“Maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability.” -Stephen Hawking
So, you’ve got a black hole in the Universe, and you want to know what happens next. The space around it is curved due to the presence of the central mass, with greater curvature occurring closer to the center. There’s an event horizon, a location from which light cannot escape. And there’s the quantum nature of the Universe, which means that the zero-point-energy of empty space has a positive value: it’s greater than zero. Put them together, and you get some interesting consequences.
Particle-antiparticles pairs pop in-and-out of existence continuously, both inside and outside the event horizon of a black hole. When an outside-created pair has one of its members fall in, that's when things get interesting. Image credit: Ulf Leonhardt of the University of St. Andrews.
One of these is Hawking radiation, where radiation is created and moves away from the black hole’s center. It occurs at a specific rate that’s dependent on the black hole’s mass. But another is black hole growth from the mass and energy that falls through the event horizon, causing that black hole to grow. At the present time, realistic black holes are all growing faster than they’re decaying, but that won’t be the case for always.
As a black hole shrinks in mass and radius, the Hawking radiation emanating from it becomes greater and greater in temperature and power. Once the decay rate exceeds the growth rate, Hawking radiation only increases in temperature and power. Image credit: NASA.
- Log in to post comments
Ethan,
Since we have a primordial neutrino background at IIRC 1.75K, do black holes also emit Hawking like neutrino radiation? Or does finite rest mass largely suppress this?
Ethan consistently makes statements as established facts even though they are theoretical, without empirical evidence and surrounded by debate in the world of physics.
Here are a few such statements and contradictions authored by Ethan which need disambiguation:
" And there’s the quantum nature of the Universe, which means that the zero-point-energy of empty space has a positive value:"
So "nothingness," empty space is full of "energy," therefore not empty. Is this intentional obfuscation just to maintain confusion around dubious concepts presented as facts"
Illustration caption: "Inside the black hole nothing escapes."
"Eventually all black holes will decay away."
... even though nothing escapes??
"We can quantify this rate of decay and the temperature of the radiation, and find that black holes lose mass at a tremendously slow rate!"
Again," they lose mass" ("we can quantify it!") but if nothing escapes, they don't lose anything.
" Every black hole we know of in the Universe today is still growing, but that growth is going to reach a finite maximum. After that, Hawking radiation will triumph."
All evidence shows black holes growing more massive. But Ethan claims that after everything in the universe is finally consumed by black holes, making them extremely massive, they will start to lose mass ... even though nothing can escape them... until they decay away.
.....Because Hawking's theory says so.
....The same guy who gave us "singularities" in the first place as "points of zero volume and infinite mass density." as if a point of zero volume could "contain" anything.
With such fame and stature as Hawking, who would dare to question Hawking radiation, even if it contradicts the "nothing escapes" nature of black holes?
"So “nothingness,” empty space is full of “energy,” therefore not empty. Is this intentional obfuscation just to maintain confusion around dubious concepts presented as facts”"
- vacuum /noun/: 1.a space entirely devoid of matter. As we studied this vacuum we found out that while devoid of matter, it's not devoid of energy. Cassimir force being one example
"“Eventually all black holes will decay away.”
… even though nothing escapes??"
yes, because it's not matter that BH accumulated that is somehow "leaking out" despite gravity. That decay comes from particle-antiparicle pairs created at the EH
"Again,” they lose mass” (“we can quantify it!”) but if nothing escapes, they don’t lose anything."
yes they can, because it's not the mass from within.
"…..Because Hawking’s theory says so."
no, unlike you, he didn't just "say" so. He He took established and tested postulates and concluded that something like this ought to happen. Yes, it's not tested, and probably never will be, thus it's a working theory. But since no major errors are found in his model, it is a working theory. What are you actually complaining about.
Oh wait.. just trolling, I get it.
MM, don't go away mad...just go away.
https://youtu.be/QNCM8IjtQ-o
Is the "surface" of the event horizon smooth or roiling? If the latter, does this affect the evaporation rate?
Where there is an imaginary data hole with only speculation,
There is Sinisa Lazraek inside it authoritatively lecturing others about how much he actually doesn't know about something never observed.
.
No one has 'tested' a black hole, much less if they evaporate. No one is actually certain if what they are observing and calling a 'black hole' (pretty much everything these days from quasars to stars) is a black hole, they just would very much like it to be so, just like they would like computer generated noise to be 'evidence' of gravity waves, or polarized dust to be proof of something that they speculated happened billions of years ago. This kind of bullshit science isn't going to be funded much longer at taxpayer expense, as the ridiculous has now overtaken the observable by employing the inexplicable.
.
There actually isn't any chance of anyone figuring out a thing about massive gravitational objects as long as lunacy like :
"Particle-antiparticles pairs pop in-and-out of existence continuously, both inside and outside the event horizon of a black hole. When an outside-created pair has one of its members fall in, that’s when things get interesting." is what
passes for science.
.
'When things get interesting'?, You mean the magic part? Where things Pop in and out of existence hunh? Well, that sure explains a lot...On a supernatural or magic site, not a science blog.
.
