Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Thermodynamics

  • https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0409024


    Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Thermodynamics



    I don't understand the logic behind this concept.


    Can somebody here make this concept simple to aid my acceptance of it.


    All particles have positive energy. Both the electron and the positron have an energy of 512KeV. At particle pair creation or annihilation of an electron/positron pair, positive energy of 1.24KeV is required. When a black hole radiates an electron through Hawking radiation, it absorbs a positron that has positive energy. The accepted theory says that the black hole absorbs a particle that has negative energy which reduces its mass. Herein lies my confusion. Is negative energy and positive energy the same thing: identical, or does some process change negative energy into positive energy?


    I think that the issue that confuses me can be found here


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Planckian_problem


    When particles are produced in LENR through Hawking radiation, there is no time issues caused by extreme gravity effects involved and all particle energies are positive.

  • Here is another conundrum...


    A photon/anti-photon pair created by pair creation through quantum fluctuations at the event horizon of a black hole produces Hawking radiation when the photon escapes to the far field and the anti-photon is absorbed into the black hole. How does that anti-photon decrease the energy content of the black hole to evaporate it since to the best of my understanding the anti-photon has positive energy…but negative frequency? Furthermore a photon with negative frequency and one with positive frequency are identical. Is the issue that allows the anti-photon to annihilate positive energy in any way related to the stoppage of time at the event horizon? Otherwise, the black hole just keeps on getting more energetic over time from this influx of anti-photons.

  • Its a crackpot way of thinking about it but ...ice as a type of particle holding a charge in the cloud, we are taught positives and negatives are all within areas of the cloud as the voltage seeks a ground and a sprite discharges up? This area of an event radiation change from voltage to another type of energy. At this point I gave up trying to think this out. it makes no sense. adding gravity or lack of gravity ..the atmosphere vs the vacuum of space seems to generate through the electric universe theory of no negatives, just stability layers in gravity ,some go's up and others go down without relating to positive or negative.or voltage so much as the stability line.

    sorry if that made it worst..

  • While I'm in the rabbit hole...The principal to my project is in this area. If a stability line is created and a charge of matter is pushed through it, what would come out of the other side....would it be the same as a sprite from a thunderstorm on one side ect... the use of a microwave behind the stability line going through it with a line of chartered particles,

  • Likely few will open the doc-copy past high lite



    structure, and zap it with a microwave pulse. An electron orbiting the nitrogen-vacancy system both absorbs the light and doesn’t, and the system enters a quantum superposition of two spin directions — up and down — like a spinning top that has some probability of spinning clockwise and some chance of spinning counterclockwise. The microdiamond, laden with this superposed spin, is subjected to a magnetic field, which makes up-spins move left while down-spins go right. The diamond itself therefore splits into a superposition of two trajectories.

    In the full experiment, the researchers must do all this to two diamonds — a blue one and a red one, say — suspended next to each other inside an ultracold vacuum. When the trap holding them is switched off, the two microdiamonds, each in a superposition of two locations, fall vertically through the vacuum. As they fall, the diamonds feel each other’s gravity. But how strong is their gravitational attraction?

    If gravity is a quantum interaction, then the answer is: It depends. Each component of the blue diamond’s superposition will experience a stronger or weaker gravitational attraction to the red diamond, depending on whether the latter is in the branch of its superposition that’s closer or farther away. And the gravity felt by each component of the red diamond’s superposition similarly depends on where the blue diamond is.

  • Do Merging Black Holes Create An Information-Loss Paradox?


    The discussions about black hole information paradox already consumed lotta public money and they just illustrate clearly, that the physicists don't actually understand the concepts, which they themselves invented. In particular, the entropy is quantity derived on background of thermodynamics, i.e. classical physics at the human observer scale and as such is strictly related to observability concept. Once the objects aren't observable anymore (because they get blurred by quantum mechanics and/or horizon of black hole and/or simply they become indistinguishable each other), then the thermodynamics has nothing to say about them in similar way, like the special relativity has nothing to say about let say photon behavior, because
    this concept is orthogonal to special relativity.


    In addition, the thermodynamic description of black holes so far completely ignores the topological space-time inversion, which runs at the event horizon and which all relativists so far consider only virtual artifact of co-moving coordinates. But this inversion switches the role of space and time coordinates and implies, that what did look like expansion above event horizon will behave like contraction beneath the even horizon with respect to thermodynamics - and vice versa.


