Talk:Hawking radiation

Pending confirmation

Removed pending confirmation:

Recent observation of Black Holes has confirmed that they do emit radiation, for example a recent example showed that one Black Hole was emitting sound at 47 octaves below middle C.

I don't think so... I think this person is getting Hawking radiation confused with gravitational radiation -- Tim Starling 06:45, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

Let's see. Middle C is 278 hertz I think, so the 'sound' frequency would be 278/2⁴⁷ Hz, corresponding to a period of 16000 years. Nah...
—Herbee 14:04, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)

Physicists are working hard to directly detect gravitational radiation but haven't done so yet (21 October 2006). I think he's getting Hawking radiation confused with rapidly rotating pulsars or with a rotating pulsar - black hole pair - AG, Stockport, UK.

In case anyone wants to follow this up, the observation that seems to have spurred this debate is reported here: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/09sep_blackholesounds.htm.
Xarqi 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Area of a sphere

The area of a sphere is normally 4πr², but space near a black hole is curved so this probably needs a correction. What is the expression for the surface area of a Schwarzschild black hole's event horizon? This has bearing on my calculation of the power emitted in Hawking radiation.
—Herbee 22:13, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

It is 4πr² because the blackholes metric is spherically symmetric, and thus on the surface of the sphere we can treat it as though it were imbedded in euclidean geometry(so long as we do not refer to anything off the surface).

JeffBobFrank 04:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not buying that. A circle drawn on a sphere is also symmetric, but its circumference is certainly not 2πr.

—Herbee 13:52, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)

The metric tensor of the sphere is not equivalent to that of a plane, even when we limit ourselves to the circle, and discard the components that lead out of the circle, whereas in this case distances are the same as long as the time component and the radial component(the only ones that changed from what it would be without the black hole) are 0. Since the sphere being considered is at constant time and distance from the black hole it does have the same surface area.

JeffBobFrank 19:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the radial coordinate *defined* to be such that the area of a sphere at radius r is 4πr²?? -Lethe | Talk 10:37, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

That's correct. If you look at the Schwarzschild coordinates page, you can see that the part of the metric involving r, dtheta and dphi is exactly the same as in flat space spherical coordinates. So the area of a sphere located at coordinate radius r is 4πr².

The sublety is that if you wanted to get to this sphere from r=0 you wouldn't go a physical distance r, but some other distance... This is how the curvature of the Schwarzchild metric enters. Wesino 23:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hawking cracks black hole paradox

See http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996151

After nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole destroys everything that falls into it, Stephen Hawking is saying he was wrong. It seems that black holes may after all allow information within them to escape.

Sombody who knows about this stuff can put it in the article. Walter 09:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Information paradox

I've added a note to this article and Hawking's article explaining that the vaporization of particles at the event horizon has been called incorrect by Hawking. I've also noted that he will present new findings at the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation in Dublin, Ireland in July 2004.

I'll try to update the article once Hawking has presented his findings.

Hawkings talk in Dublin was not to disprove Hawking radiation, but rather Information loss in evaporating black holes. Since information loss is not mentioned in this article (although it should be), nothing in this article was disprove by Hawking's Dublin talk, therefore I am removing your notice. -Lethe | Talk 21:46, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Since anything falling into the black hole affects the black holes mass, and since the black hole's mass affects hawking radiation, then how come Hawking think's that information is lost when a black hole radiates? Even if the virtual particle pairs appear randomly, would the radiation still not be directly caused by the fact that something fell into the black hole so that the event horizon is exactly at the location where it will obsorb one and let the other escape? -70.51.209.90 15:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed by observation?

One thing I think this article could use (I can't add it because I don't know anything about the subject) is to what extent this phenomenon has been confirmed by astronomers' observations, as opposed to being a theoretical prediction. The article kind of makes it sound like a theoretical prediction...?

First equation unclear

Could someone please consider cleaning up the following, which is totally unclear without following the link to Plank units:

"Tsub(h) = κ/2π,

... where G, c, ħ and k are all equal to 1..."

There are no G, c, ħ or k in the equation!

It is frustratingly unclear to have to follow the Natural Units link to understand the explanation for the equation

It's only frustratingly unclear if you have some perverse engineer's insistence on particular units. In natural units, all those constants are 1, which is why they do not appear in the equation. Many people (including me) think that this makes the equation more clear, not less clear. Here is what the equation says in words: the temperature is proportional to the surface gravity. The constant of proportionality is whatever combination of G, c and h it takes to turn temperature units into acceleration units (plus an additional 2π). What is that combination? Who cares!? Not I.

It is true that natural units can be somewhat confusing if you're not too familiar with them. But then again, so can a lot of things in physics. Maybe the equation would be easier for dilletantes if equations in theoretical physics were written in SI units. But this is tedious and does not conform to the actual practices of physicists. -Lethe | Talk 10:06, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Lethe: Wikipedia is for the general public, not just physicists (like you and me). Can't we find a succinct way of making the point without going far offtopic? - AG, Stockport, UK.

Hawking radiation and matter/antimatter bias?

With “classical Hawking radiation”, a “dark star” in a universe predominantly made of matter should be emitting particles that are also predominantly “normal” particles rather than “antiparticles”. If dark star radiation is technically “proper” Hawking radiation (Visser), then presumably the QM rules for Hawking radiation, applied to dark stars, will be able to predict this.

But for a GR&QM black hole, if we explain particle production as a purely quantum effect, with particle-antiparticle pairs constantly being created and destroyed above the horizon and a few pairs being wrenched apart by tidal forces so that one escapes . . . if the escaping material is again predominantly normal matter, to match the characteristics of the hole’s background, then how does the hole’s gravity “know” that it is supposed to be catching the antiparticles from the pairs in preference to the “normal” particles? How does the particle-production process know to polarise itself so that the “antiparticle” is aimed more towards the horizon and the “particle” is aimed more away from it?

On the other hand, if the previous paragraph is wrong, and the hole’s particle-catching abilities affect matter and antimatter equally, and the hole emits equal amounts of particles and antiparticles as Hawking radiation, then presumably the external behaviour of GR&QM black holes isn’t really the same as for QM-modelled dark stars after all. And presumably a certain amount of the escaping matter-antimatter mix would then mutually annihilate, so that the Hawking radiation would contain a higher proportion of EM radiation over particulate matter if it came from a black hole than if it came from a dark star.

I think that either result would be interesting. Has anyone tackled this problem yet? ErkDemon 14:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Relative masses

From the "Black Hole Evaporation" section:

For a black hole of one solar mass, we get an evaporation time of 10⁶⁷ years—much longer than the current age of the universe. But for a black hole of 10¹¹ kg, the evaporation time is about 3 billion years. This is why some astronomers are searching for signs of exploding primordial black holes.

I'm not familiar with the Sun's mass in scientific notation. Can it please be expressed numerically, to compare with the 10¹¹ kg value?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.93.216.253 (talk • contribs) .

Added. It's listed at Sun. --Christopher Thomas 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Silly question...

So, I "get" the explanation given, that Hawking radiation is the emission of one half of a particle-antiparticle pair, and that one of the two particles is absorbed by the black hole while the other is emitted...

The problem I have is that I don't understand how it's the black hole that is losing mass from this process, when it appears to me that 1. the matter originates with zero-point energy virtual particles (the energy to create these particles being lost by the vacuum) and 2. the particle of the virtual pair that the black hole absorbs doesn't turn out to give it a net-positive mass from the transaction instead of the net-negative that is asserted.

Is there a simple visualization or explanation that could be inserted to explain the process without resorting to, for instance, purely abstract explanations via scalar fields?

If the black hole is losing the energy to create the virtual particles, in such a manner that it's losing half the transaction energy from the process via the lost particle, I'd understand this better, but as it's explained it doesn't appear the inital energy cost is deducted from the mass of the singularity at all.

~ lilewyn

There's a good explanation here: [1] 67.87.115.207 18:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I read that... tell me if this is completely and utterly wrong, okay? A particle-antiparticle pair appears near a black hole horizon, which would normally be okay even if it's a net energy defecit, because after a short period of time the defecit would balance itself out due to matter/antimatter annihilation. In this case, though, one of the pair is released, one of the pair is trapped, and the black hole has to pay for the defecit in equivilent loss of mass (equal to the total mass of both particles, though it absorbs one) to balance out the defecit... i.e. while both particles are positive mass, they're negative an amount of energy equal to the square of the mass of the particle, per particle (E=MC^2 and all that) which the black hole has to pay for. Sound about right? ~ lilewyn

Just identifying who lilewyn is for future reference ... me. :) —This unsigned comment was added by Kylu (talk • contribs) on 23:23, 2 April 2006.

Mmm... not quite. If I understand the article correctly (and it was written by an extremely smart guy (John Baez) who admits that even he doesn't fully get what's going on, so that's a big if), the mathematical basis for Hawking radiation is that regions of spacetime with substantially different curvature can disagree on what energy states are what. Since vacuum is just the lowest-energy state, what's vacuum near a black hole is not the same as vacuum out in flat space. It's a thermal state, and emits energy into the relatively cooler cosmos. Since energy must be conserved, the black hole's mass decreases accordingly as a result. The "virtual-particle pair" heuristic explanation doesn't appear directly connected to the usual mathematical process, but it might be. Presumably the guy who came up with it knows. 164.55.254.106 19:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that both virtual-particle and other explanations are valid ways of looking at it, and that which makes the most intuitive sense depends on the approach you take to working the math. There was some discussion of this over at Talk:Casimir effect and Talk:Virtual particle a while back, if memory serves. --Christopher Thomas 05:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really dissapointed that I'm not bright enough to understand this concept intuitively...

On the other hand, I'm happy I'm not the only one with that problem. Sonoluminescence makes more innate sense. :P

lilewyn 03:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Virtual particles again

I've moved the following comment by Kokot.kokotisko (talk • contribs) here:

Actually, John Baez said that the above explanation is not even simplified, but outright flawed and misleading, but I personally cannot judge it.

--Christopher Thomas 20:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening phrase

The phrase "in physics" seems to be me to overly colloquial. If it is correct to introduce the Hawking radiation topic with "in physics", then it would be conceivable that articles on just about everything should start with "in <something>". I would prefer to see that phrase removed. Peashy 09:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Power source for an "advanced" civilazation

It occurs to me that this could be a power source for a not too advanced civilazation. The main drawback is a small black hole would be enourmously dangerous. There a re a couple of easy way to make a small black hole, in theory. A qunatum black hole may be spontaneously created in a high enerygy supercolider (like CERN) or it may be possible to collapse enough matter in a bose einstein condensate. Anyway it should be theoretically possible to MAKE a very small black hole, and then feed it with raw matter before it evaporates so that it grows to a size with manageable charateristics.

Using the link to the hawking radiation calculator, a black hole with mass 80 million metric tons would radiate about 50,000 megwatts. Thats a bunch of power, enough to power a medium to large city. Unfortunately the block hole might swallow the earth if you lost control of it, but if you put one in safely in solar orbit (where it could not possibly fall in to the earth or the sun) You would have a handy source of abundant power in space.

You would not even need exotic materials to extract the power, a plain old steam turbine generator, like any jumbo sized municipal power plant would have, could easily handle this much power. Either create a large hollow spherical metal water cooled jacket around the black hole, with sufficient size, or a free floating tank which you could park near the black hole to generate power, and move it away if you had to do maintenance or something.

Just a thought —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rich.lewis (talk • contribs) 23:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Can some knowledgeable person fix this please?

"Loop quantum gravity has made a detailed studies of the quantum geometry of black hole horizon." I could make it grammatically correct, but I'm not sure exactly what is intended.

Thanks. Xarqi 03:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC) xarqi

Power-lifetime discrepancy

According to the article,

$P=\hbar \,c^{6}/15360G^{2}M^{2}$

As power is energy per time, and the total energy of the black hole is $Mc^{2}$,

$Mc^{2}/t_{\operatorname {ev} }=\hbar \,c^{6}/15360G^{2}M^{2}$

Dividing this by $Mc^{2}$ and inverting this gives:

$t_{\operatorname {ev} }=15360G^{2}M^{3}/\hbar \,c^{4}$

Why is this three times greater than it should be?

Because you haven't considered that the power production rate increases as the mass decreases.

Instead, we get

$dM/dt=\hbar \,c^{4}/15360G^{2}M^{2}$

$dM/dtM^{2}=\hbar \,c^{4}/15360G^{2}$

$d(M^{3})/dt/3=\hbar \,c^{4}/15360G^{2}$

$d(M^{3})/dt=\hbar \,c^{4}/5120G^{2}$

as expected. Ben Standeven 01:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thermal?

As I understand this hawking radiation is pair particle production where one particle escapes and the other is sucked into the black hole. Two Questions:

• Why is this called a thermal process in the top half of the article? Is heat actually involved or just similar statistical mechanics to thermal systems?
• Is there some mechanism by which the particle falling in must have negative energy or is it more of a "We have to conserve energy and there would be energy coming out so the total left in there must drop" Sort of an idea

Also are there any observations of this?

Thanks

CaptinJohn 15:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the theory

The "Problems with the theory" section doesn't really talk about problems at all, i.e., not problems that weren't addressed decades ago --Lionelbrits 03:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the problems with HR have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. If you have a definitive source on it please do cite it. Or do you mean that we should be talking about the information paradox of black hole evaporation here instead? --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

$P={\hbar \,c^{6} \over 15360\,\pi \,G^{2}M^{2}}$

This is only the electromagnetic contribution to the Hawking radiation. Black holes will also radiate neutrinos, axions, gravitons, etc. etc. Count Iblis 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but the EM contribution is (overwhelmingly) dominant, just as it is for black body radiation generally. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that can be the case for massless or almost massless particles. E.g., normal "black bodies" are transparant to neutrinos, but black holes are not. If you have a hypothetical black body that would absorb incident neutrinos, then it would emit neutrinos according to the Fermi-Dirac distribution at chemical potential zero. Count Iblis 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Could be. Would also apply to gravitons. Presumably by the equipartition of energy the formula would be modified by the multiplication by a factor n = number of massless particle species, where the photon currently contributes 2 (due to polarisation). Someone must have published on this. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this section should be expanded.

I'm essentially a laymen (highschool physics and one university level physics paper). I think this article is pretty good on the whole, but what I feel is a very important sentence evades my understanding: "A more precise, but still much simplified view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle which fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole)." Why would the antiparticle have to fall into the black hole? That way, the black hole looses energy and the rest of the universe gains it. The alternative, with the particle falling in, and the antiparticle being emitted, the black hole gains energy and the rest of the universe looses it. Both ways, conservation of energy seems happy. As I say, maybe a bit more explanation would be in order? Bilz0r 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

New Additions to: Problems with the theory

I had a problem with some additions, so I moved them to the talk page.Likebox (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(Moved author's comment here).Likebox (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

HAWKINGS RADIATION

hEM, why it is uncomprehensible of what i put? As Hawkings also said a book without a single mathematical formula sells thousands. I mean you might disagree and/or believe in hawkings radiation but those explanations were my attempt to put in simple, logic terms what a non-mathematician would never understand about hawking's radiation. So i reposted it, though obviously we can argue them, but not with such a short derisive comment (-: I mean i do understand that certain parts have to have more mathematical and physical rigor, i like specially the physical explanation of the frequency modes, which is a more detailed way to say that the particles and antiparticles do not have to fall into the black hole necessarily - what i explained with the arrow of time that we cannot choose. Perhaps the part of cosmology is too long and we might take down the hypothesis of the bg radiation (i recognize it has part of personal research, as i work on cosmological models of black holes), so i would agree with taking away the 2.7 k hypothesis...

