Stephen Hawking: Black Holes May Not Have 'Event Horizons' After All

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Jan 25, 2014 8:19 AM GMT
    Stephen Hawking: Black Holes May Not Have 'Event Horizons' After All


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/stephen-hawking-black-holes-event-horizons_n_4658220.html
  • Dave_StMtn

    Posts: 36

    Jan 25, 2014 1:51 PM GMT
    metta8 saidStephen Hawking: Black Holes May Not Have 'Event Horizons' After All


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/stephen-hawking-black-holes-event-horizons_n_4658220.html


    This must be his response to Gerard 't Hooft's holographic principle where information about the objects was stored on the surface of the event horizon. Should be interesting debates coming out of this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2014 2:07 PM GMT
    Article: "Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form and it would be almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were"

    So, essentially an interactive recycling model. I like it. It makes universe seem alive. No black hole is an island. Nope, not an island atoll.

    Atoll.jpg

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2014 2:35 PM GMT
    As an aside, I'm in awe of people who can conceptualize these things. I cannot.

    My own world is very mundane and 4-dimensional (including time). I do my best to thrive within what is visible & tangible to me. I'll hopefully never encounter a Black Hole.

    But within my limited earthly existence I want to know as much as I can about it. I recall in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories by Conan Doyle the character Watson is appalled to learn that Holmes doesn't know whether the Earth revolves around the Sun, or if it's the other way around. Nor does Holmes care when told, and says he will promptly try to forget it, since it's not of any practical use to him.

    Sometimes I think super-geniuses are that way. I am not, neither a super-genius (bonus points to anyone who knows what famous animated cartoon character had that printed on his business card) nor dysfunctional in daily living tasks. I've known truly brilliant people who were baffled by ordinary kitchen appliances. But since this life is all I will ever experience, I prefer to be proficient in what I can touch, rather than in what I can theorize.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jan 25, 2014 3:06 PM GMT
    I am somewhat surprised that Hawking had not stated this much earlier. I think many physicist have realized for a long time that quantum theory had to be melded with Newtonian physics to fully explain the event horizon as it was postulated. I on the other hand have never believed that quantum theory and Newtonian physics could or would be fully explained in a single theory.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2014 3:26 PM GMT
    conservativejock saidI am somewhat surprised that Hawking had not stated this much earlier. I think many physicist have realized for a long time that quantum theory had to be melded with Newtonian physics to fully explain the event horizon as it was postulated. I on the other hand have never believed that quantum theory and Newtonian physics could or would be fully explained in a single theory.

    The "Theory of Everything" eluded Einstein, the single equation that would explain the entire Universe. Nor has anyone else discovered it.

    Now we're into "string theory" and all kinds of multi-dimensional mind benders. It's possible to convolute anything if you try hard enough. Prior to Einstein there was the "Ether" theory, which I sometimes wonder wasn't so erroneous after all.

    The guiding principle that I have used to pursue the mystery, a philosophical one if you wish, is: What MUST have happened, what MUST be?

    I contend that the Universe isn't an accident, nor a Divine creation (which still begs the question: how was God created?). The Universe is here because it MUST be here. Now why?

    I don't care about strings, or quarks, or black matter. I'd rather know why ANY of it exists. Along with me, too, of course. I realize many physicists take the view that understanding the building blocks will reveal the Maker or some other source, but I'm not so sure.

    But anyway, as I wrote above, I'm not good at theorizing. I'm better at the tangibles in the real world, where I actually live. Or where I imagine myself to live, if I really live at all. icon_confused.gif
  • Selfie77

    Posts: 188

    Jan 25, 2014 8:11 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    ART_DECO said
    conservativejock saidI am somewhat surprised that Hawking had not stated this much earlier. I think many physicist have realized for a long time that quantum theory had to be melded with Newtonian physics to fully explain the event horizon as it was postulated. I on the other hand have never believed that quantum theory and Newtonian physics could or would be fully explained in a single theory.

    The "Theory of Everything" eluded Einstein, the single equation that would explain the entire Universe. Nor has anyone else discovered it.

    Now we're into "string theory" and all kinds of multi-dimensional mind benders. It's possible to convolute anything if you try hard enough. Prior to Einstein there was the "Ether" theory, which I sometimes wonder wasn't so erroneous after all.

    The guiding principle that I have used to pursue the mystery, a philosophical one if you wish, is: What MUST have happened, what MUST be?

    I contend that the Universe isn't an accident, nor a Divine creation (which still begs the question: how was God created?). The Universe is here because it MUST be here. Now why?

    I don't care about strings, or quarks, or black matter. I'd rather know why ANY of it exists. Along with me, too, of course. I realize many physicists take the view that understanding the building blocks will reveal the Maker or some other source, but I'm not so sure.

    But anyway, as I wrote above, I'm not good at theorizing. I'm better at the tangibles in the real world, where I actually live. Or where I imagine myself to live, if I really live at all. icon_confused.gif



    m34_455.jpg



    Funny!