Hawking was wrong... maybe :)

Quote:

---

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4887935.html

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?
...

---

It makes sense to me but how would an object escape a singularity? In an unpredictable order?

i hope the motion picture industry doesn't sue him

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?

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.

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

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/slac/me...0605/chen.html

Quote:

---

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.

---

really this isn't new - I only wish I had a chance to hear what he actually said to cause all this attention.

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.

Z

Quote:

---

what Hawking is more or less proposing is the existence of white holes

---

Ok. For those of us who are "uneducated" in this, what is a white hole?

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.

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

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=108
and here
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html

Z

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 :)

I'm going to disagree with you here Cybrid... a worm hole is what connects the entrance (black hole) and exit(white hole) points of the singularity - the second of the two links I posted explains this.

to quote (under the heading 'Kruskal-Szekeres spacetime diagram of the wormhole')

Quote:

---

The two Universes are joined by a wormhole, the region of spacetime between the white hole and black hole singularities.

---

don't see why white hole is a politically incorrect term though... unless we're going to go into the whole white european/black african race thing... which would be blatantly silly in this instance :)

or am I just letting this wine affect me too much?

(Nihil if you're reading... it's a fairly light Californian blend from some place called Echo falls... a cheapy one but its actually fairly drinkable.... has a tase a bit like lemon cheescake and apple pie with a hint of rhubarb)

Quote:

---

don't see why white hole is a politically incorrect term though... unless we're going to go into the whole white european/black african race thing... which would be blatantly silly in this instance

---

Lol no not at all :)...thats just my take on it and the way I see it. My personal theory if u might :). A black hole comes from the fact that not even light can escape its gravitational pull...but a white hole, which would be its opposite, would let that light that entered through the black hole, but missed the singularity escape which would make it seem like a bright object...would it not? A wormhole would be a better explanation for it...its a tunnel through timespace and leave it at that...while a black hole is more of a trap...but can sometimes have wormhole behaviour...which would be your defenition of a "white hole"

Echo Falls, I think i've tried that once in a white/chocolate tasting event. I enjoyed it :D

:D oh good - would not have wanted to get into the race issue - not something I'm interested in.

Black holes do radiate stuff though... Hawking radiation (its what I was refering to in my first post)...

anyway the way I see it is the point of the event horizon is the black holes 'surface' (if you will)... tunnel = wormhole... and the exit event horizon is the white holes 'surface'. Its a bit difficult to describe the bounding points of a hole though.... at least in words. its debatable whether the wormhole actually misses the singularity or goes through it (although in this second case the singularity is supposed to bisect the wormhole).

We're probably actually both describing the same thoughts you know :).... language can be very inadequate sometimes.... especially where things like this are involved

As for mixing wine and chocolate... excuse me..... :chuck:

sorry... just cannot countenance that thought... but it is a nice drop of booze though

LOL it was an event where they had a ton of different chocolates and wines....you dont necessarily mix em together ROFL...

But they did have these delicious slices of bread with some spread on them and salmon...and some caviar stuff :D...


Indeed zone, we might be describing the same. Yes a singularity is believed to bisect a wormhole...which is also one of the issues with traveling through a wormhole :)

iirc there was some stuff I read while I was in high school (I got bored, so I started into this topic back then) that although there are no white holes in this universe, there have been postulates that we live in a multiverse (many universes) which have in the past have also been referenced as "dimensions".

This leads us to 1 of 3 different possibilities (the first two of which I particularly like).

1) The dimensions are layered on each other like a stack of pancakes. These dimensions are perpendicularly aligned with the dimensions we know. The first dimension is the track that all the universes are stringed on which creates a wormhole from dimension to dimension. The second and third dimensions are the frameworks that hold our current universe scheme together. The forth dimension is the other track that we travel along.

because they are aligned perpendicularly, we are able to expand forever in 360 degrees around the center point of the universe, however, it will give the appearance of going on forever, yet each universe is shaped like a spherical oval (where we live on the outside of the pancake)...

We are linked to our universe/dimension and all the universes/dimensions are traveling like a train on the 1 and 4th dimensions (tracks). Black holes are the way to jump from one car to the next. Now, even though there is no known white holes, it is not that they don't exist, but rather, they cannot be seen because light never hits them to reflect off of to us. Also, white holes are seen once one is in the worm hole since they are ways to escape.