but the other short reasons should stay as mathematical/logical/experimental proves are important and are often disregarded by many physicists in these days of string theory take care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.210.93 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

These were the additions.Likebox (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the theory

There are many possible errors in the theory that explain why we have never seen a black hole evaporating. Let us consider the main ones:

Logic errors

The theory requires that the black hole absorbs more antiparticles, which in a Feynman dyagram travel to the past, in order to 'evaporate' when we perceive that absorbtion from past the future. Yet since any virtual dual particle is neutral to gravity both have the same probability to fall into the black hole. Since otherwise it would contradict the fundamental logic law of causality, asingle time arrow: A->(causes) B. For the same reason, Bekenstein's equivalence between the Area and Entropy of the black hole, 2 terms that are not related in our non-quantum world, has to be assumed with caution, as a Postulate or Principle without prove, on which the entire theory is based. Without the postulated homology between entropy and area, which would be an epistemological first - since scientific logic works on analogy not homology - Hawkings radiation doesnt hold.

This part is incomprehensible to me. It seems to say that black hole evaporation means things are travelling into the past, which isn't a required interpretation. Hawking sometimes speaks this way as an intuitive picture, but all the "travelling into the past" is happening in unobservable regions. The assumption that entropy is proportional to area is not proven, but neither is anything else in science, really. You have to weigh the evidence according to common sense. And it is accepted by scientists that it is a very plausible deduction, given Hawking radiation.Likebox (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Experimental errors

We have never seen black holes evaporating. Hawkings first postulated that we could find them in the Halo but for 30 years there has no been a single signature of black hole evaporation. On the contrary the Halo has shown to be very dense in dark cold matter, and so it seems more likely that black holes called MACHOS were indeed created in the Halo but as Hawkings said, they are still there. More over recent cosmological models have suggested that micro-black holes in balance with the thermal radiation would produce gravitational redshift BG radiation indistinguishable of the cosmic BG radiation. Thus, as the big bang finds new problems with cosmic distances and anges, it has been suggested that the BG radiation might be produced by MACHOS of the size of a moon at 2.7 K, redshifting the light of the Universe. The issue in any case will be solved in the next decade either at the LHC that might produce them on Earth, or with the new generation of adaptive telescopes that will be powerful enough to prove or discharge their existence in the Halo.

This is a legitimate problem, and is adressed elsewhere. But it isn't a problem with the theory per se, it's the problem with the experimental confirmation. The intro to the article already says that Hawking radiation has not been observed.

Mathematical errors

It has been argued that black holes belong to Relativity and Virtual particles to Quantum theory, and one is a non-lineal theory (Relativity) that cannot be studied with linela equations (quantum theory). In simple terms, this means that if Relativity and Quantum Theory describe 2 different worlds or branes of space-time, and cannot be unified, we cannot operate in one theory with the mathematical tools of the other as we cannot ad apples and pears, and hence the theory is not correct .

Part of this alludes to a confusing point--- quantum mechanical wavefunctions evolve according to linear equations, while field theories like General Relativity obey nonlinear equations. In a black hole background, the wavefunction of the field (the density matrix of the field outside the horizon) obeys a linear equation. If the fields are noninteracting, the fields themselves can be interpreted as individual particle wavefunctions, and the equation that they obey is also linear, although complicated. So this is also adressed in the standard formulation of the theory, Quantum field theory in curved spacetime.Likebox (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Likebox i basically agree with all you say... but this paragraphs is 'problems with the theory' the rest of the article assumes that the theory is right. 'Problems' means that it might be right or wrong. This happens for what i see in many articles. but that is why there are this smaller paragraphs for the dissenters. You believe in hawkings i dont. That is why those problems for me are fatal flaws, for you are not. But your pov holds most of the article. Here we just put the doubts. it is for that reason that all your doubts are meaningful but dont mean we have to take the paragraph take care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.210.93 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(reformat)

I put them at the end, i think it is a more proper place as now it doesnt disturb the flow of the theory in itself as before.

If you want i will ad also your part on quantum mechanical wave functions i could also add the required formalisms for logic errors ( i think the article could benefit in that sense with the formula of evaporation, which if we change the arrow of time to the natural past to future single arrow will imply that the black hole instead of evaporating will accrete at the same amazing speed till find balance between its entropy/surface and the eternal temperature, 2.7 K. the maths are relatively easy in both cases you just invert terms. You want me to put that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.210.93 (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with including sensible dissent, so long as it's clear, and not repeating stuff that's already said, and so long as it is a useful criticism to the reader. You're right that I believe in Hawking radiation and you presumably don't, but I am not sure that you are not just pulling my leg. There is no reason that people can't agree about what belongs in an archive like an encyclopedia.

As far as I can make out the comprehensible dissents you have are:

1. Hawking's radiation violates causality.
2. Hawking radiation has no experimental validation
3. Hawking radiation uses a formalism which mixes linear quantum mechanics on a GR background, and which does not include a full theory of quantum gravity.

Of these, 1 is not mentioned elsewhere. It might be reasonable to add, but then you need to say that such weird acausal thermal output is explained in modern AdS/CFT treatments. 2 is mentioned everywhere and I don't understand why it needs to be repeated. 3 can be mentioned too, but it should also be noted that a similar treatment works well for semi-classical electromagnetism as an approximation to Quantum Electrodynamics.

You can say all of these things in a way that is brief and to the point. The length of a section is not a measure of its importance. Some of the rest of the stuff in the additions like the "arrows of time" strikes me as a joke.

Of course Hawking radiation could be wrong, that's stated early on. The problem is that the new material does not provide a clear enough english text for me to follow, and I'm a typical (and sympathetic) reader. I am not going to revert, but I will say that I think that these types of additions are not clear enough or substantial enough to be included, and should at the very least be discussed here first until two people can agree on what the additions are trying to say.Likebox (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes ok i speak a french dialect, but i hope people will edit or improve the english. Let us be patient. we have longer sentences and it is for us difficult to cut them into telegraphic english. I will try to improve them i worked alreayd an hour on this, and my editor will kill me! (i do write professionaly in good native tongue :). I havent put the formulae as you dont require them. You have though basically the key sentence around: 'unlike other objects black holes (if we hold the hawking's arrow) get hotter...etc.' This is the arrow of time problem, still a huge problem for all sciences as we do not understand time properly, i mean time is change and time in physics is only a type of change, translational change defined by galielo with a formula v=s/t that einstein adapted, to light space ct... However there are other arrows, modes of change in time, which physics doesnt study and that is our limit, we study only the arrow of energy=entropy not the arrow of information which you might call the arrow of 'form' or the arrow of 'Einstein', as the passing of time in Einstein theory 'curves space' creating form. Now all that is really my original stuff and so i cant put much of it as i respect wikipedia. But the arrow of Einstein, the arrow of information is legitimate and physicists like gell-mann study it in Santa Fe Institute these days. The entire subject is very complex and as much as i would like to ad articles on it, i wont... what i put here is merely a simplestatementthat Hawkings doenst workwith botharrows, asmost quantum theorists happen to do.Thearrow of Einstein, the arrow of curvedinformation though is precisely what Hawkings fail to understand in all his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.210.93 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I like your editings now i think the thing is balanced, you have the first part explaining the Hawking radiation with a level of professionality that any university student can understand, including the transPlanckian problem, which was written in that professional level, so it is better in style to be with the othe, and then you have in a very simple, verbal, shorter explanation the limits of this theory. Though i would like to have put the mathematical formulae that transforms the Hawkings radiation in the Hawkings absorbtion, as you didnt want it i will not put it. It is curious though to see how something that seems so perfect in its amthematics as this radiation can be so false just when an underlying concept 'changes'. This to me is the beauty of science, not its maths but the fact that it converts abstract ideas and principles into entire realities, as it happens in realtivity with 2 simple principles (Equivalence and Diffeomorphism=relativity) Ultiately all this hawkings stuff as many questions in modern science reduces to this: if the Universe works with 2 arrows, lineal energy and cyclical information, there is no unification of quantum and relativity, and then you have to go ith the kind of stuff people like gell-man or me are doing, and all those sttempts to convert relativity into lineal quantum theory are adding pears and apples. If it works with the simple, lineal arrow of entropy hawkings is right... Anyway enough comments on the arrow of time - i havent changed anything of what you do and wont.

