Has anyone read Hawkings new paper?

51d9ZFhM8cL.jpg


It's an interesting idea, but sort of just puts another idea on the pile of "we don't know yet."

I think the most interesting idea in this case is that matter can come back out of the black hole. Albeit, it would be reduced to essentially nothing--the article's allegorical example of putting a burnt book back together from ashes.
 
It's not really a new item on the pile of, "things we don't know". While I haven't read the full paper on arxiv yet, the premise touched on in the article isn't really a new or undiscovered phenomena. It's been suggested pretty early on in Quantum Mechanics that matter can escape black holes.

What it means when looking at both macro and subatomic physics isn't yet clear. It's something that would fit more in the pile of, "things we desperately need to answer but can't so let's ignore it for as long as possible".
 
Its an interesting concept to try to wrap your head around. The firewall was a quantum problem that seems to be the barrier from general relativity to quantum theory. The hell that occurs at the threshold is so great that objects cannot collapse so far to exist in a singularity, which preserves information and emits radiation.

The story of falling onto a black hole is now this: Your journey around the curvature of space by the object without noticing a thing. As you fall deeper and accelerate, you will notice nothing because your are not moving in classical space, but in space time. There will be a pulling feeling that will occur as you get nearer. Near collapse, you would have been ripped appart by the exponential gravity as you approach quantum state. As you are dead, your atoms as well as everything around you burst into subatomical particles, ionizes your particle and flings them to outer space by the great firewall.

 
They had a giant keyboard set up like the piano from Big with enough room for his wheelchair to maneuver between keys. Then he just rolls over the key he wants to press.
 
Who knows? His computer can interpret his facial motions and output speech, but it can't output text into a paper. That would be some next level shit right there.
 
stoned-guy.jpeg


Your explanation

He typed it yes...in a way. How his synthesizer works is a set of letters is displayed on his screen and a highlight will scroll automatically. When the desired letter is highlighted, he hits a button on his glasses with his cheek. Before he used the hand button, but that became to difficult. The more words he spells, the better idea the computer has of what Steven is trying to say. When there are enough words, the computer tries to guess the sentence and so on. In simpler sense, imagine he has a huge text message program that has a near perfect auto correction program.

And second, for those with hate towards Hawking: go fuck yourselves with the biggest stick. Seriously, go die. Hawking is a super resourceful person. In ethics, this guy has reached something nobody else in the world has done. He was suffering from ALS or Lou Guericks since he was 23. After the doctors gave him 2 years, this guy marries and has kids, get his Ph D in physics and started the biggest debate in astrophysics. When people are asking for euthanasia for their condition; Hawking changed the fucking world. He is still the chair of the physics department at Cambridge University and he is passed 70 years old. Nobody pays for his nurses, he makes the money to sustain his life and his research.

Fuck some of you guys who complain about your lives being hard.
 
No time for reading because big air but... I do know that when you try to do quantum calculations including relativity it gets really, really crazy really fast. Like when electrons start going real fast and stuff...

Threads for later though, if we don't go to the future tonight and experience it for ourselves.
 
The link I posted below the paper is for the general public. I had to read it to understand what the hell he was saying. It certainly wasn't easy to understand, especially because it didn't have any of the math in it. Also it's probably going to be changed a bit before it's published.

I just hate when people post articles about papers without linking to the paper itself!
 
Our theories can describe fast particles very well. The first theories (relativistic quantum mechanics), that were developed by Dirac, Klien, Gordon, Pauli, etc had a bunch of holes in them, but the next generation (like Feynman and company) patched them up with quantum field theory, and it's been more or less the same since the third gen guys left it in the 70's.

Basically special relativity and quantum mechanics are totally compatible. The problem is with general relativity. Then shit hits the fan. They are totally incompatible. Unless you are a string theorist ; )
 
^ first of all, this is way beyond my level of physics understanding. I'm only in senior year, so I wont know for sure for a few more.

Basically from what I understand, is that you can do relativistic quantum mechanics in curved space (in fact, that's what hawking radiation is all about). The problem is that quantum field theory, which is kind of like the "grown up" quantum mechanics, and treats particles as excited states of an underlying field. They developed quantum field theory because the single-particle dirac equation, which is basically like like the relativistic shrodinger equation, gave lots of bad results, such as negative energy and things. If you formulate the dirac equation as a field theory, then a lot of those problems are solved.

They basically found a process called "renormalization" that allowed them to make corrections to the fields that got rid of infinities, which physically do not make sense.

The problem with GR and QFT is when you try to quantize the gravitational field. It turns out that the field is nonrenormalizable. You would basically have to give it infinitely many "bandages" to make it work. That's kind of what guys are trying to do with string theory, they are trying to find the paramaters that would make the gravitational field renormalizable.

I think that's correct, but keep in mind, all of this info has come from like brian green and steven hawking books, or talking to grad students/profs in a casual setting. I have only taken a few QM courses so far.
 
Yeah I've never done the calcs with any relativity. We stopped at multi electron perturbation and stuff like that, no light speed stuff (thankfully, probably).
 
That is the biggest problem with modern quantum theory; logical corrections and assumptions of parameters. Take string theory with bases its logic that gravity is present in the infinitely small and large. For that theory to not equal 0 or infinity, they came out with 11 dimensions to get a sane conclusion.

I theorise that quantum mechanics is the loss of the 1st fundamental force in matter. I just cant do the innovated calculations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top