If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post UK)   Famed physicist Stephen Hawking says black holes in space don't actually exist, your mom on the other hand   (huffingtonpost.co.uk) divider line 60
    More: Interesting, black holes, Stephen Hawking, Herschel Space Observatory, Large Magellanic Cloud, Spitzer Space Telescope, elliptical galaxy, dwarf galaxies, XMM-Newton  
•       •       •

3567 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Jan 2014 at 2:30 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-24 12:16:55 PM
Wut?
Wut?
I thought we had a consensus.
And science and all that.
 
2014-01-24 12:26:07 PM

snocone: Wut?
Wut?
I thought we had a consensus.
And science and all that.


Fundy typing detected.
 
2014-01-24 12:37:48 PM
Hhmm, upgrades
 
2014-01-24 01:36:44 PM

snocone: Hhmm, upgrades


Donnie, please.
 
2014-01-24 01:37:09 PM
Hey, look at that. A scientist who can admit he's wrong when observed data don't align with his own prior theories. Like a proper scientist should. Shame we don't see much of that from... well any other f*cking profession besides science.
 
2014-01-24 01:49:57 PM
Close, subby: "The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity,"
 
2014-01-24 01:53:25 PM
I love taking partial quotes out of context!
 
2014-01-24 02:17:57 PM

snocone: Wut?
Wut?
I thought we had a consensus.
And science and all that.


5/10 - Needs some "If Hawking lived in the UK he would have been death-paneled by their socialized medicine"
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-24 02:27:54 PM

snocone: Wut?
Wut?
I thought we had a consensus.
And science and all that.


No, there has never been one.

Of course, he's not saying that the gravitationally collapsed objects that public calls "black holes" doesn't exist, he is saying that the original "black hole" theory from David Finklestien is not entirely correct.  Basically that there is no event horizon, the phenomenon that the term "black hole" describes.

 "The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity."
 
2014-01-24 02:35:39 PM

ShawnDoc: I love taking partial quotes out of context!


Is Suskind going to have to choke a b●tch?
 
2014-01-24 02:42:35 PM
So if I'm reading this right--and there's more than an even chance I'm not--he's suggesting that as things spiral in towards the gravitational singularity, they radiate energy until there's nothing left to fall in?

Any PhD farkers in the audience?
 
2014-01-24 02:46:11 PM
So this means that the Big Bang is wrong and the earth really has been here only 6000 years, right?

/just getting ready for the arguments I'm going to have tomorrow...
 
2014-01-24 02:48:33 PM
Is it just me or did that article just describe (poorly) Hawking radiation?
 
2014-01-24 02:54:38 PM

The Green Intern: So if I'm reading this right--and there's more than an even chance I'm not--he's suggesting that as things spiral in towards the gravitational singularity, they radiate energy until there's nothing left to fall in?

Any PhD farkers in the audience?


It's in TFA:
"Instead of matter being pulled right to the core of a black hole, it would instead gradually move inward but radiate energy, which though very scrambled could be theoretically reordered into a useful form."
 
2014-01-24 02:59:12 PM

simplicimus: The Green Intern: So if I'm reading this right--and there's more than an even chance I'm not--he's suggesting that as things spiral in towards the gravitational singularity, they radiate energy until there's nothing left to fall in?

Any PhD farkers in the audience?

It's in TFA:
"Instead of matter being pulled right to the core of a black hole, it would instead gradually move inward but radiate energy, which though very scrambled could be theoretically reordered into a useful form."


So, wormholes instead of black holes?
 
2014-01-24 02:59:53 PM

BigLuca: Is it just me or did that article just describe (poorly) Hawking radiation?


Well, with Hawking radiation, the theory was that even though the black hole appears to radiate energy, that energy will give you no information about the internal structure of the black hole.  That's the part he is disputing, from my reading of it.
 
2014-01-24 03:00:56 PM
As an educated person, I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone would link the HuffPost article on the subject of science (or anything of substance, really).  That HuffPost writer clearly didn't understand the topic and was so embarrassed of their own work that they didn't even sign their name.  Here is the article from Nature that the HuffPost cribbed from: http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1 . 14583

Of course as an educated person, I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone would read the Huffington post in the first place.
 
2014-01-24 03:05:25 PM

simplicimus: The Green Intern: So if I'm reading this right--and there's more than an even chance I'm not--he's suggesting that as things spiral in towards the gravitational singularity, they radiate energy until there's nothing left to fall in?

Any PhD farkers in the audience?

It's in TFA:
"Instead of matter being pulled right to the core of a black hole, it would instead gradually move inward but radiate energy, which though very scrambled could be theoretically reordered into a useful form."


