Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Meet the Indian who took on Stephen Hawking
Rediff.com ^ | August 03, 2004 10:06 IST | Rediff.com

Posted on 08/02/2004 10:16:56 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick

An Indian theoretical physicist who questioned the existence of black holes and thereby challenged Stephen Hawking of Britain at last feels vindicated. But he is sad.

Abhas Mitra, at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai, was perhaps the first and the only scientist who had the guts to openly challenge Hawking of Cambridge University who is regarded by many as the modern-day Einstein.

For over 30 years Hawking and his followers were perpetuating the theory that black holes -- resulting from gravitational collapse of massive stars -- destroy everything that falls into them preventing even light or information to escape.

Mitra, four years ago, in a controversial paper in the reputed journal, Foundations of Physics Letters, showed that Hawking's theory was flawed. He proved black holes couldn't exist because their formation and existence flouted Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Except a handful, the majority of mainstream scientists dismissed Mitra's conclusions even though, till now, no scientist has contradicted him in writing. Mitra invited several notable black hole theorists including Hawking and Jayant Narlikar of India to criticise his work but no one replied.

Naturally, Mitra now feels vindicated following Hawking's own admission two weeks ago at a conference in Dublin, Ireland, that there isn't a black hole "in the absolute sense."

In essence, Hawking's "new" black holes never quite become the kind that gobble up everything. Instead, they keep emitting radiation for a long time -- exactly what Mitra showed in his paper.

Hawking's about-turn has vindicated Mitra. But, in retrospect, he feels sad about the treatment he got at home while trying to take on Hawking all by himself.

Too "embarrassed" to be associated with a man who challenged Hawking, even Mitra's close colleagues avoided him and he became an outcast. To add insult to injury, BARC authorities removed Mitra from the theoretical physics division on the excuse that this division was meant only for those doing "strategic research."

"The ironic element in this whole exercise," Mitra told PTI, "is that the person who actually dared to show that there cannot be any black holes was completely ignored both by the academicians and the media."

A black hole is characterised by an imaginary boundary called the "event horizon" that shuts everything within. But in 1976 Hawking introduced quantum mechanics into the problem and claimed that black holes do radiate energy -- although at a low rate -- and ultimately vanish into nothingness.

The vanishing act, however, destroys all the trapped information as well - directly conflicting with the laws of quantum physics that say that information can never be completely wiped out. This is the "information loss paradox" associated with black holes that, in a way, was created by Hawking's own work.

One logical resolution of this paradox would have been to realise that black holes did not exist. But Mitra says that such sweeping, yet logical thinking "was never undertaken by either party involved in this prolonged debate and they kept on debating effectively to make the paradox more popular and perpetuating."

It was then that Mitra published his seminal paper showing that gravitational collapse of massive star can at best produce an "Eternally Collapsing Object" but not an "event horizon" or a black hole in the strict sense. "Since no event horizon is formed, there is no paradox at all in the first place," Mitra argued.

In a subsequent work Mitra showed that the "Eternally Collapsing Objects" that he proposed are actually the massive compact objects now referred to as Black Hole Candidates (BHCs).

Motivated by Mitra's work, American physicists Stanley Robertson and Darryl Leiter have confirmed in 2002 that BHCs have intense magnetic fields as predicted by Mitra and therefore are not real black holes which cannot have magnetic field.

Mitra says that in the light of new developments, "the supposed black holes are not really black holes and it would be intellectual dishonesty to still call them as black holes and keep the debate alive."

Though his own colleagues had sidelined Mitra after his first paper, he is solaced by the encouraging e-mails he had received from several physicists around the world.

One from Salvatore Antoci, University of Padova, Italy, a noted relativist says: "Let me express to you my great joy in seeing your much-disputed paper eventually accepted for publication by Foundations of Physics Letters. Convincing the community of relativists about the mythical nature of black holes will remain a tremendous task, but it is a little less desperate thanks to your success."

Peder Norberg, of the Department of Physics, Durham University, UK, said he carefully read through Mitra's paper and found "that most of the results presented there are more than impressive" while Stanley Robertson, a relativist of South Oklahoma State University, USA said: "On first becoming acquainted with your work, I was dubious, thinking it unlikely that something as profound as belief in the existence of black holes could become erroneously established in the literature. In the meanwhile, I have found no errors in your work. It is fascinating."

The only Indian who praised Mitra's work was relativist Pankaj Joshi of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai.

The BARC scientist recalls the episode in the 1930s when Subramanian Chandrasekhar's work on the upper mass limit of white dwarfs was considered incorrect by celebrated astrophysicists like Sir Arthur Eddington even though no one could precisely point out any error in Chandra's work.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Technical; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: abhasmitra; america; arthureddington; blackhole; chandrasekhar; crackpotfestival; darrylleiter; electricuniverse; evolution; frlaughingstock; hawking; ignoranceonparade; india; italy; jayantnarlikar; mitra; pankajjoshi; pedernorberg; physicshatersclub; pysics; salvatoreantoci; sirarthureddington; stanleyrobertson; stephen; stephenhawking; stringtheory; stupidkeywords; uk; unitedkingdom; usa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

1 posted on 08/02/2004 10:16:58 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Home search HEW Archive India Previous

India's Nuclear Weapons Program

Present Capabilities

Last changed 5 April 2001

"India is now a nuclear weapons state."

"We have the capacity for a big bomb now. Ours will never be weapons of aggression."

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, Thursday 14 May 1998

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's statment in the wake of Operation Shakti, the five shot nuclear test series held on 11 and 13 May 1998, dispels any reasonable doubt or ambiguity regarding the reality of India's nuclear arsenal and its ongoing weapons programs. A considerable quantity of information, once closely held, has come out since those tests that not only confirms these capabilities but recounts their development in some detail (see the various historical pages accessible through the "previous" button in the header of this web page).

Historical Summary of Arsenal Development

Although India first tested a nuclear explosive in 1974 (euphemistically called the PNE, for "peaceful nuclear explosive") it did not become a nuclear weapons state - in the sense of having the ability to deliver nuclear weapons until 1986-88 when, according to Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj author of The Armageddon Factor, a rudimentary delivery system was in place [Indian Express, 18 June 2000]. This presumably refers to a developmental delivery system based on the Mirage 2000 that began development in 1986, after an attempt to integrate a DRDO developed nuclear bomb with the Jaguar fighter-bomber failed. This system provided India with a usable but limited nuclear weapons capability, but the weapon system did not actually enter service until it passed a full field drop test in May 1994 at Balasore, though most observers thought that this milestone had been passed years before.

