@metal-brain saidAgain, spouting crap you have no idea about.
It is odd that Hawking became famous for a theory that he never explained logically.
If you had watched that episode of Nova you would know nobody has ever explained it. In reality the assertion black holes evaporate over time is an unproven theory and Hawking's equation is equally unproven.
Hawking was introduced to the idea of radiation from a black hole in 1973 from Soviet scientists Yakov Zel'dovich and Alexei Starobinsky and he didn't believe it at first, but he worked out the math and he found they were right (this is detailed in Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, which I read). I'm gonna say that if Hawking's mind was changed by some math, that's probably all you need to logically state the case for it.
"Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes and is therefore also theorized to cause black hole evaporation. Because of this, black holes that do not gain mass through other means are expected to shrink and ultimately vanish. For all except the smallest black holes, this would happen extremely slowly. The radiation temperature is inversely proportional to the black hole's mass, so micro black holes are predicted to be larger emitters of radiation than larger black holes and should dissipate faster." -- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
This would also explain why no primordial black holes have ever been found.
@sonhouse saidPalomar, nice.
@Metal-Brain
Why don't you take cosmology 101 at a local community college and you will find they say the same thing but OF COURSE that will never happen, you won't even deign to READ a cosmology for dummies kind of book much less actually take a real course on the subject, you are WAY more interested in proving your abject superiority.
And BTW, I DID take such courses in college, Palomar College in San Marcos California, does that name ring a bell?
I'll just jump in to acknowledge that though the math indicates that black holes should evaporate over time, that does not mean it is a physically proven theory. But if the hypothesis is false, it would mean our understanding of the quantum world needs substantial revision. That is always a possibility. Certainly our understanding of quantum theory is incomplete.
@soothfast saidBut the fact is that the scientific method helps ensure that science is correct. Theories are theories until proven correct. Groundbreaking theories, like the Theory of Relativity, are still theories because not ALL of it has been proven. There's just so much there. Most acknowledge that the Theory of Relativity is probably completely correct, given that most of it has been proven, but science marches on, and we may have a better theory in place before this one has been completely proven. The same goes with other scientific theories.
I'll just jump in to acknowledge that though the math indicates that black holes should evaporate over time, that does not mean it is a physically proven theory. But if the hypothesis is false, it would mean our understanding of the quantum world needs substantial revision. That is always a possibility. Certainly our understanding of quantum theory is incomplete.
But on the other hand, MB believes the most whacked-out conspiracy theories, and yet he refuses to place credence on ANY scientific theory because "it hasn't been proven". This is hypocrisy on a grand scale.
@suzianne saidMB has his own home-brewed version of the scientific method that takes as axiomatic that if the preponderance of the scientific community believes a particular theory to be true, then they are either idiots, or are in it for the money, or are conspiring to control his mind.
But the fact is that the scientific method helps ensure that science is correct. Theories are theories until proven correct. Groundbreaking theories, like the Theory of Relativity, are still theories because not ALL of it has been proven. There's just so much there. Most acknowledge that the Theory of Relativity is probably completely correct, given that most of it has b ...[text shortened]... dence on ANY scientific theory because "it hasn't been proven". This is hypocrisy on a grand scale.
@Suzianne
Yep, we lived on the road to Palomar.
For a science nerd I was in heaven🙂
My buddy Richard Patak and I went to visit Mount Wilson observatory when we were 16 and I was not living near Palomar then, but near Mount Wilson, so one fine day Rich had a car! and we drove to the Mount Wilson telescope, and we stopped when we saw the gardener watering some plants and asked him if it was possible to see the scope.
So it turned out he was in fact the head astronomer, can't remember his name if my life depended on it, but he took us in and gave us a grand tour which included a visit to the SOLAR observatory which ATT had a picture of the entire sun projected to a horizontal view screen, that was AWESOME to see the flames withering around the circumference where sunspot were clearly visible, no electronics, cameras or any modern instrumentation, if you wanted a copy, you took a film photo and had it developed🙂
I'll never forget that visit.
Up there with me holding a moon rock in my hands at the moon rock vault at Goddard when I was a tech on Apollo Tracking and Timing which you probably already heard me expound on a bunch of times.
