Hawking Solves Black Hole Mystery

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Stephen Hawking's upcoming presentation at a black hole conference, where he is expected to address the black hole information paradox. Participants explore the implications of his theories, the contributions of other researchers, and the current state of evidence regarding Hawking radiation and black hole science.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the fairness of attributing the solution of the black hole paradox solely to Hawking, suggesting that significant contributions have been made by others, such as Samir Mathur.
  • One participant humorously claims to have solved the black hole mystery quickly, attributing it to magnetic fields, and invites others to explore the mathematics behind it.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the lack of experimental evidence for Hawking's theories, with some questioning whether they are merely mathematical constructs without real-world applicability.
  • There is mention of Hawking's abstract suggesting that event horizons may not actually form, which could represent a fundamental shift in understanding black holes.
  • Participants discuss the nature of mathematical rigor in Hawking's work, with some suggesting that it may not be convincing or sufficiently rigorous to resolve the paradox.
  • Questions are posed about the potential implications of Hawking's work for the relationship between quantum theory and larger-scale physics, including the possibility of traveling to other universes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the significance of Hawking's contributions, the validity of his theories, and the current understanding of black holes.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of current black hole theories, including the dependence on definitions of event horizons and the unresolved nature of the black hole information paradox. There is also a recognition that the discussion may not lead to a resolution within established models.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying black hole physics, quantum theory, and the philosophical implications of scientific theories, as well as individuals following developments in theoretical physics.

Astronomy news on Phys.org
russ_watters said:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996151

The explanation will have to wait until next week though when he presents his findings at a black hole conference.

Hi Russ,

I started a thread about this a while back (2 July) and we had a fairly
wide ranging discussion which readers of this thread might want to check out:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=33553

Somewhere in that thread there is Hawking's brief summary of the talk he plans to give, and a link to the whole program of the conference, listing all the plenary talks. It is the 17th triennial conference on General Relativity and Gravity (abbr. GR17) and by no means restricted to black holes!
John Baez and Roger Penrose will be talking. sounds pretty good
 
Apparently its taken him 30 years to find the answer :surprise:
He should have asked me, took about 3 minutes to work it out :biggrin:
And the answer is ----------------------------Magnetic fields,
Anybody care to do the mathematics, :confused:
 
marcus said:
Hi Russ,

I started a thread about this a while back (2 July) and we had a fairly
wide ranging discussion which readers of this thread might want to check out:
D'oh - sorry.
 
I don't think that title is fair. Most of the work was done by other people.

If he were not so humble, I'm sure Mathur (whose office is 3 doors down from mine) could claim to have solved the paradox.
 
Has anyone observed, recorded effects of Hawking radiation or shown
any evidence that it exists yet?, i think his theory is just a mathematical
pinprick, in the BH saga.
I don't know how much BH science theory ,matches "known",
things, with a high degree of certainty, maybe someone could
give the latest news?
Can Hawking bring any new thinking into BH science, i dare say
he will produce a nice mathematical solution, but with no real world
way of knowing if he is right.
 
Gokul43201 said:
I don't think that title is fair. Most of the work was done by other people.

If he were not so humble, I'm sure Mathur (whose office is 3 doors down from mine) could claim to have solved the paradox.

Gokul congratulations for various things! Like being in the physics department at Ohio State 3 doors down from Mathur and so forth!
I will keep an eye out for your papers----or, if you are not too modest to self-promote, please give a link to some of your research.

In the other thread ("PF member solves BH info paradox") where we were also discussing this, you mentioned Mathur's efforts in that direction.

In that thread, I remember giving two arXiv links to Samir Mathur papers:

http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0007011
Resolving the black hole information paradox
Samir D. Mathur

http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0205192
A proposal to resolve the black hole information paradox
Samir D. Mathur

The first one is the one you mentioned. In the second one the title seems more tentative. Since you know Mathur, does he currently feel that he has resolved the paradox? And if so, would that be restricted to a string theory context somehow, or valid generally?

Here is link to that thread "PF member solves BH paradox"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=246672#post246672

I think the wonderful thing about a good paradox is that it keeps on being paradoxical until some fundamental notions change. Do you think so, and would this apply to BH info paradox?

I suspect that BH info paradox will persist until there is a change in some fundamental notion, like time or black hole or something equally basic.