The US CIA testified before congress in 1993 that it did not believe that India maintains assembled or deployed nuclear weapons, although it believed India was producing weapon components. The CIA's HUMINT (human intelligence, as opposed to electronic intelligence) reggarding India's nuclear program is famously poor however (witness the U.S. intelligence communities surprise about the 1998 tests) so it cannot be accorded great weight; nonetheless it could be true that in 1993 India still had not taken the step of maintaining weapons in a ready-to-use state. There is a vague report though [Chengappa 2000; pg. 418] of "a few" weapons existing as early as the early 1980s. Chengappa relates that hardened concrete bunkers were built in the early 1980s at Mumbai to house India's weapons plutonium stocks, a few weapons. Gen Sundarji was shown these weapons in the mid-80s, an unusual step since the military chiefs of staff had not been briefed on India's nuclear capability even as late as 1990. These weapons may not have been kept fully assembled, but there is little doubt that India could have made them ready in a matter of hours (or days at the most).

India has several aircraft that are nominally considered "nuclear capable", the Mirage 2000, Mig-27, and the Jaguar. Due to the cost of integrating and qualifying an aircraft for nuclear delivery, and maintaining a cadre of specially trained pilots, it is unlikely that India would choose to deploy nuclear weapons on more than one or two aircraft types. Only the Mirage 2000 is known to have been qualified as a nuclear delivery platform, and the Jaguar is known to have been abandoned for nuclear weapons delivery due to technical problems. Thus it may be that the Mirage 2000 remains the sole air breathing nuclear weapon delivery system.

India has developed short and medium-range nuclear-capable missiles. These are the Prithvi (range 250 km, payload 500 kg), and the Agni-II (range 2500 km, payload 1000 kg).

The first operational capability of a missile deliverable nuclear warhead was probably soon after the official deployment of the Prithvi SS-250 missiles in September 1997, which occurred after the successful completion of integration and testing of the warhead and missile during 1996-97. Reportedly four nuclear armed Prithvis were deployed during the Kargil War in June 1999. Also during this war was the first deployment of the medium range Agni-II, apparently consisting of a single preproduction model. The Agni-II was not qualified for full production and deployment until after the second Agni-II test occurred on 17 January 2001 at 10:01 a.m. IST (Indian Standard Time) when it was tested in its final deployment configuration.

India reportedly is investigating development of an ICBM-class missile called Suriya.

Current Arsenal

There are no official figures for weapon stockpiles at any stage of development of India's arsenal. The only figures that can be offered are either explicit estimates made from considerations of India's probable ability to produce critical raw materials and considerations of likely production plans; or are unofficial statements of uncertain provenance and authenticity. To show the problems with figures of the latter sort we have only to look at the statement by K. Subrahmanyam, a leading strategic theorist, that by 1990 India had stockpiled at least two dozen unassembled weapons, versus the May 1998 estimate by G. Balachandran, an Indian nuclear researcher, that India had fewer than 10 weapons ready to be assembled and mounted on warplanes or missiles.

The types of weapons India is believed to have available for its arsenal include:

All of these types should be available based on the tests conducted during Operation Shakti (Pokhran-II). It may be possible to extrapolate significantly from these device classes however without further testing. There is reasonable doubt about whether the thermonuclear device actually performed as designed. Even if this so, it does not rule out the possiblity that sufficent test data was collected to field a successful design with reasonable confidence of good performance. Interest has been expressed in the development of a neutron bomb (a very low yield tactical thermonuclear device), but this would probably require additional testing to perfect.

The most widely accepted estimates of India's plutonium production have been made by David Albright ([Albright et al 1997], [Albright 2000]). His most recent estimate (October 2000) was that by the end of 1999 India had available between 240 and 395 kg of weapon grade plutonium for weapons production, with a median value of 310 kg. He suggests that this is sufficient for 45 - 95 weapons (median estimate 65). The production of weapon grade plutonium has actually been greater, but about 130 kg of plutonium has been consumed - principally in fueling two plutonium reactors, but also in weapons tests. His estimate for India's holdings of less-than-weapons-grade plutonium (reactor or fuel grade plutonium) are 4200 kg of unsafeguarded plutonium (800 kg of this already separated) and 4100 kg of IAEA safeguarded plutonium (25 kg of this separated). This unsafeguarded quantity could be used to manufacture roughly 1000 nuclear weapons, if India so chose (which would give it the third largest arsenal in the world, behind only the U.S. and Russia).

Nuclear Force Planning

Nothing is publicly known about official Indian nuclear force planning, but assessments made by opinion leaders provide a context for judging the prevailing attitude in Indian government circles

India's first effort to formulate a nuclear policy and the determine the means needed to implement it was an informal but authoritative study group that was set up in November 1985 to answer queries by Rajiv Gandhi regarding defense planning. It encompassed the three services (Navy Chief of Staff Adm. Tahliani, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. K. Sundarji, Deputy Cheif of Air Staff John Greene), leaders of BARC (Ramanna), the DRDO (Abdul Kalam), and the AEC (Chidambaram), and India's most prominent strategic analyst K. Subrahmanyam. The outcome of the group's deliberations was to recommend building a minimum deterrent force with a strict no first use policy. The arsenal envisioned was 70 to 100 warheads at a cost of about $5.6 billion.

In 1994 K. Subrahmanyam suggested that a force of 60 warheads carried on 20 Agnis, 20 Prithvis and the rest on aircraft would cost about Rs 10 billion over 10 years. In 1996 Sundarji suggested a cost of some Rs 27.5 billion -- Rs 6 billion for 150 warheads, Rs 3.6 billion for 45 Prithvis and Rs 18 billion for 90 Agni missiles.


Delivery Systems

Agni-I

Specifications
Length 18.4 meters
Diameter 1.3 meters
Weight 16,000 kg
Range 1500 km
Stages Two stage, solid fuel (HTPB, hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene/oxidizer)
Guidance Strap-down inertial; in-flight positioning update?
Payload 1000 kg; Reentry vehicle has carbon-carbon composite heat shield;
Thermonuclear warhead (200-300 kt)?, fission/boosted fission warhead (>15 kt)?

"Agni" is Hindi for "fire" and is also the name of the Hindu deity of fire. There is some question as to the operational status of the Agni-I. For many years the Agni-I program has been described as a "technology demonstration", which was consistent with the design varaitions that were tried, and the employment of a solid/liquid fuel two stage design that would be undesirable for operational use. However in August 2000 the U.S. defense industry weekly Defense News quoted an unnamed senior scientist at DRDO as stating that India had 10 Agni-I missiles in service. He added that the unit cost of the Agni-I is about $5 million.

