View Full Version : "There's no black holes" says Hawking
For those who are interested and follow such things, this is big news:
Stephen Hawking stuns physicists by declaring 'there are no black holes' - but says there are GREY ones (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2545552/Stephen-Hawking-admits-no-black-holes-GREY-holes.html)
Stephen Hawking has shocked physicists by admitting 'there are no black holes'.
In a paper published online, Professor Hawking instead argues there are 'grey holes'
'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,' he says in the paper, called Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting For Black Holes.
He says that the idea of an event horizon, from which light cannot escape, is flawed.
He suggests that instead light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will be held as though stuck on a treadmill and that they can slowly shrink by spewing out radiation.
Hawking told the journal Nature: 'There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory. [But quantum theory] enables energy and information to escape from a black hole'.
A full explanation of the process, Hawking admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature.
However, that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century.
'The correct treatment,' Hawking told Nature, 'remains a mystery.'
The professor’s grey hole theory would allow matter and energy to be held for a period of time before being released back into space.
Hawking’s latest work was prompted by a talk he gave via Skype to a meeting at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California, in August 2013.
Cont:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2545552/Stephen-Hawking-admits-no-black-holes-GREY-holes.html
The next thing you know he'll say the Earth isn't flat, either.
Seriously, he (and the other smart people) push the limit of human intellect. Perhaps there are mysteries of the universe we will never know.
The next thing you know he'll say the Earth isn't flat, either.
Seriously, he (and the other smart people) push the limit of human intellect. Perhaps there are mysteries of the universe we will never know.
No doubt.
Having read "A Brief History Of Time" with only partial understanding, I'm in awe of Physicists in general.
Some of Hawking's essays are a bit more easily digested...
One of my favorite astrophysicists is Neil deGrasse Tyson who with his down to earth approach aids in understanding the peculiarities of physics and quantum mechanics.
Having read "A Brief History Of Time" with only partial understanding, I'm in awe of Physicists in general.
Some of Hawking's essays are a bit more easily digested...
One of my favorites astrophysicists is Neil deGrasse Tyson who helps in understanding physics and quantum mechanics by being easily understandable.
DeGrasse does an excellent job of that, as does Michio Kaku and others.
montanadave
01-26-14, 10:33
Theoretical physics and cosmology has reached such a level of complexity that I cannot even seem to wrap my head around the analogies and "thought experiments" these guys dream up to illustrate their ideas. As for the actual math and physics? I was left behind decades ago.
At that level, thought experiment is usually followed by seeing if the math checks out, followed by testing the math by empirical evidence/testing. The tech is often not up to the ability to test it, and we have to wait decades to see if it holds up. Black holes were nothing but math that was derived from Einsteinian physics, and Einstein felt they were too strange and bizarre to exist. It was much later such things actually shown to exist and then to the shock of many, very common. Time being altered by velocity was thought experiment that was supported by Einsteinian physics but impossible to test until the atomic clock was invented, and the effect confirmed.
You likely know all that, just rambling. The physics are WAY above my pay grade that's for sure.
Despite the title for media consumption this is nothing terribly revolutionary.
The only thing that has happened is we have a greater understanding of black holes than we previously did. We've known for some time they leak radiation so we already knew they weren't the "forever" bank vault of everything that is trapped by them.
Like most things in nature they aren't perfect or absolutes in a way man likes things to be organized. And just as with most things we can't walk up to and directly observe these are just our latest current assumptions based upon the evidence we have.
The only thing that has happened is we have a greater understanding of black holes than we previously did. We've known for some time they leak radiation so we already knew they weren't the "forever" bank vault of everything that is trapped by them.
Indeed. It has long been observed that black holes spew gamma rays.
Despite the title for media consumption this is nothing terribly revolutionary.
To those who follow such things, that's true. It's still a major shift in paradigm of how "black" holes are viewed, and anything that gets people to pay attention to science like that is a good thing.
The problem with "hyped science" is it typically promotes a less than accurate view of science. The same people who won't take the time to read anything by Hawking will read the title of the article, scan the story understanding little or none of it and then proceed to inform everyone they know that it was just discovered that black holes don't really exist even if they really can't explain why.