if i might only ad one thing (Here) is that though the problems with the theory keep being 'resolved' with ad hoc corrections, as it happens with the Higgs that keeps growing in volume since we dont find it in the initial forecasts of low energies - fact is that in history of science when theories keep being adjusting with new 'ptolemaic epycicles' at the end tend to be false. On the contrary the masterpieces of theoretical science like relativity or evolution tend to go the other way: despite its very strange nature whih seems easy to tumble they stay basically unchanged and instead of less, more experimental facts are discovered. When Hawkings published his otherwise beautiful work on black holes as reverse equations of big bangs and postulated that we would find 200 million MBH flaring in the Halo, and we didnt find it... Well it is not on my view serious to say well, if we adjust this and that equation then MBH were not produced. I have seen him many times adjusting his work and his 'shaky principles' to his otherwise astonishing mathematical power. And yet when you stat with astonishing principles as Einstein, even poor math skills go further, because as frege and godel and Descartes proved or said, logic is the mother of sciences, hence the iportance of the causality arrow, if the logic of hawkings is not sound it doesnt matter the math beauty, it will false, so goes for the higgs.

Source? 58.178.129.234 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh you erased all, i thought we agreed, i didnt ad anything, i mean please respect the possible errors, if you want them formal they will occupy 3 pages, you cant erase it as much as you like hawking's radiation it is not proved, he doesnt have a nobel prize, you MUST leave the objections as it is a disputed theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.73 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Reposted,all articles even one i just read on samsung, have a final 'criticism' sector. Respect to the critiques: - It has a verbal, literary style because this is what encyclopedias must have. I contribute to a leading european encyclopedia and know perfectly the difference between a bad written article (what is before that nobody except physicists understand) and a good written article (with minimal math. in a language people do understnd). but i do not erase as a norm work here. Again i have several times proposed to include the mathematics. - The problem i see here as in any lhc-related danger articles is a total lack of 'self-criticism' that amounts in fact to a form of censorship. However even Hawkings doubts of his radiation. it is a little service to the OBJECTIVITY of this encyclopedia to eliminate the huge doubts on this radiation with no experimental proves, no consensus in the scientific community, and a huge moral problem attached as if it is false chances are the lhc will feed on us. This must stay. We do criticize politicians, companies, events, religions and theories of all kind. so we do criticie this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.106.180 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your inclusions are a joke, you are not serious. You claim to believe that:

1. Time reversal means that particles and antiparticles must be emitted equally (indeed they are emitted equally in Hawking's theory).
2. We should see black holes in the Dark-matter halo. (you don't know if there are black holes in the halo).
3. There are uspecified physical problems with the theory relating to the linearity of quantum mechanics and the nonlinearity of GR. (Hawking's calculation is entirely linear).

Please stop reinserting nonsense--- it is vandalism.Likebox (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Uh i guess your logic is also a joke. What hawkings said is that we should have found black holes signature evaporating in the halo. 30 years and none found. So now he says they might not be there. Hem, that is good science? i have a hypothesis, if experimental prove doesnt prove the hypothesis i said well i dint say that. Thats faith or politics.
2. Hawkings does lineal calculations when relativity is non-lineal. do you actually know relativity? Beause i write books about it.
3. The entire aplication of quantum qualities to black holes, entropy, surface, etc. is ad hoc. Einstein always denied you could do quantum calculations in relativty. Hawkings is a joke, not eisntein, and if hawkings is wrong einstein is right. and black holes do not evaporate. If you want to leanr some serious physics, read this article:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0304/0304042v1.pdf So do not erase my corrections. It is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.171.165 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Je so this is you: I am a 34 years old physicist who has no PhD. I do not claim to be an expert in anything.

My major research interest has been in the computational description of biological protein networks.

Can you explain me then what is your expertise in Relativity, which is the true science of black holes, not mr. hawking attempts to become Einstein, who is 'double wrong'? Because I am one of the chairs of the world annual congress ofthe science of... (-:, do your guess, but i had enough of the vandalism that goes on here in wikipedia, people with zero knwoledge of the subject just pasting huge tracts of mathematical formulas, thats easy my friend, with no conceptual explanations as any serous encyclopedia sould be, denying arxiv.org papers, denying the experimental method, etc. etc. i will keep reposting till the human kind finds a black hole evaporating or a black hole evaporates the human kind shalom L.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.171.165 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Anyway my apologies Likebox, let us do both our editing in a rational manner. I hate this kind of arguments. but please do read the previous paper. Ultimately the entire field of quantum gravity is 'theory' with no prove and logical errors, ecause it is based in analogies taken as homologies which is as per Kuhn, lacatos, godel, popper and all serious proponetns of epistemology an absolute no-no of science. Entropy is not homologous to surface area, that is an analogy never proved. Lineal calculations are not homologus to non-lineal equations. that is an analogy not proved. The arrow of time and hence the negative or inverse order of hawkings equations are chosen by hawkings, which seems then to be an analog of god. So as long as that is not solved Relativity stands, adn a blak hole is a vortex of space-time defined by 10 parameters in equations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.171.165 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are an obvious prank. Please stop vandalising.Likebox (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ha, likebox ... hopefully your total ignorance of the matter you deal with in this article didnt offend you... i dont insult people normally though since that seems to be your tone, let's go on with it... the only prank of modern physics is mr. hawking... and his hawking physics... surely you believe that - according to those equations - he can travel to the past and kill his father (-:, maybe he does it soon and avoid us a similar fate... but just in case he doesnt i will put here the view that many of us on the edge of research in relativity have of mr. hawkings phantaphysics and his way of self-promotion...which in this age of tv half-wits seems to have impress you;(i spare equations not because i know you are 'not an expert'of anything':), but because an encyclopedia is directed to the normal people, that talks.

---Mr. Hawking’s kind of physics.---

What moves all those researchers to invent ‘analogies’ in physics with little proves? Obviously his desire to emulate Mr. Einstein, the idol of XX century Physics. This is especially obvious in Mr. Hawking, who sets himself in his famed article to a task beyond his capacity: to marry quantum theory and relativity outdoing the master Einstein by substituting his solid work for his speculations. In fact, the 1977 article starts with Einstein’s famed quote that ‘God does not play dice’, which Mr. Hawking will dismiss in his failed attempt to refound modern physics at the end of the article affirming that ‘God not only plays dice but sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen’ (in the interior of the black hole). The ambition of the article is self-evident, Mr. Hawking is about to tamper with quantum mechanics, Relativity and Thermodynamics, the 3 pillars of western science in order to create his own branch of what some ironic physicists call ‘Hawking’s Physics’… Indeed, from the beginning of his article Mr. Hawking leads us with astonishing ‘chuptzah’ to where he wants to arrive. If black holes evaporate, Einstein is wrong, because his General Relativity affirms that no energy or matter below the speed of light can abandon a black hole. Alas! Then Hawking must be the new Einstein