Development

Agni-I awaiting launch (17 K) Agni before launch

Developed by the Defense Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) of Hyderabad. The first member of the Agni family was successfully launched on 22 May 1989 from the Chandipur test facility about 250 km southwest of Calcutta at Balasore. The two-stage missile impacted 800 km downrange in the Bay of Bengal. The Agni-I has been tested at a maximum range of 1400 km.

The Agni-I first stage was based on the Indian Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV-3) used in satellite launches since 1979. The first stage motor was 10 meters long and capable of delivering about 45 tons average thrust with a 50 second burn duration. The second stage was a shortened version of the two chamber liquid fuel motor from the Prithvi. Second stage control was achieved through engine gimballing by its hydraulic actuation system.

Agni in flightAgni in flight (18 K)

Agni-II

Specifications
Length 20 meters
Diameter 1.3 meters
Weight 16,000 kg
Range 2500 - 3000 km
Stages Two stage, solid fuel (HTPB, hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene/oxidizer)
Guidance Strap-down inertial; in-flight positioning update?
Payload 1000 kg; Maneuverable reentry vehicle with carbon-carbon composite heat shield;
Thermonuclear warhead (200-300 kt)?, fission/boosted fission warhead (>15 kt)?

The medium range Agni-II system is the first true strategic missile (in the Indian context) deployed by India. The Agni-II is designed to be mobile. It was originally developed in a road-mobile configuration but its deployment is being conducted using a rail-mobile version. The strap-down (limited degree of freedom) inertial guidance system may be replaced in the future with a full inertial system. The RV is reported to have an optical terminal guidance, and speculation has been made about the possible use or future use of a external positioning reference system. The Agni-II is an indigenously developed system, descended from the SLV-3 space launch vehicle via the Agni-I technology demonstrator. A pre-production road mobile Agni-II (Agni-I?) is said to have been made operational during the 1999 Kargil War. The Agni-II costs approximately Rs.400 million per missile and is manufactured by a partnership of the DRDO and Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) in Hyderabad. It is expected that BDL will be manufacturing 10-12 missiles every year.

The Agni-II was test fired in April 1999 with a range of 2300 km; on its second test on 17 January 2001 it travelled 2200 km. When the missile system is inducted, India will have the capability to strike at targets at least 2500 km away (up to 3000 km using specific payloads, according to some estimates).

Although the government has on several occasions stated that nuclear weaponization was now complete, the fact remains that the second Agni-II test occurred almost two years after the first and by all accounts more must take place before a true deployable arsenal is available.

In August 2000 Defence Minister George Fernandes stated that the Agni-II had "reached the point of operationalization". A DRDO scientist quoted in Defense Weekly reported in August 2000 at that time two pre-production Agni-II missiles were fully operational. He added that the unit cost of the Agni-II about $8 million and that, if required, DRDO's missile research laboratory could produce, in collaboration with Bharat Dynamics Limited, up to 18 Agni-IIs a year. Following the second successful test of Agni-II, on 17 January 2001, Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister V.K. Aatre said that the Agni-II missile would be inducted into the Indian Air Force by year's end. This test was the first time the Agni-II was test-fired in its final operational configuration.

The Agni-II can be launched in 15 minutes, as opposed to half a day for the Agni-I. It uses far more accurate navigational and guidance systems and is designed to operate on a highly mobile platform which lends flexibility and reduces vulnerability to strikes.

Given its range and India's geopolitical situation, most observers say that the Agni-II was developed as a deterrent against China (it has far more range than is required to cover Pakistan). If that is the case, India has some way to go since with its current range, the Agni-II can at best cover Chinese territory as far as the western cities of Chengdu and Kunming, if based in the central plateau of Bihar. Even if based in Assam, a somewhat improbable scenario, the missile would not be able to reach either Shanghai or Beijing. For this purpose, India is developing the Agni-III, a longer-range missile capable of reaching targets out to 3500 km and beyond. The first test of this vehicle, which will feature entirely new first and second stages, is likely to take place in 2001. Speaking to the Lok Sabha in February 2001 Defence Minister George Fernandes gave the time frame for induction as 2001-2002.

Agni-III

A follow on version to the Agni-II, to be called Agni-III, with a range of 3500 to 5000 km and a 1000 kg payload, is under development. This is expected to be the final variant in the Agni family. According to DRDO sources two approaches are under consideration - an enlarged solid fuel first stage with a 1.8 meter diameter and 36 tonnes of propellant, or an added third stage to the existing Agni-II. The principal objective of the Agni-III would be to develop a missile capable of reaching China's capital of Beijing. The Deccan Chronicle reported on 23 September 2000 that Defence Minster George Fernandes had disclosed that the Agni-III had almost completed the development stage and was ready to be test fired soon. Yahoo India News reported a senior defence department official as saying India plans to build the third version of the Agni IRBM, but is yet to set a deadline for the project (8 February 2001). "Agni-III will obviously be of a higher range and better capabilities than its predecessor," said the official, who did not want to be identified. "But we have not set a date to test it," the official said on the sidelines of an aerospace conference in Bangalore.

Suriya

A higher performance missile in the ICBM class (the Suriya or Surya) with a range of over 6000 km has been discussed. It would be an entirely new development effort. Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, Principal Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister, was quoted in the Hindustan Times on 18 September 2000 as saying that "All technologies and industrial complexes are available for an ICBM. It'll not take much time, should India decide on it." He discounted speculation that the ICBM will be the derivative of the GSLV, India's latest space launch vehicle. "Cryogenic engines (used for the GSLV) are good for satellite launch vehicles, not missiles. They require huge fuelling facilities, which can be detected by satellite."

