E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Alan Boyle / msnbc.com
British physicist Stephen Hawking jokes about the future discoveries that could earn him a Nobel Prize.
British physicist Stephen Hawking has lived longer and achieved more than most quadriplegics have, but he's not done yet: The 70-year-old theoretician is still waiting for experimental evidence to launch him toward a Nobel Prize.
Hawking used his Nobel aspirations as a punch line more than once during his Saturday-night talk at Seattle's Paramount Theater, during a Seattle Science Festival symposium that also featured systems biology pioneer Leroy Hood and paleontologist Jack Horner. The "Luminaries Series" presentation also featured evolutionary rap and modern dance, but Hawking was clearly the headliner.
Part of Hawking's appeal is that he just keeps going, and going, and going, despite his disability. He's lived for decades with a progressively paralyzing form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. His entourage includes a nurse practitioner and an aide who looks after the high-tech system that translates his cheek twitches into speech. (He and his team have been testing a more advanced system that can turn brain-wave patterns into words.)
All this work to overcome adversity wouldn't have taken Hawking so far, however, if it weren't for his crazy smarts and his sharp wit. Both were in evidence during Saturday's talk, titled "Brane New World." Hawking laid out his perspective on what he thinks could be the ultimate theory of the universe, known as M-theory.
"We have been searching for the Theory of Everything for the past 30 years, and now we think that we have found a candidate," he said.
M-theory is a "mother" theory that fuses together several strains of string theory, and allows for dimensions of space beyond the three we're familiar with. For a long time, Hawking was reluctant to accept the idea of unseen extra dimensions, but on Saturday he said everything else about M-theory made so much sense that he couldn't resist.
Ted S. Warren / AP
Stephen Hawking composes his conversations with face movements, aided by a sophisticated sensor and computer system hooked up to his wheelchair.
"I feel to ignore it would be like claiming that God put fossils in the rocks to trick Darwin into believing in evolution," Hawking said.
The big question is, why haven't we detected those darn dimensions? M-theory's proponents suggest that some forms of energy, such as light, are confined to our three-dimensional space (known as a "brane," as in membrane). Gravity, however, just might leak out of our brane — and that effect could be theoretically be detected.
The key word is "theoretically." Picking up evidence of the extradimensional effect would require high-resolution measurements of high-energy phenomena, such as the clash of binary pulsars in outer space or the smash of subatomic particles at velocities near the speed of light. No such evidence has yet come to light, despite the best efforts of gravitational-wave observatories in the U.S. and elsewhere, as well as the Large Hadron Collider on the French-Swiss border.
If astronomers were ever able to observe the behavior of black holes, that could point to the effect of extra dimensions, Hawking said. One of the biggest achievements of his career was to lay out the theory for how black holes can eventually fizzle out, due to a phenomenon known as Hawking radiation. If black holes emitted part of their energy into extra dimensions, in a form Hawking called "dark radiation," that could explain why astronomers have not yet seen the expected gamma-ray burst from a dying black hole. The alternative would be that low-mass black holes are so rare that virtually none of them have gotten small enough to die out.
"That would be a pity," he said, "because if a low-mass black hole were discovered, I would get a Nobel Prize." At that point, a giant image of the Nobel Prize medallion flashed above the stage.
It might also be possible to detect the leakage of energy into extra dimensions by creating microscopic black holes at the Large Hadron Collider, Hawking said. That phenomenon hasn't yet been observed at the LHC. Before the collider started up, there was a huge flap (and a federal court case) over fears that such micro-black holes, if created, might gobble up the planet. But Hawking said that would never happen.
"Instead, the black hole would disappear in a puff of Hawking radiation — and I would get a Nobel Prize," he said.
Before his talk, Hawking answered a few questions that were submitted by journalists (including yours truly) in advance. The topics covered some of the physicist's favorite topics, including time travel and the potential threat of an alien invasion. He also referred to his family life, which was a big part of his agenda in Seattle. One of his three children lives in the area, and over the past few days, Hawking and his family took in the King Tut exhibit at the Pacific Science Center, a boat cruise on Elliott Bay and a circus-dinner performance at Teatro Zinzanni. It all made for a great Father's Day visit to the Emerald City.
Here's the Q&A from the pre-talk press conference:
Q: What would it take to make time travel a reality, and how would that affect our present reality?
A: "We are all traveling forward in time anyway. We can fast-forward by going off in a rocket at high speed, and returning to find everyone on Earth much older or dead. Einstein's general theory of relativity seems to offer the possibility that we could warp space-time so much that we could travel back in time. However, it is likely that the warping would trigger a bolt of radiation that would destroy the spaceship, and maybe the space-time itself.
"I have experimental evidence that [backward] time travel is not possible. I gave a party for time travelers, but I didn't send out the invitation until after the party. I sat there a long time, but no one came."
Ted S. Warren / AP
Physicist and best-selling author Stephen Hawking, right, answers questions from reporters as people waiting for his public appearance look on at left at Seattle's Paramount Theater on Saturday. Hawking was taking part in a Seattle Science Festival symposium focusing on the topic of evolution. Science editor Alan Boyle ... or at least the back of his balding pate ... can be seen in the foreground.
Q: If M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe, what’s the best evidence that you think will be found to support the theory? Lacking that evidence, isn’t M-theory merely another kind of religion?
A: "M-theory is the only theory that seems to have all the properties that we would expect of a complete and consistent theory of everything, but that may just reflect our lack of imagination. If M-theory is correct, it predicts that every particle should have a superpartner. So far we have not observed any superpartners, but the hope is that they will be found at the LHC. If they are discovered, that will be strong evidence for M-theory. On the other hand, if they are shown not to exist, that will be exciting, because then we'll learn something new."
Q: How would you describe your quality of life? What do you miss most from before the onset of ALS?
A: "Although I'm severely disabled and on a ventilator, my quality of life is pretty good. I have been very successful in my scientific work, and have become one of the best-known scientists in the world. I have three children, and three grandchildren so far. I travel widely, have been to Antarctica and have met the presidents of Korea, China, India, Ireland, Chile and the United States. I have been down in a submarine, and up in a zero-gravity flight in preparation for the flight into space that I'm hoping to make on Virgin Galactic.
"Despite my disability, I have managed to do most things I want. My main regret is that it has prevented me from playing with my children and grandchildren as fully as I want."
Q: John Gribbin recently argued that we are almost certainly the only intelligent life in the Milky Way – do you think he’s right or wrong, and why? Also, SETI astronomer Seth Shostak argues that even if there are other intelligent civilizations out there, it’s too late for us to keep quiet about our existence, because it’s possible to pick up the signals we’ve sent out over the past 70 years. So isn’t it too late for us to keep quiet, and shouldn’t we be thinking about upgrading our defenses against the alien hordes?
A: "We think that life developed spontaneously on Earth, so it must be possible for life to develop on suitable planets elsewhere such as the Earth. But we don't know the probability that a planet develops life. If it is very low, we may well be the only intelligent life in the galaxy. Another frightening possibility is, intelligent life is fairly common, but that it destroys itself when it reaches the stage of advanced technology.
"Evidence that intelligent life is rare or short-lived is that we don't seem to have been visited by extraterrestrials.I am discounting claims that UFOs contain aliens. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos? Nor do I believe that there is some government conspiracy to conceal the evidence, and keep for themselves the advanced technologies the aliens have. If that were the case, they aren't making much use of it. Further evidence that there isn't any intelligent life within a few hundred light-years comes from the fact that SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, hasn't picked up their television quiz shows.
"It is true that we advertise our presence by our broadcasts. But given that we haven't been visited for 4 billion years, it is unlikely that aliens will come anytime soon."
Updates on the 'Chicken-saurus'
Hawking may have been the headliner, but he wasn't the only luminary at Saturday's "Luminaries Series" symposium on the theme of evolution. Jack Horner, who's based in Bozeman at Montana State University's Museum of the Rockies and has served as an adviser for the "Jurassic Park" movies and the "Terra Nova" TV series, brought the sellout crowd at the Paramount up to date on his quest to create a "Chicken-saurus."