If you want to try and convince people to subscribe to scientific methods instead of religion, perhaps one shouldn't invoke miracles and causeless events to explain one's lack of an actual functioning theory of how something works.
.
@klac,
Why don't you or anyone else actually observe (not imagine) an 'event horizon' outside of a theoretical mathematical matrix space first before speculating what it looks like.
@CFT:
"This kind of bullshit science isn’t going to be funded much longer at taxpayer expense"
Careful there :-) Where do you think money cut from basic scientific research will go realistically?
And are you really claiming you know which basic research done today, will be important in all future times?
Because history of science has some pretty big examples of research thought completely useless later turning out to be priceless.
Just one example, prime number research was completely useless for anything practical for hundreds of years, maybe thousands but today all of it is extremely valuable for encryption, all of e-trade, banking, etc on the internet and mobile phones etc
@Frank,
There are many PRODUCTIVE uses of science and tax payer money. Writing papers about unobservable theoretical one mass mathematical spaces conflated with actual objects with mass and gravity is not one of them, especially when we go the way of fantasy land non-explanations like 'popping in and out of existence' horseshit.
It's a very scientific thing to say "I do not know where my missing sock is." as this can lead to then tracking it down. Even if you can not find it, you still do not resort to invoking miracles to cover your lack of an answer, and it leaves the door open for someone else who can perhaps do a better job to come along at a later time and find the missing sock.
.
It it is quite absurd and very unscientific to say "When I do not know where my missing sock is, according to my math it has 'popped' out of existence." This leads absolutely nowhere, closes the door to future inquiry, and pretty much describes the present decaying state of HEP.
.
" Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. "
- Nikola Tesla
About the blatant and obvious contradictions and unfounded assumptions Ethan presents as facts about black holes, as I pointed out in #2...
No comment by Ethan in the latest "Comments." How dare I question the established facts like "nothing escapes" yet "they evaporate!"
"” Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ”
– Nikola Tesla"
So you couldn't find a modern scientist to quote in support of your crankery? Telling.
@dean #10: Tesla died two years before the first atomic explosion, making CFT's choice in quote even more ridiculous.
CFT:
So, it's not just black holes you deny, you also think quantum field theory is wrong about vacuum energy? How do you explain the Casimir Effect?
Does this mean you also reject the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Because you pretty much can't accept it and yet reject the notion of empty space (at least temporarily) producing particles.
SL #3
Me: “Again,” they lose mass” (“we can quantify it!”) but if nothing escapes, they don’t lose anything.”
You:
"yes they can, because it’s not the mass from within."
Since the mass within is not "lost" ("nothing escapes") how do they "evaporate?" By the magic of "virtual particle pairs" outside the event horizon "popping in and out of existence."
And that diminishes the mass inside that can't escape how?
By an act of faith in Hawking's omniscience?
MM:
Because in QM, subatomic particles can interact in ways they can't in Newtonian mechanics, sometimes "cancelling out" rather than being purely additive. A good example is the two-slit experiment producing a pattern of light and dark bands. I emphasize the 'dark bands' because those are areas where the wavefunctions cancel out, leaving nothing. Likewise it is possible in QM for a virtual particle wavefunction to combine with the wavefunction in/of a black hole and result is a wavefunction with less mass.
Which is entirely consistent with the notion of virtual pairs to begin with, because even without the black hole the idea of virtual particle pairs coming in and out of existence depends on them being able to recombine to produce...nothing. The BH losing a tiny bit of mass is really just the BH acting like the absent particle of the pair.
@eric,
Quit throwing the kitchen sink and everything else at me all at once. It isn't how rational arguments are made, It doesn't change my mind, And it's boring.
.
As a matter of fact, Quantum field theory is incomplete, Feynman and Dirac pretty much even said so, and they helped develop it. Stop confusing the inability to locate something you have lost track of with its existence popping or otherwise. Any detective would be fired outright if they claimed things had just popped out of existence when they failed to locate them or weren't looking. Scientists are supposed to be far more detail oriented than even a detective, so I expect more rigor than supernatural departures covered with statistical hand waving. When you don't know where something went, you just don't know, that's all you can say, none of this 'in and out of existence' bullshit, as that would imply you actually know where it went, when in fact you really don't. It hardly should come as a surprise with how clumsy our instrumentation is at such a small scale that we don't account well for many of the particles and much of their interactions.
.
The moon is still there, before you were born, even when you aren't looking, when you are looking, even when you forgot it was there, it's there when you measure it, and when you aren't measuring it, when you remember it's there, and long after you're dead. Thank goodness the moon doesn't depend upon you at all whatsoever for it's existence.
@Naked Bunny with a Whip
"@dean #10: Tesla died two years before the first atomic explosion, making CFT’s choice in quote even more ridiculous."
.
Your ability to string words together that have absolutely no merit or meaning is staggering. I admit, I am in awe of your vacuity. It was Tesla who made the electrification of the country possible with long distance AC electrical current transmission. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Edison's DC current which almost required you practically had to live next door to the power plant. Tesla thought nuclear energy was a bad idea to be playing with, and that it would probably lead to disaster and misery. He might still be right. The people of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island probably think so. As to his quote, he was referring to scientific theoretical speculation floating away from experimental confirmation. The LHC has brought this painfully to light in the HEP community, as it has killed off most of their imaginary particle zoo they spent the last sixty years constructing. The same thing is presently going on in the astrophysics community which has become obsessed with the insides of imaginary gravitational objects they can't observe, and dark energies they can't identify.
