First "Observation" of Hawking Radiation

KentuckyFC writes "Italian physicists are claiming the first observation of Hawking radiation, but not from a black hole. Instead they've spotted it streaming from a sonic horizon in a Bose Einstein Condensate (abstract on the arXiv). That's consistent with previous predictions but they're claiming the 'first' even though the experiment was only a numerical simulation. Does that really count?"

Doesn't Count

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Does that really count?

No, no it does not.

A numerical model is little more than a highly specific and round off error prone implementation of existing analytical results. All these guys have done, at most, is shown the correctness of Hawking's analysis. If that.

Thinking in circles anyone?

[bikin]

I am sorry, but I don't buy it... You have a theory how the world behaves. You do a numerical simulation based on that theory, and amazingly, it proves true. And you consider that a proof of your theory?
I guess I will make a theory stating that fairies exist... simulate that in a computer, and when fairies appear in my simulation I write an article that I have observed fairies. Mmmmhh, this certainly sounds like proving ID.

Shenanigans!

[multimediavt]

I'm sorry, but I'm with the "no way this counts" camp. Theories have to be tested in the physical world to be proved. Theoretical physics included folks. That's why we have supercolliders and Z-machines, duh! Numerical analysis can help predict physical behavior but it is not law until it is proved in the real world. Sorry guys.

Ugh.

[stonecypher]

but they're claiming the 'first' even though the experiment was only a numerical simulation. Does that really count?

No. Observed means "in the real world." These people should be ashamed of themselves. Physicists are supposed to have standards.

Re:Shenanigans!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Being a chemist, I can draw up any number of organic chemical reactions that theoretically will work on paper...Hell! Everything works on paper! But when I try them in the lab, and every conceivable reaction fails in real life; that is the reality I'm stuck with!

Theoretically, almost anything thought up is possible.

In the real world however, this is not the case until proven by a physical experiment...

Re:Shenanigans!

[huckamania]

This is the 'new' science. First you have a theory, then you promote your theory, then someone takes a poll and then it becomes fact.

Computer simulations are acceptable proof in the 'new' science. Even flawed computer simulations are acceptable proof as they prove that the simulations are getting better.

Re:Black holes should radiate anyway

[UncleTogie]

It works like this: there are always opposite particles (say, positron-electron pairs) that spontaneously appear at the subatomic level.

...and you wonder why the ID crowd looks annoyed when they're not allowed to use the same "well, it just appeared!" argument...

Re:Doesn't Count

[CrimsonAvenger]

but you may argue that they have produced evidence that supports the theory.

No, you can't.

I agree. Physics is an attempt to model the universe mathematically. The fact that two models agree says nothing whatsoever about whether either is an accurate map of the universe.

Re:Black holes should radiate anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a second, I thought we came from "static".