Right, I asked it poorly.  I'd sure like a lot more info in TFA.  Answers to things like "So do they ever get mass added to them, or do they only evaporate as time goes on?"  "Does this only apply to energy?  Matter?  Do tidal forces squeeze every bit of radiating energy out of the mass before only neutrons fall in?"

Questions like that.
 
2014-01-24 03:07:14 PM
Regardless, Hawking was sure that he was right. He even made a bet in 1997 with the physicist Kip Thorne of CalTech, to the effect that if he conceded he was wrong, he would give Thorne an encyclopaedia of his choice.

I'll take that. Give me Wikipedia. I mean like actual ownership of Wikipedia, so that I can go online and beg people for money all day.
 
2014-01-24 03:15:46 PM
b.vimeocdn.com

Would really like to frown upon these shenanigans, but can't because of black hole suns.
 
2014-01-24 03:16:16 PM

BigLuca: Is it just me or did that article just describe (poorly) Hawking radiation?


Kind of. He is talking about if the information that goes in the black hole is destroyed, or comes back out. He theorized an "Apparent Horizon" so that way the information comes back out all jumbled. It does make some sense because of Hawking radiation and a few other things.
 
2014-01-24 03:18:31 PM

GardenWeasel: simplicimus: The Green Intern: So if I'm reading this right--and there's more than an even chance I'm not--he's suggesting that as things spiral in towards the gravitational singularity, they radiate energy until there's nothing left to fall in?

Any PhD farkers in the audience?

It's in TFA:
"Instead of matter being pulled right to the core of a black hole, it would instead gradually move inward but radiate energy, which though very scrambled could be theoretically reordered into a useful form."

So, wormholes instead of black holes?


He calls it a Hawking Hole

t1.gstatic.com
 
2014-01-24 03:21:33 PM

reillan: So this means that the Big Bang is wrong and the earth really has been here only 6000 years, right?

/just getting ready for the arguments I'm going to have tomorrow...


Family reunion?
 
2014-01-24 03:29:55 PM

cuneis: As an educated person, I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone would link the HuffPost article on the subject of science (or anything of substance, really).  That HuffPost writer clearly didn't understand the topic and was so embarrassed of their own work that they didn't even sign their name.  Here is the article from Nature that the HuffPost cribbed from: http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1 . 14583

Of course as an educated person, I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone would read the Huffington post in the first place.


I used to read huffington post until the loading time for one screen became unbearable.
 
2014-01-24 03:29:59 PM
Did anybody besides me read the Hawking quotes in his robo-voice?
 
2014-01-24 03:32:34 PM

GardenWeasel: So, wormholes instead of black holes?


More of a matter-to-energy conversion engine, I think, though not a particularly convenient one.
 
2014-01-24 03:38:39 PM
FTA:
Hawking's new paper is a new proposal to solve the problem. It has not yet passed peer review, and as such cannot be taken as more than a hint towards a solution. And Hawking admits that a full explanation would still require a resolution between quantum physics and relativity.

That is the most intelligent thing I have ever read on HuffPo.
 
2014-01-24 03:44:31 PM

Zeppelininthesky: BigLuca: Is it just me or did that article just describe (poorly) Hawking radiation?

Kind of. He is talking about if the information that goes in the black hole is destroyed, or comes back out. He theorized an "Apparent Horizon" so that way the information comes back out all jumbled. It does make some sense because of Hawking radiation and a few other things.


A bit more indirect than that.

Hawking radiation says black holes evaporate over time.  However, because of Hawking radiation, there's a (literal) "fire wall" at the event horizon.  This is a problem because Relativity says you shouldn't notice any differences (all frames of reference being equal), but obviously being fried to a crisp would be something you'd notice.  The "apparent horizon" is an attempt to, really, "blur" the event horizon over a larger volume of space.  The question is whether or not this gets rid of the fire wall (some say yes, some say no).

The notion of a *absolute* black hole has been void since the Hawking radiation paper years ago; quantum physics pretty much forbids it.  This is saying that the event horizon isn't an event horizon so much as a smudge.  He's also making predictions about the nature of matter inside the "apparent horizon" and stating there may not be a singularity per se, but I'm not as up on the reasoning for that.
 
2014-01-24 03:45:45 PM

The Green Intern: So if I'm reading this right--and there's more than an even chance I'm not--he's suggesting that as things spiral in towards the gravitational singularity, they radiate energy until there's nothing left to fall in?

Any PhD farkers in the audience?



The black hole evaporates out from under you.
 
2014-01-24 03:49:56 PM
OK, so right at the Schwarzschild radius, the event horizon is blurry.  I can live with that.  Not really too much of a surprise.

