Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stephen Hawking: 'There Are No Black Holes'

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the time-to-rewrite-some-books dept.

Space 458

ananyo writes "Stephen Hawking has proposed a new solution to the black-hole firewall paradox, which has been vexing physicists for almost two years. The paradox troubles physicists because if the firewall scenario is correct, Einstein's general theory of relativity is flouted. But the classical theory black hole cannot be reconciled to the quantum mechanical prediction that energy and information can escape from a black hole. Now Hawking has proposed a tantalizingly simple solution to the paradox which allows both quantum mechanics and general relativity to remain intact — black holes simply do not have an event horizon to catch fire. The key to his claim is that quantum effects around the black hole cause spacetime to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary surface to exist. As Hawking writes in his paper, 'The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity.'"

cancel ×

458 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All I can say to that is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055499)

who?

Re:All I can say to that is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055665)

You know, he's the guy who makes all those routers, AP's, repeaters and such.

Re:All I can say to that is... (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 6 months ago | (#46056367)

See the Simpsons' episode "They Saved Lisa's Brain"

He's wrong (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055527)

Whenever I bend over, a black hole appears.

Who is this guy?!?

Re:He's wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055649)

Seriously? Or just a snarky way to show your ignorance?

Re:He's wrong (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055799)

Data from the satellite orbiting Uranus confirms that the hole is, in fact, brown-ish

There's no black-hole firewall paradox for sure (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055529)

Just stick with PF.

But it is horribly wrong anyway. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055547)

Relativity is far from even remotely correct.
It spits out infinities all over the place.
Infinities don't exist in reality. They exist solely as concepts.
Any scientist worth their weight in salt will tell you that.

For crying out loud, relativity misses out more than 70% of the universe that it tries to predict!
Its uses right now don't even work right! They have to constantly resync GPS even WHILE USING it. It cannot predict anything beyond certain energies, masses or time scales.

I'd hardly care if it died. All it does is hold people back.
It has as much use as Newtonian gravity does, AKA it is limited in SCOPE.
Relativity should never be used to attempt to explain blackholes due to the fact that it lies outside the scope it can predict with any sense of accuracy.

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway. (4, Insightful)

some old guy (674482) | about 6 months ago | (#46055601)

Oh, sure, easy for you to blather about Mr. Smarter-Than-Einstein AC.

Put up your research, with a name, or shut up.

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway. (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about 6 months ago | (#46055787)

Or at least some sort of mathematical proof :)

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055987)

Put up some research?
How about you look in to the systems I mentioned and see the bullshit they have to deal with despite using supposedly "perfect" equations.
Relativity has never worked. It is just another step up from Netwonian physics that predicts things WELL ENOUGH for most of the uses we care for.

If the equations worked, GPS would be fine.
If the equations worked, satellites wouldn't be spazzing out over long time periods.
If the equations worked, there'd be no need for dark matter or energy. OH WAIT.
Even Einstein said it himself that the cosmological constant was a mistake, despite it being a confirmed fact.
He even outright attacked quantum entanglement.

Einstein had many flaws, stop thinking he was perfect. It is 2014, move on already.
There isn't even a need for research when practical implementations of the equations are FAILING and have done since day1.
Relativity is one of the most spectacular successful failures of the last century. It taught us a great deal.
Sadly it seems there are even moronic fanboys in science.

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway. (0)

Agares (1890982) | about 6 months ago | (#46056171)

I agree that his rant is quite idiotic. Now I am no physicist by any means, but if there are any flaws in relativity wouldn't that mean possibly that it is just incomplete? I wouldn't think that it is necessarily wrong, it could be added onto. Just saying since I don't know much about it.

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055789)

You claim

Relativity is far from even remotely correct.

but later you write

It has as much use as Newtonian gravity does, AKA it is limited in SCOPE.

You are contradicting yourself.

Either relativity is far from even remotely correct, then it has no use at all.
Or it has as much use as Newtonian gravity does (which is quite a lot), then it is certainly not "far from even remotely correct".

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055873)

Newtonian Gravity isn't correct either, we still use it in limited scope.
It doesn't mean that Relativity is prevented from the same usage.