.
How did Tesla's death two years before the first atomic
explosion make his quote ridiculous? I'd like you to ask
someone Japanese (preferably an Aikido master) how
great an idea nuclear weapons are.
@dean,
I can see that you try, but you still don't have anything to say.
Someday I'm sure you'll surprise me, but not today.
eric#14
You clearly don't realize that your reply to my
"Since the mass within is not “lost” (“nothing escapes”) how do they “evaporate?”
is the very essence of bullshit.
You cite the light and dark bands in the double-slit experiment as an example of how "virtual particles pairs" can "cancel out" the mass within a black hole like like wave patterns can create dark bands (no light)... So these "virtual particles" outside a black hole can treat the bh like one of the pair partners and annihilate bits of its mass from within, where nothing escapes.
It amazes me to what lengths you and all Hawking Disciples go to "explain" how mass can be "canceled" from a gravity well of no escape!
" my
“Since the mass within is not “lost” (“nothing escapes”) how do they “evaporate?”
is the very essence of bullshit."
you got that one right :D ROFL!
You clearly don’t realize that your reply to my (statement quoted)
is the very essence of bullshit.
As simple as it gets... and you got it wrong.
And of course, as always, just another lame attack without addressing the science issue at all.
Goodby, SL.
CFT:
Okay, sure, I'll ask a simple 'single point' question. Do you think the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a well grounded scientific concept or not?
MM @18: there's nothing in your response except the argument from incredulity. No actual refutation of the concept of wavefunction, or of the notion that the combination of two wavefunctions can result in areas of no probability, and no actual refutation of the example.
look I *know* you don't accept modern science. But telling us over and over again that you think it's wrong is not actually any sort of argument that it's wrong.
If you think wavefunctions don't combine in the way i describe, tell me why. Give me a citation that they don't. If you think virtual particle behavior isn't guided by their wavefunction, tell me why. Give me citation that they aren't.
Actually produce an argument, rather than simply repeating over and over again that you think modern science is bullflop. Because (a) we know your opinion, and (b) it doesn't get stronger through repetition.
@MM
Oh I do realize that all your statements about science are bullshit. I wonder why that is.
And all you ever do is throw lame attacks without addressing the science at all. Every word you use is a projection of your self b.s. Even for a troll, you're too easy to read. LOL.
eric #22:
"MM @18: there’s nothing in your response except the argument from incredulity."
The accepted astrophysical definition of a black hole is a gravity well so powerful that no mass or light (photon radiation) can escape. So no matter how famous one is (Hawking, for instance), to say that they "evaporate" via an imaginary process (no evidence) involving "virtual particle pairs" outside the event horizon (the point of no return)... is contradictory nonsense, not just literally incredible.
No, the light and dark interference pattern as in the double slit experiment is not an example to explain black hole evaporation. Just more bs to avoid the contradiction I pointed out.
Simply put, if nothing escapes from within the event horizon, they can not evaporate, regardless of how deeply you bury the subject in bullshit... with NO scientific evidence for the claim.
If that isn't clear enough, there is no hope of clarifying your confusion. Such is the nature of thorough brainwashing, even in "science."
Btw, I do accept science as the OBJECTIVE inquiry into the nature of the cosmos, not the present popularity contest among famous physicists with very creative imaginations and no need of evidence to establish the truth of the matter, as in this case.
MM:
Ah, maybe you are getting hung up on word choice. AIUI, BH mass does not 'evaporate' in the primary literal sense of the word (vapor coming off a liquid, or more generally, stuff being emitted from other stuff). Rather, scientists use the word 'evaporate' in the vernacular sense of "disappear." As in "his argument evaporated once the facts were known." In the case of black holes, "evaporate" is used as a shorttand term to refer to a complex quantum mechanical process in which the BH mass value gets lower without anything escaping the event horizon via classical means.
So now armed with that explanation, do you still take issue with the concept of BH's losing mass over time, or is your issue limited to the word choice used to describe it?
MM:
No you don't. Every time we cite an objective, reproduced study empirical inquiry into the nature of the cosmos that supports relativity, you ignore it or claim it's wrong. That's the process of defending a preconceived notion from evidence, not the process of reasoning from evidence to a conclusion. We even show you articles of people challenging SR, and you ignore those articles too because they do not support your preconceived notion of academia being closed to such challenges.
eric#25:
'... “evaporate” is used as a shorttand term to refer to a complex quantum mechanical process in which the BH mass value gets lower without anything escaping the event horizon via classical means".
"So now armed with that explanation, do you still take issue with the concept of BH’s losing mass over time, or is your issue limited to the word choice used to describe it?"
That was not an explanation. It was another obfuscation.
