From: bergervo@iae.nl   
      
   On 5/2/2018 6:33 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 4:41:53 PM UTC-4, SEKI wrote:   
   >> Hawking radiation postulates that particles with negative energy   
   >> fall into a black hole.   
      
   It does not postulate anything, it is just a term for a certain   
   kind of radiation, that can be derived using field theory in the   
   curved space around a black hole (you may claim that quantum field   
   theory and the theory of curved space are containing postulates,   
   but if so, the term Hawking radiation cannot be blamed for that).   
      
   >> Einstein's gravitational equation is presented in terms of linear   
   >> expression of energy-momentum tensor.   
   >> So, I suppose that particles with negative energy, if actually   
   >> present,   
      
   They are not present in quantum field theory.   
      
   >> are to be repelled by the black hole.   
      
   So the question is meaningless.   
      
   >> Then, isn't Hawking radiation unrealistic?   
   >   
   > Your question could be answered empirically except for one big problem.   
   > In spite of the fact that the term "Hawking radiation" is bandied about   
   > and hyped endlessly in the media and physics papers, it has never been   
   > observed. Never.   
      
   This situation does not at all mean that the question cannot be   
   answered empirically. The only thing needed is to detect it (for   
   the first time). Since the properties of Hawking radiation are   
   very clear and unambiguous, such a detection would settle the   
   question quite easily. So the problem is merely the present   
   unavailability of a relatively small black hole (in the late   
   stages of evaporation). As soon as we have one, the Hawking   
   radiation question can be answered empirically without a problem!   
      
   --   
   Jos   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)