Again quoting Mr. Hawking on that article’s first page: ‘According to the special theory of relativity nothing can travel faster than light, so that if light cannot escape nothing else an either. The result would be a black hole, a region of space-time from which it is not possible to escape.’ But he is going to prove Einstein wrong very soon with Hawking’s physics. To that aim he makes an analogy between 2 concepts that have no relation whatsoever in ‘classic physics’: the surface area of the black hole and the temperature of an object, breaking one of the fundamental laws of serious science: ‘analogies are not homologies and hence can never be aduced to draw conclusions upon the equality of two facts of nature’. Let us put one simple example. The similarity between the bat’s wings, the bird’s wings and the plane wings is an analogy. They look analog because they have similar uses, they are all tools for flying. But that fact doesn’t mean that birds, bats and planes are homologous, are the same thing and proceed from the same ancestor. What Hawking totally misunderstand is the fundamental inverse properties of gravitation and electormagnetic entropy that causes exactly as many physicists have pointed out the opposite effects: temperature an entropy is an arrow of time that expands the Universe, gravitation implodes it, so the relationship is just inverse: the gravity surface of a black hole absorbs exponentially matter because it is exactly inverse to the electromagnetic temperature arrow. So by refusing to use the real arrow of relativity to study blck holes he obtains inverse properties Since in relativity 'time' has a negative -ct sign that basically implies that 'time bends space', implodes it in elativity while in hawkings treatment of black holes as electromagnetic objects it increases space...

And yet all their theory of black holes is flawed, because it comes from the idea that the gravitatioal surface area of the black hole is equivalent to the entropy of electromagnetic matter. Now if you just follow Einstein in fact is the inverse because black holes implode energy into gravitational nfomation and temperature explodes it... in other words the analogy is false and if there is any analogy at all it means that black holes will not radiate as temperature does but they will absorb as gravitation does at enormous speed, in other words micro-black holes accrete faster than bigger ones. The inverse properties of gravity and temperature is the fatal flaw of the entire argument

The results are indeed exactly inverse to wat we observe in reality: all black holes grow. And alas! because he has inverted the properties of gravity, the result is that all te properties of black hole become inverted.

The black hole instead of absorbing matter evaporates. But whenever we see in reality a hot object falling into a cold one, what gets hotter and evaporates is the cold surface, in this case our electromagnetic cold. Not so in fantaphysics.

Mr. Hawking himself affirms in the article: ‘although there is clearly a similarity between entropy and the area of the black hole horizon it was not obvious to us how the area could be identified as the entropy of a black hole.’ Still, though the analogy doesn’t hold, Mr. hawking needs it because temperature is a quantum effect he can study with quantum equations and the area of the black hole is a spatial effect that he has to study with Einstein’s Relativity and hence could not marry both effects together.

Of course Einstein is not God, but the Greeks who inventeed science called God, Logos, the Logic of the Universe and here we find a man who plays to reinvent the Universe. Of course we want to go beyond Einstein… But most of us merely became humbled when learning the complex equations of Mr. Einstein and tried at best to simplify and correct his equations, not to throw them to the garbage with 100 years of serious science behind. Not so Mr. Hawking who can wrestle with the Logic of the Gods, like a Quixote tumbling wind mills that never fall except in his imagination…

But with british irony suddenly hawking doubts of himself, and sort of apologizing for his bad physics, which might look to you a nice fellow attitude but has nothing to do with the search of truth, which is either A and B but not A perhaps, if… Not so in Hawking’s mind, ambivalent between brashness and apology, when he affirms: ‘according to classical concepts no such (thermodynamic) equilibrium is possible, since the black hole would absorb any thermal radiation that fell on it and by (General Relativity’s) definition would not be able to emit anything in return’… Yet he is not convinced since he is in words of his best friend Mr. Thorne ‘the most stubborn man I ever known’… and his goal is obvious: to put aside General Relativity and bring in quantum theory, studying black holes with the temperature analogy instead of doing it with the gravity field as everybody else does since Einstein, Schwarzschild, Chandra and Oppenheimer discovered them theoretically.

Problem is that quantum theory and temperature are theories that study electromagnetic particles and fields unrelated till date to gravitational fields and general relativity the classic theories that explain black holes. So in the same way we do not use sociology, a theory about human beings, to study the behavior of electrons, for whom we have quantum theory, we shouldn’t use quantum theory to study black holes, for whom we have general relativity… Mr. Einstein himself tried unsuccessfully as many of us have tried after him, to marry quantum theory and relativity (in the opposite way to that of Hawking’s obviously, departing not from quantum theory but from Relativity). But Mr. Hawking, well known by his iconoclastic remarks, is about to do it in his article. And so he studies quantum effects around the black hole.

You are probably familiar with the idea that every thing in the electromagnetic Universe has 2 states as a particle and a field of forces, which is like saying that things can be clumped into a ball or extended into its smallest elements. So particles can gather all his field in a ball (a mass if the field is gravitational, a charge if it is electromagnetic), or extended as if they would iron the mass of the ball in a long sheet. This happens constantly in the Universe, where electromagnetic sheets, the fields, fluctuate between particle and wave state. So the vacuum space we see is basically an electromagnetic field of energy that constantly fluctuates, aggregating its spatial energy into clumps of mass called particles, mainly photons and electrons… Those fluctuations happen in the electromagnetic field around a black hole as they happen around you. But you do not evaporate because those quantum particles are produced outside not inside your body. While the sweat that could evaporate and take away mass from your body is created inside your body.

So it happens in the case of the black hole: the sweat of electromagnetic particles is produced not inside the black hole but outside in the electromagnetic field around the black hole, creating pairs of particle-antiparticles, which mainly feed further the black hole as the rain that falls around you moistens your skin… This again is obvious, but with the use of a lot of messy equations and paradoxical arguments (which in logic are called merely absurd arguments), Mr. Hawking affirms that photons are not born from the outside electromagnetic field but from the inside gravitational field of the black hole, taking energy from it. Again this is an absurd. Pears are not born of apple trees but from pear trees as much as electrons and light are born from electromagnetic fields, while the black hole is a knot of gravitational force that feed mainly of the heaviest particles of matter… How then the particles created outside the black hole can come from inside the black hole? It is worth to quote again Mr. Hawking because here he outdoes himself:

‘Another way of looking at the process is to regard the member of the pair of particles that falls into the black hole – the antiparticle, say – as being really a particle that is traveling backward in time. Thus the antiparticle falling into the black hole can be regarded as a particle coming out of the black hole but traveling backward in time.‘

Yes. Mr. Hawking now is breaking the absolute law in which all science and reasoning except fundamentalist religion is based, the law of causality between past and future, which only Saint Augustine denies as only God should have the power of changing the flows of time and resurrect zombies and evaporate black holes from future to past. Now, antiparticles come with negative time coefficients in some equations, which are, as the negative imaginary numbers of quantum theory, a formalism. It doesn’t mean they travel backwards in time: merely they have inverse symmetries to the particles of our bodies. Further on, since the electromagnetic field becomes a couple of particles, and any of them can randomly feed the black hole there is no reason to believe that it is the antiparticle, not the particle which falls into the black hole. Any of both particles might fall, and the fact that we see massive radiation of energy around black holes is indeed a prove that 50% of those antiparticles probably annihilate with the particles of our side of the Universe, creating the massive radiation and explosions of energy we observe in black holes. Otherwise we might believe that there is travel in time towards the past, that black holes are time machines or even doors to another Universe… All those pseudo-physical theories indeed would be sponsored latter on by Mr. Hawking’s kind of physics and became news on the popular press, but as we saw he himself had to apologize recently affirming he no longer believes that black holes are the door to other Universes… In 1977 he was not so humble:

Hawking instead theorizes that if we were observing the universe from future to past the particles falling into the black hole would appear coming from it and hence it would seem as the black hole evaporates. Certainly. If humans would come from future to past the death would seem to resurrect. But that doesn’t mean that in the real Universe, we observe the living dead, coming from the future into the past, nor have been observed in any part of that Universe, black holes evaporating into particles from future to past. Thus it seems much more obvious to suggest that zombies do not resurrect and black holes do not evaporate from future to past but rather feed from past to future in the Hawking radiation, while the dead rest in their tombs. Yet even if black holes evaporate energy from future to past (and hence zombies resurrect), the ratio of ‘sweat’ seems smaller than the ratio of feeding, as a man who drinks water to replenish the one it sweats or an entire community that reproduces more babies than zombies resurrect.