"... mass GETS LOWER without anything escaping" is more self contradictory bullshit. "...".via classical means" stands in contrast to 'via imaginary means' based on "virtual particles popping in and of existence" (where the bh becomes a "virtual pair partner" with no evidence whatsoever that it is anything other than a visualization/ display via computer graphic modeling. Still not objective science.
Btw... still no evidence cited for macro-scale length contraction. The muon argument has been debunked, but all links criticizing it are dismissed out of hand as crankery. The one link offered as a challenge to SR had no reference to the issue it was supposed to address. I challenge you to explain the relevance of that link to my criticism.
Ps: I don't insist on using the word evaporate. Feel free to substitute "lose mass" for "evaporate" in my statement,
Simply put, if nothing escapes from within the event horizon, they can not evaporate,
It's still nonsense, not just too complicated for its "stupid critics" to understand, as you followers of Hawking insist.
@eric #21,
As a matter of fact, No, I don't think it is 'well grounded' in science the way that you do apparently, I don't confuse math with reality (hypostatization), as I don't subscribe to the mysticism of mathematical Platonism, which is the underlying and very unscientific belief math directly informs reality. The uncertainty principle was invented to evaluate wave duality math, and not the reality the math is statistically trying to model. As long as you mentally keep the subject separate from the mathematical description of that subject, you do fine. When you conflate the two, a torrent of existential bullshit like alternate existences/probabilities, multiple timelines, and multiverses occurs and overwhelms reason, as you completely confuse abstract mathematical contrivance in calculation with physical actuality.
.
@ CFT
you seem to confuse several things. Uncertainty principle has nothing to do with multiverses, or interpretations of QM or your beef with the above. In fact uncertainty principle is a well observed and documented FUNDAMENTAL property of ALL wave systems. Is not derived from some "hypothetical", mystical mathematics as you put it. Enyone i.e. dealing with electronics and signal processing (fourier transforms) is well aware of it (you can't localize a signal both in time and frequency to max precision). This isn't because of some mysterious QM, it's because of wave. Uncertainty principle is present in QM because QM deals with waves, not the other way around.
CFT #29:
"When you conflate the two, a torrent of existential bullshit like alternate existences/probabilities, multiple timelines, and multiverses occurs and overwhelms reason, as you completely confuse abstract mathematical contrivance in calculation with physical actuality."
What he said. I agree.
MM:
Mass goes down in nuclear reactions all the time. Approximately a fifth of all electricity in the US comes from reactions in which the mass decreases (i.e., nuclear power). So are you claiming (a) all such nuclear theory and observation is wrong, or (b) such reactions can't occur in BHs for some unknown reason?
While the actual reaction may be complex, the principle is pretty simple. A positron (or something similar) goes in. Reacts with an electron (or something similar) on the inside. The reaction converts rest mass to photons (exactly as it does on the outside of a BH). The photons remain captured in the BH but the mass goes down because those particles' rest mass has been converted.
What about that scenario is, for you, impossible?
CFT:
MM:
Indeed, you two are intellectual brothers in arms.
Reading comments on science blogs its always pleasing as long they are done in polite manner. Einstein and Bohr didn't throw kitchen sinks at each other, even if they didn't agree.
@Sinisa Lazarek
"... “Again,” they lose mass” (“we can quantify it!”) but if nothing escapes, they don’t lose anything.”
yes they can, because it’s not the mass from within... "
Actually, the Hawking theory say that is exactly the mass from within that will evaporate ! He's theory say that from a pair of particle - antiparticle created at the BH even horizon mostly only the antiparticle will fall in the black hole, annihilating the equivalent mass from within, while the particle pair will escape and can be detected as Hawking radiation.
Reducing the BH mass in this manner while BH will not feed with external "positive" matter will cause BH to evaporate ... "puff"
If you look at the top drawing of this article the author depicted the antiparticle with red color always going-in, while its pink pair matter particle escaping. Hawking say that BH appetite for eating more anti-matter than matter is due to its charge repelling one while attracting the other.
I find this theory to be funny, its quite old and it was surfaced back in the media to calm the CERN LHC black holes doomsday Schwarzschild worried partisans.
I think that until we really directly observe a BH in (future's) labs or in cosmos we should keep our minds open. No one knows for sure what's inside a BH. Period !
E=mc2 means either mass or energy could warps space-time around it in the same way, that's what we see at centers of galaxies that super massive BH does.
If BH still have energy in matter form inside it, then Hawking may have slight chance to be right, if BH is all energy (no particle because it have been converted to energy) as new theories point out, then BH will not evaporate as even anti-matter have positive mass that will increase BH mass-energy value.
Science without observation is religion and all we saw how this played out in the past.
@CFT
“When I do not know where my missing sock is, according to my math it has ‘popped’ out of existence.” - Unfortunately, this is what most modern scientist do :(
Until the rigorousness of old day scientist who started QM and GR will not come back we will get just socks ‘popped’ out of existence.” as theories. Casimir–Polder force was predicted and found, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is real yet no one knows how really works.
Sure, the modern science is capable of measuring a lot of stuff here on labs and in space with great accuracy, they found a lot of decimals in constants that where predicted in 1920's. But understanding of physics in its greater meaning have not evolved at large pace since then.
