Stephen Hawking was wrong. Black holes are bald.

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,981
Reaction score
661
Points
155
Hm.. atheists are usually wrong?

"When physicists say black holes don't have "hair," said Maximiliano Isi, a physicist at MIT and lead author of the paper, they mean that astrophysical objects are very simple. Black holes only differ from each other in three ways: rate of spin, mass and electric charge. And in the real world, black holes probably don't differ much in electrical charge, so they really only differ in terms of mass and spin. Physicists call these bald objects "Kerr black holes."

Related: 11 Fascinating Facts About Our Milky Way Galaxy

That hairlessness makes black holes very different from just about every other object in the universe, Isi told Live Science. When a real bell rings, for example, it emits sound waves and some undetectable, incredibly faint gravitational waves. But it's a much more complicated object. A bell is made of a material, for example (bronze maybe, or cast iron), while according to the no-hair model, black holes are all uniform singularities. Each bell also has a somewhat unique shape, whereas black holes are all infinitesimal, dimensionless points in space surrounded by spherical event horizons. All those features of a bell can be detected in the sound that a bell makes — at least if you know something about bells and sound waves. If you could somehow sense a bell's gravitational waves, you'd detect those differences in bell composition and shape in them as well, Isi said.

"The secret to this whole business is that the waveform — the pattern of this stretching and squeezing — encodes information on the source, the thing that made this gravitational wave," he told Live Science."

Stephen Hawking was wrong. Black holes are bald.
 

toobfreak

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
27,642
Reaction score
10,315
Points
910
Hm.. atheists are usually wrong?

"When physicists say black holes don't have "hair," said Maximiliano Isi, a physicist at MIT and lead author of the paper, they mean that astrophysical objects are very simple. Black holes only differ from each other in three ways: rate of spin, mass and electric charge. And in the real world, black holes probably don't differ much in electrical charge, so they really only differ in terms of mass and spin. Physicists call these bald objects "Kerr black holes."

Related: 11 Fascinating Facts About Our Milky Way Galaxy

That hairlessness makes black holes very different from just about every other object in the universe, Isi told Live Science. When a real bell rings, for example, it emits sound waves and some undetectable, incredibly faint gravitational waves. But it's a much more complicated object. A bell is made of a material, for example (bronze maybe, or cast iron), while according to the no-hair model, black holes are all uniform singularities. Each bell also has a somewhat unique shape, whereas black holes are all infinitesimal, dimensionless points in space surrounded by spherical event horizons. All those features of a bell can be detected in the sound that a bell makes — at least if you know something about bells and sound waves. If you could somehow sense a bell's gravitational waves, you'd detect those differences in bell composition and shape in them as well, Isi said.

"The secret to this whole business is that the waveform — the pattern of this stretching and squeezing — encodes information on the source, the thing that made this gravitational wave," he told Live Science."

Stephen Hawking was wrong. Black holes are bald.

Frankly, JB,
  • Hawking was wrong about a lot of things, one of the more overrated scientists since Sagan mainly useful for his publicizing of science.
  • We cannot really estimate all of the properties of Black Holes much less limit them to three since we can only conceptualize them in our known three dimensional space and they obviously cross over into other domains beyond normal space where our known laws don't apply and other laws apply in ways we cannot even imagine.
  • LiveScience is to physics what Popular Mechanics is to engineering.
  • When we can answer the question in Point 2, we will have the missing link which grand unifies the gap between gravity and the three gauge bosonic force carriers that govern all nature.
 
OP
james bond

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,981
Reaction score
661
Points
155
  • We cannot really estimate all of the properties of Black Holes much less limit them to three since we can only conceptualize them in our known three dimensional space and they obviously cross over into other domains beyond normal space where our known laws don't apply and other laws apply in ways we cannot even imagine.
  • LiveScience is to physics what Popular Mechanics is to engineering.
Now, we have more answers to the properties of black holes although we do not know they "obviously cross over into other domains beyond normal space." If you are referring to the 4th dimension and beyond, then they are still theories. We have not shown that they are real. Yet. I believe in multiple dimensions, but not multiverses.



Anyway, LiveScience provides some more information about black holes. We know there is more going on there than gravity based on Einstein's ToR.

NASA Wants You to Know That Black Holes Are Even Crazier When Viewed from the Side

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13326
This movie shows a complete revolution around a simulated black hole and its accretion disk following a path that is perpendicular to the disk. The black hole’s extreme gravitational field redirects and distorts light coming from different parts of the disk, but exactly what we see depends on our viewing angle. The greatest distortion occurs when viewing the system nearly edgewise.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top