Stephen Hawking Says 'God Particle' Could Wipe Out the Universe

The "event horizon" of a black hole is the very last point at which a light signal can still escape to the external universe. For a standard (uncharged, non-rotating) black hole, the event horizon lies at the Schwarzschild radius. A flash of light that originates inside the black hole will not be able to escape, but will instead end up in the central singularity of the black hole. A light flash outside of the event horizon will escape, but it will be red-shifted to the extent that it is near the horizon. """"""An outgoing beam of light that is on the horizon itself will, by definition, be there until the end of the universe"""""".

General relativity tells us that gravitational fields have the effect of slowing down time, just as time slows down in moving frames in special relativity. If we were to watch someone falling into the black hole, we would see time slow down for that person as she approached the event horizon. That is, the ticking of her watch (and every other process as well) would go slower and slower as she got closer and closer to the event horizon. We would never actually see her cross the event horizon; instead, she would seem to be eternally "frozen" just above the horizon. (This talk of "seeing" the person is somewhat misleading, because the light coming from the person would rapidly become severely red-shifted, and soon would not be practically detectable.)

From the perspective of the infalling person, however, nothing unusual happens at the event horizon. She would experience no slowing of clocks, nor see any evidence that she is passing through the event horizon of a black hole. The event horizon is simply the last point at which a light beam would be able to escape from the black hole; this is a global concept that depends on the overall structure of the spacetime. Locally there is nothing noteworthy about the event horizon. If the black hole is fairly small, then the tidal forces there would be quite strong (i.e., the pull on one's feet would be stronger than on one's head, and thus one would be pulled apart), but for a sufficiently large black hole these tidal forces would be negligible. (For a diagram illustrating the nature of tidal forces, see Figure 9 of the entry on Inertial Frames.)
http://people.bu.edu/pbokulic/blackholes/#2"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Maybe while you are at it Farsight, you can talk to these people too....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most of that seems to go against what you have conjured up Farsight, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is mainstream accepted doctrine, and is so because it has run the gauntlet, and undergone peer review successfully, something which you seem afraid to do and subsequently deride and criticise.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So far so good.

This is wrong. Look at what you said later: general relativity tells us that gravitational fields have the effect of slowing down time. That's reasonable. But the point is this: gravitational time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon, so the flash of light that originates inside the black hole takes forever to happen. So it never happens.

That's wrong too. The light isn't actually red-shifted on the way out of a black hole. Nor is it blue-shifted on the way in. It appears to be, but it doesn't actually change, just as a photon doesn't change when you accelerate towards it. You surely know this anyway, because you know that if you send a 511keV photon into a black hole, the black hole mass increases by 511keV/c². The photon doesn't gain any energy, conservation of energy applies. The black hole mass doesn't increase by a gazillion tonnes.

Yes, because the "coordinate" speed of light at that location is zero. Not because space is falling inwards.

That's all reasonable enough.

This is what you think of as the mainstream view and the only view, but it's actually just the most-promoted most-popular view. And it's wrong. See The Formation and Growth of Black Holes where Kevin Brown refers to the frozen-star interpretation. He doesn't rate it, but he does mention it. This is the view that's right. Think it through for yourself. Time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon. The coordinate speed of light goes to zero. So it's wrong to claim that the infalling observer doesn't see anything unusual. Because she doesn't see anything. Ever. It's the same situation for the gedanken SR observer travelling at c. He doesn't see anything. Ever.

Have a look at Peter Bokulich's homepage. He's an assistant professor in the Philosophy Department at Boston University. I know more about relativity and gravity than he does.

I don't conjure things up. I refer to Einstein, I shoot down the popscience trash that you think is mainstream and that you treat as doctrine. Do you still think space is falling inwards in a gravitational field. Do you still believe in Chicken-Little gravity? Let's assume you don't. Let's assume that you believe in infinite gravitational time dilation instead. So how long does it take for Hawking's quantum fluctuations to happen?

Forever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I don't just think of it as the mainstream view...It is the mainstream view, simple as that.
And its the mainstream view because that's the view that best matches observations and the theoretical application of GR and EH's.
Kevin Brown mentions it as an alternative, but again an alternative that is not the mainstream view, because it fails to align with observational data and theoretical applications of GR and EH's as well as the incumbent thinking.

Just as you twist and cherry pick and take out of context what great people have said, to align with your own erronious views on BH's and GR, so to does it appear you are now ignoring pertinent parts of what I have said.
The falling in or cascading of spacetime is an analogy, and any physicist worth his salt, should know that analogies do have limitations.
So yes, you do conjur up things, and ignore anything that happens to invalidate your own view, which in many instances with regards to GR and BH's is just plain wrong.

