[samcottle (OP)]

This is becoming tedious. Yes, any photons emitted near the event horizon will be experiencing blueshift. If, in the incredibly unlikely event that they bounce off all the right background particles, in the right order, and probability allows them the (very, very) unlikely opportunity to escape the black hole's gravity sufficiently to allow them to become redshifted, they will be redshifted.

[Bored chemist]

This is becoming tedious. Yes, any photons emitted near the event horizon will be experiencing blueshift. If, in the incredibly unlikely event that they bounce off all the right background particles, in the right order, and probability allows them the (very, very) unlikely opportunity to escape the black hole's gravity sufficiently to allow them to become redshifted, they will be redshifted.

And if they don't then they are not part of Hawking radiation.

But the problem is still there.
You keep saying "any photon" when you might possibly get away with saying "most photons".


We are only talking about a tiny fraction of possible photons.
That's why black holes are pretty nearly black.

[samcottle (OP)]

Stop. We are going round in circles, you're not really interested in the issues here or advancing the discussion; you're only interested in splitting hairs and getting the last word. I'm tempted to let you have it. However, please don't try misleading people into believing that only the radiation that escapes a BH's gravity is Hawking radiation. The mode of particle 'creation' described by Hawking would be going constantly near black hole event horizons and ALL those photons ARE Hawking radiation. However, of course, we only observe a tiny number of said photons since it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that any will escape a black hole's gravity. They are ALL Hawking radiation though. They all rely on the same mechanism of putative particle-antiparticle 'creation' and 'annihilation' described in Hawking's work. That is the end of it.

[Kryptid]

The size of the black hole is irrelevant. I think I've basically pointed this out already.

Not according to Hawking's equation, it isn't.

Prior to that point, they are giving off gamma radiation, all the time

Again, provide a source that this applies to all black holes, regardless of size.

will be subject to huge gravitational forces and, hence, blueshifting.

That's not how that works. Blue shift and red shift imply a shift in wavelength. A shift in wavelength means that the wavelength has changed from one value to another. However, the photons in Hawking radiation literally start off near the horizon. It's not like they were transported there from somewhere else. If you claim that the wavelength of those photons is blue shifted, then what are they blue shifted from? What was their previous wavelength? They can't have one, because they didn't exist before.

Here is Hawking's original paper about Hawking radiation: https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Hawking%20Particle%20Creation.pdf

Hawking confirms here that a black hole of solar mass is actually very cold:

For a black hole of solar mass (10³³ g) this temperature is much lower than the 3 °K temperature of the cosmic microwave background.

An object that cold does not emit gamma rays as thermal radiation. He also confirms that tiny black holes on the verge of evaporating are very hot:

As they got smaller, they would get hotter and so would radiate faster. As the temperature rose, it would exceed the rest mass of particles such as the electron and the muon and the black hole would begin to emit them also. When the temperature got up to about 10¹² °K or when the mass got down to about 10¹⁴ g the number of different species of particles being emitted might be so great [11] that the black hole radiated away all its remaining rest mass on a strong interaction time scale of the order of 10^-23 s. This would produce an explosion with an energy of 10³⁵ ergs. Even if the number of species of particle emitted did not increase very much, the black hole would radiate away all its mass in the order of 10^-28M³ s. In the last tenth of a second the energy released would be of the order of 10³⁰ ergs.

Now 10¹² K is definitely hot enough to emit gamma rays.

So I have a source here, from Hawking himself, that says large black holes are cold and small black holes are hot. He does not say in his paper that all black holes are very hot gamma emitters. So I've provided a source against the gamma ray claim of yours. Can you provide a source that shows this is wrong?

[samcottle (OP)]

We are going round in circles. Please review this thread and reflect on how I've addressed these issues in the previous posts.

[Kryptid]

We are going round in circles. Please review this thread and reflect on how I've addressed these issues in the previous posts.

What you said was incorrect. You claimed that all black holes produce gamma rays, regardless of size, and that those gamma rays are red shifted by gravity to longer wavelengths like radio waves. That position is not supported by Hawking's paper.

Can you explain how an object with a temperature much less than 3 kelvins (which is the temperature of stellar mass black holes, as per Hawking's paper) can emit gamma rays as thermal radiation? And no, blue-shifting is not the answer.

[samcottle (OP)]

I already have.

[samcottle (OP)]

Assuming some hadronic, or leptonic component within the vicinity of black holes which, with consideration given to their sheer masses (and everything we know about gravity), and the probable electric charge of their constituent particles/fields, we can reasonably infer that their gravitational fields are composed of electrons. Building from what we understand about neutron stars, and their lattice structures of neutrons with free electrons moving within the lattice, and the 'protons' (or the single, giant proton QGP core) in their core, we can make some reasonable assumptions about a black hole; i.e. if anything like a QGP forms the outer layer of a black hole (i.e. something that's positively charged) then it's overwhelmingly likely that something negatively charged orbits that positively charged thing. The same is true of all structures we observe in particle physics, from the hydrogen atoms to the neutron star. A positive charge is almost always accompanied with a negative charge orbiting it.

[Kryptid]

I already have.

Please quote where you have (and more importantly than anything else, the source that supports your claim that all black holes make gamma rays).

we can reasonably infer that their gravitational fields are composed of electrons.

Gravitational fields are not made of electrons.

if anything like a QGP forms the outer layer of a black hole (i.e. something that's positively charged)

It doesn't. Black holes don't have an "outer layer". The event horizon is not a physical object.

