Stephen Hawking Claims "There Are No Black Holes"

[2xDouble]

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.

Flying through hypserspace ain't like dusting crops, boy. Without precise calculations you might fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?

Thank you, that is all.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

Flying through hypserspace ain't like dusting crops, boy. Without precise calculations you might fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?

Thank you, that is all.

I know, right? It's like they don't even know what a parsec is.

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoiks

OH, so you were abusive to BOTH of us with that post, AND it was unclear because everything was mixed together. Plus, I'm pretty sure your rant didn't answer the problem at hand. Since this isn't going anywhere and Jes doesn't even know you're addressing him like this, I think I'd better end it here.

 

[DracoSuave]

Zoiks

OH, so you were abusive to BOTH of us with that post, AND it was unclear because everything was mixed together. Plus, I'm pretty sure your rant didn't answer the problem at hand. Since this isn't going anywhere and Jes doesn't even know you're addressing him like this, I think I'd better end it here.

I'm sorry if you feel you're being attacked. I'm not meaning to give this impression.

All I have done is attack your ideas. That's fair game; ideas, beliefs, notions are not sacred. They can be examined, torn apart, put back together to form better ideas. That's what science is about, at its core, is it not?

However, Jes attacked me, not the other way around. Your ideas were well meaning and we agree on the need for practical science--I just pointed out how your idea was inherently impractical. Jes accused me being an opposition to practical science which is the diametric opposite of my position.

If I have insulted you, personally, please, show me where I have done so, and I will apologize. If, however, your contention is that I attacked your ideas, I do not apologize, nor should I.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Alright, look... I couldn't pull it apart. It looked like an outburst, where the guy blows his stack and just starts saying whatever he likes. It wasn't cohesive, it wasn't friendly, and I wasn't even sure if it made entire sense. It- Here, let me reiterate some of the stuff I've been trying to say, alright? I think we just had a bit of a misunderstanding.

I am not worried about the length of time or necessarily the technology. I know how innovation and the creation of new technologies works. I have had the fundamental understanding ever since I watched Connections as a kid. Many little things, a long string of devices, ideas, and events (needs driving and all that) have to come together. Of course people don't just 'invent stuff'. Implying that I wouldn't know that is a terrible thing to say. Many things lead to other things. Not all of these are wholey predictable, but some of the things created as a result are astounding for their time and place.

Now then, I understand the long game. I get that even with a good line of advancements, the truth about black holes - studied, proven, and done with - will not be in my life time unless one shows up even closer than before. This does not worry me, but what worries me is the will to get things done. Science and theoretical discussion is the descendent of one of my favorite subjects, philosophy. Nothing is more theoretical and thought-provoking in discussion than this...maybe. (It's an opinion of mine is all.) However, I know what happens when you get a bunch of guys on a topic with all manner of logical constructs, debating with each other. At some point, you'd kill for a practical answer.

I never said that any of what was required would be easy, but I did worry that if people don't get on the bandwagon after a goal - if even to start small like we'd have to - what if they never get around to it? Is there, for every man like Stephen Hawking who is pondering the state of black holes and quantum states, enough following work on what we know or is everyone waiting for the answer to drop into their lap? My worry is the latter. I feel that while Stephen is a genius, he should be asking people to apply themselves more. We benefit greatly from a mind like that, but he won't be there forever and there's more than one road to discovery and my point is that people should travel the other ones more.

Now, I hope that clears up any issues, and please next time separate your comments.

 

[balladbird]

Flying through hypserspace ain't like dusting crops, boy. Without precise calculations you might fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?

Thank you, that is all.

I know, right? It's like they don't even know what a parsec is.

The hell we don't!

*counts on fingers*

wait... how many parsecs in a gallon?


The title had me curious, good to know it's more of a paradigm shift than some kind of complete retraction of a large portion of what we knew of the cosmos. I'm looking forward to seeing where future research leads us.

 

[Smooth Operator]

So what he actually proposes is that quantum mechanics that defy relativity anyway also defy a black hole which is defined with relativity... it's not that big of a leap, just a very minor pedantic detail.

But seeing Hawking play it up like that is always fun to see, all that intellect still doesn't save him from the trappings of a sensationalist society, at least he didn't end up on Kardashians.

 

[DracoSuave]

Snip

Alright, look... I couldn't pull it apart. It looked like an outburst, where the guy blows his stack and just starts saying whatever he likes. It wasn't cohesive, it wasn't friendly, and I wasn't even sure if it made entire sense. It- Here, let me reiterate some of the stuff I've been trying to say, alright? I think we just had a bit of a misunderstanding.

Handshake. We cool?

