Physicists may have observed Hawking radiation for the first time

Sep 28, 2010 by Lisa Zyga report
In the experimental set-up, a laser beam strikes a sample of fused silica glass (FS). An imaging lens (I) collects the photons emitted at 90 degrees and sends them to a spectrometer and CCD camera. Image credit: F. Belgiorno, et al.

(PhysOrg.com) -- In 1974, Stephen Hawking predicted that black holes emit thermal radiation due to quantum effects, which causes the black holes to lose mass and perhaps ultimately vanish. But despite numerous attempts to observe Hawking radiation, astronomers have so far detected no sign of it. Now, however, a team of scientists from Italy claims to have observed something that looks very much like Hawking radiation from an event hole horizon they created in the lab.

Franco Belgiorno at the University of Milan and his coauthors will publish their study in a future issue of Physical Review Letters, and the paper is currently available on arXiv.org.

As the physicists explain in their study, the essential ingredient of Hawking radiation is not the black hole itself but rather the space-time curvature associated with the black hole's event horizon. The event horizon acts as a boundary beyond which light cannot escape. So particle pairs excited from the vacuum that form close to the black hole horizon are split so that the inner photon falls in and the outer photon escapes, gaining energy at the expense of the black hole.

Event horizons are not unique to ; they can be exhibited in a variety of physical systems, from flowing water to a moving “ perturbation” (RIP) in a dielectric medium (in which light can change the medium's refractive index). It's this latter system that Belgiorno and his colleagues used in their experiment.

To create the Hawking radiation, the scientists fired ultrashort (1-picosecond) at transparent glass, which excited an RIP that exhibited an event horizon. Using a CCD camera, the researchers detected a peculiar kind of photon emission at a 90-degree angle to the glass. As the researchers explained, they arranged the experiment in a way to strongly suppress or eliminate other types of radiation, such as Cerenkov-like radiation, four wave mixing, self-phase modulation, Rayleigh scattering, and fluorescence.

“[W]e report experimental evidence of photon emission that on one hand bears the characteristics of Hawking radiation and on the other is distinguishable and thus separate from other known photon emission mechanisms,” the physicists wrote in their study. “We therefore interpret the observed photon emission as an indication of Hawking radiation induced by the analogue event horizon.”

Interestingly, the physicists note that there are actually two event horizons associated with the RIP. Besides the black hole horizon, there is also the black hole horizon's inverse called a white hole horizon. As the laser light approaches the RIP, the light experiences an increase in the local refractive index, causing it to slow down. Under appropriate conditions, the light can be brought to a standstill in the reference frame comoving with the RIP, which forms a boundary beyond which light is unable to penetrate: the white hole . In the case of the RIP, the leading edge is the analogue of the black hole horizon and the trailing edge is the analogue of the white hole horizon.

With these observations, the physicists have shown that it's possible to investigate the physics of black hole evaporation in other, more accessible systems. If future experiments confirm that this is Hawking radiation, the results could have implications on everything from the fate of black holes to how the universe may end.

Explore further: The unifying framework of symmetry reveals properties of a broad range of physical systems

More information: F. Belgiorno, et al. "Hawking radiation from ultrashort laser pulse filaments." Physical Review Letters. To be published. Available at arXiv:1009.4634v1.
via: The Physics ArXiv Blog

Related Stories

Researchers propose new way to reproduce a black hole

Aug 21, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Despite their popularity in the science fiction genre, there is much to be learned about black holes, the mysterious regions in space once thought to be absent of light. In a paper published in the August ...

The Edge of a Black Hole

Aug 18, 2009

The existence of black holes is one of the most amazing and bizarre predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity. Despite his original misgivings about their reality, massive black hole holes are today believed ...

Astronomers shed surprising light on our galaxy's black hole

Jan 10, 2006

In the most comprehensive study of Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the enigmatic supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, astronomers -- using nine ground and space-based telescopes including the Hubble Space ...

What are 'mini' black holes?

Mar 29, 2010

In films and books black holes capture unwary spaceships and planets, gobble up whole galaxies or offer portals to other parts of the Universe.

Recommended for you

What time is it in the universe?

Aug 29, 2014

Flavor Flav knows what time it is. At least he does for Flavor Flav. Even with all his moving and accelerating, with the planet, the solar system, getting on planes, taking elevators, and perhaps even some ...

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

Aug 28, 2014

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

Inter-dependent networks stress test

Aug 28, 2014

Energy production systems are good examples of complex systems. Their infrastructure equipment requires ancillary sub-systems structured like a network—including water for cooling, transport to supply fuel, and ICT systems ...

