Meet the Indian who took on Stephen Hawking

Rediff.com ^ | August 03, 2004 10:06 IST | Rediff.com

[unspun]

Well, assuming the 'perfection' of a black hole sounds like jumping to a conclusion to me, though I am in the laity.

[Physicist]

Well, assuming the 'perfection' of a black hole sounds like jumping to a conclusion to me, though I am in the laity.

But that was never just an assumption. The "no-hair" theorem for black holes was first proposed as a hypothesis by John Wheeler, and established as a theorem (by Israel in 1967 for the classical BH, and by Hawking in the '70's, I believe, for the quantum case) over a period of years. It's simple enough to state, but the math behind it is deep and difficult, and not all physicists accepted the conclusion. Roger Penrose and Kip Thorne come immediately to mind, and now Hawking has joined them.

[Phsstpok]

OK, biased and uninformative article. Hawking questioned his own conclusion about Black Holes being absolute in his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time." It's the one thing that really bugged me about that book. Just when I was beginning to understand the physics of Black Holes (including absolute enegry/information sinks) about a third of the way through the book you turn the page and he says "and here's why I was wrong."

Now, Hawking's explanation of being "wrong" is based on Quantum Mechanics and "spontaneous" particles appearing near a black hole (Hawking radiation) and this Indian Physiscist bases his argument on the long discredited Einseinian Relativitiy theory (discredited by Quantum physics) makes me a little skeptical about this claim of "vindication."

Bottom line, I'll look at Hawking and then this chap, then I'll make a judgement. I won't take this article at face value.

[Physicist]

and this Indian Physiscist bases his argument on the long discredited Einseinian Relativitiy theory (discredited by Quantum physics)

Sorry, but that's wrong. Relativity has in no way been discredited by quantum mechanics; it's alive and well. Moreover, this Indian chap gets his relativity quite wrong.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank y'all for the pings! Indeed, I am also very impressed with Hawking's willingness to correct himself.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Thank you!

I'm glad someone noticed my attempt at humor.

[King Prout]

I guess most of the crew are spectating the slow roast of Ron Perlstein

[Cronos]

A pity that Pakistan was allowed to develop the Islamobomb,

Well, actually, they didn't "develop" anything -- they just read the manual, but some guy had to learn Chinese to do that. Why else do you think that out of the 6 nukes they tested, 3 flubbed and the others provided lower than expected yields

[Cronos]

Indians invented the zero. They have many good mathematicians.

Also the Indian numerals that are used by the world -- 1,2,3,4,5....

[RightWhale]

Yeah, they don't look quite the same as the modern 1, 2, 3, etc., but better than those Arabic squiggles.

[unspun]

But that was never just an assumption.

Well, I'd say that one man's assumption is another's findings after blackboards full of equations.

[Cronos]

Yeah, they don't look quite the same as the modern 1, 2, 3, etc.,
Well, they do, somewhat

[RightWhale]

Yeah, somewhat.

[Phsstpok]

Relativity has in no way been discredited by quantum mechanics

OK, superceded, particularly as it applies to Hawking's discussions of black holes. Einsteinian black holes are absolute, singularities. The radiation that "comes out of" black holes via the proposed Hawking radiation requires Quantum effects that are not contemplated in Einstein's theories.

[gcruse]

India knows from black holes. Calcutta.

[gcruse]

Whoa. What you said. I'll have what you're having...

[RightWingAtheist]

I'm not on anything except Sudafed.

[gcruse]

Well, Sudafed it is, then. :)

[Physicist]

Einsteinian black holes are absolute, singularities.

The singularity is at the center of the black hole. Hawking radiation comes from the event horizon. But in any case, these quantum effects are perfectly compatible with Einstein's field equations, which is to say that Hawking's quantum black hole is an exact solution to that set of equations, just as Schwarzschild's classical black hole was. The equations didn't have to be modified one jot or tittle.

The radiation that "comes out of" black holes via the proposed Hawking radiation requires Quantum effects that are not contemplated in Einstein's theories.

General relativity doesn't contemplate classical electromagnetic fields, either, but they fit right in. GR is only concerned with the shape of space.

[Geek alert: There is one way in which Einstein's theory of gravity seems to run afoul of quantum mechanics. That occurs when you try to quantize the gravitational field itself, into particles called gravitons (analogous with the photons of electromagnetism). When you try to calculate quantum gravitational interactions, you find that the quantities you calculate all become infinite. This is quite unlike any of the other forces, which all give finite, experimentally testable predictions for their interactions.]

[Crispy]

"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."

Okay, that makes sense. But, what if you are right and nobody agrees with you OR tries to prove you wrong?