Hawking Recants on Black Hole Theory!

There has been a lot of misunderstanding regarding Hawking's recent
statements. His theory about black hole radiation said things like:
T= (h c^3) / (8 pi K G M) --- T is temperature of a black hole,
c is the velocity of light, h is the Planck constant (6.626 x
10^-34), K is the Boltzmann constant, G is the universal
gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the black hole. Hawking
said that since the black hole has a temperature observable by the
outside it is radiating energy, a very logical reasoning. Therefore,
by E=Mc^2, it is also radiating away mass. This theory has NOT been
proven wrong. The problem is this: when Hawking realized that mass
radiates away, he began to think what happens to all the information,
or entropy, that was sucked into the black hole when its mass radiates
to 0 ? If it dissapears, then the law of entropy is broken, which says
entropy cannot decrease, only increase. He suggested that the
information is lost forever. However, by solving his theory in a new
way, he saw that the energy radiating away is in the form of mangled
information of the contents of the black hole. Therefore, information
CAN escape a black hole eventually. Sorry to all you Star Trek fans,
but this also means black holes cannot be portals to other universes,
because the information within is not lost into a parallel world, but
simply radiated away. So, the data does not show that Hawking has
been wrong for 30 years, but instead shows that the question he posed
when his theory developed, the question of how can entropy be
destroyed, was not a valid question to ask. This discovery is still
important though because if he had not been wrong about this question
and entropy could be destroyed, the foundations of physics would have
been shaken.
sources: Time Magazine August, Universe in a
Nutshell by Stephen Hawking

There has been a lot of misunderstanding regarding Hawking's recent
statements. His theory about black hole radiation said things like:
T= (h c^3) / (8 pi K G M) --- T is temperature of a black hole,
c is the velocity of light, h is the Planck constant (6.626 x
10^-34), K is the Boltzmann constant, G is the universal
gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the black hole. Hawking
said that since the black hole has a temperature observable by the
outside it is radiating energy, a very logical reasoning. Therefore,
by E=Mc^2, it is also radiating away mass. This theory has NOT been
proven wrong. The problem is this: when Hawking realized that mass
radiates away, he began to think what happens to all the information,
or entropy, that was sucked into the black hole when its mass radiates
to 0 ? If it dissapears, then the law of entropy is broken, which says
entropy cannot decrease, only increase. He suggested that the
information is lost forever. However, by solving his theory in a new
way, he saw that the energy radiating away is in the form of mangled
information of the contents of the black hole. Therefore, information
CAN escape a black hole eventually. Sorry to all you Star Trek fans,
but this also means black holes cannot be portals to other universes,
because the information within is not lost into a parallel world, but
simply radiated away. So, the data does not show that Hawking has
been wrong for 30 years, but instead shows that the question he posed
when his theory developed, the question of how can entropy be
destroyed, was not a valid question to ask. This discovery is still
important though because if he had not been wrong about this question
and entropy could be destroyed, the foundations of physics would have
been shaken.
sources: Time Magazine August, Universe in a
Nutshell by Stephen Hawking

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:01:11 GMT, "Info Plumber"
wrote:


"Yoda" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
Double-A wrote:

Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory!

Stephen Hawking now says that what goes in to a black hole CAN come
out!

Hawking now says that physical singularities DO NOT EXIST after all!

snip

This makes so much sense because it solves the problem of where did the
singularity came from that was used to start the BB!

methinks maybe there was no singularity at the BB and maybe not even a
BB.

"David Thomson" news3 @ spam.me.not volantis.org wrote in message
...
"Jochen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Thomson news3 @ spam.me.not volantis.org wrote:
Nonsense. God is provable.

Let's hear it then. I have never heard of a repeatable experiment that
can
verify the existence of a god, so I am all ears.

Hi Jochen,

It's not the existence of "a" god, but God.

Let's use the rules of geometry to put together some postulates and
theorems, and then see if everything fits together.

First, forget the idea that God will be directly measured. The first
postulate is that God is non-physical and yet real. We can initially
entertain the existence of non-physical reality because we see many
examples
of it. For example, you have a mind and this mind cannot be physically
observed. We have dimensions of real measurements and units and the
dimensions cannot be directly observed. We experience forces such as
gravity, electrostatic attraction, and electromagnetic attraction, but
these
forces cannot be directly observed. And yet none of us would deny the
reality of the mind, the dimensions, or the forces, correct?

So the question is how do we identify a non-physical reality, quantify it,
and determine it is God?

There are some basic assumptions about God that transcend all religions.

- God is the Creator of the Universe.
- God is the maintainer of the physical Universe
- God has magnitude beyond anything else.
- God is all encompassing and eternal.
- God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (an extension of the
eternal assumption above).
- God is the Source of all life.

So if we find quantifiable evidence within quantum physics that presents
these characteristics, then we would have evidence of God's existence. Do
you agree?

The repeatable experiments that prove the existence of God have already
been
done and verified by modern science. So the data already exists. All we
need for seeing God is to determine what God would look like when we saw
God. Then if we see these characteristics of God, we can further
investigate to verify or disprove whether what we see is God or not.

So, do you agree so far with the premises? Is there anything you would
add
or subtract from what God should be if we were to find evidence of God?
Be
careful not to intentionally sabotage this investigation with theological
considerations that would prove or disprove a specific religion. For
example, not all religions think God has the same name. So with so much
ambiguity as to God's name, we wouldn't consider God's name in our initial
investigation. We're considering only the potentially measurable
qualities
of God at this time.

Dave


Correct me if I misunderstand, and please forgive the impoverished analogy,
but what I think you are saying is that Henry Ford only "exists" if the
Model T Ford can prove He exists and only as long as it refers to Him as
"some talented no-name engineer" ?

IP

"Info Plumber" wrote in message
...

snip

... please forgive the impoverished analogy,

Sorry, can't do that.

but what I think you are saying is that Henry Ford only "exists" if the
Model T Ford can prove He exists and only as long as it refers to Him as
"some talented no-name engineer" ?

An interesting concept, but irrelevant to the argument as its use as an
analogy *presumes* that the human being exists as the result of the
designing actions of a creator.

This ignores the Immanence of the deity by presuming that God, as a
"Creator," can create something that is not Him. Such a God cannot be truly
infinite as long as there is something (anything) that is "not God."

Such a Creator must also be *subject* to and *compliant* with the Laws of
Physics which govern all his 'creations.'


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA