It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A freely falling observer who approaches the singularity observes the negative divergence of the energy density of the radiation both in the interior and the exterior of the star except on the surface. It is shown that the negative divergence in the interior is closely related to the negative pressure due to the quantum field.
Yes. Hawking radiation occurs after a black hole has formed. I don't think you will find that Davies thinks otherwise.
On the Origin of Black Hole Evaporation Radiation
On the derivation of Hawking radiation associated with the formation of a black hole
Abstract
We show how in gravitational collapse the Hawking radiation at large times is precisely related to a scaling limit on the sphere where the star radius crosses the Schwarzschild radius (as long as the back reaction of the radiation on the metric is neglected). For a free quantum field it can be exactly evaluated and the result agrees with Hawking's prediction. For a realistic quantum field theory no evaluation based on general principles seems possible. The outcoming radiation depends on the field theoretical model.
The collapsing star does not produce Hawking radiation, the black hole which forms as the star collapse continues, does. The black hole (The singularity, remember? You provided the paper talking about it.) produces the event horizon which results in Hawking radiation. Without an event horizon (at the Schwarzschild radius), there is no Hawking radiation. Without a singularity, there is no event horizon.
Tell me why the gravitational field of a collapsing star can't produce Hawking Radiation.
A freely falling observer who approaches the singularity observes the negative divergence of the energy density of the radiation both in the interior and the exterior of the star except on the surface. It is shown that the negative divergence in the interior is closely related to the negative pressure due to the quantum field.
A star collapsing gravitationally into a black hole emits a flux of radiation, knowns as Hawking radiation. When the initial state of a quantum field on the background of the star, is placed in the Unruh vacuum in the far past, then Hawking radiation corresponds to a flux of positive energy radiation travelling outwards to future infinity. The evaporation of the collapsing star can be equivalently described as a negative energy flux of radiation travelling radially inwards towards the center of the star. Here, we are interested in the evolution of the star during its collapse. Thus we include the backreaction of the negative energy Hawking flux in the interior geometry of the collapsing star and solve the full 4-dimensional Einstein and hydrodynamical equations numerically. We find that Hawking radiation emitted just before the star passes through its Schwarzschild radius slows down the collapse of the star and substantially reduces its mass thus the star bounces before reaching the horizon. The area radius starts increasing after the bounce. Beyond this point our program breaks down due to shell crossing. We find that the star stops collapsing at a finite radius larger than its horizon, turns around and its core explodes. This study provides a more realistic investigation of the backreaction of Hawking radiation on the collapsing star, that was first presented in [1].
No. It's the collapse of matter which forms the black hole (and increases the gravity gradient). There is no Schwarzschild radius until the singularity forms.
The gravitational field changes as a star collapses into a black hole. It's this changing gravitational field that forms the black hole and releases Hawking radiation.
Who said she was stupid? One need not be stupid to be wrong.
It's really the height of arrogance and blind ignorance to act like these people are stupid.
Again, the gravitational field changes because of the collapse of matter. The collapsing matter causes a tightening gravity gradient. Sufficient mass will cause a collapse into singularity and the formation of an event horizon.
Again, a singularity or an event horizon can't form without a changing gravitational field that occurs from a collapsing star that has exhausted it's energy and can't stop the pull of gravity.
Yes, he does. He says that Hawking radiation occurs at the event horizon. Without an event horizon there can be no Hawking radiation. No, what I am saying is not idiotic.
What you're saying is just idiotic and nobody disagrees with her that a collapsing star whose gravitational field is changing produces Hawking Radiation. Hawking doesn't disagree with that.
One. One scientist. The one who wrote the paper we are discussing.
You even have scientist saying a singularity can't form because of quantum mechanics and yet the black hole will still produce Hawking Radiation without a singularity.
Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[11] As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles takes away some of the mass of the black hole.[12]
Physicists have long thought that the singularities associated with gravity (like the inside of a black hole) should vanish in a quantum theory of gravity. It now appears that this may indeed be the case. Researchers in Uruguay and Louisiana have just published a description of a quantum black hole using loop quantum gravity in which the predictions of physics-ending singularities vanish, and are replaced by bridges to another universe.
This brings us to the new work of Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin, recently published in Physical Review Letters. Gambini and Pullin have developed and solved the first well-behaved model of a quantum black hole, in which the central curvature singularity vanishes, and is replaced by a bridge that appears to lead into another universe. Other details of their treatment offer promise for reconciling other apparent paradoxes associated with blending general relativity and quantum mechanics. They are currently trying to extend their work to study of an evaporating quantum black hole.
Despite the limitations of this result, it is encouraging to know that the best model of a quantum black hole currently available appears consistent with what generations of physicists had hoped would be the case; that quantum effects prevent singularities.
Your wikiquote doesn't say anything about a changing gravitational field producing Hawking Radiation but it does say this:
It's the changing gravitational field of a collapsing star that produces Hawking Radiation.
A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon.[11]
Yes, I know some physicists have different ideas about what happens beyond the event horizon. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about someone who claims there is no singularity and no event horizon.
They say no singularity and a bridge to another universe forms.
No event horizon, no Hawking radiation.
You got it! No event horizon=no Hawking radiation.
No changing gravitational field from a collapsing star and there's no event horizon, no singularity and no Hawking Radiation.
No. There is the same amount of gravity. It is the gravity gradient which changes.
The gravity field changes and gets stronger as the star collapses.
Without collapsing matter there is no change in gravity gradient. Without sufficient mass there is no black hole.
Without this changing gravity field there's no black hole.
How can you have a increased gravity gradient without collapsing matter?
How can you have an event horizon without the changing gravitational field of a collapsing star?
The collapse of matter due to the loss of radiation pressure causes an increase in the gravity gradient. Yes, the collapse of matter due to the loss of radiation pressure results in the formation of a singularity. Yes, the formation of a singularity results in the formation of an event horizon. No, there is no Hawking radiation until the event horizon forms.
You act like the event horizon just poofed into existence. Without the changing gravitational field of a collapsing star we wouldn't be having this conversation.
]No, there is no Hawking radiation until the event horizon forms.
Objects whose gravitational fields are too strong for light to escape were first considered in the 18th century by John Michell and Pierre-Simon Laplace. The first modern solution of general relativity that would characterize a black hole was found by Karl Schwarzschild in 1916, although its interpretation as a region of space from which nothing can escape was first published by David Finkelstein in 1958.
Then you'd have yourself a black hole. A black hole is a gravitating object whose gravitational field is so strong that light cannot escape. The event horizon is where light loses the ability to escape from the black hole. Nothing that goes inside the event horizon can ever get back out again, not even light.
originally posted by: RationalDespair
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well here are the papers if you'd like to read over them:
Backreaction of Hawking Radiation on a Gravitationally Collapsing Star I: Black Holes?
Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II: Fireworks instead of firewalls
She clearly has misunderstood Hawking Radiation.
As this is a phenomenon that only occurs as a result of the Event Horizon.
Korg.
Maybe your understanding of Hawking radiation is not what you think it is. If you had read the articles you would find she has devoted clear explanations of what Hawking radiation is and how it relates to a collapsing star and her conclusions.
It's a bit shocking that you are the OP and clearly don't know what this professor is talking about and yet think you are smarter than her.
ETA: Still a flag from me though, because the topic is very interesting and she is definitely on to something!
Hawking radiation is black body radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who provided a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974,[1] and sometimes also after Jacob Bekenstein, who predicted that black holes should have a finite, non-zero temperature and entropy.[2] Hawking's work followed his visit to Moscow in 1973 where the Soviet scientists Yakov Zeldovich and Alexei Starobinsky showed him that according to the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle, rotating black holes should create and emit particles.[3] Hawking radiation reduces the mass and the energy of the black hole and is therefore also known as black hole evaporation.