Stephen Hawking Claims "There Are No Black Holes"

[Cognimancer]

Stephen Hawking Claims "There Are No Black Holes"

Not as we know them, anyway. Stephen Hawking's latest research into quantum theory may redefine what we know about black holes.

There's a lot we don't know about space - it is the final frontier, after all. But as it turns out, even some of what we thought we knew about space isn't actually correct. Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, who has already made massive contributions to our understanding of black holes, has published a paper stating that the conventional model of black holes is flawed. His claim hinges on one of the defining aspects of black holes, the event horizon - which according to Hawking, might not exist.

Black holes, as we currently think of them, are surrounded by an event horizon. This radius marks the distance at which the pull of the black hole is so strong that nothing can escape, including light - hence the name, "black hole." However, there is an unsolved mystery regarding event horizons called the firewall paradox: the current models of quantum theory and general relativity don't agree on what should happen once you cross the event horizon.

Hawking proposes a new model that agrees with both quantum theory and general relativity. His idea is that event horizons don't actually exist; instead, there is an "apparent horizon" at roughly (but not exactly) the same distance from the black hole. There's some advanced theory about space-time fluctuations at the heart of it, but the takeaway is that quantum mechanics allows energy and information to escape the pull of a black hole.

"The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes," Hawking writes, "... in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity." The idea that information can escape the apparent horizon of a black hole opens the door for a closer study of these cosmic regions, but don't go diving in just yet. Hawking's new theory doesn't answer all the questions, and relies on some unproven assumptions. His new paper, "Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf]," has yet to pass peer review.

Of course, even if these things don't behave quite like we thought they did, we'll still call them black holes. "Gray holes" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Source: Nature [http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761]

Permalink

 

[thiosk]

Seems a little sensational to say there are no black holes; the object known as black holes will continue to be known as black holes, but our understanding and view of them will morph substantially with time.

I love Stephen. He's my second favorite theoretical physicist.

 

[FalloutJack]

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen... We know you're a genius AND we know that you're the first to admit to a mistake if ever you've made one and I know that in the past you have...but you could wait until something properly breaks the parameters of the theory before creating a new one to discount it. We understand that we know next to nothing ultimately proveable about black holes insofar as their internal functions are concerned. You don't have to work double-time on the matter. Furthermore, as human beings are the inventor of the term 'black hole', it's still gonna be a black hole even under the new heading. I'm glad that you're still up to the challenge, but what are the other theorists gonna do while you have all the fun?

 

[JamesBr]

So less "there ar e no black holes" and more "black holes function differently then we previously assumed". The Singularity Formally Knows As Black Hole?

Still cool though ^^

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Interesting. I'm not one for the science behind it all but its cool when Stephen speaks up about space events.

'Black Hole' is just too cool to throw out though.

 

[Nokturos]

So he's basically trying to undermine the movie "Event Horizon" from 1997 by rendering its name without scientific meaning. Low blow, Steve, low blow.

 

[wulfy42]

It's all theories based on possibly faulty information, with little to no practical application to the human race. We take for instance the fact that the speed of light is constant, for granted, but that may not actually be true. The speed of light we can observe and that is measurable by us may be constant because there are no massive gravitational forces being applied to the light near us, but....light speed may always start at a constant, but could possible increase or decrease in base speed based on forces that are applied to it. That could invalidate most of the findings/theories we have of the universe since almost the evidence we use, is based on light.

In addition, as always, you have relativity to factor in. Everything is relative, and without having a singular source to compare all other objects to, determining the specific speed of any object is impossible. You are just determining the speed of an object relative to other objects.

In the end, it really doesn't make much of a difference at all, until we have additional means of gathering information and for that matter, a reason to do so. Otherwise, it's just speculation/theories...which might be interesting to think about...but it's not very applicable to us in any real physical way currently.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Didn't he already propose something like this? I thought that was where the hypothetical "Hawking radiation" comes from.

 

[Mangue Surfer]

The alternative theory to" Black Holes" is called "Dark Energy Stars".

 

[NeutralDrow]

We take for instance the fact that the speed of light is constant, for granted, but that may not actually be true. The speed of light we can observe and that is measurable by us may be constant because there are no massive gravitational forces being applied to the light near us, but....light speed may always start at a constant, but could possible increase or decrease in base speed based on forces that are applied to it. That could invalidate most of the findings/theories we have of the universe since almost the evidence we use, is based on light.

I thought the current theory was that the speed of light and c (that is, the actual speed of light and the "speed of light" used in special relativity) are separate concepts. The speed light moves at isn't constant, and what we consider lightspeed is a property of the universe itself, the upper limit after which nothing, including light, can move.

I could be (and almost certainly am) wrong, though.

 

[Yuuki]

"the current models of quantum theory and general relativity don't agree on what should happen once you cross the event horizon."