"We're basically going to turn a chicken into a dinosaur," Horner said.
The idea is that the genetic code in chicken cells may still carry the instructions for producing traits that are associated with the dinosaurs from which they descended. "Birds are dinosaurs, so we don't have to 'make' a dinosaur — we already have them," Horner said. He and his colleagues are looking for ways to express those long-buried traits, known as atavisms. Even humans can express atavisms. For example, there have been cases of children born with tails.
"You don't have to do any magic," Horner told me. "You just have to find the atavisms in the genes."
Some researchers have already found the genes to produce chicken teeth, and Horner and his colleagues are methodically checking chicken embryos for avenues that could be used to create birds with long, dino-like tails or three-fingered claws like the ones sported by the velociraptors in "Jurassic Park." Horner told me that one of his students compared the effort to the Apollo moonshots.
"It's more than possible," Horner said. "It's just going to take a lot of money."
The future of medicine
In his talk, biologist Leroy Hood outlined his vision of the medical frontier. As the founder of Seattle's Institute for Systems Biology, Hood champions an approach to health care he calls P4 — predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory medicine. He said P4 medicine will arise from the convergence of revolutions in genetic analysis and data processing.
"Ten years in the future, each and every one of you will have your complete genome sequenced," Hood said. If quintillions of bytes' worth of genomic data can be used to nail down the linkages to disease factors as well as the factors that lead to wellness, it should be possible to get health care that's better as well as cheaper.
But getting the payoff from that promise depends on making the genomic data available to researchers, most likely on an anonymized basis, as well as developing the computational firepower to make sense out of a massive cloud of that data. "None of the IT companies have looked at this seriously," Hood said.
To get the ball rolling, Hood said he and his colleagues are talking with four small countries to implement P4 health-care programs in the next two or three years. Although Hood didn't name the countries, his institute already has a partnership with the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to work on P4 initiatives.
"I have thought about going to small countries because I think the health-care system in the U.S. is too fragmented and disjointed to have any coordinated kind of change, but if you see that another country has done it very well, then that will be quite convincing," he said.
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Great article, we need more like it. Anyone who wants a peak into the future from great minds should read this type of article regularly. Knew Hawking had a sense of humor, and I wasn't disappointed. Reminds me somewhat of Fineman.
Pat, That would be Feynman, Richard Phillips Feynman
I look forward to seeing a 'Chicken-saurus'.
Hawking is a crackup with his sense of humor, but he does have a point about 'intelligent' life perhaps not surviving the technology stage of development - scary.
I find nothing wrong with Mr. Hawking's "theories" and I'm a devout Christian.
If there is "multiverse" then there will be a detectable energy... It maybe that we have not the instraments to "detect them." It does not disprove God nor is it anti-God.
Intelligent life (the more we search for it) is loosely defined "as we know it." If we find "plant" or "bacterial" life on other planets then this at least proves that "life" is out there forming. It does not disprove God nor is it anti-God. The longer we "search" the more rare life is on earth or anywhere else. That is what Mr. Hawking was saying. I firmly believe we are the only human life in the Universe...
Christians believe in science... it is that science does not trump or is superior to God. the M theory is a Unifying theory.... I firmly believe that Unifying "force" is God.
Ah yes -- Mr Hawking has, once again, forgotten his BuyBull. I did not see it in any of his photos. He should be grasping...nay...clutching his BuyBull and praising the jesus-myth.
Oh Mr Hawking, will you ever see the light and become truly enlightened and intelligent??
(said with obvious sarcasm...)
There is zero evidence that life arose spontaneously and Hawking is making an unfounded assumption (faith?). Besides, the Universe degenerates from the complex to the less complex, not the other way around (entropy). When scientists think they "see" a human tail or leg bones in whales that's the same thing as when people think they "see" an image of Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich. Another thing that science tells me that all dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago due to a space rock hitting the Earth. So birds can not be dinosaurs, that's like calling an organ grinder monkey "human"!
kdc: the quantity of evidence is irrelevant to those that choose not to see. But then, if you think you are smarter than Hawking, I am wasting my time with you.
More than three dimensions is his claim to fame?
What did this over-rated chap do in physics besides being great?
from kdc43
Wow. You'd better recompute your 2nd law of thermodynamics in 3 dimensions, you must have missed something. Regardless of your mistaken idea of "entropy", life has moved in precisely the opposite direction - from the simple to the more complex. You might want to brush up on the differences between closed and open systems.
And whale vestigial leg bones are solid evidence, they can be handled. The image of Jesus on cheese and crackers is an idiotic hallucination.
"Another frightening possibility is, intelligent life is fairly common, but that it destroys itself when it reaches the stage of advanced technology."
It is indeed frightening to consider that while we have become technological giants, we remain moral midgits.
Does anyone else find it ironic that an individual as severely handicapped as Hawkins is can be so upbeat while so many of us who are healthy feel so sorry for ourselves. Why is that? Anyone got an AWOR? (Answer Without Rant).
Steve your comment is perfect I laughed my arse off!! Well done!
@Flame
No, it doesn't disprove "god", or a first-cause creator in the least.
It does however, put quite a damper on your Christian, theistic interpretation of god where man is the center of his creation.
Talk of god and transcendental experience are valid philosophical concepts that I hope we never shed. But the Christian god is part of the same superstitious, wishful thinking nonsense that plagued the thousands of religions that predated it ... and it belongs in the same crypt of mythology as all the rest have gone to die.
We are better than religion ... and it's time we moved on to bigger and better things.
@jim-1264258, it's good to see that you've put a single second of effort into looking up Mr. Hawking before bashing him. First off, he didn't come up with the M-theory, he just supports it. That is not his claim to fame at all, but thanks for trying. If you'd actually read the article, you might have noticed a mention of Hawking Radiation, which, almost by definition, is a pretty good claim to fame, considering it has his name in it and everything. Still, it's a fraction of what he's contributed. It's pretty noble of you to go insulting brilliant people who have dedicated their lives to studying the universe around us without a second thought, I hope you got that satisfying feeling deep down.
@Chad
Good post... 1 vote (for addressing my content and not ranting) Moving on to bigger, better things is exactly why I became a Christian. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries/inquiries were men of faith. There was plenty of skepticism to go around inside and outside "the faith" but these scientist forged ahead.
I was held back by a A-moralistic life. (basic morality does matter and doesn't evolve) When this was removed, I contributed in a meaningful way to family, society and (as to this article) can really "understand" and appreciate Mr. Hawking's contribution... do I agree with his statement that "God is a outmoded theory, Idea of man to substitute reality." NO. But can I look pass my self... open up to possibilities that man is a truly unlimited being in a finite world? YES. ... God taught me that. Not from any of the "free thinkers" who are prejudiced from the beginning by their own knowledge.
Many of you already admit that Mr. Hawking takes "most" of what he says on "yet to be proven facts" (faith) I believe in a "unseen" God who affected me in a "observable" way. My mind is open not closed to new discoveries, Ideas, technological advances. But I believe in the miraculous to... you can't get more "open minded" than that. I reiterate this.... Christians believe AND trust in science... It doesn't trump God or His Word. Jesus is a Real Historical figure. I follow Him and His teachings.
Absolutely.
None greater than Newton, probably the greatest scientist to ever live. The ironic thing however, as brilliant as he was, he actually attributed things that were unexplainable at the time to his god ... things we now actually have sound scientific principles to explain. So where do we draw the line .... what would he believe today if he knew what we now know? As Neil Degrasse Tyson says, if we define god as things we don't yet understand: "God is merely an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that keeps getting smaller and smaller with every new discovery."
I actually agree with you (and I'm an atheist).
I don't like my science in the business of saying "there isn't a god".
Do I think there's a Christian god? Let's just say I'd give him the same odds as Poseidon or Thor. Do I think we can ever say unequivocally that there isn't a god? I surely hope I never become so smug.
As an atheist, I simply don't think you can believe in Christian dogma and really be open to new evidence that would contradict your faith, so I'll just ask .... Could you see some type of evidence that came along that would make you not believe?