However, if you're falling into a black hole, I doubt that you'd notice the blurry event horizon for very long as you inescapably fall into it.  Still seems like it's pretty black to mostly everything.

Any macroscopic black hole radiates very slowly, and Hawking radiation may not be noticeable if there's a bunch of matter falling in, getting heated, compressed, spun and absorbed.  Tends to interfere with your instruments...
 
2014-01-24 03:57:04 PM

obenchainr: Zeppelininthesky: BigLuca: Is it just me or did that article just describe (poorly) Hawking radiation?

Kind of. He is talking about if the information that goes in the black hole is destroyed, or comes back out. He theorized an "Apparent Horizon" so that way the information comes back out all jumbled. It does make some sense because of Hawking radiation and a few other things.

A bit more indirect than that.

Hawking radiation says black holes evaporate over time.  However, because of Hawking radiation, there's a (literal) "fire wall" at the event horizon.  This is a problem because Relativity says you shouldn't notice any differences (all frames of reference being equal), but obviously being fried to a crisp would be something you'd notice.  The "apparent horizon" is an attempt to, really, "blur" the event horizon over a larger volume of space.  The question is whether or not this gets rid of the fire wall (some say yes, some say no).

The notion of a *absolute* black hole has been void since the Hawking radiation paper years ago; quantum physics pretty much forbids it.  This is saying that the event horizon isn't an event horizon so much as a smudge.  He's also making predictions about the nature of matter inside the "apparent horizon" and stating there may not be a singularity per se, but I'm not as up on the reasoning for that.


You are correct.
 
2014-01-24 04:30:45 PM
Whoa, half the thread just evaporated.
/Like a microscopic black hole via hawking radiation
 
2014-01-24 04:32:31 PM

GardenWeasel: simplicimus: The Green Intern: So if I'm reading this right--and there's more than an even chance I'm not--he's suggesting that as things spiral in towards the gravitational singularity, they radiate energy until there's nothing left to fall in?

Any PhD farkers in the audience?

It's in TFA:
"Instead of matter being pulled right to the core of a black hole, it would instead gradually move inward but radiate energy, which though very scrambled could be theoretically reordered into a useful form."

So, wormholes instead of black holes?


It's a white hole spewing time and energy back into the Universe.
 
2014-01-24 04:48:49 PM

whither_apophis: GardenWeasel: simplicimus: The Green Intern: So if I'm reading this right--and there's more than an even chance I'm not--he's suggesting that as things spiral in towards the gravitational singularity, they radiate energy until there's nothing left to fall in?

Any PhD farkers in the audience?

It's in TFA:
"Instead of matter being pulled right to the core of a black hole, it would instead gradually move inward but radiate energy, which though very scrambled could be theoretically reordered into a useful form."

So, wormholes instead of black holes?

It's a white hole spewing time and energy back into the Universe.


What is it?
 
2014-01-24 04:59:18 PM
So it's a huge dark hole which something indescribable comes from??


That's some serious shiat...
 
2014-01-24 05:09:15 PM
Quantum physicist becomes a zombie: "Braaanes. BRAAAAAANES."
 
2014-01-24 05:13:41 PM

rogue49: So it's a huge dark hole which something indescribable comes from??


That's some serious shiat...


Only if it hits 88 mph.
 
2014-01-24 05:25:22 PM

rogue49: So it's a huge dark hole which something indescribable comes from??


It is, but enough about the huffington post..
 
2014-01-24 05:27:02 PM

rogue49: So it's a huge dark hole which something indescribable comes from??


That's some serious shiat...


It gives us something new to look for.
 
2014-01-24 05:36:09 PM
God I love science journalism.

"Black hole event horizons as currently theorized are inconsistent with both general relativity and quantum field theory.  Here's a proposal for an alternative solution that makes the event horizon fuzzier, so we don't run into the contradiction."

Translates to:

"Black holes do not exist."
 
2014-01-24 05:56:59 PM

jaerik: God I love science journalism.

"Black hole event horizons as currently theorized are inconsistent with both general relativity and quantum field theory.  Here's a proposal for an alternative solution that makes the event horizon fuzzier, so we don't run into the contradiction."

Translates to:

"Black holes do not exist."


I know. It's painful to see. I had to click and see what he really said because it was obvious this headline was total bullsh*t.

It's not what we thought ≠ Do not exist
 
2014-01-24 06:01:14 PM
The real paradox about reading this article is that I simultaneously learned something and discovered I know less than I thought I knew.
 
2014-01-24 06:27:13 PM

Somaticasual: rogue49: So it's a huge dark hole which something indescribable comes from??

It is, but enough about the huffington post..


ZING!
 