Prithvi

Specifications
Length 9 meters
Diameter 1.1 meters
Weight 4000 kg
Propulsion Single stage, dual motor;
liquid fuel - inhibited red fuming nitric acid (IRFNA) oxidizer; 50% xylidene, 50% triethylamine fuel
Guidance Inertial
Versions
  • SS-150 (Prithvi-1); Army version - range 150 km, payload 1000 kg
  • SS-250 (Prithvi-2); Air Force version - range 250 km, payload 500-750 kg
  • Dhanush ("Prithvi-3") ?; Naval version - range 350 km, payload 500 kg

Agni on gantry
153x426, 17K
Prithvi launch

Prithvi (Hindi for "Earth") is a single stage, road-mobile, short-range ballistic missile (SRBM). The missile's corrosive liquid fuel must be loaded immediately prior to launch, which is a serious disadvantage in the field. On the other hand the ability to control the liquid fuel motor, including throttling it or shutting it down (difficult or impossible with solid fuel) gives it great flexibility in range and trajectory, including in-flight maneuvering. The liquid propellant also has higher performance than solid propellants, giving the Prithvi an unusually high payload for its size and range. The inertial navigation system has been reported to have a CEP (Circular Error Probability) equal to .01% of its range, or 15 m for the Army version and 25 m for the Air Force version at maximum range (this is roughly comparable to an ICBM having a 1.5 km accuracy). The missile uses its maneuvering capability to follow up to six different trajectories so as to avoid ABM interception, and confuse launch system counter targeting. Another defense measure the Prithvi has is the use of radar absorbing paint to reduce its radar signature.

The fact that both the Indian Army and the IAF operate versions of the Prithvi is the result of a turf war over control of ballistic missile systems, a scenario that has played out in many other nations. The outcome of this struggle was that the Army controls land based missiles with a range of 150 km or less (a limit that was set by the initial range of the Prithvi) while longer range missiles belong to the Air Force. The DRDO is attempting to increase the payload of the IAF version to 1000 kg, by using higher performance liquid propellants to generate more thrust-to-weight ratio. The missile carries both nuclear warheads and a variety of conventional payloads. A family of warheads have been developed, including high-explosive (HE), pre-fragmented unitary HE, incendiary, cluster munitions (bomblets), sub-munitions, and fuel-air explosives (FAE).

For field operations, Prithvi is transported on an all-terrain, eight wheel Kolos Tatra 4x4 truck. The missile is deployed off this vehicle and fired from a simple launcher. Each battery of four Prithvi carrier vehicles is accompanied by a missile re-supply and loading vehicle, a propellant tanker and a command post vehicle to provide target data to the missile's guidance system before launch. In addition, a variety of other support support vehicles and equipment are used to support the batteries in the field.

Prithvi SS-150 which has been in serial production by Bharat Dynamics Limited in Hyderabad since 1997, following a development program that included 12 test flights.

Due to the limited strategic space of Pakistan (the Indus river valley where most major Pakistani cities are located runs close to the Indian frontier) the Prithvi has significant strategic value despite its short range. If it is deployed in states like Kashmir, Punjab and Gujrat which border Pakistan, it would place the capital of Islamabad, as well as the principal cities of Lahore and Karachi in range, as wells as many of Pakistan’s strategic military installations.

In September 2000 Defense News reported that India would go ahead with full production of about 300 Prithvis for all three branches of the Indian defense forces. The decision, taken by Defence Minister George Fernandes on 25 August, was prompted by Pakistan's test-firing of its Ghauri-III IRBM 10 days earlier, on Independence Day, a senior Indian ministry official, who was not named, was quoted as saying. The production of 300 Prithvis was estimated to cost $200 million. The state-owned Bharat Dynamics in Hyderabad would invest $100 million to ready itself for production. According to company sources, the Army required 150 Prithvis with a range of 150 km while the Navy needed 100 missiles of equal range. 50 Prithvi missiles with a longer range of 250 km, known as Prithvi-II, have to be produced to meet the requirement of the Air Force, the company said.

Development

The Prithvi is a descendant of an earlier program called "Project Devil", an attempt to reverse engineer the Soviet SA-2 liquid fuel surface-to-air missile by the Defense Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) at Hyderabad. This latter project, initiated under the leadership of Dr. Dr. Basanti Dulal Nag Chaudhuri, was a failure and was cancelled in 1978; nonetheless valuable experience and technical skill was obtained which provided the basis for Prithvi.

Development was initiated in 1983 as part of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) under the leadership of Dr. Avil Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam, the project manager for the successful SLV-3 program. The Prithvi was intended to be a 150 km tactical missile and was first tested at Sriharikota on 22 February 1988..

In October 1995, 20 pre-production models of the initial Prithvi SS-150 (with a 150 km range) were secretly delivered to the Army to form the 333rd Missile Regiment based in Secunderabad. At this time the Prithvi was not yet equipped with a nuclear warhead. The first deployment of Prithvi missiles (numbering less than a dozen) was at Jalandhar, about 200 km from the Pakistani border in May 1997 prior to its formal operational adoption. Integration and testing of a nuclear warhead was completed in 1997 on the Prithvi SS-150 before these were formally deployed in September 1997. Significantly in December 1998, the Army deployed the Prithvi in a major military exercise code named Shiv-Shakti for the first time since its induction. According to Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj during the 1999 Kargil War four nuclear armed Prithvis were actually deployed for retaliatory strikes. Some units are reported to have been moved to at least two northern locations close to the Pakistani border.

The fourth test flight of the extended range SS-250 was launched on 16 June 2000 at the Interim Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur-on-Sea on the east coast of India. The liquid-propellant weapon carried multiple warheads over a range of 250 km. At this point the SS-250 had not yet been inducted into service.

There is some question whether the Dhanush is really a Prithvi variant, or simply a new missile design in the same size class.

Jane's Missiles and Rockets reported on 9 August 2000 that John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) has detected what it believes is the storage site for Indian's Prithvi missiles. An image of the Research Centre Imarat complex taken earlier this year by the Ikonos imaging satellite revealed an installation which Pike says "is probably the primary Prithvi garrison". The Imarat center is associated with research and development of technologies for missiles and other advanced weapons. "Although it is reported that the 333rd Missile Group is headquartered in Secunderabad, it is evident that the military cantonment would be an inappropriate location for the actual missiles, given the urban congestion of the area," said Pike. The facility at the Imarat center consists of three pairs of garages, each of which the FAS estimates to be large enough to house four vehicles, which suggests that each pair is used to house a battery of four launchers plus four support vehicles. The facility is surrounded by a security perimeter which incorporates a series of objects which may be guard houses. A nearby complex of buildings could be an administrative support facility for the Prithvi missiles, but "this complex is devoid of functional signatures that would support this interpretation, and is enclosed within a separate security perimeter that is suggestive of institutional associations unrelated to the Prithvi complex."

Dhanush

Specifications
Length 8.56 meters
Diameter meters
Weight 4000 kg
Range 350 km
Stages Single stage, liquid fuel
Guidance
Payload 500 kg; fission/boosted fission warhead (>15 kt)?

