Stephen Hawking offers new theory of black holes
- Thread starter Romulan_spy
- Start date
Will he ask to get the money on his bet back now?
[warning: anti-Einstein rant.]
That's a fascinating theory and I'm looking forward to the future discussions among the specialists.
Hawking tries to keep all current theories up and just dumping the idea of a wall-like, sharp-edged event horizon. That last step is something I completely agree with. Light, gravity, matter (atmospheres, for example) - everything in space appears to have fuzzy edges that gradually fade out into space. So why should the event horizon of a black hole be an exception?
But why not take it a step further? Why not for once assume that sacred prophet Einstein was wrong after all? For decades, Astronomers and Physicists have desperately been constructing new and winded theories only to not shatter Einstein's. But if we get rid of Einstein, the universe suddenly becomes very simple: no need for dark strings, firewalls, wormholes. There's just mass/gravity and energy/movement and their verious effects. And once we did that, even black holes suddenly make sense:
The jets that escape them are simply the energy and mass coming out on the other side. The firewall does not exist but the effects of the black hole are just getting more intense, gradually, the closer one gets to the center. That center being a tiny but super-heavy mass, it's logical that not 100% of all energy and matter that enter will escape. Some will get too close or even hit directly and be kept. And that also explains the energetic imbalance in space. We needn't bother with dark strings, they simply become corridors between a net of black holes where energy is being sucked into them without being able to escape.
We don't need to bother about anti-matter anymore either and we can stop wondering why we have never ever seen a matter/antimatter explosion though theoretically they should happen everywhere all the time. Without Einstein, the universe does swallow or simply lose energy because energy is no constant after all.
All problems of physics could be solved if only Hawking and his colleagues dared to overcome their loyalty to a long dead colleague. Having a life expectancy of another 25 years, I wonder, though, if I'll live to see that.
That's a fascinating theory and I'm looking forward to the future discussions among the specialists.
Hawking tries to keep all current theories up and just dumping the idea of a wall-like, sharp-edged event horizon. That last step is something I completely agree with. Light, gravity, matter (atmospheres, for example) - everything in space appears to have fuzzy edges that gradually fade out into space. So why should the event horizon of a black hole be an exception?
But why not take it a step further? Why not for once assume that sacred prophet Einstein was wrong after all? For decades, Astronomers and Physicists have desperately been constructing new and winded theories only to not shatter Einstein's. But if we get rid of Einstein, the universe suddenly becomes very simple: no need for dark strings, firewalls, wormholes. There's just mass/gravity and energy/movement and their verious effects. And once we did that, even black holes suddenly make sense:
The jets that escape them are simply the energy and mass coming out on the other side. The firewall does not exist but the effects of the black hole are just getting more intense, gradually, the closer one gets to the center. That center being a tiny but super-heavy mass, it's logical that not 100% of all energy and matter that enter will escape. Some will get too close or even hit directly and be kept. And that also explains the energetic imbalance in space. We needn't bother with dark strings, they simply become corridors between a net of black holes where energy is being sucked into them without being able to escape.
We don't need to bother about anti-matter anymore either and we can stop wondering why we have never ever seen a matter/antimatter explosion though theoretically they should happen everywhere all the time. Without Einstein, the universe does swallow or simply lose energy because energy is no constant after all.
All problems of physics could be solved if only Hawking and his colleagues dared to overcome their loyalty to a long dead colleague. Having a life expectancy of another 25 years, I wonder, though, if I'll live to see that.
Excuse me, I am not familiar with everything Einstein has said it done, just the main gist of relativity, which is demonstrably correct.
What did he say, that you are dismissing here?
What did he say, that you are dismissing here?
Because he ain't wrong.
And very much inaccurate and not corresponding to the theories. The universe is not simple. It's a lot of things, simple is not one of them. How can something that supports intelligent life be simple?
Relativity actually simplifies things, because while it is more complicated to apply, you no longer exclaim "What the fuck! Why are all my results about Mercury's orbit off again!" and your results start making sense.
Plus, your calculations weren't simple to begin with. I was contemplating suicide when I got to calculating the effects of planets on each other (without any relativity). What exactly becomes simple? It makes you want to kill yourself doing it and you get the wrong result in the end?
Uh? Who needs these? Apart from Star Trek fans that is... More importantly, what are these? Cause Einstein's theories certainly do not need dark strings (whatever that is supposed to mean).
