Stephen Hawking a "denier"? (1 Viewer)

[DiStefano]

Nature reports that, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical in general relativity because light trying to escape can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there.

Can the two horizons be distinguished? In principle, yes Nature explains that the event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon if more matter gets swallowed by the black hole.

Another big difference: the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve, unlike the event horizon.

"There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory," Hawking told Nature. But quantum theory "enables energy and information to escape from a black hole," he said.

Hawking admits to Nature that a full explanation would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature -- a goal that physicists have had for nearly a century.

So what you are doing here is confusing classic physics with quantum physics. And you have jumped on something even Hawking admits can't be resolved without a Grand Unification Theory. If we get that it will change a lot of things not just how we look at black holes.

So does information escape or doesn't it? It has to be one or the other.

Within classical physics no. Within quantum physics maybe. Within quantum physics there is a mathematical possibility that the computer I am typing on could change into a giraffe. So once you get into quantum physics uncertainty is everything.

I think Hawking goes beyond the giraffe stage; after all, he was one of the primary proponents of the black hole. It's true that for over a hundred years, physicists have been pursuing the Theory of Everything, but unsuccessfully so far. And as it currently stands, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are in conflict. Nevertheless, Hawking's most recent statement has been somewhat revolutionary.

 

[timschochet]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

 

[DiStefano]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

That information does not escape a black hole.

 

[NCCommish]

Nature reports that, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical in general relativity because light trying to escape can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there.

Can the two horizons be distinguished? In principle, yes Nature explains that the event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon if more matter gets swallowed by the black hole.

Another big difference: the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve, unlike the event horizon.

"There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory," Hawking told Nature. But quantum theory "enables energy and information to escape from a black hole," he said.

Hawking admits to Nature that a full explanation would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature -- a goal that physicists have had for nearly a century.

So what you are doing here is confusing classic physics with quantum physics. And you have jumped on something even Hawking admits can't be resolved without a Grand Unification Theory. If we get that it will change a lot of things not just how we look at black holes.

So does information escape or doesn't it? It has to be one or the other.

Within classical physics no. Within quantum physics maybe. Within quantum physics there is a mathematical possibility that the computer I am typing on could change into a giraffe. So once you get into quantum physics uncertainty is everything.

I think Hawking goes beyond the giraffe stage; after all, he was one of the primary proponents of the black hole. It's true that for over a hundred years, physicists have been pursuing the Theory of Everything, but unsuccessfully so far. And as it currently stands, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are in conflict. Nevertheless, Hawking's most recent statement has been somewhat revolutionary.

Certainly any time Hawking expounds on black holes people should listen. With that said I think he left more than a bit of wiggle room. And remember Relativity and Quantam are often in conflict. This is hardly the first time. The crazy thing is we may end up with no conflicts because they could both be right at different energy levels.

 

[timschochet]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

That information does not escape a black hole.

So you believe that, assuming this is true, it somehow provides more legitimacy to political conservatives like yourself who choose to ignore and/or deny global warming science? Was that your point?

 

[DiStefano]

Nature reports that, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical in general relativity because light trying to escape can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there.

Can the two horizons be distinguished? In principle, yes Nature explains that the event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon if more matter gets swallowed by the black hole.

Another big difference: the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve, unlike the event horizon.

"There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory," Hawking told Nature. But quantum theory "enables energy and information to escape from a black hole," he said.

Hawking admits to Nature that a full explanation would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature -- a goal that physicists have had for nearly a century.

So what you are doing here is confusing classic physics with quantum physics. And you have jumped on something even Hawking admits can't be resolved without a Grand Unification Theory. If we get that it will change a lot of things not just how we look at black holes.

So does information escape or doesn't it? It has to be one or the other.

Within classical physics no. Within quantum physics maybe. Within quantum physics there is a mathematical possibility that the computer I am typing on could change into a giraffe. So once you get into quantum physics uncertainty is everything.

I think Hawking goes beyond the giraffe stage; after all, he was one of the primary proponents of the black hole. It's true that for over a hundred years, physicists have been pursuing the Theory of Everything, but unsuccessfully so far. And as it currently stands, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are in conflict. Nevertheless, Hawking's most recent statement has been somewhat revolutionary.

Certainly any time Hawking expounds on black holes people should listen. With that said I think he left more than a bit of wiggle room. And remember Relativity and Quantam are often in conflict. This is hardly the first time. The crazy thing is we may end up with no conflicts because they could both be right at different energy levels.

You're right. And if I had to pick anybody on this board to come up with the Theory of Everything, you're my man. Get busy!

 

[TheIronSheik]

Why do they have to be black holes?

