I was thinking about Hawking Radiation and the idea that black holes evaporate by bleeding off energy as separated virtual particle pairs along the event horizon but was wondering whether or not people are certain this follows regular thermodynamic laws.
If a particle pair arises along the event horizon and one particle escapes the black hole, yes that would seem to produce Hawking Radiation but wouldn't the other particle be trapped in the black hole and fall inside as well? There seems to be one event that violated thermodynamics - the Big Bang.
I assume we've never observed a black hole evaporate yet and assume along this same line we can't be certain they follow normal thermodynamics (they're far from normal objets). It seems we're going to be making them on Earth.
So anyway, how does having additional virtual particles falling into a black hole lead to it evaporating? It seems this would simply add more vacuum energies to it. What am I missing?
(Is it that virtual particles don't truly exist so effectively matter from the black holes is leaking out whenever a real particle in the virtual pair escapes? That could make some sense but it would seem to require a view of black holes different than the typical model of everything compressed to a central point)
Yes' they evaporate.
QUOTE (philip347+Mar 8 2006, 04:18 PM)
Yes' they evaporate.
Is there evidence of this or is this simply the democratic consensus?
I've heard the same many times, but noone seems to be able to explain why. If black holes are simply a surface (as seems likely) then it makes sense that vacuum "noise" could free some energy from it, but that's simply my interpretation and not the explaination given. Instead vacuum energies are effectively ripped in half with much of this falling into the black hole ... and so I'm curious how does a constant supply of vacuum energy make a black hole evaporate? It's a little spooky to think we might make little black holes here ... and then just hope they spontaneously evaporate fast enough.
Is there evidence of this or is this simply the democratic consensus?
I've heard the same many times, but noone seems to be able to explain why. If black holes are simply a surface (as seems likely) then it makes sense that vacuum "noise" could free some energy from it, but that's simply my interpretation and not the explaination given. Instead vacuum energies are effectively ripped in half with much of this falling into the black hole ... and so I'm curious how does a constant supply of vacuum energy make a black hole evaporate? It's a little spooky to think we might make little black holes here ... and then just hope they spontaneously evaporate fast enough.
Since this is a subforum in which I can reply, I have a question for the increasingly arbitrary actions of the "moderator".
Why do you bother with lazy answers to people who should learn to use logic and common sense?
Why, in God's name, do you allow bυllshit from completely obvious sockpuppets of known cranks?
Why do you give lazy answers that are incorrect, when a simple link to a relevant article would do as much good as pissing on a forest fire, instead of letting the bυllshit continue for a day or two?
Do you hate this place? Are you a hypocrite as RC 'suggests'? Why the hell don't you block by IP, since you know who comes from where? Didn't the admin give you shell access? If you can't edit the .htaccess (or whatever Voxel calls it for their setup), why the hell do you bother with the empty "moderator" privileges you have?
Your first answer to blu3dud3 was a fricking dud, and you knew it. Raphie's crap answer was your trigger? You seem to be driven by personality rather than science.
Leave all the damned bans in place and step off! You have more important things to do that occupy your time, and this should not be one of them.
Why do you bother with lazy answers to people who should learn to use logic and common sense?
Why, in God's name, do you allow bυllshit from completely obvious sockpuppets of known cranks?
Why do you give lazy answers that are incorrect, when a simple link to a relevant article would do as much good as pissing on a forest fire, instead of letting the bυllshit continue for a day or two?
Do you hate this place? Are you a hypocrite as RC 'suggests'? Why the hell don't you block by IP, since you know who comes from where? Didn't the admin give you shell access? If you can't edit the .htaccess (or whatever Voxel calls it for their setup), why the hell do you bother with the empty "moderator" privileges you have?
Your first answer to blu3dud3 was a fricking dud, and you knew it. Raphie's crap answer was your trigger? You seem to be driven by personality rather than science.
Leave all the damned bans in place and step off! You have more important things to do that occupy your time, and this should not be one of them.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.