Talk:Hawking radiation

Emitting particles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe#Black_Hole_Era

"During the last stages of its evaporation, a black hole will emit not only massless particles but also heavier particles such as electrons, positrons, protons and antiprotons.^{, pp. 148–150.} "

Why isn't this mentioned? At what point does it occur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.69.120 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Graph of Evaporation time versus size or mass

I would like to see a graph or illustration that coupled the evaporation time with the size or mass of a black hole. It would be interesting to see, for example, how long time it would take for a black hole with the mass of en electron, or 1 kg, or our sun, or the universe to evaporate. Perhaps not of much use to you people that can handle complicated formulas, but for the rest of us, it would be nice. --HelgeStenstrom (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Future thresholds?

Does the Cosmic Background Radiation not become asymptotically fainter as the Universe continues to age? If so, it would appear that while black holes more massive than Earth's Moon grow at present, that threshold will rise as the Cosmic Background provides less (yet such that it would never reach 0) energy for mass increase to black holes in any given area of space. Would anyone like to assist in looking for literature on this?

If so, this would mean that all black holes will eventually evaporate and terminate, even if they do so far enough in the future that the Cosmic Background Radiation will be appreciably less intense. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A different point of view about this Zeldovich-Starobinsky-Bekenstein-Hawking stuff

Hi, my name is Mart Vabar and last week I got an idea about how to simplify this somewhat heavy construction:

Physical insight on 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.

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 whilst 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).

Here we have 3 different particles: 2 of these appear near the event horizon; the 3rd one is a part of the black hole and it disappears, when it meets the particle with negative energy.

Could it make sense to see all these 3 as one single paricle:

1)

once upon a time it fell into the black hole,

2)

but for some good reason it cannot fit a "possible place" there anymore.

3)

So, from a viewpoint of an outsider, it seemingly moves "back" in time and when doing so, it looks like an anti-particle (to have some fun with it: like outer planets sometimes move "back")...

4)

...and when seemingly "going back" in time, the particle also leaves the black hole,

5)

where it looks like a normal radiation with positive energy.

Comments anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.65.25 (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this falls squarely into wikipedia's guidelines on original research, these talk pages are for discussing verifiable and referenced improvements to the articles. Though the wikipedia help desk might be able to help at WP:QUESTIONS. Regards ^Khukri 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hawking radiation created in the lab

I'm a geek, but not a physics geek, so I don't know about this latest finding by Franco Belgiorno at the University of Milan who says he created and observed Hawking radiation in the lab. Should it be included in the article or is still too speculative? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 10:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dudes, I saw this information was added to the article, but why did you leave out a reference? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Guys this article needs pics.