Hawking Was Right (Probably)

Researchers may have re-created an elusive black hole phenomenon in the lab

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In 1974 Stephen Hawking postulated that black holes should give off a trickle of particles, or radiation, from their outer boundaries. The finding established Hawk­­ing’s reputation as a brilliant scientist and set the stage for his highly visible public profile, which includes provocative best-selling books and guest appearances on The Simpsons. In the midst of all the celebrity, the original theory of Hawking radiation, as the black hole phenomenon is known, has almost been forgotten, at least by the general public. The faint emission has never been detected from a real black hole, and researchers have not been able to produce the effect in the lab.

A few years ago a group of scientists in Italy decided to try a new approach to test Hawking’s thesis. They used a piece of glass to re-create a black hole’s “event horizon”—the point of no return beyond which even light is too slow to escape, where Hawk­ing believes the radiation would arise. Alongside ordinary matter and light falling into a black hole, he reasoned, ought to be particles popping in and out of existence. Quantum mechanics dictates that such short-lived particle pairs arise even from empty space; in most corners of the cosmos, those pairs quickly disappear together back into the vacuum. But at an event horizon, one particle may be captured by the black hole, leaving the other free to escape as radiation.

Daniele Faccio of the University of Insubria and his colleagues created the event horizon in a section of fused silica glass, a medium in which intense laser pulses can locally perturb the speed at which light passes through the glass. That perturbation forms a moving event horizon, blocking photons from over­taking it. If a pair of photons is produced close enough to that event horizon, they will become separated and will be unable to return to the vacuum. The researchers recorded photons streaking outward from the glass, about one photon per 100 laser pulses, with all the traits they had predicted for Hawking radiation. They recently published their results in Physical Review Letters.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Physicists disagree about exactly what the observation means. Ulf Leonhardt of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland says the new research indeed represents the first observation of Hawking radiation. Others are not as sure. Theodore A. Jacobson of the University of Maryland says he is more convinced by another group’s recent paper on a nonquantum analogue of Hawking radiation in flowing water. He points out that Faccio’s group cannot verify that photons appear in pairs at the event horizon. “In our big piece of glass we have no way of saying where the other photon will end up,” Faccio notes. But Leonhardt, who proposed the artificial event horizon scheme and is investigating the phenomenon in optical fibers, could detect both photons and show their common origin. “Once he does that, I think it will close all the discussions,” Faccio says.

John Matson is a former reporter and editor for Scientific American who has written extensively about astronomy and physics.

More by John Matson
Scientific American Magazine Vol 303 Issue 6This article was published with the title “Hawking Was Right (Probably)” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 303 No. 6 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican122010-3FOj9TcrJkzZJJtSR76cp1

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe