Yes, I know, but realistically, many (most?) people just want brief, general information, which is what the introductory paragraph is for, no? So I’d argue it should say “hypothesised” or “predicted” somewhere in the, ideally, first sentence.
Okay, might have worded that better. It says “The radiation was not predicted by previous models” and “is predicted to be extremely faint”, not “it is predicted to exist” - and also “[it] is many orders of magnitude below […]” which sounds like a statement of fact. I realise this may be nitpicky but I don’t know if people who don’t know anything about the subject would interpret that as “we don’t really know if it even exists yet”.
It is difficult to be certain about unmeasured things. It would help everyone if those who don’t know anything about the subject would understand that science is about approaching clarity and the scientists are so zoomed out on some things that it isn’t always as clear as anyone wants. But scientists are still trying to answer the question. They are trying to help.
I agree, definitely. But here we are, the reality is that people read first paragraphs at best (which there can be valid reasons for) and take away “ah yes, Hawking radiation is a thing black holes do, science says so”. A reader who is interested further and has the mental capacities after working 8 hours 5 days a week to scroll down and read about experimental observations might also realise “oh wait, it isn’t actually clear whether it does exist” but you can’t expect that from everybody (unfortunate as that may be).
This particular instance may be harmless because it probably doesn’t affect anything in everyday life. But in general I think a first paragraph in an encyclopaedic source that wants to inform the general public should be very clear about it when a thing is hypothesised and hasn’t been shown to exist.
More or less. In my layman’s understanding: Black holes ‘evaporate’ slowly through Hawking radiation, losing mass as a function of their surface area (simplistically, particle/anti-particle pairs ‘pop out of nothing’ near the event horizon, one gets swallowed up the other escapes, this means a net loss of energy, which has to ‘paid’ by the black hole losing mass, think E=mc2).
Since a black hole behaves (geometrically) like any other sphere, the proportion of its area to its volume will grow as the black hole loses mass (i.e. it will have more and more relative area the smaller it gets), this process speeds up over time thus ending in what I guess you could call an explosion (more a whimper than a bang, to borrow a phrase).
They’ll wander forever through an ever expanding space, meaning they probably won’t ever come across a different particle.
Eventually everything will reach equilibrium, aka the state where nothing moves anymore because everything it could react with is too far away to cause any reaction.
Do they do that? Is that what the Big Bang was?
They don’t. They do evaporate though.
That’s a hypothesis though, right? They haven’t detected any yet afaik (which the article could make clearer in its introduction).
Yeah, it mentions it at the end under the “Experimental observation” section.
Yes, I know, but realistically, many (most?) people just want brief, general information, which is what the introductory paragraph is for, no? So I’d argue it should say “hypothesised” or “predicted” somewhere in the, ideally, first sentence.
It does say that it is a “model” and “predicted” in the first paragraph.
Okay, might have worded that better. It says “The radiation was not predicted by previous models” and “is predicted to be extremely faint”, not “it is predicted to exist” - and also “[it] is many orders of magnitude below […]” which sounds like a statement of fact. I realise this may be nitpicky but I don’t know if people who don’t know anything about the subject would interpret that as “we don’t really know if it even exists yet”.
It is difficult to be certain about unmeasured things. It would help everyone if those who don’t know anything about the subject would understand that science is about approaching clarity and the scientists are so zoomed out on some things that it isn’t always as clear as anyone wants. But scientists are still trying to answer the question. They are trying to help.
I agree, definitely. But here we are, the reality is that people read first paragraphs at best (which there can be valid reasons for) and take away “ah yes, Hawking radiation is a thing black holes do, science says so”. A reader who is interested further and has the mental capacities after working 8 hours 5 days a week to scroll down and read about experimental observations might also realise “oh wait, it isn’t actually clear whether it does exist” but you can’t expect that from everybody (unfortunate as that may be).
This particular instance may be harmless because it probably doesn’t affect anything in everyday life. But in general I think a first paragraph in an encyclopaedic source that wants to inform the general public should be very clear about it when a thing is hypothesised and hasn’t been shown to exist.
More or less. In my layman’s understanding: Black holes ‘evaporate’ slowly through Hawking radiation, losing mass as a function of their surface area (simplistically, particle/anti-particle pairs ‘pop out of nothing’ near the event horizon, one gets swallowed up the other escapes, this means a net loss of energy, which has to ‘paid’ by the black hole losing mass, think E=mc2).
Since a black hole behaves (geometrically) like any other sphere, the proportion of its area to its volume will grow as the black hole loses mass (i.e. it will have more and more relative area the smaller it gets), this process speeds up over time thus ending in what I guess you could call an explosion (more a whimper than a bang, to borrow a phrase).
Part 2 of your question: We don’t know.
Wouldn’t the hawking radiation need to be a higher rate than the black hole is absorbing matter?
Yes, the effect is extremely tiny and easily offset when a black hole is “feeding”.
Which will eventually happen to all black holes because the last things remaining will be black holes, so there would be no matter to absorb.
Which begs the question, what happens to the estranged particle that escapes the black hole from hawking radiation.
They’ll wander forever through an ever expanding space, meaning they probably won’t ever come across a different particle.
Eventually everything will reach equilibrium, aka the state where nothing moves anymore because everything it could react with is too far away to cause any reaction.
Which is why it would work with a small black hole, but not with a large one