Hawkins radiation from a single point of view

In this article is discussed why Stephen Hawkin’s 1974 theory of Black Hole radiation made such a fuzz. As always, I assume others argue over the theory itself and definitely over mainstream medias presentations of it. This article may be totally confused, but what can you do?

A wacky set of physical theories says that if you try to zoom all the way in to look at the tiniest particles, you won’t be able to focus the camera. Everything is a blurry mess, like white noise, where things are constantly created and destroyed from nothing. An electron, for example, can appear out of nowhere if its evil twin, the positron — the same particle but with the opposite electric charge — appears alongside it. Since opposites attract in physics, the particles crash back together and disappear in a burst of energy.

But, Hawking thought, what if the two particles appeared on either side of the point-of-no-return of the black hole’s pull? One particle would meet its demise inside the black hole, while the other would have just enough will to escape. Those lucky particles overcame the black hole’s oppressive gravity and appear as an extremely faint glow — one that we might be able to measure. That glow is now known Hawking radiation.

Without questioning any of Hawkins authority and brilliance, I’d like to make a few comments on the above. “Things” are never created or destroyed, but their shape may change for as long as the thing is real. When not-realized, that which was a “thing” just a nanosecond ago can be “no-thing” in a flash. The dis-appearing is not from existence but from apperance. A quanta can appear as well as dis-appear, but it’s still a quanta. Make no mistake. “Things” may be “lost”, but “no-things” are never lost. They are just the abscence of properties required for the phenomena of apperance.

The reason electron and positron come and go together is, in my mind, because the “and” is a mistake. Get rid of duality and you have an “elepotron”. We know that any particle always comes with an anti-particle, so why not assume they are opposite expressions of the same quanta? My basic unit of quanta is an annulus surface, and such a geometry has two sides of itself. The upside is the other side of the downside and vice versa. They charge in the same direction, the direction of their/its zero point pole, so left alone, they would functionally be the same simply because they are the same.
But we never find particles/quanta in total isolation. A minimum of interaction would be with the quanta of measurement. Without that, well…how could we find it?
So the one single surface of pole extension, its measurable quanta if you will, is always valued in relation to what evaluates it. Without evaluation, no matter/antimatter opposition. But if measurement evaluates one side, it collapses, and since the other side is of the same extension, it too collapses. This is as obvious as when you flip a coin and both sides flip in unison, but depending on a relative observer, the sides of the coin behave like two. They can be measured as having opposite signs. That is because they are the opposite sides on the same coin. Don’t get lost in the philosophical aspect of whether a coin has sides or the sides has a coin. All of that deals, ad infinitum, with artifacts of mind. Put it to rest for now.

I suggest fundamental charge is one directional as in “charging in rotation of its own single pole”. Only with 2 or more relatives will “opposite” charge enter stage. But then it is not the charge that is opposite, but the position of the relative. This is to say, all circles have the same direction. They all go round and round and round. Only when 2 charges/circles are placed together can we realize linearity, distance, angles and opposition.

When the “elepotron” escapes observation, it does that by being contracted backwards by its own double negative pole. The flat surface extension is then the equator of a sphere. When extended, the one pole is naturally contracted and its two ends are at their closest. So the units circular extension comes with its linear/polar contraction.
This is not a sequence.
It is an instance of one single action.
Nothing is extended. There is ex-tension.
Nothing is contracted. There is con-traction.
This one is the action, but there is no-thing “doing” the action.
This one does things. It is not!
It does.
The “burst of energy” they dis-appear into is what robs the quanta of its measurables. It is the frequency of the pole that does it. Then the doing of circular extension is reversed to the doing of circular contraction. So the extended quanta is dis-appeared by its own double negative pole.
So while the radiation itself might be real, it is not caused by what Hawkins suggest. That would require the breaking of a monopole, and we will not have that.

Note that when I say “one” monopole, I do not mean “one electron”. The electric currency I suggest is the electron, is itself a compound value of monopoles oscillating as quark/gluon. This is why charge ratio of proton/electron is same but opposite.

What actually could be the cause of Hawkins Radiation I can only guess. Perhaps the environment at the Black Hole horizon is such that the compounds of monopoles i.e. atoms, will be charged out of their phase locks and split. The radiation would then be some scattering of this disintergation.
What the heck. I don’t know.
But there’s no splitting of matter/anti-matter on a fundamental level.
There is no two of the same particle in that sense.
Every particle has a backside which is in play when it comes to measurements, but not neccesarily when it comes to action. The backside/anti might be functionally silent, but measuring the visible/active front, you inevitabely get the value of them both.

Measuring action and measuring what acts is not to be confused.
But we usually do.
Mind trap.