“Hawking Radiation”: Do Black Holes Really “Evaporate”?

“Hawking Radiation”: Do Black Holes Really “Evaporate”?

Copyleft © 2014, Henry Norman, Independent Researcher. No rights reserved.
In 1975, Stephen Hawking published a much cited paper (#14 on the 2012 “All Time Most Cited”
list) titled Particle Creation by Black Holes, wherein the author claims that:
“... it is shown that quantum mechanical effects cause black holes to create and emit particles as if
they were hot bodies with temperature ћ𝜿/2πk ≈ 10–6 (M⊙/M)°K where 𝜿 is the surface gravity of
the black hole. This thermal emission leads to a slow decrease in the mass of the black hole and to
its eventual disappearance” 1
M⊙ is the mass of our sun, and M the mass of the black hole (M ).lugging in a “stellar black hole”
mass of ≈ 10M⊙, we get a temperature of 100 nK... (0.0000001 K), that is cold! One view of the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle shows a relation between the energy E of a particle (pair) and its
life time t. For virtual particles,2 it states ΔEΔt ≤ h/2π (“h-bar”),3 where h is Planck’s constant. In
theory, this could mean that for extremely short durations — Δt a few Planck times4 — the First
Law of Thermodynamics (energy conservation) may be violated, thus allowing “random fluctua-
tions” to create virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, on the condition that the pair mutually annihilates
before long. In the subatomic “space-time turbulence” called the “quantum foam,” at extremely
short distances — a few Planck lengths — this always goes on (it is said), everywhere ... Including
in and around black holes.
Hawking’s paper is rather technical, but to the best of my understanding, his hypothesis is:
The enormous gravity at the hole’s event horizon (somehow) “boosts” virtual particle-antiparticle
pair creation in the local “quantum foam.” Normally — according to theory — such pairs very
quickly mutually annihilate, but due to the enormous gravitational tug of the hole, one or the other
member of the pair may slip across the horizon — disappear in the deep — leaving the second
member of the pair “escaping to infinity” (thermally radiating away, now as a “real” photon).
I have a few questions regarding all this (some but not all of which may be due to my complete lack
of understanding of quantum theory):
(1) Thermal emission (electromagnetic radiation) is usually produced by atomic charge accelera-
tion and/or dipole oscillations due to interatomic perturbations, resulting in atomic kinetic energy
changes. This does not appear to happen in the black hole case. Hawking’s paper does not explain
what turns the “escaping” real particle/antiparticle into thermal EM emission.
(2) The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat always flows from hotter to colder areas.
The “temperature of empty space” is ≈ 2.73 K (the CMB temperature), the Hawking temperature of
a ≈ 10M⊙ stellar black hole is ≈ 100 nK (seven orders of magnitude lower than the CMB tempera-
ture (see above)), so this radiation would appear to violate the second law. Surely, a black hole ab-
sorbs far more CMB than the heat it might radiate using Hawking’s hypothetical “evaporation”
pathway (Hawking admits this in his paper: ”… black holes [size ≥ 1 M⨀] would be absorbing ra-
diation faster than they emitted it and would be increasing in mass.” (page 201), and goes on,
speculating that “there might also be much smaller black holes which were formed by density fluc-
tuations in the early universe. These small black holes, being at a higher temperature, would radi-
ate more than they absorbed. They would therefore presumably decrease in mass.”) (highlight added)

1
I don’t understand the ћ𝜿/2πk reference, and it is not explained in Hawking’s paper (for details, see Tables) If inter-
preted as h-bar*surface gravity acceleration/2π*Boltzmann’s constant, the two formulas are not “roughly equivalent.”
2
For real particles, the Heisenberg relation is ΔEΔt ≥ h/2π.
3
In physics, h/2π — the reduced Planck constant (a.k.a. Dirac’s constant) — is called “h-bar” (symbol ћ).
4
Light, in a vacuum, travels one Planck length (1 lP ≅ 16.3×10−36 m) in one Planck time (1 tP ≅ 5.4×10−44 s).

1
 “Hawking Radiation”: Do Black Holes Really “Evaporate”?

