The 200,000-Year-Old Human 'Superbrain' --"Greater Complexity than a Galaxy" (Today's Most Popular)
Scientists Research Dangers of Prolonged Space Travel to Human Immune System

Hawking's "Black Holes Don't Exist" Challenged by Big-League Physicists


  Supermassive-black-hole-close-encounter-g2-cloud-4 (1)

Is Stephen Hawking messing with our heads? The famed astrophysicist has shaken up the world of popular science with his newest study about the basic nature of black holes, but is his theory truly as radical as it sounds in its attempts to solve a paradox surrounding the fundamental  building blocks of how the universe works? Some scientists aren't convinced. Hawking's new study — entitled "Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes" — was published Jan. 22 through the preprint journal and has not yet undergone the standard peer review vetting process for academic papers. 

"Hawking's paper is short and does not have a lot of detail, so it is not clear what his precise picture is, or what the justification is," Joseph Polchinski of the Kavli Institute wrote in an email to [The Strangest Black Holes in the Universe].

A couple of years ago, Polchinski and colleagues at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, in Santa Barbara, California, used quantum mechanics to analyze the event horizon, and realized that quantum effects first described by Hawking himself back in the 1970s would make the event horizon anything but invisible: “The event horizon would literally be a ring of fire that burns anyone falling through,” Polchinski told Nature in a 2012 interview. it would instead be a seething sheet of energy, dubbed “the firewall."

So the event horizon is undetectable—or it’s a firewall—but it can’t be both. In his new paper, Hawking proposed a solution to this paradox by proposing that black holes don’t have event horizons. Instead they have apparent horizons that don’t require a firewall to obey thermodynamics.

However, counters Brian Koberlain Why Hawking in Wrong About Black Holes"the firewall paradox only arises if Hawking radiation is in a pure state, and a paper last month by Sabine Hossenfelder shows that Hawking radiation is not in a pure state. In her paper, Hossenfelder shows that instead of being due to a pair of entangled particles, Hawking radiation is due to two pairs of entangled particles. One entangled pair gets trapped by the black hole, while the other entangled pair escapes. The process is similar to Hawking’s original proposal, but the Hawking particles are not in a pure state.

"So there’s no paradox," concludes Koberlain, " Black holes can radiate in a way that agrees with thermodynamics, and the region near the event horizon doesn’t have a firewall, just as general relativity requires. So Hawking’s proposal is "a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist."

"It's not possible to have both of those things, to have no drama at the apparent horizon and to have the information come out," Bousso told "Stephen just doesn't discuss this argument, so it's unclear how he means to address it."

"I do not think that eliminating event horizons by itself solves the firewall problem, which is a subtle problem," wrote Don Page, physicist at the University of Alberta in Canada, in an email. And an event horizon-free black hole isn't a new proposal, either, Page added.

"The idea that a black hole does not truly have an event horizon goes back more than a third of a century, and I would not be surprised if someone could trace it back even many years earlier," Page told via email.

For a more detailed overview of the debate check out astrophysicist and NASA columnist Ethan Seigel’s post on his blog Starts With a Bang! as well as Sabine Hossenfelder, Assistant Professor for High Energy Physics at Nordita in Stockholm, Sweden on her blog, Back Reaction, where she talks about the issue and her Arvix paper on this. No paywall. Disentangling the Black Hole Vacuum.

The image at the top of the page shows what happens when a cloud of gas passes close by a supermassive black hole. In 2011, a small cloud of interstellar gas, named G2 by the discoverers, was found using the Very Large Telescope observatory of the European Science Organization. The rapid motion of G2 is clearly apparent in the figure above, where the blue image marks G2's position in 2006, the green in 2010, and the red in 2013. Located less than a few light-days from Sagittarius A**, the Milky Way's 4 million-solar mass supermassive black hole, G2 has a mass about three times that of the Earth, and is on a near-collision course with Sagittarius A*.