Explainer: How does our sun shine?

Aug 28, 2014

What makes our sun shine has been a mystery for most of human history. Given our sun is a star and stars are suns, explaining the source of the sun's energy would help us understand why stars shine. ...

User comments : 43

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Husky
1.5 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2010
maybe Hawking radiation meachanism not only evaporate black holes, but could be the driving force for dark energy, evaporate/expand the universe as well, consider that CP violation mean virtual particles of and antiomatter virtual particle counterpart, might have slightly different spacetime curvatures, and consider the planck scale as our event horizon, then upon annihilation, the spacetime curvature does not return to baseline, but could be skewed more to either negative of positive! Since the universe is expanding (uncurling, uncurving if you like) at an accellerated rate i would theorize that antimatter is slightly stronger curved. The energyflah of the small annihilation dillutes itselve in the Dirac sea of virtual particles in the piece of newly unfolded spacetimke, and there it will adds increase the zeropoint energy, accellerating the frequency of particle/antiparticle creation ---> ultimately leading to uncurling of spacetime at an accellerated rate.
Husky
1.5 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2010
the difference in curvature, or surface tension if you like of the small matter/antimatter bubbles as they interact, could well be the engine for driving entropy and hence time forward, to the lowest energystate, but to do so, spacetime must expand do preserve the second law of thermodynamics to maintain the total energystate of the system as a whole, timedilation and SR effects in gravity fields or accellerated objects could be explained as stronger curving of local spacetime, restricting the available energymodes, room if you like, for particle/antiparticle creation, slowing further uncurling not only of this spacetime but all objects inside it
genastropsychicallst
1 / 5 (11) Sep 28, 2010
... pi 1 cloud image proton annulus 2 C periodic rgb perma - pi ...
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2010
I don't think this is going to be seen as analogus to a BH event horizon. This experiment appears to be more akin to a dark matter blob than a singularity of energy. I'd await correlation from other teams or proper definition of the experiment before I jump in on either front.
Donutz
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2010
... pi 1 cloud image proton annulus 2 C periodic rgb perma - pi ...


... green banana umbrella coolea happy happy turn...
VK1
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 28, 2010
This is not hawking radiation, hawking radiation is the unpairing of virtual particles, this is escaping electromagnetic radiation ( photons ) from an overly infused system. The fact that different wavelengths are found in the radiation to the ones going in has to do with acceleration ( both negative and positive ) of energy by way of mass ( atomic singularities ) AND NOT with the fact that the resultant radiations origins are from fluctuations (+1,-1) and unpairing of these in the neutral Higgs field (0). 

Energy inherits frequency with approach to mass, the closer to the event the more frequent the occurrence.
VK1
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 28, 2010
Electrons ( half spin ) plus positrons ( half spin ) constitute a full electromagnetic wavelength ( full spin ). Light has a full electromagnetic wavelength. Light is quantized to photons.

Photons do not have antiparticles, virtual photon particle pairs do not exist. We can take a photon ( 1 ) and from it derive a particle pair ( +1/2,-1/2 ) but photons do not virtually spark into existence as their annihilation would never take place. Photons do not have antiparticles.

This experiment is flawed. 

V
VK1
1 / 5 (13) Sep 28, 2010
V
michaelick
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2010
Wow, this experiment has already been included in wikipedia. I recommend the article for all of you who haven been asking.

http://en.wikiped...adiation

"Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems this effect is too small to be observed directly. However, a recent experiemental set-up created a laboratory "white hole event horizon" that the experimenters claimed was shown to radiate Hawking radiation. Some scientists predict that Hawking radiation could be studied by analogy using sonic black holes, in which sound perturbations are analogous to light in a gravitational black hole and the flow of an approximately perfect fluid is analogous to gravity."
dirk_bruere
not rated yet Sep 28, 2010
All it shows is that the same mathematics governs different processes.
Hesperos
1.6 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2010
Photons don't have antiparticles and analogous to gravity ain't gravity. Other than that the experimenters observed Hawking Radiation for sure.
chandram
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2010
Hawking radiation is a product of his mind that speculates something called his radiation. mathematics is many a times to abstract to depict the physical reality. In fact we as scientists are reflecting our own mind. What you think, it becomes so. Thus consciousness becomes the source of what we call scientific reality. The entire creation of the universe(s) is a product of expanding human mind.
TDK
1 / 5 (16) Sep 28, 2010
Related is the stuff Bill Unruh has done recently on mimicking the effects of Hawking radiation in water waves.