The Dhanush (Bow, as in "bow and arrow") is a derivative of the Prithvi program, adapted to naval use and given extended range. The first test firing was conducted on 10 April 2000 from the modified Sukanya class off-shore patrol vessel (OPV), INS Subhadra in the Bay of Bengal 20 km off Orissa state. It was a only partially successful with, the missile splashing down 25-30 km from its launch point. The launch platform used was a hydraulically-stabilized, rail-mounted platform built on the helicopter deck of the Subhadra.

Dhanush is probably intended for deployment on a specialized ballistic missile submarine, either conventionally powered or the nuclear powered Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV). Neither is likely in the near future due to technical and financial constraints.

Sagarika

Specifications
Length meters
Diameter meters
Weight kg
Range km
Propulsion Air breathing jet engine
Guidance
Payload

There have been conflicting reports about this program since Clinton administration officials in the United States reported on 27 April 1998 that India was developing a sea-launched ballistic missile with a 200 mile range intended for submarine deployment. More recent reports describe Sagarika as submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM) intended for the nuclear-powered submarine known as the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV). The initial description of Sagarika as a ballistic missile may have been due to confusion with the Dhanush. Sagarika had been expected to enter service by 2002, but the program has been troubled as has the ATV submarine itself. Work on an Indian nuclear powered submarine has proceeded fitfully and unsuccessfully for nearly 25 years.

Nuclear Facilities

Bhabha Atomic Research Center
Bhabha Atomic Research Center

The center piece of India's nuclear weapons program is the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) in Trombay near Mumbai (Bombay) which is the center for nuclear weapons associated work. BARC was founded as the Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (AEET) on 3 January 1954 by Dr. Homi Jehangir Bhabha. Bhabha was the also the founder India's entire nuclear industry and infrastructure, and India's first Secretary of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) when it was created on 3 August 1954. In its early years BARC was already a very large, but primarily civilian-oriented nuclear research laboratory. When India's first nuclear device was designed and fabricated at there, the work was conducted surreptitiously (often at night) to hide it from the rest of the laboratory. But in May 2000 a watershed was reached in this tension between civilian and military work when the civilian Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) which had been exercising regulatory oversight was split off from BARC. As S. Rajagopal oberved, an expert on nuclear affairs and a professor of the Bangalore-based National Institute of Advanced Studies, this decision effectively reclassified BARC as a nuclear weapons laboratory - a laboratory with a primarily military function though also conducting civilian oriented work in a model similar to the U.S. weapons labs. But without much of the civilian oversight and management that the U.S. labs have.

BARC is the site of the two reactors used for weapons-grade plutonium production: the 40 MW CIRUS (Canadian-Indian-U.S.) reactor, and the 100 MW reactor named R-5, but usually called "Dhruva". Both of these are heavy water moderated and cooled natural uranium reactors.

CIRUS was supplied by Canada in 1954, but uses heavy water supplied by the U.S. (hence its name). The reactor is not under IAEA safeguards (which did not exist when the reactor was sold), although Canada stipulated, and the U.S. supply contract for the heavy water explicitly specified, that it only be used for peaceful purposes. Nonetheless CIRUS has produced much of India's weapon plutonium stockpile, as well as the plutonium for India's 1974 Pokhran-I nuclear test. India argued in 1974 that the contract allows its use in producing peaceful nuclear explosives, which is how it characterized this explosion, though in recent years the project director Raja Ramanna has conceded that this was a sham. CIRUS reactor achieved criticality on 10 July 1960. It can produce 6.6-10.5 kg of plutonium a year (at a capacity factor of 50-80%).

In 1977 work began on the larger Dhruva plutonium production reactor, which was developed indigenous but based on the Canadian supplied technology. It was commissioned on 8 August 1985 but startup problems caused by resonance vibrations from the cooling system damaged fuel assemblies soon required shutdown. After modifications were made (spring clips to damp fuel rod vibration) it began operating at one-quarter power in December 1986 and reached full operation in mid-January 1988. It operates at 100 MW and is capable of producing 16-26 kg of plutonium annually (at a capacity factor of 50-80%).

An additional possible source of plutonium are a number of unsafeguarded CANDU power reactors, including Madras Atomic Power Stations (MAPS, known as Madras I and II, or MAPS-I and MAPS-II); the Narora Atomic Power Stations (NAPS, known as NAPS-I and NAPS-II), and the Kakrapar Atomic Power Station (KAPS). Like CIRUS and Dhruva, the CANDU reactors are heavy-water moderated natural uranium reactors that can be used effectively for weapon-grade plutonium production. The possible production by MAPS is much larger than CIR and Dhruva combined, although the fuel burnup in power reactors of this type normally produces lower grade plutonium that is less desirable for weapons. Each power station reactor could produce up to 160 kg/yr (at a 60% capacity factor). It is uncertain how practical it is to operate MAPS for weapons grade plutonium production, although even the reactor-grade output has weapons potential. If supergrade plutonium were produced at BARC by short irradiation periods, it could be mixed with MAPS plutonium to extend the plutonium supply. As of November 1998 India had a total of 10 small power reactors operating, with 4 under construction and due to begin operation in 1999, but with 12 more planned or under construction that would boost electrical output by another 5100 MW.

Nuclear power supplied 2.65 percent of India's electricity in 1999 and this is expected to reach 10 per cent by 2005. Expectations for nuclear power growth have consistently fallen far short of goals for over 30 years, so this percentage is likely to continue to grow slowly. India's nuclear power program proceeds almost entirely without fuel or technological assistance from other countries. Partly as a result its power reactors have been among the worst-performing in the world (with regard to capacity factors), reflecting the technical difficulties of the country's isolation, but are apparently now improving significantly. Its industry is largely without IAEA safeguards, though a few plants are under facility-specific safeguards.

In February 2001 India had 14 small nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, two larger ones under construction and ten more planned. The 14 operating ones comprise:

The separated plutonium for the 1974 test was produced at the separation plant in Trombay, near to Bombay, capable of processing 50 tonnes of heavy metal fuel/yr. Construction on the first facility there began in the 1950s, and began operating in 1964. In 1974 it was shut down for repair and expansion and reopened in 1983 or 1984. Trombay handles the fuel from both the Cirus and Dhruva reactors.

Kalpakkam Plutonium Plant
Kalpakkam Plutonium Plant

India also can separate plutonium in the Power Reactor Fuel Reprocessing (PREFRE) facility. This plutonium separation plant was built at Tarapur, north of Bombay, and began operating in 1979. The plant has encountered operating problems, but India reports having overcome these by 1990. The nominal annual capacity is given as 100-150 tonnes of CANDU fuel. A much larger plant is now under construction at Kalpakkam sufficient to handle all existing reactors.

