Stephen Hawking stuns physicists by declaring 'there are no black holes'

reply to post by Snarl


The Gospel of Christ is all we need and it has not been degraded by the Catholic churches or Rome . Rome did not have the only copies of the NT . Copies were all over the known world . Comparisons have been made with the reputation the Catholics had /have people did not trust them.

reply to post by SimonPeter

One thing we know is that the Creator could never explain to us in detail .

Oh I fully passionately support that notion. So much in fact it's one of the reasons I disbelieve in religion. This idea our fallible monkey brains could even begin to fathom the magnitude of a being of infinite intelligence and power is absolutely asinine to me. You and I would struggle to keep up in any physics conference yet we are to believe we could understand god's mind!? We are to believe we have contained within books this being's thoughts and wishes et cetera. I am to believe a being that transcends all our limitations would demand something so completely trivial like not working on a particular day every week? I have nothing against god-belief or pondering over the possibility myself of a Creator's existence, but one thing I won't do is think I or anyone else could possibly grasp that mind. Something bible thumpers do not shy away from.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by stormbringer1701

 

so when you think that science contradicts the bible or conversely that the bible is at war with science you should actually be looking for a misunderstanding of one or the other.

Genesis, unless taken metaphorically, seems to be at war with science. Give this link a look over:

Debunk Genesis

probably not the place for an extended religious discussion but Genesis is not contradicted by Science nor is Genesis incompatible with science. that is unless one resorts to reductio ad absurdem psuedo literalism.

for starters Genesis makes no claim that the world is only a few thousand years old. the line in the KJV where is says the world was void and without form has a mistranslation which can be checked with the original manuscripts from which the KJV was derived. the line should read "and the world became void and without form." this fact means that there was an indefinite but long gap in time between the event described in line one and line three of the creation narrative. this allows by itself any amount of time for the earth's initial development. this idea is supported elsewhere such as in isiah and ii peter and even in Job.

next bible critics often point to the day adam was made being different in two places in Genesis. again the problem is one of linguistics and translation. long story short Day six refers to a generic mankind with an impersonal article in the original hebrew while the "Day 8" line has a personal article making it a reference to a specific man; Adam. which means Adam was notthe first human and that there were people on earth before Adam.

there are several inconsistencies that aren't really inconsistencies when you know this. such as who they married, how were there other nations, cities and so forth.

another misinterpretation? the word day is often supposed to mean age or eon rather than a 24 hour or thousand year interpretation. thus there was not set time between the so called days of creation.

similarly all such seeming conflicts can be studied and it is either down to translation errors, linguistics, use of hebraisms or figures of speech, or a failure to properly identify the subject and object and action of a sentence.

if you do this you can even find out exactly what eve did and why all the seemingly evil stuff God did in the OT was necessary.

but most people don't bother. can't fault them for that because most Christians don't bother with such study either. of course its hard to be a "fundamentalist" if you can't read the fundamentals properly; which is why lot's of christian fundametalists themselves believe things that just aren't true about the bible. but also if you are a skeptic it's hard to have a ironclad argument if you cannot understand the material you wish to dispute.

Wow, how someone can change what was actually said to something that sounds so much more impressive.

what he said was

Black holes don't actually exist in the way we traditionally think of them

A slightly different meaning to the OP's groundbreaking sensationalist headline!!

reply to post by stormbringer1701


Well your points were not really inline to what was specifically discussed in that link. If you get the chance read it over and dispute that. As for literalism. Yes that was my point, it would need to be taken metaphorically.

but also if you are a skeptic it's hard to have a ironclad argument if you cannot understand the material you wish to dispute.

I am most definitely a skeptic concerning religious gods and subsequently religious material yes. I however have a vested interest in theology and am not a stranger to it. I have a decent grasp of world religion, metaphysics, and the philosophy of religion in general. Trying to learn more. Of course this burden extends to the religious people and their knowledge in regards to what they are disputing in the event they feel it's not compatible with science. It's not fair for the religious person to say for instance 'big bang is BS' and not really have a solid understanding of cosmology.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by stormbringer1701

 

I am most definitely a skeptic concerning religious gods and subsequently religious material yes. I however have a vested interest in theology and am not a stranger to it. I have a decent grasp of world religion, metaphysics, and the philosophy of religion in general. Trying to learn more. Of course this burden extends to the religious people and their knowledge in regards to what they are disputing in the event they feel it's not compatible with science. It's not fair for the religious person to say for instance 'big bang is BS' and not really have a solid understanding of cosmology.

edit on 26-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

on that we can agree. the big bang and genesis narrative have no incompatibility at all. fiat lux. in the beginning was a tremendous explosion from essentially a quantum vacuum fluctuation of tremendous energy density and the first thing that showed up was light once the medium became transparent to it. i see no conflict. God simply wasn't aiming to make Moses a PHD in several complicated fields of knowledge so he could impress modern physicists and cosmologists and biologists since it was pointless to his cause.