But it is still far from correct and the day people finally accept that and move on, maybe some actual research will get done.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are literal blackholes of knowledge that rips Relativity apart in every sense of the metaphor.

There is hardly a contradiction, just you putting meaning where there is none.

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway. (5, Insightful)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 6 months ago | (#46056183)

Newtonian Gravity isn't correct either, we still use it in limited scope. It doesn't mean that Relativity is prevented from the same usage.

But it is still far from correct and the day people finally accept that and move on, maybe some actual research will get done. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are literal blackholes of knowledge that rips Relativity apart in every sense of the metaphor.

There is hardly a contradiction, just you putting meaning where there is none.

You know that building you live in? Built with Newtonian mechanics. That's why it stays up.

And the sat-nav in your phone? That uses general relativity. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to locate you in the right country, let alone on the right street.

Newtonian mechanics and general relativity have been proven correct many times over. What they are though is incomplete. And there's a mountain of research happening right now to work out why.

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056293)

GR is still more accurate than Newtonian, but the accuracy difference for what we use it is not enough to be worth it. I'm pretty sure that all of our intra-solar system satellites still use Newtonian because they do not move fast enough for GR to become an issue.

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway. (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about 6 months ago | (#46056053)

Lol. Internet hero giving his completely random opinion on relativity. How about some peer reviewed documentation? Even some simple equations would do. Please...point out the exact step in the equations that you think is wrong. Then we'll talk.

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway. (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about 6 months ago | (#46056351)

That would make sense since there are infinities all over the place.

Science! (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 6 months ago | (#46055549)

Hawking: ...this means, in a sense, that there are no black holes. Only what I call "Hawking surfaces".
Layman: Does this mean it's possible to travel faster than the speed of light?
Hawking: Sure, why not.

Re:Science! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055765)

"Dark holes" didn't have the same ring to it.

"There is no dark side in the moon, really. As a matter of fact it's all dark."

Re:Science! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056023)

I think he means it in the same sense of the person who wrote the book called "No Bad Dogs".

Re:Science! (4, Funny)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 6 months ago | (#46056213)

Right 1st "Black Holes exist"

Now Black Holes don't exist

*Kicks cat back into box and starts again!*

There is no spoon (5, Funny)

stewsters (1406737) | about 6 months ago | (#46055555)

Do not try to reconcile the event horizon. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth. There is no black hole.

Re:There is no spoon (1)

David Betz (2845597) | about 6 months ago | (#46055977)

Dang it, man... I came here to say that!

Re:There is no spoon (2)

phrostie (121428) | about 6 months ago | (#46055995)

that settles it.

we're in the matrix. someone's freaking simulation.
the only thing we have to let us know is that someone divided by O instead of 0.

Re:There is no spoon (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 6 months ago | (#46056361)

The cake is a lie

Some poeple just hate to lose a bet (5, Interesting)

atouk (1336461) | about 6 months ago | (#46055569)

Does that mean that he gets his $100 back he lost to John Preskill?

Re:Some poeple just hate to lose a bet (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 6 months ago | (#46055609)

This was honestly the first thing I thought of when I read the summary...

Re:Some poeple just hate to lose a bet (4, Interesting)

psionski (1272720) | about 6 months ago | (#46056089)

Nope, he was arguing that quantum physics is wrong and black holes don't emit information - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . Now it seems this is pretty much settled - they do, the question is only how.

No black holes (0)

Devinderjit Singh Walia (3511721) | about 6 months ago | (#46055573)

The information is quite useful for research.

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (5, Funny)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about 6 months ago | (#46055583)

That's it, science has failed once again. I'm going back to christianity.
lol

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (1, Insightful)

dontbemad (2683011) | about 6 months ago | (#46055719)

Didn't know they were opposed.

I've been a staunch believer of both for many years.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (1)

approachingZero (1365381) | about 6 months ago | (#46055739)

Thank you. Whatever else there is there is the truth, and in the end that's all we really hope to understand.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055837)

Of course they are opposed, just as reason is the opposite of superstition.

The fact that you claim to be a believer in science show that you don't understand how at least one of those two things works.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056163)

Perhaps he is not so much of a biblical literalist and can actually read it as a moral guidebook.

