Stephen Hawking: Black Holes Don't Really Exist

January 28, 2014


According to renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, black holes don't really exist. At least not in the "they destroy everything that gets close enough" theory that's been perpetuated. Oh really? Then how do you explain my ex-girlfriend?

The conventional view of black holes posits that their gravitational pull is so powerful that nothing can escape from them--not even light, which is why they're called black holes. The boundary past which there is supposedly no return is known as the event horizon.

"The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes, in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape," Hawking wrote in a paper he posted online on January 22.

Instead, Hawking proposes that black holes possess "apparent horizons" that only temporarily entrap matter and energy that can eventually reemerge as radiation. This outgoing radiation possesses all the original information about what fell into the black hole, although in radically different form. Since the outgoing information is scrambled, Hawking writes, there's no practical way to reconstruct anything that fell in based on what comes out.

I dunno, this is all way over my head. My head is low. "You're sleeping under your desk." I had a rough night last night. "You want to talk about it?" Not really, but I appreciate you being there for me. "I was hoping you were going to tell an embarrassing story I could use against you later." You're a real pal, you know that? The kinda pal I could really stab with a ninja sword.

Thanks to Greta and beaker88, who have both saw Event Horizon in the theater, making them experts on the matter.

  • Paul

    How about, the reason why there isn't an event horizon is because we are all in one, we are all a holographic simulation and everything we touch smell see and hear is stored on the surface of a black hole like a giant hard disk. After all, what would be the point of a game if it wasn't as real as technologically possible... I need some chicken...

  • guest

    making the smartest scientests and everybody dumb enough to believe them look like a BITCH

  • guest

    ah, the silliness you get when taking sience so far it wraps around the other side and becomes just more phoney lieral arts soft bullshit.

    theoretical physics is no better than advanced mathematics, basically philosophy with numbers.
    when you find yourself taking things that don't make sence as fact because it follows from what you know is a flawed equation you're doing science wrong. when you can prove 0=1 you don't decide its true and try to justify it by babbling off the top of your head. you make a better equation that doesn't break when pushed there

  • So... all the matter sucked up from a black hole isn't jettisoned out by a quasar?

    I'm so confused. Make up your damned mind science.

  • RareAwesomeman

    Just watched the movie Event Horizon last night, so I think I can confidentially say they lead to hell

  • Jonathan

    This is all in reply to an argument he had with another physicist over what has been called The Black Hole information paradox. Hawking's first work on black holes indicated that energy and matter entering the event horizon would disappear never to be seen again due to the black hole slowly evaporating over time. Leonard Susskind didn't like this idea, that information could disappear from the universe and be lost, so he set out to, if not prove Hawking's work to be flawed, then at least find a work around to preserve information..

    Find out more here -

  • guest

    this is what I mean, push science far enough and you get just the same old bullshit philosophy where things can be true or not true mostly because you prefer to think of it that way and nobody can prove enough to tell you different.
    oh noes information lost, if i believe hard enough and clap my hands maybe it will come back.

  • sane37

    Data is what eventually makes a hypothesis a theory.

    More data gives a clearer picture, thus more data can reshape or reinforce our interpretation of the event being observed.

    Clapping hands and hoping for truth are embedded firmly in the realms of religion/superstition, not science.

    The more rigorously you apply scientific methodology, the closer you get to the truth*.

    * assumes equally rigorous peer reviewing/parallel experimentation that backs the conclusions of the author(s) of said claim.

    You're welcome.

  • Kevin

    Sooooooooo they're just as scary as always. Got it.

  • The Magnificent Newtboy

    So black holes do exist, just in a different form than previously thought. That's like me saying that Michael Caine doesn't exist because when I finally met him he was smaller than I imagined. And grumpier. And less interested in sleeping with me for money.

  • Imadethisnameup

    I have a feeling that the choice in your supposed celebrity, has a thing or two to do with the movie, the trip.

  • The Magnificent Newtboy

    Haven't seen it yet, but it sounds like I ought to...

  • disqus_k2QxOV9H7Z

    Yeah, just sensacionalism.

  • Justin

    This sounds like he just wants to change the name of the event horizon to apparent horizon based on his earlier work. This isn't really news, but good thing we aren't on a news site!

    The TL:DR for below: Empty space creates pairs of particles who's sum energy equals zero, in much the same way 1 + -1 = 0. If these are created near the event(apparent) horizon of a black hole, one can be pulled into the black hole, and one can escape into the universe, AKA Hawking Radiation.

    Relevant wiki articles:

  • Imadethisnameup

    So it turns raw matter into raw energy?

  • Kevin
blog comments powered by Disqus
Previous Post
Next Post