For example after Einstein proved E=mc2 we still don't know what really energy is ? What does represent this thing we call energy ? I mean, how you REALLY define energy itself not relating with other things.
We need a bigger picture of how things works and we are still very, very far from it !
Facts:
- Hawking was wrong on Black Hole's information lost paradox as Leonard Susskind demonstrate. Juan Maldacena seems to take this further with EP=ERP new theory
- Nicola Tesla was a great inventor with high insides, invented AC motor, perfected a coil of Henry Rowland by making it VSWR working mode, but he didn't believe electrons actually exists. He was not a physicist and he did rude comments to Einstein because GR was out of he's math capability.
- Ernst Mach first didn't believe atoms exists but was later convinced
- Einstein never wear socks, not even when attended to its own Nobel or when he was witness for Kurt Godel citizenship grant in front of a judge :)
I agree with Michio Kaku "We need new physics"
@eric, #32: "What about that scenario is, for you, impossible?"
Nuclear energy 101:
A nuclear reactor converts mass to energy via fusion, and that energy (heat) leaves the reactor as steam and drives turbines to generate electricity. Eventually the core fuel rods are "spent" and need replacement.
You have confused nuclear reactors with black holes, from which no mass or light/ radiation escapes.
Hawking's imaginary particle pairs (one of each) are all that "escape" and they are all in Hawking's and his followers' minds.
A recent Ethan quote unknowingly exposes the fallacy: "The thing you have to realize is that these "pairs" don't actually, physically exist; they're calculational tools only."
Mathematicians/ physicists often forget that their calculational tools are supposed to be tools for describing the physical world, not just creating models with no verifiable reference or relevance to the physical world (of black holes in this case.)
Edit: Fission, not fusion.
@ Thor
you are correct about Hawking radiation, however my comment was to our resident Troll MM and in reference that it's not the mass from within event horizon of BH that somehow breaks the rules of GR and goes out of EH. Instead it's the anti-particle that goes in the BH that causes the mass to reduce and the solo particle from that pair that is outside the EH that we detect (in principle) as coming from BH as radiation.
@Sinisa Lazarek,
I apologize. After waking up this morning and looking at what I wrote last night, I can't make heads or tails or what I was talking about, it's garbled about two or three different things...I think. I'm not very proud of what I said on another entry either. I made the mistake of trying to blog when I was very tired, unhappy, and drinking. I had a few hours earlier received news that a good friend of mine had died. I'm sorry for the mess.
@ CFT
as the saying goes... it takes a man to admit his mistake. No need to apologize. No harm done. We all have our ups and downs. My most sincere condolences to you for the loss of a loved one.
Before the contradictions are again swept under the rug regarding black holes losing mass, (though no mass or light escapes the gravity well)... see #2 above... here is another blatantly contradictory statement by Ethan:
"But if you have energy that originates from the space outside and it results in real radiation moving away from the black hole, that energy must come from the black hole itself, lowering its mass. That's how Hawking radiation works, and that's why black holes eventually decay."
Notice the reference to "ENERGY THAT ORIGINATES FROM THE SPACE OUTSIDE" then "moving away from the black hole."
Then, the immediate contradiction: "THAT ENERGY MUST COME FROM THE BLACK HOLE ITSELF, LOWERING ITS MASS."
Yup, " That's how Hawking radiation works,..."
Am I the only one here willing to call bullshit on Ethan's very clear contradictions in service to "Hawking radiation?"
@ Michael Mooney
"Am I the only one here willing to call bullshit on Ethan’s very clear contradictions in service to “Hawking radiation?”
Obviously, you are not alone in your toughs. Although I wouldn't call Ethan’s contradictions a "bullshit". Is just trendy all over the internet to get distorted information about everything, why Hawking radiation theory should be spared ?
How about Hawking's own words from 2014 “there are no black holes.” ?
Here's link to he's own paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf
Those words come directly from Hawking’s latest paper but they are contained within a larger point involving the mechanics of a black hole and its famous “event horizon.”
If Hawking radiation theory upset you, I advise to wait a bit, as there is a high chance that he will forfeit he's own radiation theory as he did so many times before with he's other ideas
For example in 70's Hawking and Susskind got into a debate regarding information being lost in a BH. Hawking was wrong and he lately admitted and Susskind developed holographic principle, so physic advanced from this debate.
Also, Hawking changed he's view twice about the idea of space-time itself being crunched out of existence in the singularity of a BH. First he said space-time disappear into singularly of a BH, then he say that it doesn't and now he is not sure that singularity even exist.
Don't get me wrong, he can make any theory he wants and toast or change them as he pleased, he's obviously a bright man hard tested by life deserving all our respect. Unfortunate in our days, its the media who is looking for rock-star like scientists and make them famous, not the Nobel price in physics. The "man in the chair" who speak trough a synthesizer making predictions in physics is an image that many publications and media exploit just to get sensational news or presenting a dramatic look.
Roger Penrose, Leonard Suskind, Juan Maldacena, Kip Thorne and others have also some things to say about BH but so far no one got the hole's picture :)
Thanks for the link, Thor.
