Friday, April 30, 2021

Hawking Radiation Doesn't Exist

In shocking news, someone who is a genetic mess in one area is a genetic mess in most areas. Sure it's impressive that he could plausibly seem to do physics at all, but in reality rather than being a proof that anyone can do physics if you really try, he's the proof that even with the utmost effort and dedication, some still can't do physics. See also: Galileo, Shakespeare.

I'm being a little hyperbolic. If Hawking radiation exists, it falsifies the standard model. Problem: there has to be a negative-mass antiparticle.

Hawking radiation occurs when a virtual particle pair is split by an event horizon. One particle falls in, the other escapes, and the energy debt is paid by the black hole. However, the black hole has no way of knowing there's an energy debt to be paid, which means it's not paid by the black hole. Oops. That is, unless every virtual particle pair also spawns a negative-mass antiparticle that can collide with the black hole. The standard model says no such thing. Negative mass makes no sense. Mass is essentially vibration; if you throw a negative on vibration it merely shifts the phase by 180 degrees. Already its own negative.

Put it this way: why would the black hole lose mass? Why wouldn't the universe as a whole lose mass? It doesn't work on symmetry grounds. "Well, the universe has an extra particle, the energy has to come from somewhere." Sure, why there, though? Also, why wouldn't the black hole have an extra particle instead? Why aren't black holes absorbing zero-point energy and causing a vacuum collapse or whatever? Answer: no reason. Gut feeling, I guess. That and fanatical egalitarianism. 

Telling the cripple he's full of shit is like kicking a puppy. Best to distort all of society instead. Honour? What's that? Is it tasty?

Hawking radiation also doesn't exist because black holes don't have event horizons. From our perspective - and I don't know if you've heard, but you in fact have your perspective - it takes an infinite amount of time for an event horizon to form. If you can see a black hole, then it hasn't existed for long enough yet. It's still merely a very dark grey not-hole. If very dark grey not-holes are affected by Thermo #2 in a Hawking-radiation-like way, then we will observe them evaporating before an event horizon forms. Simultaneity does get interesting over timelike separations, but a very dark grey not-hole is not timelike separated from itself. If we see it evaporating before an event horizon forms, then even someone colliding with it will also see it evaporating before an event horizon forms. (They will see it evaporating with extreme reverse time dilation, so it will look worse than opening a nuclear bomb with your face. It would be like a front-row seat to the Big Bang.)


As I've mentioned long ago, if an event horizon formed it would be a source of infinite energy, as with any case where a physical quantity goes infinite. You can tell event horizons don't exist because the universe hasn't already exploded. 

P.S. By accepting Hawking radiation, the physics community admitted that they thought Hawking was incapable of real physics. Hawking may well have realized this himself, as most AA hires do. "We're certain you can't do any better, so we're going to pretend this is good enough." Ouch. Brutal. Further: "We're certain you're too delicate to humbly accept reality if it turns out you can't measure up." Oof. Being nice to the cripple is being mean to the cripple at one remove. So, even further, you're directly calling them too stupid to see through your bullshit. Nasty.

1 comment:

BSRK Aditya said...

If you want to disprove something establishment supported (in a hard science) prove something that negates the supposed phenomenon.