I didn't know there were any models/theories predicting what happens once something crosses the event horizon. Space itself (and all matter) is falling towards the singularity faster than light, and there are no models/theories explaining what happens when something goes faster than light.

Hawking Radiation makes a lot of sense on paper, but it doesn't really explain how information can be preserved AFTER it has crossed the event horizon. All we know is that Black Holes still have the same 3 aspects which define it: mass, charge and spin. Regardless of what falls into it, it's all made part of the singularity and that information is lost. It's still one of the "simplest" objects in the universe

 

[Something Amyss]

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen... We know you're a genius AND we know that you're the first to admit to a mistake if ever you've made one and I know that in the past you have...but you could wait until something properly breaks the parameters of the theory before creating a new one to discount it.

There have always been problems with the black hole models we have, and it makes sense that Hawking would be working to come up with a way to rectify that.

Science works by advancing as our understanding advances to be more precise. Hawking's new proposal appears to have come out of an attempt to reconcile issues with the old one.

So less "there ar e no black holes" and more "black holes function differently then we previously assumed". The Singularity Formally Knows As Black Hole?

Still cool though ^^

And in a century or two, just "The Singularity." Finally, after much legal issues, it will be able to use "Black Hole" again, but will largely be identified by a strange symbol.

It's all theories based on possibly faulty information, with little to no practical application to the human race. We take for instance the fact that the speed of light is constant, for granted, but that may not actually be true. The speed of light we can observe and that is measurable by us may be constant because there are no massive gravitational forces being applied to the light near us, but....light speed may always start at a constant, but could possible increase or decrease in base speed based on forces that are applied to it. That could invalidate most of the findings/theories we have of the universe since almost the evidence we use, is based on light.

It could be possible but without any evidence to contradict it, the reliability of our models are such as to make no practical difference. It's possible that giant pink ponies spontaneously appear in space playing jazz trombone, but unless there's an impact we can observe, so what?

The Black Hole model does impact our observation, however.

 

[IceStar100]

Ok to be that guy again and I expect to be burned at the stake for this but.

Has Hawking ever done anything useful. I mean we have other scientist who have create cures. We have ones trying to find the means to make energy with out polluting the earth. This guys comes up with idea and theories and stays in the public eye. For the most part it seem like it can't be proven or unproven. So yeah that it.

 

[Clowndoe]

Has Hawking ever done anything useful?

Just because a practical application hasn't been found by a specific line of research doesn't make it invalid. For one, there's no way to know the results of something. People who invented x-rays and MRI's weren't doctors, they were physicists. The medical usage for those phenomenon was just a happy coincidence to people seemingly "dicking around" with particles.

Second, what he's doing, trying figure out exactly how the universe functions may be just a step in the process of developing inter-stellar travel or something. Knowing what's going on in a Black Hole might just be useful when we're trying to get across the galaxy without getting crunched into a singularity.

 

[Roofstone]

Yes, yes, I know some of these words!

All this space stuff usually flies over my head, though it is interesting, what I can understand of it anyhow.

I have to wonder though, does this mean anything at all? To the general man, they will still just be black holes.

 

[Frotality]

nothing in nature that we know of so far has been so definitive and absolute as an event horizon, makes sense that its a relative region rather than an strict divide. nobody would listen or care if he said, "black holes are in reality just really really dark gray holes", the eye-catching title makes sense. the advent of the very nearly black hole may not mean much now, but if proven a valid theory, its a serious breakthrough in one of the great mysteries mankind is currently faced with, and understanding such an extreme natural event would absolutely lead to some amazing technologies down the road.

 

[CriticalMiss]

So he's basically trying to undermine the movie "Event Horizon" from 1997 by rendering its name without scientific meaning. Low blow, Steve, low blow.

He's just pissed off that they gave the lead role to Laurence Fishburne. Then he got snubbed by producers again when they decided he wasn't appropriate for the role of Morpheus andgave it to, you guessed it, Fishburne. Those guys hate each other.

Has Hawking ever done anything useful.

Have poets ever done anything useful?

In a few decades time Hawking's work figuring out black holes could be useful if we decide to piss off in to space and want to avoid horrible death. Plus if the speculative documentary Ultraviolet is true then we will be able to put miniature black holes inside belt buckles and ride motorbikes on the sides of skyscrapers.

 

[Rainforce]

I have to wonder though, does this mean anything at all? To the general man, they will still just be black holes.

Nothing changes, it's just popular science throwing words around. Black holes are still things smaller than their schwarzschild radius (that means they are smaller than the necessary size for their gravity to allow things with the speed of light to escape - contrast event horizon, where NOTHING escapes).
Also what the hell? Scientists advertise quantum entanglement for years, and just now he thinks of applying that problem (together with the millions of other implications) to his (already pretty much proven as completely broken) theory? whargarbhl?