- Rather than accumulate wealth, give to those that have more need than I.
- Do not strike out at my enemies, attempt to reconcile with them, even at personal cost.
- Help those around in need.

None of these ideas conflict with science. But then again, I come from a sect that has both biblical readings and reason as pillars to understanding.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (4, Informative)

roadkill-maker (523041) | about 6 months ago | (#46056407)

Those ideas did not come from Christianity, nor are they exclusive to it.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055973)

Then you have failed to understand at least one of them, or possibly both.

Do you fail at Christianity by dismissing the concept of eternity, or at physics by dismissing the second law of thermodynamics?

Perhaps not (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056297)

How are eternity and second law of thermodynamics interrelated?...I think you are assuming that laws and principals observed here must apply everywhere. Here's a thought experiment: suppose I created a simulated world with my own laws applied to---am I subject to those laws as well?

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056145)

I especially like that chapter about transparent Aluminium in the Holy Book. Except we won't know it's there until some God-inspired teams of scientists independently synthesise it after tens of years of arduous research. That's how it usually works.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (2)

gameboyhippo (827141) | about 6 months ago | (#46055753)

I don't get it... That's like saying, "That's it, McDonalds has failed once again. I'm going back to brushing my teeth."

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (0)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#46055893)

More like: "That's it, teeth have failed me once again. I'm going back to sucking schlongs!"

It's a false dichotomy -- A disservice to all the great cocksuckers of the world with full mouths of pearly white.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056003)

lol - very astute observation. The problem is there are a lot of athiests who believe that science is their savior to justify thier position that there is no God.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (3, Informative)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 6 months ago | (#46056037)

WOOSH.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46056017)

Science is like comments on Slashdot. First you get modded +5 Insightful for saying something and then you get modded +5 Informative for replying to yourself that you were actually wrong.

Re: SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056131)

That's actually quite ignorant to imply science and Christianity are mutually exclusive, especially when One considers the fact the Varican has one of the planet's largest observatories.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056245)

Christianity is not opposed to science. Please stop propagating this incorrect view. Go ahead and take issue with individuals who oppose science for personal or religious reasons, but it's plain ignorance to generalize.

When I hear people say things like this, it instantly raises a red flag to be cautious of what so-called reasoning and observations this person attempts to convey. Is it possible that their lack of reasoning and failure to observe reality cloud their other assessments as well?

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (1)

trongey (21550) | about 6 months ago | (#46056397)

That's it, science has failed once again. I'm going back to christianity.
lol

You should try both. That way you're always covered.

PFF! WHAT AN IDIOT !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055589)

Look dumshit !! There are black holes and you are wrong jello brain !!

Re:PFF! WHAT AN IDIOT !! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055757)

Idiot? Just the opposite.

His claim that there are no black holes only proves that he's too smart to fall for a goatse redirect.

Re:PFF! WHAT AN IDIOT !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056275)

What does it mean if I fall for it on purpose?

And what about the spoon? (1)

nicomede (1228020) | about 6 months ago | (#46055611)

Does it exist or not?

Re:And what about the spoon? (1)

LQ (188043) | about 6 months ago | (#46055697)

Does it exist or not?

You may jest, but I sometimes wonder if the light speed limit and the lack of a grand unified theory is an artifact of our simulated universe. Maybe the one that the simulator sits in has a nice simple, satisfying theory of life, the universe and everything. Or maybe it's simulators all the way down.

Re:And what about the spoon? (1)

MiniMike (234881) | about 6 months ago | (#46055727)

The spoon both exists and does not exist- but only until you open the silverware drawer.

Re:And what about the spoon? (1)

operagost (62405) | about 6 months ago | (#46056077)

I tried to measure the spoon, then it wasn't there anymore.

Or maybe (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about 6 months ago | (#46055613)

The event horizon oscillates faster than the speed of light over a greater distance than quantum tunneling can occur. Inbound light would follow the wavefront in, only to become trapped as the next wave built outside its escape range.

Re:Or maybe (5, Funny)

EvilSS (557649) | about 6 months ago | (#46056431)

No, at least according to Occam's browser plugin which states that any scientific theory first proposed in the comment section of a website is probably complete crap.