What if vastly superior, intelligent beings landed here tomorrow. Beings much older and much wiser than us. Would you run up to them and preach the gospel? Would you explain how they've missed the revelation ... but can still be saved? How would you handle that?
Is there room in man's "original sin" for little green beings who have never even heard of Christ's salvation? I realize this seems like a silly question, but I actually think it's quite relevant.
Dear One really fed up boomer:
No rant here. Your question demands a thoughtful answer.
There are different levels of health, just as there are different levels to the universe: micro to macro or vice versa. In the realm of physical health, Hawking is limited. In the realm of mental/spiritual health, Hawking is free to exercise. The moral of the story is that while bodies may become enslaved within a lifetime – in one way or another – thought remains free. It then becomes understandable that so-called “healthy” human beings are capable of thinking ill and “unhealthy” human beings are capable of thinking well.
Those who refuse to put head and heart together to reconcile faith and science (faith supersedes religion in my book) are in danger of losing sight of both hope and humility. Ignorance is blind in the light, and hubris in the dark. Until all of us hold life on Earth miraculous and sacred; until all of us find beauty in the human form and the nature that surrounds it; until all of us are equally excited by cooperation that leads to solutions (not stalemates), there is little hope for the human race. Jesus saw the kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Buddha reached Nirvana while still in human form. Mohammed communicated with the Divine. Ancients of all faiths and practices tried to chart the path for those of us who follow. Fred Rogers proclaimed a beautiful day in the neighborhood. What was their common message? Accepting and acknowledging the necessity of opposites brings intelligence, hence choice, into being. Taking full responsibility requires us to acknowledge and accept that we share in any and every choice made, whether through ignorance, enlightenment or any combination thereof. As individuals, as governments, as nations, and as human beings, if we refuse to acknowledge that choice can only evolve from opposites, we are in danger of losing peace to violence. And violence is borne of dis-ease.
Disease is not limited to the human body. It can affect the Human Spirit, and human systems. Those who feel sorry to the point of pessimism for themselves or others suffer from a ‘handicap’ thinkers like Hawking know to be avoidable through choice.
Dear Roy,
In order to be honest with others we must, first and foremost, be honest with ourselves. In order to be honest with ourselves we must grant one another the right to question. If we cannot agree that the freedom to question is a “given” – there can be no such thing as choice, ergo free will. If we are each to take fair share in this responsibility (for every right comes with responsibility attached) every one of us must be prepared to question the value of our own, individual life. Did I act in a manner that added to or detracted from the quality of life within my sphere of influence? Did I find a way to create peace and sustainability for those living and yet to live? Am I a good steward of that which I receive (e.g. time, intelligence, family, community, property, power, children, etc.)? To whom or what do I attribute my success as a human being? What have I failed at, and how do I account for that failure? And for those of us who are of such a mind: If I was handed a test today by a hand I hold sacred– would I pass the test?
The way I see it, asking and answering questions such as these is what separates moral giants from moral midgets.
Keep faith!
Dear Chad,
You raise thoughtful points.
The way I see it, spiritual thought is what reaches "the mind of God" even as "the mind of God" reaches to us (think the centerpiece of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel), and, as you so keenly observe, our spiritual health, as a species, is clearly out of balance. We defend our religions with a passion blind to Spirit. If we pay too little attention to the spirit of things –anything - the Human Spirit withers. If we pay too much attention to the spirit of things, we lose our perspective as mortals; can any one of us deny that human beings, whether through design or randomness, are proven capable of errors in judgment? Whenever and wherever we create our own hierarchies we are doomed to fail by default unless those who operate within those hierarchies practice good will. Want to solve all the problems in the world? Let each person pray in secret; learn to love problems as opportunities for employment; choose the problem that evokes passion in you and apply yourself to seeing a way over or around that problem successfully (all the while understanding that that which we refuse to see will live to haunt us.) How many more examples do we need from human history to know that we stand or fall by our own actions having been impacted by, and impacting, the actions of others - whether God is looking or not?
To my way of thinking, when one spends time preparing to spit at perceived enemies, let alone spit at them, precious time is wasted. I remain hopeful that sooner rather than later, humans will come to know the mighty, awesome power of love and voluntarily lay down violence in thought, word and deed. I imagine the "unemployed" employing themselves through good works as opposed to jobs, jobs, and more jobs. There are worthy causes (many already funded) that lack the human resources needed to reach ultimate success. (Habitat for Humanity comes to mind as an example.) Why? Some of us insist on defining "enough" as "more than enough" when it comes to the things we value.
Imagine what problems might have been avoided had we respected indigenous peoples as stewards of the land's natural resources. Imagine how education would evolve given wise elders who lovingly steer us, through modeling, toward human decency and effective, constructive communication. Imagine children being taught, by our example, to be conscientiously social and to act as fellows in planetary stewardship. Imagine the talents of those who now fuel terror redirecting their efforts toward finding ways to end human suffering in all its forms, stabilize the human population, and promote healthy living on a healthy planet. Imagine a positive flow of income and a distribution of wealth borne of dignity and respect for givers and receivers. Imagine enough resources from which everyone may live a useful, happy, helpful life. Imagine any "final" solution being one which serves the highest good for anyone and everyone. Imagine a world at peace with a content population. Imagine a future where there is absolutely nothing to complain about because everyone's life is full appreciating and sharing the joy of what they have. Wouldn't that make God smile? and, even if we discover God to be absent, wouldn't we have earned the right to be proud of our behavior?
It's hard for me to conceive the difficulty some have in seeing we're all connected. Do we not share the same atmosphere and the same bodies of water? Is there any way to escape our status as neighbors? If one of us does something stupid, many suffer. We might be able to claim justice if each individual was the sole reaper of the consequences of their actions, but the world doesn't work that way. Innocent lives, of every make and model, are taken from our ranks every moment and innocent lives of every make and model are born into our ranks every moment. Innocence needs and deserves protection. Those who proclaim judgment in the name of God are in danger of Hubris. How much more limited is our perception than that of God's? What person of faith is qualified to sit in judgment of others in God's stead? I posit that any human claiming to be seated on the throne of God is ill of spirit.
Until each person lives up to their own highest standard and minds their own business in a way that eliminates problems, we will be plagued by them willy-nilly of religion. If every person minded his/her own business and allowed others to mind their own business, all our individual business would be under control. Only when that happens will we be free and clear to look beyond individual differences to work in units - as families, committees, communities, cities, states, nations, and world neighbors - toward the common good. I comfort myself by thinking we might yet learn to converse in positive, constructive terms that lead to good works. I prefer that line of thinking to negative terms which threaten dissolution of the very things we claim to hold sacred and which end in despair. We humans dishonor our religions when we lose sight of the power of "Creation" and simply think, speak or act to hold power and destroy.
I see you as creative and brave to share yourself so honestly. Please stay that way.
@ kdc - The laws of thermodynamics ALLOW for complexity to arise in the universe with a continual input of energy. This is how life exists. By opposing entropy with energy. Please take a course in physics, then take a course in chemistry, then take a course in biology before you act like you know what the hell you are talking about.
Also, the coccyx arises embryologically from the remnants of the fused caudal vertebrae that are present in tailed animals. This is not new science. It is basic anatomy. The same is true of vestigial femurs in whales. You can see them with your own two eyes, no inference necessary. The bone exists, it serves no purpose, and is the anatomical equivalent of a former structure.
But you can continue believing whatever BS you want to, ironically with no evidence, I guess. Have fun with that. Must be nice going through life with your head in the sand.
"There is zero evidence that life arose spontaneously..."
There is zero evidence that the Sun rose this morning, if you refuse to look at it...
"...and Hawking is making an unfounded assumption (faith?)."
The only thing taken on 'faith' in science, is the notion that the Universe is understandable. So far, it's been a safe one.
"Besides, the Universe degenerates from the complex to the less complex, not the other way around (entropy)."
And all life, from day-to-day, to changing over millions of years, is at the expense of increasing entropy in the Sun (which has a finite life, as do all stars). Take that away, and it all stops.
Are you surprised?
