DingoLingo Posted January 26, 2014 #26 Share Posted January 26, 2014 interesting.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted January 26, 2014 #27 Share Posted January 26, 2014 in part, what I am understanding from this paper is that Stephen Hawking is proposing that a Black Hole is metastable, that is to say that it only has a small margin of stability and therefore could "switch" states chaotically? This means that there is the possibility that in a different state particles, and light, could emerge from a Black Hole therefore it is no longer a Black Hole, but a Grey Hole. 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spud the mackem Posted January 26, 2014 #28 Share Posted January 26, 2014 He's having a laugh....but his new theory has put the fox amongst the hens, and he's altering what his previous theories were,so can we believe what he says anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted January 26, 2014 #29 Share Posted January 26, 2014 He's having a laugh....but his new theory has put the fox amongst the hens, and he's altering what his previous theories were,so can we believe what he says anymore. Theories are subject to revision - that is why they are theories and not fact. 2 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted January 26, 2014 #30 Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) I"d like to hear what a physicist 5 or 10 thousand years from now has to say about everything . . . . * i think i can hear them laughing at some of our ideas. Edited January 26, 2014 by lightly 2 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted January 26, 2014 #31 Share Posted January 26, 2014 I"d like to hear what a physicist 5 or 10 thousand years from now has to say about everything . . . . * i think i can hear them laughing at some of our ideas. Your probably right just as we look back at what some ancient peoples believed yet they may be amazed at some of the things we got right also just as we are with the ancients 2 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted January 26, 2014 #32 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Hawking, a remarkable man given his physical situation, to be sure. Yet, I recall that he stated that ET-aliens are to be be considered aggressive. And now his paper, which by the way, was heavily influenced by a noted friend. I once respected Hawking(and to some exent still do), but I'm not so sure that, at his age and infirmities, has not gone semi-delusional. 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skep B Posted January 26, 2014 #33 Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) Thing with Hawkings is that everything he does is all theoretical. SO more or less his job, is just to put ideas out there to be looked at. I find that with that in mind its easier to see him in a more respectable light. Edit** he still worries me..... baisically a lair away from being a supervillain Edited January 26, 2014 by Kelevra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted January 26, 2014 #34 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Hawking, a remarkable man given his physical situation, to be sure. Yet, I recall that he stated that ET-aliens are to be be considered aggressive. And now his paper, which by the way, was heavily influenced by a noted friend. I once respected Hawking(and to some exent still do), but I'm not so sure that, at his age and infirmities, has not gone semi-delusional. Excuse me!! there is only one name at the top of the paper and that name is Stephhen Hawking.Ignore physical infirmities (just another low-life attempt to discredit the man), he has revised a THEORY (not by much if you had even bothered to read his seminal paper on Hawking Radiation). He is not hidebound by a theory, he is able to look outside of it to see if it is consistent and coherent... are you ?? 6 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calaf Posted January 26, 2014 #35 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 At least that would be useful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted January 27, 2014 #36 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Excuse me!! there is only one name at the top of the paper and that name is Stephhen Hawking.Ignore physical infirmities (just another low-life attempt to discredit the man), he has revised a THEORY (not by much if you had even bothered to read his seminal paper on Hawking Radiation). He is not hidebound by a theory, he is able to look outside of it to see if it is consistent and coherent... are you ?? A theoretical physicist is fine, but you must go beyond the styro-peanuts to "think outside of the box" Edited January 27, 2014 by pallidin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted January 27, 2014 #37 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Thing with Hawkings is that everything he does is all theoretical. SO more or less his job, is just to put ideas out there to be looked at. I find that with that in mind its easier to see him in a more respectable light. Edit** he still worries me..... baisically a lair away from being a supervillain What he does is far more important and significant than that. His proposals have mathematical rigor behind them. That is a difficult concept to convey but believe me he does his homework. 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted January 27, 2014 #38 Share Posted January 27, 2014 What he does is far more important and significant than that. His proposals have mathematical rigor behind them. That is a difficult concept to convey but believe me he does his homework. No doubt and if there's any human that has done more work on black holes, I don't know who it might be 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Crane Feather Posted January 27, 2014 #39 Share Posted January 27, 2014 He is simply refining his previous theories and possibly trying to find more ways to prove them. The LHC has failed to experimentally prove Hawking's Radiation, tweaking his ideas so that there is more opportunity for verification seems like a smart move. Otherwise Hawking's radiation might just sit there and never be proven. Now quantum experiments might be able to be conducted to verify various parts of his theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted January 27, 2014 #40 Share Posted January 27, 2014 He is simply refining his previous theories and possibly trying to find more ways to prove them. The LHC has failed to experimentally prove Hawking's Radiation, tweaking his ideas so that there is more opportunity for verification seems like a smart move. Otherwise Hawking's radiation might just sit there and never be proven. Now quantum experiments might be able to be conducted to verify various parts of his theory. Yeah, I think too, this is a way to try to bring QM and relativity together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gracy4033 Posted January 27, 2014 #41 Share Posted January 27, 2014 wooha...But...? you- told- us...... gezeee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBeliever Posted January 27, 2014 #42 Share Posted January 27, 2014 what happens if someone gets into a black hole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted January 27, 2014 #43 Share Posted January 27, 2014 what happens if someone gets into a black hole? He goes to the bar first and orders a beer or so. 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted January 27, 2014 #44 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) A theoretical physicist is fine, but you must go beyond the styro-peanuts to "think outside of the box" I have no idea what you mean by that post... It has no self - confirming attributes. Thinking outside of the box just requires an open mind. In this case, Stephen Hawking is basically saying "I dont know everything to support my previous papers", it is, rather, people with little conceptual ability that say "what you said before you must defend"... Why? Conceptualistaion of a theory must needs be refined or even completely rejected at later date. Where is your issue with this??? Edited January 27, 2014 by keithisco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spud the mackem Posted January 27, 2014 #45 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Hawkins theories on Black Holes were believed by millions a few years ago,now he states that there are no Black Holes, so having believed what he said, I now think that he's spouting B.S.and therefore will switch him off in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibeliever Posted January 27, 2014 #46 Share Posted January 27, 2014 The only thing I can see about this theory that changes the black hole paradigm is there is no fixed "event horizon" now. You still have a large gravitational well that sucks in lots of stuff, even light, but now instead of a fixed point or "edge" you have a frothy sea of energy. I think this is just Hawking's latest step toward trying to solve the information loss puzzle. It makes for a sensational headline but I don't think our laymen's understanding of what a black hole is will change that much from this. Or am I missing something? 2 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted January 27, 2014 #47 Share Posted January 27, 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. The title There are no black holes here and in the media is missleading as Hawking didn´t say that. His new theory is more related to the event horizon and its effects on matter. The existence of matter absorbing objects aka Black Holes were never taken into question by Hawking. So there is no need to decrease his reputation and the results of his ongoing research. The Hawking paper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761 3 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemagegod Posted January 27, 2014 #48 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) They hypothesised that instead of being gradually ripped apart by gravitational forces, the event horizon would be transformed into a 'highly energetic region', and anyone who fell in would hit a wall of fire and burn to death in an instant - violating Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. So basically Black Holes are literally a one way trip to Hell if you were to fall into one. But what about White Holes? Don't they spit you out after a Black Hole sucked you up? Edited January 27, 2014 by stevemagegod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortyStuff Posted January 27, 2014 #49 Share Posted January 27, 2014 He's starting to get a little senile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted January 28, 2014 #50 Share Posted January 28, 2014 He's starting to get a little senile. Even if he will be senile someday, he will still kick the a**es of 99% of the planets population by intellect. 2 Top 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