Stephen Hawking Claims "There Are No Black Holes"

[antipunt]

I don't really agree with this, I thought black-holes were pretty well established after the creation that was Justin Bieber.

 

[DracoSuave]

but you could wait until something properly breaks the parameters of the theory before creating a new one to discount it.

The Firewall Paradox mentioned in the article is exactly that. And he's not the only scientist to notice it.

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.

Complaining that theoretical physicists aren't doing useful things would be a lot more interesting a comment if you didn't make it using a machine powered by semiconductors [without quantum mechanics this could never be invented], with information either carried by fiberoptic cable [quantum mechanics] or wireless internet [relativity], potentially on a handheld device that uses GPS monitoring [relativity] to find your position.

The cutting edge of theoretical physics isn't about building crap for you. It's about discovering how the universe fucking works. Now, you might think that 'understanding how this universe works' might be useless, but your opinion is useless because you're obviously not an applied scientist. The APPLIED SCIENCES, the people who DO make the shit that makes our lives better, DO care about how the universe works, because once we understand how the universe works, we can actually use that understanding to build better and better shit.

Do you want teleporter machines and replicators and space ships? Well how the hell do you think we can get these awesome things if people like you don't want our scientists understanding how this world works enough to actually allow these technologies to exist? Cause with current understanding, they can't.

 

[MCerberus]

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.

The point of basic research is to allow practical research to build on it. Just like qualitative studies are often used as literary research for further, quantitative studies. Without basic research scientists, the engineers run out of scientific foundation to build on.

It's like the discovery of radiation. At first it "neato", then they created x-rays. Then someone found out some more mechanics about it, made a sustained reaction in a lead encasement, and a that research lead to nuclear reactors.

 

[FalloutJack]

but you could wait until something properly breaks the parameters of the theory before creating a new one to discount it.

The Firewall Paradox mentioned in the article is exactly that. And he's not the only scientist to notice it.

*Had to look it up since the article did not expand on said paradox*

CAN so much be hinged upon whether you are pulled and compressed into a black hole or actually vaporized first by the pure energy pouring through it? Black hole theory has always been a topic of interest to me, but at some point I had to step back and say "Yeah, but when do we find more facts about it?", and then observations continue. We ARE getting better at this, no doubt, but...our long-distance observations aren't going to get these theories proven or disproven. What we should really do is shove something complex and unmanned in one and learn all we can learn while it still functions. I mean, we got Curiosity and Opportunity on Mars and that's the next best thing to actually being there and discovering things. Speculation and theory is fine, and I respect Stephen Hawking for doing it, but we need to catch up to the theory a bit with something practical and applied, otherwise all these theories are just shots in the dark, literally.

 

[DracoSuave]

Speculation and theory is fine, and I respect Stephen Hawking for doing it, but we need to catch up to the theory a bit with something practical and applied, otherwise all these theories are just shots in the dark, literally.

The closest observed black hole is 1600 light years away. Even if you could launch that probe, the absolute earliest we could get data from it would be 3200 years from now, assuming we had some light-speed travel. Which we do not. Even assuming we managed to get such a thing 300 years from now, that means that we'd start collecting data at bare minimum, the year 5000.

We haven't even got the 'get a probe to the nearest star' thing figured out yet. Which we need greater levels of understanding of the universe for, which we need theoretical physicists to sort out. Without Hawking and Michio and such doing their work, you're not getting that probe you crave so much.

To put things in perspective, the only way we'd currently have data from that probe was if it was launched before the fall of the Roman Empire.

 

[Something Amyss]

I mean, we got Curiosity and Opportunity on Mars and that's the next best thing to actually being there and discovering things.

We had centuries of theory before we even got into an Earth orbit, let alone got a probe on Mars. And it'll probably be decades before we can detect the wizarding school up there.

This is how we progress.

 

[FalloutJack]

Speculation and theory is fine, and I respect Stephen Hawking for doing it, but we need to catch up to the theory a bit with something practical and applied, otherwise all these theories are just shots in the dark, literally.

The closest observed black hole is 1600 light years away. Even if you could launch that probe, the absolute earliest we could get data from it would be 3200 years from now, assuming we had some light-speed travel. Which we do not. Even assuming we managed to get such a thing 300 years from now, that means that we'd start collecting data at bare minimum, the year 5000.

