Would Hawking Radiation be faster for a black hole of higher

>black hole of higher dimension
CALCULATE THE SURFACE AREA OF MY ALMONDS IN N SPACE

>>9135141
Hawkin Radiation not real.

Black holes in 4 dimensions also have 2 dimensional time. Maybe it moves faster because it's moving through time in 2 axis

Hey meg

>>9135499
Just listen to this batshit nonsense. Do we even actually have real science anymore? Or is it just fake math autism now?

Autism.

>>9135141
Pretty sure hawking radiation is directly proportional to the energy of the potential well.

Anyone remember from quantum how potential wells scale with dimensions?

>>9135509
BUT DUDE DIMENSIONS LOL

>>9135141
In theory.
Yes.
However it neglects another dimentions possible alternate sequencing where it is lower.

>>9135499
this, concept of time in even-dimensional riemann spaces is ill defined

File: smug_anime.png (59KB, 235x184px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 235x184px

wow dude would my farts be more smelly in higher dimensions?

>>9136275
No.
In fact, farts less smelly as you enter higher dimensions.

The strength of their smell is proportional to 1/r^d, where r is the radius of the fart and d is the number of dimensions.

File: dimensions.gif (8KB, 360x355px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 360x355px

>>9135141
>black hole of higher dimensions
Wouldn't work.
>>As was pointed out by Ehrenfest back in 1917, neither classical atoms nor planetary orbits can be stable in a space with n > 3, and traditional quantum atoms cannot be stable either. These properties are related to the fact that the fundamental Green’s function of the Poisson equation ∇2φ = ρ, which gives the electrostatic/gravitational potential of a point particle, is r2−n for n > 2. Thus, the inverse-square law of electrostatics and gravity becomes an inverse-cube law if n = 4, etc. When n > 3, the two-body problem no longer has any stable orbits as solutions.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf

File: 1490054337288.jpg (9KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 183x275px

>>9137224
so no farts on higher dimensions

>>9135509
It's because what he's saying isn't science and is just badly regurgitated nonsense.

>>9137224
But black holes don't require stable orbits to exist, do they?

File: d76a2__5105-300x192.jpg (15KB, 300x192px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x192px

>>9137224
i feel like a 2D universe (2 space, 1 time) would work

>>9135141
Who cares when black holes aren't real in the first place

>>9135141
james clerk maxwell should've ended anime when he had the chance

>>9137933
I don't get it.

>>9137192
1/r^(d-1)

>>9136131
>>9135509
>>9137413
you faggots don't understand the notion of generality to a physical law because you're that inept with science and math. proving something is consistent to any arbitrary dimension is crucial if you want to talk about the 3 dimensional case in any manner other than "hurr my data works!". fucking get over yourselves you neuronlets.