http://www.perime...604f.pdf

It's logical, because vacuum is behaving analogously to water surface in most of situations. After all, this is why dense aether theory was introduced. It's funny to observe, how laymans are fighting against water surface models here - whereas mainstream scientists are using them routinely.
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2010
@VK1
This is not hawking radiation, hawking radiation is the unpairing of virtual particles, this is escaping electromagnetic radiation ( photons )

Hawking radiation is primarily thermal radiation that emulates a perfect black body energy spectrum:
“Hawking radiation (also known as Bekenstein-Hawking radiation) is a thermal radiation with a black body spectrum”
http://en.wikiped...adiation
However if the temperature of the black hole becomes high enough (i.e. if the black hole is much smaller than the Moon…such as a primordial black hole), pair production of particles with rest mass begins:
“If the Hawking temperature exceeds the rest mass energy of a particle type, then the black hole radiates particles and antiparticles of that type, in addition to photons”
http://casa.color...awk.html

The particle (photon, positron, etc) that crosses the event horizon is treated as a particle with negative energy, thereby reducing the mass of the black hole.
MaxwellsDemon
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2010
@VK1
Photons do not have antiparticles, virtual photon particle pairs do not exist. We can take a photon ( 1 ) and from it derive a particle pair ( +1/2,-1/2 ) but photons do not virtually spark into existence as their annihilation would never take place. Photons do not have antiparticles.


That's incorrect - vacuum fluctuations are predominantly virtual photon pairs that constantly annihilate because photons are their own antiparticle:
"Some particles are their own antiparticles, the antiparticle of a photon is a photon for instance."
http://www2.slac....ary.html

It's the acceleration field of the black hole that rends these virtual photon pairs apart before they annihilate, which is the underlying mechanism behind Hawking radiation.
VK1
1.2 / 5 (15) Sep 28, 2010
@MaxwellsDemon
Photon-photon virtual pairs have a fundamental flaw. Virtual particles come into existence as opposites on the electromagnetic spectrum, while it is true, photons have a collective net charge of zero, they're neutral, they are not true opposites as, after all, they are one and the same.

The Higgs field is a neutral field, light traversing this field is massless, it is equally above ( in the positive ) and below ( in the negative ) the neutral mass threshold.

A particle such as an electron lays in the negative part of the Higgs field, it has mass. A positron lays in the positive portion of the field. When a positron and an electron meet they are together massless yet energetic, they are an electron and a positron no more, they revert to pure massless energy, a photon. When a particle and antiparticle meet the result is a photon.
VK1
1 / 5 (14) Sep 28, 2010
Virtual particle pairs are somewhat like a light wave around the neutral Higgs field, the difference being in the way they exhibit themselves. Light waves move in the negative, then positive, then negative, then positive, etc. Wave motion. Particle antiparticle virtual pairs move SIMULTANEOUSLY in the negative and positive spectrum. This is the fundamental difference.

Particle antiparticle pairs are opposites, a vibration of the Higgs field, they spark into existence and then disappear ( massively ) leaving massless radiation, light.
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2010
@VK1
Photon-photon virtual pairs have a fundamental flaw. Virtual particles come into existence as opposites on the electromagnetic spectrum

?? This isn’t making any sense to me at all. What “opposites on the electromagnetic spectrum?” Do you mean “opposite charges?”
while it is true, photons have a collective net charge of zero, they're neutral, they are not true opposites as, after all, they are one and the same.

Some would say that opposite chirality and impulse are sufficient to define a particle/antiparticle pair (a photon/antiphoton pair, for example)…
A particle such as an electron lays in the negative part of the Higgs field, it has mass. A positron lays in the positive portion of the field.

Do you have sources? I’d like to see them now please. Electrons and positrons both have demonstrably positive and equal masses, yet you seem to be equating electrical polarity with positive and negative mass.
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2010
water waves
...
It's logical, because
vacuum is behaving
...
water surface
...
dense aether theory
...
laymans
...
water surface models
...
mainstream scientists
No, Zephyr, analogies may be interesting, but they don't replace a sound theory.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2010
Wow, this experiment has already been included in wikipedia. I recommend the article for all of you who haven been asking.
Very impressive application of inflation of meaning. Take an experiment the results of which are of interest to a group of apecialists only and make the general population be impressed by using a selected choice of popular buzz words.
VK1
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 29, 2010
@MaxwellsDemon
1. Yes. Em is 1/4 known forces, it has to do with charge.
2. Some would say if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
3. No mention of negative mass anywhere. The Higgs field gives the negatively charged electrons their mass and also gives the positively charged positrons their mass. The two are gravitationally attracted as well as electromagnetically attracted. This is why they annihilate in a flash of light ( photon ). Photons do not self annihilate as they are not attracted gravitationally or electromagnetically ( zero net charge and zero mass ). They do not self annihilate which is half the definition of virtual particles therefore they are not their own antiparticles.
VK1
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2010
@MaxwellsDemon
I think I know what has got you lost. Light being massless as a result of being equally in the positive and negative end of the Higgs Field ( space-time ).