I suspect it will not be resolved merely within the context of some established model, but it will force some change in the model.

must stress, of course, that this is a humble personal opinion. Best wishes to you and colleague Samir.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wolram said:
... i think his theory is just a mathematical
pinprick, in the BH saga...

wolram, I think you may have read Hawking's brief summary his paper which is posted at the Dublin GR17 site
It says something like "Event Horizons don't really exist"

the earlier so-called "semiclassical" analysis of BH
which Hawking and others did (back in 1970s, a lot of if)
assumes that the event horizon is a meaningful surface and it looks
at processes occurring around the event horizon

now the abstract of his talk is saying, in effect, "what we used to think of as an event horizon never really forms"

I don't want to sound either like a fan or a detractor of him
but his abstract promises to propose a basic change in how to look at black holes. If he comes thru on that, then maybe you will be satisfied.

Because that would tend to confirm what you just said, that the work up til now has been more of a semiclassical pinprick
or a semiclassical stab-in-the-BH-dark
that somehow didnt quite connect with the hole reality

the other aspect is Sir Stephen's showmanship
the abstract may have some blurb character
(rather than being just dry objective summary of what he will say)

in Dublin they must be talking about GR17 like it was a football match
or a new brand of beer
 
Here's the link to the GR17 programme
here is the webpage for the GR17 conference:
http://www.dcu.ie/~nolanb/gr17.htm

Here's Hawking's abstract taken from that GR17 site:

"- The information paradox for black holes

The Euclidean path integral over all topologically trivial metrics can be done by time slicing and so is unitary when analytically continued to the Lorentzian. On the other hand, the path integral over all topologically non-trivial metrics is asymptotically independent of the initial state. Thus the total path integral is unitary and information is not lost in the formation and evaporation of black holes. The way the information gets out seems to be that a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Was wondering if any of hawking's work has actually been proven. Is it not true that you can do magic with maths ?
 
  • #11
bozo the clown said:
Was wondering if any of hawking's work has actually been proven. Is it not true that you can do magic with maths ?

I feel that it is very important to be discussing the work of Stephen Hawking with someone named Bozo the Clown
and therefore I am replying in haste to your question.

what you can do or not do with maths is a side issue

in fact someone at Cambridge was posting (I think on sci.physics.research) and saying that he had attended a seminar Hawking gave about this very work this summer, and that it was not even mathematically convincing.

there would not be any experimental backing, that is a given

the issue is not experimental evidence but mathematical rigor and consistency

in effect he said that even in that department it was a bit sketchy and he guessed it would not convince a lot of people that the paradox really was resolved

but who knows? we can just wait and see
 
  • #12
Steven* Hawking is truly the successor to Albert* Einstein in terms of the power of fame. Everyone gasps when they promise to reveal something new. Also, it is a super big bonus to be able to argue convincingly against them. Who else can hold the presses like this.

*May we start calling them Steve and Al?
 
  • #13
quartodeciman said:
*May we start calling them Steve and Al?

Please not to call Albert Einstein Al

otherwise I have no concern
 
  • #14
Question!

According to this article: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/15/hawking.holes.reut/index.html

Is the "Way Out" simply a way to resolve the apparent paradox between quantum theory and physics at a larger level, or is it a hypothetical means to travel out of this universe, into others, as some versions of quantum theory imply is possible? Or is it a little bit of both? Or does anybody have any clue?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Maybe, I've missed something, maybe you've missed something,
let me see if this works, a black hole, is a gravitational dent in space time, and probably lots of other stuff, as well, but that's a different kettle of black holes, anyway a black hole, is a gravitational dent in space time, undoubtedly emitting a massive magnetic field, although matter, including light, and radiation are drawn towards the gravitational dent, the magnetic field would be unaffected, because the particles that make up a magnetic field, let's call them maggots, are unaffected by gravity particles
Now the supposed paradox that everything enters a black hole but nothing leaves, isn't really a paradox, because a black hole in a field of maggots will lose information through the maggots wouldn't it?
 
  • #16
Jeebus said:
According to this article: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/15/hawking.holes.reut/index.html

Is the "Way Out" simply a way to resolve the apparent paradox between quantum theory and physics at a larger level, or is it a hypothetical means to travel out of this universe, into others, as some versions of quantum theory imply is possible? Or is it a little bit of both? Or does anybody have any clue?


The theory combining classical, and quantum physics, the unifying theory, or the theory of everything,
Although this was difficult, it took me almost a week, I've gone and done it, the answer is relatively simple excuse the pune, although what has alluded me so far, is putting it into words, i.e. turning an idea into simple text
A way of very very roughly describing it is , its all about scale, and probability
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
  • #18
If Hawking presents a mathematical model for the the vast amount of hot air he produces then he will have his first proven working theory.
The guy is overated not in the same league as einstein and Feynman
I think he should concentrate his efforsts on writing sci-fi novels, a more useful contribution to society.



..ok I know I am prob going to get plastered !
 
