Stephen Hawking: 'There Are No Black Holes': Nature News & Comment

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes' : Nature News & Comment 1/28/14 8:03 AM
NATURE | NEWS
Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'

Notion of an 'event horizon', from which nothing can escape, is incompatible with quantum theory, physicist claims.
Zeeya Merali
24 January 2014
Print
Artist's impression VICTOR HABBICK VISIONS/SPL/Getty
The defining characteristic of a black hole may have to give, if the two pillars of modern physics general
relativity and quantum theory are both correct.
Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that there are no black holes at least not in the sense we usually imagine
would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, its worth taking
notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory,
does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even
light, can escape.
In its stead, Hawkings radical proposal is a much more benign apparent horizon, which
There is no escape from a
only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them,
black hole in classical
albeit in a more garbled form.
theory, but quantum theory
enables energy and
There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory, Hawking told Nature.
information to escape.
Quantum theory, however, enables energy and information to escape from a black
hole. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that
successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a Peter van den
Berg/Photoshot
goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. The correct treatment, Hawking
says, remains a mystery.
http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583 Page 1 of 13
Hawking posted his paper on the arXiv preprint server on 22 January1. He titled it, whimsically, 'Information preservation and weather
forecasting for black holes', and it has yet to pass peer review. The paper was based on a talk he gave via Skype at a meeting at the Kavli
Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California, in August 2013 (watch video of the talk).
Fire fighting
Hawking's new work is an attempt to solve what is known as the black-hole firewall paradox, which has been vexing physicists for almost two
years, after it was discovered by theoretical physicist Joseph Polchinski of the Kavli Institute and his colleagues (see 'Astrophysics: Fire in the
hole!').
In a thought experiment, the researchers asked what would happen to an astronaut unlucky enough to fall into a black hole. Event horizons
are mathematically simple consequences of Einstein's general theory of relativity that were first pointed out by the German astronomer Karl
Schwarzschild in a letter he wrote to Einstein in late 1915, less than a month after the publication of the theory. In that picture, physicists had
long assumed, the astronaut would happily pass through the event horizon, unaware of his or her impending doom, before gradually being
pulled inwards stretched out along the way, like spaghetti and eventually crushed at the 'singularity', the black holes hypothetical
infinitely dense core.
But on analysing the situation in detail, Polchinskis team came to the startling realization that the laws of
Related stories
quantum mechanics, which govern particles on small scales, change the situation completely. Quantum
Simulations back up
theory, they said, dictates that the event horizon must actually be transformed into a highly energetic
theory that Universe is a
region, or 'firewall', that would burn the astronaut to a crisp.
hologram
This was alarming because, although the firewall obeyed quantum rules, it flouted Einsteins general theory Black holes shrink but
of relativity. According to that theory, someone in free fall should perceive the laws of physics as being endure
identical everywhere in the Universe whether they are falling into a black hole or floating in empty Did a hyper-black hole
intergalactic space. As far as Einstein is concerned, the event horizon should be an unremarkable place. spawn the Universe?
Beyond the horizon More related stories
Now Hawking proposes a third, tantalizingly simple, option. Quantum mechanics and general relativity
remain intact, but 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 space-time to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary surface to exist.
In place of the event horizon, Hawking invokes an apparent horizon, a surface along which light rays attempting to rush away from the black
holes core will be suspended. In general relativity, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical, because light trying to
escape from inside a black hole can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there, as though stuck on a treadmill. However,
the two horizons can, in principle, be distinguished. If more matter gets swallowed by the black hole, its event horizon will swell and grow
larger than the apparent horizon.
Conversely, in the 1970s, Hawking also showed that black holes can slowly shrink, spewing out 'Hawking radiation'. In that case, the event
horizon would, in theory, become smaller than the apparent horizon. Hawkings new suggestion is that the apparent horizon is the real
boundary. The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to
infinity, Hawking writes.
The picture Hawking gives sounds reasonable, says Don Page, a physicist and expert on black holes at the University of Alberta in
Edmonton, Canada, who collaborated with Hawking in the 1970s. You could say that it is radical to propose theres no event horizon. But
these are highly quantum conditions, and theres ambiguity about what space-time even is, let alone whether there is a definite region that
can be marked as an event horizon.
Although Page accepts Hawkings proposal that a black hole could exist without an event horizon, he questions whether that alone is enough
to get past the firewall paradox. The presence of even an ephemeral apparent horizon, he cautions, could well cause the same problems as
does an event horizon.
Unlike the event horizon, the apparent horizon can eventually dissolve. Page notes that Hawking is opening the door to a scenario so extreme
that anything in principle can get out of a black hole. Although Hawking does not specify in his paper exactly how an apparent horizon would
disappear, Page speculates that when it has shrunk to a certain size, at which the effects of both quantum mechanics and gravity combine, it
is plausible that it could vanish. At that point, whatever was once trapped within the black hole would be released (although not in good
shape).
If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind
the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre.
Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would
be in a vastly different form, making it almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.
It would be worse than trying to reconstruct a book that you burned from its ashes, says Page. In his paper, Hawking compares it to trying to
forecast the weather ahead of time: in theory it is possible, but in practice it is too difficult to do with much accuracy.
Polchinski, however, is sceptical that black holes without an event horizon could exist in nature. The kind of violent fluctuations needed to
erase it are too rare in the Universe, he says. In Einsteins gravity, the black-hole horizon is not so different from any other part of space,
says Polchinski. We never see space-time fluctuate in our own neighbourhood: it is just too rare on large scales.
Raphael Bousso, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former student of Hawking's, says that this latest
contribution highlights how abhorrent physicists find the potential existence of firewalls. However, he is also cautious about Hawkings
solution. The idea that there are no points from which you cannot escape a black hole is in some ways an even more radical and problematic
suggestion than the existence of firewalls, he says. "But the fact that were still discussing such questions 40 years after Hawkings first
papers on black holes and information is testament to their enormous significance."
Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14583
References
1. Hawking, S. W. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761 (2014).

Show context
Related stories and links
From nature.com
Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram
10 December 2013
Black holes shrink but endure
29 October 2013
Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?
13 September 2013
Hawking decision fuels Israel debate
14 May 2013
Astrophysics: Fire in the hole!
03 April 2013
Hawking changes his mind about black holes
15 July 2004
For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back
to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.
75 comments Subscribe to comments
Next >
Show parent comment
James T. Dwyer 2014-01-27 11:50 PM

In more complex terms, the extreme contraction of space and dilation of time prevent any light emissions from exiting the event
horizon - an unphysical velocity exceeding c would be necessary to escape the gravitational effects within a black hole event horizon.
BTW, it was little more than a year ago that it was (erroneously) proposed that neutrinos exceeded the speed of light...
mark cor 2014-01-27 11:31 PM

Black holes can't exist now! Due to time dilation, such an large dense mass would take an indefinite amount of time to become a black
hole. As the matter approached the critical mass the matter would slow to a stop, as observed by an external observer. therefor from
our point of view a black hole would never form it would just stand there in suspended animation on the brink of forming a black hole.
As the would-be black hole gets larger all the extra mass just exponentially approaces the point at which the mass would become
critical. The interesting thing is to think about is what is the viewpoint of a particle off mass falling into the hole. Would it just fall right
through the black hole and appear when our universe is infinitely old, by which time all the mass of our universe would be in that one
universal black hole. this may then look like a big Bang on different time continuum perpendicular to ours. Thoughts?
James T. Dwyer 2014-01-28 12:28 AM

Yes - this is an interesting issue. I think the scenario outlined below avoids the issue, allowing for the existence of compact
objects whose enormous mass can be determined gravitationally (for example, Sgr A* whose orbital effects on neighboring stars
indicates a mass > 4 million solar masses). If, at any point, the advancement if of local clocks was suspended, from the
perspective of a distant observe, it would be the result of relativistic gravitational effects - denoting the existence of an event
horizon! Even if clocks within the event horizon appeared to be frozen, as you imply, that would not prevent the accretion of
additional mass-energy outside the event horizon, where time continues to advance even from the perspective of an distant
observer. As a result, the bound mass-energy of the accreting compact object continues to increase - requiring that the event
horizon continues to expand! The result may be an 'onion' of increasingly contracted (curved), 'frozen' spacetime. The
hypothetical singularity can be realized as the focal point of geometrically contracted spacetime. BTW, I like to consider that
bound atomic matter accreted into the black hole will be irresistibly accelerated to c - requiring that its bindings disintegrate,
releasing its binding mass-energy which is retained - directly transformed into gravitational energy (contracted (curved)
spacetime) - as its residual fundamental particles are expelled via relativistic polar jets. In this scenario there is no material
contained within a black hole - only gravitational-energy in the form of contracted spacetime.
Show parent comment
Ananyo Bhattacharya 2014-01-27 03:50 PM