Given its immense thorium resources, India is actively interested in developing the thorium/U-233 fuel cycle. India is known to have produced kilogram quantities of U-233 by irradiating thorium in CIR, Dhruva, and MAPS reactors. Substantial production of U-233 is not practical though with natural uranium fueled reactors. The thorium cycle requires more highly enriched fuel to have an acceptable breeding ratio with the non-fissile thorium blanket. Reactor-grade plutonium from MAPS could serve as start-up fuel for U-233 plants in the future. If available U-233 is as effective a weapon material as plutonium.

India has been developing the capability to produce heavy water domestically to provide the moderator load for future reactors. The heavy water for almost all existing reactors was imported however. The 110 tonnes of unsafeguarded moderator for Dhruva and Madras I and II were ironically provided by China.

India has acquired and developed centrifuge technology and built centrifuge enrichment plants in Trombay and Mysore in the 1980s. The larger Rare Metals Plant (RMP), as it is called, at Mysore has a cascade capable of producing 30% enriched uranium in kilogram quantities, beginning in 1992-93, although reliability has been a problem. These enrichment plants appear to have no role in India's power reactor development plans, so they may be intended to offset the prestige of Pakistan's enrichment capability, or to provide additional standby weapons production capability. India has reported that it plans to build an enriched uranium reactor, and a domestically fueled nuclear submarine.

India's interest in light weight weapon design can be surmised from BARC's acquisition in the 1980s of a vacuum hot pressing machine, suitable for forming large high-quality beryllium forgings, as well as large amounts of high purity beryllium metal. India is known to manufacture tritium, and may have developed designs for fusion-boosted weapons.

India is not a signatory to NPT and has opposed the treaty as discriminatory to non-weapons states. India has previously taken the position that a world-wide ban on nuclear testing, and the production of fissionable material for weapons is called for. Except for China, which continues testing, there is now a de facto halt to testing worldwide, as well as the production of weapons grade plutonium and uranium by the US and Russia. India has shown no interest so far in restricting its own activities despite these changes in the world situation. India has also rejected offers at bilateral negotiation with Pakistan, but in December 1988 the two nations signed an agreement prohibiting attacks on each other's nuclear installations and informing each other of their locations (though not their purposes).


Home search HEW Archive India Previous
2 posted on 08/02/2004 10:21:23 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

Excuse me for that veeeeery long info above.


3 posted on 08/02/2004 10:22:24 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; bondserv; PatrickHenry; balrog666; RightWhale; ...

Further evidence of the sheeple mentality in the scientific community; kind of a closed community, it seems, not unlike many religous communities (Amish, Shakers, etc.).

It's also called "group-think." Jesus Christ and numerous others warn against it.


4 posted on 08/02/2004 10:26:11 PM PDT by unspun (RU working your precinct, churchmembers, etc. 4 good votes? | Not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

Looks like BARC needs to re-instate Mitra, and profer a public apology...


5 posted on 08/02/2004 10:26:41 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
F***ing objectivist physicists, they are all racists. Dark skin=wrong ideas. It's all just oppresssion of minority narratives. Besides, come one, anyone who's familiar with the seventh shakra just KNOWS black holes can't exist.

/sarcasm off/

Stupid journalists. Love how idiotic they sound trying to write articles on topics they could never dream to understand, to audiences hungry for the latest maggoty tripe. If only the internet had happened 30 years ago...sigh.

6 posted on 08/02/2004 10:29:39 PM PDT by HassanBenSobar (Islam is the opiate of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun

"Further evidence of the sheeple mentality in the scientific community; kind of a closed community, it seems, not unlike many religous communities (Amish, Shakers, etc.).

It's also called "group-think." Jesus Christ and numerous others warn against it."

Many great scientist were first shunned by their peers. The scientific community is very close minded. Perhaps Abhas Mitra is above them intellectually.

Oh, and Steven Hawkings is over rated.


7 posted on 08/02/2004 10:32:35 PM PDT by Crispy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
"We have the capacity for a big bomb now. Ours will never be weapons of aggression."

Good. They are surrounded by fiendish Mahometan filth. They need it.

A pity that Pakistan was allowed to develop the Islamobomb, but at least now they will not dare to use it on India.

-ccm

8 posted on 08/02/2004 10:35:22 PM PDT by ccmay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HassanBenSobar

The real problem isn't racism so much as dogmatism. Too often in life, those who are the first to talk about a topic assertively become the monopolists of it. It's true in science, as well for all its talk of "theories" and uncertainty.


9 posted on 08/02/2004 10:37:05 PM PDT by GulliverSwift (Gore was wooden, Kerry is waxen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

tagged.


10 posted on 08/02/2004 10:38:03 PM PDT by The_Macallan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

Indians invented the zero. They have many good mathematicians. It is their home turf. It wouldn't be a surprise if they ended up surpassing China as the technology leader of the world.


11 posted on 08/02/2004 10:39:06 PM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and establish property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

If a Black Hole is composed of nothing then how can it exist?

Some day these new theories will change again,just as the Big Bang theory was amended.

Just like how at one time, they thought they had all the stars counted....
then someone had to go and invent a larger telescope !


12 posted on 08/02/2004 10:40:44 PM PDT by Freesofar ( No one ever wants to go to war,.... But " when we have to" is a matter of policy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

13 posted on 08/02/2004 10:42:23 PM PDT by MrFred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
Abhas Mitra, at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai, was perhaps the first and the only scientist who had the guts to openly challenge Hawking of Cambridge University who is regarded by many as the modern-day Einstein.

When was Einstein EVER so supremely wrong in his field as Hawking has been, TWICE?

First on the string theory thing (I forget exact details), now on this.

14 posted on 08/02/2004 10:55:01 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crispy
Many great scientist were first shunned by their peers. The scientific community is very close minded.

This is kind of a gross mischaracterization. It isn't that scientists have closed minds but that there is a certain amount of inertia around substantive ideas. You have to understand that there are thousands of cranks out there claiming to have discovered something remarkable for every guy who genuinely has a brilliant insight. I work in a particularly theoretical area, and ALL of the folks I normally interact with in my field of endeavour will admit to having more than one misguided theoretical notion in their lives. Some concepts are seductively simple or superficially obvious that require very careful study to prove otherwise.