Last edited:
  • #19
bozo the clown said:
The guy is overated not in the same league as einstein and Feynman




..ok I know I am prob going to get plastered !

on the contrary, you should be awarded a medal

Popular science idols can easily confuse more people than they inform
and their popularity can have to do with other things besides how enlightening their schtick actually is.

about hawking, Bozo the Clown said it so I don't have to.

thanks
 
  • #20
That was cold. Apparently the contributions Hawking made to solving field equations, predicting 'Hawking Radiation', and otherwise proposing workable solutions to black hole theory are just a bunch of populist bunk. I also suppose that means Roger Penrose's contributions to string theory, is merely his way of apologizing for collaborating with Hawking.

History will, no doubt, recognize the contributions of Bozo and Marcus to the evolution of modern theory.

Apologies. That really got to me. Hawking is controversial, in some respects. But, he has brilliant insights and is a better scientist than most of us could ever hope to be. But thanks for the other insight, Marcus. I thought the title 'Physics Expert' meant you had peer recognition.

So publish your papers. I will lamely critique them.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
I heard Hawking and Penrose went on a balloon flight, after enjoying the scenery and shortly before they were due to land they started talking black holes strings etc ... , anyways they started ascending rapidly but it didn't take long for these imaginitive physicists to realize that when they kept their mouths closed they were able to land the balloon.
 
  • #22
Chronos said:
...
History will, no doubt, recognize the contributions of Bozo and Marcus to the evolution of modern theory.
...

We are not talking about historical contributions to science (both Hawking and Penrose, not to mention Feynman and Einstein) have made splendid contributions!

I don't spend time ranking great men of science but I guess I probably consider Penrose as one of the most creative mathematicians of our time. I can't tell how seriously to take Hawking's current contributions but his insights of the 1970s are among the most important in the theoretical physics of the second half of the 20th.

I don't see how you, Chronos, can have gotten so confused about what I was saying. I admire these men as scientist and mathematician and esteem their very real contributions.

What we were talking about is Hawking as popular science idol.
In that capacity I do not think he has done science or the public any good.
His popular books have tended to confuse people.
His image resonates with a distorted popular misconception of what scientists are like.
Because he is good "copy" the media and journalists make a big buzz around Hawking at every opportunity. And I have the impression he encourages this.

There have been other Science Celebrities who, IMO, performed that role wonderfully well. Feynman was great BOTH in reality as a scientist and as a mythical science-figure in the public eye. Carl Sagan was a wonderful science celebrity.
These men were not mere short-sighted self-promoters and they used their visibility and media-presence to teach deep valuable lessons to the public about what science is about.
Einstein was a great Popular Idol, as well as being great in the real scientist department.

In my respectful opinion how a science idol uses his or her prominence to give a face to science is important and some people have used their celebrity status well and others have used it selfishly and destructively.

You raised the issue of Sir Roger Penrose. As far as I know he is not a Media Magnet---but I could be mistaken. I never got the impression that he was confusing the public or particularly looking for media attention. So if you are criticising me for being disrespectful of Penrose you are not reading my posts or else you are grossly distorting the situation. I am currently trying to call attention to the Friday 23 July public lecture by Penrose called "Fashion Faith and Fantasy in Theoretical Physics". he is quite a wonderful guy IMHO and the lecture (of which I've heard an online previous version) is a wonderful lecture for general audience.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
bozo the clown said:
I heard Hawking and Penrose went on a balloon flight, after enjoying the scenery and shortly before they were due to land they started talking black holes strings etc ... , anyways they started ascending rapidly but it didn't take long for these imaginitive physicists to realize that when they kept their mouths closed they were able to land the balloon.
Get real, OZOB! What's with the Hawking/Penrose bashing? It's an old joke with different names thrown in. Sour grapes maybe? Read Chronos' post above and try as he suggests; I'll read your posts before dismissing them as garbage... :zzz:

I'm not real big on Bible studies, but like one of the 13 Commandments says; "Thou shalt not envy."

NOTE to PF Mentors:
Don't delete it yet today, sometimes we have to disagree in public for our own mental stability.

________________________________
Labguy;
Open-minded, congenial physics idiot.
 
  • #24
Labguy said:
...

________________________________
Labguy;
Open-minded, congenial physics idiot.

Labguy, sometimes I don't get jokes----are you really 100 years old this year?

You come across as a curmudgeon, perhaps, but more like a curmudgeon in early retirement.

If I had to guess, I'd say born in the Depression years 1932-1940.

But somehow you got this impulse to tell us you were born in 1904, the year after Kitty Hawk. We celebrated your 100th birthday at PF and I wrote you a congratulatory post which you probably didnt read.

I know some people live past 100 and remain very sharpwitted so I have to believe you were not pulling our electronic legs.