It is (Nature's online editor here). But like other commenting sites the best way of 'weeding' is for other readers to upvote
useful/accurate comments. I'll ask the editor to weigh in on questions as they arise here.
Ethan Tatum 2014-01-27 03:24 PM

It's an interesting hypothesis. An interesting thought ran through my head, what if the Big Bang wasn't a big ball of energy tightly
bound, but simply energy and matter from another universe being pushed out into the empty void that became our universe?
Ashish Sirohi 2014-01-27 11:37 AM

"General relativity remain intact" Stephen Hawking loves to announce that what he said previously was wrong. So he seems flexible,
but he sticks to Einstein's relativity with a religion-like inflexibility. His P-brane cannot let go of that. The pope may become an atheist
but Hawking will never stop beleiving in Relativity. And that is the biggest blunder of Hawking's life. Special Relativity is one
experiment away from falling, and when it falls so does Hawking and all his black holes versions. Yuri Milner has been asked to take
personal charge of arranging out the experiment. Details at physicsnext.org. Faith and physics should not mix, wouldn't you agree
Professor Hawking?
Mark Bridger 2014-01-27 09:54 AM

Hawking's original theory of the radiation is inconsistent, yet there is an acknowledged necessity for the 'extrene gravity object' (ego)
to radiate. Einstein's equation says that an object that is smaller than it's Schwarzchild radius would radiate at frequencies that are the
square roots of negative numbers - which means 'unreal' and is taken to mean impossible. But it may in physical reality mean like the
mirror of positive frequency light - and since photons are their own anti particles this radiation is allowable. It would mean that the
more powerful/shrunken the 'ultra black ego' the higher the frequency it emits. So as the object collapses under gravity it becomes a
burst of gamma radiation, and the high frequency gamma radiation shoud be preceded by lower frequencies, as is observed. The
more massive the object the faster/more likely that would happen - and gamma ray bursts tend to have happened a long time ago
(billions of light years from us). The reasons why Hawking's theory of black hole radiation (that the gravitational difference across the
Schwarzchild radius would cause one of a pair of virtual particles to fall into the black hole and the other to escape to become real/
permanent radiation ) is inconsistent are as follows:- 1) They are virtual particles, so whether they are theoretically separated or not,
they should not become real to yield energy. 2) If the gravitational differential just allows a theoretical separation, taking the electric
attraction also into account will deny that possibilty. 3) The escapee particle has to be travelling at the speed of light (and
perpendicularly away from the radius). If it could do that then virtual particles could escape their partners under any circmstances (not
just by black holes) and be emitting radiation everywhere all the time. 4) (re 3)) Travelling at the speed of light gives the particle infinite
relativistic mass, the effect of which would extend the Schwarzchild boundary so the particle still doesn't escape. 5) Supposedly one
particle falls into the black hole while one escapes to become radiation. The particle that falls into the black hole, whether it is matter
or anti matter, will add to the mass energy of the black hole - not subtract from it as the theory requires ( to agree with conservation of
energy principle). So the theory is basically inconsistent.
Edward Schaefer 2014-01-27 04:21 AM

