[ExI] Black Hole Hawking radiation

[spike at rainier66.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat
Subject: [ExI] Black Hole Hawking radiation

On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 16:49, spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
<snip>
> The only conditions that I know of where a quantum pair doesn't spike 
> converge is when one falls into the event horizon and the other heads 
> on out of town.  Dr. Hawking used that mechanism to explain why black 
> holes evaporate.  Damned if I understand how that wouldn't violate Dr.
> Heisenberg's notion, but hey, the Brits and the Germans have been 
> fighting for a long time.
>
> _______________________________________________


>...Hawking did indeed write that in the 1988 book, A Brief History Of Time, but that isn't what he wrote in his science papers. He was trying to simplify / interpret, in a book intended for the general public.

>...A detailed explanation is here -
<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/yes-stephen-hawking-lied-to-us-all-about-how-black-holes-decay-da664803df56>

Quote:
>...In reality, what’s happening is that the curved space around the black hole is constantly emitting radiation due to the curvature gradient around it, and that the energy is coming from the black hole itself, causing its event horizon to slowly shrink over time.
---------

(But the split quantum pairs description is still easier to understand)!

BillK

_______________________________________________


COOL!  Thanks BillK!  Ja the Hawking explanation might be easier to understand but it also contains a consequence which has been bugging me for over 30 yrs, since I read Hawking's History.

If one goes with his description and are not really a 4-dimensional calculus jockey, then one is kinda forced into the particle-antiparticle pair explanation, but that pits two German physicists against each other: Dr. Schwarzschild vs Dr. Heisenberg.  Schwarzschild's theory holds that one of those particles can cross the radius but once it does, it's the space version of Hotel California, it can never leave.  The other once can, (and if you do the equations, it must (because of its energy/mass ratio (super-red shifted but away it goes.)))  Heisenberg says those two particles must find each other somehow, before the universe notices they were ever there.

Looks to me like it was Schwarzschild vs Heisenberg, and Hawking was calling the match for the former.

But... there is something that has bugged the hell outta me, caused me to lose more sleep than all that coffee I drank trying to figure it out.  We get it that a particle/antiparticle pair has an axis, if conservation of momentum is real, but for Hawking's explanation to work, the antimatter particle would need to fall inward more often than the matter particle.  If not, it represents this huge symmetry-breaking phenomenon which just hurts to even think about.

The particles would need to know which one is the antiparticle, so that it can fall inward and make the black hole evaporate.  Otherwise the event would be just as likely to cause the black hole to condense as to evaporate.  The particles emitted by an evaporating black hole would be as likely antimatter as matter.  

Help me here BillK.  Wouldn't the traditional Hawking explanation cause the universe to eventually be as much antimatter as matter?  Clearly it isn't.  This has bothered me since 1989.

spike