Declarations of having found Earths "twin" in some distant galaxy, renderings of what life on planets in habitable zones probably look like and less than revolutionary observations being presented as game changers do little to bring people to science. In most cases they skew what little understanding most people have about these subjects to begin with.
Sagan (who didn't come close to possessing the knowledge base of Hawking) was a master at creating new scientists by helping those with little or no understanding (mostly kids) actually learn and understand things for the first time and explained in a way they could relate to that was still completely accurate and not over hyped. Sagans series "Cosmos" did more to create an interest in science than all of the current "shock and awe" pop science discoveries of the last 10 years.
Hawking by contrast is far more educated and a must read if you are interested in the subject but he isn't infallible (neither was Einstein) and because he can't relate his information in the same easy manner as Sagan he seems to resort to hype to promote his findings. This is not a fault of Hawking, he is a scientist more than a writer.
Things like rechristening black holes to be "grey holes" simply because we learned something new about black holes is a perfect example of a bad idea that is just going to confuse most people.
I like the work of Hawking, but here lately he seems to be all over the place with new thoughts. It's like he is trying to get more attention. I will wait and see what Paul Davies has to say.
Tog
morbidbattlecry
01-26-14, 15:28
Hawking hasn't been on the for front of Physics for a long time if ever.
Hawking Radiation
The X-rays that Armati was speaking of come from matter getting smashed together outside the Blackhole before it goes past the event horizon. Its sorta like too much water trying to go down a small drain. All of those particles trying to fall into the blackhole at once cause them to hit and rub up against each other. Which causes them to get really hot and emit X-Rays.
Hawking radiation on the other hand is way more interesting. But a disclaimer first. 1. Hawking Radiation has not been proven to exist yet. 2. I'm not trying to be a dick by correcting you. I really am interested in physics and love to share knowledge. The idea of Hawking radiation is basically this: The're are such things called Virtual particles. These particles flit in and out of existence in billionths of a second. They usually come in pairs, one matter one anti matter. After coming forth out of the void they smash back into each other and annihilate. So where do these things come from? Well here is the best part of virtual particles. To be able to burst forth out of nothing energy is borrowed from the future(its what the math says) but it has to be payed back nearly instantaneously. Hence the name Virtual Particle. They are virtually not there. This creation and destruction is happening all around us all the time. But we never know it.
The idea hawking radiation is that sometimes a virtual particle pair will be created too close to the event horizon. One of the particles will get sucked into the black hole and one will escape. The particle left over is Hawking Radiation. An event like this is bad for the conservation of energy laws. Someone has to pay so the black hole does. It will lose a tiny amount of energy. Eventually this would lead to the black hole radiating away.
montanadave
01-26-14, 15:43
Blah, blah, blah. Less jawboning, more jetpack!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1SCu9yiBlo
I like the work of Hawking, but here lately he seems to be all over the place with new thoughts. It's like he is trying to get more attention. I will wait and see what Paul Davies has to say.
Tog
I sent the link in the OP to my father. My father is one of the two smartest people I know. He has been following theoretical physics, Hawking in paticular, for my entire life.
He told me he has been following this but like you sees Hawking as going way off lately. He said that Hawking has been losing 'credibility' in the physics world as much of his recent work goes opposite to what the rest are saying. However there have been untold amounts of new discoveries by guys who went the other way so I guess we will have to just wait and see.
justin_247
01-26-14, 17:13
I like the work of Hawking, but here lately he seems to be all over the place with new thoughts. It's like he is trying to get more attention. I will wait and see what Paul Davies has to say.
Tog
No. Hawking is just involved in an incredibly varied amount of research.
Also, Hawking has a huge list of bets that he has made with various other scientists over his lifetime, and he's constantly searching for info so he can win them.
Good call on Paul Davies, though.
His bet with Kip Thorne always a fun one. I think it's now accepted that Hawkings "lost" that one which would seem in line with his recent thoughts on black holes not being so black as previously thought
No. Hawking is just involved in an incredibly varied amount of research.