I must admit to being disappointed as I read this. I do not believe that black holes exist, but this is more about semantics than
fundamental physics. A true rejections of black holes means a rejection of the Einstein Field Equations (but not necessarily a rejection
of the other fundamentals of general relativity such as the strong equivalence principle or gravitation being governed by an action and
the related metrics). That is not present here. I won't go into details about my own ideas. I am beyond treating a forum like this as a
place for them, and I have not found an action for my ideas at this time anyway. What I will say is that is will be interesting when we
can get a detailed look at the monster in center of the Milky Way to determine if it really looks/acts like a black hole in all respects,
and/or we can probe the second order post-Newtonian attributes of a gravitational field. (My own research indicates the differences on
the order of m^2/r^2 will from the expectations of general relativity will exist if black holes cannot exist.)
Robert Green 2014-01-27 08:07 AM

It is not a question if black holes exist it is about the nature of objects that we call Black Holes. This is done by collecting
observation we are able to make and applying the known laws of the universe to discover the nature of Black Holes. Much of
science today finds it easier to question the logical nature of creation then realize the lack of understanding is in us and not the
design of the universe.
Edward Schaefer 2014-01-27 09:53 PM

I am not sure how far apart we are. Certainly observation is about ascertaining the "nature of the objects that we call Black
Holes". I for one prefer to call then "gravitationally collapsed objects", since a Black Hole is a particular form of such an
object mandated by general relativity. As for "applying the known laws of the universe", I am not so sure. Certainly you
must start with accepted theory and work off of it, but if you have evidence that the theory is wrong, that must be stated.
Scientific progress comes from reconciling theory and observation, and from raising questions as needed. So for me,
observation is about helping to infer the laws of the universe and not about validating currently known ones. I for one see
the "firewall" as more proof that general relativity is 100% correct, but then again a black hole doubter like me will see that.
At some point, either the theory gets tied up in a neat little box (like special relativity) or we head off in search of something
new.
Show parent comment
Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 03:57 AM

That is a challenge Ben, and yes I do think there is a need for a forum where the non-professional but sincerely interested can seek to
get questions answered. The problem is that for every one of those in this forum, there are a hundred who are filling the forum with
dross - either total pseudo-science that is fundamentally flawed, religious and spiritualist tracts, or denialist campaigning. These are
becoming so prevalent that they make the whole forum unusable for everyone.
Show parent comment

The point is they are (according to this new theory) NOT black. Very very dark grey, but not black. Some stuff can get out because the
event horizon isn't a sharp cut off.
Show parent comment

Really? Getting mangled in a turbulent space-time zone is less exciting than being sucked slowly (as time dilates) into a boring black
sphere?
Show parent comment

The only "safe distance" would be billions of times further than our most distant probes. We could test it closer IF small black hole DO
evaporate, but if this turns out to be wrong, we don't want this experiment even in the same region of the galaxy as us......
Show parent comment

We do accept that.
Show parent comment

No, because a black hole would release this out into existing space-time and it would then interact with that in a way that we could
observe, which we do not see in our current universe.
Show parent comment

We have never directly observed a black hole, and those we think exist are in areas with lots of violent events so we couldn't tell
whether these are truly black or if information is truly lost - the effects described in all variations of black-hole theory are too small to
be detectable to our current capabilities.
Show parent comment

That was my first thought, but no, it is something quite different. hawking radiation was basically a quantum effect "skipping over" the
well defined event horizon, whereas this new idea is that the event horizon doesn't actually exist, there is just a turbulent space-time
zone. It would actually invalidate Hawking radiation, as the size of that zone would be too large for the quantum effect necessary for
Hawking radiation to cover.
Show parent comment

Then please explain why we observe events billions of years older than Genesis says existence is?
Show parent comment

It has always been acceptable to question that - science always allows you to question current settled theory. However as we've
actually observed it happening in many observations, you'd need a very convincing case to make any effective challenge, including
explaining what else was bending gravity by exactly the amount we expect gravity to....
Robert Green 2014-01-26 09:02 PM

Black Holes exist as is evidence by observation of objects being affected by a massive object that is non-radiating. It is clear that an
object of such mass is not allowing light to escape. It is also clear that any object of such mass must have a conversion of it's mass
within it into radiation. Conversion must take place from fusion of that mass by the enormous gravitational force seen from Black
Holes. This is also supported by the math that shows that light can not escape from objects the mass size of a Black Hole. It is
therefore clear that light may enter a Black Hole and not be allowed to leave. This is not the case with mass objects. Just as fusion
takes place when mass objects are forced together, such as may be seen in the sun. The same thing happens to mass objects as
they enter the influence of a Black Hole. The result is that a Black Hole is Black to light but radiates when mass objects try to enter the
Black Hole. Just as in any fusion process the radiation comes from both mass objects, the small mass is completely converted and an
equal amount is converted from the Black Hole. Some of the radiation that results is able to be seen and some is captured by the
Black Hole. This is the dual nature of a Black Hole.