I sifted through the heap of cow-dung until I found the disclaimer which you quoted:
"The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can’t escape to infinity."
So... "no black holes" means no "Hawking radiation."
Oopse... He just disowned his major claim to fame.
So now we have to find a new name for these extreme- mass gravity wells from which NOTHING CAN ESCAPE and quit guessing (making shit up) about scenarios in which they evaporate (lose mass.)
He will probably come up with a new scheme soon to keep the controversy perking and keep his popularity ratings high and to appease his loyal followers.
Thor,
Thanks for the list at the bottom of your comment. I read up on Kip Thorne. Here is my favorite "take away." ( I posted it in the wrong thread already... lots of black hole threads here.):
"The hole’s space is bent downward in some higher dimensional “hyperspace” that is not part of our universe."
This is metaphysical mysticism (creative imagination) NOT SCIENCE.
But he is famous, so... argue at the risk of losing your physicist job. (No worries here!)
Well,
Let's look at what science have establish so far by experimental results and observation or by solid theories widely accepted at this moment.
1. The Universe pop into existence.
With or without inflation there is a overwhelming evidence in CMB that support Big Bang happened as GR predicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
2. There is no such thing as space and time separate concept but there is space-time, a four dimension (x,y,z,time) universe.
As General Relativity predicted it was measured so far:
- time dilatation (even GPS system take into account this effect)
- gravitational lens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
- gravitational waves. In 2015 LIGO, for the first time, physically sensed distortions in spacetime itself https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw
- black holes. From which nothing can escape, instead of funniest Hawking's ever changing theories a real new EP=EPR theory make sense to many real physicist. Copenhagen vs Everett interpretation is on the table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR
- CTC actually can exist. They used quantum teleportation,to create a Closed Timeline Curves and sent a photon back in time ! Here is the original paper with experimental results https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2219.pdf
In quantum realm:
- double slit experiment , which no-one can explain its Schrodinger wave function collapsing mechanism by observation yet this started QM.
- quantum fluctuation with virtual particles popping in and out are real particles, not virtual ! They are not a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics, but real particles.
*) First proved in 1947 by Lamb–Retherford experiment Nobel Prize was eventually awarded for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_shift
*) Casimir-Polder force predicted in 1948 and proven beyond doubt in 1997 in a direct experiment by S. Lamoreaux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
*) Their effects in hydrogen atom's electron energy was calculated by Nobel laureate R. Feynman and measured now to be correct down to 12 decimal places, as predicted.
*) new theory account this mechanism for inside atom electron "movement" - more exact its teleportation - as Bohr predicted.
- quantum tunneling. This effect is used now in ordinary semiconductors of $5 tunnel diode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode
- quantum entanglement. Proved to be real years ago
Now 200 years ago, if you would told that the above physics laws will govern a "normal" Universe that we live in, any sane scientist will react as you said "This is metaphysical mysticism (creative imagination) NOT SCIENCE" yet there is science now !
The current laws of physics that we know to be correct are already sci-fiction and finding other dimension(s) I think it will shock nobody.
I think that a more weird thing than finding other dimension(s) was already happened in 1999 when scientist start measuring the "Cosmological constant" and found that is fine-tuned to unimaginable precision down to 120 decimals ! If this constant had even a slight variation at 120 decimals the planets, galaxies, universe and us would not even exist !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXi_YaDO9ZI
http://scipp.ucsc.edu/~haber/ph171/CosmoConstant.pdf
Well Michael,
Let's look at what science have establish so far by experimental results and observation or by solid theories widely accepted at this moment.
1. The Universe pop into existence.
With or without inflation there is a overwhelming evidence in CMB that support Big Bang happened as GR predicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
2. There is no such thing as space and time separate concept but there is space-time, a four dimension (x,y,z,time) universe.
As General Relativity predicted it was measured so far:
- time dilatation (even GPS system take into account this effect)
- gravitational lens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
- gravitational waves. In 2015 LIGO, for the first time, physically sensed distortions in spacetime itself https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw
- black holes. From which nothing can escape, instead of funniest Hawking's ever changing theories a real new EP=EPR theory make sense to many real physicist. Copenhagen vs Everett interpretation is on the table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR
- CTC actually can exist. They used quantum teleportation,to create a Closed Timeline Curves and sent a photon back in time ! Here is the original paper with experimental results https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2219.pdf
In quantum realm:
- double slit experiment , which no-one can explain its Schrodinger wave function collapsing mechanism by observation yet this started QM.
- quantum fluctuation with virtual particles popping in and out are real particles, not virtual ! They are not a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics, but real particles.
*) First proved in 1947 by Lamb–Retherford experiment Nobel Prize was eventually awarded for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_shift
*) Casimir-Polder force predicted in 1948 and proven beyond doubt in 1997 in a direct experiment by S. Lamoreaux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
*) Their effects in hydrogen atom's electron energy was calculated by Nobel laureate R. Feynman and measured now to be correct down to 12 decimal places, as predicted.
*) new theory account this mechanism for inside atom electron "movement" - more exact its teleportation - as Bohr predicted.