    ZRQZtA5.gif


    The poor entropy handling arises immediately, once we consider than all gases spontaneously expand into infinite volume, "because" the entropy is indeed spontaneously rising. If it's so - how is it possible, that black holes should have "highest entropy" content, when they're "allegedly" formed by most compact pin-point form of matter known so far? The erroneous entropy handling is ideologically rooted in belief in relativistic Big Bang cosmology, according to which all matter of Universe ends within black holes, despite it should recycle in steady-state cosmology of dense aether model. It also reflects the infallible trust of formal physics in universal validity of its abstract theorems and descriptions of reality, despite that they're already borrowed from opposite observational perspectives. See also AWT and cosmological time arrow

  • If there is no need for a hole... just a fussy mass of matter behind a particle wall from Quantum tunneling waves.

    the entire reaction behind the stability line using a microwave gigahertz to penetrate a solid body. fuel and waist don't exit, only the wave would exit. At least after it spits out the matter its mixing..;)


  • The first observation of thermal Hawking radiation and its entanglement in an analogue black hole


    Jeff Steinhauer of the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology speaks about how their observation of Hawking radiation verifies Hawking’s calculation, which is viewed as a milestone in the quest for quantum gravity.


  • The discussions about black hole information paradox already consumed lotta public money and they just illustrate clearly, that the physicists don't actually understand the concepts, which they themselves invented.


    You are right: It just proves that the involved people have absolutely no clue about what information is....

  • Personally I like the super nuclei explanation for black holes which avoids a hole lot of nonsense about a "singularity" which is really trying to say that you can cram an infinite mass into an infinitely small point. - Personally I don't buy it. - If you simply remove the electrons (or shrink the orbits) and stick a hell of a lot of neutrons together, you are going to get something that looks a lot like a black hole.


    As for Hawking Radiation, based on this new model, does this black hole really need to mysteriously shrink and loose mass? Black holes are known to have ejection jets on each side of the plane of rotation which "spew out" matter at very high velocity. X-ray emissions from the wavefronts of ejection jets are observable and have been documented. Refer to: subtleatomics.com/black-holes There may well be a reverse spacetime-> mass process occurring inside the core of blackholes, i.e. mass-> spacetime. Spacetime is then ejected axially as jets as part of the larger galactic scale mass/spacetime solenoidal flux flow.


    As such, so called "Hawking" black hole radiation has already been identified, but the mechanism and dynamics are quite different from existing models.

  • All we can "see" and detect in different spectra, including jets of radiation and "spewed out" matter doesn't come from inside a black hole (based on currently accepted knowledge(. What's happening exactly at and beyond the event horizon / SR will probably remain just a theory for a long time, if not forever...the only thing what we know better today - again a confirmation of an important topic in Einsteins theory of relativity - is generation (and detection) of gravity waves (LISA and merging BH's). BH's can obviously grow by merging with other BH's (but also losing huge mass via gravity waves), or by swallowing other interstellar matter (e.g. gas, stars)...

  • Isn't what you describe a Neutron Star?


    According to the theory, probably quite similar, except that a black hole is spinning much faster, so is more like a solenoid, whereas a neutron star does not have the same angular momentum, so remains more spherical. Unclear whether the masses are neutrons, nucleons or atoms with highly contracted electrons. Potentially the neutron star is more neutral and the black hole is more charged, with greater separation of positive and negative components.

  • You miss the point: Black hole people believe that information must be conserved inside a black hole what is absolute nonsense!


    aha. That was the topic to be argued about.

    Basically I favorize Your point of view. Nothing survives in a black hole, so why should information be an exception?
    Talking ala Shannon, information is a degree of entropy, right ?

  • Entropy is a degree of order...

    " aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

    is extremely ordered, with low entropy.. but is information poor.


    Only information poor in this context, in other context - for an easy example a string of telemetry data - your ''a'' might be very information-rich. It is a mistake to view information as an absolute, like beauty it is in the eye of the beholder.

    Equally, Hawkin radiation might contain a great deal of information leaving a black hole, the beauty and complexity of which we have yet to appreciate.

  • Only information poor in this context, in other context - for an easy example a string of telemetry data - your ''a'' might be very information-rich. It is a mistake to view information as an absolute, like beauty it is in the eye of the beholder.

    Equally, Hawkin radiation might contain a great deal of information leaving a black hole, the beauty and complexity of which we have yet to appreciate.

    It could be interesting in ..if a DNA type membrane was used as a ...rabbit hole~ ..