A Brief History of Black Holes: And why nearly everything you know about them is wrong

Product Information

By structuring it as a chronological scientific journey, the reader can see how each discovery led to the next. The stories of perseverance by the scientists are inspiring. Ever since I took up physics in year 11 I have had a love affair with the subject, which is odd since I went on to study an arts/law degree (but that probably had something to do with the fact that I would not have had the staying power to pour all of my energy into helping human knowledge advance towards establishing a unified theory). I still wonder where I ended up getting this book, and it had been sitting on my shelf for quite a while (probably because I was too busy listening to people tell me why I shouldn't read this book), but it wasn't until John Lennox said that it was the most unfinished book (that is people start reading it but do not have the staying power to get to the end) ever written (I'm sure there are other books that beat this book though). There are quite a few things that I have discovered while reading this book, and it is these discoveries that I wish to share with you: A landmark volume in science writing by one of the great minds of our time, Stephen Hawking’s book explores such profound questions as: How did the universe begin—and what made its start possible? Does time always flow forward? Is the universe unending—or are there boundaries? Are there other dimensions in space? What will happen when it all ends? In the 1996 edition of the book and subsequent editions, Hawking discusses the possibility of time travel and wormholes and explores the possibility of having a Universe without a quantum singularity at the beginning of time. Imagine 2 zero-size(!) objects: one of them has the mass of a large star(!) & the other has the mass of a galaxy! This really makes any sense?)

A Brief History of Black Holes: And why nearly [PDF] [EPUB] A Brief History of Black Holes: And why nearly

No, Einstein refused to believe in physical existence of singularities (0-size/infinite-density objects) & he was actually absolutely right IMHO! Science News was founded in 1921 as an independent, nonprofit source of accurate information on the latest news of science, medicine and technology. Today, our mission remains the same: to empower people to evaluate the news and the world around them. It is published by the Society for Science, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) membership organization dedicated to public engagement in scientific research and education (EIN 53-0196483). The concept of a body that would trap light, thereby becoming invisible to the rest of the universe, had first been considered by the natural philosophers John Michell and later Pierre-Simon Laplace in the 18th century. They used Newton's gravitational laws to calculate the escape velocity of a light particle from a body, predicting the existence of stars so dense that light could not escape from them. Michell called them "dark stars". Ok, to be fair, he lost me when he started talking about how we MIGHT not be the center of the universe with everything revolving around the Earth. Highly recommended to everyone who wants to know a little more about this universe and it's secrets.His proposal was challenged by Chandrasekhar, his own student, whose calculations suggested there was a limit on how massive such stars can be to sustain this delicate pressure balance. This has been called the Chandrasekhar limit. (While his work is celebrated today, Chandrasekhar’s disagreement with Eddington affected him very much.) Stephen Hawking's book is easy to read, but harder to comprehend. In every chapter came a point where my brain couldn't hold another permutation of a theory, and as the book progressed, I ended up taking the same approach as I do when reading a Norse saga for the first time. With sagas, I just read, even if my brain doesn't seem to retain all the information about who is related to who and what they named their horse. Inevitably, at the end, I have a reasonable basic grasp of the saga, and then I have to read it over again to fit more information into that basic understanding.

A Brief History of Black Holes “Dark Stars” – A Brief History of Black Holes

Having garnered over 650 "Likes," this far-from-serious scribble is by far my most popular review ever — and, truth be told, undeservedly so. Carla Rodrigues Almeida does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. Partners Assuming that, our universe is made of perfect/ideal mathematical/geometric objects, like 0D points and/or 1D rings/strings etc! Surprisingly, I also came away with the idea that God and science can coexist. I didn't expect that. I figured someone like Hawking would be like, "God? Pssh, whatever." But that's not his take at all, or at least that not the impression this book left me with. My biggest complaints, however, are about his philosophical opinions. Obviously he is entitled to think as he wishes about the ultimate questions, but his assertion that his hypothesis of a finite world without beginning or end would leave no place for God seems beside the point. The classic divide has not changed: some folks look around and say stuff just is, and other folks say there's a power behind the stuff that has at least as much going for it as we do. That argument hasn't changed with his theories. At one point in the book he claims that the late John Paul II told gathered scientists that they mustn't inquire into the Big Bang because that was God's territory. I would wager with anyone reading this comment that such an assertion is just plain false. JPII was a flawed mortal, to be sure, but he was no dope; it certainly sounds to me like someone hearing what he thinks the pope would say. (And the Galileo jokes are pretty dumb -- does anyone think that JPII, who apologized for the embarrassing Galileo fiasco, would go after this guy? It must be all that influence the Vatican has had in Britain over the last 400 years that has him scared.)It's just incredible how Hawking explains to us the complex and mindboggling secrets and concepts of physics and our universe, with amazing wit , clarity, and simplicity. Because I saw this YouTube video the other day that made a really good case for it. <--hosted by this guy called QAnon - sounded totally legit Take light for instance. For years we believed that light acted as a wave and suddenly it was discovered that it also behaves like a particle (a particle of light is called a photon). The same goes with matter – for years we believed that they were particles when all of the sudden we discovered that they can also behave like waves. As such, our understanding of the universe suddenly breaks down (meaning that we are not necessarily made up of atoms, but have wavelike properties as well). Stephen then went on to Cambridge to do research in Cosmology, there being no-one working in that area in Oxford at the time. His supervisor was Denis Sciama, although he had hoped to get Fred Hoyle who was working in Cambridge. After gaining his Ph.D. he became first a Research Fellow, and later on a Professorial Fellow at Gonville and Caius College. After leaving the Institute of Astronomy in 1973 Stephen came to the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, and since 1979 has held the post of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. The chair was founded in 1663 with money left in the will of the Reverend Henry Lucas, who had been the Member of Parliament for the University. It was first held by Isaac Barrow, and then in 1669 by Isaac Newton.