Also, Hawking has a huge list of bets that he has made with various other scientists over his lifetime, and he's constantly searching for info so he can win them.
Good call on Paul Davies, though.
Maybe since he retired he has more time on his hands to do research-lucky man.
DeGrasse does an excellent job of that,
I saw him on TV today and it seems like I saw him maybe last week as week as well. I really couldn't sit there and what either but I recalled listening to him discuss the universe and such.... and then today he was talking about the downfall of the USA. He said as scientist it was neither here nor there on a global scheme to him but as an American he said it was distressing to see it taking place and so many not realizing it's happening.
I was kinda surprised to hear that. It was unexpected. I was expecting to hear talk of black holes and such... and they probably talked of that too but somehow got it in touch with today right here in America... I can't think of the guys name that had the show....... is it Bill Moyers ?... I'll look it up.... oh, ok, yep he's been on that show three weeks running..... http://billmoyers.com/series/moyers-and-company/ Seems like an interesting guy and you're right he can communicate down to everyday people level.
Despite the title for media consumption this is nothing terribly revolutionary.
The only thing that has happened is we have a greater understanding of black holes than we previously did. We've known for some time they leak radiation so we already knew they weren't the "forever" bank vault of everything that is trapped by them.
Like most things in nature they aren't perfect or absolutes in a way man likes things to be organized. And just as with most things we can't walk up to and directly observe these are just our latest current assumptions based upon the evidence we have.
Exactly - as we gain a better understanding that Hawking radiation is more than simple quantum tunneling or particles breaking apart very close to the event horizon, it becomes more obvious that the threshold for emitting anything from black holes seems to be more variable, which makes me especially curious what the information ramifications are as far as radiation and hence information escaping in the process.
DeGrasse does an excellent job of that, as does Michio Kaku and others.
I agree with you about Tyson, one of my favorites. However Kaku is far too willing to play deep in the theoretical field and discuss issues almost as if they were established fact for my liking. Even though he took Pluto away from us, I'd rather have somebody like Tyson representing the subject.
A Brief History of Time is still one of my favorite books and Hawking did an amazing job with the presentation. But like Einstein I think he has become a victim of his celebrity status where people expect him to know everything and have the ability to poop out some mind blowing revelation about the universe every couple of months and change our entire understanding of everything.
People simply have a hard time accepting plateaus from those we deem to be the smartest people in the world. And saying "Sorry haven't really discovered anything new that is earth shattering" doesn't seem to work with the current demand for continuous enlightenment so refinement in understanding are often blown out of proportion, saddled with extra helpings of assumption or in the worst cases distorted to such an extent that it prevents the average person from understanding the true nature of the topic at hand.
Exactly - as we gain a better understanding that Hawking radiation is more than simple quantum tunneling or particles breaking apart very close to the event horizon, it becomes more obvious that the threshold for emitting anything from black holes seems to be more variable, which makes me especially curious what the information ramifications are as far as radiation and hence information escaping in the process.
I personally suspect (based upon the extremely scant amount of known evidence) that most black holes will eventually lose matter in the form of lost energy until they become just another stable physical object. The exception being the case of supermassives, which I believe will devour so much, so fast (in terms of deep time) that eventually containment will become impossible and you will have some kind of "big bang" event.
Stepping deep into the theoretical, I wonder if all the supermassives in the center of what seems to be virtually every known galaxy, will devour all that matter completely becoming a "super" supermassive on a scale we can't even realistically contemplate which will then begin to devour space itself in a universal game of "tug o war" with all the other super "supermassives."
I wonder if that will be the great universal collapse. Of course all of that is presupposing that our known universe is the only one and that there aren't millions of them as suggested by things like M theory.
Scientists of all kinds have often been considered "way out there" and derided by their fellow scientists only to have their "way out there" ideas corroborated.
I wonder how many physicists are believers in a or any so-called "Supreme Being"?
On another subject: My wife attended a seminar with many well known physicists and found not one (I don't recall how the subject came up...) was a believer.
Scientists of all kinds have often been considered "way out there" and derided by their fellow scientists only to have their "way out there" ideas corroborated.