EDIT: besides can you imagine if church goers had to cart the printed text books for several BA through post doc courses in the relevant sciences to church every Sunday and bible readers had to be able to filter past that to get the salvation story out of that jumble? Not good. and not necessary.

What fascinates me, is that embedded straight into the first cause, whatever that might be, was our present moment circumstance framed by the earth-moon-sun, and solar system, galaxy and cosmic configuration, with this experience included, not by mere random fluxuations or happenstance mind you, but with intentionality by anticipation.

Because of this, I stronghly suspect that we do not understand time or the arrow of time, nor of causation, as a then to now series of cause and effects.

Maybe everything that ever was is and will be arises not by an upward causation, from nothing, but a downward one from everything whereby the manifest creation represents, not a capricious addition from nothing, but instead, an intelligent subtraction from the absolute formless potential in order so that this experience might be possible.

This implications of this kind of reframe are most profound.

Some people, even many or most seemed to be wired with a "blind" or a bias against the idea or notion of God, presuming that a bottom up materialist monism through an arrow of time driven by a mindless process whereby life, and consciousness are simply an epiphenomenon of matter arising from a bottom up causation, will do the trick, yet the overall frame of reference speaks of something else altogether, but communicated in such a way that it will either bypass and penetrate the bias, or solidify it in it's own ignorance, confounding the faithless (willfully faithless) in a joke reserved only for the faithful and the truly open minded and inquisitive.

Don't take that the wrong way either, as it's not intended as a slight, just a point worth pointing out, that the nature of objective truth and reality might be the inverse of every single one of our presumptions and capable of taking us completely by surprise in the absolute astonishment of epiphany, enough to elicit the knowing giggle and laughter of the wonderment of a child.


Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by stormbringer1701

God simply wasn't aiming to make Moses a PHD in several complicated fields of knowledge so he could impress modern physicists and cosmologists and biologists since it was pointless to his cause.

Interesting take on things. That the efficacy of the Bible should be so contextual. I'd say it's time for God then to come down and update it for modern thinkers. Great thing about omniscience and omnipotence is that he could. Sad thing for religion is that he hasn't. Instead we see it so very much contextual to ancient Israel. Then god encouraged raping women. What's his thoughts now? See I would appreciate a version of 'the Word' contextual to today.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Don't take that the wrong way either, as it's not intended as a slight, just a point worth pointing out, that the nature of objective truth and reality might be the inverse of every single one of our presumptions and capable of taking us completely by surprise in the absolute astonishment of epiphany

No argument from me there. Surely you're not suggesting yourself impervious to this.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Of course not, but i'm open to it and therefore to any joke that God might wish to share.

Don't forget either that the very nature of the stuff of life is story, and that the framing of a story is decisive whereby context and framing is everything.

So you might have a bias yourself as it might relate to the framing of the Bible.

To save you some time, i encourage you to read just the last two pages to see how it ends.

Never presume to already know what can only reside in the domain of the unknown unknown or what you didn't even know you didn't know, until you did.

Once something has been communicated, maybe it's best to just leave it be to await discovery.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I take no offense that you don't recall our history We have had discussion. I remember your posts and things you've said to me.

I have read the Bible. I continue to. Even parts of early Christian oral tradition not in the now recognized canon. So yeah I have. I must be broken since I am not a believer

Anyways. Good. Like I said I agree with the premise of your last post. We could be, and I would say most likely, completely wrong about the true nature of reality. All of us.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


If it's true, it's a brilliant solution, relying on understanding chaos in a nonlinear system can make 'effective' randomness even if theoretically the microscopic equations of motion aren't random. Now, if people start to believe, as I personally suspect, that the observational randomness in regular quantum mechanics is more of the same---God does play dice but not abstract random dice, but real physical dice where appearance randomness comes from complex evolution of in-principle determinism.

It isn't just that Hawking said "there are no black holes" but he gives an astonishingly creative solution. He must have been working on it for many years.

Many thanks to socialized medicine keeping him alive.

SimonPeter
I still pose the question : How far can you crush /squeese Atoms until the charged particles actually short their charges out and become neutrons only ?

Well, for one you should perhaps try reading into the big bang before throwing out questions like this. How do "charged particles short out their charges and become neutrons"

SimonPeter
How can anyone believe that everything occupied the space of a period on a piece of paper which is filled with nothingness literally ? Where is the logic or scientific proof ?

It's relative and a misconception. The problem explaining it to people is they don't understand, or perhaps the people speaking do not even agree with it, so eggheads use layman terms or lay analogies, which are then treated like gospel by people like yourself.

There are a number of reasons that these misconceptions persist in the public mind. First and foremost, the term "Big Bang" was originally coined in 1950 by Sir Fred Hoyle, a staunch opponent of the theory.