We haven't even got the 'get a probe to the nearest star' thing figured out yet. Which we need greater levels of understanding of the universe for, which we need theoretical physicists to sort out. Without Hawking and Michio and such doing their work, you're not getting that probe you crave so much.

To put things in perspective, the only way we'd currently have data from that probe was if it was launched before the fall of the Roman Empire.

Hoo boy, I didn't say it was gonna be quick and easy. I was saying it should be done. If the year 5000 is your optimistic projection, think of how long it'll actually be. The point I was making was that this is what ya have to do to make headway now. After hypothesis comes experiment, the scientific method. There's a thing we have an idea on and lots of rationale, but not enough concrete evidence. At some point, you have to do something with it. It is understandably hard as hell and I acknowledge that, but there's no getting around it. So, while they're still debating on the matter, let's see someone build us a better probe, 'cause we need one.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

He just wants it renamed as a "Hawking Hole". Stephen you egotistical bastard... Seriously we love ya and all your mathematical craziness which I can't even begin to understand.
Also you're forever cool just because you actually appeared in Futurama. Twice. Also the Simpsons, three times so far. Oh yeah and so cool you were actually portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch. And you were actually on Star Trek: TNG?? How the heck did I forget that?
Damn this guy is the coolest nerd/geek ever.

 

[DracoSuave]

Speculation and theory is fine, and I respect Stephen Hawking for doing it, but we need to catch up to the theory a bit with something practical and applied, otherwise all these theories are just shots in the dark, literally.

The closest observed black hole is 1600 light years away. Even if you could launch that probe, the absolute earliest we could get data from it would be 3200 years from now, assuming we had some light-speed travel. Which we do not. Even assuming we managed to get such a thing 300 years from now, that means that we'd start collecting data at bare minimum, the year 5000.

We haven't even got the 'get a probe to the nearest star' thing figured out yet. Which we need greater levels of understanding of the universe for, which we need theoretical physicists to sort out. Without Hawking and Michio and such doing their work, you're not getting that probe you crave so much.

To put things in perspective, the only way we'd currently have data from that probe was if it was launched before the fall of the Roman Empire.

Hoo boy, I didn't say it was gonna be quick and easy. I was saying it should be done. If the year 5000 is your optimistic projection, think of how long it'll actually be. The point I was making was that this is what ya have to do to make headway now. After hypothesis comes experiment, the scientific method. There's a thing we have an idea on and lots of rationale, but not enough concrete evidence. At some point, you have to do something with it. It is understandably hard as hell and I acknowledge that, but there's no getting around it. So, while they're still debating on the matter, let's see someone build us a better probe, 'cause we need one.

1) We have data. LOTS of data. The data doesn't fit current models, and the current models contradict each other. The current models cannot be correct. Therefore we need a better model.

2) The current models do not permit your 'better probe' to exist. 5000 is a projection using -current models.- If we want a better probe, we need better models.

3) If the better models enable a better understanding, then perhaps the new understanding can lead to different ways of travel. Quantum Mechanics changed electronics by allowing for semiconductors, for example. Without that, no one would be able to consider the notion of silicon doping to create functioning logic gates at microscopic scale. We know that mass cannot travel at the speed of light directly through time and space. So we need to figure out WHY, and if there's a work around. How does not taking the existing data and finding a better understanding of it increase our chances of this?

You missed my main point tho. It will take a MINUMUM of thousands of years before your probe can be sent out and data get back to us using our current scientific models. It's not practical. Even if we DID send it out, there's virtually no chance that there's going to be anyone able to receive or even understand the data returned. So instead of waiting thousands of years held back by current limitations only to have it wasted because the language the probe transmit in no longer exists... wouldn't it be a lot easier to just... I dunno, take what we have, advance scientific understanding, and see what thousands of years of scientific advancement can do?

I mean, you're talking as if theoretical science is done, and meanwhile the people actually doing the work are saying that we haven't even scratched the surface of understanding the CURRENT data.

CAN so much be hinged upon whether you are pulled and compressed into a black hole or actually vaporized first by the pure energy pouring through it?

Yes.

Being pulled and compressed into a black hole is not possible under Quantum Mechanics but is permissible under General Relativity. Vaporized into pure energy and being emitted through quantum tunnelling is permissible under Quantum Mechanics and not under General Relativity.