 

[DiStefano]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

That information does not escape a black hole.

So you believe that, assuming this is true, it somehow provides more legitimacy to political conservatives like yourself who choose to ignore and/or deny global warming science? Was that your point?

My point is that the consensus of scientists is not always right. In fact, new advances in science usually come because somebody upends the consensus. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the consensus is always wrong, either. I am a political conservative who does not deny the theory that increasing CO2 levels traps more heat in the planet. However, I also believe that there is much that we do not understand about how the planet loses heat; and to rush out and impose onerous economic burdens on developed countries because of computer generated scenarios which have mostly proved to be wrong, is not wise policy.

 

[Henry Ford]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

That information does not escape a black hole.

This seems to fly in the face of your initial post, which says that he's denying that black holes exist.

 

[DiStefano]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

That information does not escape a black hole.

This seems to fly in the face of your initial post, which says that he's denying that black holes exist.

Go back to your playpen, buddy.

 

[Henry Ford]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

That information does not escape a black hole.

This seems to fly in the face of your initial post, which says that he's denying that black holes exist.

Go back to your playpen, buddy.

Is that where people don't forget what they wrote in the original post by the time the thread gets to page 2? I would love to hang out there.

 

[DiStefano]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

That information does not escape a black hole.

This seems to fly in the face of your initial post, which says that he's denying that black holes exist.

Go back to your playpen, buddy.

Is that where people don't forget what they wrote in the original post by the time the thread gets to page 2? I would love to hang out there.

I apologize; I was discourteous. But NCCommish and Tim have shown they can have a reasoned conversation about the subject. You did not.

 

[timschochet]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

That information does not escape a black hole.

So you believe that, assuming this is true, it somehow provides more legitimacy to political conservatives like yourself who choose to ignore and/or deny global warming science? Was that your point?

My point is that the consensus of scientists is not always right. In fact, new advances in science usually come because somebody upends the consensus. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the consensus is always wrong, either. I am a political conservative who does not deny the theory that increasing CO2 levels traps more heat in the planet. However, I also believe that there is much that we do not understand about how the planet loses heat; and to rush out and impose onerous economic burdens on developed countries because of computer generated scenarios which have mostly proved to be wrong, is not wise policy.

Your last sentence is the revealing one. As a conservative, you don't like the political consequences of global warming science, so you look for ways to discount it or deny it. You're using your viewpoint to inform your facts, rather than the other way around, which is unfortunate. Just as unfortunate is your attempt to use Hawking to prove your point. There is no more complex science known to man than the one Hawking is dealing with here. To simplify it as you have done, to use it in an attempt to make a political point- that's the reason you're justifiably being ridiculed.

 

[DiStefano]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

That information does not escape a black hole.

So you believe that, assuming this is true, it somehow provides more legitimacy to political conservatives like yourself who choose to ignore and/or deny global warming science? Was that your point?

My point is that the consensus of scientists is not always right. In fact, new advances in science usually come because somebody upends the consensus. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the consensus is always wrong, either. I am a political conservative who does not deny the theory that increasing CO2 levels traps more heat in the planet. However, I also believe that there is much that we do not understand about how the planet loses heat; and to rush out and impose onerous economic burdens on developed countries because of computer generated scenarios which have mostly proved to be wrong, is not wise policy.

Your last sentence is the revealing one. As a conservative, you don't like the political consequences of global warming science, so you look for ways to discount it or deny it. You're using your viewpoint to inform your facts, rather than the other way around, which is unfortunate.Just as unfortunate is your attempt to use Hawking to prove your point. There is no more complex science known to man than the one Hawking is dealing with here. To simplify it as you have done, to use it in an attempt to make a political point- that's the reason you're justifiably being ridiculed.

Very interesting; because the developed countries of the world are moving away from the rush to impose onerous economic burdens on their economies. And, may I say that you are of that view too. Or at least, so you have expressed on more than one occasion. I don't deny the science about CO2. I do think that there are too many unknowns about the rest of it. And by the way, the rest of it is puzzling a lot of scientists, too.

 

[Henry Ford]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

That information does not escape a black hole.

This seems to fly in the face of your initial post, which says that he's denying that black holes exist.

Go back to your playpen, buddy.

Is that where people don't forget what they wrote in the original post by the time the thread gets to page 2? I would love to hang out there.

I apologize; I was discourteous. But NCCommish and Tim have shown they can have a reasoned conversation about the subject. You did not.

You either ignorantly or intentionally attempted in the original post to twist the theories of a brilliant scientist to say something they didn't say to fit a political agenda and acted insultingly to people who don't agree with you in the same post. See, e.g.: "But, but, but...the consensus among scientists is that black holes do exist."