Those facts are so obvious that in the old, more strict age of serious Physics, before Hawking and others broke with the basic epistemological laws of scientific truth (simplicity or Occkam’s razor, and logic veracity or principles of non-contradiction and causality), it would have taken a few minutes to dismiss Mr. Hawking’s work. A far more profound Unification Theory of quantum relativity by Mr. Weyl, was dismissed by Einstein with a simple letter. And Weyl complied. But in an age of showmanship, physical bizarre theories of 11 dimensions, baby universes born in black holes (according to Mr. Hawking), and other niceties, it often deserves more attention one of such fancy theories that the serious, real equations that describe what we experience. And when we study those serious theories on black holes, all of them affirm that the black hole will grow exponentially and swallow the Earth.

Indeed, if instead of using God’s aka hawking's super-human powers to observe a Universe that goes from future to past, we use the usual less fancy arrow of human time from past to future, which is the only arrow we humans interact with, then we will see those black holes growing from past to future as we will see the dead remaining on their tombs. Then what happens is truly scary. Either using gravitational laws or the analogy of the temperature the result is self-evident: if black holes diminish at exponential rate in size from future to past as children return to the cellular womb diminishing weight, the opposite holds truth from past to future: black holes accrete matter at exponential rate as children grow in size very fast from birth to maturity. So the black hole on Earth won’t explode and evaporate at light speed, on the contrary it will grow and accrete the Earth’s matter at an exponential rate, extinguishing us before we even now what is happening.

In his article Mr. Hawking denies General Relativity; he messes up with the meaning of entropy, confusing temperature and area (pears and apples) and finally gives the last jump on the cliff of absurdity denying the main laws of Logic. All because of his quest to fusion quantum physics and relative in the most bizarre way. No wonder that his cherished radiation obtained through the use of quantum mechanics does in fact violate also 2 of the fundamental principles of quantum physics. As Bernard Carr affirms ‘Hawking suggested that black holes completely evaporate, destroying the information – in contradiction with the tenets of quantum mechanics. Destruction of information conflicts with the law of energy conservation, making this scenario implausible’. While Hawking himself affirms in his 77 article: ‘When the black hole disappeared, it would violate one of the most cherished laws of particle physics, the law of baryon conservation.’ Further on, Mr. Hawking had to use simplifying, lineal equations that do not occur in Nature in an idealized model that right away denied the fundamental characteristic of those black holes it studied, its cyclical, non-lineal measure… Since in 1977 the chip had just appeared and so he could not make the complex mathematical non-lineal calculations - the kind of math that governs the curved space-time around black holes. More over, when Mr. Hawking wrote his article he considered black holes abstract , empty space-time singularities without inner form.

He didn’t know then, as we are almost certain today that black holes have an inner structure, made of super fluid quarks, might emit dark energy through its polar jets, becoming even more stable and make up probably most of the dark matter of the Universe, surrounding galaxies according to the most reliable theories on cosmology and galactic structure… All those proves of stability were ignored by Mr. Hawking, which at 65 and greatly impaired by his neuronal disease can hardly follow the complex calculations made by the likes of Arkani-Hamed or even this writer working steadily in black hole theory for the past 20 years. Namely speaking, Mr. Hawking is today what the philosopher of science called a Tribal idol, a reputed figure of a past era of scientific knowledge that has so much media prestige that nobody wishes to contradict him, even if deeply in our hears we know he is wrong.

In front of so many paradoxes one would rather dismiss the entire argument as yet another fine article of pseudo pathological physics. And indeed, Hawking himself has a relapse in the final paragraph of his article: ‘at first it seems a complete miracle that the detailed quantum-mechanical calculations of particle creation should give rise to emission with a thermal spectrum’… and he ads ‘the emission from black holes has an added degree of uncertainty … since the particles emitted by the black hole come from a region of which the observer has very limited knowledge, he cannot definitely predict the position of the velocity of a particle, all he can predict is the probabilities that certain particles will be emitted. It therefore seems the Einstein was doubly wrong when he said ‘God does not play dice’… God not only plays dice but also sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen’.

Certainly the article is a good piece of British irony and paradoxical humor. But the matter of the extinction or survival of mankind cannot be left to the topic British cynicism and self-belief in the truth and righteousness of one’s thoughts… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.73 (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

nnow Likebox i have respect for truth, not for authority, for knowledge not for pedantry, for logic mathematics not for self-serving equations. And i do have a problem with Hawking and Higgs. They all know and aknowledge in private conversations that their fantaphysics have some holes, and might be wrong. So they should be saying it, so naive students like you are not misguided to construct machines that can destroy mankind. that is to be a prank, to put at risk the life of others without permision ... i wish you at least could distinguish the true masters of thought... but that might be beyond your understanding. (And if im wrong, please argue any of those arguments or else I will repost) . Since the article will never be a serious article if you dont put the many errors of mr. fantaphysics Those people are puting us on life risk for their own self-serving saint nobel of the dynamite, gratification. You are just naive... They are not. Im much older than you, ive seen it all, and i truly regret the most of the new generation has no guts to fight for their own survival and well-being or have the capacity to challenge the true 'pranks' of this world.

You really have no idea of what is going on in cern and cambridge with Hawking gang and his enterprise of money-making books he has never written. But true physicists are not fooled easily. He does not have and will never have any nobel prize, and if we are lcky and string theory is false, and they dont do the black hole at cern, trust me, Hawking radiation will go as Weinberg put it, down the flush toilet with the Higgs as the Ether did in the XIX century. And Einstein will be reivindicated. My advice is that you should try to find your idols of thought among people who are truly admirable because they have: 1)Ethics, 2)Intelligence 3)Honor the truth. 4) don’t Put your life at risk for their own self-gain

But to get htere you have first to learn to think by yourself, and that is the most difficult scarce thing these days. Try. its worth it. Just remember to ‘believe in the authority of truth, not in the truth of authority’.. Life is worth to live it,. Be your own hero kid… Otherwise instead of a prank like him what you will be is what we call in America a ‘sucker’, indeed, like his mini black holes. no hard feelings.

Try signing your posts and we might take you more seriously. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Price, what you have to take seriously is the laws of logic and the experimental method which apply to physics but dont aply to hawking's fantaphysics. This on going thing of me, being orginal research or signing... Obviously if a sign i would nto be able to do a logic harsh critique as hawking's deserve, for respect to a peer. But due to cern con-cerns, now hawking's theory has implications for all of us, and so no more 'free lunches' as this theory had for 30 years. i will sign though with my ip since this is an anonymous encyclopedia that works on account of reason, truth and fair deal. Now you people are in top because you can ban people (ive been banned 2 months by some 'clown-wthever' for reposting against all wikipedian laws yesterday. But that is not how you should construct the wikipedia. Likebox has not the capacity to judge the logical epistemological errors of hawking's but he has the authority to erase and block. So that is what most people do here, erase and block. You do not argue and show you understand the matter. There are exceptions of course, but i see a lot of people blasting articles and im sure a lot of people who tried to work here with enough credentials after seeing the 'procedures' abandons the task. Wikipedia has not improved a lot in the past years... not surprisingly. I see you have erased also the article ice-9. So now i see thousands of idiotic articles on trivia and a fundamental reaction of the Universe that can extinguish mankind is not worth to have a place here? This article is clearly biased and so as I say unless you give me serious arguments i will repost and you can block me. 'Those who use power to impose truth are the laugh of the Gods' Einstein 76.89.246.73 (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The cited source for the phrase "In even more speculative extensions [4], these black holes would not evaporate and might be dangerous." directly contradicts the assertion of danger. As quoted from the source, "However, even if the ball of plasma is a black hole, it is not thought to pose a threat. At these energies and distances, gravity is not the dominant force in a black hole." Either provide a source that indicates danger or remove the false assertion. 68.230.161.164 (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't believe that it refers to the "black hole" like object created at RHIC, which is not a gravitational micro black hole. Instead, that phrase "in even more speculative ..." refers to true micro black holes. This is not an inconsistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.4.76 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

