Talk:Hawking radiation

Per Dmitri Diakonov

According to the physicist Dmitri Diakonov, there was an argument between Zeldovich and Vladimir Gribov at the Zeldovich Moscow 1972-1973 seminar. Zeldovich believed that only a rotating black hole could emit radiation, while Gribov believed that even a non-rotating black hole emits radiation due to the laws of quantum mechanics.[10][11] This account is confirmed by Gribov's obituary in the Physics-Uspekhi by Vitaly Ginzburg and others.[12][13]

Common mistake in physics about information (some people make it, don't blame it on physics)

The Universe contains no absolute information, only relative information.
So the relation between interactions or particles can be entropically with more interactions
and particles.
The absolute information is never lost because it never existed.
ONLY the relative information is lost for a specific observer, because it is
absolutely impossible for this person to disentangle the now more complex entanglement of logical states.

That is absolutely crucial to be understood!

Part of the Hawking radiation gradually converts some baryonic matter into (more, because it exists there enough) dark matter; and the dark matter is attracted towards the center but spreads out more freely than baryonic matter

Not mentioned here. Most dark matter is a phenomenon of synchronization of time-flows (inner clocks) of particles (some percentage of quantum entanglement, not absolute entanglement); and that synchronization/concurrence of time-paces causes more gravity (we call it dark matter and it accumulates gradually as a slow fine tuning; we know that from globular clusters which merged their dark matter with the dark matter of a mother bigger galaxy, and now orbit a little afar with almost no dark matter [but not zero, because it builds up gradually as it fine tunes the inner time-flow of particules]

• • • Supposedly the Hawking dark matter radiation is not the classic dark matter.
      

The classic dark matter still exists though.
The Hawking holey dark matter is a mechanism of canceling the existence of baryonic matter and transforming it into dark matter of now virtual and not actual synchronized particules of synchronized internal time-pace. Dark matter spreads more than baryonic matter; and because this specific dark matter is not the result of the concurrence of time-paces of actual but instead of virtual particles, it does gradually decay, emitting low energy thermal radiation (radio waves)

That might sound stupid but baryonic Hawking radiation itself isn't enough to explain the 100% of Hawking radiation.

No information is lost. Dark matter = time-pace / time-flow concurrence between particles = partial entanglement. When it breaks; thermal radiation is emitted. (Uri Geller doesn't eat that information)

Major question in physics

Does entanglement affect gravity? (theoretically it increases it and generates dark matter; do we have any official comment? Do the Chinese plan to entangle a macroscopic object and measure it's properties in a space mini lab).

no need for emotions [yeses and noes; we should add the data if we find the link]

(Aristotle was stupid for claiming that heavy objects fall faster than light objects. He might actually be 0.000....0001% correct because single big objects have more self synchronicity being big thus statistically having more particles which might become imperfectly entangled (slightly)... but iff (if and only if) we have proof that entanglement affects gravity)

Entanglement doesn't directly affect gravity (wrong statement because even the classic baryonic non-dark-matter gravity is the same reduction of degrees of freedom but focused on different constitutents [virtual quark number of a group of mass vs time-pace concurrence at the galactic scale), but the degrees of freedom of the group of particles if compared to the same number of particles if not entangled. The bending of space-time is the result of that reduction of the degrees of freedom. No perfect entanglement is required (that phrasing is ambiguous because there are three options: a. partial entanglement [analogue small misalignment], b. many absolute/perfect entanglements which last only momentarily and these relationships constantly change active partners, c. a+b)

we need a link

What to do with a bad reference?

The reference to kumar2012 is to an article in a predatory journal which is not representing standard physics. Some, though not all, of the information that gives this article as a citation is bad (eg the reference that asserts that Hawking radiation can be modeled as tunneling from inside the event horizon is nonsense, but some of the other information cited seems to be to accepted results. Should one cut the incorrect part but leave the rest? Or find alternative citations for the more accepted views? I am not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, and I don't really understand the procedures. But I do assume one wants the article to reference only solid information.

Gribov's prior prediction of Hawking Radiation

Unfortunately, although we have no idea now what Gribov meant, the tiny bit reported in the referenced Memoirs makes no sense. Gribov's result appears to be an argument about what happens if the wavelength is much larger than the black hole size. It appears to assume that black holes are like normal objects like lumps of coal ( although a lump of coal at absolute zero does not radiate either). The Hawking process is very different. As in Hawking's calculation, the wavelength of outgoing radiation gets compressed near the horizon, and ultimately originates as ultra short wavelengths in the initial state of the system before the star collapses to form the black hole. It is by analysing this compression that Hawking discovered his effect. This has nothing to do with long wavelengths, or with what Gribov seemed to be talking about from the comment in the reference. There also exist statements that Feynman discovered the effect before Hawking, but again the context would seem to be that he may have discovered the Zeldovich-Starobinsky superradiance quantum effect at about the same time. In both cases the reporter seem to have not understood the Hawking effect, and misunderstood the argument they heard.

Ie, there is no evidence that Gribov ``discovered or even intuited the Hawking effect.

Note that Zeldovich had discovered the analogy of the Zeldovich-Starobinsky effect in a rotating cylindrical conductor, and certainly there there is no evidence of the the truth of Gribov's argument. A zero-temperature non-rotating conductor does not emit radiation, but a rotating one can.