Has Hawking Radiation Been Detected in Black Holes?

[byron178]

Has hawking radiation ever been observed?

 

[phyzguy]

No, Hawking radiation from astronomical black holes is much to weak to observe.

 

[Vanadium 50]

No, it has not.

 

[byron178]

No, it has not.

i read that on wiki it has been observed http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19508-hawking-radiation-glimpsed-in-artificial-black-hole.html

 

[Vanadium 50]

First, why did you ask the question if you just wanted to argue about the answer.

Second, this is not a black hole. Read what you posted - this is an analog of a black hole.

 

[byron178]

First, why did you ask the question if you just wanted to argue about the answer.

Second, this is not a black hole. Read what you posted - this is an analog of a black hole.

so this is not evidence of hawking radiation?

 

[Demystifier]

so this is not evidence of hawking radiation?

No it isn't.

 

[byron178]

No it isn't.

maybe i misread it,what does it talk about?

 

[Demystifier]

About analogue Hawking radiation, not about true Hawking radiation. Do you know what "analogue" means?

 

[byron178]

About analogue Hawking radiation, not about true Hawking radiation. Do you know what "analogue" means?

No,what does it mean?

 

[byron178]

i would also like to hear other people's opinion.

 

[danR]

i would also like to hear other people's opinion.

You could say it is Hawking radiation in the sense that you could have 'real' Hershey bars cranked out of a fake machine. They look and taste the same as those coming from the Hershey company.

If the researchers have produced radiation with the/a predicted signature, and by the production of virtual photons (this is a big claim, incidentally) then half of the conceptual framework of Hawking radiation is established.

The 'analogue' part of the thing is that intense gravitational fields cannot be generated in labs. So they use other fields: electric and magnetic fields, and try to use these in a way (hopefully an analogous way) to generate these 'virtual' photons.

That's the fake part of this 'Hawking' radiation. Genuine Hershey bars come out of the Hershey bar company, and imposters will be sued. If (If!) Hawking radiation is real, Black-holes own the patents and the process. That is why there are many skeptics in the article:

Hawking radiation = Hawking radiation + black holes. So they have not produced Hawking radiation. But they claim they have shown that the actual output that a BH supposedly produces can actually exist, so it gives interest in furthering the search for it by looking at Black Holes themselves.

 

[byron178]

You could say it is Hawking radiation in the sense that you could have 'real' Hershey bars cranked out of a fake machine. They look and taste the same as those coming from the Hershey company.

If the researchers have produced radiation with the/a predicted signature, and by the production of virtual photons (this is a big claim, incidentally) then half of the conceptual framework of Hawking radiation is established.

The 'analogue' part of the thing is that intense gravitational fields cannot be generated in labs. So they use other fields: electric and magnetic fields, and try to use these in a way (hopefully an analogous way) to generate these 'virtual' photons.

That's the fake part of this 'Hawking' radiation. Genuine Hershey bars come out of the Hershey bar company, and imposters will be sued. If (If!) Hawking radiation is real, Black-holes own the patents and the process. That is why there are many skeptics in the article:

Hawking radiation = Hawking radiation + black holes. So they have not produced Hawking radiation. But they claim they have shown that the actual output that a BH supposedly produces can actually exist, so it gives interest in furthering the search for it by looking at Black Holes themselves.

what about the article? what does that talk about?

 

[Demystifier]

No,what does it mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_models_of_gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_black_hole

 

[byron178]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_models_of_gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_black_hole

is there debate as to weather hawking radiation exists? also can hawking radiation be explained without virtual particles?

 

[danR]

what about the article? what does that talk about?

I can't give a full synopsis. That's my opinion on the article and the topic. The OP only needs a nuanced answer to the question: have they found Hawking radiation? Yes and no. And even that opinion is arguable. For example, having determined what it was that Hawking was claiming comes out of a BH, researchers have set up conceptual and physical apparatus that bears absolutely no resemblance to the extremely vacuous locale of an event horizon. It's as though I dreamed of Io emitting drunk purple elephants, and someone devised an apparatus that bears almost no resemblance to the surface of Io, that emits actual drunk purple elephants. Then I can say, 'there, part of my dream ('theory') about Io is realized.'

And Hawking proposed his radiation at a time when even BH' existence were denied by reputable physicists: Philip Morrison, for example. Hawking posited BHs, claimed they retained all information that fell into them, and then invented something coming out of them, not excluding the possibility of full sets of the leather-bound volumes of Marcel Proust.

 

[byron178]

I can't give a full synopsis. That's my opinion on the article and the topic. The OP only needs a nuanced answer to the question: have they found Hawking radiation? Yes and no. And even that opinion is arguable. For example, having determined what it was that Hawking was claiming comes out of a BH, researchers have set up conceptual and physical apparatus that bears absolutely no resemblance to the extremely vacuous locale of an event horizon. It's as though I dreamed of Io emitting drunk purple elephants, and someone devised an apparatus that bears almost no resemblance to the surface of Io, that emits actual drunk purple elephants. Then I can say, 'there, part of my dream ('theory') about Io is realized.'

And Hawking proposed his radiation at a time when even BH' existence were denied by reputable physicists: Philip Morrison, for example. Hawking posited BHs, claimed they retained all information that fell into them, and then invented something coming out of them, not excluding the possibility of full sets of the leather-bound volumes of Marcel Proust.

so how is hawking radiation explained without virtual particles?

 

[danR]

so how is hawking radiation explained without virtual particles?

It isn't. Hawking radiation entails virtual particles. The researchers appear to have that much covered.

 

[byron178]

It isn't. Hawking radiation entails virtual particles. The researchers appear to have that much covered.

