Charles Hirlimann Hello Charles. The first thing to say is that Hawking radiation has never been observed and this must cast doubt on the validity of the theory.

Secondly, the idea of particles popping in and out of existence has never been observed and the idea of quantum fluctuations in empty space goes against the Einstein equations of general relativity.

Thirdly the whole process must violate the law of conservation of energy since we have particles created out of empty space which survive.

So my simple answer to your concern is that hawking radiation does not exist:

Data Black Holes

Richard

Richard Lewis

Thank you for your answer.

Being supposedely very faint Hawking's radiation would be difficult to observe.

The Casimir effect has been observed and to my understanding it is directely related to the popping out of photons from the vacuum ?

You are right conservation of energy is at the core of my questionning, that's a convincing argument.

Preston Guynn

I greatly appreciate the time you spent answering me. Thank you.

If I were to follow you in your almost total rejection of the theory of general relativity, I would also have to ask myself the question: do black holes exist if the theory that builds them is wrong? But there is observational evidence of their existence, isn't there?

I think my difficulty in understanding Hawking's radiation might stem from applying a quantum effect to a relativistic object? The great catastrophe of this century being the incompatibility of these two theories.

With all due respect...No one ever can write anything about something that never been observed, period.

It does not matter who the person is...especially such S. Hawking.

to my understanding, he was not aware of anything, and it did not matter how smart he was...the most thing he did not have knowledgeable around it.

It is the most iridous statement to offer.

most regards

Charles Hirlimann You mention the Casimir effect but there are other explanations for this which do not involve quantum fluctuations in empty space.

Also the Casimir effect takes place between two objects in close proximity so we are not talking about empty space in this example.

Richard

Preston Guynn i agree with many of your points about quantum theory but I do not agree with your rejection of general relativity.

The observations that you assert as differing from the predictions of GR can all be explained by the existence of dark matter.

In the papers I have written on the subject the dark matter particle is a form of bound neutrons.

To understand the formation of dark matter we have to take on board the results coming from JWST that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

The alternative theory proposes that matter forms in a series of galaxy formation events which yield neutrons. Then 85% of these neutrons bond together into a very stable form of dineutron.

Those neutrons that do not pair will decay into protons and electrons and then form hydrogen. Some helium is also formed. This dark matter and hydrogen gas cloud of the mass of the galaxy then can merge with other gas clouds to form spiral Galaxies. During the merger star formation takes place and the dark matter particles provide neutrons for this process.

All this follows the Einstein equations of General Relativity without the cosmological term.

Richard

Preston Guynn On a first look it does seem as if many of the ideas are speculative. However, the ideas all started about 15 years ago based on an analysis of galaxy positions downloaded from the NASA Extragalactic Database.

The analysis presented in the link below shows a galaxy distribution with increasing distance which is not consistent with a process of galaxy formation from a cloud of gas and dust following a big bang.

Presentation Galaxy Distribution

Instead it looks like galaxies formed in a progressive process over an extended period of time.

Richard

Preston Guynn Your referenced article on the precision spectroscopy of atomic hydrogen might benefit from the Spacetime Wave theory approach to the problem referenced here:

Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)

Richard

Preston Guynn In your referenced articles you mentioned a mismatch between the amount of dark matter needed for the galaxy rotation curves and that needed for gravitational lensing.

I think the problem is that the assumption of 2 radii of the visible galaxy is too restrictive. The dark matter halo of the Milky Way galaxy is believed to be out to a radius of more than a million light years.

I think if the dark matter halo size for each galaxy were increased then the rotation curves and the gravitational lensing will be consistent.

I take the view that the laws of physics and the values of the physical constants will be the same everywhere and for all time. This is a feature of the model presented here:

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Richard

Preston Guynn In this image that you provided there was a suggestion to look at an alternative to the FLRW solution. I agree with this approach. But we need to really go back to first principles. For a long time cosmologists have been uncertain as to whether the universe is finite or infinite. If it is finite they are pretty sure that there is no space boundary. For these two cases the cosmological principle can hold which means that the FLRW solution is possible.

For the third possibility the universe is finite with a space boundary. In this case the cosmological principle cannot hold and the FLRW solution cannot be used. What happens if you carry forward this model in which the universe is finite with a space boundary is explained here:

Conference Paper The Explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy

ps. many cosmologists have been unhappy with the idea of a space boundary. They ask "what will happen to matter as it crosses the boundary?" The key to this problem is to understand that the fundamental particles (electron, proton, neutron) are looped waves in spacetime. They would dissipate at the boundary:

Conference Paper THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS (Conference Paper)

Richard

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Preston-Guynn

We are in agreement that the FLRW model does not apply but for different reasons.

We are not in agreement about the validity of General Relativity.

If you reject the Einstein equations of GR then you have to come up with a different explanation for the cause of gravitation.

I take the view that gravity is very well explained by the curvature of spacetime and the Einstein equations are well tested by the observation of the sun, mercury, neutron star mergers, black hole mergers.

Your scepticism of GR seems to be based on a rejection of the observed phenomenon of dark matter. It is observed through its gravitational effect alone but it is not surprising to find a particle which does not react to light. A neutron is that kind of particle. The proposal that the dark matter particle is a form of bonded neutron which is very stable then matches observation completely.

I would be interested to know what you would use instead of GR.

Richard

Richard Lewis

Общая теория относительности нарушает принцип единства материального мира. Вместо нее предложена теория, в которой гравитационное поле наделяется всеми свойствами, присущими другим видам материи: плотностью энергии-импульса, энтропией, температурой. ArXiv: 2111.14612 v2 (gr-qc).

Alexander Sobolev Your post translated: "The general theory of relativity violates the principle of the unity of the material world. Instead, a theory has been proposed in which the gravitational field is endowed with all the properties inherent in other types of matter: energy-momentum density, entropy, temperature. ArXiv: 2111.14612 v2 (gr-qc)."

I don't agree with the conclusion that the general theory of relativity violates the principle of unity of the material world. In my view the Einstein equations are the foundation of all of physics. In my paper on the unification of physics:

Conference Paper THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS (Conference Paper)

you will see that it is possible to derive all of the properties of physics starting only from the assumption of the existence of spacetime. Starting from the observation of distant neutron star mergers it is concluded that gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves are waves in the medium of space travelling at exactly the same speed. From this it is concluded that electrons, protons and neutrons must be looped waves in spacetime. The paper goes on to explain the properties of mass, charge, force and field.

There is also a video presentation in English:

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

Temperature arises due to the energetic motion of particles and entropy is a measure of the randomness of a system. These are both higher level properties which can be derived from the fundamental level.

The Spacetime Wave theory has been applied to the study of the hydrogen bond:

Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)

It is possible to match physical results with a field theory and the standard model of particle physics seeks to explain everything with multiple fields where the equation parameters are taken from observational data. Although this can give an accurate prediction of experimental results it does not relate to the true nature of atoms and fundamental particles.

The Spacetime Wave theory takes the medium of space as the fundamental physical entity and it is this medium which delivers the gravitational force through spacetime curvature and the electromagnetic force through space curvature.

Preprint Space Rest Frame (Dec 2021)

Richard

Particles falling into a black hole have negative energy and thus the black hole loses mass not by emitting particles of positive energy but instead by absorbing negative energy.All this is based on a solid theoretical basis and follows directly from Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Hawking Radiation comes from the material and particles that are absorbed by the Black hole. This is visible as Bremsstrahlung radiation in NASA Chandra Xray observations.