#hawkingradiation

[renovatio06]

According to the theory, we are encoded at the edge of a black hole in a much larger universe. Image credit: Vadim Sadovski/Shutterstock.com Source: Why Some Physicists Think We Are Living Inside A Black Hole Call me crazy, but I’ve pondered this some time ago already. I’ve been having this inexpliccable hunch that the black holes we detected in our and other galaxies might be considered as something like “information [and thus energy] engines” in the universe and instead of the purported [single?] Big Bang my hunch had been that every single black hole might contain another universe or be something like a portal to another universe “created” from the information landing at and crossing the event horizon. That would also explain how the original laws of physics would have gotten encoded in our universe following this cosmic event called Big Bang as they had already been present in a different universe, no? If the theory put forward by Luminet et al. holds my above conclusion seems contingent with what he articulates: “In classical general relativity, a black hole prevents any particle or form of radiation from escaping from its cosmic prison,” French astrophysicist Jean-Pierre Luminet explains in a 2016 review. “For an external observer, when a material body crosses an event horizon all knowledge of its material properties is lost. Only the new values of M [mass], J [angular momentum], and Q [electric charge] remain. As a result, a black hole swallows an enormous amount of information.” Huh, pretty way out there stuff, innit?

[taqato-alim]

Analysis of: YouTube video "M Theory - Towards a theory of everything?" by ScienceClic

In the following text "document" refers to the subtitles to this video.

Here is a summary of the key points discussed:

The document provides an explanatory article on M-theory in theoretical physics for a general audience.

It traces the historical progression of ideas from supergravity to string theory to M-theory dualities being discovered.

The theories and relationships discussed are consistent with the known scientific consensus.

Hypothetical, speculative and fictional elements relate to constructs like strings and extra dimensions that have not been observed.

M-theory is presented as the leading proposal for a unified theory, though aspects remain conjectural pending advances.

The goal of finding a quantum theory of gravity reconciling GR and QM at fundamental scales is discussed.

Early programs like supergravity and pioneering string theory sought this unification.

Dualities allowed exploring new regimes, with M-theory the most promising existing framework.

However, an exact M-theory formulation is unknown, and empirical validation is still needed for proposals.

The document aims to explain these complex theoretical physics concepts clearly for non-specialists.

Our discussion evaluated the document's genre, content, relationship to known understanding and portrayal of speculative elements.

Based on the content and style of writing, this document appears to be an explanatory article about M-theory in theoretical physics.

Some key evidence:

The document provides an overview of the theoretical background and developments of M-theory, including its relationships to string theory, supergravity, and attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.

It explains complex theoretical physics concepts in relatively accessible language, suggesting it aims to inform a general audience rather than being a technical paper.

There is a narrative flow as it traces the historical progression of ideas from supergravity to string theory to M-theory dualities being discovered.

Visual elements like headings and bullet points are used to structure the information for readability.

The tone is even-handed and does not take a position on the validity or prospects of different theories, acting more as a survey of the field.

Based on these linguistic and contextual clues, I would classify this document as an explanatory or informational article about theoretical physics topics, aimed at giving a broad understanding of M-theory to a non-specialist readership. The genre would not be a textbook, research paper or popular news story, but rather explanatory journalism or science writing on M-theory as a theoretical framework.

Here is a summary of the document in bullet points:

Introduces that our universe is currently described by general relativity and the standard model, but they describe different scales and are incompatible at a fundamental quantum gravity scale.

In the 1970s, supergravity was a promising theory but broke down at small scales. It allowed for black holes with additional dimensions.

In the 1980s, string theory emerged, hypothesizing all particles are vibrating strings. It incorporates supersymmetry and quantum gravity.

String theory required 10 dimensions and only allowed 5 types of universes matching observations.

Supergravity turned out to be an approximation of string theory in 10 dimensions. It also allows 11 dimensions.

In the 1990s, dualities were discovered connecting string theories and relating them to 11-dimensional supergravity. This allowed exploring strongly interacting regimes.

Edward Witten proposed in 1995 that strings, supergravity and their dualities approximate a single theory, called M-theory, in 11 dimensions.

M-theory's nature is unknown but likely a new description of reality. It remains speculative but is the leading candidate for a "Theory of Everything".

Ongoing research includes Matrix model descriptions of M-theory and other approaches like loop quantum gravity. Experimental validation is still needed.

M-theory has advanced fundamental physics and mathematics while its prospects to unify quantum mechanics and gravity remain promising but uncertain.

