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.

You seem to be of the opinion that since we don't have a theory of quantum gravity then we should ignore all attempts to come up with one. I just want you to accept the fact that there will be a theory of quantum gravity. We don't know what it will really look like, but there will be one. So we can report on any research that we do in the search for it, hoping that what we find will help to reach the goal.

Bill Gill

You seem to keep ignoring the wording problem, I am somewhat of a QM zealot according to many and even for me you are going a step to far.

Yes GR and Quantum mechanics have to merge but there is no evidence it has to be in a quantum way it could be quantum mechanics gets slowly dissolved by GR or that there is another mechanism that encompasses both of them.

If you want a simple place holder for merging GR and QM it should not be called Quantum Gravity because that description is already in use and the meaning isn't general it is very specific indeed with QM effects being dominant. Use something like "total theory of gravity" or some more general phrase that isn't currently in use if you want a place holder.

My problem is not the testing of Quantum Gravity it is you have excluded other ways of merging by using that very specific phrase as the merge point language.

In the same way there is nothing wrong with testing pigs for an experiment but testing for "flying pigs" could never be a place holder for generic pig testing either because it already has meaning and form and just becomes totally misleading and/or just confusing.

I get what you mean now you have explained it but the confusion arises because of the attempt to use of an already defined expression as a generic place holder.

The way I see it is that we have a phrase which is widely understood. If you can come up with some new designation for that theory, whatever it may be, that will be widely accepted and understood then so be it. But I figure that what it has been called for many years now is what it will be called for many more years. Your campaign is somewhat like my campaign to replace the habit of defining C as the speed of light with a different definition. See my sig for my take on that. But I don't really expect to change how it is defined. I don't see any future in your insisting that we not call Quantum Gravity what it is almost universally called.

As I have said, the final theory may be something completely different, but it will have elements of both GR and QM in it. So there isn't any good reason not to use the phrase Quantum Gravity as a placeholder.


I noticed that before, which is what brought on my earlier comment about your not liking GR. You seem to think that GR is not quite as good as QM, and I have been trying to point out that is just as valid as QM.

Bill Gill

No it is not widely understood as that Quantum Gravity has a precise meaning for how GR and QM join.

Please go and ask a scientist who is working on MOND if it is a quantum gravity theory and see what they say ... seriously go and do it because I doubt any will answer they are working on a Quantum Gravity theory.

My answer is Modified Newtonian Dynamics falls in the informal category of a "fringe theory" specifically, it falls in the category of an "alternative gravity theory" because it proposes fundamental changes to our understanding of the way gravity works. Hence it can't be described as a quantum gravity theory by any stretch of the definition. In MOND quantum mechanics basically stays as something that is crushed at large scales by macro effects so that is the join.

This is my issue I don't understand how you remotely call something like MOND a quantum gravity theory.

If you look at the definition of Quantum gravity the first sentence gives you the problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity)

=> Quantum gravity (QG) is a field of theoretical physics that seeks to describe the force of gravity according to the principles of quantum mechanics.

What does someone doing in science experiments in MOND give a rats about QM they don't view gravity has anything to do with QM so that is hardly according to the principles of QM????

If we go back to the flying pig if I called any experiment on pigs a "flying pig" test does that not make things more than a bit confusing to you. Just imagine how many "flying pig" tests a vet could do none of them remotely having anything to do with an actual flying pig.

Let me throw a specific case at you, so you are happy to call Newton's Mach inspired rubbish a Quantum Gravity theory?

I just find using Quantum Gravity in the way you are as confusing as a vet using "flying pig" tests as a place holder, you can do it if you like but it's weird and confusing to me. I think I have said all I need to so if you still feel Quantum Gravity works as a general place holder I guess I will just have to work my way through any confusion when you use the term there is no point me going on and arguing about it because I doubt I can change your mind.

For my part I will never accept Newtons stuff or MOND as a Quantum gravity theory because they put the cause of gravity coming from something other than a quantum field of gravity as a fundamental force.

Anyhow argument closed lets just agree to disagree because it's not really a science issue.

I don't think of MOND as a quantum gravity theory. As far as I know it is an attempt to explain away the need for dark matter. And it isn't being very successful. Notice that the N in MOND stands for Newtonian. Newtonian dynamics are not GR.

Can you think of a theory of everything, or whatever you want to call it, which replaces either GR or QM with something totally different? The huge successes of both of them tell us that while they may need to be modified the chance of either of them being totally replaced is extremely remote.

Whatever final theory we get when we resolve the conflicts between GR and QM, it WILL include both GR and QM, because they are both extremely successful. Therefore Quantum Gravity is a very useful term, because it encapsulates the idea in just 2 words.

And of course Newton's rantings have nothing to do with science, so we don't even need to consider them.

Bill Gill

There are many which work through a theoretical fifth force. If you have a fifth force and it isn't a quantum field then there really isn't anything to merge between QM and GR beyond what already has, Ideas I can think of off the top of my head

MOND
Quintessence
Graviphoton


The key point about all of the above is they remove the force of gravity as being a Quantum field which to most scientists and me is the essence of Quantum gravity.



