"The mathematics, is a unique perfect method to fool oneself"(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Albert Einstein

You can object that in this phrase there is nothing new, practically all know that Albert Einstein was not a big fan of mathematics, evil tongues even said that the mathematical apparatus for the special theory of relativity has been developed by his first wife.

I recollected this phrase after perusal of the book including a cycle of articles of Stephen Hawking under extreme much-promising title «The Theory of everything. An origin and destiny of the Universe», St. Petersburg: Amphora, the Amphora publishing house, 2009-148 s.

The new book has included already published in Russian works of well-known astrophysics’, and also yet not published articles, a number of points of view which inexplicably coincided with criticism which I expressed on a number of physical and mathematical forums. During May holidays I had enough time so I decided to expand and structure the arguments a little.

So, we will return to our problem. According to Stephen Hawking - Black holes are not too black. I will not occupy readers with retelling the history of occurrence of the formulation and an explanation of the astronomical objects named Black holes, everyone can found it in scientific and popular scientific sources and moreover, we will give due to Stephen Hawking - in third lecture of the book «Theory of all» this point in question has been opened so remarkably that in my opinion, there is no any chances even to try to improve it.

In given article I wished to discuss, actually Stephen Hawking’s idea about presence of radiation of Black holes which with figurativeness peculiar to his describes how Black holes are not too black, in the fourth lecture of the book the Theory of all.

In short the position of Hawking can be described so – unrotative black holes should let out particles with constant speed. Further Hawking declares that he has made calculations: full similarity of a radiation spectrum of black holes to a radiation spectrum of warmed body. I will not retell the mechanism of radiation of the black hole, offered by Hawking, as the special quantum process arising owing to quantum fluctuations. Why? Simply because I am not very good with the quantum mechanics. Also I will not challenge reliability of calculations of well-known astrophysics, especially, as he confirms, that similar calculations have been confirmed by other experts at different times. Moreover, I will not use at all any mathematical apparatus, except logic positions. It would be desirable, only to underline once again a position with which Stephen Hawking is completely agree – currently there are no experimental data of existence of radiation of black holes.

I quote «the Black hole with the weight several times surpassing weight of our sun, should have the temperature equal only to one ten-million share of degree above absolute zero. This is much less than temperature of space background radiation filling the Universe (about 2, 7 degrees above absolute zero) so such black holes should radiate less energy, than they absorb, though it is also not enough». Better to say, it is impossible to find out radiation of a black hole, as they are colder, than space emptiness surrounding them.

According to Hawking, it is possible to find out radiation only of primary black holes (namely black holes formed as a result of the Big Bang).

But here is a problem, such black holes are not found out, and also there is no authentic data that they exist. Speaking easier, Hawking has proved mathematical severity of radiation about which there is not any even indirect data, without speaking about the empirical data. But Hawking asserts that the spectrum of radiation of black holes is similar to a radiation spectrum of warmed body. In other words, Hawking makes the elementary thermodynamic analysis of such astronomical objects as black holes, isn't that so ingeniously? You can ask why it surprises me.

I am not the biggest expert in the field of the thermodynamic analysis, but even I know about a considerable quantity of errors connected with the thermodynamic analysis, all data on input and output which exit is easily fixed, and here Hawking with confidence asserts that knows a spectrum of radiation of black holes about which it is experimentally known, only that they in general radiate nothing.

It is necessary to recollect that the concept of quantum has appeared as a result of attempt of an explanation of a divergence between experimental data and theoretical estimations of a spectrum of absolutely black body radiation.

There is an impression that the calculations of Hawking shows progress in the theoretical physics, in the beginning of 20 century physics theorists could not calculate a spectrum of radiation of ordinary terrestrial object, and now they calculate the spectrum of radiation of black holes which are so far and about which radiation there are no experimental data.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, there is much more simple way to estimate a reality of the radiation assumed by Hawking, without use of a difficult mathematical apparatus.

The phenomenon of black holes is known first of all for that these astronomical objects absorb any matter and even radiation. Gravitation in black holes is so strong, what even light cannot break to horizon of events (border of a black hole). Hawking for working out of his model has assumed that the temperature of a black hole is proportional to its superficial gravitation, thus, the less black hole is, the more its temperature is. Hawking considers that black holes observed by astronomers are so great that their temperature is below temperature of space vacuum that is why they absorb radiations more, than let out. Quite logical position also corresponds to usual representation about heat exchange, but we will look at it on the other hand.

Proceeding from model of Hawking in case if black hole absorbs radiation, its weight and accordingly its temperature decreases, does not this confuse you? You imagine, you put a warm hen (warmed body) in a microwave, and the hen there freezes, then you get it out and hen warms up – the good analogy was found by Hawking, isn't it?

Hawking declares in books that according to his calculations the spectrum of radiation of a black hole is similar to radiation of a warmed black body, but radiation is process of a transmission of energy and if we will consider this process separately from possible exothermal and endothermic reactions occurring in a black body in case of radiation the temperature of a black body should decrease. For example, our sun radiates, but the temperature on its surface essentially does not change, all business is in exothermal reactions of thermonuclear synthesis occurring in the sun, thermonuclear reactions are that source of heat which warms up a surface of star.

Hawking has another situation, exothermal reaction in result of which black hole should radiate, as I understand, is radiation.

According to Hawking, losing quantum of energy a black hole heats up, and absorbing the energy quantum becomes colder. But first of all radiation is a process of energy transmission, a thermal stream always (disregarding likelihood deviations) is directed from hotter body to less, itself heat transfer does not lead to a warming up of a body losing heat, thus, any analogy to radiation process of warmed body, with process of radiation of a black hole cannot have, as the process described by Hawking, it actually not only process of a transmission of energy, but also not described by him exoteric reaction and such process cannot be similar to radiation of warmed body (Hawking radiation actually is not a radiation).

According to Hawking, the black hole is similar to the system of an ideal climate control, if we pick up a primary black hole which size is equivalent to a room temperature, it can work as the eternal conditioner, for example cooling and heating up a premise, without an energy and heat removal supply.

In his book Stephen Hawking asserts that if scientists will find a primary black hole possibly they will receive the Nobel Prize, in addition I would like to notice that, in my opinion then the first perpetual mobile of a natural origin will be found out. Otherwise Hawking will be compelled to show these endothermic and exothermal reactions which in his model are connected with absorption and radiation of black holes.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Astrophysics from a Boobie or a black climate control.

Loading...

Similar Threads - Astrophysics Boobie black | Date |
---|---|

B Physicist who Questioned Black Holes | Thursday at 2:26 PM |

I Eddington limit | Mar 8, 2018 |

B Massive Space Objects Have Connections to QM Math | Mar 6, 2018 |

I The Dark Ages post "Big Bang" | Mar 5, 2018 |

A What is the importance of EM measurements in astrophysics? | Mar 2, 2018 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**