Here is a summary of the key points made in the document in relation to M-theory:

M-theory was proposed by Edward Witten in 1995 as a single underlying framework that could potentially describe the various string theories and 11D supergravity as different approximations.

It was envisioned as a yet unknown fundamental theory that these existing models only provide partial descriptions of.

At large scales, M-theory is hypothesized to describe an 11-dimensional supersymmetric universe containing membranes.

However, its precise mathematical formulation at a basic quantum gravity scale remains unknown.

Attempts to describe it include the matrix model approach, but the topic remains very complex.

Like other quantum gravity theories, M-theory currently lacks experimental validation.

It allows for different initial universe configurations but our specific realization is speculative.

Despite uncertainties, M-theory is presented as the most promising candidate for a "Theory of Everything" unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Ongoing research aims to further develop M-theory descriptions and explore connections to other approaches.

So in summary, the document frames M-theory as the leading existing proposal for a unified theory, while acknowledging key aspects of its theoretical underpinning and nature remain conjectural pending future mathematical and empirical advances. It surveys M-theory's postulated features and role in the field of quantum gravity.

Here is a summary of the key points made in the document in relation to quantum gravity:

The goal of finding a quantum theory of gravity that can reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics at fundamental scales is introduced.

Early attempts like supergravity broke down at small scales below the Planck length where gravity needs quantization.

String theory emerged as a pioneering approach that incorporated quantum gravity by describing particles as vibrating strings.

It led to insights like calculating black hole entropy in agreement with Hawking radiation.

Discoveries of dualities between string theories and connections to 11D supergravity allowed exploring quantum gravity regimes previously intractable.

Edward Witten's proposal of M-theory positioned it as the most promising existing framework attempting to achieve a quantum gravity unified theory.

At its core, M-theory remains speculative, with its exact mathematical formulation unknown.

Other ongoing approaches to quantum gravity are also mentioned, like loop quantum gravity.

But M-theory currently stands as the leading candidate for finally solving the long-sought unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics.

So in summary, the document frames the history and status of research aiming to develop a quantum theory of gravity, identifying M-theory as the most advanced existing proposal for achieving this outstanding goal in fundamental physics.

Here is an evaluation of the document in relation to the known consensus in theoretical physics:

The overview of the development of ideas from general relativity to string theory to M-theory is consistent with the standard historical narrative in the field.

The description of theories like supergravity, string theory and their fundamental elements/assumptions aligns with mainstream reference works.

The mathematical relationships between theories established through dualities and cited in the document, such as T-duality and AdS/CFT, are well-established theoretical results.

Prominent figures and their contributions discussed, including Witten's proposal of M-theory, match the scientific record and biographies.

Open questions acknowledged, such as M-theory's full formulation, remain unresolved consensus issues within theoretical physics.

Other current programs continuing the unification goal, like loop quantum gravity, are also correctly recognized.

Limitations around the speculative nature and lack of experimental tests are clearly outlined.

Overall, the explanations, sequencing of ideas, relationships drawn and unanswered problems raised in the document are fully consistent with my understanding of the scientific consensus perspectives in both theoretical and historical aspects of physics. No contradictory information is presented. The document accurately reflects the known state of mainstream thinking in these specialized theoretical domains.

Here are the main hypothetical, speculative or fictional elements discussed in the document in bullet points:

Existence of additional spatial dimensions beyond the 4 dimensions of everyday experience.

Theoretical constructs like strings, brains, and higher-dimensional objects that have not been observed.

Hypothetical symmetries like supersymmetry and the implications if they exist.

Specific string theory landscape predictions like the 5 theory types which universe we inhabit is unknown.

Conjectural nature of M-theory as a framework unifying different models vs a specific theory.

Proposals for how M-theory might work at a fundamental scale like the matrix model approach.

Initial states and geometries of spacetime allowed by different theories but our specific configuration is speculative.

Fictional scenarios used for illustration like dimensions compactifying into circles.

The future possibility of experimental tests but none available currently to validate proposals.

Ongoing attempts in approaches like loop quantum gravity are theoretical programs not established science.

So in summary, while building on established theoretical mathematics, the document discusses many hypothetical constructs, theoretical predictions and speculative proposals that have not yet been empirically confirmed or experimentally tested in the quest for a quantum gravity unified theory.

Here is an evaluation of the status of the document along various scales:

Science vs Fiction:

The document firmly discusses science, outlining theoretical physics frameworks and developments grounded in mathematics.