@suzianne said"Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes and is therefore also theorized to cause black hole evaporation."
Again, spouting crap you have no idea about.
Hawking was introduced to the idea of radiation from a black hole in 1973 from Soviet scientists Yakov Zel'dovich and Alexei Starobinsky and he didn't believe it at first, but he worked out the math and he found they were right (this is detailed in Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, which I read). I'm gonna say th ...[text shortened]... iki/Hawking_radiation
This would also explain why no primordial black holes have ever been found.
Where is your evidence?
@Metal-Brain
Gee, you COULD read 'A brief history of time' by Hawking himself and find all that out but you won't, you are allergic to books, as bad as a vampire avoiding sunlight.
@sonhouse saidStop lying. You have no evidence.
@Metal-Brain
Gee, you COULD read 'A brief history of time' by Hawking himself and find all that out but you won't, you are allergic to books, as bad as a vampire avoiding sunlight.
@metal-brain saidThe definition of Hawking radiation, actually.
"Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes and is therefore also theorized to cause black hole evaporation."
Where is your evidence?
Let us know if you need help with the definition of that tricky word "theorized."
"Hawking radiation" is a term for a theorized mechanism whereby a black hole changes in certain respects over time, for instance by losing mass and rotational energy. It is theorized.
Theorized.
Yes, a theory. As Yoda would say: "Theorized, it is."
As for "evidence," cosmologists are searching for it, and continue to fiddle with the theory itself.
"Where is your evidence?" you ask. Plainly put: being a theory, Hawking radiation is theoretical, and theorizing continues. Tremendous challenges are attendant with detecting the radiation. If a mini black hole could be created in a particle accelerator someday maybe it could be observed. Who knows? Experimentalists can be very clever sometimes, and may figure out a way to observe Hawking radiation in the wild or in the laboratory.
I hope you understand. If not, oh well.
@soothfast saidYou just confirmed what I said.
"Hawking radiation" is a term for a theorized mechanism whereby a black hole changes in certain respects over time, for instance by losing mass and rotational energy. It is theorized.
Theorized.
Yes, a theory. As Yoda would say: "Theorized, it is."
As for "evidence," cosmologists are searching for it, and continue to fiddle with the theory itself.
"Where is ...[text shortened]... erve Hawking radiation in the wild or in the laboratory.
I hope you understand. If not, oh well.
Thanks.
@Metal-Brain
I already said that on page three. We HAVE NOT measured it ATT. That does not mean the effect doesn't exist.
At one time we didn't even know gravitational waves exist till Einstein figured that one out and there was a lot of nay saying about that, no evidence and the like, that is till we PROVED they exist with LIGO and its relatives and now designing one to be in space where it will be thousands of times easier to do, no vibration to kill, vacuum right out the door, you can have beams 20Km long and they won't break or even bend do to wind or whatever if you actually needed to make beams that long.
Longer baseline for GW detectors means lower frequency gravity waves would be found and higher frequency GW for bigger stuff.
@metal-brain saidYes, but that is the point. I don't think anyone here is saying that Hawking's theories are absolutely a sure thing. But mathematics often guides physics to sound results, and so the theorizing continues. The goal would be to find some experimentally observable phenomenon that would help corroborate the theories. Hawking radiation itself would be too faint to observe directly in a normal-sized black hole.
You just confirmed what I said.
Thanks.
There was that other paper that you excoriated for not providing error bounds on the distances to faraway galaxies. Such bounds exist, but they may not be relevant to a paper on a broad cosmological topic. You took the lack of bounds as a sign of rot in the foundations of science owing to stupidity, faith, or fraud (maybe all three), but the reality is you just didn't do your homework.
Scientists do not communicate with one another with constant error bounds and reminders that everything is theoretical. It is tacitly understood that little (if anything) is one hundred percent sure in science. Pop science books, perhaps unfortunately, often speak in like manner, exuding an air of certainty about topics (the existence of dark matter for instance) where no such certainty actually exists.
@metal-brain saidI'm talking about a theory.
"Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes and is therefore also theorized to cause black hole evaporation."
Where is your evidence?
Why are you asking me for evidence?
Tell you what, Buckwheat, why don't you follow the link I placed in that post and read about it for yourself.