Bill

First, I can't recommend <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=186" target="_blank">The Elegant Universe</a> highly enough. It is an EXCELLENT book.

Second, I don't recall that Greene dealt with this particular point. His discussion of the evaporation of black holes was strictly related to his explanation of the randomness of it all, in this case, with quantum uncertainty allowing "stuff" to escape from a black hole.

I find it hard (indeed) to believe that this process of radiation bears any real resemblance to any sort of "explosion," particularly since it is a surface effect, and at least nuclear explosions take place relatively simultaneously all through the core of the explosive material.

== Bill

Christopher Lord

Yes, I was attempting to think in a multi-demonsional way though
The radiation may leave 'all at once' in an alternate framework with changed demensions.

I know, crazy talk, but heeding my original disclaimer is good practice in such matters. I just find it fun to look at things in such ways once in a while.

Asha'man

As I recall from Hawkings, black holes effectively evaporate, and once they get too small they do explode. However, larger black holes absorb mass from their environment, so they will never get too small. The inflow of matter is larger than the outflow.

Christopher Lord

But eventually all matter in the universe will either be in gravitational eddies or in black holes. then even the biggest black hole will eventually evaporate.

And if not then, the fudimental particles have decay rates too.

Bill

Of course, this presumes an open universe and a huge amount of time within which to operate. With those assumptions, the universe ultimately will reach a state of maximum entropy (the "heat death"), which is also a state of quantum vacuum. Once the quantum vacuum is achieved, some unimaginable amount of time later, some random fluctuation will occur, and ........ (do we really start it all over again?)

== Bill