Slashdot Mirror
Hawking Gracefully, Formally Loses Black Hole Bet
Liora writes "Today at the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation in Dublin, Cambridge University professor Stephen Hawking said in his talk titled The Information Paradox for Black Holes that he was wrong about the formation of an event horizon in a black hole, and that matter is not destroyed in a way defying subatomic theory, as he had previously believed. According to the talk's short, "the way the information gets out seems to be that a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon." A New York Times story and a Wired story are available, both apparently based on Reuters information." (This is the formal announcement promised last week.)
I once asked the Slashdot editors why they didn't replace reg-required NYT links with reg-free links. They pointed out that there is a chance that the NYT could get its panties in a wad, and do something stupid. Lawsuits, goatse redirects, the works. Lawsuits... that would just be wrong!
Anyway, here's the obligatory reg-free link:
Are you looking at ME?
(Courtesy of these fine folks)
I've been hearing about this for like 4 days now... Is Slashdot turning into a News Black Hole?
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
It's great to see such an eminent scientist willingly admit that he was wrong, or at least only partially right. It seems that all too often the path that people and organizations choose is to deny, spin, and turn things on their heads to avoid embarassment. Hawking showed he is a good sport, proving not only does he have a brilliant mind, he is a classy person as well.
...that was the best thing I had going for me. It's what got me through the day. What do I have to look forward to now? Nothing, that's what!
dang! babelfish doesn't have a "genius to english" translation.
Well... Obviously he's going to loose gracefully. Its not like he can get up and start yelling at the other guy. His chair probably doesn't even have an "Angry" voice
Wasted? Nonsense.
The objections Einstein posed to quantum theory were not spurious fluff, but hard-nosed challenges that any successful theory would have to meet. He made Bohr sweat more than once.
Would you prefer we just let something as absurd as quantum mechanics just slide? Scientists might as well all join the monestaries again.
Your statement "pretty much known to be true" is timid and sugary. Bring on the Einsteins.
Kill, Tux, kill!
Fry: Hey! Stephen Hawking! Aren't you that physicist who invented gravity?
Hawking: Sure. Why not?
Fry: Let me ask you something. Has anyone ever discovered a hole in nothing with monsters in it? [Hawking's eyes widen in horror.] 'Cause if I'm the first, I want them to call it a "Fry Hole."
Later:
Fry: So what do you nerds want?
Nichols: It's about that rip in space-time that you saw.
Hawking: I call it a "Hawking Hole."
Fry: No fair! I saw it first!
Hawking: Who is The Journal Of Quantum Physics going to believe?
Interesting note: Apparently Stephen Hawking did provide his voice for that episode.
I can understand how someone could find this offensive, but, I think it's just a little too harsh.
I personally have a handicap, and to be honest, I appreciate when people make jokes about it... I don't consider them cruel or offcolor, (except in the rare cases they are delivered with the intent of being cruel) to me its an acknowledgement of me as a person that someone can still treat as an equal. I doubt that there are many people who don't hold Hawking in extremely high esteem, and I in no way believe comments made by people who respect him in refference to his handicap would offend him, rather the people who try to ignore the obvious.
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
For those grammatically declined I'll explain it to you with an analogy. It's like when you were in high school and used mirrors to peek around the corner into the girl's locker room. The naked chick in the mirror is the APPARANT horizon. The naked chick that kicks the testes back inside your body shortly after DOES NOT EXIST.
Also, just for laughs (ok...hopefully for mod points too, I admit) Hawking is also a freaking awesome DJ and serial killer on the side. All my Shootin's be driveby's
Wu's site has other cool stuff to see too. (not a plug, just want to give credit to where the song is downloaded from)
From the Rueters article pubished by wired...
For over 200 years, scientists have puzzled over black holes, which form when stars burn all their fuel and collapse, creating a huge gravitational pull.
Now I'm no scientist, but 200 years of black holes seems like they're giving the issue more duration than history warrants. I thought the concept of a 'black hole' was a consequence of Einstein's relativity work (general, special I can never remember which is which... think it's general).
Am I wrong and just missed a whole bunch of science history?
Cheers!
SCB
Technically, the article said Hawking said that black holes do not lead to another universe. So if you want to think that there are other universes, you just have to look elsewhere.. String theory posits high dimensionality and "universes next door"; I'll remain parallel universe agnostic for the moment, but Hawking's point seems to have been that black holes do not eat information, and so they return the matter to the universe, and so he says, black holes are not an exit. If Hawking said definitively that our universe was the only existence, I would listen but I think unless we actually poke a hole into another universe with funky clues like, only 2 spatial dimensions (we could just be making a tesseract) or something, parallel universes will remain mostly philosophical.
