Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Hawking Solves Black Hole Mystery

  1. Jul 15, 2004 #1

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 15, 2004 #2

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    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
     
  4. Jul 16, 2004 #3
    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:
     
  5. Jul 16, 2004 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    D'oh - sorry.
     
  6. Jul 16, 2004 #5

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  7. Jul 16, 2004 #6

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 dont 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.
     
  8. Jul 16, 2004 #7

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    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: Jul 16, 2004
  9. Jul 16, 2004 #8

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    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 dont 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
     
  10. Jul 16, 2004 #9

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    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."
     
  11. Jul 16, 2004 #10
    Was wondering if any of hawking's work has actually been proven. Is it not true that you can do magic with maths ?
     
  12. Jul 16, 2004 #11

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    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
     
  13. Jul 16, 2004 #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?
     
  14. Jul 16, 2004 #13

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Please not to call Albert Einstein Al

    otherwise I have no concern
     
  15. Jul 16, 2004 #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?
     
  16. Jul 16, 2004 #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?
     
  17. Jul 16, 2004 #16

    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
     
  18. Jul 16, 2004 #17
  19. Jul 16, 2004 #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 Einstien and Feynman
    I think he should concentrate his efforsts on writing sci-fi novels, a more useful contribution to society.



    ..ok I know im prob gonna get plastered !
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2004
  20. Jul 16, 2004 #19

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    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 dont have to.

    thanks
     
  21. Jul 17, 2004 #20

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    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: Jul 17, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Hawking Solves Black Hole Mystery
Loading...