Waiting on the next jump in knowledge (4, Insightful)

Akratist (1080775) | about 6 months ago | (#46055619)

My sense, in reading a considerable number of articles about astrophysics, etc, is that we are in a period which is awaiting the next big breakthrough in knowledge, along the lines of what Newton and Einstein produced. There are still too many unknowns and ambiguities that need to be resolved by discovering a piece of the puzzle which we don't even know exists yet, and I think people are still trying to get their heads wrapped about quantum physics. That said, I'm not a physicist, just an interested lay person, so I may be wrong in that summation, but it seems many of the discussions occurring these days at least pay a backhanded nod to that sort of notion.

Re:Waiting on the next jump in knowledge (2, Interesting)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46055915)

There's also a discrepancy involving the size of the proton. Measuring the size two different ways gives two different results, which is unpossible. There must be something going on during these experiments that we don't understand yet.

Re:Waiting on the next jump in knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056067)

You mean you don't understand yet. The proton wave particle duality is very well understood by those that study these things and has been for several decades.

Re:Waiting on the next jump in knowledge (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 6 months ago | (#46056211)

It's those damn Atkins protons, I tell you!

Re: Waiting on the next jump in knowledge (1)

KramberryKoncerto (2552046) | about 6 months ago | (#46056423)

We're not waiting for another Einstein or Newton. They've always existed in the world of academia; tons of great geniuses, many of them on par with some of greatest men in history, have been working tirelessly over the last century. It just takes more than one man and one lifetime to prepare the soil with knowledge and insight for a breakthrough like relativity.

Apparent Horizons, but no Event Horizons (5, Insightful)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 6 months ago | (#46055621)

In this picture, there would still be astrophysical black holes in every meaningful sense of the word, i.e. condensed objects from which light would not escape. Such objects would have an "apparent horizon", which can be defined locally by the property that all lightlike geodesics are ingoing.

What these black-hole-like objects would not have is an Event Horizon, which is a global property of the spacetime, and is only defined by the behavior at asymptotic infinity. It's a neat resolution of the whole mess: way more sensible than firewalls.

But it's still just hand-waving -- note that the entire argument relies on AdS/CFT, which assumes the black holes are embedded in de Sitter space, which has a negative cosmological constant and is most definitely not the kind of spacetime we live in. And AdS/CFT is itself an unproven conjecture, although it is supported by many specific example cases. Until somebody comes up with a theory of quantum gravity, this stuff is all guesswork. Caveat emptor.

Re:Apparent Horizons, but no Event Horizons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055773)

"Such objects would have an "apparent horizon", which can be defined locally by the property that all lightlike geodesics are ingoing."

But this is the definition of an event horizon. Event horizons were never hard physical boundaries. Either there is a point of no return, or the quantum singularities wouldn't be black holes. Black holes are named black holes because of the event horizon as the true quantum singularity is hidden inside the optical/visible object what we casually call black hole. But when there is a point of no return, we have an event horizon. You can't have both. When there is no event horizon, the idea of a black hole is dead. But that would turn astrophysics upside down and erase much of the last 70 years of research.

There's obviously a huge mistake somewhere. The question now is where.

Re:Apparent Horizons, but no Event Horizons (4, Informative)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 6 months ago | (#46055921)

"Such objects would have an "apparent horizon", which can be defined locally by the property that all lightlike geodesics are ingoing."

But this is the definition of an event horizon.

No, it's not. Event horizons are defined by the asymptotic properties of the light cone, not by the local properties of geodesics on the boundary. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Apparent Horizons, but no Event Horizons (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | about 6 months ago | (#46055777)

I don't see anywhere in the Science article making the argument that there black holes do not exist. Only that Event Horizons do not exist. So, why the claim that black holes to no exist? Why not just say they don't exist in the context we once thought?

Re:Apparent Horizons, but no Event Horizons (1)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 6 months ago | (#46055989)

the entire argument relies on AdS/CFT, which assumes the black holes are embedded in de Sitter space, which has a negative cosmological constant

Typo: it should be anti-de Sitter space.

Re:Apparent Horizons, but no Event Horizons (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056387)

Whew, I'm glad we cleared that up!

Re: Apparent Horizons, but no Event Horizons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056159)

"Caveat emptor" -- Oh, You're Celtic.