- quantum tunneling. This effect is used now in ordinary semiconductors of $5 tunnel diode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode
- quantum entanglement. Proved to be real years ago
Now 200 years ago, if you would told that the above physics laws will govern a "normal" Universe that we live in, any sane scientist will react as you said "This is metaphysical mysticism (creative imagination) NOT SCIENCE" yet there is science now !
The current laws of physics that we know to be correct are already sci-fiction and finding other dimension(s) I think it will shock nobody.
I think that a more weird thing than finding other dimension(s) was already happened in 1999 when scientist start measuring the "Cosmological constant" and found that is fine-tuned to unimaginable precision down to 120 decimals ! If this constant had even a slight variation at 120 decimals the planets, galaxies, universe and us would not even exist !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXi_YaDO9ZI
http://scipp.ucsc.edu/~haber/ph171/CosmoConstant.pdf
Thor,
That's a lot to handle all at once.
Since you seem to be up to date on all the mainstream versions of all those subjects you confirmed and verified to be factual empirical truth about the cosmos, will you please answer a few of my most urgent questions? (Optional.)
Is there any empirical evidence for physical (objects) or spacial (distance through space) LENGTH CONTRACTION as per the Lorentz Transformation, based on slowed (accelerated) timekeepers (the math reciprocal of "time dilation' of course?) Do astronomical distances shrink the faster an "observer" travels?
Is there any evidence that "spacetime" is an actual entity which mass affects, or is it just a geometrical/ mathematical divice (tool?)... Einstein's substitute for "the force of gravity at a distance?" ("Spooky!")
Is there any evidence that time or space are malleable entities either alone or as a unified "fabric" (spacetime) which can be sliced by observers (on individual "time-space-lines), like a loaf of bread... or traveled through like a (previously fictional) timescape?
Is there any empirical evidence for Hawking radiation?
Gotta go, even though I have more challenges.
(Please don't refer me to Wikipedia again.)
Thor,
I hope I didn't put you off with my "no Wikipedia" request. Sometimes it's the most available resource for a quick overview of a subject. (They banned me as an editor for trying to introduce relativity-critical references.)
Continuing my reply... re:
"1. The Universe pop into existence."
"Everything out of nothingness" is magic, not science... no better than "creation" mythology.
"2. There is no such thing as space and time separate concept but there is space-time, a four dimension (x,y,z,time) universe."
Space is 3-D volume, whatever it contains. Time is event duration as anything/ everything moves through space. The "block universe" is an imaginative way to make time travel sound "scientific" and plausible. See my comment above on "spacetime."
Quantum tunneling was also used as an argument for Hawking radiation... how mass can escape from a gravity well from which there is no escape. Houdini magic to salvage HR. Bogus.
"Closed timelike curves (CTCs) are trajectories in spacetime that effectively travel backwards in
time: a test particle following a CTC can in principle interact with its former self in the past"
This violates causality... like "back to the future" sci-fi, as in "interaction with one's former self in the past." Very clearly nonsense.
Enough for now.
Michael,
I would answer to all your questions with a simple: "No"
That was my point in first post here, above, that we verify by solid experiments, the math of this theories over and over again with greater precision and found to be true, yet the bigger picture elude us so far.
There are efforts those days to come up with a new theory in which "space" and "time" are not fundamental but emerge from a deeper physics of quantum mechanics.
Quantum gravity loop theory is one of this so far incomplete but promising new theory.
The Universe appear to be weirder that we ever imagine and scientists so far have not being able to come up with a new theories, therefore we're stuck with old but solid verifiable theories never prove to be wrong so far.
Do you know any physic's EXPERIMENT EVER DONE, (aside cosmological constant prediction-measurement issue), that contradict the General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics ?
1. I didn't said “Everything out of nothingness” please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not Lawrence Krauss fan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing
Rather search Roger Penrose alternate Big Bang theory.
Or if you do hold the "secret" of Universe please share it !
2. For the rest of my previous comments I put clear reference of actual verified experiments.
Original authors "pdf and Wikipedia included, yes I don't have Wiki- phobia as I never found inadvertence from original physicist's papers and Wikipedia. did you ?
Thor,
My "everything our of nothingness" was not meant to quote you but just "scare quotes" around the bogus concept itself. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The alternative to the magic implied or creationism is an eternally existing and oscillating "bang/ crunch" universe. The time cycle is still beyond our measurement capability, as it is still expanding.
My space and time paragraph above contradicts GR's philosophical assumption that space, time, and spacetime are malleable entities (with no empirical evidence in support.)
Your answer ("No") to my questions in #46 agrees that there is no empirical science in support of those theories I addressed.
My beef with Wikipedia is that it does not allow ANY criticism of relativity, even in its "Criticisms of the Theory of Relativity" article. All examples are rejected. Dogma, not science.
Error: "Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!" But it still won't post. Here it is again.
Thor,
My "everything our of nothingness" was not meant to quote you but just "scare quotes" around the bogus concept itself. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The alternative to the magic implied or creationism is an eternally existing and oscillating "bang/ crunch" universe. The time cycle is still beyond our measurement capability, as it is still expanding.