Both have been observed.

So this means that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, combined, are not quite correct, much like Newton's Laws of Motion are not quite correct. The observations and study of black holes [as well as the work done in the LHC] necessitate a new model that can reconcile the observations that support both models independantly, and the observations that point out their contradictions in the rare instances that they collide.

 

[uchytjes]

Every time I hear something along the lines of "New theory about *insert space phenomena here* is discovered!" I think to myself "If we actually put money towards building space ships, then we could finally go out there and prove something instead of just thinking up theories all the time."

But sadly, it doesn't seem anyone in power actually shares this mentality.

 

[DracoSuave]

Every time I hear something along the lines of "New theory about *insert space phenomena here* is discovered!" I think to myself "If we actually put money towards building space ships, then we could finally go out there and prove something instead of just thinking up theories all the time."

But sadly, it doesn't seem anyone in power actually shares this mentality.

The fastest thing in the known universe is light, and it takes light anywhere between thousands to billions of years to reach us from what the scientists are studying right now. Building a vehicle to go anywhere past the moon, right now, with our technology, is a one way trip.

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoop

Snip

Here, you two talk. I see one helluva debate in the making.

Draco, I didn't say anything was 'over', nor did I ignore the information we have. However, in reference to Jes here, you still need to get working on a practical solution. Now, you can shout at me all you want, but we're not getting any younger and that's no reason not to start working on something. Because unfortunately, it sounds like you don't wanna do the footwork, the necessary footwork, to arrive at the conclusion which is that faraway goal. Learning never stops, but the work doesn't either.

 

[DracoSuave]

Zoop

Snip

Here, you two talk. I see one helluva debate in the making.

Draco, I didn't say anything was 'over', nor did I ignore the information we have. However, in reference to Jes here, you still need to get working on a practical solution. Now, you can shout at me all you want, but we're not getting any younger and that's no reason not to start working on something. Because unfortunately, it sounds like you don't wanna do the footwork, the necessary footwork, to arrive at the conclusion which is that faraway goal. Learning never stops, but the work doesn't either.

Don't confuse useless rhetoric for a valid counterargument, you haven't actually produced one.

I agree practical work needs to be done to advance knowledge.
I agree that there is more understanding necessary, more data, more observations, more experiments, which foster more understanding.
I agree that visionaries are necessary and applications are an important part of scientific discovery.

However, where we disagree is that you appear to believe some magical rocket scientist is going to throw some pieces of metal together and 'discover' a way to overcome the limitations of General Relativity through engineering. I, on the other, am a rational being, and understand that isn't possible. So rather than wait for some wizard to go FIZZAM LOOK AT THIS GENERAL RELATIVITY BREAK ALLOY I PULLED OUT OF MY ASS, I'm in favor of a practical approach.

Seeing as we know General Relativity isn't -quite- correct, maybe we should sort out a hypothesis for what could be correct, then design something that can test that out directly? And then maybe that new hypothesis might allow for space warping and other fun things like that, which would THEN allow for FTL travel.

It's not 'people in power' that are holding this back. I can't grow wings and fly, and there's no one I can vote into office that will make that happen. One of us is actually advocating a practical approach, and the other is blaming politicians.

 

[FalloutJack]

Boing

Hey, don't confuse that post for acceptable behavior on this board. That's no way to discuss science. Certainly not with an outburst of abusive talk like that. Could you get back on topic please?

 

[DracoSuave]

Boing

Hey, don't confuse that post for acceptable behavior on this board. That's no way to discuss science. Certainly not with an outburst of abusive talk like that. Could you get back on topic please?

It was on topic, and rebutting someone's argument is not abuse.

 

[FalloutJack]

Boing

Hey, don't confuse that post for acceptable behavior on this board. That's no way to discuss science. Certainly not with an outburst of abusive talk like that. Could you get back on topic please?

It was on topic, and rebutting someone's argument is not abuse.

I can't take a shouting match and possible flame-starter as a rebuttal, especially when I don't understand where it came from or if it has anything to do with what I said. I really have no idea where this is going. I see a rant, an angry rant that came out of left field all of a sudden. It's a flame and it doesn't seem to pertain to discussion.

