Stephen Hawking stuns physicists by declaring 'there are no black holes'

SimonPeter
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

The big bang theory requires the crushing of all of the stars in the heavens to a single point the size of a period on a piece of paper and then to be ridiculous that changed to nothingness . With out the power of a black hole that could not be claimed to be true .

.

You realize Hawking didn't state "black holes do not exist, nor anything like them."

He merely changed his outlook on them and their properties. And it's not yet peer reviewed, and it's a sensationalist headline. Nature article.

boncho

SimonPeter
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

The big bang theory requires the crushing of all of the stars in the heavens to a single point the size of a period on a piece of paper and then to be ridiculous that changed to nothingness . With out the power of a black hole that could not be claimed to be true .

.

You realize Hawking didn't state "black holes do not exist, nor anything like them."

He merely changed his outlook on them and their properties. And it's not yet peer reviewed, and it's a sensationalist headline. Nature article.

But that outlook change, changes the very definition of what they are.

I theorized years ago that Black holes are basically just very densely twisted space-time all in loops. something akin to the wire wool used in kitchens. And it was the total volume of the surface area of space-time itself that created the gravitation.

According to Loop Quantum Theory all matter is, is just twisted loops of space-time at the Planck scale. In other words there is no distinction between matter and the fabric of space-time itself.

Because this then means that everything and I mean everything is indeed connected by a baseline, which is space-time, information can be transceived regardless of the circumstance past the Planck scale.

So for Stephen to state the above it points in the right direction.

Peace,

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Loop quantum gravity (LQG)) appears to be the most accurate theory we have thus far on the nature of reality.

Let's not forget M-theory or it's colleagues.

And I think the headlines are a bit misleading, Hawking is not claiming that black holes don't exist, he's claiming that our current understanding of how black holes work could be wrong.

The theory still needs to be peer reviewed, but if the theory is sound then it's going to send a few physicists back to the drawing board, which would be a bit annoying if you've been studying black holes for a few decades.

Thecakeisalie
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Loop quantum gravity (LQG)) appears to be the most accurate theory we have thus far on the nature of reality.

Let's not forget M-theory or it's colleagues.

And I think the headlines are a bit misleading, Hawking is not claiming that black holes don't exist, he's claiming that our current understanding of how black holes work could be wrong.

The theory still needs to be peer reviewed, but if the theory is sound then it's going to send a few physicists back to the drawing board, which would be a bit annoying if you've been studying black holes for a few decades.

Annoying yes... but should that stand in the way of the truth...??

BTW your avatar is the best I have ever seen on ATS... AWESOME!!!!

Korg.

Somebody had to say something. I mean ... nothing (not even light) ... can escape a 'black hole. Right?Plasma is that weird fourth state of matter (others than solid, liquid, or gas). Heating a gas ionizes its molecules turning it into a plasma. Ain't nobody saying that the plasma imagined in the photo came from inside a black hole, but nobody's saying it didn't either.

If a molecule of anything has become ionized, that would mean it's 'heavier' even than the photon (weightless) which comprises light.

Next thing you know, Hawking's going to pull a Sagan on us, and admit the possibility of the divine.

-Cheers

Snarl
Next thing you know, Hawking's going to pull a Sagan on us, and admit the possibility of the divine.

-Cheers

haha I was thinking the same thing when I first replied to this thread but refrained against it

Was thinking about this last week and the terminology "black hole" is indeed quite misleading.

Given the common convention amongst scientists a black hole would in fact be better described as a "Dark Hole" in the same vain as Dark Energy and Dark Matter ( Dark for descriptions of things that scientists can't measure ).

As a staunch believer in Super fluid Vacuum Theory, for me, a black hole is simply an area of space where space itself is at it's densest i.e an area of maximum spatial density.
Gravity is the time based observation of an object within the gradient of quantised space (i.e space itself is made up of the infinitesimally small "bits" that we observe but cant measure at this time thus giving erroneous measurements requiring dark energy and dark matter to fill the Astrophysics gap).

Hawking is seemingly recognising that a black hole cannot infact be infinite which would tie in nicely with Quantum Space Theory as explained here: einsteinsintuition.com...

Quantization also imposes min­imum and max­imum limits for space­time cur­va­ture. The ratio of a circle’s cir­cum­fer­ence to its diam­eter can be used to geo­met­ri­cally rep­re­sent those limits. In flat space­time (zero cur­va­ture) that ratio is equal to π. In regions with nonzero cur­va­ture (e.g.centered around a black hole), the numeric value of that ratio decreases because the circle’s diam­eter pro­por­tion­ately increases. If space is quan­tized, it fol­lows that the diam­eter of a circle with a finite cir­cum­fer­ence cannot be infi­nite (the amount of space inside a finite black hole cannot be infi­nite). In gen­eral, the cutoff pro­vided by quan­ti­za­tion means that the min­imum value for the ratio of a circle’s cir­cum­fer­ence to its diam­eter must be greater than zero.

they are still there....right.....

reply to post by Snarl

Next thing you know, Hawking's going to pull a Sagan on us, and admit the possibility of the divine.

