Still Waters Posted January 25, 2014 #1 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (IP: Staff) · 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 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazzard Posted January 25, 2014 #2 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Hazzard has produced another mind-bending theory : "There is no Stephen Hawking". 8 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendy Demon Posted January 25, 2014 #3 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) 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 January 25, 2014 by Ryu 2 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talion78 Posted January 25, 2014 #4 Share Posted January 25, 2014 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 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendy Demon Posted January 25, 2014 #5 Share Posted January 25, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted January 25, 2014 #6 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) 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 January 25, 2014 by spacecowboy342 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted January 25, 2014 #7 Share Posted January 25, 2014 No Aliens, No Bigfoot, No Black Holes. Yep, science has got it all figured out. 3 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolci Posted January 25, 2014 #8 Share Posted January 25, 2014 So what he's saying is, everything here: http://www.physics.umd.edu/grt/taj/776b/lectures.pdf is wrong. Just think of all the wasted work that went into all of it. And it's only an introduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted January 25, 2014 #9 Share Posted January 25, 2014 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 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted January 25, 2014 #10 Share Posted January 25, 2014 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 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bean85 Posted January 25, 2014 #11 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Yes there is some form of black holes but i think it works diffrently then scientist say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieChecker Posted January 25, 2014 #12 Share Posted January 25, 2014 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 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted January 25, 2014 #13 Share Posted January 25, 2014 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 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieChecker Posted January 25, 2014 #14 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) 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 January 25, 2014 by DieChecker 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted January 25, 2014 #15 Share Posted January 25, 2014 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 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted January 25, 2014 #16 Share Posted January 25, 2014 I'm not even here.. Welcome to the Twilight Zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted January 25, 2014 #17 Share Posted January 25, 2014 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? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted January 25, 2014 #18 Share Posted January 25, 2014 I really don't know what to make of any of this. Or it's significance. Then again, I'm also no scientist either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted January 25, 2014 #19 Share Posted January 25, 2014 You folks are giving me a headache. I'm going to wait for Morgan Freeman's dummed down version for us physically challenged people. Hank 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dharma warrior Posted January 26, 2014 #20 Share Posted January 26, 2014 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 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minne84 Posted January 26, 2014 #21 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Its a huge contradiction, maybe he discovered more than he was allowed and now he has to cover his tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolguy Posted January 26, 2014 #22 Share Posted January 26, 2014 He could be right. He knows his stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted January 26, 2014 #23 Share Posted January 26, 2014 He could be right. He knows his stuff Very true but he has been wrong before(he is human) 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lopex Posted January 26, 2014 #24 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Doubt it. Where is the source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted January 26, 2014 #25 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Doubt it. Where is the source? Here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now