[samcottle (OP)]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.05637#:~:text=Evaporating%20Primordial%20Black%20Holes%20in%20Gamma%20Ray%20and%20Neutrino%20Telescopes,-Antonio%20Capanema%2C%20AmirFarzan&text=A%20primordial%20black%20hole%20in,gamma%20ray%20and%20neutrino%20telescopes.http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17588/1/Einstein%27s%20redshift%20derivations%20-%20preprint.pdfhttps://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968Obs....88...91Shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

[samcottle (OP)]

"Gravitational fields are not made of electrons." unjustified assertion. In terms of neutron star physics, it's highly unlikely they could be made of anything else. Their core is a bloody atomic nucleus (in essence) dude, think!

[samcottle (OP)]

Or, rather, the neutron star IS an atomic nucleus writ large; what we believe is the 'star' is just a neutron lattice with free electrons moving between the lattice structure and a QGP in its deeper laters (made, I suspect, mostly of up quarks); the electrons forming the gravitational fields are extraneous instances of the election's wavefunction being 'observed' by some particle showing up to interact with it/collapse its wavefunction beyond what we observe as the 'physical' boundaries of that sort of star.

[samcottle (OP)]

Also, I enjoy how you're distracting yourself with this quibbling over Hawking radiation and not addressing my point on dark energy (which was the original topic I was, here, intending to discuss). Nothing about the Casimir force also. Interesting.

[Kryptid]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.05637#:~:text=Evaporating%20Primordial%20Black%20Holes%20in%20Gamma%20Ray%20and%20Neutrino%20Telescopes,-Antonio%20Capanema%2C%20AmirFarzan&text=A%20primordial%20black%20hole%20in,gamma%20ray%20and%20neutrino%20telescopes.http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17588/1/Einstein%27s%20redshift%20derivations%20-%20preprint.pdfhttps://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968Obs....88...91Shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

That's about primordial black holes. If there is a statement in there somewhere which states that all black holes produce gamma rays, then please quote it. Until you supply a source that states stellar mass and supermassive black holes emit gamma rays, you have not supplied what I have asked for.

"Gravitational fields are not made of electrons." unjustified assertion. In terms of neutron star physics, it's highly unlikely they could be made of anything else. Their core is a bloody atomic nucleus (in essence) dude, think!

You might want to study general relativity. Einstein said nothing about gravity being made of electrons. I'm not aware of any other physicist who has claimed that either. If you know of any, please link them.

Also, I enjoy how you're distracting yourself with this quibbling over Hawking radiation and not addressing my point on dark energy (which was the original topic I was, here, intending to discuss). Nothing about the Casimir force also. Interesting.

Admittedly, I'm not sure how radiation pressure could lead to space expanding. Radiation pressure pushes on matter, not empty space. This also seems a poor solution for an accelerating expansion because the radiation pressure should get weaker as galaxies move further apart from each other. Less pressure should lead to a deccelerating expansion, not an accelerating one.

[samcottle (OP)]

Oh, what, you think I haven't studied general relativity? How condescending. The problem with you people is that you believe that every theory in physics is 100% true. Newton's law of gravity is not 100% true, hence we have GR. We know GR is not 100% true, hence we have quantum gravity theories. This is GR dogmatism.

[Kryptid]

Oh, what, you think I haven't studied general relativity?

Describing gravity as being made of electrons, under any circumstances, doesn't make sense in light of relativity.

The problem with you people is that you believe that every theory in physics is 100% true.

No, I don't. I'm well aware that our modern theories have shortfalls. However, the idea that gravity is made of electrons isn't a solution to whatever problem relativity may have.

hence we have quantum gravity theories.

Which, unfortunately, have not yet been successful.

This is GR dogmatism.

General relativity is currently our best theory to explain gravity. It is extremely well supported by observation. That's why it's the current default position. If it is to be replaced, the new theory has to explain everything it can explain and then some.

I don't understand how you can reason that gravity can be made out of electrons. How can electrons produce gravitational attraction between two different masses?

[samcottle (OP)]

Well, gravity is a force, and hence not 'made' of anything. So, I suppose you're correct on that. However, gravitational fields are, I suspect, electron densities. And it does make sense in light of general relativity.

"If it is to be replaced, the new theory has to explain everything it can explain and then some." What like 'dark matter', 'dark' energy, and the information escape paradox? I'm relatively (no pun intended) certain invoking electron densities as gravitational fields could explain these things. That's sort of the point of the paper I've written. Again, I might not be correct; however, since there are three major quantum gravity theories, and it stands to reason they couldn't all be correct, and they were all hatched by genius physicists (of whom Stephen Hawking was one, Roger Penrose another and Leonard Susskind yet another), it seems being wrong in physics is ok. Having said that, you're just asserting that this idea of mine isn't compatible with relativity, you're not even giving an explanation as to why it isn't.

[Kryptid]

However, gravitational fields are, I suspect, electron densities.

How does that explain gravity (especially the observation that gravitational strength is associated with mass, not with the number of electrons)?

Having said that, you're just asserting that this idea of mine isn't compatible with relativity, you're not even giving an explanation as to why it isn't.

Because relativity successfully models gravity as a distortion of space-time (backed up by experiments that measure gravitational time dilation and the like), not as electron density.

[samcottle (OP)]

Fully explaining my theory here is somewhat beyond the scope of this post, but feel free to check out my draft papers on academia.edu and I've posted some videos on this topic on YouTube. I'm currently trying to get a book together on this topic.

[Kryptid]

I see you posted a thread about that here back in 2017 (I think). Is it still the same or have you updated it since then?