Stephen Hawking rejects the idea of a black hole


    Stephen Hawking recently posted a paper in which he states that black holes should not exist, that a supermassive gravitational entity such as a Galactic core should be able to radiate energy from its interior.  The full story of Stephen Hawking’s recent reversal on the black hole idea may be found in the following news posting on the Starburst Foundation website.

    How does Hawking’s revised view on black holes relate to the upcoming G2 cloud encounter with the Galactic core that astronomers are so closely following?  Well, current papers describing this encounter are based on the standard black hole theory and the assumption that the Galactic core has an event horizon through which no matter or radiation can escape.  This model must be dispensed with on the basis of Hawking’s new view.  According to this new view if a massive body such as a one solar mass star were to fall into the Galactic core (and there is a relatively small probability that this might happen during the G2 cloud/star encounter), all the energy released from its infall could be explosively discharged back out as a cosmic ray volley accompanied by intense X-ray and gamma ray radiation.  If we go beyond Hawking to the subquantum kinetics view, not only would such an infall allow the release of the energy of mass infall, but it could ignite an exponential rise in the genic energy being produced by our Galactic core Mother star and this as well could be radiated outward to the rest of the Galaxy resulting in an energy output many of orders of magnitude higher than the total energy released from the infall of the star alone.  In short, it could possibly ignite a Galactic core explosion of the kind seen in Seyfert galaxy nuclei.  The magnitude of this energy release and the finding that cosmic rays from such an event would begin impacting Earth about the same time would come as a total surprise to current astronomers who operate on the classical black hole idea.  If this scenario happens, they had best stay indoors and keep out of harms way.

P. LaViolette
January 28, 2014

13 Responses to Stephen Hawking rejects the idea of a black hole

  1. P says:

    Dr. LaViolette,
    A real pleasure to see SQK getting more and more recognition, I have always found this theory particularly interesting. But enough formalities, and sorry if the answer to this is already in one of your books or articles, but could there possibly be any macro-scale events from materials (Possibly in an exotic state we havent discovered) that could “manifest” some of the principles of SQK? Or would all observation and data collection have to be at proton and lower magnitudes to even get close to your theoretical results?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      As for macro-scale phenomena, there is the water heater technology of John Eccles and Randall Mills which is explained by the new subquantum kinetics view of the electron and the existence of subground state orbits in the hydrogen atom. This is described in my book Subquantum Kinetics.

  2. C says:

    Great piece — I was hoping you would address this when I read it last week… The full article on the Starburst site mentions that a percentage of light trapped in the Mother star obeys the Schwarzschild condition of spherical coordinates. Have you an opinion on Haramein & Rauscher’s work ‘The Schwarzschild Proton’ ? [] I found it interesting as it 1) embraces the aether as a necessary substrate and 2) further enforces your SQK prediction that gravitic effects are a direct result of a small net positive charge causing attraction. From an SQK point of view, the only contention in their thinking appears to be the presence of ‘black holes’ as the causative for vortical motion at atomic scales. In my laymen’s take, I assume they are ‘correct’ in identifying the vacuum as the motivating factor but attribute the wrong phenomenon to the motion itself… Thanks again, Dr. LaViolette. -C