Bozo,
Gadzooks! Is Penrose also guilty of being a great Hot Air Puffer?
I thought he was a delightful guy with lots of original thoughts who writes books on stuff besides mathematics---but I didnt think of him as an attention-getter. Did I miss something?

We should dust off the old word "pietist" people who think it is very important to be pious all the time are pietists. It is hard to spell. Is there a better word?
Sycophant?
those who worship the outer garments, to show how reverent they are.
what's the word for it.
 
  • #25
Is it okay to post this here?

Didn't Dr. Hawking presented some amazing thoughts yesterday, saying that BH, unlike he previously thought, do end up parting with what went into them? That's what I got from the remarks, that they reveal the past and even the future. Certainly the past, I'm sure on that part. I guess it streams out of them. What I'm excited about is if so, maybe we could capture it and get some more information on Biblical times. That part has me about in a swoon.

BTW, I don't think Dr. Hawking is a media hound. My ex "knows" him. Dr. Hawking keeps quiet about much of his life. He has a troubled life; even looks like someone is trying to harm him, someone close to him. Maybe some posters from Britain could add to that. It isn't covered much here. But he keeps quiet about it.
 
  • #26
holly said:
Is it okay to post this here?

.

Indeed, it seems like an ideal place to post it. I think you holly have very good sense about human nature and people. So if you think Dr Hawking is not a media hound then I have to say that you may be right and I wrong about that. So I will lay down that particular banner or placard and let someone else wave it if they want.

Also, holly, do you think Labguy is really 100 years old or was he kidding?
I trust your judgement in this more than my own.

Rats, it seems that Labguy has gone and edited his Public Profile so that he is no longer 100 years old, but is a young whipper-snapper.

No one will believe Labguy is under 30, even I can see that is a ruse.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Human psychology evidently has its own version of a black hole: Everything that gets sucked in eventually gets spewed out, many times on the wrong people.

And usually nice-natured people, if they hang around with not-so-nice people, sometimes get pulled into darkness, too. A little tip to all: Anger, snideness, mocking, hate: All are just fear dressed in different mouldering rags. I'll take my fear unadorned and urge you to find the strength to do the same.

All this flaming on this thread; it's disgusting. When I used to work for a veterinarian, all the dogs we were boarding would get to snarling and howling and barfing and running in circles and generally wild in their cages. I recall trying to understand that they were all hurting, lonely, upset, being nice to them, soothing. They kept at it. The vet walked in, and being a practical man, took a yardstick and ran it up and down the chainlink of the cages. Up and down, zzzzzrrrr, clang, on and on. Then he let himself into the dog run and started to lay about with the yardstick. Everyone got a slap on the butt with it. They all calmed down. He hit me a few times as well, and the stick broke. Aw, don't tell me about animal abuse. The whop on the rear helped them. Helped me. I wish I had a yardstick right about now; I'd whop you guys good and you'd all feel better afterwards. Man, these physics types, so quarrelsome. So scared that maybe their vaunted intelligence isn't so grand. Then what do they have to be proud of?

Shut up everyone and talk about black holes now.

The black holes: I never did think it made sense that nothing could get out, or only a little get out. That doesn't seem to go with the rest of the world.

edit, can't spell 2day
 
Last edited:
  • #28
im just kiddin around I pretty much agree with what Marcus was saying.
 
  • #29
In regards to the vet and the measure ruler.

Pavlovian response by ruler dragging on the cage? Yet I do not believe this man was smart enough(warm enough) to speak to the animals in another way.

Should of rang bell, and gave each a treat? Repetivenss of the bell and treat and soon, just the bell will silent? :smile: Introduce new treat in words of kindness and the bell and kindness form, and then soon, the bell becomes kindness :smile:

Anyway back to black holes
 
  • #30
bozo the clown said:
im just kiddin around I pretty much agree with what Marcus was saying.

dont worry bozo,

holly was correcting my manners, not yours,
I can tell this from some of the things she said
 

Similar threads

High School Ultramassive Black Hole (UMB), 30 billion solar masses?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad M31-2014-DS1, slow disappearance of a massive star
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Hawking Says, There are no black holes.
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
8K
High School Free Online Lecture: Seeing the Unseeable - Capturing an Image of a Black Hole
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Loss of stellar information in a black hole
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Penrose: CCC predicts BICEP2 B-modes due to void magnetic fields, correlated to CMB Hawking Points
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
High School Can Dark Matter Explain Black Holes and the Mysterious Planet-Nine?
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
9K
Graduate Hawking Radiation and the Decay of Black Holes
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Undergrad I don't see how a black hole's event horizon can be crossed
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
6K
Undergrad Why do quantum physicists claim that particles can tunnel out of a quantum well?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K