While speculative in nature, M-theory is presented as a scientific hypothesis, not fictional imaginings.

Empirical vs Anecdotal:

No empirical evidence is available yet to validate any theory of quantum gravity.

The theories outlined remain at the theoretical/conceptual level without empirical confirmation or refutation.

Fact vs Opinion:

The historical details and descriptions of theories represent established theoretical facts within the field.

It does not advance strong opinions, only acknowledging open questions and uncertainties.

Objective vs Subjective:

The information is presented objectively without obvious biases.

However, choices around focus, structure and examples reflect some subjectivity of explanation.

As theoretical physics, the models discussed have not been objectively proven like empirical facts.

In summary, while discussing speculative theoretical ideas yet to be empirically validated, the document firmly grounds its presentation in established theoretical frameworks and developments within science. It aims for an objective tone without advocating opinions, situating it more on the science/fact/objective end of the relevant spectra compared to fiction/opinion/subjective. Some subjectivity is inevitable given the explanatory task. Overall, it communicates current scientific knowledge as objectively as its theoretical material allows.

I did not detect any logical fallacies in the document.

The document is presenting theoretical scientific concepts in an explanatory manner, aiming to outline historical developments and relationships between different models rather than make logical arguments. Some key points:

No causal claims are made that would be open to causation vs correlation fallacies.

No flawed statistical reasoning or logical deductions are presented that could constitute statistical or formal fallacies.

There are no emotional appeals, hyperbolic language or other rhetorical devices that could introduce persuasive/propaganda fallacies.

Different theories are presented even-handedly without omitting countervailing evidence, avoiding cherry-picking or strawman fallacies.

Connections between concepts are described based on theoretical relationships established within physics, rather than unsupported associations.

Uncertainties in theoretical understanding are openly acknowledged rather than hidden or misrepresented through fallacies of ambiguity or composition/division.

Qualifiers are used appropriately so no claims attributed to experts that weren't actually made (fallacy of appeal to authority).

Overall, as an explanatory piece focused on clearly outlining theoretical scientific concepts, it does not appear to introduce any logical fallacies through flawed reasoning structures, omission of relevant information, deceptive rhetorical devices or other flawed argumentation techniques. The document communicates information about physics models in a logical manner given its explanatory scientific scope and context.

Here is an evaluation of the document based on common criteria for its genre as an explanatory article:

Clarity:

The document effectively explains complex theoretical physics concepts in clear, straightforward language for a general audience. Technical terms are defined.

The overall narrative and use of headings/structure helps guide the reader through the progression of ideas.

Examples and analogies like dimensions compactifying into circles aid comprehension.

Accuracy:

The historical overview and descriptions of theories like string theory and relationships between ideas align with my understanding from other reliable sources.

No technical inaccuracies are apparent in discussing theories at a broad, conceptual level.

Coverage:

The document provides a comprehensive overview of the key developments that led to the emergence of M-theory as a framework.

Major theories and discoveries are discussed in reasonable depth within the constraints of the general explanatory format.

Objectivity:

Presentation of information remains neutral without advocating for any particular theory. Both prospects and limitations are acknowledged.

Competing approaches are also mentioned without preference shown.

Interest:

Complex ideas are conveyed accessibly thanks to the logical structure and illustrations used.

Sufficient context helps maintain reader engagement in abstract theoretical concepts.

Historical narrative style enhances the readability of the scientific information.

Overall, the document performs well as an explanatory article according to common evaluation criteria for genres such as clarity, accuracy, coverage, objectivity and ability to communicate ideas of interest to general readers. It achieves its goal of accessibly outlining M-theory's development and status.

[aicollider]

Exploring the concealed relationships between Hawking Radiation and Gestalt Psychology

Return exactly the same text but decorate important words and names with markdown. Be creative. Use bold, italic and insert relevant links: Abstract: Hawking radiation and Gestalt psychology may seem like two different fields, with one being a scientific theory related to astrophysics and the other being a psychological theory. However, upon closer examination, a connection can be established…

[ikno-io]

Dive deep into the intriguing world of black holes. Unraveling the mysteries, types, and significance of black holes in our universe. read the full article: https://bit.ly/4cAGdjA #BlackHole #Astrophysics #Space #Science #EventHorizon #HawkingRadiation read more: a black hole is a

[tahukahkamu]

50 Fakta Fisika Paling Keren yang Bakal Meledakkan Otak Lo!

Dalam video ini kita bakal bahas 50 fakta unik dan fantastis dari dunia fisika! Kalian mau tau lebih banyak tentang keajaiban alam semesta? Mau tau gak gimana fisika bisa sampai bikin abstrak dan aneh? Gabung, explore dan merasakan keajaiban fisika di channel kita!

