Question about Hawking Radiation and Iron Stars

  • #1
Khursed
43
1
TL;DR Summary
Everything evaporates.
So, I was thinking, the most massive black holes are expected to evaporates in roughly a googol year. Fine.

But I was reading that if protons are stable, every planet and non black hole star remains are basically expected to turn into iron star from quantum tunneling after mind numbing time on the order 10^1500 years.

So my question is this, shouldn't they simply evaporate from Hawking's radiation first?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Khursed said:
TL;DR Summary: Everything evaporates.

So, I was thinking, the most massive black holes are expected to evaporates in roughly a googol year. Fine.

But I was reading that if protons are stable, every planet and non black hole star remains are basically expected to turn into iron star from quantum tunneling after mind numbing time on the order 10^1500 years.

So my question is this, shouldn't they simply evaporate from Hawking's radiation first?
Why do you think they will emit Hawking radiation?
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #3
Hawking radiation is due to an event horizon. Iron stars do not have am event horizon by themselves.
 
  • #4
EmileJ said:
Hawking radiation is due to an event horizon. Iron stars do not have am event horizon by themselves.
That's right, so they don't emit Hawking radiation and therefore do not evaporate by emitting Hawking radiation. The same is true of everything else that is not a black hole: no Hawking radiation, therefore no evaporation no matter how long we wait.
 
  • #5
Well, from what I understand, the principle behind Hawking's radiation is that everything radiates at the very absolute least as a black body of X temperature. Since nothing can ever reach absolute zero, it follows that you must emit something that invariably means you lose mass, as energy must come from somewhere.

Which is what made me conclude that if black holes eventually evaporates from Hawking's radiation after some googol years, I can't imagine how ordinary matter would fare any better.
EmileJ said:
Hawking radiation is due to an event horizon. Iron stars do not have am event horizon by themselves.
I get that. What I'm asking, is the way I understand it, Hawking figured out that black holes had to have at the very basic and most minimum level a temperature that was not zero, which means they are radiating thermally . Thus that radiation was called Hawking's radiation.

My own thought is this, if even black hole who are the most limited emitter of radiation evaporate within some googol years, then why wouldn't ordinary matter?

Unless my premise is wrong, and ordinary matter can settle to absolute zero frozen in time and emitting absolutely nothing? Otherwise, it must evaporate as well?
 
  • #6
Khursed said:
from what I understand, the principle behind Hawking's radiation is that everything radiates at the very absolute least as a black body of X temperature
Where are you getting that from? Hawking radiation is specific to black holes.

It is true that the "iron stars" you describe in your OP will radiate energy as long as they have a temperature above absolute zero, and that means they will lose a little bit of mass as they radiate; but the amount of energy they will radiate, compared to their mass, is tiny. They will never even come anywhere close to evaporating away completely just because they radiate energy.
 
  • #7
Khursed said:
ordinary matter can settle to absolute zero frozen in time and emitting absolutely nothing?
No. But ordinary matter can asymptotically approach absolute zero while emitting a total amount of energy that, compared to its mass, is tiny.

Khursed said:
Otherwise, it must evaporate as well?
Not at all. See above. The particular case of black holes evaporating away completely due to Hawking radiation is not just a general instance of "things radiate as long as they are above absolute zero".
 
  • #8
PeterDonis said:
Where are you getting that from? Hawking radiation is specific to black holes.
Which is very fortunate since a new born baby would evaporate in a few femtoseconds while emitting a humongous amount of energy if it emitted Hawking radiation.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK

FAQ: Question about Hawking Radiation and Iron Stars

What is Hawking Radiation?

Hawking Radiation is a theoretical prediction made by physicist Stephen Hawking, which suggests that black holes can emit radiation due to quantum effects near the event horizon. This radiation is composed of particles and antiparticles and leads to the gradual loss of mass and energy from the black hole, potentially causing it to evaporate over time.

How does Hawking Radiation relate to black hole evaporation?

Hawking Radiation is the mechanism by which black holes lose mass and energy. As black holes emit this radiation, they gradually decrease in size. Over extremely long periods, this can result in the complete evaporation of the black hole, leaving behind only the emitted radiation.

What is an Iron Star?

An Iron Star is a hypothetical type of star that could form in the far future of the universe. It is theorized that, given enough time, nuclear fusion processes in stars will produce iron as the final product. In a universe where proton decay is possible, iron stars could eventually form as the ultimate remnants of stellar evolution.

Is there a connection between Hawking Radiation and Iron Stars?

There isn't a direct connection between Hawking Radiation and Iron Stars. Hawking Radiation pertains to the quantum mechanical processes occurring near black holes, while Iron Stars are a speculative concept related to the long-term nuclear evolution of stars. However, both concepts deal with the distant future of astrophysical objects and the ultimate fate of matter in the universe.

Could Hawking Radiation affect the formation of Iron Stars?

Hawking Radiation is unlikely to affect the formation of Iron Stars directly. Iron Stars are theorized to form from the nuclear processes inside stars over incredibly long timescales, while Hawking Radiation concerns the gradual evaporation of black holes. These processes occur in different contexts and involve different astrophysical objects.

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
891
Replies
1
Views
686
Replies
8
Views
364
Back
Top