black Holes (12 Apr 1975), projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&id=pdf_1&handle=euclid.cmp/1103899181

[DJBruce]

That assumes that black holes radiate which is not at all certain (several papers conclude that black holes do not radiate).

 

Have you read Dr. Hawking's prediction that black holes radiate? Not entirely convincing.[1]

 

[1] S. W. Hawking, Particle Creation by Black Holes (12 Apr 1975), projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&id=pdf_1&handle=euclid.cmp/1103899181

 

I personally have not read Hawking's paper and I am not personally qualified to critique his paper. But, as far as I know I did not think there is much dispute over this. Could you please post the papers that say black holes do no radiate?

[JTankers]

Certainly,

 

“black holes do not radiate” [1]

 

“The possibility that non-radiating `mini’ black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe” [2]

 

“the effect [Hawking Radiation] does not exist.“ [3]

 

“2) infinitely delayed Hawking radiation; 3) infinitely weak chargedness of black holes“ [4]

 

“it is possible that… the behavior of the black hole is stable“ [5]

 

[1] Adam D. Helfer PHD, Trans-Plankian Modes, Back-Reaction, and the Hawking Process, (2000) arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0008016

 

[2] Adam D. Helfer PHD, Do black holes radiate? Do black holes radiate? (2003) arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304042v1

 

[3] Prof. VA Belinski, On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again (2006) arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607137

 

[4] Prof. Dr. Otto Rössler, Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk (2008) www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf

 

[5] M. D. Maia, E. M. Monte, On the Stability of Black Holes at the LHC (2008) arxiv.org/abs/0808.2631

[Mr Skeptic]

True. As far as I know Hawking radiation is still hypothetical. People have been wanting to observe it for quite some time now, but I don't know of any success.

[Baby Astronaut]

Thanks for responses.

 

True. As far as I know Hawking radiation is still hypothetical. People have been wanting to observe it for quite some time now, but I don't know of any success.

This might have been addressed by Hawking previously, but doesn't the idea of radiation exiting a place where not even light can escape go against that very reasoning?

[iNow]

This might have been addressed by Hawking previously, but doesn't the idea of radiation exiting a place where not even light can escape go against that very reasoning?

IIRC, the idea is that particle/antiparticle pairs are continually popping into and out of existence.

 

Hawking hypothesized that sometimes these pairs would be created right on the edge of the event horizon (the point which separates falling into versus being able to escape from the BHs pull). The idea is that it's possible that the particle could form within the event horizon, but it's antiparticle partner could form outside the event horizon, and it would lose the mass of the antiparticle. Or, the same way, the antiparticle is created within the horizon, but the particle outside the horizon which is then able to escape, causing a decrease in mass and evaporation of the hole.

 

This is how it got around the idea of "even light cannot escape the gravity is so strong" problem, as all of the relevant activity took place on the border of the event horizon.

 

Again... that's all from memory of popular writing. Wiki is probably better equipped than me to describe:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_Radiation

[Mr Skeptic]

This might have been addressed by Hawking previously, but doesn't the idea of radiation exiting a place where not even light can escape go against that very reasoning?

 

iNow said pretty much everything that I can remember about Hawking radiation. Basically, that the radiation is actually from vacuum fluctuations just outside the event horizon. The black hole eats "borrowed" energy and so ends up losing some energy. Most of the radiation is supposed to be photons, but I only understood the explanation for particle pairs.

 

Also, perhaps counter intuitively, the smaller black holes radiate more. This makes sense when you think about it, as the smaller black hole is "sharper".

[Klaynos]

I think this post by ajb is the best explanation... I always give the particle pair explanation because it's easy and understandable

 

And whilst I'm here JTankers do you know if any of those papers were published in anything other than arxiv?

[einsteinium]

I theorise that when a red giant explodes it forms sub particles of sub atomic particles of which all matter and particles are composed of. That be "sub energy" particles.

I believe that a black hole acts like one proton or neutron where it could theoretically have an infinite mass as it converts other forms of matter and energy, ie protons, photons and electrons, into "sub energy" particles of which they first formed from.

 

Hawking radiation may be the resultant of the chemistry like properties of quantum mechanics favouring the foward reaction due to constructive interference and rapid acceleration collisions to produce photons with a significant energy level to escape the gravitational field.

 

Kind of like how a photon that starts at the centre of a star eventually makes it to the surface

[Klaynos]

I theorise

 

A side note, but theories require mathematical predictions.

 

that when a red giant explodes it forms sub particles of sub atomic particles of which all matter and particles are composed of. That be "sub energy" particles.

 

What evidence do you have for this? The actual collapse into blackholes is well understood.

 

I believe that a black hole acts like one proton or neutron where it could theoretically have an infinite mass

 

But protons and neutrons do not have infinite mass. And are very different from each other.

 

as it converts other forms of matter and energy, ie protons, photons and electrons, into "sub energy" particles of which they first formed from.

 

How do these fit into the standard model?

 

Hawking radiation may be the resultant of the chemistry like properties of quantum mechanics favouring the foward reaction due to constructive interference and rapid acceleration collisions to produce photons with a significant energy level to escape the gravitational field.

 

Kind of like how a photon that starts at the centre of a star eventually makes it to the surface

 

That wouldn't work though, the particle just wouldn't have enough speed to escape, photons are still limted to c no matter their energy.

[Phi for All]

I theorise that when a red giant explodes it forms sub particles of sub atomic particles of which all matter and particles are composed of. That be "sub energy" particles.

I believe that a black hole acts like one proton or neutron where it could theoretically have an infinite mass as it converts other forms of matter and energy, ie protons, photons and electrons, into "sub energy" particles of which they first formed from.

 

Hawking radiation may be the resultant of the chemistry like properties of quantum mechanics favouring the foward reaction due to constructive interference and rapid acceleration collisions to produce photons with a significant energy level to escape the gravitational field.

 

Kind of like how a photon that starts at the centre of a star eventually makes it to the surface

A theory has been offered in the OP for discussion. Introducing a new "theory" is considered thread hijacking since now everyone has to stop to discuss the merit of your idea.

 

Please start a new thread if you wish such discussion to continue, or I would be happy to use your above post as the OP for the new thread. But please don't hijack the intent of Baby Astronaut's thread.

[einsteinium]

I have done a number of equations and some have solutions and some dont,ie some work out to have an infinite value. I'm still doing more work to conclude my theories and varify the physical properties.

 

When I said that a black hole acts like a neutron I meant to say that it acts as a giant neutron where there is all neutrinos packed into the space of the black hole making it like a ginormeous neutron and all particles sucked in brake down into neutrinos to increase the mass of the black hole

 

When I mentioned hawking radiation I was referring to the energy level, as you should know, E(photon) = h . f

 

The greater the frequency of the photons, the more energy it has. This energy could act like potential energy giving it enough energy to escape the gravitational field strength but still moves at 3e8 m/s. The bending of light in space could be similiar to refraction, the greater the frequency, the less refraction.

 

E = (h.c^3)/16pi.G.M