I feel that while Stephen is a genius, he should be asking people to apply themselves more. We benefit greatly from a mind like that, but he won't be there forever and there's more than one road to discovery and my point is that people should travel the other ones more.

We're not in disagreement here about the desired route, where we disagree is the theoretical physicists role in all this.

This is going to ramble a bit, I apologize in advance.

Let's say for sake of argument he finds a way to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity. That explanation may have other implications, and those implications may be testable within our lifetimes. A related example of this sort of thing would be the Higgs Field, which is an attempt to reconcile mass and massless particles and provide greater insight as to 'what IS mass?' which science doesn't really have an answer for. What does this have to do with Hawking? Well, black holes are supermassive objects. Understanding black holes at a quantum level would bring us insights into mass at a quantum level.

So, let's say we understand microscopicly what mass is, why the Higgs field interacts with it, and why it slows time and attracts other mass towards it--well we might learn a way to influence gravity without influencing mass. Now THAT might have practical applications! Transporting heavy objects from one place to another might become signifigantly easier! Massless objects are much easier to shoot into space than massed objects! And mass isn't what holds objects of our scale together, so it might even be harmless!

Besides, it's not like practical applications of science have slowed down, not in this world of 3-d printers and hydrophobic coatings and mono-molecular threads of carbon and all sorts of awesome applications that are based on advances in theoretical physics.

 

[Strazdas]

Weather forecasting for black holes. Gota love this man, he manages to sneak in a joke even when writing scientific papers meant to turn around the way to deal with black holes.

Honestly, Black holes ore rather Ultradense matter creates a connundrum for physics in that they literally don't know how to apporach it since when they plug numbers like that into their equations their calculators flip them the bird.

thats because current models are simplifications that work only in median range. either ultradense or ultralight matter actually defy physics as we know them. this was know long time ago. Even Einstein said that E=MC^2 is incorrect on the whole and he invented the bloody thing (though actually his formula was more complex and later physicis simplified it to that throwing away part of Einsteins research which made the model less accurate when dealing with big bodies (like planets)). A good phyiscist will tell you that the "laws of thermodynamics" are actually false. they are approximations that are easy to use in everyday life for everyday measures and completely useless dealing with ultradense or ultralight items. there is a reason they say physics dont work in black holes.

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?

considering he uses the term in a title of his paper i dont think he really wants to get rid of the term. Merely sensationalist journalism being sensationalist.

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.

"Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually." - Hilen Tukoss. Program Director, Otosela Neuropsychology Center.

everything we learn is useful. The impact may not be visible instantly as with some other things, but knowledge of how universe works is useful. especially if we ever want to get off this overpopulated rock.

also the burning was canceled, rain started.

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.

that would be nice if not for the fact that the closest black star is 1600 lightyears away so it would take a really long time for something to fly to it, and as voyager I proven we are having trouble flying outside of our solar system to begin with. dont get me wrong, i would love to be able to send a rover to black hole, but it is simply impossible with our technology. Im sure Stephen would love to send a rover there too.

We haven't even got the 'get a probe to the nearest star' thing figured out yet.

wait, so we never sent a (suicidal) probe to sun?

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.

then your thinking is incorrect. we could not go out there because we do not know the theory of building spaceships capable of doing so. only one prove managed to even attempt to leave solar system and broke down before doing that sucesfully (we lost contact). all the money in the world will not create you a thing we cant even imagine yet.

 

[DracoSuave]

wait, so we never sent a (suicidal) probe to sun?

It's obvious in context that I was not referring to the sun. Don't be that guy.

 

[FalloutJack]

Funny, I don't look like Bruce Willis.

Yeah, we cool.

Anyway, couple of things on that. In regards to the relation of mass and the Higgs Field, isn't this a job for our Large Hadron Collider? People were already afraid that we were gonna homebrew a black hole right there, though in reality it's been rather useful in this area, has it not? Still, it WOULD be nice to launch shuttles into space using as little as a railgun (Little being a relative term, of course), but once in space...well...it's not like there's much in the way of friction to worry about. If anyone does anything to cancel the effect of mass (with some stability, if ya want the vehicle to survive), we have to do better than improved takeoff and landing. If objects approaching the speed of light reach infinite mass and light is (given the nature of black holes) influenced by gravity wells, does applying something to alter the effect of mass mean that we win the FTL prize or make it infinitely easier to be sucked down a black hole?

 

[Jeroenr]

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.

The Fermi gamma ray telescoop did a test some years ago.
The result was surprising to say the least.