I wonder how many physicists are believers in a or any so-called "Supreme Being"?
On another subject: My wife attended a seminar with many well known physicists and found not one (I don't recall how the subject came up...) was a believer.
Let's not go down that sidetrack.
And sure lot's of times the one guy with a completely different idea turns out to be correct. In fact there are many, many examples where people initially doubt or don't understand their findings and go looking over their work to see where they went wrong only to discover something completely new. The first guys to detect cosmic background radiation come to mind. They had no idea what it was and went looking for the interference.
But it also happens that guys with far left field ideas end up being far left field because they are proven to be completely wrong. And there is nothing wrong with exploring the far left field, my issue is when those completely unfounded ideas are presented as known quantities.
Scientists of all kinds have often been considered "way out there" and derided by their fellow scientists only to have their "way out there" ideas corroborated.
True, but that's not the issue here. If anything, the "criticism" as that this is not really breaking news to the world of physics. It is however interesting news to those who have not followed such things and that Hawkings has stated it as such. He tends to get more press than others.
I wonder how many physicists are believers in a or any so-called "Supreme Being"?
On another subject: My wife attended a seminar with many well known physicists and found not one (I don't recall how the subject came up...) was a believer.
Sorry, I'm not taking that bait and hope the thread can stay on topic. Thanx
Hawking hasn't been on the for front of Physics for a long time if ever.
The X-rays that Armati was speaking of come from matter getting smashed together outside the Blackhole before it goes past the event horizon. Its sorta like too much water trying to go down a small drain. All of those particles trying to fall into the blackhole at once cause them to hit and rub up against each other. Which causes them to get really hot and emit X-Rays.
Hawking radiation on the other hand is way more interesting. But a disclaimer first. 1. Hawking Radiation has not been proven to exist yet. 2.
My understanding is that it has been confirmed:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/hawking-radiation-observed-first-time-inside-laboratory
Has that finding been altered or shown to be incorrect after further testing/number crunching? The physics is way beyond me.
Hawking: "My biggest blunder"
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/01/26/stephen-hawking-contradicts-earlier-black-hole-claims/?intcmp=features
Boba Fett v2
01-28-14, 02:48
People, we live in a holographic universe, a sort of a matrix if you will. Everything is thought manifested, and that thought originates from a source some would call God. And the only way to understanding the true nature of the universe is for your soul to continuously evolve. Namaste.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Flower-of-Life-small.svg/304px-Flower-of-Life-small.svg.png
People, we live in a holographic universe, a sort of a matrix if you will. Everything is thought manifested, and that thought originates from a source some would call God. And the only way to understanding the true nature of the universe is for your soul to continuously evolve. Namaste.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Flower-of-Life-small.svg/304px-Flower-of-Life-small.svg.png
An interesting hypothesis. Gonna be damn near impossible to test and confirm empirically. I'd put that one under philosophy personally, but you never know. :)
An interesting hypothesis. Gonna be damn near impossible to test and confirm empirically. I'd put that one under philosophy personally, but you never know. :)
Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between science and philosophy-string theory comes to mind, but that is for another topic. Now, back on topic. I think Hawking is trying to follow the Einstein path. Remember that Einstein also had a "biggest blunder" episode.
Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between science and philosophy-string theory comes to mind, but that is for another topic. Now, back on topic. I think Hawking is trying to follow the Einstein path. Remember that Einstein also had a "biggest blunder" episode.
That's true to be sure. String theory is math is way above my pay grade, but again, I believe it's based on mathematical models that "check out" and some of it confirmed empirically, hence supporting it as likely correct with only the tip of the iceberg of understanding no doubt. To us, it does sound like philosophy at times because it can be so "out there" and is a real mental challenge for the best of physicist to rap their mind around. Even string theory and other mathematical constructs of quantum physics are yielding to some empirically tested results. But, it's very cool when the most "out there" stuff mingles as both philosophy and science to be sure.
