Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Black Holes

First I read of this:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/stephen-hawking-says-black-holes-don-t-exist-012107567.html

"Black holes are the source of endless fascination and speculation. Do they hold the secrets of the
universe and perhaps even the key to time travel?

We may never know the answers to those questions because famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking
says black holes don’t actually exist. At least not in the way we’ve been taught to think about them.

"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," Hawking writes in a new paper entitled,
"Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes.""

Yep he argues that in his new paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761

In many ways I admire him because he has taken a set of logic and pushed it to the logical conclusion. I have no issues with his methodology I have real issues with the start point but it isn't worth discussing on this forum (Not having a go at people here it's just not an argument that can be simplified down to a level suitable for the forum).

As I commented in an earlier post last year Stephen Hawking is going to become a silly little man in a wheelchair or an absolute genius, unfortunately if I am right it will be the prior. There are plenty who think he may be right so let the games begin

Rose, can you do something about newton? He has started stuffing his nonsense into just about every thread there is. It makes the thread very hard to follow.

Bill Gill

I havn't read the article yet, but here's another link.

http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20140128

Bill,
I will do what I can. I am tired of his splatter-posting too. I wouldn't mind if he kept it to one thread, but this scatter-gunning is too much. It will take some time to get rid of all his duplicated posts. I'm on it. Today I am sick, coughing my lungs up, so it may have to wait a day or two. Give me a chance to work on it.

Amaranth

In a funnier aside to the article if you click on the links to see which authors of Hawking's paper are endorsers to the arXiv it says Hawking isn't one .. huh.

arXiv claims that people who are known active researchers are given endorsement automatically

There are plenty of complaints about the way the arXiv system works and this has just given them a clear example of all that is wrong.

Would this revised view of black holes mean that they could no longer be considered as portals to other universes, or to different parts of our Universe?

Bill S, I don't know yet.

But here is more:
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-grey-black-hole-stephen-hawking.html

Also, this part sounded familiar for some reason:

"Such statements send social media into conniptions, and comments quickly degenerate into satirical discussions of how you should never believe anything scientists say, as they just make it up anyway."

You would have to as Mr Hawking because you are now hitting on a big part of the problem because you have to tie this back into more solid physics that is beyond the scope of black hole speculation, so lets follow the logic and what we know.

Observation: A star collapses.

We have a number of observations of this happening. The last I am aware of was in 2009 (but you might do some background reading if interested).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323092717.htm


Observation: CMBR results (say QM was there at birth of universe) and recent no destruction tests on QM information says QM information can not be destroyed. I have given you details on this before.


Problem: What we have in that collapse is two theory domains GR/SR versus QM colliding.


The older accepted view is GR/SR dominates and what you get is a flat smooth event horizon and QM operates near the event horizon and you get Hawking radiation.

What Hawking has done in the paper is made QM dominate and thus your event horizon is now a messy quantum turbulent event horizon.


So initially the argument seems fine but now your gravity theory covered by GR/SR HAS TO BE QUANTUM. You can't get this to work without a quantum gravity theory under it.

All the beat up in the media seems to overlook the statement he says that



So sure if you want to concede that gravity is a quantum process knock yourself out. As for whether you can still jump thru portals to other universes etc well you follow whatever quantum theory you put under the above answer an it will tell you


This is one of those papers that you see in cosmology and astronomy that I am almost always annoyed by. The fact it gets any media attention is a detriment to science.


Go back and look at the "flying pig" example I gave you and tell me what is different between "Hawking's quantum gravity" and the "flying pig" as far as we know they both don't exist.


If it would get me in trouble I would re-publish Hawking paper changed to relying on the existence of flying pigs to see if the media made the connection.

I like my science logical and built on solid understanding but hey that is just me and I am not a cosmologist where you can assume anything

"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,"


MR HAWKING COPIED MY IDEA !- problem is what is it Infinity and if light need eviroment ???!!!

OPTICA
WE CAN NOT SEE LARGE OBJECTS THAT ARE MOVING VERY FAST

observer -->V1.............................black mass ----->V2

1930 Tolman surface brightness test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test

Huge distance ( observer -- mass ) + fact that V2 >>>V1
give huge abeeration ( observer can register only old apparent position of the black mass )


please add to Tolman's test above information
( Brightness is going close to zero )





mass m = black body

LIGHT CAN NOT HIT MASS M AND BACK TO OBSERVER
OR BODY IS MOVING FASTER THAN INFORMATION ABOUT BODY
( below picture )




FIRST TEST POLAND 2012 MOTION = MORE DARKNESS
( camera = observer )

in My home I made test 30 km/s ( earth around Sun )

camera1 ----- bulb----camera 2 >>> 30 km/s

camera 2 is registering Lover Intensity of the signal
camera 1 is registerng biger intensity of the signal

light is going isotropy respect to old bulb position
cam1 and cam 2 can register only old apparent position of the bulb





first test
> http://youtu.be/XF_npmQ8kGY

first pictures ( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s )
> http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg




My blog about Dark matter !!!
http://maroszdm.blogspot.de/

MY blog Abut My test

http://tesla2.blogspot.de/

MY next Discovery !!! Natural fall down LAW problem
I explained why we feel gravitation signals from black mass .