My space and time paragraph above contradicts GR's philosophical assumption that space, time, and spacetime are malleable entities (with no empirical evidence in support.)
Your answer ("No") to my questions in #46 agrees that there is no empirical science in support of those theories I addressed.
My beef with Wikipedia is that it does not allow ANY criticism of relativity, even in its "Criticisms of the Theory of Relativity" article. All examples are rejected. Dogma, not science.
@ Michael Mooney
"Dogma, not science" - You have formulated an absolutely correct sentence !
That is what you and some (not all) Hawking's radiation "followers" do here. You are stuck in "believes" arguing at each other using your dogma and not science. You did not even know he's own 2104 update paper that I point out above, even exist.
Even after I put here the Hawking's link of he's own 2014 paper you quote from it wrong: “no black holes” means no “Hawking radiation.” When in fact, actually the "no event horizon" means no “Hawking radiation.” because he's theory is based on (sharp/"no_hair") even horizon of the black hole from where alleged radiation would had appear.
My point is that in order to disprove or prove a theory you must first try to understand it. I never though that "Hawking radiations" is a valid theory as many other physicist, because there was too many assumptions there, yet I READ IT trough and understand what is saying. Even when you had he's 2014 paper you didn't know what to quote from it in order to make your point. So I wouldn't really blame Wikipedia from banning you if had the same going with them.
We are here just mere a bunch of physicists/or physicists enthusiast, discussing politely on a blog, but your last post holds some true, that even at high levels, much higher than Wikipedia, some group of scientist refuse to challenge or accept to discuss other new ideas except what they were paid for to study, that's dogma too ! Its not a conspiracy, far from it, its rather more of ignorance and "professional arrogance" that I personally encounter in those "clubs".
Please don't get me wrong, I thing we should challenge everything, any existed theory could be challenged, including GR, but blind challenge disregarding evidence is DARK AGE !
By changing he's own theories, public admitting that he was wrong (see Information lost in BH vs. L Susskind) Hawking prove that he really have no dogma, no unmovable beliefs and no worries about (artificial) fame created by the media around him. He is a real great physicist, moved by a true desire to find the mechanisms in the laws of physics. He have less dogma than you or he's "religious" followers !
P.S.
"Your answer (“No”) to my questions in #46 agrees that there is no empirical science in support of those theories I addressed"
As I also try to be outside of any dogma, I answered with "No" to your questions, because the way formulated the question, not because I thing GR is wrong.
Q - "....Is there any evidence that time or space are malleable entities either alone or as a unified “fabric” (spacetime) which can be sliced by observers ..."
A - Of course, NO ! , space-time is NOT a "piece of pizza" that you can carry home ! That doesn't mean space-time doesn't physically exist.
You have all the answers in QFT theory and examples in my #45 point (2) with links to experiments which prove my statement. Please read and let me know what you don't understand.
Q - "Is there any empirical evidence for physical (objects) or spacial (distance through space) LENGTH CONTRACTION"
A - same as above
" You are stuck in “believes” arguing at each other using your dogma and not science."
Do not judge "where I am stuck!"
My intent is to expose theoretical science as conjecture with no empirical evidence, no matter what the subject....no matter the math expertise or choice of "models."
Nothing against brainstorming, but don't present theories as facts! It's not honest science.
What is your intent... to be a loyal apologist for the mainstream from which all physics credentials are given?
Call all critics "trolls" as many here do? Go with the most famous physicists? Don't dare to think for yourself?
Your last phrase above was a truly amazing evasion of a reasonable challenge: "A_ same as above"
So nobody need scroll up to check, here again is the "above":
Q – “….Is there any evidence that time or space are malleable entities either alone or as a unified “fabric” (spacetime) which can be sliced by observers …”
A – Of course, NO ! , space-time is NOT a “piece of pizza” that you can carry home ! That doesn’t mean space-time doesn’t physically exist.
You have all the answers in QFT theory and examples in my #45 point (2) with links to experiments which prove my statement. Please read and let me know what you don’t understand.
PLEASE explain how it "physically exists."
Also let me know what you don't understand about my last few replies to you. ... Especially physical/ spacial "length contraction." How do trains "really" shrink, as observed differently by observer A vs observer B? ( Standardized SR bs.)
Do you subscribe to the SR philosophy that "It all depends on the frame of reference... all equal?" How about the postulate that "length is not invariable" according to the math of the Lorentz Transformation?
Or you could just dismiss me as another "troll." (The worst possible personal insult in science forums... whatever it means.)
Thor,
If you decide to answer how trains (etc.) physically shrink in the "real world" (as per "length contraction)... not just observational (frame of reference) differences... please also explain the physical nature of spacetime as per the LIGO link above regarding "physically sensed distortions in spacetime itself." What is "spacetime itself?" Why is that not a reasonable science question?
There was a lot of controversy about computer programing of a "simulated result," not being actual detection of "ripples in spacetime." But if that has been resolve, the question remains... what is the physical nature of this medium called "spacetime" given the definitions of space and time as I have repeatedly detailed with no opposition.
Or just continue avoidance of all criticism of relativity as per standard mainstream procedure.