Sorry, no. We have yet to directly observe a black hole or whatever occupies such a location. We have observed matter in the
region of a massive gravitational body that is very "dark", to the extent that it is not visible to our current capabilities, but that is
orders of magnitude away from being totally "black". The maths cannot "show" anything about a body of this kind - all the maths
can do is deliver the answers to calculations, and what those calculations are is based on our best theory. If we just use the
classical theory then yes you are correct, but we already know from other observations that the classical theory breaks down in
many extreme circumstances. The competing theories do not provide simple calculations that can just be solved - there are still
too many unknowns.
Robert Green 2014-01-27 07:57 AM

The math that I refer to is that of the prediction of John Michell and Pierre-Simon Laplace. Also the modern solution of
general relativity Schwarzschild in 1916. The interpretation as a region of space from which nothing can escape was first
published by David Finkelstein in 1958. This math is for the interaction of light and not mass. The dual nature of Black
Holes answers all current observations. All we are able to do is find the best description that fits our current limits of
observation. This dual nature seems to be the best fit.
John Bensted 2014-01-26 07:59 PM

So, black ... errr ,,, grey holes are essentially entropy accelerators?

I'm not sure entropy can be accelerated? To accelerate it you would actually gain more information about it, so it would be less
entropic.....
varun kumar 2014-01-26 06:54 PM

i have a master degree in archaeology ..his simply means that black holes are different then previously described. He did not say,
black holes do not exist at all. ( http://3rank.com/

No. He is saying they are not "black", which in physics has a very distinct meaning.
Brad Watson 2014-01-26 06:05 PM

Hawking has been wrong before, i.e. his claim that there is no afterlife. Science has proven and documented reincarnation, i.e. Dr. Ian
Stevenson and Dr. Jim B. Tucker at Univ. of Virginia, Dr. Brian Weiss, book 'Soul Survivor', Carol Bowman, 'Reincarnation Theory &
its 23 Principles/Theory of Luck (ex. Einstein returned as Watson)', etc. . This universe was created by the Big Bang (a supermassive
white-hole) 13.82 billion-years ago which was the direct result of a supermassive black-hole in another universe within The
Conglomerate of Nonparallel-Universes (multiverse). This 'simple' cause-and-effect hypothesis using the duality of these two
singularities is accepted by the majority of astrophysicists; it neatly explains infinite space and infinite time/eternity. This universe and
that SBH share the same boundary. Now whether that boundary is correctly described as an 'event horizon' or as Hawking
recommends an 'apparent horizon' is the question! Since there is an energy and information transfer in the process of SBH Big
Banging into a new universe, possibly 'apparent horizon' is the best term. However, event horizon redefined as permitting energy and
information to (eventually) escape from it would also work dictionary-wise.

Yes, Hawking has been wrong before, in fact he has completely changed his mind on black holes before. That is what good
scientists do - they never claim they are right, just that they have a theory, and if new evidence or a better theory comes along
they accept it. That is where they differ from pseudo-scientists such as those that produced junk papers like that reincarnation
one. They base these on no credible evidence, and refuse to change even when their ideas are demonstrably junk.
Wardell Lindsay 2014-01-26 03:53 PM

