Hawking is on a Roll - Black Holes to Power the Earth! (And a Nobel~!)

[mustang guy]

Btw, the majority of the scientific community doesn't even agree on the idea of black holes / singularities in the first place. ...

 

 

Can you substantiate that?  I am not picking, but I would like a bit of validation.

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

Does anyone have the actual paper related to the gravitational wave measurements? I'd like to learn more about their sensor configuration and all that.....the super nitty details, not the high level stuff.

Back to Hawking - I have always found a stark contrast between Hawking and Einstein....in that Hawking is very much sensationalized and focuses on the fanciful. Einstein seemed way more grounded in reality. Perhaps that's the way Hawking is portrayed by the media, but I simply don't consider the two anywhere close to being in the same category. Has Hawking presented us with anything practical? I honestly don't know (that wasn't a rhetorical question). A quick glance through Wikipedia makes it sounds like all of his ideas have been contradicted by others? And lots of debates and challenges about things?

Btw, don't forget that Einstein introduced us to the idea of "space-time" - which is to say the dimensions and time are one and the same (or intrinsically related). I've been meaning to sit down and run the special relativity mathematics to see what idea we can derive about how "fast" things were moving during a "Big Bang" or "Creation Event". The thing that surprises me is how similar the two mechanisms would manifest themselves. Why couldn't they be the same thing? I want to see what the different relativistic observation points would observe in terms of time elapsed. Perhaps someone has already conducted that analysis?

What is practical about relativity? Einstein was very playful, and Hawking can't even speak. It's hard to imagine how 'fanciful' and 'sensational' are being applied here. I realize those at subjective, but I've never heard anyone inside or outside of science use those words for Hawking.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Rather than discuss semantics, I could summarize the above with a question:
Where are the equations Hawking has presented? What are the testable ideas? Literal question btw.


Here is an excerpt from Hawking demonstrating some further insight into my criticism:
"If a black hole was in contact with thermal radiation, it would absorb some of the radiation, but it would not give off any radiation, since by definition, a black hole was a region from which nothing could escape. If the thermal radiation was at a lower temperature than the black hole, the loss of entropy down the black hole, would be greater than the increase of horizon area.
This would be a violation of the generalized Second Law, that Bekenstein proposed. With hind sight, this should have suggested that black holes radiate. But no one, including Bekenstein and myself, thought anything could get out of a non rotating black hole."

This is a subtle thing, but note how he started with the assumption that "nothing could escape a black hole". He spent years intellectually masturbating through all sorts of theory because he started with an assumption. Assumptions themselves aren't a bad thing - and in fact often lead to much better intuition since it becomes easier to understand one sliver of a system. However, my criticism is how confidently he speaks on conclusions that are derived on assumptions based on non-existent observational data. Heck, Hawking himself claims that he prefers abstract thinking over observational analysis. I am very skeptical of guys with that kind of approach because I know how a logical conclusion can be entirely false because it was based on false assumptions. Some say that this is just the scientific process at play, but I think there is something more subtle and more fundamental here.

Would you base your fundamental understanding of the Universe on such an approach?

Holistically speaking, I disagree with a lot of Hawking's philosophical claims, and I get extremely skeptical when he openly takes pride in circular reasoning. I've never had a problem with the holistic philosophical perspectives of all the historical greats in science. Of course, I also disagree with a lot of your philosophical claims too Makes discussion interesting though. Btw, I personally use love as my metric of trust. When two people smarter than me disagree on a topic, I usually side with the person that demonstrates a more loving demeanor, or really the conclusions that result in a more loving world (the two usually coincide). Hawking doesn't meet that criteria - not even close.

