July 22nd, 2004, 02:55 AM
Hawking was wrong... maybe :)
After 29 years of thinking about it, Stephen Hawking says he was wrong about black holes.
The renowned Cambridge University physicist presented a paper Wednesday arguing that black holes, the celestial vortexes formed by collapsed stars, preserve traces of objects swallowed up and eventually could spit bits out "in a mangled form." Last week, in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., he revealed he had changed his long-held thinking on black holes.
Hawking's radical new thinking caps his 30-year struggle to explain a paradox in scientific thinking: How can objects "disappear" inside a black hole and leave no trace, as he long believed, when subatomic theory says matter can be transformed but never destroyed?
July 22nd, 2004, 03:44 AM
It makes sense to me but how would an object escape a singularity? In an unpredictable order?
July 22nd, 2004, 04:44 AM
i hope the motion picture industry doesn't sue him
Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”
July 22nd, 2004, 05:15 AM
I think he is just trying to make a cover story for the very real Stargate SG1 project.... I mean they have MacGuyver as their #1 man, how can you deny that?
July 22nd, 2004, 06:19 AM
Full details of this have still to be published, and you can bet the maths will be extremely heavy!
However, what he seems to be saying is that the event horizon does not work in the way that is accepted at present - in other words matter sucked into a black hole can (does?) get emitted in some sort of recognisable form at some point in the future.
His new theory also balances out the contradictions with quantum theory, and means that there is no need to have alternate universes to explain what happens to all that matter.
July 22nd, 2004, 01:29 PM
the thing I find weird is that this has been discussed - and even shown by Hawking, bloody ages ago in his 1974 paper. I couldn't find an online version of the paper but the below gives a clear enough outline
really this isn't new - I only wish I had a chance to hear what he actually said to cause all this attention.
According to Hawking, if a particle and antiparticle pair is created near the event horizon of a black hole, gravity will pull one of the particles into the hole permanently, while the other particle (or antiparticle) can escape, or be "radiated," from the black hole. "In this way the black hole could radiate something from nothing," said Chen.
Having just read the link Neg provided..... actually I can see where his reversal comes from - Darkes its not actually about the event horizon as such... what Hawking is more or less proposing is the existence of white holes - something which although previous postulated by other physicists has alwasy been denied by Hawking.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
July 22nd, 2004, 01:52 PM
Ok. For those of us who are "uneducated" in this, what is a white hole?
what Hawking is more or less proposing is the existence of white holes
July 22nd, 2004, 03:11 PM
It's like the exit drain and explains what happens to space time once it enters a singlularity, but many peeps state that once matter enters a singularity the white hole disapears and today there are none left. Because to set up a singularity, or black hole it had to exist in the first place (talking about existing in our real universe). Thus white holes cannot exist in the real universe. There are non left.
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
July 22nd, 2004, 09:09 PM
MsM....Road has pretty much summed it up... as you can infer from his explanation its a far from cut and dried theory.... and I understand that Hawkings latest comments have caused quite a lot of head shaking in physicist circles. I think that Hawking is not quite proposing white holes in the strictest sense of the term but thats pretty much what it amounts to (with some modifcations to the white hole theory). I'm still trying to track down a transcript of his full speech so I can get a better grip on what he's saying.
Incidentally... MsM a quick run down on white holes/ wormholes can be found here
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
July 22nd, 2004, 09:24 PM
I think white holes is a politically incorrect term. Refering to them as wormholes is pretty much what most people will understand them best as. Black holes are believed to have no exit, and a singularity. A wormhole is very simmiliar to a black hole, but the object somehow misses the singularity and passes on to another universe through a hole in the spacetime.
Maybe a different explanation by me...pretty much what road said