"Racing across the universe for the last 7.3 billion years, two gamma-ray photons arrived at NASA's orbiting Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope within nine-tenths of a second of one another. The dead-heat finish may stoke the fires of debate among physicists over Einstein's special theory of relativity because one of the photons possessed a million times more energy than the other. "

http://phys.org/news175965994.html

Basically, if space could slow light down, it would slow it down depending on energy level.
But it didn't.
This applies to the whole light spectrum, from radio waves to Gamma waves.

This probably doesn't prove that light is constant on it own.
But is does score one point for the "yes it is" team.

 

[DracoSuave]

Funny, I don't look like Bruce Willis.

Yeah, we cool.

Anyway, couple of things on that. In regards to the relation of mass and the Higgs Field, isn't this a job for our Large Hadron Collider?[ People were already afraid that we were gonna homebrew a black hole right there, though in reality it's been rather useful in this area, has it not?

Yep!

Thing is, it was basically designed to study near-big-bang conditions. We can't create a big bang [and shouldn't] but we can make a large hadron collider.

We can't directly study a black hole, but understanding black hole conditions might allow us to replicate those effects and test them.

Which would be neato!

Still, it WOULD be nice to launch shuttles into space using as little as a railgun (Little being a relative term, of course), but once in space...well...it's not like there's much in the way of friction to worry about. If anyone does anything to cancel the effect of mass (with some stability, if ya want the vehicle to survive), we have to do better than improved takeoff and landing.

Massless travel would allow selfcontained travel, so you wouldn't need the rail gun facility.

If objects approaching the speed of light reach infinite mass and light is (given the nature of black holes) influenced by gravity wells, does applying something to alter the effect of mass mean that we win the FTL prize or make it infinitely easier to be sucked down a black hole?

Neither. The object close to the speed of light isn't moving--it's the universe that has infinite mass.

RELATIVITY YOU UNFEELING BASTARD

Massless transportation is more for making intrasystem travel a reasonable thing. I'm more thinking about avoiding that messy 'space time' thin and determining ways to fold space, portable worm holes, using quantum entanglement for ftl communication... who knows what's possible! Going massless just means you go the speed of light. At which point you don't experience time so, like, how do you shut it off?

 

[Slash2x]

I just imagine him going like this in his head when he sent this out "peer" review

"Haha got you again guys!"

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoop

I wasn't being wholey serious about the railgun. I just think the idea of being literally fired into space like that funny.

Anyway, time has always been a strange thing in this universe of ours. You look far enough into the universe and - because the light of certain things are still reaching us from afar - you find blobs of unformed matter staring back at you that was there about a billion years ago. So, when ya hit light speed and time - for you - stops, then what? The best theory I have for that is while time as we know it would stop, any vessel traveling like this should still have its own personal duration and flow of events going. Believe you me, if it doesn't, then it would be doomed to failure because we need time to react to things.

Still going Macross annd pulling two areas of space together isn't so bad an idea, except that - because of what I mentioned earlier - things aren't exactly the way you see them anymore, dependent on how far you go. For instance, that proposed black hole study I was talking about might work because black holes tend to hang around for a long time. That blob of unknown matter is definitely gone by now, though. I think that whatever we do to make travel in space easier, we should be able to see it coming, or we could be in alot of trouble.

 

[Movitz]

Well, Black Holes seemed like quite nasty things, so I'm not complaining if it turns out they didn't exist to start with.

 

[TomWiley]

All I know about black holes is that I make out of these photoshopped, grossly dramatized images I keep seeing everywhere, like the ones used in this article.

It makes it easy to forget that the most accurate, real images we have of black holes look like these:



And real black holes if they exist (and the only reason we believe they do exist is because they'd have to for a bunch of mathematical equations of general relativity to make sense) are probably not more interesting than those holes.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

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.

Name one other modern scientist who has created a cure or 'make' energy without polluting. (without referring to google) Dude is trying to expand human perception of the universe. You are talking about making the sofa more comfortable. Hawking and guys like him are opening the curtains and showing us the world outside. Cut him some slack. He's one guy.

 

[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.

Name one other modern scientist who has created a cure or 'make' energy without polluting. (without referring to google) Dude is trying to expand human perception of the universe. You are talking about making the sofa more comfortable. Hawking and guys like him are opening the curtains and showing us the world outside. Cut him some slack. He's one guy.

Ok I guess soon or later I need to respond so lucky you.

Your right I can't with out Google and there is the problem.

Anyway I've seen nothing that changes my mind at all. Everyone states that he is forming a theory that might be helpful should we ever leave this rock. A lot of people have. To me he's the sciences worlds form of the Kardashion's. Famous for nothing. He has a high IQ and tend to be an ass to anyone who does not agree with him. So I stay with my first post why bother with this guy when there are things that are being created right now and no one know the peoples names.