Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Throw hawking radiation theory out the window

  1. Jan 29, 2004 #1
    if an alone black hole is radiating gamma rays thats called hawking radiation that means its losing energy (because gamma rays aren't matter) but whatever size it is it dosen't lose energy thats why black holes go faster and faster the smaller it gets.
    Here is two main components why i say throw hawking radiation out the window
    1. we cant count the radiation it gives out
    2. it dosen't lose energy
    3. nothing goes passed the speed of light (not by my theories but thats another post later on)

    but i dont have enough time to put my own hypothesis so i say it as straight as i can

    we cant see matter lost or energy lost but due to so much energy in its rotation it will have Unstable Neutronic Polar Ejection (UNPE) some more on that later on on this thread
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 29, 2004 #2
    I'm sorry, but I don't think you're making any sense at all.
     
  4. Jan 29, 2004 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There's that, plus we have a separate forum for this type of thing. Please direct all "outside the box" theories to the Theory Development forum.

    To give you a little bit of help though, taylor - Hawking radiation doesn't violate any other rules of physics because it doesn't come from inside the event horizon.

    HERE is a site explaining it (though I must admit I can understand the watered-down explanation, but not the full mathematical one).

    Also, as a general rule of thumb, before trying to take down any accepted theory in science and replace it with your own, its a good idea to gain a thorough (and I mean thorough) understanding of that existing theory
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2004
  5. Jan 29, 2004 #4

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    at least give the guy credit for thinking for himself,
    hawkings radiation has never been observed and probabaly
    will never be observerved, to my mind it is one of the
    weakest theories, i mean who bets against himself being
    wrong and comes up smelling of roses.
    as for personal theroies do what RUSS says.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2004
  6. Jan 31, 2004 #5
    credit for thinking yes...credit for understanding hawking radiation to begin with, no.

    Quantum theory dictates the possibility of hawking radiation because of randum fluctuations of electromagnetic fields ina vacuum. A position fluctuation in the form of a particle, accompanied by a simultaneous negative fluctuation in the form of an anti particle all occuring out side the event horizon. Antiparticle falls into balc hole, and negative tiny mass + positive big mass = slightly smaller big positive mass, and the randomly generated particle which is outsid the event horizon to being with is free to speed away from the black hole.
     
  7. Feb 1, 2004 #6

    NateTG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I've seen reputable sources suggest that colider-created black holes may be a reality within 10 years.
     
  8. Feb 1, 2004 #7

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Perhaps I am wrong. I thought that the existence of black holes at the center of galaxies was based on the OBSERVATION of otherwise unexplained x ray sources,i.e. Hawking radiation.
     
  9. Feb 1, 2004 #8
    No, the X-rays detected come from matter that is spinning in the accretion disk of the black hole
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2004
  10. Feb 1, 2004 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Most black holes we have found have a companion star to "eat," thowing off x-rays. I think we inferred supermassive black holes from gravitational influences on nearby (but not close enough to eat) stars.
     
  11. Feb 1, 2004 #10

    mmmm...Stars...the other other other white meat.
     
  12. Feb 4, 2004 #11

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    hawkings radiation is an interesting subject, in a purly
    hypothetical way, i have had a search on google but i can
    not find a paper that suggests a way that this radiation
    can be detected, it seems its many orders of magnitude
    below any detector we have on earth and in space to
    detect it.
     
  13. Feb 4, 2004 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Black holes themselves had the same status when first proposed: they were nothing more than mathematical derivations from Relativity with no physical evidence of their existence.
     
  14. Feb 4, 2004 #13

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    i agree, but black holes are enigmatic, we have observed
    them by there" effects", on other things, but we still
    have no idea what they are, i have read a few papers
    that are attempting to do away with the singularity, and
    some that prefer the term "gravstar", i suppose it matters
    very little, we know they exist the detail can come
    when we have a means to directly observe them.
    hawkings radiation is different it seems our means for
    observation would have to increase many fold ie a
    satalite orbiting a black hole before it could be
    detected.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Throw hawking radiation theory out the window
  1. Hawking radiation (Replies: 1)

Loading...