Re:Apparent Horizons, but no Event Horizons (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | about 6 months ago | (#46056189)

There are few things that confuse me: "it flouted Einsteinâ(TM)s general theory of relativity" - so does all of Quantum Theory. The point is that once you get to the micro level the rules are different than at the macro level. Then there's the scientist (I'm trying to remember his name) who said the event horizon is the holographic representation of everything in our universe with the information that makes up that hologram stored in the black hole itself.

In terms of a theory of quantum gravity I always like the one that goes back to String Theory (actually M-Theory) that states that some strings are open and anchored while gravity comes from closed-loop strings/gravitons and so less restricted. There's a really good set of PBS videos on the topic. This one talks specifically about it, right around the 5-minute mark.

The actual paper (5, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 6 months ago | (#46055657)

The actual paper can be found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761 [arxiv.org] . People have suggested informally ideas somewhat similar to this one before, but Hawking proposal seems to actually have the math behind it. Possibly most importantly, he can show that his predictions are a consequence of gauge/gravity duality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence [wikipedia.org] . This suggests that this may be a testale consequence of certain string theories if one could observe a black hole under the right conditions and see that it only was pretending to be a black hole.

Re:The actual paper (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055831)

This suggests that this may be a testale consequence of certain string theories if one could observe a black hole under the right conditions and see that it only was pretending to be a black hole.

"Ok, you caught me, my mother is white, I'm a mulatto hole."

Physics (0)

MrKaos (858439) | about 6 months ago | (#46055681)

It's all Greek to me.

Re:Physics (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 6 months ago | (#46056287)

Apart from the bits that are Latin :P

Steven Hawking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055701)

The family is saying something about as gently as possible about Steven Hawking. They say this at the same time of the celebrity news.

Re: Steven Hawking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055819)

He sometimes spoke of death and black holes.

Oh man (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 6 months ago | (#46055705)

Now my head is going to hurt all day.

Ugh... (0)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#46055717)

Why do I bother trying to read this stuff in the morning.

Easy solution (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055743)

That was a clever solution. I suggest we apply it to other problems too: Whoops, and there is no cancer. Pop - no more hunger in the world. Zip, and all the pollution is gone.

Re:Easy solution (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 6 months ago | (#46055807)

To be honest, if anything physicists might have been inventing phenomena, dimensions and particles a little to zealously to explain the math. Scaling it back a little bit is not the same as denying the existence of things that are easily detectable and testable, like cancer, world hunger, pollution, etc. There's nothing wrong with a little mythology - it's normal when you're on the edge of the map pushing back the "Here Be Dragons!" fog. But although some explanations and hypotheses could be dead on, it's unlikely that they all are.

Best news I've heard in a while. (4, Insightful)

wcrowe (94389) | about 6 months ago | (#46055749)

It means all these business idiots will stop saying "event horizon".

Re:Best news I've heard in a while. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055895)

Now we need another world-famous scientist to publish a paper claiming that there is no such thing as "leveraging our core competencies to provide added value to our internal and external customers within the new paradigms posed by cloud services" and I can die a happy man!

Re:Best news I've heard in a while. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055983)

It means all these business idiots will stop saying "event horizon".

They'll simply converge their collective synergies and do some blue sky thinking to come up with a new, even more annoying lexeme solution.

Re:Best news I've heard in a while. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056127)

If a Brainstorm happens in a Blue Sky, can anyone Think it?

Re:Best news I've heard in a while. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056137)

It means all these business idiots will stop saying "event horizon".

Unfortunately that is probably about as likely as hoping that marketing idiots will stop saying "the cloud"

Elegant solution (2)

gweihir (88907) | about 6 months ago | (#46055843)

That is an elegant solution that is far more consistent than the "absolute" limits so loved by many. It also points out that our understanding of Quantum Mechanics in reality (as opposed to theory) is pretty incomplete and fuzzy.

Firewall down! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055863)

Personally, now that the firewall is down - I am more worried about all kinds of cyber attacks!

In the "weird headlines" category... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055875)

This ranks up there with "Einstein: 'The speed of light is actually infinite'", "Newton: 'Gravity doesn't exist'", or "Copernicus: 'Actually the sun does go around the Earth'."