If you don't want people to react poorly to you, start off being reasonable and not sarcastically jabbing at people who don't agree with your incorrect conclusion.

 

[timschochet]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

That information does not escape a black hole.

So you believe that, assuming this is true, it somehow provides more legitimacy to political conservatives like yourself who choose to ignore and/or deny global warming science? Was that your point?

My point is that the consensus of scientists is not always right. In fact, new advances in science usually come because somebody upends the consensus. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the consensus is always wrong, either. I am a political conservative who does not deny the theory that increasing CO2 levels traps more heat in the planet. However, I also believe that there is much that we do not understand about how the planet loses heat; and to rush out and impose onerous economic burdens on developed countries because of computer generated scenarios which have mostly proved to be wrong, is not wise policy.

Your last sentence is the revealing one. As a conservative, you don't like the political consequences of global warming science, so you look for ways to discount it or deny it. You're using your viewpoint to inform your facts, rather than the other way around, which is unfortunate.Just as unfortunate is your attempt to use Hawking to prove your point. There is no more complex science known to man than the one Hawking is dealing with here. To simplify it as you have done, to use it in an attempt to make a political point- that's the reason you're justifiably being ridiculed.

Very interesting; because the developed countries of the world are moving away from the rush to impose onerous economic burdens on their economies. And, may I say that you are of that view too. Or at least, so you have expressed on more than one occasion. I don't deny the science about CO2. I do think that there are too many unknowns about the rest of it. And by the way, the rest of it is puzzling a lot of scientists, too.

Yes I agree about onerous economic burdens. I don't like the standard proposed "solutions" to GW. But that doesn't cause me to deny the science. Now you're claiming that you don't deny the science either. Good to know. But then what is the point of this thread?

 

[tonydead]

My point is that the consensus of scientists is not always right. In fact, new advances in science usually come because somebody upends the consensus. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the consensus is always wrong, either. I am a political conservative who does not deny the theory that increasing CO2 levels traps more heat in the planet. However, I also believe that there is much that we do not understand about how the planet loses heat; and to rush out and impose onerous economic burdens on developed countries because of computer generated scenarios which have mostly proved to be wrong, is not wise policy.

The medical community is always finding new advances in science and the treatment of disease. They don't claim to understand everything about disease either, however, after several second opinions your best bet it to follow your DRs advise.

I attended a speech Hawking gave in the early 90s where he proudly proclaimed that all information is lost at the event horizon and we'd never know what happens with that information. I'm glad he is having a change of heart because that always struck me as spitting in the face of the definition of physics. Of course this doesn't have anything to do with denying that black holes exits, trying to further understand black holes is quite different that wiping them off the chalk board.

 

[DiStefano]

DiStefano, the title of this thread refers to Hawking as a "denier". What exactly is he denying?

That information does not escape a black hole.

So you believe that, assuming this is true, it somehow provides more legitimacy to political conservatives like yourself who choose to ignore and/or deny global warming science? Was that your point?

My point is that the consensus of scientists is not always right. In fact, new advances in science usually come because somebody upends the consensus. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the consensus is always wrong, either. I am a political conservative who does not deny the theory that increasing CO2 levels traps more heat in the planet. However, I also believe that there is much that we do not understand about how the planet loses heat; and to rush out and impose onerous economic burdens on developed countries because of computer generated scenarios which have mostly proved to be wrong, is not wise policy.

Your last sentence is the revealing one. As a conservative, you don't like the political consequences of global warming science, so you look for ways to discount it or deny it. You're using your viewpoint to inform your facts, rather than the other way around, which is unfortunate.Just as unfortunate is your attempt to use Hawking to prove your point. There is no more complex science known to man than the one Hawking is dealing with here. To simplify it as you have done, to use it in an attempt to make a political point- that's the reason you're justifiably being ridiculed.

Very interesting; because the developed countries of the world are moving away from the rush to impose onerous economic burdens on their economies. And, may I say that you are of that view too. Or at least, so you have expressed on more than one occasion. I don't deny the science about CO2. I do think that there are too many unknowns about the rest of it. And by the way, the rest of it is puzzling a lot of scientists, too.

Yes I agree about onerous economic burdens. I don't like the standard proposed "solutions" to GW. But that doesn't cause me to deny the science. Now you're claiming that you don't deny the science either. Good to know. But then what is the point of this thread?

Don't say now I'm claiming this. You know very well, I have said it on numerous occasions. The point of the thread is that the consensus isn't always right; and too many have relied on the consensus to assume that it is beyond question.

 

[tonydead]

Don't say now I'm claiming this. You know very well, I have said it on numerous occasions. The point of the thread is that the consensus isn't always right; and too many have relied on the consensus to assume that it is beyond question.

