Talk:Hawking radiation

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]

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.

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.

"In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence." It would seem to me that Hawking's concept is not a proper theory. No evidence supporting it has been collected. His 1974 "theoretical argument" for its existence should be labeled a "proposed argument". 74.127.200.55 (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no. "Theory" is a common (now days) synonym for "hypothesis". Where-ever-the-heck you got that quote from doesn't really matter. It is wrong. It isn't only wrong, it is egregiously wrong. How do you suppose a person without any education or resources, living their entire life in a cave without ever seeing the sky would formulate Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion? Ridiculous. Observation (and knowledge acquisition) is required to develop a mind. No one will ever construct a hypothesis before "any applicable" knowledge is acquired. Full Stop. Hawking Radiation is a classical hypothesis (which we today would term a theory) that has been critically examined for over 50 years by experts in the field. There is plenty of direct and indirect *supporting* evidence! But if you meant to say there is no direct evidence of the (observing the) effect, you'd be right.~2025-31506-44 (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

As is very common in physics, Hawking hypothesis of black hole radiation was a consequence of theoretical arguments. He argued that consistency among particle physics, quantum mechanics, and general relativity predicted the radiation. "Proposed argument" is not a good alternative because the "argument" was not "proposed", it was given in detail. "Proposal" would be acceptable as a synonym for "hypothesis". Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

> But for a black hole of 10¹¹ kg, the evaporation time is 2.6×10⁹ years

We give the formula for time as:

${\displaystyle t_{\mathrm {ev} }\approx 2.140\times 10^{67}\,{\text{years}}\ \left({\frac {M}{M_{\odot }}}\right)^{3},}$

With the mass of the earth as 6x10²⁴kg, 10¹¹ into this formula gives 10²⁶ years. Am I doing something wrong? Doradus (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I rewrote the section on evaporation and remove the unsourced calculation. I grouped the primordial black hole content but this section should be replaced. It mostly contains non-notable history. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Closely related subject; also, cited papers are currently on more general topics than this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)