Stephen Hawking says 'There are no black holes'

[PakledHostage]

I am curious what some of you more qualified people here think about this article in Nature:

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'

Edit: The link to the abstract for the full paper on arXiv is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761

Edited January 28, 2014 by PakledHostage

[sgt_flyer]

Well, the title of the article is truly misleading classical example of press trying to make a fuss

What hawkins said, is that the Event Horizon of blackholes does not exists, because the 'informations / energy' of the matter / light sucked beyond the 'apparent' event horizon would be released at some time in quantum physics - thus nullying the concept of an 'event horizon' beyond which nothing can escape whithin quantum physics.

(After all, he's the guy who wrote about Black holes evaporation )

[DaveofDefeat]

Seems more accurate to say that he wants the definition of black holes redefined, not that black holes are some imaginary thing we have been making up.

[PakledHostage]

Seems more accurate to say that he wants the definition of black holes redefined, not that black holes are some imaginary thing we have been making up.

I don't think the article intends to mislead or to have us believe that black holes are "some imaginary thing":

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.

[Kerbin Dallas Multipass]

If this turns out to be wrong he can just go "LOL SRY DAMN AUTOCORRECT"

[K^2]

It's just matter of definition. You still get an effective event horizon. It just is't a perfect barrier, which you kind of get from black hole evaporation anyways. This only matters from perspective of information, and has no practical impact on behavior of black holes as astronomic objects. But man, with a sensationalist title like that, I'm sure we all have to brace for hordes of armchair scientists insisting that the very concept of a black hole has been disproved. Sometimes, I hate mass media.

P.S. On the topic of singularity, that's a separate question all together. Though, this does weigh in favor of there not being a physical singularity, it's far from conclusive.

[Idobox]

Nature isn't exactly mass media.

But yeah, titles like that work. I want to read the paper, I wouldn't if it was called something like "redefinition of event horizons in a quantum information theory paradigm"

[Stochasty]

I'm a sympathizer with Hawking's notion that apparent horizons are the key geometric objects and that event horizons are unphysical; however, it should be noted, now and for the foreseeable future, that all proclamations coming from quantum gravity physicists are speculation - and speculation only a half step above nonsense at that.

The problem with quantum gravity is that there is a vast dearth of observations and far too many physicists with nothing better to do than sit around making up new pet theories. This includes me.

[Superfluous J]

I don't think the article intends to mislead or to have us believe that black holes are "some imaginary thing":

The article does not. The headline does.

[Kerbin Dallas Multipass]

The article does not. The headline does.

The title is a quote

“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.

[K^2]

A quote taken completely out of context.

[federicoaa]

A quote taken completely out of context.

The quintessence of media

[PakledHostage]

It feels a bit strange to be defending the media, but as Kerbin Dallas Multipass said, Nature isn't exactly mass media. The article is informative and seems to do a good job of describing the context of Stephen Hawking's quote. And as Idobox said, the catchy headline attracts the attention of those who might otherwise not have read the story, myself included.

[Themohawkninja]

It feels a bit strange to be defending the media, but as Kerbin Dallas Multipass said, Nature isn't exactly mass media. The article is informative and seems to do a good job of describing the context of Stephen Hawking's quote. And as Idobox said, the catchy headline attracts the attention of those who might otherwise not have read the story, myself included.

Still, it's misleading.

[PakledHostage]

Still, it's misleading.

Not necessarily. Please see the passage from the article that I quoted on the previous page. It describes how the singularity may not actually exist. Black holes are often described as a singularity.

[Themohawkninja]

An imaginary area called the "event horizon" still makes sense if you ask me, since the energy/information can't escape by normal (or rather, "classical") means. It's only (if I understand it correctly) the slow release of it via Hawking radiation that technically negates the concept.

[Themohawkninja]

Not necessarily. Please see the passage from the article that I quoted on the previous page. It describes how the singularity may not actually exist. Black holes are often described as a singularity.

It still means that the black hole exists, which is contradictory to the title.

[PakledHostage]

It still means that the black hole exists, which is contradictory to the title.

I admit we're discussing semantics, but I didn't interpret the title as literally as some here appear to have done. I am sure I am not the only one.

[theend3r]

Just a misleading headline, nothing new under the sun. Plus virtual particles faster than light are not uncommon in quantum mechanics.

[minerman30]

This seems relevant:

http://xkcd.com/799/

[stupid_chris]

Yeah, that is misleading. I'm pretty sure that he's trying to break up the idea that beyond the horizon of a black hold, things are all squashed in the center and never seen again. There are a lot of theories going around about what exactly is going on beyond the event horizon, and none are able to settle on a solid model. To be fair, no black hole has ever been directly observed; they've only been seen by their interaction with their environment.

[Superfluous J]

The title is a quote

“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.

Did you hear, Obama said he'd eat a baby! Here's the quote:

"I'll eat the baby back ribs."

That's essentially the same thing, right?

[Albert VDS]

The problem is partly the problem, the other part is people only reading the title and thinking they read the story.

[Kerbin Dallas Multipass]

@5thHorseman

Hawking could have written "there are no event horizons" or "black holes are not the bottomless pits as they are portrayed" or whatever... Instead he chose to write "there are no black holes".

Hawking loves spectacular statements like these and knows perfectly well that this sentence will be quoted. No reason to criticize Nature, they give the proper context and the full relevant quote in the article.