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=50672#Post50672

( we can register apparent position of the mass M and we not see light from mass M mass M can go very fast faster than own Gravitation signal !!!)

http://old-physics.blogspot.com/

x

Going going ... gone

Have you even worked out Rose is deleting your spam yet Newton?

Your post above won't last long the razor lady will find it

Matt Strassler has some interesting comments.

“Media absurdity has reached new levels of darkness with the announcement that Stephen Hawking has a new theory in which black holes do not exist after all.
No, he doesn't.
First, Hawking does not have a new theory... at least not one he's presented. You can look at his paper here --- two pages (pdf), a short commentary that he gave to experts in August 2013 and wrote up as a little document --- and you can see it has no equations at all. That means it doesn't qualify as a theory.”

http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/01/30/did-hawking-say-there-are-no-black-holes/#comments

That is an interesting concept the lack of equations means it's not a theory I wonder if we look back at Charles Darwin's work if it had equations in it ... might be worth a trip to the archives

I still think my answer is more correct that the paper relies on the mythical flying pig named quantum gravity and until you can show me a flying pig it isn't a theory or even science and I have no idea why the media published details about it but hey what would I know I am only a janitor.

The media published it because it was by Steven Hawking. They also just grabbed the first phrase that made a good headline and ran with it. That's what the media do.

As far as quantum gravity is concerned. No, there isn't a good theory of quantum gravity. I think that was pretty clear in Hawking's thinking. That doesn't mean that there won't be. There certainly needs to be something to resolve the disconnect between GR and QM.

For some reason I get the feeling that you don't think that GR is worth thinking about. I think you need to go ahead and accept the fact that both GR and QM are correct. They both work extremely well, except at the extremes. And that is where we need a new theory that includes both of them. So they call that much sought after theory quantum gravity to combine the best of both worlds.

Bill Gill

Where does that leave superstring theory, M-theory and SUSY among other things?

A couple of years ago it was estimated that at least 1,500 scientists were basing their careers on these "theories" alone.
That's a lot of scientists working on "flying pigs".

Don't get me wrong, Orac, I'm not being critical of your view, just using it as a comment on current science.

Not sure where you got that idea?

The inability for anyone to come up with a valid Quantum Gravity theory leaves me thinking GR has to be assumed to be right. That is why I object to Hawking just dispatching it with the flick of a pen and his answer creates more problems than it solves.

That is what is funny the answer upset a hell of a lot of QM scientists because even they don't believe it.



That is called the teary eyed optimistic view, call me a pessimist

I am going to answer you question by using the flying pigs.

Testing for the presence of "flying pigs" is scientific, testing for the absence is not scientific because most likely "flying pigs" don't exist as no-one has proof one ever existed.

So there is no problem scientifically testing for presence of "flying pigs", string theory, quantum gravity, aliens or any other theory. The challenge for those who promote a theory is to get funding and for a while for whatever reason string theory managed to get funding. In recent times funding for string theory has started to reduce because those who provide funding seem less convinced it is likely to produce a discovery.

So you could have a good scientific theory of "flying pigs" existing and producing a discovery and if so it would be perfectly expected that you would get funding to test for "flying pigs".

If I climb a tall tree and find an unusual nest with evidence that it is inhabited by pigs I have to ask myself how it got there. One viable idea is that there are flying pigs. That idea may be wrong, but when I find out how that nest got there the answer will be something that takes on at least some of the characteristics of a flying pig.

If I have a theory that explains how the universe works on large scales (GR) and a theory that explains how the universe works on small scales (QM), but they don't work in an area where it looks as if they both should apply then I need a new theory that will cover that area. And whatever that theory actually winds up being it will have characteristics that include both GR and QM. And such a theory can easily be called Quantum Gravity. The final theory may be called something else, but until we develop that theory the term Quantum Gravity makes a very good placeholder.

Bill Gill

Now my god loves flying pigs so if the flying pig exists my god exists ... that is perfectly acceptable according to you, I don't have to show any links or relationships I just declare it so.

I mean Hawking is proposing QM and GR magically join inside each other no need to worry about the detail and that means the event horizon is all fuzzy just because he decided it must be even though he has no idea how the two theories merge.

So the flying pig GOD exists is a firm scientific place holder based on all the same good scientific place holder principles you are using

Unfortunately I haven't found a pig in a nest in a tree and there isn't anything that remotely even goes close to working as a theory of quantum gravity so that are both just piles of junk and now you want to to make a new theory dependent on the pile of junk existing and call it science

Perhaps you would like to check the current status of Quantum Gravity


Beware the wrath of the flying pig GOD the end is nigh, repent all you quantum gravity sinners.