--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" > <jpgillam@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- off_world_beings wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Stephen Hawkings recently > > > > > denounced the theory that made him famous 20 years ago. > > > > > > > > What theory was that?>> > > > > > > The theory that nothing can eminate from the event horizon of a > black > > > hole. > > > http://tinyurl.com/eaxzl > > > > No, the theory that the stuff that issues forth is completely > RANDOM. > > > > Hawkings is famous for coming up with the idea of Hawking > radiation: > > > > there's a standard principle in quantum physics where pairs of > particles spontaneously > > manifest and then annihlate each other so fast that you can't > detect. them. These are > > called pairs of "virtual particles." Hawkings predicted that > sometimes, such a pair would > > manifest just outside the event horizon and that sometimes, one > particle would fall into > > the black hole while the other would escape. In other words, the > black hole would > > essentially be emiting radiation! Since there's no way this can > happen without some energy > > exchange, he assumed that there would be a net loss of mass when > this occured (never > > understood that part). > > > > The idea is that you can't predict what kind of radiation would be > emitted--that it would > > be totally random. > > > > In essence, a black hole would eat information (what went into its > creation) and only > > completely random noise (Hawking radiation) would ever come out. > > > > > > He's now said he was wrong: in some strange way (another one of > those things that > > science writers gloss over), at least SOME information about what > went into a black hole > > CAN make it back out, so the radiation isn't completely random.>> > > No (to paraphrase you), it is the fact that black holes will eat > information and make it dissapear from the universe for ever that is > at stake here. This is the core of Hawking's work (I've been reading > Hawkings conclusions since before you had even heard of him), and he > has admitted that that is impossible, and this completely turns on > its head the theory of black holes, and in fact throws into question > what can possibly be holding the universe together. This has not > been solved. It is a mistake of epic proportions and it has feuled > cosmology for decades. Without this concept, very few laws of > physics can hold up in the cosmic sheme of things, because a > fundamental force in the universe has been relegated to the reserves > bench -- useful, but not essential.
Don't get too arrogant, here. His most famous theories didn't get published until the late 70's/early 80's. And I don't think it turns black holes theory on its head. Black holes are a consequence of classical newtonian physics and Special Relativity, are they not? Hawkings' conclusions were combining QM with black holes. That doesn't make black holes impossible according to classical physics, just questions the relationship with QM and gravity, which has always been a sticky issue. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