(3) Negative energy is an idea generally considered speculative today, 38 years after Hawking’s
paper was published. 5 But even if we allow the existence of negative mass (and assume that the
process deciding which member of the pair that gets “captured” has no preference for antimatter
over matter): Which physical process would make a black hole lose mass by absorbing a virtual
particle pair member? With a 50/50 virtual +/– mass contribution the net gain/loss ought to be zero.
As I understand what Hawking’s reasoning boils down to, I see three distinct cases:6

 Inside: No loss/gain
 Outside: No loss/gain
+ Virtual particle-antiparticle pairs,
– appear and annihilate within Δt

 Outside: Net gain

Black Hole

+ – “Ergosphere”

– 
+ + –


Event Horizon

Black hole virtual particle creation. Case  also has a mirror version (Image: H Norman)

 Creation/annihilation inside the event horizon — Wholly “unknowable” process, but since it
took place internally, M ought to be unchanged.
 Creation/annihilation outside the event horizon. Since nothing was captured by the hole, M
ought to be unchanged.
 Creation outside the event horizon: one member of the pair escapes to infinity, the other is
dragged across the event horizon and disappears down the hole: M ought to increase.
Only in case  would a net change in M result, but since the origin of the captured mass was the
“quantum foam” outside the black hole proper, I fail to see how M could decrease as a result. This
would imply that the captured “new” and now real particle has negative mass, and in currently
known physics, particles and antiparticles have opposite charge, but both have positive mass.
In his 2003 paper “Do Black Holes Radiate?“ Adam D. Helfer presents an excellent discussion of
some of the problems with Hawkins’ famous paper, concluding that “no compelling theoretical
case for or against radiation by black holes is likely to be made.” Still, this never observed radia-
tion is routinely presented as an established fact in many different scientific texts (search on
“Hawking Radiation,” and you’ll get the picture).7 Go figure!

5
“… every modern physicist suspects that antimatter has positive mass and should be affected by gravity just like nor-
mal matter, although it is thought that this view has not yet been conclusively empirically observed.” (Wikipedia)
6
Logically, there is a fourth case (unlikely to be physically possible): A pair popping inside the event horizon, both
members escaping before annihilating. Whether such a pair later annihilates or not, this would probably lead to a loss of
holey mass, but the gravitational grip of the hole is presumably strong enough to prevent this from ever happening.
7
To date there is no evidence — of any kind — supporting Hawking’s “small primordial black holes” conjecture.

2
 Tables (Black Hole Properties, Physical Constants) and Associated Notes

Tables (Black Hole Properties, Physical Constants) and Associated Notes

Table 1 was built using Microsoft Excel, for a “Black Hole” with a mass of seven solar masses. For
the complete Excel formulas used in the computations, please refer to the Excel worksheet Black
Hole Properties.xlsx (only one parameter to enter: the Black Hole mass, in solar masses):
Table 1: Black Hole (Mass = 7 Mʘ) Properties Notes
Property Value Symbol Unit Enter black hole mass as
multiples of solar mass
Solar Mass 1.989×1030 M⨀ kg (in Excel worksheet cell
1
Black Hole Mass (in M⨀) 7 M M⨀ C5 (shaded green))
In all calculations below, M = M˜ Expression Used
Mass 1.3924×1031 M kg 7M⨀
Schwarzschild Radius 2.0679×104 rH m 2GM/c2 2
4πrH2 3
M ×16π(G2/c4)
2 4
Surface Area 5.3734×109 A m2
4π(2GM/c2)2 5
16π(GM/c2)2 6
GM/rH2
Surface Gravity 2.1732×1012 m s–2 7
к c4/4GM
Acceleration
1.7955×10-32 ? (к in natural units) 7a
Escape Speed 2.9979×108 ve m·s–1 (2GM/rH)0.5 8
7.1820×10–5 1026M–1 10
8.5839×10–7 1/16π2c3h/(GMkB) 11
1.4286×10–7 (M⨀/M)×10–6 11 a
(GMћ)/(rH2kBc) 12
5.5369×10–8
(c3ћ)/(4kBGM) 13
ћc3/(8πGMkB) 14
8.8122×10–9
ћк/(2πckB) 15
Temperature TBH
8.5714×10–9 6×10-8/M 16
1.8230×10–21 K 1/M(ћc3/(8πG)) 17
3.6474×10–23 ћк/(2π) 18
5.7153×10–33 1/(4π)/M 18 a
1/(8πM) 19
2.8576×10–33
к/2π [ 1/(4M/(2π)) ] 19 a
2.9698×10–34 (ћ/(4π2*kB*c))/к 20
TBH·kB 22
1.2167×10–31
Hawking Temperature TH ћc/(4πrH) 23
3.0136×10–67 ћ/(8πM) 21
Radiation Energy PH ћc /(15360πG2M2)
6 24
1.8374×10–30 W
Outflow (Luminosity) (LH) 1/M2·(ћc6/(15360πG 25
2))
2.4592×1036 (c3kB)/(4Gћ)A 29
A/(4ћ) 26
1.2738×1043
πrH2/ћ 30
4.7387×1045 (kBc3/(4ћ))A 28
1.9087×1053 A/(4ћG) 31
kBA/(4ℓP2) 32
AkBc3/(4Gћ) 33
7.1004×1055 J K–1 4πGkBM2/(ћc) 34
“Entropy” (?) SBH (Dimension-
less?) 1/4A×kBc3/Gћ 34 a
(πAkBc3)/(2hG) 34 b
4.4613×1056 kB(c3/4Gћ)·A(Gh/c3 35
9.7449×1063 ℓP2) 2
16πM 36
3.1907×1072 M2×2π(kBcG/ћ) 36 a
2.2335×1078 M2(4πG/(ћc ln 10)) 37
A/(4ℓP2) 27
5.1428×1078
c3A/(4Gћ) 38

