Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed. Black Holes Disputed [slashdot. If they are correct, the idea of a black hole with a singularity at the center may be just a fantasy. The idea that things might be so massive that light cannot escape predate Einstein by a couple of centuries.
Hawking has the paper in the back of one of his books, the one that starts 'Consider a Hausdorfian Manifold of Lipschit signature There being no observable difference from outside the black hole the issue of what happens inside is irrelevant except to omnipotent beings. Conventional physics might as well go hang when it tries to predict what happens since the area beyond the event horizon is out of bounds.
There is a similar debate in QM which Einstein was also on the losing side ofdoes God really play dice? The apparently random interactions of QM can be explained deterministically if one posits the existence of hidden variables. However a theory based on variables that cannot be observed is not empirically verifiable, let alone falsifiable and thus lies in theology rather than science. Theoretical physicists often fall into the belief that they are discovering the truth about everything rather than merely a theory that is consistent with empirical observations.
This is what is really behind the Sokal attack on Literary criticism, he takes offense at the insistence of Derrida and others that science is a set of working assumptions rather than an absolute.
Ironically Sokal appears to be enlisting Popper in his cause which is strange because Popper's entire point was that absolutist ideas were bad and that the term 'science' was being abused by the pseudo-science of Marxists and Freudiam Psychoanalysis. Later discussions between Popper and his critics notably Khune makes it very clear that Popper was quite consciously raising the bar of 'scientific method' above the standards science itself applies.
So the fact that the standard model and relativity fall apart in the inside of black holes does not worry me much. We know that they are both wrong since they are currently incompatible.
Black holes and the QM hidden variables appear to me to satisfy Broomfondle's demand for 'rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty'.
The problem with this type of Newtonian description of an essentially non-Newtonian phenomenon is that people try to extrapolate from their understanding of Newtonian gravity a post lower down, for instance, suggests that maybe you could climb out of the hole "slowly" without reaching escape velocity, just like you can get to the moon without reaching the escape velocity of the earth.
The event horizon is, however, much more than "just the distance at which escape velocity exceeds that speed of light"; the very structure of space and time changes at the event horizon.
Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE
You can prove mathematically within the confines of classical tensor theories of gravity, that the event horizon is a surface that bounds a region where all light-like and time-like trajectories are trapped, for the entire future history of the universe. In english, any piece of matter, and any photon that crosses that surface will NEVER be able to get out, no matter how hard you try and in fact, the harder you try, the more stuck you get :- These processes are inherently unlike gravity as you learned in high school and freshman college physics, and you just unfortunately can't really make the escape velocity analogy.
I have often wondered but never had the time, inclination or intelligence to go find out : how a quantum view of gravity would affect theories on black holes and the birth of the universe. Basically my question is: If gravitational attraction is carried by a particle the graviton as is conjectured by many scientists, then how can one of these escape from a black hole any more than another particle? The latest theory of quantum gravity under discussion is the 11 dimensional m-theory, which models the universe as a four dimensional spacetime embedded in 10 space and 1 time dimensions.
In this theory, gravity, and therefore gravitons, are the interaction between two closely seperated membranes, one of which is our universe. It's not that Einstein was wrong, as his field equations still produce the correct results for large scale gravity in m theory, but just that he didn't go far enough towards a quantum theory of gravity, for which the mathematical tools just weren't available.
I personally think that gravity is not a fundamental force, but an emergent, probabalistic "Force. This makes sense, given gravity's ridiculously small magnitude, and would offer at least a testable hypothesis. This hypothesis doesn't mean that things sometimes go up when they should go down look at the second law of thermodynamics, and show me a time an egg put itself back together.
I couldn't make any sense out of the SFGate article, so I found the original paper [arxiv. It appears that the authors are proposing that a form of Bose-Einstein condensate can prevent full gravitational collapse, though I don't quite understand why they think this is such a good idea Avoids the information paradox, I suppose. That in itself is reason enough to be looking for something better than black holes. It boggles that some pish-posh the gravastar idea because they don't like the ideas behind it I assume that it is merely the fact that black hole, black hole, black hole has been pounded down the collective throat for so long that it is accepted by fiat.
Bad scientist!We answer this question and more in this gallery. Check it out! Some theories argue that not all the power of a black hole is totally destructive and that this same power can be used for various other things, including time travel. You should also check out the daily lives of astronauts! The secrets and mysteries of black holes. Start planning your holiday now! Ad Microsoft.