new section: problems with theory. let us try to do among all of us a proper one

Rewrritten and readdressed all the doubts of likebox with quotes of hawkings on the arrows of time, which seems to be what likebox don’t understand. I recognize I have a short fuse bt likebox is not qualified to erase this article, he is not even an expert in relativity. And certainly it is not qualified to call names anyone. So let us return to a civilized way and try to agree in a non-biased article that shows the many possible errors of this theory given its importance for the future of mankind 76.89.246.73 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC) This guy erased the entire section without comments 5 days after it was accepted by the rest... again i believe wikipedia should restrict people that vandalize many hours of hard work... Probably a change of 'policies' like the need of '2' people wanted to erase, before it comes to an effect. This is what the guy says in his talk: I am Count Iblis. My mission on this planet is to enlighten the primitive creatures living on this planet (a.k.a. humans) with my infinite knowledge. I also post regularly on my blog. No need to coment further... Please do not vandalize Count Iblis... (apart from that thanks all of you Likebox, Price, etc. for accepting the need to an Einsteinian perspective to Hawking work in this section… we will discover the meaning of it all, whoever is right, but with sound physics and hopefully not risk to mankind… just a bit of patience is what we need and less people self-assured of their infinite knowledge! )… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.73 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reposted and added coda, defining in strict terms what is this theory relevant for... If thermodynamics of black holes is proved experimentally then quantum gravity is possible if not then both arrows, as i believe, are independent and the Universe is a fractal of multiple branes. Obviously the students who edit this section ignore the present state of physics and the on going debate in those terms, as they seem to be fans of old XIX c. theories.

Fantaphysics

In that regard, it has to be understood that after the death of Einstein, a group of matheaticians, from the British school, higgs, hawking and penrose, developed a series of matheamtical theories, breaking 2 pillars of the scientific method, logic and experimental proves. This school is today regarded among the leading physicists, a failled aproach, fancy certainly and very profitable, but hasnt even yield a single nobel prize to his fanta-followers... On the ohter hand, serious physicists who didnt break those fundamental tenents of the scientific method, did avance physics as the German school did, mainly Jewish-Americans that followed in the steps of the Jewish-Germans that preceded them. Wheeler, Gellmann and Feynman would be the 3 titans compared to the fantaphysicists of the British school. Harsh as it sounds, the fantaphysicists have had a free lunch as fancy theorists with its twistors, scalar fields of negative mass and inverse arrows of time. You might enjoy their fantaphysics but when the entire human race depends on their veracity, you people are doing a little favor to science and mankind, erasing all critique. That is called FAITH, not reason. in FAITH, when there is not prove of GOD's PARTICLES one changes hypothesis, as fantaphysicsits do with the higgs aka toilet particle (for seriosu physicsts) that keeps growing in size as we find not the original particle... So goes for black hole evaporation... Because faith requires no proves. It invents them ad hoc. While the scientific method, throws to the toilet hypothesis which become contradicted by logic and facts.

and that's that... since Galileo. Mr. hawking did indeed start his biography with this sentence: 'I was born the same day that Galileo 300 years latter', and finished his most important article till today with this other 'Einstein is double wrong'... Maybe... but 30 not 300 years latter Thermodyamics of black holes still remain a hypothesis while none of all Einstein's sentences, principles and equations have been proved wrong.

I deal with science not with faith. Do prove me wrong with reason. You are censoring as believers do. 'Those who impose the truth with the tools of power are the laugh of the gods' Einstein Give to caesar what belongs to caesar. Shalom

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.106.180 (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 

Quack, quack. Since it is all OR I didn't have to waste any more time on it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

i see michael is a lame duck whose reasons consist in 'quack quack'... anyway since i can only do 2 edits a day, its all yours, i suggest you that if you dont have arguments, invite mr. Perry or Mr. Hawking to defend themselves, see if they can... (I wonder though how many times you have the right to erase) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.106.180 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC) anyway this is becomign a childish rif-raf... All amounts to this: [edit] The Second Law of Hawking's thermodynamics says: The horizon area is, assuming the weak energy condition, a non-decreasing function of time. However if there is not unification tehory, then the arrow of einstein -ct stands and the previous law under the arrow of einstein is exactly the inverse: The horizon area is, assuming the weak energy condition, a decreasing function of time. This is the relativistc arrow of gravity. By denying such arrow Hawking and Bekenstein 'invented' the hypothesis of Black Hole thermodynamics, which is still a hypothesis. The arrow of Einstein hs obviously different names in different sciences. It is called the arrow of infomation, the arrow of gravity, or the negantropy arrow. Aesthetically is certainly more pleasing to have a Universe with 2 arrows that balance each other, as most sciences do. This obviously is what the leading american physicists today, Gellmann, lee smolin, Lisa Randall, are studying. But i guss some got stuck in the math of the past millenium...

71.160.106.180 (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that 71.160.106.180 [Homocion?] and Count Iblis are spending an inordinate amount of time erasing each other. Might I suggest that they try to work out a compromise? Yeah, I know, 71.160.106.180's posts are not the best English, and he is very obviously not a native English speaker - French is his native language as I believe he claims. However, he does make some valid points, even if he does the same thing Hawking does - presents his ideas as if they were fact. Maybe he's just tryiing to make the point that Hawking's theory, as respected as it is, is still simply theory and not observed fact.

In any event, he is correct that Hawking's suggestion that we would find lots of evaporating primordial black holes in the Halo has gone unproven. Perhaps the GLAST satellite will provide a more definitive answer, as it is anticipated to search for the final rapid, evaporative burst of a primordial black hole, which should go off with quite a bang, if Hawking radiation is real. However, many theorists do have concerns that it is not real. IF it is not real, then certainly there must be errors with the theory [i.e. it is not correct by definition!]. I'm not going to baby-sit this, but I do believe that it is appropriate to at least address what some of those errors might be [without being so emphatic as to suggest what those errors absolutely are, as does 71.160.106.180].

Personally, I believe it is quite possible that primordial black holes, along with nearly invisible small dwarf stars, make up the bulk of the dark matter of our galaxy. Primordial black holes could well be dominant, and we'd still not see them, unless by Hawking radiation if that is possible. We could have hundreds of them passing through earth every year, and we'd still not detect them. Because of their tiny size [tiny Schwarzschild radius, and mass only on the order of a mountain; not enough to cause any gravitational perturbations], and high speed, they'd simply zip right through earth while glomming on to perhaps 1E17 nucleons [the ones in their direct path] each time one passed through. It would take on the order of 1E6 such primordials passing through earth to even swipe away a gram of matter; something we'd hardly notice.

