Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Hawking is Wrong About Black Holes
universetoday.com ^ | February 1, 2014 | Brian Koberlein on

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 doesn’t have a firewall, just as general relativity requires. So Hawking’s proposal is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

(Excerpt) Read more at universetoday.com ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: blackholes; hawking; physics; stephenhawking; stringtheory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 02/01/2014 1:03:35 PM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
 photo duh.gif
2 posted on 02/01/2014 1:05:52 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Hawkins is not the guru people make out. Like Billy Nye the Anus Guy.


3 posted on 02/01/2014 1:07:46 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush

Interesting read. What would be really interesting is if anyone arrange for a black hole to appear in DC?


4 posted on 02/01/2014 1:16:03 PM PST by Fzob (Jesus + anything = nothing, Jesus + nothing = everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fzob

What about flotus?


5 posted on 02/01/2014 1:21:24 PM PST by al baby (Hi MomÂ… I was refereeing to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fzob

The debt hole in the District of Criminals is quite black.


6 posted on 02/01/2014 1:21:36 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

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...


7 posted on 02/01/2014 1:22:21 PM PST by faithhopecharity (C?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Hillary Clinton thread so early?


8 posted on 02/01/2014 1:23:40 PM PST by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God Bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

What difference does it make?

LOL!


9 posted on 02/01/2014 1:24:41 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin; betty boop; marron; Alamo-Girl; CottShop; metmom; xzins; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; ...

Going to a lot of trouble to explain there is nothing to explain . . . beep?


10 posted on 02/01/2014 1:28:39 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
I don't understand black holes so I watched a program on it the other day. It seemed to me that someone came up with an outrageous idea and others glommed on to it as truth. I still don't understand black holes.
11 posted on 02/01/2014 1:34:15 PM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

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”.


12 posted on 02/01/2014 1:34:27 PM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
Hawkins is not the guru people make out. Like Billy Nye the Anus Guy.

Not quite.

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."

13 posted on 02/01/2014 1:39:04 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

How can Hawking be a famous cosmetologist if he can’t use his hands? I’d hate to see his clients’ makeup.


14 posted on 02/01/2014 1:44:21 PM PST by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
Hawkins is not the guru people make out.

Truth is, even Einstein wasn't.

15 posted on 02/01/2014 1:45:09 PM PST by Paradox (Unexpected things coming for the next few years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

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.


16 posted on 02/01/2014 1:45:18 PM PST by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Hawking has always been overrated. “Einstein’s heir” my ass. And an anti-Semite to boot.


17 posted on 02/01/2014 1:51:44 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale
A black hole is a gravitional center so strong that once something enters,then nothing not even light can escape.

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.

18 posted on 02/01/2014 1:53:09 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

Not only that, but he’s the one in the chair, not the client...


19 posted on 02/01/2014 1:54:08 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I love scientists and their “laws.”

Mother nature laughs at science.


20 posted on 02/01/2014 1:56:05 PM PST by wastedyears (The Ender's Game movie was a stupendous, colossal, galactic failure to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush

21 posted on 02/01/2014 1:56:22 PM PST by null and void (<--- unwilling cattle-car passenger on the bullet train to serfdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fzob

We have one. Just ask Reggie Love...


22 posted on 02/01/2014 1:57:23 PM PST by null and void (<--- unwilling cattle-car passenger on the bullet train to serfdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)


Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1913 edition:
Semitic (Page: 1309)

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.

23 posted on 02/01/2014 1:58:06 PM PST by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
So bascially there is either something wrong with Hawking’s theory or there is something wrong with Einstein’s

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 don’t 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...

24 posted on 02/01/2014 2:01:23 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
Hawkins is not the guru people make out.

Nor is anyone who disputes his claims.......

After all, it is "Theoretical Science"...........

25 posted on 02/01/2014 2:08:49 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (I think I've lost my mojo.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Fascinating stuff.


26 posted on 02/01/2014 2:16:17 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
I still don't understand black holes.

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.

See?

27 posted on 02/01/2014 2:18:03 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ("The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

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?


28 posted on 02/01/2014 2:23:22 PM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

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.


29 posted on 02/01/2014 2:24:01 PM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

Yeah. Not sure if he saw money in Dawkins’ cottage industry or just wanted to get some publicity.


30 posted on 02/01/2014 2:30:10 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

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.


31 posted on 02/01/2014 2:32:05 PM PST by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

Reminds me of a buddy of mine who went to a cosmetology seminar on career day in high school expecting to learn about astronomy...


32 posted on 02/01/2014 2:34:19 PM PST by Textide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Fzob

“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!


33 posted on 02/01/2014 2:58:57 PM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

You want a Physics guru, look to Richard Feynman.


34 posted on 02/01/2014 3:12:59 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
It looks like a "hole" to an outside observer,

Shouldn't it look like a black orb? 3-D orb rather than a 2-D hole.

35 posted on 02/01/2014 3:32:50 PM PST by Zuben Elgenubi (NOPe to GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

thank you, that makes it PERFECTLY clear! ?:[

will there be a test on this later?


36 posted on 02/01/2014 4:23:45 PM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I thought that the science was settled. Deniers!


37 posted on 02/01/2014 4:33:47 PM PST by Tanniker Smith (Rome didn't fall in a day, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale
Well, remember, gravitational attraction depends only on mass, so theoretically a black hole can have any mass as long as it's small enough. [This isn't really true because the Uncertainty principle limits how small a black hole can be -- but in General Relativity or Newtonian gravity there's no lower size boundary] gravity The fact that some of the star mass is lost doesn't matter all that much. There is also mass loss due to binding energy when the Fermions start collapsing into themselves, and that also doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

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
Couple examples:
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.

38 posted on 02/01/2014 4:45:41 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Thanks Fred. There is much I do not and never will understand about the nuances of physics.


39 posted on 02/01/2014 5:27:25 PM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi

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.


40 posted on 02/01/2014 5:34:15 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

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.

Bitter much.


41 posted on 02/01/2014 6:45:30 PM PST by Eddie01 (Liberals lie about everything all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

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.


42 posted on 02/01/2014 6:57:41 PM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

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...


43 posted on 02/01/2014 7:02:53 PM PST by goat granny (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
will there be a test on this later?

Shhhhh. You'll be sent a memo.

44 posted on 02/01/2014 7:24:33 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ("The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

LOLOL! Thanks for the ping!


45 posted on 02/01/2014 8:15:51 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Thanks for the post. Led me to Sabine Hossenfelder's blog and other interesting things. Nice family she has but too bad for her kids she's an atheist.


46 posted on 02/01/2014 8:42:41 PM PST by steve86 (Some things aren't really true but you wouldn't be half surprised if they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Blog: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/


47 posted on 02/01/2014 8:43:29 PM PST by steve86 (Some things aren't really true but you wouldn't be half surprised if they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin; 6SJ7; AdmSmith; AFPhys; Arkinsaw; allmost; aristotleman; autumnraine; ...
Thanks BenLurkin.


· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·

48 posted on 02/01/2014 9:08:03 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

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.


49 posted on 02/01/2014 9:25:10 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

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.....


50 posted on 02/01/2014 9:53:57 PM PST by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson