• Hawking: There are no black holes
    55 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape. In its stead, Hawking’s radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form. “There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583"]Nature[/URL] [URL="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1"]Paper (PDF)[/URL] His argument seems to be that quantum uncertainty in the position of the horizon allows matter and photons to escape, but the randomness with which this occurs and spaghettification means no coherent information can escape the black hole.
[quote]Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. [I]But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice.[/I][/quote] [url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority]appeal to authority 0/10 would not read again[/url]
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43657879][url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority]appeal to authority 0/10 would not read again[/url][/QUOTE] Not really? It's saying that since he has qualifications it's worth at least giving a look at what he's saying rather than just being like, "Nah you stupid".
So in other words because some things can escape from a black hole (Hawking radiation,) it's not a black hole? [editline]24th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43657894]Not really? It's saying that since he has qualifications it's worth at least giving a look at what he's saying rather than just being like, "Nah you stupid".[/QUOTE] yo man no caps and no punctuation generally mean sarcasm
He's been waging the black hole war ever since he suggested that black holes intrinsically reduce entropy by utterly destroying information that's fallen into them. In the 80s. His "opponent", Leonard Susskind, wrote a whole book about the story, covering both the scientific matters involved and a little bit of the human stories behind the physics papers and presentations. It's called The Black Hole War.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43657879][url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority]appeal to authority 0/10 would not read again[/url][/QUOTE] that makes no sense. [editline]24th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43657897]yo man no caps and no punctuation generally mean sarcasm[/QUOTE] i think i'm missing the joke
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43657879][url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority]appeal to authority 0/10 would not read again[/url][/QUOTE] "It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus"
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43657842][URL="http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583"]Nature[/URL] [URL="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1"]Paper (PDF)[/URL] His argument seems to be that quantum uncertainty in the position of the horizon allows matter and photons to escape, but the randomness with which this occurs and spaghettification means no coherent information can escape the black hole.[/QUOTE] So in essence a blackhole is like a giant space blender, taking in crap and releasing it as the broken down elements of whatever went in?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43657897]So in other words because some things can escape from a black hole, it's not a black hole?[/QUOTE] Because quantum theory, black holes have no event horizons. Since an event horizon is a defining feature of black holes, black holes don't exist. Now, those are still pretty much 'functionally equivalent' to the plain old fashioned (Not classical) black holes we know and love, it's a subtle difference.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43657950]Because quantum theory, black holes have no event horizons. Since an event horizon is a defining feature of black holes, black holes don't exist. Now, those are still pretty much 'functionally equivalent' to the plain old fashioned (Not classical) black holes we know and love, it's a subtle difference.[/QUOTE] It seems like an important one, however.
things can escape a black hole, like hypervelocity stars??
Could the ejected stuff be the dark matter ?
[QUOTE=vadrigar;43657993]Could the ejected stuff be the dark matter ?[/QUOTE] My thought exactly, that would be awesome
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43657897]So in other words because some things can escape from a black hole (Hawking radiation,) it's not a black hole?[/QUOTE] Hawking radiation actually requires an event horizon. [editline]24th January 2014[/editline] This really should be taken with a grain of salt for the time being. Hawking is very knowledgeable, but it wouldn't be the first time he's been wrong about black holes.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43658051]Hawking radiation actually requires an event horizon. [editline]24th January 2014[/editline] This really should be taken with a grain of salt for the time being. Hawking is very knowledgeable, but it wouldn't be the first time he's been wrong about black holes.[/QUOTE] It mostly goes to show that we still really have no idea. Such a theory appears to be at least feasible according to Hawking's peers. It will open up some interesting discussions down the line.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43658051]Hawking radiation actually requires an event horizon.[/QUOTE] So Hawking radiation can't exist in the absence of a discrete horizon?
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43658095]So Hawking radiation can't exist in the absence of a discrete horizon?[/QUOTE] I don't think so, not as it's been derived. Certainly there could be an analogous effect for this "apparent horizon," though.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43658095]So Hawking radiation can't exist in the absence of a discrete horizon?[/QUOTE] Well you said it yourself before. Hawking radiation is defined as radiation ejected by black holes. This new theory postulates that "black holes" have no event horizon and thus there are no black holes. With no black holes, there is no hawking radiation.
What exactly is a "fi rewall of outgoing radiation"?
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;43657920]He's been waging the black hole war ever since he suggested that black holes intrinsically [B]reduce entropy by utterly destroying information that's fallen into them[/B]. In the 80s.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure that's like the definition of increasing entropy, taking something complex and breaking it down. Unless I'm missing something, you're confusing entropy with something else, like conservation of information
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43657897]yo man no caps and no punctuation generally mean sarcasm[/QUOTE] I'm underwhelmed by this assumption in the standards of internet sarcasm
[QUOTE=dai;43659013]I'm underwhelmed by this assumption in the standards of internet sarcasm[/QUOTE] im sorry i wont do it again
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43659078]im sorry i wont do it again[/QUOTE] [I]I'm sorry, I won't do it again...[/I] That would be the better sarcastic response.. but, remember.. you're flaming admins.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43658130]Well you said it yourself before. Hawking radiation is defined as radiation ejected by black holes. This new theory postulates that "black holes" have no event horizon and thus there are no black holes. With no black holes, there is no hawking radiation.[/QUOTE] As specifically defined by the term [I]Hawking radiation[/I], yes: however, that doesn't mean that there isn't a radioactive emission that we've been aware of but otherwise been mistaken about the origin of. It's like how later discoveries eventually proved, defined, and corrected for the assumed values used in Einstein's theory of relativity.
Huh, I always thought that's what the polar jets were. Guess I was terribly misinformed.
[QUOTE=confinedUser;43657976]things can escape a black hole, like hypervelocity stars??[/QUOTE] by escape, he means once you cross the event horizon, the stars don't pass through the horizon and leave
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;43659302]As specifically defined by the term [I]Hawking radiation[/I], yes: however, that doesn't mean that there isn't a radioactive emission that we've been aware of but otherwise been mistaken about the origin of. It's like how later discoveries eventually proved, defined, and corrected for the assumed values used in Einstein's theory of relativity.[/QUOTE] JohnnyMo1 covered this better than I could have. Something analogous to Hawking radiation could exist, but if this theory is true, then it by definition isn't Hawking radiation.
[QUOTE=booster;43658179]What exactly is a "firewall of outgoing radiation"?[/QUOTE] it basically is a literal wall of fire thanks to the wonders of quantum mechanics, the event horizon should have a ton of energy being released, enough to burn someone to a crisp.
[QUOTE=iFail;43659708]it basically is a literal wall of fire thanks to the wonders of quantum mechanics, the event horizon should have a ton of energy being released, enough to burn someone to a crisp.[/QUOTE] So, dyson sphere around a black hole. Could it be possible?
[QUOTE=iFail;43659708]it basically is a literal wall of fire[/QUOTE] It has nothing to do with fire
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.