Hawking Radiation: Rate of Decay & Mass

AI Thread Summary
Hawking radiation exhibits an inverse relationship between mass and decay rate, meaning smaller black holes decay faster due to their higher power output, which is proportional to mass squared. This contrasts with traditional radioactive decay, where larger masses typically have longer decay times. The discussion highlights confusion regarding whether decay rates change with mass or if only the time to decay is affected. Additionally, the concept of negative specific heat in black holes is introduced, suggesting that their temperature behaves counterintuitively based on their environment. Overall, understanding these principles requires further exploration of the relevant physics and mathematical derivations.
srfriggen
Messages
304
Reaction score
7
Last night in my calculus class I learned about radioactive decay, a nice example using radium. I was taught that the smaller the mass, the slower the rate of decay (or at least that's what I absorbed, I still have to go over my notes again. Or does the rate not change, but the time it takes to decay is longer?). Does hawking radiation act in the opposite way? that the smaller the mass the faster the rate of decay? (and like above, I'm a bit confused if the rate of decay changes or remains constant, but perhaps just the mass decays faster).

As you can see I'm just looking for some clarification as I'm new to this stuff.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Yes, the power radiated through the hawking mechanism is inversely proportional to mass (squared, actually).

The wiki page has some nice derivations that aren't terribly involved, so that would be a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_Radiation
 
srfriggen said:
Last night in my calculus class I learned about radioactive decay, a nice example using radium. I was taught that the smaller the mass, the slower the rate of decay (or at least that's what I absorbed, I still have to go over my notes again. Or does the rate not change, but the time it takes to decay is longer?). Does hawking radiation act in the opposite way? that the smaller the mass the faster the rate of decay? (and like above, I'm a bit confused if the rate of decay changes or remains constant, but perhaps just the mass decays faster).

As you can see I'm just looking for some clarification as I'm new to this stuff.

Yes. In [post=2513964]msg #11[/post] of thread 'Do black holes "evaporate" or go "bang"?', I have given a table of different sized black holes, with their mass, power output and temperature. The formulae to calculate these is also given.

As noted above, the power output is inversely proportional to mass squared. The formula for power output in Watts by Hawking radiation for a simple non-rotating hole of mass M kg is
<br /> \frac{\hbar c^6}{15360 \pi G^2} M^{-2}​
 
srfriggen said:
Does hawking radiation act in the opposite way? that the smaller the mass the faster the rate of decay?

Yes, and since a black hole's temperature and radiation are related, a black hole has negative specific heat, which, speaking very loosely, means the following. Place a black hole in a fridge. When the black hole is taken out of the fridge, it is hotter than when it was put into the fridge. Place a black hole in an oven. When the black hole is taken out of the oven, it is cooler than when it was put into the oven.
Nabeshin said:
Yes, the power radiated through the hawking mechanism is inversely proportional to mass (squared, actually).

The wiki page has some nice derivations that aren't terribly involved, so that would be a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_Radiation

This looks similar to a post I made here,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=205711.
 
I was taught that the smaller the mass, the slower the rate of decay
Most probably that meant the mass difference between the decaying nucleus and the decay products.
Or, if it really meant the mass of the nucleus: that works differently than gravitation. Gravitation tends to keep things together: the bigger the things, the more gravitation, the tighter the binding and the longer the life time.
In a nucleus, the only long-reaching force is the electrostatic repulsion of the protons. The more protons, the more repulsion, the weaker the binding, the shorter the life time.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top