 

[4ged]

Zoop

Snip

Here, you two talk. I see one helluva debate in the making.

Draco, I didn't say anything was 'over', nor did I ignore the information we have. However, in reference to Jes here, you still need to get working on a practical solution. Now, you can shout at me all you want, but we're not getting any younger and that's no reason not to start working on something. Because unfortunately, it sounds like you don't wanna do the footwork, the necessary footwork, to arrive at the conclusion which is that faraway goal. Learning never stops, but the work doesn't either.

Don't confuse useless rhetoric for a valid counterargument, you haven't actually produced one.

I agree practical work needs to be done to advance knowledge.
I agree that there is more understanding necessary, more data, more observations, more experiments, which foster more understanding.
I agree that visionaries are necessary and applications are an important part of scientific discovery.

However, where we disagree is that you appear to believe some magical rocket scientist is going to throw some pieces of metal together and 'discover' a way to overcome the limitations of General Relativity through engineering. I, on the other, am a rational being, and understand that isn't possible. So rather than wait for some wizard to go FIZZAM LOOK AT THIS GENERAL RELATIVITY BREAK ALLOY I PULLED OUT OF MY ASS, I'm in favor of a practical approach.

Seeing as we know General Relativity isn't -quite- correct, maybe we should sort out a hypothesis for what could be correct, then design something that can test that out directly? And then maybe that new hypothesis might allow for space warping and other fun things like that, which would THEN allow for FTL travel.

It's not 'people in power' that are holding this back. I can't grow wings and fly, and there's no one I can vote into office that will make that happen. One of us is actually advocating a practical approach, and the other is blaming politicians.

lets get people on mars before we decide to go to other solar systems, also the people in power control money, money controls resources, resources control research and development of technology, politics has been and is entwined with scientific advancement sense the beginning of human history.

 

[Storm Dragon]

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.

Gordon Freeman being the first?

Spoiler: Capcha: 'walk the plank'

Well, since I brought him up...

 

[Salad Is Murder]

Oh really, Mr. Hawking? Might I counter with this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078869/

Your move, Steve.

 

[DracoSuave]

I can't take a shouting match and possible flame-starter as a rebuttal, especially when I don't understand where it came from or if it has anything to do with what I said. I really have no idea where this is going. I see a rant, an angry rant that came out of left field all of a sudden. It's a flame and it doesn't seem to pertain to discussion.

I'll catch you up.

The thread is about Stephen Hawking's latest hypothesis about what black holes actually do in a way that reconciles Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. One person suggested that doing so [as well as theoretical physics itself] was pointless until we send a probe, which is impractical to the level of impossibility given current physics, and the other was making the rediculous claim that it was 'people in power' stopping these sorts of exploration. I'm defending Hawking and making the claim that him and theoretical physics ARE the practical approach given the 'just build it and do it' approach won't see data back until the 51st century.

Pointing out the absurdities in absurd arguments is not abuse. Moreover, read the statement I responded to. I was being accused of being unwilling to do 'the footwork' when I'm advocating the individuals actually doing that necessary footwork.

lets get people on mars before we decide to go to other solar systems

I agree. The problem is that this isn't the first baby step, because before we can do the mars thing, we have to decide whether or not who goes is coming back.

If they're not coming back, you need to find people who are willing to give up their life on earth forever, with no hope of seeing anyone they know ever again, with the only form of communication being nonrealtime. Then you need to develop a biodome-like system capable of keeping humans within alive for a lifetime or lifetimes, using only the materials we bring with us, and the material on the planet itself.

If they ARE coming back, you need to bring with you a vehicle capable of launching from Mars, and then either bring enough fuel to launch it, or know where it can be found on Mars using only what you launch there. A lunar lander won't work because the escape velocity is much more on Mars.

Both of these issues suffer from problems of scale--both of these solutions are extremely large and cannot be launched from earth using current technology.

So, thus, we cannot launch them from earth.

That's why the research is into the international space station right now--because that is the baby step for creating an orbital launch platform. Then you work on a lunar colony next, because that's close enough that if something goes wrong you still can recover the colonists AND it isn't a life sentence.

From there, you now have orbital launch stations and space colonies, so the next step is to set up an orbital space station around mars, which is supplied by earth orbital. Those supplies are then landed on mars to establish the mars colony.

And then, you have people on mars.