This is not due to a net mass of zero ( as in +1 g and -1 g ), light is massless due to a net charge of zero ( as in +1 ev and -1 ev ). Why you ask? This is because we have a directional translayance through space, if the light had a net charge of anything but zero light would be massive. With each electronvolt of charge we venture further directionally into the Higgs field, the further we are in the field whether negatively/positively charged the more mass we have. The more energy the more mass. Simple, right? Light is neither negative nor positive in charge therefore zero mass. Electrons and positrons have a charge therefore they have mass. I hope this helps you. 
hiyok
3 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2010
... Thus consciousness becomes the source of what we call scientific reality. The entire creation of the universe(s) is a product of expanding human mind.

This is not true. Because science, as a creation of minds, cannot replace the objects it reflects on. Not only scientists, but also every human look at things in their own way. Despite various reflections upon it, the reality is one. Reflections, however many and ingenious they are, can by no means be called reality. Science is reflections of this kind that are scrutinized by reasoning.
MaxwellsDemon
4.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2010
@VK1
I think I know what has got you lost.

I 'm doing just fine, thanks ;D
Light being massless as a result of being equally in the positive and negative end of the Higgs Field ( space-time ).

Light is massless because it doesn't couple with the Higgs field, and there isn't a "positive and negative end" to the Higgs field (which isn’t spacetime).

I think you mean "dense aether" but you're saying "Higgs field."

That's not just misleading, it's unethical and immoral. You’re deliberately misleading people who come here to understand real science.
This is not due to a net mass of zero ( as in +1 g and -1 g ), light is massless due to a net charge of zero ( as in +1 ev and -1 ev ).

Ridiculous - if mass required charge to exist, there'd be no massive neutral particles, but there are plenty: neutrons, pions, kaons, neutrinos, Z bosons, etc. etc.
With each electronvolt of charge

The eV is a unit of energy; the coulomb is a unit of charge. Oh brother...
VK1
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 29, 2010
@MaxwellsDemon
Space-time is the fabric that makes up the known universe, Higgs field is the field that makes up the known universe, aether is the substance which makes up the known universe. As far as I'm aware we know of only one universe, call it what you will reality does not change.

Light energy is massless, however, it changes form into an electron and a positron ( both of which are massive ), because of a split in neutral charge we are left with two particles of opposite charge one negative ( electron ) one positive ( positron ). Both particles inherit mass due to their energy ( which is the potential of their charge ), mass and energy are interchangeable, which is apparent when they meet and annihilate in a flash of pure energy ( of neutral charge ), light.

Neutrons are comprised of 3 quarks 1 up ( charge of +2/3 ) 2 down ( charge of -1/3 ) equating to a net charge of zero, the neutron is collectively a neutral particle.
CTD1
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 30, 2010
Hawking radiation is a third quantum phenomena, which was officially modelled with water surface waves:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1911
http://prl.aps.or.../e240401
http://prl.aps.or.../e154101

Can it serve as a sufficient argument for relevance of dense aether concept? Ot it's still just an coincidence?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.4 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2010
This is not hawking radiation, hawking radiation is the unpairing of virtual particles, this is escaping electromagnetic radiation ( photons ) from an overly infused system.

Photons are virtual particles. Hawking Radiation is thermal, which would be electromagnetic in nature. You're rather incorrect.
Can it serve as a sufficient argument for relevance of dense aether concept? Ot it's still just an coincidence?
Added to the list.
VK1
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 30, 2010
@Skeptic Heretic
High energy photons are the results of particle antiparticle collision. Mass is eradicated and pure energy remains ( massless radiation, light ). Hawking radiation is the division of neutral space, like at the big bang, out of nothing we derive two opposites, these are destined to merge and annihilate, however, with a high energy system annihilation can sometimes be averted, instead of meeting and massively disappearing the two masses remain, one leaves the system in the form of massive radiation at the expense of the other which joins the massive system we label a blackhole. This is the birth of particles. The virtual electron positron pair becomes real due to loss of virtuality, with no positron for the electron to remerge with the electron remains real, or viceversa. A photon does not annihilate with a photon, they are real, they're not a virtual particle pair.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2010
I understand the construct of Hawking radiation. You're arguing the wrong points and you're incorrect as to the mechanism by which it works.
You have the majority of it right, however, an anti particle annihilation wouldn't remove energy from the blackhole. It would simply convert the mass to energy which would remain trapped in the blackhole, or would return to the space time fabric.