Hawking giving up the Black Hole may be the first step in giving up General Relativity.Matter does not curve space. The way to unite
gravity and other fundamental forces rests in a fuller defintion of Gravitational energy: Space in the vicinity of matter, M, has a velocity
field. That velocity field creates on mass m, Momentum , mV AND energy cmV=cP, the "Dark Energy". The Total Energy is: W = -
mGM/r + cmV = -vh'/r + cP = [vh'/r, cP] This is the general law of Energy consisting of a scalar/Boson energy (-vh'/r) and vector
energy (cP). This is Quaternion Energy and the vector enrgy cP is the so-called "Dark Energy". There are five fundamental forces: F =
XW = [d/dr,DEL]= [vp/r - cDEL.P, cdP/dr - DEL vh'/r + cDELxP] The divergence of the vector energy ,cDEL.P = -cp/r cos(P) is the
"anti-gravity force", the centrifugal force that prevents the earth from flling into the sun and the electrons from falling into the nucleus of
the atom.. When the centripetal force vp/r is balanced by the centrifugal force cp/r cos(P), we have the redshift situation or the
Continuity Condition v/c=cos(P) and the force is a Fermion, F= cp/r[0, -1P + v/c 1R + sin(P)1RxP]. Gravity and Quantum Energy are
Quaternion Energies, W = -vh'/r + cP = -vp + cP = [-vh'/r, cP]. Mass creates a vector field due to gravity v=squareroot(GM/r), for
Quantum charge creates veclocity v= Z Alpha c where Z is atomic n umber and Alpha is the fine Structure constant 7.2E-3. At
boundary condition v=c thus : Gravity v=c, c^2 = GM/r Quantum v=c , Z Alpha =1 thus Z < 1/Alpha = 1/7.2E-3 , thus no Z greater than
138. In summary, General Relativity needs to go with Black Holes. Sp[ace in the vicinity of matter has a velocity field. That velocity
field creates Momentum on matter, mV and energy cmV=cP, the "Dark Energy".

No. Giving up a theory because better understanding comes along in no way makes it any more likely that any other theory will
be affected.
Brad Watson 2014-01-26 07:04 PM

"Giving up General Relativity"? "Matter does not curve space"? Is there proof of that? Sources/links? Einstein's theory has held
up very well for 100 years. I've taken M-theory and its 6/7 higher dimensions + the 4 common dimensions and added an analysis
of time to produce Unified Strings (U21 S19) Theory... 6/7 higher dimensions (hyperspace) + 3D + 6/7 aspects of 'regular time' +
4 aspects of 'hypertime' = 19/21 dimensions/aspects of spacetime I've collected an extensive amount of indirect evidence of this
and have used it to make the BIG prediction that "All true 'Earth-like Planets' are built on 7_4 like Earth or 6_4 like the Plan-it
Nestor'". Please see my tweaked NASA conference presentation of 4/21/09 at http://PlanetNestor.blogspot.com .
Abhas Mitra 2014-01-26 03:35 PM

ABHAS MITRA and NORMAN K. GLENDENNING (2008) BLACK HOLES OR ETERNALLY COLLAPSING OBJECTS?. The Eleventh
Marcel Grossmann Meeting: pp. 1526-1528. PARALLEL SESSIONS: Alternative Black Hole Models BLACK HOLES OR ETERNALLY
COLLAPSING OBJECTS? ABHAS MITRA Theoretical Astrophysics, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai -400085,
IndiaNORMAN K. GLENDENNING Nuclear Science Division & Institute for Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. 94720,U.S.A. Formation of a Black Hole (BH) demands that the surface gravitational redshift of the
collapsing object, z . We point out that as the collapse generated radiation quanta would move in almost closed circular orbits for
z 1, they would get almost trapped by the strong self-gravity. As the outward flux of the trapped radiation would attain its Eddington
value, by definition, catastrophic collapse would degenerate into a radiation supported quasistatic state though, theoretically, the
collapsing object would asymptotically approach the z = exact BH state. Keywords: Black Holes; Eternally Collapsing Objects
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789812834300_0186
Brad Watson 2014-01-26 07:12 PM
"Eternally collapsing objects"? You've used the term 'eternally' wrong. Eternal: all of time including 'regular time': beginning, end,
past, present, future, void(?), constant/speed of light and 'hypertime': before the beginning and after the end, fast forward/time
dilation, reverse/superluminal, stop-time/traveling at SOL. You mean to use 'perpetually'. People often confuse eternal and
perpetual. Christian fundamentalists do it all the time when they speak of "Eternal life begins at death and lasts forever"; that's
perpetual when you pick a point in time and then continue in one direction forever.
Abhas Mitra 2014-01-26 03:21 PM