Read and share our stories with friends and family. Jump into the conversation on Twitter! What are they? Black holes have a huge mass. Some of them may have times more mass than the Sun. Scholars know that they exist by the radiation that they emit. Physics laws American physicist Kip Thorne has been quoted as saying that the singularity at the center of the black hole is "the point where all laws of physics break down. Time In theory, the closer to the event horizon of a black hole you are, the slower time feels.
Beginning Theories about the existence of black holes began in the 18th century. The first The first object to be considered a black hole was called Cygnus X-1 and was located in the constellation Cygnus Swan. Is Earth in danger? Although there is the hypothesis that the Milky Way contains several black holes, the Earth is not very close to any of them.
Black Hole doubts summoned by 11-year study
The sound According to scientists, black holes emit a constant B flat note. Dense They are the densest objects in the entire universe.
Size According to NASA there are at least three black hole sizes: stellar, supermassive, and miniature. Doubts Science has not yet discovered how supermassive black holes are formed. Worm holes Several theories point to the fact that if someone or something is swallowed up by a black hole, it can be "thrown" into other parts of the universe. Many sci-fi movies use this idea. Keep away from the event horizon The event horizon is the edge of the black hole, and is seen as the point of no return.
From there, it is impossible to escape the gravitational force of the hole. Evaporation There is only one thing that can escape a black hole: radiation. When a black hole is emitting radiation, scientists know that it is losing mass, and that this is probably the process that leads to its extinction.
Color Although they are known as black holes, not all are black.Cygnus X-1 is one of the strongest X-ray sources we can detect from Earth and the first widely thought to be a black hole. Hawking writes about his wager with Kip Thorne entertainingly in the first edition of his A Brief History of Time :.
This was a form of insurance policy for me. I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would all be wasted if it turned out that black holes do not exist. But in that case, I would have the consolation of winning my bet, which would win me four years of the magazine Private Eye. If black holes do exist, Kip will get one year of Penthouse.
Not long afterwards, the bet would be settled. Thus the bet ended, Thorne received Penthouse and Hawking was out all those issues of Private Eyealthough it would not be completely accepted — even by Thorne — that Cygnus X-1 was a black hole until the release of three new papers. The new work draws on data from a wide variety of instruments.
Cygnus X-1 is located near large active regions of star formation in the Milky Way, as seen in this image that spans some light years across. Cygnus X-1 is a so-called stellar-mass black hole, a class of black holes that comes from the collapse of a massive star. The black hole pulls material from a massive, blue companion star toward it. This material forms a disk shown in red and orange that rotates around the black hole before falling into it or being redirected away from the black hole in the form of powerful jets.
The relatively slow motion of Cygnus X-1 through the Milky Way implies, according to this Chandra news releasethat the black hole was not produced by a supernova, but may have been the result of a massive star that collapsed without an explosion. All three of the papers on this work are in press at the Astrophysical Journal.
The papers are Reid et al. Next post: Technological Leaps in Perspective. Hawking writes about his wager with Kip Thorne entertainingly in the first edition of his A Brief History of Time : This was a form of insurance policy for me.
Comments on this entry are closed. Jesus October 5, Charter In Centauri DreamsPaul Gilster looks at peer-reviewed research on deep space exploration, with an eye toward interstellar possibilities.Catch up on stories from the past week and beyond at the Slashdot story archive. Only what I call "Hawking surfaces". Layman: Does this mean it's possible to travel faster than the speed of light? Hawking: Sure, why not. There are no black holes until we find one.
All we have so far is that we ran out of alternative ideas, so we assume the supermassive compact object in the centers of galaxies are black holes. So, you think Hawking is attention-grabbing because somebody else said they are, "Hawking Surfaces"? Come on. Hawking is a well-respected scientist who still does good work in theoretical physics.
And this paper is quite good. It is a pretty radical re-thinking of black holes that, if it holds up to further scrutiny, will be considered a very important insight.
I don't think that people will stop calling these objects black holes, but he is absolutely correct in that if this idea holds up, it is a statemen. I don't get it That's like saying, "That's it, McDonalds has failed once again. I'm going back to brushing my teeth.
