<p>Hawking radiation isn't some special kind of radiation. It's perfectly ordinary "thermal" radiation, mainly photons, with a few neutrinos and electrons and positrons if the temperature is high enough. Black holes shrink when they emit it, not when the absorb it. So aiming simulated Hawking radiation (or any other kind of radiation) into a black hole just makes it bigger.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-15T19:52:56.563Z
Thanks for the response. Thank God this is not possible. I would have made things worse by making a super massive black hole even larger! SORRY everyone.  By the sounds of it everyone dies.
Logikal
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-15T20:10:25.670Z
@Logikal What do you mean by "made things worse"? You make it sound like black holes are bad.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-15T20:11:56.053Z
@Logikal Are you playing space D&D or something? :D
SpaceCore
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-15T20:18:50.873Z
@pm 2ring, I was trying to extend the amount of time of something falling into a black hole such as a planet or a nearby star. If we could control the radiation we could control the size of the black hole to stop feeding. But the answer above would prove I accelerated the feeding of the planet or nearby star. Oops.Enough hawking radiation should eliminate the black hole I thought. I missed the memo about the hole emitting the hawking radiation. I guess that should be my question. If I can force the emission of hawking radiation that should modify its size and feeding. Or is that wrong as well?
Logikal
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-15T20:20:24.353Z
Forcing emission would shrink the hole, but there is absolutely no way suggested by the theory to change the rate of emission.
Steve Linton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-15T20:33:25.803Z
@Logikal What Steve said. Also, Hawking radiation is rather weak, and very cold. Stellar mass BHs have Hawking temperatures around 1 billionth of a degree above absolute zero, SMBH temperatures are less than a trillionth of a degree. So in the current era, all isolated black holes absorb far more energy than they emit, mostly from the CMB, but also from starlight. The universe won't be cold enough for BHs to start losing mass via Hawking radiation for a *long* time, around $10^{29}$ years for the stellar mass ones, even longer for the SMBHs.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-15T19:46:45.057Z
2019-08-15T19:46:45.057Z
Steve Linton
<p>Is it possible to manipulate the size of a black hole or how a black hole behaves if scientists were able to synthesize hawking radiation on demand.  That is, if I could find a way to imitate hawking radiation in a missile would this missile decrease the size of the black hole I fire the missile at?  I am thinking provided I create enough hawking radiation it should have an effect on the black hole size once the missile detonates. That is if it is true that hawking radiation can make the black hole disappear as it does one the mini black holes who die because of hawking radiation.</p>

<black-hole><hawking-radiation>
Control the behavior of a Black Hole
Logikal
# Control the behavior of a Black Hole

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-08-15)

Is it possible to manipulate the size of a black hole or how a black hole behaves if scientists were able to synthesize hawking radiation on demand. That is, if I could find a way to imitate hawking radiation in a missile would this missile decrease the size of the black hole I fire the missile at? I am thinking provided I create enough hawking radiation it should have an effect on the black hole size once the missile detonates. That is if it is true that hawking radiation can make the black hole disappear as it does one the mini black holes who die because of hawking radiation.

**Tags:** black-hole, hawking-radiation

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-08-15. Score: 1

Hawking radiation isn't some special kind of radiation. It's perfectly ordinary "thermal" radiation, mainly photons, with a few neutrinos and electrons and positrons if the temperature is high enough. Black holes shrink when they emit it, not when the absorb it. So aiming simulated Hawking radiation (or any other kind of radiation) into a black hole just makes it bigger.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for the response. Thank God this is not possible. I would have made things worse by making a super massive black hole even larger! SORRY everyone.  By the sounds of it everyone dies.  
> **username_2**: @Logikal What do you mean by "made things worse"? You make it sound like black holes are bad.  
> **username_3**: @Logikal Are you playing space D&D or something? :D  
> **username_0**: @pm 2ring, I was trying to extend the amount of time of something falling into a black hole such as a planet or a nearby star. If we could control the radiation we could control the size of the black hole to stop feeding. But the answer above would prove I accelerated the feeding of the planet or nearby star. Oops.Enough hawking radiation should eliminate the black hole I thought. I missed the memo about the hole emitting the hawking radiation. I guess that should be my question. If I can force the emission of hawking radiation that should modify its size and feeding. Or is that wrong as well?  
> **username_1**: Forcing emission would shrink the hole, but there is absolutely no way suggested by the theory to change the rate of emission.  
> **username_2**: @Logikal What Steve said. Also, Hawking radiation is rather weak, and very cold. Stellar mass BHs have Hawking temperatures around 1 billionth of a degree above absolute zero, SMBH temperatures are less than a trillionth of a degree. So in the current era, all isolated black holes absorb far more energy than they emit, mostly from the CMB, but also from starlight. The universe won't be cold enough for BHs to start losing mass via Hawking radiation for a *long* time, around $10^{29}$ years for the stellar mass ones, even longer for the SMBHs.  

---