You agree Mond isn't a quantum gravity theory now so I am really confused because aren't these theories a merge between GR and QM and that is what you wanted your place holder to be?

You actually seem to be now agreeing with me so I am totally lost because this is the essence of my complaint.




Now you have flipped back to the former, the problem I have is you assume that GR and QM have conflicts and have to merge, neither of which is proved to be true.

As discussed above a simple way out of the problem would be to have a fifth force and hence gravity and QM never meet directly.

That is what I find weird I would love quantum gravity to be the answer (because it means gravity is a quantum field) and here I am having to complain about you using the term as a place holder because it sort of implies that it is the only answer.

This is the same problem I had with Hawkings paper it assumes quantum gravity (that is gravity is a quantum field) and if any of the above ideas are correct gravity isn't so the paper is complete garbage. So it's a flying pig argument show me a flying pig (AKA gravity is a quantum field) before you start arguing what the flying pig eats (AKA what the event horizon looks like).

I should be happy that Hawking and you both think what I think but I am also a janitor and if something has no real solid validity I issue warnings, even if I believe in it.

Well, let's look at MOND. Wikipedia says "In physics, Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND) is a theory that proposes a modification of Newton's law of gravity to explain the galaxy rotation problem."

I don't see anything there about a universal law, such as we need to fix the disconnect between GR and QM. It is simply a different approach to Newton's law of gravity. It certainly doesn't seem to be trying to replace GR.

Once again there is no theory out there, real or proposed, that can possibly work if it doesn't include both GR and QM. After all, both GR and QM fix problems with Newtonian Dynamics (ND). Neither of them completely replaced ND in areas where ND was good enough. For example classical thermodynamics is quite adequate for a large percentage of engineering needs. QM probably could give better results, but not enough better that engineers are ready to give up the relative simplicity of classical thermodynamics. So whatever theory we wind up with it won't throw GR and QM in the trash heap. They will both wind up being subsets of the theory, which can, at least for the time being, be called Quantum Gravity.

Here we go again. The final theory WILL include both GR and QM in its final form. This is necessary because they have both been tested in great detail. There is NO tenable theory out there which will completely displace one or both of them

So a question. Do you feel that there is a chance that whatever the final theory is it will completely displace GR or QM, or both of them?

Bill Gill

Perhaps keep reading



It doesn't go into really enough detail but it does the 2011 tests of MOND versus GR



Now we can actually get to the answer far faster by asking wikipedia for alternatives to general relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity

Look down near the bottom under the section "Modern theories 1980s to present" and you find your friend MOND and it gives you the history of its adaption to become a fully fledged competitor to GR.

So make no mistake MOND if correct adjusts general relativity so in your words it replaces it.



Is it clear now that GR and MOND are on a collision coarse and it is because MOND alters what gravity is and is an "alternative gravity theory" meaning it is in direct competition to GR.

That MOND wikipedia article is terrible it has all the hallmarks of an article written by scientists who don't really like it



MOND replaces GR as per above it is in a list of alternatives to general relativity so that statement isn't holding up. I worry about the QM side as well but pick that up in a bit.



In GR we haven't isolated what specifically gravity is caused by so there is always that option. You start adding in fifth forces and gravity is just a composite effect between two forces like the electroweak interaction and things get interesting but at this point in time we still view such things as unlikely. However the problem of Dark Matter weighs heavily and until that mystery is fixed I think things remain fragile and theories like MOND will get breathing space.

At the moment QM has no alternative theory you won't even find it as an entry in wikipedia but it has a big problem like gravity that no real identifiable cause has been found and as we freeze out string theory it becomes a real issue. As many in QM would say it is back to the drawing board for cause.

This leaves us in a strange position that we have two strong mathematical theories but no underlying causes and so there definitely is a chance both theories will not remain in there current form and be completely displaced.

I like most would prefer that our current theories stay as they are and we just fill in gaps but often nature doesn't play along with what we want so I am wary and vigilant and I don't dismiss the possibility both will end up like Newtons gravity laws are viewed these days.

Ok Orac, I give up. Now we need to get the word out to the scientific community that they need to stop researching both GR and QM because they are deeply flawed and will have to be replaced from the ground up. Thank you for finally getting through to me.

Oh, and we also need to let the scientific community know that Orac has all the answers.

Bill Gill

Your comments are so stupid and ridiculous

You want to infer GR and QM are DEFINITELY going to be in some final theory of everything that is the point of why we keep testing because we aren't sure. Oh no scientists wouldn't have jobs if we did that so I guess we just keep doing it to stay employed according to you.

If you want to use words such as "likely to be in" I wouldn't have a n issue but use the word DEFINITELY hell lets stop testing GR and QM now they are "in" lets stop wasting money. Are there any other things that are "in" and we can stop testing and wasting money ... how about evolution theory?

Tell you what why don't you tell us the full list of "in" and we can adjust our science.

I tell you what you go and find me a scientist that agrees with statement and I will bother to answer this BS perhaps you need to go and look at the definition of science again.

This BS discussion is definitely terminated we have just gone into Bill Land which looks all the same as Newton land.

THE END ... DISCUSSION TERMINATED ITS GONE TO LALA LAND.

Sorry Orac, I got in there first by giving up.

Bill Gill