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

Oh wow! This is pretty ground breaking. Having no evidence of an event horizon would change the idea of `black holes` for sure. I wonder how the science community is responding to this?

I think its been said but the article refers to no Event Horizons and a possible difference to the Penrose Process if I read it correctly ... and not that black holes do not exist.

Well first he doesn't believe in god then he goes on to suggest there must be this elusive "unified field theory of matter and energy" that will merge all other theories .. hence pretty much proving the existence of god. LOL

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Hawking needs this to get his noble prize and because, he now believes in, The Open Universe Theory, he needs this to validate his claims. The large Haildron Collider has failed to produce his tiny black holes, but tiny black holes would evaperate anyhow, they are to small to have any staying power .

I would say a Magnatar, comes the closest to being as grey hole, as in my perspective the magnatar is just a failed black hole, that is really kick arse and does have quite a gravitational presents. But this magnatar, does not have a event horizon that nothing can escape, it does have real strong gravity and they can not be seen, except when they give off a violent brurst of energy.

To say a black hole has has no event horizon only leads to a open universe, I lean towards the closed universe theory as Hawking once did. I do not believe there are other universes just out side ours and pressing on it, this would seem a contradiction as this would block the void and the space we are expanding into. The other universes are I believe closer than that, much closer, they are parallel existing within each other, but on a different vibrations so you don't perceive the inner actions.

I would say once anything reaches the event horizon of a black hole, it will not escape the Singularity, as a photon or matter of space, will be broke down into their basic states, form, this way they are stored into a compact form. Like they say once they look down into past the atomic, into the quantum they say nothing is there, for the most part this is true, but not entirely. The black holes will try and eat anything even if it is to large to be processed, this is why when the black hole is consuming it will give off massive plasma burst, from it's poles and equator. It can't consume every part if it is to large. It' like a person could not eat a entire watermelon in one bite
,it would be coming out of their ears, eyes, nose, what ever.

One more thing Hawking said that " In the 1980s, Prof Hawking and Professor Jim Hartle, from the University of California at Santa Barbara, proposed a model of the universe which had no boundaries in space or time."
But really he's mistaken, it is bound by our mind, minds, it ends with the Omega Point, the end of space time by the perspective of being within this universe.
If you can pensive beyond this universe, then I am mistaken.

From my view point it will take about 23 trillion years before the big crunch, that's how long it will take gravity to regain it's mastery of the universe, as dark matter and dark energy are also in the mix. But when these are waterd down enough, gravity will have it's day once again. Dark matter and dark energy is only want, that can never be met.

DreamerOracle
I think its been said but the article refers to no Event Horizons and a possible difference to the Penrose Process if I read it correctly ... and not that black holes do not exist.

edit on 26-1-2014 by DreamerOracle because: (no reason given)

Well yes and no.

If correct it means that the so called black hole is neither black or a hole.

which is kind of saying that the black holes don't exist.

However, this is not denying the phenomena, just that classical classification has it all wrong.

Peace,

Korg.

InTheLight
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...

Now, I am just a lay person who is trying to understand quantum mechanics and physics, but why would Hawking write a two-page paper without any calculations? This makes me quite skeptical of this new theory, but it is, nonetheless, an interesting theory.

Stephen Hawking’s latest paper that was published about black holes is just two short pages of text and contained no actual calculations which make it impossible for anyone to verify Hawking’s conclusions. Some scientists disagree with Hawking as he does not really provide any concrete evidence to support his theory that no firewalls exist.

guardianlv.com...

Does anyone actually believe in singularities? I applaud prof hawking, but I think is still not quite there.

[gratuitous url removed]

If I were to put my bones on one answer, it would be that gravity is actually a "by-product" effect of electro-magnetism. I personally believe that there really is no true base-force of gravity, but rather, gravity is just an effect of the nature of electro-magnetism. Contrary, to gravity being something which "bleeds through" other dimensions, (as many "experts" contend), it exists in and unto itself in every dimension, the same way as all other major forces do. This "bleed-through" affect, is what is supposed to account for why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces. I don't hold much clout in this thought. Why would gravity be the only force which "bleeds through" other dimensions?

This would mean that gravity, is not a true force in itself (like the nuclear forces, time, etc.), being that it is descended from a true force, and/or forces (time and electro-magnetism). In my mind, this would account for why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces . A much more plausible thought, is that gravity is nothing more than electro-magnetic attraction. I assume that gravity could be considered as being nothing more than an illusion.... especially when you take into account, that there is no such thing as "physical matter". There is no such thing as "solidity", only the illusion of solidness. Everything is energy, when you break everything down to the final point of inception, there is only energy. And when you break down this energy into its constituent components......there is only vibration.

