5 ms·
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
by 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 agoQuantum 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.