Stephen Hawking offers new theory of black holes

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

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

I get what you mean with Einsteinian atheist, but I think you actually mean an A-Einsteinian. Otherwise you would be a follower of Einstein who doesn't belief in gods!

The other thing with the formula.... who cares if the numbers we use to define the placeholders in that formular are smooth or not.
That's precisely why we use E and m and c as a shorthand description of Energy, Mass and Lightspeed.
The numbers we use to calculate the equation are meaningless and arbitrary really.
They just belong to a commonly agreed number system so everybody arrives at the same conclusion.
As long as the results reflect reality, no matter how you label things, the equation is correct.

 

[Manticore]

The beauty of E=mc^2 is that it's units-agnostic. The thing is, you can add, subtract, multiply, and divide units just like numbers. With the way that E=mc^2, The formula will always come out so that the result of the mc^2 is a unit of energy. That's because units for anything that isn't time, mass, or distance are really shorthands for something that calls back on time, mass, or distance.

Velocity is distance over time.
Acceleration is velocity over time
Force is mass times acceleration.
Energy is force over distance.

It's a bit complicated without a blackboard or paper to show what's going on, but with the way that the units multiply and divide in mc^2, it'll always come out as a unit of energy, no matter what unit system you plug into it - as long as you use the same system throughout. (So don't mix kilograms and miles per hour - bad idea)

 

[Gov Kodos]

it'll always come out as a unit of energy, no matter what unit system you plug into it - as long as you use the same system throughout. (So don't mix kilograms and miles per hour - bad idea)

Damn the US for using both. An hour into a three hour ordeal of a geology test on field and structure I realized I had one dimension in yards and the other in meters. The test had been to generate a map based on field data from two sources. A deeper point was to notice what measuring system was being used when using sources. The prof recognized the the tone of cursing by the knowing smirk. I wasn't sure whether to laugh or punch something.

 

[Manticore]

it'll always come out as a unit of energy, no matter what unit system you plug into it - as long as you use the same system throughout. (So don't mix kilograms and miles per hour - bad idea)

Damn the US for using both. An hour into a three hour ordeal of a geology test on field and structure I realized I had one dimension in yards and the other in meters. The test had been to generate a map based on field data from two sources. A deeper point was to notice what measuring system was being used when using sources. The prof recognized the the tone of cursing by the knowing smirk. I wasn't sure whether to laugh or punch something.

I'd curse the US for sticking with Imperial, but 5' 10" just sounds taller than saying that I'm 1.8 meters tall.

 

[Gov Kodos]

it'll always come out as a unit of energy, no matter what unit system you plug into it - as long as you use the same system throughout. (So don't mix kilograms and miles per hour - bad idea)

Damn the US for using both. An hour into a three hour ordeal of a geology test on field and structure I realized I had one dimension in yards and the other in meters. The test had been to generate a map based on field data from two sources. A deeper point was to notice what measuring system was being used when using sources. The prof recognized the the tone of cursing by the knowing smirk. I wasn't sure whether to laugh or punch something.

I'd curse the US for sticking with Imperial, but 5' 10" just sounds taller than saying that I'm 1.8 meters tall.

Yup and 5 km sounds a better effort than 3 miles when justifying with last night's pizza.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Please tell me you're joking on this? Considering all the proof that has been accumulated supporting E=mc² and you still don't believe it, what kind of proof do you need?

 

[Lindley]

After all E's famous formula is only a theory, not an axiom.

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).

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.

Axioms do not *have* to be correct. They are simply the building blocks upon which further reasoning is based. If an axiom is blatantly false, the rest of the logical system that builds on it is not going to be very useful (the term is "inconsistent", meaning absolutely anything can be proven to be true), but that doesn't mean the statement isn't an axiom of the system. Being an axiom is a property of a statement in relation to a logical system, not a property of a statement in isolation.

So Newton's laws are indeed axioms----of Newtonian physics. They are not axioms of quantum theory.

The statement "2+2=4" is not, in fact, an axiom of traditional mathematics. It's obvious, but that doesn't in itself make it axiomatic. You have to prove it to be true, for instance by using the Peano axioms.

Descartes' philosophy was based on the axiom "I think, therefore I am." This was not his only axiom, but it was a critical one because it allowed him to make the jump from reasoning about perception to reasoning about the real world.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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?

I was referring to E = mc²

That one holds up just fine.