The simplest description of the theory would be something like: "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler." The word "expanded" should not be taken to mean that matter flies apart -- rather, it refers to the idea that space itself is becoming larger.

"The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44).

"In popular science presentations, often early phases of the universe are mentioned as 'at the time when the universe was as big as an apple' or 'as a pea'. What is meant there is in general the epoch in which not the whole, but only the part of the universe which is observable today had these sizes."

Link

SimonPeter
So what you are saying is I really don't have an idea .

No, that's wrong too. Not only do you have absolutely no clue, you are trying to justify biblical texts by not having answers found in scientific understanding. Which means you are simply demanding answers, when science hasn't said they have answers for certain questions, and then you have accused science of being a faith. All very contradictory!

SimonPeterYou have stated that the singularity is very small.

QM and relativity do have their limits and as of yet are not unified. Because of that, our knowledge is regarding certain questions because certain questions 'give the calculator the error sign'. It doesn't mean the calculator is wrong, or broken, or anything of the sort. We need better calculators and we are asking questions that push the limits of our understanding of the universe.

Planck Epoch (or Planck Era), from zero to approximately 10-43 seconds (1 Planck Time):
This is the closest that current physics can get to the absolute beginning of time, and very little can be known about this period. General relativity proposes a gravitational singularity before this time (although even that may break down due to quantum effects), and it is hypothesized that the four fundamental forces (electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravity) all have the same strength, and are possibly even unified into one fundamental force, held together by a perfect symmetry which some have likened to a sharpened pencil standing on its point (i.e. too symmetrical to last). At this point, the universe spans a region of only 10-35 metres (1 Planck Length), and has a temperature of over 1032蚓 (the Planck Temperature).

www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...

SimonPeter
This theory is expressed with great authority by the best scientific minds as their best theory ( guess ) . It has been endorsed by most scientist as the premier rebuttal to the Biblical Creation by God , yet it has no basis of science to substantiate it . Just like when a scientist puts forth his oration and it is dismissed as not possible just throw a Billion years in . After all who can prove different .

1. Misrepresented.

2. A billion years (or anything of that sort) is calculated using the time it takes light to travel.

SimonPeter
Yes people have made a religion out of science believing anything that is put forth as long as it debunks the bible

You are in the science forum. This is a discussion about black holes. Yet you've spent the entire thread trying to "debunk science" with your rhetoric.

The bottom line is science says, "we don't know" to almost everything. Certain principles are understood over time. And with your lack of understanding of said principles, you are saying it's all garbage because you read a book you claim is dictated by god that answers questions science hasn't yet answered. Well woopty-doo. Very easy to say everything is wrong since you have this book that contradicts it, but you need absolutely no supporting evidence.

SimonPeter
One thing we know is that the Creator could never explain to us in detail .

Obviously, look at how messed up the interpretation is in simple form. Detail would have really thrown us through a loop.




In conclusion, please leave the science forum and argue creation in the religion forum. Thanks.

This is a huge setback for the porn industry. Imagine how many movie puns just got ruined.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by stormbringer1701

 

Interesting take on things. That the efficacy of the Bible should be so contextual. I'd say it's time for God then to come down and update it for modern thinkers. Great thing about omniscience and omnipotence is that he could. Sad thing for religion is that he hasn't. Instead we see it so very much contextual to ancient Israel. Then god encouraged raping women. What's his thoughts now? See I would appreciate a version of 'the Word' contextual to today.

it wasn't exactly a contextual argument. mostly that the timeline and message God intended to impart to Moses did not require it to be a lexicon of the sciences involved. it's not that the context is outdated. quite the contrary. even though i will admit that there are issues which arise from translation, and the extinction of the usage of certain ancient Hebraisms, euphemisms and figures of speech. but as to scientific jargon, no; that's absolutely not what i was talking about. All will be known in current idioms at the end of this age.

and now (Hopefully) a return to a discussion of Hawking's latest ideas on the nature of black holes. i must say that i find the idea appealing because it would seem to make exotic science fictionish notions more possible.

now looking at that big bang graphic. you know i think the nuclear weak force got short changed. it has no distinct carrier boson like gluons or photons or QM gravitons. instead it is mediated by mesons which go poof almost immediately unless traveling relativistically.

so anyway; if the electroweak era preceded the actual particle era and mesons are hadronic particles (consisting of an anitquark and a quark) similar to baryonic protons and neutrons being composed of (trio of) quarks what mediated the weak force before the symmetry breaking event that severed the elctromagnetic and weak force? is it possible the weak force actually has it's very own "weak-on" boson particle?

heh. and if the weak force is responsible for the decay of baryons what makes mesons go poof then? do the mesons throw mesons at each other? or do the quark and anti-quark pairs annihilate? if so; why the delay? are quarks not the level where annihilation is initiated? do quarks have some elementary particle that they are composed of which annihilates when the right quark's subquarks meets its own anti subquark? and since mesons go poof where do they come from in the modern era since decay occurs now and didn't quit at 10 to the negative something power seconds after the mesons were created in the big bang.

