… maybe….
Not in a black hole, where it is supposed to constitute the ‘evaporation’ of photons across the hole’s event horizon, but rather, in a refractive index perturbation style event horizon, in the lab. It is made in glass.
… researchers using a CCD camera detected a peculiar kind of photon emission at a 90-degree angle to the glass. … researchers arranged the experiment in a way to strongly suppress or eliminate other types of radiation.
“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.”
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Researchers, huh? Researchers where, what, who, how, why, when, etc…. if you get my drift. Where is this published, what are the “researchers” credentials? Where do the “researchers” work? Heck, what are the “researchers” names? Writers often say “researchers” when they are depending on the reader to fill in Doctor or PhD themselves, so the writer doesn’t actually LIE.
Two days ago, I was watching a hawk with three other people as it was looking for food.
It was windy out and 100 feet up must have had a pretty steady wind because the hawk was able to stay completely still in one spot.
The hawk was almost directly overhead.
The all of a sudden one of us felt Hawk radiation and had to go in the house and wash it off.
oh, Hawking radiation. Never mind…
Beowulf, the great thing about the internet is its linking capability. Greg’s link leads to another popular description of the research, but that post then links further. You can get all the information you want instead of snarking in the dark.
I was still here and so found the links to which you referred. However, the was no indication on this page as to how to arrive at this informative article on the dailygalaxy.com. It is not as straightforward as you claim, I did look for the information the first time unsuccessfully. Would it be so difficult to post the link directly next to the quote? It would even seem logical to do so, since when you are quoting someone’s work the usual, ethical thing to do is mention who you are quoting. Sorry if being intellectually honest seems snarky (I love that word by the way, it is the first time anyone has ever called me that, so thank you, the only other person I ever heard called that is Jon Stewart, and he’s pretty smart).
And I thought I was an asshole quibbler of a commenter. Beowulf, the link is right next to the quoted text.
Beowulf, the link you’re looking for is the text “More details here.” It’s at the very bottom of the post, in red.
For the record, I’m very fond of snark, but only when it’s backed up by more than arrogant and persistent ignorance.
Beowulf[1]: Click the link, you’ll have access to a wonderful world of linkey stuff. It is reported in the New Scientist upstream, but I’ve not seen that.
Beowulf[4]: Did yo just call me intellectualy dishonest?
My post said “Hawking radiation found … maybe” then I give a few details from the article so you get that it is not an observation of a black hole, then provide a link (a link is a thing you click with your mouse cursor) to where I heard it from.
I claim nothing about straightforwardness.
The link has been there since I posted the post, so your unsuccessful search for it likely means that you jumped to an inappropriate conclusion, or don’t know how to use a computer, or something. Which you turned into me being intellectually dishonest.
“Would it be so difficult to post the link directly next to the quote”??
Yes, next to is hard. Right after it is standard practice. Did you want all of us bloggers to use some alternative way of linking that has never been done before, or just me?
“ethical thing to do is mention who you are quoting. ”
Oh, so I’m unethical as well as intellectually dishonest?
This post and it’s commentary is going on my list of links demonstrating troll behavior.
That would be interesting indeed – if it can be confirmed as Hawking radiation then someone will have to explain how it was observable in an experiment on earth.
Don’t worry Sam, I think you’ve retained your title. Is Stephanie Z your queen? Providing text that may or may not be a link in crowded page of text and flashing advertisements is all well and good, however when copying someone else’s work it is required to show a citation, at least in academia. I guess when you’re just running a Gee whiz science board for a bunch of know nothings not properly and plainly citing a work is fine. But in college it could get you tossed out because it is dishonest.
Greg, I stated that people are often called researchers because the people writing about them wish to give the impression that they are sophisticated PhDs doing important work, not somme hack in his garage, leaving it to the reader and or viewer to subconsciously insert the Dr. title in their own mind. Also, common practice is to place the source of information in full, and since it does not seem to be possible any other, in your article at the end of the quote would be a logical place. Next, go to a university and ask any professor if it is ethical or honest to quote someone without identifying them clearly, plainly and properly. I suspect you and I both know the answer. Certainly I do, being one of those picky profs. I would not move to throw you out of school since you did provide an obscure way to link to the article, but you would get an academic warning which the Dean of Students keeps on file. Some of my colleagues are not so understanding, including said Dean. Every professor in our department devotes around fifteen minutes of the first lecture to this issue, and when discussing papers and citations it gets further discussion. Now for all of you who flunked first year college chemistry go ahead and rend me to bits in revenge for reminding you how it’s done.
Beowulf @ 11:
Gee, how about those of us who aced it because it was dumbed down for those whose only interest was in Old English lit? Can we tear your strawmen apart too?
BTW, I teach undergraduate chemistry technical writing, and this whole ridiculous discussion has brought to mind a new way to clarify what I teach to my students: “There is writing of consequence, and there is writing of no consequence. It’s a free country, write, and be, what you want. You are free to get your degree at some other university.”
Beowulf, first rule of holes: Stop digging. Give it a try.
Like to get the last word, huh? The clever thing to do would be to follow this post with a post saying yes. They didn’t dumb down Freshman Chemistry at the University of Connecticut, that and Organic were weed out courses. I thought about minoring in German or Linguistics, but Old English would have been interesting. I honestly didn’t have the fortitude to add a minor to the Chem major at UCONN as an undergrad. In retrospect, I realize I could have done it, if I gave up having a social life. I’m glad I didn’t.
Beowulf, do you realize that you are chastising a professor, not one of your students? Many of us address the author of this Blog as Dr. Laden. You should think about it.
@Liz: Professional courtesy granted. I will cease posting.
Thanks, Liz.
Beowulf, I don’t quite get it. You are telling us that the academy has rules that if violated create an unethical situation. Yet, you did these things:
1) You failed to carefully examine your source material before making a strong accusation against a colleague, even to the extent that you did not realize that your colleague was a colleague and not one of the snot nosed 22 year old whipersnappers, you students, for whom you seem to have very little respect.
2) You made, publicly and in writing, accusations of malfeasance based on your incorrect interpretation of the evidence without any prior inquiry or investigation. One could argue that you committed slander. Certainly, you ran roughshod over the ethics of the situatoi.
3) You revealed yourself to have what may be misogynist tenancies. I’m sure you don’t know what I’m talking about, so I’ll point it out: You make (poorly formed and idiotic yet sincere) arguments against the males with whom you verbally spar, but you tell the woman in the argument that her statements are invalid because she is merely some secondary attachment to another interlocutory. I know you are only a chemist, and chemists are famous for being troglodytes (though not all of them) but this is the 21st century.
4) When it is pointed out that you are busy dressing down a peer, you simply back down, as though my authority as a Harvard PhD who has taught at some of the great institutions in the country and written papers that are among the most widely cited in my field ever mattered to whether or not I properly cited a reference on my blog. If you still think I did it wrong why are you backing down simply because of my academic credentials? Have you not heard of the argument from authority?
Well, maybe not. You are, after all, only a chemist.
You should delete my comment and close these comments for posterity. You provided a perfect ending.
hahaha!
Beowulf’s trollFAIL is the funniest thing I’ve read all week.
Thanks for that.
Object lesson: Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
Say – if the edge of the observable universe (where the accelleration away from us due to expansion exceeds C) acts as an event horizon, does it emit hawking radiation?
That is a different kind of event horizon, so maybe not.
Oh my word, but this is delicious. Greg @18: parting shots are not generally nuclear. You may have, very slightly, overkilled him. Not that I’m complaining.
If you actually observed hawkings radiation were you exposed to it, as in was it on this planet or was it in space if it was on the planet was it created or was it just observed?