3
 Tables (Black Hole Properties, Physical Constants) and Associated Notes

Property Value Symbol Unit Expression

Lifetime 6.8600×1069 2×1067(M/M⨀)3 39
tev Years
(“Hawking Evaporation”) 7.1940×1069 5120πG2M3/(ћc4) 39 a
Classical Volume (within r H) 5.5557×1013 VC (4/3)πrH3 40
m3
Relativistic Volume (?) 3.6572×1095 VR A × tev × c 41
Average Density (using VC) 2.5062×1017 M/VC
ρH Kg m–3 42
Average Density (using VR) 3.8072×10-65 M/VR

Table 2: Physical Constant Values Used For Table 1

Value Source
Constant Value Symbol Unit
Lightspeed in vacuum 299 792 458 c m s–1 Defined
–11 3 -1 –2
Universal Gravity Constant 6.6738×10 G m kg s
Boltzmann Constant 1.3806×10–23 kB J K–1 CODATA 2014
Planck Constant 6.6261×10–34 h
Js
Planck Constant Reduced 1.0546×10–34 ћ h/2π
–35
Planck Length 1.6162×10 ℓP m (ћG/c3)0.5

Table 1 Notes and Observations

(1) Solar mass value (9.14×10 37 m P (Planck mass units)), Wikipedia (Sun).
(2) Scholarpedia (Bekenstein-Hawking entropy), Eq. (1).
(3) Standard Euclidean sphere surface area formula.
(4) Scholarpedia (Bekenstein-Hawking entropy), Eq. (2).8
(5) “The Volume Inside a Black Hole“ (arXiv).
(6) Scholarpedia (Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy).
(7) Wikipedia (Hawking Radiation), event horizon surface gravity.
(7a) Surface gravity value к, using natural units (G = c = ћ = kB = 1).
(8) ve = c no matter what M value is used. Of course.
(10) Hawking’s 1975 paper, his second temperature guess (the factor 1026 is nowhere explained).
(11) Leonard Susskind, The Black Hole War (page 173). For a 5Mʘ black hole, Susskind ar-
rives at a temperature of 10 –8 K (not using exact constant values).
Interestingly, Susskind includes (page 160) a picture of Dennis Sciama’s black board, with
yet another equation: T = hc3/(16π2GMkB), which does yield the ~ 10–8 K value (this is just
a restating of the terms used in the second expression in the note below — using h rather
than ħ — so I did not include it in Table 1)
Note: Susskind also says (page 174) that a “moon mass” black hole would have a tempera-
ture of ~ 1 K. However, using his cited formula — (1/16π2)c3h/(GMk B) — such a black hole
would be a blazing hot 162.7 K. (Using Hawking’s ћк/(2πckB) or ћc3/(8πGMkB), a moon
mass black hole TB ≈ 1.67 K, one degree below the CMB temperature).