Really, the only thing Einstein got wrong was General Relativity; as even Einstein concluded, the theory only half-works (it's largely incompatible with quantum mechanics) and only soldiers on for lack of a better theory. If anything, the existence of the cosmological constant and apparent "dark matter/dark energy" demonstrate the upper limits of where General Relativity breaks down, just as quantum mechanics demonstrate the lower limit.

If Hawking is correct, the extreme gravitational potentials of black holes is another limiting condition; General Relativity would be inapplicable here as well, as the extreme strength of gravity means quantum effects become far more significant than they might be otherwise (that may also be the case on galactic scales, where the aggregate of MANY quantum effects over vast distances comes into play in ways that are difficult to calculate).

GR works on "familiar" scales of things like planets and solar systems where the flaws in the theory are lost in the background noise, but for the extremes we really need a workable quantum gravity.

 

[JoeZhang]

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

If you are using Wikipedia as a source, why did you miss out the bi that said:

In 1905, Newton's axioms were replaced by those of Albert Einstein's special relativity, and later on by those of general relativity

 

[gturner]

Out of sheer boredom, I'll point out that E=mc^2 is confirmed by measuring the weight of atoms that emit radiation, whether as a particle or energy. The amount of energy given off relates to the change in mass of the emitter. To just about everyone here, this has been so done to death that it doesn't even deserve a comment.

The number of BTU's you get from the annihilation of a troy ounce of matter has been determined and confirmed in experiments repeated ad nauseum.

 

[Manticore]

Please stop using BTUs instead of joules. Every time you do, it makes a baby scientist cry.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

... 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...

That kind of sentence would be better suited describing someone who is an authority on politics or sociology.

Even if your claim above was true (it is actually a myth), you don't ever have to trust an authority in physics, and actually shouldn't. Instead, the claims themselves can be put to the test. In this case they have been 1000s of times and have yet to fail a single time. They are incredibly useful in making predictions and are falsifiable, so why would you need a level of trust in the man himself?

Do you have a specific issue with his published theories (other than your statement that at a gut level you don't like them and they are too complex), or do all your issues revolve around what kind of person you believe he was? And if it is the later, what on earth does that have to do with science?

 

[gturner]

Please stop using BTUs instead of joules. Every time you do, it makes a baby scientist cry.

Okay,

E = m * c^2 / 14.95

Where m is in lbs, c is in mph, and E is in foot-pounds.

If I went metric - I'd use calories.

BTW, there's a natural unit system in which the speed of light is one, and the equation simplifies to E = m and the c^2 just rides along to give the correct units. It further simplifies a lot of other relativistic equations.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

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?

The hooplah over Hawking's "paper" (really a transcript of a talk he gave in Santa Barbara, CA) is media-driven. That is, it's wrong. Everything he said has been well-known to theoretical physicists for 30 years. In fact, Hawking originated the idea. He also DOES NOT say black holes don't exist. He says that at a quantum mechanical level, the notion of a one-way boundary (the event horizon) is flawed, because stuff comes back out after it goes in (black holes evaporate).

But, you can never retrieve the exact thing you sent in. If the Enterprise (or Nero) falls into a black hole, what comes back is a puree of matter and information, virtually unrelated to the original state.

So, do black holes exist? As far as we're concerned: yes. They just aren't the "no-return" things we thought.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I beg to differ.

You should beg for forgiveness. What I told you about talking science?

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

WHAT THE FUCK I DON'T EVEN HOLY SHIT Do you have any idea how science works? Because sure as hell you don't seem to.

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.

Do you even know what you are talking about? Even just about slightly?

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

False equivalence alert! Sorry, you don't get to have "personal opinions" on science, and you are not "entitled" to your own views on matters of fact. The universe doesn't give a fuck about your personal opinions and views.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I beg to differ.

You should beg for forgiveness. What I told you about talking science?

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

WHAT THE FUCK I DON'T EVEN HOLY SHIT Do you have any idea how science works? Because sure as hell you don't seem to.

My thoughts exactly...
Scientific theories: just like religion.

You heard it here first. It's like I stumbled into a creationist debate.

"Evolution is just a theory!".

Ugh... I'm so tired of people not understanding how theories work in science.

 

[Rincewiend]

But why would the universe use Terran SI-units? That's what raises my suspicions.

The formula uses "Terran" SI-units because it's a "Terran" formula...
Seems pretty obvious...