Summary: Parallel universes aren't ruled out (at least by this article) so keep dreaming big! We'll need those other universes when entropy runs out in this one. Even better, ask someone who knows string theory whether the idea of multiple universes would be ruled out IF Hawking is right. Remember, he just lost a bet. He may be sure this time, but who's to say some bright kid 200 years from now won't have a different perspective... blah blah hypothetical
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
This misunderstanding stems from our science education in grade school, during which we're taught that a "theory" is just a guess that has yet to be proven.
Let me tell you about how theoretical physics really works. Quantum THEORY is just that, a theory. But it has been tested to unbelievable precision. Using the theory of quantum electrodynamics, one can calculate constants of nature from first principles to better than 12 decimal places. These theories are "right," even though there might be some improvement or refinement that comes along later.
That's the end of my general rant. Now to address specific things you said that were, quite ironically, complete baloney. You say general relativity (GR) hasn't been tested. Einstein's first prediction using GR concerned the deflection of light around the sun during an eclipse. His prediction was different from what others were saying, and when the eclipse of 1919 finally came, Einstein was vindicated. GR passes major experimental test #1.
Do you have GPS in your car? If you do, you may be surprised to know that those things rely on the mathematics of GR. Without taking into account some of the terms that pop out of the equations of GR, your GPS would never be able to locate you. But it can, and hence GR passes experimental test #2 with flying colors.
Finally, I point you to the Nobel Prize's page on Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor. They found experimental proof that two stars orbiting each other were decaying at a rate exactly in accordance to what had been predicted years before. This is a very stringent test of the validity of GR -- the stars were orbiting each other near the "strong field" where gravitational effects are really strong, and hence where any deviation from the behavior predicted by the theory should be obvious -- and, once again, GR passed the test like an Asian kid taking math.
A certain amount of skepticism is always healthy, of course. Do I think there will be eventual refinements to GR? Of course, probably in the form of superstring theory. But before you go around proclaiming that it's all baloney, you better figure out what you're talking about.
What Hawking seems to be saying to me is that since the matter never enters the hole from the perspective of an observer outside the hole, the information is never lost. Does this make sense?
Steven N. Severinghaus
For example, a number of very accurate clever experiments have been going on in the past decade or two to prove if the electric field in Coulomb's Law really goes as 1/r^2. These experiments have shown that it goes as 1/r^n where the error bars are tiny, but still enclose '2'. [Sorry, too lazy to look up the actual uncertainty numbers.]
Some people might think this is a waste of time, but if it was shown n=1.99999997 that would be a HUGE deal, and would require a re-write not only of Maxwell's laws, but of quantum field theory, and the standard model too.
make world, not war
... by someone who doesn't know physics.
t ml)
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.
The Euclidean path integral is the latest trick in quantum gravity.
The original problem with quantum gravity was that as you "quantitized" space into discrete units, explaining gravity in terms of particles like 'gravitons' and trying to do the math was possible for simplistic interactions like tree diagrams where time generally flowed one way - but extremely hairy and full of infinities if you started looking at loop diagrams where time can flow both ways.
So people like Roger Penrose came at it from a different direction, starting off with definining space-time in a quantitized manner (spin networks, quantum foam, whatever you want to call it) which had the side effect that complex examples of spin networks acted a lot like 3-dimensional Euclidean space.
Once people started talking about space-time like this, math started showing up that helped describe events and the progression of events in this space-time, including the Euclidean path integral which attempts to measure the end result of an interaction of particles in this type of space-time.
(Good link talking about path integrals and how they were a problem with quantum definition of gravity: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.h
Anyways, it sounds like he's saying: All this new math is great and if the world were a simple place, yeah, black holes would probably have an event horizon and the math to prove it is simple.
But the world is more complex than you think and doing the math for "the real world" shows that the closer you get to the end result, the less and less predictable the end result will be, even though overall it looks like it has a defined end result (i.e. it looks like it _should_ have an event horizon). In reality it's constantly shifting around - and likely this amount of shifting around is representative of the original information/particle system that went into its formation but you won't be able to trace it backwards and extract what the original information was.
This will probably tie into time dialation which will make it be: We never get to the end result event horizon that 'should' be there and in the process of never getting there, the black hole will have a nice jiggly event horizon as a result of all that information - but so jiggly we can't tell what went in to it, all we can do is measure the jiggliness.
What he hasn't explained is how he knows this and the math behind it.
Crap I'm bored.