If only we could find the dude that can break the chain of mankind having wars. With all the new techology daily coming out. We are getting closer to the big boom on this earth. It only takes one idiot causing nuclear warheads flowing in every direction. It's getting to the point, it's not if this will come. It's more to the point when is it coming.
I fear that such a person would be labelled "the anti-christ" and someone would assassinate them.
"If only we could find the dude that can break the chain of mankind having wars."
Why do you assume it would be as simple as 'one dude?'
Friends,
No one human holds The Key to Solve every problem in the world – that will take all our participation or none of our participation. At the same time, we do hold The Key to Create problems at every turn. Either we’re learning to listen and to share thinking in a spirit that allows us to craft solutions to serve the Highest Good, or we’re Spitting in the Wind (and we all know how that story ends.) When I know myself, I stand certain. If I stand certain, I stand to know others. If I am blind to myself, how can I see clear to anyone? And if I am blind to others, how certain do I really stand, as I deny my capacity to recognize a potential problem should it come? If I don't see a potential problem, it can 'blind-side' me. When that problem manifests, I become bound to something I didn't want in the first place. [Think Vicious Cycles vs. Life Cycles.]
If we continue to insist on positions that hold Man against Man, Man against God, and God against Man, we are equally hopeless. Isn't the goal of individual and collective happiness a goal of Believers and Non-Believers alike? Don't we live reality into meaning through thought, word and deed; regardless of the language we use and whether we see it or not? Free will - under Church and/or State - is not without cost as every “Yes” costs “No” beyond count and every “No” costs “Yes” beyond count. Both carry the cost of consequence. If we humans are ever to achieve our individual and group destinies, we must embrace Yes and No with equal due. We simply must. The question is, ‘What do all of us stand to gain and lose and are all of us willing to sacrifice?
Until all of us find the seed of our own humanity and strive to grow happiness; until we cease dooming one another to unhappiness, neither Man nor God will win. Dogma holds equal capacity to bite one and both.
To express this theory mathematically: Live Love + Give Thanks = Peace. When "one dude" follows this formula, a link in the "chain of mankind having wars" is eliminated. If and when everyone follows this formula, the chain of war will not be broken - it will cease to exist. The question here is are We game for Peace or are We destined to become game for War?
In the game for Peace, Life triumphs. In the game of War, Death triumphs. Our choice. We decide.
I choose Life over Death, even in the face of inevitable mortality. Will We?
And he knows this how?
(And to #1, it's Feynman, not Fineman.)
Hawking is a legend in his own mind. Not much else he can do really. I feel sorry for the guy.
xsited1: Maybe because there is no evidence of it?
Chris-5thape - Lack of evidence does not give a scientist the right to speak in absolutes.
He didn't speak in an absolute, he said "it is unlikely" while also positing that it was quite possible that not only life, but intelligent life, may yet exist in the galaxy (and in the universe, generally). Not sure where you got "absolute" from.
WMG-21 - Try reading it again. He said: "But given that we haven't been visited for 4 billion years..."
Seriously guys, this isn't that hard.
Ah, I see. I understood your contention was with the latter half of the sentence, rather than the first.
It is the conclusion he has drawn from his research, xsited.
Try and remember -- Mr Hawking wasn't BuyBull-home-schooled. He doesn't talk like BuyBull people. Mmm-kay?
Xsited1- You're taking exception to a theorist drawing a conclusion from a clear lack of any obvious evidence to the contrary regarding past visitation by aliens? No one in their right mind would/could reasonably argue that there is any indication of past alien visitation ergo it is totally reasonable, as not to sound too ridiculously PC, for even a scientist to drawn the very obvious conclusion that we have not been visited by aliens and likely won't be anytime soon. If scientists are not able to speak in the occasionally absolute one would end up with scientists always having to qualify everything they say with phrases like..."assuming no supernatural solutions..." or "...of course this theory only works in the world of physical possibility...", etc.
I think it's mighty hair-splitting to suggest that he's dangerously dealing in "absolutes" based on this example.
I am bothered by an assumption evident in the question posed to Mr. Hawking about aliens. It seems to assume that just because our species can't seem to outgrow our lust for killing each other and making war, that another species, more talented than us as evidenced by their ability to travel vast distances, would necessarily seek to do us harm. Can we really not fathom that they might indeed come in peace for all alienkind? That they might indeed find killing and war to be alien and repulsive, that it might never have even occurred to them to kill each other?
Nah. in all likelyhood, the only thing that keeps us from being invaded is the vast distance between us and them...
@JustMe
I've always thought Hawking's metaphor of Alien visitation being akin to the Spaniards landing in the Americas to be somewhat myopic. A vastly more advanced alien species (as evinced by their interstellar travel) would be far more likely to consider the human race a scientific curiousity, similar to mankind's own interest in, say, exotic insect colonies. Then again, Earth's resources may be tempting...
Hawking... theory after theory.... who cares. He knows nothing outside his own existence.
Sounds like you are ignorant and proud of it. That's OK, quantum physics isn't for everyone. Just stick to watching football.
I bet Timothy can play football too.
Timothy1Mil - you are one ignorant ______.
Timothy. Go back to the woodpile in Redneck, Wyoming. Don't forget your banjo!
Rather than pile the insults onto Timothy - I will respond to your statement asking which of us truly knows anything outside our own existence?
Timothy1Mil - bad weekend for you buddy ... no pootang? hahahahahahahahaha
Let's not go overboard here ... some of us love science and football :)
Timothy, is your comment an autobiographical statement?
The idea that we are moving about in more universes than our eyes can see or our instrument can detect is not a new one, but it takes some brass to actually advocate the idea in public. To accept the basis of Mr. Hawking's proposal you have to actually embrace the meaning of 'infinity', not an easy thing for most people to do. Or how about this: what if the 'secret of the universe' is on such a grand scale that it is, as a practical matter, useless information to the human race.
It takes no "brass" at all. The theory that we are living in a universe filled with more than 3 dimensions has been postulated many times (String theory NEEDS more than the known dimensions, just for the theory to work).
Also if it was such useless information, then why has humanity made this its number 1 priorty (other than eating, sleeping & living) since the beginning of time?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read Darrall's comment as less of a negative and more of a: "Hey, we may just never evolve the intellectual capacity to truly understand the universe in all its complexity."
But that doesn't mean we stop the journey to seek further and delve deeper.
Possibly, but if you ask a string theorist why they believe it is true despite the lack of empirical evidence, they will tell you:
Because it is elegantly beautiful, and in physics that which is both elegant and beautiful has traditionally been correct.
IF there is a grand unified theory, it will be as elegantly simple as possible at its core. Perhaps it will be truly complex for most people to understand - but that's not what I'm talking about. The mathematics of it will be elegant. So while we MAY lack the intellectual capacity to grasp it - we have grasped much already, and I strongly suspect it is likely that we can grasp this too.
But the ramifications of it may be something that we will never grasp. We can never conceive 200 billion stars in a galaxy, 200 billion galaxies in a universe, and an infinite number of universes in a multiverse. Our brain can't perceive that any more than it can perceive tiny vibrating strings and the energy levels associated with them. We use mathematics to describe it. But mentally, we cannot hold a concept like that in our mind because that is not what our brain evolved for. It evolved to survive, and to reproduce.
Cosmological understanding is merely a side effect.
Its something about this guy I like..he's not one of us..he's well beyond our thinking..can it help us or hurt us is the problem. Hope he does get a nobel peace prize as he seeks before his days of helping us humans on earth is over!
This is the only reason he is famous. He seems different to the rest of us. The soothing feeling most get when being spoken to or hearing his infamous voice gives off the impression that he his of a higher state of mind but the thing is, there are much greater physicists who go about there lives without the great publicity this man receives all because they don't have a funny sounding robot voice.
Isn't correcting Sheldon's math (of Big Bang Theory) enough!
"GOD shall send them strong Delusion so that they may believe a Lie." 2 Thessalonians 2:11 All science is man's search for GOD and all they find is what he allows them to see. If you don't find HIM, what you don't find, is more important than everything you do. HIS Name is YAHWEH and HIS Only Son is JESUS! Glory Be To GOD! Happy Hunting Mr. Hawkins, but time is running out.