Seriously? You're asking where are the equations? Start with his ground breaking work, "The large scale structure of space time," from the 70s.
Quote
The large scale structure of space-time, by S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1975, 391 + xi pp., $10.95 (paper), $28.50 (cloth).
This is an exciting and important volume since it is the first comprehensive presentation of a theory of cosmology taking into account the discoveries of the past quarter century in particle physics, radio astronomy, and differential topology. The astronomical universe or cosmos is examined within the framework of general relativity and global differential geometry. The exposi- tion is authoritative and painstaking, although in the search for logical completeness sometimes a bewildering tangle of alternatives and complexities is introduced (see, for instance, Chapter 6 on causal structure). The authors assume a basic knowledge of the physical aspects of general relativity theory, and write for the reader who is skilled in tensor calculus but who wishes to see the appropriate concepts defined in an intrinsic coordinate-free manner suitable for a global geometry.
Concerning the central thesis of their treatise, the authors write in the preface:
"The subject of this book is the structure of space-time on length scales from 10"13 cm, the radius of an elementary particle, up to 1028 cm, the radius of the universe. For reasons explained in Chapters 1 and 3, we base our treatment on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. This theory leads to two remarkable predictions about the universe: first, that the final fate of massive stars is to collapse behind an event horizon to form a 'black hole' which will contain a singularity; and secondly, that there is a singularity in our past which constitutes, in some sense, a beginning to the universe. Our discussion is principally aimed at developing these two results. They depend primarily on two areas of study: first, the theory of the behaviour of families of timelike and null curves in space-time, and secondly, the study of the nature of the various causal relations in any space-time."
Thus, for the authors, a mathematical model of the space-time universe consists of
(i) A differentiable 4-manifold 9H (connected, Hausdorff, paracompact, C00-manifold without boundary)—this represents the amorphous qualitative structure of the cosmos.
(ii) A Lorentz metric tensor g, with components gab(x) in any local chart (xa),a = 1, 2, 3, 4, of 911 (a symmetric covariant 2-tensor field of class C, r > 2, with the relativistic signature 2, or ( + + H— ))—this represents the special relativistic or Minkowski structure on each tangent space Tp of 9H, and permits the construction of spacelike and nonspacelike (timelike and lightlike or null) tangent vectors in Tp. The nonspacelike vectors fill the lightcones in each Tp and these define the basic causal structure on 91L. Timelike and null geodesies define the world-trajectories or histories of free particles and light rays."

The entire review can be located from Google here: https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.bams/1183538326

Read the work, and form a critique that shows it's trivial or fanciful.

There was only one Einstein. I haven't claimed he outstripped Einstein. But like Einstein, primary science rarely has day to day practicality, which was you first challenge.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited February 14, 2016 by jo56steph74

[Jim Naseum]

Unlike Einstein, Hawking bravely took on the task of trying to educate and enlighten the lay population, the non scientist, by producing popular works accessible by a mass audience.

Trying to explain real science thru analogy and simplicity is rife with danger. You can't simplify real science without making assumptions that serve to simplify. Otherwise, you'd have an actual science text book, which Joe Six pack isn't going to understand.

If the only works you read of Hawking are his popular works for the masses you could easily come away saying he is frivolous. I say, first read his scholarly works, critique those, before passing him over as a frivolous scientist.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Mallette]

Unlike Einstein,

 

Einstein's newspaper interviews are proof of his genius in that he understands his theories so well that he was able to communicate them with not so much as an "X." 

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

And yet it was left to many other gifted writers to adequately explain his work to the masses.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited February 14, 2016 by jo56steph74

[mustang guy]

ELI5 is quite common when physics is the topic.

[Jim Naseum]

Sure, why not. How many people have taken courses beyond Newtonian "billiard ball" physics?

[oldtimer]

Does acoustical physics count?

[DrWho]

 

Btw, the majority of the scientific community doesn't even agree on the idea of black holes / singularities in the first place. ...

 

 

Can you substantiate that?  I am not picking, but I would like a bit of validation.

 

 

There are multiple mathematical descriptions posited, and they're always in flux. I believe the basic tenant is founded in an extrapolation of spacetime principals: Can there be a mass so large that light can't escape the gravity well? It depends on the math equation that is used to describe the scenario. So what then is the correct equation? This is where the theoretical guys go off and find equations that are consistent with as many already existing ideas as possible.

 

The lack of consensus on mathematical definitions is really what I was trying to get at. Lots of theories, lots of reasons to support different theories, and an extremely small set of observational data.

 

It's been several years since I was studying this stuff in college. The recent gravity wave announcement got me revisiting notes and brushing up on the subject, and I'm realizing how much I've forgotten, and how much has changed since then. My profs at the time didn't spend much time on Hawking...they presented him in a much different light back then.

[DrWho]

Sure, why not. How many people have taken courses beyond Newtonian "billiard ball" physics?

 

So what courses have you taken?

[Mallette]

And yet it was left to many other gifted writers to adequately explain his work to the masses.

 

Maybe I didn't say this right.  Best and most accessible explanation of relativity I ever read was from a newspaper interview with him from the 30s. 

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

Sure, why not. How many people have taken courses beyond Newtonian "billiard ball" physics?

So what courses have you taken?

I took two years of Newtonian - physics for engineers and scientists. I took no particle physics, or quantum mechanics. How about you?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

The lack of consensus on mathematical definitions is really what I was trying to get at. Lots of theories, lots of reasons to support different theories, and an extremely small set of observational data.