Scientific reasoning is justification that there is no evidence for a god. No scientific evidence. However, something that is strictly and purely supernatural which God is pre-eminently is by the very definition of the w. Fine, I accept that; scientific evidence is exactly what I would need in order to believe there is a god. Needing anything less seems crazy to me.
Slashdot Top Deals
However, something that is strictly and purely supernatural which God is pre-eminently is by the very definition of the word "supernatural" beyond having a nature that science can speak about. Oh, man, that old argument. By that reasoning, I had better be on the lookout for ghosts, fairies, goblins, magic unicorns and all manner of supernatural beings?
Do you ever try walking through walls just in case it might work? Nobody can prove you don't have that supernatural ability. I was very careful to not claim that.
To have done so would be stupid.All rights reserved. Our star, the sun, will die a quiet death. For a star ten times as big as the sun, death is far more dramatic.
The outer layers are blasted into space in a supernova explosion that, for a couple of weeks, is one of the brightest objects in the universe. The core, meanwhile, is squeezed by gravity into a neutron star, a spinning ball bearing a dozen miles in diameter.
But this is nothing compared with the death throes of a star some 20 times the mass of the sun. Detonate a Hiroshima-like bomb every millisecond for the entire life of the universe, and you would still fall short of the energy released in the final moments of a giant-star collapse. Temperatures reach billion degrees. The crushing force of gravity is unstoppable. Hunks of iron bigger than Mount Everest are compacted almost instantly into grains of sand. Atoms are shattered into electrons, protons, neutrons.
Those minute pieces are pulped into quarks and leptons and gluons. And so on, tinier and tinier, denser and denser, until Until no one knows. When trying to explain such a momentous phenomenon, the two major theories governing the workings of the universe—general relativity and quantum mechanics—both go haywire, like dials on an airplane wildly rotating during a tailspin.
What makes a black hole the darkest chasm in the universe is the velocity needed to escape its gravitational pull. This is swift—a half dozen times faster than a bullet—but human-built rockets have been achieving escape velocity since The universal speed limit ismiles a second, the speed of light. A black hole is a place exiled from the rest of the universe. The dividing line between the inside and outside of a black hole is called the event horizon.Our favorite sci-fi and comedy writers may not get every detail right, but they do spark our interest in the weirder aspects of scientific theories.
You may even want to explore these topics further on your own. After all, there are million dollar prizes waiting for the people who solve some cosmic puzzles. Read on to find out which one of these 10 mysteries could make you rich. Our atmosphere is constantly being hit by particles from outer space with high energies. Observing cosmic rays has taught us a lot about astrophysics and particle physics. But there are some—the ones with the most energy—that are mysterious to this day.
Linsley and Livio Scarsi saw something incredible: an ultra-high-energy cosmic ray with an energy of more than 16 joules. All of that energy is concentrated, though, in a particle a hundred million billion billion times smaller than the apple. Some theories include the idea that they might come from supernovae, when stars explode at the end of their lives. The particles may also be accelerated in the disks of collapsing matter that form around black holes.
The universe is amazingly flat on large scales. But the theory of the big bang suggests that, at the very earliest times, there must have been some big differences in density in the early universe.
So it was much lumpier than our universe is today. The theory of inflation suggests that the universe we see today comes from a tiny volume of the early universe.
Details of what was happening during this inflation are also sketchy. A better understanding of this era could tell us a lot about the universe as it is today. Physicists noticed some decades ago that the stars on the outer edges of galaxies were orbiting around the center of those galaxies faster than predicted. After this, observations of the expanding universe led physicists to conclude that there must be a lot more dark matter out there—five times as much as the matter we can see.
Alongside this, we know that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating. Combine this with the fact that the universe is flat—space-time, overall, is not curved—and cosmologists need an explanation for something that balances the gravitational attraction of matter.
Yet to this day, the particles that make up dark matter and the field that makes up dark energy have not been directly observed in the lab. But physicists are hopeful that dark matter particles might be produced in the Large Hadron Collider LHCwhere they could be studied.
It could turn out that dark matter particles are heavier than anything the LHC can produce, in which case it might remain a mystery for a much longer time. Or maybe the dark matter and dark energy explanations are incorrect, and an entirely new theory is needed.
But it would have to explain everything we see better than the current theory before physicists will adopt it. Black holes are some of the most celebrated objects in astrophysics. We can describe them as regions of space-time with such strong gravitational fields that even light cannot escape.