Religious troll. Not all of us who have an interest in science seek to prove your fairy tales to be true. Aren't there many a site on the internet where you can mind meld with folks who share your delusion? Go find them.
Which god? Oh thats right - the one you picked! LOL. Go away - troll!
lol 'Hawkins'... I guess all those famous atheists' names sound alike
@Alan-1380274
You left out an important part of that passage, namely 2:2-3
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
The entire passage is dealing with false prophets and/or people claiming to be Jesus returned-- it has zero to do with science (and more importantly, your aversion to it). You are purposely mishandling the intent of the passage to satisfy your own preconceived notions of truth. This is exactly why there are so many cynics with respect to religion-- every idiot thinks they know what they're talking about, but the vast majority are talking out of their ass and bend the words to fit their agenda, rather than reassessing their agenda to fit the words. This passage was an admonition against believing people at face value when they tell you that they are Jesus (like Manson or Jim Jones), not that God was going to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and distort the laws of physics into misleading us into a false science. You're inventing that narrative all on your own.
So anyone who mentions God is a troll? What fools populate these posts, clever in their own minds and trusting men they do not know and ignoring the obvious - God is the Creator. Fools.
"Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone."
"Judge not lest ye be judged."
Ringing any bells, Tim? Calling people who disagree with you "fools" is just as bad as these others calling Alan a troll. Turn the other cheek, brother. Lead by example.
You were doing sorta OK with your comebacks until you used "fools."
That's not setting a good example.
Timothy1Mil
Sorry, you didn't have a comeback, just two comments that seem to be very angry and defensive from the getgo, which of course you're entitled to. And that doesn't make you a troll, IMO. :-)
Hey I'd probably be angry too, if I realized I'd spent my life following a system of obedience to an imaginary sky-dude
No, but they're usually an idiot...
LOL. Darrah -- you say that as if noticing hypocrisy and a total lack of values in a christian is uncommon. It isn't. What IS uncommon is finding a christian who lives his values every day. There is no such thing.
Unfortunately religion and politics come up way too often on a science article like this, especially the fire and brimstone kind.
Frogmorton!
I live 20 miles away from Bob Jones U. lol
Oh my God .... "LOL"
There is nothing in Hawkins' theories that argues against the existence of God. Hawkins merely show us how incredible the universe truly is. His latest theory, if supported by evidence, shows God's hand in the universe, how all things are tied together.
To Allen - you are much better suited to post on Glenn Beck's site than here. Bugger off, mate!
Allen, sorry but I have it on good authority that God's name is "Jealous"! Exodus 34:14 (For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:) In Exodus 3:13-15, God didn't provide a specific name, just "I am that I am". (Sounds like the three Stooges.)
Hi Ben.
BJU was suppose to allow interracial dating although I haven't seen any interracial couples when I've driven past there. The poor women still have to wear long dresses and skirts and no pants whatsoever. I feel sorry for them most of all because I grew up having to wear clothes like that.
I have to admit though, that every person I've talked to or worked with from BJU (and I knew they were students) were extremely nice. They didn't do any preaching which was very refreshing in the Bible Belt.
I'm sure quite a lot of BJU students could appreciate this article and a lot of non-evangelical Christians or non-Christians wouldn't.
I love it when people think science invalidates the existence of God. They should study nature in reverence, in awe of what their Creator has done. Don't they realize Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic Priest, came up with what would become the Big Bang Theory? How idiotic are they then, if they rail against it for religious reasons?
He may have his proof, if you assume that the multiverse exists and gravity can leak between those universes. After our universe's big bang, what became our galaxies, expanded outward bound by the mutual attraction of this universe's gravity. When the mutual attraction of these galaxies was outweighed by the surrounding "other" universes, the expansion would have accelerated. The other universes could be black matter and the cause of the observed acceleration in our universe's expansion rate.
Funny, that hit me too - when he talked about gravity "leaking" into other dimensions, I began to wonder if it's possible for gravity from other dimensions to "leak" into our universe? But that would suggest a large amount of interaction between our universe and these other dimensions...
Paul. Bravo. I think you have a valid explanation for "Dark Matter" that corresponds with M-Theory.
Hey Guys. The BuyBull doesn't say anything about any of that stuff...
Frogmorton - Neither does "The Return of the King" nor "On the Origin of Species"... what's your point?
(Read: if you're going to rail at religious trolls, don't be an anti-religious troll.)
Thanks, Mark from Bridgeport. :)
It's amazing how so very often, whether religious vs. non-religious, politics, or sport, those on either side of a "rivalry" will exhibit the same behaviour, but then fail to recognise the same behaviour in themselves.
It's just immature, really, and I've seen it constantly on these types of forums over a number of years now.
I hope he gets a Nobel Prize. Of all people, he deserves it.
Dimensions and M theory...fascinating stuff. I read Brian Greene's book on it. There is so far only theory...no proof. As long as they don't count on finding any gravitons (particle alleged to be a unit of gravity). Gravity is not a force even though it seems like one, so it is not made of "stuff." It is a warp of timespace. I think, though, there can be other proofs, so I have not lost hope in such a theory. Hawking may be just the right person to develop the theory properly. He has a good handle on Einstein.
I wish I was smart enough to understand Theoretical Physics like this man does. It is interesting stuff to read about though. I really do hope he finds the theory of everything. Intelligence and a sense of humor to boot, amazing.
Good luck Mr. Hawking.
These are the the kind of people the young should seek, mentor and revere... what greater way to celebrate the human experence than to seek out those amoung us who have opened the door to the conquest of knowledge and possibly change and save this planet ?? The achievements by many have been huge, and I'm so glad I am part of this whole human experence as it continuedly unfolds. With that in mind, another opportunity to rejoin this life as a human being is my prefered choice once my official time on this planet is over...!!!
Definitely. It's dismaying that the world can produce people as remarkable as Dr. Hawking, and yet our heroes are sports stars, actors and musicians. At least my kids (8 and 11) are Hawking fans!
Dave in NM - what is dismaying to me is that children are not introduced to science in school. I grew up in the 50's & 60's when we had a push to teach science and math. We were expected to take a minimum of both just to get out of HS, with the space race people were encouraged to learn about the sciences, math and engineering. There would be in depth articles in the paper on things (one I remember was about anti matter and Teller). The teaching of science in schoosl was also not edited to meet religious hurdles.
IN addition we had leaders who understood, or at least did not let their lack of education, get in their way of makig decisions. Many of our current and recent leaders due to their misunderstnading of science have led us down the path of denial and acceptance of activities that are actually damaging. They let their fundamental beliefs get in the way of decisions based on sound science rather than faith.
ANd while I think it is great your kids are Hawking fans - me I am a fan of JAck Horner, Sylvia Earle, and Jane Goodall. Maybe there should be scientist and mathmatician trading cards. (WOnder what an Einstein rookie card would be worth?)
Wow, Hollykb, you are on the money. The lack of science, the underfunding and in some schools, total dismantling of science programs, will surely be our greatest downfall in this country. Ignorant people may be easier for governments to control, but there's no doubt they create weak countries. We are moving out of a school district that has three students to a science book in elementary, no high school biology reference material, no middle school lab time, I could go on and on. If I didn't teach science at home, purposefully, my daughter wouldn't have a clue. Math education is little better. History has proven that religion is eventually corrosive to higher learning. It doesn't mean people can't be religious and have personal beliefs, but it has no place in quality curriculum (specifically science) without a diminishment of critical thinking.
I would love to see those trading cards. I'll take a Jane Goodall, Charles Darwin and Stephen Hawking. Oh, and how about a Carl Sagan? He made science so captivating!!
Jen - now I know what I will do if I win the lottery - start a Science and Math trading card program (nerds rule). Regarding math education the problem IMHO is by the time many kids get to where there are good strong math teachers (usually middle or high school) two things have happened 1) girls have gotten the message that math and scince are not for girls, and 2) many boys nad girls have been turned off by poor teachers.