And your GPS stops working.
The firewall thing regarding the black holes was a prediction by quantum mechanics, not relativity. I didn't exactly get the mechanism that causes it, but apparently quantum mechanics rules out the existence of an event horizon of any kind without the occurrence of a firewall. Hence, to work out that problem with quantum mechanics, Hawking poses an alternative to the existence of an event horizon, that as far as I understand is still compatible with Relativity. Einstein is completely innocent in this case, so I am not sure your rant is even applicable to the story.
You know, the existence of an event horizon or apparent horizon also follows from direct observations of what gravity does to light, so even if you threw out Relativity (which be a pretty bizarre thing to do), these observations would still stand and imply a horizon. But blame Einstein if that suits you.
Other physicists, if I read the article right, aren't even sure about Hawking's latest theory. I am not a scientist. I'm not even good at math. But it doesn't make a lot of sense, even to me, that the traditional view of Black Holes should be changed at all. Have not "they" been saying since Time Forgot, that "normal" physics do not apply to Black Holes, anyway?
I warned you that I dislike Einstein. I can't get myself to trust the ideas of a man who was not even able to do the maths for his theories himself.
On the other hand, I rather like Hawking - particularly as he is so open-minded as to ignore a popular theory (the "firewall effect" as postulated by quantum mechanics). I'd just be happier if he'd ignore Einstein as well. After all E's famous formula is only a theory, not an axiom. It lacks proof and yet everyone treats it as if it were one of the 10 commandmends.
And indeed, the universe is not simple. Which is another reason why Einstein's formula is suspicious to me. It's just too smooth.
I can't get myself to trust the ideas of a man who was not even able to do the maths for his theories himself.On the other hand, I rather like Hawking - particularly as he is so open-minded as to ignore a popular theory (the "firewall effect" as postulated by quantum mechanics). I'd just be happier if he'd ignore Einstein as well. After all E's famous formula is only a theory, not an axiom. It lacks proof and yet everyone treats it as if it were one of the 10 commandmends.
And indeed, the universe is not simple. Which is another reason why Einstein's formula is suspicious to me. It's just too smooth.
I was referring to E = mc²
Last edited:
That sentence is so wrong I don't know where to begin with.
Newton's laws of motion are axioms, which doesn't bring them any closer to being accurate depiction of the real world.
Also, 2 = 3 is an axiom (and one with very destructive consequences).
You know, it's funny? I can't get myself to trust the opinions of someone who isn't even able to do a simple fact-check on common myths about Einstein and math.
Demonstrated everytime a nuclear bomb goes off.
Urgh. That was so painful I am not ever going to read it again, either I would need to claw my own eyes out with a chalkboard shard.
Please don't talk about science. Like, ever again. Gah.
Probably because every time they try and to prove him wrong they just end up proving him right.
That's cause they weren't really serious in disproving him. Fire up the spaceships, move all the stars and nebulas around so that gravitational lens effects are invisible, put planet thrusters on all fast-moving objects so they no longer suffer from apparent time dilation, put "Keep out! Construction zone!" on black holes, forbid twins from being born, lie on the specs of nukes and under-report their mass, then hire a guy to fix the clocks on aircraft and spacecraft. There, so much simpler.
And shouldn't that tell you something? Build a doohickey based on E = mc² and it blows the f*** up!
And shouldn't that tell you something? Build a doohickey based on E = mc² and it blows the f*** up!
Well, try to drive around the country for a few hours with the help of your GPS without Einstein's theory.
Tell us how it went...
I beg to differ. An Axiom means a fact that is 100% certain and who's correctness is obvious. Or, as Wikipedia defines it: "classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy"
For example, it's an axiom that 2+2 = 4. You can count to control it and both common sense and experience confirm that it is correct.
While 2=3 is an equation of two terms, it's not an axiom for the above reasons.
The same goes for E=mc². It is assumed to be correct but it has not been proven beyond doubt. Not disproven either, however. It's a bit like religion: a matter of belief. I'm an Einsteinian atheist
The different formulas are because you use lbs. If you use kg instead, it becomes the smooth and simple formula above. But why would the universe use Terran SI-units? That's what raises my suspicions. The formula is just too smooth in my opinion. The universe tends to be more complicated. Still, it's only my personal opinion and as I said, everyone is entitled to his or her own views. Time will perhaps tell who was a bit closer to the truth than the others
Similar threads
