Hawking: No Black Holes

[Michael Hopcroft]

One of the ongoing disputes in physics is that between the notion of "event horizons", the region surrounding a black hole from which not even light can escape, and quantum  mechanics, which posits that such a thing violates General relativity. Now, according to the man widely considered the smartest man on the planet, quantum mechanics wins.

 

Stephen Hawking, who built much of his fame on examining the properties of black holes and event horizons, has a new theory which replaces the event horizon with a more benign construct called an “apparent horizon”. An apparent horizon still holds matter -- but only temporarily, after which is expels it into a garbled form, preserving General relativity

 

Although this fundamentally changes the definition of what we called a black hole, encountering an apparent horizon is no more pleasant -- if anything your demise would be even nastier. The matter expelled from one would still be unrecognizable as what originally fell into it. Nor does it change the likelihood that massive gravitational phenomena of that type are at the center of the Milky Way and other large galaxies, and may even be necessary for their formation.

 

The central problem, according to Hawking, remains defining gravity is such as way that it meshes cleanly with the other fundamental forces of the Universe. That particular Grail continues to elude him, and physics in general.

[Tasha]

It's not so much that Black Holes violate General Relativity, because GR actually predicted the presence of Black Holes. In Quantum Mechanics there's the idea that you can't destroy information. Blackholes crushing stuff inside of an inescapable gravity well seemed to violate that principle. Having them spit out what goes in, albiet in a highly mangled fashion makes them work again.

[Lord Liaden]

Stephen Hawking also bet they'd never find the Higgs Boson. The man's brilliant, but personal bias skews anyone's perceptions.

[Vondy]

Skews perceptions? The man's personal bias is a black hole for objective thought.

[L. Marcus]

Stephen Hawking also bet they'd never find the Higgs Boson. The man's brilliant, but personal bias skews anyone's perceptions.

... Note that he was playing the Devil's advocate there.

[Cancer]

I expect odd seemingly paradoxical things will be predicted as long as we lack anything like a good quantum-mechanical treatment of gravity. There are some parallels between the collision of GR and quantum theory now and the confusion over atomic spectra, atomic structure, and electromagnetism at the close of the 19th Century. We are missing an important way of thinking about the situation, and so far a viable guess has yet to appear.

[BlueCloud2k2]

"Gravity is just the Earth wanting to give us a hug."

[Christopher]

It's not so much that Black Holes violate General Relativity, because GR actually predicted the presence of Black Holes. In Quantum Mechanics there's the idea that you can't destroy information. Blackholes crushing stuff inside of an inescapable gravity well seemed to violate that principle. Having them spit out what goes in, albiet in a highly mangled fashion makes them work again.

As I remmeber it GR predicted cases where it would not apply, Black Holes being one of them (the big bang is another). But there are other fringe cases.

 

The central problem, according to Hawking, remains defining gravity is such as way that it meshes cleanly with the other fundamental forces of the Universe. That particular Grail continues to elude him, and physics in general.

Unified field theory, Quantum field Theory and all thier friends. Still a mystery how to define them, because Gravity will not play nice with all the other Forces.

 

If I remmeber right he solved the Problem that Black Holse violate thermodynamics via the Hawking Radation. This seems to be an expansion of that theory, by adding actualy information.

[NuSoardGraphite]

It's not so much that Black Holes violate General Relativity, because GR actually predicted the presence of Black Holes. In Quantum Mechanics there's the idea that you can't destroy information. Blackholes crushing stuff inside of an inescapable gravity well seemed to violate that principle. Having them spit out what goes in, albiet in a highly mangled fashion makes them work again.

What if one theorizes that the singularity does not destroy that information, just holds on to it permanently.

[L. Marcus]

Such a theory would still have to account for what happens to the information when the black hole evaporates.

[Christopher]

What if one theorizes that the singularity does not destroy that information, just holds on to it permanently.

That is exactly how Black Holes worked before Hawkins Radiation. And before the "Event Horizon Firewall" Paradox (described in the article) was found.

 

Alas, advances in the area have made this old state of blissfull ignorance obsolete.

[BlueCloud2k2]

Say hello to the new boss, he's almost but not quite the same as the old boss.

[Christopher]

Say hello to the new boss, he's almost but not quite the same as the old boss.

