Skip to comments.Why Hawking is Wrong About Black Holes
Posted on 02/01/2014 1:03:35 PM PST by BenLurkin
Black holes can radiate in a way that agrees with thermodynamics, and the region near the event horizon doesnt have a firewall, just as general relativity requires. So Hawkings proposal is a solution to a problem that doesnt exist.
(Excerpt) Read more at universetoday.com ...
Hawkins is not the guru people make out. Like Billy Nye the Anus Guy.
Interesting read. What would be really interesting is if anyone arrange for a black hole to appear in DC?
What about flotus?
The debt hole in the District of Criminals is quite black.
perhaps we can send a few hundred corrupted politico-leeches from WashDC to the nearest black hole to find out for sure if this theory is correct? starting with...
Hillary Clinton thread so early?
What difference does it make?
Going to a lot of trouble to explain there is nothing to explain . . . beep?
Still Hawking has a point. A black hole is a gravitional center so strong that once something enters,then nothing not even light can escape. Never understood what the source of a such a gravitational field could be and since there is inherent energy associated with mass what happens to all that energy when mass is absorbed by a “black hole”.
Bill Nye is a guy with an engineering degree who has never really done anything with his technical training, and certainly knows very little about science.
Hawking is an important cosmologist with an over-inflated reputation among the general public that he does not have among his peers. His recent statements about Black Holes have been over-hyped in the popular press to promote controversy, but they are really quite mild and don't actually change any of the current theories about Black Holes much. The fact that Black Holes do not have an "exact" Schwarzschild Radius is not new; Hawking Radiation is essentially a manifestation of that fact, which has been known for at least 30 years.
Hawking is over-hyped because of a press fascination with the idea that there is a "smartest man in the world," a ridiculous idea on the face of it.
The most famous example of this myth was Einstein, a truly great physicist like Newton or Archimedes who only comes along every five hundred years or more. He was still not "the smartest man in the world," and by the time the press discovered him his great achievements were many years behind him. The fact that Hawking is disabled and has survived a horrible disease orders of magnitude longer than most adds to his mystique, but he's no Einstein, let alone the "smartest man in the world."
How can Hawking be a famous cosmetologist if he can’t use his hands? I’d hate to see his clients’ makeup.
Truth is, even Einstein wasn't.
So bascially there is either something wrong with Hawking’s theory or there is something wrong with Einstein’s. If the “firewall” exists then general relativity is partially wrong. If it doesn’t, then the idea of Hawking radiation is partially wrong. Either way, I don’t see how entangled particles on either side of an event horizon violates the entanglement.
Hawking has always been overrated. “Einstein’s heir” my ass. And an anti-Semite to boot.
Not quite. They actually evaporate over time.
Never understood what the source of a such a gravitational field could be
The source of the field is a collapsed star or other object with mass greater than the Chandrasekhar Limit. Such an object collapses under its own mass. In General Relativity, this collapse is down to a single point, called "the singularity." We do not have a Quantum Theory of Gravity, but all bets -- and mathematical estimates based on QFT and/or the Uncertainty principle -- are that in the Quantum version, the mass cannot quite collapse to a single point.
what happens to all that energy when mass is absorbed by a black hole
Nothing happens to it. It's still there inside the hole. Because the hole is not a "hole," it's a region of space near the singularity. In the early 20th century, it was known these kinds of masses could theoretically exist; so massive that light could not escape. At that time they were called "frozen stars" to capture the idea that light could not escape them. Black Hole is better but still leaves room for misinterpretation. There is no hole. It looks like a "hole" to an outside observer, because things that get close enough (even light) "fall in." A better term might be Black Suckers or Black Gobblers.
Not only that, but he’s the one in the chair, not the client...
I love scientists and their “laws.”
Mother nature laughs at science.
We have one. Just ask Reggie Love...
Sem*it"ic (?), a. Of or pertaining to Shem or his descendants; belonging to that division of the Caucasian race which includes the Arabs, Jews, and related races. [Written also Shemitic.] Semitic language, a name used to designate a group of Asiatic and African languages, some living and some dead, namely: Hebrew and Ph&oe;nician, Aramaic, Assyrian, Arabic, Ethiopic (Geez and Ampharic). Encyc. Brit.
The theory requires a very minor modification of Hawking's original idea, which was slightly wrong. There is a good link to the explanation at the web site of this article.
GR and Hawking Radiation are still intact. No worries.
Either way, I dont see how entangled particles on either side of an event horizon violates the entanglement.
The entanglement is violated because the particle that falls into the black hole in annihilated, leaving an orphaned partner. The resolution is that Hawking particles are spawned in entangled pairs of pairs. [Four particles.] In each case the entangled particles fall in, or escape together.
Like a double date, where you go into a bar and get so trashed you wake up in a strange bed, but it's the gal you went in with in the first place, so no "fire wall" to deal with later on...
Nor is anyone who disputes his claims.......
After all, it is "Theoretical Science"...........
It's simple. Really. A star collapses and dies. It becomes, after a time, a super massive sphere. So massive that its gravitational pull will not allow light to escape. So all this light has to go somewhere...or rather, its energy. So the light is converted to other forms of energy...because we know that energy can not be destroyed but must be converted to some other form.