The energy is "stolen" from the black hole through the kinetic energy that tosses the, no longer virtual, particle out into space. The electromagnetic energy is thereby stolen from the blackhole by the escaping particle.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2010
Secondly, let's say the anti particle isn't the part of the pair that falls in. Well now you're not destroying anything. Probability would show that through particle anti-particle pairing, the black hole wouldn't ever decrease in size as it would consume and equal amount of particles and antiparticles over time. That is why the kinetic energy is important. And that is how you have it wrong.
VK1
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 30, 2010
Blackholes shrink as they fill with energy. A hole in the ground being filled with dirt shrinks. This process does not produce radiation or mass, infact, it is just the opposite, this is the loss of radiation and the loss of mass. Blackholes do not radiate, the space in the vicinity of the blackhole appears to radiate as fluctuations of the spacial fabric produce virtual particle pairs that are torn apart with one particle being flung into space while the other falls into the blackhole. Blackholes do not radiate, if they did they would not be blackholes. The loss of mass is accredited to an influx of energy, when the amount of energy in the blackhole equals the space present the blackhole is no more.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2010
Blackholes shrink as they fill with energy.
Wrong. E=mc^2.

Matter and energy are one in the same. Focused energy in a single point = matter, with mass, which means black holes don't "fill in".
VK1
1.2 / 5 (13) Sep 30, 2010
Both the negative and positive charges are energetic and cause the blackholes evaporation, even light which is neutraly charged is energetic and causes the loss of mass.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2010
Both the negative and positive charges are energetic and cause the blackholes evaporation, even light which is neutraly charged is energetic and causes the loss of mass.
You're insisting that magnetism is responsible for the evaporation of blackholes. Do you understand how totally ridiculous and unsupportable this is?
VK1
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 30, 2010
Matter is energetic and massive. Light is energetic and nonmassive. What is mass? What is weak force? The weakforce is the decay of matter with time. Why does matter decay? Because of mergence with energy over time. Energy is derivable from mass, mass is derivable from energy, they are not the same thing. Einstein showed the correlation between them.
VK1
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 30, 2010
Blackholes are not matter but they are massive, they exude a form of energy on space, they are negatively energetic ( they draw toward themselves, not radiate away from themselves ). You could say they are negatively radiative. Why do they draw energy toward themselves? All systems look for equilibrium, they draw energy in to fill a void, whether the void is fillable or not remains to be seen, if there is a rip in spacetime at the singularity or if there is entanglement to a whitehole opening where energy spews from or if the blackhole itself is a universal system with blackholes within for the energy to escape from the answer is no, the void does not get filled. If the blackhole is a closed system as hawking theorizes then yes, as the blackhole fills with energy it gets smaller.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2010
So you're going to tell us that you've solved what blackholes are and how they work?

Publish it and collect your Nobel prize, otherwise, your false reality is not interesting to us, Zephir.
pokerdice1
1 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2010
sabrina? salem?
MaxwellsDemon
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2010
Blackholes shrink as they fill with energy. A hole in the ground being filled with dirt shrinks.


Lol, this is just too hilarious...he thinks black holes are *actually* holes...lol...
Husky
3 / 5 (2) Oct 03, 2010
Well, it does have undeniable selfevident pothole logic about it that it would pass occams razor test with flying colors.
Objectivist
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2010
Well, it does have undeniable selfevident pothole logic about it that it would pass occams razor test with flying colors.

Except the explanation leading to his "theory" is based on dense aether theories. I'm pretty sure Ockham said "simplest answer" and not "most frequently falsified answer."
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2010
I don't buy it. Even though they claim they "strongly suppressed or eliminated other types of radiation, such as Cerenkov-like radiation, four wave mixing, self-phase modulation, Rayleigh scattering, and fluorescence," there's plenty of room for other types of radiation. For instance, they may have seen something as simple as thermal radiation induced by the shock compression of the material.

Additionally, I don't buy Hawking radiation as a viable premise. Hawking failed to account for the GP/KE of the infalling particle (from the VP pair) relative to the black hole.
Sanescience
5 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2010
I think VK1 could survive being shot at while running away, because the bullet would never be able to cross the infinite half distances to reach him.