In the end, really solid theorists win given enough time. I once proposed a very controversial theory in my field (now considered important and correct) that received quite a bit of dismissal and scorn from the "elite" of the field when I first publicly promoted it. But I was persistent and I had a very strong ally on my side: I had a strong enough mathematical basis for my assertion that I could force anyone who was reasonable to eventually admit that my theoretical model was mathematically very solid looking and elegant. I only had to argue one or two standard bearers into a corner so that they would grudgingly admit I might be correct before everyone else fell into line.

There is a problem that a lot of people are correct by accident i.e. they mistakenly come to the right conclusions from flawed premises and theory. One of the things that makes a crank a "crank" is that their theory crumbles under whithering scrutiny. Even if that the general concept proves correct eventually, it does not mean that the person proposing some variation on that concept actually had a reasonable basis on which to believe it or that they understood it.

If you can rigorously prove a theoretical model and its superiority under brutal review, the scientific community can be persuaded. The problem is that most people have half-assed theories and so there is no reason for anyone to listen to people without track records. To a certain extent I am an outlier; I earned my credentials by taking on the establishment and winning in a contest of pure theoretical prowess, a risky move but a fast track up the reputation ladder. Any scientist can go against the establishment, but you better be razor sharp and have an extremely solid grasp of your contrarian theory. It is worth noting that with credentials comes the obligation to shred inferior or poorly thought out theories. It is a form of housecleaning.

15 posted on 08/02/2004 11:05:40 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

Well, howdy! I don't feel so bad now. Just explain why gravity is so different from the other forces and I'll be really happy.


16 posted on 08/02/2004 11:06:32 PM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crispy
Oh, and Steven Hawkings is over rated.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!

Mel

17 posted on 08/02/2004 11:10:21 PM PDT by melsec (No other Name!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

I'm sorry, but this sounds like a load of bunkum. :P


18 posted on 08/02/2004 11:12:50 PM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crispy; Darksheare; King Prout; bentfeather
Stephen Hawking

Why...you...lit...tle...s...o...b. I'm...going...to...kick...your ass...harder...than...Tyco Brahe...try...ing...to...take...a...piss...in...a port...a...potty.

19 posted on 08/02/2004 11:18:44 PM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tortoise

"There is a problem that a lot of people are correct by accident i.e. they mistakenly come to the right conclusions from flawed premises and theory. One of the things that makes a crank a "crank" is that their theory crumbles under whithering scrutiny. Even if that the general concept proves correct eventually, it does not mean that the person proposing some variation on that concept actually had a reasonable basis on which to believe it or that they understood it."

Point taken.

I am curious what your field of study is? I am not a scientist myself but I am very interested in most sciences.


20 posted on 08/02/2004 11:33:06 PM PDT by Crispy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

Ah yes always important to protect the reputation of the "smart" guys cause their theories are always sooo right...think red shift and doppler effects on the large scale


21 posted on 08/02/2004 11:51:34 PM PDT by jnarcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun; Physicist
Further evidence of the sheeple mentality in the scientific community; kind of a closed community, it seems, not unlike many religous communities (Amish, Shakers, etc.).

Did you ping Physicist to this, too?

I suspect that if I read Mitra's paper (and understood it), I'd find that his claims went way beyond simply saying that black holes don't destroy all information as they evaporate, which as I understand it is all that Hawking is now saying.

22 posted on 08/02/2004 11:57:04 PM PDT by jennyp (Tremble and cower, Osama! John Edwards is comin' to getcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

I only read the first few paragraphs, but stopped. The reason being that this guy feels vindicated because none of the big boys proved him WRONG.

In science, anyone can say anything is true, but it's your job to prove you are right. It is NEVER anyone elses job to prove you wrong. I submit Hawking didn't respond to him because he didn't see anything worth wasting his time on.


23 posted on 08/02/2004 11:57:34 PM PDT by Advil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

I'm glad this man was vindicated...the snobbery of people "who know it all" kind of gives extra credance to Paul's remark that "thinking themselves wise they became fools instead."


24 posted on 08/03/2004 4:14:21 AM PDT by freepertoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
He proved black holes couldn't exist because their formation and existence flouted Einstein's general theory of relativity.

This statement is like saying that light can't exist because its existence flouts the theory of electromagnetism.

...rest of article disregarded as not worth my time...

25 posted on 08/03/2004 4:40:31 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ikka

Cosmological Constant. Einstein inserted a fudge factor in an equation to make it match some observations that were later found to be incorrect. Woopsie!


26 posted on 08/03/2004 4:47:09 AM PDT by Rifleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
Meet the Indian who took on Stephen Hawking

It's not a fair fight! Hawking is a quadrapalegic!!!

27 posted on 08/03/2004 4:48:55 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crispy
Oh, and Steven Hawkings is over rated.

You should see the guy in a strip club. Life of the party.

28 posted on 08/03/2004 4:50:29 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

 

I thought this was the guy...


29 posted on 08/03/2004 4:53:23 AM PDT by Fintan (Someday we'll look back on this moment and plow into a parked car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

But he's got a pretty cool set of wheels...


30 posted on 08/03/2004 4:54:44 AM PDT by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras
But he's got a pretty cool set of wheels...

You should see when he starts working those Lowrider hydraulics.

31 posted on 08/03/2004 4:57:15 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

Well, for a while Mitra felt what Halton Arp and a few others have been experiencing for decades on the subject of quasars and the Big Bang. There, dogma still reigns in astronomical academia, refusing to let observations shape theory, preferring, instead, to screen and discard observations that don't comport with theory.


32 posted on 08/03/2004 5:00:06 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HassanBenSobar

Elitests have always lamented the democratization of one thing or another.


33 posted on 08/03/2004 5:06:17 AM PDT by O.C. - Old Cracker (When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
..rest of article disregarded as not worth my time..

You did the right thing, I wasted 10 minutes and here is the verdict from earlier papers from Mitra: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=au6bv5%24r73%241%40glue.ucr.edu&output=gplain
34 posted on 08/03/2004 5:49:04 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

Another poorly written science article.

Hawking didn't propose the existence of black holes, the event horizon is not imaginary and yet more hair-splitting over a name.

Bring back science in the schools!

Or better still, home school!


35 posted on 08/03/2004 5:55:11 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith

.. and here from Chris Hillman
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-07/msg0034336.html


36 posted on 08/03/2004 5:55:48 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
From Tomohiro Harada's review of Mitra's article in Math Reviews:

The concern of this article is the final state of spherical gravitational collapse. However, the author gives an incorrect discussion and finds a wrong result that 2M/R->1 rather than 2M/R<1 as the collapse proceeds, where M and R are the Misner-Sharp mass and circumferential radius, respectively. The author continues several discussions along this wrong line. For example, the author claims that for a physical fluid the gravitational collapse results in zero-mass black hole formation.