Read Hawking's full study, called "Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes," on

The Daily Galaxy via, and Christain Science Monitor


I think where some are 'missing' Hawkin's message is that when matter coils into a black hole singularity it increases in speed to "c" the speed of light. When matter arrives at this speed it has two stop or proceed and convert to total energy. In this case it proceeds to total energy as predicted my E=mc2. When matter converts to total energy, in essence, there is no event horizon or border for energy is not matter and borders infer matter is involved. With me here? So if there is no border and no matter, then what's inside doesn't exisit in s sence, that is, it is OUT of our time/space AND IF IT is out, it doesn't exist by definition. What we precieve is the last pico second of matter's existence as matter. AS this energy is released, part of it escapes as X rays, that is, photons of X rays manufactured by the conversion of matter into its equivalent of energy. Part of it escapes from the spin axis of the BH as "jets" of matter and energy. So a BH does not suck up matter never to be seen again, it produces energy and matter from the very matter it eats. If you eat a 1 pound steak and 8 ounces of potatos and a serving of salad and two glasses of wine, you excrete a mass that is less in the form of feces and urine but the rest is used and consumed in other ways, respecting the fact that what you eat in weight stays weight or is excreted. Such is the case with BHs...they eat but excrete too. The energy inside a black hole since it more or less is circular or shall we say global in structure holds in time/space so that it appears to have mass/gravity. But since we really don't know what is space, time nor gravity we can't possibly understand this at all and the average garden variety "physicist" just simplifies things and says, "the BH is X times the mass of the sun" when it's not mass at all, it's a containment of space/time that "appears" as though it is mass. Mass affects space/time, we know that and have for a century, and space/time has also the converse effect on energy when it's produced from anialation of mass.

This explanation can be much more detailed of course given the time/space to do it in but suffice it to say that those in this case who disagree with Hawkin are just thinking in the old way that BHs are mass and not pure energy because they perceive a warpage in time/space which APPEARS as tho it is mass when in fact it can't be for the afore said reasons.

I might add that the so called "event horizon" we've talked about for a half lifetime now is the limit where matter exceeds the speed of light, "c". From then it is converted as E=mc2 predicts, into pure energy due to it's excess of speed equaling "c". Then it's energy. This energy contains space/time so that it appears to contain the mass that produced the energy. I may be slightly wrong about this but if someday we really know what is space and time or the concept of space/time then we can then know how energy can contain it in such as way as to elude to matter with gravitational field. The relation of gravity to space and time is essential but as of yet we've not understood it at all, not even an inkling. AS Einstein said, we see the universe as a giant illusion and we do. We think in solid terms such as matter, energy, space for it to happen in and time so it doesn't happen all at once...things are spread out over time's "line". We don't and can't see the universe as it really is. Mankind with the present intelligence is at best a hack, we monkey with stuff and observe what happens and from that proclaim ourselves as geniuses or members of Mensa, big deal, but we have not the faintest inkling of what really goes on. Anyone who thinks they understand the universe or even a proton, is fooling themselves with the giant illusion Albert talked about. He was more than a physicist.

Black holes are black Suns. All Suns radiate according to their fusionprocess a specific colour along whole the line of visible light. From red dwarf to hottest blue.

Black Suns radiate in higher energylevels in uv röntgen and higher.

At 2,1 ly in Perseus is one. That helped creating this System aswell. It should be visible at hard uv already.

This explanation can be much more detailed of course given the time/space to do it in but suffice it to say that those in this case who disagree with Hawkin are just thinking in the old way that BHs are mass and not pure energy because they perceive a warpage in time/space which APPEARS as tho it is mass when in fact it can't be for the afore said reasons....

A new different suggestion for the evolution and creation of the World.
In the book «From the inside of quarks and up to beyond the Universe»,, are described a different new suggestion of the evolution and creation of the World.
According to the new suggestion for the creation of the world did not need: Neither black holes, or dark matter, or dark energy, or the Big Bang, or relativity, or space-time, or the transformation of energy into matter, or high temperatures, or high pressure, or the Higgs field and the Higgs boson, or etc.
All that is needed for the creation is: A single new particle, -the pointon- with charge, 1/3 of the electron charge, its antiparticle, the electromagnetic radiation, and a new theory.
I hope and expect, this comment, sometime to be understood by science.

