Text Size


On May 3, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Paul Zelinsky <yksnilez@gmail.com> wrote:

Z: "What observational confirmations are available for plain vanilla Hawking radiation, as predicted by Hawking? Or is that too only a "matter of principle" at this stage?"

JS: None in practise for direct detection on Earth, but it's Popper falsifiable in principle.

f = c/A^1/2 

Flux = hc^2/A^2

In contrast we predict a second signal

f' = c/(A^1/2L)^1/2

Flux' = hc^2/L^2A

A = area of horizon where 

g00 = 0 in static LNIF exterior coordinates for Schwarzschild black hole

Z "According to my information there is as yet no generally accepted empirical confirmation of the existence of any form of BH radiation, let alone data that would allow us to discriminate between Hawking's predictions and yours."

JS: Our prediction is much higher frequency and flux.

Z: "The theoretical framework for the prediction of Hawking-type radiation is only semi-classical (QFT in curved spacetime). How much confidence should we invest in such predictions?"

JS: The whole point is that our model may be falsifiable practically speaking with current technology Indeed it provides a model for dark energy if one throws off the heavy yoke of t Hooft's S Matrix unitarity that Seth Lloyd et al jump through hoops to preserve in a zero sum game in Matt Visser's "boring universe" grim scenario of magic without magick. The miracle of unitarity requires unnatural fine tuning in Seth Lloyd's recent attempt to eliminate firewalled horizons.

Z: "And how do we measure BH lifetimes? I can see that accelerated BH evaporation would be much more significant for small BHs, but the 
existence of small black holes in nature is little more than speculation at this point. Maybe the next generation of particle colliders will enable their production in the lab? Even so, I think the suggestion that your additional "A coefficient" contribution to such radiation for a cosmological horizon tracks the currently postulated dark energy contribution to / is interesting."

On 5/3/2014 2:05 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
only a matter of technology

e.g. detection of low flux of 10^21 Hz GRAVITONS from black hole at center of our galaxy for example.

So far Kip Thorne et-al have not succeeded in low freq range.

obviously what we predict is Popper falsifiable IN PRINCIPLE - we predict frequencies and fluxes and type of quanta, gravitons, photons - Sinziana is making detailed tables. If you want to do something useful play with graphic plots of our new prediction for black hole evaporation lifetimes for actual numerical values of the parameters a, b, M, L below where

L = 10^-33 cm gravitons from virtual Planck mass blackhole “quantum foam", 10 ^- 11 cm photons from virtual electron-positron pairs, perhaps 10^-16 cm etc.

On May 2, 2014, at 11:34 PM, Paul Zelinsky <yksnilez@gmail.com> wrote:

Why wouldn't it be detectable? Is this a falsifiable prediction, or not?

On 5/2/2014 1:39 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
obviously if black holes evaporate much faster than everyone thinks and emit high energy quanta in doing so, it’s obviously important and may be directly detectable