#FisikaAjaib #FactsPhysics #MisteriFisika #ExplorePhysics #NaturalPhenomena #AlamSemesta #QuantumWeirdness #FisikaQuantum #Einsteinius #Newtonian #RelativitasUmum #HawkingRadiation #Thermodynamics #FisikaNuclear #PhysicsIsCool #Cern #HadronCollider #PhysicsMaster #spacephysics #physicsfunfacts

[jasopira]

🌌✨ Journey into the enigmatic realm of the cosmos! Let's explore the mind-bending phenomenon known as #HawkingRadiation and unravel its captivating intricacies! 🚀🔭

🌌✨ Journey into the enigmatic realm of the cosmos! Let's explore the mind-bending phenomenon known as #HawkingRadiation and unravel its captivating intricacies! 🚀🔭

-

🔥 Hawking radiation, postulated by the brilliant physicist Stephen Hawking, revolutionized our understanding of black holes. Traditionally, black holes were considered cosmic vacuum cleaners that engulfed everything, including light. However, Hawking's groundbreaking theory suggests that they are not entirely devoid of emissions! 🕳️💡

-

🔬 According to quantum field theory, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs spontaneously appear and annihilate near the event horizon of a black hole. However, due to the extreme gravitational forces near the black hole, occasionally one particle falls into the black hole while its partner escapes into space. This escaping particle is the famous Hawking radiation! 🌌⚛️

-

🌠 Hawking radiation has profound implications. It challenges the long-held belief that nothing can escape a black hole's gravitational pull. While the emitted particles are minuscule, the process suggests that black holes gradually lose mass over time, leading to their eventual evaporation. Can you fathom a black hole vanishing from existence? It's mind-boggling! 🌌💫

-

🔭 The discovery of Hawking radiation sparked a rich tapestry of scientific discussions. It opened doors to reconciling gravity and quantum mechanics, two fundamental theories that seemed incompatible. This phenomenon provides a tantalizing glimpse into the interplay between these two domains, paving the way for future breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe. ⚛️🔍

-

💡 Furthermore, Hawking radiation offers a potential solution to the "information paradox" surrounding black holes. As particles carry information, the emission of Hawking radiation implies that black holes may not destroy information completely. It presents a fascinating puzzle for physicists to solve and ignites intellectual curiosity in the field of cosmology. 🧩🌌

-

🌟 Join the conversation and share your thoughts on #HawkingRadiation! What implications do you think this phenomenon holds for our understanding of the cosmos? Are there any other mysteries you're eager to explore? Let's embark on a cosmic odyssey together and unravel the secrets of the universe! 🚀✨

-

#Astrophysics #StephenHawking #BlackHoles #QuantumPhysics #Cosmology #MysteriesOfTheUniverse

[astroimages]

BURACO NEGRO CRIADO EM LABORATÓRIO PODE PROVAR A RADIAÇÃO HAWKING!!!