8
Roger Penrose (in “The Emperor’s New Mind” (1989), page 340) suggests the very similar A = M28π(G2/c2), but
this appears to be a mistake, as it yields A = 2.41×1026 (17 orders of magnitude too large).

4
 Tables (Black Hole Properties, Physical Constants) and Associated Notes

(11a) Hawking’s 1975 paper, said to “approximate” (19a) — Not really... Note: K.Y.M. Wong
(23) suggests 10–7 rather than 10–6.
(12) Bernard H. Lavenda, Cosmic Illusions, (2013), Eq. (20).
(13) Bernard H. Lavenda, Cosmic Illusions (2013), Eq. (22).
(14) Wikipedia (Hawking Radiation), Planck spectrum temperature. Multipliy by kB (yet again)
to get TH. (This is lauded (in this presentation (2005)) as “One of the most beautiful and
profound formulas in physics in the last fifty years”). See also (16).
John Preskill, in his web published essay “Black Hole” (1993), suggests ћc3/(8πGM),
which is identical if multipled with kB. See also (27).
(15) Frolov & Novikov, Black Hole Physics: Basic Concepts and New Developments; Eq.
(10.1.8). See also (16).
(16) David M. Harrison, University of Toronto, Department of Physics, Black Hole Thermody-
namics. (I find it amusing that Harrison’s very simple formula (6×10-8/M) yields a TBH value
only ~ 2.73% less than the result of the convoluted formulas used in (14) and (15)), a value
that also just happens to coincide with the CMBR “temperature,” ~ 2.73 K.)
(17) Jim Wisniewski, Hawking Radiation Calculator, very close to 0 K.
(18) Gary Horowitz, Black Holes, Entropy, and Information.
(18a) Roger Penrose, Cycles of Time (2010), p 178: TB H = K/M, where K = 1/4π.
(19) Tamara Davis et al, “Black hole vs cosmological horizon entropy,” Eq. (1).
(19a) Hawking’s 1975 paper (к/2π, with к calculated in natural units (see (7a)).
(20) Jakob Bekenstein, Do We Understand Black Hole Entropy?: For reference, see Beken-
stein’s Eq. (1), and his discussion following Eq. (29)).
(21) Jakob Bekenstein, Do We Understand Black Hole Entropy?
(22) Only the TBH values from (14) and (15) produces the same TH value.
(23) K.Y. Michael Wong, Perspectives on the Origin of the Universe (June 2006). The CMBR
temperature (2.73 K) is 10 31 times hotter than this TH — the hole ought to absorb more than
it radiates. (Is radiation even possible? For “heat” to go from cold to hot (energy concen-
tration rather than dispersion) appears to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.)
(24) Wikipedia (Hawking Radiation), Stefan-Boltzmann-Schwarzschild-Hawking “radiation
power law” (what determines the factor 15,360?).
(25) Hawking Radiation Calculator, equivalent to SBSH power law (24).
(26) Jakob Bekenstein, Do We Understand Black Hole Entropy?, Eq. (1). Multiply by 10 6 to
get the value for πr H2/ћ (Equivalent to (30)).
(27) Scholarpedia (Bekenstein-Hawking entropy), Eq. (1,1) (Equivalent to (38)). See also
“Aspects of quantum gravity: quantum space-time and black hole thermodynamics” by
Michele Arzano.
John Preskill, in his web published essay “Black Hole” (1993), suggests S/kB = 0.25A/ℓP2,
which is identical (multiplying by k B yields the SBH in (32) to (34b)). See also (14).
(28) V. Pancovic et al, Bohr’s Semiclassical Model of the Black Hole Thermodynamics. Here
G has been thrown in as an extra term.

5
 Tables (Black Hole Properties, Physical Constants) and Associated Notes

(29) Entropy (www.scholarpedia.org).