Wow.

Of course he says that... (2)

jzarling (600712) | about 6 months ago | (#46055925)

...because he calls them Hawking Holes!

Re:Of course he says that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056239)

Rule 34 was it?

Bend over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055959)

And look in the mirror. I bet you see a black hole. Now where's my Nobel prize?

I'm not sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056027)

I don't know why people hang on this guy's every word. He's a man, just like any other man and he makes mistakes just like any other man. If you put your faith in man from time to time you're going to feel a let down. Just sayin.

I knew it! (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46056075)

I've always wondered why there had to be a singularity at the centre of a black hole. Now, it seems, there might not be!

If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter [...] never quite crunch down to the centre.

I've been trying to tell people this for years (no, not in a serious crackpot physicist way, just a vague pet idea). Should've tried it with a voice synthesizer...

Silly drama (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056097)

So basically he's saying the boundary fluctuates so wildly, information behind it can suddenly end up outside it when the boundary jumps back. Of course whatever just ended up outside is now sitting next to a black hole, so the chances of escape are still very low (but non-zero).

If true, this is like saying Newtonian mechincs is wrong and broken now that we know about the relativistic effects, but the reality is difference is so minor we can still follow him for normal tasks.

Taking "there are not black holes" from this is just melodramatic. But then Hawking has been all about showmanship an ignored real science since about 1990. He should have been a reality-TV host instead of a physicist.

And he'll name it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056099)

"I call it a Hawking Hole."
- Hawking in Futurama

This has been well known before (1)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | about 6 months ago | (#46056169)

Please look at this paper [arxiv.org] , as well as to the other papers published by prof. Loinger.

Gravstar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056195)

I always liked the term gravstar.

I imagine it to be something with uniform density throughout. Why? It would imply an upper threshold limit to gravity within the confines of space. ( Time is another matter, since we have yet to observe the end or death of a blackhole. No, I'm not implying it exists. ) Yes, this is likely counterintuitive, but then we aren't dealing with matter anymore. Only gravity.

Test case: If we observed 2 different 'blackholes' that had equivalent spatial diameter, but differing gravitational strength, it would negate that possibility. If gravity appears consistent throughout the Universe, something the former would also verify, and I think mathematically right now it does, then there should be no core because its density at any point within is equal to every other point. This is gravity being compressed to its limit. There's nothing else beyond this threshold. ( See no current evidence of 'blackhole' death. )

So what is it composed of? Gravitons! If you think of gravity as the 'garbage' left over from matter, and that the accompanying matter has been stripped away, then you are left with gravitational densities that don't disintegrate in the absense of matter.

So where does this lead us? Fluctuations at the edge, so say Hawking? Good. In theory, we should be able to observe those fluctuations against very close nearby matter, assuming we could measure with enough sensitivity. In fact, w

Where does gravstar fit in this? If the contents of 'blackholes' are only gravity, or gravitons, why not name it a gravstar?

/apologies if a poorly formed argument

Re:Gravstar (0)

atouk (1336461) | about 6 months ago | (#46056429)

I think a better term than Gravistar or "Black Hole" would be "Ice Hole". Since matter is sucked into one to the point that the matter at the center is compressed so tightly that any molecular motion is impossible, the temperature of the center would actually be 0K. The density of it would be so great that even energy from matter impacting the edges of it would fail to cause shock waves to pass to the center, but make the entire mass of the object resonate as a solid unit. In effect, all matter, energy, and even time would be frozen at the center. Therefore "Ice Hole". No proof presented. Math is hard.

Q had it right (1)

jhumkey (711391) | about 6 months ago | (#46056253)

Q had it right . . .
When you don't like how the current theory is going . . . just change the gravitational constant of the universe . . .

Seriously . . . there are few absolutes in Science . . . just models. And perhaps this (todays) model . . . is improved over yesterdays. He's at least willing to fling something down and see if it sticks . . . that's how progress is made.

7evaporating? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46056285)

He made a mistake on page two.

7evaporating blackhole? (1)

Roberto Aguirre Maturana (3511799) | about 6 months ago | (#46056341)

He made a mistake on page two. Technically, he made an arithmetic mistake on page two.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>