Black Holes or Eternally Collapsing Objects: A Review of 90 Years of MisconceptionsAuthors: Mitra, AbhasPublication: Focus on
Black Hole Research, edited by Paul V. Kreitler. ISBN 1-59454-460-3. Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, NY
USA, 2006, p.1-94Publication Date: 00/2006 http://books.google.co.in/books?
id=Dy_6gr76QmkC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Black+Holes+or+Eternally+Collapsing+Objects:+A+Review+of+90+Years+of+Misconceptions&s
IrAftwIGYBw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Black%20Holes%20or%20Eternally%20Collapsing%20Objects%3A%20A%20Review%
Abhas Mitra 2014-01-26 03:17 PM

The fallacy of Oppenheimer Snyder collapse: no general relativistic collapse at all, no black hole, no physical singularity Mitra, Abhas
AA(Theoretical Astrophysics Section, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre) Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 332, Issue 1,
pp.43-48(2011) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10509-010-0578-5
Abhas Mitra 2014-01-26 03:12 PM

The Mass of the Oppenheimer-Snyder Hole: Only Finite Mass Quasi-Black Holes Mitra, Abhas; Singh, K. K.Affiliation:
AA(Astrophysical Sciences Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India), AB(Astrophysical Sciences Division, Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India) International Journal of Modern Physics D, Volume 22, Issue 9, id. 1350054 (2013)
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271813500545
Abhas Mitra 2014-01-26 01:11 PM

In 2000, my peer reviewed paper first claimed that, General Relativistic Gravitational Collapse actually does not allow formation of
Apparent Horizon (Trapped Surface), Event Horizon or Finite mass black holes, and collapse process can at best asymptotically
approach a M=0 BH state. When my paper got published a Nature India journalist made a Science News on it -- the discussion there
started with the adjective ``controversial''. Later i asked the journalist why he added this word when there is no published
literature/preprint challenging it. He conceded that Nature London office editor had inserted it. :
https://www.academia.edu/1747624/No_Black_Hole_According_To_General_Relativity_Nature_India_
Mark Bridger 2014-01-26 03:02 PM

Thank you for the link to that article which I read with great interest Abhas. It seems we are in agreement (see my comment
below).... though if we agree this will surely be controversial, turning the whole field of black hole theory, ergo cosmology, upside
down (or inside out).
gopal srinivasan 2014-01-26 12:29 PM

The concept of black hole etc is a direct outcome of the premise space is empty or is not populated with real components. That is
wrong assumption , axiomatically, logically, mathematically and experimentally. The real components forming a sea of interactive
states combine into resonant harmonic states to display manifest phenomena as holograms. The carrier frequency per cycle that
sustains these holograms to form particles to galaxies oscillate harmonically and permanently at 2.965 E +8 cycles per cycle of 10
interaction (C) form the base or 10^2/0.236= 8.4721 as the log of 2.965 E +8. Cycles higher than C get absorbed, and thos that are
harmonics increase in density to sustain holograms. Proton / electron/ neutron/ neutrino are three dimensional harmonics and can
derived from the file PHO.pdf in and Sankhya /ppt on website Kapillavastu dot com. All prime number oscillations form fixed radii to
sustain "solid" states etd. The maximum radius is 5.99 E+25 as thespecific ratio that log (C) +1 harmonically divides into the ultimate
stable cycle where component density is just it reciprocal. See all work out on PHO.PDF. Its perfect and flawless and satisfies General
Relativity, Quantum mechanics and three dimensional geometry of holographic states

No. Black holes are not predicated on empty space.
Mark Bridger 2014-01-26 11:56 AM

For a few years I have been commenting on the New Scientist website pointing out the inconsistencies in the Hawking theory of black
hole radiation. Unfortunately I cannot link to those comments from here as NS has closed down the online option to comment on the
articles as well as access to previous comments... (Is that a freedom of speech issue or what?). Anyway, it now looks like Professor
Hawking is moving in the direction of possibly abandoning his original idea. I say Hawking radiation is unnecessary because if you can
twist the laws of physics enough to accept that then it is less of a stretch to accept that 'black holes' may directly radiate. According to
Einstein's equation for gravitational redshift radiation from an 'unblack hole' (or light emerging from within the Schwarzchild radius)
would have frequency values that are the square root of negative numbers. Does that mean no radiation at all or a paradoxical form of
radiation? I would suggest that quasars may be directly radiating black holes, whilst the 'supermassive black holes' we see at the
centre of galaxies are actually dark matter hubs.
Mark Bridger 2014-01-26 12:10 PM