Since then, many black holes have been observed, including a huge, supermassive one at the heart of our own galaxy. But the mystery of what occurs at the heart of a black hole is still unsolved. There is still debate about whether information is lost inside black holes.All rights reserved.
This artist's concept illustrates a supermassive black hole, which are enormously dense objects buried at the hearts of galaxies. Black holes do not exist—at least, not as we know them, says renowned physicist Stephen Hawkingpotentially provoking a rethink of one of space's most mysterious objects.
A new study from Hawking also says that black holes may not possess "firewalls," destructive belts of radiation that some researchers have proposed would incinerate anything that passes through them but others scientists deem an impossibility. The conventional view of black holes posits that their gravitational pull is so powerful that nothing can escape from them—not even light, which is why they're called black holes.The Black Hole Image - Data Fabrication Masterclass!
The boundary past which there is supposedly no return is known as the event horizon. In this conception, all information about anything that ventures past a black hole's event horizon is destroyed.
On the other hand, quantum physics, the best description so far of how the universe behaves on a subatomic level, suggests that information cannot ever be destroyed, leading to a fundamental conflict in theory. Now Hawking is suggesting a resolution to the paradox: Black holes do not possess event horizons after all, so they do not destroy information. Instead, Hawking proposes that black holes possess "apparent horizons" that only temporarily entrap matter and energy that can eventually reemerge as radiation.
This outgoing radiation possesses all the original information about what fell into the black hole, although in radically different form. Since the outgoing information is scrambled, Hawking writes, there's no practical way to reconstruct anything that fell in based on what comes out. The scrambling occurs because the apparent horizon is chaotic in nature, kind of like weather on Earth. We can't reconstruct what an object that fell into a black hole was like based on information leaking from it, Hawking writes, just as "one can't predict the weather more than a few days in advance.
Hawking's reasoning against event horizons also seems to eliminate so-called firewalls, which are searing zones of intense radiation that some scientists recently and controversially suggested may exist at or near event horizons.
To grasp the significance of this revision, it helps to know that Hawking revealed decades ago that black holes are not perfectly "black.
Slashdot Top Deals
Over time, generating this so-called Hawking radiation makes black holes lose mass—or even completely evaporate. According to this theory, the pairs of particles created around black holes should be entangled with each other. This means the behavior of each pair's particles is connected, regardless of distance. One member of each pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes.
But recent analyses suggest that each particle leaving a black hole must also be entangled with every outgoing particle that has already left.
This runs head-on into a well-tested principle of quantum physics stating that entanglement is always "monogamous," meaning two particles, and only two, are paired from the time of their creation.
Since no particle can have two kinds of entanglement at the same time—one pairing it with another particle at the time of its origin, and one pairing it with all other particles that have left a black hole—one of those entanglements theoretically must get uncoupled, releasing vast amounts of energy and generating a firewall. Firewalls obey quantum physics, solving the conundrum black holes pose regarding entanglement.
But they pose another problem by contradicting Einstein's well-tested "equivalence principle," which implies that crossing a black hole's event horizon should be an unremarkable event. A hypothetical astronaut passing across an event horizon would not even be aware of the transit.
If there were a firewall, however, the astronaut would be instantly incinerated. Since that violates Einstein's principle, Hawking and others have sought to prove that firewalls are impossible.
Although quantum physicist Seth Lloyd of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology felt Hawking's idea was a good way to avoid firewalls, he said it doesn't really address the problems that firewalls raise. Theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind at Stanford University in California, who also did not take part in Hawking's research, suggests there may be another solution to the conundrums that black holes pose.
For instance, work by Susskind and his colleague Juan Maldacena hint that entanglement might be linked to wormholes: shortcuts that can in theory connect distant points in space and time. This line of thought might serve as the foundation for research that could solve the firewall controversy, Susskind said.
Theoretical physicist Don Page at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, noted that there will be no way to find evidence to support Hawking's idea in the immediate future. Astronomers will not be able to detect any difference in the behavior of black holes from what they have already observed.
Nevertheless, Hawking's new proposal "might lead to a more complete theory regarding quantum gravity that makes other predictions that are testable," Page said.
Carroll plans to keep an eye on Hawking in the days ahead: "It's very plausible Hawking has a much better argument that he hasn't yet gotten down on paper. Follow Charles Q. Read Caption.