Brilliant man and brilliant theories. It is funny how people go on the defensive and attack when religion is mentioned. Here is a theory for those who do not believe and have any type of faith. Aside from those who have abused religion to their own advantage, where there are many; the basis is kindness and love for your fellow man, or should we say human to be gender neutral. Treat others as you would be treated. Even the Ten Commandments, if you do not believe, are good laws and examples of what we should not do or strive to not do. So, lets say that you die and the lights go out, gone , everything shuts off, and there is nothing. One, you will not know it. Two, it will not matter at all to anyone, including you. Those who have faith and believe in God, will not know, it will turn off, nothing. Now, lets say that you die and yes, the light comes on and now you stand in judgement for all you have done in your life in front of God. You did not believe, you had no faith, and you dismissed all religion as a farce, beneath you. What will you do? Well, at that point nothing but ride the train south and feel the heat for eternity. While I believe that God does exist because there is no way everthing evolved or spontaneously came together so intricate and perfect without help and I believe he is forgiving. He will not forgive outright denial. I'm not going to give more ammo, but what does it hurt to believe and have faith. It cannot hurt you, it can only make you a better person. The universe is infinite, we do not know even the most minor of its mysteries, but a control is there. Random causes and effects cannot explain it any more than the proof every one wants of Gods existence just dropping at your feet. There is another place, hope you all find it.
gunner...
Sounds like yours is a good thought for a thesis on a seminar in intelligent design lectures..!! The basis of religion may be kindness to your fellow man, but your point of view is no different that the point of view in any other religion. I can achieve without you passing judgement on me because of your faith, nor hinder my search for the truth because of your idea of a spiritual experence. You are who you are because of who raised you , along with your experences, etc. I rather believe and have faith in the human sprit and it's ability to see right from wrong while we're here on this precious earth..!!!
Should I die and stand before God, I'd have a few questions:
1. Why did you endow us with a curious mind and then set up an experiement (forbidden fruit) that was guaranteed to make us fail? And then, you got so pissed at our "failure" that you condemned (original sin) all of mankind?
2. Why were we supposed to use our reasoning to direct our lives and yet when it comes to supposedly the most important thing of all (eternal salvation), we're supposed to rely on faith?
3. Why, if we're so darned important enough to consume so much of your attention, did you create a galaxy (Milky Way) with billions of stars/planets as well as billions of other galaxies?
4. And what's with this business of impregnating a woman (Mary), in order to bear your supposed son? What kind of perverse sicko are you anyway?
Actually, when I spend any time thinking about it, if there really is a Heaven and a Hell, I would rather choose the hot place - the people there are way more likely to be more interesting and stimulating. Sorry God, but I think I'll choose another dimension - maybe there's a more rational omnipotent being behind the curtain.
"and I believe he is forgiving. He will not forgive outright denial."
This is what religion does to minds. Making claims you can't possibly have the evidence to make.
Your entire argument was Deist in nature then you jump to a personal god and claims to know its mind.
Think about it.
We shall all see. From past study I have found one interesting item. Basis or not. If Jesus was not who he claimed to be, why was he mentioned in Roman texts after his crucifixion? Had he been any other criminal to be crucified, they would have burried him and never spoke of him again. That was their way. But, no, Jesus was written about time and again by Romans after he was killed. Religion has done nothing to my mind that I did not want. The "outright denial" line is simple what is written, no personal knowledge. Just take care of each other, learn all there is to learn, make the world we live in a better place. Judging others for their opinions or beliefs gets none of us anywhere, but some like the confrontations.
Speaking only for myself, here, I cannot force myself to believe something that makes no sense, just because it would really suck if it were all true and I didn't believe it. I agree with Big Lou: I choose to live, not for some character in a story for whom not a shred of evidence exists, but for humanity, and humans, who I know are capable of profound goodness without the bribes and threats of the supernatural.
He will not forgive outright denial.
How do you know? Oh wait, I see. You've made te assumption that only YOUR cult is the right choice. So, isn't just a "THIS CHOICE or THAT CHOICE" simple one-or-the-other argument that you tried to make it. There have been over 3000 cults on this planet. NOT ONE OF THEM has EVER been able to prove it is the Right One. So, it's just about choosing to believe or NOT to believe. Ya gotta pick the right one. Yet, NONE of them has a shred of evidence to suggest it is the Right One.
I love it when you people make statements like "He will not forgive outright denial" though. That makes me laugh. Nothing quite as presumptuous as a christian who claims to know what the god-who-created-the-universe thinks, likes, hates, feels and understands. You people give a new definition to the phrase SELF IMPORTANT"
Your argument is fraudulent. And, until you can prove otherwise, so is your jesus-myth.
Cheers!
I'll never understand why religious folks have to LIE in order to try and make an argument favorable to their cultism.
Not one single passage purporting to be written, as history, within the first hundred years of the "Christian
era", can be produced to show the existence at or before that time of such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ, or of such a set of men as could be accounted his disciples or followers. No contemporaries wrote about "christ jesus" except for the alleged scribblings within the cult book, Bible, represented to be from his disciples. And, by the way, we have nothing from his own hand. As well, the assertion about Josephus is a fraud.
Those who would be likely to refer to Jesus or his disciples, but who have not done so:
A.D. 40 Philo1
40 Josephus
79 C. Plinius Second, the Elder2 Philosophers
69 L. Ann. Seneca
79 Diogenes Laertius
79 Pausanias Geographers
79 Pompon Mela
79 Q. Curtius Ruf Historians
79 Luc. Flor
110 Cornel Tacitus
123 Appianus
140 Justinus
141 Ælianus
Out of this number it has been claimed that one (Josephus) spoke of Jesus, and another (Tacitus) of the Christians. Of the former it is almost needless to speak, as that was given up as a forgery many years ago. However, for the sake of those who still cling to it, you haven't considered the following:
1. It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.
Eusebius, then, is the first person who refers to these passages. Eusebius, "whose honesty is not so great as to allow of our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine." Eusebius, who says that it is lawful to lie and cheat for the cause of Christ. [sound familiar?] This Eusebius is the sheet-anchor of reliance for most we know of the first three centuries of the Christian history. What then must we think of the history of the first three centuries of the Christian era?
2. Josephus has nowhere else mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James.
3. It interrupts the narrative.
4. The language is quite Christian (Josephus was a Jew and died a Jew).
5. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it, had it actually been there then, in the original text.
6. It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.
7. Under the article Justus of Tiberius, this author (Photius) expressly states that this historian (Josephus) has never taken any notice of Christ.
8. Neither Justin, in his dialogue with Typho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, have even mentioned this testimony.
9. But, on the contrary, Origen openly affirms (ch. xxiv., bk. i, against Celsus), that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ
The celebrated passage in Tacitus which Christian divines—and even some liberal writers—attempt to support, is to be found in his Annals. In this work he is made to speak of Christians, who "had their denomination from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate."
So, consider the following:
1. This passage, which would have served the purpose of Christian quotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of any Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the Christian Fathers. [oops!]
2. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotes the works of Tacitus.
3 It is not quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, who set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which Pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.
4. It has been nowhere stumbled upon by the laborious and all-seeking Eusebius, who could by no possibility have overlooked t, and whom it would have saved from the labor of forging the passage in
Josephus; of adducing the correspondence of Christ Jesus and Abgarus, and the Sibylline verses; of forging a divine revelation from the god Apollo, in attestation of Christ Jesus' ascension into heaven; and innumerable other of his pious and holy cheats.
5. Tacitus has in no other part of his writings made the least allusion to "Christ" or "Christians."
6. There is no vestige nor trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15th century.
7. The worshipers of the Sun-god, Serapis, were also called "Christians," and his disciples "Bishops of
Christ.
So much, then, for the celebrated passage in Tacitus.
Now, for a man who was able to perform so many miracles and inspired such large crowds, why did no contemporary historian take notice write anything about him (that wasn’t forged)? Josephus did write about John the Baptist, so…why not Jesus? Why didn't jesus himself ever put pen to paper? Why didn't the apostles ever write anything else, other than just the NT scribblings??
In a panicked, pathetic attempt to give their cult mythology some value and relevance, xians frequently overlook the details and facts which show it to be quite false.