Further to that I'd say that Gamma ray bursts are what happens when the 'unblack hole' finally collapses. The calculable
frequency of the radiation speeds up to gamma (as if time inside the radius were going backwards faster and faster relatively -
though its not really Time going backwards) as most of the mass of the object turns into radiation.
Show parent comment
John Duffield 2014-01-26 11:18 AM

My pleasure Peter. Kevin Brown has some good stuff, but I have to say I think the "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's correct.
If you look at MTW figure 32.1 (a), the infalling observer goes to the end of time and back and is in two places at once. And KS
coordinates are like putting a stopped observer in front of a stopped clock then claiming he sees it ticking as normal. When actually he
sees nothing. Ever.
MURALI MENON 2014-01-26 09:27 AM

this new revelation brings to mind my earlier theory that "black holes" have the same structure as a balloon tethered to its circular
opening - sucking in all energy and then once it reaches a state of saturation, throws back the energy and data captured back to the
plane from where it sucked in the energy, the force resulting in an inverted balloon which then goes on to suck energy from the plane
where it was earlier ballooning. would like your comments...
Next >
See other News & Comment articles from Nature
Nature ISSN 0028-0836 EISSN 1476-4687
2014 Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.
partner of AGORA, HINARI, OARE, INASP, CrossRef and COUNTER

Stephen Hawking: 'There Are No Black Holes': Nature News & Comment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stephen Hawking: 'There Are No Black Holes': Nature News & Comment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stephen Hawking: 'There Are No Black Holes': Nature News & Comment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes' : Nature News & Comment 1/28/14 8:03 AM

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'

Artist's impression VICTOR HABBICK VISIONS/SPL/Getty

Beyond the horizon More related stories

1. Hawking, S. W. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761 (2014).

Related stories and links

75 comments Subscribe to comments

Show parent comment

James T. Dwyer 2014-01-27 11:50 PM

mark cor 2014-01-27 11:31 PM

James T. Dwyer 2014-01-28 12:28 AM

Show parent comment

Ananyo Bhattacharya 2014-01-27 03:50 PM

Ethan Tatum 2014-01-27 03:24 PM

Ashish Sirohi 2014-01-27 11:37 AM

Mark Bridger 2014-01-27 09:54 AM

Edward Schaefer 2014-01-27 04:21 AM

Robert Green 2014-01-27 08:07 AM

Edward Schaefer 2014-01-27 09:53 PM

Show parent comment

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 03:57 AM

Show parent comment

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 01:04 AM

Show parent comment

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 01:03 AM

Show parent comment

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 01:01 AM

Show parent comment

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 12:59 AM

Show parent comment

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 12:58 AM

Show parent comment

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 12:57 AM

Show parent comment

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 12:55 AM

Show parent comment

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 12:52 AM

Show parent comment

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 12:50 AM

Robert Green 2014-01-26 09:02 PM

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 12:39 AM

too many unknowns.

Robert Green 2014-01-27 07:57 AM

John Bensted 2014-01-26 07:59 PM

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 12:40 AM

varun kumar 2014-01-26 06:54 PM

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 12:41 AM

Brad Watson 2014-01-26 06:05 PM

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 12:45 AM

Wardell Lindsay 2014-01-26 03:53 PM

Bernard Gore 2014-01-27 12:46 AM

Brad Watson 2014-01-26 07:04 PM

Abhas Mitra 2014-01-26 03:35 PM

Brad Watson 2014-01-26 07:12 PM

Abhas Mitra 2014-01-26 03:21 PM

Abhas Mitra 2014-01-26 03:17 PM

Abhas Mitra 2014-01-26 03:12 PM

Abhas Mitra 2014-01-26 01:11 PM

Mark Bridger 2014-01-26 03:02 PM