Live data from Hacker News

Physicists observationally confirm Hawking’s black hole theorem for first time

news.mit.edu

71–73 of 73 posts

Re: Physicists observationally confirm Hawking’s black hole theorem for first time

#71
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine this holds only for black holes that are massive enough to be stable? All those itsy bitsy ones created by the LHC, they've evaporated, yes?

Correct. It's not so much that the small ones are unstable, but just that there's a continuous curve of lifetimes that's a function of mass. For the LHC, the lifetime of a black hole it could conceivably create would be 10^-86 seconds. It didn't even do that, but if it had, it would have evaporated before it moved the diameter of an electron. There's no functional difference between that black hole and a vastly bigge…

I'm not trying to nitpick, just trying to get my head around your original claim, which I'm tempted to amend:

> Black holes [above a certain mass] can't evaporate now because the cosmic background radiation is too hot

And that mass--the Stable-Black-Hole-In-A-Vacuum mass--it's decreasing. And whatever it is at a given time, more massive holes grow, and less massive holes shrink. Do I have that right?

----

I'm trying to extrapolate backwards to a time when the universe was hotter and the SBHIAV mass was smaller. It seems like there ought to have been a point when the universe was so hot that holes expanded greedily, perhaps to the point where the expanding universe couldn't escape. Golly I wish they taught cosmology at my local university...

Re: Physicists observationally confirm Hawking’s black hole theorem for first time

#72
For something to exist, it must be able to interact with surroundings. It also must be independent. As it interacts the surroundings see the same thing, even if it's very small or for a brief moment. Why? If the surroundings interact, and without delay something changes, there's no independence. It's just the surroundings. Very few things interact with a black hole. With relativity and the photoelectric effect, black hole internals are an unticked watch. Or a film strip with one opened frame. There's not enough in the surroundings that can make it move. All interactions resist. That black hole is on that one tick or that one frame. It has yet to occur, and there's not enough in everything that exists to make it occur!

No ability for interaction is the same as two interactions canceling each other out. One of those two interacts with a black hole. It looks like the black hole is emitting and interacting with the surroundings.

Surroundings interact with the internals. It's permissible to model internals far more complex than what surroundings see. Humans see space and can visualize brightness as heat transfer across different clockspeeds. Nature has no mind, and does what is asked without question. Nature does things like:

- See the inverse of an electron moving backwards in time as the same as an electric current.

- See the inside of a proton, the counterbalance to electromagnetism or interaction via internal state, as three poled electricity, positive, negative and something else along with neutral, at least to a very accurate degree.

- Transfer mass while leaving temperature and ionized bonds alone, as in nuclear decay and radiation

If it's easier, nature will do it. Surroundings see something much more simple than the complex internals on which interactions occur. The idea that black holes are two dimensional consisting of just the surface brought forward this principle. Something enters the black hole, it doesn't go into a volume. The surface area is the amount of surroundings it's interacting with, and they all say send heat there by changing internal clock.

Re: Physicists observationally confirm Hawking’s black hole theorem for first time

#73
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not launch a probe and point its sensors at earth?

The Earth is opaque. I don’t have a source to cite for this, but I think you can check it easily enough.

https://www.answers.com/Q/Is_the_earth_opaque
Post reply on HN