Again, light emitted externally from an EH, and just on the EH, if emitted directly radially away, will seem to hover forever just above the EH, due to reasons already stated.
The EH has an escape velocity of "c" and light always moves at "c" in a vacuum...no exception.
Other photons of light emitted from the same source, but not directly radially away, will gradually arc back and fall into the BH from its own FoR.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It aligns with the observational data, and with one of two interpretations of GR. So now you're just making things up to defend your ignorance.

I don't twist or cherry-pick. I give you the quotes and refer to the original material so you can check the context and verify for yourself that Einstein or whoever really said that. When that doesn't tally with what some quack has told you, don't get all naysayer hostile and dismissive towards me.

Limitations? It's just popscience garbage. It's trash. It's crap. It's woo peddled by people who don't understand general relativity. Space isn't falling inward in a gravitational field. End of story.

You're kidding yourself. Go and find some other forum and ask if space is falling inward in a gravitational field. Go ask them about Chicken-Little gravity.

Because the coordinate speed of light at that location is zero. So light doesn't move. That's why the light from the upward laser doesn't get out as we increase the mass of the gedanken planet to black-hole proportions. Go and check that too. And then think about the implications of that for Hawking radiation.

Only you've forgotten about the tautology and you've forgotten about this:

"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."

If they're at the same location, the direction doesn't matter. Because at that location, the coordinate speed of light is zero.

 

It does not align with observational data anywhere near as good as the incumbent interpretation...And despite your kicking and screaming, that is factual.
Which obviously draws your own ignorance into question.

Yes you do twist and cherry pick, as many others have noted over many threads...
I may only be an amateur at this game, but I do have enough knowledge to sort the wheat from your chaf and quackery.

It's an analogy, which you lack the intestinal fortitude to admit, and an analogy that paints a far more realistic picture then your alternative nonsense, and out of context, cherry picked quotes.
Everyone recognises that fact.




Because the coordinate speed of light at that location is zero. So light doesn't move. That's why the light from the upward laser doesn't get out as we increase the mass of the gedanken planet to black-hole proportions. Go and check that too. And then think about the implications of that for Hawking radiation.

Of course the direction matters, and just as I have said...again, mainstream accepted physics
The speed of light in a vacuum is always "c"...That's a fact you need to live with.

Again, light emitted externally from an EH, and just on the EH, if emitted directly radially away, will seem to hover forever just above the EH, due to reasons already stated.
The EH has an escape velocity of "c" and light always moves at "c" in a vacuum...no exception.
Other photons of light emitted from the same source, but not directly radially away, will gradually arc back and fall into the BH from its own FoR.

Now for the umpteenth time, if you have a different hypothesis of any part of GR/BH cosmology, then I suggest you get it properly peer reviewed, along with your imaginary ToE.

 

Paddoboy, I can't keep on repeating myself ad-infinitum while you close your eyes and put your hands over your ears saying nay nay nay. Now go and check out what I've told you on some other forum. You'll find that I'm giving it to you straight, that what you currently believe is popscience trash, and that you've been suckered into believing in nonsense and playing the ignorant naysayer.

 

That's OK, I'm sticking with mainstream cosmology on this so far, rather then the rantings of any delusional self gratutitous quack.

 

No, you're sticking with Chicken-Little quackery. You absolutely will not check out what I've said. So it's back on ignore for you.

 

When will this fuckwit be banned? Soon, please?

Edit: We've been hearing nothing but "popscience trash" and "light slows" and "Chicken-little" garbage with no math, just attitude and supercilious "I'm right, everyone else is an idiot" for too long.

You can ban me, if that's easier, but Duffield is an obnoxious SOB that shouldn't be allowed to spread ignorance on any reputable site.

 

I think he likes being taken to the woodshed just a little too much:spank:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sometime ago, one of the doughnuts here said if the cranks were banned from this site, then there won't be many posts here, if that's true, how come Duffield's site is almost dead, it's nothing but cranks when they do post.
They can ban me too if they like.

 

Well this thread has taken a rather nasty turn!

I personally hope that the God particle does not wipe out the universe and we all live happily ever after.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi Nimbus
This type of incident is an inevitability when the only thing moderated in a science forum is associated with inappropriate personal interactions (flaming). Personally I feel flamed every time Farsight chooses to misrepresent Einsteins intent (physics) for his theory of gravity.

 

LMFAO! This has to be Hawking's biggest blunder! It should be perfectly obvious that breaking global symmetry would only create a type 2 spatial anomaly the size of our solar system that would expand at the same rate of Voyager 2's trip out of the solar system. No wait, strike that, I don't have a new book to sell!

Seriously though, I don't know why he would consider the Higgs Boson as having the same properties of a wavelike particle when it most likely doesn't even have any wavelike properties and even be able to perform a quantum leap.