And, before anyone comes up with any of these others, here: Thallus, Pliny and Trajan all post date Christ and make the same sort of references to christ that I am making in this sentence. (hearsay). Since "Lucian" is Lucian of Antioch, then his source was the Bible, so he is also out as a corroborative source.
BTW, my disbelief in the existence of the man (ignoring his nature for the moment), is that he does not appear in any records or writings of his contemporaries. The Roman empire was just too bureaucratic and chatty to not credit someone who caused such a hullabaloo…he would not have escaped multiple notations in various records…official, historic and personal. But, somehow, he managed to, even though he was such a controversial individual running around performing miracles and such...pretty ridiculous, really.
For Abe Lincoln, we have letters written in his own hand. Alexander the Great left a wake of cities, coins, and monuments during his day. Plato left his own writings and physically influenced numerous students. There is nothing similar for Jesus. All written testimonials start up almost a generation after he was supposed to have died. There are no records, no likenesses. Nazareth doesn't even show up in non-biblical sources until much later.
Does this all mean that Jesus didn't exist? Well, not exactly. The complete absence of proof like this doesn't directly mean he didn't exist. Does it mean that there's no evidence and all followers of Jesus are having to make a leap of faith to believe that the gospels are true? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Depends on who you ask. Their body count throughout history isn't much to brag about, though, when contrasted with
the teachings of their mythical icon... and NONE of this makes the jesus-myth a fact of history. However, to suggest that someone was this influential and iconic in this time period, and yet not one single shred was ever written down about him by his contemporaries, as history, is extremely unlikely and makes the concept of the jesus-myth highly suspect at best.
Good post Frogmorton!
Evil socialist! Nothing good comes from a government cooperative. Nothing! The private sector must always be allowed, no matter the wait or cost imposed on the consumer, to work its harmonious magic.
Romney 2012!
Romney... yep, lets send more jobs over seas. hmmmm... Obama is a wimp, Romney is a pimp. Write in ROn Paul 2012.
Ron Paul is nothing more than a fawning economic dilettante who does very little to move knowledge forward. While he maintains some laudable positions, particularly on foreign policy, that are incidentally shared with those far more able, his time would be much more appreciatively spent cataloguing his Ayn Rand mementos...or perhaps seeing patients.
Why can't we get through an article without bringing up politics? You know there are plenty of places on newsvine to discuss all the politics you want and then some.
Before you know it, you could be suspended or banned for continually being off topic and having comments with no value, not to mention inflammatory. There's a little exclamation point on the right that people can flag at any time.
you're a moron
Mark-214
And who might you be calling "moron"? Hey, you didn't add a period to the end of your sentence. You didn't capitalize the first word in your sentence either.
Doh! Go find a political article to seed your rants on.
The private sector must always be allowed, no matter the wait or cost imposed on the consumer, to work its harmonious magic..."
Um 'the cost imposed on the consumer' is an important part of how the private sector works. if somebody else offers the same or better product or service at a lower cost...that's generally where I go. Even 'the private sector' is meaningless, if there's no competition...and why we dissuade monopolies.
Only governments can do things no matter the cost.
Hawking has a brilliant mind which humbles me on a regular basis ... fascinating article -- would enjoy more like these...
and, yes, he does deserve that Nobel prize!
I too loved this-these articles. They, contrary to all too many, provide good information, the rare element for which our democratic republic is starving. Which brings me to the last comment in this article about a successful P4 medical system in another country being very convincing. Thats a fantasy, a hopeful one but still a fantasy. The population of the United States has been convinced by the medical plutocracy and its media shills that ours is the best in the world when it is far from it.
Nobel price has descended to the level of nothing more than a joke since they awarded the price for certain individual for the sole reason of winning an election.
Wow -- you're still pissed-off at your mom, after all these years... what a shame.
priZe - It's a PRIZE not a price
You do realize that Hawking has essentially nothing to do with the origination or development of M-theory.
He has only more recently come to terms with it and is spending all of his time popularizing it.
Read the wiki about M-theory. It is an attempt to bring together five different disparate string theories with 10 dimensions. By adding an eleventh, Edward Witten and many others developed M-theory. Hawking as inspiring as his story of perseverance has been (my own grandfather died of ALS), has no business getting a Nobel prize for M-theory. His seminal work is in regards to Hawking radiation from black holes. I think the author has confused the readers here. Sorry to burst the bubble.
Read again:
His ostensible prize wouldn't be for directly "developing m-theory", but rather the corroborative notion known as hawking radiation, for which he is uniquely imputed. I think the article made this rather clear.
Consider your bubble burst.
David had it right, Hawking is just latching on to someone else's theories in an effort to garner attention for his own 35 year old theory.
If that statement could be proven/observed, then it would be the presence of the extra dimensions and not the Hawking Radiation that would command a Nobel Prize. Besides, it is gravity that is thought to be spread out among the multitudes of universes that is central to M Theory, not Hawking Radiation. Evaporating black holes and an 11 dimensional universe is apples and oranges.
That's kinda the way it goes... In order for a theoretician to get a Nobel, the results generally have to be backed up by experimental observations. Hawking's main subject was M-theory, but it was during his comments on black holes that he brought up the Nobel angle. And it was done in good humor ... kinda realizing that it would take an amazing observation, like the observation of microscopic black holes, to get the required evidence.
@John Doh:
As a Theoretical Astrophysicist myself, I can assure that Hawking radiation is in not corroborative to M-theory in the slightest.
Roybokhade has it right. It would be in regards to gravity operating over extra dimensions. The two are apples and oranges. Such an effect has even been contemplated as an alternative to dark energy causing cosmic acceleration (though that is getting less likely as measurements of type 1A supernova candles are getting more and more precise).
Hawking radiation involves virtual pair particle production around the event horizon. And if you read my original post you would see that I mention that Hawking radiation (and hence black hole evaporation) is his main achievement to date.
Hawking has achieved a great deal of breakthroughs in his life in regards to black holes and how they store information of the material they consume. Most of that work was done decades ago. The Nobel committee did not deem that work to be significant enough relative to other endeavors to reward him with a prize.
Believe me if there was an observation that showed dispersal into extra dimensions, there are two groups of people that would get the award (possibly on separate years): one the experimentalists, and two the pioneers of M-theory. Stephen Hawking would not get the phone call at all.
Just because M-theory and Stephen Hawking are both parts of pop culture now, and Prof Hawking has latched onto M-theory with great zeal of late does not mean he is a substantial contributor.
Again sorry to burst you bubble.
Like I said the article was a bit disingenuous but that is expected when dealing with science articles on the web and especially ones about a well known figure like Prof Hawking. I am just happy for him that he has managed to persevere his crippling disease and to have made such wonderful contributions and become such a beloved part of pop culture. As I said before my grandfather died of progressive ALS and trust me it is a truly horrific disease.
Hawking radiation for large black holes is so cold, that most black holes absorb more mass from the background radiation than emit by Hawking radiation. These BH will never evaporate, unless the Universe cools down to temperature lower than they.
Low mass black holes, as they lose mass by evaporation, become increasingly hotter. Eventually, the mass/energy loss becomes so fast that they literally explode. This is what "expected gamma-ray burst from a dying black hole" meant.
@ Alan Boyle:
That I could see. If they detected microscopic black holes somehow by virtue of their Hawking radiation (though they would evaporate instantly) then he would be part of a Nobel.
But again it has nothing to do with M-theory.
But those were expected to only be made at energy densities akin to those right after the big bang. So I doubt artificial means of generation will arise any time soon let alone within Dr Hawking's (or my) lifetime.
The two topics are tangentially related, at least based on what Dr. Hawking discussed during the talk (and in "The Grand Design"). The existence of extra dimensions is a feature that's well-accommodated in M-theory, and if there is evidence for extra dimensions, that serves as strong support for M-theory. If extra dimensions exist, it would be easier to create microscopic black holes ... in fact, some theorists have said that if extra dimensions don't exist, there's no chance of creating micro-black holes in the LHC. If black holes are created, that would be the best opportunity to see Hawking radiation at work and study the mechanism. If there's experimental evidence for Hawking radiation, I would say Dr. Hawking would be a shoo-in for a Nobel Prize. And I'm sure that's what Dr. Hawking was saying as well. (Maybe he'd share it with the experimenters, I don't know how the politics about that would work, other than that there could be no more than three individuals sharing the prize, and generally speaking, they would have to be alive. As you know, there was an exception this year because one of the Nobelists died just before the prize was announced.)
