3 ms·

Hawking explained the origin of Hawking radiation. That’s kind of why it’s called Hawking radiation. His explanation includes why it comes out of a black hole.

Hawking explained the origin of Hawking radiation. That’s kind of why it’s called Hawking radiation. His explanation includes why it comes out of a black hole. The rest of it is, respectfully, “not even wrong”, so it wouldn’t really benefit either of us for me to try to engage further. Thanks for your response though. If you actually want to develop these ideas I would strongly encourage you to do some actual work to understand first classical mechanics and then the standard model. For example, if you read Kolenkow and Kleppner and do the exercises, you will realise the flaws in what you have written about oscillation and interference. Oscillation and the phenomenon of resonance really doesn’t work anything like you have written.

cluckindan 1y ago
Well, I’m certainly not qualified to argue against Hawking. Still, the theory is very difficult to test empirically, so I would argue the bets are still open! I would assume my model is wrong in many ways. The reason I’m sharing my thoughts is not to claim they are the way things are, but to hopefully inspire someone to try building a theory that could explain the empirical, top-down-oriented Standard Model using a novel, minimalistic bottom-up approach. I could also be getting some terms wrong, English is not my first language and certainly was not the language of natural sciences instruction in my university.
- seanhunter 1y ago
  No, the bets are definitely not still open. Hawking described a model of particle behaviour on the event horizon of a black hole. His model predicts radiation arising from the mechanism described in the model. That may not be what happens in reality because as you pointed out, the radiation is predicted to be extremely faint and so it has not yet been detected, and therefore it is currently not empirically verified. You claim that your proposal predicts radiation from black holes (without explaining any mechanism other than it’s different from Hawking’s model). But here’s the thing: If it doesn’t happen the way Hawking’s model says, then it isn’t Hawking radiation. It could be that cluckindan radiation becomes a thing, but that’s not Hawking radiation. You’re not getting terms wrong, you’re making empirically unjustifiable statements that do not connect with each other or intersect with the observations we have made of the universe in any meaningful way. That’s what I mean by “not even wrong”.
  - cluckindan 1y ago
    Quantum models tend to require mathematical interpretation before they are in any way empirically testable, as in verifiable against observations. In that sense, one could call most models in quantum mechanics ”empirically unjustifiable”. Would you say models like QCD and QFT are ”not even wrong”, too, even though the Standard Model is based directly on QFT, which lacks a formal, generally agreed-upon mathematical foundation, and has multiple competing interpretations? Textbook-thumping zealotry has no place outside a church.
IAmBroom 1y ago
> Hawking explained the origin of Hawking radiation. That’s kind of why it’s called Hawking radiation. His explanation includes why it comes out of a black hole. Not only that; it's never been physically proven to exist, so there's absolutely no reason to explain it if his theories are wrong.

cluckindan 1y ago

Well, I’m certainly not qualified to argue against Hawking. Still, the theory is very difficult to test empirically, so I would argue the bets are still open! I would assume my model is wrong in many ways. The reason I’m sharing my thoughts is not to claim they are the way things are, but to hopefully inspire someone to try building a theory that could explain the empirical, top-down-oriented Standard Model using a novel, minimalistic bottom-up approach. I could also be getting some terms wrong, English is not my first language and certainly was not the language of natural sciences instruction in my university.

seanhunter 1y ago
No, the bets are definitely not still open. Hawking described a model of particle behaviour on the event horizon of a black hole. His model predicts radiation arising from the mechanism described in the model. That may not be what happens in reality because as you pointed out, the radiation is predicted to be extremely faint and so it has not yet been detected, and therefore it is currently not empirically verified. You claim that your proposal predicts radiation from black holes (without explaining any mechanism other than it’s different from Hawking’s model). But here’s the thing: If it doesn’t happen the way Hawking’s model says, then it isn’t Hawking radiation. It could be that cluckindan radiation becomes a thing, but that’s not Hawking radiation. You’re not getting terms wrong, you’re making empirically unjustifiable statements that do not connect with each other or intersect with the observations we have made of the universe in any meaningful way. That’s what I mean by “not even wrong”.
- cluckindan 1y ago
  Quantum models tend to require mathematical interpretation before they are in any way empirically testable, as in verifiable against observations. In that sense, one could call most models in quantum mechanics ”empirically unjustifiable”. Would you say models like QCD and QFT are ”not even wrong”, too, even though the Standard Model is based directly on QFT, which lacks a formal, generally agreed-upon mathematical foundation, and has multiple competing interpretations? Textbook-thumping zealotry has no place outside a church.

IAmBroom 1y ago

> Hawking explained the origin of Hawking radiation. That’s kind of why it’s called Hawking radiation. His explanation includes why it comes out of a black hole. Not only that; it's never been physically proven to exist, so there's absolutely no reason to explain it if his theories are wrong.