Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Still Waters

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'

89 posts in this topic

Stephen Hawking has produced a "mind-bending" new theory that argues black holes do not actually exist - at least not in the way we currently perceive them.

Instead, in his paper, Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes, Hawking proposes that black holes can exist without 'event horizons', the invisible cover believed to shroud every black hole.

http://www.independe...es-9085016.html

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hazzard has produced another mind-bending theory : "There is no Stephen Hawking".

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I am obviously no scientist I often wondered about science's common claim about black holes that endlessly suck up everything.

As I understand it, there is only so much matter that can be collected and compressed before some sort of limit is reached. I mean, something has to give, right? Regardless of what it is transmuted into, it has to go somewhere and if the "hole" is feeding off of the matter it collects then the entity would have to get bigger or emanate something.

As for light, (though it strays a bit from the subject) maybe light itself (at least visible light) is something other than just a particle or wave. Maybe both, maybe neither or perhaps something in between but I would think that even light would have to be transmuted into something else as it passes into and perhaps out of the black "hole".

It just seems odd to me to have a entity that just vacuums up matter and have nothing to show for it; even batteries (for example) have their limits and either burst or simply quit absorbing electricity and might even start releasing stray bursts. I don't know.

Still it is great to see scientists challenging popular theories.

Edited by Ryu
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait for Disney to release a new version of the 80's classic

"metastable bound states of the gravitational field" I loved that film.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait for Disney to release a new version of the 80's classic

"metastable bound states of the gravitational field" I loved that film.

Hehehe....what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I am obviously no scientist I often wondered about science's common claim about black holes that endlessly suck up everything.

As I understand it, there is only so much matter that can be collected and compressed before some sort of limit is reached. I mean, something has to give, right? Regardless of what it is transmuted into, it has to go somewhere and if the "hole" is feeding off of the matter it collects then the entity would have to get bigger or emanate something.

As for light, (though it strays a bit from the subject) maybe light itself (at least visible light) is something other than just a particle or wave. Maybe both, maybe neither or perhaps something in between but I would think that even light would have to be transmuted into something else as it passes into and perhaps out of the black "hole".

It just seems odd to me to have a entity that just vacuums up matter and have nothing to show for it; even batteries (for example) have their limits and either burst or simply quit absorbing electricity and might even start releasing stray bursts. I don't know.

Still it is great to see scientists challenging popular theories.

I don't think Dr. Hawking is saying there are no black holes that endlessly suck everything just that we must rethink our ideas about the event horizon Edited by spacecowboy342
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Aliens, No Bigfoot, No Black Holes. Yep, science has got it all figured out.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Hawking has produced a "mind-bending" new theory that argues black holes do not actually exist - at least not in the way we currently perceive them.

Instead, in his paper, Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes, Hawking proposes that black holes can exist without 'event horizons', the invisible cover believed to shroud every black hole.

http://www.independe...es-9085016.html

its marvellous how scientist come up with these theories, In his paper, Hawking writes: "The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity." He told Nature journal: “There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory, but quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole.” Don Page, a physicist and expert on black holes at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada told Nature that "the picture Hawking gives sounds pretty reasonable". “You could say that it is radical to propose there’s no event horizon", he said. "But these are highly quantum conditions, and there’s ambiguity about what space-time even is, let alone whether there is a definite region that can be marked as an event horizon.”

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what he's saying is, everything here: http://www.physics.u...6b/lectures.pdf is wrong. Just think of all the wasted work that went into all of it. And it's only an introduction.

I don't think he is saying that all that is wrong at all. And even if it turns out to be wrong it wasn't wasted work, as it lead to greater understanding
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is some form of black holes but i think it works diffrently then scientist say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Hawking is suggesting that the event horizon is a seperate entity from the actual collapsed mass beneath. That after the star collapses it forms a gravitational zone above it which is what is called the event horizon. Which is actually where the light and matter gets captured.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he is saying that the event horizon is not a boundary where nothing can escape, because some information can escape under certain circumstances

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was Hawking himself who speculated Hawking Radiation decades ago? Which is expected to allow energy to escape a black hole.

http://en.wikipedia....wking_radiation

How could he ever think it impossible to escape if he believed energy could leave the system?

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was Hawking himself who speculated Hawking Radiation decades ago? Which is expected to allow energy to escape a black hole.

http://en.wikipedia....wking_radiation

How could he ever think it impossible to escape if he believed energy could leave the system?

In Hawking radiation nothing actually was thought to escape as black holes were thought to be diminished from sucking in negative energy.(I think) Here information is escaping due to entanglement when one of a pair is drawn in and the other escapes and becomes entangled with every particle ever drawn into the hole, I think because all the information from everything that has ever entered the hole is smeared across the surface of the event horizon. My apologies to any physicists if I've mangled this but it seems the gist of what I got from reading the article. Also this idea isn't proved yet
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even here..

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I am obviously no scientist I often wondered about science's common claim about black holes that endlessly suck up everything.

As I understand it, there is only so much matter that can be collected and compressed before some sort of limit is reached. I mean, something has to give, right? Regardless of what it is transmuted into, it has to go somewhere and if the "hole" is feeding off of the matter it collects then the entity would have to get bigger or emanate something.

As for light, (though it strays a bit from the subject) maybe light itself (at least visible light) is something other than just a particle or wave. Maybe both, maybe neither or perhaps something in between but I would think that even light would have to be transmuted into something else as it passes into and perhaps out of the black "hole".

It just seems odd to me to have a entity that just vacuums up matter and have nothing to show for it; even batteries (for example) have their limits and either burst or simply quit absorbing electricity and might even start releasing stray bursts. I don't know.

Still it is great to see scientists challenging popular theories.

Well you dont have to be a scientist to make a lot of sense. I agree with your reasoning and it is a very good question to consider about the lifespan of a blackhole.

Maybe scientists browse these forums if they need any food for thought.

ps ... Is Hazzard really Stephen Hawking? :cry: lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know what to make of any of this. Or it's significance.

Then again, I'm also no scientist either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You folks are giving me a headache. I'm going to wait for Morgan Freeman's dummed down version for us physically challenged people. :unsure::D

Hank

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows what Hawking is saying? Some grad student?

He could be giving us the recipe for grandma's meatloaf for all we know

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a huge contradiction, maybe he discovered more than he was allowed and now he has to cover his tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He could be right. He knows his stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He could be right. He knows his stuff

Very true but he has been wrong before(he is human)
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt it. Where is the source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.