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      As you are aware, from the standpoint of subquantum kinetics (SQK), I do not accept Haramein’s thesis of a black hole being harbored at the center of a subatomic particle since black hole’s would be unable to form. Nevertheless I admire Haramein for his out-of-the-box thinking. His paper suggests that the proton’s black hole would form from the coherence of “vacuum fluctuations” arising in the ZPE background. SQK postulates ether fluctuations that are many orders of magnitude smaller, of subquantum magnitude rather than quantum magnitude and the wavelengths of most would not necessarily correspond to the proton’s dimensions. So the initial requirements for forming a Schwarzschild singularity would not be present. Also Model G simulations have confirmed that the charge distribution in the core of a subatomic particle would be bell shaped, not spiked to a central singularity, and particle scattering experiments confirm this. Thus observations support the subquantum kinetics profile, rather than a “black hole” profile. Nevertheless I find interesting the idea presented by Haramein & Rauscher of how to account for the proton’s anomalous magnetic moment, described in Section 3 of their paper. Their explanation could equally well be applied to the dissipative soliton model of the proton that SQK proposes. According to SQK, the proton’s charge is due to an excess enhancement in Y and diminishment in X in the proton’s central core, as distinguished from the periodic charge distribution that forms the main body of the proton. Quite possibly a major portion of this excess Y/X displacement could be located off-center at a distance of 1.3 fermis (the charge location that H & R assume) and very likely could circulate around the soliton’s central hub at a near luminal velocity. This fits with the SQK suggestion that spin could arise from a circular reaction-diffusion wave circulating around the particle center. This circular wave, then, could comprise a significant portion of the proton’s charge. This resembles how SQK views the luminal orbiting of the electron’s “velocity wave” in the hydrogen atom’s Bohr orbit ground state. The fact that Haramein and Rauscher’s calculation comes out so close to the value of the anomalous magnetic moment is encouraging. They would predict the exact amount if the proton’s electric charge (its excess Y/X displacement) was orbiting at a slightly subluminal velocity, or if only a portion of that charge were participating in this rotational wave phenomenon. Indeed the speed of light would be expected to be slightly subluminal in the core of the electron due to the lower G potential there (gravitational time dilation effect). Presumably a quite different explanation would need to be devised to explain the magnetic moment of the neutron which has no excess charge or long-range electric field. But like the proton, its core is positively charged and, and as I have proposed in Subquantum Kinetics, it would likely develop a luminal rotational wave instability that would produce a magnetic moment. The magnetic moment of the neutron is about 31% smaller than that of the proton. So we might hypothesize that about 69% of the proton’s magnetic moment is due to the basic spin associated with a core rotational wave and that the other 31% (0.44 X 10^-26 J/T) is due to orbiting of its excess charge (Y/X circular wave). This would increase the discrepancy in comparison to H & R’s calculation, i.e., 3.17 vs only about 0.44. So this would suggest that only about 14% of the proton’s excess charge is distributed off center to participate in this rotational circulation, which seems quite plausible.

  3. Tom says:

    One more thing too…..Sry. Could you please take a look at this website and tell me what to expect to see in the X-Ray images of the galactic center (what it would look like) when/if something were to happen? How would someone recognize the beginnings of a possible outburst, without proper training on how to read these graphs, etc. Perhaps an illustration? Do you know of any other website references you could give us on the constant monitoring of the GC?

    Thanks You

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      A more direct link to the Swift website for Sgr A* Galactic center X-ray data is the following: But the most recent data displayed there is 3 months old! I have written to Swift to ask where more up to date data is displayed and to send me an automatic email alerting when an X-ray outburst is detected. As for other sites giving GC monitoring data, I will look into whether any exist for radio data and perhaps make a posting.

      • Today, Feb 2, Sgr A* will be visible again. Observations shutdown in late Nov due to the Sun blocking the view. Today is the first opportunity for imaging.
        All major observatories should be updating soon!!

        • Paul LaViolette says:

          Thank you, that is encouraging! The GC lies 6 degrees below the ecliptic, so that probably would put the Sun close enough to interfere with their data when it was transiting the GC. Update: I have just posted the new Swift data as a new news posting.

  4. Tom says:

    Just out of curiosity Paul, have you ever tried to submit some of your papers, books, videos, or work to Steven Hawking
    (for example) about SQK Teachings? Just to see if maybe you could perk his interest before he dies? If someone could get through to such a figure head within the community….your theory could have a chance to get some of the recognition it deserves!

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      No, I had not before submitted anything to him. Perhaps I could send a brief letter to the contact email given for him and see how or if he responds. Perhaps many people are contacting him so my email could get drowned out in the deluge.

  5. Sidney Somes says:

    I wonder what made Hawking change his mind? Data or math? There’s plenty of both to argue against black holes, but we would like to know why.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Why Hawking changed his mind is explained in his paper and some of the news articles that have links on the Starburst Foundation news posting. It has to do with Hawking’s realisation that quantum theory is incompatible with the notions of a black hole event horizon or black hole fire wall that previous theorists had accepted. In his posted paper, Hawking says that the firewall concept would break the CPT invariance of quantum gravity. This is a mathematical criterion that quantum theory requires in order to be a valid description. To go any deeper than this requires getting into rather abstract mathematical concepts.

  6. Mary says:

    Thank you for posting this Dr. LaV.

    This is major news and I share in and wish you every happiness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.