[freeztar]

SextonBlake, on 20 February 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

We actually have no hard evidence for Hawking Radiation as this is an idea he came up with but he has previously discarded other ideas which originally seemed possible, like singularities, which most still continue to cling to. And of course the loss of information in a black hole.

I think Hawking would prefer that we think for ourselves rather than slavishly cling to his musings.

I agree and celebrate your ideas of freedom from slavish thoughts. Nonetheless, I think Hawking deserves a bit more respect for his ideas.

It takes a stroke of genius to think about quantum separation. I agree that it is not perfect and leaves something to be desired. That doesn't mean the idea is invalid. Until there's a better explanation, it's the best we've got, no?

[maddog]

SextonBlake, on 20 February 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

We actually have no hard evidence for Hawking Radiation as this is an idea he came up with but he has previously discarded other ideas which originally seemed possible, like singularities, which most still continue to cling to. And of course the loss of information in a black hole.
I think Hawking would prefer that we think for ourselves rather than slavishly cling to his musings.

Hawking has not "backpeddled" on Hawking Radiation (though maybe you would like to be so).

Where Hawking admitted that he had "erred" in his previous thinking and he now renounces is that a
BH can prevent leaking of information out. This was a discussion between he and Berkenstein (Jacob
I think). From this when he lost the bet, he bought Jacob "whatever" wanted upon which Berkenstein
said that he wished the Burns book on Baseball.

This was all on the Berkenstein Conjecture (look it up). This refers to the entropy of the Black Hole.

maddog

ps: I made it easier for you here is the link
Black Hole Thermodynamics

This post has been edited by maddog: 22 February 2012 - 02:40 PM

[arKane]

I found an interesting article in online PopSci that you all might be interested in. But it's one of the comments that I think applies to this thread and the concept of evaporation due to Hawking Radiation that I wish to share.


How to Take a Picture of a Black Hole

http://www.popsci.co...312&spPodID=020

Quote

cigarshaped

Thank you Clay, an unusually balanced article. Sadly it has become so common to hear that "the black hole is proven, case closed". Unfortunately so many eggs have been put into the Einstein basket that it is hard to see astronomers changing their minds - even if contradictory evidence is staring them in the face. More often than not the theory is adapted for each new contra data, rather than re-evaluating it.

I'm sorry but my impression of the Standard Model is no better than an adult fairy story. How anyone can believe in so many imaginary constructs which have no laboratory-testable properties, it's beyond me! I think we are doing our young scientists a disservice by insisting that little is left to discover. Mathematics is no longer a tool to explore sound ideas. It has become the means and end, far removed from reality.

Let's hope the truth will dawn, before funding ceases for these extravagant schemes of endeavor. I believe a far more integrated picture of the universe will eventually emerge. Showing a cohesion from subatomic to galactic scales, we will realize how our solar system is integral to an ever evolving circuit of energy. Importantly, a circuit that can change suddenly too.

"It's the thunderbolt that steers the universe!" Heraclitus, 5th century BC

[SextonBlake]

freeztar, on 21 February 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

I agree and celebrate your ideas of freedom from slavish thoughts. Nonetheless, I think Hawking deserves a bit more respect for his ideas.

The point is that it's idea from Hawking and not something he has shown to be true in a lab. Even Einstein had his off days like not being able to see through the double slit experiment.

Quote

It takes a stroke of genius to think about quantum separation. I agree that it is not perfect and leaves something to be desired. That doesn't mean the idea is invalid. Until there's a better explanation, it's the best we've got, no?

A flat world was all we had at one time, with god above and the devil below. Was that better than nothing?

The problem with such solutions as posited by Hawking is that people are willing to accept them because of who he is. If wrong, it has stopped people putting forth other possibilities that may be right.

[SextonBlake]

maddog, on 22 February 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Hawking has not "backpeddled" on Hawking Radiation (though maybe you would like to be so).

But he may do so one day. It is just conjecture and exists without any proof to back it up and may one day be found to be wrong.

[maddog]

SextonBlake, on 24 February 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

But he may do so one day. It is just conjecture and exists without any proof to back it up and may one day be found to be wrong.

You know discussing things with you is like an Atheist and a Theist discussing
things. I attempt to use logic; and then you just lob this one in.

"Oh but he may ... someday"... How does this "prove" anything as you so want to do.

If I construct a weight attached to a spring and I want to "prove" the behavior of the
spring will oscillate based on what input energy I give the weight. Also the my logic
was sound in the derivation of the system and detailed enough, I wouldn't actually
have to build it to show it. Hawking Radiation is just such a demonstration. That is
of a thought problem. Like you I might have questions about his conclusions. I do
not however think the line of reasoning was "unsound".

For example -- how populous can this event horizon be. As the black hole gets
smaller, wouldn't the Pauli Exclusion principle come into play? Preventing below
which more evaporation could occur (I remember seeing this somewhere). Well
it turns out that (assumption here: that because electron as all leptons are thought
of a point-size particles) this is not the case.

So my hesitation is not the conclusion, it is that maybe it might not be best to assume
that leptons are really point-size particles. Maybe they have internal structure. Maybe
this will shown to be true ... someday.

maddog

[SextonBlake]

maddog. You say you have used logic and hint that I have not. A rather pointless argument since it is nothing more than an opinion.

The spring and weight is based on tried and trusted principles. Hawking radiation is just an idea that we presently have no evidence for. Hardly a comparison.

Black holes are said to shrink so slowly that only the smallest will "die" before the Universe ends. So pointless really, even if true.

Electrons have been shown to be as near as makes no different 100% spherical. Point sized is only a matter of going smaller till you start seeing something more.