I meant to say is that is there an interpretation of hawking radiation without virtual particles? also do virtual particles time travel?

 

[danR]

Let me simplify my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, Hawking radiation comes out Black Holes, or gravitational situations that are equivalent to black holes. You just don't get that sort of gravitational 'force'/field on earth. not on the sun, not even on the surface of a neutron star.

On the other hand, when 40's scientists wanted to model prompt neutron and gamma radiation signatures under controlled conditions that emulated the sequence in the first atom bombs, they could do so by bring two pieces of plutonium together, (or reflecting its neutrons back on it with beryllium), because the signature, and the strong force that caused that signature, were the same in the bomb and the test.

 

[danR]

I meant to say is that is there an interpretation of hawking radiation without virtual particles? also do virtual particles time travel?

Q1 No! It would be like having a fission-bomb without neutrons. It's a package deal. Accept no substitutes. Take it back to the store. Demand a refund. Ask for the manager. Call the Better Business Bureau. Don't take wooden nickels.

Q2 I don't believe in time travel, a fortiori: it doesn't even have a meaning, except in the very restricted sense of t-invariance in particle physics. For that, you will have to go to the particle forum and look for Feynman diagram experts, because I have no knowledge about it.

 

[byron178]

Q1 No! It would be like having a fission-bomb without neutrons. It's a package deal. Accept no substitutes. Take it back to the store. Demand a refund. Ask for the manager. Call the Better Business Bureau. Don't take wooden nickels.

Q2 I don't believe in time travel, a fortiori: it doesn't even have a meaning, except in the very restricted sense of t-invariance in particle physics. For that, you will have to go to the particle forum and look for Feynman diagram experts, because I have no knowledge about it.

i would really appreciate if someone could help me by answering this question.

 

[C. H. Fleming]

is there debate as to weather hawking radiation exists? also can hawking radiation be explained without virtual particles?

There is a paper by Parikh and Wilczek which relies upon ordinary quantum mechanical tunneling, but it is not very rigorous.

 

[Demystifier]

Hawking radiation entails virtual particles.

Actually, it doesn't. The standard derivation of Hawking radiation is based on Bogoliubov transformation, which does NOT involve virtual particles.

As far as I am aware, only POPULAR "explanations" of Hawking radiation involve virtual particles. The true calculations of it don't.

 

[danR]

Actually, it doesn't. The standard derivation of Hawking radiation is based on Bogoliubov transformation, which does NOT involve virtual particles.

As far as I am aware, only POPULAR "explanations" of Hawking radiation involve virtual particles. The true calculations of it don't.

My information is dated then, and based on popular expositions. Turning to Hawking's original paper, I find he involves 'scalar particles' not 'virtual particles'. Whether he himself used 'virtual' loosely in his own informal discussions I don't know.

The analogue paper itself does not use the term 'virtual' anywhere; the key phrase is:

'Even if all the modes are initially in their vacuum states, the horizon spontaneously
creates photon pairs'

Apparently this implies virtual particles to the popular press. The thinking nowadays, judging by current posts, is that virtual particles are not necessary. I wonder if Hawking's scalar particles will also suffer the same fate.

 

[danR]

"One might picture this negative energy flux in the following way. Just outside the event horizon there will be virtual pairs of particles, one with negative energy and one with positive energy." (emphasis added)

Particle Creation by Black Holes
S. W. Hawking
Commun. math. Phys. 43, 199—220 (1975)
________

Without requiring virtual (pairs of) particles, perhaps Hawking is putting things in a way easy to view. Or perhaps he's hedging.

 

[byron178]

"One might picture this negative energy flux in the following way. Just outside the event horizon there will be virtual pairs of particles, one with negative energy and one with positive energy." (emphasis added)

Particle Creation by Black Holes
S. W. Hawking
Commun. math. Phys. 43, 199—220 (1975)
________

Without requiring virtual (pairs of) particles, perhaps Hawking is putting things in a way easy to view. Or perhaps he's hedging.

is there any other evidence for hawking radiation? i read back in october hawking radiation was observed.

 

[byron178]

does virtual particles traveling faster than light mean they can time travel to the past?

 

[Naty1]

Post #24 is correct...Hawking himself supposedly explained the radiation via an intuitive approach using virtual particles.,,it reportedly did NOT come directly from his mathematical work. There is no "research" concerning virtual particles as a source of HAwking radiation. In fact Hawking radiation cannot occur until the universe becomes cooler than black holes, so it has NEVER been observed.

You can read a lot about Hawking radiation in Kip Thorne's BLACK HOLES AND TIME WARPS and Leonard Susskind'a THE BLACK HOLE WAR (between Susskind and Hawking).

Susskind (pgs 376- 380) explains a string version of Hawking radiation: If a short segment of string briefly and partially passes the horizon and crosses itself, string theory says a small percentage of the time a small loop can break free... This could be a photon, graviton or any other particle... the remainder of the string remains inside the horizon.

These books are conceptual, not mathematical, intended for knowledgeable lay people.

 

[phinds]

... Hawking radiation cannot occur until the universe becomes cooler than black holes, so it has NEVER been observed.

I'm puzzled by this statement. Can you give a layman's explanation of it? What puzzles me is that the requirement that the universe reach a particular temperature seems to me to imply that the radiation is in some way thermal radiation, but thermal radiation does not totally depend on the surroundings. For example, my understanding is that a room-temperature object put into a 1000 degree kiln STILL radiates heat, it just radiates such a trivial amount relative to what the furnace is radiating into it (to say nothing of convection and conduction) that the result is irrelevant. BUT ... irrelevant is not non-existent.

Thanks