So the energy from this light is pulled in and gets converted to X-rays and other forms of higher frequency radiation like gamma rays. These, the 'black hole', cannot pull in so they spew out at very high speed and for great distances.
The name 'black hole' (which I detest) is an abysmal moniker for there is no hole. Yes, physical laws would seem to break down but there is no hole. It is nothing more that a super dense singularity that converts energy from one for to another on a MASSIVE scale.
OK but explain a singularity. Always thought that all objects had a “gravitational” pull that is proportional to its mass. If an object such as a star “collapses” unto itself, its mass would be a bit more dense but overall less as some of that contracting mass dissipates as energy. Then why is the gravity field so much stronger?
Hawking lost all credibility when he started to become an atheist philosopher, essentially himself buying into the hype that he’s the smartest man in history. He ventured into territory that he had no business venturing into and some of his comments end up sounding like a college student.
His understand of physics is certainly historic, but his understanding of the origins of physics is sophomoric at best. Hawking contradicts himself repeatedly when he talks about the creation of matter.
Yeah. Not sure if he saw money in Dawkins’ cottage industry or just wanted to get some publicity.
Oh yes, you’re correct. The particle within the event horizon acts like negative matter in order for conservation of energy to be preserved. I missed that little nuance.
Reminds me of a buddy of mine who went to a cosmetology seminar on career day in high school expecting to learn about astronomy...
“What would be really interesting is if anyone arrange for a black hole to appear in DC?”
I think Marion Barry nows more than one!
You want a Physics guru, look to Richard Feynman.
Shouldn't it look like a black orb? 3-D orb rather than a 2-D hole.
thank you, that makes it PERFECTLY clear! ?:[
will there be a test on this later?
I thought that the science was settled. Deniers!
The solution of Einstein Field equations is beyond the scope of this reply. However, you can get a very good estimate of the size (it actually turns out to be too large by a factor of 1/2) by using the Virial Theorem of classical physics, and Newtons Law:
Virial Therorem for central forces:
Average Kinetic energy = 1/2 Average Potential Energy.
1/2 mv2 = GMm/2r
r = GM/v2
At Schwarzchild Radius, r = rs, v = c;
rs = GM/c2
for solar mass [the sun won't become a black hole because it doesn't have enough mass to become a neutron star, but just an example] ~2 x 1030 kg
rs = 1.989E30 kg x 6.67384E-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 / (3.0E8 ms-1) ~ 1500 m. So a black hole with one solar mass would have rs of 1.5 kilometers.
A black Hole with a mass the same as earth: 5.972E24 kg would have rs of about 0.4 cm .
Both of these answers are off by 2, because Newton's gravity doesn't hold for strong gravitational fields.
Thanks Fred. There is much I do not and never will understand about the nuances of physics.
Well, the event horizon is spherical. But as to how it would “look” we get most of our three-D vision from cues (contrary to popular belief, almost all 3D vision occurs in the brain, binocular vision isn’t necessary.) The event horizon wouldn’t appear to “bulge” because from every angle light would not escape, so no shading, no highlights. When backlit, gravitational lensing would tend to make it look like a hole from every direction there was any significant light behind.
Hawking touts no time existed before the big bang, so therefore no creator exists.
...and therefore all who believe in God are dellusional.
Thanks Steven, you’re a true believer in the church of atheism and yourself (redundant, I know). Closing the door on possibility in an infinite universe.
Stephen Hawking and a handful of other theorists exist at a
level that not even one person in a million can grasp. None of them are “the smartest person in the world” and none of them make such a claim. That is the hype of people who are
unable to grasp the subject matter these people deal with so
they devolve the issue into the realm of a “cult of personality”. There is simply not more than a dozen or more
people who have the intellect and knowledge of the subject
to accurately discuss whether or not Stephen Hawkings theories are right, wrong or somewhere in between. And these theorists will tell you that EVERYTHING they postulate is based on information currently available and
that theories change and evolve as data becomes available.
The Hubble Space Telescope did more for cosmology than all
the theorists ever alive....because hard data proves or disproves theory.
never believed anything he says, sorry about his physical condition, but he is just weird. Figured he was the puppet of someone else. They could say anything and say it is him speaking...
Shhhhh. You'll be sent a memo.
LOLOL! Thanks for the ping!
Well said. Hawking just happened to become famous because he was in the right place at the right time. He’s smart, but not a genius. And these days I don’t think he’s nearly as sharp as he once was.
Einstein continues to amaze me.
PBS stations are running a new hour-long program this week on Hawking’s life and work - spent a good portion of it on his investigations into the nature of time and his popular book “A Brief History of Time” (which his editor said was a mess in its first draft form) - as explained on the program, his “No God” stance comes from his belief in the Big Bang origins of the universe and that before that event there was nothing else in existence, hence no original creator. But his description of the Big Bang is that in fact it was an explosion of a black hole, which he defines in general as resulting from the collapse of a gigantic star - so if generally we need gigantic stars to collapse to get a black hole, how can we get a big bang from an exploding black hole which had no antecedent causation - i.e. I came away from the program thinking Hawking was a bit of a hustler.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.