He’s been saying this since the late 70s!

I was flabbergasted to read an International Weekly Journal of Science article, titled There are no black holes where they make the ludicrous claim that Stephen Hawkins suddenly has devastated the idea of what a black hole really is.

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.”

WTF? This is not new. Was this reporter a “Womyn Studies” or some other such non science degree major? Because she seems dumber than a stump claiming this is somehow new. Hawkins even made it clear, the belief nothing escapes a black hole – and we are not talking about what rappers would refer to as black hos – is rooted in classical or Newtonian mechanics. Quantum mechanics had postulated since the late 70s that the whole phenomenon of an event horizon where matter just disappears from existence, is very likely to be totally wrong, since it would violate/contradict several laws, and create a paradox. Now they act like Hawking’s not been saying that the event horizon of a black hole is far more complicated and undefined is something new.

Must be a slow news week or something.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    I know a guy in the field that claims that Hawkins as merely a front for other people to publish through. Don’t know really what to make of it, but the logic of it was fairly sound: Hawkins can’t actually speak, so he’s the perfect “voice” to lend to someone else who doesn’t have the standing to actually get heard.

    Supposedly, Hawkins quit actually doing any work of his own decades ago. Could he be really the Milli Vanilli of the theoretical physics? I kind of have a hard time believing it.

    On the other hand, I have to agree with you – this isn’t news unless we all stepped into the wayback machine heading to 1980. Hell, I’ve read any number of novels that use it as a plot device.

    Thumb up 2

  2. Hal_10000

    You’re right, Alex. In fact, the process he’s talking about is known as … Hawking Radiation. The idea, as I was taught, was that the event horizon is a sea of “virtual particles” and that those particles will sometimes escape. The smaller the black hole, the more radiation. This is why black holes are sometimes used as power sources in science fiction.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT *

    It kills me that these supposed science reporters don’t have a fucking clue though Hal. When I saw the headline for the first time I went WTF? Then I read it and went Double WTF? This isn’t new, and you even explained it wrong. What’s fucking next? They will tell us light is both a wave and a particle?

    Thumb up 1

  4. Hal_10000

    Alex, you should try being a scientist and sometimes seeing your words mangled. Our Science Office here is very good about getting it right. But I’ve sometimes seen myself quoted somewhere and said, “WTF?!”

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    Alex, you should try being a scientist and sometimes seeing your words mangled. Our Science Office here is very good about getting it right. But I’ve sometimes seen myself quoted somewhere and said, “WTF?!”

    I mean, how hard is it to quote someone? Do they try to dumb down the language to make it understandable for the common man, and while doing so, prove they have no clue what they are reporting on, or do they do this shit just so they can write sensational headlines in the hopes of getting more eyes on the drivel they write?

    My favorite news faux pas is till that Boston Globe expose from a decade or so ago about estrogen in the drinking water of Boston. The article claimed there was a major crisis because of this because it was going to make all of the men get moobs and start acting like queens on PMS. Only thing is when you actually look at the underlying data, you find out that the concentration was in parts per billion, meaning you would have to drink like 30 million gallons or some such ludicrous amount of water to get the equivalent of one dosing of estrogen. And yet people panicked, all kinds os stupid and expensive shit was done, and in the end, the whole ridiculous thing went nowhere. granted Massholes already are dudes with moobs and act like queens on PMS, but that’s just cause they are from Masshole.

    I don’t know. This sort of article that says nothing but pretends to be dealing with something huge always pisses me off.

    Enjoy the cold people.

    Thumb up 0