Hawking Radiation: Rate of Decay & Mass

In summary, last night in calculus class, the topic of radioactive decay was discussed, specifically using radium as an example. It was explained that the smaller the mass, the slower the rate of decay. However, there was some confusion about whether the rate of decay changes or if it just takes longer for the decay to occur. This led to a question about whether hawking radiation acts in the opposite way, with smaller masses decaying faster. It was also mentioned that the power output of hawking radiation is inversely proportional to mass squared, and this can be seen in a table provided in a forum post. The explanation of this phenomenon can be found in the wiki page for hawking radiation. It was also mentioned that the
  • #1
srfriggen
306
5
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
  • #2
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
 
  • #4
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
[tex]
\frac{\hbar c^6}{15360 \pi G^2} M^{-2}[/tex]​
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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.
 

Related to Hawking Radiation: Rate of Decay & Mass

1. What is Hawking Radiation?

Hawking Radiation is a phenomenon predicted by physicist Stephen Hawking in which black holes emit radiation due to quantum effects near the event horizon. This radiation causes black holes to slowly lose mass and eventually evaporate.

2. How does Hawking Radiation impact the rate of decay of black holes?

Hawking Radiation causes black holes to slowly lose mass, which in turn affects their rate of decay. As the black hole loses mass, it also loses gravitational attraction, causing it to shrink and eventually disappear.

3. What factors influence the rate of Hawking Radiation?

The rate of Hawking Radiation is influenced by several factors, including the mass of the black hole, the temperature of the surrounding space, and the strength of the gravitational field near the event horizon.

4. Can Hawking Radiation be observed or measured?

Currently, Hawking Radiation has not been directly observed or measured. However, scientists have detected indirect evidence of the phenomenon through observations of black holes and their surrounding environments.

5. What are the implications of Hawking Radiation for the future of black holes?

Hawking Radiation suggests that black holes have a limited lifespan and will eventually evaporate completely. This has major implications for our understanding of the universe and the fate of black holes in the distant future.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Cosmology
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
905
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
16
Views
4K
Back
Top