The scientific consensus is right many more times than it is wrong. It should be laymen and voter's best bet.

 

[NCCommish]

Nature reports that, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical in general relativity because light trying to escape can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there.

Can the two horizons be distinguished? In principle, yes Nature explains that the event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon if more matter gets swallowed by the black hole.

Another big difference: the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve, unlike the event horizon.

"There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory," Hawking told Nature. But quantum theory "enables energy and information to escape from a black hole," he said.

Hawking admits to Nature that a full explanation would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature -- a goal that physicists have had for nearly a century.

So what you are doing here is confusing classic physics with quantum physics. And you have jumped on something even Hawking admits can't be resolved without a Grand Unification Theory. If we get that it will change a lot of things not just how we look at black holes.

So does information escape or doesn't it? It has to be one or the other.

Within classical physics no. Within quantum physics maybe. Within quantum physics there is a mathematical possibility that the computer I am typing on could change into a giraffe. So once you get into quantum physics uncertainty is everything.

I think Hawking goes beyond the giraffe stage; after all, he was one of the primary proponents of the black hole. It's true that for over a hundred years, physicists have been pursuing the Theory of Everything, but unsuccessfully so far. And as it currently stands, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are in conflict. Nevertheless, Hawking's most recent statement has been somewhat revolutionary.

Certainly any time Hawking expounds on black holes people should listen. With that said I think he left more than a bit of wiggle room. And remember Relativity and Quantam are often in conflict. This is hardly the first time. The crazy thing is we may end up with no conflicts because they could both be right at different energy levels.

You're right. And if I had to pick anybody on this board to come up with the Theory of Everything, you're my man. Get busy!

Yeah I have some thoughts on a white board now. I was figuring I'd spend a few minutes and get this cranked out. Maybe this evening.

 

[DiStefano]

Don't say now I'm claiming this. You know very well, I have said it on numerous occasions. The point of the thread is that the consensus isn't always right; and too many have relied on the consensus to assume that it is beyond question.

The scientific consensus is right many more times than it is wrong. It should be laymen and voter's best bet.

Agreed. But it is not infallible, nor is it beyond question; and if you are going to impose huge economic costs, it better be as close to infallible as it is possible to get.

 

[tonydead]

Don't say now I'm claiming this. You know very well, I have said it on numerous occasions. The point of the thread is that the consensus isn't always right; and too many have relied on the consensus to assume that it is beyond question.

The scientific consensus is right many more times than it is wrong. It should be laymen and voter's best bet.

Agreed. But it is not infallible, nor is it beyond question; and if you are going to impose huge economic costs, it better be as close to infallible as it is possible to get.

I'm assuming your doctor's advise is not beyond question. If you are gravely ill do you follow his recommendations? What if you get several second opinions confirming the diagnosis?

 

[fatness]

Distefano had two options... disappear quietly after the embarrassing himself in the OP, or double down and entertain us some more.

So glad he chose the latter.

He still think's he's onto something big. Encourage him.

 

[matuski]

Don't say now I'm claiming this. You know very well, I have said it on numerous occasions. The point of the thread is that the consensus isn't always right; and too many have relied on the consensus to assume that it is beyond question.

The scientific consensus is right many more times than it is wrong. It should be laymen and voter's best bet.

Agreed. But it is not infallible, nor is it beyond question; and if you are going to impose huge economic costs, it better be as close to infallible as it is possible to get.

Do you think science claims to be infallible?

 

[Mister Martie]

Everytime a scientist modifies an existing view, it puts another nail in the Global Warming's coffin.

 

[MikeIke]

Nature reports that, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical in general relativity because light trying to escape can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there.

Can the two horizons be distinguished? In principle, yes Nature explains that the event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon if more matter gets swallowed by the black hole.

Another big difference: the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve, unlike the event horizon.

"There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory," Hawking told Nature. But quantum theory "enables energy and information to escape from a black hole," he said.

Hawking admits to Nature that a full explanation would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature -- a goal that physicists have had for nearly a century.

So what you are doing here is confusing classic physics with quantum physics. And you have jumped on something even Hawking admits can't be resolved without a Grand Unification Theory. If we get that it will change a lot of things not just how we look at black holes.

So does information escape or doesn't it? It has to be one or the other.

Within classical physics no. Within quantum physics maybe. Within quantum physics there is a mathematical possibility that the computer I am typing on could change into a giraffe. So once you get into quantum physics uncertainty is everything.

Hawking admitted back in 2004 that information was not lost when it passed over the event horizon. He lost a famous bet because of it.