In2-MeC

Timisoara, Romania
18 July 2004

Science Faction

O faithful multitude! What thy Guru hast wrought, believeth thou ought!

Hawking Changes His Mind on Black Holes

Fri Jul 16

By JANE WARDELL, Associated Press Writer

LONDON -- After almost 30 years of arguing that a black hole swallows up everything that falls into it, astrophysicist Stephen Hawking backpedaled Thursday. In doing so, he lost one of the most famous bets in recent scientific history.

The world-famous author of a "Brief History of Time" said he and other scientists had gotten it wrong-�the galactic traps may in fact allow information to escape.

"I've been thinking about this problem for the last 30 years, and I think I now have the answer to it," Hawking told the British Broadcasting Corp. 's "Newsnight" program.

"A black hole only appears to form but later opens up and releases information about what fell inside. So we can be sure of the past and predict the future. "

The findings, which Hawking is due to present at the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation in Dublin, Ireland, on July 21, could help solve the "black hole information paradox," which is a crucial puzzle of modern physics.

Exactly what happens in a black hole-�a region in space where matter is compressed to such an extent that not even light can escape from its immense gravitational pull-�has long puzzled scientists.

Black holes occur when a massive star burns up its nuclear fuel and gravity forces it to collapse in on itself, and the enormous weight of the star's outer layers implodes its core. The crushing force of gravity prohibits nearly all light from escaping and nothing inside can be glimpsed from the outside.

The star virtually disappears from the universe into a point of infinite density, a place where the laws of general relativity that govern space and time break down.

Hawking has devoted most of his life to studying these questions.

Initially, cosmologists believed the holes were like a cosmic vacuum cleaner, sucking up everything in their path.

Hawking revolutionized the study of the holes when he demonstrated in 1976 that, under the strange rules of quantum physics, once black holes form they start to "evaporate" away, radiating energy and losing mass in the process.

Under this theory, black holes are not totally "black" because the vacuum of the imploding star lets out very tiny amounts of matter and energy in the form of photons, neutrinos and other subparticles.

By conjuring up this so-called "Hawking radiation," the Cambridge mathematician, who is paralyzed by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also created one of the biggest conundrums in physics.

These particles, he said, contained no information about what has been occurring inside the black hole, or how it formed. Under his theory, once the black hole evaporates, all the information within would be lost.

But now, according to his latest revision, Hawking argues that eventually some of the information about the black hole can be determined from what it emits.

The information has important philosophical and practical consequences.

"We can never be sure of the past or predict the future precisely," he said. "A lot of people wanted to believe that information escaped from black holes but they didn't know how it could get out. "

Hawking did not elaborate on the BBC program how the information could be extracted from the black hole.

Curt Cutler, from the Albert Einstein Institute in Golm, Germany, which is chairing the meeting in Dublin, told New Scientist magazine that Hawking asked at the last minute for permission to address the conference.

"He sent a note saying 'I have solved the black hole information paradox and I want to talk about it,'" Cutler said.

If Hawking succeeds in making his case, he will lose a bet that he and theoretical physicist Kip Thorne of the California Institute of Technology made with John Preskill, also of Caltech.

The terms of the bet were that "information swallowed by a black hole is forever hidden and can never be revealed. "

Preskill bet against that theory.

The forfeit is an encyclopedia, from which Preskill can recover information at will.

"Scientists work hard," says expert

In2-MeC visited Dr. Don Key of the University of Vineland, who as a Professor of Religious Science regards himself as an authority in areas of mutual concern to science and religion. We asked his views on Professor Hawking's announcement.

"Well, the important thing is that science marches on, isn't it? In any case, I don't think that as religious people, you Krsna devotees need to concern yourself with such matters as black holes and the like. Best that be left to the experts, and you carry on with your own faith. "

But Dr. Key, we asked, why do you call "science" what Hawking's says, and what we say "faith"?