Any chance of dark energy or dark matters holes? Sucking in what ignores regular matter and ending the universe in a way blind to us?

Thank for deleting my comments again! Now what is that a picture of? I found tons of them in the "google sky" program. Sometimes many concentrated around certain areas...

Is it any wonder the world is in such a state when people get censored just for asking a question!

Well, this is all beyond me. But I found Charley's posts most interesting, though we probably are on opposite shores of worldview perspective. "Black Holes" at the center of galaxies, seem to perform vital roles in their development and regulation. Structuring dynamos, mighty system "governors" ( in sense of "feedback mechanism" - auto-control "devices" ), maintaining huge complex star assemblages.

Specifics swirling around these “nuclear” engines leaves me fog-bound. But the grand picture of their place at the beating heart of Island Universes, seems increasingly evident. And to my mind, serve as another clue to point humanity to an invisible Intelligent Power behind their origin, and apparent design of the dynamic Universe.

The puzzling reflections, as "through a glass darkly", of inner Quantum Physics and extreme outer Astrophysics ( aspects “unreal” ), may be man's uncomprehending perception of the interface between our 4-dimensional Spacetime Cosmos, and a deeper, superior Reality ( as we stand on Newton's confining shore, gazing out over a vast expanse of eternity, hardly grasping the depths receding beyond our temporal-material surface vision ). A higher plane of super-existence, invisible ( where the restricting laws of physics, and restraining time-frames don't operate -- but from whence they originate ).

Heaven forbid!-- a spiritual Realm, MORE real than our energy-matter world, and the genesis of its physical life-birth. The awesome Source of colossal Universe-generation, its law-governed formation, "from the beginning", purposeful Creation. ( However long ago that momentous event occurred. )

What a complete cluster fuck! There are no black holes on the macroscopic level. Go to and learn some plasma physics and try to understand that gravity itself is in fact an electromagnetic phenomena!

What if black holes do not exist due to other reasons:


Time to loss the black Hole tagline and call them what they really are. Black Suns. There should not be so much over thinking on this subject like there is. A large star collapse in on itself and forms some exotic material that goes past that found on a neutron star. Now we know the only reason light can not escape and why they are black is due to such a large mass in a small area of space creating a gravity curve so great even at the speed of light it can not reach escape velocity nor anything else. The event horizons is nothing more than the area of space where the gravitational curvature becomes so high it gives the effect of a hole or point in space that is really nothing more than zone of space effected by gravity. There is no hole and a black sun if you could see it would be one of the brightest objects in the universe but thanks to gravity it never escapes.

Nice discussions that Hawkins initiated. I think that light itself can be compressed under the magnitudes of gravity and pressure into a compressed matter that falls inwards into the black holes as plasmic light/matter. Like the condensation of water from vapour to liquid.... Similar process occurs with light. From radiant light to non-radiance light plasma under the massive gravity and pressure. Desh

Chitta Ranjan, your explanation makes a lot of sense.

It's obvious that if the event horizon is not an unbreachable limit, then the whole concept of black holes has been up-ended because the defining characteristic of black holes is that limit. The headlines are correct: there are no black holes. There may be gray-holes or whatever but no black holes and all the physical theories based on the now-defunct concept of black holes have been seriously undermined if not invalidated.

Nice attempt Hawking at hijacking my virtual horizon with your apparent horizon, nice try.... I came out with my arguments and material a year before you...

I'm pretty sure that Stephen was a noted cosmologist, not a "famed astrophysicist" as stated in the first paragraph. I believe he indeed did dabble in astrophysics, but it is certainly not his title. Astrophysics deals with astronomy and the interpretation of astronomical observations. Stephen worked primarily on black holes and the developmental process of the universe, which basically sums up what cosmology is. Am I not correct?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)