I remember watching a National Science Foundation lecture recently by some of the top quantum physicists of the present day. They were all talking about how the information that was in a black hole could never be lost, and speculated that the actual information of everything that ever fell into the black hole would be encoded like a hologram, on the rim of the black hole just outside of the event horizon. The were saying that you did not have to look inside the black hole for information about what may be in there, because it was all available externally.

They said that when they tried to explain this to Hauking, Hawking just said "Rubish". Now, what Hawking seems to say is a real game changer, I wonder how the rest of the academia are gonna react to this!

Here's another article related to Hawkings' paper: Stephen Hawking's new theory offers black hole escape

Stephen Hawking has a new mind-bending theory about black holes, the bizarre cosmic objects that cemented his reputation as the world's most famous living scientist. Rather than getting sucked into a singularity of confusion, read our explainer

What exactly is a black hole?
Good question. According to theoretical physicists, they used to be regions of space-time – the fabric that makes up the universe – that have become so dense that their huge gravity generates an event horizon, from inside which nothing, not even light, can escape. Then in 1974, Hawking added quantum mechanics to the black hole picture and sparked a row that has raged on until the present day.

The article is a "FAQ" format, so I won't bother to highlight more of it -
I didn't see this thread when I posted a related one - someone suggested I like it here; so, here you go!

reply to post by Korg Trinity


If you follow carefully, he did not explicitly said 'There are no black holes'. What he said was:

“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory, but quantum theory enables energy and information to escape.”

Which means:

Notion of an 'event horizon', from which nothing can escape, is incompatible with 'quantum theory'.

Meh ..

reply to post by mekhanics


yes because the energy escaping dissipates into the *background* Try observing particles within a background.

Mass is not destroyed by dark holes.

If atoms become condensed together into single sub-atomic particles. more mass but is lacking protons and electrons.

With random triggers of expanded mass taking exceedingly long time to release. The rate of expanding compressed matter has to be in equal contribution to the mass being contained. If there was no equalibrium the universe- with all its galaxies would of ended a long time ago.

There comes a point when compressed mass becomes unresponsive to regular expanded mass. Since the compressed mass is a form of energy But is not subject to exchanging charges... it would not transfer heat or light because it would be lacking the bonding agents to react with the protons. In theory since there is space between our molecules sub atomic particles should move through freely and should be present in every corner of existance.

Since it makes up every corner of our existance it becomes the *background* and studying a background that remains unresponsive to many experiments. It's going to be very hard to study. Dark holes in theory form galaxies, and is caused by consentrations of dense mass. If the *background* is subatomic particles able to produce effects like a localized big bag.
Than mass and planets will always exist and galaxies likewise will always exist, only the percentage of expanded mass will always be lower than compressed mass since compressed mass would take much longer to re-expand.

I believe that forces cause *bubbles* around galaxies. compressed mass about to be expanded rushes towards these galaxies and forming galaxies. as compressed mass becomes more unstable it begins gaining properties similar to physical matter and begins being drawn in by the pull of gravity. When it reaches the central core of the mass. Within any given galaxy it begins to expand more rapidly. If a Galaxy is forming i would imagine it would cause a big bang as all this mass collapses. It creates a giant black hole where the mass is constantly being fed around it, caught in gravity it begins expanding in to gas clouds and so forth pooling around the central mass. Gas clouds form stars and the stars orbit the central pooling mass. Eventually stars created by the mass begin being drawn and and recycled the same way it was before it expanded and is shot out into the universe, until it comes unstable again that is. Given, a big bang should only occure where a black hole has not been formed, Where black holes are present there are filters like cannels that stop and alter the flow of unstable expanding mass.

The bubbles i mentioned are the distances between any given galaxy. The forces of expanding mass cause these galaxies to be evenly spaced between each other. and at any given moment you are closing close towards another galaxy in theory the expanding mass should create a current to pull you the rest of the way.
There should be similar forces within our own galaxy on the outer rim of our solar system because our solar system itself is a location of pooling mass. Since the expanding pooling mass reacts subtly with physical properties to some degree it would react to magnetism caused by our sun slowing the *cosmic winds* Since we would just be escaping this gravity zone the cosmic winds would be pushing us back towards the solar system. It wouldn't be until you closed towards the mid point where the pull would start to take you towards the next closest star.

Perhaps stars are fueled by this expanding mass in lower quantities as there are many many stars and with the focus point being the center of the galaxy.

I don't think im correct but at least il try theorizing.