The good news is: Black Holse do not exist. At least not in the way we thought.

The bad news is: It still sucks to fall into one and in more then one way.

[NuSoardGraphite]

The good news is: Black Holse do not exist. At least not in the way we thought.

The bad news is: It still sucks to fall into one and in more then one way.

In other words:

 

Black holes likely exist, they just don't work the way we thought they did.

[BlueCloud2k2]

Really though, it's all useless conjecture until someone can get out there and drop a probe into one.

 

Or can figure out just what the hell gravity really is.

[L. Marcus]

My bet is still on "A bunch of wibley-wobbley, timey-wimey stuff".

[Badger]

As long as I can keep on believing Pluto is a planet, I dont care.   Pluto is a planet, dammit.

 

I say we put Justin Bieber in a probe send him to a black hole and hope Hawking is wrong on this one. 

[L. Marcus]

Why keep calling Pluto a planet? It doesn't fit the official definition.

[dmjalund]

the official definition is an ass!

[L. Marcus]

Well, now Pluto gets to be one of the big boys in a new category.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Well, now Pluto gets to be one of the big boys in a new category.

 

"Ah, Pluto. Please, sit down." The Big Boss moves to one side, closes the office door. The big boss has an office! Not like Pluto's stupid cubicle. The Big Boss sits down across the big desk from Pluto.

"Pluto," the Big Boss says, in his deep, concerned voice that isn't at all like the voice he uses when he's being reamed out by Corporate on the weekly conference call, "These conversations are never easy."

Oh God, Pluto thinks. I'm being laid off. How many jobs are there out there for an eighty year old planet?

"Relax, Pluto. You're a good worker. We're not laying you off."

Pluto wants to sag with relief. But it's too early for that. The other shoe is bound to drop, or the planet wouldn't be here.

"Sales are down. We've got to make economies," the Big Boss says, with a practiced ease. "Now, I think you'll like the new dwarf planet job category we've come up with for you. Sure, there's a pay cut involved, but you move down from lowest rank in the current structure to highest rank in the new one. That guarantees your hours."

Pluto just stares at the Big Boss. Cut in pay? Are you kidding me? Pluto couldn't afford Pluto's life right now! And then it sinks in that without planetary benefits, 'keeping your hours' would probably mean working more.

 

The rest of the interview goes in a blur. Pluto just wants to get out of there, to have a drink, to throw up, to call his Mommy and cry. And when the newly minted dwarf planet is finally released, it is to swagger through the cubicle farm, an angry, defiant glare in its Hadelogical eyes, as if to say to the planets at their workstations, "You think you're safe? None of you are safe! You're counting the days until the Sun goes Red Giant, thinking that you're going to be set free into rogue planetary-retirement before the day comes when it's your turn. Well, you better hope that the organisation makes it that long, or you're all going down, just like me. Better hope your pension lasts." 

[Badger]

the official definition is an ass!

Exactly those elitist scientists playing who gets in the planetary night club.

[Spence]

 

the·o·ry  (thē′ə-rē, thîr′ē)

n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

Or in layman's terms, a very detailed guess. 

 

That is the bottom line on this subject. 

 

 

[Tasha]

 

 

the·o·ry  (thē′ə-rē, thîr′ē)

n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

Or in layman's terms, a very detailed guess. 

 

That is the bottom line on this subject. 

No you are wrong. Look closely at the first definition. "

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

 

Techincally what Hawking has proposed is a Hypothesis. It will have to withstand testing by both other theoretical physicists and observations by Astronomers to become a Theory. Hawking is great in his ability to be able to prize out some remarkable insights into Astrophysical problems.

 

Remember that Science reporting generally sucks and reflects the reporter's biases (like most stories). Science stories generally don't use Theory and Hypothesis correctly.

[Old Man]

So we can test the hypothesis using the Bieber method as proposed above.  Make haste!

 

As for the Pluto 'controversy', science isn't science if we start making exceptions.  If Pluto is a planet then so is Eris for certain, and it becomes an exercise in arbitrary hairsplitting to exclude Chiron, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, Sedna, and Orcus, as well as an unknown number of other largish Oort cloud members.  It is more useful to give these smaller icy bodies their own category.