Hawking Gracefully, Formally Loses Black Hole Bet 485
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.)
Good for Hawking (Score:5, Insightful)
bet was more of a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good for Hawking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for Hawking (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bet was more of a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more to show that even the most eminent and revered are human, and it's reassuring to know these people aren't so far out of touch as to not have a bit of fun now and again.
For example, I went to a lecture by Sir Patrick Moore [wikipedia.org], at which he was asked questions as to whether he believed the electrical universe theory [kronia.com] could be correct. His answer? "I hope not, I owe a crate of whiskey to its originator should that prove to be true...".
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Like Einstein? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:obNoRegLink (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, doing this leads to the NYT having a smaller database, including one entry for all users that share the login. I think the site is a good idea, but its probably doing them a favor, by letting many users who almost never view their site use a single logend. This is better (for them) than a database full of people that visit the site every 6-12 months. But it is probably not really sticking it to them.
Re:He just doesn't get it (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Good for Hawking (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, most people should behave that way, but as often as not they don't. So it is noteworthy that Hawking is displaying class. Politicians have been lying since before you and I were born, so it's no surprise when they do it. Captains of industry have caught lying more often of late. Athletes are doping and lying about it. It's difficult to find true "class act" eminent figures in American society.
Hawking is acting the way we all should, but since he's one of a small cadre of public figures who is willing to unequivocally admit when he's wrong, I think this act is worthy of respect and support.
Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Yikes (Score:3, Insightful)
Good for Physics (Score:3, Insightful)
He has been debating the issue for 30 years, and only now has he changed his mind. It took a lot of other evidence for him to change his theory, and it was a hot debate all the way. Hey, he made a bet of honor and stood by his opinion until others proved (to his own satisfaction) he was wrong.
That is what dealing with people in his realm of intelligence can be like. It may not always be pleasant and it may take a long time to get them to admit they are wrong.
But he is probably a nicer person than Newton.
Re:No parallel universes? Bastard! (Score:3, Insightful)
HA! (Score:2, Insightful)
A fairly impressive achivement really.
My take (Score:3, Insightful)
I hold that quantum theory is entirely a guess based on possibilities because we currently cannot (and perhaps never can) get true facts on the matter so that real analysis cannot be done. I don't know if anyone has any objections to this but I'm not sure if people realize it.
Take any level of physics, and only allow yourself to view it from a level above. You can come up with some good guesses as to how things will work which might have a very high degree of accuracy even 100%, but you are really just guessing. A simple example is that modern theory states that any two solid objects can pass through each other without interfering with each other at all-- it's just extremely improbable.
As a parallel: If you look at any scene in a 2 dimensional perspective you'll see objects passing through each other all the time (behind and in front although to 2d it's the same space). Now if the universe was 2d we could say that everything exists on the same 2d plane and any objects passing through each other is known to be impossible, but we know there's a 3rd dimension so to us it's entirely possible, even though everything in that universe is on the same plane. Well everything in this universe is in the same space, that is, they are all on the same 4th, 5th, 6th etc dimensional coordinates-- but that can just as easily change.
A 1 dimensional basic has 2 points connected by one line.
A 2 dimensional basic has 3 points, connected by three lines, encompassing one face.
A 3 dimensional basic has 4 points, connected by six lines, encompassing four faces, containing one space.
Guesses? A 4 dimensional basic has (5?) points, connected by (10?) lines, encompassing (5?) faces, containing (3?) spaces, bounding 1 thingy?
I know I'm not the only person who has tried to mentally vision higher order shapes!
Re:He just doesn't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
And as far as the classic attack on the "certainty" of the theory of evolution: science tries to compress the Universe into something we can understand, and evolution (with its problems) is the best it has gotten. Science, by definition, is classifying the physical world by human means, and trying to get something out of it. Religion is classifying the physical world by the use of God. Wouldn't the two give completely different results?
Signed, a Christian with an avid interest in science who has never found a problem between his two beliefs.
I have a theory about this one ..! (Score:3, Insightful)
A theory is just a 'guess'. A very educated guess that has yet to be proved wrong. For it to be scientific I believe it must be provably falsifiable.
This kind of stems from my general belief that current theories work well and are mutually consistent (in the standard models and moreso) but are not necessarily "the truth".
[climbs on hobby-horse]
Consider the oft-repeated tale of people in the middle-ages believing that Jerusalem is the centre of the Universe. [Apart from that being a bit of a historical urban myth based on our assumptions having seen maps with Jerusalem at the centre! - prove me wrong reference a work that states "we believe jerusalem to be the physical centre of the universe"
[/off hobby horse]
Anyway Bob, the theories have been tested. Great. They are sound. But are they true? Are photon energies genuinely quantised, perhaps as science develops this "theory" will be a historical side-note like the greeks atom (meaning indivisable)? How can we say that quarks are primal matter at one stage and be "right" yet at a later date we decide that we have superstrings, then later m-branes. Are all these theories "right" by you? [Sorry can't think of alternates for GR, my mind is not that inventive].
PS: Your theory on Asian children is false. My friend Aleem can't do maths very well
Re:how many....didn't he already....what the..... (Score:3, Insightful)