2) Rather than being linked to our universe, we are linked to the 4th dimension, in this example; the 4th dimension is like a road. The universes are still stacked, however, the different choices we make force us to go from one universe to another (similar to how in back to the future, one choice could change everything) black holes and white holes are ways to go forward and backward in time.

Now even though Einstein said time travel was not possible, he did say that theoretically time viewing was possible. combining this view with the fact that in order to view something, light must be reflected off of it AND the particle theory of light which states that light even though it travels as a wave it has qualities of a particle (hence why it is sucked into a black hole) leads us to see that theoretically time travel should be possible and how we technically would be able to change our past mistakes.

this also creates a paradox, however, because (and we are going to presume God exists) if God created everything, and black holes are a way to go back into the past, then because of the black holes now and in the future, and the original white hole in the beginning, all the matter that was collected into the future was sent through the white hole which caused it to explode causing the big bang happened. because this happened, God never had to create anything since he already did, and the cycle just keeps going, he did however have to create a black and a white hole in the beginning... which brings us to our third possibility

3) WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) and the first two points could just be mental masturbation and even though things can be mathematically proven, they are only possibilities and not realities

the end
or is it ;)

dj - you might want to read up on Kaluza-Klein theory if you're interested in pan dimensional physics... also pretty much anything written by Michio Kaku (his website is here http://www.mkaku.org/) would be of interest

However just to comment

1) dimensions 1-3 are what make up what we commonly refer to as the physical world, the 4th dimension is time. In reality we may also have very rudimentary senses that extend to the 5 and 6th dimensions (possibly higher but who knows). Pancake theory has evolved somewhat more than what you're talking about. You would not be able to use a black hole/wormhole/whitehole to jump intot he next dimension... gravitatioonal forces would annihilate you long before you ever reached the singularity barrier - which would also be terminal. A white hole could be seen because it is emitting radiation (either in visible or invisible EM spectra) - it would not need to reflect light radiation - indeed it could not relect light as it has no true surface to reflect anything off.

2) the 4th dimension is time - yes we are already linked to it. you're now talking about the many worlds theory which has slightly different consequences from the pancake theory. whether you can actually change time is however a different matter - it is speculated that even if it is possible to travel in time it is only possible to change the future not the past.

Einstein - whilst far brainer than me.... and much kudos goes to him... lost it to an extent - like many scientists he fell into the trap of thinking his theories were exclusively correct, he wasn't willing to modify his theories in the face of overwhelming evidence (IMO thats one thing which Hawking does have my respect for, he is willing to stand up and say 'I'm wrong'). Being convinced you're right and everyone else is wrong is not always a good thing. Having said that one bad thing about Hawkings latest comments is

Quote:

---

“There is no baby universe branching off (inside a black hole), as I once thought. The information remains firmly in our universe,” Hawking said in a speech to about 800 physicists and other scientists from 50 countries. “I’m sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes.

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5473323/

which is something I personally find quite depressing (and I also think its untrue but until I find a copy of Hawkings damn transcript I'm going to have to sweat this one out)

Your logic on this score is exceptionally woolly. Where did you get the idea that a black hole has to go backwards in time for example?? In any case it doesn't necessarily create a paradox.... a 'circle' can have input coming from a different direction which you have no concept of (hint: in a 1D perspective, a sphere - a 3D object- is viewed as a circle. If you're an omnipotent being you aren't restricted to one dimension... what might appear as one thing to you - living in 1D land- may actually only be a part of a whole 3D entity.)

3) quite possibly this is the case... in which case everything is totally pointless

On that note i'm going to meditate before going to sleep - I have to be up in 5 hours :(

For the sake of any intelligent discussion about the paradox in question it would help to read what hawking actually said, instead of relying on a journalistic interpretation.

I'm relying on neither...i'm giving my own ideas.

The problem here is that he hasn't published his views in detail as yet.

But, from all the information I've read, he is saying that the event horizon does not work in the way that is accepted at present.
To be more precise, the information about the matter that is sucked into a black hole via the event horizon maintains most if not all, of its original structure (at a quantum level, that is!).

Yup, you'll still be pulverised, but the basic composition of your sub atomic particles is preserved.
And, at some point in the future the white/black hole radiates this information to the rest of the universe.
This means there is no need for alternate universes, as all the matter in the universe is recyled at quantum/sub-atomic level.