(30) Jakob Bekenstein, Do We Understand Black Hole Entropy? Entanglement entropy Eq.
(14). (Equivalent to (26))
(31) Gary Horowitz, Black Holes, Entropy, and Information
(32) Wikipedia (Black Hole Thermodynamics), the Bekenstein–Hawking formula. This is the
same formula as seen in (27), multiplied by k B (according to Bekenstein, this yields “ther-
modynamic entropy”(?)).
(33) Wikipedia (Planck Units, Table 4). Also in The Road To Reality, 27.10 Black hole entropy
(Roger Penrose (2005))
(34) David M. Harrison, University of Toronto, Department of Physics, Black Hole Thermody-
namics.
(34a) Roger Penrose (2005), The Road To Reality (31.15 Strings and black hole entropy).
(34b) Chris Stoughton, Cosmology Presentation, slide #60.
(35) Porcelli & Scibona, On BH’s thermodynamics and the entropic origin of gravity, (2012).
(36) Tamara Davis et al, Black hole vs. cosmological horizon entropy, Eq. (2).
(36a) Roger Penrose (1989), The Emperor’s New Mind (page 341)
(37) Jim Wisniewski, “Hawking Radiation Calculator.“
(38) Scholarpedia (Bekenstein-Hawking entropy), Eq. (1,2). (Equivalent to (27))
(39) Roger Penrose, Cycles of Time (2010), p 179 (no explanation for the factor 1067 is given).
(39a) Wikipedia, Hawking Radiation.
(40) Computed out of curiosity only: The formula used does not take relativistic effects into ac-
count (See (41)).
(41) The “relativistic” volume of a black hole is A×tev ×c (tev in seconds: c converts s(econds) to
m(eter)). As a black hole “lifetime” is extremely long, the “relativistic volume” becomes
enormous. (From imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov)
(42) See (36). Is it not possible that density increases as a function of decreased distance to the
center of gravity, but never reaching infinity? (distance always > 0, no “singularity at the
center”: calculating m/v, when v = 0 we get a “division by zero” — a common error). As for
the “relativistic” density... Orders of magnitude less than the “average Universe mass densi-
ty” of 9.9×10–30 g cm–3 (said to be ~ 5 protons per m3), calculated by WMAP. Can a result
indicating a black hole density lower than the “average Universe density” really be
considered reasonable?

About the black hole surface area formulas (notes 3-6): Since Euclid’s ancient sphere surface
formula 4πr2 yields the exact same value as the rather more convoluted M2((16πG2)/c4),
4π(2GM/c2)2, and 16π(GM/c2)2. This may be a silly question, but why isn’t Euclid’s much simpler
equation used in “black hole literature”? Shouldn’t Occam’s Razor be applied to shave unnecessary
complexity off formulas and equations, as well as in hypotheses/theories?

6
 Excerpt from Leonard Susskind’s book The Black Hole War (2008)

Excerpt from Leonard Susskind’s book The Black Hole War (page 188), where
the author describes what will eventually happen to “information” that happens to
fall into a “black hole,” which will subsequently (according to a 1975 Stephen
Hawking hypothesis) ever so slowly “evaporate” away into pure radiation... (Suss-
kind’s text shaded):

a b c d
Illustration adapted from Susskind’s original (H. Norman)

Imagine drops of ink falling into a tub of water, carrying a message — drip, drip,
drop, space, drop, drip.9 (a)
Soon the sharply defined drops begin to dissolve, the message gets harder to read,
and the water becomes cloudy. (b)
After a few hours, all that’s left is a uniform tub of slightly gray water. (c)
Although from a practical point of view, the message is hopelessly scrambled, the
principles of Quantum Mechanics ensure that it is still there among the huge num-
ber of chaotically moving molecules. But soon the fluid begins to evaporate from
the tub. Molecule after molecule escapes into empty space <sic!> — ink as well as
water — eventually leaving the tub dry and empty. The information is gone, but has
it been destroyed? Though scrambled far beyond recovery by any practical scheme,
not a bit of information has been erased. It’s obvious what has happened to it: it’s
been carried off in the evaporation products, the vaporous molecular cloud escaping
into space. (d) (highlight added)
With all respect due Dr. Susskind, not one bit of this parable is true: QM notwith-
standing — and never mind ink residue — the “information” is utterly and irrecov-
erably gone. As in obliterated (better still, in QM lingo, annihilated). Forever.
Since the “bits” of the message are analog (drip, drop corresponding to the bits 0, 1
(short, long)), this happens as soon as the drops merge with the water. The message
is not by some quantum magic “encoded” in any form, other than the individual
driplet & droplet sizes, and that information is not somehow conserved.
I find it difficult to see what this eminent physicist is trying to tell us here.

9
Susskind’s message appears to be “droop drip drip drip; drip drip droop; drip droop drip drip; drip droop drip
drip; drip drip drip; drip drip drip drip; drip drip; droop”…