In 1974, the British physicist Stephen Hawking made a remarkable prediction about black holes. Hawking said these objects, which are so dense that light cannot escape from them, must emit radiation.

That was a huge surprise. What kind of radiation could this be? Clearly it could not be produced inside the black hole so where would the emitted particles come from?

After much scepticism and intense debate, physicists eventually accepted the idea that black holes probably do emit “Hawking radiation” as it become known. But although astronomers have discovered many black holes since then, nobody has spotted the tell-tale radiation that Hawking says they must emit.

Now a group of Canadian physicists say they’ve measured Hawking radiation for the first time, but not from a black hole. Instead these guys have created a “white hole” in their laboratory, the time reversed equivalent of a black hole, and measured the radiation it produces.

But is this really Hawking radiation? Today, one of them, Bill Unruh from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, argues that because of the formal mathematical equivalence between white holes and black holes, the answer is yes: they really have seen Hawking radiation for the first time.

While black holes are regions of space from which nothing can escape, white holes are regions of space that cannot be entered. They have all the properties that black holes would have if time were running backwards.

One interesting idea about both black and white holes is that they needn’t just form in the fabric of space-time. Instead, it’s possible to create these objects in any medium that supports waves. In recent years, physicists have used synthetic substances called metamaterials to make black holes in the lab.

And others have created white holes in liquids such as water. When you run the tap into your kitchen sink, the water striking the surface forms a circular disc of water surrounded by a ‘lip’ known as a hydraulic jump. Water waves cannot cross this lip into the flat region, so this is a white hole. In your own kitchen sink!

Back in 2011, Unruh and a few pals decided to produce a similar kind of a white hole in water flowing through a channel in their lab. Their goal was to send water waves against the flow, towards this white hole and see what happens to them.

The results turned out to be interesting. Since the waves could not enter the white hole, they began to pile up outside it, at the region known as the white hole horizon. But as they piled up, the group velocity of the waves dropped until it was less than the velocity of the flowing water.

When that happened, the waves were swept downstream, away from the horizon. The result is that the horizon appears to be emitting radiation, exactly as Hawking predicted. “What we measured in our experiment was precisely that conversion of the ingoing waves into outgoing waves,” says Unruh.

When Unruh and co published their experiment in 2011, it generated considerable debate over whether they’d really observed Hawking radiation. Indeed, another experiment with light pulses in a non-linear medium had already claimed the first detection of Hawking radiation a year earlier.

In this case, Unruh himself was one of the leading critics of the work saying that wasn’t an unambiguous detection because it did not clearly rule out the possibility that other mechanisms could be generating the observed radiation.

But Unruh and co’s work is equally susceptible to criticism. The bottom line here is Unruh’s claim for the first observation of Hawking radiation requires physicists to accept three hypotheses. The first is that the same processes that produce Hawking radiation in astrophysical black holes can also take place in other media, such as water. The second is that white holes really are the time reversed equivalent of black holes.

The final hypothesis is that while Hawking radiation is formally a quantum phenomenon, it can be completely reproduced in the kind of classical systems that include ordinary fluid flow.

It’s this last leg of the argument that most physicists will have trouble with. Unruh, who is a leading thinker in this area, is obviously convinced. But will anyone else be?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1401.6612 : Has Hawking Radiation Been Measured?