I think the best scientists, regardless of their field, are able to man up and admit where they were wrong. It takes nothing away from them for me, and only adds to my respect for them. I had the honor of speaking to Pauling on the phone for about 10 minute (we had a mutual friend) who is a personal hero of mine (a term I use very rarely). When I listed some of the incredible accomplishments of his, he said "if you only saw the stuff I got wrong!" and laughed. Humility and accepting no one is right all the time no matter how brilliant, what makes a great scientist from a good one to me.
montanadave
01-28-14, 11:04
People, we live in a holographic universe, a sort of a matrix if you will. Everything is thought manifested, and that thought originates from a source some would call God. And the only way to understanding the true nature of the universe is for your soul to continuously evolve. Namaste.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Flower-of-Life-small.svg/304px-Flower-of-Life-small.svg.png
Indra's Net. Yeah, baby, yeah!
FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A WONDERFUL NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRAVAGANT TASTES OF DEITIES, THE ARTIFICER HAS HUNG A SINGLE GLITTERING JEWEL AT THE NET'S EVERY NODE, AND SINCE THE NET ITSELF IS INFINITE IN DIMENSION, THE JEWELS ARE INFINITE IN NUMBER. THERE HANG THE JEWELS, GLITTERING LIKE STARS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, A WONDERFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD. IF WE NOW ARBITRARILY SELECT ONE OF THESE JEWELS FOR INSPECTION AND LOOK CLOSELY AT IT, WE WILL DISCOVER THAT IN ITS POLISHED SURFACE THERE ARE REFLECTED ALL THE OTHER JEWELS IN THE NET, INFINITE IN NUMBER. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EACH OF THE JEWELS REFLECTED IN THIS ONE JEWEL IS ALSO REFLECTING ALL THE OTHER JEWELS, SO THAT THE PROCESS OF REFLECTION IS INFINITE
People, we live in a holographic universe, a sort of a matrix if you will. Everything is thought manifested, and that thought originates from a source some would call God. And the only way to understanding the true nature of the universe is for your soul to continuously evolve. Namaste.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Flower-of-Life-small.svg/304px-Flower-of-Life-small.svg.png
Ironically, within the scientific community are those who subscribe to a perception based reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe
Ironically, within the scientific community are those who subscribe to a perception based reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe
"...which sees biology as the central driving science in the universe, and an understanding of the other sciences as reliant on a deeper understanding of biology. Biocentrism states that life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos — life creates the universe rather than the other way around."
To me this is very human centric thinking and a much more "advanced" version of the "if a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?"
The answer is, yes it does. No humans required. We tend to put ourselves in the center of everything. Sound is a physical process that requires no sentient being to happen. That's just the self important Bio centric tendencies of sentient beings (in this case humans) to assume without their being part of it, it does not happen.
"Biocentrism states that there is no independent external universe outside of biological existence."
Meh... If planet earth was hit tomorrow by a random sun flair, would the universe even notice our demise? I'm going with no and it would continue on it's merry way. But, as we'd all be gone, I can neither test that or prove it. But, we have no reason to believe - other then our human centric tendency to assume we are far more important in the grand scheme of things than we are - the universe is in any dependent on biological existence in any way.
It's mental masturbation to me. No doubt, with enough navel picking, one can and will convince themselves of such a conclusion if they work hard enough at it, but it get's a yawn from me.
Your mileage may vary. :)
To me this is very human centric thinking and a much more "advanced" version of the "if a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?"
It's a bit more than that. It's also saying that our entire understanding of the universe is colored by our perceptions and the way we might uniquely observe the universe. The true nature of the universe might be something different entirely and we may not be able to comprehend it at all.
Certainly I haven't adopted a biocentric view of the universe because it lacks the ability to be proven conclusively so it is in my "could be this or that" pile along with a bunch of other stuff. The only thing that seems certain is we won't know in my lifetime and we are unlikely to know in the lifespan of the human species.
Certainly the universe existed PRIOR to the arrival of humans (or at least I find that very, very likely) so I think that does away with many of the possible beliefs associated with biocentric beliefs.
It's a bit more than that. It's also saying that our entire understanding of the universe is colored by our perceptions and the way we might uniquely observe the universe. The true nature of the universe might be something different entirely and we may not be able to comprehend it at all.