!mitation - yes I couldn't agree with you more... I've been looking for that damn transcript - it hadn't been posted when I was looking. What darkes is saying is pretty much what I gleaned from press releases - that being the case, it would seem time travel or travel to other dimensions is not going to be possible. Incidentally when I metnioned the 'paradox' it was actually in direct reply to dj - personally I prefer to keep God out of this discussion.

anyway I'm going to read this transcript

What about pink holes and brown ones ?

Tongue and cheek:

Pink holes are very interesting, nothing escapes their draw - NOTHING! Brown holes are not based in my perception of physics in nature. They are an alternate universe. Does a contained universe equal and alternate dimension?

:D

Quote:

---

you'll still be pulverised, but the basic composition of your sub atomic particles is preserved.

---

If that is the case we could all "beam" our correspondent binary representation through?

It would be nice if a singularity would park itself withing 20 or 30 years of us but they aren't born as easy as stars, based on my understanding and subscribed thoughts. I know they are perhaps the death of a large star or "other" unkown object but they have to be HUGE to form a black hole and are there any more of these objects left in perceptible space? Not likely. What would be interesting is a black hole in another universe or galaxie suddenly opening an exit drain about a 1/4 of the way to Alpha Centauri. ;)

Off topic: I remeber reading a UK based paper called the SUN or something, it was about hawking claiming that his wife dragged him out of his chair and left him in a garden exposed to a certain main sequence star that streams out packets of photons. Did anyone read about this not long ago? The topic came up at dinner in a restaurant which turned out to be embarrassing, thanks to two friends imitating in a robotic voice what choice words hawking said to his wife after he was back in his chair! The group of girls in the booth next to us had no clue as we about died in laughter.


I found this link but not the specific story I am talking about. http://www.safe4all.org/forums/messa...ssage_id=20900

!mitation

it be this that you are on about (daily Mirror not the Sun, although the Sun would probably have carried the story as well - both are trash newspapers)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...l&siteid=50143

and also covered here (note the first is a report of an earlier event, the second of the two is in reference to the Daily Mirror report)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/3414473.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/3579811.stm

Hahah, when you say trash papers I assume you mean something like our "The National Enquirer" that can be bought at the check_out_line in almost any food store & gas station here?

They report on important stuff like "Britney spears has michael jacksons baby " "Saddam found in france" "gay aliens found in Iraq"ect......(those were actual headlines)

Hmm, not quite .....

I've read a few copies of the The National Enquirer, and get my US friends to bring some over when they come to visit. A great read, if I may say so ;)

The Sun & the Daily Mirror do make some sort of attempt to cover the news.

For the really trashy end of the UK newspaper market try something like this: http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/
It's extremely difficult to find any real news in this, but can make for amusing reading on a Sunday if you are feeling bored.

This is a very touchy subject. Particulary since atm black holes are just an idea.. or rather a theory.

Hawking wouldn't have overlooked the subatomic laws, as well as the laws of conservation of mass and energy - matter / energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Black holes, must at least bend the laws because of the fact of the singularity. (a point of infinite mass and energy)

Well, the hubble telescope seems to have found pretty good confirmation that black holes do exist, as reported a couple of years ago here: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/new...eases/2002/18/.

Hawking did "overlook", or more accurately conflict with subatomic laws in the sense that his views on how black holes work (proposed about 20 years ago) do contradict quantum physics.

However, he has now changed his mind when he stated last week that
"If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our Universe, but in a mangled form, which contains information about what you were like, but in an unrecognisable state." - which conforms with what quantum theory would say.

Previously he was saying that matter could be destroyed/fundamentally altered, which is what lead to the idea of alternative universes, as once it fell behind the event horizon, it was lost forever.
What he is saying now is that all black holes "open up" at some time in the future, and emit the original information in some form.

This is also in agreement with "string theory" – where the universe is made up of tiny, vibrating strings (rather than minuscule particles) which would also allow the information to escape from a black hole in the future.

Nothing yet on "naked singularities", which is another odd thing which comes out of Einstiens theories on relativity.

I'm looking forward to seeing the details of what maths he has used to do this, as I studied this as part of my maths degree at Oxford.

Within Hawkings own circle there were contradicting theories. I attended an invitation to his university where his own students showed me a computer simulation of a black hole and they showed the particles streaming out in our own space, although in the future. I didn't even begin to understand the underlying contruction but the visual component was fascinating.

His statement somewhat elates me. It gets back into making things work in our "own" universe. Possibly it was some bright student who made him see a light at the end of the event horizon? :)