Stephen Hawking: 'There Are No Black Holes'

ananyo writes "Stephen Hawking has proposed a new solution to the black-hole firewall paradox, which has been vexing physicists for almost two years. The paradox troubles physicists because if the firewall scenario is correct, Einstein's general theory of relativity is flouted. But the classical theory black hole cannot be reconciled to the quantum mechanical prediction that energy and information can escape from a black hole. Now Hawking has proposed a tantalizingly simple solution to the paradox which allows both quantum mechanics and general relativity to remain intact — black holes simply do not have an event horizon to catch fire. The key to his claim is that quantum effects around the black hole cause spacetime to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary surface to exist. As Hawking writes in his paper, 'The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity.'"

Comments

Science!

[Sponge Bath]

Hawking: ...this means, in a sense, that there are no black holes. Only what I call "Hawking surfaces".
Layman: Does this mean it's possible to travel faster than the speed of light?
Hawking: Sure, why not.

There is no spoon

[stewsters]

Do not try to reconcile the event horizon. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth. There is no black hole.

Some poeple just hate to lose a bet

[atouk]

Does that mean that he gets his $100 back he lost to John Preskill?

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[lesincompetent]

That's it, science has failed once again. I'm going back to christianity.
lol

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Science is like comments on Slashdot. First you get modded +5 Insightful for saying something and then you get modded +5 Informative for replying to yourself that you were actually wrong.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[SirGarlon]

There is huge variety within the Christian religion. Quaker, Roman Catholic, Pentacostal, Amish, Russian Orthodox, Mormon, Coptic, Presbyterian, Christian Scientist, and the newer "non-demoninational" churches all count. It's really hard to characterize them all beyond the very basics.

There are certainly people who call themselves Christian, and reject science. There are also people who call themselves American, and reject religion. It's no more accurate to say Christians are opposed to science than to say Americans are opposed to religion.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[rgbatduke]

Indeed, many specific religions go two steps further even than that. They begin with a self-referential statement affirming the perfect truth of the religious scripture, which is true because it is part of the religious scripture. Then, as you say, anything that is contained in that religious scripture is perfectly true, by definition, no matter how apparently internally inconsistent (contradictions within the scripture), externally inconsistent (contradictions with simple matters of fact derived from reason and observation), morally inconsistent (contradictions with accepted morality, e.g. is or isn't slavery good, is marriage by rape and a payment of 50 shekels morally acceptable, is it morally just to slaughter Midianite women and children except for the young female virgins and to subject them to rape and slavery, should we kill old women accused of being witches given that there is no such thing as an actual witch).

Since some of these things offend mere common sense to an enormous extent, religion has invented "hermeneutics" and "exegesis" as complex forms of interpretation of scriptural text whose sole purpose is to reduce the extreme cognitive dissonance induced by trying to believe that A and Not A are simultaneously true when they happen to be written in a religious text. Doublethink is alive and well and living in a religion near you.

The second step that they add is that in ordinary discourse and the usual scientific investigative process that we used to systematically refine a consistent set of beliefs in reasonable agreement with evidence, the only penalties associated with being wrong are natural ones that consistently fit in with the general framework of the scientific worldview -- if you fail to believe that the law of gravitation will apply to you and step off of the roof of a tall building, it is likely to be the last experiment you ever perform (likely in a specific and defensible sense, since of course it might always be the case that you have been sprinkled with fairy dust or have accomplished a sufficiently strong belief in The Force that the force of gravity does not cause you to splatter at the bottom of a long drop, it has just never been observed to be the case and is hence very unlikely from a Bayesian point of view at least). In the religious worldview, however, there is an entire hidden world where things happen that we cannot observe but that are precisely and correctly delineated in the aforementioned scripture. It is a second issue because religion makes many pronouncements on matters that cannot ever be contradicted by experience -- indeed, it revels in this and claims it as its "higher" ground.

So when a divinely inspired, perfectly true (if only after massive "interpretation") religious scripture tells you that if you fail to believe that every word in that scripture that the scripture itself assures you is perfectly true is, in fact, true, you will be cast into a fiery pit so that your skin can be burned off of your living body and then instantly regrown to be burned off again, repeated to infinity and beyond, it is self-consistently guaranteed to be true. The Quran tells us so. The New Testament tells us so perhaps a bit less graphically. The general texts of Hinduism assure us that unbelievers who fail to obey its precepts will be reincarnated as intestinal parasites living in a dog or the like.