Understood. Not trying to be obtuse in my responses to it, but I took what seemed the distillation of the concept proposed. I do enjoy thought experiments involving grand questions. I get stubborn when it seems they are being presented (no directed at you) as on par with some concepts with support. Such as:
Big Bang theory being the best evidence so far as to origin of the universe vs "we are the imagination of creatures in an older parallel universe and likely to physically exist only as of their consciousness allows due to quantum entanglement" as having equal weight. It's like that to me. One based on a great deal of converging evidence, one a cool thought experiment. We find many more than willing to put forth X thought experiment as equal to what's best supported theory to date on Y.
Certainly I haven't adopted a biocentric view of the universe because it lacks the ability to be proven conclusively so it is in my "could be this or that" pile along with a bunch of other stuff. The only thing that seems certain is we won't know in my lifetime and we are unlikely to know in the lifespan of the human species.
Certainly the universe existed PRIOR to the arrival of humans (or at least I find that very, very likely) so I think that does away with many of the possible beliefs associated with biocentric beliefs.
Biocentric seems very human-centric on it's surface at least to a jaded SOB like me. There's some belief that the universe is in fact one giant computer and everything in it actually digital when broken down to it's most basic components. I forget which physicist has put that forward, but he has interesting and compelling line of evidence for it.
Understood. Not trying to be obtuse in my responses to it, but I took what seemed the distillation of the concept proposed. I do enjoy thought experiments involving grand questions. I get stubborn when it seems they are being presented (no directed at you) as on par with some concepts with support. Such as:
Big Bang theory being the best evidence so far as to origin of the universe vs "we are the imagination of creatures in an older parallel universe and likely to physically exist only as of their consciousness allows due to quantum entanglement" as having equal weight. It's like that to me. One based on a great deal of converging evidence, one a cool thought experiment. We find many more than willing to put forth X thought experiment as equal to what's best supported theory to date on Y.
You are being no more obtuse than I am with my replies. I think we both have a low tolerance for some of the gobblygook that gets tossed around. Btw, the second concept is nothing more than my Theory of Big Purple Kid.
Biocentric seems very human-centric on it's surface at least to a jaded SOB like me. There's some belief that the universe is in fact one giant computer and everything in it actually digital when broken down to it's most basic components. I forget which physicist has put that forward, but he has interesting and compelling line of evidence for it.
Bio centric is of course mostly human centric. Dogs may ponder the moon but not in the way we do.
Funny how advances in our understanding always seem to parallel advances in our recent discovery. A few generations ago we had no notion of "digital" and everything in the universe was known to be atomic in nature. Now it's digital.
You are being no more obtuse than I am with my replies. I think we both have a low tolerance for some of the gobblygook that gets tossed around. Btw, the second concept is nothing more than my Theory of Big Purple Kid.
Bio centric is of course mostly human centric. Dogs may ponder the moon but not in the way we do.
Funny how advances in our understanding always seem to parallel advances in our recent discovery. A few generations ago we had no notion of "digital" and everything in the universe was known to be atomic in nature. Now it's digital.
And that's the thing. I enjoy the gobblygook, I think it even has it's place as thought experiments are part of what makes us what we are. It's when it's presented as something other than gobblygook that I tend to get low tolerance syndrome.
You know the type: "Well who's to say Big Purple Kid idea is any less valid than Big Bang Theory?" Those types... :(
Seriously, he (and the other smart people) push the limit of human intellect. Perhaps there are mysteries of the universe we will never know.
They are just guessing. Historically almost all early scientific theories have been later proven to be incorrect.
They are just guessing. Historically almost all early scientific theories have been later proven to be incorrect.
Never mind
montanadave
01-29-14, 09:45
Programming note for those interested: PBS will premiere this evening a documentary of Stephen Hawking. http://video.pbs.org/video/2365148365/
Programming note for those interested: PBS will premiere this evening a documentary of Stephen Hawking. http://video.pbs.org/video/2365148365/
Cool, thanx for the intel
montanadave
01-29-14, 21:04
And a short article on the history of black hole theory which popped up on Wired magazine's website: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/brief-history-of-black-holes/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.