So, the reason we don't see them could be because they are nearly impossible to see and they don't evaporate; or because they don't exist. Then again, maybe we will see them with the GLAST satellite as they go through their final throes of evaporation. We need more information. Until then, I'm comfortable with the idea that Hawking radiation is unproven, and might not be real, and Hawking's analysis is subject to critique and might be error-prone. After all, even Hawking has been modifying his stance on finding primordials in the Halo; and the reason Hawking came up with his idea in the first place was apparently to account for the reason we don't have primordial black holes consuming earth was because they've evaporated away. However, I don't believe that is a valid reason, as shown above, because they would not 'swallow up' our planet if we were hit by one, but rather pass right on through like a train hitting a mosquito. Regards, Oldnoah (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

The additions in question are patent nonsense. If you want to put in some cogent discussion, go right ahead.Likebox (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, complete garbage. Ravings about "British vs US science" have no place here. The point about "Maybe he's just tryiing to make the point that Hawking's theory, as respected as it is, is still simply theory and not observed fact." is quite acceptable -- but is already in the article. So what's the beef? --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys: No beef, I just thought everyone would be tired of the constant reverting. It's a waste of time. The reason I'm not posting is because, as I said, I don't want to baby sit it, or watch anything I post be constantly deleted, reverted, edited, etc. I'm too busy elsewhere. And yes, the article does already state that it is theory, not proven fact. I just thought that perhaps someone could prepare a short little something that presents points showing what kinds of assumptions are made in Hawking's analysis, and where they might be in error. Maybe when I find the time, I'll try to write something short and simple that everyone can agree with. Regards, Oldnoah (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

= the arrow of surface gravity, according to Einstein's Relativity

Hem i see some got sored about fantaphysics. My apologies, i rather have a normal dialog but given the style of some 'eraseheads' like count iblis, coming to enlighten us from other planets, some surrealist defensive banter was needed(French word that actually means a higher supereality). I have repostd though as real arguments are not displayed here on any of those points. So as the saying goes,'silence concedes'... Bottom line is this: the scientific method works and by not obeying 2 of its 3 pillars, 'experimental proves and logic consistency, though mathematical correctness is there, the entire Thermodynamic theory of black holes is still a 'hypothesis', the first step on building a real theory of science. The second step is experimental prove which is neither there. So Black hole thermodynamics like string theory with its ilogic multiple dimensions, has not passed the first step. I would rather say it is even less proved that string theory as string theory might claim it cnanot be obsevable in this scale, while a black hole evaporating signature would be extremely energetic and so probably it should have been observed.

Now, EINSTEIN HOLDS AS A PROVED THEORY AS LONG AS HAWKING IS STILL A HYPOTHESIS. AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAYS: time acts through gravity on space, bending it into cyclical forms. This can be studied with teh 10 parameters of Relativity, which define a 4 or 5 dimensional Universe (arguments still rage in this point) that contracts constantly through gravity... till a point or singularity. The degree of contraction in the final stages is also disputed (i am on the view that a black hole is a tau star, a neutron star a strangelet and a star a radiant matter star, as it pleases the symmetry between the 3 species of matter and the 3 types of celestial bodies we encounter and in that case the black hole singularity will be limited to the density of tau matter). In any case, what is proved is that 'surface gravity' evolves in general relativity with the opposite arrow of thermodynamics: Instead of expanding, the surface gravity of black holes contracts space-time at a growing rate . This is orthodox,'classic theory' in words of Hawking. His model is an innovation still proved. Now the maths of singularities are well known but too complex to put here, so i will use the homologus concept of a vortex of space-time ruled by a far simpler equation vo x ro = k. Basically this a bidimensional model of relativity that I use to introduce students the theme before they tackle 10 parameters for a 4/5 dimensional Universe. But the results are very similar (in the same way we calculate with Relativity equations hydrodynamic vortices to fine-tune the calculus). The advantage of the vortex model is that it is easy to visualize the warping of space-time in dynamic terms, a fact which is often overseen when using Einstein's fields, which are never static, but dynamic processes of warping of space-time... In such a model is vey easy to visualize what we mean by an implosive arrow of gravity. When the vortex diminishes in size, curiousy enough it increases both its speed and hence its'drag' or gravitational pull. So we obtain the proved experiemntal paradox that the heavier a mass is, the smaller in size is (so quarks are smaller than electrons, and black holes are smaller than stars), becuase the acceleration of the gravitational vortex (Principle of equivalence) increases when we diminish the spatial size and increase the curvature of space creating the vortex. So what we have in a black hole singularity is an increasing drag caused by an increasing acceleration and absorbtion of space-time superfluid around the black hole, with limit in c-speed of rotation (which has bene experimetnally proved in measures of kerr black holes on galaxies). Obviously this is the effect of Relativity that creates the singularity and feeds the black hole. On that account a micro-black hole will be far more powerful not less powerful than a small black hole.

Point is, surface gravity is the dynamic event in space-time explained by relativity. It does have resemblance in inverse mode to hawking’s 70s interpretation of it. Inversely means that as the black hole contracts, it also creates the condition for a massive radiation of particles and antiparticles outside the black hole, which represent ‘closed paths in time, being the antiparticle the inverse future to past death of the particle). Those pairs antipairs that we see in present simultaneity (Einstein’s definition of a present as a surface or world path with a volume of past and perhaps future associated to it)… will be 50% absorbed by the black hole, 50 % escape statistically, and that 50% of lonely pairs that could not complete its closed path will annihilate creating an expansive wave of electromagnetic radiation, which doesnt come however in any classic analysis from within the black hole but from outside, from the electromagnetic brane.

It is then, when we accept that mass and electromagnetic radiation are different phenomena, when the true question arises: how to ad both arrows and events. In classic Relativity is easy to prove that for micro-black holes existing in a minimal space of maximal relativistic curvature, the Principle of Equivalence (accelerated drag of the rotating Kerr black hole) is bigger than the electromagnetic/thermodynamic pull. In visual terms, the analogy would be with a macroscopic tub sink in which we throw brownian particles: the gravity arrow will be stronger specially in a small black hole and will drag the particles inside the black hole... Since the electromagnetic brane rotates at 30.000 km/s, the electron speed while the gravitational vortex of the black hole rotates at c-speed. So the gravitational pull is 10 times bigger than the electromagnetic pull

For that reason unlike Hawking, some models in the path of Guth and Linde hyperinflation models of the Universe use micro-black holes of maximal gravitation pull to explain the origin of the big bang.

It is thus clear that Relativistic black hole theory dont require hawking radiation and do not violate any of the establsihed classic laws of science. It is more truth than Hawking radiation? In any case it has been proved once and again and hawking's has not. So all what i say is that there are reasonable doubts on Hawking's radiation that should be explained in this article.

It must be stressed that unlike the Hawking model, the classic relativity model (superfluid vortex of space-time, in perpeptual acceleration, according to the Principle of Equivalence, have been used since Brans-Dicke's theory in different versions and portrait mass in a far more intuitive light than Higgs, quantum particles, as classic Relativity explains black holes better than quantum effects.Obviously some of you will say that mass is not a gravitational, accelerated vortex and the Principle of Equivalence doesnt rule gravitation. Einstein's has been played with for a century now but it still stands. It is a problem of quantum physicists to ignore Relativity findings and challenge the explanations of masses and black holes departing from the Standard model, what people like Higgs and Hawking should do is study in depth the implications of the Principle of Equivalence, and define as accelerated vortices, exactly what we see in bublbe chambers at CERN, masses and particles. The Unification theory is on the making from the perspective of Relativity as Einstein wanted, not departing from messy particles as Quantum theorists want. So far a vortex of space-time can explain the different masses of particles as degrees of acceleartion and curvature of space-time that increases the drag of gravitation, the higgs particle even if it is found will never be able to explain why a smallish quark weights more than an electron (because it rotates faster). As you merely erase and never say anything about the arguments I make, i assume you are just quantum physicists that like Higgs and Hawking, love to have a go against Einstein. This is expected. But as i said many times, neither Higgs or Hawking have a nobel prize, nor their theories have any prove. So their pretension and that of the english media of being the geniuses of XX c. physics, please... there are 100 nobel prizes that are ranked over them in objective value for our science... And many of them agree with the concept of a mass as a superfluid vortex of accelerated gravitational forces.

76.89.246.73 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)