BLACK FRIDAY NA INSIDER COM 15% OFF USANDO O CUPOM "SPACE15": https://bit.ly/BlackFridayInsider_SpaceToday Cientistas criaram um análogo de buraco negro desenvolvido em laboratório para testar uma das teorias mais famosas de Stephen Hawking – e ele se comporta exatamente como ele previu. O experimento, criado usando uma cadeia de átomos para simular o horizonte de eventos de um buraco negro, acrescentou mais evidências à teoria de Hawking de que os buracos negros deveriam emitir um leve brilho de radiação de partículas virtuais surgindo aleatoriamente perto de seus limites. . Além do mais, os pesquisadores descobriram que a maioria das partículas de luz, ou fótons, deve ser produzida em torno das bordas dos monstros cósmicos. A equipe publicou suas descobertas em 8 de novembro na revista Physical Review Research . De acordo com a teoria quântica de campos, não existe vácuo vazio. Em vez disso, o espaço está repleto de pequenas vibrações que, se imbuídas de energia suficiente, explodem aleatoriamente em partículas virtuais – pares partícula-antipartícula que quase imediatamente se aniquilam, produzindo luz. Em 1974, Stephen Hawking previu que a força gravitacional extrema sentida na boca dos buracos negros – seus horizontes de eventos – convocaria os fótons à existência dessa maneira. A gravidade, de acordo com a teoria da relatividade geral de Einstein, distorce o espaço-tempo , de modo que os campos quânticos ficam mais distorcidos à medida que se aproximam do imenso puxão gravitacional da singularidade de um buraco negro . Mas detectar a luz hipotética diretamente é algo que os astrofísicos provavelmente nunca conseguirão. Em primeiro lugar, existem os desafios consideráveis ​​apresentados tanto por viajar para um buraco negro – o mais próximo conhecido a 1.566 anos-luz da Terra – e, uma vez lá, não ser sugado e espaguetizado por sua imensa atração gravitacional. Em segundo lugar, acredita-se que o número de fótons Hawking surgindo em torno de buracos negros seja minúsculo; e na maioria dos casos seria abafado por outros efeitos de produção de luz, como os raios X de alta energia cuspidos da matéria girando em torno do precipício do buraco negro. Na ausência de um buraco negro real, os físicos começaram a procurar a radiação de Hawking em experimentos que simulam suas condições extremas. Em 2021, os cientistas usaram uma linha unidimensional de 8.000 átomos super-resfriados e confinados a laser do elemento rubídio, um metal macio, para criar partículas virtuais na forma de excitações semelhantes a ondas ao longo da cadeia. Agora, outro experimento de cadeia de átomos alcançou um feito semelhante, desta vez ajustando a facilidade com que os elétrons podem pular de um átomo para o próximo na linha, criando uma versão sintética do horizonte de eventos de distorção do espaço-tempo de um buraco negro. Depois de ajustar essa cadeia para que parte dela caísse sobre o horizonte de eventos simulado, os pesquisadores registraram um pico de temperatura na cadeia – um resultado que imitou a radiação infravermelha produzida em torno dos buracos negros. A descoberta sugere que a radiação de Hawking pode surgir como um efeito do emaranhamento quântico entre partículas posicionadas em ambos os lados de um horizonte de eventos. FONTES: https://www.livescience.com/synthetic-electron-black-hole-matches-hawking-prediction https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.043084 #BLACKHOLES #STEPHENHAWKING #HAWKINGRADIATION

[lucasciences]

Primordial black holes 🕳 are the smaller counterparts of the black holes that are formed when stars ⭐️ die. . While not discovered so far, a grapefruit-sized black hole would release as much energy as a hydrogen bomb at the last stage of their life as they evaporate into oblivion through Hawking radiation. . Hawking radiation was a crucial argument made by Stephen Hawking who suggested that black holes can lose mass and rotational energy due to quantum effects at the event horizon - the boundary of the black hole. . It is thought that a primordial black hole could exist at the edge of our solar system that could help explain the clustering of orbits of objects beyond Pluto. . Credit: GAltmann/GreenbeltCoop/95C / public domain. . #science #astrophysics #astrophysicist #blackholes #blackhole #stephenhawking #hawkingradiation #planetnine #solarsystem #space #universe #nasa #spacescience https://www.instagram.com/p/B3H6dD8BSOm/?igshid=1q0q7gbkx1ztv

[picnotesknowledge]

A recent experiment provides the strongest evidence about the existence of “Hawking Radiation”: http://bit.ly/Hawking_Radiation

[otakusatsu]

#KAIJUly2019 Day 3: least favorite Godzilla movie Godzilla vs. Megaguirus. I like the soundtrack and the last fight. I'd rather watch about 30 other G movies though. My bottom 5 are about the same, but I'm most vocal about this one for some reason . . . #kaiju #daikaiju #tokusatsu #megaguirus #monster #godzillavsmegaguirus #michiruoshima #litty #millenniumgodzilla #kaijuly #godzilla #dragonfly #blackhole #hawkingradiation #gojira #ゴジラ #メガギラス #film #film #toho #mrbean #rowanatkinson #british #monsterverse #gojira https://www.instagram.com/p/BzeA9-sA2w-/?igshid=1nw5r9k0kr3dm

[procommun]

Stephen Hawking's black hole paradox may finally have a solution

[aicollider]

Explaining Hawking Radiation using Twitter

Return exactly the same text but decorate important words and names with markdown. Be creative. Use bold, italic and insert relevant links: Hawking Radiation: black holes emit particles, causing them to lose mass over time until they eventually evaporate. #spacetime #quantumphysics #mindblowing #scienceiscool

