Skip to comments.Hawking Changes His Mind on the Nature of Black Holes
Posted on 07/15/2004 8:30:32 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
LONDON (AP) - After almost 30 years of arguing that a black hole swallows up everything that falls into it, astrophysicist Stephen Hawking backpedaled Thursday. In doing so, he lost one of the most famous bets in recent scientific history.
The world-famous author of a "Brief History of Time" said he and other scientists had gotten it wrong - the galactic traps may in fact allow information to escape.
"I've been thinking about this problem for the last 30 years, and I think I now have the answer to it," Hawking told the British Broadcasting Corp.'s "Newsnight" program.
"A black hole only appears to form but later opens up and releases information about what fell inside. So we can be sure of the past and predict the future."
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.tbo.com ...
The original theory said ... that's why it is black.
Look here :-)
Thanks, Steven. Keep up the good work and let us know from time to time what you've been thinking about even though none of it has anything to do with reality or practical application of any kind and even though Black Holes may just be a big quantum physics gag from a guy who hasn't had much to do for THIRTY YEARS!!!!
No, that's Roseanne Barr.
No, that's Roseanne Barr.
Yes, but the true problem is that this results in the breakdown of causality. That is what has left physicists uneasy.
It's always intrigued me to think that there's "something" out there with enough gravitional pull to bend light.
...not to bring the wrath of astrophysics afficionados, but (chuckling as I say this) I always fail to see how any of this affects life on this planet in any measureable way. Because from what I read, if one of these things ever gets close enough to actually affect our "world", we have bigger problems than theorizing on what goes in, and what comes out of black holes. :-)
...even so...mighty interesting stuff this is! I still enjoy reading about it :-)
Stevio, let's hear the details. How can remnants of a black hole be recovered?
I've known a few e-mail servers that exhibited that exact behavior.
Here is a list of 184 publications by Dr. Stephen William Hawking that was compiled back in 2002. You may notice he is still publishing.
Google gravitational lensing.
You are not curious at all how this universe works?
I tell ya... :-)....I've studied exterior ballistics to a degree (for small arms) in the past, and I've ALWAYS been just slightly skeptical about how the differences are measured with things like "light bending" as opposed to more measureable (slower) things like projectiles traveling through a medium.
...actually, it makes my head spin to think about this whole blackhole issue. Interesting yes!....but strange stuff indeed. :-)
But what you said about the path looking curved reminded me of some of what I've studied in ballistics. Good point :-)
"changes his mind" - since it is all speculation anyway, what difference does it make?
Oh wow...thanks :-)...I've got them up now in seperate windows in Opera (my WWW browser), but will have to read them later. If I don't go to bed, I'm gonna turn into a toad! :-)
Care to cite some references?
You are most welcome! :-)
It does, though. This stuff is more real than any political theory.
Such creative minds...yet this is the best prize they could come up with for a bet? Boring!!
It's turtles all the way down!
Right now, Paramount/Viacom is panicking, after getting reports of thousands of Star Trek fans throwing their multi-volume DVD episode collections in the garbage due to Hawking changing his mind about space physics.
Meanwhile, Disney has just announced they will re-release their 1978 feature film The Black Hole in a new multi-disc set featuring a text commentary track by Mr. Hawking. Besides that, no it doesn't make much difference.
I guess all those long nights of research at the titty bar have paid off. Seriously though, what goes through the mind of a stripper when Stephen Hawking is staring at her with a glazed look in his eyes - "This guy thinks I'm really hot" or "This guy must be pondering the origin of matter in universe."
Since you like ballistics, imagine the problems of properly leading a "quantum duck" - you know, that's the one flying along with the "QUARK! QUARK!" call.
Not only not curious, but some at times are downright hostile.
He is obviously familiar with my Theory of the Brontasaurus.
I'd like to know how the toaster works.
I'm just messin' with you guys.
Physics never ceases to amaze!
Someone corrected me on the earlier thread about Hawkings latest revelation in regards to the meaning of "information" in quantum physics. Seems I had it wrong. I still don't understand it, but here it DOES seem they're talking about something more than just quantum information (whatever that means, lol!).
But when I posit a theory on quantum mechanics, the liberal media is all like: "Sure. We'll get right on that one...dumb-ass!"
Man, "Sky and Telescope" and "Astronomy" will be hearing from my attorneys, I can assure you of that much.
So I don't hold the Lucasian professorship in mathematics at Cambridge, whaddya gonna do 'bout it?
Greatest physicist since Sir Isaac Newton.
Big friggin' whoop!
Oh, I thought this was a Whoppi Goldberg thread. Sorry.
The light doesn't bend. The spacetime it is passing through is bent (or warped) by the hypergravity enough that it is easily noticeable.
All gravity wells do this to one degree or another. It's been demonstrated with observations of bodies as small as our Moon. It's only recently that we've had instruments sensitive enough to detect the "bending" with anything less massive than a (presumed) black hole or a galaxy.
The light is still going "straight" as ever, whatever that really means. It's the reality around it that is shifting.
No, he said black HOLES, not black ho's... ;7)
My thoughts exactly.
A link you might like.
"astrophysicist Stephen Hawking backpedaled Thursday"
Hmmmmmmmmmmm is he a Kerry supporter by any chance? :)
It looks like a lens has been formed out of space in the vicinity of a massive object. It looks like refraction to me, but we have been operating under Kant's system for a long time now: the object in itself can never be seen, but what we see conforms to our pre-conceived ideas. That is, objects conform to our concepts rather than our concepts conforming to objects. You can see only what your mind is ready to see.
We are well met, indeed. Looking forward to future palavers, if it do ya. After all, we deal in hard calibers and hot lead.
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.