The core of most scripture-based religious belief is, in fact, supernatural posthumous extortion in the form of events that cannot ever be objectively verified but that are so extreme that they tempt even the rational to make Pascal's Wager, coupled with a system of equally unverifiable posthumous rewards for those who meekly acquiesce in the entire ball of scriptural wax and the consequent transfer of political power, social status, and wealth to the priesthood tasked with "interpreting" the very scriptures that, after all, are perfectly true. They say so, and if you don't believe (perhaps because yo

Or maybe

[symbolset]

The event horizon oscillates faster than the speed of light over a greater distance than quantum tunneling can occur. Inbound light would follow the wavefront in, only to become trapped as the next wave built outside its escape range.

Re:Or maybe

[EvilSS]

No, at least according to Occam's browser plugin which states that any scientific theory first proposed in the comment section of a website is probably complete crap.

Apparent Horizons, but no Event Horizons

[PvtVoid]

In this picture, there would still be astrophysical black holes in every meaningful sense of the word, i.e. condensed objects from which light would not escape. Such objects would have an "apparent horizon", which can be defined locally by the property that all lightlike geodesics are ingoing.

What these black-hole-like objects would not have is an Event Horizon, which is a global property of the spacetime, and is only defined by the behavior at asymptotic infinity. It's a neat resolution of the whole mess: way more sensible than firewalls.

But it's still just hand-waving -- note that the entire argument relies on AdS/CFT, which assumes the black holes are embedded in de Sitter space, which has a negative cosmological constant and is most definitely not the kind of spacetime we live in. And AdS/CFT is itself an unproven conjecture, although it is supported by many specific example cases. Until somebody comes up with a theory of quantum gravity, this stuff is all guesswork. Caveat emptor.

The actual paper

[JoshuaZ]

The actual paper can be found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761. People have suggested informally ideas somewhat similar to this one before, but Hawking proposal seems to actually have the math behind it. Possibly most importantly, he can show that his predictions are a consequence of gauge/gravity duality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence. This suggests that this may be a testale consequence of certain string theories if one could observe a black hole under the right conditions and see that it only was pretending to be a black hole.

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway.

[RaceProUK]

Newtonian Gravity isn't correct either, we still use it in limited scope. It doesn't mean that Relativity is prevented from the same usage.

But it is still far from correct and the day people finally accept that and move on, maybe some actual research will get done. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are literal blackholes of knowledge that rips Relativity apart in every sense of the metaphor.

There is hardly a contradiction, just you putting meaning where there is none.

You know that building you live in? Built with Newtonian mechanics. That's why it stays up.

And the sat-nav in your phone? That uses general relativity. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to locate you in the right country, let alone on the right street.

Newtonian mechanics and general relativity have been proven correct many times over. What they are though is incomplete. And there's a mountain of research happening right now to work out why.

There is no Stephen Hawking

[fredrated]

- Black Hole

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway.

[Charliemopps]

Relativity is the most proven theory in the history of science. Nearly every physics major that's graduated in the past 80 years has proven out a different part of it in some new and unique way as part of their doctoral thesis. Every observation that's ever been made that seems to contradict it has later been found to be faulty or explained by some other phenomena that we hadn't understood as of yet.

Infinities exist everywhere in nature. They are naturally hard for us to understand because of our species engrained believe in the Birth/Death cycle and we feel it should apply to everything just well as it does to us.

Lastly, you are correct, Relativity will fail eventually. Even Einstein knew this. It explains "how" things work but only in limited condition and scales. Just like how Newtonian physics worked at the Macro level and at speeds and timescales humans could measure at the time it was devised, relativity only works at certain scales. But it does not invalidate the predictions of Newtonian physics, it just expands them. Eventually we will learn more and there will be a new theory that either explains it all, or at least improves on what Newtonian and Relativistic physics has shown us.

Re:But it is horribly wrong anyway.

[Will.Woodhull]

Interesting troll. A bit heavy handed, though. If I were to grade it, if it was written by a high school student it would get a C+, if written by a college student, it would rate a D- (barely passing).

Point of interest: the Copenhagen convention suggests that there is no possibility of a physics Out There. That all physicists can do is make mental models of whatever reality might be, and play around with those models, since reality itself is unobservable without the distortions of observer bias. There are some things we think we know, and there are some things that we know that we can never know (such as what is happening in close proximity to a singularity, or why is Pi 3.14159... and not something else). And it turns out that because there are some things that we know we can never know, we can't be sure about any of the things we think we know.

So, yes, AC is completely correct: relativity is wrong. Also quantum mechanics is wrong. Also classical physics is wrong. It is all wrong. So what? Asking whether this stuff is right or wrong is asking the wrong question. The right questions to ask of any physics model are: How useful is it, and what is its scope of usefulness?

We are the tool using monkeys. We are not Gods. Don't sweat the Really Big Stuff. Do something with the tools: make more tools, make some fun toys and games. That's what we do best. And, that's all that we can do.