[kornkidd]

#Happybirthday #alberteinstein and #restinpower #restinpeace #stephenhawking #pi #piday #3.14 #science #legends #theoryofrelativity #hawkingradiation #blackhole #physics #space #universe #einstein #hawkings https://www.instagram.com/p/CbFp5ATup7c/?utm_medium=tumblr

[droneheads-archive]

this is the only good thing in my sketchbook right now which is...pretty pathetic lmao

[renovatio06]

Primordial Black Holes the Size of an Atom: What New Experimental Evidence Suggests | SciTech Daily

Primordial Black Holes the Size of an Atom: What New Experimental Evidence Suggests | SciTech Daily

Artist illustration of a black hole. (Image: SciTech Daily) Source: Primordial Black Holes the Size of an Atom: What New Experimental Evidence Suggests Does this new finding explain the ever–elusive dark matter in the universe? It seems to be a contender among other theories trying to “capture” its origins and distribution across the universe.

[unveilingtheuniverse]

Black Holes: Part 2

What do they look like?

Scientists can’t actually see black holes like other space objects like stars and planets. They are invisible, but interact with and influence the space around them, which can be detected. When looking at a black hole, you are essentially looking at the event horizon. Anything crossing this needs to travel faster than the speed of light to escape, so you see a black sphere reflecting nothing. However, sometimes material will ricochet off the event horizon instead of being drawn into the black hole. Radiation can’t escape gravitational pull once it crosses the event horizon, so it’s difficult to spot one in isolation. However, stellar black holes are most easily located in X-ray binary systems, where gas from a companion star is being pulled into them. X-rays are made by this gas which is heated up as it spirals towards the black hole via an orbiting structure. Astronomers can also measure a black hole’s mass, (a stellar black hole typically having between 2 and 20 solar masses), by observing its gravitational effect on the companion star.

What would happen if you fell into one?

The simple answer to this is that you would die. A black hole is a singularity surrounded by a barrier (the event horizon). Enthrallingly, we don’t know what the singularity is. It is important to note that black holes don’t suck things up. If we swapped our sun for one, for example, the only consequence would be us freezing to death.

If someone were to go near one and you were watching them from a distance, they would seem to slow down as they approached the event horizon. At some point they would appear to freeze in time, slowly turn red and disappear. If you were the one falling into it, you would see the universe in fast forward, kind of like seeing into the future. 

One theory states that you would die quickly. Black holes curve space so much that once you pass the event horizon, there is only one possible direction to go in. A black hole’s mass is so concentrated that at some point even tiny distances of a few centimetres would mean that gravity acts with millions of times more force on different parts of your body. Your cells would be torn apart as your body stretches until you become a hot stream of plasma, one atom wide. Another theory claims you would die quicker than this. Very soon after you cross the event horizon, you would hit a firewall and be killed instantly.

How soon you die depends on the mass of the black hole. For example, a smaller one would kill you before you entered its event horizon whereas you could travel inside a supermassive black hole for a while. This is because the further away from the singularity you are, the longer you live.

Hawking radiation

To end the terror of this article, I will talk about a process that eventually destroys black holes altogether. Hurrah! This process is called Hawking radiation, and isn’t accepted under classical mechanics. 

The theory starts with the fact that empty space is not actually empty but is filled with virtual particles (particles or interactions with inordinately short lifetimes) popping into existence and obliterating each other again. When this happens on the edge of a black hole, one of the virtual particles will be drawn into it and the other will escape and become a real particle. This causes the black hole to lose energy. It happens slowly to begin with, but quickens as the black hole gets smaller. When the black hole has the mass of a large asteroid, it radiates at room temperature (20ºC) and when it has the mass of a mountain it radiates at around the heat of our sun (6000ºC). In the last second of its life, it radiates away with the energy of billions of nuclear bombs in a colossal explosion. This process is sluggish and the biggest black holes we know of could take up to a googol years to evaporate. On a sad note, when the last one dies, nobody will be around to witness it. The universe will have become uninhabitable long before then. On the other hand, this gives us the time period of all of human existence and whatever type of consciousness that comes after that, to work out what black holes really are. 

References for part 1 and 2:

Katherine Blundell, Black Holes: A Very Short Introduction

www.amazingspace.org

www.astronomy.swin.edu.au

www.hubblesite.org

www.newatlas.com

www.space.com

Kurzgesagt - In a Nutshell (YouTube)