Vibration and resonance is the ultimate finality to everything.

reply to post by InCeNdIaDrAcOnIs

Everything is energy, when you break everything down to the final point of inception, there is only energy.

Conversely, there is only matter.
Energy is simply very active matter.

Phage
reply to post by InCeNdIaDrAcOnIs

 

Everything is energy, when you break everything down to the final point of inception, there is only energy.

Conversely, there is only matter.
Energy is simply very active matter.

On the contrary there is neither... there is only space-time!

Korg.

I always thought that the amount of light pulled into a black hole is relative to the gravitational pull of the black hole itself.

For instance, if you throw an apple into a black hole, the apple would be sucked in, but the left over image of the apple, if the gravitational pull was just right, would sit at the very rim of the event horizon.

If the black hole were to receive more power, then the image of the apple would finally be pulled in, completing the task of eliminating 100% of the apple.

Unrealised
I always thought that the amount of light pulled into a black hole is relative to the gravitational pull of the black hole itself.

For instance, if you throw an apple into a black hole, the apple would be sucked in, but the left over image of the apple, if the gravitational pull was just right, would sit at the very rim of the event horizon.

If the black hole were to receive more power, then the image of the apple would finally be pulled in, completing the task of eliminating 100% of the apple.

edit on RAmerica/ChicagoamTuesday1238America/Chicago28 by Unrealised because: (no reason given)

Black hole devour Stars and entire Solar Systems, even each other, but once headed in to a black hole, I truly doubt that any part of it could stop, for a snap shot at the point of no return or event horizon.

I'm sure that the formula for speed of gravity would be in effect and most likely surpassed at some point in the the process of being attracted and drawn into a black holes gravity well.

A black hole will have effect on any object that is close enough to have a direct effect on, in some cases it is time, till the object is close enough to be drawn in to it's developing, increasing mass. If object is going slow enough or close enough, it will be drawn in unless it is thrown out of the orbit, by the effects of forces gravity applied to the object involved.

It was just recently observed that our own black hole at the center of the Milky Way, was in the process of sucking in a large gas cloud , if I remember correctly. Our black hole has not been ingesting any large objects lately, or if were it would be blowing large plasma streams out of it poles. There are some stars that are currently being drawn in, these will add too it's power, mass. I don't really think there is a rim, as such, because a black hole would draw from all directions at once, the plane of the galaxy is flat relative to the orbit of the stars solar system that orbit it, but it appears they go kind of crazy upon getting closer to the BH. The excess of a objects energy, seems to firstly be expelled at the poles, if a object was far to large for the black hole to handle it appears then nextly, the plasma is also expelled from the equator of the BH, this would be bad I would think if, something alive pasted threw the Galactic Plane at the same time. We lucked out on that one I guess.

As for radiation being given off by a Black Hole, it would in my view, only be the left overs from ingesting too large of a object, would be radiated back into space. Like a person over eating and stuff, food is coming out of their nose. The Black Hole can't process all of the object even though it wants to, but ends up with Plasma shooting out both poles and possibly the equator. I can not see once the object has become part of the mass that it evaporates this energy back out into space any time soon. I don't believe the information is lost, but I don't think it is stuck on the rim of the event horizon either.

reply to post by boncho


Well that was a nice presentation but you did not answer my question .
The misrepresentation as you say of everything from nothingness is exactly what is being espoused as an authoritive theory which is embedded in the minds of people to say the least . In fact the BBT leaves out time and space in finite terms and is in doubt in it's projection of the time of the event . Science has just found the universe is accelerating its rate of expansion . Is this in error ?
There is still much debate on the subatomic particles that are observed in the colliders and anything that makes a particle with mass must have mass also . Those particles are charged and opposite charged particles attract .
My point is that a few galaxies would be so massive that their matter would have to compress to the point that sub atomic particles would be destroyed even to be compressed to the size of Jupiter . That theory is ludicrous how ever explained .
Still the theory on no other theory can explain where such an event occurred as the BBT . Or if there are other Universes .
So in conclusion ;Scientist have no understanding to base their misunderstanding on . They just don't know !
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . The vanity of man is his biggest enemy .

related article goes through about five new theories trying to explain the black hole issues raised by Hawking:

www.newscientist.com...

reply to post by stormbringer1701

Yea I really doubt, the Ice Hole concept.

The one for time travel, is kind of useless, as most likely, you could never last long enough to realize the the effects.

It looks like we might be on the verge of, greater understanding of these mysteries of space.

