100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: new black hole theory | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/25/5344544/stephen-hawking-says-there-are-no-black-holes
Black holes don't actually exist in the way we traditionally think of them, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has proposed in a short but potentially revolutionary paper. Classical theory holds that no energy or information can ever escape a black hole, but the principles of quantum physics suggest it can. This contradiction has been the subject of debate among physicists for years. In the paper, "Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes," Dr. Hawking proposes a solution to this paradox: instead of devouring information and energy permanently, black holes release it back into the universe in a garbled, unrecognizable form. Traditionally, black holes were thought to contain an "event horizon," a sharp boundary beyond which even light cannot escape the gravitational pull of the black hole's infinitely dense core. Now Dr. Hawking proposes a shifting boundary, the "apparent" horizon, which fluctuates according to quantum effects. ""There are no black holes," the paper concludes" Among other implications, this new theory would have consequences for any astronaut who happened to fall into a black hole. According to quantum physics, the unlucky astronaut would immediately burn up in a "firewall" of intense radiation. Relativity, however, holds that the astronaut would be gradually pulled and stretched like pasta until being crushed at the black hole's core. Hawking's theory dispenses with the paradox because without an event horizon, there would be no firewall. "There are no black holes," the paper concludes, "in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity." Other physicists are already challenging Hawking's theory, which has not been peer-reviewed yet. "The idea that there are no points from which you cannot escape a black hole is in some ways an even more radical and problematic suggestion than the existence of firewalls," says Raphael Bousso, a theoretical physicist at Berkeley. Via Nature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/25/5344544/stephen-hawking-says-there-are-no-black-holes Black holes don't actually exist in the way we traditionally think of them, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has proposed in a short but potentially revolutionary paper. Classical theory holds that no energy or information can ever escape a black hole, but the principles of quantum physics suggest it can. This contradiction has been the subject of debate among physicists for years. In the paper, "Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes," Dr. Hawking proposes a solution to this paradox: instead of devouring information and energy permanently, black holes release it back into the universe in a garbled, unrecognizable form. Traditionally, black holes were thought to contain an "event horizon," a sharp boundary beyond which even light cannot escape the gravitational pull of the black hole's infinitely dense core. Now Dr. Hawking proposes a shifting boundary, the "apparent" horizon, which fluctuates according to quantum effects. ""There are no black holes," the paper concludes" Among other implications, this new theory would have consequences for any astronaut who happened to fall into a black hole. According to quantum physics, the unlucky astronaut would immediately burn up in a "firewall" of intense radiation. Relativity, however, holds that the astronaut would be gradually pulled and stretched like pasta until being crushed at the black hole's core. Hawking's theory dispenses with the paradox because without an event horizon, there would be no firewall. "There are no black holes," the paper concludes, "in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity." Other physicists are already challenging Hawking's theory, which has not been peer-reviewed yet. "The idea that there are no points from which you cannot escape a black hole is in some ways an even more radical and problematic suggestion than the existence of firewalls," says Raphael Bousso, a theoretical physicist at Berkeley. Via Nature so,it's more like a Hypothesis than a Theory? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw something about this on yahoo before deciding to take a nap. Thought it was interesting that Hawkings was the one saying it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/25/5344544/stephen-hawking-says-there-are-no-black-holes Black holes don't actually exist in the way we traditionally think of them, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has proposed in a short but potentially revolutionary paper. Classical theory holds that no energy or information can ever escape a black hole, but the principles of quantum physics suggest it can. This contradiction has been the subject of debate among physicists for years. In the paper, "Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes," Dr. Hawking proposes a solution to this paradox: instead of devouring information and energy permanently, black holes release it back into the universe in a garbled, unrecognizable form. Traditionally, black holes were thought to contain an "event horizon," a sharp boundary beyond which even light cannot escape the gravitational pull of the black hole's infinitely dense core. Now Dr. Hawking proposes a shifting boundary, the "apparent" horizon, which fluctuates according to quantum effects. ""There are no black holes," the paper concludes" Among other implications, this new theory would have consequences for any astronaut who happened to fall into a black hole. According to quantum physics, the unlucky astronaut would immediately burn up in a "firewall" of intense radiation. Relativity, however, holds that the astronaut would be gradually pulled and stretched like pasta until being crushed at the black hole's core. Hawking's theory dispenses with the paradox because without an event horizon, there would be no firewall. "There are no black holes," the paper concludes, "in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity." Other physicists are already challenging Hawking's theory, which has not been peer-reviewed yet. "The idea that there are no points from which you cannot escape a black hole is in some ways an even more radical and problematic suggestion than the existence of firewalls," says Raphael Bousso, a theoretical physicist at Berkeley. Via Nature so,it's more like a Hypothesis than a Theory? it says theory... i'm not sure when something turns into a theory... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A theory (applicable mathematical solution you can correlate with other sciences) is when it shows testable results of reproducible experimentation, observation in nature and the findings survive peer review.
