originally posted in:Secular Sevens
[url=http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583]linky[/url] [quote]Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.
In its stead, Hawking’s radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.
“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”[/quote]
-
Stargates use Event Horizons, therefore he is wrong.
-
Did this article just straight up lie to me? Hawking isn't saying they are no black holes, he's just saying they aren't exactly how we thought them to be.
-
rip PGG
-
[quote]Hawking told Nature. [/quote]such a bamf
-
I've seen this everywhere and it's starting to make me mad. Hawking is saying that specific characteristics of event horizons are likely not what physicists have believed them to be for some time. He isn't saying "Black holes don't exist," he's saying that his research indicates we need to revise how black holes are described. Sagittarius A is still a black hole, it just might not behave exactly like we thought.
-
Edited by HurtfulTurkey: 1/26/2014 10:16:51 PM[quote]Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” would probably be dismissed as cranks.[/quote] >Writes article with title 'There Are No Black Holes' Okay, I get that not everybody is a physicist with multiple PhD's, but I absolutely hate it when articles massively dumb-down information to the point of treating its readers like infants. He did not say there are no black holes, he said our model of the event horizon is inaccurate. Holy fuck how difficult is that to understand, Nature.com? Also, Stargate said black holes are real so Zeeya Merali can suck it.
-
All I know is black holes are -blam!-ing terrifying.
-
>there are no blackholes >just disproves something about even horizon >black holes still exist
-
So black holes are still scary right?
-
Why does he make the report title "There are no Black Holes" if all he's disproving is the Event Horizon surrounding them?
-
I'm pretty sure he's saying there's still an event horizon; it's boundary just isn't as definite as we thought. Anyway, this is just a hypothesis that has yet to be peer reviewed.
-
My brain hurts when I see someone depicting a black hole as an actual hole instead of a sphere
-
meh, whatever.
-
awesome read, thanks for sharing