An article containing incorrect mathematics isn't a good challenge to Hawking's work. The referee of the original paper should have caught this and given a thumbs down to publication. (That's what peer review is for, inter alia.)

37 posted on 08/03/2004 6:29:04 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

This is what happens when people turn science into a "religion" and popular scientists into "prophets."


38 posted on 08/03/2004 6:44:44 AM PDT by valkyrieanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crispy

You're right about Hawking being overrated. He doesn't believe in life after death, so I automatically know not to believe everything he says.


39 posted on 08/03/2004 6:49:46 AM PDT by Flightdeck (Procrastinate later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Did you ping Physicist to this, too? I suspect that if I read Mitra's paper (and understood it), I'd find that his claims went way beyond simply saying that black holes don't destroy all information as they evaporate, which as I understand it is all that Hawking is now saying.

Don't think I did, thanks. Would be interested in such contextualization of the subject matter -- also any analysis of the behavior of these scientists that explains their "shunning" and more general determinations not to include "unorthodox" theorists in their networks of acceptance and communication.

40 posted on 08/03/2004 7:33:16 AM PDT by unspun (RU working your precinct, churchmembers, etc. 4 good votes? | Not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

If Black holes truly do not exist, how does one explain the existence of liberal democrats such as Kerry? Information vanishes into this mystery and is forever lost in revisions, indecision, distortion, and envy. Democrats can make the tax payers money vanish without a trace of improvement in any area it's expended on.

Of course the Republicans are doing a fair job themselves of learning that trick, such as ten billion down the African black hole for aids when African leaders have tossed the very possibility that aids exist down their own black hole, and an eventually 34 billion in Social Security to Mexico who can make that vanish down a black hole without an illegal ever seeing a dime of it.


41 posted on 08/03/2004 7:33:49 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck
You're right about Hawking being overrated. He doesn't believe in life after death, so I automatically know not to believe everything he says.

Hawking is no more qualified an authority on theology than I am. However, just because you disagree with his views on religion in no way impacts his abilities as a scientist.

42 posted on 08/03/2004 7:42:08 AM PDT by Modernman ("I have nothing to declare except my genius." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Would be interested in such contextualization of the subject matter -- also any analysis of the behavior of these scientists that explains their "shunning" and more general determinations not to include "unorthodox" theorists in their networks of acceptance and communication.

The behavior of the scientists is in this case perfectly appropriate. This fellow Mitra is a deep-fried crackpot whose work is replete with errors of the most trivial kind.

Right off the bat this article hits us with: "He proved black holes couldn't exist because their formation and existence flouted Einstein's general theory of relativity." Never mind that Schwarzschild's paper was the first published solution of the Einstein field equations of general relativity. It was published in 1916, only a year after GR was published.

Later we are hit with: "Motivated by Mitra's work, American physicists Stanley Robertson and Darryl Leiter have confirmed in 2002 that BHCs have intense magnetic fields as predicted by Mitra and therefore are not real black holes which cannot have magnetic field." This sentence is ridiculous for a number of reasons, but it will suffice to point out that the Kerr-Newman solution to the Einstein Field Equations was published in 1965 (rotating, charged black holes must necessarily have intense magnetic fields).

There are plenty more howlers in this article, and if you follow the links AdmSmith posted, you'll see that Mitra's papers are veritable fountains of errors.

It is the shame of FreeRepublic that the rantings of crackpots are routinely posted in lieu of science, and accepted uncritically and to great applause by a certain segment of Freepers, who despite the pride they take in their ignorance of the topic, seem to have a politically motivated need for mainstream science and scientists to be discredited. It really reflects badly on all of us.

43 posted on 08/03/2004 8:40:49 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

Hmm.... Looks like this article (or I) touched a nerve. So, are you saying that all of Mitra works should be discredited and he should be shunned by the scientific community?


44 posted on 08/03/2004 8:49:47 AM PDT by unspun (RU working your precinct, churchmembers, etc. 4 good votes? | Not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: unspun
So, are you saying that all of Mitra works should be discredited and he should be shunned by the scientific community?

The works are discredited by their own errors. As for "shunning", the scientific community is under NO obligation to take anybody seriously. The attention of scientists is something that must be earned. Mitra, far from earning it, has actively destroyed any chance at such attention, because of his trivially erroneous claims.

Besides, if you follow the links AdmSmith provided, you'll see that Mitra has received the attention of some physicists. The results of that attention were not flattering to Mitra, to say the least.

If a maverick historian came along and tried to claim that the Roman Empire never existed, or that the United States of America existed before England did, would academic historians be under any obligation to give attention to his work?

45 posted on 08/03/2004 9:02:55 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
Which reminds me... in the "future episode" of the Simpsons where Lisa becomes president, this joke is told by Krusty the Klown:

"What's the difference between Pakistan and a pancake? I don't know any pancakes that were nuked by India!

What, too soon?"

46 posted on 08/03/2004 9:07:52 AM PDT by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
If a maverick historian came along and tried to claim that the Roman Empire never existed, or that the United States of America existed before England did, would academic historians be under any obligation to give attention to his work?

Sorry, but I don't see that analogy as quite apt. It seems that Mitra, as wild and inaccurate as his theorizing may have been, did serve to point out an inaccuracy in then-current "belief" by the scientific community.

47 posted on 08/03/2004 9:20:42 AM PDT by unspun (RU working your precinct, churchmembers, etc. 4 good votes? | Not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: unspun
It seems that Mitra, as wild and inaccurate as his theorizing may have been, did serve to point out an inaccuracy in then-current "belief" by the scientific community.

Not even remotely. Mitra insists that black holes are impossible. Then Hawking changes his opinion on a very subtle theoretical issue regarding black holes--a change which, I might add, had been urged on him for years by Kip Thorne, who by any standard is a mainstream physicist--and Mitra claims vindication? Preposterous.

48 posted on 08/03/2004 9:27:57 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
It is worth noting that with credentials comes the obligation to shred inferior or poorly thought out theories. It is a form of housecleaning.

Now that sounds like fun!

49 posted on 08/03/2004 9:29:50 AM PDT by zeugma (The Great Experiment is over and the Constitution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Scourge of Yazid

roflmAo!


50 posted on 08/03/2004 9:30:25 AM PDT by King Prout ("Thou has been found guilty and convicted of malum zambonifactum most foul... REPENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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