A Brief History of Black Holes by Dr Becky Smethurst A Brief History of Black Holes by Dr Becky Smethurst

Stephen William Hawking was born on 8 January 1942 in Oxford, England. His parents' house was in north London, but during the second world war Oxford was considered a safer place to have babies. When he was eight, his family moved to St Albans, a town about 20 miles north of London. At eleven Stephen went to St Albans School, and then on to University College, Oxford, his father's old college. Stephen wanted to do Mathematics, although his father would have preferred medicine. Mathematics was not available at University College, so he did Physics instead. After three years and not very much work he was awarded a first class honours degree in Natural Science. A Brief History of Time is like that -- Professor Hawking doesn't seem to notice when his treatment progresses from the obvious to the arcane, ending with his concept of "imaginary time" (very nearly incomprehensible in this overly brief presentation).Throughout, the book weaves in entertaining stories of the key scientists involved, bringing humanity to the tale of this scientific journey. The author has an engaging and conversational tone that makes you feel like you're learning from a friend. It is not clear to me who is in the target audience for this book. At times it tries to explain basic concepts of modern physics in simple language, and at other times it assumes a familiarity with the same subject. For the first time I think I "understand" why absolute time is not consistent with relativity theory or that space-time curvature supplants the notion of gravity, and for that I thank the author. There are a few other things I believe I have a glimpse of having (finally) slogged through the book. As a primer to physics (I would say modern physics, but the book is a little out of date) you really couldn't ask for anything better than this. Especially when it comes to cosmology, this is possibly the best popular physics book that I've ever read. It really is a classic for a reason. It's such a concise, understandable introduction to the field that I'm determined to get my girlfriend (a linguist with no real interest in physics) to read it. Not just because I think she'll understand it, but because I think she will enjoy it! But someone else was. A few months after Einstein’s landmark publication, Karl Schwarzchild, a German physicist, provided the first exact solution of these equations. And this solution suggested the possibility of a so-called ‘mathematical singularity’. Schwarzschild had predicted that if an object of a given mass was compressed to a certain radius – i.e. made dense enough – it would continue to shrink and inevitably collapse into itself. Any mass that fell within that radius would be captured by the body. Today, that radius is known as the Schwarzschild radius and the boundary it demarcates is called the event horizon. Deși ne-am obișnuit să gîndim în termeni finaliști (omul ar fi scopul creației), știu, de asemenea, că evoluția universului nu este finalistă. Evoluția nu are un scop, o „intenție finală”: apariția unei conștiințe care să constate frumusețea și armonia acestei lumi. Pentru Pico della Mirandola, în schimb, acest lucru era evident: „Te-am așezat, Adame, în mijlocul universului, ca să-mi poți contempla măreția” ( De dignitate hominis).

All you need to know about the history of black holes

Isn't it amazing that a person can read a book like A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking and come away feeling both smarter and dumber than before he started? What a universe we live in! For audiobook listeners, Smethurst’s narration is a winner. Full of personality, humour and enthusiasm that lifts her obvious knowledge to another level. This is a book in which Stephen Hawking shows people like me how poor our comprehension skills are. I do believe this is a book every reader should try because it is an important one, full of discussions and ideas that could really open up your mind. But I would warn you to be prepared, although this seems like light reading, much of it may go over your head. One of the things that Hawking stresses in this book is that theories are not actually proven. A theory is an idea that has some foundation based on mathematical calculations and empirical evidence. Therein lies the problem. Much of our understanding of the universe is based upon mathematical calculations, and it appears that if an event comes about which causes this mathematical calculation to break down, they immediately set out to try to find another mathematical equation to plug the hole.A pesar de estar escrito para un público "no científico" no puedo decir que creo que sea un libro accesible al 100%. Es cierto que Hawking cumple su promesa de no incluir ni una fórmula matemática (excepto la conocida fórmula sobre la teoría de la relativdad E=MC²) pero los conceptos en sí pueden ser difíciles de imaginar y comprender. De toda la información que Hawking intenta explicar en este libro, ha habido cosas que notaba que se me escapaban. Quizá con algo más de material gráfico habría resultado más sencillo. Stephen Hawking writes in a very simple and approachable way. On the surface the book has been written for the common man, for he who has little knowledge of theoretical physics. A highly articulate summary of the history of astrophysics and its breakthroughs from its origins to 1996 (updated edition). I wish I had had such an introduction to physics and chemistry when I was in secondary school and high school! The layout of the book allows a layman to follow the development of the discipline and its fields over time, while Stephen Hawking never scorns an evocative image to give a better notion to the reader of what, say, the electromagnetic spectrum, thermodynamics or gravity are all about. I definitely recommand to all of you in awe before the universe and its strange marvels :) But after the discovery that light took the form of a wave in 1801, it became unclear how light would be affected by the Newtonian gravitational field, so the idea of dark stars was dropped. It took roughly 115 years to understand how light in the form of a wave would behave under the influence of a gravitational field, with Albert Einstein's General Relativity Theory in 1915, and Karl Schwarzschild's solution to this problem a year later.