Sorry if you think I was being disingenuous. That wasn't not my intent, and if I left the impression that Hawking would get the Nobel Prize for any role in string theory or specifically M-theory, I apologize for that. It just struck me that the Nobel angle seemed the most interesting this time around for hanging the headline on ... even though the main theme of Dr. Hawking's talk was M-theory and branes. BRAAAANES!!!
"These BH will never evaporate, unless the Universe cools down to temperature lower than they."
And eventually, it will.
The last supermassive black holes that were at the centers of galaxies (which will have 'evaporated' long before this time as then-dead stars slowly 'slingshot' each other to galactic escape velocity, or down into the black hole), will have Hawking-radieted themselves away in 10^40 years or so...
I knew that was you in the picture, Alan, before I even read the caption underneath. LOL
Stephen is extremely brilliant to say the very least. I've read a couple of his books including The grand Design, and watched some of the episodes of his TV series.
The thing I'm most interested in when it comes to black holes and time is at least one parallel universe existing-- just like ours but in a different time frame. I'm sure Hawking is the closest scientist to ever come to a workable theory.
I'm hoping Mr. Hawking will have many more yrs. but has willed his brain to science. And it would be nice if science could clone him. Seriously.
Great article, Alan!
Stephen Hawking is brilliant. I remember reading about him as a young Physics student years ago and how he could solve complex differential equations in his head. Very impressive. However, The Grand Design unfortunately showed that he has made a critical error: He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict. Physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. He has fallen into the trap many scientists find themselves in: treating science as a religion.
See my post above about how arrogant and unscientific Hawking can be. Also notice how so on this board miss the point.
I hope he wins the Nobel prize based on his past work and that his misguided arrogance doesn't disqualify him. We'll see.
Thanks, Darrah! Though we've never met in person, you know me pretty well. ;-)
I'm jealous Alan ....
I've admired Stephen Hawking for years ....
This was a great article and a real pleasure ....
How honorable ....
Take care , have fun ....
Really? Which unprovable Gawd is he asking us to place beneath the laws of physics? Since No God has even been proven to exist, which one is Hawking asking us to sell out? Yours? Someone else's? Another of the more-than 3000 cult gods ever worshiped on this planet?
Get real.
I don't think that they are in mutual conflict , Frogmorton! ....
Yeah, I saw you on the Nightly News with Brian Williams not long ago so I pretty much know what you look like and think. (I secretly took a 3D image of your brain. ;-) You should be on TV more often. Heck you should get your own TV science series. I'm soo tired of seeing Degrasse Tyson everywhere. You know Neil, famous people can get overexposed which is not good for a career. Just sayin'. LOL
Shockingly uninformed comments about UFOs from Hawking. Interesting that someone who won two Nobel Prizes thought there was something to the UFO phenomenon.
http://ufopartisan.blogspot.com/2009/10/linus-pauling-two-time-nobel-winners.html
And newton believed in alchemy... just because a person of authority has an opinion doesn't mean we should automatically regard it as fact.
Didn't Linus Pauling also believe that if you took a boatload of vitamin C, you couldn't catch cold? Doesn't mean he wasn't a brilliant man, but sometimes people want to believe something so much that, you know.. they DO.
Or, they sometimes mistake overwhelming instances of correlation that seem to indicate causation, before they are able to realize something isn't causal... Pauling was one example of research where correlation seemed to indicate Vitamin C was causal to curing a cold -- personal research also seemed to indicate that it could cure some forms of cancer, and resulted in some grants to follow that. Of course, this just didn't pan out later.
But, that's science for you (vs Cultism). At least science ALWAYS questions itself and its own conclusions. It tests itself, retests itself, and retests itself. Never satisfied, never assuming the status quo is absolute.
By the way, Linus went to Oregon State! Go Beavers! :)
And if someday, interstellar travel appears to be feasible, science will re-test or re-examine its position on whether aliens have visited Earth or are visiting.. personally, I'm not holding my breath on that one
Looks like Hawking is finally coming to grips with extra dimensions. Hopefully he'll believe in God before he dies. Heaven and hell are just other dimensions.
Your unprovable, mythical cult creatures are petty and uninteresting. Grow up.
Hawking had an interest in trying to understand if a God could have created our universe ....
Frogmorton - "Unprovable"? Try "unproven".
As for the content of your message: There is no such a thing as a proof in religion, as proof denies faith.
There are also no proofs in science, either, as a proof would require science to not be an emprical system (one based on observation). If you demand proof, you demand a binary principle: everything must either be true or false, so there can be no exceptions for different states, etc. Clearly, this would make science a closed system (such as logic, math or heck, pregnancy)... So if you believe in science you're already taking quite a bit on faith.
With science, man attempts to comprehend the physical universe. With religion, man attempts to comprehend the spiritual universe. When one tries to use one for the other, the results are similar to trying to measure out a litre of water with a yardstick.
If one knows the circumference of a cylindrical container in which one is measuring water, it is a fairly easy matter to measure out a litre with a yardstick. Might be easier using a meter-stick though.
The difference however (and concept you fail to mention) is that one (religion) tries to use the other ... while the other (science) has nothing to do with the other.
Science doesn't expect you to take anything on "faith".
Ever.
It's a complete fallacy to suggest otherwise. Even on the most obscure hypothesis, all science is saying is: "Here's the evidence and here's why/how we've extrapolated our ideas. If better, more complete evidence comes along, than we need to rethink our conclusions."
This is the antithesis of faith.
Faith starts with a conclusion based on preconceived notions of truth and works backwards ... using bits of science that add to their claims and discarding any and all evidence that goes counter to their faith.
Science will never (and should never try) to disprove the existence of a first-cause creator we've come to call "god."
But the manmade myths and superstitions that we've created over the generations (insert your religion here) are petty little things that only get in the way of true awe, mystery, and amazement.
Doug - Yes, but that would presume the existence of a container. :-)
(My point is that while man can try to do the work of one with the other, it's really a case of not using the right tool for the right job.)
Mark - The container is the human mind. When one observes the lengthy dependence of the developing child on his parents, it's not all that hard to comprehend the creation of God within that vessel. Science is the only way to understand religion. Religion generally refuses to understand itself.
Doug - Interesting. So if the mind is indeed the container, how is it cylindrical, and how does one apply the yardstick? Heck, what is the yardstick (I assume religion?)?
Please expand on your point that science is the only way to understand religion, I'm not sure what you're getting at as most religion is not observed and correlated. That is, how does one measure faith scientifically?
Hawking may be a smart guy, although I don't truly understand his fancy words. But the most weird scientist is created for a purpose. He said, M-theory is the only theory that can predict every particle has a superpartner and to understand the universe's grand design. That M (mother) is our Creator! sigh...sometimes a person finds Almighty God in a very complicated way.
Glad to see they got internets out in the log cabins now
oops forgot to click reply
Easier to record banjo-n-jug music that way...
Ignore the redneck BuyBull-hicks
Theory is just that a theory. It has not been proven with evidence. Its hypothetical. There fore it is not real, it is an educated guess. Why would he get Nobel for an educated guess. Seems they'll give one to anyone who wants one. Its just an award for arrogance of man's disposition.
Most Nobel prizes are awarded for theories; but they have to have alot of logic and evidence behind them.
In other words = science
Wow, we're still having to deal with the "just a theory = educated guess" concept? Here's a pointer to reading material on the subject:
http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/just-a-theory/
With all due respect Alan. I love your article and Stephan. I have posted on these forums several times about what Scientific Theory actually is, and sadly come to the conclusion. People who believe that theory=random idea, do not in fact like to read or follow links that would lead them to any conclusion that is not their own. /sadface.
At least you woke up a few "brane" cells Alan ....
But it's just a theory ....
Or some kind of theorem with a little assumption .... "LOL"