In this article they were also saying the black hole at the center of the Milky Way is about to start feeding again, if it occurs soon enough, we should get a good show. When it recently devoured the giant gas cloud, it gave off some low level emissions.

"Heart on fire: Our galaxy's black hole is set to blowMovie Camera
The giant awakes (Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech/S.Stolovy (Spitzer Science Center)/Caltech)
The dark monster at the center of the Milky Way has been a gentle giant – but that could change this year as it gets its first meal for a century"

Why would there be an event horizon?
It does not make sense.

All light and everything is slowly moving towards the center of the galaxy.

There is no magical number, No divine distance between the focus point and a so called *event horizon*

Even the Earth itself is slowly being drawn towards our sun, And eventually will be swallowed up by it just as mercury will be...

It may be a very long time till that happens. But i assure you, If something is pulling you towards a center, and you are spinning around it.

You would have to have some form of energy, Rockets or something pushing our planet at just the right speed and momentum you could potencially not get sucked into the center. But i highly doubt we could or would acomplish that, Perhaps earthquakes to nudge us slighty away from a closer axis. But regardless, Its like orbiting a cyclone in the water.

With more friction and less space we go down the drain much faster but with planets it takes much more time..

These processes don't just exist only as physics for water on earth... These processes exist within all of time and space of our known galaxy. We havn't been to another galaxy so we don't know if consiousness effects physics elsewhere or if its generic.

But a fundamental flaw people keep forgetting.

Is that black holes do suck in mass, The mass literally *disappears* We know this happens because if it did not. And matter could continue to expand from nothing, than the whole of the universe itself would be radioactivity. This galaxy would be a massive cloud of burning star gas likewise it would expand across the entire universe from the multitudes of galaxies....

So since this isn't happening and cannot happen for continued existance. Mass must be transfered into a non reactive state lacking in protons neutrons and electrons.

Since the protons neutrons and electrons are contained in what we call singularities, It is no longer Expanded mass but contained mass. Bigger on the inside than the outside and far less *hollow* than regular mass.

This is where the theory of dark matter and dark energy holding 100x more potencial energy than that of a regular atom.
If these particles were the same size as an atom, Than they would interfere. Hate to reference this but, this is why male genitalia has one smaller and one larger... otherwise they would collide with each other. Same principal for planets and stars.

You can't just randomly have a planet the same size of its sun orbitting it, And even then we tend to call them binary stars.
One binary star will be smaller than other otherwise their combined gravitational pulls would screw up planetary orbits...

In short event horizon? That's like expecting 1 random law that fits no where else to just randomly fit in the one place where creation is extremely fundamental? i think not.

the black hole that can be spoken of is not the real black hole.

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

Not so. In, fact, much of the electromagnetic energy (Photons) that enters the event horizon and beyond, supercharges to extreme wavelengths and speeds, reaching high x-ray and gamma wavelengths, that somehow use the gravity well as a vortex/catapult generator, it's quite compelling actually. Here, check it out:


www.nasa.gov...

www.nasa.gov...





In the last decade we discovered with a space telescope that there was what appeared to be a dual bubble votex, both above and below the center of the galaxy, emitting mostly gamma rays, framed with x-rays.

Yup, # just got weird for ya, huh?

Oh remember, electromagnetism and relativity were Einstein's champion's...

Phage
reply to post by InCeNdIaDrAcOnIs

 

Everything is energy, when you break everything down to the final point of inception, there is only energy.

Conversely, there is only matter.
Energy is simply very active matter.

So...you believe that photons have mass? And if so, do they all constantly have mass?

Pickin' at your brain big guy!

If it's just "matter" couldn't it simply be anything that takes up any measurable volume or space in any dimension? Is this not always energy?

One of the great concerns about these black holes is the destruction of information, when in fact information can never be destroyed, even when concentrated within the black hole, information is not destroyed.

If anyone wonders how I could make such a statement, it is simple, not looking at just one object, but viewing the Macro, Micro Cosmic, what is taking place is just a small bit of a much larger picture. Time is what creates the illusionist, that information is being some how destroyed in the first place.

In reality everything is occurring in the same instant, so nothing is ever really separate, it is only being viewed in a different perspective, in relation, to place in sequence of progression of time effect.

We are only viewing existence from the narrow view, perspective of this Universe, this Universe is finite, where as, the Infinite is not perceived or realized.

In the Big picture, no information is ever lost, the Black Holes and anything that is, in the Universe as we know it and beyond, is just part of a bigger picture, that is transpiring before us, being no end unto itself, in the process.