Hypotheses start from the opposite end. You assert and falsify. You can start with a hypothesis and it winds up as a theorum, but more often theorum are discovered independently and hypotheses point the directions. The important mathematical point about Hawking's hypothesis is that it fixes a core paradox with the only transmissible black hole solution, the Reissner-Nordstroem. It's the only one which actually relates to collapsed stars (the kerr and static solutions are too rudimentary to be likely as literal physical objects, they just took a crack at specific properties). The problem wiht a real black hole is that if it matched the best model we've got for them, they have a paradox once you get to a certain mass, something like 15-solar masses. The static field and event horizons cross. That would mean you have a naked singularity ring roaming around the universe. It's about as realistic as a dragon. It was always the major problem with the conventional black hole model, that's why string theorists came up with fuzzy stars and things like that. Hawking's idea seems to try to cross the bridge between fuzzy stars and conventional solutions, most importantly it suggests the naked singularity paradox isn't a problem. That's important, tells us how close our math is to reality. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
no1phD
on
Sun 01/26/14 05:43 PM
|
|
black holes are the universe's paper shredders.. garbage in compost out... gravity is the one constant. common
denominator throughout the universe. its a b****... okay there's dark matter as well... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A theory (applicable mathematical solution you can correlate with other sciences) is when it shows testable results of reproducible experimentation, observation in nature and the findings survive peer review. Hypotheses start from the opposite end. You assert and falsify. You can start with a hypothesis and it winds up as a theorum, but more often theorum are discovered independently and hypotheses point the directions. The important mathematical point about Hawking's hypothesis is that it fixes a core paradox with the only transmissible black hole solution, the Reissner-Nordstroem. It's the only one which actually relates to collapsed stars (the kerr and static solutions are too rudimentary to be likely as literal physical objects, they just took a crack at specific properties). The problem wiht a real black hole is that if it matched the best model we've got for them, they have a paradox once you get to a certain mass, something like 15-solar masses. The static field and event horizons cross. That would mean you have a naked singularity ring roaming around the universe. It's about as realistic as a dragon. It was always the major problem with the conventional black hole model, that's why string theorists came up with fuzzy stars and things like that. Hawking's idea seems to try to cross the bridge between fuzzy stars and conventional solutions, most importantly it suggests the naked singularity paradox isn't a problem. That's important, tells us how close our math is to reality. Thank you, that was quite informative, but be careful about the dragon thing on here. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Tue 01/28/14 07:13 AM
|
|
A theory (applicable mathematical solution you can correlate with other sciences) is when it shows testable results of reproducible experimentation, observation in nature and the findings survive peer review. Hypotheses start from the opposite end. You assert and falsify. You can start with a hypothesis and it winds up as a theorum, but more often theorum are discovered independently and hypotheses point the directions. The important mathematical point about Hawking's hypothesis is that it fixes a core paradox with the only transmissible black hole solution, the Reissner-Nordstroem. It's the only one which actually relates to collapsed stars (the kerr and static solutions are too rudimentary to be likely as literal physical objects, they just took a crack at specific properties). The problem wiht a real black hole is that if it matched the best model we've got for them, they have a paradox once you get to a certain mass, something like 15-solar masses. The static field and event horizons cross. That would mean you have a naked singularity ring roaming around the universe. It's about as realistic as a dragon. It was always the major problem with the conventional black hole model, that's why string theorists came up with fuzzy stars and things like that. Hawking's idea seems to try to cross the bridge between fuzzy stars and conventional solutions, most importantly it suggests the naked singularity paradox isn't a problem. That's important, tells us how close our math is to reality. Thank you, that was quite informative, but be careful about the dragon thing on here.
http://mingle2.com/topic/385060 
No need to ! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
okay well we can't forget about the Anti Matter as well... although I haven't seen any lately!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
okay well we can't forget about the Anti Matter as well... although I haven't seen any lately! mine got moldy, had to through it out... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not into the shredder I hope.. probably clog it up.lol.. wonder what would happen then hmm! are you up for a little experiment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not into the shredder I hope.. probably clog it up.lol.. wonder what would happen then hmm! are you up for a little experiment? ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
no1phD
on
Wed 01/29/14 03:51 PM
|
|
sorry moe.. experiment failed.. need to recalibrate lab.. and find a few new assistance.. some that have all their fingers.. and Sammie you should never have being standing there .I" told" you
to move.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
vanaheim
on
Fri 01/31/14 06:27 PM
|
|
well, the whole thing about antimatter is it's such a relative term...
a particle-antiparticle pairing is just a different way of saying information string. the term is a cat in a box. In fact I think it might be fairly accurate to suggest modern science-journalism functions upon a science-mythology rather than the science itself. |
|
|
|
|