2014-01-24 06:28:56 PM

BetterMetalSnake: The real paradox about reading this article is that I simultaneously learned something and discovered I know less than I thought I knew.


That's how you know it's good science: you end up both smarter (in comparison to what you knew before) and dumber (in comparison to how much you realize you don't know) after reading it!
 
2014-01-24 06:34:17 PM
I think the true nature of black holes will have to wait until GR/QM inconsistencies are resolved.  I think that the inconsistencies will be resolved by somehow uniting space-time and mass-energy into one concept (whatever that is... strings, information, ??).  In this theory, Einstein's equation would simply be an identity statement at "low" energies.   If space, time, matter, and energy are all interconvertible and related, there should be some form of degenerate space-time/mass-energy.  Some sort of fundamental existential pressure that comes about because of the interplay between extreme mass-energy and extreme space-time.  The event horizon is simply the surface of this object, and things falling onto it simply get absorbed, but do not go to any singularity, because space and time themselves are bound up in the whole of the degenerate matter blob.

The rest of Hawking's intuition about quantum radiation is simply the consequence of the instability of the matter when it interfaces with "normal" space-time... the event horizon is simply a phase-transition boundary. A black hole decaying is just like sublimation in reverse... the "cold" environment of the refrigerator of space is simply leeching "heat" out of this object, causing it to decay at the fringes and break the space-time/mass-energy symmetry.  Just very, very slowly.

At least, in my metaphorical understanding, that's my pet "black hole reality" idea.
 
2014-01-24 06:45:21 PM

COMALite J: Quantum physicist becomes a zombie: "Braaanes. BRAAAAAANES."


I lol'd.
 
Al!
2014-01-24 09:24:14 PM
I've long been saying the information stored in a black hole would never be "destroyed."  It may be destroyed for our purposes, since it is likely disassembled at the quantum level, but for theoretical purposes the energy and mass could be extrapolated to "reassemble" the original form.  Again, there's literally no way humans could do this.  It'd be akin to trying to read the information stored on a hard drive using only your eyes.  You have no way of knowing what information is stored in there because you don't have any reliable means of even detecting the nature of the information, let alone its actual characteristics.  That doesn't mean there is no information there, only that it is beyond your grasp.

As far as singularities go, this is another thing that I have always clashed with modern physics on.  In my mind, any time the math breaks down, your math is wrong.  This applies to the most elegant equations as well as the clunkiest nerdgasmtastic calculations.  If you come to "infinity" where there should be no "infinity," you have done something wrong. a^2+b^2=c^2 never breaks down.  f=ma never breaks down.  s=d/t never breaks down.  For black holes to grow as we apparently see (they come in all sizes and there is no theoretical way for SMBHs to spontaneously form, thus they must have accreted) there could not be a singularity.  Were there a singularity, all black holes would have the same apparent size, which would be essentially a smaller-than-planck-length-sized point in space where infinite mass can accumulate.  Do the math.  It almost doesn't matter how much mass you cram into that singularity, you will never grow an appreciable event horizon because of the distances needed to overcome the formula.

Also, how can an object with no dimensional qualities rotate?  Singularities are broken, and relying on them to describe real physics is building your castle in a swamp.

Any brilliant Farkers out there who can shed some light on the topic, your input would be appreciated.  I like pretty girls, I like beer and I like playing guitar, but above everything else, I like physics.
 
2014-01-24 10:49:05 PM

jaerik: God I love science journalism.

"Black hole event horizons as currently theorized are inconsistent with both general relativity and quantum field theory.  Here's a proposal for an alternative solution that makes the event horizon fuzzier, so we don't run into the contradiction."

Translates to:

"Black holes do not exist."


Better that than trying to explain the universe's fuzzy holes.
 
2014-01-24 11:06:28 PM
he is so out to lunch on astrophysics in many ways

i think they just humour him cuz he's crippled.
 
2014-01-25 02:25:11 AM

davynelson: he is so out to lunch on astrophysics in many ways

i think they just humour him cuz he's crippled.



Could be that he has a problem saying things in laid man's terms.
I'll bet his cats know exactly what he is seeing, but can't say

I think a black hole is a gravitational event with heisenberg [symptomatic] connections to space time.

Scientists think we can detect other info about the "hole" in space time, but actually are observing Heisenberg phenomena of of a gravitational event.

Gravity is completely separate from Space/time and quantum physics as we know it; this is why Einstein could not link it to Relativity.
The understanding of Gravity was removed from H. Sapiens at the tower of Babel.
The only "real" info transmitted by a black hole is gravitational.
Normal, detectable energy/mass is arranged in a 'shape' like a fractal/spiral.
That is, it exists in space/time
Black holes do not exist in space time.
Inchoate energy,
how does it work?
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report