"Well, it has to do with teleology, really. I always say, 'If it's teleology, it's theology; if it's realology, it's science. ' Ha ha ha. "

By teleology, you mean the use of an ultimate purpose, plan and design when explaining natural phenomena.

"Yes, indeed. That's theology, then. Science presumes no such thing, an a priori imposition of purpose upon the universe. "

And what do you mean by realology?

"Well, ha ha ha, we really don't know what reality is, do we? Oh, you can believe you know, of course. That's religion: to believe what we don't know. Science investigates what we don't know and attempts to explain it from the real facts it assembles from that investigation. Therefore I would say that a scientist knows what is real--but, just as realistically, what he knows is limited and, unfortunately, not always perfect. Still, because scientists continue to investigate, scientific knowledge continues to improve. "

So, Dr. Key, you say that reality, or the state of being realistic, means to accept that human knowledge is limited and imperfect. But, you conclude, even as we allow for that limitation and imperfection, we should grant authority to scientists as being leaders of human knowledge. "

"Yes. I think that's a very reasonable way of putting it. "

When Professor Hawking changes his opinion about black holes, and announces that change by declaring "I have solved the black hole information paradox," which was a paradox only due to his hanging on for 30 years to his previous opinion, is that announcement of his having "solved" something honest?

Don Key, Professor of Religious Science at the University of Vineland.

Dr. Key paused thoughtfully for a moment. "Yes, I think it is. Scientists work hard. We may not be able to follow clearly everything they do and tell us. But that's reality, you see. I just explained that. Human knowledge is by definition uncertain. So I think we've got to give credit to these men and women of the scientific community who bravely stick their necks out to at least try by the sweat of their brow to establish some borders of certainty within an uncertain field. "

But when they tell us that there are "certainties" in this uncertain field--"certainties" which we cannot observe like black holes or evolution, yet "certainties" that are given such scientific importance that, if we do not accept them, we risk having epithets like "irrational" or "fundamentalist" hung around our necks. . .

"All right, all right," Dr. Key interrupted with a bit of irritation. "I see your point. First of all, I think you're being somewhat melodramatic. "

We began to interrupt him, but he put up his hand.

"I'll take that back. Yes, you're right. If you don't accept scientific evolution and rather believe in scriptural creation, you do put yourself in 'the funny corner,' so to speak. But that's where our society has arrived at. It's not perfect. But it's better. When religious authorities were running things, a person would be burnt at the stake for not accepting Church dogma. "

That's the history of Western religion during a specific period, Dr. Key. It's not the history of all religion at all periods. The questions remain: is it honest for scientists, in their positions as respected authorities of knowledge, to present theories to the public as truths? If their field of knowledge is as limited, imperfect and uncertain as you say, Dr. Key, is it then honest for scientists to speak in any terms of certainty? Why call it science at all? Isn't it just belief? Faith?

"Well, I'll answer that by pointing out that at least according to our modern Western way of looking at things, there is a difference between science and religion. Science is knowledge, however imperfect; while religion is faith. We see a need for keeping faith out of the practical affairs of running a society. Like public education, for example. But we don't see a need for keeping out science. That would be absurd, wouldn't it? Children should be schooled in knowledge. To that end, science must be granted authority in our society. "

So there should be separation of Church and state but not science and state.

Dr. Don Key's eyes flashed with a hint of anger. "Science is practical. Science is progressive. Science is humanistic. When religion--faith--assumes too much control in society, we run into horror stories well-accounted for in history. "

Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't horror stories, Dr. Key? German science and technology during the Second World War aren't horror stories? The well-accounted destruction of nature brought on by scientific "progress" isn't a horror story? Chernobyl isn't a horror story? The loss of a moral compass, the loss of a sense of meaning and value of life in modern society, well-accounted to be linked to the predominance of scientific materialism over human affairs, isn't a horror story?

"Oh dear. I'm afraid this interview is over. "

<< Back