Such as what? Every theory has some mathematical substantiation. But, I've never read about a dispute of mathematical definitions. Do you mean that they disagree, for example, on the meaning of a 'manifold?'

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[mustang guy]

 

 

Btw, the majority of the scientific community doesn't even agree on the idea of black holes / singularities in the first place. ...

 

 

Can you substantiate that?  I am not picking, but I would like a bit of validation.

 

 

There are multiple mathematical descriptions posited, and they're always in flux. I believe the basic tenant is founded in an extrapolation of spacetime principals: Can there be a mass so large that light can't escape the gravity well? It depends on the math equation that is used to describe the scenario. So what then is the correct equation? This is where the theoretical guys go off and find equations that are consistent with as many already existing ideas as possible.

 

The lack of consensus on mathematical definitions is really what I was trying to get at. Lots of theories, lots of reasons to support different theories, and an extremely small set of observational data.

 

It's been several years since I was studying this stuff in college. The recent gravity wave announcement got me revisiting notes and brushing up on the subject, and I'm realizing how much I've forgotten, and how much has changed since then. My profs at the time didn't spend much time on Hawking...they presented him in a much different light back then.

 

Understand there are differences of opinion on the topic. I was wondering if you could substantiate that the _majority_ of scientists didn't believe in black holes and singularities. I was under the impression that the consensus was that the theory of black holes and singularities was correct. If there is such a dissension, it would be a good thing to know.

[DrWho]

I was wondering if you could substantiate that the _majority_ of scientists didn't believe in black holes and singularities

 

I just reread my two posts and I think there's some confusion there....I was focusing on the nuances of difference, not trying to imply that nobody believes in them altogether.

 

One interesting thing to note though is that most of the blackhole images we've seen tend to be artist renderings. The stock footage looks totally different:

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/category/blackholes.html

(Make sure to note when it's showing an artist rendering or computer simulation - they don't point it out necessarily. Gotta read the text).

[DrWho]

I was a physics major and finished all my physics courses before swapping over to electrical engineering. I've taken special relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, particle physics, nuclear physics, semiconductor physics (similar to quantum), and optics. My dad used to work at Fermilab so I've spent a ton of time over there talking to the scientists and some of my profs worked there too. We've had some fun discussions about the parallels between audio measurements and light measurements (both involve waves). The tradeoff in time-arrival accuracy versus frequency accuracy that you must choose when making waterfall plots of your room acoustics is a great parallel to the Heisenberg uncertainty principal. That observation has had the largest impact in my understanding of the "information" and "probability" ideas that come out of the math, and is how I'm able to reconcile the idea of causality - which is one of the foundational tenants to the field of science.

[Jim Naseum]

I was a physics major and finished all my physics courses before swapping over to electrical engineering. I've taken special relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, particle physics, nuclear physics, semiconductor physics (similar to quantum), and optics. My dad used to work at Fermilab so I've spent a ton of time over there talking to the scientists and some of my profs worked there too. We've had some fun discussions about the parallels between audio measurements and light measurements (both involve waves). The tradeoff in time-arrival accuracy versus frequency accuracy that you must choose when making waterfall plots of your room acoustics is a great parallel to the Heisenberg uncertainty principal. That observation has had the largest impact in my understanding of the "information" and "probability" ideas that come out of the math, and is how I'm able to reconcile the idea of causality - which is one of the foundational tenants to the field of science.

 

That's a  great background! I see the handle "DrWho" and I now assume you have a Ph.D. You can solve all the higher math equations then. I stopped at calculus and could not hack the higher level of math for quantum mechanics, as an example (a wuss). So, appreciating that you can operate and solve in that higher math world will make it all the more interesting to see your claims to Hawking's defective math, if that comes up again. I misunderestimated your experience! My apology. 

[mungkiman]

I'm a fan of Bushisms. Misunderestimate is one of my favorites.

[DrWho]

Hah, no PHD here.....just obsessed with the British Sci-Fi show. I picked up the nickname like 20 years ago and it stuck. And there's no way I'm gonna touch Hawking's math skills - the dude is crazy brilliant. Actually, I had to look up some of the terms used in the second article Don posted. That high level stuff really requires one to speak a different language.

 

Hawking's math is good - that's never a criticism I have of theoretical scientists because that's the entire foundation of their principals. Really really good math and lots of really really good logic.

 

So how could I criticize his conclusions if I think good logic was employed all the way through? The answer to that is at the root of the observation I'm trying to share. And it's in that area of weakness where I feel the other great scientists of the past have excelled.

[Jim Naseum]

Cool Mr Who! Always enjoying your posts!