Doubtful considering he thinks the question itself is nonsensical.

“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe, and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.” ~Stephen Hawking

reply to post by asisit


Yes they are still there but Hawking is saying they probably aren't infinite holes in space that suck things into infinity.

The best analagy I can think of is to pretend you and everything you experience in the Universe exists on a Hard Disk Drive.

A black hole is probably like file shredding that piece of Data on a Hard Disk Drive.
Your reality i.e all causality is erased meaning the correlative event and all of it's data is wiped but the environment (reality) still exists- albeit in a form we cant reconstruct.

If Hawking is correct about there being no event horizon then that finally puts to rest the new-age theory that we live in a holographic universe which is spread out along the event horizon of a black hole. My it rest in pieces (or one piece, if it still holds holographic water).

This doesn't mean there is nothing to the theory of a holographic universe, just its location, the "smear", which never sounded right to me.

It's the issue of demarcation - and demarcation has always been the buzzsaw in the doorway between quantum physics and cosmology. Relative size simply can't radically alter the basic fundamental property structure between two stages of ongoing progressive development. Yes, emergence will alter the way these fundamental properties are expressed, but the property structure itself will remain intact. It will remain recognizable, or at least it won't allow a fundamental contradiction to manifest as a ramification of complexity.

Black hole theory violates the basic laws of physics. Infinite densities (singularities) can't exist as an aspect within a relative being state. Nothing that physically interacts with the rest of what exists as relative can possess infinite properties. That's just human imagination trying to impose its own rules upon a disinterested Reality. Infinite properties can only exist as aspects of that which possesses an absolute being state. If something could exist as absolute, then no relative being state could ever exist. Nothing else could ever exist except that absolute whatever-it-is. If anything else could exist, then the "absolute thing" would not be absolute. It would exist relative to the other thing that also exists. The net result here is that a "singularity" can only exist within the mind of the person who imagined it. It can only exist on a math blackboard. It can only ever be a theoretical placeholder.

Whatever "black holes" actually are, they aren't what they've been repeatedly and relentlessly portrayed as being. The practice of inductive reasoning may be useful in general application for the average person who's just trying to get through the average day without screwing up or "reinventing the wheel" every ten minutes in an effort to keep from screwing things up, but in science, it's just not ever going to be the tool that it's been envisioned as being. Deductive reasoning is the only way to approach mysterious issues - be they murder investigations or scientific research.

I salute Hawkings' capacity to accept the intense level of criticism he's going to face as a result of this admission. Most scientists will never have the stones to open a can of worms all over themselves; certainly not one this large. It's going to take a lot more of this kind of candor and honesty from a lot more within the academic community before we'll ever get on the right track toward figuring out what's actually real about Reality, but this could be an important break toward that trend. I hope Prof Hawking is having a good day today. He's earned it.

Lol..............Do these guy's no anything about anything? I doubt it. Fools.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


One problem I have with this is basic, technically speaking, there is nothing but energy and space in the entire universe. Matter is simply condensed energy.

The law of conservation of energy makes it plain a black hole can't exist in its current rendition, as that would effectively be destroying energy as it was taken from the universe and can never return.

I always just assumed the standard model was wrong because of this fundamental fact.

I believe it is more the matter being accelerated to the speed of light entering the " singularity", thus time would stop relative to it, and it would not be lost.

We have not found a single " grey hole" but have located several black holes, they are not grey, they are voids.....oblivion incarnate, this is simply hawking trying to win his bet against Kip Thorn that he lost a decade ago, " hawking radiation " anyone?

It is far more likely that time stops for the energy, thus keeping it in the universe, preserving it, so it isn't lost then this grey hole hypothesis.

I think it is simply hawking feeling that he is fading into obscurity since his show on the science channel was cancelled.

The man is brilliant, beyond my abilities no doubt, but still....ego is the killer of mens dreams.


In short he claiming a " naked singularity" which has been proven absolutely wrong many times over.

Advantage

Korg Trinity

Advantage

SynchronousSnake
S&F

I guess He's gonna catch a lot of flak for this

Quantum Mechanics and relativity are a hard thing to make coexist and explain how these structures work...He should have known this as soon as he formulated Hawking radiation...

He will only get flak from fools and the uneducated. "Science" itself is always changing and fluid.. as you add more to your original theory with more info from tech and evidence from our space exploration with this subject in particular. Quantum theory, mechanics, astrophysics, and etc BEGS to be fluid and change when more data is compiled over time.

edit on 24-1-2014 by Advantage because: forgot an M!

The problem has been that as new information flows inward concerning new scientific discovery it always get's looked upon through the filter of the standard model.

The standard model is like a jigsaw where the peaces fit together but the overall picture is all jumbled up.... then when someone mentions this by presenting an alternative configuration of said jigsaw puzzle they get labled crack pot or fringe.

It is great news that Stephen is standing up and mixing it up like this!

A big

for you Stephen!

Peace,

Korg.

I respectfully disagree.

Its not a standard model problem IMO. Its a hubris problem

Others dont like what they put out there as "truth" tinkered with, expounded upon, or taken from. They will stunt a theory out of pure hubris and blackball anyone who dares disagree with them or changes the original theory. Hawking just has the clout to do it and get away with it unlike others.

I couldn't agree more, hawking is way over rated, yes the man is absolutely brilliant, but in the last decade his ego has gotten the better of him.

This seems to me to be nothing more than a " see hawking radiation was right" attempt, and not even a very attempt.

What he is stating has already been proven theoretically and observationally wrong.

stormbringer1701
strictly speaking though matter exists below the atomic level. it is elements that exist on the atomic level and greater.

the particles that make up atoms are themselves matter. though you can get a division from the particle level to antimatter, matter, mirror matter and perhaps other exotic forms of solids. ten when you get lower than that to the quark level you can begin to argue what the nature of those things are as to whether they are (all) matter or not. i would think quarks are matter. but you are getting into photons, gluons, gravitons, higgs, and it begins to get blurry. except the poor weak force which apparently does not even merit it's own special boson. it has to make due with rigged up temporary mesons. what's up with that?

I agree, at that level all hell seriously breaks loose for our understanding, this is not even to mention the plank scale and the quantum foam, which is the stuff of complete mental breakdown for our current model and syntax of the entire human lexicon to make sense of or even be able to try to explain anything. At these levels this is like trying to explain a Saturn V rocket and all it millions of moving parts with the word dog.

We lack any form of language, not even math at present, can relate what we have seen there.

Show a cave man a stealth bomber and ask him to describe its most fundamental inner workings, he will be closer than we are right now to this scale of matter and what it entails.

boncho

SimonPeter
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

The big bang theory requires the crushing of all of the stars in the heavens to a single point the size of a period on a piece of paper and then to be ridiculous that changed to nothingness . With out the power of a black hole that could not be claimed to be true .

.

You realize Hawking didn't state "black holes do not exist, nor anything like them."

He merely changed his outlook on them and their properties. And it's not yet peer reviewed, and it's a sensationalist headline. Nature article.

Well done boncho, I should have just not replied and waited for you to kill this entire thread in one post.

Thecakeisalie
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Loop quantum gravity (LQG)) appears to be the most accurate theory we have thus far on the nature of reality.

Let's not forget M-theory or it's colleagues.

And I think the headlines are a bit misleading, Hawking is not claiming that black holes don't exist, he's claiming that our current understanding of how black holes work could be wrong.

The theory still needs to be peer reviewed, but if the theory is sound then it's going to send a few physicists back to the drawing board, which would be a bit annoying if you've been studying black holes for a few decades.

String theory was garbage to begin with, has been run to its entire extent, and is still garbage now.

I know, I am into pottery, I will make the " potters theory" where all space time was once a giant unshaped lump of clay, and it was shaped into the universe we see, when we run Into a dead end, I will just create another dimension, and when we make enough new ones I will call it P theory..............I just summed string theory in one really stupid sentence I made up in 5 seconds, jut like the author of string theory, it just didn't take physics 20 years to see how worthless it was.

Snarl
Somebody had to say something. I mean ... nothing (not even light) ... can escape a 'black hole. Right?

Plasma is that weird fourth state of matter (others than solid, liquid, or gas). Heating a gas ionizes its molecules turning it into a plasma. Ain't nobody saying that the plasma imagined in the photo came from inside a black hole, but nobody's saying it didn't either.

If a molecule of anything has become ionized, that would mean it's 'heavier' even than the photon (weightless) which comprises light.

Next thing you know, Hawking's going to pull a Sagan on us, and admit the possibility of the divine.

-Cheers

Holy testical Tuesday batman, you do hardcore science threads also?

You really are my twin, you scare me brother, we are too much alike.

I have been reading your posts preparing for the debate...........I may have met my match....

I am quoting Hawking...

A full explanation of the process, Hawking admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature.

It seems to me that this is an incomplete thought on Hawkings' part. Anyway, there are those that disagree with him.

But theoretical physicist Joseph Polchinski of the Kavli Institute is sceptical and insists: “In Einstein’s gravity, the black-hole horizon is not so different from any other part of space. We never see space-time fluctuate in our own neighbourhood: it is just too rare on large scales.”

www.express.co.uk...